Organization of physics content knowledge for teaching purposes: From knowledge justification schemes to didactical schemes

Maija Nousiainen 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp. 210-221. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9507
OPEN ACCESS   1601 Views   1168 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Argumentation in teaching and its centrality in higher education has been noted to be important. The logical order of presented content knowledge and soundness of reasoning are both essential parts of well-planned teaching. Even though coherent and sound argumentation is essential, even more important is the ability to reorganize the content structure for teaching purposes. This study investigates pre-service physics teachers’ knowledge justification schemes (identification of content knowledge) and didactical schemes about four different topics on quantum physics. The data is collected from a physics teacher preparation course which attended of N=16 pre-service physics teachers’. The knowledge justification schemes (KJS) and didactical schemes (DS) were evaluated and scored. Each pre-service teachers’ scores of KJS’s and DS’s were summed up and normalized from 0 to 1. The results suggest that successful identification of content knowledge (quality of KJS) is a pre-requisite qualified didactical scheme but the opposite never happens. The results offer new kind of understanding how scientific argumentation can be implemented in higher education and especially in teacher education. The possibilities to use argumentation as a teaching method as well as method to learn scientific knowledge in teacher education is discussed.
Keywords: knowledge justification, argumentation, didactical reconstruction of knowledge

CITATION

Nousiainen, M. (2017). Organization of physics content knowledge for teaching purposes: From knowledge justification schemes to didactical schemes. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 210-221. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9507

REFERENCES

  • Cavagnetto, A. R., and Kurtz, K. J., (2016). Promoting Students’ Attention to Argumentative Reasoning Patterns. Science Education, 100(4), 625-644.
  • Compton, A. H., (1961). The Scattering of X Rays as Particles. American Journal of Physics, 29, 817-820.
  • Duit, R., Schenker, H., Höttecke, D., and Niedderer, H., (2014). Teaching Physics. In N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, vol II (pp. 434-456). New York: Routledge.
  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., Neuhaus, B., Dorner, B., Pankofer, S., Fischer, M., Strijbos, J.-W., Heene, M., and Eberle, J., (2014). Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation: Advancing an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda in Education. Frontline Learning Research, 5, 28-45.
  • Garcia-Mila, M., and Andersen, C., (2008). Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives in Classroom-Based Research (pp. 29-46). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., and Erduran, S., (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives in Classroom-Based Research (pp. 3-28). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., and Prothero, W., (2008). Analysis of Lines of Reasoning in Written Argumentation. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives in Classroom-Based Research (pp. 137-157). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Knight-Bardsley, A., and McNeill. K. L., (2016). Teachers’ Pedagogical Design Capacity for Scientific Argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645-672.
  • 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.
  • van Lacum, E. B., Ossevoort, M. A., and Goedhart, M. J., (2014). A Teaching Strategy with a Focus on Argumentation to Improve Undergraduate Students’ Ability to Read Research Articles. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 13, 253-264.
  • Millikan, R. A., (1916). A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck’s “h”. Physical Review, 7(3), 355-390.
  • Mäntylä, T., and Nousiainen, M., (2014). Consolidating Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Subject Matter Knowledge Using Didactical Reconstructions. Science & Education, 23(8), 1583-1604.
  • Nousiainen, M., (2013). Coherence of Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Views of the Relatedness of Physics Concepts. Science & Education, 22(3), 505-525.
  • Nousiainen, M., and Koponen, I. T., (2010). Concept Maps Representing Physics Knowledge: Connecting the Structure and Content in the Context of Electricity and Magnetism. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6, 155-172.
  • Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., and Gilabert, S., (2013). What is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483-520.
  • Rosa, R., (2012). The Merli-Missiroli-Pozzi Two-Slit Electron-Interference Experiment. Physics in Perspective, 14, 178-195.
  • Rueckner, W., and Titcomb, P., (1996). A Lecture Demonstration of Single Photon Interference. American Journal of Physics, 64(2), 184-188.
  • Ruskeepää, H., (2004). Mathematica Navigator: Mathematics, Statistics, and Graphs. New York: Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Sandoval, W. A., and Millwood, K. A., (2008). What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology? In S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives in Classroom-Based Research (pp. 71-88). The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Toivola, M., and Silfverberg, H., (2015). Flipped Learning -Approach in Mathematics Teaching – A Theoretical Point of View. In P. Hestö and H. Silfverberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the Finnish Mathematics and Science Education Research Association 2014 (pp. 93-102). http://www.protsv.fi/mlseura/julkaisut/malu_2014FINAL.pdf
  • Toulmin (1958/2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  • Velegol S. B., Zappe, S. E., and Mahoney, E., (2015). The Evolution of a Flipped Classroom: Evidence-Based Recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(3), 1-37.
  • Zohar, A., (2008). Science Teacher Education and Professional Development in Argumentation. In S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives in Classroom-Based Research (pp. 245-268). The Netherlands: Springer.