See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315841723

Investigating the Conceptual Understanding of Physics through an Interactive

Lecture- Engagement

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

10 3,925

1 author:

Aina Jacob Kola

College of Education (Technical) Lafiagi, Kara State, Nigeria
91 PUBLICATIONS   614 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan Indonesia View project

Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan Indonesia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aina Jacob Kola on 10 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

Investigating the Conceptual Understanding of Physics through an Interactive Lecture-

Engagement

Aina Jacob KOLA1

Abstract
Thirty-two pre-service physics teachers were sampled for the study to investigate the effect
of interactive lecture engagement on the conceptual understanding of physics students. Pre-
test- post-test quasi-experimental design was adopted for the study. Physics Achievement
Test (PAT); Interactive Student’s Questionnaire (ISQ), and Face-to-Face Interviews (FFI) were
used as the research instruments. Data collected were analyzed using a mixed between
subjects ANOVA and t-test as statistical tools. Two research questions were raised to guide
the study. Findings revealed that there was a significant interaction between the students’
scores in the conceptual physics and the teaching method employed. Besides, through the
interactive engagement, the students were able to identify some misconceptions in conceptual
physics. There was no significant gender difference in performance among the students in the
interactive engagement. The study has some implications for stakeholders in education.
Keywords: interactive-engagement, conceptual, misconception, academic performance

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Physics is a core science subject that is crucial to the understanding of the world around
us (Agommuoh and Ifeanacho, 2013). Physics is essential for understanding the complexities
of modern technology and essential for the technological advancement of a nation (Erinosho,
2013). Physics occupies a very sensitive position in physical science (Shamim, Rashid and
Rashid 2014) and that is why its teaching and learning must be taken seriously. Physics has
been perceived to be a difficult subject leading to some schools not enrolling for it (Wanbugu
and Changeiywo, 2008). Oladejo, Olosunde, Ojebisi and Isola (2011) perceived Physics to be
one of the science subjects found difficult in the school curriculum. Physics is thought to be
the most basic science subject whose concepts and techniques support the progress of all other
branches of science (Sheriff, Maina, and Umar, 2011).
Many erroneously believed Physics only deals with calculations (problem-solving)
through the use of equations and special algorithm. They do not know there are concepts in
Physics that requires no mathematical solution but that one can just use his or mental ability
to learn. Based on this, people believed Physics is abstract (Adeyemo, 2010). Many Physics
students have the wrong conception of the subject even before starting to learn it. Physics
students should be able to learn concepts in Physics and apply it. Conceptual knowledge is
essential for generation and selection of appropriate procedure in solving a problem (Rittle-
Johnson, Seigler, and Alibali, 2001). Conceptual understanding permits students to transfer an
explanation of a phenomenon to different situations (Viennot, 2009). Rittle-Johnson, Seigler,
and Alibali said conceptual knowledge could guide learners’ choice among alternative
procedures.
The students should possess conceptual understanding, as against the memorization
of facts, because according to Vosniadou (2007), to understand the advanced scientific
concepts of the various disciplines, students cannot rely on the memorization. Conceptual
understanding is crucial in Physics that researchers attributed failure in Physics to lack of
proper conceptual understanding. According to Jackman (1999), the students should be given
a foundation of basic conceptual Physics on which to build the rest of their knowledge.

1Principal Lecturer, College of Education (T) Lafiagi, Physics Education Department, Kwara State, Nigeria,
physicseducation68@gmail.com

- 82 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

The material to be learned must make sense to the learner in term of their existing
knowledge (Venville and Damson, 2010). It is underpinned by the constructivism that
students’ previous knowledge must connect with the new knowledge to pave the way for what
Liang (2016) called conceptual change. Baser (2006) said science educators refer to conceptual
change as a modification of students’ alternative conceptions.
Physics teacher should not be in haste to introduce new concepts to students, but spend
some time to identify what their previous understandings of the intended concepts are.
Research studies show that students often bring lots of informal physics knowledge to
classrooms (Liang, 2016). Physics students come to classes with different types of informal
explanations of concepts, scientific interpretations and terminologies (Dykstra, Boyle, and
Monarch, 1992) that are based on every day experienced and language (Baser, 2006). These are
not in agreement with the scientific views and are hard to change (Savinainen, Scott, and Viiri,
2004), thus make the learning of similar scientific concepts and explanation difficult
(Windschitl and Andre, 1998). These informal ideas, interpretations, explanations and learning
difficulties are regarded as misconceptions by physics education researchers (Wyrembeck,
2005), some call it alternative conception (Tsai, 2003).
The need for the teacher to properly handle conceptual Physics emerges from the
preceding. When students have a poor conceptual understanding of Physics there arise many
problems; one such challenge is students’ misconception.
According to Stein, Larrabee, and Barman (2008), science educators supposed to
develop experiences that will specifically challenge common misconceptions held by students.
Gooding and Metz (2011, p.35) opined that the longer a misconception remains unchallenged,
the more likely it is to become entrenched. As learning process is considered to be sequential
so also is a misconception (Thompson and Logue, 2006). Therefore effort should be made by
teachers to discover students’ misconceptions very early; otherwise, it evolved into a
significant hindrance to science learning.
The weakness of student’s knowledge in Physics in Nigerian schools was traced to the
students’ misconception in the subject (Eraikhuemen and Ogumogu, 2014). In other, for the
teacher to be able to help students overcome misconception, the teacher themselves must have
a proper conceptual understanding of the subject. Sandler and Sonnert (2016) said some
researchers are advocating that teachers should know common misconceptions for the topics
they teach. In the same vein, Eraikhuemen and Ogumogu observed that most of the
misconception students had was as a result of poor instructions from the teachers. Therefore,
the teacher exactly needs to have strategies for identifying what misconception students have.
The poor academic performance often experiences in Physics is due to the poor
pedagogy of teaching and many other factors. Studies have shown that the students’ academic
performance in Physics is usually poor in schools in Nigeria. The poor performance is not only
limited to secondary schools (Stephen, 2010; Shamim, Rashid, and Rashid, 2013; Mekonnen,
2014).
Opinions differ in research about the students’ academic performance based on the
gender. Some believed there are gender differences in Physics performance among colleges of
education students (Alao and Abubakar, 2010; Aina and Akintunde, 2013). Stephen (2010)
posited that male students performed better in Physics than female students in secondary
school. Crouch and Mazur (2001) observed that there is no gender gap in conceptual
understanding of introductory Physics among university students taught with interactive
pedagogy. According to Gok (2013), male students performed better than female students in
Physics in the area of problem-solving skill.
Studies show that teachers’ strategy or method of teaching is one of the causes of poor
students’ academic performance in Physics courses (Wanbugu, Chiangeiywo, and Ndirit,
2013). The teacher is expected to make students actively involved in the classroom because
active learning stimulates inquiry (McCarthy and Anderson, 2000). However, research studies

- 83 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

show that the traditional lecture approach still dominates teaching in most post-secondary
schools (Deslauriers, Scale, and Wieman, 2011). Scholars argued that the present way of
teaching physics must be changed because it is boring and uninteresting to young students.
According to Rodrigues and Oliveira (2008), this method does not meet the actual
requirements of society and the new trends of Physics curricula.
Watkins and Mazur (2013) attributed failure in science to poor teaching pedagogy.
Crouch, Watkins, Fagen and Mazur (2007) affirmed that traditionally taught courses do little
to improve students’ understanding of the central concepts of Physics. Research shows that
commonly used teaching methods such as the traditional lecture method do not help the
students acquire sufficient functional understanding of Physics (Bernhard, Lindwall,
Engkvist, and Zhu, 2007). Rote learning is a common experience of the students in Physics;
they learned to forget because it is by memorization (Fagen and Mazur, 2003). According to
Aina and Langenhoven (2015), Physics students are unable to apply classroom experience
outside the classroom because they learned by memorization.
The lecture method is frequently a one-way process unaccompanied by discussion,
questioning or immediate practices that make it a poor teaching method (Hatim, 2001; Al-
Rawi, 2013). Al-Rawi criticized lecture method because it concentrates on information rather
than learners. It has been observed by Franklin, Sayre, and Clark (2014) that students in
traditional lecture classes may learn enough to pass exams but do not remember the topics for
subsequent courses. Lectures are not effective for demonstrating practical skill but can be used
to classified information and create interest in a subject (Hatim, 2001). A good lecture is capable
of inspiring and motivating learning, yet some lectures make students bored, confused,
anxious and frustrated (Wood, Joyce, Petocz and Rodd, 2007).

Purpose of the Study

The primary objective of the study is to find out the impact of interactive engagement
on the student’s academic performance in Physics. The study is imperative based on the
various studies attributing poor performance in physics to passive nature of physics
classroom. The belief that students do better when actively engaged in the classroom than
when they are passive in the lecture was investigated. Specifically, the study examined:
 The effect of interactive engagement on the student’s understanding in conceptual
Physics.
 The difference between male and female students’ conceptual Physics understanding
in interactive class

Research Questions
The two research questions generated for the research are stated below.
1. Do the interactive engagement has any effect on the students’ understanding of
the conceptual Physics?
2. Is there any gender difference in the students’ academic performance of the
conceptual Physics of the students in the interactive class?

Research Design
The study is a quasi-experimental of pretest-posttest control group design. Quasi-
experimental designs provide control of when and to whom the measurement is applied Best
and Kahn, 1989), Many factors made it impossible for social science researchers to carry out
true experiment; however, quasi-experimental designs remain the most widely used design
(Ogunniyi, 1992).
The design is an equivalent pretest-posttest where the researcher randomly assigns the
participants to experimental and control groups. It is a commonly used experimental design
because of its strength in controlling threats to internal validity (Levy and Ellis, 2011).

- 84 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

Similarly, Best and Kahn (1989) affirmed that this design is one of the most efficient in reducing
the threats to experimental validity. Beaumont (2009) argues that the design results in a high
degree of external validity but a low degree of internal validity. Despite the identified
weakness of the design, according to Barry (n.d), it is widely used across a range of scientific
disciplines, more importantly for measuring change resulting from experimental treatments.
The use of a common pretest allows researchers to analyse differences that could
initially exist between control and experiment groups (Green, Camili, and Elmore, 2006).
All the threats to internal validity are controlled in the pretest-post-test design (Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison, 2007). Pretest-posttest designs are widely used primarily to compare
groups and measuring change resulting from experimental treatments (Dimitrov and Rumrill,
2003).

Procedure
Both the experimental group and the control group were subjected to eight weeks of
lecture. The experimental group attended interactive lecture engagement classes while the
control group attended classes in a traditional lecture method. Ten Conceptual Physics
Interactive Task (CPIT) adapted from Peer Instruction User’s Manual by Mazur (1997) were
utilized for the lectures in the experimental group. The pre-service teachers in this group
attended two hours lecture every week. The teacher introduces a CPIT using a projector and
allows students to have between 40-50 minutes of group discussion over the question in CPIT.
The participants were encouraged to go into a dialogical argument to ensure a consensus. CPIT
is a multiple-choice conceptual Physics question aimed at provoking students interest in
debate or argument on the subject of discussion.

Interviews
The interview is vital for gathering data in a qualitative research for a robust result.
According to Gill, Stewart, Treasure and Chadwick (2008), the purpose of the research
interview is to explore the opinions, experiences, beliefs and motivations of individuals on
specific matters. Interviews enable participants to discuss their interpretations of the world in
which they live and to express how they regard situations from their point of view (Cohen,
Manion, and Morrison, 2007, p.350). An interview is a flexible tool for data collection that
enables the use of multi-sensory channels like verbal, non-verbal, spoken and heard. In this
study, the teacher conducted interview only for the students in the experimental group. The
reason for this was that they are the group that received the treatment which is the interactive-
engagement. Guided by the interview protocol prepared and validated for the study, each
student attended the interview in a designated office. The interview was conducted to get the
students opinions as regards the use of ConcepTest and also record their experiences during
the peer discussion in the group. It is important to know if the class is a truly interactive one.
For the class to be truly interactive students during the group discussion should demonstrate
it by actively involved in the discussion. Emphasis was on how the students get the correct
answers during group arguments. See the appendix for the interview protocol.

Sample
A purposive sampling of thirty-two pre-service teachers who enrolled as Physics
students at the College of Education was sampled. The purposive sample is homogeneous
regarding some internal and external factors such as academic background (all have at least a
West African Secondary School Certificate in Physics). They were all the first year students in
the college who combined Physics with any of the following subjects; Biology, Chemistry,
Computer Science, Integrated Science, and Mathematics. Besides, all the students had credit
pass in Physics at the West African Secondary School Certificate Examination.

- 85 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

The students were sampled because all are Physics students who combined Physics
with one other science subject as stipulated by the Nation Commission for Colleges of
Education [NCCE].

Research Instrument
In other to generate data for this study, three different instruments were designed. The
instruments used in the study are the following:
1. Physics Achievement Test (PAT);
2. Interactive Student’s Questionnaire (ISQ) and
3. Face-to-Face Interviews (FFI).
It was to find out how the students can apply their knowledge of Physics to solve
problems outside the classroom. ISQ was prepared to get the opinions and views of the
students who attended CPIT class about their experiences in the class discussion.

Data Analysis
Data collected were analyzed using a mixed between subjects ANOVA and the t-test
as statistical tools most suitable for the study. This study used inter-scorers reliability which
measured the degree of agreement between two or more scorers, judges or raters. Any item
scoring an average of 3 or less was discarded. The reliability statistics of the Physics
Achievement Test (PAT) was calculated using SPSS software to get the Cronbach’s alpha to be
0.876. Cronbach’s alpha above 0.7 is reliable (Pallant, 2005).
For the reliability and validity, the questionnaire (Interactive Student’s Questionnaire)
was submitted to a panel of science teachers and science education lecturers for rigorous
testing in 2015. The panel interrogated and ranked the items on a scale of 1-5, (1 indicating a
poor item and 5 showing an excellent item). The PAT was also submitted to a Physics lecturer
at a Nigerian University for a thorough scrutinizing before administering it to the students.

Ethical Considerations
All social science research is guided by the ethical standard because it deals with the
human being. Therefore, before the start of this study, written permission was obtained from
each of the participants. The participants are to take part in the research voluntarily. When the
research begins, the participants was made aware as to when, where and how the research
will be conducted.
The researcher ensured no harm or injury of any form comes to any of the participants
as a result of the study. The dignity and integrity of the participant are necessary and were not
violated. Anonymity and confidentiality were respected.

RESULTS

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

Method Mean Std. Deviation N
Lecture 22.06 6.942 16
pretest Int-Eng. 19.13 7.455 16
Total 20.59 7.242 32
Lecture 30.69 12.316 16
posttest Int-Eng. 41.69 7.418 16
Total 36.19 11.457 32

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the pretest and posttest scores in the PAT
for both the control and the experimental groups. The mean score of students in the lecture
method is higher than that of the interactive engagement at the pretest. However, at the

- 86 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

posttest, the interactive-engagement students had a higher mean score than those in the
lecture method.

Table 2 Tests of Within-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Sphericity Assumed 3890.641 1 3890.641 29.225 .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 3890.641 1.000 3890.641 29.225 .000
Teaching_meth
Huynh-Feldt 3890.641 1.000 3890.641 29.225 .000
Lower-bound 3890.641 1.000 3890.641 29.225 .000
Sphericity Assumed 777.016 1 777.016 5.837 .022
Teaching_meth * Greenhouse-Geisser 777.016 1.000 777.016 5.837 .022
Method Huynh-Feldt 777.016 1.000 777.016 5.837 .022
Lower-bound 777.016 1.000 777.016 5.837 .022
Sphericity Assumed 3993.844 30 133.128
Error(Teaching_me Greenhouse-Geisser 3993.844 30.000 133.128
th) Huynh-Feldt 3993.844 30.000 133.128
Lower-bound 3993.844 30.000 133.128

Table 3 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Source Teaching_meth Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Teaching_meth Linear 3890.641 1 3890.641 29.225 .000
Teaching_meth * Method Linear 777.016 1 777.016 5.837 .022
Error(Teaching_meth) Linear 3993.844 30 133.128

A mixed between subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess the
impact of interactive and lecture engagement on the participant's scores in the pre-test and
post-tests (pre-intervention and post-intervention).
Table 2 above indicate that there was a significant interaction between the students’
scores and the teaching method employed, F (1, 30) = 5.8, p ˂ 0.5. The table shows that the
significant value of the teaching method is less than the probability value of 0.05. It, therefore,
implies a significant effect of the intervention on the student’s conceptual understanding of
physics.
There was a main effect for the teaching method, F (1, 30) = 29.2, p ˂ 0.5 with both
groups showing an increase in the pre and post test scores as indicated by the Table 1. The
main effect of comparing the interactive-engagement and the lecture method was significant
as revealed by Table 3 with the significant value of 0.022 less than the probability value of 0.05.
Table 1 shows interactive-engagement with higher mean score (M = 4.69) than the lecture
method (M = 36.19).

Table 4 T-test Analysis of Gender in Interactive

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Std.
Sig. (2- Mean 95% confidence interval
F Sig. T Df Error
tailed) Diff of the difference
Diff
Lower Upper
Equal
variances .002 .968 1.27 14 .225 8.909 7.019 -6.145 23.963
assumed
Score
Equal
variances not 1.17 6.594 .281 8.909 7.586 -9.257 27.075
assumed

Table 4 indicates that the assumption of equal variance is not violated because the
significance level of Levene’s test is 0.968, higher than the probability level of 0.05. The
significant difference (2-tailed) between the groups is 0.225 greater than the probability level

- 87 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

of 0.05; it means that there is no significant difference between male and female performance
in the Conceptual Physics.

DISCUSSION

This result is consistent with the study of Crouch and Mazur that there is no significant
different between male and female Physics students taught with the interactive teaching
method.
This study is using interactive student questionnaire to find out how students learned
during the peer interactions.95% of the students were participating in this type of interactive
science class for the first time. All the students reported that the interactive engagement in
science class is absorbing. 77% of these students agreed that the interactive engagement was
fascinating because it gave them a deeper conceptual understanding of Physics. The students
also agreed that it gave them a better knowledge of the application of Physics in a real-world
situation. All the students agreed that the interactive engagement helped to understand many
concepts in Physics better. 85% of the students agreed they had many misconceptions in
Physics which they were able to overcome during the interactive engagements.
62% of the students had more understanding of resistor and resistor related concepts
through interaction with peers. 85% of the students had a deeper understanding of capacitor
and capacitor related concepts. 54% of the students had an in-depth understanding of the
concept of conductor and insulator through peer interaction. Battery and battery related
concepts were more understood by only 23% of the students. 54% of the students understood
better the concept of diode while 23% understood the electrical circuit and current better
through the peer interaction.
Face-to-Face interview reveals lots of understanding about the learning experience of the
students. The interviews centered on finding out the learning experience of the students in
conceptual Physics.
All the students commented that the interactive learning was interesting. A student said,
“I learned well and understood many things in Physics which I never knew before.”
More than 90% of the students agreed that they learned better in the interactive class than
using textbooks and the lecture method. A student said she learned by herself during the
interactive engagement. Another one put it like this “I find it easy to retain what I learned in
interactive class than in traditional lecturing.”
The students agreed they enjoyed higher collaboration in learning during interactive
class than in traditional lecturing. One student said she listened to different opinions and
interacted with various students to learn. Another student said, “If I had a wrong view of a
concept before group discussion, my opinion changes during the interactive engagement.” A student
also said, “Before now I cannot stand up in public to express my opinion, but now I can do.”
The students in the interactive class had a higher mean score than the lecture method
class. This is consistent with Crouch, Watkins, Fagen; Watkins and Mazur, (2013), that
interactive engagement strategies can be an effective way of increasing conceptual
understanding in Physics courses. The students at the interactive class had time to argue
among themselves about different conflicting opinions in Physics: this may be one of the
reasons for the difference in their performances. It is the kernel of constructive controversy
theory. Argumentation may enhance conceptual understanding for some reasons (Venville
and Dawson, 2009). Gok (2014) also said the interactive engagement methods, had more
positive effect on students’ conceptual learning.
From the analysis of ISQ, there was a revelation that the Physics students in this study
held on to some misconceptions before the interactive class. The revelation is in support of
Eraikhuemen and Ogumogu (2014) that the weakness in students’ knowledge of Physics is
due to several misconceptions the students had in the course. This finding on misconception

- 88 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

also corroborates the works of Koudelkova and Dvorak (2014); Smaill and Rowe (2012) on the
misconceptions in Physics. The teacher must identify the students’ misconception before he or
she can help such students solve the problem (Gooding and Metz, 2011).Sandler and Sonnert
(2016), a teacher who knows his/her student's most common misconceptions would likely
increase their science knowledge than a teacher who does not. Therefore students’
misconception must be taken seriously in understanding conceptual Physics.
Male students in the interactive class had a mean score higher than that of the female
is consistent with the several kinds of literature. Nevertheless, the difference is not statistically
significant, but the descriptive statistics suggests male students performed better than the
female in this study.
The FFI indicates collaboration is very high among the students and the students had
time to articulate their understanding. Collaboration and articulation are crucial to students
learning as underscored by the contextualized learning proponents. According to Herrington,
(1997), students working collaboratively together enables the partner to often helps by telling
or explaining something that the student did not know or understand. Collaboration allows
students to ‘put their heads together’ on problems, and to fully articulate their progress as they
go about the task (Herrington and Kelvin, 2007, p.9). Articulation provides students with an
opportunity to speak and write about their growing understanding (Herrington, Reeves, and
Oliver, 2010).

Summary of Findings
The following are the major findings of the study:
 Students in the interactive class had a better mean score than the students in the lecture
method implying that students in interactive lecture method performed better than
those in the lecture method.
 The interactive engagement helped to identify students’ misconceptions; helped
collaborative learning and, articulation of the students understanding.
 There is no significant difference in the students’ performance in the conceptual
physics based on the gender.

The Implications of the Study

The study has some implications for the stakeholders in the education sector both in
Nigeria and the rest of the world. However, the implications for Physics teaching and learning
is germane to the study.
The effect the interactive engagement in Physics class had on the students implies that
teachers and lecturers should use more of interactive learning than the traditional lecture
method.
Interactive lecture method gives room for students’ collaboration and articulation. It,
therefore, implies that promoting collaboration and articulation demand that students interact
well during the lecture.
The study also has implication for Physics teachers. A teacher in an interactive
engagement should coach and scaffold but not to teach. That implies, the teacher only guides
the students when needed and allow them to continue the learning by themselves.
The findings revealed that the students were able to identify misconceptions in Physics
and were able to correct the misconceptions during ILM. It, therefore, implies that the use of
interactive-lecture engagement could solve the problem of misconception in Physics. This
could be an advantage over the traditional method. Therefore it could be recommended that
teachers in Physics and another science subject should be using ILM more than the traditional
lecture method.
Further investigation is required as it could be argued that the difference between the
interactive engagement method and the lecture method could be attributed to chance the area

- 89 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

of physics investigated. The study could be replicated in another area of Physics like
Mechanics and property of matter. It is another area of Physics that pre-service teachers learn
in Nigerian colleges of education.

- 90 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

REFERENCES

Adeyemo, S. A. (2010). Teaching /learning of physics in Nigerian secondary schools : The

curriculum transformation, issues, problems, and prospects. International Journal of
Technology Education, 1(1), 99–111.
Agommuoh, P.C., &Ifeanacho, A.O. (2013). Secondary school students’ assessment of
innovative teaching strategies in enhancing achievement in physics and mathematics.
IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 3(5), 6-11
Aina, J.K. & Akintunde, Z.T. (2013). Analysis of gender performance in physics in college of
education, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(6), 1-5.
Aina, J.K., & Langenhoven, R. (2015). Teaching method in science education: the need for a
paradigm shift to peer instruction (PI) in Nigerian schools. International Journal of
Academic Research and Reflection, 3(6), 6-15.
Alao, A.A. & Abubakar, R.B (2010). Gender and academic performance of college physics
students: A case study of the department of physics/ computer science education,
Federal College of Education (Technical) Omoku, Nigeria. Journal of Research in
Education and Society, 1(1), 129-137.
Al-Rawi, I. (2013). Teaching methodolgy and its effects on quality learning. Journal of Education
and Practice, 4(6), 100-105.
Barry, J. (n.d). Data analysis of pre-post study designs. Cornell statistical consulting unit
Retrieved from http://www.cscu.cornell.edu.
Baser, M. (2006). Effects of Conceptual Change and Traditional Confirmatory Simulations on
Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Direct Current Circuits. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 15(5), 267-381. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-9025-3.
Beaumont, R. (2009). Research methods and experimental design: a set of notes suitable for
seminar use. Introduction to Health Informatics Research Methods. Retrieved from
C:\web_sites_mine\HIcourseweb new\chap16\s1\SEMBK2.docx.
Bernhard, J., Lindwall, O., Engkvist, J., & Zhu, X. (2007). Making physics visible and learnable
through interactive lecture demonstrations. Physics Teaching in Engineering Education
PTEE. Retrievedfromhttp://www.researchgate.net/publication.
Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (1989). Research in education (6thed.). India: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007).Research Methods in Education. New York:
Routledge
cooperative Concept mapping instructional approach on secondary school girls’ achievement
in physics in Nyeri County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice,4(6), 120-130.
Crouch, C.H, Watkins, J., Fagen, A.P. & Mazur, C. (2007). Peer Instruction: Engaging students
one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics. Retrieved from
www.mazur.harvard.edu/sentFiles/Mazurpubs_537.pdf.
Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results
American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment
physics class. Science, 332(2011), 862–864. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
Desmos graphing calculator. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES),
2(1), 35-48.
Dimitrov D.M. & Rumrill, P.D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change.
Speaking of Research. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671209.
Duschl, R., & Gitomer, D. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual
change:Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28,
839–858.
Engaged students remember. American Journal of Physics, 82(8), 798-801. doi:10.1119/1.4890508

- 91 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

Eraikhuemen, L., & Ogumogu, A .E. (2104).An assessment of secondary school physics
teachers conceptual understanding of force and motion in Edo South senatorial district.
Academic Research International, 5(1), 253-262.
Erinosho, S.Y. (2013). How do students perceive the difficulty of physics in secondary school?
An exploratory study in Nigeria. International Journal of Cross-disciplinary Subjects in
Education (IJCDSE) Special Issue, 3(3), 1510-1515.
Fagen, A.P., & Mazur, E. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the introductory science courses
in physics and biology: Peer Instruction, classroom demonstration, and genetic
vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation) Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication.
Franklin, S.V., Sayre, E.C.,& Clark, J.W. (2014). Traditionally taught students learn: actively
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B. (2008).Methods of data collection
Gok, T. (2013). A comparison of students’ performance, skill and confidence with peer
instruction and formal education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(6), 747-758
Gok, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics classroom: effects on gender
differenceperformance, conceptual learning, and problem-solving. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 13(6), 776-788
Gooding, J., & Metz, B. (2011). From misconceptions to conceptual change: tips for identifying
and overcoming students' misconceptions. The Science Teacher, 34-37.
Green, J., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P. (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in
education research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, P. J. (2003). Peer instruction for astronomy. Prentice Hall series in educational innovation.
Harvard: Prentice- Hall. Retrieved from http://xn--heawww-
5d3c.harvard.edu/~pgreen/educ/PI.html.
Hatim, A.H. (2001). Toward more objective teaching. Iraqi Journal of Medical Science. 9(2),
99-101.
Herrington, J., & Kelvin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: 10 suggestions
and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C. & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York:
Routledge
Herrington, J.A. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. (Doctoral
dissertation) Edith Cowan University, Australia. Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1478
http://www.aft.org/ae/spring2016/sadler-and-sonnert
in higher governmental institutions in the case of Arbaminch, WolayitaSodo, Hawassa and
Dilla Universities. Natural Science, 6,362-375.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2014.65037.
in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291-295.
DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2008.192.
Koudelkova, V., Dvorak, L. (2014). High school students´ misconceptions in electricity and
magnetism and some experiments that can help students to reduce them. Retrieved
October 6, 2016, from http://www1.unipa.it/girep2014/accepted-papers-
proceedings/193_Koudelkova.pdf
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T.J. (2011). A guide for novice researchers on experimental and quasi-
experimental studies in information systems research. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Information, Knowledge, and Management, 6(2011), 152-160.
Liang, S. (2016). Teaching the concept of limit by using conceptual conflict strategy and
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
McCarthy, J. P.,& Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching
styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education,
24(4), 279–294. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000047415.48495.05.

- 92 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

Mekonnen, S. (2014) Problems challenging the academic performance of physics students

Ogunniyi, M. B (1992). Understanding research in the social sciences. Ibadan: The University
Press
Oladejo, M.A, Olosunde, G.R, Ojebisi, A.O., & Isola, O.M. (2011). Instructional materials and
students’ academic achievement in physics: some policy implications. European Journal
of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 2220-9425.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
(4thed.). Australia: Allen &Unwin.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler R. S., & Alibali, M.W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding
and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(2), 346-362. DOI. 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346.
Rodrigues, A., & Oliveira, M. (2008).The role of critical thinking in physics learning.
Retrieved from
http://lsg.ucy.ac.cy/girep2008/papers/THE%20ROLE%20OF%20CRITICAL%20THI
NKING.pdf
Sandler, P.M., & Sonnert, G. (2016). Understanding misconception: teaching and learning
in middle school physical science. American Educator. Retrieved from
Savinainen, A., Scott, P., &Viiri, J. (2004). Using a bridging representation and social
interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating an instructional
sequence for Newton’s third law. Science Education 89(2): 175–195.
Shamim, M, Rashid, T, & Rashid, R. (2013). Students’ academic performance in physics
correlates the experience of teachers in higher secondary schools of Jammu and
Kashmir state. International Journal of Current Research, 5(1), 201-204.
Sheriff, M. A. Maina, B. T. & Umar, Y. (2011). Physics in education and human resources
development. Continental Journal of Education Research, 4(3), 23-36.
Stein, M., Larrabee, T.G., & Barman, C.R. (2008). A study of common beliefs and
misconceptions in physical science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 1-11
Stephen, U.S (2010).Technological attitude and academic achievement of physics students in
secondary schools. African Research Review, 4(3a), 150-157
Thompson, F., & Longue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in
Science. International Education Journal, 7(4), 553-559.
Tsai, C. C. (2003). Using a conflict map as an instructional tool to change student alternative
conceptions in simple series electric-circuits. International Journal of Science Education
25(3): 307–327.
Venville, G.J., Dawson, V.M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10
students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
Viennot, L. (2009). Learning and conceptual understanding: beyond simplistic ideas,
whathave we learned? Retrieved from
https://web.phys.ksu.edu/icpe/publications/teach2/viennot.pdf.
Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50(1), 47-54
Wanbugu, P.W., Changeiywo, J.M.,&Ndiritu, F.G. (2013). Investigations of experimental
Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013).Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36-40.
Windschitl, M.,& Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change:
The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 35(2), 145–160.
Wood, L.N., Joyce, S., Petocz, P. & Rodd, M. (2007). Learning in lectures: multiple
Representations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,
38(7), 907–915.

- 93 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

Wyrembeck, E. P. (2005). Using a force plate to correct student misconceptions.Physics

Teacher 43(6), 384–387.

- 94 -
Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

Appendix

Interview Protocol
Name ___________________________Title ______________ Date_______

Group/ Department ____________________Level ______ Phone_______

Interviewed by___________________________________________

As you know, there are challenges in the teaching and learning in our colleges of education
especially in Physics. Students GPA is gradually dropping as the student moves to a higher
level of learning. Many have been pointing to the teacher’s method of teaching as one of the
leading causes. To seek for a better way of teaching Physics where students will be able to
participate in learning process actively, we must do something. It is the reason you are selected
among many students who had attended the interactive lecture-engagement classes for the
past six weeks for this interview. I am interviewing many of you to find out about your
experiences as you interacted with your classmates and the teacher. The goal is to know your
opinion about Physics learning through the interactive lecture-engagement. In other words, I
am interested in understanding more about how you learn in the interactive-engagement class.
The information you provide in this interview will be used to make a plan for a better teaching
and learning in Physics class in the future. Our interest is in learning from your experience.
The collected comments, experience and suggestions from all of the students interviewed will
be summarized and reviewed by Physics education experts.
The interview will take about 45 minutes. The interview will tend to focus on the PI when it
is used to teach Physics in different topics.

EXPERIENCE OF PHYSICS
To begin, I would like to learn about your beginnings with the Physics.
 What attracted you to the Physics as a course?
 What were your initial excitements and impressions when you first enrolled as a
Physics student?
 What has been your challenges in learning as a Physics student?
 What has been your encouragement despite these challenges
 Have you been satisfied with your academic performance in Physics?

EXPERIENCE OF INTERACTIVE LECTRURE-ENGAGEMENT

Let me know you experience about the interactive lecture-engagement in Physics class.
 Have you heard about interactive lecture-engagement since you starts schooling?
 If you have heard about it: have you be involved it?
 Is there any difference between the one you involved before and the just concluded
one?
 Tell me your personal experience about the dialogical argument in your group
discussion
 How can you compare your learning using textbook and teacher’s lecture with your
learning during the dialogical argumentation in the interactive lecture-engagement?
 Tell me what you do when you divides into group during the interactive lecture-
engagement
- Do you select a teacher among yourselves or you all participate in the discussion?

- 95 -
 Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE
e–ISSN: 2147-1606
Vol 6 (1), 2017, 82 – 96

 How did you personally get the correct answers to the ConcepTests in the interactive
lecture-engagement classes?
 Do you think group leader’s presentation is necessary since you have agreed in your
group on the right answer?

IN CONCLUSION
 What are problems you encountered in the interactive lecture-engagement and your
advice?
 Thank you for taking time to attend this interview.

- 96 -

View publication stats