Mapa de capas topográficas y de referencias

A summary overview of the extent to which key aspects of each participant's views changed over time is shown below in Fig. 28. Comments are made about the participants' conceptions of the subject of physics and of subject knowledge for teaching, and how, or if, they change over time.

Conceptions of physics Conceptions about subject

knowledge fo r teaching

Comments

Nick Initially (in ti) physics consists of substantive content knowledge, organised into classical and modern physics, but these categories no longer feature by the end of the PGCE course. During the SKE course his view develops so th a t physics is "a body of knowledge and it's also a way of thinking" (int3).

During the SKE course broad brush knowledge is used to refer to knowing h o w to engage children with physics examples th a t interest them , alongside knowledge of physics and how to help children to "discover physics fo r themselves" (int2). After the SKE course, factual content knowledge becomes the predom inant feature.

Nick's views about NoS are naive (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman et al., 2002), especially about scientific method as observation followed by theory generation (int2). His subject knowledge views suggest discovery and inquiry orientations to teaching (Magnusson et al., 1999) at the start of the SKE course, which widen to emphasise didactic or academic rigor during the PGCE course.

Conceptions o f physics Conceptions about subject knowledge fo r teaching

Comments

Ben There is an emphasis on physics as a body of factual knowledge

("fundam ental physical laws of nature th a t govern how things work" in ti) th a t persists across all

interviews. By the start o f the PGCE course there is more explicit reference to physics as a process, with particular reference to the role of "experim ent and evidence and trying to use th a t to predict how things or objects will behave..." (int4).

During the SKE course, he moves from a simple body-of-knowledge-to- be-learned view (in ti) to

identification of different types of knowledge (textbook and pub quiz) coupled w ith knowledge of how to teach it and fluency as a criterion fo r having sufficient subject knowledge. By the end o f the PGCE course the view has become more sophisticated with knowledge o f children's misconceptions and how science relates to society now added. Fluency when explaining physics (an affective criterion fo r gaining sufficient subject knowledge) features from the end of the SKE course onwards.

Ben has na'ive views about NoS (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman et al., 2002) built around physics as a body of factual knowledge and, later in the SKE course, as an uncontested process o f experim entation. His subject knowledge views suggest academic rigor, didactic and activity- driven orientations to teaching (Magnusson et al., 1999).

Andy Emphasises physics as factual knowledge throughout all interviews and refers often to physics as the study of "interactions". There is some recognition of knowing physics as being able to use it to answer "why or w hat or how" questions. His views do not change during the SKE course.

Andy's views develop during the SKE course from being able to understand and communicate physics to others (start of the course) to an emphasis on knowledge of "science in the media" (end of the SKE course) and being able to relate physics to students' everyday lives.

Andy holds a narrow range of naive views about NoS (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman e t al., 2002), especially in the category of defining science. His subject knowledge views are not well articulated and it is not clear w h a t his orientations to teaching might be, which is consistent w ith the naivete of his views about science, other than suggestions o f a didactic orientation (Magnusson e t al., 1999).

David Physics as a process fo r studying and making laws about the universe is a feature throughout all interviews. Physics is about "how the world works" (in ti) and is the "operating system fo r the universe" (int3).

Content knowledge of physics, divided into knowledge of facts and how to apply them to real situations, features throughout. By the end of the SKE course these are referred to as pure knowledge and applied knowledge. Knowing h o w to explain physics (in i) becomes knowledge of pedagogy and of misconceptions by int4.

David dwells on laws and theories and the empirical evidence aspects of NoS (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman et al., 2002) more than most of the participants, although his views are more naive than inform ed (he sees laws more as rules to be discovered than invented by people). An inquiry orientation to teaching appears to be more significant than others (Magnusson e t al., 1999). Charlie No significant change. Physics has a

body o f knowledge, but is mostly about discovering the "relationships of natural laws" (in ti). Different sciences study nature at different scales using scientific method.

His views develop from simple "knowledge of physics" (in ti) to also knowing how to create explanations based on a deep understanding of discrete elements o f factual knowledge and how they can be related to each other.

Charlie has a strong view of physics as part o f a scientific endeavour to study "natural laws". His views about this are naive in th a t he talks about laws as if they have an objective reality fo r scientists to 'discover' (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman e t al., 2002). There are perhaps suggestions o f academic rigor and didactic orientations (Magnusson e t al., 1999), although there is insufficient data about this.

Conceptions o f physics Conceptions about subject knowledge fo r teaching

Comments

Jen A view of physics as explaining "how things w ork and why things are" (in ti) persists, w ith all of the sciences applying the "same rules" (in ti) to achieve this. By interview 2, the relative importance of mathematics is used to discriminate physics from the other sciences.

Jen's views develop from subject knowledge as knowing enough physics to be able to explain it to learners and how to apply it (in ti), to using the curriculum and textbooks as reference points for knowing if you have sufficient physics knowledge to teach.

Naive views (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman et al., 2002) about definition o f physics and the processes of science in establishing laws and theories th a t are created by people. Jen's views suggest th a t science provides a reliable

mechanism, through the application of consistent rules, fo r scientists to uncover answers to how the world works.

Jen's focus on the curriculum, and textbooks, as arbiters of necessary subject knowledge perhaps suggest orientations of presenting a body of knowledge (academic rigor) and transmitting the facts of science (didactic) (Magnusson et al., 1999). Daniel Initially Daniel describes physics as

"how everything works" (in ti), but during the SKE course he describes his view as changing from physics as a collection of topics to a philosophy for developing knowledge.

Daniel's view does not change during the SKE course. For him, subject knowledge is "the topics you need to know to teach it" (int2) and knowing how to teach it is not part o f subject knowledge.

NoS views are naTve (Faikhamta, 2013; Lederman et al., 2002) and lack breadth. He views subject knowledge as to be transm itted according to w hat is specified by a curriculum, suggesting a didactic orientation (Magnusson et al., 1999).

Fig. 28: Summary of participants' views over tim e

The relative size of the sub-sections in the accounts from the individual interviews is a reflection of how much of each interview is spent discussing those areas. Some participants want to talk most of all about their experiences of learning physics prior to joining the SKE course, while others have a lot more to say about subject knowledge. The brevity of these accounts leads to obvious questions about what is left out and what I, as the interpreter of the participants' stories, choose to emphasise. However, the accounts are intended to preserve faithfully what appears to be particular to each student and there are some observations that can be made when all of the participants are looked at together.

There are broad features in common across all of the students' definitions of physics, such as a view of physics as a field of study that encompasses or underlies the other sciences. Physics is viewed as 'fundamental' in the sense of studying 'everything around us'. Most of the participants appear to struggle to articulate a definition of physics, even after being asked to do so in every

interview. There is striking diversity of prior experiences of physics and views about subject knowledge. Some kind of knowledge of pedagogy features in most (but not all) of the participants' conceptions of what should be in a physics teacher's subject knowledge. The subject knowledge conceptions of some of the participants (for example, Ben and Andy) appear to change and develop throughout their ITE experience. Nick's conception appears to move full circle, starting and ending with a view of subject knowledge as primarily consisting of content knowledge of curriculum-defined topics. The subject knowledge diagrams themselves show a prevalence of spider diagrams, leading David to exclaim during one of the interviews that "I used to hate spider diagrams but years of education have trained me {laughs} [...] It's like a mental default". All participants report activities where they had to prepare and conduct mini-lessons of some sort to their peers as significant.

The focus groups provide a rich reservoir of data, full exploitation of which is beyond the scope of this research. During both focus groups, there is more agreement between participants than disagreement about all subjects discussed. This may be a consequence of the participants having formed largely-compatible views during the SKE course up to that point. However, both focus groups share more criticisms of the SKE course than each individual participant voices during the one-to-one interviews, such as the amount of unstructured time during the course and the academic demand of the course material. It may be that being part of a group enables some of them to feel more confident about voicing criticisms or concerns in the presence of their tutor, especially for cohort 1. The focus groups identify positive features of the SKE course which are consistent with those identified during the interviews, such as the perceived value of explaining- to-peers activities. As with the interviews, there is much discussion about the place of pedagogy in subject knowledge, with both groups constituting subject knowledge as including a fixed body of content knowledge.

In this chapter I have focussed on reporting the data and on emphasising the participants as individuals. In the next chapter I will consider what can be understood from analysing transversely across all of the participants.