Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meeting the Discipline-Culture Framework of Physics Knowledge: A Teaching Experience in Italian Secondary School

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper deals with physics teaching/learning in high school. An investigation in three upper secondary school classes in Italy explored the reactions of students to a structuring lecture on optics within the discipline-culture (DC) framework that organises physics knowledge around four interrelated fundamental theories of light. The lecture presented optics as an unfolding conceptual discourse of physicists regarding the nature of light. Along with the knowledge constructed in a school course of a scientific lyceum, the students provided epistemological comments, displaying their perception of physics knowledge presented in the classroom. Students’ views and knowledge were investigated by questionnaires prior to and after the lecture and in special discussions held in each class. They revealed a variety of attitudes and views which allowed inferences about the potential of the DC framework in an educational context. The findings and interpretation indicate the positive and stimulating impact of the lecture and the way in which DC-based approach to knowledge organization makes physics at school cultural and attractive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The optics knowledge organized in the DC form was presented in a textbook published in Israel. This curricular approach was addressed in research publications (Galili 2011, 2014).

  2. Furthermore, the emphasis on theories leads students to appreciate the pivotal role of theories in physics and clarifies the frequent confusion with regard to theory-model relationship (Bunge 1973; Wells et al. 1995; Lemmer 2006; Tseitlin and Galili 2006). The applied structure allows clarification and restores theoretical balance between these two important concepts (Fig. 4) (Galili and Tseitlin 2006).

  3. One may compare this structure to the structure of geometry: axioms and concept definitions—the basic core-versus theorems, problems, and tools all derived and designed basing on the fundamentals.

  4. The DC structure is used to represent fundamental theory in physics as a culture (Tseitlin and Galili 2005) and was applied for teaching–learning physics. This structure appears similar to the Scientific Research Program (Lakatos 1978, 47–90) considering development of scientific research. The DC representation includes all elements of knowledge in its entirety rather than the activity of scientific research and thus implies different, more inclusive content and meaning of the three areas—nucleus, body and periphery.

  5. We emphasized that the meaning of this representation was that the transition from one theory to another was in such a way that the following theory could explain the same phenomena as the older one plus more. Thus, the ray theory account can be obtained from the wave theory in the limit of λ ≪ a (a very short wave length in comparison to the characteristic length of the physical setting), or the wave theory account of light interference on two slits can be obtained from the quantum account (by photons) at light intensity (I) much larger than the energy of one photon (E1): I ≫ E1.

  6. The use of the term culture in this context may request a bit more extended justification. In general use in anthropology culture is defined from the very beginning as an extremely inclusive space incorporating all artifacts produced by humans: "Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." (Tylor 1871/1920, p. 1). This entirety was further reduced to different clusters with different identification. Specific culture is then: "The collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another." (Hofstede 1991, p. 5). Science presents a cluster of this type which still possesses elements of a great plurality. Among them—scientific theories. As each basic theory is, in a sense, univocal with respect to its conceptual credo, plurality is lost at this level. Therefore, by providing periphery to a basic theory structure we return plurality, polyphony to the stage—the essential feature of culture. This explains our use of culture with regard to a physics discipline.

  7. For instance, Aristotle's problem of camera obscura, in the 4th c., was resolved in the 11th c. by Alhasen, and Alhasen's erroneous understanding of vision was replaced by Kepler in the 17th c.

  8. A theoretical interpretation aimed at understanding why what we observed happened is the focus of a second stage of the research.

  9. Criteria and methods chosen by the research team for making the analytic process visible and for getting valid and reliable results were mainly inspired by the classical works of Anfara et al. (2002), Denzin and Lincoln (1994) and Lincoln and Guba (1985).

  10. Students' answers provided in Italian were translated.

  11. The names are changed to respect privacy.

  12. One may find here a certain similarity with the account for an increased success of some learners in solving problems when helped by an adult. Vygotsky (1975) introduced the concept of Zone of Proximate Development (ZPD) and stated that in such cases the particular knowledge used by the learner was present but still not mature. It was activated by the additional stimulus.

  13. To strengthen this important view representing the stance which prevailed in physics until the twentieth century we may quote also from the answers of students in other class. Alessandro wrote in the questionnaire: “Now I would say that physics is nature, also in an epistemological sense.”

  14. The language is taken from the theory of “coordination class”, a model of conceptual change built according to a complex view of knowledge (diSessa and Sherin 1998, Levrini and diSessa 2008).

  15. The three worlds of Popper were mentioned by the lecturer in the course of class discussion.

References

  • Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagno, E., & Eylon, B-Sh. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 65(8), 726–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1967). Foundations of physics. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1973). Method, model and matter. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (2000) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eylon, B-Sh, & Reif, F. (1984). Effects of knowledge organization on task performance. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 5–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. (1996). Student’s conceptual change in geometrical optics. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 847–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. (2011). Promotion of content cultural knowledge through the use of the history and philosophy of science. Science & Education, 21(9), 1283–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. (2013). On the power of fine arts pictorial imagery in science education in science education. Science & Education, 22, 1911–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. (2014). Teaching optics: A historico-philosophical perspective. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 97–128). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of a historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets: Schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics, 68(7), S3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I., & Tseitlin, M. (2006).Theoretical model in teaching physics: Perspective “Discipline Culture”. In Proceedings of the international conference on physics education (GIREP): Modeling in physics and physics education, (pp. 385–390). Amsterdam: Gemeete.

  • Grimellini Tomasini, N. (2004). Teaching physics from a cultural perspective: Examples from research on physics education. In E. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the international school of physics “E. Fermi”, Course CLVI “research on physics education” (pp. 559–582). Bologna: IOS Press, SIF.

  • Grimellini Tomasini, N., & Levrini, O. (2004). History and philosophy of physics as tools for preservice teacher education. In M. Michelini (Ed.), Quality development in teacher education and training (pp. 306–310). Selected contributions Second International GIREP Seminar, 2003, Udine, Italy.

  • Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. London: G. Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemmer, T. N. (2006). The nature of scientific models in physics: a philosophical perspective. In Proceedings of the international conference on physics education (GIREP): Modeling in physics and physics education. Amsterdam: Gemeete.

  • Levrini, O. (2004). Teaching modern physics from a cultural perspective: an example of educational re-construction of spacetime theories. In E. F. Redish, M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the international school of physics “E. Fermi”, Course CLVI “Research on Physics Education” (pp. 621–628). Bologna: IOS press, SIF.

  • Levrini, O. (2014). The role of history and philosophy in research on teaching and learning of relativity. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levrini, O., & diSessa, A. A. (2008). How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review, Special Topic Physics Education Research,. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.010107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levrini, O., & Fantini, P. (2013). Encountering productive forms of complexity in learning modern physics. Science & Education, 22(8), 1895–1910. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9587-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levrini, O., Fantini, P., Pecori, B., Gagliardi, M., Tasquier, G. & Scarongella, MT. (2010). A longitudinal approach to appropriation of science ideas: A study of students’ trajectories in thermodynamics. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.) Learning in the disciplines: proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2010): full papers (Vol. 1, pp. 572–579). Chicago IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Levrini, O., Fantini, P., Pecori, B., & Tasquier, G. (2014a). Forms of productive complexity as criteria for educational reconstruction: the design of a teaching proposal on thermodynamics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Journal, 116, 1483–1490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levrini, O., Fantini, P., Pecori, B., Tasquier, G., & Levin, M. (2014b). Defining and operationalizing ‘appropriation’ for science learning. Submitted to Journal of the Learning Sciences.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, D. C. (1976). Theories of vision form Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1964). Problems, topics, and issues. In S. Elam (Ed.), Education and the structure of knowledge (pp. 4–47). McNally: Rand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In: I. Westbury & N. J. Wolkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education (p. 242). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Sjøberg, S. (2002). Science and technology education current challenges and possible solutions. In E. Jenkins (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. VIII). Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2005). Teaching physics in looking for its self: From a physics-discipline to a physics-culture. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 235–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseitlin, M., & Galili, I. (2006). ‘Models in physics teaching: arguing for a broader view’ are under modeling. In Proceedings of the international conference on physics education (GIREP): Modeling in physics and physics education (pp. 395–398). Amsterdam: Gemeete.

  • Tylor, E. (1871/1920). Primitive culture (Vol. 1). New York: J. P. Putnam’s Sons.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1975). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weizsacker, C. F. (1985/2006). The structure of physics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Wells, M., Hestenes, D., & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, R. S. (1971). The construction of modern science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Michela Clementi, Paola Fantini and Christian Montanari—the teachers involved in the study—for their kind support and precious feedback. We are also thankful to the reviewers of Science & Education who helped us to refine and clarify our arguments and in particular to Colin Gauld who patiently copyedited our manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 6/2, 40127, Bologna, Italy

    Olivia Levrini, Eugenio Bertozzi, Marta Gagliardi, Nella Grimellini Tomasini & Barbara Pecori

  2. Department of Physics and Chemistry, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Giulia Tasquier

  3. Science Teaching Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Igal Galili

Authors
  1. Olivia Levrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eugenio Bertozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Gagliardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nella Grimellini Tomasini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barbara Pecori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giulia Tasquier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Igal Galili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivia Levrini.

Appendices

Annex 1: The Teaching Path of Optics Class

1.1 How Light Behaves

Phenomenological approach:

  • Light sources and shadows; beams, pencils and rays (straight path of light expansion)

  • Reflection and images: experiments on light reflection. From experimental data to phenomenological laws (images in plane and parabolic mirrors; real and virtual images)

  • Refraction and images: experiments on refraction. From experimental data to phenomenological laws (absolute and relative indexes of refraction, total reflection)

  • The reversibility of light

1.2 The Particle Model of Light

  • Reflection and refraction: the experiment on particle refraction

  • Potentialities and limits (light pressure and the relative index of refraction)

1.3 In Search of a New Model for Light: Introduction to Waves

  • Waves in a coil spring

  • Reflection of a pulse from a fixed end of a spring

  • Reflection and transmission of waves

  • Superposition of waves: crossing pulses

  • Wave model of light

1.4 Waves and Light

  • Water waves. Experiments in a ripple tank: plane and circular pulses; reflection; speed of wave propagation; refraction; dispersion; diffraction of waves with different wave lengths passing through an opening.

  • Interference of light of two point sources. Experiments: nodal line; principle of superposition; interference pattern in terms of wave length, sources separation, phase.

1.5 Light Waves

  • Interference of light waves: Young’s experiment

  • Phase of light sources

  • Colours and wave length of light

  • Diffraction: interference in single slits

  • Light diffraction in a slit

  • Experiments with single and double slits

Annex 2: Pre-Questionnaire

Dear students,

During the second year in physics class you studied optics and used “rays”, “particles” and “waves” to account for a variety of physical phenomena and experiments. We would like to ask you several questions relevant to the further activities. We will deal here with the way physicists organize physics knowledge in optics and in general.

  1. 1.

    Please exemplify the situations, phenomena or experiments in which:

    1. a.

      "rays" are effective for description or interpretation;

    2. b.

      "particles" are effective for description or interpretation;

    3. c.

      "waves" are effective for description or interpretation;

Explain your choice and the meaning of your notions of light (rays, particles, waves)

  1. 2.

    Are there any connections among rays, particles and waves of light? Please explain.

  2. 3.

    How would you answer the question: “what is light”?

  3. 4.

    Physicists organize knowledge in terms of “theories” and “models”. In light of what you learned, please comment on the meaning of these constructs.

  4. 5.

    Do you think that knowing what a “theory” or a “model” is, or how they were built is important in order to understand physics? Please, explain.

  5. 6.

    Could you tell us how physics knowledge is related to the natural world?

Thank you for your answers.

Annex 3: Post-Questionnaire

Dear students,

In the recently provided lecture you observed the knowledge of optics structured and summarized in a historical perspective and within a certain philosophical approach. In light of this lecture, we ask you several questions.

  1. 1.

    (a) How did the lecturer describe the relationship between theories and models of light within physics?

    (b) Is the presented view different, similar, or comparable to what you thought before? Please explain.

  2. 2.

    The introduced models of light of different theories apparently contradict each other. In your opinion, does it present a problem? Explain your answer.

  3. 3.

    The nature of light could be taught in historical and philosophical perspective or without it. Would you prefer that? Explain your answer.

  4. 4.

    Some physicists seek one inclusive theory of all Nature. Others are satisfied by several theories, each good to solve certain problems. Which one do you feel closer to and why?

  5. 5.

    Is it important to address history in teaching physics? Explain your answer.

  6. 6.

    Is it important to address philosophy (epistemology) in teaching physics? Explain your answer.

  7. 7.

    In the previous questionnaire, you were asked about the relationship between physics and Nature. Did you change your opinion after the lecture? Why?

  8. 8.

    Is it important to keep different views in physics knowledge and compare them? Why?

Thank you for your answers.

Annex 4: Interviews with the Teachers

The following questions structured the interviews with the teachers.

  1. 1.

    What do you find interesting (new) in the way the lecture organized optics knowledge?

  2. 2.

    Would you adopt this kind of lesson and after-lecture discussion? If yes, what do you think is the benefit of its contents for the students?

  3. 3.

    What aspects of the lecture do you find more interesting, stimulating, or problematic in students’ perspective?

  4. 4.

    Could you comment on the level and kind of involvement of the students in the experiment?

  5. 5.

    Did you observe anything special or unusual in students’ reaction to this experiment? If so, what?

  6. 6.

    What students’ response would you recommend us to analyse?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levrini, O., Bertozzi, E., Gagliardi, M. et al. Meeting the Discipline-Culture Framework of Physics Knowledge: A Teaching Experience in Italian Secondary School. Sci & Educ 23, 1701–1731 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9692-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9692-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation