## ABSTRACT

Good conceptual understanding of physics is based on understanding what the key concepts are and how they are related. This kind of understanding is especially important for physics teachers in planning how and in what order to introduce concepts in teaching; connections which tie concepts to each other give direction of progress—there is “flux of information” so that what was learned before provides the basis for learning new ideas. In this study, we discuss how such ordering of concepts can be made visible by using concept maps and how they can be used in analysing the students’ views and ideas about the inherent logic of the teaching plans. The approach discussed here is informed by the recent cognitively oriented ideas of knowledge organisation concentrating on simple knowledge organisation patterns and how they form the basis of more complex concept networks. The analysis of such *concept networks* is then very naturally based on the use of network theory on analysing the concept maps. The results show that even in well-connected maps, there can be abrupt changes in the information flux in the way knowledge is passed from the initial levels to the final levels. This suggests that handling the information content is very demanding and perhaps a very difficult skill for a pre-service teacher to master.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

## References

Anderson, P. W. (2001). Science: A ‘dappled world’ or a ‘seamless web’?

*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 32*, 487–494.Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M. & Hwang, D. U. (2006). Complex networks: Structure and dynamics.

*Physics Reports, 424*, 175–308.DiSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence). In S. Vosniadou (Ed.),

*International handbook of research on conceptual change*(pp. 35–60). New York: Routledge.Duit, R., Gropengießer, H. & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. Fischer (Ed.),

*Developing standards in research on science education*(pp. 1–9). Leiden: Taylor & Francis.Kelly, J. K. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing.

*Science Education, 86*, 314–342.Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models.

*Developmental Science, 10*, 307–321.Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B. & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development.

*Educational Research, 42*, 43–57.Kolaczyk, E. D. (2009).

*Statistical analysis of network data*. New York: Springer.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.Koponen, I. T. & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education.

*Science Education, 19*, 259–282.Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview.

*Theory into Practice, 41*, 212–218.Mäntylä, T. (2012). Didactical reconstruction of processes in knowledge construction: Pre-service physics teachers learning the law of electromagnetic induction.

*Research in Science Education*. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9217-6.Mäntylä, T. & Koponen, I. T. (2007). Understanding the role of measurements in creating physical quantities: A case study of learning to quantify temperature in physics teacher education.

*Science Education, 16*, 291–311.McClure, J. R., Sonak, B. & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality.

*Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36*, 475–492.Karrer, B. & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Random graph models for directed acyclic networks.

*Physical Review, E 80*(046110), 1–12.Nousiainen, M. & Koponen, I. T. (2010). Concept maps representing knowledge of physics: Connecting structure and content in the context of electricity and magnetism.

*Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6*, 155–172.Novak, J. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners.

*Science Education, 86*, 548–571.Pemmaraju, S. & Skiena, S. (2006).

*Computational discrete mathematics: Combinatorics and graph theory with Mathematica*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment.

*Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33*, 569–600.Safayeni, F., Derbentseva, N. & Cañas, A. J. (2005). A theoretical note on concepts and the need for cyclic concept maps.

*Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42*, 741–766.Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations of future directions.

*Science Education, 92*, 447–472.Sensevy, G., Tiberghien, A., Santini, J., Laube, S. & Griggs, P. (2008). An epistemological approach to modeling: Cases studies and implications for science teaching.

*Science Education, 92*, 424–446.Thagard, P. (1992).

*Conceptual revolutions*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Tiberghien, A. (1994). Modelling as basis for analysing teaching–learning situations.

*Learning and Instruction, 4*, 71–88.Wilson, E. O. (1999).

*Consilience: The unity of knowledge*. New York: Vintage Books.

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Appendix

### Appendix

### Theoretical Quantities Used in Analysis

In a map (network) of *n* nodes, the variable *a*
_{
ij
} indicates the connections between nodes *i* and *j* so that if nodes are connected, then *a*
_{
ij
} = 1 and if there is no connection, then *a*
_{
ij
} = 0. These elements form a *n*x*n*-dimensional matrix, the so-called adjacency matrix, **a**. The justification of the knowledge represented by the links can be taken into account by giving a weight from 0 to 1 so that if *L* levels of the epistemic justification are fulfilled, the weight is given by *w*
_{
ij
} = (*L*/4)*a*
_{
ij
}, where *L* = 0,1, …4 is the number of epistemic levels achieved. The weights for connections between nodes *i* and *j* are then set from 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 or 1.0 on the basis of their epistemic classification. The matrix **w** then gives the weights which describe the degree of the validity of the link, i.e. the plausibility of the knowledge represented in the maps. All quantities *D*
_{
k
}, *C*
_{
k
}, *Φ*
_{
k
}, and *Ψ*
_{
k
} of interest can now be calculated from matrices **a** and **w**. These quantities are central for characterising the connectedness of networks and their capability to pass on information. Within the literature of network theory, in particular, they discussed clustering extensively (Kolaczyk, 2009; Boccaletti et al., 2006), but they also discussed the information flux (Karrer & Newman, 2009). Their mathematical definitions in terms of the connectivity matrix **a** are given in Table 4. Here, however, we do not discuss the derivation or properties of these quantities further. The definitions can be used for weighted links simply by replacing *a*
_{
ij
} by weights *w*
_{
ij
}. The only exception is the clustering, where only the node, which is responsible for transitivity, i.e. the link between neighbouring nodes, is weighted and the term *a*
_{
ij
}
*a*
_{
jk
}
*a*
_{
ik
} is replaced by *a*
_{
ij
}
*w*
_{
jk
}
*a*
_{
ik
} so that only the link *j* → *k*, which is responsible for the clustering, is taken into account. When the data are analysed and represented in terms of the quantities defined in Table 4, their phenomenological interpretation will be clear enough without the technical details or proofs.

### Empirical Data for All Concept Maps, G1 – G6

In the main text, empirical data are given in detail only for representative cases G1, G2 and G3.

Here, all data are given. In Table 5, a complete listing of the concepts and laws is given in the order in which they appear in the maps (compare with Table 1).

The concept maps in the form of embedded graphs are given in Figure 6. Numbering refers to the concepts in Table 4. These graphs contain all relevant empirical information of the pre-service students’ concept maps discussed in the main text.

The results of the analysis of epistemic weights using grades from 1 to 4 are given as relative weight factors *w* = 0.25, 050, 075 and 1.0 which are given in list form for concepts 1 – 34 in Tables 6 and 7. In a few cases, there are connections which refer backwards, but this represents deviation from the principle to introduce new concepts on the basis of old ones. These links are set to zero weights.

The average values of the clustering and fluxes for graphs G1 – G3, based on the unweighted (all links either 1 or 0) links and weighted links with weights given in Tables 6 and 7, are shown in Figure 7 for maps G4, G5 and G6 (maps G1 – G3 are shown in the main text). The distributions of the values are shown in Figure 8. For all maps G1 – G6, the average values *X* = {*D*,*C*,*Φ*, *Ψ*} and corresponding dispersions *δ*
_{
X
} = *σ*
_{
X
}/*X*, where *σ*
_{
X
} is the standard deviation, are given in the main text in Table 3.

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Koponen, I., Nousiainen, M. PRE-SERVICE PHYSICS TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PHYSICS CONCEPTS: ORGANISING SUBJECT CONTENTS FOR PURPOSES OF TEACHING.
*Int J of Sci and Math Educ* **11**, 325–357 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9337-0

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9337-0

### KEY WORDS

- concept maps
- knowledge organisation
- teacher education
- teaching plans