Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 1751–1762 | Cite as

Teacher Explanation of Physics Concepts: a Video Study

  • David GeelanEmail author


Video recordings of Year 11 physics lessons were analyzed to identify key features of teacher explanations. Important features of the explanations used included teachers’ ability to move between qualitative and quantitative modes of discussion, attention to what students require to succeed in high stakes examinations, thoughtful use of analogies, storytelling and references to the history of science, the use of educational technology, and the use of humor. Considerable scope remains for further research into teacher explanations in physics.


Teacher explanation Physics Video analysis 


  1. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Charmaz, K. (2001). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: context and method (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geelan, D. R. (1997). Epistemological anarchy and the many forms of constructivism. Science Education, 6(1–2), 15–28.Google Scholar
  4. Geelan, D. R. (2010). Technological and methodological challenges of using classroom video to analyze physics teachers’ explanations. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(3), 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geelan, D. R. (2012). Teacher Explanations. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 987–999). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Guba, E. G. (1981). ERIC/ECTJ annual review paper: criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 29, 75–91.Google Scholar
  7. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Technology Research And Development, 30(4), 233–252.Google Scholar
  8. Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72, 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nashon, S. M. (2004). The nature of analogical explanations: high school physics use in Kenya. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 475–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pearce, C., Arnold, M., Phillips, C., & Dwan, K. (2010). Methodological considerations of digital video observation: beyond conversation analysis. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(2), 90–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Podolefsky, N.F. & Finkelstein, N.D. (2007). Analogical scaffolding and the learning of abstract ideas in physics: Empirical studies. Physics Review StudiesPhysics Education Research 3, 020104.Google Scholar
  13. Ruben, D.-H. (1990). Explaining explanation. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ruben, D.-H. (1993). Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sevian, H., & Gonsalves, L. (2008). Analyzing how scientists explain their research: a rubric for measuring the effectiveness of scientific explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1441–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. Thagard, P. (1992). Analogy, explanation and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Treagust, D. F., & Harrison, A. G. (1999). The genesis of effective scientific explanations for the classroom. In J. J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 28–43). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  19. Treagust, D. F., & Harrison, A. G. (2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: an analysis of Richard Feynman’s lecture “Atoms in motion”. International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1157–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: a framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1741–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityGold CoastAustralia

Personalised recommendations