Conclusion
In concluding this tentative account of our research we can note that the research questions about teachers' alternative frameworks and their interaction with the curriculum and with classroom learning by students appear to be extremely important questions for researchers in the area of energy teaching and learning and presumably in wider contexts.
There are also implications for science teacher education, both preservice and inservice. It is clearly necessary to address the confusion in both teachers' and students' understandings of energy.
We would like to thank Mary and Jack, their Principals, and classes for allowing us to observe their teaching and learning, SERU colleagues for their sustained support and in particular Mark Cosgrove for his editing of this paper's drafts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BELL, B. (1985).The Construction of Meaning and Conceptual Change in Classroom Settings: Case Studies on Plant Nutrition: Childrens Learning in Science Project. Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, The University of Leeds.
CARR, M.D. (1986). “LIPS (Energy): The Framework”,Research in Science Education,16.
DUIT, R. (1985).In Search of an Energy Concept. Paper to Conference on Teaching about Energy within the Secondary School Science Curriculum, Leeds, March.
OSBORNE, R. & BIDDULPH, F. (1985).Learning in Science Project (Primary) Final Report. Hamilton, N.Z. Science Education Research Unit.
WARREN, J.S. (1982). The Nature of Energy.European Journal of Science Education, 4, 295–297.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kirkwood, V., Carr, M. & McChesney, J. LISP (Energy) — Some preliminary findings. Research in Science Education 16, 175–183 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356832
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356832