Physics Teachers' Problem-Solving Pedagogical Practice in Non-Routine Problems Implication in Realistic Mathematics Education: A Case Study

International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 6/Issue 4/Oct-Nov-Dec -2023
Physics Teachers’ Problem-Solving Pedagogical

Practice in Non-Routine Problems Implication in
Realistic Mathematics Education: A Case Study
Liberty Gay C. Manalo1 and Dr. Marc DG. Garvida2
1;2
Graduate School, Centro Escolar University, Manila, Philippines
Email Id: manalo1902510@ceu.edu.ph1 and mdgarvida@ceu.edu.ph2
ORCID Id: 0000-0001-8909-838X
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10435527
Abstract
The purpose of this case study is to examine the practices used by six physics teachers in solving non-routine problems and
how these approaches connect to the teaching of real-world applications of mathematics. A qualitative analysis of the data
revealed that these respondents constantly went around the tables, observed students at work, expressed amazement at their
ideas, gave students time to think through the problem at hand, and helped struggling students by probing them and showing
them how to solve challenging problems. Very frequently the respondents pose intriguing questions, facilitate group work in
the classroom, have class discussions in plenary, and assign individual projects that allow students to investigate novel issues
and consider different approaches to their solution. Occasionally, when a student takes longer than expected to solve a
problem, the respondent solves the problem on the board. The respondent also expects the student to come up with a
challenging strategy, address the mistakes of the student, let the student work through problems on their own, and determine
when the student is moving too slowly toward solving the problem. As a result of the frequent use of non-routine problems in
physics classes, problem-solving techniques are employed by physics teachers as a goal. Problems should be well-structured,
meaning they should have a single solution that can be applied to solve real-world problems when using the appropriate tool,
such as mathematics. Examples supporting these findings are provided in this report, which ends with recommendations for
practical mathematics instruction.
Keywords: Problem-solving, Pedagogy, Physics education, Realistic mathematics education, Case study.
Introduction
Problem-solving is one of the skills that have emerged as a requirement of the 21st century. Rahman (2019) defined problem-
solving as a process by which it involves systematic observation and critical thinking to find an appropriate solution or way to
reach the desired goal. As educators, we realized that many skills like problem-solving, investigation, critical thinking,
interpretation, creativity, reasoning, and others cannot be gained easily when the knowledge is separated from application in the
real world (Al-Mutawah et. al, 2022).
Although “realistic” situations in the meaning of “real-world” situations are important in Realistic Mathematics Education
(RME) as it means students are offered problem situations that they can imagine (Van den Huevel-Panhuizen & Dijvers, 2020).
Presenting real-life modeling problems that capture students' interest might help them retain mathematics knowledge
(Premadasa & Bhatia, 2013).
Teaching problem-solving is one of the most important topics of physics education (Ince, 2018) because one of the main
objectives of many physics courses is to assist students in becoming proficient problem solvers and this is also a crucial part of
any instructional design that aims to support beginners in becoming experts (Maries & Singh, 2023).
1
Corresponding Author: Liberty Gay C. Manalo, Graduate School, Centro Escolar University, Manila, Philippines.(Email id:
manalo1902510@ceu.edu.ph)
2
Cite as: Liberty Gay C. Manalo and Dr. Marc DG. Garvida .(2023). Physics Teachers’ Problem-Solving Pedagogical Practice in Non-Routine
Problems Implication in Realistic Mathematics Education: A Case Study . International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work, 6(4),
01–09.
1
© 2023, IJASRW, All right reserve
https://www.ijasrw.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
A study by Oluwatade (2019) showed that students' logical reasoning and predictive ability acquired with instructional problem-
solving are better than those who received learning and further recommends organizing training and re-training programs on the
use of Instructional Design Problem Solving Models in Physics for practicing teachers. Similarly, Hernandez-Suarez et. al.
(2021) concluded that intervention-supported problem-solving improved students’ performance in addition to the positive
assessment they make of the process as well as its influence on the change of pedagogical practice.
Because learning will be meaningful if it links the students’ real-life experiences with mathematical ideas or concepts in the
learning process through contextual issues (Jazuli et. al, 2017). Physics is an excellent place for scientists in many fields to learn
to use mathematics in science (Redish, 2005).
Background of the Study

Changes in ideas about mathematics, its teaching, and its learning are closely related to teaching through problem-solving,
which is a catch-all phrase for teaching mathematics in innovative methods (Lang & Namukas, 2011). Fostering and developing
students’ problem-solving competency is one of the main goals of mathematics education in the world (Da, 2023) its framework
consists of observation and critical thinking skills as its two major skills. In the DepEd (2016) K to 12 programs in the
Philippines, problem-solving is a common factor in mathematics and science curricula.
Problem-solving tasks form the backbone of STEM curricula and most of the problems students encounter are well-structured
problems (van Gog et. al. 2020). It is crucial to comprehend pedagogical problem-solving since initial teacher education
includes instruction on how to analyze and resolve pedagogical problems, and part of education involves teaching students how
to handle conceptual and pedagogical problems on their own (Riordan et. al, 2021).
And one of the contributing factors to mathematics literacy is the lack of problem-solving skills of students to solve non-routine
problems (Murdiyani et. al, 2018). Non-routine problems are related to real-life contexts and require some realistic
considerations and real-world knowledge to resolve them (Chong et. al., 2018). It focuses on assessing and understanding
problems that are higher than the use of steps that are often used to solve problems as students are required to use more
reasoning skills to understand the problem information properly (Pramayudi et. al, 2019). Even though non-routine problems are
generally more complex and challenging compared to routine problems, students improve their expertise by tackling more non-
routine problems (Murdiyani, 2018).
The relevance of applications of mathematics has increased as a result of its incorporation into daily life. Support for students’
comprehension of the topic, and their ability to apply information in a range of contexts and teachers play a crucial role in this
approach (Abdallah et. al, 2021). Students must be able to make mathematical connections to select and apply mathematical
ideas that appropriately meet the requirements stated in real-world problem-solving scenarios. Student’s difficulties in solving
real-world problems were restricted to understanding the problem and connecting the problem with relevant mathematical
concepts (Putri & Wutsqa, 2019), and in Physics education, teaching problem-solving is one of the important topics (Ince,
2018).
Realistic mathematics education (RME) is one of the learning approaches that can bridge problem-solving skills (Putri et. al,
2023). Developing realistic mathematics education learning materials is feasible and effective in improving problem-solving
skills (Nugraheni & Marsigit, 2021). The purpose of RME is to transform mathematical learning into a fun and meaningful
experience for students by introducing problems within contexts (Yuanita et. al, 2018).
Problems vary from well-structured problems that can be represented by a problem consisting of well-defined initial and goal
states that are connected by legal moves to ill-structured or a type of problem in which the initial, goal, and intermediate states
of this problem are incompletely specified (Reed, 2016). But in Physics education according to Ince (2018), problem-solving is
considered as a goal, a method, and a skill in some cases. In addition, the problem must be well-structured and relate to daily life
if problem-solving is to be the goal.
So, for this study, the researcher explored problem-solving as a pedagogical practice among Physics teachers in non-routine
problems and discussed its implications in Realistic Mathematics Education (RME).
Specifically, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of Physics teachers on:
1. the quality of problem-solving activities under the prompt “When I use non-routine problems….”.
2. implications of Physics Teacher's problem-solving practices in non-routine problems to realistic mathematics education
2
Literature Review
Pedagogies according to Shah (2021) can be literally translated as an art or science of teaching to children. This involves not
only the incorporation of techniques and tools but also the utilization of concepts to define goals, applications, and even the
overall educational framework. (Bouchrika, 2022). They are developed from a range of factors including theories and research
evidence, political drivers, evidence from practice, individual and group reflection, educators’ experiences and expertise, and
community expectations and requirements (Child Australia, 2017). They are also instructional techniques or strategies that allow
learning to take place according to Siraj-Blatchford et. al (2002) as cited by Whiteside (2017). It is an interactive process
between teacher and learner and it also applied to include provision of some aspects of the learning environment. Learning is
dependent upon the pedagogical approaches that impart knowledge and understanding to individuals in terms of how knowledge
and skills are imparted in the educational framework (Kapur, 2020) and teachers in their pedagogical practice build their own
problem-solving strategies (Hernandez-Suarez, et. al, 2022).
In 2012, the Philippines launched its “K to 12” Program, a comprehensive reform of its basic education to catch up with global
standards in secondary education and is attaching a high value to kindergarten. The Philippines' K–12 science curricula are
structured around three primary areas: performing scientific procedures and abilities, developing and exhibiting scientific
attitudes and values, and comprehending and applying scientific information in local and global contexts (DepED, 2016).
Furthermore included are educational pedagogies including brain-based learning, learning style theory, constructivism, and
social cognition learning models.The approaches that facilitate the above-mentioned domains are multi/interdisciplinary
approach, science-technology-approach, contextual learning, problem/issue-based learning and inquiry-based approach.
Rahman (2019) defined problem-solving as a process by which it involves systematic observation and critical thinking to find an
appropriate solution or way to reach the desired goal. Moreover, its framework consists of observation and critical thinking skill
as the its two major skills. An individual with problem-solving skills is likely to be a confident, creative, and independent
thinker (Ozrecberoglu & Caganaga, 2018) but not every problematic situation turns into the problem because this reality
depends on the individual’s willingness to deal with the problem (Dostal, 2015). Some students have difficulty making
meaningful connections with across mathematics experiences, thus the main focus of mathematics or STEM instruction should
be on the students’ experience of the discipline or the affordances to provide an environment to students’ that makes sense (Li &
Schoenfeld, 2019).
In the DepEd (2016) K to 12 programs, problem-solving is a shared element in both the mathematics and science curricula. In
mathematics, it is one of the twin goals alongside critical thinking, while problem-based learning is employed as one of the
approaches to acquiring knowledge in scientific domains. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) fosters critical thinking and problem-
solving in authentic learning situations, closely aligned with workplace collaboration and interdisciplinary learning (Yew &
Goh, 2016) and through the learning of physics, students will acquire problem solving skills which are relevant to their daily life
(Argaw, et. al, 2017).
Teaching problem solving is one of the most important topics in physics education and it is also the field where students have
the most problems (Ince, 2018) and it is an activity that brings students closer to the methodology and meaningful learning of
science (Hernandez-Suarez et. al, 2022).
The classification of students in non-routine mathematical problem-solving, as proposed by Pramayudi et al. (2019), is based on
four levels. Level 1 represents students with very limited understanding and problem-solving skills. Level 2 indicates students
with a somewhat better understanding but still lacking in problem-solving ability, though they can plan solutions. Level 3 refers
to students whose understanding of problems is time-consuming, but their problem-solving skills are good. Finally, Level 4
signifies students with both a strong understanding of problems and excellent problem-solving abilities.
Non-routine problems are frequently employed in physics education to promote critical thinking and cultivate problem-solving
skills, as suggested by Gavaz et al. (2020). These problems encourage students to analyze and synthesize information in
innovative ways, mirroring real-world scenarios and allowing them to grasp the practical applications of the theories and
principles they are studying, as noted by Sari et al. (2023). Moreover, tackling non-routine problems in physics necessitates a
deeper understanding of underlying concepts, urging students to integrate diverse principles and apply them in novel ways. This
approach contributes to a more thorough and profound comprehension of the subject matter, as highlighted by Vijaya et al.
(2017).
3
Non-routine physics problems involve complex scenarios, such as analyzing the motion of a pendulum on a rotating platform,
designing a magnetic levitation system, studying the motion of a block with an unknown mass and compressed spring, and
analyzing a rolling solid cylinder on an inclined plane. While these problems may be challenging, the use of correct free-body
diagrams is emphasized, as it succinctly captures crucial information about the physical situation. This approach, as highlighted
by Mesic et al. (2017), facilitates problem conceptualization and aids students in solving these intricate mechanics problems
effectively.
Lang & Namukasa (2011), in their study on teachers’ conceptions of ongoing professional opportunities focused on the teaching
of mathematics through problem solving, they defined teaching through problem study as an approach to the teaching of
mathematics wherein the teacher poses an appropriate challenging mathematical problem (task, question, exercise or activity) to
the class, students work individually or collaboratively to solve the problem using tools and strategies that make sense to them
and the teacher facilitates the sharing and justification of students’ strategies and solutions in order to make connections among
and highlight the important mathematical concepts in the problem.
With spiral progression as the salient pedagogical feature of the K to 12 curriculum, the underlying idea is that concepts are
introduced at an early age and then deepened in succeeding years (DepEd Order 21, s. 2019). In science curriculum, concepts
and skills in Life Sciences, Physics, Chemistry and Earth Sciences are presented with increasing levels of complexity from one
grade level to another in spiral progression, thus paving the way to a deeper understanding of core concepts (DepED, 2016).
Physics concepts in force, motion and energy are discussed during the third quarter in Grade 7, first quarter in Grade 8, fourth
quarter in Grade 9 and second quarter in Grade 10.
Physics is a science that deals with the structure of matter and the interactions between the fundamental constituents of the
observable universe. (Oleg, 2015). Learning physics is our way of understanding the world we live in by recognizing underlying
principles and laws that connect disparate phenomena of our physical world (Rau, 2016). It provides the base for all other
physical sciences and biology because everything we see around us, including ourselves, is made of the same fundamental
particles whose interactions are governed by the fundamental forces identified and investigated by physics.
Methodology
The researcher employed a case study qualitative design to explore the problem-solving pedagogical practices of six (6)
Physics teachers selected purposively on non-routine problems and determine its implications in materializing realistic
mathematics education in a mathematics classroom.
To gather the data and answer the objectives of the study the researcher made use of an adopted quality-problem-solving (QPS)
questionnaire by Felmer et. al (2015). This questionnaire was designed and used by Felmer et. al (2015) in their study to
determine the quality of problem-solving (PS) activities used by teachers in their classes assessed by their students.
The quality of Problem-Solving (PS) was assessed through 19 items, where teachers responded to each question with the prompt
"When I use non-routine problems." Each item featured a Likert scale with six options, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always).
The data were analyzed using weighted mean and verbal interpretation.
Results and Discussions

1. Quality of Problem-Solving Practices
Table 1 shows the quality of problem-solving practices of the Physics teachers in a non-routine problem.
Table 1. Quality of Problem-Solving Practices in a Non-Routine Problem
Weighted Verbal
Statements
Mean Interpretation
1. The teacher organizes his/her students to work in groups. 4.83 Very Frequently
2. If his/her students take too much time to find the solution to a
4.17 Occasionally
problem. He/she solves it on the board.
3. His/her students solve problems independently. 3.83 Occasionally
4. His/her students express their different strategies to solve
4.67 Very Frequently
their problems even though they are wrong.
5. The teacher walks around the tables watching my students
5.50 Always
work.
4
6. The teacher organizes his/her students working individually. 4.50 Very Frequently
7. Usually, the teacher is amazed by my students’ ideas. 5.17 Always
8. His/her students can discuss with each other different ways to
solve non-routine problems.
9. The teacher uses plenary discussions with all the class. 4.83 Very Frequently
10. His/her students depend too much on his/her help to move
4.17 Occasionally
forward with the problems.
11. If a student is too frustrated with a problem, the teacher tries
5.17 Always
to guide him/her only with questions.
12. The teacher encourages students to take time to solve non-
5.17 Always
routine problems.
13. His/her students generate different solution strategies. 4.17 Occasionally
14. His/her students ask interesting questions. 4.83 Very Frequently
15. If a student is too frustrated with a problem, the teacher shows
5.17 Always
him/her how to solve it.
16. His/her students discuss their own mistakes. 4.17 Occasionally
17. His/her students’ progress is too slow in the problem’s
3.83 Occasionally
resolution.
18. The teacher asks questions all the time. 5.00 Very Frequently
19. His/her students explore new problems arising as a result of
the problems they are working on.
Very
General Weighted Mean 4.64
Frequently
When using non-routine problems in their classes based on the results in table 13, Physics teachers circulates among the tables
and observing their students as they work(WM=5.50), they are normally impressed with the ideas presented by their
students(WM=5.17), they seeks to guide students that is overly frustrated with a problem through questions (WM=5.17), they
also encourages their students to invest time in solving non-routine problems (WM=5.17)and only when a student is extremely
frustrated with a problem that is only the time that they demonstrate how to solve it (WM=5.17).
This implies that Physics teachers always engage and observe their students (Hourigan & Leavy, 2022; Pianta et. al, 2012;
Amerstorfer et. al, 2021; Neppl, 2019; Grove, 2019), recognize and appreciate their ideas (Fang & Cao, 2016; Zeng, 2018;
Yahaya, 2022), guide their students during problem solving (Özreçberoğlu et. al, 2018; Cumhur, 2022; Moleko et. al, 2020; Ban,
2023), promotes critical thinking (Geng, 2021; Chee, 2009; Saragih & Suhri, 2019) and supportive in problem resolution (Korur
& Eryilmaz, 2018; Wati et. al, 2020; Vijaya et. al, 2017).
The teacher very frequently poses questions (WM=5.00), ensuring their interesting nature (WM=4.83). Additionally, the teacher
often arranges class activities in group work (WM=4.83), employs plenary discussions involving the entire class (WM=4.83),
and occasionally facilitates individual work (WM=4.50). Furthermore, students are regularly encouraged to explore new
problems (WM=4.67) and discuss various approaches to solving them (WM=4.33).
Several theoretical studies showed that higher-order thinking can be stimulated by teachers who have good questioning skills
(Halim, et. al., 2018). The inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a learning approach that has been advocated for science education,
especially in Physics education and the role of teachers is crucial in guiding and helping the students to construct their
knowledge (Roslan et. al, 2023). A study by Russo & Adorno (2018) suggests that an inquiry-based learning path composed of
three phases: frontal lessons, inquiry-based laboratory activity, and cooperative work, can constitute a successful teaching
approach to effectively engage students in an active learning of Physics which provides the teacher’s crucial role in facilitating
the knowledge, activating the questioning process and supporting a valuable reasoned exploration.
It is occasionally that the teacher solves the problem on the board if the students take too much time (WM=4.17), and depend
too much on the teacher to move forward with the problems (WM=4.17). Students also occasionally generate difficult solution
strategies (WM=4.17) and discuss their own mistakes (WM=4.17), solve their problems independently (WM=3.83), and slow
progress in the problem’s resolution (WM=3.83). In general, the respondents practice non-routine problem-solving very
frequently with a general weighted mean of 4.64.
5
Brookes & Lin (2012) viewed the physics classroom as a multilevel complex dynamical system with scaling properties: The
smallest scale is each student; the next level involves groups of 3 students, and the third level delineates the interactions between
groups of students that are necessary for the class to function as a whole. Thus, Physics teachers very frequently organize class
either individually or in groups even using the plenary for class discussions where students can be able to present solutions to
their problems in different ways.
The incorporation of problem-based learning as an innovation in the physics teaching process enables students to engage in
active learning, where inquiry is pertinent for skill development and the assimilation of knowledge. This aligns with the
framework of natural sciences, ultimately contributing to the reconstruction of the scientific method (Nunez et. al, 2022). With
the current change in the curriculum, teachers should aim to create democratic learning environments providing an opportunity
for the students to develop their self-regulation and lessons would be based on activities (Gurcay, 2015). A teacher’s belief is an
important factor, among others, that affects his/her implementation of the curriculum (Kapucu & Yildirim, 2013). Thus, Physics
teachers occasionally solve problems on the board if students take too much time. It is up to the teacher to decide when to
proceed with the problems, and they do not necessarily anticipate students to generate difficult solution strategies. The teachers
allow students to solve problems independently, even encouraging them to discuss their mistakes in the class, even if the
progress in problem resolution is slow.
2. Implications to Mathematics Education

According to Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Drijvers (2020), one of the characteristics of realistic mathematics education is that
its rich "realistic" situations are given a prominent position in the learning process. Laurens et. al (2017) recommended in their
research to explore the effect of RME on students’ attitudes, problem-solving ability, learning interest, or other variables
related to mathematics learning as this approach successfully increased the arithmetic problem-solving ability of students
(Yuanita et. al, 2018). In the study by Kahirunnisak et al. (2020), they found that teachers benefited from the blended workshop
and gained knowledge in the realistic mathematics education (RME) based learning trajectory.
Non-routine problems were used in a physics classroom very frequently and Physics teachers used problem-solving methods as
a goal. As a result, to address real-life problems, problems should be well-structured, meaning they should have a single
solution that can be obtained by following a particular rule or by utilizing the appropriate tool, such as mathematics. Thus, for
this study, the researcher proposed a conceptual framework on how problem-solving using non-routine problems can help the
implementation of RME in a mathematics classroom as shown in Fig.1 below.
Fig 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

In teaching and learning, Table 2 presents the five primary RME criteria as outlined by Yuanita et al (2018) and how, in light of
the study's findings, educators might use problem-solving techniques to assist students in addressing non-routine Physics issues
to satisfy these requirements.
Table 2. RME Characteristics and Physics
Characteristics of Realistic Mathematics Education Physics Teachers’ Problem- Problem Solving Practices on Non-Routine
(Yuanita, et. al, 2018) Problems
Use real-life contexts as a starting point for learning. Students gain logical concepts and physics becomes more relatable to them in dai
ly life, preparing them for theoretical formulations and formulas (Kujovic et al., 2
022).
Use models as a bridge between abstract and real, that Effective problem-
help students learn mathematics at different levels of solving and learning in physics depend critically on the regular use of external rep
abstraction resentations of information, such as the free-
body diagram (FBD) (Mesic et al., 2017).
6
Use of student’s production or strategy as a result of Physics problem-solving techniques improve higher-order cognitive abilities
their doing mathematics (Silitonga et. al, 2019).
Interaction is essential for learning between teacher and In physics, collaborative learning entails the teacher and students working togethe
students, students and students r to solve issues, finish tasks, or produce a product (Ismayati, 2018).
Connection among strands to other disciplines and Physics problem-solving abilities have an impact on students’ scientific literacy,
meaningful problems in the real world according to research on inquiry-based learning for STEM education (Yuliati, et.
al, 2018)
Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the data gathered, characteristics of realistic mathematics education (RME) are observed in a classroom where the
problems being solved are non-routine problems in Physics. Teachers use real-life context applying Physics concepts, uses free-
body diagram as external representations to model abstract and real-life problems, and develops students’ cognitive skills by
devising ways to solve physics problems where collaborative learning is encouraged using inquiry-based learning for STEM
education.
Considering the direct relation of RME to problem-solving practices, it is recommended that mathematics teachers consider
applying some problem-solving practices using non-routine problems like what Physics teachers always do such as walking
around the tables and watching students work, being amazed/encouraging and giving feedback to students’ ideas, giving
students time to process the problem, guiding struggling students through questioning and demonstrating to them how to solve
difficult problems. Very frequently, teachers ask interesting questions, organize class work in groups and use plenary discussion
when necessary, design individual works for students to explore new problems and discuss various ways of solving them.
Moreover, occasionally, teachers solve problems on the board if it takes time for the student to solve a given problem; give
students the prerogative to proceed to the next problem, allow students to generate difficult strategies, discuss students’
mistakes, allow students to solve problems independently and monitor students slow progress in making problem’s resolution.
This study further recommends that mathematics teachers should also consider determining their level of scientific literacy and
enroll in additional units in science, like Physics so that they can be able to consider the use of non-routine problems in
applying or connecting science concepts connecting them directly to the real world.
Conflict of Interest
The corresponding author has no conflict of interest to declare.
Author Contribution Statement:

The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and
interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation. Dr. MG helps in supervision of the study and finalize the manuscript.
References
[1]. Abdallah, A. et. al (2021). Teaching Applications of Mathematics in Other Disciplines: Teachers’ Opinion and Practice. ACTA
Didactica Napocensia.14(1). DOI: 10.24193/adn.14.1.11. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1308677.pdf
[2]. Al-Mutawah, M. et. al (2022). Math and Science Integrated Curriculum: Pedagogical Knowledge-Based Education Framework.
Hindawi. Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2984464
[3]. Argaw, A., Haile, B., Ayalew, B. & Kuma, S. (2017). The Effect of Problem Based Learning (PBL) Instruction on Students’
Motivation and Problem Solving Skills of Physics. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education. 13(3),
857-871. https://doi.org.10.12973/eurasia.2017.00647a
[4]. Bouchrika, I. (2022). Pedagogy in Education: Guide To Frameworks & Teaching Methods.
https://research.com/education/pedagogy-in-education#4
[5]. Brookes, D. & Lin, Y. (2012). Designing A Physics Learning Environment: A Holistic Approach. AIP Conference Proceedings.
1413(1).131-134. 2011 Physics Education Research Conference. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3680011
[6]. Child Australia (2017). What is Pedagogy? How does it influence our practice? https://www.childaustralia.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/CA-Statement-Pedagogy.pdf
[7]. Chong, M. et. al (2018). Teaching problem-solving using non-routine tasks. AIP Conference Proceedings. 1952(1). International
Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Materials and Applied Science. December 22-23, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031982
[8]. Da, D. (2023). The effect of realistic mathematics education on the problem-solving competency of high school students through
learning calculus topics. Contemporary Mathematics and Science.4(1). https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/13041
[9]. DepEd (2016). K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum. https://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/about/k-to-12-basic-education-curriculum/
[10]. Dostal, J. (2015). Theory of Problem Solving. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science. 174, 2798-2805.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.970
[11]. Gurcay, D. (2015). Preservice Physics Teacher’s Belief Regarding Classroom Management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Science.174.2430-2435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.913
7
[12]. Gavaz, H. O., Yazgan, Y., & Arslan, Ç. (2021). Non-routine problem solving and strategy flexibility: A quasi-experimental study.
Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(3), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.2021370581
[13]. Halim, A. et. al (2018). Questioning Skill of Science Teacher from the Student's Perspective in Senior High School. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series. 1088. 1-6. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012109/pdf,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_170
[14]. Hernandez-Suarez, C. et. al (2021). Problem Solving in Physics Classroom. An Analysis with Secondary School Students. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series. 2163. 8th International Meeting of Technological Innovation (8th IMTI).6-8 October 2021, Ocana,
Colombia. DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/2163/1/012010. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2163/1/012010
[15]. Ince, E. (2018). An Overview of Problem Solving Studies in Physics Education. Journal of Education and Learning. 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n4p191
[16]. Ismayati, E. (2018). The Design of Collaborative Learning for Teaching Physics in Vocational Secondary School. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering.336. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/336/1/012040/pdf
[17]. Jazuli, L. et. al (2017). The Application of Scientific Plus Learning to Improve Mathematics Learning Achievement of Junior High
School Students Grade VII. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education.12(3):837-
844.https://www.iejme.com/download/the-application-of-scientific-plus-learning-to-improve-mathematics-learning-achievement-of-
junior.pdf
[18]. Kapucu, A. & Yildirim, U. (2013). Physics Teachers’ Behavioral Control and Normative Beliefs about Teaching Physics According
to the National High School Physics Curriculum in Turkey. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education.9.133-157.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1031432.pdf
[19]. Kapur, R. (2020). Understanding the Meaning and Significance of Pedagogical Approaches.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345317896_Understanding_the_Meaning_and_Significance_of_Pedagogical_Approaches
[20]. Khairunnisak, C. et. al. (2020). Teachers’ understanding of realistic mathematics education through blended professional
development workshop on designing learning trajectory. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2038800
[21]. Kujovic, V. et. al (2022). Teaching physics to high-school students through real-life questions and situations. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series. 3rd International Physics Conference in Bosnia & Herzegovina 2022 (PHYCONBA 2022).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2415/1/012011/pdf
[22]. Lang, M. & Namukas, I. (2011). Problem Solving as a Pedagogical Practice: Useful Conceptions of Professional Learning. Literacy
Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ). 1(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2010.0031
[23]. Laurens, T. et. al (2017). How Does Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) Improve Students’ Mathematics Cognitive
Achievement? EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education. 14(2):569-578. DOI:
10.12973/ejmste/76959. https://www.ejmste.com/download/how-does-realistic-mathematics-education-rme-improve-students-
mathematics-cognitive-achievement-5284.pdf
[24]. Li, Y. & Schoenfeld, A. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM Education. International
Journal of STEM Education. 6(44). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9
[25]. Maries, A. & Singh, C. (2023). Helping Students Become Proficient Problem Solvers Part 1: A Brief Review. Special Issue
Innovative Based Educational Proposals in Physics Education. Education Science. 13(2): 156.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020156
[26]. Mesic, V. et. al (2017). Free-Body Diagrams and Problem Solving in Mechanics: An Example of the Effectiveness of Self-
Constructed Representations. European Journal of Physics Education.7(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1174568.pdf
[27]. Murdiyani, N. (2018). Developing Non-Routine Problems for Assessing Students’ Mathematical Literacy. Journal of Physics:
Conference. International Conference on Mathematics, Science, and Education (ICMSE2017). doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/983/1/012115. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012115/pdf
[28]. Nughraheni, L. & Marsigit, M. (2021). Realistic mathematics education. An approach to improve problem-solving ability in primary
school. Journal of Education and Learning. 15(4):511-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v15i4.19354
[29]. Nunez, R. et. al (2022). Training Action for Physics Teachers: An Application of Problem-Based Learning. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series. 2159. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2159/1/012017/pdf
[30]. Oleg, Y. (2015). Interdisciplinary Aspects of Learning: Physics and Psychology. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 3(11):
810-814. https://www.hrpub.org/download/20151030/UJER5-19503469.pdf
[31]. Ozrecberoglu, N. & Caganaga, C. (2018). Making it Count: Strategies for Improving Problem-Solving Skills in Mathematics for
Students and Teachers’ Classroom Management. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 14(4),
1253-1261. https://www.ejmste.com/download/making-it-count-strategies-for-improving-problem-solving-skills-in-mathematics-
for-students-and-5341.pdf
[32]. Oluwatade, O. (2019). Effects of Instructional Design Problem Solving Model on Secondary School Students to Foster Creativity
Skills in Physics. ADECT 2019 Proceedings. https://open.library.okstate.edu/adect/chapter/effects-of-instructional-design-problem-
solving-model-on-secondary-school-students-to-foster-creativity-skills-in-physics/
[33]. Pramayudi, A. et. al (2019). Classification of Students’ Non-Routine Problem Solving Skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
1503. International Conference on Mathematics and Natural Sciences 2019 (IConMNS2019). doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/1503/1/012016. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1503/1/012016/pdf
[34]. Premadasa, K. & Bhatia, K. (2013). Real-Life Applications in Mathematics: What Do Students Prefer? International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 7(2).20. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070220
[35]. Putri, A. & Wutsqa, D. (2019). Students’ Mathematical Connection Ability in Solving Real-world Problems. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series.1320. The 2nd International Seminar on Innovation in Mathematics and Mathematics Education (ISIMMED
8
2018). November 20-24, 2018. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012066.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012066
[36]. Rahman, M. (2019). 21st Century Skill “Problem Solving”: Defining the Concept, Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary
Research.2(1):71-81. DOI:10.34256/ajir1917
[37]. Rau, A. (2016). What is Physics: The individual and the universal, and seeing past the noise. Physics Essays. 30(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-30.1.60
[38]. Reddy, M. & Panacharoensawad, B. (2017). Students Problem-Solving Difficulties and Implications in Physics: An Empirical Study
of Influencing Factors. Journal of Education and Practice. 8(14). 59-62. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1143924.pdf
[39]. Redish, E. (2005). Problem Solving and the Use of Math in Physics Courses.Conference: World View on Physics Education in 2005:
Focusing on Change. August 21-26, 2005. https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608268.pdf
[40]. Reed, S. (2016). The Structure of Ill-Structured (and Well-Structured) Problems Revisited. Educational Psychology Review.28(4).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1
[41]. Riordan, J. et. al. (2021). Understanding and explaining pedagogical problem solving: a video-based grounded theory study of
classroom pedagogy. Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.2001450
[42]. Roslan, A. et.al., (2023). Challenges in Implementing Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in Physics Classroom. 2569(1). The 5th
International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICoMSE 2021): Science and Mathematics Education Research:
Current Challenges and Opportunities. August 3-4, 2021. Malang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117509
[43]. Russo, A. & Adorno, D. (2018). An inquiry-based learning path to introduce modern physics in high school. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series. 1076. GIREP Seminar August 3 to September 3, 2016, Krakow, Poland.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1076/1/012007
[44]. Sari, I., Jatmiko, B., & Suprapto, N. (2023). Students’ Physics Problem-Solving Skills in Daily Life Context: Between Confession
and Fact. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA (JPPIPA), 9(1), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i1.2561
[45]. Shah, R. (2021). Conceptualizing and Defining Pedagogy. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME). 11(1).
6-29. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jrme/papers/Vol-11%20Issue-1/Ser-2/B1101020629.pdf
[46]. Silitonga, H. et. al (2019). Problem-solving-based physics learning strategy to enhance students' order thinking skills. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series. 1567. 6th International Conference on Mathematics, Science, and Education (ICMSE 2019). 9-10
October 2019, Semarang, Indonesia. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/4/042104
[47]. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. &Drijvers, P. (2020). Realistic Mathematics Education. In: Lerman, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of
Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_170
[48]. Van Gog, T. et. al (2020). The Role of Mental Effort in Fostering Self-regulated Learning with Problem Solving Tasks. Educational
Psychology Review.32.1055-1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09544-y
[49]. Vijaya, M., Reddy, B., & Panacharoensawad, B. (2017). Students Problem-Solving Difficulties and Implications in Physics: An
Empirical Study on Influencing Factors. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(14). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1143924.pdf
[50]. Whiteside, L. (2017). What is Pedagogy? How does it influence our practice? Child Australia. https://www.childaustralia.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/CA-Statement-Pedagogy.pdf
[51]. Yew, E. & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-Based Learning: An Overview of its Process and Impact on Learning. Health Professions
Education, 2(2). 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.01.004
[52]. sYuanita, L. et. al. (2018). The effectiveness of Realistic Mathematics Education approach: The role of mathematical representation
as a mediator between mathematical belief and problem-solving. 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0204847
[53]. Yuliati, L. et. al (2018). Building Scientific Literacy and Physics Problem Solving Skills through Inquiry-Based Learning for STEM
Education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.1108. Mathematics, Informatics, Science and Education International Conference
(MISEIC). July 21, 2028. Surabaya, Indonesia. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1108/1/012026
9

Physics Teachers' Problem-Solving Pedagogical Practice in Non-Routine Problems Implication in Realistic Mathematics Education: A Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physics Teachers' Problem-Solving Pedagogical Practice in Non-Routine Problems Implication in Realistic Mathematics Education: A Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Advance Study and Research Work (2581-5997)/ Volume 6/Issue 4/Oct-Nov-Dec -2023

Physics Teachers’ Problem-Solving Pedagogical

Background of the Study

Results and Discussions

2. Implications to Mathematics Education

Fig 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Table 2. RME Characteristics and Physics

Conclusions and Recommendations

Author Contribution Statement:

2018). November 20-24, 2018. Yogyakarta, Indonesia. DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012066.

You might also like