Views Abt Phy by Phy Trs

8/8/2019 Views Abt Phy by Phy Trs

1/28

Views about Physics held by Physics Teachers

with Differing Approaches to Teaching Physics

Pamela Mulhall & Richard Gunstone

Published online: 5 September 2007# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract Physics teachers approaches to teaching physics are generally considered to be

linked to their views about physics. In this qualitative study, the views about physics held

by a group of physics teachers whose teaching practice was traditional were explored and

compared with the views held by physics teachers who used conceptual change approaches.

A particular focus of the study was teachers views about the role of mathematics in

physics. The findings suggest the traditional teachers saw physics as discovered, close

approximations of reality while the conceptual change teachers views about physics rangedfrom a social constructivist perspective to more realist views. However, most teachers did

not appear to have given much thought to the nature of physics or physics knowledge, nor

to the role of mathematics in physics.

Keywords Physics teachers . Views about physics . Views about teaching physics .

Mathematics in physics

Physics teachers have a tacit understanding, strongly shared by the students, that the

important aspects of physics have to do with manipulation of mathematical symbols

(de Souza Barros and Elia 1998, para. III(ii)).

Physics has traditionally been regarded as one of the hard sciences, being seen to be,

among other things, abstruse, objective and highly mathematical. Indeed its image is such

that it is held in an almost reverent esteem by the public in general and by physicists in

particular (Ford 1989).

Part of the mystique of physics lies in its attempts to explain the behaviour of things

from the very large to the very small, and its tackling of the

big

questions (How did theuniverse begin? What keeps it going?). In fact, the science writer and commentator,

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462

DOI 10.1007/s11165-007-9057-6

P. Mulhall (*) : R. Gunstone

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Building 6, Clayton 3800, Victoria, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]


2/28

Margaret Wertheim (1997), argues that physics has taken on the role of religion in

determining our world view of how the universe works. Her analogy of physics as religion

includes physicists as high priests and interpreters of the Truth (or what others have called

the Book of Nature). The task of the physicist is to discover through observations the

mathematical relationships that are assumed to govern all behaviour:

[A] major psychological force behind the evolution of physics has been the a priori

belief that the structure of the natural world is determined by a set of transcendent

mathematical relations. (p. xv)

The respected physicist and author of popular science books, Paul Davies (1991), agrees:

[T]he belief that mathematical laws of some sort underpin the operation of the

physical world is now a central tenet of the scientific faith. (p. 47)

[T]he laws have taken on the status formerly reserved for God and are imbued with

the same mystical properties: They are universal, eternal, absolute, transcendent,

omnipotent .... (p. 48)

That the laws of physics are expressed in mathematical form further adds to its

mystique. Such is the importance of mathematics in representing physics relationships

that it is often referred to as the language of physics. This, of course, implies that to be

able to speak the language of physics, and hence to understand its ideas, one must be

knowledgeable about, and good at, mathematics. Certainly many physics text books,

particularly at the tertiary level, are incomprehensible without a suitable background in

mathematics.

Another consequence of the mathematical form of these laws is that they can be tested

using measurements. This adds a sense that physics is what Chalmers (1982) calls reliable

knowledge in which there is no room for personal opinion or preferences and speculative

imaginings (p. 1). This view is reflected in the statement made by a famous physicist,

William Thomson (later raised to the peerage as Lord Kelvin), that is quoted in a popular

undergraduate physics textbook of the 1960s to 1980s:

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in

numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers,

your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of

knowledge but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science,

whatever the matter may be. (Halliday and Resnick 1966, p. 1)

At the heart of the research reported in this paper is the question of whether, and how,

these essentially philosophical ideas about physics impact on physics teachers thinking.

Arguably, physics teachers who hold beliefs of the kind outlined above will, as true

disciples of physics (to use the Wertheim analogy), attach more importance in their teaching

to the mathematical representation of physics ideas than to other ways of representing them,

for this captures the essence of what physics is about, viz. providing an objective, rigorous

and proven description of an external world. Unfortunately, as Linder (1992) cogently

argues, teaching which portrays physics this way is likely to be counter productive in terms

of developing students understanding, for it encourages them to rote-learn; to believe that

being able to solve physics problems demonstrates conceptual understanding; and to take

an unreflective approach to learning about physics ideas.

436 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


3/28

The study sought to better understand why physics teaching is as it is, and to help those

who work in pre- and in-service physics teacher education programs. The research was part

of a larger qualitative study that explored the views about physics and learning and teaching

physics amongst a group of physics teachers whose teaching approaches were traditional

and compared them with the views of a group of teachers who used conceptual changeteaching approaches (Mulhall 2005). In this paper, we focus on the views about physics

held by the two groups of teachers, who all taught upper secondary school physics. In the

following discussion, we provide theoretical perspectives of traditional and conceptual

change approaches to teaching physics, and discuss relevant literature concerning research

on teachers views in general and on physics teachers views in particular. We then explain

the research context, the aims of the study and method used, and summarise the results.

Finally we discuss the implications of the findings.

Traditional Approaches to Teaching Physics

It appears to be well accepted that traditional physics teaching emphasises facts, definitions

of physical concepts and use of formulas to solve physics problems (Linder 1992; Osborne

1990; Wildy and Wallace 1995). As Osborne (1990) notes, much of this teaching seems to

assume that students develop an understanding of the concepts of physics through

successfully completing numerical problems and by doing practical work (pp. 191193). In

the light of the discussion earlier, it would seem that traditional physics teaching is based on

the view that learning physics is unproblematic because the ideas of physics are

unproblematic in that they are discovered, observable truths which are unambiguouslyand accurately represented through mathematics. The following description is particularly

apt:

[This teaching] attempts to transmit to learners concepts which are precise and

unambiguous, using language capable of transferring ideas from expert to novice

(teacher to student) with precision. (Carr et al. 1994, p. 147, emphasis in original)

As an advance organiser, we note that our argument is not that facts, definitions and

formulas are unimportant in physics. Rather, our argument is that these represent the

endpoints of considerable intellectual efforts by physicists to understand phenomena. Thetraditional teaching approach of using these as beginning points for learning not only fails

to acknowledge the complex and discursive nature of physics ideas, but also, as we

elaborate below, is unhelpful for promoting understanding.

Conceptual Change Teaching

The plethora of research over the past 25 years which has revealed that many students

understandings of science ideas are at odds with scientists views (Osborne and Freyberg

1985; Pfundt and Duit 1994) suggests that traditional science teaching approaches are

inadequate in terms of developing student conceptual understanding. Ways of improving

students understandings that have been suggested by researchers are usually qualitative

and involve student discussion (Hewson et al. 1998; McKittrick et al. 1999; Scott and

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 437


4/28

Driver 1998). Generally these approaches involve recognising that students construct their

own understandings, and that when they enter the classroom, students already have

understandings about phenomena which they have developed to explain their everyday

experiences. From this perspective, learning occurs when new constructions are made and it

is the role of the teacher to try to influence these so they are consistent with scientificthinking. Thus learning is seen as a process of conceptual change, although it is now

recognised that (1) learning tends to be more gradual than this terms suggests, and that (2)

conceptual addition is probably a better term because it acknowledges that learning is

only rarely a sharp exchange of one set of meanings for another, and is more often an

accretion of information and instances that the learner uses to sort out contexts in which

it is profitable to use one form of explanation or another. (Fensham et al. 1994, p. 6)

Just as it was argued that traditional physics teaching suggests a particular view of

physics, so too researchers have argued that conceptual change teaching approaches inscience (and, by implication, physics) imply a particular view of science (and hence

physics). Driver et al. (1994) make the point that scientific knowledge is essentially

symbolic (p. 5) and socially constructed and validated (p. 6). They note that science

ideas do not develop in a nonproblematic way from observations or by reading the

book of nature (p. 6). Instead, these scholars argue that the objects of science are not the

phenomena of nature (p. 5) but are constructs that have been invented and imposed on

phenomena in attempts to interpret and explain them, often as results of considerable

intellectual struggles (p. 6). However, once accepted by the scientific community, these

constructions are incorporated into the way scientists think about, and view, the world,

eventually becoming part of the public knowledge of science. Crucially, it is unrealistic tothink that any individual would independently develop these same constructions. As Driver

et al. (1994) put it:

[T]he symbolic world of science is now populated with entities such as atoms, ...

fields and fluxes, ...; it is organized by ideas such as evolution and encompasses

procedures of measurement and experiment. ... [Such entities, ideas and procedures]

are unlikely to be discovered by individuals through their own observations of the

natural world. (p. 6)

Consistent with the above view of scientific knowledge as being socially constructed andvalidated, Driver et al. (1994) consider That:

learning science involves being initiated into scientific ways of knowing .... [It]

involves being initiated into the ideas and practices of the scientific community and

making these ideas and practices meaningful at an individual level. (p. 6)

Accordingly, the implication for science teachers is that their role is to mediate this

learning and help learners to make personal sense of science ideas and the ways in

which knowledge claims are generated and validated (Driver et al. 1994, p. 6).

Underpinning this role is, as noted above, the view that it is unlikely that a learner will

discover the ideas of science through personal observation because the (disciplinary)

knowledge of science is socially negotiated and validated and its ideas problematic, a

position with which there appears to be consensus among other academics (e.g. Hewson et

al. 1998; Hodson 1998; Tobin and Tippins 1993).

438 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


5/28


6/28

example, an ethnographic study by Gallagher and his students found that a group of science

teachers tended to think of scientific knowledge as objective, being based on observations

and experiments; and that they focused on the so-called scientific method1 and on science

content knowledge in their teaching, but did little to help promote student understanding

(Gallagher 1991, pp. 124

127). In another ethnographic study, Duschl and Wright (1989)obtained similar results. The science teachers studied had logical positivistic views about

science, and considered that the scientific method was the approach used in science (pp.

490492). These teachers emphasised scientific propositional knowledge and processes,

and focused on students acquisition of content knowledge in high ability classes and on

developing students basic skills such as reading and writing in low ability classes (pp.

482486). A case study of biology teachers by Benson (1989) found they considered that

all aspects studied in science exist in the real world and that truth is determined by testing

hypotheses using the scientific method (p. 339). They tended to use a lecture style

teaching approach and focused on presenting detailed information for students to learn.

Research amongst pre-service science teachers has produced similar findings. Aguirre et

al. (1990) explored the views of students entering a secondary science teacher education

program using a questionnaire with open-ended questions and concluded that holding a

discovery view of science may dispose student teachers towards a knowledge intake

view of learning and a transmissive approach to teaching (p. 389). Hewson and colleagues

also explored pre-service biology teachers views during a teacher education program

(Hewson et al. 1999a, b) but employed a more extensive range of qualitative investigations,

including interviews about conceptions of science teaching (Hewson and Hewson 1989).

They found that at the time of entering the program, these prospective teachers had

positivist

views of science knowledge and transmissive teaching views (Hewson et al.

1999b, p. 379), with most believing that true knowledge exists, that it is independent of

individuals, and that it can be transmitted or passed on to another person by using good

explanations and demonstrations of scientific principles (p. 378).

Some studies have compared the beliefs of different groups of teachers. Tsai ( 2002)

categorised a group (N=37) of science teachers beliefs about teaching science, learning

science and the nature of science as traditional, process orconstructivist (p. 773). The

study found that about 40% of teachers held congruent traditional beliefs about teaching,

learning and science, about 10% held congruent process beliefs and about 5% held

congruent constructivist beliefs (p. 777). In a later study of four science teachers, Tsai

(2007) found strong links between their science epistemological views, teaching beliefs,and instructional practices. Hashweh (1996) compared the teaching practices of two groups

of science teachers with different epistemological views, which he labelled as construc-

tivist and empiricist. While he concluded that teachers epistemological beliefs influence

their teaching, the study itself did not include observations of teachers actual practices but

instead used self reports by teachers about their practices.

Scholars have suggested varying reasons for teachers beliefs about science. Pomeroy

(1993) found in her survey exploring beliefs about science and science education that

secondary science teachers appeared to subscribe more strongly than elementary teachers to

a traditional view of science that

the only valid way of gaining scientific knowledge [is]

1In this paper, references to the stereo-typical scientific method commonly portrayed in textbooks (see for

example McComas 1998, p. 57), are denoted by using inverted commas, e.g. the scientific method

440 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


7/28

through the application of inductive methods based upon observation and controlled

experimentation (p. 262). She suggested these differences occurred because secondary

teachers, unlike elementary teachers, generally have a formal science training and have

been initiated into the norms of the scientific community, whose members generally

espouse traditional views about science (p. 269). On the other hand, Brickhouse (1989)suggested that secondary science teachers beliefs may be influenced by years of exposure

to the idealised models of science presented by text books, and also by working for

lengthy periods in schools that value teaching factual knowledge. Nott and Wellington

(1996) argued that science teachers (k)nowledge of the nature of science will be brought

to the classroom and developed through classroom experience (p. 286, emphasis in

original) for they constantly face issues related to the nature of science, such as practicals

going wrong and ethical problems related to the development of scientific knowledge

(p. 286).

Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000a) reviewed studies of (generally unsuccessful)

attempts to develop prospective and in-service teachers conceptions of the nature of

science. They concluded that such approaches are more likely to succeed when they include

explicit teaching about the nature of science and provide opportunities for teachers to reflect

on aspects of the nature of science. In addition, Schwartz and Ledermans (2002) study of two

beginning teachers as they learned about the nature of science suggested that progression in

their understanding about the nature of science was linked to the strength of their subject

matter knowledge. Abd-El-Khalick (2005) found a philosophy of science course to be

relatively more effective than a science methods course when both used an explicit,

reflective approach to teaching about the nature of science. Explicit, reflective approaches to

teaching about the nature of science that involved teachers participating in scientific inquiryhave also been successful (Akerson and Hanuscin 2007; Bencze and Elshof2003). However,

a study of the effect of history of science courses on prospective teachers views about

science failed to detect any significant influence (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000b).

Comment

An important issue that generally seems to be unacknowledged in much of the research into

teachers views about science is that science comprises a diversity of disciplines. Indeed,

Chalmers (1982) considers that it is misleading to speak of science as though it is a

single category (p. 166), a view reflected by Lederman (1992) who observes thatconceptions of science differ between the scientific disciplines, noting the differences

between the disciplines, about, for example, what constitutes an acceptable causal

explanation (p. 352). For example, teleological explanations are generally not acceptable

in physics because they are seen to anthropomorphise physical objects; however, they are

quite common in biology, possibly because of Darwinian ideas about natural selection

(Ruse 1988).

There are other differences between the various science disciplines. Physics has

relatively few theories, and these are highly interconnected with strong predictive power;

biology, on the other hand, has many theories, but the relationship between these is

relatively less well developed and they generally lack predictive capacity (Mayr 1988;

Rosenberg 1985). Whereas for the physicist [t]he watch words ... are logicality and

simplicity and the ultimate goal is to understand the universe using smallest number of

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 441


8/28

physical laws possible (Stuewer1997, Section on The physicists point of view, para. 5),

the biologist deals with living organisms that are inherently complex, and evolution and the

factors involved in the emergence of life are such that generalisations often need to be

provisional (Keller2007). In chemistry, chemical behaviours are regarded as too complex

to reduce to a few physical laws (e.g. Baird et al. 2006). A fundamental difference from theperspective of this study is the extent to which mathematics is used in the various science

disciplines, for common perceptions arise that are associated with this difference, as

summed up by Bronowski and Mazlish (1960):

Our confidence in any science is roughly proportional to the amount of mathematics it

employs ....We feel that physics is truly a science, but that there somehow clings to

chemistry the less formal odor (and odium) of the cook book. And as we proceed to

biology ... we know that we are fast slipping down a slope away from science. (p. 218)

It seems that research in science education has generally not explored specific features ofthe various science disciplines and acknowledged differences between them. An exception

is a study by Tsai (2006) who found that Taiwanese students believe that biological

knowledge is more tentative than physics knowledge. In addition, a study by Koulaidis and

Ogborn (1989) found science teachers from different disciplines had different views about

the nature of science and recommended further research into teachers views about the

various science disciplines, which the present study aims to do.

Physics Teachers Views About Physics

A study by Veal (1999) provides some insight into the possible physics related views of

physics teachers. His qualitative investigation of the development of pedagogical content

knowledge (PCK) in two secondary chemistry and two secondary physics pre-service

teachers found that this development was influenced by beliefs about their subject

discipline. The pre-service physics teachers practice was influenced by beliefs that physics

is a mathematically oriented discipline, is seen as hard by students, and uses a

macroscopic perspective when explaining phenomena (pp. 2630). The chemistry pre-

service teachers practice was influenced by different beliefs related to chemistry.

Interestingly, in the model for PCK development proposed by Veal (1999), beliefs and

PCK are

inextricably intertwined

, with beliefs informing the classroom practice of pre-service teachers and this practice informing beliefs (p. 32).

An interpretive study of two physics teachers concluded they held positivistic views

about the nature of science despite their long experience with a high school physics course

which promoted a view of science as invented or constructed (Abu-Sneineh, cited in

Gallagher 1991, pp. 126127). Interestingly, a specifically physics related view was noted

in one of these teachers who said, Physics, for the greatest part is very objective (Abu-

Sneineh, cited in Gallagher 1991, p. 127).

Finally, Tobin et al. (1997) describe the teaching practices of a beginning physics teacher

who espoused a constructivist view of learning but tended to focus on applying formulas,

and did little to promote the development of student understanding of the associatedconcepts. There was a sense of physics as being elusive and beyond the grasp of everyday

common sense (p. 505), and a willingness on the part of both students and teacher to

accept explanations as being correct or incorrect on the basis of the authority of physics as a

discipline (pp. 502503).

442 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


9/28

The Context of the Research

The study links with a separate 3 year research project, the Understanding Physics Project

(UPP)2 which explored the consequences for student learning of teaching that focused on

developing student conceptual understanding where ten volunteer secondary school physicsteachers taught an externally prescribed 2 year physics course (i.e. at Years 11 and 12) that

involved high stakes, externally set examinations during the second year. These teachers

views about physics, and about learning and teaching physics were explored during the

conduct of the project, which centred on the teaching of a unit of work at the Year 11 level

in which the content areas were motion and DC electricity. Among these teachers, there was

a group of five whose practice was consistent with the approaches of conceptual change

teaching (hereafter called the Conceptual teachers). Later, these views were explored

amongst a group of five teachers whose teaching is best described as traditional (hereafter

called the Traditional teachers). These Traditional teachers were invited to participate in

this study, and were chosen partly on the basis of convenience, and partly because we had

reason to believe (e.g. through conversations in physics teaching circles), that their teaching

practices were traditional, an assumption that was later verified as we discuss below.

The Conceptual teachers had views about learning physics that were quite different to

those of the Traditional teachers (Mulhall 2005). The Conceptual teachers considered

students construct understandings in terms of their personal frameworks, and that physics

ideas are problematic for learners for this reason. They saw physics learning as involving

cognitive engagement with, and discussion about, physics concepts. The Traditional

teachers saw physics learning as the outcome of doing certain activities (e.g. solving

problems), and considered that physics is hard because most learners do not have thespecial attributes or skills needed to learn physics. As noted earlier, in this paper we focus

on the views about physics in these two groups of teachers.

Research Questions

The questions guiding the research were as follows.

For both groups of physics teachers:

1. What are teachers perceptions of what physics is?2. What are teachers perceptions of the place of mathematics in physics?

3. (a) What are teachers perceptions of the way/s in which the body of physics

knowledge is established?

(b) What are teachers perceptions of the difficulty with which physics concepts have

been developed?

The Research Approach

Qualitative methods have a greater capacity than quantitative approaches for providing insights

into teachers views (Kagan 1990; Lederman 1992). Hence the approach used was qualitative,

2Funded by the Australian Research Council; the chief investigator was the second author.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 443


10/28

the views about physics, and learning and teaching physics of all teachers being explored

through extensive semi-structured interviews as discussed earlier, and their membership of the

Conceptual and Traditional Groups being determined through observations of their teaching.

The criteria for classifying a teachers practice were developed during UPP. The fundamental

approach taken for this classification was that for a teacher to be considered as being aConceptual or a Traditional teacher, that teachers practice needed to demonstrate clearly that

he/she belonged in the relevant group. Any teacher whose practice did not clearly indicate that

he/she clearly belonged in either of these groups was not included in the study. Conceptual

teachers were those who were observed, when teaching, to use approaches in which:

& they encouraged students to make their reasoning of a situation explicit

& they encouraged students to reason through conceptual conflicts, often with the aid

of peer input rather than teacher input, and to compare different ideas and decide

which of a range of explanations was best

&there was less teacher talk and more student talk, unlike in traditional classroomswhere the reverse is the case, and,

& the teachers role was to ask questions to promote student engagement with ideas,

rather than give answers and information.

Traditional teachers were those who, when teaching, were observed to focus on problem

solving and explanations using algorithms with little or no consideration of development of

students understanding of concepts, beyond that provided by cook-book style laboratory

work. Central to this classification was the role of questions: Traditional teachers focused

on seeking correct answers from students or providing these themselves.

The Conceptual teachers were observed during UPP at least twice while they taught

physics to Year 11, the lessons ranging in length from 45 to 90 min. The observers were

either of two research assistants, one of whom was the first author, who made notes in situ

to describe what the teacher said and did during the lesson, and how students responded,

and later generated a teaching profile that summarised the ways in which the teacher

concerned did or did not support student understanding. These profiles were used by the

UPP research team of four highly experienced physics education researchers (all former

high school physics teachers), including both authors, to decide which teachers were

Conceptual. As indicated earlier, of the ten teachers who took part in UPP, five (5) were

considered to beConceptual

.

Similarly, the five Traditional teachers were observed twice during lessons ranging from

4590 min by the first author. Again, teaching profiles of each teacher were prepared and

used to determine whether or not he belonged to the Traditional Group, this time by the first

and second authors, both members of the original UPP team. All teachers in the original

group of five were considered to be Traditional. Thus both Conceptual and Traditional

Groups contained five (5) teachers, with the former group comprising three females and

two males and the latter comprising all males. (Given that the very large majority of physics

teachers in the context of this research are male, this is not in any way remarkable.)

Background information about the teachers in both groups is given in Table 1. Pseudonyms

are used for all the teachers in this study.The semi-structured interviews were complex and wide-ranging in design, and included

questions about the interviewees perceptions of the nature of physics and of the purposes

of experimentation and its relationship with the generation of physics knowledge; about the

444 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


11/28

role of mathematics in physics; about why the interviewee was a physics teacher rather than

a teacher of another subject; about the interviewees perception of which content areas of

physics were more difficult to teach and which were easier; about teaching strategies valued

by the interviewee, and why; and about the interviewees perceptions of student mis-/

understandings as revealed in some quotes from students, in order to explore the nature of

the interviewees conceptual understanding. Examples of questions that each interviewee

was asked are provided in Appendix 1.

All interviews were audio-taped. Two were fully transcribed. An examination of these

transcripts suggested that for the purposes of this research, summaries of each interviewee s

responses to interview questions that included important/interesting interviewee quotes

would suffice, so this was the approach taken with the rest of the interviews. Each summary

or transcription was prepared by the research assistant who conducted the relevant interview.

The analysis for this study evolved through multiple readings of the data records and

discussions between the two authors. The initial analysis was conducted by the first author,the second author checked for confirming or disconfirming evidence in the data, and

differences were discussed until consensus was reached. Two forms of analysis of teachers

views were undertaken, each with different purposes. The first form of analysis focused on

Table 1 Background information about conceptual and traditional teachers

Teacher (C, conceptual;

T, traditional)

School type Physics taught Other teaching areas

Heather (C) Private girls Year 11 and 12 Mathematics (year 7

12)General science (year 710)

Caitlin (C) Private girls Year 11 and 12 Chemistry (year 11 and 12)

Mathematics (year 710)

General science (year 710)

Charles (C) Government

co-educational

Year 11 and 12 Mathematics (year 710)


Robert (C) Private

co-educational

Year 11 Biology (year 11)



Dorothy (C) Private girls Year 11 Chemistry (year 11 and 12)

Mathematics (year 710)General science (year 710)

Ross (T) Private

co-educational



Ryan (T) Private

co-educational



Joe (T) Academic boys Year 11 and 12 Information technology (year 11 and 12)


Chemistry (year 11 and 12)


Pat (T) Academic boys Year 11 and 12 Mathematics (year 710)


Chad (T) Government

co-educational



Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 445
http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/28

understanding the detail and nature of each individual teachers views about physics and

learning and teaching physics, and the links between them, while the second form focused

on understanding the commonalities and differences of views of teachers within a group

and between groups: only this second form of analysis is used in this paper, and is now

briefly discussed.In the second form of analysis, comments from all the teacher interviews that pertained

to views about physics, learning physics, and teaching physics were identified through

multiple readings of interview summaries or transcripts. A list was generated of all these

aspects of teachers thinking, and the names of the relevant teachers; this included a crude

score out of 2 based on the extent to which teachers successfully identified student mis-/

understandings in one of the questions. It is important to recognise that this list was not

intended to be a definitive representation of teachers views; instead its purpose was to

enable comparisons between teachers and between the two teacher groups. In some cases, a

particular teachers belief was implied rather than stated explicitly, and, where this

occurred, decisions about whether a teacher held a particular view were based on that

teachers overall interview responses. In addition, while each of the various aspects of

teachers thinking were categorised as Views about physics, Views about learning physics or

Views about teaching physics, we acknowledge that some aspects of teachers thinking

could have been listed under more than one heading.

This list was used to generate a second list for each group that highlighted the most

commonly held views by those teachers within the group; for a given group, the most

commonly held views were regarded as being those that appeared to be held by at least

four teachers within the group.

The second list was used to construct a composite of the most common views of eachgroup. This composite was treated as representative of the views of a typical member of

that group, where typical is qualified to acknowledge that no single teacher actually had

these views: rather, the typical Conceptual/Traditional teacher is a construction which

facilitates identification of the beliefs that best characterise the group of Conceptual/

Traditional teachers.

The Trustworthiness of the Research

A number of checks contributed to the validity and reliability of the data:1. Where appropriate, the summaries/transcripts were annotated to capture as much as

possible the general nature of the interviewees responses, e.g. pauses before

answering, apparent confidence or lack of confidence, etc.

2. The interview questions were examined to ensure that they concerned issues relevant to

the aims of the physics course being taught by the physics teachers.

3. An inspection of the interview questions showed that each had the capacity to provide

data for at least one research question.

4. Some triangulation of data was possible because data for each research question was

provided by more than one interview question.

5. The practice of having a second researcher check the initial analysis for discrepancies

helped to counter the effect of researcher bias.

6. An audit trail was maintained.

7. While the classroom observations were not used to provide information about teachers

views, they were not inconsistent with the data from the interviews.

446 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


13/28

The Interviews

A portion of the list of the most common views of the teachers in the Traditional group

that pertaining to Views about physics is provided in Appendix 2 as an example of this

form of data. It should be noted that where an idea, belief or insight is shown in bulletedpoint form, the original list contained more than one variant on this idea. As just discussed,

the lists of the most common views of the Traditional and Conceptual groups respectively

were used to construct the views of a typical teacher within each group, whose views are

now presented. The Traditional teacher is referred to as he as all members of this group

were male. The views of the typical teacher are written in the present tense to give a sense

of immediacy to the discussion.

The Views of the Typical Traditional Teacher

The typical Traditional teacher considers that physics is a science concerned withexplaining everything in the real world, and that its ideas are based on experimentation.

Because of inadequacies in observations, these ideas are not exact descriptions of reality but

further research will enable these ideas to get closer to the truth. That is, he thinks that

knowledge about the world is out there to be discovered and that physics knowledge is

discovered knowledge.

He does not see the ideas of physics as problematic, this conclusion being supported by

his view that physics research follows the scientific method and the absence of any

comments that suggest he thinks there may be alternative ways of viewing the world.

Indeed, arguably, his view that one can see physics everywhere indicates that he does notsee observation as theory dependent, but considers that the ideas of physics are essentially

revealed in nature.

He considers that physics is mathematical and abstract. He appears to see physics as

superior to other disciplines and/or sciences.

The Views of the Typical Conceptual Teacher

The typical Conceptual teacher thinks of physics as a science, and as being concerned with

finding useful models to explain the real world. He/she considers all models have their

limitations and, in principle, it is possible that other models or ways of thinking mightexplain the world as well as, or better than, those currently used in physics. However, he/

she does not think anything goes in physics, seeing the following as being important

aspects of physics models:

& Models are developed through observation of, and thinking about, physical

phenomena.

& Currently accepted models have been subjected to critical review by the scientific

community.

& Models which are accepted have been tested in a range of ways, often over a long

period of time, through their ability to satisfactorily explain phenomena and topredict behaviours that have subsequently been verified. Indeed the explanatory

and predictive capacities of physics distinguish it from the other main sciences.

He/she considers that the mathematics in physics functions as a language used to express

physics ideas.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 447
http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/28

Discussion

The views of the typical Conceptual and Traditional teachers, presented above, provide a

means of comparing the views of the Conceptual and Traditional groups of teachers. In the

following discussion, these views are considered in terms of the research questions thatguided this study, and examples of comments from individual teachers are given.

What are Teachers Perceptions of What Physics is?

Both the typical Conceptual and Traditional teachers thought of physics as providing

explanations and/or ideas about phenomena in the real world. Perhaps not surprisingly, this

aspect of physics as being concerned with everything around us tended to be something that

all the teachers emphasised when asked how they would explain what physics is. Examples

of responses from both teachers groups are given below:

C3: I usually say [to Year 10 students who havent done much physics] ..., [I]ts

explaining how things around you work and, why things happen the way they do, for

example, why do you get a rainbow? Its physics explaining why those sort of things

happen ... or dont happen ... and thats probably what Id say to a parent .... (CI1 6)

(Caitlin)

T4: Um, Id just say, Its the science of everything. Its concerned with everything in

the universe and er, and just give a few examples whether its er, you know, involved

in engineering or its concerned with astronomy or, um, you name it, its about

everything, ah, which is not being particularly helpful but, ah, ah. (Slight pause.) Iguess the underlying reasons why the whole universe operates, but I would just say ...

it has to do with ... optics, electricity, forces, motion, astronomy ... theyre all physics,

so. (Small laugh.) (TI 1) (Chad)

However, the way the typical Conceptual and Traditional teachers thought about the

explanations/ideas of physics seemed to differ. The typical Conceptual teachers

thinking appeared framed by how well these explanations/ideas help us understand

phenomena:

C: Um, I think [the questions physicists explore come] from just, I spose, wanting to

explain whats around us and also like coming from even having read something andanalysing, thinking about it, and, you know, does that make sense or maybe it should

be this and so looking at things that have been done, looking at things that haven t

been done and, you know, searching for an answer to it or searching to qualify it, or

even quantify I suppose. (CI3a 5) (Heather)

C: But I think, um, I think at least or my thing is that it is just a fabric to hang

things on or, um, that, um, its a best model, I suppose, for physical phenomena. But I

think in physics, um, particularly, whether its fact or not we teach it as fact unless

questioned closely but no, its not, I dont believe and I dont believe that a lot of the

3C denotes a comment from a Conceptual teacher, while T denotes one from a Traditional teacher.

4This is an interview code.

448 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


15/28

stuff you really can prove at all. Its just the best explanation until somebody comes

along with another one .... (CI4) (Dorothy)

On the other hand, the typical Traditional teachers thinking seemed framed by

perceptions of the truth value of these explanations/ideas:

T: Some of the ideas [about light and matter] are a bit confronting. But when

[students] realise that its reality that we have electron microscopes, for example,

that are based on this, this, um, set of ideas, then they accept it and they can move

with it .... (TI 16(b)) (Pat, authors emphasis)

T: [W]e know that we can apply Newtons three laws to a large variety of, ah,

naturally occurring phenomena and explain what is happening and the explanations

we believe are correct. Ah, as to whether theyre correct in all conditions, um, they

may very well not be. There are peculiar things that happen out there, ah, particularly

when you talk about sub-atomic particles approaching the speed of light that seem todefy any laws that Newton would have even considered. Um, therefore we cant say

necessarily that theyre going to be true in all circumstances. (TI 9(a)) (Ryan)

The above quotes from Traditional teachers illustrate the typical Traditional teachers

position which seemed to be that physics provides objective, discovered information about

reality. Linked to this view, the typical Traditional teachers remarks about physics were

sometimes tinged with comments suggesting that physics is superior to other disciplines:

T: [E=mc2] is the first thing I write on the board when the kids come into the Year 11

class. In a way ... that underpins what physics is all about

its that relationship

between energy and mass and how fundamental that is to understanding everything

about physics. Um, and then later in semester one when we do some nuclear physics ...

we have a few seconds of, um, reverent silence to observe that ... this is not just a joke,

this is something thats quite revealing. (TI 3(a)) (Pat, authors emphasis)

T: Ah, [physicists are] pedantic from the point of view that they demand a certain, um,

vocabulary, they need a certain measuring system, theyre precise in what they say,

um, if youre drawing a force on a diagram it should be drawn on the right point

where the force is acting rather than just generally, um, so. (TI 9(b)) (Ryan)

Underpinning much of the typical Traditional teachers comments seemed to be the view

that physics is valuable because it discovers and represents truths about the world. The

typical Conceptual teacher also valued physics but saw this value in terms of how

satisfactorily the ideas of physics help us understand the world, and in the usefulness of its

models for making predictions about phenomena. Importantly, the typical Conceptual

teacher was not a relativist (cf. Matthews 1992), as the following examples illustrate:

C: [Physics is] all about modelling the real world. Its all about coming to understand

the physical world in ... a reductionist sort of way, but a way, thats consistent .... Its a

way of understanding the physical world, a way of reducing the physical world to a

model that we can grasp and understand, and therefore understand more about the

physical world. The model comes from the physical world. We use can use the model

and ... turn the model back on the physical world to understand things that we didnt

originally realise were there. (CI1 6) (Robert)

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 449


16/28

C: [M]y understanding is that [physicists] use all those sorts of things [i.e. ideas like

electrons and fields] then to make predictions and build up models ... and make them

better. And also to make predictions and then to make something that you might use,

you know, a laser or whatever, so that its used sort of functionally .... (CI4) (Charles,

interviewees emphasis)

Interestingly, one Traditional teacher (Joe), also shared the view of the typical

Conceptual teacher that the ability to predict correctly is an important feature of physics

models, although he appeared to consider physics ideas in more realist terms than the

typical Conceptual teacher.

Despite the above and following comments, the majority of teachers both Conceptual

and Traditional did not appear to have engaged in much philosophical thinking about

physics, as the following interview extracts illustrate:

C: I find these questions really hard to answer! (Laughing.) I never think about these

sort of things! (I feel??) really dumb! (Still laughing.) (CI4) (Caitlin)

I5: Im ... interested in the notion of what makes [physics] a science .... Im just trying

to get at what you think a science is. A hard question!

T: A very hard question in terms of ... internal values youve created over a long, long

time and to actually individualise the expression of those ideas is quite difficult, um. ...

[T]o me its the way the world works, ah, in a physical sense in most cases .... Its

more the explaining of why a car works or, um, why a building doesnt fall down or

why, ah, systems intermesh and operate with each other. So to me science is a mixture

of, um, engineering, being able to mathematically model things, ah, being able to

predict the way things are going to work or if theyre not going to work. So science is

a difficult concept. Thats a very good woolly overview! (TI 1) (Joe)

Joe, the Traditional teacher who made the second of the above comments, considered

that experimentation in physics is the truth of the matter: it was therefore surprising that

he did not refer to experiments in his remarks above about what he thought a science is. His

above response, and others, reinforced the conclusion that he had not previously given

much thought to this issue.

What are Teachers Perceptions of the Place of Mathematics in Physics?

Mathematics seemed to assume a more central role in the typical Traditional teachers

conception of physics than it did for the typical Conceptual teacher. The former thought of

physics as essentially mathematical and abstract:

I: [So] thinking about physics as a body of knowledge you think it is inextricably tied

[to mathematics]

T: (Interrupts.) Its integral. Its like asking a mechanic to go and, ah, work on your car

without taking his toolkit with him. Sir Isaac Newton, he was a classic case: invented

differential calculus so he could invent his physics problems ... (TI 3(b)) (Joe)

5I denotes a comment or question from the interviewer.

450 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


17/28

T: Physics is hard. And its hard because the thinking skills that are required to analyse

situations, um, scenarios, phenomena, um, are very complex. Students have to

identify, um, ideas that pertain to physics concepts. They then have to know something

about each concept. Um, they have to be able to understand the relationships that, um,

are intricate to a deeper understanding of the concept and then they have to be able totake whatever it is in the scenario or the phenomena that they are presented with and see

how that relates to the idea and the set of relationships, fit it together in some way that

makes some sort of sense. Its not an easy thing to do. It is complex and thats why

people do think of it as a hard subject. Um, on top of that theyre generally aware that it

requires some complex, um, mathematical skills to help you along and thats, um, an

abstract thing which, um, turns people off. ... Abstract ways of processing arent

favourable to all people. (TI 2(a)) (Pat, interviewees emphasis)

The typical Conceptual teacher saw mathematics as a language used to express physics

ideas (with two Conceptual teachers, Caitlin and Charles, noting that it is not the onlylanguage used in physics, giving the example of English):

C: So the formula is sort of like a summary .... Like once I ve tied the ideas down to a

formula, its so much easier to just think of the formula and then, you know, think of

relationships within the formula. If you, you know, understand the way its been

represented, then its sort of easier to think about. (CI3a 2(a)) (Heather, interviewees

emphasis)

C: You cant only do physics with equations. (CI3a 2(b)) (Charles)

It appeared that the typical Traditional teacher was concerned with accurately depictingthe knowledge about reality that he considered physics provides, and saw mathematics as

providing the means of doing this. By contrast, the typical Conceptual teacher, who did not

see physics ideas in such absolute terms, seemed more concerned with the essence of

physics ideas and appropriate ways of communicating them. While it could be argued that

the typical Traditional teachers valuing of mathematics in physics reflected his

philosophical position that the world is governed by mathematical laws, it is unlikely that

he had ever explicitly considered this question; the following extract from the interview

with one of the Traditional teachers is consistent with this conclusion.

I: And would you say generally one is looking for laws that are mathematical?T: Um, (unintelligible words) generally, yeah (unintelligible words). Um, we always

seem to be looking at plotting graphs and to show relationships by looking at the way

the graph is and then the next steps to try and, you know, create a mathematical

equation that gives us that graph so that we can predict or extrapolate or interpolate

within that graph. (TI 4) (Joe)

The following Conceptual teacher appeared to have given some thought to the place of

mathematics in physics, and saw mathematics as enabling the development of models that

could be tested:

C: [The power of formulas is that they enable one to take] things that are fairly

reasonably easily able to be worked out as self-evident, describe them in a simple way

mathematically and then find what falls out of them. That certainly has been the path

of modern physics ... Its playing with different models and seeing what comes out of

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 451


18/28

them, to see if we can test them in the real world, to give some validity to the models

most of the hard work is in the developing of the models and of trying to make

concrete predictions from models ... the models are mathematical and so you cant get

away from that side of it. (CI3a 2(a)) (Robert, interviewee s emphasis)

However, apart from the above Conceptual teacher, none of the teachers seemed to have

considered why mathematics has a place in physics.

What are Teachers Perceptions of the Way/s in Which the Body of Physics Knowledge is

Established?

The views about the nature of physics knowledge were more variable amongst the

Conceptual teachers than they were amongst the Traditional teachers. Some Conceptual

teachers thought of physics knowledge as constructed while others either did not or were

less explicit about this. These assertions are now further elaborated.As summarised earlier, the typical Conceptual teachers views about physics were

consistent with the position that physics knowledge is socially constructed and mediated.

However, only two of the five Conceptual teachers in this research explicitly indicated that

this was their considered view:

C: [R]eally physics while theres a lot in physics is really nothing more than

peoples attempts to try and understand or model in their head a[n] internally

consistent world view that maps as well as it can the physical world that we interact

with. (CI4) (Robert)

C: We have to construct an explanation of the whole universe, don t we, [of] the

whole of our experience, not just in science .... Its the old constructivist view. I

construct it through my experience, and my tinted vision, and tinted hearing, and all

that sort of business. (CI4) (Charles)

The other three Conceptual teachers appeared to have not given much thought to the

nature of physics and to the ways in which physics knowledge develops: however, two of

these seemed to understand that establishing the nature of reality is, in principle, difficult

because of the lens of the viewer.

C: So as ideas develop, they can change. That can be supported or refuted so its anevolving thing, until the ideas get, I suppose are almost the fashion in a lot of ways

and it becomes popular at the time and then until something else comes along to

change it a little bit more. So its sort of like an evolving well, most ideas are pretty

much evolving ideas that are changing all the time, yeah. (CI4) (Heather)

C: But, um, in terms of, in terms of my own thoughts, Id, we really have, weve got a

set of things that actually seem to work but that may not, they may not be anything

like that! Its just, its very hard to, well, its very hard to put into words actually that.

(CI3a 7(a)) (Dorothy)

Interestingly, the third (Caitlin) had much in common with the typical Traditional teacher

in that she was quite explicit that physics tells us about reality:

I: Do you essentially see science as ... mirroring what the real world is?

452 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


19/28

C: Yeah, I think its trying to explain, a lot of science is trying to explain how things

happen in the real world or they happen the way they do or whatever, yep. (CI4)

(Caitlin)

Like these latter three Conceptual teachers, the typical Traditional teacher, whose views

were summarised above, did not appear to have given much thought to the nature of

physics knowledge. Nevertheless, he appeared to think of physics knowledge as knowledge

about the real world that has been discovered using the scientific method. One of the

Traditional teachers in this research seemed to have more extreme views than the rest and to

consider physics knowledge provides an exact description of reality:

I: [What would you do if a student asked, How do we know that Newtons laws are

true?]

T: With a situation like this I would attempt to do, um, some demonstrations, that, um,

show that the relations are in actual fact correct. I always try to look at things from apractical sense. (TI 9) (Ross)

The other Traditional teachers appeared to consider that physics knowledge closely

approximates reality, with three being quite explicit that physics ideas could not, in

principle, be proved; this seemed to be because of the problems of proving these ideas are

true in all cases and/or of achieving the ideal conditions necessary for these ideas to be

proved, as the following quotes illustrate.

T: I dont know if you can prove anything, because to prove that F=ma, I guess youd

have to look at every single possible situation in the universe, and you cant do that.

So you look at a tiny fraction of them and you say, It works in these cases. Im goingto assume that it works in other cases, ah, and Im going to keep using it until Im

shown to be wrong.

I: OK, so thats kind of what you meant [by proving]

T: (Interrupts.) Yes. Im not too clear and Im not too strong on what is a rule and

whats a law and ... all of these things ...

I: So as long as it keeps working, its proven ...

T: (Interrupts.) Yeah, yeah. Because the ideas that are being pushed forward recently

are that maybe the laws change over time. There

s a time component and we are herefor an instant in time. We dont know whether the laws worked the same way at the

beginning of the universe. The ideas that are being pushed forward recently are that

maybe the laws change over time. Theres a time component and we are here for an

instant in time. We dont know whether the laws worked the same way at the

beginning of the universe. (TI 9(b)) (Chad)

T: Newtons laws ... apply to closed systems as such and we can t really create a

closed system but we can make [an] approximation [to test them] ... and ... see how

closely that, ah, can apply .... A pure law is a mind experiment because the reality is

that we cant create closed systems. No matter what we try and do, there is always

some external influence to it. (TI 9(a)) (Joe)

None of the Traditional teachers indicated that they considered that the interpretation of

observations depends on the framework of the observer, a view which most of the

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 453


20/28

Conceptual teachers held. The two examples below are suggestive of these differing

positions:

T: [Students] seem to have not as much appreciation as I would like anyway that

[when doing a laboratory investigation] theres other things that you should record

[apart from obvious variables] like what you hear, um, what you see, what you notice

occurring around you, so.

I: Theres always the question of how do you know what to observe though.

T: Yep. Well, well a good scientist would be filming and taping everything as well,

you know, doing very thorough research so that the whole lot would be happening. I

mean they did that when they built the first stack for the atomic reactor they filmed it

as well, so. (TI 5(a)) (Pat))

C: [Even] physical experiments are an interpretation of what youve seen ... so I dont

know that they are much closer to concrete reality [than thought experiments]. Thereis always the eye of the viewer, the interpretation of the viewer in both. (CI3a 3(c))

(Robert)

What are Teachers Perceptions of the Difficulty with Which Physics Concepts Have Been

Developed?

Both the typical Conceptual and Traditional teachers acknowledged the importance of

experiments and observation in developing physics explanations/ideas, but the former was

inclined to see this development in more complex terms. The typical Conceptual teachersaw physicists thinkingabout phenomena as being important in the development of physics

ideas, recognised that there are contextual influences on this thinking, and considered that it

is possible that other ways of thinking might explain the world better than, or equally as

well as, those used in physics. Some of the quotes given earlier support this conclusion,

while other examples include the following.

C: I think serious thought needs to go into [good physics research] it ... cant just

sort of be something plucked out of nowhere and not substantiated. So its got to have

been arrived [at] through something that ... has credibility, whether its discussion, um,

or whether ... its something, you know, a proven scientific process, um, using

equipment if you like for some, um, yeah. (CI3a 6) (Heather)

C: Physics is more than just the content .... What I really like about physics ... you can

do it more than [in] some other sciences, [although] I think biology is perhaps

catching up, and chemistry too a bit ... is the social implications ... what real science is.

Its ... a sceptical view of the world ... [its] testing hypotheses. And its all tentative

anyway. And someone can come along tomorrow and wipe out a whole area of it and

[then] suddenly weve got this whole new field to examine .... (CI1 6) (Charles)

Robert, one of the Conceptual teachers was exceptionally eloquent:

C: Um, well I guess [physics knowledge is] not a tangible thing. Its, um, you know

its hypothetical constructs in our mind, in our imagination, as a way of trying to

explain the physical world which we interact with and so its not a product as such that

you can hold in your hand. (Slowly.) Thats probably why its not quite so linear, um,

can easily be sort of seen from a different viewpoint and thats the challenge to

454 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


21/28

relook at everything .... Ultimately it comes about because human beings have this

passion to try and understand and explain the world that they are interacting with, and

really physics while theres a lot in physics is really nothing more than peoples

attempts to try and understand or model in their head a[n] internally consistent world view

that maps as well as it can the physical world that we interact with. So that, I guess, is whyits produced and how its produced but its the same sort of thing, I guess.

I: Talking about the constructs in the head ... what we call physics knowledge implies

that ... the constructs in the various physicists heads are the same about that

particular piece of information or whatever so how do you ... see that happening?

C: Um, well I ... guess the heritage of our society that has inherited the scientific

worldview is that observable phenomena are the ultimate arbiter, rather than the eloquence

of the person that holds that viewpoint. So there is in each instance a definite attempt to

demonstrate from observable phenomena alone, if that is possible, um, that a particular

view or model or construct is consistent .... There is also the Occams Razor thing there

too that we tend to sort of go for what is the simplest, um, complete, internally consistent

world view. So there is also that sort of attempt reductionism I guess reductionism to

an elegant, um, model. So probably driving all that I think, and certainly over history, has

been a belief that the universe is governed by intrinsically understandable and probably

ultimately elegant principles, and so theres been a real desire to find those principles.

I: So do you ...see the theory coming first and then the observables or the other way

around or its a mixture of everything?

C: I think its very much a mixture of the two. I mean the observable phenomena

strike the question, and, you know, strike that chord in peoples hearts

ultimately in

their hearts to want to know, and then the theories come, and, in our culture of

scientific investigation, a good theory is one that make predictions that we can then turn to

the observable world and test whether that theory does actually hold out. We extrapolate it

beyond the original observations. So they both its sort of one and the other you know,

one time its an observation that leads you and another time its the theory that then comes,

and then you look for observations that support or discredit that theory. (CI4) (Robert)

The typical Traditional teacher tended to think of physics knowledge as out there to be

discovered, and that the difficulty of developing physics explanations and ideas amounts

mainly to technical difficulties such as the accuracy of measurements:

T: [I]f we go way back a long, long way to, um, explorers, where they figured that,

um, if they were on the sea, there was a horizon there. If they went beyond that, theyd

fall over the edge; and its not until you actually experiment and go out in a boat and realise

that it doesnt finish, um, then they come up with different explanations. (TI 4) (Ross)

T: [Physicists do experiments] confirming, um, or possibly also trying to disprove,

um, peoples theories, um. And in, through that process to try and get better data to

more accurately confirm or ascertain a value or a rule. But in doing so, ... sometimes,

um, unforeseen, um, information is revealed like data thats not consistent with what

youre expecting and then that prompts further investigation which is purely to try and

focus on what is causing that particular glitch in the data. So that can be a very open-

ended, um, investigation compared with something which is specifically aimed or

targeted at confirming an idea, or. (TI 5(a) (Pat)

One Conceptual teacher (Caitlin) also seemed to share this view.

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 455


22/28

C: [S]sometimes [physicists] get it wrong and things are re-thought, perhaps. Um, I

mean thereve been different things over time that have been decided, you know, things

been proposed down through the ages that turned out to be wrong. So I think that people

can get things wrong, um, until, I spose, they do something that proves that the way

theyve predicted doesn

t happen that way or something. Um, sometimes it might [be]

accepted for a while as being true, but not actually be really right. (CI4) (Caitlin)

Interestingly, similar to the above teachers views that over time physics knowledge

becomes an increasingly more accurate representation of reality, Roth and Roychoudhury

(1994) found that secondary physics students believed that scientists would increasingly

approximate truth (p. 27).

Conclusion

This paper began by suggesting that particular physics teaching approaches may be linked

to particular views about physics. In this study, however, which compared the views of

physics teachers whose practice was traditional with those who used conceptual change

teaching approaches, such a link seemed to apply to the Traditional group but not to the

Conceptual group. Instead, the Conceptual teachers views about physics ranged from a

social constructivist perspective to the more realist views of the Traditional teachers, who

tended to see physics as discovered, close approximations of reality. That is, the range of

views about physics held by the Conceptual teachers overlapped those held by the

Traditional group. Interestingly though, the Conceptual teachers as a group tended to have

more complex views about physics than the Traditional teachers.

However, perhaps the most significant finding of this study, and one consistent with that

by Lakin and Wellington (1994) in their research of science teachers views, is that most of

the physics teachers (both Conceptual and Traditional) appeared to have given little thought

to the nature of physics and physics knowledge prior to being interviewed, nor to have

considered the place of mathematics in physics. Indeed, further research (Mulhall 2005)

suggests that the teaching practices of these two groups were more strongly linked to their

views about the nature of physics learning than to their view about physics.

Implications

Contemporary pre- and in-service teacher education programs tend to promote reflective

practice and constructivist ideas, and take the view that learning to teach is a lifelong

process. Nevertheless, traditional approaches to teaching in all subjects seem to persist old

beliefs die hard. This is a problem in physics teaching because, as discussed earlier, the

traditional approaches used often fail to promote adequate student understanding of physics

ideas. The challenge then is to find ways of promoting teacher change, of helping physics

teachers understand and implement ways of teaching that lead to better student learning.

That there was some overlap in the present study between the Traditional group and the

Conceptual group of physics teachers in terms of the range of views about physics suggests

assumptions about teachers views about physics on the basis of their teaching approach

may be invalid, and that a given teachers teaching approach may be linked to other

weightier beliefs (Munby 1982, p. 216). Indeed, as already noted, the study by Mulhall

(2005) found stronger links between teachers views about learning physics and their

teaching practice. Thus it could be argued that if the goal of physics teacher education is to

456 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


23/28

develop teachers who use conceptual change teaching approaches, focussing on helping

teachers to understand physics learning from a constructivist perspective may be more

effective than trying to promote social constructivist views about the nature of physics.

However, there are important counter arguments to this position which we now discuss.

Firstly, the physics teachers in both groups did not appear to have given much thought tothe nature of physics and how physics knowledge develops. There is a general recognition

that science teachers need to be knowledgeable about the nature of science if they are to

help their students develop adequate understandings about the nature of science, which is

not only a common curriculum goal (e.g. Lederman 1992) but also an important factor in

promoting students meaningful learning of science in ways that will help them as future

citizens to make sense of scientific debates that have social implications (Driver et al.

1996). In the context of teaching physics then, physics teachers need to have well

considered and informed views about physics to achieve these outcomes.

A second reason why physics teachers need to have informed views about physics arises

from studies which suggest that activities that are common in physics classrooms may

influence students perceptions about physics in ways that negatively impact on their

physics learning. For example, the use of mathematics to describe relationships between

concepts may lead students to believe that physics describes the way the world is (Roth and

Bowen 1994, p. 314), a view which, as noted earlier, promotes poor student learning

behaviours and outcomes (Linder 1992; Osborne 1990). While changing students views

about physics may in itself be problematic, programs that explore issues attached to the

nature of physics may help physics teachers to be sensitive to their students perceptions

and inform their approach to teaching physics. To this end, research by Abd-El-Khalick (2005)

indicates that pre-service science teachers were more reflective about implicit messages intheir teaching practices after participating in a philosophy of science course that was designed

to engage them in thinking about various issues concerning the nature of science (p. 37).

Finally, as noted earlier, programs for improving practising and pre-service teachers

nature of science conceptions that have explicitly considered aspects of the history and

philosophy of science have been more successful, albeit in a limited way, than those that

use implicit process skills inquiry or based approaches (Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman

2000a). The present study suggests that for physics teachers, there is a need for such courses

to include a consideration of the role of mathematics in physics. In addition, drawing physics

teachers attention to the difficulty with which physics ideas have been developed and

constructed by physicists may help physics teachers understand the difficulty that learnershave in understanding these ideas. Ultimately, physics teachers need to reflect on the

implications of the history and philosophy of physics for learning and teaching physics.

Appendix 1

Examples of interview questions

1. A friends daughter/son is choosing their subjects for VCE [i.e. Years 11 &12]. Your

friend is uncertain about what subjects their child should do and asks you What isphysics? What would you say?

3. (a) Many people have seen the formula

E mc2 show formula on a card :

In your opinion, how accurately does a formula like this portray what physics is?

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 457


24/28

(b) If necessary

What do you consider to be the relationship between mathematics and physics?

4. How is physics knowledge produced?

5. (a) Why do physicists do experiments (explore what interviewee means by

experiments

,

prove

,

theory

,

research

etc. if mentioned)?

(b) If not obvious from (a)

How are experiments and research related?

(c) If not obvious from (a) and/or (b)

Is it possible to do physics research without doing experiments?

10. You are a teacher. But why a teacher of physics?

(Important issues to attempt to follow here:

Why teach physics rather than maths? How do you see physics and maths as

differing?

Why teach physics rather than other science(s)? How do you see physics and other

sciences as differing?)

11. (a) What is the hardest thing for you in teaching physics ( probe to explore, if

possible, ways their views of the nature of physics and understanding of physics

are part of this)?

(b) Is this hardest thing constant across all content areas of physics (if no, explore

mechanics and electricity specifically)?

12. (a) What is the easiest thing for you in teaching physics ( probe to explore, if

possible, ways their views of the nature of physics and understanding of physics

are part of this)?

(b) Is thiseasiest thing

constant across all content areas of physics (if no, explore

mechanics and electricity specifically)?

13. (a) What sort of teaching strategies do you value using most with your physics

class? Why?

(b) What, if any, are the strengths of these strategies?

(c) Youve mentioned the strengths, are there any weaknesses in these strategies?

(d) Do you use these strategies only with physics classes or can they be used for

other subjects as well?

16. (a) If a Year 11 physics student asked you for advice on how to learn physics, what

would you tell them?

(b) Do you think this is what the average Year 11 student does?17. I want to show you a number of things Ive heard students say during physics classes

Ive been in either as a teacher or as an observer over the past 20 years. Id like you to

comment on each one, particularly in terms of the understanding of physics the

student/students seem to have (show cards with each of the comments below).

(a) In a Year 12 class discussion on momentum, a student said,

But if a car crashes into a tree then there was momentum with the car and now

there isnt any momentum. So momentum isnt conserved there.

Another student replied,But you have to also consider what happened to the tree it will be a real mess

after the collision.

458 Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462


25/28

(b) In a Year 11 electricity class, a student said,

...as the electrons leave the battery, push their way through the connecting wires,

the light globe and back to the battery ...

(c) In a small group discussion in a Year 11 electricity class, a student said,

But a brighter globe means a larger current.

(d) In a class discussion a Year 11 student said,

"According to Newtons third law of motion, two teams having a tug of war must

always pull equally hard on one another. If this were true, it would be impossible

for either team to win."

Appendix 2

Table 2 Common aspects of traditional teachers views about physics

Views about physics Teacher codea

Physics is mathematical Cd, Rn, Rs, Je, Pt

Physics is a science Cd, Rn, Rs, Je, Pt

Physics is hard to understand Rn, Rs, Je, Pt Physics can be hard to understand Cd

Physics is abstract Rn, Rs, Je, Pt

Physics is about explaining the real world Cd, Rn, Rs, Je, Pt

& and is a close approximation of this Cd, Rn, Je, Pt

& and is an exact description of this Rs

Physics is how the universe operates Cd, Rn, Rs, Pt

Physics is everywhere around us Cd, Rn, Rs, Je, Pt

Most physics knowledge is based on experimentation Cd, Rs, Je, Pt

Good physics research follows the scientific method Cd, Rn, Rs, Je

Physicists decide what to investigate on basis of things other than

blue sky curiosity:

Cd, Rn, Je, Pt

& Funding Cd, Rn, Je, Pt

& Boss/facultys decision/political agendas Cd, Rn, Je, Pt

Comments expressing a valuing of physics and suggestive of ways

in which it is better than other disciplines:

Cd, Rn, Rs, Je, Pt

& Physics has an inner beauty Cd, Rn, Pt

& Physicists are pedantic Rn

& Physicists are practical Rs

& References to reverent silence about E=mc2 and power of maths

revealing ideas

Pt

&

All other sciences developed from physics Rn& Physics is the father of all subjects Je

aThe traditional teachers names were coded Cd, Je, Pt, Rn and Rs respectively

Res Sci Educ (2008) 38:435462 459


26/28

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a

philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers views and instructional planning.

International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15

42.Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers conceptions of nature of

science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7),

665701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students

views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 10571095.

Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers conceptions of science, teaching

and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education,

12(4), 381390.

Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year

professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653680.

Baird, D., Scerri, E., & McIntyre, L. (2006). Introduction: The invisibility of chemistry. In D. Baird, E. Scerri

& L. McIntyre (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline (pp. 3

18). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Springer.

Bencze, L., & Elshof, L. (2003). Science teachers as metascientists: An inductivedeductive dialectic

immersion in northern alpine field ecology. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12),

15071526.

Benson, G. D. (1989). Epistemology and science curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(4),

329344.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies

of teachers personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 437449.

Bronowski, J., & Mazlish, B. (1960). The Western intellectual tradition: From Leonardo to Hegel. London:

Hutchinson & Co.

Carr, M., Barker, M., Bell, B., Biddulph, F., Jones, A., Kirkwood, V., Pearson, J., & Symington, D. (1994).

The constructivist paradigm and some implications for science content and pedagogy. In P. J. Fensham,R. F. Gunstone & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching

and learning (pp. 147160). London: The Falmer.

Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). St. Lucia, Queensland: University of

Queensland Press.

Davies, P. (1991). What are the laws of nature? In J. Brockman (Ed.), Doing science (pp. 4571). New York:

Prentice Hall.

de Souza Barros, S., & Elia, M. F. (1998). Physics teachers attitudes: How do they affect the reality of the

classroom and models for change? In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem & J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting

research in physics education with teacher education. Published by International Commission on

Physics Education. Retrieved 19 August, 1998, from http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ICPE/

TOC.html.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in theclassroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 512.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people s images of science. Buckingham, UK:

Open University Press.

Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers decision making models for

planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467501.

Fensham, P., Gunstone, R., & White, R. (1994). Part I. Science content and constructivist views of learning

and teaching. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone & R. White (Eds.), The content of science (pp. 18). London:

The Falmer.

Ford, K. W. (1989). Guest comment: Is physics difficult? American Journal of Physics, 57, 871872.

Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers knowledge and beliefs

about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121133.

Halliday, D., & Resnick, R. (1966). Physics, parts I and II (Combined ed.). New York: Wiley.Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research

in Science Teaching, 33(1), 4763.

Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K.

G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part one (pp. 199218). Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer.

460 Res Sci Educ (

Views Abt Phy by Phy Trs

Documents

Transcript of Views Abt Phy by Phy Trs