Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1361–1387 | Cite as

Promoting Conceptual Development in Physics Teacher Education: Cognitive-Historical Reconstruction of Electromagnetic Induction Law

  • Terhi Mäntylä
Article

Abstract

In teaching physics, the history of physics offers fruitful starting points for designing instruction. I introduce here an approach that uses historical cognitive processes to enhance the conceptual development of pre-service physics teachers’ knowledge. It applies a method called cognitive-historical approach, introduced to the cognitive sciences by Nersessian (Cognitive Models of Science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 3–45, 1992). The approach combines the analyses of actual scientific practices in the history of science with the analytical tools and theories of contemporary cognitive sciences in order to produce knowledge of how conceptual structures are constructed and changed in science. Hence, the cognitive-historical analysis indirectly produces knowledge about the human cognition. Here, a way to use the cognitive-historical approach for didactical purposes is introduced. In this application, the cognitive processes in the history of physics are combined with current physics knowledge in order to create a cognitive-historical reconstruction of a certain quantity or law for the needs of physics teacher education. A principal aim of developing the approach has been that pre-service physics teachers must know how the physical concepts and laws are or can be formed and justified. As a practical example of the developed approach, a cognitive-historical reconstruction of the electromagnetic induction law was produced. For evaluating the uses of the cognitive-historical reconstruction, a teaching sequence for pre-service physics teachers was conducted. The initial and final reports of twenty-four students were analyzed through a qualitative categorization of students’ justifications of knowledge. The results show a conceptual development in the students’ explanations and justifications of how the electromagnetic induction law can be formed.

Keywords

Magnetic Flux Conceptual Change Electromagnetic Induction Teaching Sequence Interpretative Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland through grant SA1133369.

References

  1. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74(4), 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Darrigol, O. (2000). Electrodynamics from Ampere to Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faraday, M. (2005/1839). Experimental researches in electricity, volume 1. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm.
  7. Gooding, D. (2006). From phenomenology to field theory: Faraday’s visual reasoning. Perspectives on Science, 14(1), 40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guisasola, J., Almudi, J., & Zuza, K. (2011). University students’ understanding of electromagnetic induction. International Journal of Science Education, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.624134.
  9. Hadzidaki, P. (2008). The Heisenberg microscope: A powerful instructional tool for promoting meta-cognitive and meta-scientific thinking on quantum mechanics and the ‘nature of science’. Science & Education, 17, 613–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kipnis, N. (2005). Chance in science: The discovery of electromagnetism by H. C. Oersted. Science & Education, 14, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koponen, I. T. (2007). Models and modelling in physics education: A critical re-analysis of philosophical underpinnings and suggestions for revisions. Science & Education, 16, 751–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koponen, I. T., & Mäntylä, T. (2006). Generative role of experiments in physics and in teaching physics: A suggestion for epistemological reconstruction. Science & Education, 15, 31–54.Google Scholar
  14. Mäntylä, T. (2011). Didactical reconstruction of processes in knowledge construction: Pre-service physics teachers learning the law of electromagnetic induction. Research in Science Education, 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9217-6.
  15. Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nersessian, N. J. (1985). Faraday’s field concept. In D. Gooding & F. James (Eds.), Faraday discovered: Essays on the life & work of Michael Faraday, 1791–1867 (pp. 175–187). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  17. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nickles, T. (1993). Justification and experiment. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences (pp. 299–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Oh, P. S., & Oh, S. J. (2011). What teachers of science need to know about models: An overview. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1109–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pocovi, M. C., & Finlay, F. (2002). Lines of force: Faraday’s and students’ views. Science & Education, 11, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reif, F. (1982). Generalized Ohm’s law, potential difference, and voltage measurements. American Journal of Physics, 50(11), 1048–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seroglou, F., & Koumaras, P. (2001). The contribution of the history of physics in physics education: A review. Science & Education, 10, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strömdahl, H. (2012). On discerning critical elements, relationships and shifts in attaining scientific terms: The challenge of polysemy/homonymy and reference. Science & Education, 21, 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stuewer, R. H. (1998). History and physics. Science & Education, 7, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Thong, W. M., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Some student conceptions of electromagnetic induction. Research in Science Education, 38, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tweney, R. D. (2009). Mathematical representations in science: A cognitive-historical case history. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 758–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Varney, R. N., & Fisher, L. H. (1980). Electromotive force: Volta’s forgotten concept. American Journal of Physics, 48(5), 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.School of Education and EnvironmentKristianstad UniversityKristianstadSweden

Personalised recommendations