Pre-service science teachers’ procedural and conceptual understanding on electric field

Findings about the classification of written questions according to PCKs' taxonomy show that most questions are in the CK category, only a small number of them are in the PK category and none in the PCK category. It is understood that owing to the conceptual structure of the subject the lecturer in charge of the course continued teaching concepts, eliminating misconceptions, measuring and evaluating the answers within the scope of conceptual understanding approaches. This means that the lecturer prefers conceptual, rather than procedural learning.

Experienced teachers, who have various instructional strategies knowledge, prefer the conceptual learning approach to orient students' thoughts and learning (Melo, González-Gómez & Jeong, 2020). When this situation is examined within the framework of transposition didactical theory, it is reasonable to expect that the students of the teacher who prefers conceptual learning will have a better conceptual understanding of the subject and a deeper knowledge. Findings related to the second research question probing the pre-service science teachers' academic achievement level show that academic achievement of pre-service science teachers is higher in the CK category than in the PK category. When the situation is examined in detail, it is determined that most of the answers compatible with scientific knowledge are related to conceptual understanding (CK1) category, while the most incorrect answers belong to questions in the complex procedure (PK2) category. When the levels related to PK are compared among themselves, it is seen that there are more wrong answers for questions requiring complex procedures than those requiring simple procedures, and similarly there are more wrong answers in CK2 compared to those in CK1. In other words, in the PK and CK categories, pre-service science teachers are more successful in the 1st subcategories than in the 2nd ones. This indicates that for both categories, pre-service science teachers have difficulties in learning related to complex structures. Some researches (Bilal, & Erol, 2009; Bradamante et al. 2006; Furió, & Guisasola, 1998; Martín, & Solbes, 2001; Saarelainen et al. 2009) on electric field point to students’ learning difficulties in electric field concept at various levels. Data obtained from this study also point to the fact that a noticeable number of pre-service science teachers have alternative concepts about electric field (see Graph 1). Therefore, it can be stated that the results of this study support the results of the related literature (eg. Bilal & Erol, 2009; Bozkurt, 2014; Furió & Guisasola, 2001; Guisasola, Almudi, & Zubimendi, 2004; Türkkan, 2017). This may stem from the fact that the electric field subject requires high-level cognitive skills and mechanical concepts (such as force, work and energy) and, on the one hand, it requires the use of mathematical tools (such as vectors, derivation, and integration). Individual holistic analyses of the examination sheets support the finding that group achievement is higher in conceptual questions than in procedural questions. These analyses demonstrated that some pre-service science teachers had higher scores in the procedural understanding category than in the conceptual understanding category, while only 4 pre-service science teachers got scores close to each other in these two categories. In addition, it was determined that a significant part of the pre-service science teachers received higher scores from the answers in the conceptual understanding category than the scores they got from answers in the procedural understanding category (see Graph 2). This result differs from the results of some studies (Chappell & Killpatrick, 2003; Kar, Çiltaş, & Işık, 2011) showing that students are more successful in procedural questions than in conceptual questions. Due to previous research linking mastery-approach objectives to results that are good for conceptual, but not necessarily procedural learning, students with higher mastery-approach goals would demonstrate higher levels of conceptual learning (Boden, Kuo, Nokes-Malach, Wallace & Menekse, 2018; Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999; Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert & Harackiewicz, 2008). It is known that when a concept is related to other concepts, it gains meaning and conceptual learning takes place in the mind of the individual (Hiebert & Levefre, 1986). According to the common point of view, while individuals using conceptual knowledge try to explain and understand the why of the operation they do; individuals using procedural knowledge cannot explain the why of the operation they do and try to memorize (Duggan & Gott 2002; Jiamu, 2001). The difference between pre-service teachers’ achievement levels related to conceptual and procedural knowledge can be explained by the lecturer's preferences in teaching, assessment and evaluation. This result supports the hypothesis ‘one of the most important variables influencing concept learning is the method of instruction’ (e.g. Chevallard, 1992; Furió & Guisasola, 2001).

According to the results of the study, it is recommended to use activities in the teaching of the electric field, linked to both conceptual and procedural knowledge. Also, it is critical to take into consideration the results of, both assessment and evaluation studies that allow conceptual and procedural knowledge to be put to use, and those of studies discussing the effects of measurement and evaluation on learning (Crooks & Alibali, 2014).