Pre-service science teachers’ processes of establishing simple electric circuits

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 271 - 284, 01.01.2022

Cezmi Ünal

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.15.9.1

Abstract

The aim of this research is to identify pre-service science teachers’ experiences during the simple electrical circuit establishment process, points they were challenged with, and developed strategies they used against the challenges they were experimenting with this process. In this study, embedded single case study, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The case was two weeks of tertiary level Physics Laboratory-2 course, each lasted 1, 5 hours long. 16 female freshman students participated in the study voluntarily. In the laboratory, the students performed their experiments in four groups. The laboratory environment was recorded with one camera, and each group had one audio recorder. The video recordings and sound recordings were then synchronized and evaluated together, descriptive analysis was conducted. In the first week, necessary experimental materials were explained in detail and students made serial and parallel circuits with two resistances, measurements with ammeter and voltmeter. In the second week, students were required to set up different circuits which can be done with 3 resistors, and to make current and potential difference measurements in these circuits. The results of this research were presented with three main headings. First, the students’ processes of establishing simple electrical circuits were described by emphasizing the differences among the groups. Later, students’ difficulties in the process of establishing simple electrical circuits were identified. Finally, examples were given on the strategies of the students to solve the difficulties they were experiencing. It was concluded that systematic procedural techniques like following circuit diagrams or repeated comparisons of diagrams with the circuit may provide productive habits to reduce errors in the process of establishing simple electric circuits.

Keywords

practical skills, physics laboratory, simple electric circuit

References

• Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2007). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.
• Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 209-251.
• Abrahams, I., & Reiss M. J.. (2015). The assessment of practical skills. School Science Review, 96 (357), 40-44.
• Adler, J., Pournara, C., Taylor, D., Thorne, B., & Moletsane, G. (2009). Mathematics and science teacher education in South Africa: A review of research, policy and practice in times of change. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13, 28–46.
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
• Buffler, A., Allie, S., & Lubben, F. (2001). The development of first year physics students’ ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1137-1155.
• Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated. In A. Hume, R. Cooper & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning PCK in teachers' professional knowledge for teaching science (3–76). Singapore: Springer.
• Depaepe, F., & Konig, J. (2018). General pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and instructional practice: Disentangling their relationship in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 177–190.
• Duit, R., Schecker, H., Höttecke, D., & Niedderer, H. (2014). Teaching physics. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, 434–456). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Fadzil, H. M., & Saat, R. M. (2017). Exploring students’ acquisition of manipulative skills during science practical work. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4591-4607.
• Ferreira, S., & Morais, A. M. (2020). Practical work in science education: Study of different contexts of pedagogic practice. Research in Science Education, 50, 1547–1574.
• Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(10103), 1–8.
• Fuccia, D., Witteck, T., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2012). Trend in practical work in German science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 59-72.
• Grant, L. (2011). Lab skills of new undergraduates: Report on the findings of a small scale study exploring university staff perceptions of the lab skills of new undergraduates at Russell Group Universities in England. London, United Kingdom: Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
• Gülçiçek Ç. & Kanlı U. (2018), Pre-service physics teachers' recognition of apparatuses used in mechanics and electricity and magnetism experiments. Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(12), 2864-2874.
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for thetw enty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28– 54.
• Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (189–207). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001). Learning in the laboratory: Some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education, 5, 42-51.
• Johnstone, A. H., & Wham, A. J. B. (1982). The demands of practical work. Education in Chemistry,19, 71–73.
• Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2),169 - 204.
• Kind, V. (2014). Science teachers’ content knowledge. In H. Venkat, M. Rollnick, M. Askew, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Exploring mathematics and science teachers’ knowledge: Windows into teacher thinking (15–28). Oxford: Routledge.
• Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301 - 1320.
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Malik, A., Setiawan, A., Suhandi, A., & Permanasar, A. (2017). Enhancing pre-service physics teachers' creative thinking skills through hot lab design. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868 (070001), 1-7.
• McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part 1: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994–1013.
• Osborne, J. (2015). Practical work in science: Misunderstood and badly used? School Science Review, 96(357), 16–24.
• Pesman, H., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222.
• Riegler, P., Simon, A., Prochaska, M., Kautz, C., Bierwirth, R., Hagendorf, S., & Kortemeyer, G. (2016). Using Tutorials in Introductory Physics on circuits in a German university course: Observations and experiences. Physics Education, 51(6), 1-15.
• Rollnick, M. (2017). Learning about semiconductors for teaching-the role played by content knowledge in Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) development. Research in Science Education, 47, 1-36.
• Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., Croker, S., & Härtig, H. (2016). What students learn from hands-on activities? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 53(7), 980-1002.
• Shaffer, P. S. & McDermott, L. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: an example from introductory electricity, Part II: Design of instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 60 (11), 1003-1013.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
• Tesfamariam, G. M., Lykknes, A., & Kvittingen, L. (2015). Named small but doing great: An investigation of small-scale chemistry experimentation for effective undergraduate practical work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 1-18.
• Urbano, D. (2018). Effectiveness of traditional laboratory classes to learn basic concepts of electric circuits: A case study. In Auer M., Guralnick D., & Simonics I. (Eds), Teaching and learning in a digital world (693-701), Springer.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10. baskı) [Qualitative research methods in social sciences. (10th ed.)]. Ankara: Seçkin Publ.
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.