Views of Science Teachers regarding Conceptual Integration in terms of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology Concepts.

Author(s):

Oktay Bektas(presenting / submitting)Mustafa Tuysuz Gokhan Ozturk Omer Geban

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES G 03, Science Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

09:00-10:30

Room:

305. [Main]

Chair:

Edwin Keiner

Contribution

In order to achieve conceptual integration (CI) among different subject areas in science, students must have enough prior knowledge and promote meaningful learning (diSessa, 1993; Matthews, 1993, Taber, 2005). Therefore, the CI can be defined as the promoting meaningful learning that learners can employ pre-requisite knowledge or concepts in a certain science subject whilst learning a concept or topic in another science subject (Taber, 2003; Toomey & Garafalo, 2003). Likewise, Taber (2005) defined CI as the person’s organized knowledge structures which is formed making connections between different areas. For instance, when teachers teach certain chemistry topics at a more advanced level, they should use more fundamental chemistry topics, ideas, and concepts at a less advanced level and think about some pre-requisite knowledge taken physics or biology topics since learners can learn this topic meaningfully (Taber, 2008). It is important to investigate the CI in terms of eliminating misconceptions (Ganaras, Duman, & Larcher, 2008), providing meaningful learning (Taber, 2005). Moreover, when scientists are dealing with a paradigm, they should look science completely (Lederman, 2007). As the CI requires combining different disciplines, it helps students to behave as a scientist. If science concepts are not integrated with each other properly, students cannot achieve the CI among science concepts. Also, they cannot link between new knowledge and prior learning, facilitate new meaningful learning and reinforce the previous learning. Chemistry, physics, and biology are closely linked domains and needs conceptual integration in order to provide meaningful learning. In this integration, using appropriate instructional strategies and assessment techniques is crucial. Thus, studying on teacher education need to understand opinions of science teachers about CI are worth to study in that

it is difficult to deeply understand science concepts without connecting physics chemistry and biology concepts each other,
it is important to examine whether science teachers know the CI since it affects directly students’ science learning. (Caudill, Hill, Hoke, & Lipan, 2010; Godrick & Hartman 2000, Taber, 2005), and
when we looked at the studies on the CI in the literature, there are very few studies on the subject, which are mainly high school and university students (Taber, 2005, 2008; Toomey & Garafalo, 2003) and pre-service physics and chemistry teachers (Nakipoğlu, 2003; Sinan, 2009; Tuysuz, Bektas, & Geban, 2014).
It is hoped that this study might provide some information about usage of the CI. In today’s science education, teachers should have ability and skills to teach science in an integrated way to introduce it as a whole, because contemporary science understanding requires integration of different disciplines and collaboration among different fields. In this sense, science technology engineering mathematics (STEM) movement in education is a good example to indicate how integration is important in science education where integration is best practiced. Especially, science teachers are expected to teach physics, chemistry, and biology in primary schools’ science classes, understanding their ideas about the CI and how they conceptualize it will help both educators and curriculum designers understand how the CI can be effectively integrated into curriculum. This study might put a brick to the construction. Hence, the study examines how science teachers’ views regarding the CI with following research questions are:
What are the views of science teachers about conceptual integration in terms of

whether they use CI between concepts related to physics, chemistry, and biology in the past and future?
whether they have difficulties in using CI in their instructions?
whether they use different instructional strategies when they use CI in their lessons?
whether they ask questions related with CI in their lessons?
whether they have examined curriculum in terms of CI?

Method

Research design of this study is phenomenology, which is one of the qualitative approaches, aiming to investigate science teachers’ views regarding the CI (Cresswell, 2013). Convenience sampling methodology has been chosen for this study. Participants were not be forced to attend the study, there was volunteering. Sample of the study consist of five science teachers working in a public primary school in Turkey. While three of them are female, other two participants are males. Their ages range from 28 to 43. Open-ended questions have been chosen as the primary data source. Moreover, semi-structured interview and classroom observation were used to validate document analysis responds and provide triangulation. Originally, the eight open-ended questions were developed by the researchers. These questions were reviewed by an expert who deals with qualitative studies in educational sciences and three science educators for the content validity. Then, the questions took its final form. First of all, eight open-ended questions were administered to five science teachers. The questions were “What is the definition of physics, chemistry, and biology”, “Whether there should be physics inside chemistry or biology and vice versa”. Moreover, it was wanted from participants to “Give example about physics used inside chemistry or biology and vice versa”. Then, “Importance of using the CI while learning and teaching physics, chemistry, and biology how often they will or would use CI”, “Curriculum knowledge about CI” and “Evaluation and assessment of CI” were asked respectively. Secondly, detailed information was obtained and correctness of the answers was checked same questions by interview and classroom observation. An interview took approximately 45 minutes and interviewee was informed before interview about the length. During the interview, some parts what the interviewee have said was summarized and member-checking was done for the internal validity. After that, interview was transcribed. Qualitative data analysis was used. The themes and codes formed by the Authors et al. (2014).These themes were based on two major title; concepts about conceptual integration (level, value and contribution) and concepts about teaching (teaching method, assessment and evaluation, curriculum and subject matter knowledge) were constructed to classify participants’ responses to all instruments. Numbers were given to each code and reliability analyses was done for codes of researchers for each instruments. Reliability of coding was analyzed using SPSS. Kappa values were calculated between two researchers. It showed that coding procedure was highly reliable (0.93).

Expected Outcomes

According to the answers given by science teachers, it was seen that while science teachers think that chemistry, biology and physics concepts are related to each other, they really do not integrate it into the teaching practices. The result was also seen in the interview, when we asked whether science teacher used CI in the past while teaching science concepts, Nalan, for instance, told us that I didn’t use the CI not only for chemistry but also for other disciplines in the past while explaining science concepts because when the course content is analyzed, physics, chemistry, and biology concepts are given to students at the basic level and without going into details. Thus, while I prepare my lesson plans, I try to focus on physics, chemistry, and biology concepts and how and where students can use them in everyday life without considering their relationship with each other. Moreover, in the classroom observations, it was confirmed that she did not use the CI while teaching science concepts. This result is consistent with the findings of the previous studies (Taber, 2008; Tuysuz, Bektas, & Geban, 2014). Moreover, they did not mention any specific teaching strategy and assessment technique that could be used for the CI. In the interview, when we asked same question to her, she stated that “Do you ask questions related with CI in your lessons?” She expressed that I haven’t assessed anything about the integration of physics, chemistry, and biology concepts together so far. In addition, this finding was verified with in the classroom observation. Due to the page limitations, we are sharing some themes findings obtained from science teachers. Once the proposal is accepted the full results will be presented all themes results at the conference. Also, the implications for science teacher education and research will be discussed.

References

Caudill, L., Hill, A., Hoke, K., & Lipan, O. (2010). Impact of interdisciplinary undergraduate research in mathematics and biology on the development of a new course integrating five STEM disciplines. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(3), 212-216. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & resaerch design: Choosing among five approaches (Third edition). New York: Sage. diSessa, A.A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105-225. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688. Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education, 3rd ed., New York: Mc Grawhill, Inc. Ganaras, K., Dumon, A., & Larcher, C. (2008). Conceptual integration of chemical equilibrium by prospective physical sciences teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 9, 240–249. Godrick, E., Hartman, S. (2000). Integrating Introductory Biology and General Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29 (3), 184-86. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems, (Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(l), 359-370. Nakiboglu, C. (2003). Instructional misconceptions of Turkish prospective chemistry teachers about atomic orbitals and hybridization, Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 171-188. Sinan O. (2009). Öğretmen Adaylarının Kimya ve Biyoloji Derslerinde Kullanılan Bazı Ortak Kavramları Tanımlamalarındaki Farklılıklar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2), 1-21. http://www.nef.balikesir.edu.tr/~dergi/makaleler/yayinda/7/EFMED_FBE121.pdf Taber, K. S. (2003). Understanding ionization energy: Physical, chemical and alternative conceptions, Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 149-169. Taber, K. S. (2005) Conceptual integration and science learners - do we expect too much?, Invited seminar paper presented at the Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds, February 2005. The text is in the Education-line internet document collection at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003875.htm Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring Conceptual Integration in Student Thinking: Evidence from a case study, International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1915-1943. Toomey, R. & Garafalo, F. (2003). Linking physics with chemistry - opportunities in a constructivist classroom, Chemistry Education: Research & Practice, 4, 189-204. Tuysuz, M., Bektas, O., & Geban, O. (2014). “Investigating Pre-service Physics and Chemistry Teachers’ Conceptual Integration between Physics and Chemistry”. 87th NARST Annual International Conference, Pittsburgh, USA. , 30 March-02 April, 2014.

Author Information

Oktay Bektas (presenting / submitting)

Erciyes University

Science Education

Kayseri

Mustafa Tuysuz

Middle East Technical University

Secondary Science and Mathematics Education Department

Ankara

Gokhan Ozturk

Texas A&M University, USA

Omer Geban

Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.