The Language of Physics

A Case Study of the Concept of Force in Primary Education
  • Panos Kokkotas
  • Vasilios Koulaidis
  • Yannos Karanikas
  • Anna Tsatsaroni
  • Yiannis Vlachos

Abstract

The aim of this paper is twofold:
  • Firstly, to analyse the language which is used by teachers when they teach the concept of force.

  • Secondly, to relate teachers’ language to the transformations which occured in pupils’ language as a result of the interaction in the classroom.

Keywords

Clarification Metaphor 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Conant, J. B., 1947, On understanding Science: an Historical Approach, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Dagognet, F., 1973, Ecriture et Iconographie, Vrin, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. diSessa, A. A., 1982, “Unlearning Aristotelian Physics: A study of Knowledge-Based learning”, Cognitive Science, 6, 37–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Driver, R. and Easley, J., 1978, “Pupils and Paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students”, Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Driver, R. and Erickson, G., 1983, “Theories-in-action: Some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science”, Stud. Sci. Rev., 10, 37–60Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, J., 1987, Knowledge and Human Interests, Polity Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Holton, G., 1973, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.)Google Scholar
  8. Ioannidis, C. and Vosniadou, S., 1994, “Pupils’ cognitive representations concerning the concept of force”, in V. Koulaidis (ed.), Representations of the World, Gutenberg, AthensGoogle Scholar
  9. Koulaidis, V., 1994, “Terms and Boundaries: Phenomenology, representations and conceptual change”, in V. Koulaidis (ed.), Representations of the World, Gutenberg, AthensGoogle Scholar
  10. Latour, B., 1990, “Drawing things together”, in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice Google Scholar
  11. Ministrell, J., 1982, “Explaining the ’At Rest’ Condition of an Object”, The Physics Teacher, January, 10–14Google Scholar
  12. Nersessian, N., 1995, “Constructing and Instructing: the role of abstraction techniques in creating and learning Physics”, in R. Duschl and R. Hamilton (eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Science and Educational Theory and Practice, SUNY PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Nielsen, H. and Tomsen, P. V., 1990, “History and Philosophy of Science in Physics Education”, International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 308–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Viennot, L., 1979, “Spontaneous Reasoning in Elementary Dynamics”, European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Watts, D. M. and Zylbersztajn, A., 1981, “A survey of some childrens’ ideas about force”, Physics Education, 16, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Westfall, R. S., 1971, Force in Newton’s Physics: the Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century, Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. White, B., 1983, “Sources of Difficulty in Understanding Newtonian Dynamics”, Cognitive Science, 7, 41–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panos Kokkotas
    • 1
  • Vasilios Koulaidis
    • 2
  • Yannos Karanikas
    • 1
  • Anna Tsatsaroni
    • 2
  • Yiannis Vlachos
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.University of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations