 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 21, Issue 1, Article 7 (Dec., 2021) |
Understanding of concepts and problem-solving are two key elements in learning science. Both require students to apply conceptual and procedural knowledge in balance. As it is known, procedural and conceptual knowledge are complementary and meaningful and effective learning occurs only when they are used together and in balance (Arslan, 2010). There are different definitions of these two types of knowledge in the literature. Conceptual knowledge is the knowledge of classifications and categories, principles, generalizations, theories, models, and structures (Kilpatrick, Swafford & Findell, 2001) and Hiebert & Lefevre (1986) describe conceptual knowledge as ‘rich in relationships, a connected web of knowledge, a network in which both the links and clusters of knowledge are important’. On the other hand, procedural knowledge is discipline-specific knowledge of skills, algorithms, and techniques (Blumberg, 2009) and often involves a series of logical steps which include knowledge of the criteria that determine when to use various procedures. For example, there are common methods and procedures to calculate the current in an electric circuit (Barak, 2013; Shakhman & Barak, 2019), each of them is related to procedural knowledge. Conceptual knowledge provides an abstract understanding of the principles and relations between pieces of knowledge in a certain domain while procedural knowledge is about ‘how to do’ something, which enables us to solve problems quickly and efficiently (Hiebert & Lefevre 1986; Kilpatrick, Swafford & Findell, 2001; Wolfer & Lederman 2000). In science, conceptual knowledge consists of, for example, understanding broad concepts such as force, momentum, energy, waves, and how these concepts or phenomena appear in different fields (Shakhman & Barak, 2019) and how they are related each to other.
Properly structured knowledge requires people to integrate their conceptual, procedural and contextual knowledge within a domain (Rittle-Johnson & Koedinger, 2005). However, studies show that although many students are able to solve problems by using an algorithm, they do not understand related science concepts (Chiu, 2001) and also most students are weak in grasping conceptual knowledge (Surif, Ibrahim & Mokhtar, 2012). For example, Arslan (2010) showed that although pre-service mathematics teachers solved differential equations, they failed to understand what a solution of differential equations meant. This indicates that giving the formulas related to topics and concepts would not ensure meaningful learning (Aydın, Keleş, Haşıloğlu & Aydın, 2016). Arslan (2010) notes that conceptual learning involves understanding and interpreting concepts and relations between the concepts, while procedural learning consists of memorizing operations without understanding the underlying meanings. Therefore, while operating with formulas during teaching activities, it is necessary to treat them not only within procedural but also within conceptual way. In addition, during problem-solving, formulas can be seen as an element of connection between procedural and conceptual knowledge.
When knowledge of procedures and rules are combined with a student’s conceptual knowledge (s)he can explain these procedures and the reason for them as well. Failure in establishing the relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge causes inability in establishing the mental models and in deciding where to use the operations. A student who restricts procedures to rules is likely to make a connection between procedures and concepts and therefore fails in constructing the relevant concepts duly. It is well known that a student faces several concepts during daily life and conceptualizes them even before teaching. As this causes inconsistence with scientific knowledge such concepts engender difficulties during teaching. Another source of difficulties during teaching is due to concepts' abstract nature. One of these concepts is the electric field, one of the most important concepts for elementary physics at both secondary and university levels (Karal & Uzun, 2018; Li & Singh, 2017).
Related to real-life phenomena, the electric field concept has attracted many researchers and many studies have been carried out about this concept. These studies conducted with various participants (high school students, university students) on the teaching of the electric field concept emphasized the existence of learning difficulties (eg. Furio & Guisasola, 1998; Goswami & Parida 2015; Maloney, O'Kuma, Hieggelke & Van Heuvelen, 2001; Melo, González-Gómez & Jeong, 2020; Saarelaeen, 2011; Sağlam & Millar, 2006). Other studies investigating the effects of teaching processes on students' learning indicate that the limited representations and explanations in written sources have an effect on the understanding of the concept and cause the emergence of alternative concepts or misconceptions (Chabay & Sherwood, 2006; Hekkenberg, 2012; Nousiainen & Koponen, 2017; Pocovi & Finley, 2003; Raduta, 2015; Tornkvist, Pettersson & Transtromer, 1993). Mathematical formulas, simulations and geometrical drawings are generally used in teaching electric field lines which are tools to represent intensity and direction of forces between a charge and the source producing the field (Cao & Brizuela, 2016). Electric field lines, considered as a useful conceptual model, do not exist in reality but are mostly consistent with scientific knowledge and they are accepted as concrete and simplified prototypes of reality (Hevner, March, Park, & Ram, 2004; Sağlam, 2004). According to Greca & Moreira (2000), students are expected to construct in their minds the same conceptual models presented to them during teaching process. However, as students' content knowledge has not been at adequate level, they fail to perceive these conceptual models as they should be, and while trying to understand a conceptual model, they make inferences taking into account their prior knowledge or the elements they think related to the presented model (Greca & Moreira, 2000). Therefore, these mentally created models are not often consistent with the real conceptual models (Greca & Moreira, 2000; Silva, 2007). If these mental models are consistent with the conceptual ones, they will be useful in structuring and reflecting scientific knowledge (Silva, 2007).
Chevallard (1989) examines this situation within the Anthropological Theory of Didactic and emphasizes that student's personal relation related to a unity of knowledge is formed by the existence of the knowledge in related institutional settings with which the student interacts and where that knowledge exists. According to this, a student's possible scientific or alternative perceptions in any unity of knowledge and learning difficulties, etc., are formed by the institutions (i.e. school, book, etc.) that the student faces. Therefore, it can be said, as many researchers agree on (Sağlam Arslan, 2016), that students' preferences in learning are mainly affected by the instructional choices of their instructors. In other words, students shape their learning based on the preference of their instructor’s teaching and assessment strategies. Consequently, students facing simple tasks prefer memorization method, while those facing demanding tasks favour in-depth learning methods (Sağlam, 2004). Based on that, this study aims to examine the written exam questions about electric field concept and levels of pre-service science teachers within the framework of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Accordingly, the research questions are as follows:
- Which types, procedural or conceptual, of questions were preferred in written assessments about electric field?
- How do pre-service science teachers’ academic achievement levels vary according to procedural and conceptual knowledge?
