Analyzing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Physics Materials

  • Hasan Özcan Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Aksaray University, Faculty of Education, Aksaray, Turkey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4210-7733
  • Hakkı İlker Koştur Department of Primary Education, Başkent University, Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

Recently, with the influence of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education approach, the material design has become an important aspect within science courses. The material development course in science curriculums is a unique opportunity to evaluate pre-service teachers’ material designs. In this study, student science teachers’ physics materials were subjected to critiquing, while the authors discussed the advantages and disadvantages of their designs with a consideration of possible misconceptions. In the study, a content analysis technique, as one of the qualitative analysis methods was used. There were 27 materials and lesson plans in total, concerning the physics topics. The findings are presented under the titles of energy, light, sound, and electricity. Results showed that only three of the materials were linked to a misconception. Moreover, a fair amount of the participants chose to design either too simple, easy to build, easy to find, digital, or irrelevant teaching materials. This result can be recognized as a critical finding in this research and described as the unwillingness of the participant pre-service teachers. Findings are discussed with an effort to settle the misconceptions and the unwillingness of pre-service teachers.

Author Biographies

Hasan Özcan, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Aksaray University, Faculty of Education, Aksaray, Turkey
Department of Mathematics and Science Education
Hakkı İlker Koştur, Department of Primary Education, Başkent University, Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey
Department of Primary Education

References

Akgun, A., Gonen, S., & Yılmaz, A. (2005). Misconceptions of preservice science teachers regarding the structure and conductivity of mixtures. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, -(28), 1-8.

Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingnessâ€toâ€communicate scale: Development and validation. Communications Monographs, 43(1), 60-69.

Crawley, F. E., & Arditzoglou, S. Y. (1988). Life and Physical Science Misconceptions of Preservice Elementary Teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the School Science and Mathematics Association.

Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862-864.

Gönen, S. (2008). A study on student teachers’ misconceptions and scientifically acceptable conceptions about mass and gravity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 70-81.

Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students' interests, and impact on students' achievement and selfâ€concept. Science education, 84(6), 689-705.

Kelly, L. (1981). A rose by any other name is still a rose: A comparative analysis of reticence, communication apprehension, unwillingness to communicate, and shyness. Human Communication Research, 8(2), 99-113.

Kikas, E. (2004). Teachers' conceptions and misconceptions concerning three natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 432-448.

Knight, R. (2004). Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for Successful Physics Teaching, San Francisco.

Lawrenz, F. (1986). Misconceptions of physical science concepts among elementary school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 86(8), 654-660.

Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71-86.

Martin, D. J. (2012). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Cengage Learning.

McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Constantinou, C. P. (2000). Preparing teachers to teach physics and physical science by inquiry. Physics Education, 35(6), 411.

MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2018). Science Education Curriculum (Primary and Middle School 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8th Grades). Ankara.

Narjaikaew, P. (2013). Alternative conceptions of primary school teachers of science about force and motion. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 88, 250-257.

Pejuan, A., Bohigas, X., Jaén, X., & Periago, C. (2012). Misconceptions about sound among engineering students. Journal of science education and technology, 21(6), 669-685.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (3rd Ed.). London: SAGE.

Stein, M., Larrabee, T. G., & Barman, C. R. (2008). A study of common beliefs and misconceptions in physical science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(2), 1-11.

Tiberghien, A., Jossem, E. L., & Barojas, J. (1998). Connecting research in physics education with teacher education. International Commission on Physics Education.

Weaver, A. D. (1965). Misconceptions in physics prevalent in science textbook series for elementary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 65(3), 231-240.

Yagbasan, R., & Gülcicek, A. G. C. (2003). Describing the characteristics of misconceptions in science teaching. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 13(13), 102-120.

Published
2019-04-04