Chapter II

Review of Related Literature

This part of the study details the various literatures and studies that furthers

the aim of the researchers.

Related Studies

The definition of mathematical thinking or skills was not well defined even if

there were lots of the previous studies about this topic before. This was because

each and every researcher has their own way of thinking resulting in a different

kind of conclusion. In the study of Karadag (2009), he defined mathematical

thinking as a thinking style supported by thinking skills. Among all the thinking

skills, it had been categorized into seven major areas, which are modelling,

reasoning, symbolization, representation, proving, abstraction, and

mathematization. However, these major cognitive activities are hard to be

categorized due to their similarity and interrelation.

Lim and Hwa (2006) defined that mathematical thinking was the mental

operation supported by the mathematical knowledge and disposition towards the

solution of the problem. They had listed out the characteristics of mathematical

thinking by describing it as involving the manipulating of the cognitive process and

strategies. The one equipped with mathematical thinking skills will be the only one

able to know their own cognitive thinking and control it to the solution of a problem.

Lastly, mathematical thinking is strongly sustained by mathematical knowledge.

 Mubark (2005) has also pointed out that mathematical thinking is a

fundamental of mathematics which there is many aspects of mathematical

thinking. In his research, he divided mathematical thinking into six aspects, which

are generalization, induction, deduction, use of symbols, logical thinking and

mathematical proof. Students with high mathematical thinking level are usually

high achievers in mathematics. Good thinkers routinely use strategies and

effective planning to solve problems (Santrock, 2009). It will help a student to excel

in scientific areas and also in their general life. As a result, mathematics curriculum

should be designed to facilitate the development of mathematical thinking in order

to bring mathematics into practical situations.

In the previous study of mathematical thinking, there were some incomplete

parts when defining it. In the study of Karadag (2009), he stated that mathematical

thinking is a thinking style supported by thinking skills. The definition of this

mathematical thinking is not emphasized on the attitudes of the students. However,

if the students do not show good attitude in mathematics, they will not confident in

solving problems. This situation is the same as in the work of Mubark (2005), when

he defined that mathematical thinking consists of six aspects, which is

generalization, induction, deduction, use of symbols, logical thinking, and

mathematical proof.

Lim and Hwa (2006) defined mathematical thinking as a mental operation

supported by the mathematical knowledge and disposition towards problem

solving. This definition of mathematical thinking was good since it concluded

attitudes in its definition. However, there was still a lacking of intellectual skills,
which is the procedure during problem solving. Not every student is good in

cognitive process and it is hardly taught during the class. As a result, intellectual

skills can be used as a guidance or clue for the students to think step by step

towards the solution of a problem. Based on the overall views towards

mathematical thinking, this study concluded that mathematical thinking is a

cognitive strategy supported by verbal information, intellectual skills and good

attitudes towards the attainment of mathematical problem solving.

Mathematics is the language of sciences, an abstract language to explain

nature phenomena (Chorin & Wright, 1999). Both mathematics and sciences were

dispensable in the development of science and technology (Aghadiuno, 1992).

Mathematics also serves as a symbolic expression in physics to show the structure

of the relationship between different factors (Torigoe, 2008). Symbolic expression

allows learners to have a better understanding of physics contents and improve

their procedural knowledge to interrelate various symbols during solving physics

problem.

The lack of understanding of development in mathematics and physics

among the students had narrowed down their views in these two fields and further

affected their preference in mathematics and physics (Liu & Liu, 2011). Besides

that, physics involves a lot of representation like experiments, formulas and

calculations, graphs, and conception explanations (Ornek, Robinson, & Haugan,

2008).

The role of mathematics in physics covers different aspects: Pietrocola

(2008) distinguishes a technical and a structural role. Krey (2012) stated that since
there is no sharp border of what the role of mathematics in physics is, he added

the modeling and communicative aspect. In general, mastering the purely technical

role is not sufficient for being successful in physics (Bing & Redish, 2009). Besides

the technical aspects of mathematics, the calculating and solving equations, the

semantics, the physical meaning of mathematical structures, play an important role

(Sherin, 2001). The structural role implies that physics inherits the formal

operations and definitions of mathematical objects, thus allowing for formal

derivations of physical laws not thinkable of before.

In order to mirror these aspects in physics education, not only the technical

aspect but above all the structural role must be taught intentionally. Students have

to learn how to use mathematics for structured thinking about physical processes

and how to interpret mathematical structures in physical terms. Different

mathematical elements or representations such as geometrical objects, diagrams,

algebraic expressions and verbal explanations have their specific roles for

supporting understanding by describing exactly, quantifying and visualizing

physical processes (Pospiech, 2007). Their use requires mathematical abilities on

very different levels, according to him:

“It starts with recognizing and verbalizing functional dependencies and then

goes to the quantitative description with diagrams or algebraic expressions

including interpreting diagrams and formula in terms of physical concepts.

The next more complex step consists of applying techniques of modelling

and idealization. A final, quite advanced step would be the mathematical

 formulation of basic physical principles in the framework of theories which

is for the most part beyond school physics (e.g. Noether theorems).”

This is especially true for students in junior high school, the first steps

towards the mathematical description of physics are crucial (Pospeich, 2007)

The path from a phenomenological level up to a more abstract level where

mathematical reasoning concerning physical laws and processes can take place

has to be shaped carefully treating both the technical and the structural aspect. In

order to grasp possible patterns in this process of mathematisation a model has

been developed focusing on the structural aspect and leaving open the possibility

of very different strategies and patterns for deriving mathematical descriptions,

depending on the mathematical tools available (Uhden, et. al., 2012). This model

can serve for classifying difficulties of students’ in solving problems, (Uhden,

2012). In addition, it can serve as an analytic tool for the teaching process in that

it shows which mathematisation steps are necessary and indicates how difficult

they might be (Müller, 2012).

Despite the various researches, there are still many students who “shy

away” from taking tertiary science courses due to having attitudes like low self-

esteem in their mathematical skills (Dawson and O’Connor, 1991).

Attitudes, like academic achievement, are important outcomes of science

education in secondary school. The development of students' positive attitudes

regarding science as a school subject is one of the major responsibilities of every

science teacher. Unfortunately, research has revealed that much of what goes on
in science classrooms is not particularly attractive to students across all ages

(Stark and Gray, 1999).

It is important to develop students' positive attitudes to science lessons in

school due to two main reasons; research has confirmed that attitudes are linked

with academic achievement. For example, Weinburgh's (1995) meta-analysis of

research concluded that the correlation between attitude toward science and

achievement is 0.50 for boys and 0.55 for girls, indicating that attitude can account

for 25–30% of the variance in achievement.

Bennett et al., (2001) discovered that undergraduate students who had a

less positive attitude to chemistry almost invariably obtained lower examination

marks. Another reason why it is important to develop students' positive attitudes

toward science lessons taught in school is that attitudes predict behaviors

(Glasman and Albarracín, 2006). For example, Kelly (1988) found that British

students' liking for a particular science subject was a good predictor of their actual

choice of physics, chemistry, or biology in schools.

Furthermore, research has revealed that students show different attitudes

to physics, chemistry, and biology in school (Barnes et al., 2005; Murphy and

Whitelegg, 2006; Osborne and Collins, 2001; Spall et al., 2004). Girls tend to

respond more positively to biological sciences than to physical sciences

(Warrington and Younger, 2000). Havard (1996) found that advanced-level

students in the UK least enjoy studying physics and thus he suggested that the

reference to ‘science’ in attitude research is too broad and research must deal with

individual sciences separately if the findings are not to be distorted. Spall et al.
(2004) also urged researchers to distinguish between different branches of

science.

However, only nine previous studies examined secondary school students'

attitudes toward chemistry lessons taught in ordinary classrooms (Barnes et al,.

2005; Dhindsa and Chung, 1999; Harvey and Stables, 1986; Hofstein et al., 1977;

Menis, 1983 ; Salta and Tzougraki, 2004; Shannon et al., 1982; Steinkamp and

Maehr, 1984).

Although these nine studies are informative, some of them have produced

mixed results.

For example, in Brunei, Dhindsa and Chung (1999) explored Form 5

students' enjoyment of chemistry learning and reported that females enjoyed

chemistry lessons more than males.

In contrast, in a study of third year secondary school students in England,

Harvey and Stables (1986) found that males had a more positive attitude toward

chemistry than girls. Hofstein et al. (1977) surveyed a sample of grades 11 and 12

students in Israel and found that there was a decline in attitude toward the study

of chemistry when students progressed from Grade 11 to Grade 12. On the other

hand, in the USA, Menis (1989) reported that Grade 12 students showed a more

positive attitude toward chemistry in school than Grade 11 students.

Why did some previous studies generate mixed results? One of the possible

reasons is that none of the above nine previous studies investigated the interaction

effect (Kachigan, 1991) between grade level and gender on student attitudes

toward chemistry lessons. This is critically important because attitude research in

science education has indicated that grade level and gender can interact with each

other (George, 2006). In other words, gender differences in student attitudes

toward chemistry lessons may vary across grade levels. Therefore, if there is a

significant interaction effect, attitudinal data should not be combined from both

sexes or from several grade levels when the data are analyzed, otherwise

potentially significant relationships will be concealed.

Related Literature

There are various researches that entail the identification of school

variables, which influences student achievement, has been a concern of many

researchers that started in the late 60s (Elwan and Alwan, 2013). For example,

Goodman (1959) found that per pupil expenditure, teacher experience, number of

specialist teachers, classroom atmosphere was significantly associated with

achievement. However, increased activity in this field of research ensued with the

report by Coleman et.al., (1966) that socio-economic variables accounted primarily

for the explained variance in student achievement and school characteristics had

little or no impact. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement study (1973) also indicated that school variable effects on science

achievement was only minimal; Martin et al., (2008) also concluded with the IEA

study. These findings are contradicted by Heyneman (1976), who, from data

collected in Uganda, showed that school inputs, especially school resources,

account for a high proportion of variance in achievement.

 Further, Heyneman and Loxley (1982) conducted a re-analysis of the data

collected for the IEA study and showed that for the developing countries, a much

larger proportion of the variance in science achievement is explained by school

effects. The regression analysis produced the proportion of explained academic

achievement variance due to school effects (material resources and teachers) as

90.0 % for India, 88.0 % for Columbia, 81.0 % for Thailand and Brazil, 22.0 % for

Australia, 26.0 % for Scotland and 27.0 % for Sweden.

School effects research focused on a variety of school inputs which include

school physical facilities (school library, science laboratory and equipment), overall

expenditure, textbooks, average class size, teacher characteristics (qualifications,

experience, teacher quantity and quality, teaching method, nature of teacher-pupil

interactions), existence of science society or clubs and curriculum.

With reference to school material resources, Jacobson et.al., (1986),

reported that ninth grade students in American secondary schools often used

textbooks in the study of science but only sometimes used library books.

Some students never used library books. Simmon et.al., (1978), in

reviewing studies, state that availability of textbooks demonstrated a positive

relationship with student achievement. Similarly, Fuller (1981) reported significant

effects of material inputs such as availability of textbooks and library and its use

on academic achievement.

Laboratory work is accepted as an integral part of science instruction

(Gallagher, 1987). The laboratory is posited by many science educators as

beneficial in the teaching and learning of science but research on the effects of
laboratory is inconsistent in both low and high income countries. Even the re-

analysis of the IEA survey study data, for developing countries by Heyneman et.al.,

(1982) did not show significant effects of laboratory facilities on science

achievement.

With regard to research on the effect of teacher characteristics on academic

achievement the reviews of studies in the area by Rossi (1961) and Simmon et.al.,

(1978), state that the findings seem to be equivocal. For example, they found that

in 19 out of 32 studies, students taught by teachers without teaching qualifications

performed as well as those taught by professionally trained teachers.

However, other researchers suggested that there is substantial evidence

that professionally trained teachers do make a difference in students' performance

and attitude formation, especially in developing countries (Husen et.al., 1978)

(Rutter, 1979) (Brophy et.al., 1986).

For example, Husen et.al., (1978) found that motivation to learn science is

influenced by teachers and extent of exposure to science experiences.

Rutter et.al., (1979), from data collected from schools in England,

demonstrated that the school plays a significant role in enhancing academic

development of children.

An early study by Mayeske (1972) suggested that teacher characteristics,

such as number of teachers with a higher degree, types of undergraduate

preparation, teacher experience and teachers' verbal score, exert a stronger

influence on student achievement than physical facilities and programs in the

school.
 Gallagher (1987) listed the quality of instructional experience, which is

dependent of school resources (both human and material), as one of the nine

factors having a significant effect on variance in achievement and attitudes in

science. Further, Simmon et.al., (1978) indicated that assignment of homework (a

teacher variable) demonstrated a positive relationship with achievement.

Anderson (1987) concluded that students' perception of their classroom and

the instruction they experience influences their achievement and attitudes.

Specifically, he found that the extent to which students perceived their classrooms

as having an academic orientation, has a weak but consistent influence on student

achievement across the countries studied. In addition, students' perception of the

degree to which their teachers provide the necessary structure for their learning

(an aspect of teacher quality) also exerts a weak but consistent influence on

student achievement. In terms of classroom activities and teacher behaviors, he

reports that students achieve lower in classrooms in which more time is spent on

activities related to classroom management.

According to Heyneman (1976) and Theisen et.al., (1983), school material

resources and human resources are considered important factors in school

learning. The teacher is important in that he or she is the person who selects plans

and provides the educational experiences in line with the curriculum guidelines.

The material resources aid the teacher in organizing learning experiences, which

the student can benefit from. The effect they posited however depended on the

implementation.
 Another factor found associated with students’ achievement or

underachievement, in the literature, is the student factor. A variety of variables,

within the student factor, have been investigated to determine their influence on

student achievement. These include student prior learning or achievement and

experience, aptitude, ability, intelligence level, study habits, student autonomy,

attitudes towards school and towards school subjects, aspirations, interests,

motivation and self-concept. Prior achievement in the relevant subject area

logically seems necessary for success in school. Several researchers for e.g.

Anderson (1987), similarly found that prior learning and achievement, relative to

the subject matter being taught, influenced students ' achievement in all the

participating countries.

Benbow et.al., (1990) conducted a survey investigating the predictors of

high achievement in mathematics and science among mathematically talented

students. They found that pre-college experiences in mathematics and sciences

were associated with high academic achievement. However, ability of seventh

grade students was not found to be a good predictor of subsequent achievement.

With regard to interests and attitudes of students, Chakravarthy (1970)

found that attitudes towards mathematics among Malay students in Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia were affected by their interest in the subject. Interest in science was

found to be positively related to the success in science (Edwards, 1957). They

examined the interests of a sample of university psychology students and found

that the interest variable discriminates between the high achieving, average
achieving and low achieving male students. However, they found that interest does

not discriminate among female students of differing achievements levels.

In survey studies, interest is often measured on the basis of simple rating

scales or short questionnaires in which the subjects are requested to estimate the

perceived interestingness of a subject or to assess their personal interest in this

subject area. It is, however, often doubtful which aspect of interest is indicated in

the students’ answers to these questions. Haeussler and Hoffmann (2000) suggest

making a distinction between domain interest and subject interest. In the first case,

a student is primarily interested in the contents of a domain that are taught in the

lessons of a particular school subject (e.g. knowledge about the functions of the

human brain). In the second case, the students’ expressions of interest are related

to the school subject according to how it is being taught in school at that point in

time. As a rule, students’ generalized evaluations of the ‘interestingness’ of school

subjects are not only (or primarily) determined by the kind of knowledge they

expect to acquire in the lessons (domain interest) but also by other aspects such

as the expected (extrinsic) outcome of learning, the perceived difficulty or

prejudices towards the ‘typical’ teachers of these subjects. Thus, there can be a

wide divergence between students’ estimates of domain and subject interest.

Several researchers have investigated the influences of student attitudes

on students' achievement (Benbow et.al., 1990, Mayeske, 1972, Rajagopal, 1976).

Similarly, Rajagopal (1976) found that students who held positive attitudes towards

the study of the English Language performed better in the English Language
attainment test than students who held negative attitudes towards English

language.

Accordingly, Benbow and his colleagues (1990) made a study associating

high academic achievement in science. They studied variables such as liking the

subject and consideration of a career in mathematics, biology, chemistry and

physics. The effect sizes for differences between both male and female high

achievers and low achievers were significant. For the female students, the most

powerful discriminant variable was found to be having considered a career in

mathematics or sciences. The relationship between differences in attitudes

towards science and academic achievement in science was found to become

stronger as the student progressed through high school to college graduation

attitudes towards science clearly influences academic achievement in science.

Mayeske (1972) went a step further, to conclude from his findings, that

students' attitude is a stronger determinant of verbal achievement than the socio-

economic status variables.

Students' perception of the value of science in society and its contribution

to solve everyday life problems have also been investigated. A study conducted in

the Netherlands (Lijnse,1983) on students' attitudes towards the place of science

in society found that the majority of students agreed that science is an important

factor for improving their lives. Similarly, Jacobson et.al., (1986) found that ninth

grade students in American secondary schools viewed science positively. The

majority of students believed that science is important and relevant for a country's

development and that scientific inventions improve their standard of living. He also
found that most students were disposed favorably to the study of science and

indicated a desire to find out more about the world in which they live. This desire

to learn science is related significantly to achievement in science.