What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping

Nilüfer Didiş; Özgür Özcan; Ali Azar

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

Full Text (PDF)

Nilüfer Didiş ¹, Özgür Özcan ² ^* , Ali Azar ¹

More Detail

¹ Bülent Ecevit University, TURKEY² Hacettepe University, TURKEY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

In order to use concept maps in physics classes effectively, teachers’ knowledge and ideas about concept mapping are as important as the physics knowledge used in mapping. For this reason, we aimed to examine pre-service physics teachers’ knowledge on concept mapping, their ideas about the implementation of concept mapping in physics classes, the hidden elements influencing their ideas, and the relations between knowledge and ideas, qualitatively. The participants of this study were eight pre-service physics teachers enrolled in the physics education department at two state universities. The results of the interviews conducted with the participants and their artifacts revealed that although pre-service physics teachers had basic knowledge about concept mapping, they had some negative ideas about implementation in physics classes. Furthermore, language, limitation in assessment, limitation in expressions, and teacher’s knowledge were identified as the sources of pre-service physics teachers’ negative ideas.

Keywords

physics education
concept map
teacher education

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 10, Issue 2, 2014, 77-87

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

Publication date: 15 Dec 2014

Article Views: 1969

Article Downloads: 1093

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Bahr, C., & Rieth, H. (1989). The effects of instructional computer games and drill and practice software on learning disabled students’ mathematics achievement. Computers in the Schools, 6(3-4), 87-101. doi: 10.1300/J025v06n03_08
Canas, A. J., Hill, G., Carff, R., Suri, N., Lott, J., Gomez, G., Eskridge, T., Arroyo, M., & Carvajal, R. (2004). CmapTools: A knowledge modeling and sharing environment. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Concept Mapping, 283. [On-Line]. Available: http://cmc.ihmc.us/papers/cmc2004-283.pdf
Chiou, C.C. (2008). The effect of concept mapping on students’ learning achievements and interests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 375-387.
Çıldır, I., & Şen, A. İ. (2006). Lise öğrencilerinin elektrik akımı konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının kavram haritalarıyla belirlenmesi (Identification of high school students' misconception about electric current by concept maps). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 92-101.
Erdem, E. (2008). Genel kimya dersinde öğrencilerin kavram haritalama ve problem çözmeinancının belirlenmesi (Examining students’ concept mapping and problemsolving beliefs in general chemistry course). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 111-122.
Eroğlu, M. G., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2011). Kavram haritası ve yapılandırılmış gridle elde edilen puanların geçerlik ve güvenirliklerinin incelenmesi (An analysis on the validity and reliability of concept map and structural communication grid scores). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 210-220.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design & evaluate research in education. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
İngeç, Ş. K. (2008). Kavram haritalarının değerlendirme aracı olarak fizik eğitiminde Kullanılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 195-206.
İngeç, Ş. K. (2009). Analysing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and comparison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1897-1915.
Kaptan, F. (1998). Fen öğretiminde kavram haritasının kullanılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, 95-99.
Karamustafaoğlu, S. A., Ayas, A., & Coştu, B. (2002). Sınıf ögretmeni adaylarının çözeltiler konusundaki kavram yanılgıları ve bu yanılgıların kavram haritası tekniği ile giderilmesi. Proceedings of the 5th Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi (UFBMEK), 151-155.
Kaya, O. N. (2003). Eğitimde alternatif bir değerlendirme yolu: Kavram haritaları (An alternative way of assessment in education: concept maps). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 265-271.
Kaya, O. N. (2008). A student-centred approach: Assessing the changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 38, 91- 110.
Kazancı, M., Atılboz, N. G., Doğan Bora, N., & Altın, M. (2003). Kavram haritalama yönteminin lise 3. Sınıf öğrencilerinin genetik konularını öğrenme başarısı üzerine etkisi (The effect of concept mapping on 11th grade students’ learning of genetics). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 135-141.
Kılıç, D., & Sağlam, N. (2004). Biyoloji eğitiminde kavram haritalarının öğrenme başarısına ve kalıcılığına etkisi (The effect of the concept maps on achievement and retention of learning in biology education). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 155-164.
Koca, A. Ö., & Şen, A. İ. (2004). The development of a qualitative analyzing method for concept maps. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 165-173.
Mahler, S., Hoz, R., Fischl, D., Tov-ly, E., & Lernau, O. Z. (1991). Didactic use of concept mapping in higher education: Applications in medical education. Instructional Science, 20, 25-47.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (1998). Epilogue: Meaningful learning, knowledge restructuring and conceptual change: On ways of teaching science for understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 327-350). San Diago, CA: Academic Press.
Novak, J. D. (1990a). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
Novak, J. D. (1990b). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
Novak, J. D. (1995). Concept mapping to facilitate teaching and learning. Prospects, XXV(1), 79-86.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86, 548-571.
Novak, J. D. (2010a). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 6(3), 21-30.
Novak, J. D. (2010b). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools). Pensacola, FL: U.S. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. [On-Line]. Available: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/Th eoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D., Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (2005). Learning, teaching, and assessment: A human constructivist perspective. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 1-13). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Ortaöğretim 10. Sınıf Fizik Dersi Öğretim Programı (High school physics curriculum for the 10th grade) (2008). 10. Sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programının ünite organizasyonu. [OnLine]. Available: http://www.fizikprogrami.com
Reif, F. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics, 63(1), 17-32.
Reif, F. (1997). How can we help students acquire effectively usable physics knowledge? Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education: The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, 179-195.
Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (1998). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. (Report No. TM028940) Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422378)
Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33-44.
Stuart, H. A. (1985). Should concept maps be scored numerically? European Journal of Science Education, 7, 73- 81.
Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, Ö., (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students' understanding of human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 91-101.
Şahin, F. (2001). Öğretmen adaylarının kavram haritası yapma ve uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10, 12-25.
Uzuntiryaki, E. & Geban, Ö. (2005). Effect of conceptual change approach accompanied with concept mapping on understanding of solution concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 311-339.
Willerman, M., & MacHarg, R. A. (1991). The concept map as an advance organizer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 705-711.

How to cite this article

APA

Didiş, N., Özcan, Ö., & Azar, A. (2014). What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

Vancouver

Didiş N, Özcan Ö, Azar A. What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(2):77-87. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

AMA

Didiş N, Özcan Ö, Azar A. What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(2), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

Chicago

Didiş, Nilüfer, Özgür Özcan, and Ali Azar. "What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2014 10 no. 2 (2014): 77-87. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

Harvard

Didiş, N., Özcan, Ö., and Azar, A. (2014). What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(2), pp. 77-87. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a

MLA

Didiş, Nilüfer et al. "What do Pre-Service Physics Teachers Know and Think about Concept Mapping". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, pp. 77-87. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1031a