Change in Student S Attitudes Towards Learning and Physics Subject: Realisation of The

Change in Student’s Attitudes towards Learning and Physics subject: Realisation of the Systemic Approach to Physics Study

Violeta Karenauskaite Vilnius University, Lithuania

Palmira Juceviciene Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 7- 10 September 2005

In a modern society, which aims at sustainable development, the knowledge in natural sciences and the application of sciences in such areas as energy production, environment protection, health care system and others, play an extremely important role. So, science education becomes more and more important in contemporary society. Its effects depend mainly on the quality of science education at schools, colleges and universities. Science education reforms have been effectuated or still go on in most of the European countries, especially in new countries of European Union during the last years with the aim to solve some important problems of science education (Alhberg, Dillon, 1999; Bricmont, 1997; Boeker, 2003; Garwin, Ramsier, 2003; Rudzikas, 2003 and others).

The advances and breakthroughs of the 20th century physics have enriched all the sciences; they have touched nearly every part of our society, from health care and national security to our understanding of Earth’s environment, they have fueled broad technological and economic development. So, the physics community must be sensitive to these changes and respond to society’s needs and, more than ever, must to mobilize its efforts to improve physics education at all levels. Also, the demand for physics knowledge has been growing together with the influence of physics upon different study programs at the university. Meanwhile, the world physicist community declares the crisis in physics education. Different authors and organizations in their research write about the inefficiency of physics curriculum reforms, the negative notion of students’ in physics courses, the decline of students’ motivation and other problems as well (Bricmont, 1997; Mackin, 1996; Manogue and Krane, 2003; Karenauskaitė, Dikcius, Streckytė, 2001; Juceviciene, Karenauskaite, 2004; TIMSS, 1995, 1999, etc; Zhaoyao, 2002 and others).

On the other hand, the today’s problems caused by science and technology development are related to environment (climate changes, ozone holes, diminishing resources of fresh water, etc.) and quality (caused by global competition). This implies the increasing pressure on universities to bring together

1 the intellectual development (education leading to understanding) and social development (learning through collaboration, learning to work in groups, etc.) in various subjects. This is because today’s world needs professionals with the educated mind and transferable skills which enable solving the complex problems (Weijers, 2000). Respectively, one of the key tasks of contemporary university is to bring learning closer to the real life context situations and to apply the principle of programme integration, enabling to cross the boundaries of the specific context and time period.

This idea is based on the contemporary learning paradigm, which focuses on continuing, self- directed construction of an individual’s knowing with the aim to prepare a student for the unknown and ever changing future situations (Barnett, 1994; Bowden and Marton, 1998, Longworth, 2000; Novak, Gowin, 1999; Ramsden, 2000 and others). So, the contemporary education faces the transition from teaching to learning paradigm. It becomes student-centred and emphasizes the active learning. This kind of education should be organized by developing the effective learning environments. Therefore, a modern university should stimulate self-development of an active and creative personality, which is possible to achieve by educating a student to manage his/her independent, self-regulating learning and to transfer its activities from traditional teaching to learning. Lithuania experiences the similar situation. We face the challenges that are common around the world. Moreover, it encounters the specific problems that are influenced by the general state of country’s economy and education system: while humanizing and restricting study programs, less time is allocated for physics discipline in different study programs; after the implementation of the profile teaching in secondary schools, the higher schools receive students with a very diverse background in physics knowledge, so there is a gap between higher school/university and secondary school; there is a lack of high quality contemporary teaching tools (textbooks, equipment, information technologies, free access to the worldwide data base). All this, naturally, negatively influences the development of effective educational environments where the teaching of physics is carried out at universities.

An earlier paper by the same authors (Juceviciene, Karenauskaite, 2004) highlighted two reasons of crisis in teaching physics and argued that physics education has to undergo a double paradigm shift. First, a qualitative and fundamental change of the attitude towards physics study method should take place: from teaching paradigm, limited to a formal transfer of knowledge, to learning paradigm that focuses on continuing, self-directed designing of an individual’s knowing (Barnett, 1994; Bowden, Marton, 1998; Juceviciene, 2001; Lipinskiene, 2002; Longworth, 2000; Ramsden, 2000, etc.). Second, the gradual change of the attitude towards physics study content should occur: from a normative paradigm, that is oriented to scientific knowledge as an object, to an interpretative with the emphasis on the interpretative character of physics knowledge and the process of acquiring knowledge itself 2 (Boeker, 2003; Manogue and Krane, 2003; Rudzikas, 2003; Karenauskaite, Juceviciene, 2002, 2004; Mackin, 1996; Ogborn, 2003; Vermunt, 2003). The implementation of this double shift is possible looking for new physics learning strategies and creating the empowering learning educational environments at the university that is, creating conditions which stimulate self-study and activity, as well as reflection and evaluation.

The previous paper was theoretical in nature. The authors, by means of research literature analysis and their own educational ideas, justified a Systemic Approach to Physics Study (SAPS) considering the context of realizing the main principles for educational environment creation. This systemic approach meets interpretative and learning paradigms, emphasizes the openness of the educational environment, embraces teaching that is related to the peculiarities of an educational environment and a student (individual’s learning environment), and the teaching content into ‘one whole’, when aiming at cooperation with learners in the teaching process and seeking for deep learning. Also, Systemic Approach emphasizes close relation between the objectives of a course in physics and the objectives of the individualised study program chosen by a student. It also highlights the integration of student’s experiential knowledge into a new system, an individual approach to every learner and the development of meta-learning competences. This approach integrates the basic principles of developing the educational learning environments: Meta-learning, Flexibility, Socialization, Integration and Individualization. It has been the first theoretical model of teaching and learning in physics presented in the literature on medical education. This theoretical model – Systemic Approach to Physics Study - is directed towards students who study physics not as their major at the university.

We think and argue that the shift of the above mentioned paradigms, first of all, should be enabled at the individual level (student’s and teacher’s). Their attitudes towards physics should be transformed and their attitudes to learning as a process should be changed by the influence of Systemic Approach.

Therefore it was important for us to carry out the empirical research and to find the answer to the research question: How the Systemic Approach to Physics Study influences the change in students’ attitudes towards physics subject and learning? The main aims of the research were to investigate in what ways the Systemic Approach influences the change of students’ attitudes to: (a) Physics science and its importance for the study programme that is chosen by student; (b) Teaching methods that influence student‘s learning; (c) Learning competence. The methodology of the research was based on two conceptual approaches:

3 Learning paradigm. Learning is a process when people develop their knowledge, understanding, skills, values, attitudes and experience. Learning is not a simple output of teaching. Learning is a much broader category than teaching. Educational sciences and practice, however, do not leave aside the research into learning in a wide sense and cares about the support for learning practice. The analysis of learning emphasizes the providing a learner with effective learning means and tools, which meet his learning style and needs, i.e. ensuring the effective and rich learning environments (Bowden, Marton, 1998; Juceviciene, 2001; Laurillard, 2000; Lipinskiene, 2001, etc),. The latter are the object for educational research. Constructivist approach to learning is based on the belief that knowing could be personal and individuals construct new knowledge and meaning from experience. Learning is an individual’s constructive activity that could not be transmitted. Every individual participating in harmonized development builds his competence by integrating separate concepts into the whole personally meaningful for him (M.Ahlberg, P.Dillon, 1999). Therefore, it is assumed to be ideally that educational environment matches the individual learning environment. In reality the boundaries of these environments do not match and the individual learning environment is only the single part of educational environment, because a learner takes from it the things he perceives and accepts as reasonable (P.Juceviciene). In addition, according to the constructivism theory, learning is carried out in different spaces of human life and activity and the learner actively constructs knowledge from experience in his/her personal learning environment1 (Ahlberg, Dillon, 1999; De Corte, 2001; Longworth, 1999; Juceviciene, 2001 and others). Research strategy was based on the interaction of normative and interpretative paradigms as the basis for social knowledge in physics sciences – the normative paradigm embraces two main ideas: human behaviour is regulated by the rules and should be explored by the methods of natural sciences. The interpretative paradigm aims to understand the subjective world of human experience (Cohen, 1994). When the physics content is digested through the contemporary learning environments there is interaction of both these paradigms. The interaction of these two paradigms manifests in physics studies and challenges certain problems. Therefore, the ways of transforming these problems into possibilities should be searched for.

This study examines the influence of a new constructivist teaching and learning model (Systemic Approach to Physics Study) in improving students’ understanding of physics science and its importance in fostering a learning environment supporting conceptual understanding, and in promoting positive attitudes toward learning and teaching physics science in particular. This paper focuses exclusively only on the changes of student’s attitudes. In the first part of the article the problems of physics 4 education in medicine studies in Lithuania are analyzed and the implementation of Systemic approach to Physics study at Vilnius University Medicine Faculty is presented; the second part of the article presents and discusses the results of the empirical research.

The implementation of Systemic Approach to Physics Study: Case study at Vilnius University Medicine Faculty The problems of teaching and learning all physical sciences as well as physics are notably evident in teaching university students of different specialities. We assume that one of the most important specialities is medicine. European integration and challenges of the knowledge society raise new requirements in Lithuania for medical education, which is undergoing rapid changes, with the realignment of medicine faculties' curricula to meet national and European needs and priorities, the adoption of and experimentation with innovations, and greater emphasis on staff development initiatives. Obviously, Medicine faculties at universities in Lithuania are in a dynamic status. Universities have been changing the medicine curricula, gradually adopting student-centred learning approaches and offering their students early clinical training, etc. Medicine is dependent on the physical sciences for a deeper and more quantitative understanding of important biomedical problems and for the successful solutions of different problems. More than that, the new discoveries in biomedical diagnostics and treatment lie at the interface of multiple disciplines including physics, chemistry, biology and computation. Such synergistic collaborations can result in groundbreaking research and the biomedical education as well. Therefore, students in medicine experience a growing need to acquire effective working knowledge of these sciences as a basis in understanding the new treatment and diagnostic methods and operation with the latest biomedical equipment. The importance in medical education with a strong knowledge base in the basic sciences has been widely acknowledged (Beaty, 1990; Bonaminio 1998; Harden and others, 1996). It is very important, since science education in general, and physics, in particular, must play an important role in educating scientifically and technologically informed medical professionals. As the basic and clinical sciences have been increasingly integrated in medical education, the role and participation of basic science educators has been emphasized. They have to develop a wider view of medical education than their own particular discipline and skills that facilitate student learning in more interactive ways. During few decades, in the world the changes of the interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of medical education of undergraduates have been rapid and sometimes radical, whereas in Lithuania the old habitus remained practically unchanged in many high schools. 5 Futhermore, for the last two decades Vilnius University has been experiencing an obvious decease in physics lecturing time allocated in the Medicine study program. As the diagram presents (Fig. 1), only 48 teaching hours have been recently allocated for physics subject, there from 32 hours are devoted to lecturing and 16 hours – for practical works from 2001/2002 school year. In comparison to other European countries and Kaunas University of Medicine (KMU) (herein an 300 Hours Lectures Practical works 250 Total

200 144

150 248 100 80

144 64 104 48 50 96 80 16 64 32 32 32 48 0 till 1980 till 1995 1995/1998 1998/2001 2001/2002 academic year Fig. 1. Change of classroom hours for Medical Physics at Vilnius University average 90 hours for physics discipline in the Medicine study programme are allocated), the situation in Vilnius University is the most unfavourable one. The similar amount of teaching time for physics is devoted in Denmark, but in this country as well as in other Scandinavian countries the problem- based learning is applied for educating the medicine specialists. The problem learning integrates different subjects (Barrows, 1980; Dolmans and others, 2005; Harden, 1996; WHO, 1998; Wood, 2004); therefore more teaching time is devoted for physics subject in real.

While the programme is wide enough and includes the basic knowledge of physics illuminating insights into a wide range of important biomedical problems. The spectrum of its topics is very similar to the most academic programmes in Western European universities and KMU as well, and deals with the following issues (they cover all of the fundamental areas of physics): Basics of measurements, experiments, quantitative description, statistics; Structure of matter; Thermodynamics; Electrical and magnetic phenomena; Oscillation and waves; Optics; Ionising radiation; Electromagnetic radiation. The programme is designed according to topics of different physics branches, where the related physical phenomena in live organisms (Interaction of radiation with biological tissue, Electricity in living body, Transport phenomena) are analysed and physical laws, which describe these phenomena are explained.

6 It will be observed that the programme of physics discipline for medical students over the past 15-25 years have been the subject of significant change in organization of content: from common content for all study programmes to special contents for different study programmes. Now there are included a lot of themes of medical applications in each the above mentioned issues of physics course. For example, Physics of Hearing, Physics of Human Eye, Ultrasound, X-rays imaging, etc. and very important themes for medical professionals such as Physical methods in diagnostics and therapy and Biomedical electronics. That intends to demonstrate how basic physics may be applied to biomedicine. Thus many medical students can understand the variety of the most basic laws and principles of physics applied to biological systems and human body as well.

On the other hand, the medical education in Lithuania remains at a discipline-based learning (there are no significant changes in pedagogy) while many universities around the world have moved from discipline-based to problem-based learning, which offers opportunities to integrate the teaching and learning of the basic and clinical sciences for medical undergraduates. Many basic subjects (including physics) of medical curricula are delivered via didactic lecture (Fig. 1), which is characterized by more “passive” than “active” learning. Traditional practical works, written and oral examinations are almost universally used in student assessment. Though most experienced teachers agree that students learn best by doing experiments and active teaching, not by listening to lectures, unfortunately, Medicine and Basic Science faculties with the limited lecturing hours and the insufficient funding of laboratories are unable to realize problem-based learning and/or ensure active learning. Therefore this situation have challenged our interest and called for new investigations in this field.

As an alternative strategy for fostering active learning on Medical Physics course at Vilnius University Medicine Faculty, we implemented Systemic Approach to Physics Study Process (Juceviciene, Karenauskaite, 2004). The effectiveness of this theoretical system and its influence upon students was tested in Medicine, Odontology and Public Health study programmes. Two hundred and eleven (100 students in experimental groups and 111 students in control groups) university freshmen and 8 teachers in Physics participated in this study in the fall semester of 2004/2005 school year. Distribution of students in experimental and control groups was random.

The essence of educational impact in experimental groups was Systemic Approach to Physics Study Process and learning paradigm that incorporated a number of important principles of contemporary educational environment. This model was used to foster a transition from passive to active learning environment in-class and out-of-class (Barrows, 1980; Christensen, 2001; Driessen and others, 2005; Harden and others, 1996; Mills and others, 1999; Ramsier, 2001). In control groups the traditional teaching paradigm was applied. 7 Both experimental and control groups had conventional lectures, laboratory works and tutorials. The last two activities, however, in control groups were carried out traditionally: students were doing different traditional lab. works in rotation, traditional assessment forms (tests, face-to-face interaction). We moved from the traditional, passive style of teaching and learning to active teaching methods in experimental groups: we developed an educational intervention consisting of frontal lab. works, seminars-discussions and project works. Teachers received feedback about class activities through organizing discussions and participating in them, while observing students and analyzing their concept maps or Vee diagrams Novak, Gowin, 1999). In that way a teacher was able to evaluate students’ progress, recognize their proper perception and misunderstandings, and evaluate the suitability of methods and other teaching aids. So, teachers had the tools to evaluate not only knowledge of physics, but skills as well, could identify student’s competences developed during class activities and at their independent studies.

Methodology. Defining the effectiveness of Systemic Approach to Physics Study Process, the change in students’ and teachers’ attitudes to physics subject, learning, and the knowledge of students’ and overall effectiveness of educational learning environment was measured. Because of the unique features of this educational model and the lack of an adequate instrument specific for that model, a new instrument was developed. We wanted to employ a fully crossed research design incorporating instrument items, Physics faculty lecturers and students rates. Data collection and analysis. Quantitative (descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed ranks test for two dependent samples and Mann - Whitney test for two independent samples, factor analysis and other) and qualitative (content analysis of teachers’ interviews, students’ concept maps and Vee diagrams) research methods and data analysis were used for this case study (Charles, 1999; Čekanavičius ir Murauskas, 2002; Kardelis, 2002). The quantitative research data were analyzed using SPSS 11.5 for Windows. As part of the large case study, students were surveyed three times over their physics course. For the present study we examined measures specifically related to the students’ attitudes to the importance of physics subject, teaching and learning before and after the educational impact. The results of these measurements are presented in this article. Students completed pre- and post- educational assessments questionnaires. They were constructed with the closed type questions. The questionnaire form also included the space for unstructured student comments. All responses were anonymous. As we mentioned above 211 students were surveyed. The response rate was 93.4%. The questionnaire return quota was 198 of the 211 students.

8 Aiming to define the change in attitudes to physics subject and its teaching, seven (Fig. 2) and six (Fig.3) statements were used respectively. The statements with Likert scale of 5 point were evaluated as follows: 1 point indicates absolute disagreement, while 5 points indicate strong agreement. Evaluation by 3 points indicates that respondent doubts or does not know the answer. Aiming to evaluate students’ agreement on certain statements, the descriptive statistics was applied (ratings of the percentage rage of separate questionnaire statements were calculated). The Wilcoxon signed ranks test for two dependent samples was used for data comparison within the groups before and after the educational impact. And the Mann - Whitney test for two independent samples was used for data comparison between the groups before and after the educational impact. The change of attitude towards learning was evaluated by means of questionnaire constructed by prof. P.Juceviciene: 60 indicators that reflect 6 criteria describing the main qualities of learning competence. This questionnaire measures students' attitudes toward learning. Six scales were developed: Openness in communicating, Self-directed learning, Reflection skills, Openness for innovations and changes, Skills of deep learning and Skills of learning in partnership (collaborative learning). The four points Likert scale was chosen for statement evaluation, where 4 points indicate strong agreement and 1 point indicates disagreement. The evaluation for answer ignorance was eliminated. Aiming to evaluate students’ agreement on certain criteria, the Mean (X) of students’ evaluations were calculated. The criteria with the highest mean in the scale indicate the strongest agreement of respondents. The differences between the groups before and after the educational impact were detected by applying the Mann - Whitney test for two independent samples. Before starting the research, the homogeneity of experimental and control groups was tested (Table 1). The indexes of homogeneity (age, school graduation year, physics evaluation (mark) at school, the evaluation of physics knowledge before the experiment, score for entering the university), excluding gender (71.1% – women, 28.9 % - men), were similar among experimental and control groups and the differences of all indexes were statistically insignificant (p>0.05). The Mann - Whitney test for two independent samples was used for data comparison.

Table 1. Homogeneity of experimental and control groups Index for Homogeneity p Age 0.510 Gender 0.236 School graduation year 0.820 Physics evaluation (mark) at school 0.211 The evaluation of physics knowledge before the 0.961

9 experiment Score for entering the university 0.907

Limitations of the case study. Our study has several specific limitations: (a) We had only one semester for physics course with the same students. That is quite short duration of experiment and we could not accomplish the comprehensive research; (b) There was too broad programme in medicine physics for this particular period; (c) Also we had eleven students more in control groups; (d) We evaluated students’ physics knowledge before educational impact and found out a very diverse and insufficient level of basic knowledge both in experimental and control groups; (e) The tradition of teaching paradigm - a stable frame in mind – of students’ and teachers’ as well; (f) the interaction between the experimental and control groups and between the teachers who had worked with both experimental and control groups was unavoidable. Students of these groups had common lectures and other activities during studies. Teachers had common meetings and discussions. Also there was no theoretical and prior research guidelines to development of the some groups of survey questions, and the survey questions were not piloted to test the survey reliability except the questionnaire, which measured students’ attitudes toward learning. Nevertheless, this situation was interesting for us and calling for new investigations, despite the factors that influenced the research results. Results and discussion 1. The change in attitude towards physics subject and its importance.

Physics teachers at university should foster the interest of non-science students in the study of physics. They should develop the understanding of physics concepts and laws by taking them from their ‘alternative’ or naive concepts toward scientific ideas; relate students’ background of knowledge with new knowledge of medical physics; help to find that physics is not an isolated subject, but physics is everywhere, its knowledge helps to better understand the surrounding environment, it has influence on the activities of their future professional life. So, we wanted to learn about students’ attitudes to physics subject and its importance. We asked students about that at the beginning of the physics course and at the end. They filled in the part of the survey with seven statements. Their answers showed us not only their attitudes, but in what ways the educational environment influences these attitudes. As data presented in the Table 2 show, the statistically significant differences within the groups before and after educational impact were detected both in experimental (in six statements) and control groups (in four statements). We assume that this result was influenced by one of the experiment

10 limitations “Inevitable interaction between experimental and control groups“. However, the comparison of ratings of the percentage rage (Fig. 2) and their differences showed that university students in experimental groups learned more about the influence of physics knowledge to their study programme (the first statement, the percentage difference 36.4 and only 9.6 respectively, students who agreed with that after educational impact raised till 92.7 and 77.4 respectively); better understand the importance of physics for perceiving their environment (the third statement, the percentage difference is respectively 24.6 and 17.2 respectively and students who agreed after educational impact 79.1 and 73.1 respectively). The students in both experimental and control groups after the educational impact better understand the importance of physics for the profession they have chosen (the fifth statement, 70.8 and 76.5 respectively).

Table 2. The change in attitude towards physics subject and its importance Statements Statistically significant Statistically significant difference difference within groups, p between groups, p In In control Before ducational After educational experimental groups impact impact groups University is able to provide 0.002 0.209 0.042 0.001 (provided) information on application of physics knowledge in the chosen study programme Physics knowledge can help 0.398 0.301 0.781 0.893 understanding the physical processes in human body The examples of different topics in 0.000 0.006 0.810 0.790 physics, which reflect the phenomena around, are interesting and wanted Physics enables to learn simple 0.001 0.093 0.734 0.832 experiments and to evaluate the accuracy of measurements Physics subject is important for my 0.002 0.000 0.753 0.935 speciality Physics knowledge helps to better 0.013 0.026 0.960 0.468 understand the surrounding environment The adequacy of topics in physics 0.004 0.007 0.441 0.223 subjects with the chosen speciality motivates for learning

The statistically significant difference after the educational impact between groups (p = 0.001) was detected only in the statement “University is able to provide (provided) information on application of physics knowledge in the chosen study program”: respectively, in experimental groups - 92.7% , and in control groups - 77.4%.

11 The smaller number of students in both the experimental and control groups, who agreed on the statements No. 6 and 7 at the end of the course, implies that the relationship between students’ chosen study programme, the surrounding environment and knowledge of physics science is insufficiently emphasized in the studies of physics subject. All of this does not motivate students to allocate more time for studying this subject and the autonomous learning. It is apparent that the students had bigger expectations from the physics course. Moreover, most probably they had had a false perception on the influence of physics knowledge on the environment before the course started; e.g. they were confused with the knowledge of other science fields. A big number of students (over 80 % at the beginning of the semester and 70% at the end of the semester) perceive physics subject as the source of simple experiments; assume only the practical significance and the application aspect of knowledge. Therefore, the question emerges: will not the prospective professionals in medicine have the limited understanding on knowledge and its application. We assume that teachers have to reveal the application nature of physics knowledge as well as more actively emphasize the significance of fundamental knowledge in terms of biomedicine research and public health issues. Teachers should be able to demonstrate that technologies are the subject of changes, while the fundamental principles the medicine professionals ought to know stay unchangeable. We argue for the assumption that Systemic approach and learning paradigm all together had bigger impact on students’ positive attitudes to physics subject and its significance in the experimental groups, than the traditional teaching in the control groups. Despite the only statistically significant difference observed for one of the statements.

University is able to provide (provided) inform ation on application of phys ics knowledge in the chosen s tudy program m e Physics knowledge can help understanding the physical processes in hum an body

The exam ples of different topics in phys ics, which reflect the phenom ena around, are interesting and wanted

Phys ics enables to learn sim ple experiments and to evaluate the accuracy of m easurem ents

Physics s ubject is im portant for m y speciality

Physics knowledge helps to better understand the surrounding environm ent

The adequacy of topics in physics s ubjects with the chosen speciality m otivates for learning

0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00 100,00

Experimental groups Control groups 12 F ig. 2. The change in attitude towards physics subject and its importance (after educational impact) 2. The change in attitudes towards physics teaching (methods)

This part of the study was aimed at investigating the effects of six teaching methods (Fig. 3) on students’ attitudes toward physics teaching and learning. No significant differences were found between experimental and control groups before educational impact for all teaching/learning methods (Table 3). The statistically significant differences within the groups after educational impact were revealed both in experimental and control groups for the same methods: „Frontal work in laboratory“ (p = 0.000; p = 0.017 respectively;), „Seminar-discussion“ (p = 0.000; p = 0.000 respectively) and „Traditional work in laboratory“ (p = 0.022; p = 0.032 respectively). However, the statistically significant differences between the groups after educational impact were revealed for the methods: „Frontal work in laboratory“ (p = 0.002), „Seminar-discussion“ (p = 0.000). Of course, it is clear that both ways of laboratory works make significant contributions to students’ achievements in designing experiments and drawing conclusions. But the comparison of ratings of the percentage rage showed that “Frontal work in laboratory” is more welcomed by students in experimental groups, and „Traditional work in laboratory“ (teaching paradigm) is more acceptable for students in control groups (Fig. 3). Approximately half of the students in both groups appreciate „Traditional work in laboratory“ also. This showed that students like face-to-face interaction with teachers. This is positive for students’ learning, since they can clarify all concepts and their understanding directly with the teacher. But under our conditions it is not possible to use this method very often and effectively, because, as we mentioned at the first part of our article, there is a time limit for physics classes and a big number of the students have meeting with one teacher. It is worth mentioning that the number of respondents in control groups, who agreed on “Frontal work in laboratory” after the educational impact, slightly decreased (72.6% - before the educational impact and 68.8% - before the educational impact). It betokens that the students in this group expected for this particular method and perceive it as useful for their learning, despite the fact that it was not so often employed if compared to the experimental groups. Although teaching/learning method “Seminar – discussion” was applied only in the experimental groups, the statistically significant difference for this method was detected in the control groups as well (We think that inevitable contacts with experimental groups had influence like in the case of “Frontal 13 work in laboratory”). Namely the evaluation of the latter method and „“Frontal work in laboratory” revealed statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.000 and p = 0.002 respectively after the educational impact).

Table 3. The change of attitudes towards teaching of physics (methods) Respondents who agreed before the educational impact, % Teaching/ Experiment Control groups Difference p learning methods groups Lecture 83,7 85,7 2.0 0.758 Traditional work in 41 45,2 4.2 0.443 laboratory Frontal work in laboratory 62.3 72,6 0.017 Seminar-discussion 22,4 19,1 3.3 0.509 Written course paper 22,4 28.6 6.2 0.996 Project work 43,9 42.8 1.1 0.999 Respondents who agreed after the educational impact, % Teaching/ Experiment Control groups Difference p learning methods groups Lecture 83,5 84.9 1.4 0.695 Traditional work in 59,7 65.6 5.9 0.289 laboratory Frontal work in laboratory 91.7 68.8 0.002 Seminar-discussion 75.0 49.5 25.5 0.000 Written course paper 22,6 21.5 1.1 0.673 Project work 57,3 52.2 5.1 0.902

So, the assumption could be made that the students in experimental groups accept and value active teaching methods that meet the principle of flexible and dynamic development of educational learning environments as well as ensure the bigger students’ autonomy and collaborative learning. In our opinion, this reflects the influence of Systemic Approach on students’ positive attitudes to active, contemporary teaching/learning methods.

14 Frontal work in laboratory

Lecture

Seminar-discussion

Traditional work in laboratory

Project work

Written course paper

0.00 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100. Control groups after the educational0 0 impact0 0 00 Experimental groups after the educational impact Control groups before the edutacional impact Experimental groups before the educational impact

Fig. 3. The change of attitudes towards teaching of physics (methods) Nevertheless, we should notice that one of the most popular teaching methods among students still remains „Lecture“. More than 80% of students from both groups approve this method. It is widely recognized that lectures continue to dominate at university science (physics also) instruction, especially in developing countries, and that lectures limit student intellectual engagement. This attitude could be explained by traditional framework of thinking and by the fact that lecture is a very popular way of information transmission. Other factors that influence this attitude are students’ previous learning experience, learning habits and the fact that the first year students used to learn mainly in lectures. The statistically significant differences were detected neither within the groups, nor between them, while considering the methods “Written course paper”and “Project work”, though the percentages ratings showed that approximately 22% and above 50% students respectively like these methods. In our opinion, writing the course paper is not popular among students, because it requires much time and self-dependent work. The “Project work” is really an effective teaching method which encourages students’ independent learning and their collaboration. Unfortunately, because of short duration of the experiment, this method was not often applied. Therefore, the statistically significant differences were not detected, although the percentage ratings show that a half of respondents approve this method.

15 We can state that the novel use of teaching and learning methods within new educational environment (SAPS) demonstrates the advantage of enhancing the impact on students’ attitudes towards active teaching/learning methods and their positive attitudes in science entirely.

3. The change in attitudes towards learning

The main and most positive result of our research was observed in the change of this particular attitude. We used six criteria describing the main qualities of learning competence for the measure of students’ attitudes towards learning. Openess in communicating. This learner‘s feature indicates how easily a person show his/her emotions and how open and eager he/she is in communicating with other people. Open person shows more enthusiasm than reserved one, he usually takes the initiative in discussions, allows other people to enter his/her personal zone both physically and emotionally; his/her solutions are often based on intuition and inner sense. In learning processes such a person allows for public inquiry into his/her actions and he/she does not feel distressed because of this. Self-directed learning. This is a learner’s ability to systematically and step by step organize and manage his/her own learning process. Self-directed learner is able to diagnose his/her learning needs, to formulate learning goals (and objectives), to identify the necessary learning resources, to chose among and apply different learning strategies as well as to evaluate his/her learning achievements. The self- directed learning helps to avoid the uncertainty and spontaneity in learning process. This ability is reinforced by the following personal features: openness, self-confidence, determination. These features encourage taking responsibility for the learning process. Reflection skills. Reflection abilities enable a learner to learn from his/her activity, experience and learning process. This kind of learner is able to differentiate between facts and conclusions. He/she knows how to justify his/her actions by means of real facts, he/she is not afraid to be wrong. Usually such a learner, who practices self-analysis and reflects on his/her practice, is responsible for the development of his/her activity and learning. Openess for innovations and changes. This learner‘s feature indicates if a person is open, tolerant and searching for innovations and changes. The latter could be considered as new possibilities for person’s learning, because every innovation requires learning. Such a person is usually initiative, active, creative or even playful, generating new original ideas. The performance of his/her activity is understood not only as an achievement of goals set, but also as a foreseeing the perspective for future development. In some cases such a person could be named as an experimenter. The rich working and learning environment is important for him/her. 16 Skills of deep learning. This ability reveals in what ways a learner accepts and actively uses the new information, new experience, learning material, etc. A person with deep learning ability strives to perceive and understand the information, to compare it with his/her previous understanding or knowledge, but not to memorize the separate, unrelated chunks of information. The theoretical knowledge should be tested in practice. New information is no accepted as a natural undisputable thing; it is analyzed, considered, systemized and together with previous knowing is organized into coherent unity. Skills of learning in partnership (collaborative learning). This ability enables a person not only for successful collaborative activity, but also for successful learning from each other by means of reflection. People, who are able to work and learn in partnership, are open persons trusting each other. Their priorities are communications and human relationship. The ability to accept criticism and to give a constructive feedback, to create and maintain an emotionally safe atmosphere opens new possibilities for learning from each other.

The statistically significant differences were revealed between experimental and control groups after the educational impact for three criteria: “Self-directed learning” (p = 0.002), “Skills of deep learning” (p = 0.000), “Learning in partnership” (p = 0.000) (Fig. 4). That shows that Systemic educational impact: influenced students skills to methodically organize and manage their learning process; helped them to perceive that new information should be analyzed, reasoned and integrated into the previous knowledge structure; enabled to understand that learning in partnership creates new learning possibilities and allows to better notice different aspects of the phenomenon. The highest mean (M = 3.18) of the criterion of “Skills of learning in partnership” indicates that students benefit from working together in experimental groups more than in control groups and generally value interaction with other learners and with the teacher. The criteria “Openness in communicating” and “Openness for innovations and changes” characterize the learners’ personal traits that play a big role in reinforcing the above mentioned criteria, but these personal traits are more resistant for change and demand for longer educational impact. Therefore no significant differences were found for these criteria between experimental and control groups after educational impact (p = 0.334 and p = 0.493 respectively).

17 The development of reflection skills also demands for longer impact, therefore it is natural that our experiment does not indicate the statistically significant differences for the criterion “Reflection skills” too (p = 0.471). Concepts maps and Vee diagrams were used in experimental groups for self-reflection, because they are a potentially valuable method of assessing and developing students' reflective skills in education. These methods stimulated students to reflect on their experiences, and allow every student to make a self-evaluation of their own knowledge level compared to that of their colleagues. The methods mentioned allow a teacher to judge the outcome of his/her teaching activity (“Reflection skills” mean 3.05 in experimental groups is high enough (max of the scale was 4.00).

Skills of learning in partnership

Skills of deep learning

Openess for innovations and changes

Reflection skills

Self-directed learning

Openess in communicating

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

Experimental groups Control groups Fig. 4. The change of attitudes in learning after educational impact

In conclusion, it can be stated that students’ attitudes towards physics subject and its importance, teaching and learning changed in experimental groups. That is confirmed by the results of final exam of physics course. The mean of grades of final exam was M = 7.22 in control groups and M = 7.58 in experimental groups. The number of higher grades was bigger in experimental groups: nine scores (9 means “very good” - 19% and 15.3% in experimental groups and control respectively) and ten scores (10 means “excellent” – 11% and 5.4% in experimental groups and control respectively).

Conclusions

As the basic natural sciences (physics also) are becoming increasingly integrated in medicine, so the integration of these sciences in the undergraduate medical education is important as well. The role and participation of physics science educators have expanded and urge them to have a wider view of 18 medical education than their own particular discipline and skills that facilitate student learning in more interactive ways. They should: (a) to present physics in such an attractive way that students for whom physics is not a major interest will be motivated to participate enthusiastically in the learning activities; (b) to involve students in learning tasks that can be performed successfully; (c) to include in the course a sampling of physics concepts and laws and to embed these in a variety of contexts of study programmes. That can be realized through Systemic Approach to Physics Study (SAPS). The case study of Medicine physics subject at Vilnius University enabled to reveal that the educational impact which was based on theoretical model (SAPS): 1. changed the attitude to teaching/learning methods in experimental groups (after the Systemic impact, that was oriented towards active teaching/learning methods, the statistically significant differences are detected between the groups). 2. stimulated students’ meta-learning in experimental groups (the statistically significant differences are detected in students’ attitudes to the main components of meta-learning: self- directed learning; deep learning; learning in partnership); We argue for the assumption that Systemic approach (SAPS) and learning paradigm all together had positive impact on students’ of experimental groups, changed their attitudes to physics subject and its significance, to teaching and learning as well. But the short duration of the educational impact, the study programme and the content limited the manifestation of differences between the experimental and control groups concerning the attitude towards physics subject. More than that, we assume that research limitations had some obstacles for realising this theoretical model and this is proved by other results of our case study. We also suggest further research (perhaps colaboratively with other faculties of University and clinicians) to determine the strenghts and weaknesses of this theoretical model in depth and to correct this model in the future. Summing up the impact of Systemic approach for the change in students’ attitudes, we claim that even if the subject programme and content are restricted, the properly chosen pedagogical strategy (Systemic Approach to Physics Study Process) and methods have a significant influence on students’ attitudes towards metalearning, teaching and the subject itself.

Acknowledgements

To all students who made this study possible. We are especially thankful to our colleagues at Vilnius University Physics Faculty and at Institute of Educational Studies in Kaunas University of Technology by permitting the realization of this case study.

19 References

1. Ahlberg, M., Dillon, P. Materials for Constructive Environmental education, mainly to be used in pre- service and in-service teacher education: An integrating approach to environmental learning. In European Project for Environmental Education. (Eds. M. de Paz, M.Pilo), Genova, 1999, p.p. 3-33. 2. Barrows H.S. Problem-based Learning: An approach to medical education. Springer series on Medical Education, New York, 1980. 3. Barnett, R. (1994). The Idea of Higher Education. London: SRHE and OU Press. 4. Beaty, HN. (1990). Changes in medical Education should not ignore the basic science. Academic Medicine, 65:675-6. 5. Boeker, E., van Grondelle, R. And Blankert, P. (2003). Environmental physics as a teaching concept. European Journal of Physics. 24 (2003). 6. Bonaminio, G. (1998). The challenge of integrating the basic medical sciences. Basic science Educators, 8 (1,2);13. 7. Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning. Kogan Page. 8. Bricmont, J. (1997). Science studies – what’s wrong? Physics World, December, 1997. 9. Britton, P. (2000). Teaching physics and biology: seeking synergies. Physics Education. 35 (3). 10. Charles, C.M. (1999). Pedagoginio tyrimo įvadas. Vilnius. ISBN 9986-02-736-5. 11. Christensen, N. (2001). Medical physics: the perfect intermediate level physics class. European Journal of Physics. 22(2001). 12. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. London and New York: Routledge. 13. Čekanavičius, V., Murauskas, G. (2002). Statistika ir jos taikymas, I, II dalys. Vilnius. 14. De Corte, E. (2001). Instructional Psychology. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science. Retrieved June, 16, 2005, from ScienceDirect. 15. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W. Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P. and van der Vleuten, C.P. M. (2005). Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, Volume 39, Issue 7, Page 732. 16. Driessen, E. W., Tartwijk, J., Overeem, K., Vermunt, J. D. and Vleuten, C.P. M. (2005). Conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education 39 (12), 1230- 1235. 17. Harden, R.M., Laidlaw, J.M., Ker, J.S. and Mitchell, H.E. (1996). AMEE Medical Education Guide No.7. Medical Teacher, 18(1). 18. Hobson, A. (2003). Physics literacy, energy and the environment. Physics Education. 38(2). 19. Jonassen, D.H., Land, M.S. (2000). Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 20. Jucevičienė, P. (2001). Besimokantis universitetas: mokymosi paradigma ir jos sklaida aukštajame moksle. Seminaro medžiaga. Kaunas: KTU Socialinių mokslų fakultetas. 21. Juceviciene, P., Karenauskaite, V. (2004). Learning Environment in Physics: the Context of Double Paradigm Shift //Education on-line (BEI), 2004, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003794.htm 22. Jucevičienė, P., Tautkevičienė, G. (2002). Universiteto bibliotekos mokymosi aplinkos samprata. Konferencijos “Aukštasis mokslas – žinių visuomenei” medžiaga. Kaunas: KTU. 23. Kardelis, K. (2002). Mokslinių tyrimų metdologija ir metodai. Kaunas: Judex. 24. Karenauskaitė, V., Dikčius, G., Streckytė, G. ir kiti. (2001). Biomedicininės fizikos mokymo problemos. 34-osios Lietuvos nacionalinės fizikų konferencijos tezės ir pranešimas (pp. 56-57.). Vilnius: VU leidykla. 25. Karenauskaitė, V., Jucevičienė, P. (2002). Normatyvinės ir interpretacinės paradigmų sąveika naujame požiūryje į fizikos studijas universitete. Socialiniai mokslai, 3(35), p.12-18. 26. Lipinskienė, D. (2002). Edukacinė, studentą įgalinanti studijuoti aplinka. (Daktaro disertacija, Kauno technologijos universitetas, 2002). 27. Mackin, J. (1996). A creative approach to physics teaching. Physics Education. 31 199-202. 28. Manogue, C.A. and Krane, K.S. (2003). Paradigms in Physics: Restructuring the Upper Level. Physics Today. September, 2003. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-9/p53.html 29. Mills, D., McKittrick, B., Mulhall, P., Feteris, S. (1999). CUP: cooperative learning that works. Physics Education. 34(1). 30. Novak, J.D., Gowin, D.B. (1999). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 20 31. Ogborn, J. (2003). Advancing Physics evaluated. Physics Education. 38 (4). 32. Ramsden, P. Kaip mokyti aukštojoje mokykloje. Vilnius: Aidai, 2000. 33. Ramsier, R.D. (2001). A hybrid approach to active learning. Physics Education. 36 (2). 34. Rudzikas, Z. (2003). 2005-pasauliniai fizikos metai. Mokslas ir gyvenimas. 3(2003). 35. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) International Reports in Mathematics and Science. (1995,1999). http://timss.bc.edu/timss1999.html 36. Vermunt, J.D. (2003). The power of Learning Environments and the Quality of Student Learning. In Powerful Learning Environments. Ed. De Corte, E. and others. 37. Weijers I. Bildung Versus Benefit? In “Universities Remembering Europe” (2000). Ed. by F.Crawley and others. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. 38. WHO (1998). Learning to Work Together to Healch. Report pf aWHO Study Group on Multi- professional Education for Health Personnel: a Team Approach. Switzerland. WHO. 39. Wood, E.J. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: Exploiting Knowledge of How People Learn To Promote Effective leraning. BEE-j Volume3: May. 40. Zhaoyao, M. (2002). Physics education for the 21st century: avoiding a crisis. Physics Education. January, 2002. 41. Zoller, U. (2000). Interdisciplinary Systemic HOCS Devlopment – The Key for Meaningful STES Oriented Chemical Education. Chemistry Education: research and practice in Europe, 1(2), p. 189-200.