- 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 3.0 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

Research-design model for professional development of teachers: Designing lessons with physics education research

Bat-Sheva Eylon and Esther Bagno

  • The Science Teaching Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 76100

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020106 – Published 21 September, 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020106

Abstract

How can one increase the awareness of teachers to the existence and importance of knowledge gained through physics education research (PER) and provide them with capabilities to use it? How can one enrich teachers’ physics knowledge and the related pedagogical content knowledge of topics singled out by PER? In this paper we describe a professional development model that attempts to respond to these needs. We report on a study of the model’s implementation in a program for 22 high-school experienced physics teachers. In this program teachers (in teams of 5-6) developed during a year and a half (about 330h), several lessons (minimodules) dealing with a topic identified as problematic by PER. The teachers employed a systematic research-based approach and used PER findings. The program consisted of three stages, each culminating with a miniconference: 1. Defining teaching and/or learning goals based on content analysis and diagnosis of students’ prior knowledge. 2. Designing the lessons using PER-based instructional strategies. 3. Performing a small-scale research study that accompanies the development process and publishing the results. We describe a case study of one of the groups and bring evidence that demonstrates how the workshop advanced: (a) Teachers’ awareness of deficiencies in their own knowledge of physics and pedagogy, and their perceptions about their students’ knowledge; (b) teachers’ knowledge of physics and physics pedagogy; (c) a systematic research-based approach to the design of lessons; (d) the formation of a community of practice; and (e) acquaintance with central findings of PER. There was a clear effect on teachers’ practice in the context of the study as indicated by the materials brought to the workshop. The teachers also reported that they continued to use the insights gained, mainly in the topics that were investigated by themselves and by their peers.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (43)

  1. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755–767 (1999), see also, Bibliography – STCSE, Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education, Compiled by Reinders Duit (2006).
  2. R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  3. D. C. Smith and D. C. Neale, in Advances in Research on Teaching: Vol. 2: Teachers’ Knowledge of Subject Matter as it Relates to their Teaching Practice, edited by J. Brophy (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1991), pp. 187–243.
  4. L. S. Shulman, Educ. Res. 15, 2 (1986).
  5. B. Eylon and E. Bagno, in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, Proceedings of ICUPE, edited by E. W. Redish and J. S. Ridgen (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 1997), pp. 299–326.
  6. R. Putnam and H. Borko, Educ. Res. 29, 1 (2000).
  7. G. J. Whitehurst (unpublished).
  8. C. Fernandez and M. Yoshida, Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, 2004).
  9. K. Roth (unpublished).
  10. P. Black, Ch. Harrison, B. Marshall, C. Lee, and D. William, Assessment for Learning - Putting it into Practice (Open University Press, Berkshire, 2004).
  11. A. L. Brown, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 2 (1992).
  12. S. Rosenfeld, N. Orion, B. Eylon, and Z. Scherz (unpublished).
  13. S. Loucks-Horsley, P. W. Hewson, N. Love, and K. E. Stiles, Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics (Corwin Press, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 1998).
  14. R. Pinto, Sci. Educ. 89, 1 (2004).
  15. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future (New York, NY, 1996).
  16. L. Darling-Hammond, Educ. Res. 27, 10 (1998).
  17. H. Borko, Educ. Res. 33, 8 (2004).
  18. C. W. Anderson, in Research Perspectives on the Graduate Preparation of Teachers, edited by A. Woolfolk (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989).
  19. D. L. Ball, Elem. Sch. J. 90, 449 (1990).
  20. H. Borko and R. Putnam, in Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by D. Berliner and R. Calfee (MacMillan, New York, 1996), 673–708.
  21. D. McDiarmid, L. Ball, and C. Anderson, in Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher edited by M. C. Reynolds (Pergamon, New York, 1989), 193–205.
  22. R. Hollon, K. Roth, and C. Anderson, in Advances in Research on Teaching, edited by J. Brophy (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT., 1991), Vol. 2, pp. 145–186.
  23. L. S. Shulman, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  24. Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, edited by Gess-Newsome and N. Lederman (Kluwer, Boston, 1999).
  25. Sh. Magnusson, J. Krajcik, and H. Borko, in Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, edited by Gess-Newsome and N. Lederman (Kluwer, Boston, 1999), 95–132.
  26. D. L. Ball, S. T. Lubiensky, and D. S. Mewborn, Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4th ed. (Macmillan, New York, 2001), pp. 433–456.
  27. J. Stigler and J. Hiebert, The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the classroom (Free Press, New York, 1999).
  28. S. M. Chokshi, NAS/National Research Council Board on International and Comparative Studies in Education, 2002 (unpublished).
  29. J. W. Little, Teach. Teach. Educ. 18, 917 (2002).
  30. P. Grossman, S. Wineburg, and S. Woolworth, Teach. Coll. Rec. 103, 942 (2001).
  31. V. K. Otero (unpublished).
  32. D. Hestenes, in The Changing Role of The Physics Department in Modern Universities, edited by E. Redish and J. Rigden (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1997), Pt. II, pp. 935–957.
  33. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 73, 921 (2005).
  34. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School, edited by J. Brownsford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
  35. M. C. Whittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Phys. Teach. 37, 15 (1999).
  36. B. Eylon and U. Ganiel, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 12, 1 (1990).
  37. E. Bagno and B. Eylon, Am. J. Phys. 65, 726 (1997).
  38. R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Electric and Magnetic Interactions (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995); O. Jefimenko, Am. J. Phys. 30, 19 (1962); Phys. Teach. 15, 52 (1977); W. R. Moreau, European Journal of Science Teaching 10, 286 (1989); R. Cohen, B. Eylon, and U. Ganiel, Am. J. Phys. 51, 407 (1983).
  39. L. C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Physics by Inquiry (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996); A. Van-Heuvelen, Overview Case Study Physics (Hayden-McNeil Publishing, Plymouth, MI, 1996); F. Reif and S. Allen, Cogn. Instruct. 9, 1 (1992); R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Electric and Magnetic Interactions (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995).
  40. B. Shayshon, Doctoral thesis, The Weizmann Institute of Science, 2001.
  41. L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
  42. B. Eylon and E. Bagno (unpublished).
  43. R. Putnam and H. Borko, Educ. Res. 29, 4 (2000).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020106– Published 21 September, 2006
  • Received 10 January 2006
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation