This article was downloaded by: University College London

On: 04 Feb 2017

Access details: subscription number 11237
Publisher:Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Norman G. Lederman, Sandra K. Abell

Teaching Physics

Publication details
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203097267.ch22
Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, Hans Niedderer
Published online on: 03 Jul 2014

How to cite :- Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, Hans Niedderer. 03 Jul
2014 ,Teaching Physics from: Handbook of Research on Science Education Routledge.
Accessed on: 04 Feb 2017
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms.

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

22
Teaching Physics
REINDERS DUIT, HORST SCHECKER, DIETMAR HÖTTECKE, AND HANS NIEDDERER

A deliberate subject-specific view is employed in the pres- Chapter 25) is discussed from a position including the
ent chapter. We attempt to provide an overview of research German idea of Bildung with its emphasis on issues that
on teaching and learning physics—in particular from the are beyond “functional” scientific literacy (Bybee, 1997).
perspective of what is special in this domain as compared On the other hand, European ideas of Didaktik (Fischler,
to biology, chemistry, and earth science. We would like to 2011; Westbury, Hopmann, & Riquarts, 2000) are used to
point to two issues where physics education appears to be analyze the particular role of designing the content struc-
special already in this introduction. ture of physics instruction in such a way that it meets
First, according to the bibliography on constructivist- students’ perspectives (e.g., pre-instructional conceptions
oriented research on teaching and learning science by and interests) and the aims of instruction.
Duit (2009), about 53% of the studies documented were After describing the framework of our analyses, we
carried out in the domain of physics, 18% in the domain discuss major fields of research on teaching physics. The
of biology, and 28% in the domain of chemistry. There emphasis is on issues that are special for this field. In the
are various reasons for this dominance of physics in subsequent section, research on three content domains—
research on teaching and learning. One major reason the electric circuit, the force concept, and atomic physics—
appears to be that physics learning includes difficulties is reviewed. These three topics allow us to discuss major
that are due to the particular nature of physics knowledge. learning difficulties and major attempts to improve learn-
We just mention the abstract and highly idealized kind ing that are particularly relevant for physics instruction.
of physics (mathematical) modeling. Research on stu- Finally, we summarize major concerns and desiderata of
dents’ conceptions has shown that most pre-instructional physics education research.
(everyday) ideas students bring to physics instruction are
in stark contrast to the physics concepts and principles to
Framework
be achieved—from kindergarten to tertiary level. Quite
often students’ ideas are incompatible with physics views The Interdisciplinary Nature of Physics
(Wandersee, Mintzes, & Novak, 1994). This also holds for Education as a Research Domain
students’ more general patterns of thinking and reasoning As illustrated in Figure 22.1, physics education research
(Arons, 1984). is interdisciplinary in nature. Several reference domains
Second, physics clearly is the domain that is greeted are needed to meet the challenges of investigating and
with the lowest interests of students among the sciences. analyzing the key issues of teaching and learning physics.
This is true in particular for girls (Sjøberg & Schreiner, To begin with, there is a close partnership among phys-
2010). It appears that again the nature of physics men- ics, biology, and chemistry education, as expressed, for
tioned is at least partly responsible for these findings. Stu- example, in the European Science Education Research
dents, especially girls, perceive physics not only as very Organization (ESERA). Philosophy and history of phys-
abstract, complicated, and difficult but also as counterin- ics provide frameworks that allow identifying what usu-
tuitive and incomprehensible. ally is called the “nature of science” in the literature (see
The review presented draws on European views of Chapter 28). Hence, these domains play a major role in
science education, more precisely, continental European discussing what is special in physics and therefore also
views—with German views somewhat predominating. what is special in teaching and learning physics. But also
On the one hand, the issue of scientific literacy (see social sciences, especially pedagogy and psychology, are

434
 Teaching Physics 435
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

Philosophy of Physics Physics History of Physics

Biology Chemistry
Ed. Ed.
Science
Pedagogy Education Psychology

Physics
Education

Further reference disciplines: e.g.

Sociology / Anthropology / Linguistics / Ethics

Figure 22.1 Reference and partner disciplines of physics education.

essential reference domains. Research and development A literal translation of Bildung is formation (e.g., West-
that aim at improving practice have to address issues of bury, 2000, p. 24). In fact, Bildung is viewed as a process.
physics as a specific way of knowing as well as general Bildung stands for the formation of the learner as a whole
issues of learning. This is the position underlying the person, that is, for the development of the personality of the
present review. learner. Bildung hence does not only include the achieve-
ment of domain-specific knowledge but also the formation
The German Didaktik Tradition of what may be called “cross-curricular competencies”
The European Science Education Research Association (including competencies allowing rational thinking and
(ESERA) declares in its constitution: “Where ever the various social competencies). There is an emphasis on
English phrase ‘Science Education’ appears in this docu- these cross-curricular competencies that stand for a well-
ment, it has a meaning equivalent to ‘didactique des sci- educated personality. The meaning of Didaktik is based on
ences’ in French, ‘Didaktiken der Naturwissenschaften’ the conception of Bildung. It concerns the analytical pro-
in German, ‘Didáctica de las Ciencias’ in Spanish, or cess of transposing (or transforming) human knowledge
the equivalent in other European languages.” At least in (the cultural heritage) like domain-specific knowledge
continental Europe, the term Didaktik is widely used— into knowledge for schooling that contributes to the for-
however, with a number of slightly or more significantly mation (Bildung) of young people. In the French Didac-
different meanings. The tradition that has developed in the tique tradition, the idea of transposing human knowledge
German-speaking countries has been rather influential, at into knowledge for schooling also plays a significant role.
least in continental European countries. The term employed is Transposition Didactique (Cheval-
The meaning of the German term Didaktik should not lard, 2007). However, it needs to be taken into account that
be associated with the Anglo-Saxon meaning of didacti- the German Didaktik and the French Didactique positions
cal. Whereas the latter primarily denotes issues of edu- share major features, but there are also significant differ-
cational technology, Didaktik stands for a multifaceted ences (Hopmann, 2007).
view of planning and performing instruction that is based During the second half of the 20th century, the idea of
on the German conception of Bildung. This term shares Bildung was strongly promoted by Martin Wagenschein
certain features of scientific literacy but also includes (Jung, 2012). Influenced by educational philosophers like
particular views of the aims of schooling and instruction Theodor Litt, Wagenschein assumed that a deeply rooted
(Westbury et al., 2000). Fischler (2011, p. 34) argues, “Bil- understanding of nature may arise in every child. He fos-
dung also claims to help students withstand the challenges tered the notion that students develop their own ideas and
of their future life, but by a general preparedness that is concepts while being engaged with natural phenomena. A
not simply acquired knowledge and skills.” In addition, student should become aware of the constructive character
he claims that possessing knowledge clearly is part of Bil- of science. According to this perspective, doing physics
dung. Yet knowledge framed by Bildung is meant to sup- changes not only views of nature but also the self-concept
port an individual’s development and his or her general of a learner or a physicist. Thus, learning physics involves
relation to the world. critical reflections on nature and on oneself.
 436 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

Fensham (2001) claims that many attempts to improve

Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

science teaching and learning (e.g., based on constructiv-

ist perspectives) put a strong emphasis on improving the
way science is taught (i.e., focus on the improvement of
teaching methods and media). He argues that science con-
tent itself should be regarded as problematic—that also the
content structure for instruction should be given attention.
In addition, he is of the opinion that the Didaktik tradition
allows such an improvement of instruction by develop-
ing a content structure for instruction that addresses stu-
dents’ learning needs and capabilities as well as the aims
of instruction.
Briefly put, the content structure of a certain domain
(e.g., the energy concept) has to be transformed into
a content structure for instruction. The two structures
are substantially different. As mentioned briefly, the
abstract and highly idealized kind of physics model-
ing and physics concepts are responsible for particular Figure 22.2 Educational reconstruction of physics content structure.
teaching and learning difficulties. The physics content
structure of a certain topic may not be directly trans-
ferred into a content structure for instruction. Later (4) What are particular cases, phenomena, situations,
in this chapter we discuss this problem by analyzing experiments that make the structure of the referring
teaching and learning difficulties for (a) the simple content interesting, worth questioning, accessible,
electric circuit, (b) the force concept, and (c) models of and understandable for the students?
the atom. It will be illustrated that the content structure
for instruction has to be not only simplified (in order The conception of Educational Reconstruction outlined
to make it accessible for students) but also enriched by in Figure 22.2 adds to Klafki’s set of questions the idea of a
putting it into contexts that make sense for the learners. fundamental interplay of all variables of instruction, namely
Two phases of this process can be differentiated. The the aims, the content, the teaching and learning methods,
first may be called elementarization. It leads to a set of and the media, which is also a key figure of thought in the
elementary key features of the content under consider- German Didaktik tradition (Heimann, Otto, & Schulz,
ation. For the energy concept, the following elemen- 1969). In the process of instructional planning, this fun-
tary ideas may result: conservation, transformation, damental interplay has to be taken into account. It has also
transfer, and degradation. On the basis of this set of to be regarded that students’ perspectives are a key point
elementary ideas, the content structure for instruction of reference for construction of the content structure for
is constructed. It is a key claim of the Didaktik tradition instruction and for developing the phases of instruction and
that both processes elementarization and construction the methods, materials, and media used.
of the content structure for instruction are intimately In a nutshell, the German Didaktik tradition as well as
interrelated. Duit, Gropengießer, Kattmann, Komorek, similar traditions in other European countries critically
and Parchmann (2012) call the whole process Educa- takes the content issue into account. It is a key assumption
tional Reconstruction (for an example for the use of the that a content structure has to be developed that addresses
model, see Duit, Komorek, & Wilbers, 1997). students’ pre-instructional perspectives. At the same time,
The essence of the content analysis outlined in Fig- the learning environment has to be designed in such a way
ure 22.2 may be illustrated by a set of questions comprising that students may develop an understanding of the content
the Didaktische Analyse proposed by the German educator in question. Improving instruction includes both critical
Klafki (1969; see also Fensham, 2001): analysis and reconstruction of content and development of
supportive learning environments.
(1) What is the more general idea that is represented by Clearly, major ideas of Shulman’s (1987) approach of
the content of interest? What basic phenomena or content-specific pedagogical knowledge are in accordance
basic principles, what general laws, criteria, meth- with the European Didaktik tradition. However, whereas
ods, techniques, or attitudes may be addressed in an Shulman puts strong emphasis on teacher competencies,
exemplary way by dealing with the content? the Didaktik tradition has also developed strategies for
(2) What is the significance of the content for students’ taking the content issue seriously in instructional planning
actual and future life? (Pasanen, 2009).
(3) What is the structure of the content if viewed from In completing the discussion of the European Didak-
the pedagogical perspectives outlined in questions 1 tik tradition, commonalities and differences of the Anglo-
and 2? Saxon curriculum tradition and the European Didaktik
 Teaching Physics 437

tradition will be briefly outlined. Westbury (2000) con- physics courses, Schecker, Fischer, and Wiesner (2004)
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

cludes that the two positions are complementary. The see three major contributions of physics teaching to the
curriculum tradition is embedded within a pragmatic phil- goals of higher education:
osophical position. According to this tradition, the focus
is on how things are enacted, while the Didaktik tradition • Deeper general education (Allgemeine Bildung; e.g.,
predominantly focuses on the why. However, the still rap- reflection of the specificities of the modern physics con-
idly growing globalization of science education research ceptions of the world, in contrast to other worldviews)
and development seems to enrich the national traditions • Introduction to advanced scientific practices (physics
(Duschl, Maeng, & Sezen, 2011) without significantly los- as a paradigmatic science)
ing key national characteristics (Chiu & Duit, 2011). • Preparation for university studies in science and tech-
nology (e.g., sustainable knowledge of standard phys-
ics practices in experimenting and modeling)
Major Fields of Research
As detailed in what follows, we provide a brief overview While some countries, like the United States, have a
of major fields of research. From the extended variety of long tradition of science education standards, several
fields in which physics education researchers are working, European countries, like Germany, started to work on
we selected those that are in our view the most significant the formulation of expected learning outcomes as reac-
ones. Many research papers did not focus on physics edu- tions to results of the PISA studies. Bernholt, Neumann,
cation in particular but took a broader scope on science and Nentwig (2012) present an overview of the global
education. Nevertheless, research in the general field of situation. Recent frameworks and standards call for more
science education matters for the narrower field of phys- coherence in science teaching along a limited number of
ics education in a multitude of ways. Thus, the follow- basic concepts. An expert committee set up by the Ameri-
ing chapters focus on physics education without ignoring can National Research Council, or NRC (2012) proposes
research in science education as far as relevant for physics seven “cross-cutting concepts,” like system or scale, and
education. four disciplinary “core ideas” for physics (matter, motion,
energy, and waves). Yet there is no international consen-
Aims of Instruction sus on which basic ideas or concepts are to be chosen.
The international school achievement studies TIMSS (in The German national physics standards, for example,
the 1990s, Third International Mathematics and Science name energy, interaction, matter, and system for the lower
Study; now Trends in International Mathematics and secondary curriculum (KMK, 2005). While the selections
Science Study) and PISA (Programme for International of basic concepts only partly overlap, the appeal is clear:
Student Assessment) have had a strong impact on the dis- Physics should not be taught as a sequence of content
cussion about proper aims of instruction, in particular for domains but as a body of comprehensive ideas and prac-
lower secondary education (cf. the discussion on scien- tices. Content domains keep their relevance, while basic
tific literacy in Chapter 26). Science is seen as a major concepts and physics-related methods of inquiry can serve
factor influencing the daily lives of individuals as well as as guiding ideas across contents. Duschl (2012), in similar
economic progress in technology-based societies (e.g., sense, speaks of a “second dimension.” Foundations for
Beaton et al., 1996, p. 7). In order to make sensible use curriculum development are, for example, given in AAAS
of technological means, to find a place in a technology- (1993), NRC (1996), KMK (2005), and NRC (2012).
based economy, and to participate in political processes Compared to the American tradition with its pragmatic
about technology-related decisions, citizens need a certain and optimistic view of science as a means for social prog-
amount of physics understanding, as physics forms major ress (the NRC Framework for K–12 Science Education
foundations for domains like information technology and names “appreciation of the beauty and wonder of science”
energy production. as an overarching goal; NRC, 2012, p. 1), the Didaktik
The PISA consortium has agreed on a notion of sci- view as outlined strongly emphasizes the contribution of
entific literacy that consists of understanding basic sci- scientific knowledge to the formation of students’ person-
entific concepts, familiarity with scientific thinking and alities. Students have to decide about the extent to which
processes, and the ability to apply this knowledge in they integrate scientific thinking into their world views.
concrete situations (OECD, 1999). Students should be This belongs to the process of Bildung. It includes the crit-
able to identify issues that can be understood by applying ical reflection of problematic outcomes of the scientific
scientific knowledge, to draw conclusions from scientific enterprise.
investigations, and to assess the scope of scientific find-
ings. As these competencies apply for all citizens, they Learning About Nature of Physics and Nature
have to be targeted during the obligatory phase of science of Science
education. There is a wide agreement among science education
Looking at upper secondary–level physics educa- researchers about the relevance of the nature of science
tion, with its mostly voluntary participation in advanced (NOS) for teaching and learning science as well as physics
 438 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

in particular and the development of scientific literacy predominant role of mathematics. The complexity of nat-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

(e.g., Osborne, 2007; Chapter 30 of the present hand- ural or technical phenomena is strongly reduced in order
book). The acronym NOS points to insights from history, to enable quantitative predictions. For this purpose, phys-
philosophy, and sociology of science. Some researchers ics produces its own prototypical phenomena in labora-
separate NOS from scientific inquiry (Lederman & Leder- tory settings, often called “effects.” A basic assumption of
man, 2011). While the first notion indicates particular physics is that nature is inherently organized and that the
characteristics of scientific knowledge, the latter addresses order of nature is essentially accessible to humans. Gali-
the manner in which scientists develop knowledge in sci- lei even asserted that the book of nature is written in the
ence (epistemology). language of mathematics (cf. Galilei, 1832). Real-world
There are good reasons to take account of historical and phenomena are usually influenced by complex and mul-
epistemological aspects in physics teaching (McComas, tiple parameters. Instead, physics phenomena have to be
1998). They range from a better understanding of phys- prepared, idealized, reduced, or even “cleaned” in order
ics concepts (e.g., Galili & Hazan, 2000) to students’ par- to enable deliberate manipulations. It is, for instance,
ticipation in critical discourse about socioscientific issues almost impossible to calculate the path of a leaf falling
(SSI). Liu, Lin, and Tsai (2011) have shown that students from a tree. On the other hand, it is rather easy to mea-
who hold beliefs about scientific knowledge as changing sure or predict precisely the motion and path of a feather
and tentative are more likely to recognize the complex- falling freely in an evacuated tube. Physics thinking does
ity of SSI. They take multiple perspectives and question not originate from the minute observation of the world
omniscient authority in the decision-making process. around us but from a reconstruction of certain aspects
Some key elements of a proper understanding of NOS of this world under theoretical perspectives. The role of
are (e.g., Lederman & Lederman, 2011) the distinction of mathematics comprises the development of models and
observation and inference, the distinction of theory and predictions. Moreover, during the course of the historical
law, the empirical basis of science and the crucial role development of physics, the meaning of what counts as an
of observation, the theory-ladenness and subjectivity of explanation has changed by the use of mathematics (Gin-
knowledge in science, science as a human enterprise, gras, 2001). While in the 17th and 18th centuries, explain-
and the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. Neverthe- ing meant to specify a mechanical mechanism involved in
less, consensus lists of what to teach and how to teach the production of a phenomenon, in the aftermath of this
NOS have not been established until today. Additionally, development, mathematical and geometrical ideas were
there is a danger that any NOS guideline might easily be considered sufficient (e.g., Newton’s idea of a force acting
misinterpreted by teachers as knowledge to be passed on at a distance without an idea of a mechanical mechanism).
to students in a declarative manner (Clough, 2007). Mat- Nevertheless, such a high degree of decontextualization,
thews (2012) points out that the various existing lists are abstraction, idealization, and mathematization in physics
lacking aspects of the history of science. A distortion of is one of the major reasons for the problems many students
science compared to historical depictions might therefore have with learning physics (see also the section about stu-
be an undesirable consequence. Allchin (2011) alludes to dents’ interests and gender issues in this chapter).
the important role of experts and their trustworthiness in During the last three or four decades, an extensive
science, which has to be taken into account for teaching body of literature about NOS has been published. Critical
informed judgment and decision making. Thus, the fact overviews of research on students’ and teachers’ views on
has to be considered that physics is a discourse among NOS (Hodson, 2009; Höttecke, 2001; Lederman, 1992)
experts within a community of experts and beyond. Teach- and research methods (Deng, Chen, Tsai, & Chai, 2011)
ing NOS under such a perspective is shifting from a list of are available. There is evidence that neither students nor
tenets toward the development of capabilities for a critical science teachers possess an adequate understanding of
appraisal of the trustworthiness of experts. NOS. Students’ epistemological beliefs can be character-
Heering and Höttecke (2014) analyze recent research ized as naïve-empiristic: They tend to understand scien-
in history, philosophy, and sociology of science with an tific theories as ever-lasting truths, derived from precise
emphasis on physics. They conclude that developments in observations and experiments free of any theoretical con-
these domains have not yet been sufficiently considered. siderations. Creative speculation and theory-laden con-
In school physics, teaching knowledge is still misrepre- struction are not taken into account (Köller, Baumert, &
sented as a result of a linear process but not as a result of Neubrand, 2000). Furthermore, physics teachers appro-
a multitude of different kinds of knowledge generation. priately reflect neither the nature of physics nor the role
It is, for example, underestimated that experimenting in of mathematics in physics (Mulhall & Gunstone, 2008).
physics bears multiple relations with theoretical ideas and Clough (2006) points to the fact that teachers possessing
is closely connected to the construction of new apparatus an adequate understanding of NOS are a necessary but not
and materials (see also the section about practical work in a sufficient condition for their students’ gains in this field.
this chapter). Teaching and learning NOS has to be regarded as
Physics is distinguished from other natural sciences a cognitive outcome (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Leder-
by its high level of abstraction, idealization, and the man, 1998). Teachers therefore have to plan instructional
 Teaching Physics 439

activities explicitly in order to support students’ reflec- TABLE 22.1

Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

tions on important NOS issues (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick & Number of Publications on Students’ Ideas in the
Lederman, 2000). Teachers should confront learners with Bibliography by Duit (2009). In Parentheses: Predominant
their own deeply held beliefs about science in general and Concepts.
about physics in particular. However, teachers do not feel Biology—total 782
competent in the domain of NOS (Abd-EI-Khalick et al., Chemistry—total 1,271
Physics—total 2,379
1998). Even if they hold adequate beliefs in NOS, their
—mechanics (force) 813
actual teaching will not necessarily be affected. There is a —electricity (el. circuit) 519
gap between the key objectives regarding NOS presented —optics 245
in educational standards and the preambles of science cur- —particle model 249
ricula on the one hand and how physics is actually por- —thermal physics (heat/temp.) 243
trayed in textbooks and in teaching practice on the other —energy 187
(Kircher, Girwidz, & Häußler, 2000, p. 38). NOS is hardly —astronomy (earth in space) 126
—quantum physics 81
taught explicitly (Widodo, 2004, pp. 121) or considered
—sound 49
in assessments and physics exams. Teachers do not regard —nonlinear systems (chaos) 30
NOS as an explicit objective of their teaching (Abd-EI- —magnetism 26
Khalick et al., 1998), and they are lacking pedagogical —relativity 8
content knowledge in this domain (Höttecke & Silva,
2011).
Abd-El-Khalick and colleagues (1998) thus strongly
argue for including more NOS elements in teacher train- and learning physics that addresses slightly different fac-
ing and teaching. McComas’s book (1998) gives examples ets was provided by Maloney (1994). Both research per-
of how to introduce students and teachers to epistemo- spectives have been rather influential in developing new
logical issues. Matthews (1994) stresses the historical and teaching and learning approaches that deliberately take
philosophical perspectives in teaching science. Learning students’ pre-instructional views, beliefs, and conceptions
about physics may be supported by a variety of activi- into account (for proposals on teaching and learning phys-
ties (Clough, 2006). Among them are stories brought ics, see Arons, 1997; Redish, 2003; Viennot, 2001, 2003).
forward by the teacher that raise questions about science As mentioned, physics is the domain in which most
and physics in particular (e.g., Klassen, 2009), histori- research studies on investigating students’ conceptions
cal vignettes and short narratives (Roach & Wandersee, and on conceptual change have been carried out. Table 22.1
1995), case studies possibly enriched with replicas of his- presents the number of studies documented in the bibliog-
torical apparatus (e.g., Höttecke, Henke, & Rieß, 2012), raphy by Duit (2009). It is evident that there is a particu-
and case studies of contemporary research, inquiry- lar emphasis on mechanics and electricity—with a strong
based learning, research apprenticeship programs, or focus on the force concept or the (simple) electric circuit,
explicitly epistemology-based physics courses (Meyling, respectively. Clearly, these subdomains are somewhat
1997). Black-box activities might draw students’ atten- over-researched. On the other hand, the number of studies
tion to NOS issues and allow for critical reflections on about conceptual change in the domain of modern phys-
knowledge generation in physics. To give an example: A ics is rather limited. More details on research findings in
wooden box is equipped with several mirrors and sealed the domains of electricity, mechanics, and atomic physics
by a teacher. Students then use flashlights to shine light are given in what follows. General findings of research on
into the box through various slots in the side walls. The conceptual change are reported elsewhere in the present
mirrors inside are constructed in a way that enables reflec- handbook (Chapter 1). The particular difficulty of con-
tions of light in particular ways. The students finally have ceptual change in the process of learning physics appears
to conjecture how the black box is constructed inside but to be that usually students’ pre-instructional ideas about
are not allowed to open it. The activity facilitates reflec- physics concepts and phenomena are deeply rooted in their
tions, for instance, on the nature of atomic physics, where everyday experiences and are therefore in stark contrast to
evidence, inferences, and conclusions have to be coordi- the physics conceptions. Radical idealization and decon-
nated in coherent ways, while atoms themselves can not textualization, the reduction to pure phenomena accom-
be observed directly. panied by the particular mathematical modeling, appears
to be a major hurdle for students to understand physics
Conceptual Change concepts and principles. Furthermore, in quantum physics
Constructivist views of conceptual change have been the and relativity, the physics perspective is incomprehensible
dominating perspectives of research on teaching and learn- in principle from everyday-world perspectives. Interest-
ing science since the 1980s (Duit, Treagust, & Widodo, ingly, this also holds for the classical particle view, which
2013; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1997; Vosniadou, is introduced in early school grades. Also here, the world
2012; see also Chapter 1)—including social constructivist of particles is fundamentally different from the world of
perspectives. A problem-solving perspective on teaching our everyday experiences.
 440 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

Viewed from the perspective of scientific literacy (e.g., Students’ Interests and Gender Issues
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

Osborne, 2007; see Chapter 25), understanding physics International comparative studies reveal that girls’ achieve-
includes understanding physics concepts and principles on ments and interests in physics compared to those of boys
the one hand and physics processes as well as views of the are substantially lower (Keeves & Kotte, 1996; Sjøberg &
nature of physics on the other. As argued in the previous Schreiner, 2010). The same does not hold for science in
section, these views about physics are not only essential general, as the PISA 2006 survey indicates. Gender dif-
features of scientific literacy, but they are also essential in ferences on the overall science scale were found to be
understanding physics concepts and principles. Looking small—in particular, if compared to the variances within
at teaching and learning physics from a conceptual change each gender (OECD, 2009).
perspective should therefore include conceptual changes However, there are significant gender-related differ-
on the level of concepts and principles and on the level ences between countries concerning students’ interests in
of processes and views of the nature of physics as well. becoming scientists in the future. While attitudes toward
Research has shown that also students’ ideas of processes science and technology among adults and adolescents are
(like modeling) or views of the nature of physics are mainly positive, girls in the wealthier countries are signifi-
“naïve” in the same sense as their views of phenomena and cantly more skeptical about career choices in the sciences
concepts (Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2002). than boys are (Sjøberg & Schreiner, 2010). Within the sci-
A multiple conceptual change view has to be employed. ences, physics is usually the domain that is greeted with
Treagust and Duit (2012), for instance, distinguish an the lowest interest, in particular by girls.
epistemological and an ontological perspective of concep- It appears that students’ views of physics play a cru-
tual change as well as affective versus social aspects and cial role for the development of interest in physics. Sci-
learner characteristics. ence in general and physics in particular is seen as a male
domain (Baker, 1998; Harding, 1996). Stadler, Benke,
Learning Progressions and Duit (2000) argue that girls and boys hold different
Learning progressions have more recently gained signifi- (tacit) notions of what it means to understand physics.
cant attention, initially within the science education com- Girls do not assume a concept to be understood until
munity in the United States, later internationally. They they can relate it to a broader (even nonscientific) con-
describe “successively more sophisticated ways of rea- text. Boys, in contrast, seem to be more pragmatic. They
soning within a content domain that follows one another tend to regard physics as valuable in itself and appreciate
as students learn” (Smith, Wiser, Anderson, Krajcik, & the internal coherence of the body of physics knowledge
Coppola, 2004, p. 5). Learning progressions describe a more than girls do. Students generally associate physics
learner’s shift over time toward more expert-like under- with difficulty, masculinity, and heteronomy (Kessels,
standing. But the learning progression movement goes far Rau, & Hannover, 2006). Compared to girls’, it appears
beyond the mere attention on identifying and empirically that boys’ attitudes toward physics and their notions of
testing efficient learning pathways. It is also driven by understanding physics are closer to how we have charac-
quite general attempts toward more efficient teaching and terized physics as a highly abstract, idealized, and even
learning sequences. In a sense, a framework is developing decontextualized discipline.
that provides orientation for attempts toward more quali- Research has shown that emotional factors play an
fied general strategies for science instruction and teacher essential role in learning science. Conceptual change, for
education as well. The learning progression approach instance, will not be successful if it would be merely based
shares major concerns with other approaches, taking the on “cold cognition” (Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle, 1992). A
development of student knowledge over long periods study on teaching introductory electricity (Laukenmann
into account (Duschl et al., 2011), such as Teaching and et  al., 2003) proved that positive emotions promote
Learning Sequences (Méheut & Psillos, 2004) or Learn- achievement. Kroh and Thomsen (2005) argue that teach-
ing Process Studies (Duit, Goldberg, & Niedderer, 1992; ing and learning methods have to take students’ cognitive
Niedderer, Budde, Giry, Psillos, & Tiberghien, 2007). In and affective variables into account. They show that giv-
physics, a large number of learning process studies (or ing students responsibility for their own learning has a
teaching and learning sequences) are available, ranging positive influence on their attitudes toward physics and
from “classical” topics like the simple electric circuit to their self-conceptions.
key ideas and theories of modern physics (including rela- It is likely that the development of interests in phys-
tivity theory, quantum theory, and nonlinear systems; see ics and career choices are mediated by students’ self-
Duit, 2009). The number of learning progression studies perception and identity. Students’ physics identity (a sense
on physics topics so far is limited. Major studies published of self with respect to physics) is influenced by their inter-
concern topics like force and motion (Alonzo & Steedle, ests and desires to learn in this domain, their experiences
2009), matter and atomic-molecular theory (Smith, of competence, their beliefs about performance required
Wiser, Anderson, & Krajcik, 2006; Stevens, Delgado, & for coping with physical problems, and recognition by
Krajcik, 2009), and energy (Neumann, Viering, Boone, & others (Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler, & Shanahan, 2010).
Fischer, 2012). Physics identity is positively related to the fulfillment of
 Teaching Physics 441

intrinsic needs by learning physics. On the other hand, reasoning skills. There is a widespread belief that motiva-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

desires for free personal time and collaboration with oth- tion, interest in science, and development of personality
ers are negatively related to physics identity (Hazari et al., are affected in positive ways by doing practical work in
2010, p.  992). While positive outcome expectations like physics education.
intrinsic fulfillment have a tendency to meet the physics On the other hand, high expectations on students’
identities of male students, negatively related outcome practical work as a means for an enhancement of con-
expectations have been shown to be closer to the identities ceptual understanding, motivation, and interest appear to
of female students. Moreover, girls compared to boys hold lack warrant. Lunetta (1998) asserts a considerable mis-
lower self-efficacy beliefs in the domain of physics. match among goals, behavior, and learning outcomes in
Hannover and Kessels (2004) explain gender differ- the school science laboratory. Tiberghien, Veillard, Le
ences in physics with a self-to-prototype matching theory: Maréchal, Buty, and Millar (2001) analyzed laboratory
Students compare their self-views against assumed pro- tasks in seven European countries. Labsheets from upper
totypical students who like (e.g., the “intelligent boy” as secondary schools as well as from university show strik-
a stereotype) or disapprove of physics (e.g., “attractive ing similarities across the subjects physics, biology, and
girls”). The theory assumes that a school subject like chemistry: Actions with objects and observables dominate
physics is portrayed and represented by peers. If a stu- and are largely unrelated to theoretical issues, like testing
dent’s self-view matches the favorite-subject-prototype, a hypothesis. However, there are some specifics for phys-
this will lead to a higher preference of physics as a subject. ics. Almost all physics tasks aimed at finding out or sup-
Career choices toward or away from physics are often porting relationships among physics quantities, using lab
rooted in experiences students make during high school apparatus, and processing data.
physics. According to an international study of women Hopf (2007) presents evidence that the effect of practi-
in physics (Ivie & Guo, 2006), most female physicists cal work on students’ learning in physics is surprisingly
reported that they became attracted to physics and made rather weak. A crucial factor seems to be that experi-
a choice for a corresponding career during secondary ments in physics teaching should not be isolated events
school. A serious problem seems to be that high school in a lesson but properly prepared and discussed together
physics teachers underestimate the gender problem in with students. Results and observations have to be debated
physics teaching. Zohar (2005) asserts that almost two thereafter in order to support meaning making of what has
thirds of the teachers in her study did not see gender issues been done (e.g., Tesch & Duit, 2004).
as a problem requiring action. Nevertheless, practical work plays a major role in
In order to improve the situation, several studies have physics classes. A considerable amount of time is devoted
been carried out to contextualize physics in order to sup- to experiments with a certain emphasis on teacher demon-
port girls’ meaning making of physics content. Instructional stration (Tesch & Duit, 2004). Teachers generally appreci-
materials addressing girls’ interests such as the human body ate the role of experiments but usually guide their students
and issues of social relevance significantly enhance girls’ strictly. Strong guidance of lab activities has often been
interests and achievements (Baker, 1998; Häußler & Hoff- criticized as cookbook-style or verification labs (e.g.,
mann, 2002; Reid & Skryabina, 2003). Such approaches Clough, 2006; Hofstein & Kind, 2012). Niedderer and
have also proven successful for boys. Research has revealed colleagues (2002) analyzed videotapes from lab work
that physics should be taught in an encouraging way to to assess the amount of students’ talking physics during
enhance the self-confidence of girls. Collaborative work in lab work. Results show that students often use lab sheets
single-sex groups improves interests and achievements of like recipes, without thinking and talking physics. A pure
girls as well as of boys (Baker, 1998; Häußler & Hoffmann, inductivist idea of physics might be conveyed in this way.
2002). Further on, physics teachers might positively influ- It often happens instead that students do not really know
ence students’ physics identities by focusing on conceptual what is the purpose of an experimental procedure they are
understanding, making multiple real-world connections, following or what the data they are collecting really mean
getting students to take on expert roles in physics teach- (e.g., Hofstein & Kind, 2012). Teachers too often do not
ing (e.g., teaching others), and counter-balancing stereo- consider whether their students understand what they are
types of physics as a one-dimensional pursuit (Hazari et al., doing when they do practical work (Gallagher & Tobin,
2010). 1987). Jonas-Ahrend (2004) reports that the educational
purpose and relationship between students’ experimen-
Practical Work tation and their learning is hardly considered by physics
There is wide agreement among science education teachers. Thus, it is not surprising that lab work is hardly
researchers that practical work is of great importance for ever reflected by the students in terms of NOS. Research
teaching and learning and allows for the promotion of sev- therefore has indicated that students only have a limited
eral educational goals. Students learn scientific content understanding of the nature and purposes of experimenta-
and experience how to connect theory and practice in sci- tion in science. Solomon, Scott, and Duveen (1996) point
ence. They test knowledge claims and develop problem- out, for instance, that fewer than half of the students in
solving, process, and social skills as well as scientific their study were able to relate theory to the experiment
 442 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

they had carried out. Buffler, Lubben, and Ibrahim (2009) are available for all domains of physics; e.g., physlets;
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

show that students with a NOS profile dominated by a Christian & Belloni, 2003) or interactive screen experi-
belief that the laws of nature are to be discovered are more ments, in which students interact with digitized multi-
likely to have a view of the nature of scientific measure- media representations of a real experiments (Kirstein &
ment as “true” values. Heinicke and Heering (2012) are Nordmeier, 2007).
reporting research results about physics students’ ideas of • Microworlds: learners can set up their own simulation
measurement. While more than 80% of the 31 students in settings interactively by combining given object-like
a written survey supported taking multiple measurements, building blocks, like lenses and screens, on a virtual
only 4 of the 13 working groups these students composed optics bench (e.g., Goldberg & Bendall, 1995; Interac-
actually did take repetitions during their own practical tive Physics, 2014).
work. Students who believe that scientific theories are • Model-building systems: students generate a quantita-
inventions and constructed from observations that are then tive model describing the behavior of a system (e.g.,
validated through further experimentation are more likely the motion of bodies) either by filling in a set of equa-
to have a view that is underpinned by the uncertain nature tions (Modellus; Araujo, Veit, & Moreira, 2008) or by
of scientific evidence. Learning to deal with uncertainty constructing a computer-based concept map while the
has been indicated as an important objective for achiev- software generates the equations (Stella; Schecker,
ing scientific literacy (e.g., Ryder, 2001). Concerning the 1998; van Borkulo, van Joolingen, Savelsbergh, & de
current situation in science teaching instead, Hofstein and Jong, 2012).
Kind (2012, p. 192) conclude that “practical work meant • General tools: spreadsheets with tables and graphs
manipulating equipment and materials, but not ideas.” • Targeted tools: tools for analyzing digitized motion
Chinn and Malhotra (2002) point to the fact that the videos (Beichner, 1996)
cognitive operations of students performing practical
work and scientists in their laboratories are rather differ- Multimedia packages like Coach (Heck, Kedzierska, &
ent. In scientific research, experimentation is a multifac- Ellermeijer, 2009) integrate tools from several of these
eted activity with many possible relationships between categories.
experimentation and observation on the one hand and The effectiveness of multimedia tools in physics edu-
inference and theory development on the other. Accord- cation has become a major field of empirical research.
ingly, instructional sequences should be more strongly ori- Redish, Saul, and Steinberg (1996) found significant posi-
ented to the epistemic practices of science (e.g., Duschl, tive effects of MBL-based tutorials in teaching mechan-
2000). Discussions, debates, and arguments about what ics. Schecker (1998) reports that the use of model-building
counts as evidence deserve a more prominent role. The systems has a positive effect on semiquantitative reason-
general role of metacognitive activities should be more ing about force and motion. A review of the literature on
greatly appreciated (Hofstein & Kind, 2012). This holds teaching and learning with the computer (Urhahne, Pren-
for science instruction in general and for physics instruc- zel, Davier, Senkbeil, & Bleschke, 2000) draws a posi-
tion specifically. tive picture for science. However, the effects should not
Students do practical work with real apparatus in the be overestimated (Sharma et al., 2010). There is general
physics lab. They also work with computer-based tools. agreement that the learning effects of multimedia in sci-
Both ways of teaching and learning physics allow for ence education crucially depend on the instructional
active engagement with physics phenomena. In up-to-date approach into which the materials are embedded (Bryan,
teaching strategies, the two modes are gradually integrated 2006; Linn, Songer, Lewis, & Stern, 1993). White and
(Goldberg & Bendall, 1995; Laws, 1997; Schecker, 1998). Frederiksen (1998) integrate a motion and force micro-
Redish (2003) describes the relevant teaching methods world into a comprehensive inquiry approach that brings
together with available resources. together the learning of mechanics with the acquisition of
metacognitive skills. Students’ investigations go through a
Multimedia cycle of questions, predictions, experiments, modeling, and
Cognitive tools (in contrast to digital resources, cf. Chap- applications. The microworld enables them to model their
ter 17 in this volume) for physics instruction can be placed ideas, create their own experiments, and make measure-
in different categories: ments in simulated worlds.

• Microcomputer-based laboratories (MBL): probes,

Teaching Physics in Three Domains
interfaces, and software for online data acquisition,
evaluation, and graphing (Sokoloff, Thornton, & Laws, As discussed in various places before, teaching and learn-
2012; Tinker, 1996). ing physics have proven to be rather difficult. In the fol-
• Content-specific interactive tools, like simulation lowing, we will analyze three standard topics of physics
programs, in which learners vary the parameters and instruction. We will discuss the physics concepts involved,
explore the behavior of physical systems on the basis summarize what is known about students’ ideas of these
of a given mathematical model (numerous packages concepts, and present instructional designs provided in
 Teaching Physics 443

the literature. First, we will show that even for a seem- devices in daily life, knowledge about the connect-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

ingly rather undemanding topic, namely, the simple elec- ing conditions is sufficient.
tric circuit, severe learning difficulties occur that are rather (2) Current flow. Usually the current flow view, as indi-
difficult to address in instructional settings. Second, teach- cated by the two arrows in Figure 22.3, is seen as
ing and learning a fundamental physics concept, namely an essential part of theoretically framing the elec-
force, are inspected. This has proven a challenging con- tric circuit. There is a closed current flow, such as a
cept up to university level. Finally, we turn to the domain flow of electrically charged particles. The intensity
of atomic physics with a focus on concepts of “modern” of current is the same all over the circuit. In intro-
physics. ductory physics instruction, the particular nature of
electric charge usually is not discussed any further.
Teaching the Simple Electric Circuit Such a restriction is appropriate, since the strength
Electricity is one of the physics domains in which a large of an electric current only depends on the source
number of research studies are available, with a particu- and the electric resistance of the various compo-
lar emphasis on simple electric circuits (Table 22.1). It nents that constitute the circuit. There is another
becomes rather obvious that even simple electric circuits essential feature of the current flow that deserves
are not simple either for primary and secondary or for ter- attention in instruction. The charged flowing par-
tiary students (Duit & von Rhöneck, 1998). Most studies ticles may not be viewed as moving independently
on teaching and learning key concepts of the simple elec- from one another. Rather, the whole electric cir-
tric circuit have been carried out in the 1980s and 1990s cuit constitutes a coupled system like the links of a
(Duit, 2009). However, there are still some studies on the bicycle chain (Härtel, 1982). Whenever the current
simple electric circuit carried out. Usually they investigate flow is changed at a certain spot of the circuit, the
the effect of certain instructional interventions such as the current changes at any other spot.
use of “conflict maps” (Tsai, 2003) or the effect of “real (3) Simultaneous current and energy flows. It is impor-
and virtual experimentation” (Zacharia, 2007). tant to enrich the current flow view by the view of
energy flow. If a current is flowing in the circuit of
Physics Concepts Figure 22.3, the bulb glows. Hence energy is trans-
The simplest circuit of all is presented in Figure 22.3. A ported from the battery to the bulb. Therefore every
bulb is connected to a battery. The same topological struc- current flow is accompanied by an energy flow.
ture holds for all kinds of “sources” and “consumers.” Whereas the electric current flows through all parts
The following issues allow predictions of whether the of the circuit, the location of an energy flow is more
circuit will properly work. demanding. Two different views are recommendable,
namely to locate an energy flow in the electromag-
(1) Connecting conditions. Source and consumer have netic field around the wires or within the wires. In
two connection points each; they have to be con- any case, energy flow and current flow are funda-
nected by conductors in such a way that the two con- mentally different in two regards. First, the energy
necting wires do not have direct contact (no short flow is fast (nearly the speed of light), whereas the
circuit). The voltages printed on source and consumer speed of charged particles (like electrons) is less than
need to be (nearly) the same, otherwise the consumer a few millimeters per second. Second, the current
will not work properly or will be destroyed. Note flow in an electric circuit is closed, while energy is
that voltage is simply a connecting condition. All the running through the circuit. Either on the path to the
students need to know that (a) the higher the voltage, consumer or on the way back, energy and current
the stronger the effect and (b) voltages greater than flow in opposite directions.
some 20 volts are dangerous for humans. It is inter-
esting to note that for safely dealing with electric The sketch of different levels of theoretical framing for
the simple electric circuit presented earlier has revealed
that the simple electric circuit is not so simple and easy
to conceptualize also from the physics point of view. The
“elementary ideas” of the simple electric circuit may
appear simple to experts in physics. However, research
findings on students’ conceptions and learning processes,
presented next, show that too-simple ideas may deeply
mislead students in their attempts to understand the elec-
tric circuit.

Students’ Ideas
The following overview, to a certain extent, draws on the
Figure 22.3 The simple electric circuit. review by Duit and von Rhöneck (1998).
 444 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

(1) Everyday meanings of current. Everyday talk about as brightly as before, because only the current lead-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

electricity is markedly different from physics talk. ing back is influenced by the additional resistor.
The meanings of words for current, for instance, (5) Current and voltage. Voltage has proven to be a par-
are—at least in English and most major European ticularly difficult concept for students across differ-
languages—closer to the meaning of energy than ent age levels. Before instruction, voltage is usually
to current as used in physics. Misunderstandings related to the “strength of the battery” (or another
in  class will be likely if these differences are not source) or is viewed as the intensity of force or cur-
taken into consideration. rent. Usually considerable progress in this view
(2) Consumption of current. Already students at elemen- after instruction is lacking. Many students still have
tary level establish a causal connection between the severe difficulties to differentiate between the two
battery and the bulb and explain that there is an agent concepts.
moving from the battery to the bulb. The agent may (6) Learning processes. Many studies (e.g., Shipstone
be called electricity or electric current. It may be et al., 1988) have shown that success of physics
stored in the battery and is consumed in the bulb. instruction in developing students’ ideas about the
Hence, children have problems to think about elec- electric circuit toward the physics view is rather
tric currents in terms of conservation. A considerable limited. Most of these data draw on pre-/posttest
number of children think that one wire between bat- designs. However, there are also studies that follow
tery and bulb suffices and that the second wire sim- the learning processes in detail. It becomes obvi-
ply serves the purpose to increase the current to the ous that learning pathways students follow are very
bulb. Some students believe that two different kinds complicated. There are forward and backward move-
of currents, called “plus” and “minus” current, travel ments, there are parallel developments, and there are
from both sides of the battery to the bulb. According dead-end streets (Duit & von Rhöneck, 1998; Nied-
to this view, there is a clash of the two currents pro- derer & Goldberg, 1995; Scott, 1992).
duced in the bulb that causes the light (“clashing cur-
rent,” Osborne, 1983) or a sort of chemical reaction Teaching Approaches
(Duit & von Rhöneck, 1998). The idea of consump- A substantial number of studies have been carried out
tion of current is commonly held even by students investigating possibilities to guide students from their
beyond elementary level. Research has shown that ideas to the physics concepts of the electric circuit. Basi-
it is very difficult to change this idea; it is hardly cally, the same kinds of approaches as used in other sci-
affected by formal science education. It appears that ence domains have been also employed here. There are
the everyday meanings of current at least partly are attempts to support conceptual change by particularly
responsible for the dominance of the consumption designed multimedia learning environments and by a
conception. number of constructivist-oriented teaching and learning
(3) Causal reasoning. There are several studies (e.g., settings. It appears that such attempts usually (but not
Tiberghien, 1984) showing that students employ always) have proven superior compared to more “tradi-
causal reasoning in the following sense. The battery tional” kinds of physics instruction. Still, the success often
supplies “something (causal agent) which permits is disappointingly limited. There is, however, one excep-
the bulb to lit. This causal agent, called by children tion. Almost all students, after appropriate experiences
electricity or electric current moves from the battery with electric circuits, are convinced that two wires are
to the light bulb and is consumed at the light bulb” necessary to make the consumer work.
(Tiberghien, 1984, p. 122). Students’ pre-instructional conceptions of the electric
(4) Local and sequential reasoning. Many students circuit are—as outlined—in stark contrast to the refer-
focus upon one point of the circuit and ignore what is ring physics concepts. Often new teaching and learning
happening elsewhere. A systemic view of the current strategies start with elicitation of students’ ideas and
flow, as described, is usually missing. An example with establishing their experiences in question. Students
of such local reasoning is the view that the battery carry out experiments (e.g., with batteries and bulbs)
delivers a constant current, independent of the cir- and develop and exchange their views of the phenomena
cuit that is connected to the battery. Another variant investigated. From such a basis, the teacher tries to guide
of local reasoning may be called “sequential reason- students toward the physics view. Challenging students’
ing.” A number of students analyze a circuit in terms ideas is often a crucial period, as cognitive conflicts play
of “before” and “after” current passes a certain point. a certain role. Cognitive conflict strategies, though suc-
If, for instance, in the simple circuit of Figure 22.3 cessful in a number of cases, bear a number of difficulties
a resistor is put into the connection leading from the (Vosniadou & Ioannides, 1998). The most important is that
battery to the bulb, students correctly predict that it is often difficult for students to experience the conflict.
the bulb shines less brightly. But if the resistor is put It may also happen that elicitation and long discussions
into the other connection leading back to the battery, of students’ pre-instructional views may strengthen just
many students think that in this case the bulb shines these views. Therefore, also in the domain of electricity,
 Teaching Physics 445

various approaches have been developed that attempt to it with a formulation that really expresses the conceptual
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

avoid cognitive conflicts. These approaches usually start core of the three laws (1*, 2*, 3*):
from students’ ideas that are mainly in accordance with
the physics view and attempt to guide students from this (1) If there is no force acting on a body, it remains in its
kernel of conformity to the physics view via a continuous state of motion—“inertia.”
pathway. One such strategy Grayson (1996) calls “con- (2) The (resultant) force acting on a body is proportional
cept substitution.” Instead of challenging students’ views to the body’s mass and acceleration (F = m a).
of current consumption, she provides the following re- (3) To each force exerted on a body (“action”), there is
interpretation: The view that something is consumed is an equal but opposite force (“reaction”).
not wrong at all—if seen in terms of energy as outlined:
Energy is actually flowing from the battery to the bulb Many students reproduce Newton’s laws in similar
while current is flowing. Energy is “consumed,” or trans- phrases without really understanding their conceptual
formed into heat and light (degradation). content. F  = m  a is probably the best known and least
Most instructional sequences toward understanding understood equation in school physics. Students often
the basic concepts of the electric circuit start with intro- consider F  = m  a (Newton’s universal resultant force) as
ducing the concept of electric current (often conceptual- just another force like F  = m  g (the specific single force
ized as flow of electrons or other charged particles). An of gravity).
alternative teaching and learning sequence is presented by A sound way of expressing Newton’s ideas that takes
Psillos, Koumaras, and Tiberghien (1988). They introduce into account the learning difficulties caused by the upper
voltage (which is usually viewed as a rather difficult con- formulations is:
cept) first.
Briefly summarized, understanding the simple electric (1*) The motion of a body can only be changed by
circuit has proven rather difficult for students in school forces acting from outside. If no change of the state
and at tertiary level also. It appears that these difficulties of motion occurs, then either the vector sum of the
are at least partly due to the fact that students’ ideas are single forces acting on the body is zero or there are
deeply rooted in certain everyday experiences (predomi- no single forces at all.
nantly everyday speech about electricity, current, and (2*) The state of motion of a body is described by its
electric circuits) and that these conceptions are not ade- momentum p. In order to change momentum, a
quately addressed in instruction. The case of teaching and resultant force has to act over a certain time interval
learning about electric circuits also shows that instruction (Δp = F · Δt).
may support “false” ideas. In general, the limited success (3*) Forces result from the interaction of bodies. When-
of conceptual change approaches points to the issue that ever a body A exerts a force on another body B,
the content structure for instruction has to be carefully then B simultaneously exerts an equal but opposite
developed in a process called Educational Reconstruction force on A (FA−>B = –FB−>A).
(Figure 22.2). Also, seemingly simple topics need sub-
stantially deep understanding of the physics “behind” that Although the problems of teaching mechanics cannot
simple topic. be solved simply by using proper wordings, the second set
of laws is much more likely to support students’ under-
Teaching Mechanics standing. Formulation 1* counters a misunderstanding
Within the domains of school physics, mechanics has the that Newton’s first law is only true in the absence of any
most substantial body of empirical research on students’ force. Formulation 2* stresses that a particular amount of
conceptions (Table 22.1). There are various propos- time is needed during which a force changes a body’s state
als for teaching approaches and a variety of multime- of motion. Formulation 3* underlines the interaction of
dia tools. Nevertheless, mechanics remains one of the bodies. It avoids the term “reaction,” which students often
most difficult domains to teach and to learn. “Force” and confuse with a “counterforce” on body A (e.g., Viennot,
“velocity” are subsumed by everyday interpretations of 1979).
motion phenomena that differ substantially from physics
concepts. Students’ Ideas
Driver, Squires, Rushworth, and Wood-Robinson (1994,
Physics Concepts p. 149) summarize the empirical findings about students’
The concepts of classical mechanics are displacement, ideas on force and motion in these statements:
velocity, acceleration, force, and momentum. Mechani-
cal energy (kinetic and potential energy, work) belongs to “• if there is motion, there is a force acting;
the intersection between mechanics and thermodynamics. • if there is no motion, there is no force acting;
Mechanics is canonized by Newton’s three laws. In the • there cannot be a force without motion;
physics classroom, they are often presented in a truncated • when an object is moving, there is a force in the direc-
version (see 1, 2, 3). We present this version to contrast tion of its motion;
 446 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

• a moving object stops when its force is used up; vertically. Students even use impetus ideas when they are
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

• a moving object has an own force within it which keeps asked to drop a ball on a target on the ground while they
it going; are running.
• motion is proportional to the force acting; Jung, Wiesner, and Engelhard (1981) worked out that
• a constant speed results from a constant force.” students conceptualize inertia as a sort of lameness—a
resistance to motion that has to be overcome by force. It is
One can add: often associated with static friction. For students, “force”
has a polyvalent meaning that integrates facets of the
• Friction is no “real” force but a resistance to motion. physics concepts of energy, momentum, and Newtonian
• Objects at rest or nonactive objects (like tables or force, comparable to the ambivalent meaning of “force” in
roads) do not exert forces. physics up to the mid-1850s.
• Objects in circular motion “sense” a centrifugal force A controversial issue is whether students’ intuitive
(independent from the system of reference). physics forms a systematic and coherent scheme—a sort of
“alternative theory” (e.g., Viennot, 1979). diSessa (1988)
These findings have been confirmed in empirical stud- strongly opposes this notion. He argues that students’
ies all over the world. They form the body of intuitive knowledge consists of single loosely connected phenom-
mechanics. enological primitives like “force as mover” or “more effort
Research on students’ ideas in mechanics was stimu- begs more result.” According to diSessa, the transition to
lated by Warren’s book “Understanding Force” (1979). scientific understanding involves a major structural change
From a physicist’s perspective, Warren worked out the toward systematization. In contrast, Vosniadou (2002)
inherent difficulties and the conceptual stepping stones— argues on the basis of patterns in students’ responses that
sometimes caused by imprecise instruction. Warren they construct their own narrow but coherent explana-
developed a set of test items for university beginners that tory frameworks in mechanics. Chi, Slotta, and de Leeuw
were also used in several follow-up studies with younger (1994) propose to organize students’ thinking along onto-
students (see Figure 22.4 for an example). He showed that logical categories: In students’ minds, “force” belongs to
many students failed to solve seemingly simple problems. the category “matter” (something that can be stored), while
Viennot (1979) expanded on the question of how stu- it should be reassigned to the “constrained-based interac-
dents conceptualize mechanics alternatively. She claimed tion” category. Jung and colleagues (1981) claim that it is
that students’ spontaneous reasoning was consistent and more effective to address students’ general categories of
could be formed into an intuitive law of force in which reasoning than to address specific alternative conceptions.
“force” depends on velocity v (instead of acceleration a). Such categories are:
Viennot found a coexistence between the idea of “force”
as an interaction force impressed on a body and a “supply • functional descriptions of motion—in contrast to seek-
of force” stored in a body. ing the cause of motion
McCloskey (1983) drew parallels between students’ • relationships and interactions between bodies—in con-
“intuitive physics” and medieval impetus theory based on trast to the properties of bodies
the idea that force impressed on an object can somehow
be stored in the body and is later used up for keeping up Research on students’ understanding of mechanics cul-
its motion. Students’ impetus reasoning is very resistant minated in the 1980s and has since reached a high degree
to instruction. It leads to wrong predictions of the path of of consensus. There are standardized instruments to assess
moving objects, like a cannon ball traveling in a straight students’ reasoning:
line before the impetus is used up, so that it falls down
• Force Concept Inventory (FCI; Hestenes, Wells, &
Swackhamer, 1992; revised version in Mazur, 1997)
• Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE;
Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998)
• Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUGK;
Beichner, 1994)

The FCI is the most widely used test on understand-

ing mechanics. Its revised version contains 30 items. The
sets of multiple-choice answers contain—besides the
attractor—four distractors, each addressing a specific mis-
Figure 22.4 Diagram from a tutorial test on student ideas of forces conception of motion and forces. There has been a long
(Warren, 1979, p. 34). Students are asked to draw arrows for the forces
on a ball in P and Q. Most students assume a “force” in the direction of
discussion about the reliability of the FCI for diagnosing
motion instead of a (resultant) force in the direction of the change of students’ conceptions (starting with Huffman & Heller,
motion (in P vertically downward). 1995; see also Stewart, Griffin, & Stewart, 2007). Recent
 Teaching Physics 447

research on learning progression (see earlier) has tried to new sensors, interfaces, and software. In a collaborative
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

define and assess levels of understanding mechanics by learning environment, the approach leads to a consider-
ordered multiple-choice items. Alonzo and Steedle (2009) able increase of understanding kinematics (Thornton,
found a lack of consistency in students’ answers. They 1992). Motion in sports (like high jumping) can be ana-
varied with the context into which the items were embed- lyzed by digital video tools like Videograph (c.f. Beich-
ded. It is therefore difficult to obtain reliable estimates of ner, 1996). The active construction of virtual microworlds
levels of learning progression (Alonzo & Steedle, 2009, from a given set of building blocks (bodies, springs,
p. 418). ropes, etc.) is another means to prompt students to explore
mechanics phenomena (software package: Interactive
Teaching Approaches Physics, 2014). Doerr (1997) presents a curriculum unit
In the literature, there are numerous studies under vari- that integrates experimentation as well as simulation with
ous perspectives for the teaching of mechanics in general Interactive Physics. Sadaghiani (2012) found a positive
and the force concept in particular. The following section impact of using multimedia learning modules on under-
starts with a contribution from a subject matter point of standing mechanics in introductory physics courses in
view and then focuses on teaching strategies building on university.
the knowledge about students’ (alternative) ideas and on The following two curricular teaching approaches are
curricula that passed empirical evaluation studies. based on design research: In a long-term program, Wil-
Discussions about new approaches for teaching helm, Tobias, Waltner, Hopf, and Wiesner (2012) have
mechanics intensified in the 1980s and 1990s when assess- constructed, evaluated, and refined a teaching sequence
ments in curriculum development projects had revealed for lower secondary school. The course considers research
deeply rooted problems of students’ understanding force on students’ conceptions as well as an alternative content
and motion. Warren (1979, p. 13) points out that the New- structure of mechanics. Two-dimensional motion is dis-
tonian system of mechanics should in the physics perspec- cussed right from the start, and Newton’s second law is
tive be fully developed in terms of “real” forces. A “real” introduced similar to formulation 2* (see earlier). There
force can be attributed to a concrete body in a definable is empirical evidence for substantial learning effects.
interaction, which is subject to a recognizable law, such Tiberghien, Vince, and Gaidioz (2009) also stress the
as gravitational forces caused by a planet or elastic forces importance of designing usable teaching approaches that
caused by a deformed ball. Imaginary forces (“pseudo” can be shared with practitioners. In a collaborative proj-
forces) like centrifugal force would only confuse students. ect of researchers and teachers, a teaching sequence for
Minstrell (1992) reports about positive effects of high upper secondary mechanics was developed that focuses on
school mechanics courses, in which students are explic- distinguishing and at the same time relating the world of
itly asked to express their intuitive ideas about force and objects and events (e.g., measurements of forces) with the
motion. The students’ ideas are then juxtaposed with world of theories and models (e.g., Newton’s laws).
the physics concepts. A similar strategy is presented by
Schecker and Niedderer (1996) under the term “con- Teaching Atomic Physics
trastive teaching.” After introducing Newton’s laws, the Teaching atomic physics concerns an introduction to vari-
teacher poses an open-ended problem like “investigate ous views of the microworld ranging from simple particle
forces in collisions.” Students then make statements like models to quantum mechanical views. Many research
“a force is transferred from body A to body B”—even studies are available on students’ views and the conceptual
though they know the nominal Newtonian definition of change processes concerning the particle model. Also, a
force. This elicitation of students’ own ideas (Driver & substantial number of studies on quantum views have been
Oldham, 1986) helps to contrast their intuitive views with carried out (cf. Table 22.1). For both domains, it turns out
the scientific notion of force. Clement (1993) shows how that students’ everyday conceptions are in stark contrast to
students’ intuitive ideas can be used as starting points the science views. This is already true for the simple parti-
(“anchors”) for teaching sequences that lead to a proper cle model that is part of every introductory physics course.
understanding of related Newtonian concepts by way of The microscopic world of the particles is different from
“bridging analogies.” Camp and Clement (1994) present the world of objects in lifeworld dimensions. Attempts to
a series of student activities helping them to overcome make the microscopic world understandable by introduc-
known learning obstacles. ing analogies to everyday-world features usually lead to
Hake (1998) carried out a meta-analysis of studies done major misunderstandings. Students, for instance, tend to
with the Force Concept Inventory or FCI (6,000 students view particles as if they were objects of the life-world and
involved). He found that so-called interactive-engagement hence attach lifeworld features like color or temperature to
courses score higher than traditional teacher-centered particles (Duit, 1992; Scott, 1992).
methods. Interactive engagement can be effectively sup- The clash between everyday world views and physics
ported by multimedia. Sokoloff and colleagues (2012) conceptions is even more fundamental for quantum views
have developed activity-based mechanics curricula of the microscopic world. A number of quantum features in
that center around computer-based labs with a range of principle appear to be inconceivable from everyday-world
 448 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

thinking. Examples are the particle and wave dualism (2) The planetary model of the atom. A most influential
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

(Bohr’s idea of complementarity) and Heisenberg’s uncer- model was developed by Bohr in analogy to the sys-
tainty principle, leading, for instance, to the consequence tem of planets revolving around the sun. The electrons
that it is not possible to know both speed and location of a (planets) are travelling in orbits around a nucleus.
particle with unlimited precision. The orbits are derived under quantum assumptions.
Concerning models of the atom, younger students tend
to have naïve realistic views. The majority see models more The planetary model is still taught in science instruc-
or less as copies of reality (Harrison & Treagust, 1996; tion. Often, it is the only model of so-called modern atomic
Treagust et al., 2002). It appears that in lower secondary physics students learn. About half of the students in lower
science teaching, there is not much development of such secondary as well as the majority in upper secondary and
views toward awareness of the model character of atoms in university actually see the atom as a planetary system,
(Knote, 1975). However, there seems to be a progression in with a nucleus being surrounded by moving electrons
upper secondary physics instruction. Bethge (1992) found (Fischler & Lichtfeldt, 1992; Harrison & Treagust, 1996;
in pre-university physics courses that many students differ- Knote, 1975). As the idea of electrons circulating round
entiated between model (of an atom) and reality. Learning the nucleus provides a powerful mental model by drawing
science concepts and principles should include developing the analogy with the solar system, it has proven to be very
students’ views about the nature of science (see earlier). resistant against teaching more advanced models (Bethge,
Proper understanding of particle models and models of the 1992; Fischler & Lichtfeldt, 1992; Mashhadi, 1995; Mül-
atom develop only if the general character of models in ler & Wiesner, 2002; Taber, 2001).
physics is properly considered as well (Mikelkis-Seifert &
(3) The probability density conception of the atom.
Fischler, 2003).
This model is based on Born’s interpretation of the
Schrödinger equation. In this conception, the psi-
Models of the Atom in Physics
function can be used to predict the probability of
and Students’ Ideas
finding the electron in a certain distance from the
The interplay between two different views—the particle
nucleus: The larger the distance, the smaller is the
view and the continuum view—characterizes scientific
probability. Studies have shown that students have
ideas of substance and atoms. Already the Greek philos-
difficulties understanding this view (Bethge, 1992;
ophers held both views about the constitution of matter
Mashhadi, 1995).
(Samburski, 1975, general introduction). Matter was either
seen as consisting of tiny particles, called atoms, or as a
At least in the United Kingdom and in Germany,
continuous “something” that fills space and is indefinitely
there is a tradition to teach quantum atomic physics
divisible. The basic particle view was further elaborated
beyond the Bohr model in upper secondary school.
in the 18th and 19th centuries, culminating in statisti-
In these teaching approaches, students typically con-
cal mechanics. After 1900, various atomic models were
struct intermediate conceptions of a quantum atomic
developed that propose different structures of positive and
model (Bethge, 1992; Mashhadi, 1995; Petri &
negative charges with respect to particle and continuum.
Niedderer, 1998). One of these models conceptu-
Scientific views of the atom have grown over centuries.
alizes probability as smeared orbits (Figure 22.5).
In the following, we look at key stages in the devel-
opment of atomic physics together with students’ under-
standings or misunderstandings.

(1) Atom as a ball. In 1808, Dalton published his book,

A New System of Chemical Philosophy, in which
he viewed atoms as tiny balls (excerpts reprinted in
Samburski, 1975). Each element had its own kind
of atoms. This hypothesis was suited to explain fun-
damental empirical laws about weights in chemical
reactions. Later in the 19th century, Boltzmann’s
theory of statistical mechanics was also based on
atoms as balls. However, in this case the atoms were
merely conceptualized as being mass points without
any other features.
Students hold similar conceptions. In a study with
48 students (Grades 8 to 10), Harrison and Treagust
(1996) found that more than 50% of students saw the
shape of atoms as “balls or spheres,” and the texture
of atoms as “most like a hard polystyrene sphere.” Figure 22.5 Smeared orbits model. (Petri & Niedderer, 1998)
 Teaching Physics 449

A number of students at university level also appear and phosphorescent materials, as well as the tunnel-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

to hold such ideas (Müller & Wiesner, 2002). ing microscope. Potential energy diagrams are used to
A more concrete interpretation of the prob- explain these materials. In the “visual quantum mechan-
ability density model is given in Herrmann’s (1995) ics” approach, the emphasis lies on conceptual under-
electron cloud model. This model consists of a standing and visualization instead of mathematical
nucleus and an electron cloud as a charge cloud sur- formalisms. Zollman, Rebello, and Hogg (2002) found
rounding the nucleus, its density calculated by the that hands-on activities, computer visualization pro-
Schrödinger ψ function. The cloud collapses when grams, and constructivist pedagogy enabled the students
a measurement is made and the electron localizes. to build mental models that allowed them to explain their
Studies (Budde, Niedderer, Scott, & Leach, 2002; observations.
Niedderer & Deylitz, 1999) show that the electron Ke, Monk, and Duschl (2005) studied teaching intro-
cloud representation (Herrmann speaks of “electro- ductory quantum physics with Taiwanese university stu-
nium”; Herrmann & Job, 2006) is easier to learn dents at different levels. After revisiting earlier approaches
than the idea of probability density. If both models (Budde et al., 2002; Fischler & Lichtfeldt, 1992), they
are offered, students prefer the electronium model, suggest distinguishing between earlier quantum mod-
and about 90% of them use it in the posttest and in els, transitional wave mechanics, and probabilistic wave
interviews. This result corresponds with Harrison mechanics. In their study, the more capable students hold
and Treagust (1996), who found that 76% of their all three views and are able to switch among them in dif-
students preferred space-filling models. ferent contexts. These students can also tell the differences
between the views.
Teaching Approaches In a study with students at the end of upper second-
For the discussion of teaching approaches, we focus on ary schools in Greece, Tsaparlis and Papaphotis (2009)
advanced atomic physics in pre-university instruction tried to achieve conceptual change from early quantum
and on approaches that were evaluated. Gedankenexperi- theory to modern orbital views of the atom, thus fol-
mente (thought experiments) or computer simulations to lowing an earlier suggestion of Kalkanis, Hadzidaki,
introduce the concepts of quantum physics, such as the and Stavrou (2003) for a radical change toward quan-
“preparation” of samples of equal particles or the new tum mechanics concepts. Both papers assume that mis-
view of “measurement,” play a significant role in sev- conceptions or hybrid conceptions “arise because of
eral approaches. In the following, a brief overview is inability of many students to separate the conceptual
presented. frameworks of classical and quantum physics, produc-
Fischler’s (1999) approach starts with electron dif- ing epistemological obstacles to the acquisition of the
fraction experiments and their interpretation. The required knowledge” (Tsaparlis & Papaphotis, 2009).
experiments surprise students and catch their attention. Results show that for many students, the Bohr model
Mechanistic interpretations of electrons are avoided. In a is still very prominent in the written tests, which were
treatment–control group design, Fischler and Lichtfeldt done after secondary school and before the teaching
(1992) found that about 20% of the students in the exper- interviews. However, after the teaching interviews,
imental group developed satisfactory conceptions about students’ ideas for the atomic model had changed to
quantum principles, whereas none of the students in the more intermediate models (6 out of 17) and quantum
control group (starting from experiments with photons) mechanics models (11 out of 17). So conceptual change
reached that level. Also, Müller (2003) found positive was partially successful.
effects on understanding by introducing a more modern Briefly summarized, research has shown that students’
quantum model of the atom and by abandoning the plan- understanding of particle models and quantum models of
etary model. the atom may be substantially improved by approaches
In a number of approaches, major emphasis is put on that are oriented toward constructivist conceptual change
explaining basic phenomena and interesting technical views of teaching and learning. However, the success
applications of quantum physics. Niedderer’s approach rate is still limited. Much more research-based develop-
(Niedderer & Deylitz, 1999) aims at understanding the size ment is necessary for both domains. It appears that the
and spectra of atoms, chemical bonding, and the spectra of views of the Didaktik tradition (see the idea of Educa-
solids. An evaluation study (Niedderer & Deylitz, 1999) tional Reconstruction in Figure 22.2) may help in further
showed that—apart from problems with understanding improving the existing approaches. The content structure
the mathematics of Schrödinger’s equation—most goals for instruction—seen from that perspective—has to be
of conceptual understanding could be reached with rea- developed by taking into account (a) physics views of par-
sonable success. As mentioned, a majority of students ticles and atoms, (b) physics views of the nature of parti-
preferred the “electron cloud” model to the “probability cles and atoms, (c) students’ views of particles and atoms
density” model. as well as of the nature of the models provided, and (d) also
Escalada, Rebello, and Zollman (2004) analyze the aims of teaching particles and atoms. It appears that by
objects like LEDs and fluorescent lamps and fluorescent adopting the Didaktik tradition, the purpose of teaching
 450 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

and learning particle views, and especially quantum phys- (e.g., by analyzing videos; Brückmann & Knierim,
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

ics views of the atoms from scientific literacy perspectives 2008; Roth & Garnier, 2006; Seidel & Prenzel, 2006).
should also be further clarified. More studies on the regular practice of physics instruc-
tion are needed.

Outlook: Desiderata for Physics Education Aims and Standards

Research The present-day discussion on scientific literacy
is focused on the use of physics knowledge for the
In order to improve physics teaching and learning, various
enhancement of active citizenship in general and for
changes in the present state of practice are necessary. Most
understanding daily-life concerns as well as for mak-
changes are relevant not only for physics instruction but
ing better and well-informed decisions in socioscientific
also for science instruction in general. However, they have
issues in particular. The concept of Bildung adds the idea
to be specifically designed for the particular content struc-
of forming the learners’ personalities. Further research
ture and the content-specific pedagogical issues of physics
is needed on whether the actual conceptions of scientific
teaching. Other necessary changes are specific for phys-
literacy are sound and can be put into practice. Other-
ics instruction, in particular those concerning emphases
wise they will remain ambitious visions. A broad spec-
of the content taught. In the following, we outline major
trum of research methods has to be employed, including
concerns that we consider to be of particular interest in the
historical and hermeneutical studies on various views of
field of physics education.
scientific literacy in different domains including physics
and in different cultural environments. Evidence about
General Concerns the impact of physics content and process knowledge
Teachers’ Thinking About Instruction and Their on understanding daily life issues and active citizenship
Teaching Practices is still limited. The same holds for empirical studies on
Teachers, of course, are the key players in education students’ capabilities to achieve the envisioned facets of
reforms (Anderson & Helms, 2001). Research has shown scientific literacy.
(a) that many teachers are not well informed about Standards make the more general conceptions of sci-
research findings on teaching and learning, (b)  their entific literacy explicit. They have been a key concern for
views about “good” physics instruction are rather topic a number of countries since the 1990s (e.g., in the United
dominated, their beliefs on teaching and learning are States and Canada); in other countries (like Germany;
rather transmissive than constructive, and (c) in educa- Schecker & Parchmann, 2007), this is a more recent issue.
tional practice, there appears to be still a dominance of A comprehensive overview of the international situation
teacher-centered instruction. It is essential that teach- for science, with 18 country reports, is given in Wad-
ers’ thinking about instruction include all the facets dington, Nentwig, and Schanze (2007). DeBoer (2011)
addressed in the Didaktik tradition (Figure 22.2). In summarizes the current practices and recommends the
terms of Shulman’s (1987) perspective, there should be development of global standards with a common core of
a balance between content aspects and content-specific competencies but also giving space for each country to
pedagogical issues in teacher thinking. Instructional specify goals.
planning should include considerations of content issues Standards usually serve two related functions:
as well as of issues of how students may be able to learn to provide a framework for defining key issues of
particular content. scientific literacy and to facilitate the construction of
More research is needed especially concerning the fol- test measures that make it possible to determine the
lowing two issues (see Chapter 44 on teacher professional extent the various competencies stated are reached
development for more details): in practice. The assessment of learning outcomes is
closely bound to the standards discourse under the
• To investigate how teachers become interested in and aspects of monitoring and accountability (c.f., Bernholt
familiarize themselves with research findings, how et al., 2012).
their views about teaching and learning physics might Standards as well as the assessment of learning out-
be improved (Gräsel & Parchmann, 2004), and whether comes should be based on explicit models of the structure
their instructional practices improve accordingly (Ber- and development of competence. Such models are, for
tram & Loughran, 2012). Here issues of conceptual instance, used in the Swiss HarmoS project for the develop-
change discussed earlier come into play. Changing ment of standards (Labudde, Nidegger, Adamina, & Ging-
deeply rooted views (here teachers’ views) has proved ings, 2012) and in the German evaluation of the national
to be a long-lasting process. science standards (Kremer et al., 2012).
• In order to enhance the efficacy of instruction in phys- More empirical research is needed in these areas:
ics education, more evidence is needed about the cur-
rent practices of teaching physics. Until today, only a • to model the development of students’ competency
few studies allow deep insight into physics classrooms structures in a longitudinal perspective
 Teaching Physics 451

• to develop scenarios assessing competencies under Physics-Specific Concerns

Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

complex demands, going beyond multiple-choice Physics instruction in school covers a certain canon of con-
questionnaires—even if that should not be feasible in tent that is quite similar all over the world. Interestingly,
large-scale assessments most topics of this canon concern rather “old” physics,
namely physics of the 19th century. Physics of the 20th
Content, Processes, and Views About the century or even current research plays a certain role only
Nature of Science in the upper secondary levels. Most teaching approaches
As outlined, the importance of process skills, knowledge for quantum physics and relativity (Table 22.1) are suited
about knowledge generation in physics, and adequate views only for rather gifted students of the tertiary level. Seri-
about nature of science in general and nature of physics in ous attempts to make more recent physics thinking about
particular play only limited roles in physics teachers’ per- matter, space, and time accessible also for younger or less
spectives on teaching. Teachers are gatekeepers of any cur- gifted students have to be intensified. Some studies in the
ricular innovation. The same holds for teaching physics as a field of nonlinear systems have shown that this is possible
process or the focus on NOS. Therefore, it has to be consid- (Duit et al., 1997; Stavrou, Duit, & Komorek, 2008). There
ered how physics teachers can be encouraged and supported is the certain irony that schools appear to be reluctant to
regarding these curricular objectives. Since we know that take care of this issue, whereas popular science books on
science teachers’ views of NOS too often are as problematic modern physics are booming. There are good ideas for
as those of their students, ways of developing physics teach- the elementarization of modern physics (see “Teaching
ers’ content knowledge as well as their pedagogical content Atomic Physics”), but there is more research to be done
knowledge in this field have to be designed and evaluated. on the learning outcomes of these approaches (e.g., Zhu
More research has to be done about the interplay of & Singh, 2012).
understanding physics content on the one hand and process
skills as well as views of NOS on the other. Even though Acknowledgments
science education researchers agree on the general idea that
understanding NOS is necessary for informed citizenship, We would like to thank Andrée Tiberghien and Onno de
the effects have hardly been explored in detail. We are still Jong, who carefully and critically reviewed this chapter.
lacking evidence of which kinds of NOS knowledge sup-
port informed decision making in which kind of context. References
Even though there is some evidence that adequate episte-
AAAS—American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).
mological beliefs relate to learning strategies, this relation Project 2061—Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford
has been hardly under scrutiny in the domain of physics. University Press.
Finally, the influences of history and philosophy of science Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature
in physics instruction as well as of inquiry-based learning of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural.
Science Education, 82, 417–436.
on understanding NOS should be researched in more detail.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science
teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the lit-
Holistic Research and Development erature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
Research has shown that the outcomes of instruction (e.g., Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) sci-
achievement and interests) are not due simply to single, iso- ence. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force
lated factors of the instructional arrangement but to an inti-
and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.
mate interplay of several factors (Baumert & Köller, 2000; Anderson, R. D., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the
Oser & Baeriswyl, 2001). It does not make much sense to reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science
change just one factor to improve physics instruction (e.g., Teaching, 38, 3–16.
introducing multimedia learning environments, new exit- Araujo, I. S., Veit, E. A., & Moreira, M. A. (2008). Physics students’ perfor-
mance using computational modelling activities to improve kinematics
ing experiments, or innovative teaching methods). The idea
graphs interpretation. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1128–1140.
of Educational Reconstruction (Figure 22.2) may provide Arons, A. (1984). Students’ patterns of thinking and reasoning. The
a framework for designing instruction that more system- Physics Teacher, 22, 21–26; 89–93; 576–581.
atically takes into account the essential interplay of central Arons, A. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. New York: Wiley.
factors determining instructional outcomes. Design-based Baker, D. R. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In B. J. Fraser &
K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education
research, like the work of Wilhelm and colleagues (2012),
(pp. 869–895). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
appears to be an appropriate strategy for the implementa- Publishers.
tion of comprehensive research-based conceptions for Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2000). Unterrichtsgestaltung, verständnis-
teaching physics. More long-term projects are needed that volles Lernen und multiple Zielerreichung im Mathematik- und
evaluate the large bodies of specific findings about teaching Physikunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Instructional plan-
ning, mindful learning and the achievement of multiple goals in
and learning in many subdomains of physics for the design
mathematics and physics instruction at upper secondary level]. In J.
and testing of successful teaching strategies (as already pro- Baumert & O. Köller (Eds.), TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Math-
posed in Lijnse, 1995). So far, there is more “research in ematik- und Naturwissenschaftsstudie. Volume 2 (pp. 271–315).
pieces” than there are coherent curricular R&D programs. Opladen, Germany: Leske+Budrich.
 452 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

& Kelly, D. A. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Educa-
years. IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study tion, 95(6), 961–999.
(TIMSS). Boston: Boston College—Center for the Study of Testing, diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall
Evaluation, and Educational Policy. (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–90). Hillsdale,
Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematik graphs. NJ: Erlbaum.
American Journal of Physics, 62, 750–762. Doerr, H. M. (1997). Experiment, simulation and analysis: An integrated
Beichner, R. J. (1996). The impact of video motion analysis on kine- instructional approach to the concept of force. International Journal
matics graph interpretation skills. American Journal of Physics, 64, of Science Education, 19(3), 265–282.
1272–1278. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum
Bernholt, S., Neumann, K., & Nentwig, P. (Eds.). (2012). Making development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.
it tangible—learning outcomes in science education. Münster: Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994).
Waxmann. Making sense of secondary science—Research into children’s ideas.
Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teachers’ views on CoRes London, UK: Routledge.
and PaPeRs as a framework for articulating and developing peda- Duit, R. (1992). Teilchen- und Atomvorstellungen [Conceptions of par-
gogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 42, ticles and atoms]. In H. Fischler (Ed.), Quantenphysik in der Schule
1027–1047. (pp. 201–204) Kiel, Germany: IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science
Bethge, T. (1992). Vorstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern zu Education.
Begriffen der Atomphysik [Students’ ideas about concepts of Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography—STCSE (students’ and teachers’ concep-
atomic physics]. In H. Fischler (Ed.), Quantenphysik in der Schule tions and science education). Kiel: Leibniz Institute for Science
(pp. 88–113). Kiel, Germany: IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/
Education. aktuell/stcse/stcse.html (Dec. 2012)
Brückmann, M., & Knierim, B. (2008). Teaching and learning pro- Duit, R., Goldberg, F., & Niedderer, H. (1992). Research in physics learn-
cesses in physics instruction—chances of videotape classroom ing: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Kiel: IPN—Leibniz
studies. In S. Mikelskis-Seifert, U. Ringelband, & M. Brückmann Institute for Science Education.
(Eds.), Four decades of research in science education—from cur- Duit R., Gropengießer H., Kattmann U., Komorek M., & Parchmann,
riculum development to quality improvement (pp. 191–219). Mün- I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction—A framework
ster: Waxmann. for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon
Bryan, J. (2006). Technology for physics instruction. Contemporary (Eds.), The world of science education: Science education research
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 230–245. and practice in Europe (pp. 13–47). Rotterdam, the Netherlands:
Budde, M., Niedderer, H., Scott, P., & Leach, J. (2002). The quantum Sense Publishers.
atomic model ‘Electronium’: A successful teaching tool. Physics Duit, R., Komorek, M., & Wilbers, J. (1997). Studies on educational recon-
Education, 37(3), 204–210. struction of chaos theory. Research in Science Education, 27, 339–357.
Buffler, A., Lubben, F., & Ibrahim, B. (2009). The relationship between Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Widodo, A. (2013). Teaching science for con-
students’ views of the nature of science and their views of the nature ceptual change: Theory and practice. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Interna-
of scientific measurement. International Journal of Science Educa- tional handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 487–503).
tion, 31(9), 1137–1156. New York, London: Routledge.
Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to prac- Duit, R., & von Rhöneck, Ch. (1998). Learning and understanding key
tices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing. concepts of electricity. In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem, & J. Baro-
Camp, C., & Clement, J. (1994). Preconceptions in mechanics. Les- jas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education. Boise, Ohio:
sons dealing with students’ conceptual difficulties. Dubuque, IA: ICPE—International Commission on Physics Education, ICPE
Kendall/Hunt. Books. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20130105145245/
Chevallard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to changing epistemology. www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ICPE/C2.html (Jan. 2014)
European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131–134. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar,
Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to pro- J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education. The
cesses: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Buckingham, Philadelphia:
Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43. Open University Press.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic Duschl, R. (2012). The second dimension—Crosscutting concepts. The
inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry Science Teacher, 79(2), 34–38.
tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and
Chiu, M.-H., & Duit, R. (2011). Globalization: Science education from a teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Edu-
global perspective—Editorial. Journal of Research in Science Teach- cation, 47, 123–182.
ing, 48(6), 553–566. Escalada, L. T., Rebello, S., & Zollman, D. A. (2004). Student explora-
Christian, W., & Belloni, M. (Eds.). (2003). Physlet? Physics: Interac- tions of quantum effects in LEDs and luminescent devices. The Phys-
tive illustrations, explorations, and problems for introductory phys- ics Teacher, 42, 173–179.
ics. Prentice Hall, NJ: Addison-Wesley. Fensham, P. (2001). Science content as problematic—issues for research.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A.
deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Kross, & P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education—past,
Science Teaching, 30, 1241–1257. present, and future (pp. 27–41). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual Academic Publishers.
change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Fischler, H. (1999, March). Introduction to quantum physics—
Science Education, 15, 463–494. development and evaluation of a new course. In D. Zollman (Ed.),
Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and Research on teaching and learning quantum mechanics (pp. 32–40).
post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. The Pantan- Papers presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
eto Forum, Issue 25, January. Retrieved from www.pantaneto.co.uk/ for Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved from http://web.phys.
issue25/clough.htm (December 2012). ksu.edu/papers/narst/QM_papers.pdf (Jan. 2014)
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Fischler, H. (2011). Didaktik—An appropriate framework for the pro-
Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567–591. fessional work of science teachers? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, &
 Teaching Physics 453

R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inven-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

teaching (pp. 31–50). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. tory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Fischler, H., & Lichtfeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students’ con- Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Language,
ceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 181–190. theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, the
Galilei, G. (1832, reprint). Il Saggiatore. In Opere di Galileo Galilei, Netherlands: Sense Publishes.
Vol. 2 (p. 13). Milano: Bettoni. Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science labora-
Galili, I., & Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of an historically oriented tories. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second
course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means international handbook of science education (pp. 189–207). Dordrecht,
of facets-schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics Supple- the Netherlands: Springer.
ment, 68(7), 3–14. Hopf, M. (2007). Problemorientierte Schülerexperimente [Problem-based
Gallagher, J. J., & Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student practical work of students]. Berlin: Logos-Verlag.
engagement in high school science. Science Education, 71, 535–555. Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didak-
Gingras, Y. (2001). What did mathematics do to physics? History of Sci- tik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.
ence, 29, 383–416. Höttecke, D. (2001). Die Vorstellungen von Schülern und Schülerinnen
Goldberg, F., & Bendall, S. (1995). Making the invisible visible: A teach- von der “Natur der Naturwissenschaften” [Students’ beliefs on the
ing and learning environment that builds on a new view of the phys- nature of science]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften,
ics learner. American Journal of Physics, 63, 978–991. 7, 7–23.
Gräsel, C., & Parchmann, I. (2004). Implementationsforschung— Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Rieß, F. (2012). Implementing history and
oder: der steinige Weg Unterricht zu verändern [Implementation philosophy in science teaching—strategies, methods, results and
research—the stony path towards changing instruction]. Unterrichts- experiences from the European Project HIPST. Science & Educa-
wissenschaft, 32(3), 196–214. tion, 21(9), 1233–1261.
Grayson, D. (1996). Improving science and mathematics learning by Höttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and phi-
concept substitution. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. Fraser (Eds.), losophy in school science education is a challenge—an analysis of
Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 293–316.
(pp. 152–161). New York: Teachers College Press. Huffman, D., & Heller, P. (1995). What does the force concept inventory
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: actually measure? The Physics Teacher, 33, 138–143.
A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introduc- Interactive Physics. (2014). Canton, MI: Design Simulation Technologies.
tory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74. Ivie, R., & Guo, S. (2006). Women physicists speak again. American
Hannover, B., & Kessels, U. (2004). Self-to-prototype matching as a Institute of Physics Report. Retrieved from www.aip.org/statistics/
strategy for making academic choices. Why high school students do reports/women-physicists-speak-again (Jan. 2014)
not like math and science. Learning and Instruction, 14, 51–67. Jonas-Ahrend, G. (2004). Physiklehrervorstellungen zum Experiment im
Harding, J. (1996). Science as a masculine strait-jacket. In L. H. Physikunterricht [Teachers’ beliefs about practical work in physics
Parker, L. J. Rennie, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, science and math- teaching]. Berlin: Logos.
ematics (pp. 3–16). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Jung, W. (2012). Philosophy of science and education. Science & Educa-
Publishers. tion. doi:10.1007/s11191–012–9497-x
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental Jung, W., Wiesner, H., & Engelhard, P. (1981). Vorstellungen von Schül-
models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching chemistry. ern über Begriffe der Newtonschen Mechanik [Students’ ideas about
Science Education, 80, 509–534. concepts of Newtonian Mechanics]. Bad Salzdetfurth, Germany:
Härtel, H. (1982). The electric circuit as a system. A new approach. Franzbecker.
European Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 45–55. Kalkanis, G., Hadzidaki, P., & Stavrou, D. (2003). An instructional
Häußler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics
girls’ interest, self-concept and achievement in physics classes. Jour- concepts. Science Education, 87(2), 257–280.
nal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888. Ke, J.-L., Monk, M., & Duschl, R. (2005). Learning introductory quan-
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Con- tum physics: Sensori-motor experiences and mental models. Interna-
necting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, tional Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1571–1594.
physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal Keeves, J. P., & Kotte, D. (1996). Patterns of science achievement:
of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. International comparisons. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, & B. Fra-
Heck, A., Kedzierska, E., & Ellermeijer, T. (2009). Design and imple- ser (Eds.), Gender, science and mathematics (pp. 77–94). Dordrecht,
mentation of an integrated computer working environment for doing The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
mathematics and science. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Kessels, U., Rau, M., & Hannover, B. (2006). What goes well with phys-
Science Teaching, 28(2), 147–161. ics? Measuring and altering the image of science. British Journal of
Heering, P., & Höttecke, D. (2014). Historical-investigative approaches Educational Psychology, 76(4), 761–780.
in science teaching. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International hand- Kircher, E., Girwidz, R., & Häußler, P. (2000). Physikdidaktik [Didac-
book of research in history, philosophy and science teaching tics of physics]. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Friedrich
(pp. 1473–1502). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Vieweg & Sohn.
Heimann, P., Otto, G., & Schulz, W. (1969). Unterricht, Analyse und Kirstein, J., & Nordmeier, V. (2007). Multimedia representation of
Planung [Instruction: Analysis and planning]. Hannover, Germany: experiments in physics. European Journal of Physics, 28(3),
Schroedel. S115–S126.
Heinicke, S., & Heering, P. (2012). Discovering randomness, recovering Klafki, W. (1969). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbe-
expertise: The different approaches to the quality in measurement of reitung [Educational analysis as core issue of instructional planning].
Coulomb and Gauss and of today’s students. Science & Education, In H. Roth & A. Blumental (Eds.), Auswahl, Didaktische Analyse
22, 483–503. (pp. 5–34). Hannover, Germany: Schroedel.
Herrmann, F. (1995). A critical analysis of the language of modern phys- Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A
ics. In C. Bernardini, C. Tarsitani, & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Thinking proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18, 401–423.
physics for teaching (pp. 287–294). New York: Plenum Press. KMK—Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der
Herrmann, F., & Job, G. (2006). The Karlsruhe physics course, Vol. 3, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hrsg.). (2005). Bildungsstandards
reactions, waves, atoms, 134. Retrieved from www.physikdidaktik. im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss. Köln: Wolters
uni-karlsruhe.de/kpk/english/KPK_Volume_3.pdf (June 2013) Kluwer.
 454 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

Knote, H. (1975). Zur Atomvorstellung bei Dreizehn- bis Fünfzehnjähri- Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

gen [Thirteen to fifteen year old students’ conceptions of the atom]. River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Der Physikunterricht, 4, 86–96. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 284(4),
Köller, O., Baumert, J., & Neubrand, J. (2000). Epistemologische 114–122.
Überzeugungen und Fachverständnis im Mathematik- und Physi- McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science educa-
kunterricht [Epistemological beliefs and content knowledge in tion rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer
mathematics and physics instruction]. In J. Baumert et al. (Eds.), Academic Publishers.
TIMSS—Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Méheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching-learning sequences. Aims
Sekundarstufe II [TIMSS—mathematics and science literacy at the and tools for science education research. International Journal of
end of upper secondary school] (pp. 229–270). Opladen, Germany: Science Education, 26(5), 515–535.
Leske & Budrich. Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students’ conceptions of the episte-
Kremer, K., Fischer, H. E., Kauertz, A., Mayer, J., Sumfleth, E., & mology of science. Science & Education, 6, 397–416.
Walpuski, M. (2012). Assessment of standards-based learning out- Mikelkis-Seifert, S., & Fischler, H. (2003). Die Bedeutung des Denkens
comes in science education: Perspectives from the German project in Modellen bei der Entwicklung von Teilchenvorstellungen—Stand
ESNaS. In S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig (Eds.), Making der Forschung und Entwurf einer Unterrichtskonzeption [On the role
it tangible—learning outcomes in science education (pp. 201–218). of thinking in terms of models when developing particle ideas—state
Münster: Waxmann. of research and a draft of an instructional approach]. Zeitschrift für
Kroh, L. B., & Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students’ attitudes towards Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 9, 75–88.
science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodol- Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruc-
ogy: Border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal tion. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in
of Science Education, 27, 281–302. physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110–
Labudde, P., Nidegger, C., Adamina, M., & Gingings, F. (2012). The 128). Kiel, Germany: IPN—Institute for Science Education.
development, validation, and implementation of standards in science Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching
education: Chances and difficulties in the Swiss project HarmoS. In science for understanding—a human constructivist view. San Diego,
S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig (Eds.), Making it tangible— CA: Academic Press.
learning outcomes in science education (pp. 255–280). Münster: Mulhall, P., & Gunstone, R. (2008). Views about physics held by physics
Waxmann. teachers with differing approaches to teaching physics. Research in
Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuß, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, Science Education, 38, 435–462.
P.,  & v. Rhöneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of Müller, R. (2003). Quantenphysik in der Schule [Quantum physics in
emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International high school]. Berlin: Logos.
Journal of Science Education, 25, 489–507. Müller, R., & Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an
Laws, P. W. (1997). Promoting active learning based on physics edu- introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70, 200–209.
cation research in introductory physics courses (Millikan Lecture Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2012). Towards
1996). American Journal of Physics, 65, 14–21. a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the Teaching. doi:10.1002/tea.21061
nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Sci- Niedderer, H., Budde, M., Giry, D., Psillos, D., & Tiberghien, A. (2007).
ence Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. Learning process studies. In R. Pintó & D. Couso (Eds.), Contribu-
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2011). The development of scien- tions from science education research (pp. 451–463). Dordrecht, the
tific literacy. A function of interactions and distinctions among sub- Netherlands: Springer.
ject matter, nature of science, scientific inquiry, and knowledge about Niedderer, H., Buty, C., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., Fischer, H. E.,
scientific inquiry. In C. Linder, L. Östman, D. A. Robert, P.-O. Wick- v. Aufschnaiter, S., & Tiberghien, A. (2002). Talking physics in
man, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape labwork contexts—a category based analysis of videotapes. In D.
of scientific literacy (pp. 127–144). New York, London: Routledge. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science
Lijnse, P. L. (1995). “Developmental research” as a way to an empirically laboratory (pp. 31–40). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
based “didactical structure” of science. Science Education, 79(2), demic Publishers.
189–199. Niedderer, H., & Deylitz, S. (1999, March). Evaluation of a new approach
Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., Lewis, E. L., & Stern, J. (1993). Using tech- in quantum atomic physics in high school. In D. Zollman (Ed.),
nology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understand- Research on teaching and learning quantum mechanics (pp.  23–27).
ing. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.), Advanced educational technologies for Papers presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
mathematics and science (pp. 5–60). Berlin: Springer. Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Retrieved from http://web.
Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College students’ scientific phys.ksu.edu/papers/narst/QM_papers.pdf) (The textbook is available
epistemological views and thinking patterns in scocioscientific deci- from www.idn.uni-bremen.de/pubs/Niedderer/1998-QAP-Skript-engl.
sion-making. Science Education, 95(3), 597–517. pdf [Jun. 2013]).
Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspec- Niedderer, H., & Goldberg, F. (1995). Lernprozesse beim elektrischen
tives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser Stromkreis [Learning processes in case of the electric circuit].
(Eds.), International handbook of science education. Part I (pp. 249– Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 1, 73–86.
264). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. NRC—National Research Council. (1996). National science education
Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning NRC—National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 sci-
(pp. 327–354). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. ence education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
Mashhadi, A. (1995). Students’ conceptions of quantum physics. In G. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education OECD—Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
in Europe (pp. 254–266). London, UK: Falmer. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills—a new framework
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching—the role of history and phi- for assessment. Paris: OECD Publications.
losophy of science. London: Routledge. OECD—Organization for Economic Coordination and Development.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to (2009). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year-old boys and girls
features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of sci- perform in school. Retrieved from www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/
ence research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. equally-prepared-for-life_9789264064072-en (Feb. 2014).
 Teaching Physics 455

Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eur- Sharma, M. D., Johnston, I. D., Johnston, H., Varvell, K., Robertson, G.,
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

asia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, Hopkins, A., Stewart, C., Cooper, I., & Thornton, R. (2010). Use
3(3), 173–184. of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study. Physical
Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 6. doi:10.1103/
current. Research in Science and Technology Education, 1, 73–82. PhysRevSTPER.6.020119
Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Shipstone, D. M., von Rhöneck, C., Jung, W., Karrqvist, C., Dupin, J. J.,
Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Joshua, S., & Licht, P. (1988). A study of secondary students’ under-
research on teaching (pp. 1031–1065). Washington, DC: American standing of electricity in five European countries. International Jour-
Educational Research Association. nal of Science Education, 10, 303–316.
Pasanen, P. (2009). Subject matter didactics as a central knowledge base Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new
for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge? reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(1), 29–39. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and
Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo. Retrieved from www.ils.uio.
level quantum physics. International Journal of Science Education, no/english/rose/publications/english-pub.html (Dec. 2010)
20, 1075–1088. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., Krajcik, J., & Coppola, B. (2004).
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1992). Beyond cold con- Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Mat-
ceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom ter and atomic molecular theory. Paper commissioned by the Com-
contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of mittee on Test Design for K–12 Science Achievement. Washington,
Educational Research, 63, 167–199. DC: Center for Education. National Research Council.
Psillos, D., Koumaras, P., & Tiberghien, A. (1988). Voltage presented Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implica-
as a primary concept in an introductory teaching sequence on DC tions of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment:
circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 10(1), 29–43. A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular
Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics. New York: Wiley. theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives,
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1996). On the effectiveness 4(1–2), 1–98.
of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. W. (2012). RealTime phys-
Journal of Physics, 65, 45–54. ics. Active learning laboratories. Module 1 Mechanics. Hoboken,
Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. A. (2003). Gender and physics. International NJ: Wiley.
Journal of Science Education, 25, 509–536. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of
Roach, L. E., & Wandersee, J. H. (1995). Putting people back into sci- pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education,
ence: Using historical vignettes. School Science and Mathematics, 80(5), 493–508.
95(7), 365–370. Stadler, H., Benke, G., & Duit, R. (2000). Do boys and girls understand
Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2006). What science teaching looks like: An physics differently? Physics Education, 35(6), 417–422.
international perspective. Science in the Spotlight, 64(4), 16–23. Stavrou, D., Duit, R., & Komorek, M. (2008). A teaching and learning
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scien- sequence about the interplay of chance and determinism in nonlinear
tific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44. systems. Physics Education, 43, 417–422.
Sadaghiani, H. R. (2012). Controlled study on the effectiveness of mul- Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a hypotheti-
timedia learning modules for teaching mechanics. Physical Review cal multi-dimensional progression for the nature of matter. Journal of
Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 8. doi:10.1103/ Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715.
PhysRevSTPER.8.010103 Stewart, J., Griffin, H., & Stewart, G. (2007). Context sensitivity in the
Samburski, S. (1975). Physical thought. From the pre-Socratics to the force concept inventory. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics
quantum physicists—an anthology. New York: Pica Press. Education Research, 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010102
Schecker, H. (1998). Integration of experimenting and modeling by Taber, K. S. (2001). When the analogy breaks down: Modeling the atom
advanced educational technology: Examples from nuclear physics. on the solar system. Physics Education, 36, 222–226.
In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science Tesch, M., & Duit, R. (2004). Experimentieren im Physikunterricht—
education. Part I (pp. 383–398). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Ergebnisse einer Videostudie [Experiments in physics education—
Academic Publishers. results of a video-study]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissen-
Schecker, H., Fischer, H. E., & Wiesner, H. (2004). Physikunterricht in schaften, 10, 51–69.
der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Physics instruction in upper secondary]. Thornton, R. K. (1992). Enhancing and evaluating students’ learning of
In H. E. Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum Oberstufe (pp. 148–234). motion concepts. In A. Tiberghien & H. Mandl (Eds.), Physics and
Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. learning environments (pp. 265–283). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Schecker, H., & Niedderer, H. (1996). Contrastive teaching: A strategy Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of
to promote qualitative conceptual understanding of science. In D. Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the
Treagust, R. Duit, & B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learn- evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. Ameri-
ing in science and mathematics (pp. 141–151). New York: Teachers can Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338–351.
College Press. Tiberghien, A. (1984). Critical review on the research aimed at elu-
Schecker, H., & Parchmann, I. (2007). Standards and competence cidating the sense that notions of temperature and heat have for
models—the German situation. In D. Waddington, P. Nentwig, & S. the students aged 10 to 16. Twenty years of research on physics
Schanze (Eds.), Making it comparable—standards in science educa- education. Proceedings of the first international workshop. La
tion (pp. 147–164). Münster: Waxmann. Londe les Maures.
Scott, P. H. (1992). Pathways in learning science: A case study of the Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Maréchal, J.-F., Buty, C., & Millar, R.
development of one student’s ideas relating to the structure of (2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at
matter. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research upper secondary school and university levels in several European
in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies countries. Science Education, 85(5), 483–508.
(pp. 203–224). Kiel, Germany: IPN—Leibniz-Institute for Science Tiberghien, A., Vince, J., & Gaidioz, P. (2009). Design-based research:
Education. Case of a teaching sequence on mechanics. International Journal of
Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics Science Education, 31(17), 2275–2314.
instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, Tinker, R. (Ed.). (1996). Microcomputer based labs: Educational research
16(3), 228–240. and standards. New York: Springer.
 456 Reinders Duit, Horst Schecker, Dietmar Höttecke, and Hans Niedderer

Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual change to sci-
Downloaded By: University College London At: 23:09 04 Feb 2017; For: 9780203097267, chapter22, 10.4324/9780203097267.ch22

understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. ence education: A psychological point of view. International Journal
International Journal of Science Education, 24, 357–368. of Science Education, 20, 1213–1230.
Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2012). Conceptual change learning and teach- Waddington, D., Nentwig, P., & Schanze, S. (Eds.). (2007). Making it
ing. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science comparable—standards in science education. Münster: Waxmann.
(pp. 41–59). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alterna-
Tsai, C. C. (2003). Using a conflict map as an instructional tool to change tive conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on
student alternative conceptions in simple series electric circuits. science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.
International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 307–327. Warren, J. W. (1979). Understanding force. London, UK: Murray.
Tsaparlis, G., & Papaphotis, G. (2009). High-school students’ concep- Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as reflective practice: What might Dida-
tual difficulties and attempts at conceptual change: The case of basic ktik teach Curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts
quantum chemical concepts. International Journal of Science Educa- (Eds.), Teaching as reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradi-
tion, 31(7), 895–930. tion (pp. 15–39). New York, London: Routledge.
Urhahne, D., Prenzel, M., Davier, M. V., Senkbeil, M., & Bleschke, M. Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as
(2000). Computereinsatz im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht—Ein reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah, NJ:
Überblick über die pädagogisch-psychologischen Grundlagen und Erlbaum.
ihre Anwendung [Computers in science education—an overview of White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and meta-
pedagogical and psychological foundations and their applications]. cognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and
Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 6, 157–186. Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
van Borkulo, S. P., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & de Jong, Widodo, A. (2004). Constructivist oriented lessons. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
T. (2012). What can be learned from computer modeling? Compar- Wilhelm, T., Tobias, V., Waltner, C., Hopf, M., & Wiesner, H. (2012).
ing expository and modeling approaches to teaching dynamic sys- Einfluss der Sachstruktur auf das Lernen Newtonscher Mechanik
tems behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, [The influence of content structure on learning Newtonian mechan-
267–275. ics]. In H. Bayrhuber et al. (Eds.), Formate Fachdidaktischer For-
Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. schung (pp. 237–258). Münster: Waxmann.
European Journal of Science Education, 1, 205–221. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual
Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics. The part of common sense. experimentation—an effort to enhance students’ conceptual under-
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. standing of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
Viennot, L. (2003). Teaching physics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Klu- 23(2), 120–132.
wer Academic Publishers. Zhu, G., & Singh, C. (2012). Improving students’ understanding of quan-
Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naïve physics. In M. Limon & tum measurement. ii. Development of research-based learning tools.
L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 8.
and practice (pp. 61–76). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Aca- doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010118
demic Publishers. Zohar, A. (2005). Physics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding
Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual girls’ low participation rates in advanced physics classes. Interna-
change: Preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In tional Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 61–77.
B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international Zollman, D. A., Rebello, N. S., & Hogg, K. (2002). Quantum mechan-
handbook of science education (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht, the Neth- ics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology.
erlands: Springer. American Journal of Physics, 70, 252–259.