- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Activation of a critical attitude in prospective teachers: From research investigations to guidelines for teacher education

Laurence Viennot* and Nicolas Décamp

  • Laboratoire de Didactique André Revuz, EA 4434, Université Paris Diderot, 5 rue Thomas Mann, 75013 Paris, France

  • *Corresponding author. laurence.viennot@univ-paris-diderot.fr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010133 – Published 7 June, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010133

Abstract

This paper is inspired by the widely accepted need to develop critical thinking in physics students and teachers. More specifically, it is focused on the development of a critical attitude in prospective physics teachers. The question of a possible interplay between the development of conceptual comprehension and that of a critical attitude prompted us to conduct a series of investigations with teachers at the end of their preparation. The goal of this paper is to provide a synthesis of five previously published papers on this topic in order to inform discussion about teacher preparation. Each investigation is centered on a particular aspect of physics, and all are based on in-depth interviews with different participants. We focus on prospective teachers’ “intellectual dynamics,” that is, the way their comprehension of nonobvious topics and their critical attitudes evolve during these interviews, taking into account metacognitive and affective aspects such as intellectual satisfaction and self-esteem. We characterize several types of intellectual dynamics: “early critique,” “delayed critique,” “unstable critique,” and “expert anesthesia” and provide information on their frequency. An overall conclusion is that in this type of context, that is, a guided intellectual pathway of about an hour, the development of conceptual comprehension and critical attitude are most often deeply entangled. We discuss the implications of these results for future research and we advocate new objectives and strategies for physics teachers’ preparation.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (87)

  1. S. Bailin and H. Siegel, Critical thinking, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education, edited by N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, and P. Standish (Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2003), pp. 181–193.
  2. E. F. Redish and D. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 629 (2009).
  3. European Commission, Science education for responsible citizenship Report EUR 26893 (EN chair H. Hazelkorn, Brussels, 2015.
  4. R. Millar, 21st century science project team—a new flexible model for GCSE science, Sch. Sci. Rev. 85, 27 (1996).
  5. R. Millar, Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 1499 (2006).
  6. S. Norris and L. Phillips, How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy, Sci. Educ. 87, 224 (2003).
  7. Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Bulletin officiel spécial n° 8 du 13 octobre 2011 pour programme à appliquer en 2012–2013, Programme de l’enseignement spécifique et de spécialité de physique-chimie Classe terminale de la série scientifique (2013).
  8. J. Bergman and A. Sams, La Classe inversée (Reynald Goulet, Repentigny, Québec, 2014).
  9. S. Mathé and L. Viennot, Stressing the coherence of physics: Students journalists’ and science mediators’ reactions, Problems Educ. 21st Century 11, 104 (2009).
  10. N. Décamp and L. Viennot, Co-development of conceptual understanding, and critical attitude: Analysing texts on radiocarbon dating, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 2038 (2015).
  11. L. Viennot and N. Décamp, Co-development of conceptual understanding, and critical attitude: Toward a systemic analysis of the survival blanket, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 015702 (2016).
  12. L. Viennot and N. Décamp, Conceptual, and critical development in student teachers: First steps towards an integrated comprehension of osmosis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 2197 (2016).
  13. L. Viennot and N. Décamp, The transition towards critique: Discussing capillary ascension with beginning teachers, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 045704 (2018).
  14. E. W. Jenkins, School science: A questionable construct?, J. Curric. Stud. 39, 265 (2007).
  15. J. Ogborn, Constructivist metaphors of learning science, Sci. & Educ. 6, 121 (1997).
  16. D. T. Willingham, Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?, Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 109, 21 (2008).
  17. P. C. Abrami, R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, A. Wade, M. A. Surkes, R. Tamim, and D. Zhang, Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 1102 (2008).
  18. R. H. Ennis, The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research, in The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspective on an Educational Ideal, edited by S. Norris (Teachers College Press, New York, NY, 1992), pp. 21–37.
  19. J. McPeck, Critical Thinking and Education (St Martin’s Press, New York, NY, 1981).
  20. R. J. Sternberg, Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement and improvement. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED272882 (1986).
  21. R. H. Ennis, Critical Thinking (Prentice Hall, New York, 1996).
  22. P. A. Facione, Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction, Research findings and recommendations Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED315423 (1990).
  23. J. G. Kurfiss, Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities (ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report No. 2), ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED304041 (1988).
  24. H. Siegel, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education (Routledge, New York, NY, 1988).
  25. M. Lipman, Thinking in Education (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991).
  26. R. W. Paul and A. J. A. Binker, Strategies: Thirty-five dimensions of critical thinking, in Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, edited by A. J. A. Binker (Sonoma State University Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Rohnert Park, CA, 1990), pp. 305–349.
  27. R. W. Paul, Critical, and reflective thinking: A philosophical perspective, in Dimensions of Thinking, and Cognitive Instruction, edited by B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990), pp. 445–494.
  28. T. Moore, The critical thinking debate: how general are general thinking skills?, Higher Educ. Res. Devel. 23, 3 (2004).
  29. M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, Designing argumentation learning environments, in Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, edited by S. Erduran and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Springer, New York, NY 2007), pp. 91–115.
  30. M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and S. Erduran, Argumentation in science education: An overview, in Argumentation in Science Education Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, edited by S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Springer, Dordrecht 2007), pp. 3–28.
  31. D. N. Walton, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1996).
  32. J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action (Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1981).
  33. M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre and B. Puig, Argumentation, Evidence Evaluation and Critical Thinking, in Second International Handbook for Science Education, edited by B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, and C. McRobbie (Springer, Dordrecht, 2009).
  34. M. D. Sharma, A. Mendez, I. M. Sefton, and J. Khachan, Student evaluation of research projects in a first-year physics laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 35, 025004 (2014).
  35. E. Etkina and G. Planinšič, Defining and developing “critical thinking” through devising and testing multiple explanations of the same phenomenon, Phys. Teach. 53, 432 (2015).
  36. O. Levrini, A. De Ambrosis, S. Hemmer, A. Laherto, M. Malgieri, O. Pantano, and G. Tasquier, Understanding first-year students’ curiosity and interest about physics—lessons learned from the HOPE project, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025701 (2017).
  37. H. Y. Chang and H. C. Chang, Scaffolding students’ online critiquing of expert- and peer-generated molecular models of chemical reactions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 2028 (2013).
  38. L. Crane and M. Winterbottom, Plants and photosynthesis: peer assessment to help students learn, J. Biol. Educ. 42, 150 (2008).
  39. W. Harlen, Holding up a mirror to classroom practice, Primary Sci. Rev. 100, 29 (2007).
  40. O. E. Tsivitanidou, Z. C. Zacharia, and T. Hovardas, Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills, Learning Instr. 21, 506 (2011).
  41. O. E. Tsivitanidou, C. P. Constantinou, P. Labudde, S. Rönnebeck, and M. Ropoh, Reciprocal peer assessment as a learning tool for secondary school students in modeling-based learning, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 33, 51 (2017).
  42. D. T. Tiruneh, M. De Cock, and J. Elen, Designing learning environments for critical thinking: Examining effective instructional approaches, Int. J. Sci and Math. Educ., DOI: 10.1007/s10763-017-9829-z (2017).
  43. M. Davies, Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 32, 529 (2013).
  44. D. F. Halpern, Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains, Am. Psychol. 53, 449 (1998).
  45. D. A. Kuhn, Developmental model of critical thinking, Educ. Res. 28, 16 (1999).
  46. R. Barrow, The generic fallacy, Educ. Philosophy Theory 23, 7 (1991).
  47. J. McPeck, Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis, Educ. Res. 19, 10 (1990).
  48. T. Moore, Critical thinking and disciplinary thinking: A continuing debate, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 30, 261 (2011).
  49. P. C. Abrami, R. M. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, D. I. Waddington, A. Wade, and T. Persson, Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis, Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 275 (2015).
  50. D. T. Willingham, Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?, Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 109, 21 (2008).
  51. R. F. Gunstone, The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition, in The Content of Science, edited by P. Fensham, R. F. Gunstone, and R. White (The Falmer Press, London, 1994), pp. 131–146.
  52. L. Viennot and C. de Hosson, From a subtractive to multiplicative approach, a concept-driven interactive pathway on the selective absorption of light, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 1 (2015).
  53. J. D. Vermunt, Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis, Higher Educ. 31, 25 (1996).
  54. I. Feller, P. Colin, and L. Viennot, Critical analysis of popularisation documents in the physics classroom. An action-research in grade 10, Prob. Educ. 21st Century 17, 72 (2009).
  55. L. Viennot, Teaching rituals, and students’ intellectual satisfaction, Phys. Educ. 41, 400 (2006).
  56. A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1 (2001).
  57. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, edited B. S. Bloom (McKay, Cognitive Domain, New York, 1956), Vol. 1.
  58. S. Rozier and L. Viennot, Students’ reasoning in thermodynamics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 13, 159 (1991).
  59. A. Bouissy, M. Davier, and B. Gaty, Physique pour les Sciences de la Vie (Bélin, Paris, 1987), Vol. 2.
  60. D. Quéré, Bulles gouttes et perles liquides, in Graines de science 3, edited by D. Jasmin, J. M. Bouchard, and P. Léna (Le Pommier, Paris, 2001), pp. 145–165.
  61. S. Das, A. Marchand, B. Andreotti, and J. H. Snoeijer, Elastic deformation due to tangential capillary forces, Phys. Fluids 23, 072006 (2011).
  62. A. Marchand, J. H. Weijs, J. H. Snoeijer, and B. Andreotti, Why is surface tension parallel to the interface, Am. J. Phys. 79, 999 (2011).
  63. M. V. Berry, The molecular mechanism of surface tension, Phys. Educ. 6, 79 (1971).
  64. L. Viennot Ascension capillaire: quand le verre semble «hisser» le liquide, Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens 977, 1201 (2015).
  65. B. Roulet and L. Viennot, Rotating rigid rods or incompressible fluids: how to determine the stress?, Am. J. Phys. 66, 75 (1998).
  66. A. Renkl, H. Mandl, and H. Gruber, Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies, Educ. Psychol. 31, 115 (1996).
  67. L. C. McDermott, Improving high school physics teacher preparation, Phys. Teach. 13, 523 (1975).
  68. D. Gil-Perez and A. M. P. de Carvalho, Physics teacher training: analysis and proposals, in Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education, edited by A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem, and J. Barojas, http://iupap-icpe.org/publications/teach1/ConnectingResInPhysEducWithTeacherEduc_Vol_1.pdf (1998).
  69. E. Etkina, Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020110 (2010).
  70. D. E. Meltzer, Research on the education of physics teachers, in Teacher Education in Physics: Research, Curriculum, and Practice, edited by D. E. Meltzer and P. S. Shaffer (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2011), pp. 3–14.
  71. R. M. Schneider and K. Plasman, Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers pedagogical content knowledge development, Rev. Educ. Res. 81, 530 (2011).
  72. S. M. Wilson, Professional development for science teachers, Science 340, 310 (2013).
  73. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, P. R. L. Heron, M. R. Stetzer, and D. L. Messina, Preparation in the knowledge and practices of physics and physics teaching, in Recruiting and Educating Future Physics Teachers: Case Studies and Effective Practices, edited by C. Sandifer and E. Brewe (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2015), pp. 165–186.
  74. J. R. Thompson, W. M. Christensen, and Michael C. Wittmann, Preparing future teachers to anticipate student difficulties in physics in a graduate-level course in physics, pedagogy, and education research, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010108 (2011).
  75. T. Hodapp, J. Hehn, and W. Hein, Preparing high-school physics teachers, Phys. Today 62, 40 (2009).
  76. A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (Routledge, New York, NY, 2015).
  77. J. Ogborn, G. Kress, I. Martins, and K. McGillicuddy, Explaining Science in the Classroom (Open University Press, Buckingham 1996).
  78. L. Shulman, Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res. 15, 4 (1986).
  79. D. L. Ball, M. H. Thames, and G. Phelps, Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?, J. Teach. Educ. 59, 389 (2008).
  80. A. Reynolds, What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature, Rev. Educ. Res. 62, 1 (1992).
  81. P. J. Nelsen, Intelligent dispositions: Dewey, habits and inquiry in teacher education, J. Teach. Educ. 66, 86 (2015).
  82. R. A. R. Gurung, N. L. Chick, and A. Haynie, Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind (Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA, 2009).
  83. E. Etkina and G. Planinšič, Defining and developing “critical thinking” through devising and testing multiple explanations of the same phenomenon, Phys. Teach. 53, 432 (2015).
  84. E. Etkina, B. Gregorcic, and S. Vokos, Organizing physics teacher professional education around productive habit development: A way to meet reform challenges, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010107 (2017).
  85. D. Hammer and T. R. Sikorski, Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions, Sci. Educ. 99, 424 (2015).
  86. M. Vollmer, Newton’s law of cooling revisited, Eur. J. Phys. 30, 1063 (2009).
  87. U. Besson, A. De Ambrosis, and P. Mascheretti, Studying the physical basis of global warming: Thermal effects of the interaction between radiation and matter and greenhouse effect, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 375 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010133– Published 7 June, 2018
  • Received 9 January 2018
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation