Methods of professionally-oriented teaching of physics to students of technical universities

Issue 55, 2024

Gulnur I. Zhanbekova, Anarbek K. Kozybay, Kulzira K. Nurakhmetova, Tamara D. Digarbaeva, Akmaral K. Sugirbekova

Received 17.10.2023, Revised 01.02.2024, Accepted 27.02.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/55.2024.6pto1

Abstract

Relevance. The study of technical, and especially physical, education at the secondary and higher education levels in recent years has focused more on the exploration of concepts or understanding than on the development of skills and values. The least attention was paid to the development of values. Teaching physics in lectures often emphasises concepts and their interrelation, while the laboratory class also focuses on the development of laboratory skills.

Purpose. The purpose of the study is to investigate the methods of professionally-oriented teaching of physics to students of technical universities.

Methodology. Systematic review can be explained as a research method and process for identifying and critically evaluating relevant studies, and for collecting and analysing data from these studies. When promoting physics among the population and encouraging students to pursue a career in physics, emphasis is usually placed on developing the ability to solve problems in physics. In the review of the value of the physics diploma, graduates of the technical university emphasised the importance of skills in their profession.

Results. It is assumed that with the help of an interactive way of teaching physics, it would be possible to eliminate students' misconceptions, reduce the dropout rate of first-year students, and also increase the level of students' knowledge in introductory general physics courses, mainly in the field of mechanics.

Conclusions. The concept of "knowledge in motion" combined with theories in the workplace can offer a useful conceptual union for studying the nature of professional knowledge, which is taught to students of technical specialities after vocational education and training courses. This suggests that professional knowledge, rather than as a dichotomy, is perhaps more correctly viewed as distributed and networked.

Keywords: physics; technical education; methods of teaching physics; features of technical education; students of technical specialities

Suggested citation

Zhanbekova G, Kozybay A, Nurakhmetova K, Digarbaeva T, Sugirbekova A. Methods of professionally-oriented teaching of physics to students of technical universities. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(55):61–69. DOI: 10.54919/physics/55.2024.6pto1

Download article

References

  1. Shivni R, Cline C, Newport M. Establishing a baseline of science communication skills in an undergraduate environmental science course. IJ STEM Educ. 2021;8:47.
  2. Downing VR, Cooper KM, Cala JM, Gin LE, Brownell SE. Fear of negative evaluation and student anxiety in community college active-learning science courses. CBE – Life Sci Educ. 2020;19(2):20.
  3. Wack J, Jaeger CP, Yuan S, Bergan-Roller HE. A framework and lesson to engage biology students in communicating science with nonexperts. Am Bio Teach. 2021;83(1):17–25.
  4. Knekta E, Rowland AA, Corwin LA, Eddy S. Measuring university students’ interest in biology: Evaluation of an instrument targeting Hidi and Renninger’s individual interest. Int J STEM Educ. 2020;7:1–16.
  5. Nah S, McNealy J, Kim JH, Joo J. Communicating artificial intelligence (AI): Theory, research, and practice. Commun Stud. 2020;71(3):369–372.
  6. Henry MA, Shorter S, Charkoudian LK. Quantifying fear of failure in STEM: modifying and evaluating the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI) for use with STEM undergraduates. IJ STEM Educ. 2021;8:43.
  7. Ceyhan GD, Tillotson JW. Early year undergraduate researchers’ reflections on the values and perceived costs of their research experience. Int J STEM Educ. 2020;7(1):1–19.
  8. Pelin METE, Subasi M. The relationship between academic coping, approach achievement goals and the fear of shame and embarrassment in science class. J Educ Sci Env Health. 2020;7(1):15–25.
  9. Shin N, Bowers J, Krajcik J. Promoting computational thinking through project-based learning. Disciplin Interdiscip Sci Educ Res. 2021;3:7.
  10. Kondratenko YP, Kondratenko NY. Soft computing analytic models for increasing the efficiency of fuzzy information processing in decision support systems. In: Decision-Making: Processes, Behavioral Influences and Role in Business Management (pp. 41-77). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers; 2015.
  11. Kondratenko Y, Gerasin O, Topalov A. A simulation model for robot's slip displacement sensors. Int J Comp. 2016;15(4):224-236.
  12. Belytskyi D, Yermolenko R, Petrenko K, Gogota O. Application of machine learning and computer vision methods to determine the size of NPP equipment elements in difficult measurement conditions. Machinery and Energetics. 2023;14(4):42-53. doi:10.31548/machinery/4.2023.42
  13. Babichev S, Lytvynenko V, Gozhyj A, Korobchynskyi M, Voronenko M. A fuzzy model for gene expression profiles reducing based on the complex use of statistical criteria and shannon entropy. Adv Intell Syst Comp. 2019;754:545-554.
  14. Kenzhebekova RI, Kozhadeldiyeva SS, Moldabek K, Rizaeva LA, Kazybayeva KU. Formation of Learning Research Skills through Solving Arithmetic Problems. Syst Rev Pharm. 2020;11(10):698-705.
  15. Estrada M, Matsui J. A longitudinal study of the biology scholars’ program: Maintaining student integration and intention to persist in science career pathways. Underst Intervent. 2019;10(1):9884.
  16. Pasichnyk M, Kucher E. A mathematical modeling of crosslinking between components of a polymer composition. East-Eur J Enterp Technol. 2016;2(6):4-12.
  17. Umbetov AU, Zhumabaeva SB, Zhakenova A, Sadykova BS, Tulegenova AK, Aubakirova AA, Dzhaketova SZ. Calculation of the laser beam path through the anisotropic crystalline lens. Math Educ. 2016;11(7):2025-2046.
  18. Binder T, Sandmann A, Sures B, Friege G, Theyssen H, Schmiemann P. Assessing prior knowledge types as predictors of academic achievement in the introductory phase of biology and physics study programmes using logistic regression. Int J STEM Educ. 2019;6(1):1–14.
  19. Tashimbetova A, Rysbaeva A, Suleimenov Z, Kalybekova Z, Sydykova D. Clusters in the gas dynamics and mathematical modeling in mathcade the results of the study. Int J Engin Technol (UAE). 2018;7(3.15 Special Issue 15):321-323.
  20. Miller EC, Krajcik JS. Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A design problem. Disciplin Interdiscip Sci Educ Res, 2019;1(1):7.
  21. Umbetov AU, Umbetova MZ, Abildayev GM, Baizakova SS, Zhamalova SA, Konussova AB, Dosmagulova KK. Transformation and interference of the laser radiation in composite crystal optical systems. ARPN J Engin Appl Sci. 2016;11(19):11561-11573.
  22. Kyanishbayev SB, Umbetov AU, Duisebekova AE, Umbetova MZ, Schongalova KS, Akhatova ZE, Azhibekova PS, Sokabayeva AS. Interference of spherical laser radiation in a crystalline compound lens. Int J Environm Sci Educ. 2016;11(18):11593-11610.
  23. Tsybulsky D, Gatenio-Kalush M, Abu Ganem M, Grobgeld E. Experiences of preservice teachers exposed to project-based learning. Euro J Teach Educ. 2020;43(3):368–383.
  24. Marzhan D, Maxat D, Akbota A, Moldabek K, Rabiga K, Rysbayeva G. The development of computational skills of visually impaired children of primary classes. Cypr J Educ Sci. 2022;17(2):451-463.
  25. Murphy C, Smith G, Broderick N. A starting point: Provide children opportunities to engage with scientific inquiry and nature of science. Res Sci Educ; 2019. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11165-019-9825-0
  26. Wilder O, Butler MB, Acharya P, Gill M. Preservice elementary science teacher attitudes matter: A new instrument on positive affect toward science. J Sci Teach Educ. 2019;30(6):601–620.
  27. Corwin LA, Morton TR, Demetriou C, Panter AT. A qualitative investigation of STEM students’ switch to non-STEM majors post-transfer. J Women Minorit Sci Engineer. 2020;26(3):263–301.
  28. Pasichnyk M, Semeshko O, Kucher E, Asaulyuk T, Kyiv VV, Hyrlya L. Assessment of physicomechanical properties of composite films based on a styrene-acrylic polymer, glycidyl ether, and a 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane compatibilizer. East-Eur J Enterp Technol. 2020;6(6-108):111-116.
  29. Pasichnyk M, Kucher E, Hyrlya L. Synthesis of magnetite nanoparticles stabilized by polyvinylpyrrolidone and analysis of their absorption bands. East-Eur J Enterp Technol. 2018;3(6-93):26-32.
  30. Clemmons AW, Timbrook J, Herron JC, Crowe AJ. BioSkills guide: Development and national validation of a tool for interpreting the vision and change core competencies. CBE – Life Sci Educ. 2020;19(4):53.
  31. Cairns D, Areepattamannil S. Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Res Sci Educ. 2019;49(1):1–23.
  32. Murphy S, MacDonald A, Wang CA, Danaia L. Towards an understanding of STEM engagement: A review of the literature on motivation and academic emotions. Canad J Sci Math Tech Educ. 2019;19(3):304–320.
  33. Luiza R, Rabiga K, Amina A, Borashkyzy AU, Uaidullakyzy E, Bakhytgul S. Formation of research skills of students through solving problems in teaching mathematics in primary classes. Cypr J Educ Sci. 2022;17(8):2567-2579.
  34. Bielik T, Damelin D, Krajcik J. Shifting the balance: Engaging students in using a modeling tool to learn about ocean acidification. Euras J Math Sci Tech Educ. 2019;15(1):1-17.
  35. Scheufele DA, Krause NM. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceed Nation Academ Sci US Am. 2019;116(16):7662–7669.
  36. Tsybulsky D, Oz A. From frustration to insights: Experiences, attitudes, and pedagogical practices of preservice science teachers implementing PBL in elementary school. J Sci Teach Educ. 2019;30(3):259–279.
  37. Smit R, Robin N, Rietz F. Emotional experiences of secondary pre-service teachers conducting practical work in a science lab course: individual differences and prediction of teacher efficacy. Discipl Interdiscip Sci Educ Res. 2021;3:5.
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua