Physics for Teaching High School Physics: Views of Prospective Physics Teachers and Teacher Educators about Undergraduate Physics Study

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 147 - 164, 01.06.2018

Saiqa Azam

Abstract

This paper explores the views of pre-service physics teachers and science teacher educators about the initial teacher education (ITE) programs in two Melbourne universities, focusing on their preparation for teaching high school physics. Using a qualitative interview approach, five pre-service physics teachers and three physics teacher educators were interviewed to generate data to develop an understanding of the role of undergraduate physics study in teaching high school physics, and to determine if science teacher educators’ views match with those of future high school physics teachers. Both groups of participants identified a number of issues which impact prospective physics teachers’ ability to teach high school physics, and offered suggestions to improve the undergraduate physics study. The findings provided insights into the varied needs of future physics teachers with diverse backgrounds, the inadequacy of their undergraduate physics study, the capacity of some other science courses, and suggestions to improve the preparation of high school physics teachers

Keywords

Initial teacher education, preparation of physics teachers, pre-service science teachers, science teacher education, subject matter knowledge, undergraduate physics studies

References

• Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Research on Science Teacher Education (pp. 1105-1149). New York: Routledge.
• Anderson, R. D. & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. L. Gable (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3-44). New York: Macmillan.
• Baines, L. A. & Stanley, G. (2000). We want to see the teacher: Constructivism and the rage against expertise. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(4), 327-330.
• Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). A study package for examining and tracking changes in teachers’ knowledge. (Technical Series 89-1). East Lansing, MI: Mic- higan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
• Berg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
• Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
• Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Effects of new biology teachers’ subject-matter knowledge on curricular planning. Science Education, 75(6), 631-647.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
• Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.). Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.
• Gibson, D. J., & Gibson, L. S. (1993). College students’ perceptions on adequacy of high school science curriculum as preparation for college level biology. The Ame- rican Biology Teacher, 55(1), 8-12.
• Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
• Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Sub- ject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for beginning teachers (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon
• Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043-1055.
• Hausfather, S. (2001). Where is the content? The role of content in constructivist teac- her education, Educational Horizons, 80(1) (2001), 15-19.
• Hausfather, S. (2002). Content and process in constructivist teacher education. In J. Rainer (Eds.) Reframing Teacher education: Dimensions of a constructivist app- roach (pp. 63-80). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
• Kennedy, M.M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.
• Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsone, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and develop- ment of pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 129-146.
• McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7), 24-32.
• McDermott, L. C. (1990). A perspective on teacher preparation in physics – other sciences: the need for special courses for teachers. American Journal of Physics, 58(8), 734-742
• McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S. & Constantinou, C. P. (2000). Preparing teachers to teach physical science by inquiry. Physics Education, 35(6), 411-416
• Park, S., Jang, J., Chen, Y., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge neces- sary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 245-260.
• Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International hand- book of teachers & teaching (Vol. II, pp. 1223-1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer
• Razali, S. N., & Yager, R. E. (1994). What college chemistry instructors and high school chemistry teachers perceive as important for incoming college students? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(7), 735-747.
• Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Eds.), Constructivist teacher education: building new understandings (pp. 3-14). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
• Roth, K. J., Garnier, H., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117-148.
• Sadler, P. M., & Tai, R. H. (2001). Success in college physics: The role of high school preparation. Science Education, 85(2), 111-136.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educa- tional Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
• Shumba, O. & Glass, L. W. (1994). Perceptions of coordinators of college freshman chemistry regarding selected goals and outcomes of high school chemistry. Jour- nal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 381-392.
• Sorge, S., Kröger, J., Petersen, S. & Neumann, K. (2017), Structure and development of pre-service physics teachers’ professional knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1346326.
• Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evalua- tion data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
• Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and lear- ning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
• Yager, R. & Penick, J. (1990) Science teacher education. In R. Houston (Ed.), Hand- book of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 657-673). New York: Macmillan.