Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

Available at:
ejournal.unikama.ac.id/index.php/momentum

Momentum: Physics Education Journal

Implementation and Results of a New Problem Solving Approach

in Physics Teaching

Elif Ince
Department of Science Education, Hasan Ali Yucel Education Faculty, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa.
34452, Istanbul-Turkey
elifince@istanbul.edu.tr

Abstract: Teaching problem solving is one of the most important topics of physics education
while students have big troubles with physics problem-solving. The aim of this research is to
investigate the impact of extended problem-solving strategy instruction on the development of
pre-service science teacher’s problem-solving, critical thinking, metacognitive awareness, and
logical reasoning skills. Extended Problem-Solving Strategy has been developed for university
physics courses by the researcher. This strategy has importance in terms of covering many
previous strategies in physics education literature and including many new steps. The model of
the research consisted of an experimental design with pre-test and post-test control groups. Pre-
services randomly assigned to the experimental (N=30) and control groups (N=30). The results of
the research indicate that the post scores of the experimental group students significantly higher
than control group students after the implementations in terms of metacognitive awareness,
critical thinking, problem solving and logical thinking skills. This research revealed the positive
effects of the “Extended Problem-Solving Strategy” implementation in the physics course at the
university level on the skills which are listed among the 21st Century skills and each of these skills
affects the other skills positively.

Keywords: Problem-solving strategy; physics education; metacognitive awareness skills; critical

thinking skills; problem solving skills; logical thinking skills

1. Introduction
1.1. State of the Problem Solving in Physics
Teaching problem solving is one of the most important topics in physics education. While students
are trying to solve physics problems, students often express that they understand the questions, they know
the laws of physics on which the problem is based they have solved many similar problems, but the new
problem is different from the previous problems, therefore, they cannot solve the problem. When existing
studies in the literature are examined it has seen that various problem-solving strategy implementations
improve students' problem-solving skills, performances, and achievements for many years. Dufrense,
Gerace, and Leonard (1997) was applied an alternative method to students in the use of problem-solving
strategies and the result revealed that two-thirds of the students in the experiment group had the ability to
write adequate strategies for the solution and they performed more successfully than the control group
students in terms of which concepts and principles were required for the problems (Dufrense, Gerace, &
Leonard, 1997). Çalışkan (2007) examined the effects of teaching problem-solving strategies on the
achievement, attitudes, self-efficacy, problem-solving strategy usage skills, and problem-solving
performances of first-year university students in the physics course. The research indicated that problem-
solving strategies teaching had positive effects on physics achievement, attitude toward physics, physics
self-efficiency and physics problems-solving (Çalışkan, 2007). Selçuk, Çalışkan, and Erol (2008) investigated
How to Cite:
Ince, E. (2019). Implementation and Results of a New Problem Solving Approach in Physics Teaching. Momentum:
Physics Education Journal, 3(2), 58-68. https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v3i2.3396

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

http://dx.doi.org/
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

the effects of problem-solving strategy used in university physics courses on students' physics success,
problem-solving performances and problem-solving strategy skills. Physics achievements, problem-solving
performances and using problem-solving strategies skills of the students were found to be high at
significant levels in this study (Selçuk, Çalışkan, & Erol, 2008). Marlina, Nor Hasniza, Abdul Halim, Johari,
and Nurshamela (2014) investigated how it could be determined of students' achievement in physics
problem-solving.
According to the results of this study, students who can use the metacognitive problem-solving
strategy are successful and at the same time expert problem-solvers (Marlina, Nor Hasniza, Abdul Halim,
Johari, & Nurshamela, 2014). Gök (2014) explored the effects of using phased problem-solving strategies on
students' achievement, problem-solving skills, and self-confidence in problem-solving. The study revealed
that the use of phased problem-solving strategies increases students' physics achievement, problem-
solving skills in physics, and problem-solving self-confidence in physics (Gök, 2014). In another study, Gök
(2015) showed the effects of the problem-solving strategy realized through peer tutoring in the university
physics courses on the students' physics achievement and problem-solving skills. The results of the study
showed that the experiment group students' homework performance, achievement scores in physics and
visualization, problem-solving and solution control skills improved highly while there was no differentiation
in the control group students' homework performance, achievement scores in physics and ability to apply
problem-solving strategies (Gök, 2015). Docktor, Strand, Mestre, and Ross (2015) presented how physics
teachers apply the conceptual physics problem-solving method and their results in high school physics
classes. According to the results of the study, the teachers stated that this practice would be easily
adaptable to the curriculum and that the students had higher problem-solving skills and achievement
grades (Docktor, Strand, Mestre, & Ross, 2015). Halim, Yusrizal, Susanna, and Tarmizi (2016) investigated
the ability of students’ problem-solving strategies in physics. According to the results of the study, it was
determined that the students had difficulty in identifying the problem (Halim, Yusrizal, Susanna, & Tarmizi,
2016).

1.2. Gap Analysis

Some of the 21st century skills are categorized as critical thinking, creative thinking, logical reasoning,
metacognitive awareness and problem-solving (Häkkinen, Järvelä, Mäkitalo-Siegl, Ahonen, Näykki, &
Valtonen, 2017). Critical thinking signifies an active and organized mental process as well as an impulse,
aiming to understand the events, situations, and thoughts. The ability to enable a person to think critically
is based on the person’s tendency to seek and search clarity, take an intellectual risk, and thus, think
critically. Hence, the tendencies in the literature as classified as open-mindedness, curiosity, searching for
truth, being analytical, systematicity, self-confidence on critical thinking (Bissell & Lemons, 2006). Logical
Reasoning involves forming a result at the end of a logical decision-making process. It is necessary to teach
the prominence of using problem solving skills to gain logical thinking capabilities. Logical reasoning and
critical thinking skills are among the metacognitive skills and take place in the upper level of the Bloom’s
taxonomy (Bissell & Lemons, 2006). Logical Reasoning requires an effective knowledge and comprehension
step in the level of cognitive knowledge (Tobin & Capie, 1982). Logical reasoning processes are controlling
variables, proportional thinking, probabilistic thinking, and relational thinking. Logical reasoning strategies
also facilitate day-to-day problems as well as improving problem solving and enhancing achievements
(Lawson, 1982). Metacognitive awareness is a skill enable a person to determine the roadmap for the
purpose and to process the individual by himself / herself by taking into account the needs of the individual
and to evaluate of learning process (Ertmer & Newby, 1996).
The studies emphasized that there is an interaction between logical reasoning, critical thinking,
metacognitive awareness and problem-solving skills and any change in one skill affects the others
(Häkkinen, Järvelä, Mäkitalo-Siegl, Ahonen, Näykki, & Valtonen, 2017). In addition, when the existing

59
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

literature is examined in physics education, it has seen that problem solving process is an activity that
requires field knowledge and appropriate cognitive strategies that were expected from students and a
necessity arise new strategies on problem solving strategies.
In fact, these skills are related to each other and take place in the upper level of the Bloom’s
taxonomy (Bissell & Lemons, 2006; Tezbaşaran, 2011). The problem-solving work done to date, at least
three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were reached. Extended Problem-Solving Strategy has an importance
terms of covering many previous strategies in physics education literature and including many new steps. It
is believed to reach level of metacognition by using Extended Problem-Solving Strategy teaching. are
associated with high-level learning skills such as creative thinking, critical thinking, and logical reasoning, as
mentioned above. It is considered that the development of each skill also creates a developing effect to
each other.

1.3. Novelty of the Research

Extended Problem-Solving Strategy has been developed for university physics courses by the
researcher (Ince, 2017). It has importance in terms of covering many previous strategies in physics
education literature and including many new steps. The main steps of the Extended Problem-Solving
Strategy, as well as sub-steps, are below.
1-Understanding of the Problem
• Identifying of given variables and writing with units
• Determining of desired variables and writing with units
• Identification based on the concept of the problem
• Rewriting of the problem with their sentences
• Visualizing of the problem (picture, diagram, graphic, etc.)
• Making plans for the solution/s (flow diagram, statements, pictures, etc. can be used)
• Giving daily life examples which are based on these concepts involved in the problem
2-Solving of the Problem
• Writing of formulas and equations that can be used for the solution
• Establishing, writing and sorting of equations which will lead to solving by using formulas and
equations
• Implementing the solution
• Expressing of other possible solutions if any
3- Checking of the Problem Solving
• Checking mathematical results using calculator
• Crosschecking of the desired and given variables
• Crosschecking of the problem result and reasonable explaining of units
• Implementing of the other possible solutions and crosschecking of the results, if any
• Explaining the relationship between variables (increase, decrease, no change, etc.)
4-Penetrating of the Problem
• Writing of the problems again by changing the locations of the desired and given variables taking
into consideration all possibilities
• Specifying what variables or results can be reached by using equations other than the desired
variables
• Writing and solving a new problem by using the concepts and principals involved in the solved
problem
5- Transferring of the Problem
• Explaining what type of problem will be solved in everyday life related to solved problem’s
concepts and principles

60
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

• Drawing of an image of the suggested product that can be created for stated problem and
explaining of each part
• Making of a plan for the establishment of this product
• Stating additional or missing concepts and information if necessary for the stated problem-solving.
Understanding of the Problem is the first step of the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy. In this step
students are expected to do as follows; identifying of given variables and writing with units so that they
realize what are they trying to solve; listing the concepts on which the problem is based and explaining the
concepts so that they understand whether they have or not the requested information; expressing the
problem with their own sentences so that they completely understand the question in the problem;
visualizing the problem so that they conceptualize the problem together with its details and variables;
making plan for the solution so that they define the strategy; giving examples from daily life so that they
realize if they understand the problem correctly or wrongly. Solving the Problem is the second step of the
Extended Problem-Solving Strategy. In this step, students are expected to do as follows; writing in detail the
formulas and equations they are will be using when solving the problem so that they understand whether
they have or not the knowledge needed to solve the problem; equating by using formulas and equations so
that they implement the strategy they define themselves; implementing the solution so that the strategy
they designed is useful or not. Checking of the Problem Solving is the third step of the Extended Problem-
Solving Strategy. In this step, the students are expected to; checking mathematical results using a
calculator, crosschecking of the desired and given variables, implementing other possible solutions and
crosschecking of the results so that they ensure that their strategy is correct; explaining scientifically the
result in terms of unit and explaining of relationship between variables so that recognize the correctness of
the result. The first three steps of the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy develop particularly critical
thinking as well as metacognitive skills. Penetrating the Problem is the fourth step of the Extended
Problem-Solving Strategy. In this step, students are expected to do as follows; editing the statement of
each problem by changing the location of required and given variables for all possibilities, specifying what
variables or results can be reached by using equations other than the desired variables so that the students
realize all possibilities including all problems; writing and solving of a new problem by using the concepts
and principals involved in the solved problem so that they realize how well they understand and use the
concerned concepts. This step of the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy develops the whole of creative
thinking, critical thinking, and metacognitive skills. Especially, it is possible to state that when the student
has developed creative thinking skills, the number of possibilities that the students will be able to specify
when s/he is demanded to specify the desired variables increases. Hence, s/he will be more successful to
identify other variables or results that are possible to reach and to reach the desired variables by changing
the locations of all possibilities. Transferring of the Problem is the fifth step of the Extended Problem-
Solving Strategy. In this step, students are expected to do as follows; explaining of what type of problem
will be solved in everyday life related with solved problem’s concepts and principles so that they can use in
practice the problem; drawing of an image of the suggested product that can be created for stated problem
and explaining of each part; for establishing of this product so that they can organize their knowledge and
apply this knowledge to a new situation; stating additional or missing concept and information if necessary
for the stated problem solving so that they realize what is missing in their plans to ensure a solution. This
step of the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy develops the whole of creative thinking, critical thinking,
and metacognitive skills. Especially, by organizing the knowledge that the students possess, they create a
solution to a daily problem, visualize the solution with a model and strive to explain all possible parts and to
define alternatives. Hence, they develop their creative thinking skills. It is possible to state that the more
unique the product the students imagine, the more creative they can be. The order of the specified sub-
steps can be altered considering the skills or needs of the students.

61
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

2. Method
2.1. Purpose of the Research
The problem statement of the research is defined as “What are the effects of the extended problem-
solving strategies, which was implemented during the physics course on the pre-service science teacher’s
problem-solving, critical thinking, metacognitive awareness, and logical reasoning skills, in comparison with
traditional physics instruction?”. Sub-problems addressed in this context are stated below;
• What is the effect of the extended problem-solving strategy implementation in the physics course
on the problem-solving, critical thinking, metacognitive awareness, logical reasoning skills of the pre-service
science teachers compared to the traditional physics instruction?
• Do the experimental group’s post-test scores of problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills,
metacognitive awareness skills, and logical reasoning skills have a meaningful correlation with each other?
• Are the problem-solving skills of the experimental group significantly improved?

2.2. Model of the Research

The model of the research consists of an experimental design with pre-test and post-test control
groups. While the experimental group studied Physics I course based on Extended Problem Solving Strategy
implementation which is developed by the researcher; the control group studied physics in the traditional
approach. The Physics I course consists of six lesson hours (45 minutes) of lecture per week. Within the
scope of Physics I in Science Education Program of Faculty of Education in Turkey, following subjects are
studied; SI units, One Dimensional Motion, Vectors, Two Dimensional Motion, Kinematics, Dynamics,
Energy, Work, Power, Mechanical Energy, Impulse-Momentum, Rotational Motion, Mechanical Properties
of Matter, Harmonic Motion.

2.3. Sample of the Research

This research was conducted at pre-service science teachers studying Physics I course at the
Department of Science Education in Turkey during the fall semester of the 2017-2018 academic year. The
participants of the research were 60 pre-service science teachers (41 females and 19 males) ranging in age
from 19 to 21 years old and come economically from the middle-class family. High School Graduation Grade
of the pre-service science teacher’s 80 and above out of 100 grades. Experimental and control groups of
the research were selected randomly and consisted of 30 individuals. When selecting the samples, there is
a requirement to strictly adhere the rule of neutrality to prevent the influence of subjective factors such as
the researcher’s partiality, volunteers or selecting the easiest sample to find (Moser & Kalton, 1971). To
determine homogeneous layer in the universe according to one or more variables considered effective on
the problem of the research, using a random sampling technique and taking into consideration the data
obtained from pre-tests, sex, and age variables formed groups.

2.4. Instrument and Procedures

Problem-Solving Inventory, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, Logical Reasoning Test Inventory,
and Critical Thinking Inventory were used as quantitative data collection measurement tools to investigate
the effect of problem-solving strategy instruction. Within the scope of the research, the Problem-Solving
Inventory (PSI), which is developed by Heppner and Peterson (1982) used in the Turkish version by Şahin,
Şahin, and Heppner (1993). PSI is a 35-item and 6 sub-factors. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability
of the scale was .90 (Heppner & Peterson, 1982; Şahin, Şahin, & Heppner, 1993). Critical Thinking Test was
developed by Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo (1992) was used to determine the students’ tendencies of
critical thinking in the research. Kökdemir (2003) adapted this test into Turkish (Facione, Facione, &
Giancarlo, 1992; Kökdemir, 2003). The Turkish version of the scale consists of 51 items and 6 sub-scale.

62
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability of the scale was .88. Schraw and Dennison (1994) investigated the
fundamental structures of metacognition and developed the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) to
evaluate the awareness of metacognition in adolescents and adults. Akın, Abacı, and Çetin (2007) adapted
the inventory into Turkish. Turkish version of the scale consists of 52 items and 8 sub-scale. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of reliability of the scale was .95 (Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Akın, Abacı, & Çetin, 2007).
Tobin and Capie (1981) developed an authentic and reliable measurement tool that facilitates the
implementation and ensures the objective scoring to measure Logical Reasoning. The test consists of two
questions for each of the five reasoning models for 10 items. Reliability for the Logical Reasoning test was
reported as.81 (Tobin & Capie, 1981). This test was translated and adapted into Turkish by Geban, Aşkar,
and Özkan (1992). The Cronbach Alpha reliability of the test was found as .77 (Tobin & Capie,1981; Geban,
Aşkar, & Özkan,1992).

2.5. Implementation
In the experimental group; before the application, pre-service science teachers were explained about
the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy together with the details and 3 examples so that the students
perceive the whole process with its details. Then problem-solving strategy implementation was performed
weekly. For a total period that took 12 weeks for the following subjects; SU units, one-dimensional motion,
vectors, two-dimensional motion, kinematics, dynamics, energy, work, power, mechanical energy, impulse-
momentum, rotational motion, mechanical properties of matter, harmonic motion. At the end of each
week, students were given a problem together with homework to present the details of the corresponding
week for the usage of the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy by themselves. The instructor did not assist in
this process. The implementation lasted in 12 weeks. Before and after the application, quantitative data
collection tools were applied as the pre-test, post-test. Also, experimental group students participated to
the "Patenting Turkey Competition" which took place for undergraduate students in Turkey (Patenting
Turkey, 2018) with their developed products at the last step of Extended Problem-Solving Strategies which
is transferring section.
In the control group, the traditional approach was applied. In traditional approach, students were
trained with the same problems about SU units, one dimensional motion, vectors, two dimensional motion,
kinematics, dynamics, energy, work, power, mechanical energy, impulse-momentum, rotational motion,
mechanical properties of matter, harmonic motion subjects without any strategy implementation by the
same instructor weekly. At the end of each week, students were given a problem as homework from
Physics for Scientists and Engineers book (Serway & Beichner, 2007). The implementation lasted in 12
weeks. The instructor did not assist in this process. Before and after the application, quantitative data
collection tools were applied as the pre-test, post-test. Control group students were also encouraged to
participate in the "Patenting Turkey Competition" which took place for undergraduate students in Turkey
(Patenting Turkey, 2018) but students did not want to participate in the competition.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data, were collected Problem-Solving Inventory, Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, Logical
Reasoning Test Inventory, and Critical Thinking Inventory measurement tools to investigate the effect of
problem-solving strategy instruction. Data was handled into the computer environment and analyzed using
by IBM SPSS 21 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software. To compare pre and post-test scores of
groups, independent sample t-test, to compare groups’ scores before and after the instruction, dependent
Sample t-test, to compare experimental groups’ post scores of the tests correlations degree, Pearson
correlation analysis was used. Paired sample t-test was also conducted for comparing experimental groups’
factors scores of the Problem Solving Inventory before and after the instruction.

63
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

3. Results and Discussion

Firstly, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to decide if a sample comes from a population
with a specific distribution. It was determined that the values obtained at the end of this test (p> .05) were
normally distributed in the study universe and therefore it was decided to use parametric analysis methods
for each test. To compare pre and post-test scores of groups, an independent sample t-test were used
(Table 1).
Table 1. Independent Sample t-test Results of Group’s Test Scores.
Test Group N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Metacognitive Awareness Test Pre-test Experimental 30 1.02 15.03 58 .77 .443
Control 30 1.00 5.66
Post-test Experimental 30 2.07 25.09 58 23.06 .00*
Control 30 1.00 3.91
Test Group N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Critical Thinking Test Pre-test Experimental 30 2.18 20.34 58 .89 .37
Control 30 2.13 20.44
Post-test Experimental 30 2.98 6.47 58 21.16 .00*
Control 30 2.16 20.37
Test Group N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Problem Solving Skills Test Pre-test Experimental 30 74.56 10.80 58 .077 .93
Control 30 74.36 9.23
Post-test Experimental 30 1.06 7.67 58 16.76 .00*
Control 30 72.93 7.95
Test Group N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Logical Reasoning Test Pre-test Experimental 30 3.66 1.15 58 .11 .91
Control 30 3.63 1.12
Post-test Experimental 30 8.23 1.22 58 14.25 .00*
Control 30 3.80 1.18

As shown in Table 1, there is no statistically significant difference in the independent sample t-test,
which was used to determine the variance between the pre-test scores of the participants in the control
and experimental groups for metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, problem solving and logical
reasoning tests. Also, as observed in Table 1, there is a statistically significant difference in favor of the
experimental group at the end of the independent sample t-test, which was applied for determining the
variance between metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, problem solving and logical reasoning post-
test scores of participants in the control and experimental groups. To compare groups’ scores before and
after the instruction, a dependent sample t-test was conducted (Table 2).
As shown in Table 2, there is no statistically significant difference at the end of the dependent sample
t-test, which was used to determine the variance between the pre-test and post-test scores of the
participants in the control groups for metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, problem-solving and
logical reasoning tests. Also, as shown in Table 2, there is a statistically significant difference in favor of the
post-test at the end of the dependent sample t-test, which was used for determining the difference
between metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, problem-solving and logical reasoning tests. To
compare experimental groups’ post scores of the test correlations degree, Pearson correlation analysis was
used (Table 3).
The experimental group's metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, problem-solving and logical
reasoning post-test scores. A paired sample t-test was also conducted for comparing experimental groups’
factors scores of the Problem Solving Inventory before and after the instruction (Table 4).

64
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

Table 2. Dependent Sample t-Test Results of Group’s Test Scores.

Group Test N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Metacognitive Awareness Test Experimental Pre-test 30 1.02 15.03 29 -19.31 .00*
Post-test 30 2.07 25.09
Control Pre-test 30 1.00 5.66 29 -.17 .86
Post-test 30 1.00 3.91
Group Test N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Critical Thinking Test Experimental Pre-test 30 2.18 20.34 29 -20.52 .00*
Post-test 30 2.98 6.47
Control Pre-test 30 2.13 20.44 29 -1.31 .19
Post-test 30 2.16 20.37
Group Test N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Problem Solving Skills Test Experimental Pre-test 30 74.56 10.80 29 -14.67 .00*
Post-test 30 1.06 7.67
Control Pre-test 30 74.36 9.23 29 1.39 .174
Post-test 30 72.93 7.95
Group Test N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Logical Reasoning Experimental Pre-test 30 3.66 1.15 29 -16.66 .00*
Test Post-test 30 8.23 1.22
Control Pre-test 30 3.63 1.12 29 -1.22 .23
Post-test 30 3.80 1.18

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Analysis Results of Experimental Group’s Post-Test Scores.

Tests’ Scores Metacognitive Awareness Critical Thinking Problem Solving Skills Logical Reasoning
Metacognitive Awareness 1 .83** .88** .87**
Critical Thinking 1 .76** .84**
Problem Solving Skills 1 .79**
Logical Reasoning 1

Table 4. Paired Sample t-Test Results of Problem Solving Inventory’ Sub-Factors.

Group Test N Mean Standard Deviation df t p
Confident Pre-test 30 22.60 7.98 29 10.26 .00*
Post-test 30 7.76 1.27
Thoughtful Pre-test 30 12.06 3.50 29 -23.28 .00*
Post-test 30 25.23 2.78
Avoidant Pre-test 30 16.86 3.27 29 11.08 .00*
Post-test 30 7.33 3.25
Evaluating Pre-test 30 5.96 1.44 29 -28.01 .00*
Post-test 30 16.43 1.77
Self-confident Pre-test 30 9.56 2.26 29 -30.50 .00*
Post-test 30 28.33 2.65
Planned Pre-test 30 7.50 1.61 29 -36.34 .00*
Post-test 30 21.66 1.68

Paired sample t-test results indicate that there were significant differences between pre and post
scores of factor scores named as; confident, thoughtful, avoidant, evaluating, self-confident, planned.
Problem-solving skills are listed among the 21st Century skills, are associated with high-level learning
skills such as metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, and logical thinking skill as mentioned above. It is
considered that the development of each skill also creates a developing effect on each other. In this
context, present research examines the effects of the Extended Problem-Solving Strategy, which was
implemented during the physics lessons on the pre-service science teacher’s problem-solving skills, critical
thinking, metacognitive awareness skills, and logical reasoning skills, in comparison with traditional physics

65
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

lessons. The model of the research consists of an experimental design with pre-test and post-test control
groups.
The results of the research indicate that the post scores of the experimental group students
increased significantly compared to the pre scores while there is no difference between the pre and post-
test scores of the control group students after the implementations. This result shows that the students of
the selected control and experiment groups did not stay at the same level in terms of metacognitive
awareness, critical thinking, problem-solving and logical thinking skills. It is also stated that there is a
significant positive correlation between metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, problem-solving and
logical thinking skill post-test scores of the experimental group students. Another important finding of this
study is to show that there is a significant relationship between experimental group students' sub-factor
score changes after the implementation.
The positive effects of Extended Problem-Solving Strategy implementation can be supported by
relevant studies in the literature, which revealed the positive effects of the use of any problem-solving
strategy in physics and science education at different levels about (Bolton & Ross, 1997; Çalışkan et al.,
2007; Dhillon, 1998; Dufresne, Gerace, Hardiman, & Touger, 1993; Dufrense et al., 1997; Docktor et al.,
2015; Gök, 2014, Heller & Reif, 1984; Hollingworth & McLoughlin, 2001; Lawson, 1978; Larkin & Reif, 1979;
Lucangeli, Galderisi, & Cornoldi, 1995; Olaniyan, & Govender, 2018; Selçuk et al., 2008; Wright & Williams,
1986).
The results of this research have been presented for the first time in this research in the physics area
had been encountered. This research shows the positive effects of the “Extended Problem-Solving
Strategy” implementation in the physics course at the university level on the metacognitive awareness,
critical thinking, problem solving and logical thinking skills and each of these skills affects the other skills
positively (Halpern, 2010; Hollingworth & McLoughlin, 2001; Lawson, 1978, 2004; Leniz & Guisasola, 2017;
Mendez, Sanchez, & Mendez, 2017; Lucangeli, Galderisi, & Cornoldi, 1995; Tiruneh, Verburgh, & Elen, 2017;
Leniz, Zuza, & Guisasola, 2017; Trisnowati & Sumardi, 2019).

4. Conclusion

Based on the result and discussion can be concluded that high order thinking skills of students can be
developed or improved by “Extended Problem-Solving Strategy” implementation. The results of this
implementation have been presented for the first time in this research in the physics area had been
encountered. The following studies of Extended Problem-Solving Strategy can be performed in the other
topics of physics such as; electromagnetism, thermodynamics, optic, etc. at physics courses. Also, problem-
solving performance evaluations, creative thinking skills, conceptual understanding, achievement, self-
efficacy, self-regulation studies can be performed.

5. References

Akın, A., Abacı, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). Bilişötesi farkındalık envanteri'nin türkçe formunun geçerlik ve
güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 7(2), 655-680.
Bissell, A.N. & Lemons, P.P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom.
BioScience, 56(1), 66–72.
Bolton, J., & Ross, S. (1997). Developing students’ physics problem-solving skill. Physics Education, 32, 176–
85.
Çalışkan, S. (2007). Problem çözme stratejileri öğretiminin fizik başarısı, tutumu, özyeterliği üzerindeki
etkileri ve strateji kullanımı. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of
Educational Science.

66
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

Dhillon, A.S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in physics. Science
Education, 82(3); 279-405.
Docktor, J. L., Strand, N. L., Mestre, J.P., & Ross, B.H. (2015). Conceptual problem solving in high school
physics. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 11, 1- 13.
Dufrense, R., Gerace, W., & Leonard, J. (1997). Solving physics problems with multiple representations.
Physics Teacher, 35, 270-275.
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective. Instructional
Science, 24(1), 1-24.
Facione, P. A. & Facione, N. C. (1992). The california critical thinking dispositions inventory. Millbrae, CA:
California Academic Press.
Geban, Ö., Aşkar, P. & Özkan, İ. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem solving approaches on
high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 5– 10.
Gök, T. (2014). Peer instruction in the physics class room: effects on gender difference performance,
conceptual learning, and problem solving. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 776-788.
Gök, T. (2015). An investigation of students’ performance after peer instruction with stepwise problem-
solving strategies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 562-582.
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen,A., Näykki, P. & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-
students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing
collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25-41.
Halim, A., Yusrizal, Y., Susanna, & S., Tarmizi, T. (2016). An analysis of students’ skill in applying the problem
solving strategy to the physics problem settlement in facing AEC as global competition. Jurnal
Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 5(1), 1-5.
Halpern, D. F. (2010). The halpern critical thinking assessment: Manual. Modling, Austria: Schuhfried GmbH.
Heller, J. I., & Reif, F., (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: problem description
in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 177-216.
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem solving
inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66-75.
Hollingworth, R.W., & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Developing science students’ metacognitive problem solving
skills online. The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 50-63.
Ince, E. (2017). Fizik Öğretiminde Problem Çözme. Cezve Kitabevi, İstanbul.
Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik durumlarında karar verme ve problem çözme. (Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation). Ankara University, Institute of Social Science.
Larkin, J. H. & Reif, F. (1979). Understanding and teaching problem-solving in physics. European Journal of
Science Education, 1, 191-203.
Lawson, A. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11–24.
Lawson, A. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning: a synthetic view. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 307–338.
Lawson, A.E. (1982). The reality of general cognitive operations. Science Education, 66(2), 229-241.
Leniz, A., Zuza, K. & Guisasola, J. (2017). Students’ reasoning when tackling electric field and potential in
explanation of dc resistive circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13, 010128.
Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., Cornoldi, C. (1995). Specific and general transfer effects of meta-memory
training. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 11–21.
Marlina, A., Nor Hasniza, I., Abdul Halim, A., Johari, S., & Nurshamela, S. (2014). Physics problem solving:
selecting more successful and less successful problem solvers. International Conference of Teaching
Assessment and Learning, 186-191.
Mendez, D., Sanchez, J.H. & Mendez, M. (2017). The effect in the action of the professor and the problems
in the development of abstract reasoning in future teacher. American Journal of Educational
Research, 5(3), 267-272.

67
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3 (2), 2019, 58-68

Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation, London, Heinemann.
Olaniyan, A.O. & Govender, N. (2018). Effectiveness of Polya problem-solving and target-task collaborative
learning approaches in electricity amongst high school physics students. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 17(5), 765-777.
Patenting Turkey. (2018, January 20). http://www.patentleturkiye.gov.tr/patentleturkiye/
Sahin, N., Sahin, H. H., & Heppner, P. P. (1993). Psychometric properties of the problem solving inventory in
a group of Turkish university studies. Cognitive Therapy Research, 17, 379-396.
Schraw, G., & Dennison S. R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19, 460-470.
Selçuk, G.S., Çalışkan, S., & Erol, M. (2008). The effects of problem solving instruction on physics
achievement, problem solving performance and strategy use. Latin American Journal of Physics
Education, 2(3), 151-166.
Serway, R.A. & Beichner, R.J. (2007). Fen ve Mühendislik için Fizik-1 (Beşinci Baskıdan Çeviri). Ankara: Palme
Yayıncılık.
Tezbaşaran A. A. (2011). Öğretim programlarındaki kazanımlarla geliştirilmesi beklenen düşünme becerileri
üzerine. Cito Eğitim: Kuram ve Uygulama, 13, 13 – 22.
Tiruneh, D. T., Verburgh, A. & Elen, J. (2014). Effectiveness of critical thinking instruction in higher
education: a systematic review of intervention studies. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 1–17.
Tobin, K. G. & Capie, W. (1981). Development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 41, 413–424.
Trisnowati. E., & Sumardi, Y. (2019). Developing the student worksheet with problem-solving approach to
improve critical thinking skills and the concept understanding of physics. Momentum: Physics
Education Journal, 3(1), 2019, 32-41.
Wright, D. S. & Williams, C. D. (1986). A wise strategy for introductory physics. The Physics Teacher, 211-
216.
Zou, X. (2001). The role of work-energy bar charts as a physical representation in problem solving. Physics
Education Research Conference, July 25-26, Rochester, New York.

68