Abstract:Physics is fundamental to secure future needs for scientific and technological competence (Angell et al., 2004), but many countries experience a drop in students' performances in international assessments (Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development [OECD], 2018), as well as in rates of enrolment in undergraduate programs in scientific disciplines (STEM). Socio-constructivist theories have produced a reforming movement in several educational systems, in particular in the area of sciences, but teacher often consider them an idealistic view of education and do not consider themselves metacognitively competent enough to foster thinking in the classroom. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of different teaching methods on high-school students' conceptual knowledge of physics, after the effect of science-related beliefs and critical thinking skills was controlled. We adopted a mixed-method with sequential design, in which quantitative and qualitative data flow are inter-mixed. In specific, we interviewed four high school physics teachers to identify teaching approaches (qualitative approach) and compared them in terms of efficacy on students' performances (quantitative approach). Four teachers and 77 10th grade students participated. Teachers were interviewed during the school years and asked questions about their teaching experience, their teaching approach (Kang and Wallace, 2005) and their epistemic beliefs (Tsai, 2002). Students performances in Science-related beliefs (Conley et al., 2004), critical thinking (Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X, Millman et al., 2005), and conceptual knowledge in physics (The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Ramlo, 2002) were evaluated twice, at the beginning and at the end of the school year. The independent-sample t-tests on pre-test variables did not reveal any statistically significant difference between groups. Results from the complex samples GLM revealed statistically significant differences on post-test scores in conceptual knowledge in physics, after the effect of covariates was controlled. Overall, the study contributes to our understanding on current teaching practices in school, and their effect on students' conceptual understanding of physics concepts.

A comparison between the styles Romanian and American students use to approach an E&M physics problem

Students' Experience of Cultural Differences Between Mathematics and Physics

Comparing the Matter and Interactions Curriculum with a Traditional Physics Curriculum: A Think Aloud Study

Physics Pedagogy and Assessment in Secondary Schools in the U.S.

Surveying Turkish high school and university student attitudes and approaches to physics problem solving

Introductory students’ attitudes and approaches to Physics problem solving: Major, achievement level and gender differences

Student Difficulties with Boundary Conditions in Electrodynamics

Student evaluation of more or better experimental data in classical and quantum mechanics

Students' views about the nature of experimental physics

Surveying Graduate Students' Attitudes and Approaches to Problem Solving

Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University

Comparing introductory physics and astronomy students' attitudes and approaches to problem solving

Surveying college introductory physics students' attitudes and approaches to problem solving

Fluctuations in Student Understanding of Newton's 3rd Law

The Influence of Teaching Approach on Students' Conceptual Learning in Physics

Revealing Differences Between Curricula Using the Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics Diagnostic

Exploring student difficulties with observation location

Comparing the Perception of Emergency Remote Teaching Experience Between Physics and Nonphysics Students

Probing university students' understanding of electromotive force in electricity

Teaching physics for high-school students through real-life questions and situations

The impact of incoming preparation and demographics on performance in Physics I: a multi-institution comparison