Abstract
Knowledge is not simply a collection of facts, principles, and formulas; instead, meaningful knowledge is organized around core concepts that guide peoples’ thinking about a subject. Therefore, knowledge organization is recognized as an important component of understanding learning and teaching. In this research, knowledge organization of two physics university textbooks was compared with that of four physics university teachers. The topic studied was magnetostatics with an emphasis on two topics of Biot-Savart law and Ampère’s law. The aim of study was to examine the structural features of the subject matter knowledge of teachers and textbooks. For this reason, concept maps were utilized to picture clearly their knowledge organizations. Concept maps were evaluated by means of a focus on their structural characteristics including hierarchy and clustering. Results indicate that the hierarchical organizations between knowledge of teachers and textbooks vary from one topic to another. The hierarchical organizations of teachers are more comparable to textbooks for the topic of Biot-Savart law. The clustering behaves in a very similar way in the case of patterns between textbooks and teachers for both topics. It was observed that the knowledge arrangements of Ampère’s law were more hierarchical, while the knowledge organizations of Biot-Savart were more clustered. Moreover, structural properties varied from one topic to another, even though topics belong to the same context. The possibility of recognizing such difference in knowledge organization is a first step towards developing more effective teaching and learning solutions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abell, S. K. (2007). In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Research on science teacher knowledge chapter 36 (Ith ed., pp. 1103–1149). New York: Routledge.
Ainsworth, S. & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 286–303.
Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is: Or might be: The role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(6), 8–14.
Bagno, E. & Eylon, B. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 65(8), 726–736.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, L. A. & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
da Costa, L. F., Rodrigues, F. A., Travieso, G. & Villas Boas, P. R. (2007). Characterization of complex networks: A survey of measurements. Advances in Physics, 56, 167–242.
Davis, E. A. & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
Erlichson, H. (1998). The experiments of Biot and Savarat concerning the force exerted by a current on a magnetic needle. American Journal of Physics, 66, 385–391.
Erickson, G. (1994). Pupils’ understanding magnetism in a practical assessment context: The relationship between content, process and progression. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone & R. White (Eds.), The content of science. London: Falmer.
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B. & Sands, M. L. (1964). The Feynman lectures on physics. California: Addison-Wesley.
Guisasola, J., Almudì, J. M. & Zubimendi, J. L. (2004). Difficulties in learning the introductory magnetic field theory in the first years of university. Science Education, 88, 443–464.
Guisasola, J., Almudì, J. M., Ceberio, M. & Zubimendi, J. L. (2009). Designing and evaluating research-based instructional sequences for introducing magnetic fields. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 699–722.
Hay, D. B., Harvey, W. & Kinchin, I. M. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative measures of student learning at university level. Higher Education, 56, 221–239.
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(1), 43–57.
Knight, R. D. (2008). Physics for scientists and engineers: A strategic approach with modern physics. San Francisco: Pearson Addison-Wesley.
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.
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. & Nousiainen, M. (2012). Pre-service physics teachers’ understanding of the relational structure of physics concepts: Organising subject content for purposes of teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9337-0.
Koponen, I. T. & Pehkonen, M. (2010). Coherent knowledge structures of physics represented as concept networks in teacher education. Science & Education, 19, 259–282.
Koulaidis, V. & Tsatsaroni, A. (1996). A pedagogical analysis of science textbooks: How can we proceed? Research in Science Education, 26(1), 55–71.
Manogue, C. A., Browne, K., Dray, T. & Edwards, B. (2006). Why is Ampère’s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics. American Journal of Physics, 74, 344–350.
Majidi, S. & Mäntylä, T. (2011). The knowledge organization in physics textbooks: A case study of magnetostatics. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(4), 285–299.
Majidi, S. (2012). Structural patterns and representation forms of university physics teachers: Biot-Savart Law and Ampère’s law. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4), 318–332.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M. & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 78–93.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. (1996). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mäntylä, T. (2011). Didactical reconstruction of processes in knowledge construction: Pre-service physics teachers learning the law of electromagnetic induction. Research in Science Education, 42, 791–812.
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.
Novak, J. & Gowin, B. D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oser, F. K. & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031–1065). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. (1999). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
Roseman, J. E., Stern, L. & Koppal, M. (2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 47–70.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M. & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278.
Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Smit, M. U. (1996). Knowledge structures and the nature of expertise in classical genetics. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 287–302.
Van Zele, E., Lenaerts, J. & Wieme, W. (2004). Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1043–1064.
Walker, J., Halliday, D. & Resnick, R. (2008). Fundamentals of physics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Formulas and Equations of Biot-Savart Law and Ampère’s Law with Details
Appendix B
Example of Calculating the Hierarchy
This picture is taken from John’s structural patterns, Fig. 7.
According to the definition of hierarchy (H), it is calculated as follows:
H = the number of spokes including Biot-Savart law or Ampère’s law/the total number of links
The number of spokes is calculated as follows:
- r :
-
number of links that form a spoke so r = 2
- n :
-
total number of links in each pattern
- ( n r )::
-
represents the number of spokes that could be selected from each pattern
from a set of n links when the order of selection in not considered relevant.
So in the given example, number of spokes can be calculated as follows:
This is an example of a very sophisticated hierarchy because H >> 1 (c.f. Koponen & Pehkonen, 2010)
Example of calculating the clustering:
This picture is taken from PSE structural patterns, Fig. 4.
There are 5 triangles which include Biot-Savart law or Ampère’s law.
The total number of links is 11, so:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Majidi, S. A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION OF UNIVERSITY PHYSICS TEACHERS AND THE TEXTBOOKS THEY USE FOR THEIR TEACHING PURPOSES: BIOT-SAVART LAW AND AMPÈRE’S LAW. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 12, 1281–1314 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9457-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9457-1