Coherence of Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Views of the Relatedness of Physics Concepts
In physics teacher education, one of the recurrent themes is the importance of fostering the formation of organised and coherent knowledge structures, but a simple shared understanding of what coherence actually means and how it can be recognised, is not easily found. This study suggests an approach in which the coherence of students’ views about the relatedness of physics concepts can be identified and evaluated. Six pre-service physics teachers presented their understanding of the relatedness of physics concepts in the form of specially designed concept maps in which experimental or modelling procedures were required as links between physics concepts. The acceptability of the links was evaluated by using four criteria for epistemic analysis introduced in this study. The weighted values describing the maps’ structural features were calculated, and finally, the cases were compared and the differences between them were discussed. The results show that the epistemic analysis of links affects remarkably to the acceptability of knowledge and thus also the coherence of such knowledge. The highest criterion set for acceptability seems to be very demanding to fulfil and even in the advanced level of studies only a fraction of students manage to reach it. The cases examined here show that the knowledge structures are partly fragmented and not as coherent as one would have expected them to be.
KeywordsKnowledge Structure Conceptual System Physic Concept Epistemic Justification Physics Teacher Education
This work was supported by the Academy of Finland grant 1133369.
- Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
- BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2010). Argumentation in Science Education: A Model-based Framework. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5.
- Chi, M. T. H., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Complex declarative learning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 371–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- diSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s-eye view of the “Pieces” vs. “Coherence” controversy (form the “Pieces” side of the Fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 35–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Haack, S. (1993). Evidence and inquiry: Towards reconstruction in epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–25). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kelly, J. K., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 137–157). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Lawson, A. E. (2009). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94(2), 336–364.Google Scholar
- McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle School Students’ Use of Appropriate and Inappropriate Evidence in Writing Scientific Explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie symposium on cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Nousiainen, M., & Koponen, I. (2010). Concept maps representing physics knowledge: Connecting the structure and content in the context of electricity and magnetism. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6, 155–172.Google Scholar
- Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar