Physics Teachers’ Views on Teaching the Concept of Energy

Abstract

Problem Statement: With the advancement of technology, energy as a concept has become part of the every aspects of life, and it becomes more and more important day by day. Since 2013, the concept of energy has become part of the updated physics education program in Turkey. Teaching the concept of energy is a significant undertaking; most students do not properly comprehend it because it is an abstract concept. In this respect, physics teachers play an important role in teaching this topic, and their views would contribute greatly to the field. Purpose of the Study: The aim of the research is to determine teachers’ views on teaching the concept of energy; on the new physics program, which also includes the teaching of energy; on constructivist learning theory; and on the appropriateness of energy for this theory. Method: This research is designed as a case study, which is among the qualitative research methods, and there are three physics teachers in the study group. In the research, semi-constructed interview questions were used as a data gathering tool, and a researcher log for observing the participants was kept in order to support the obtained data. Data were analyzed using a descriptive analysis method, and the data were summarized under themes within the frame of the answers given to research questions. Findings: As a result of the research, we determined that the teaching of energy could not be done in accordance with the constructivist approach due to the teachers’ lack of knowledge; however, we also determined that the teachers think that energy as a topic is applicable to the constructivist approach. Conclusion and Recommendations: We determined that when energy is taught, students can become more conscious of the concept of energy and can relate it to daily life. Moreover, our study revealed that if energy is taught by giving examples from daily life, by showing videos and simulations, and if it is supported with experiments in labs and with field trips, students can have a more effective learning experience. Furthermore, if the university entrance exam is made compatible with the curriculum, students can be more successful in learning the concept of energy. Keywords: Energy, physics education, physics education program, teachers opinions.

Kaynakça

1. Bayrak, C., & Bezen, S. (2013). 9. sinif fizik ogretim programinda yer alan konularin
2. ogretiminde karsilasilan sorunlara ve yeni ogretim programina yonelik
3. ogretmen gorusleri [Teacher opinions on the new teaching syllabus and the
4. issues encountered when teaching the subjects of the 9th grade physics
5. syllabus]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Special Volume(1), 27-38.
6. Benzer, E., Bayrak, K. B., Eren, D. C., & Gurdal, A. (2014). Ogretmen adaylarinin
7. enerji ve enerji kaynaklariyla ilgili bilgi ve gorusleri [Knowledge and opinions
8. of teacher candidates about energy and energy resources]. International Online

9. Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 243-257.
10. Bodner, M. C. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical
11. Education, 63(10), 873-878.
12. Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1990). Pupils’ ideas concerning energy sources.
13. International Science Education, 12(5), 513-529.
14. Brna, P., & Burton, M. (1997). Modelling students collaborating while learning about
15. energy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 133, 193-204.
16. Burgess, R. G. (ed.) (1984). The research process in educational settings: Ten case studies.
17. London & New York: The Falmer Press.
18. Crawley, F. E., & Salyer, B. (1995). Origins of life science teachers’ beliefs underlying
19. curriculum reform in Texas. Science Education, 79, 611-635.
20. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five
21. approaches (3rd edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Donaldson, N. L. (2004). The effectiveness of the constructing physics understanding (cpu)
23. pedagogy on the middle school students’ learning of force and motion concepts.
24. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Missouri University, USA.
25. Duit, R. (1992). Vorstellung und physiklernen [Conceivability and physics learning].
26. Physik in der schule, 30, 282-285.
27. Ellse, M. (1988). Transferring not Transforming Energy. School Science Review, 69, 427-
28. Gecer, A., & Ozel, R. (2012). Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi ogretmenlerinin
29. ogrenme-ogretme surecinde yasadiklari sorunlar [Elementary science and
30. technology teachers’ views on problems encountered in the instructional
31. process]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3), 2237-2261.
32. Geelan, D. R. (1995). Matrix technique: A constructivist approach to curriculum
33. development in science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(3), 32-37.
34. Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Yeni ilkogretim programina iliskin ogretmen goruslerinin
35. cesitli degiskenler acisindan degerlendirilmesi [An evaluation of teachers’
36. perceptions of the new primary school curriculum in terms of some
37. variables]. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 27, 69-82.
38. Hancer, H. A. (2006). Yapilandirmaci fen egitimi yaklasiminin ogrencilerin
39. ogrenmelerini gelistirmesi [Enhancing learning though constructivist
40. approach in science education]. International Journal of Environmental and
41. Science Education, 1(2), 181-188.
42. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and teacher: A qualitative ıntroduction to
43. school-based research. (Second Edition). London & New York: Routledge.
44. Karacaoglu, C. O., & Acar E. (2010). Yenilenen programlarin uygulanmasinda
45. ogretmenlerin karsilastigi sorunlar [The issues that teachers encounter during
46. application of new curricula]. Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi,
47. (1), 45-58.
48. Kruger, C. (1990). Some primary teachers‟ ideas about energy. Physics Education,
49. (2), 86-91.
50. Kurnaz, A. M., & Arslan, S. A. (2014). Effectiveness of multiple representations for
51. learning energy concepts: Case of Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
52. Sciences, 116, 627-632.
53. Kutluca, T., & Aydın, M. (2010). Ortaogretim matematik ogretmenlerinin yeni
54. matematik ogretim programini uygulama asamasinda yasadigi zorluklar
55. [Difficulties secondary school mathematics teachers encountered during
56. application of the new mathematics curriculum]. Dicle Universitesi Sosyal
57. Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 2(1), 11-20.
58. Liarakou, G., Gavrilakis, C., & Flouri, E. (2009). Secondary school teachers’
59. knowledge and attitudes Towards renewable energy sources. Journal of Science
60. Education and Technology, 18(2), 120-129.
61. Madanoglu, N. (2015). Examination of the 9th grade students’ conceptual understanding
62. about work and energy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Balikesir University,
63. Balikesir.
64. Martin, D. J. (1997). Elementary science methods: a constructivist approach. Kennesaw
65. State Collage: Delmar Publishers.
66. McMillan, J. H. (2004). Educational research: Fundematals for the consumer. (Fourth
67. Edition). USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
68. Mercan, C. F. (2013). Ogretmenlerin 2007 ortaogretim fizik dersi ogretim programinin
69. yapim ve degisim sureciyle ilgili gorusleri [Teachers who in 2007 secondary
70. school physics course teaching program, and interviews related to the construction process of change]. I. Ulusal Fizik Egitimi Kongresi, Hacettepe
71. Universitesi. Ankara, 12-14 Eylul.
72. Milli Egitim Bakanligi. (2013). Ortaogretim Fizik dersi ogretim programi [Secondary
73. school Physics teaching program]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu
74. Baskanligi.
75. Nartgun, S. S., Altundag, U., & Ozen, R. (2011). Ogrencilerin sosyal ve ekonomik
76. yasamlarina dershanelerin etkisi [The impact of social and economic life of the
77. students to classrooms]. 2nd International Conference on New Trends in
78. Education and Their Implications. Antalya, 27-29 April.
79. Ogborn, J. (1990). Energy, change, difference and danger. School Science Review,
80. (259), 81-85.
81. Papadouris, N., Constantinou, C.P., & Kyratsi, T. (2008). Students’ use of the energy
82. model to account for changes in physical systems. Journal of Research in science
83. teaching, 45(4), 444-469.
84. Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for
85. teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science
86. curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33, 89-110.
87. Shiland, T. W. (1999). Constructivism: The implications for laboratory work. Journal of
88. Chemical Education, 76(1), 107-109.
89. Shiland, T.W. (1999) Constructivism: The Implications For Laboratory Work. Journal
90. of Chemical Education, 76(1), 107-109.
91. Solomon, J. (1982). How children learn about energy or does the first law come first?.
92. School Science Review, 63(224), 415-422.
93. Stylianidou, F., Ormerod, F., & Ogborn, J. (2002). Analysis of science textbook
94. pictures about energy and pupils’ readings of them. International Journal of
95. Science Education, 24(3), 257-283.
96. Toman, U., Karatas, O. F., & Cimer, O. S. (2016). Development and implementation of
97. a standard test to diagnose misconceptions about energy and related
98. concepts: The beginning. Bayburt Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 8(1), 116-134.
99. Trumper, R. A. (1998). Longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions on
100. energy in pre-service training for high school teachers. Journal of Science
101. Education Technology, 7(4), 311-318.
102. Tuysuz, C., & Aydın, H. (2009). Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi ogretmenlerinin
103. yeni fen ve teknoloji programina yonelik gorusleri [The elementary school
104. science and technology teachers’ perceptions toward to new science and
105. technology curriculum]. Gazi Universitesi Gazi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 29(1),
106. -54.
107. Yapici, M., & Leblebiciler, N.H. (2007). Ogretmenlerin yeni ilkogretim programina
108. iliskin gorusleri [Teachers’ views with regards to new primary school
109. curriculum]. Ilkogretim Online, 6(3), 480–490.
110. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri
111. [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik.
112. Yigit, N. (2004). Fizik ogretim programi uygulamalarinin ogretmen-ogrenci gorusleri
113. acisindan degerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of high school physics curriculum
114. and its implementations in terms of teacher-student views]. OMU Egitim
115. Fakultesi Dergisi, 17, 88-96.
116. Yigit, N. (2013). Ortaogretim fizik dersi ogretim programi uygulamada ne getirebilir?
117. [What can bring secondary school physics course teaching program practice?].
118. Fen ve Fizik Egitimi Sempozyumu, KTU. Trabzon, 26-27 Nisan.
119. Yin, R. Y. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (Fourth Edition). Thousand
120. Oaks: Sage Publication.
121. Yuenyong, C., & Yuenyong, J. (2007). Grade 1 to 6 Thai Students’ existing ideas about
122. energy. Science Education International, 18(4), 289-298.
123. Zahorik, J. A. (1995). Constructivist teaching. Phi Delta Kappa Educational
124. Foundations: Bloomington.