Professionalising Physics Teachers in Doing Experimental Work
It is commonly agreed that experiments play a central role in teaching and learning physics. Recently, Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) has been introduced into science teaching in many countries, thus giving another boost
for experiments. From a didactical point of view, experiments can serve a number of different goals in teaching and learning physics. First of all, experiments can support learners in understanding some of the central
concepts of physics. Besides this function of “learning physics”, empirical evidence shows that experimental work in general has a high potential for promoting “learning about science” and finally “doing science”. Promoting aspects of how science works has become important, as the ideas of scientific literacy and competence orientation have been established as central educational goals in many national education systems. However, empirical studies show that the reality in schools does not match these expectations. Conventional physics classes still aim only at the mastery of content, and experiments that cognitively activate students and address issues related to the Nature of Science (NOS) have not been implemented extensively. The reasons for this can be found in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, as well as in their PCK concerning experiments and scientific knowledge production. In past decades in Austria, teacher education did not focus a great deal on the didactical aspects of experiments or their integration into physics classes in order to promote aspects of scientific literacy and competence orientation. Furthermore, there is a lack of high quality continuing professional development courses that promote the concepts of Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) in combination with relevant ideas of NOS. The present study examines inservice teachers’ beliefs about the function of experiments in science teaching and their meaningful integration into science classes. In the form of case studies, we follow the professional development of teachers in this field during continuing teacher training.
Schülerkompetenzen: Mögliche Beiträge externer Messungen zur Erreichung der Qualitätsziele der
Schule [Standardisation and first test results on students’ competencies: Possible external contributions
to increase the quality of the school system]. Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich, 2, 355–394.
Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M.
(2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness
of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.
Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). Scientific Literacy–Mythos oder Realität? In W. Gräber, P. Nentwig, T. Koballa &
R. Evans (Eds.), Scientic Literacy (pp. 21–43). Opladen: Leske.
CMEC (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., Rath, G., & Rechberger, V. (2017). Teachers’ Beliefs About Subject Specific
Competences and Inquiry Based Learning. In T. Greczyło & E. Dębowska (Eds.), Competences in Physics
Teaching and Learning (pp. 177–190). Bern: Springer International Publishing.
Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., & Mayr, S. (2016). Vorstellungen von PädagogInnen zum “Forschenden
Lernen”. In C. Maurer (Ed.), Authentizität und Lernen - das Fach in der Fachdidaktik [Authenticity and
Learning – the content in didactics]. Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik Jahrestagung
in Berlin (pp. 584-586). Regensburg: Universität Regensburg.
Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C., Mathelitsch, L., Knechtl, W., Rechberger, V., & Rath, G. (2015). Competencies
in mathematics and science education (CSME): A programme promoting in-service teachers’
professional development. In K. Maaß, B. Barzel, G. Törner, D. Wernisch, E. Schäfer, & K. Reitz-Koncebovski
(Eds.), Educating the educators: international approaches to scaling-up professional development
in mathematics and science education (pp. 273–278). Conference Proceedings, 15-16 Dec 2014,
Haagen, C., & Hopf, M. (2012). Standardization in Physics - first steps in the Austrian educational system.
In C. Bruguiere & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), E-Book proceedings of the ESERA 2011 conference: Science
learning and citizenship. Lyon: European Science Education Research Association (ESERA).
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London,
Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 655–675.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twentyfirst
century. Science education, 88(1), 28–54.
Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand
different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased
teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
KMK (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Intermediate-level
education standards for the subject physics]. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenzn der Kultusminister
der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Reterevied from www. kmk.org
Langer, E., Mathelitsch, L., & Rechberger, V. (2014). Synergistic cooperation of school-based action research
with university-based didactic investigations. In F. Rauch, A. Schuster, T. Stern, M. Pribila & A.
Townsend (Eds.), Promoting change through action research (pp. 101–107). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science
laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. In S. K. Abell (Ed.), Handbook of research on
science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: LEA Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content
knowledge for science teaching. In J. Guess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical
content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Kluewer.
Maltese, A. V., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2010). The effect of high school physics laboratories on performance
in introductory college physics. The Physics Teacher, 48(5), 333–3337.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis – theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software
solution. Klagenfurt: Open Access Repository. Retrieved from www.ssoar.info
Millar, R., & Abrahams, I. (2009). Practical work: Making it more effective. School Science Review,
Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does
it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards: Washington, DC: National
National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
OECD (2004). PISA Learning for tomorrow‘s world: First results from PISA 2003. Retrieved from http://
Pathway UK (2013). Pathway UK: Science education through inquiry in schools, museums and informal
learning settings. Retrieved from http://www.pathwayuk.org.uk/uploads/9/3/2/1/9321680/_the_
Schecker, H., Nawrath, D., Elvers, H., Borgstädt, J., & Einfeldt, S. Maiseyenka, V. (Eds). (2013). Naturwissenschaften:
Modelle und Lernarrangements für die Förderung naturwissenschaftlicher Kompetenzen.
Komdif [Science: Models and learning paths to support the acquisition of competences].
Schreiber, N., Theyßen, H., & Schecker, H. (2016). Process-oriented and product-oriented assessment
of experimental skills in physics: A comparison. In N. Papadouris, A. Hadjigeorgiou & C. Constantinou
(Eds.), Insights from research in science teaching and learning (pp. 29–43). Bern: Springer International
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds) (2006). America‘s Lab Report: Investigations
in High School Science. Washington, WA: National Academies Press.
Weiglhofer, H. (2007). Austria at the beginning of the way to standards in science. In D. Waddington,
P. Nentwig & S. Schanze (Eds.), Making it comparable, standards in science education (pp. 61–70).
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. Rychen & L. Saganick
(Eds.), Defining and selecting key competences (pp. 45–65). Ashland, OR: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.