Application of Cues, Prompts, Probes, Questions and Gestures (CPPQG) in Physics Teaching and Learning

Ugwumba Augustine Okoronka¹ and Kodjo Donkor Taale^2,

¹Department of Science Education, Adamawa State University, Mubi, Nigeria

²Department of Physics Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana

Cite this paper:
Ugwumba Augustine Okoronka and Kodjo Donkor Taale. Application of Cues, Prompts, Probes, Questions and Gestures (CPPQG) in Physics Teaching and Learning. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(4):406-411. doi: 10.12691/education-3-4-4

Abstract

This study was an action research using cues, prompts, probes, gestures and questioning strategy to remediate some learning difficulties of students in some physics concepts. This was done by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data using teacher constructed test. Pre-test, was used to assess students’ prior knowledge and post-test to determine the final state of the learners. A sample of 40 Level 200 Geography Education students of the Department of Science Education, Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola, Nigeria, participated in the study. The data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, percentages, paired sample t-test and the correlation statistic. The results obtained showed an improvement in students’ understanding of basic concepts in optics, heat and mechanics. Students performed relatively better in optics (80% of the students) scoring 45% and higher; followed by thermal physics (heat) (70 %) and mechanics (50%). The post-test mean score was higher than the pre-test. Also, paired sample t-test was significant at 0.05 alpha level and df of 39. Similarly, a moderately high and significant correlation coefficient of 0.70 was calculated between the pre and post test scores. Based on the findings, it is recommended that teachers should integrate CPPQG into all forms of physics instruction in today’s changing world of technologies. This is a major way to make its learning “interesting” to the average learner who ordinarily may not be able to make the kind of “connections” expected in maximizing physics teaching and learning.

Keywords:
cues prompts probes gestures Instructional Decision Making Tree Transactional Model of Direct Instruction physics teaching and learning

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Bostock, J. (1998). Constructivism in Mass Higher Education: A case study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 29 (3), 225-240
[2]	Duffy, T.M and Jonassen, D.H (1992). Constructivism: New implication for instructional technology in constructivism and the technology of instructional technology, T.M. Duffy and D.H. Jonassen (Eds). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum (p. 1-16)
[3]	Okoronka, U.A (2011). The place of cues, prompts, and probes in Science/Physics Classroom. Workshop paper presented at the 52 nd Annual Conference of the Science Teachers’ Association of Nigerian held at Akure from 15-21 August, 2011.
[4]	Ausubel, D.P (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Learning. Newyork: Grune and Stratton
[5]	Dollard, J and Miller, N. (1950). Personality and Psychotherapy. New York: Mc Grew Hill.
[6]	Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1). Retrieved November 2009, from: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
[7]	Walberg, H., and Paik, S. (2000). Effective educational practices. Brussels, Belgium: International Academy Education. Retrieved September 2009 from: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/EducationalPractices SeriesPdf/prac03e.pdf
[8]	Frey, N., and Fisher, D. (2011). Guiding learning: Questions, prompts, and cues. Principal Leadership, 11 (5), 58-60.
[9]	Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1998) Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
[10]	Tienken, C.H., Goldberg, S. and DiRocco, D. (2009). Questioning the questions. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46 (1), 39-43.
[11]	Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
[12]	Caram, C.A. and Davis, P.B. (2005). Inviting student engagement with questioning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42 (1), 19-23.
[13]	Chuska, K.R. (1995). Improving classroom questions. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
[14]	Elder, L. and Paul, R. (2003). Critical thinking: Teaching students how to study and learn. Journal of Developmental Education, 27 (2), 36-38.
[15]	Orlich, D.C., Harder, R.J., Callahan, R.C., Trevisan, M.S. and Brown, A.H. (2010). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
[16]	Walsh, J. A. and Sattes, B. D. (2005). Quality questioning: Researchbased practice to engage every learner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
[17]	Hart, G. and Cottle, P. (1993). Academic backgrounds and achievement in college physics The Physics Teacher, 1993, pages 470-475.
[18]	Alters, B. J. (1995). Counseling Physics Students: A Research Basis. The Physics Teacher, 1995, pages 413-415.
[19]	Stahl, F. A. (1997). Physics Language and Literature, The Physics Teacher, March 1997, pp. 143-145.
[20]	Huitt, W., Monetti, D., and Hummel, J. (2009). Designing direct instruction. In C. Reigeluth and A. Carr-Chellman, Instructional-design theories and models: Volume III, Building a common knowledge base [73-97]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/designing-direct-instruction.pdf
[21]	Frey, N. and Fisher, D. (2010). Identifying instructional moves during guided learning. The Reading Teacher, 64 (2).
[22]	McNiff, J. (2002) Action Research: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge.
[23]	Neitzel, J., & Wolery, M. (2009). Steps for implementation: Simultaneous prompting. Chapel Hill, NC: National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, The University of North Carolina
[24]	Walsh, J.A. & Sattes, B. (2011). Thinking Through Quality Questioning Activity Packet. Retrieved from: http://brainchildblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Walsh-Sattes-PDF.pdf
[25]	Walberg, H.I. (1999). Productive teaching. In H.C. Waxman and H.J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 75-104). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publications.