Title: Difficult Science topics as identified by grade 10

High school students: Basis for faculty math development

Related Literature

Foreign Literature

There are a variety of reasons why students, especially

at the secondary level, may perceive science as difficult in

comparison to other subject areas. It may be due to how the

students perceive the subject based on their experiences

with it, or even from information about the subject from

other persons. Johnston (2014), commenting on the perceived

difficulty of the subject area, indicated that this

difficulty may be due to problems in perception and thinking

of students. His analysis of the nature of perceived

difficult topics led him to propose that this difficulty may

be caused by complexity due to ideas and concepts existing

at three different levels: macro and tangible, micro, and

representational or symbolic. Using the concept ‘water’ to

explain these levels; this concept can be taught at the

macro level where students are able to observe the

properties of water. It can also be taught at the micro

level where, for example, students are taught that water

consists of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. At the

representational level, these molecules can be represented

as a symbol H2O.

These multiple ways of representing the same concept is

common in secondary level science courses, especially

chemistry and physics. Johnston proposed that the

interaction of these three levels may cause overworking of

the working memory hence causing difficulty in

conceptualizing various areas in science. Although the

spiral nature of the curriculum should allow the gradual

progress of learning concepts from concrete (macro level) to

abstract (micro and representational), very often in science

teachers have to use all three levels in a single lesson.

Behar and Polat (2017) also point to misconceptions

about science phenomena possessed by students as

contributing to the difficulty of certain science topics.

Chiappetta and Koballa (2016) defined misconceptions or

alternative conceptions as ideas about phenomena that

students bring to the classroom that does not correspond

well with the scientific knowledge to be taught. They added

that these alternative conceptions are tenacious and

resistant to change by conventional teaching strategies. So

these misconceptions may, according to Behar and Polat

(2017), cause misunderstandings in certain science topics.

This may especially be the case if the teaching strategies

used by teachers are not adequate to allow for conceptual

change.

A related argument put forward by Behar and Polat

(2017) concerns the many terms and symbols used in the

teaching of various science concepts. Many such terms are

new to the students and so cannot be linked to their

cognitive structures which, according to Behar and Polat,

may also cause information overload in the working memory.

In addition, some terms are known by students, but in a

different context and with a different meaning to that used

in science. An example is the concept of ‘work’. Confusion

may result which adds to the perception of difficulty of the

area of content.

Key factors in facilitating an effective learning

environment in the science class are the teaching strategies

used by teachers. John Dewey criticized science teaching of

the day as giving too much emphasis to the accumulation of

information rather than to an effective method of inquiry

(Bybee, Trowbridge and Powell, 2016). Unfortunately, this

argument appears to be as relevant today as it was then.

Many times, teachers use the excuse of overloaded science

curricula to explain their reliance on strictly didactic

methods of teaching. Though these claims may have some

merit, these teaching strategies may in effect, portray the

subject as difficult to many students. Behar and Polat

(2017) alluded to this when they identified the passive

roles of students in the classroom and their perception of

the teacher as the only source of knowledge, as contributing

to the perceived difficulty of science topics.

Synthesis

There are a variety of reasons why students, especially

at the secondary level, may perceive science as difficult in

comparison to other subject areas. According to Johnston

(2014). His analysis of the nature of perceived difficult

topics, propose that this difficulty may be caused by

complexity due to ideas and concepts existing at three

different levels: macro and tangible, micro, and

representational or symbolic. Using the concept ‘water’ to

explain these levels; this concept can be taught at the

macro level where students are able to observe the

properties of water. It can also be taught at the micro

level where, for example, students are taught that water

consists of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. At the

representational level, these molecules can be represented

as a symbol H2O. Johnston proposed that the interaction of

these three levels may cause difficulty in conceptualizing

various areas in science. Behar and Polat (2017) had the

same stand, they also point to misconceptions about science

phenomena possessed by students as contributing to the

difficulty of certain science topics. Chiappetta and Koballa

(2016) defined misconceptions as ideas about phenomena that

students bring to the classroom that is not related to the

scientific knowledge to be taught. So these misconceptions

may, according to Behar and Polat (2017), cause

misunderstandings in certain science topics. Another related

argument put forward by Behar and Polat (2017. Many such

terms are new to the students, which, may also cause

information overload in the working memory. John Dewey

criticized science teaching of the day as giving too much

emphasis to the accumulation of information rather than to

an effective method of inquiry (Bybee, Trowbridge and

Powell, 2016). Unfortunately, this argument appears to be as

relevant today as it was then. Many times, teachers use the

excuse of overloaded science curricula to explain their

reliance on strictly didactic methods of teaching. Therefore

Key factors in facilitating an effective learning

environment in the science class are the teaching strategies

used by teachers
Local Literature

Physics, the most basic of sciences, is the study of

matter and energy, and the interactions between them. It is

the foundation upon which other sciences, such as chemistry,

astronomy, and geology are based (Santisteban, 2015). Many

other fields of science make use of concepts from physics

and it has contributed a lot to our present understanding of

the universe (Asuncion, et al, 2016).

Students’ performance in physics is a measure of the

students’ knowledge, skills and understanding of the subject

matter. Because of the impression that physics is a

difficult course, a mere passing grade is considered an

accomplishment, and a failing grade is but a normal thing.

Some students who failed may even have passed the course if

only they were a little more persevering in their studies.

Many students do not exert extra effort to be able to

achieve a fairly good grade in physics.

According to Angell, et al (2004), students find

physics difficult because they have to contend with

different representations such as experiments, formulas and

calculations, graphs and conceptual explanations at the same

time. Physics requires the ability to use algebra and

geometry and to go from specific to general and back. For

many students, math alone makes physics difficult. Weak

mathematics ability is one cause of student difficulty in

studying physics. Comprehension of physics requires

mathematics acquisition.

According to Camarao and Nava (2017), sources of

difficulty in Physics included content of the subject

matter, learning materials, classroom environment, and

teacher factor. Students revealed that they found topics

such as mechanics, optics, electromagnetism, and

thermodynamics difficult to understand. These topics were

especially difficult for students who have not learned how

to apply knowledge in novel and real-life situations.

Students who were asked to remember contributions of

physicists found the task problematic because of the

foreign names. For major topics, lack of mastery on

underlying concepts made lessons challenging. Topics which

were heavy on terminologies, formulas, and numbers were also

listed as particularly demanding. Moreover, application of

equations in solving word problems with unfamiliar and

highly technical terms and complicated concepts was quite

arduous for students. Students narrated that emphasis on

solving problems in classroom activities was a major source

of difficulty. Crucial procedures in classroom

activities and laboratory experiments were made

complicated because basic materials were too expensive

to acquire, and they required lengthy calculations.

Perception of Physics as a subject hard to learn and

understand contributed to the students’ difficulty, which

was shown through poor performance in the subject. Finally,

teachers’ lack of mastery of the content, poor teaching

skills and inefficient classroom management were named as

contributory factors for difficulties in the subject.

Effective Physics teachers were described as experts in the

subject matter, approachable, energetic, skillful in

classroom management, and funny. Most students addressed

difficulties through learning strategies such as studying on

their own and studying with classmates. They engaged in

spiritual exercises like praying. A few resorted to

preparing answer notes. They mustered their own internal

motivation and looked to external reinforcement such as

rewards from parents.

Synthesis

Physics is the study of matter and energy, and the

interactions between them. Also the foundation upon which

other sciences, such as chemistry, astronomy, and geology

are based (Santisteban, 2015). And has contributed a lot to

our present understanding of the universe (Asuncion, et al,

2016). Students’ performance in physics is a measure of the

students’ knowledge, skills and understanding of the subject

matter. Because of the impression that physics is a

difficult course, a mere passing grade is considered an

accomplishment, and a failing grade is but a normal thing.

According to Angell, et al (2004), students find physics

difficult because they have to contend with different

representations such as experiments, formulas and

calculations, graphs and conceptual explanations at the same

time. In connection to this, According to Camarao and Nava

(2017), sources of difficulty in Physics included content of

the subject matter, learning materials, classroom

environment, and teacher factor. Topics such as mechanics,

optics, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics are difficult

for students to understand. Lack of mastery on

terminologies, formulas, and numbers made lessons

challenging. Therefore, application of equations in solving

word problems with unfamiliar and highly technical terms and

complicated concepts was quite arduous for students.

Crucial procedures in classroom activities and

laboratory experiments were made complicated because

basic materials were too expensive to acquire, and

they required lengthy calculations. Finally, teachers’

lack of mastery of the content, poor teaching skills and

inefficient classroom management were named as contributory

factors for difficulties in the subject. Effective Physics

teachers therefore must be an experts in the subject matter,

approachable, energetic, skillful in classroom management,

and funny, also having a study group with their classmate

can also be helpful, engaging in spiritual exercises like

praying, preparing answer notes and lastly mustering their

own internal motivation and looked to external reinforcement

such as rewards from parent.

Related Studies

Foreign Studies

The studies in science education have considerably

risen in the last 30 years. Parallel to this, many

innovations have been made in science education. Thus, many

countries have tried to develop new science curricula in the

light of these innovations. In Turkey, there have also been

several attempts to develop science curricula in the years

1994, 2000 and 2004. In all these curriculum development

studies there are some common aims and similarities as well

as differences in terms teaching, learning and assessment.

For instance, in the development process of 1994 and 2000

science curriculums, the behaviorist learning approach was

taken into consideration. However, 2004 science and

technology curriculum for primary 4-8 that have been

developed on the base of constructivist learning approach

are considerably different from the others. In this

curriculum, the role of teachers and pupils in the

classroom, the approach to the assessment and evaluation as

well as to the teaching techniques have been radically

changed. The main aim of the science and technology

curriculum is to educate all pupils as scientifically and

technologically literate. The science and technology

literacy is a combination of several skills, attitudes and

knowledge related to science and technology as well to the

other scientific disciplines such as physics, chemistry and

biology.

As mentioned before, in spite of all these curriculum

developments in science in all over the world there are many

research studies that report concept difficulties and

misconceptions in science topics in secondary and university

levels. The following examples can be given for the topics

of genetics (Johnstone & Mahmoud, 2006; Bahar, Johnstone &

Hansell 2009; Knippels, Waarlo & Boersma, 2005),

photosynthesis (Waheed & Lucas, 2012), hormonal

regulationtransport of oxygen (Lazarowitz & Penso, 2012),

Universe and space (Caillot, Chebbi & Allani, 2003),

electromagnetic induction, impulse-momentum, electricity

(Aycan & Yumuflak, 2003) etc.

In Turkey, the national exam results for primary and

secondary school students show that the correct response

average for the questions related to science topics was low.

TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science

Study) also shows the similar results (MEB, 2003). In

addition, all these results in an general exam that was

applied by the National Ministry of Education to 100.332

students in primary schools it was also found that the level

of achievement of the students was low in science questions

especially in the questions regarding physical processes and

biology topics (MEB, 2002) .

Why are some science topics difficult to learn? Of

course several reasons might be mentioned for the question.

There are lot factors that might affect perception as well

as meaningful learning. In his learning model, White (2013)

expresses that factors such as attitude, skill, and

knowledge, physical state and needs might affect learning.

From Johnstone’s point of view (1991), the difficulties in

science may be related to the problems of perception and

thinking. He argues that the analysis of the nature of the

topics that are perceived as difficult by the students leads

to a realization that their complexity lies in the fact that

the ideas and concepts inherent in them exist on three

different thought levels: the macro and tangible, the micro

(or even sub micro and molecular) and the representational.

The interaction between these three levels of thought might

also cause the overloading of the working memory capacity.

There are two important functions of the WM. They are; i) it

is the conscious part of the mind that is holding ideas and

facts while it thinks about them. It is a shared holding and

thinking space where new information coming through the

perceptive filter consciously interacts with itself and with

information drawn from the LTM to make sense. ii) it is a

limited shared space in which there is a trade off between

what has to be held in conscious memory and the processing

activities required to handle it, transform it, manipulate

it and get it ready for storage in LTM store. If there is

too much to hold there is not enough space for processing:

if a lot of processing required, it cannot hold much

(Baddeley, 2014; Johnstone, 2007). Several studies indicate

that working memory capacity affects the performance of the

students and it causes difficulties in terms of

understanding when it is overloaded (Johnstone & El Banna,

2006; El-Banna, 2007; Johnstone, Sleet & Vianna, 2004)

Careless use of language can also contribute overloading

WMC. Unfamiliar vocabulary or familiar vocabulary in

different context, using negative expressions in exam

questions or during teaching can affect learning (Cassels &

Johnstone, 2013).

Çimer (2012) argued that many concepts or topics in

biology, including water transport in plants, protein

synthesis, respiration and photosynthesis, gaseous exchange,

energy, cells, mitosis and meiosis, organs, physiological

processes, hormonal regulation, oxygen transport, genetics,

Mendelian genetics, genetic engineering, and the central

nervous system can be perceived as difficult to learn by

secondary school students. While Tekkaya et al. (2013) found

that hormones, genes and chromosomes, mitosis and meiosis,

the nervous system, and Mendelian genetics were considered

difficult concepts by secondary school students. Özcan,

(2013) stressed that experiencing difficulties in so many

topics in biology negatively affects students’ motivation

and achievement. Students’ difficulties with many topics in

biology have stimulated researchers to investigate why

students experience such difficulties and how to overcome

these difficulties. Experiencing difficulty in Biology could

be attributed to many factors such as classroom learning

environment, lack of interest in learning science,

overloaded curriculum content and delineation of science

from society, among others.

Osborne and Collins (2011) also report that students’

diminishing interest in learning science was due to the

curriculum content being overloaded and not generally

related to working life, the lack of discussion of topics of

interest, the absence of creative expression opportunities,

the alienation of science from society and the prevalence of

isolated science subjects. Another reason reported by many

researchers, specifically in Turkey, is that due to the

nature of biological science, biology learning is generally

based on memorization. Biological science includes many

abstract concepts, events, topics and facts that students

have to learn. This makes it hard for students to learn them

(Çimer, 2014; Saka, 2016; Durmaz, 2017).

Also, in addition to determining the factors that

negatively affect students’ learning in biology,

understanding students’ views on what makes their biology

learning effective is crucial, as many researchers suggest

that in order to improve the quality of teaching and

learning in school, students’ views must be taken into

consideration by researchers, teacher educators, schools and

teachers (Çimer, 2014; Ekici, 2010). They argue that what

students say about teaching, learning and schooling is not

only worth listening to but provides an important perhaps

the most important foundation for thinking about ways of

improving teaching, learning and schools. For instance,

Phoenix (2013) states that student views of teaching may

reflect the ways that they learn best. Indeed, schools that

acknowledge the significance of student views have found

that these views can make a substantial contribution to

classroom management, to learning and teaching, and to the

school as a social and learning place. It is thought that

how students perceive the learning environment in biology

affects their attitudes towards biology and its learning.

Therefore, understanding secondary school students’

perceptions of biology will help policymakers, teachers and

teacher educators plan more effective teaching activities

that can help students learn biology better and have more

positive attitudes towards it.

On the study of Etobro and Fabinu (2017), revealed that

students adduced some reasons for their perception of

difficult Biology topics. They attributed their sources of

difficulty of the perceived difficult topics to

abstractness, complexity, misconception of topics,

unavailable instructional materials, poor attitude of

teachers to teaching, lack of practical classes and poor

students study habits. This finding is in consonance with

the findings of Çimer, 2004; Zeidan, 2010; Tekkaya et al.,

2001; Çimer, 2004 and Zeidan, 2010; who identified the

nature of science itself and its teaching methods as well as

the biological level of organization and the abstract level

of the concepts as reasons for encountering difficulty in

learning biology. Other sources included overloaded biology

curricula, the abstract and interdisciplinary nature of

biological concepts, and difficulties with the textbooks.

On the study of Ogunkola (2015), found that no

significant difference in students’ perception of difficult

topics based on their gender, study habits and school

location. With reference to gender, this supports the

findings of Ogunkola and Fayombo (2015) that there was no

significant statistical difference in Barbadian secondary

school students’ science achievement based on their gender.

Also, with reference to study habits, Nonis and Hudson

(2010) found, in their study on college business students,

that there was not a significant direct relationship between

study habits and academic performance. So if the negative

correlation is assumed between perception of difficult

topics and academic achievement, then this supports the

findings of this study. However, contrary to the findings of

this study, Ogunkola and Fayomba (2015) found statistically

significant differences in students’ achievement in favour

of students with good study habits compared to those with

poor study habits. It should be noted that an important

factor related to study habits is study time. This variable

may be even more important as contributing to academic

achievement than study habits. Nonis and Hudson actually

identified study habits as simply moderating the

relationship between study time and academic achievement.

With reference to school location (urban or rural), Ogunkola

and Fayomba also found statistically significant differences

in science achievement in favor of urban schools compared to

rural schools.

The study conducted by Çimer (2012) reported that there

were five topics that has been perceived as most difficult

to learn by XI grade students in the Rize district of Turkey

in Biology subjects. Those topics were material cycles,

endocrine systems, aerobic respiration, cell division, as

well as genes and chromosomes. Another study in Turkey also

reported that junior high school students in Izmir have

difficulty in studying Genetics (Topçu & Şahin-Pekmez,

2009). The study conducted by Tekkaya et al. (2011) informed

high school students in Turkey perceive hormonal, gene and

chromosomal, mitosis and meiosis, nervous system, and

Mendelian genetics as topics that are difficult to learn. On

the other hand, students identify cell and organelle as well

as ecology as an easy topic.

In addition, the respiratory system and circulatory

system in humans are also reported as the topics that is

considered the most difficult to learn by junior high school

students in Techiman North District, Ghana (Buah & Akuffo,

2017). Etobro & Fabinu (2017) who did research on senior

secondary students in Lagos States, Nigeria also reported

that students often have difficulty studying five major

topics in Biology subjects. Those topics are nutrient

cycling in nature, ecological management, conservation of

natural resources, pest and disease in plants agriculture,

and reproductive systems in plants. In Indonesia, the study

of Muspikawijaya, Iswari, & Marianti (2017) also reported

that high school students in Luwu Timur District had

difficulties in understanding the concept of cell

metabolism.

Synthesis.

There are various reasons why Science is difficult to

learn. White (2013) expresses that factors such as attitude,

skill, and knowledge, physical state and needs might affect

learning. From Johnstone’s point of view (1991), the

difficulties in science may be related to the problems of

perception and thinking. He argues that the analysis of the

nature of the topics that are perceived as difficult by the

students leads to a realization that their complexity lies

in the fact that the ideas and concepts inherent in them

exist on three different thought levels: the macro and

tangible, the micro (or even sub micro and molecular) and

the representational.

Similarly, White (2013) expresses that factors such as

attitude, skill, and knowledge, physical state and needs

might affect learning. From Johnstone’s point of view

(1991), the difficulties in science may be related to the

problems of perception and thinking. He argues that the

analysis of the nature of the topics that are perceived as

difficult by the students leads to a realization that their

complexity lies in the fact that the ideas and concepts

inherent in them exist on three different thought levels:

the macro and tangible, the micro (or even sub micro and

molecular) and the representational. Thus, students have

difficulties in gaining insights with Science Subjects.

Local Studies

A study conducted by Cadorna, et al (2013) showed that

the students had a low level of performance in physics.

Among the physics concepts considered, the students

performed at an average level in forces and work, energy and

power, but they performed low in vectors and scalars. The

students got an average performance in knowledge, but low in

comprehension and application skill levels. Alegre (2012)

found out that physics was a real big frustration to

students who confirmed that their achievement in physics was

very much affected by their attitudes and anxiety.

On the study of Corpuz (2017), the students had high

level of difficulty in moment or torque which ranked first,

equilibrium which ranked second, and vectors, which ranked

third. They also encountered high level of difficulty in

series and parallel circuits, uniformly accelerated motion,

friction, electrostatics, electrodynamics, and Newton’s laws

of motion. However, students had low level of difficulty in

magnetism, work and power, free falling body, and

measurement. Findings showed that the respondents found

majority of the physics topics to be difficult. The students

cited that their difficulty in physics was caused by their

poor background in mathematics and that they had inadequate

time for studying. Listening attentively to the lectures,

note-taking, and studying alone were often utilized by the

respondents to overcome the difficulties encountered in

physics. The respondents’ academic performance in physics

was fair. The respondents’ level of difficulty in physics

has no bearing on their frequency of use of learning

strategies to overcome such difficulties. The more frequent

the respondents took notes, listened attentively to lectures

and studied alone; the better is their performance in

physics.

Synthesis

Alegre (2012) found out that physics was a real big

frustration to students who confirmed that their achievement

in physics was very much affected by their attitudes and

anxiety. Relating to the study conducted by Cadorna, et al

(2013) showed that the students had a low level of

performance in physics. On the other hand, the students got

an average performance in knowledge, but low in

comprehension and application skill levels. Furthermore, on

the study of Corpuz (2017), the students had high level of

difficulty in moment or torque, equilibrium, and vectors

respectively. They also encountered high level and low level

of difficulty. Findings showed that the respondents found

majority of the physics topics to be difficult. The students

cited that their difficulty in physics was caused by their

poor background in mathematics and that they had inadequate

time for studying. Nevertheless, listening attentively to

the lectures, note-taking, and studying alone were often

utilized by the respondents to overcome the difficulties

encountered in physics. The respondents’ academic

performance in physics was fair. The respondents’ level of

difficulty in physics has no bearing on their frequency of

use of learning strategies to overcome such difficulties.

The more frequent the respondents took notes, listened

attentively to lectures and studied alone; the better is

their performance in physics.