FINDING ANCHORING ANALOGIES TO HELP STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS IN PHYSICS
A THESIS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
SERKAN YILMAZ
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
SECONDARY SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
MARCH 2007
Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. Canan ÖZGEN
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Prof. Dr. Ömer GEBAN
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ali ERYILMAZ
Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Prof. Dr. Fitnat Kaptan

(Hacettepe Unv., ELE) _____________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ali Eryılmaz


(METU, SSME) _____________________

Prof. Dr. Giray Berberoğlu


(METU, SSME) _____________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Deniz Gürçay

(Hacettepe Unv., SSME) _____________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Esen Uzuntiryaki


(METU, SSME) _____________________

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name : Serkan, Yılmaz
Signature :
ABSTRACT
FINDING ANCHORING ANALOGIES TO HELP STUDENTS’ MISCONCEPTIONS IN PHYSICS
Yılmaz, Serkan
Ph.D., Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Ali Eryılmaz
March 2007, 285 pages
The first purpose was to develop a diagnostic test to investigate new anchoring and bridging analogies. Second one was to compare the effects of bridging analogies based instruction (BABI) versus traditional teaching method (TTM) on sophomore students’ misconceptions in Newton’s Third Law (NTL).
An Anchoring Analogy Diagnostic Test (AADT), Newton’s Third Law Misconception Test (NTLMT), and Attitude Scale toward Newton’s Third Law (ASNTL) were used as measuring tools.
Unlike single analogies in each step as used in literature, the researcher introduced the group concept and developed the new style of concept diagrams after the first part. The second part was conducted with 308 students in the same department of the same public universities of previous year sample in 20062007. In the study, the instructors administered the NTLMT and ASNTL as a pretest. One instructor had randomly assigned one control and one experimental group, while the other instructor (researcher) had randomly assigned two groups. Experimental groups were instructed by the BABI while control groups were instructed by the TTM. After threeweek treatment period, the same tests were given as posttests to both groups.
The first part analyzed by using both Excel and SPSS indicated that the AADT was effective in diagnosing anchoring analogies, bridging analogies, and target cases. It was also easy to develop the new style of concept diagrams. The second part were analyzed by using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). According to the results, the BABI significantly remediate students’ misconceptions in the NTL with respect to the TTM. However, the BABI showed no significant effect on students’ attitudes toward the NTL with respect to the TTM.
Keywords: Physics Education, Newton’s Third Law, Bridging Analogies Teaching Strategy, Misconception, Attitude.
ÖZ
ÖĞRENCİLERİN FİZİKTEKİ KAVRAM YANILGILARINA YARDIMCI OLACAK TEMEL BENZETMELERİN BULUNMASI
Yılmaz, Serkan
Doktora, Orta Öğretim Fen ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ali Eryılmaz
Mart 2007, 285 sayfa
Çalışmanın ilk temel amacı Newton’un Üçüncü Kanunu (NÜK) konusunda kullanılabilecek yeni temel ve birleştirici benzetmelerin araştırılabileceği bir tanı testi geliştirmek, ikincisi ise birleştirici benzetme yöntemine dayalı öğretimin (BBYDÖ), ikinci sınıf üniversite öğrencilerinin NÜK konusundaki kavram yanılgılarına olan etkisini geleneksel öğretim metodu (GÖM) ile karşılaştırmaktı.
Çalışmada ölçme araçları olarak Temel Benzetme Tanı Testi (TBTT), NÜK Kavram Yanılgısı Testi (NÜKKT), NÜK’e Karşı Tutum Ölçeği (NÜKTÖ) kullanılmıştır.
Alınyazında kullanıldığı gibi her basamağında tek bir benzetmeden oluşan kavram şemalarının aksine birinci kısmın sonunda araştırmacı yeni tip kavram şemaları geliştirmiş ve grup kavramını ortaya atmıştır. Çalışmanın ikinci kısmı, önceki senenin örneklemindeki aynı devlet üniversitelerinin aynı bölümlerinde okuyan 308 üniversite öğrencisinin katılımıyla 20062007 yılında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğretim elemanları çalışmada, NÜKKT ve NÜKTÖ’yü tüm sınıflarına ön test olarak uygulamışlardır. Bir öğretim elemanının rasgele atanmış bir kontrol bir deneysel grubu aynı zamanda araştırmacı olan diğer öğretim elemanının ise ikişer grubu olmuştur. Deneysel gruplarda BBYDÖ’le ders işlenirken kontrol gruplarında GÖM’le ders anlatılmıştır. Aynı testler üç haftalık bir eğitimden sonra son test olarak iki gruba da tekrar uygulanmıştır.
Çalışmanın Excel ve SPSS kullanılarak analiz edilen ilk kısmının sonuçları, TBTT’nin temel benzetmeleri, birleştirici benzetmeleri ve hedef olayları teşhis etmede etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca yeni stil kavram şemalarının kolayca geliştirilebildiği de görülmüştür. İkinci kısım, SPSS ile çok yönlü varyans analizi (MANCOVA) kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre BBYDÖ, öğrencilerin NÜK konusunda sahip oldukları kavram yanılgılarını GÖM’e göre anlamlı derecede gidermiştir. Fakat, NÜK’e karşı tutumlarına göre BBYDÖ ve GÖM arasında anlamlı bir fark oluşmamıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Fizik Eğitimi, Newton’un 3. Kanunu, Birleştirici Benzetme Öğretim Yöntemi, Kavram Yanılgısı, Tutum.
This thesis is dedicated to my parents,
Osman and Nurhan Yılmaz,
For their support, guidance and love.
And
To my brother Ömer Sinan Yılmaz
We miss you much...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Assist. Prof. Dr. Ali Eryılmaz. I owe a special word of gratitude to him for his sound advice, patient guidance and sincere courage. He has been always there whenever I need him. Without his invaluable support it was impossible for me to complete my thesis.
I would like to extend my gratitude to other examining committee members Prof. Dr. Giray Berberoğlu and Prof. Dr. Fitnat Kaptan for their helpful critique, feedback and comments.
I wish to express my deep appreciation to my friend research assistant Almer Güngör Abak who participated in this study and spent her valuable weeks by conducting this study in her university for the sake of my study. And also thankful to the students who participated in this study.
Throughout the Ph.D. period there was one power that provided me with the moral support and encouragement to successfully fulfill this thesis. Thanks and claps are to youmy dear family, my fiancé Mualla, my sister Sema, my brother Savaş, my sweet niece Edanur and nephews Emre and little Burak Berk. And special thanks to my colleague, roommate and close friend Pınar Özdemir, and to my friends; Sezai, Özgür, Murat, Menekşe, Eda, İlke and Mr. Sinan Erten. Thank you all very much indeed.
ABSTRACT iv
ÖZ vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2.1

List of the misconceptions derived from the literature…………..

11

Table 2.2

Misconceptions assessed throughout the study………………….

13

Table 3.1

Number of students in each section with respect to university….

33

Table 3.2

The distribution of the subjects in the EG and CG with respect tto gender………………………………………………………...

33

Table 3.3

Characteristics of the sample with respect to gender and age…...

34

Table 3.4

Variables of the study……………………………………………

35

Table 3.5

Outline of the procedure followed to develop the AADT……….

36

Table 3.6

Misconceptions assessed in the AADT………………………….

37

Table 3.7

Sample item from the anchor diagnostic test……………………

40

Table 3.8

Number of analogies and reasons in the AADT ………………...

42

Table 3.9

All versions of the AADT requiring different reasons…………..

43

Table 3.10

Preapplication of the first form of the attitude scale…...……….

45

Table 3.11

Dimensions of the ASNTL………………………………………

46

Table 3.12

Outline of the procedure followed to develop the NTLMT……..

46

Table 3.13

Analogies discarded from the AADT for the NTLMT………….

48

Table 3.14

Frequency table prepared for “yes” or “no” responses………….

58

Table 3.15

Criteria used to recode the data………………………………….

59

Table 3.16

Frequency table prepared for response plus confidence level…...

60

Table 3.17

Distribution of means for response plus confidence level………

61

Table 3.18

Research design of the study…………………………………….

67

Table 3.19

Outline of the dissertation ………………………………………

67

Table 3.20

Outline and selection criteria of the order of the treatment……...

69

Table 3.21

MANCOVA variableset composition and statistical model entry order ………………………………………………………

77




Table 4.1

Descriptive statistics related to students’ correct responses in the AADT with respect to gender …………………………………..

81

Table 4.2

Descriptive statistics related to students’ confidence levels in the AADT with respect to gender………………………………..

83

Table 4.3

Descriptive statistics related to students’ confidence levels plus correct responses in the AADT with respect to gender …………

84

Table 4.4

Basic descriptive statistics related to misscores3……………….

88

Table 4.5

Basic descriptive statistics related to various scores calculated for the NTLMT…………………………………………………..

89

Table 4.6

Means of females and males of the various score variables in the pretest and posttest.……………………………………………...

91

Table 4.7

Percentages of misconceptions calculated for each type of misscores………………………………………………………...

92

Table 4.8

Descriptive statistics related to pretests and posttest scores on the ASNTL with respect to gender and group…………………...

95

Table 4.9

Descriptive statistics related to pretests and posttest scores on the ASNTL with respect to dimension and gender.……….…….

96

Table 4.10

Criteria used to recode the MSS data……………………………

97

Table 4.11

Means of each misconception related to the MSS with respect to gender……………………………………………………………

98

Table 4.12

Means of each misconception related to the MSS with respect to university………………………………………………………...

100

Table 4.13

Percentage scores each misconception related to the MSS……...

100

Table 4.14

Significance test of correlations between two dependent variables and independent variables……………………………..

103

Table 4.15

Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices…………………...

104

Table 4.16

Levene’s test of equality of error variances……………………..

104




Table 4.17

Analysis of the homogeneity of regression assumption in MANCOVA model……………………………………………...

105

Table 4.18

Results of MANCOVA………………………………………….

106

Table 4.19

Tests of betweensubjects effects………………………………..

108

Table 4.20

Prior and adjusted means of the dependent variables……………

109

Table 4.21

Pearson correlations between observers for the EG……………..

110

Table 4.22

Pearson correlations between observers for the CG……………..

111

Table 4.23

Means and standard deviations of the items of the observation checklist according to the EG and CG…………………………..

112

Table 4.24

Means related to the items of the observation checklist with respect to observers……………………………………………...

113

Table P

Raw data of the study.…………………………………………...

278













LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1

Two intermediate bridging analogies…………………...……...

20

Figure 2.2

One intermediate bridging analogy…………………………….

21

Figure 2.3

Theoretical concept diagram of bridging strategy……………...

21

Figure 2.4

Concept diagram for gravitational force…..……………………

22

Figure 3.1

Revised theoretical concept diagram of bridging strategy……..

56

Figure 4.1

Histogram of the EG students’ misscores3 in both pre and posttests………………………………………………………...

93

Figure 4.2

Histogram of the CG students’ misscores3 in both pre and posttests………………………………………………………...

94













LIST OF SYMBOLS
SYMBOLS
AADT:

Anchoring Analogy Diagnostic Test

ANCOVA:

Univariate Analysis of Covariance

ASNTL:

Attitude Scale toward Newton’s Third Law

BABI:

Bridging Analogies Based Instruction

CG:

Control Group

df:

Degrees of Freedom

EG:

Experimental Group

MANCOVA:

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

MMT

Mechanics Misconception Test

MOT:

Methods of Teaching

MSS

Make Sense Scales

NTLMT:

Newton’s Third Law Misconception Test

POSTASNTL:

Students’ Posttest Scores on Attitude Scale toward Newton’s Third Law

POSTNTLMT:

Students’ Posttest Scores on Newton’s Third Law Misconception Test

PREASNTL:

Students’ Pretest Scores on Attitude Scale toward Newton’s Third Law

PRENTLMT:

Students’ Pretest Scores on Newton’s Third Law Misconception Test

Sig.:

Significance

TTM:

Traditional Teaching Method

:

Significance Level

