Research Article

Physics teachers’ learning on the use of multiple representations in lesson study about Ohm’s law

Mauri Luís Tomkelski 1 2 * , Mónica Baptista 1 , Adriana Richit 3
More Detail
1 Institute of Education, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, PORTUGAL2 Secretary of Education of the State of Rio Grande do Sul - SEDUC/RS - 15ª CRE, Erechim, BRAZIL3 Federal University of the Southern Frontier, Erechim, BRAZIL* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), July 2023, 427-444, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12906
Published Online: 29 January 2023, Published: 01 July 2023
OPEN ACCESS   1690 Views   831 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The article analyses teachers’ learning on the use of multiple representations (MRs) in the teaching of Ohm’s law, examining them in a lesson study, structured in 18 meetings of 2.5 hours each, that addressed this physics curricular topic for the 3rd grade of high school. The qualitative research involved four teachers who teach physics in Brazilian public schools. The empirical material of the study consists of the transcriptions of the audio recordings of the lesson study sessions, interviews with the teachers at the end of the process, and students’ written registers produced during the class. From the participating teachers’ perspective, the analysis showed that the emphasis on MRs improved the teaching of Ohm’s law because it helped them obtain complementary information - to correlate the different representations;  acquire a fuller and deeper understanding of the physics concept; connect the abstract to the concrete - carry out constraint interpretations – interpreting the physical concept by familiarity and inherent properties, and interpreting and transposing representations; construct in-depth understandings – interpretations and relationships between tables, graphs and generalization of equations; and develop investigative activities encompassing abstraction, extension, and the relationship between physical quantities. Considering the complexities of MRs, teachers examined what information is actually accessible to students and how they can use it, encouraging them to seek an effective way to integrate several representations to assist in the learning process.
Keywords: multiple representations, teacher learning, Ohm’s law, lesson study

CITATION (APA)

Tomkelski, M. L., Baptista, M., & Richit, A. (2023). Physics teachers’ learning on the use of multiple representations in lesson study about Ohm’s law. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 427-444. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12906

REFERENCES

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The function of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191-208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_9
  4. Ainsworth, S. (2014). The multiple representations principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 464-486). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.024
  5. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153
  6. Baptista, M., Conceição, T., & Ponte, J. P. (2020). Estudo de aula como facilitador de aprendizagens de futuros professores de física e química sobre o uso de múltiplas representações [Classroom study as a learning facilitator for future physics and chemistry teachers about the use of multiple representations]. APEduC Revista, 1(1), 41-54.
  7. Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo [Content analysis]. Edições 70.
  8. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1994). Investigação qualitativa em educação: Uma introdução à teoria e aos métodos [Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods]. Porto Editora.
  9. Brasil. (2018). Base nacional comum curricular [Common national curriculum base]. Ministério da Educação. Secretaria da Educação Básica [Ministry of Education. Secretariat of Basic Education]. http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/images/BNCC_EI_EF_110518_versaofinal_site.pdf
  10. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 463-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9059-4
  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Routledge.
  12. Conceição, T., Baptista, M., & Ponte, J. P. (2016). Aprendizagens profissionais de futuros professores de física e química num estudo de aula [Professional learning of future physics and chemistry teachers in a classroom study]. Indagatio Didactica, 8(1), 468-485. https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v8i1.3301
  13. Conceição, T., Baptista, M., & Ponte, J. P. (2021). Mudanças de práticas de futuros professores de Física e Química sobre o uso de representações científicas num estudo de aula [Changes in practices of future Physics and Chemistry teachers regarding the use of scientific representations in a classroom study]. Indagatio Didactica, 13(1), 91-103. https://doi.org/10.34624/id.v13i1.23864
  14. DRE. (2016). Carta Ética para a investigação em educação e formação. Deliberação n. 456/2016, Série II, 52, 9153-9154 [Ethics charter for research in education and training. Resolution n. 456/2016, Série II, 52, 9153-9154.]. Diário da República Eletrônico–DRE [Electronic Republic Gazette–DRE] (March 15, 2016).
  15. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_6
  16. Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451-1469). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_93
  17. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Flores, M. A. (2004). The early years of teaching: Issues of learning, development and change. RÉS.
  19. Fujii, T. (2016). Designing and adapting tasks in lesson planning: A critical process of lesson study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(4), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0770-3
  20. Juhler, M. V. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ reflections on teaching a physics lesson: How does lesson study and content representation affect pre-service teachers’ potential to start developing PCK during reflections on a physics lesson. NorDiNa, 14(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.2433
  21. Laburú, C. E., Zompero, A. F., & Barros, M. A. (2013). Vygotsky e múltiplas representações: Leituras convergentes para o ensino de ciências [Vygotsky and multiple representations: Convergent readings for science teaching]. Caderno Brasileiro do Ensino de Física [Brazilian Physics Teaching Notebook], 30(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7941.2013v30n1p7
  22. Lei nº 9.394. (1996). Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional [Establishes the guidelines and bases for national education]. Presidência da República [Presidency of the Republic]. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9394.htm
  23. Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development [Paper presentation]. The American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.
  24. Lewis, C. (2009). What is the nature of knowledge development in lesson study? Educational Action Research, 17(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667477
  25. Lewis, C. (2016). How does lesson study improve mathematics instruction? DM Mathematics Education, 48, 571-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0792-x
  26. Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, 14(17), 50-52.
  27. Murata, A. (2011). Introduction: Conceptual overview of lesson study. In L. Hart, A. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 1-12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9941-9_1
  28. Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Learning about forces using multiple representations. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education: Models and modeling in science education (pp. 163-182). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_8
  29. Opfermann, M., Schmeck, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Multiple representations in physics and science education–Why should we use them? In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple representations in physics education: Models and modeling in science education (pp. 1-22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_1
  30. Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.061
  31. Pektas, M. (2014). Effects of lesson study on science teacher candidates’ teaching efficacies. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(6), 164-172. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1700
  32. Prain, V., Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple representation in learning about evaporation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701824249
  33. Ribeiro, A. J., & Ponte, J. P. (2019). Professional learning opportunities in a practice-based teacher education program about the concept of function. Acta Scientiae [Journal of Science], 21(2), 49-74. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.v21iss2id5002
  34. Richit, A. (2021). Teacher professional development: a theoretical framework. Research, Society and Development, 10(14), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i14.22247
  35. Richit, A., & Tomkelski, M. L. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers' professional learning in a lesson study. Acta Scientiae, 22(3), 2-27. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.5067
  36. Richit, A., & Tomkelski, M. L. (2022). Meanings of mathematics teaching forged through reflection in a lesson study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(9), em2151. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12325
  37. Richit, A., Ponte, J. P., & Tomkelski, M. L. (2019). Estudos de aula na formação de professores de matemática do ensino médio [Lesson studies in the training of high school mathematics teachers]. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, 100(254), 54-81. https://doi.org/10.24109/2176-6681.rbep.100i254
  38. Richit, A., Ponte, J. P., & Tomkelski, M. L. (2020). Desenvolvimento da prática colaborativa com professoras dos anos iniciais em um estudo de aula [Development of collaborative practice with early years teachers in a classroom study]. Educar em Revista, 36, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.69346
  39. Rincón, J. P., & Fiorentini, D. (2017). A ‘glocal’ lesson study: The case of pedagogical practices in mathematics. Revista Internacional de Pesquisa em Educação Matemática [International Journal of Research in Mathematics Education], 7(2), 24-44.
  40. Rodrigues, M. A., & Arroio, A. (2020). Lesson study in pre-service physics teachers’ education: A case in Brazil. Gamtamokslinis Ugdymas [Natural Science Education], 17(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.48127/gu-nse/20.17.139
  41. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  42. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  43. Sims, L., & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 724-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.005
  44. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world`s teacher for improving education in the classroom. Sumit Books.
  45. Tomkelski, M. L., Baptista, M., & Richit, A. (2022). Professional learning of physics teachers in lesson study: Exploring inquiry tasks. Acta Scientiae, 24(6), 514-551. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.7019
  46. Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C. Y. (2013). Contributions of multiple representations to biology education. In D. F. Treagust, & C. Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations to biology education (pp. 349-367). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_19
  47. Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9028-3
  48. Wanderley, R. A., & Souza, M. A. (2020). Lesson study como processo de desenvolvimento profissional de professores de matemática sobre o conceito de volume [Lesson study as a professional development process for mathematics teachers on the concept of volume]. Perspectivas da Educação Matemática [Perspectives of Mathematics Education], 13(33), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.46312/pem.v13i33.10302
  49. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. D. Reidel.
  50. Wu, H. K., Lin, Y. F., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013). Effects of representation sequences and spatial ability on students’ scientific understandings about the mechanism of breathing. Instructional Science, 41(3), 555-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9244-3
  51. Yoshida, M. (1999). Lesson study: A case study of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based teacher development [Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago].
  52. Zhou, G., Xu, J., & Martinovic, D. (2016). Developing pre-teaching science with technology through microteaching lesson study approach. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(1), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00605a