Analysis of Teaching and Learning Practices in Physics and Chemistry Education: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

  • Patrice Venturini
  • Andrée Tiberghien
  • Claudia von Aufschnaiter
  • Gregory Kelly
  • Eduardo Mortimer
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 1)

Abstract

In this chapter, theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches for the study of physics and chemistry teaching and learning practices are illustrated through the use of three studies. These studies, based on the analysis of videotaped classroom discourse and actions, concern conceptual change, students’ meaning-making, and inquiry-based science education. They allow discussing the interest and the limits of these frameworks with regard to the description along the time course of the intertwined learning and teaching processes, their modeling, and, more generally, the interest of such studies for science education.

Keywords

Science Education Conceptual Change Classroom Discourse Communicative Approach Didactic Contract 
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.

References

  1. Beeth, M.-E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Edition, 83, 738–760. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199911)83:6<797::AID-SCE9>3.0.CO;2-Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Edition, 94, 577–616. doi: 10.1002/sce.20390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Edition, 28, 1315–1346. doi: 10.1080/09500690600621100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Edition, 86, 175–218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Closset, J. L. (1983). Sequential reasoning in electricity. In Research on Physics Education. Proceedings of the First International Workshop. La londe des maures, pp. 313–319.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding the classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 905–935. doi: 10.1002/tea.20031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eshach, H. (2010). An analysis of conceptual flow patterns and structures in the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Edition, 32, 451–477. doi: 10.1080/09500690802635247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Edition, 90, 453–467. doi: 10.1002/sce.20130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining young children’s conceptual change process in floating and sinking from a social constructivist perspective. International Journal of Science Edition, 27, 259–279. doi: 10.1080/0950069042000243736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 288–291.Google Scholar
  12. Kelly, G. J., McDonald, S., & Wickman, P. O. (2012). Science learning and epistemology. In K. Tobin, B. Fraser, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 281–291). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lemke, J. L. (2001). The long and the short of it: Comments on multiple timescales studies of human activities. Journal Science of Learning, 10, 29–43.Google Scholar
  14. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2006). Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers’ epistemological moves and students’ practical epistemology. Science Edition, 90, 148–163. doi: 10.1002/sce.20092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lidar, M., Almqvist, J., & Ostman, L. (2010a). A pragmatist approach to meaning-making in children’s discussions about gravity and the shape of the earth. Science Edition, 94, 689–709. doi: 10.1002/sce.20384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lidar, M., Lundqvist, E., & Ostman, L. (2010). Comparative studies of manners of teaching. Communication presented at ECER 2010 Education and Cultural Change. University of Helsinki, 25–27 August 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Loxley, P. M. (2009). Evaluation of three primary teachers’ approaches to teaching scientific concepts in persuasive ways. International Journal of Science Edition, 31, 1607–1629. doi: 10.1080/09500690802150114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Makitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts: Effects on help-seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning & Instruction, 21, 257–266. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–128). Kiel: IPN.Google Scholar
  21. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning-making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Riemeier, T., & Gropengießer, H. (2008). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: process‐based analysis of students’ conceptual development in teaching experiments. International Journal of Science Edition, 30, 923–939. doi: 10.1080/09500690701294716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rincke, K. (2011). It’s rather like learning a language: Development of talk and conceptual understanding in mechanics lessons. International Journal of Science Edition, 33, 229–258. doi: 10.1080/09500691003615343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 57–84. doi: 10.1002/tea.20163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Edition, 95, 217–257. doi: 10.1002/sce.20421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Edition, 89, 634–656. doi: 10.1002/sce.20065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Edition, 88, 610–645. doi: 10.1002/sce.10128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative/dialogic discourses: A fundamental characteristic of meaning-making interactions in high-school science lessons. Science Edition, 90, 605–631. doi: 10.1002/sce.20131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., & Kobarg, M. (2005). How to run a video study. Muenster: Waxmann. Technical Report of the IPN Video Study.Google Scholar
  30. Sensevy, G. (2009). Outline of a joint action theory in didactics. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education, Lyon. http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/edition-electronique/cerme6/wg9-12-sensevy.pdf. Retrieved on 5 Jan 2012.
  31. Sensevy, G. (2011). Le sens du savoir. Éléments pour une théorie de l’action conjointe en didactique (The meaning of knowledge. elements for a joint action theory in didactics). Brussels: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  32. Shimoda, T. A., White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2002). Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. Science Edition, 86, 244–263. doi: 10.1002/sce.10003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smithenry, D. W. (2010). Integrating guided inquiry into a traditional chemistry curricular framework. International Journal of Science Edition, 32, 1689–1714. doi: 10.1080/09500690903150617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suzuki, M. (2005). Social metaphorical mapping of the concept of force “CHI-KA-RA” in Japanese. International Journal of Science Edition, 27, 1773–1804. doi: 10.1080/09500690500206507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Zee, E. (2000). Analysis of a student-generated inquiry discussion. International Journal of Science Edition, 22, 115–142. doi: 10.1080/095006900289912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., Kane, J. M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., & Marmotes Cowan, B. (2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instructional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Edition, 92, 65–95. doi: 10.1002/sce.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. von Aufschnaiter, C. (2003). Interactive processes between university students: Structures of interactions and related cognitive development. Research in Science Edition, 33, 341–374. doi: 10.1023/A:1025452430958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Aufschnaiter, C., & Rogge, C. (2010). Misconceptions or missing conceptions? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Edition, 6, 3–18.Google Scholar
  39. Vosniadou, S. (2008). Handbook of research on conceptual change. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Edition, 29, 1387–1410. doi: 10.1080/09500690601068095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson, R. J., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Edition, 26, 25–45. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000072764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wickman, P. O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Edition, 88, 325–344. doi: 10.1002/sce.10129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wickman, P. O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Edition, 86, 601–623. doi: 10.1002/sce.10036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2010). Transana v2.42. Madison: The board of regents of the university of Wisconsin system. http://www.transana.org.
  47. Yager, R. (1997). Science education a science? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2, 1–4. Retrieved 2 April 2012, from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/yager.html.Google Scholar
  48. Yeo, J., & Chee Tan, S. (2010). Constructive use of authoritative sources in science meaning-making. International Journal of Science Edition, 32, 1739–1754. doi: 10.1080/09500690903199564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrice Venturini
    • 1
  • Andrée Tiberghien
    • 2
  • Claudia von Aufschnaiter
    • 3
  • Gregory Kelly
    • 4
  • Eduardo Mortimer
    • 5
  1. 1.University of ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.UMR ICAR, CNRSUniversity of Lyon 2, ENS-LyonLyon CedexFrance
  3. 3.University of GiessenGiessenGermany
  4. 4.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  5. 5.Federal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations