- 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

Prospective elementary teachers’ perceptions of the processes of modeling: A case study

Claudio Fazio1,*, Benedetto Di Paola2, and Ivan Guastella1

  • 1UOP-PERG (University of Palermo Physics Education Research Group), Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
  • 2GRIM (Mathematics Education Research Group), Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy

  • *claudio.fazio@unipa.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010110 – Published 15 March, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010110

Abstract

In this paper we discuss a study on the approaches to modeling of students of the 4-year elementary school teacher program at the University of Palermo, Italy. The answers to a specially designed questionnaire are analyzed on the basis of an a priori analysis made using a general scheme of reference on the epistemology of mathematics and physics. The study is performed by using quantitative data analysis methods, i.e. factorial analysis of the correspondences and implicative analysis. A qualitative analysis of key words and terms used by students during interviews is also used to examine some aspects that emerged from the quantitative analysis. The students have been classified on the basis of their different epistemological approaches to knowledge construction, and implications between different conceptual strategies used to answer the questionnaire have been highlighted. The study’s conclusions are consistent with previous research, but the use of quantitative data analysis allowed us to classify the students into three “profiles” related to different epistemological approaches to knowledge construction, and to show the implications of the different conceptual strategies used to answer the questionnaire, giving an estimation of the classification or implication “strength.” Some hints on how a course for elementary school physics and mathematics education can be planned to orient the future teachers to the construction of models of explanation are reported.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (58)

  1. J. K. Gilbert, C. Boultere, and M. Rutherford, Models in explanations, Part 1: Horses for courses?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 83 (1998).
  2. M. Niss, Issues and problems of research on the teaching and learning of applications and modeling, in Modeling and Mathematics Education: ICTMA 9—Applications in Science and Technology, edited by J. F. Matos, W. Blum, S. K. Houston and P. Carreira (Horwood, Chichester, England, 2001), p. 72.
  3. J. Clement, Model based learning as a key research area for science education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 1041 (2000).
  4. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
  5. M. Rocard, P. Csermely, D. Jorde, D. Lenzen, H. Walberg-Henriksson, and V. Hemmo, Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2007).
  6. R. Lesh, K. Cramer, H. Doerr, T. Post, and J. Zawojewski, Model development sequences, in Beyond Constructivism: A Models and Modeling Perspective on Mathematics Teaching, Learning, and Problem Solving, edited by R. A. Lesh and H. Doerr (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2003), p. 35.
  7. P. L. Galbraith, W. Blum, G. Hooker, and I. D. Huntley, Mathematical Modeling: Teaching and Assessment in a Technology-Rich World (Horwood, West Sussex, 1998).
  8. H. Doerr and L. D. English, A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data, J. Res. Math. Educ. 34, 110 (2003).
  9. L. Viennot, F. Chauvet, P. Colin, G. Rebmann, Designing strategies and tools for teacher training: The role of critical details, examples in optics, Sci. Educ. 89, 13 (2005).
  10. R. Prawat, Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective, Am. J. Educ. 100, 354 (1992).
  11. W. Blum, ICMI Study 14. Applications and modeling in mathematics education, Educ. Stud. Math. 51, 149 (2002).
  12. An International Review of Applications in School Mathematics—The Elusive El Dorado, edited by H. Burkhardt (Information Reference Center (ERIC/IRC), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1983).
  13. D. Kagan, Implications of research on teacher belief, Educ. Psychol. 27, 65 (1992).
  14. D. H. Palmer, Factors contributing to exchange amongst preservice elementary teachers, Sci. Educ. 86, 122 (2001).
  15. E. L. Thorndike, Educational Psychology: The Psychology of Learning (Teachers College Press, New York, 1913).
  16. I. P. Pavlov, Conditioned Reflexes (Clarendon, London, 1927).
  17. B. F. Skinner, About Behaviorism (Knopf, New York, 1974).
  18. F. I. M. Craik and R. S. Lockhart, Levels of processing: A framework for memory research, J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11, 671 (1972).
  19. F. I. M. Craik and E. Tulving, Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory, J. Exp. Psychol. 104, 268 (1975).
  20. D. P. Ausubel, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1974).
  21. P. A. Cooper, Paradigm shifts in designing instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism, Educ. Technol. 33, 12 (1993).
  22. B. G. Wilson, Reflections on constructivism and instructional design, in Instructional Development Paradigms, edited by C. R. Dills and A. J. Romiszowski (Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997), p. 63.
  23. P. A. Ertmer and T. J. Newby, Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective, Perform. Improv. Q. 6, 50 (1993).
  24. R. Gras, F. Suzuki, F. Guillet, and F. Spagnolo, Statistical Implicative Analysis: Theory and Applications (Springer, New York, 2008).
  25. P. Pintrich, Implication of psychological research on student learning and college teaching for teacher education, in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, edited by W. Houston (Macmillan, New York, 1990), p. 826.
  26. N. G. Lederman, F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell, and R. Schwartz, Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39, 497 (2002).
  27. C. Fazio and F. Spagnolo, Conceptions on modelling processes in Italian high school prospective mathematics and physics teachers, S. Afr. J. Educ. 28, 469 (2008).
  28. G. Brousseau, Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics, edited by M. Cooper, N. Balacheff, R. Sutherland, and V. Warfield (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1997).
  29. F. Spagnolo, Insegnare le Matematiche nella Scuola Secondaria (La Nuova Italia, Firenze, 1998).
  30. F. Spagnolo, La modélisation dans la recherche en didactiques des mathématiques: Les obstacles épistémologiques, Rech. Didact. Math. 26, 337 (2006).
  31. H. P. Ginsburg, N. E. Kossan, R. Schwartz, and D. Swanson, Protocol methods in research on mathematical thinking, in The Development of Mathematical Thinking, edited by H. P. Ginsburg (Academic, New York 1983), p. 7.
  32. R. P. Hunting, Clinical interview methods in mathematics education research and practice, J. Math. Behav. 16, 145 (1997).
  33. R. Gras, Contribution à l’étude expérimentale et à l’analyse de certaines acquisitions cognitives et de certains objectifs en didactique des mathématiques, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Rennes, 1979, p. 1.
  34. R. Gras, Les fondements de l’analyse statistique implicative, Quad. Ric. Didattica 9, 187 (2000) [http://dipmat.math.unipa.it/~grim/quaderno9.htm].
  35. J. M. Bernard and S. Poitrenaud, L’analyse implicative bayesienne d’un questionnaire binaire: Quasi-implications et treillis de galois simplifié. Mathématiques, Informatique et Sciences Humaines 147, 25 (1999).
  36. L. Seve, Emergence, Complexité et Dialectique (Odile Jacob, Paris, 2005).
  37. I. C. Lerman, Classification et Analyse Ordinale Des Données (Dunod, Paris 1981).
  38. I. C. Lerman, R. Gras, and H. Rostam, Elaboration et évaluation d’un indice d’implication pour des données binaires I, Math. Sci. Hum. 74, 5 (1981); Elaboration et évaluation d’un indice d’implication pour des données binaires 2, 75, 5 (1981).
  39. A. Fernández and Sergio Gómez, Solving non-uniqueness in agglomerative hierarchical clustering using multidendrograms, J. Classif. 25, 43 (2008).
  40. A. D. Gordon, Classification (Chapman & Hall, London, 1999), 2nd ed.
  41. R. Couturier, R. Gras, and F. Guillet, Reducing the number of variables using implicative analysis, in Classification, Clustering, and Data Mining Applications: Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS 2004) (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004), p. 277.
  42. R. Couturier, Un système de recommandation basé sur l’A.S.I., in Proceedings of Troisieme Rencontre International de l’Analyse Statistique Implicative, edited by R. Gras, F. Spagnolo, and J. David [Quad. Ric. Didattica 15, Suppl. 2, 157 (2005)] [http://math.unipa.it/~grim/asi/suppl_quad_15_2.htm].
  43. A. Markos, G. Menexes, and I. Papadimitriou, The C.H.I.C. analysis software v1.0., in Classification as a Tool for Research: Proceedings of the 11th International Federation of Classification Conference, edited by H. Loracek-Junge and C. Weihs (Springer, Berlin, 2010), p. 409.
  44. Association de Recherche en Didactique des Mathématiques (A.R.D.M.), http://ardm.eu/contenu/logiciel-d-analyse-de-donnees-chic.
  45. N. Nersessian, Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics, in Thinking Physics for Teaching, edited by C. Bernardini, C. Tarsitani, and M. Vicentini (Plenum, New York, 1995), p. 77.
  46. M. Watts and Z. Jofily, Towards critical constructivistic teaching, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 173 (1998).
  47. E. von Glasersfeld, Questions and answers about radical constructivism, in The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, edited by K. Tobin (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1994), p. 18.
  48. M. C. Linn, P. Bell, and E. A. Davis, Specific design principles: Elaborating the scaffolded knowledge integration framework, in Internet Environments for Science Education, edited by M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, and P. Bell (Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, 2004), p. 315.
  49. P. Klein, Preservice teachers’ beliefs about learning and knowledge, Alberta J. Educ. Res. 42, 361 (1996).
  50. V. Collinson, Staff development through inquiry: Opening a pandora’s box of teachers beliefs, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, St. Louis, MO, 1996, Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED. 393 842.
  51. J. Calderhead, Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge, in Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by D. Berliner and R. Calife (Simon and Schuster—Macmillian, New York, 1996), p. 709.
  52. J. Koch, in Elementary Science Teacher Education, edited by K. Appleton (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 2006), p. 91.
  53. R. Duit, H. Gropengieβer, and U. Kattmann, Toward science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction, in Developing Standard in Research on Science Education, edited by H. E. Fisher (Taylor and Francis, London, England, 2005), p. 1.
  54. C. Fazio, I. Guastella, R. M. Sperandeo-Mineo, and G. Tarantino, Modeling mechanical wave propagation: Guidelines and experimentation of a teaching-learning sequence, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, 1491 (2008).
  55. R. M. Sperandeo-Mineo, C. Fazio, and G. Tarantino, Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: A case study, Res. Sci. Educ. 36, 235 (2006).
  56. H. Lye, M. Fry, and C. Hart, What does it mean to teach physics “in context”?, Aust. Sci. Teach. J. 48, 16 (2001).
  57. E. Whitelegg and M. Parry, Real-life contexts for learning physics: Meanings, issues and practice, Phys. Educ. 34, 68 (1999).
  58. P. Nilsson and J. van Driel, How will we understand what we teach?—Primary student teachers’ perceptions of their development of knowledge and attitudes towards physics, Res. Sci. Educ. 41, 541 (2011).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010110– Published 15 March, 2012
  • Received 29 July 2011
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.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation