ICPE-EPEC 2013 Conference Proceedings

ICPE-EPEC 2013 The International Conference on Physics Education Active learning – in a changing world of new technologies August 5-9, 2013 Prague, Czech Republic

Conference Proceedings

The ICPE-EPEC 2013 conference was organized by: • The International Commission on Physics Education (ICPE) – Commission C14 of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) • The European Physical Society Physics Education Division (EPS PED) • The Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague

Committees ICPE-EPEC 2013 Scientific Advisory Committee Leoš Dvořák, Charles University, Czech Republic Pratibha Jolly, University of Delhi, India Robert Lambourne, Open University, UK Priscilla Laws, Dickinson College, USA Marisa Michelini, University of Udine, Italy Cesare Mora, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico Deena Naidoo, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Roberto Nardi, State University of São Paulo, Brazil Hideo Nitta, Tokyo Gakugei University, Japan Gorazd Planinšič, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Elena Sassi, University of Naples "Federico II", Italy Laurence Viennot, Université Paris 7 - Denis Diderot, France Michael Vollmer, Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Program Committee Leoš Dvořák, Charles University, Czech Republic Robert Lambourne, Open University, UK Hideo Nitta, Tokyo Gakugei University, Japan Gorazd Planinšič, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Laurence Viennot, Université Paris 7 - Denis Diderot, France

The Local Organizing and Program Committee Leoš Dvořák, Irena Dvořáková, Věra Koudelková, Marie Snětinová and Vojtěch Žák, Department of Physics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Czech Republic

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Conference Proceedings Editors: Leoš Dvořák and Věra Koudelková Charles University in Prague, MATFYZPRESS publisher, Prague, 2014 ISBN 978-80-7378-266-5 All papers of this book were reviewed by two independent reviewers. No English-language editing and proofreading was done either by the publisher or by the editors, so the quality of language of papers is under the authors’ responsibility.

Table of contents

Table of contents – global Keynote papers ......................................................................................................................... 1 Oral presentations ................................................................................................................. 121 Research papers........................................................................................................... 121 Mixed papers (research and development) ................................................................. 267 Classroom ideas papers ............................................................................................... 663 Workshops ............................................................................................................................ 817 Posters................................................................................................................................... 867 Research papers........................................................................................................... 867 Mixed papers (research and development) ................................................................. 946 Classroom ideas papers ............................................................................................. 1089 List of reviewers ................................................................................................................. 1287 List of authors ..................................................................................................................... 1288

iii

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings

Table of contents – detailed Keynote papers E. Etkina: Using physics to help students develop scientific habits of mind ...........................2 R. Leitner: Recent Discoveries in Particle Physics and Physics Teaching ............................ 16 L. Mathelitsch: Sport and Physics .......................................................................................... 28 I. Dvořáková: Active learning in the Heureka Project ........................................................... 47 P. Jolly: Physware: A collaborative initiative for strengthening physics education and promoting active learning in the developing world .................................................... 63 J. Sliško: Active physics learning .......................................................................................... 82 K. Ishii: Active Learning and Teacher Training .................................................................. 103

Oral presentations – research papers A. Cavallo et.al: Examining Factors that Influence Science Career .................................... 122 S. Daniel et.al: Contextual categorisation of academics’ conceptions of teaching .............. 132 C. Haagen: Theory-Practice Gap ......................................................................................... 144 W. Chantharanuwong et.al: The Current Situation of Students’ metacognition of the High School Science Classrooms in Thailand ......................................................... 153 M. Kekule et.al: Inquiry Based Science Education and Getting Immediate Students’ Feedback about Their Motivation .................................................................................. 160 A. Kosionidis: Modernising the Astronomy Curriculum of Greek P.E. .............................. 167 Mchunu SP et. al.: Conceptual difficulties in mechanics ..................................................... 175 A. Pereira: Bridging Conceptual Change and Sociocultural Analisys: Toward a Model of Conceptual Distribution ................................................................................................. 192 G. Pospiech et.al: Use of mathematical elements in physics – Grade 8 .............................. 199 G. Rankin: Students' understanding of angular speed .......................................................... 206 D. Sands: Evidence for Dual Processing Theory ................................................................. 213 A. Strahl et. al.: Just how deterring are formulas? ............................................................... 221 H. Takahashi et. al: Lessons from old Japanese experiment textbooks ............................... 228 S. Vercellati et. al: Electromagnetic phenomena and prospective primary teachers ........... 235 L. Vinitsky-Pinsky et. al: History Sheds Light on the Difference in the Nature of Physics and Mathematics in Guiding Physics Educators to a Better Understanding of Mind Preferences of Students .................................................................................................. 242 J. Yasuda and M.Taniguchi: Validating the Force Concept Inventory with Sub-Question . 250 G. Zuccarini et. al.: University students’ ideas on physical meaning and role of wavefunction and state vector in quantum physics.................................................... 258

iv

Table of contents Oral presentation – mixed papers (research and development) G. J. Aubrecht: Successful school change ............................................................................ 268 S. Barbieri et.al: The explicative power of the vector potential ........................................... 279 W. J. Barojas, G. C. M. Martinez: A keplerian laboratory of didactics ............................... 287 O. R. Battaglia et.al: An approach to the concept of statistical distribution ........................ 300 M. Bondani et. al: The “LuNa” Project ................................................................................ 309 J. B. Marks: The Predict-Observe-Explain technique as a tool for students’ understanding of electric circuits ..................................................................................... 317 K. C. Cheung: Lessons learned from PISA 2006 ................................................................. 327 B. S. C. Cortela, R. Nardi: In-Service Education of University Professors ........................ 335 S. Daniel et.al: The messy transition from wrong to right ................................................... 341 C. Fazio et.al: Quantitative and qualitative analysis ............................................................ 354 G. Feldman et.al: Student Engagement in a Collaborative Group-Learning Environment..................................................................................................................... 365 X. Feng et.al: PI in Chinese Introductory Physics Course ................................................... 374 E. Gama and M. F. Barroso: Students’ Video Production ................................................... 381 S. R. T. Gatti, R. Nardi: Considerations on the Possibilities of Cooperation Between the University and Schools .............................................................................................. 388 K. Gedigk et.al: Development of interest in particle physics ............................................... 396 M. Stellato et.al: A guided inquiry based sequence on oscillations ..................................... 405 M. Giliberti et.al: Magnetic vector potential in secondary school ....................................... 417 M. Gojkošek et.al: Coding scheme for assessment of explanations..................................... 424 B. Gregorcic et.al: Effective use of IWB.............................................................................. 432 C. Haagen: Nature of White Light........................................................................................ 439 M. Hawner et.al: Cosmic rays in out-of-school settings ...................................................... 451 R. Holubová: Innovations in physics´ teacher education ..................................................... 459 P. Horváth: Car Braking Distance ........................................................................................ 466 T. Kranjc, N. Razpet: Exergy in school? .............................................................................. 474 R. Lambourne: Learning objects and their dissemination .................................................... 482 P. Laws et. al.: Using online interactive physics-based video analysis exercises to enhance learning .............................................................................................................. 486 Y. Lehavi and B. S. Eylon: Teachers' concept image of energy .......................................... 492 R. E. Lopez et.al: Physics Teachers and the NGSS.............................................................. 501 E. Q. B. Macabebe et.al: Effect of collaborative learning in ILD on student conceptual understanding of motion graphs .................................................................... 509 J. Mackay et.al: Using Pencasts to find out how students think about physical ideas ......... 517

v

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings L. Melo et.al: PCK on Electric Fields .................................................................................. 525 T. Meszéna: Chaos at High School ...................................................................................... 533 M. Michelini, et.al.: Exploration of students’ ideas on superconductivity .......................... 541 M. Michelini et.al: PCK research based module formation of prospective primary teachers on energy ........................................................................................................... 552 T. Miléř et. al.: Climate Change Education ......................................................................... 561 V. Montalbano et.al: Active learning in pre-service teacher education ............................... 570 U. A. Okoronka, K. D. Taale: Application of CPPQC…..................................................... 579 A-M. Pendrill et.al: Teacher roles in amusement parks ....................................................... 591 A. C. S. Jesus, R. Nardi: The evolution of future teachers’ imaginary................................ 600 J. Svobodová et.al: Informal Teaching of Special Theory of Relativity .............................. 607 E. Swinbank et.al: Extended project work for school physics students ............................... 613 G. P. Thomas et.al: Transforming Undergraduate Physics Laboratories ............................. 621 T. B. Tran et.al: Development of a Pre-service Course ....................................................... 629 M. Tyntarev: Developing the course of “Practical Theoretical Physics” ............................ 643 H. Urban: Sequential Reasoning in Electricity .................................................................... 647 A.Wadhwa: Using Class-room Communication System in Phys. Lab. ............................... 655

Oral presentation – classroom ideas papers P. Ageorges et.al: Some lessons from a 3-year experiment of Problem-based learning in Physics in a French School of engineering ................................................................ 664 S. Rehan Ali et.al: Impact of Project Based Learning of Physics ........................................ 671 S. L. Chang et.al: Transforming Engineering Physics Tutorials with Cooperative Learning and Learning Assistants: A First-Hand Experience ......................................... 678 Z. Drozd, J. Houfková: Competitions of the Young Debrouillards Clubs........................... 685 F. Favale, M. Bondani: Teaching physics with diving practice ........................................... 690 M. Garcia-Guerrero et.al: Chain Reaction ........................................................................... 698 A. Gróf: The drinking bird engine ....................................................................................... 702 G. R. Hale et.al: Increasing Physics Teacher Production..................................................... 711 J. Houfková et. al.: Experiments in Science at Preschool/Kindergarten and Primary School .............................................................................................................................. 719 A. Kazachkov et.al: In-Service Teachers' Training Creative Physics Workshops at the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico .............................................................. 725 O. Kéhar, M. Randa: Astronomical Catalogs in Education ................................................. 731 R. B. Khaparde: It is never too late to introduce procedural ................................................ 736

vi

Table of contents A.Lindell et.al: CPL – combining informal science and art education to primary and science teacher education .......................................................................................... 742 R. Müller: What, if anything, is entropy trying to tell us?.................................................... 750 S. Occhipinti: Searching for models and guideline for effective Teaching-Learning using investigation and peer education ............................................................................ 759 M. Pető: Experiments with CanSat ...................................................................................... 766 J. I. Pfeffer: Physics on a Shoestring: Experiments with Soap Films.................................. 775 S. Puttisanwimon et. al: Assessment of Just-in-Time-Teaching (JiTT) ............................... 784 L. Richterek et.al: Computer modelling in Czech Physics Olympiad .................................. 792 I. S. Ruddock: A novel undergraduate experiment in birefringence .................................... 800 D. Sebestyen: Physics during Sightseeing in London and Paris........................................... 806 M. Snetinova et.al: Web Database of Solved Problems ....................................................... 812

Workshops papers L. Dvořák: Semiconductors at Work .................................................................................... 818 K. Ishii et.al: Simple and Beautiful Experiments VI by LADY CATS ............................... 826 R. Kusak: Physics Lab with Modern Technology ................................................................ 836 M. E. Oláh, C. Fülöp: Teaching particle physics in a research laboratory ........................... 844 E. Swinbank et.al: Embedding formative assessment and promoting active learning ......... 852 E. van den Berg, P. Kruit: Investigating with Concept Cartoons ......................................... 859

Posters – research papers M. C. Cifuentes et.al: Physics Teacher's Practical Knowledge ............................................ 868 M. Elsholz, T. Trefzger: Impact of teaching practice .......................................................... 876 M. Kekule, B. Zajacova: Students´ Epistemological Beliefs............................................... 882 L. Koníček, et. al.: Pupils´ Competition in Physics.............................................................. 892 V. Koudelková, L. Dvořák: High schools students´ misconceptions… ............................... 898 S. R. Kussuda, R. Nardi: The careers chosen by physics teachers and the teachers’ shortage in Brazil ............................................................................................................. 906 M. G. Müller et.al: Influence of peer discussion on confidence in ConcepTest responses.. 913 M. Sato: Can Dynamic Concept Be Acquired by Drawing a Conceptual Diagram? ........... 918 S. Vercellati et.al: Inquiring 5 years old pupils on MST curricula....................................... 922 C. Wagner, A. Vaterlaus: Agent based Simulation of Group Work Performance ............... 929 B. Zajacova: Optics Achievement Test for Research of Learning Styles in Physics ........... 938

vii

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Posters – mixed papers (research and development) S. Rehan Ali et.al: A Cell Phone Operated Robot ............................................................... 947 D. M. Coca: The use of smartphones in class to improve physics learning......................... 954 P. D. Colombo Jr & C.C. Silva: Teaching solar physics...................................................... 960 C. Haagen: Colour Vision Tube ........................................................................................... 965 V. Kerlínová et. al.: Creation of workbook in physics for pupils of technical fields at secondary school.......................................................................................................... 972 Č. Kodejška et.al: An Alternative Approach to Experiments in Physics at School ............. 979 F. Leto et.al: Research based discussions on optics with teachers to integrate professional development with everyday school work ................................................... 987 E. Marín et.al: PCK on Kinetic Molecular Model ............................................................... 995 V. Montalbano et.al: A pilot experience in physics lab for vocational school .................. 1004 V. Montalbano: An inquiry-based laboratory on friction .................................................. 1010 N. Pizzolato et.al: Open Inquiry learning and the Nature of Science ................................ 1018 A. V. Ribeiro et.al: Introduction of nanoscience and nanotechnology in a high school .. 1027 G. Schiltz, A. Vaterlaus: Mobile Lab Classes: STM for secondary school students ........ 1034 V. Schneider et.al: PROFILES and Stages of Concern in Georgia.................................... 1039 J. Slisko, J. Radovanović: A video-based delayed transfer test ......................................... 1044 M. Snetinova et. al.: Students’ Perception of the Problem solving Process in Physics ..... 1052 N. Takahashi et.al: Found Misunderstanding of Convection ............................................. 1058 A. Tasnádi: Climate Models in Physics Lessons ............................................................... 1065 C. Uribe et.al: Effects of studying a refutational................................................................ 1073 M. Volná, R. Kubínek: Interdisciplinary approach in teaching Physics ............................ 1082

Posters – classroom ideas papers F. A. G. de Araújo et.al: Science interval project: we can teach and learn physics during the leisure ........................................................................................................... 1090 G. J. Aubrecht: How geographically uniform is Earth's temperature rise? ....................... 1098 P. Böhm: Does Ice Cube Melt Faster in Tap Water or in Salt Water?............................... 1108 M. Černý: Processing and visualization of measurement results in physical Laboratory.. 1112 J. Česáková, M. Křížová: Let´s use our heads to play ....................................................... 1120 V. Covlea et.al: New approach of some learning techniques in Physics ........................... 1125 T. Franc: Interesting Facts about Tides .............................................................................. 1131 C. Fulop: Teaching Newton's law of cooling in „hands-on“ measurement approaches .... 1137 A. M. Gutierrez, et.al: Introducing Students to Experimental Research Work.................. 1145

viii

Table of contents M. Hasegawa: Optical communication set with LEDs....................................................... 1151 E. Hejnová: Concept Cartoons as a Teaching and Learning Strategy at Primary Schools in the Czech Republic ...................................................................................... 1158 R.Chalupnikova, I. Korberova: Project Day: Technology of metal manufacturing .......... 1164 J. L. Jiménez et.al: Relevance of thought-provoking experiences for teaching physics .... 1169 P. Kácovský et.al: The Summer Maths and Physics Camp ................................................ 1175 P. Kácovský et.al: Popularization of Physics by Using an Interactive Shows ................... 1180 L. Kolářová, R. Kubínek: Nanotechnology: Interdisciplinary collaboration ..................... 1184 Z. Koupilová et.al: Database of selected papers of Physics Teachers’ Inventions Fair ..... 1191 M. Kühn et.al: Online Tutorials in Physics and Engineering ............................................. 1195 P. Kuriščák et.al: Programming Simulations as a Way to Understand Physical Laws ...... 1203 J. Kvapil: Experiments and Students’ Individual Work ..................................................... 1211 Y. Lehavi et.al: A simple kit for detecting quantitative changes in energy ....................... 1219 L. Ličmanová, L. Koníček: Optics – The spatial and spectral properties of light sources. 1225 K. Lipertová: Science toys ................................................................................................. 1231 T. Medvegy: Investigation of smart fluid properties .......................................................... 1246 M. Nováková, M. Kireš: Monitoring the level of the basic elements of students' scientific literacy ........................................................................................................... 1254 J. Reichl: New technologies in teaching of physics ........................................................... 1261 J. Šestáková: Peer Instruction for the age group 12-15 ...................................................... 1269 M. Tanemura et.al: Soap Films with Variable Frames of Prisms....................................... 1273 V. Timková , Z. Ješková: Computer-aided activities for inquiry-based skills development ......................................................................................................... 1279

ix


Pedagogical Content Knowledge through video-based lesson analysis of a Colombian high School Physics Teacher on Electric Fields Lina Melo, Florentina Cañada, Vicente Mellado, Esther Marín Dept. Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain Abstract In view of the current debate in Colombia about training science teacher, a qualitative study was undertaken involving a purposeful sampling pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of a Colombian high school physics teacher that he have do numerous innovations about physics teaching. Data were obtained using video recordings from 6 classroom observations of the teaching and learning of the following topics/concepts: (1) methods of charging (2) Coulomb’s Law, (3) superposition of electric forces (3) electric field, (4) electric potential. This video analysis was triangulated using data from an interview, an open choice questionnaire, the planning template, and, the matrix designed by Loughran, Berry & Mulhall [1] to represent content (CoRe). The findings revealed a static PCK with tendency to traditional model of teaching. Keywords: pedagogical content knowledge, electric field, video-based analysis of practice Introduction and Background The foundation of science teachers' professional development lies in their own education in science since the content they have to teach conditions both their role in class and the teaching strategies they use [2]. Shulman [3] noted that, together with general psychopedagogical knowledge and knowledge of the subject matter, teachers develop a specific body of knowledge concerning the form in which they teach their subject – their ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (PCK). Pedagogical content knowledge is specific to how each particular subject is taught, and is a form of reasoning and educational action by means of which teachers transform the subject matter into representations that are comprehensible to the pupils. PCK is not a static mixture of knowledge from different areas. Rather, it is the teacher's transformation and integration of this knowledge into an active and dynamic process [4-6], based on reflection-in-action [7]. In view of the current debate in Colombia about training science teacher, a qualitative study was undertaken involving a purposeful sampling pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of a Colombian high school physics teacher that she has do numerous innovations about physics teaching. We have focused on the electric field due to its importance in physics. It has been described as one of the most valuable achievements in the history of thought [8]. The general acceptance of its importance has meant that there has been little discussion of its teaching in pre-university secondary education despite the many difficulties students find in learning the concept. It is hardly surprising if few studies have addressed to determine the ideas that teachers reinforce on the electric field and the models, they bring their students. We adopted Magnusson et.al [9] model. They claimed that PCK is composed of five components a) orientation toward science teaching, b) knowledge of science curriculum 525

L. Melo et.al: PCK on Electric Fields

c) knowledge of student’s’ understanding of science d) knowledge of student’s’ understanding of science and e) knowledge of science assessment. In addition, these components were our categories. We consider teachers participants of this study such as part of the investigation and not as data alone. Research Questions The overall objective of the present work was to characterize the initial PCK of Colombian high school physics teacher about the electric field, through of the content of the PCK components. This overall objective was broken down into the following five research questions: • • • • •

What are the participating teachers' orientations (i.e. visions and goals) in teaching physics? What knowledge do they have about the pre-university secondary education physics curriculum whit relationship to electric field teaching? What knowledge do they have about pupils' understanding of the electric field? What knowledge do they have about instructional strategies for teaching the electric field? What knowledge do they have about evaluation of the electric field?

Methodology The study began with 10 high school teachers, all they trained as teachers of physics, mean age 26 years, and with 3-7 years teaching experience. Their pupils' ages were in the range 17-19 years and they taught groups of 15 to 40 students. The background of the teachers varied. We present one of these cases (Mabel Teacher) now in the first years before intervention program. Mabel had taught physics for five years, and this was his first year in a girls' secondary school. Teacher responded an open choice questionnaire, the planning template, and, the matrix designed by Loughran, Berry & Mulhall [1] to represent content (CoRe), to which some modifications were made in the number of questions and the form of selecting the core ideas on teaching electric. After, we formed a discussion group, we conducted an in depth interview and record their classes about: (1) methods of charging (2) Coulomb’s Law, (3) superposition of electric forces (3) electric field, (4) electric potential, and then we analyze all the information with them, and after teacher creates a new unit for teaching this concept. This process is representing in the Figure 1. Data were analyzed following an iterative and systematic procedure that included both inductive and deductive processes. The coding scheme was based on Magnuson et.al model [9] and on the common components reported in research on physics PCK. For the description of each component, we took into account the evidence provided by the information analyzed and by science teaching models [10-12].

526


Students

M easur ing Point 1

M easur ing Point 2

M easur ing Point 3

M easur ing Point 4

M easur ing Point 5

Test 1 St udent

Post Test 1 St udent

Test 1 St udent

Post Test 1 St udent

I nicial St udent Quest ionair e

Oct- Nov 2010

December January 2010 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May-Sept. 2011

Dec.-March 2012

Teachers

VI DEOTAPI NG

Teacher Shor t Quest ionnair e

VI DEOTAPI NG

Or ient ed Reflect ion Sessions

Teacher I nt er view Didact ic Unit

ReCo

Jan-March 2013

Teacher I nt er view

ReCo Didact ic Unit

Figure 1. Methodological Process The Table 1 shows the coding system used and a description of each category. The coding was performed following the method of content analysis. We used Nvivo-10 for coding all data. That is, the information in each instrument after successive readings was divided into different units of information (IU). They were subsequently assigned to each category. The criteria for selection of each IU were the theme and not its linguistic composition. Table 1. Some categories and subcategories used in this research Category

Intermediate Trend

Constructivist Trend

Electric field in terms of action at a distance and the electric force as central force and vehicle interaction.

The electric force is an effect of the electric field.

Recognition of the interpretation of the energy aspects of electrostatic interactions.

B2

Updated and simplified version of scientific knowledge.

Integrating the academics with the contextual.

Difficulties and limitations in understanding the electric field.

C2

Level of difficulty assigned to the teaching/learning sequence

D3

They are due to the characteristics of the students and conditions beyond the classroom The number of steps involved, amount of knowledge involved and the time available to address the pupil activity.

There is a relationship with other subjects and contexts, but maintaining a rigid schedule. They predict the difficulties but are not used during the planning

Purpose of evaluation

E1

Subcategory

Code

Traditional Trend

Vision of the electric field

A3

Knowledge of the curriculum (B)

Organization and relationship of contents

Pupils' knowledge when learning about the electric field (C) of Knowledge teaching strategies (D)

Physics teaching orientations (A)

Knowledge of evaluation (E)

Measure the minimum knowledge acquired by the student.

527

Derivative of the scientific complexity and the time available for the pupil to resolve activity Corroborate the degree of achievement of the proposed objectives versus those achieved

They identify with the proposals in the literature on teaching content and are used in planning. Derivative of the scientific complexity, how to teach the content, and the disposition of the pupil Serve as a tool for self-regulation in the learning process and encourage learning to learn.

L. Melo et.al: PCK on Electric Fields Results We divide and classify all information according to the content units, according to each category. We divide our analysis in three levels: declarative, design and action. This correspond, what does the teacher believe or think, what does the teacher advance and plan and, what does the teacher do. Orientations to the Teaching of Physics This component is described from three subcategories: vision of physics, vision of teaching and vision of learning. Vision of physics is shown in Figure 2. The radio of the spheres represents the density of the frequencies found for each trend. We have interpreted the proximity of the spheres or overlaps as the coherence between, teacher says, designs and makes. The vision of physics is governed by traditional trend in design and action. This trend is characterized by displaying a cumulative nature of physics through an insistent need to cover the conceptual or procedural content. During the development of the classes, the teacher devotes a 57.75% of its actions to develop conceptual content, and 41.02% to procedural development (main emphasis is the execution and exercises from the textbook). A declarative level, teacher shared what does she think between traditional and constructivist trend. The number of units categorized into these trends, differs about 40% of the maximum level quantifications achieved for design and action. It confirms, results of other research which shows the inconsistencies between, teacher says; she says that she will do and she does. Vision of Physics Declarative

Design

Action

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Tradicional Trend

Intermedia Trend


Figure 2. Vision of Physics Learning physics is assimilating and applying the content that the teacher has explained, and knowledge is understanding and relating the corresponding key concepts. Teaching physics is therefore a matter of presenting the key content, with explanations being the axis of his teaching. Nevertheless, she was aware of the importance of motivating the pupils and of the teacher's knowledge of the pupils' ideas in the development of the class.

528

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Knowledge of the Curriculum on Electric Field Knowledge of curriculum is characterized to declarative and design level by traditional trend. Figure 3 shows a description of this category. The traditional trend of declarative level is characterized by maintaining a sequence similar to the proposal contained in a lot high school texts and general physics books for university level. The fundamental difference is the teacher interest to convince all students that space is the seat and source not only of electrical forces but also charged bodies. Knowledge of the Curriculum on Electric Field Declarative

Design

Action

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Tradicional Trend

Intermedia Trend


Figure 3. Knowledge of the Curriculum on Electric Field In terms of action, she opts for intermediate trend, with some modifications in the traditional and constructivist trend. The intermediate trend in action level is characterized by using little content related to the context of the student. Mabel describes a linear sequence for content structure. She always uses the exhibition as a key strategy in the development of the classes. Traditional trend shows consistency against teacher says and designs but teacher says and designs have different she does in class. For the intermediate trend, consistency is maintained against teacher designs and she does. The constructivist tendency does not show overlap. This means that everything the teacher says is not translated into action, however there are elements close between what the teacher says and what she does. Knowledge of pupils' understanding relative to learning the electric field concept In a first contact teacher recognizes little learning difficulty about the content. She justifies her lack of knowledge about the difficulties of their students for she lacks of experience in teaching this content. But throughout the interview, teacher says other specific difficulties and its nature. Table 3 gives an overview of the situation. The reasons most often lie outside the teacher, such as the characteristics of the content, the ideas that prevail after instruction and cognitive strategies used by students while performing different tasks. In the context of the difficulties of psychological origin, for example, we placed those related to the process of problem solving, willingness to learn and negative emotions towards mathematics that students report. The difficulties relate to the strategies that students use when they solve problems on the electric field, it does not far from those related to other content of her curricula. Some of these difficulties are: 529

L. Melo et.al: PCK on Electric Fields • • • • • • •

Do not relate various concepts to respond to a situation given. Tendency to memorize content. Tendency to find recipes to apply problem solving. Hinder in understanding graphs, tables , or other graphic elements. Difficulty in identifying what is asked and the information needed to solve a problem. Lack of understanding of the exercises solved by the teacher in class. Lack of understanding of the deductions did by the teacher in class.

Table 3. Difficulty of learning on Electric Field, teacher declares Origin Epistemological

Psychological

Didactic

Nature of the difficulty Learning insignificant or insufficient, retention of alternative conceptions after instruction Complexity own content Cognitive strategies used by the students Willingness to learn Negative emotions towards mathematics Curriculum Methodology Teaching Strategies

Frequency 7 3 8 1 1 4 4 1

In terms of action, the reasons for learning difficulties that she declares, it focus on the characteristics of the content, the skills of the students to perform calculations and in the attitude and / or willingness to learn of the students along classes. The will is exemplified by the little attention that some students pay over explained, and especially their ability to recall and use appropriate formulas and calculator. Mabel: In what did you miss Virginia, what, in the Blackberry conversation? Student: No, no. Mabel: That's hard to concentrate. Save this apparatus [Reference 1, Lesson 6 Cat. Difficulties]. Knowledge of teaching strategies The teaching sequences followed by the four teachers were determined from an analysis of instruments (b) and (c) above. They consisted of successive blocks or microsequences describing the ways the teacher planned the instruction of each topic of the content that was related to understanding the electric field. The sequences started with an introduction, followed by a space for the pupils to assimilate and apply the theme. The aim was to facilitate this assimilation during the teacher's further explanations. After the introduction, continued by reminding the pupils about the ideas on models of the atom, the electron, and conductors. This was followed by the presentation of a laboratory practical of a "demonstrative nature" for the pupils to be able to see properties that had not been part of their everyday experience. She used the traditional sequence to present the electric field: explanation, application of the definition, and evaluation of what has been seen.

530

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Knowledge of evaluation There is not a definite trend from declarative level. The description holds undertakes different faces. On the one hand the teacher describes a formative evaluation of character that evaluates not only content but skills and on the other hand, evaluation is a institutional requirement and, a social necesity that she can not be abolished even though she wants, but she clearly considers to be amended she does not know not how it is possible. She designs the assessments in funtion of content and not on the skills she described in her program, she always tries to assess she teaches, and the result of the ratings are the sum of the various evaluations conducted. Especially she evaluates through exercises similar to those she did in class. This is a category where there are several inconsistencies. This is due to the way the teacher interprets the policy and requirements intitucionales. The institution poses a more formative assessment with feedback spaces. But the action times and precise tolerance for external examinations to make favors more content than skills when teacher evaluates. Conclusions PCK characterization is a complex exercise; it requires more information and protagonist in the case of physics teaching in secondary and high school. This article contributes to this end. Here in detail how to make explicit the PCK for physics content. We show in detail, how can you explicit the PCK for physical content. Although teacher has some years of experience in the teaching of physics, she does not transpose causally all her constructs acquired in previous years of professional practice to new content that she teaches. However it is the fundamental pillar upon which rests its PCK on the electric field. Mabel PCK has the following characteristics: A. Teacher knows the students need new experiences “enlarge phenomenological field”, for understanding the electric field, but she feels that all proposals are ineffective, so, they continue privileging an electric field model focused on the electric charges and central forces. B. School history of the teacher, especially the relationship between physics and mathematics, it influences significantly on teacher idea of learning, the ideas of physics that she expresses, and strategies that she selects for the teaching of the electric field. C. Logic that articulates the proposition of the contents, it does not take into account the reflections teacher does on the needs and difficulties on the learning of the electric field of her students. D. Although she maintains ideas on active participation for students in the classroom, only teacher validates the school knowledge and she takes into account the answers and ideas raised by the students in relation to the subject matter, Mabel teach in class. E. Teacher strategy reinforces the idea, math is a tool for physics, and therefore students should acquire in advance a certain amount of mathematical content to address a problem of study in physics, without prior justification of their need. F. Teacher ideas on learning are not reflect how she thinks different assessments and selection criteria to define the difficulty of the evaluation strategies. In summary, the factors which condition their personal teaching models are their interpretation of the institutional curriculum, the time available to develop the topic, the

531

L. Melo et.al: PCK on Electric Fields

relationship between physics and mathematics, and consideration of the most effective strategies for teaching physics. Acknowledgements This work was financed by Research Project EDU2012-34140 of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain. L.M. wishes to express her gratitude to the Universidad de Extremadura for the award of a pre-doctoral studentship and to the project GR1075 of Govern of Extremadura supports of this work. References [1] Loughran J., Berry A., Mulhall P.: (2006). (Eds). Understanding and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (2006). [2] Abell S. K.: in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by Abell, S.K. and Lederman, N. G. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. (2007) Preface. [3] Shulman L. S.: Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15, No 4 (1986), p. 4-14. [4] Gess-Newsome J.: in Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education, edited by J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, (1999), p. 3-17. [5] Mellado V., Blanco L. J., Ruiz C A.: framework for learning to teach sciences in initial teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 9, No. 3 (1998), p. 195-219. [6] Nilsson P.: Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, No. 10 (2008), p. 1281-1299. [7] Park S., Oliver S.: Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Res. Sci. Educ. 38, No. 3, (2008), p. 261-284. [8] Berkson W.: Las teorías de los campos de fuerza. Desde Faraday hasta Einstein. Madrid: Alianza Editorial (1985) p. 20. [9] Magnusson S., Krajcik J., Borko H.: in Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education, edited by J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, (1999), p. 95–133. [10] Jiménez Alexandrei M. P.: in Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales. Teoría y práctica de la enseñanza de las Ciencias, edited by Perales, F.J. y Cañal P. (Eds.) Spain: Marfil. Alcoy (2000), p. 165-186. [11] Martin del Pozo R, Rivero A.: (2001). Construyendo Conocimiento Profesionalizado para Enseñar Ciencia en la Educación Secundaria: Los ámbitos de Investigación Profesional en la formación Inicial del Profesorado. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 40, p. 63-79. [12] Porlán R., Martín del Pozo R., Rivero A., Harres J., Azcárate P., Pizzato M.: El cambio del profesorado de ciencias II: Itinerarios de progresión y obstáculos en estudiantes de magisterio. Enseñanza de las ciencias. 29, No. 3, (2011), p.353–370.

532

Posters mixed papers

946


Pedagogical Content Knowledge of a Mexican secondary school Science Teacher on Kinetic Molecular Model Esther Marín, Lina Viviana Melo Niño, Florentina Cañada Dept. Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain Abstract The overall objective of the present work was to characterize the initial Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of five (5) Mexican science teachers about the Kinetic Molecular Model [1] in the first years of a new curriculum in secondary education (Science II-Emphasis in Physics). We analyse the PCK of each teacher attending the five components of Magnusson et al. [2]: a) orientation toward science teaching, b) knowledge of the curriculum, c) knowledge of the pupils, d) knowledge of instructional strategies, and d) knowledge of evaluation. Keywords: pedagogical content knowledge, secondary school, kinetic molecular model Introduction In 1983 Lee Shulman [3] develop the concept, Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) to locate as knowledge develops in the minds of teachers, Shulman [3] noted that, together with general psychopedagogical knowledge and knowledge of the subject matter, teachers develop a specific body of knowledge concerning the form in which they teach their subject – their ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (PCK). We assumed the PCK is not merely a static mixture of knowledge from different areas. Rather, it is the teacher's transformation and integration of this knowledge into an active and dynamic process [4], based on reflection-in-action [1]. The overall objective of the present work was to characterize the initial Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of five (5) Mexican science teachers about the Kinetic Molecular Model in the first years of a new curriculum in secondary education (Science IIEmphasis in Physics) [5]. We analyse the PCK of each teacher attending the five components of Magnusson et.al [2]. Currently in Mexico, the curriculum of Science II (Secondary Education) [6] have been renovate to integrate subjects together (vertically) and also their contents (horizontally). It is our interents to analyze what are the knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, provisions, a group of secondary teachers must have to assume this new curriculum. For this reason, we need to do a zoom into the teachers to see their PCK. Background to the investigation The Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) "‘goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching" (Shulman [3], p. 9). Pedagogical content knowledge is specific to how each particular subject is taught, and is a form of reasoning and educational action by means of which teachers transform the subject matter into representations that are comprehensible to the pupils. The understanding about relationship between each of the components of the PCK, rests on state of consciousness of each teacher, where they do introspection of their own practice.

995

E. Marín et.al: PCK on Kinetic Molecular Model The study on "kinetic molecular model" is crucial to be able to explain, for example, the differences between the different states of matter, its properties and changes physical or chemical [7,8,9]. We adopted Magnusson et.al [2] model. They claimed that PCK is composed of five components a) orientation toward science teaching, b) knowledge of science curriculum c) knowledge of science assessment d) knowledge of student’s’ understanding of science and e) knowledge of science assessment. In addition, these components were our categories. We consider teachers participants of this study such as part of the investigation and not as data alone. Research Objectives The overall objective of the present work was to characterize the initial PCK of five (5) Mexican science teachers about the Kinetic Molecular Model in the first years of a new curriculum in secondary education (Science II-Emphasis in Physics), through of the content of the PCK components. This overall objective was broken down into the following five research questions: • • • • •

What are the participating teachers' orientations (i.e. visions and goals) in teaching science? What are your knowledge and beliefs about the science curriculum in secondary education? What are your knowledge and beliefs about the understanding of their students about the topic of "molecular kinetic model"? What are knowledge and beliefs about strategies for teaching science? What are your knowledge and beliefs about assessment in science?

Methodology This research is determined by a qualitative paradigm, it is based on interpretive arguments

of a case and a topic in particular. The participating teachers have different degrees: physics, veterinarian, engineer and degree in pedagogy with emphasis in physics, biology of science in general, with an age between 29 and 46 years old, and between 5 and 15 years teaching experience. The ages of their pupils ranged between 13 and 15 years old. Data collection and analysis procedures were: (i) the curricular materials the teachers used; (ii) the lesson plans (1998); and (iii) the matrix designed by Loughran, Berry & Mulhall [10] to represent content (ReCo), to which some modifications were made in the number of questions.The data were analyzed following an iterative and systematic procedure that included both inductive and deductive processes. Results: Initial Specifications of PCK Data obtained with the ReCo instrument for each teacher are organized and analyzed together. Central ideas of each one are identified. A resume of those ideas are more frequents or overlapped in the majority of the teachers are selected (Figure 1).

996

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings ANALYSIS Matter is made up of particles so small that we cannot see with the naked eye and the use of models allows defining and understanding the structure and properties of matter. Teacher 1,3,4

Understanding and define abstract concepts, because the model is helpful in understanding microscopic phenomena and basic characteristics of matter, theoretical bases for Science III (emphasis in chemistry). Teacher 1,3,4,5 That the interactions of matter are explained by statistical physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Teacher 1,3,4

B= KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS ABOUT SCIENCE CURRICULUM

More accurate models considered molecular arrangement, movement speed, power, pressure, links and forces between molecules. Teacher 1,3,4

Bad statements about primary, infrastructure and scarce materials, they have little institutional support. Teacher 1,2,3,4,5 No use ICT The student is not a practical application.

C= KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS ABOUT STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF SPECIFIC SCIENCE TOPICS

For students not entirely a stranger to the idea of particles and elements that make up matter, however, do not have ideas or previous knowledge about the subject. D = KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS ABOUT INSTRUCTIONAL

Students are able to construct explanations show sustained and ever predict facts. Teacher 1.3

(Strategies for teaching science)

- The correct use of models as tools of representation. - The lack of laboratory and didactic materials. - Very abstract concepts for students, so it is necessary to encourage interest through experiential activities. - Reduce theoretical activities. - Continuous Assessment. - Analysis of alternative conceptions and different uses of the term. - Experimental activities. - Motivation generated by challenges Teacher 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

E = KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFS ABOUT ASSESSMENT IN SCIENCE

Listening to their ideas and reasoning in activities and shares oral feedback. Using instruments where put into practice what they have learned, such as multiple choice and the development of models, diagrams and drawings. It evaluates the understanding of the subject by analysing the results and the quality of their activities (experimental, modelling, brochures, research, questionnaires and review). Teacher 1,3,5

Figure 1. The main ideas that match most of the teachers

997

IDEAS (TEACHERS ARE AGREE)

"KINETIC MOLECULAR MODEL"

A= ORIENTATIONS (I.E., VISIONS AND GOALS) IN TEACHING SCIENCE

E. Marín et.al: PCK on Kinetic Molecular Model Analysis of didactic sequences (lesson plan). For the concept of "molecular kinetic model" in the didactic sequences, we can identify as teachers organize their knowledge and prepare their implementation. In the following analysis, we highlight the elements of the PCK that are embodied in the planning of each teacher. The characteristic features of each category analyzed are expressed in the Tables bellow (Table 1 to Table 5) where we are summarized the profile of each one of the 5 teachers, and we give a picture of his/her PCK. Table 1. Teacher 1, PCK Profile Components of PCK

Teacher 1

Orientations (i.e.,visions and goals) in teaching science.

- Using models to explain physical phenomena.

Knowledge of the Curriculum

- The models most accurate consider molecular arrangement, movement speed, power, pressure, links and forces between molecules. - Teacher expressed a broad knowledge of the science (horizontal and vertical) curriculum. He establics relationship with other subjects. Teacher 1 does not take into account the previous ideas or preconceptions of the student. Teacher uses a metaphor "blank sheet" to define their students.

Knowledge of the students face to learning the molecular kinetic model

Knowledge about the teaching strategies Knowledge about the types of assessment

ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENT: - Calculate the density of the water, oil, and of the various metal objects through the density equation. - Excersive textbook. - Written report on various hand-drawn models - Teacher takes the use of biographies, than students know since primary school. - The activities have a didactic sequence, even so, they do not cover expected profile of the learner. - Theoretical explain of teacher Summative evaluation

Summary PCK profile: All the activities of teacher 1 (T1) begin whit theoretical exposure. T1 consider in her teaching, science products, qualitative aspects and different contents (conceptual, procedural and attitudinal) but he does not think in the student role. However T1 does not explain what he assessment, and in what time he should evaluate. Define the type of evaluation allows for congruence with the educational aims and, purposes of the lesson plan. In general, T1 who has 5 years of experience but only 1 year he teach Science II, he is the protagonist of the process learning-teaching, and his practice has a higher theoretical load. He does not use strategies for engaging the pupil learning and, he is not using the assessment as a parameter to modify the activities.

998

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Table 2. Teacher 2 PCK Profile Components PCK

Teacher 2

Orientations (i.e.,visions and goals) in teaching science.

Teacher has to know some thinks about historical development of scientific thought. He indicates that every teacher should know how theories/models have been builting, as part of the teaching process.

Knowledge of the Curriculum Knowledge of the students face to learning the molecular kinetic model

He locate the theme and sub-topics into structure of the science curriculum in secondary. He does not take into account the previous ideas or preconceptions of the students as a starting point, therefore the effectiveness of his activities as generators of new knowledge and a significant learning are not validated.

Knowledge about the teaching strategies

ACTIVITIES OF THE STUDENT: read and discuss books. -Complement comparative tables. -Draw examples of states of matter aggregation. -Relate them to the concept of force and pressure. -In the laboratory, students will build a model to explain the molecular organization in the states of aggregation of matter. -Develop and pasted posters with the ideas and contributions of the most important item. The activities are organized hierarchically. Students are the main generator of the teaching-learning process

Knowledge about the types of assessment

He evaluates each of the activities, as well as the performance in the individual work and group work.

Summary PCK profile: For Teacher 2 (T2), the activities for the student are the main element in the teaching-learning process. All the activities are designed to develop skills: understanding (readings), handling and analysis of the information. The diversity of activities show us that the teacher has knowledge about the methodology and strategies of learning in science. T2 provides to students several spaces of action (laboratory, library...) where the active participation of the learner is central. The activities are characterized by a learning based on the discovery. T2 puts emphasis on the active participation of students, learning of the students and the application of the processes of science, because he thinks those are alternatives to passive methods based on the routine and memorization.

999

E. Marín et.al: PCK on Kinetic Molecular Model Table 3. Teacher 3 PCK Profile Components PCK Orientations (i.e.,visions and goals) in teaching science. Knowledge of the Curriculum Knowledge of the students face to learning the molecular kinetic model

Knowledge about the teaching strategies Knowledge about the types of assessment

Teacher 3 Models are not absolute. They may be perfect including, items are discovered. -Students have control a minimum of a knowledge by general culture. - Reality can be explained using models. He locate the theme and sub-topics into structure of the science curriculum in secondary. He takes into account the previous ideas of the student. He does a diagnosis of previous ideas. He says, he controls the evolutions of those ideas in classes. Starting activity: framing, presentation of the topic and examples of models. The student takes notes. Development: Teacher 3 establishs links between the different states of aggregation and their molecular organization. Closing activity: interpretation of the main ideas and analysis on the importance of the topic. The activities are organized in didactic sequence. Teacher 3 emphasizes the use of ICT. During the class, Teacher 3 performs clarification and resolve doubts. -Diagnostic assessment: individual holdings. -Summative assessment: Registration in the notebook of the activity, ability to infer and describe phenomena. -Formative Evaluation: oral participation, ability to interpret the phenomena of nature

Summary PCK profile: Teacher 3 (T3) defines the expected program and locates the subject and the sub-themes according to the curriculum. He use starting activities, development and closing activities, but always in function of his theoretical exposure, although he uses several materials. T3 knows the plans and curricula. He knows the teaching suggestions that are mentioned into the plans and curricula. T3 uses three typos of assessments: diagnostic, summative and formative. He uses techniques of individual participation (brainstorm), and takes into account into account previous ideas to develop in classes.

1000

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings Table 4. Teacher 4 PCK Profile Components PCK Orientations (i.e.,visions and goals) in teaching


Knowledge of the students face to learning the molecular kinetic model

Teacher 4 -Teacher 4 identifies changes throughout the history of the kinetic model of particles and associates it, with the unfinished nature of science. -He values the contribution from Newton to Boltzmann, to get the construction of a kinetic model. -Students have control a minimum of a knowledge by general culture. -He locate the theme and sub-topics into structure of the science curriculum in secondary. -Teacher 4 expressed a broad knowledge of the science (horizontal and vertical) curriculum. He establics relationship with other subjects. The background of the pupils are of Natural Sciences. Each student work individually and in teams. They respond questionnaires and develop comparative tables on general and specific properties of matter. They resolve exercises and density calculations.

Knowledge about the teaching strategies

-The activities are organized in didactic sequence. Teacher 3 emphasizes the use of ICT. -During the class, Teacher 4 performs clarification and resolve doubts. -The class is focused on the teacher's exposition


Summative evaluation: Bimonthly evaluation, type test

Summary PCK profile: Teacher 4 (T4) does experimental activities. However these activities are centred on a specific topic, (general properties of matter) they are not part of our expected learning. It is a clear example of, the teacher knows what are expected learning of the items, but he does not develop the specific activities for it. Sometimes T4 deepens only, on topic he considers important (hidden curriculum). T4 does not understand curriculum organization fully. It is a limiting factor. Table 5. Teacher 5 PCK Profile Components PCK

Teacher 5

Orientations (i.e.,visions and goals) in teaching

Teacher compares the concept of matter consibe 200 years ago and the concept that students perceive


-Teacher 5 expressed a broad knowledge of the science (horizontal and vertical) curriculum. He establics relationship with other subjects. Each student work individually and in teams. They respond questionnaires and develop comparative tables on general and specific properties of matter. They resolve exercises and density calculations.

Knowledge of the students face to learning the molecular kinetic model Knowledge about the teaching strategies


-Teacher claims: -Sometimes I don't know if my students achievement o if I was right. Always I looks for tools or resources of my around to demostrate some peculiarities of the science, for example when you light a candle without a wick- they (students) discover what happens- I do not have idea (I lack imagination) on how can I use the kinetic models of particles and Newton's theories. I just include videos or programs to: enhance all thinks, I say in class; show my students a proff in research The evaluation of treatment that is nuanced, trying to identify their strengths, weaknesses, skills, values, cognitive level, and emotional level whilst trying to be as impartial as possible.

1001

E. Marín et.al: PCK on Kinetic Molecular Model Summary PCK profile: Teacher 5 (T5) raises the importance of understanding the microscopic phenomena through tools such as models, because they allow to understand and explain the behavior of matter and "enhance skills". It is directly related as generation of images and representations through of analysis of the molecular kinetic model of matter. T5 claims, the study of phenomena is as a bridge between two levels of abstraction: the macroscopic and microscopic. Conclusion Teachers believe the subject is important to teach the students because they can understand abstract concepts, microscopic phenomena and basic characteristics of matter, however, teachers do not have an understanding the logical structure of content this new thematic organization. The interactions on vertical and horizontal curricula do not successful because the topics of different blocks subjects remain fragmented into the teacher's mind. For teachers, knowledge involves processes of reflection on existing theories, and they consider important to know the pupils’ ideas. However about this topic, teachers consider students do not have a good idea about matter, only they recognize the particle as part constitutive of the matter after instructions. Teachers believe these problems are due to the preparation that students have at primary school, lack of institutional support in the development of new proposals and infrastructure. They asses is a mechanical processes continue of learning and problem solving (pencil and paper) for all teachers. They do not carry out an assessment of skills, where students can take decisions, with collaborative work. Teaching sequences does not have enough activities to cover at least the learning outcomes of the subject. Teachers fail to articulate hierarchically activities for building integrated concepts: pressure, temperature, heat. Acknowledgements This work was financed by Research Project EDU2012-34140 of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain. L.M. wishes to express her gratitude to the Universidad de Extremadura for the award of a pre-doctoral studentship and to the project GR1075 of Govern of Extremadura supports of this work. References [1] Mellado V., Blanco L. J., Ruiz C.: A framework for learning to teach sciences in initial teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 9, 195 (1998). [2] Magnusson S., Krajcik J., y Borko H.: (1999). Nature, Sources and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. En Gess-Newsome, J. y Lederman, N (Eds). Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The Construct and its Implications for Science Education. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publisher, p. 95-132. [3] Shulman L. S.: Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15, No. 4 (1986). [4] Friedrichsen P, Abell S., Pareja E., Brown: Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 357 (2009).

1002

ICPE-EPEC 2013 Proceedings [5] SEP, Secretaría de Educación Pública, (2006). Plan de Estudios 2006. Educación básica. Secundaria México, D. F. [6] SEP, Secretaria de Educación Publica, (2006). Reforma de la Educación Secundaria Fundamentación Curricular. Ciencias. Primera edición, México, D.F. [7] Benarroch A.: (2000) Del modelo cinético-corpuscular a los modelos atómicos. Reflexiones didácticas, Alambique. Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales 23, 95108. [8] Gómez-Cresp M. A. y Pozo J. I.: (2007). Relaciones entre el conocimiento cotidiano y el conocimiento científico: comprendiendo cómo cambia la materia (1)” Rev. Eureka. Enseñ. Divul. Cien, 4(2), 367-37. [9] Garritz A.: (2006). El Conocimiento Pedagógico de la estructura corpuscular de la materia. IV Jornadas Internacionales para la enseñanza Preuniversitaria y Universitaria de la Química. Educación Química 17[10]. [10] Loughran J., Mulhall P., Berry A.: In Search of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 370 (2004).

1003