We inform authors and readers that, following an agreement with the Karolinum publishing house, from 2024 (Volume 18), the journal Orbis scholae will be published only in electronic form.
Orbis scholae is an academic journal published by Charles University, Prague. It features articles on school education in the wider socio-cultural context. It aims to contribute to our understanding and the development of school education, and to the reflection of teaching practice and educational policy.
The journal is indexed in SCOPUS, CEEOL, DOAJ, EBSCO, and ERIH Plus.
ORBIS SCHOLAE, Vol 8 No 2 (2014), 61–82
The Quality of Physics Teaching − Cases of Teaching over Time and in Space by Three Teachers
Vojtěch Žák
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.66
published online: 01. 04. 2015
abstract
The strategic goal of the research, including this empirical study, is to contribute to the search for connections between the teaching quality and other factors, and to deepen the understanding of the context of the teaching quality. The research questions are posed as follows: Have the parameters of the quality of physics teaching changed after eight years? In what way do the teachers perceive these parameters, their (un)successful implementation in their teaching, and their possible changes over time? To answer these questions, a mixed method research design was used. A case study was chosen as the basic research plan. An ex-post facto research was chosen as the design of the quantitative part of the research, and the data was collected using the method of pedagogical observation. Regarding the qualitative part, the data were collected using semi-structured interviews. The research sample consisted of three physics teachers, teaching in Czech grammar schools, who are considered experts with an extended level of reflective competence. The research focused on a longitudinal comparison of the parameters of the quality of physics teaching (in the school years 2004/2005 and 2012/2013), and so this contribution describes cases of teaching, more precisely cases of the teaching quality of the particular teachers. The research revealed that the parameters of the quality of physics teaching of these selected teachers changed very little over the period of eight years. Also, the curricular reform taking place in the Czech Republic in this period has probably not influenced teaching quality changes. It seems that teachers are aware of the influence of various stakeholders of the teaching process, including those who are not directly present in lessons (e.g. school management, parents). This research shows that it is reasonable to look at the teaching quality from a wider perspective.
keywords: quality of teaching; quality of physics teaching; pedagogical observation; case study; longitudinal study; context of education; curricular reform
references (42)
1. Altrichter, H. (2009). Governance − Schulreform als Handlungskoordination. Die Deutsche Schule, 101(3), 240−252.
2. Bayrhuber, H., Ralle, B., Reiss, K., Schön, L.-H., & Vollmer, H. J. (2004). Konsequenzen aus PISA. Perspektiven der Fachdidaktiken. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.
3. Bernard, R. M. et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379−439. CrossRef
4. Campanario, J. M. (2006). Using textbook errors to teach physics: examples of specific activities. European Journal of Physics, 27, 975−981. CrossRef
5. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
6. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
7. Dvořák, L., Kekule, M., & Žák, V. (2012). Výzkum v oblasti fyzikálního vzdělávání − co, proč a jak. Československý časopis pro fyziku, 62(5−6), 325−330.
8. Flores, M. A. (2005). Teachers' view on recent curriculum changes: tension and challenges. The Curriculum Journal, 16(3), 401−413. CrossRef
9. Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 81(8), 581−584.
10. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Goodman, J. (1984). Reflection and teacher education: A case study and theoretical analysis. Interchange, 15(3), 9−26. CrossRef
12. Janík, T., et al. (2010). Kurikulární reforma na gymnáziích v rozhovorech s koordinátory pilotních a partnerských škol. Praha: VÚP.
13. Janík, T., Knecht, P., Najvar, M., Píšová, M., & Slavík, J. (2011). Kurikulární reforma na gymnáziích: výzkumná zjištění a doporučení. Pedagogická orientace, 21(4), 375−415.
14. Janík, T., et al. (2013). Kvalita (ve) vzdělávání: obsahově zaměřený přístup ke zkoumání a zlepšování výuky. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
15. Janík, T., & Chvál, M. (Eds.). (2012). Kvalita ve vzdělávání [Monothematic issue]. Orbis scholae, 6(3).
16. Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Künzli, R. (1998). Lehrplanforschung als Wirksamkeitforschung. In R. Künzli & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Lehrpläne: Wie sie entwickelt werden und was von ihnen erwartet wird (p. 6−14). Chur, Zürich: Rüegger.
18. Lee, M., Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1999−2020. CrossRef
19. Lepil, O. (2012). Vybrané kapitoly k modulu Didaktika fyziky. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. Available from http://mofy.upol.cz/vystupy/02_texty/modul_dfy2.pdf.
20. Lepil, O., & Svoboda, E. (2007). Příručka pro učitele fyziky na střední škole. Praha: Prometheus.
21. Mayer, R., & Clark, R. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
22. Nezvalová, D. (2011). Didaktika fyziky v České republice: trendy, výzvy a perspektivy. Pedagogická orientace, 21(2), 171−192.
23. Palečková, J., & Tomášek, V., et al. (2013). Hlavní zjištění PISA 2012. Matematická gramotnost patnáctiletých žáků. Praha: Česká školní inspekce.
24. Pollard, A. (1998). Reflective teaching in the primary school. London: Cassell.
25. Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2010). Meet generation Z. California teachers association, 14(5). Available from http://www.cta.org/en/Professional-Development/Publications/2010/02/Educator-Feb-10/Meet-Generation-Z.aspx.
26. Potužníková, E., Lokajíčková, V., & Janík, T. (2014). Mezinárodní srovnávací výzkumy školního vzdělávání v České republice: zjištění a výzvy. Pedagogická orientace, 24(2), 185−221. CrossRef
27. Reynolds, D. (1995). School effectiveness and quality in education. In P. Ribbins & E. Burridge (Eds.), Improving education: Promoting quality in schools (p. 11−29). London: Cassell.
28. Rollf, H.-G. (2009). Fűhrung als Gestaltung und ihre Bedeutung fűr die Schulreform. Die Deutsche Schule, 101(3), 253−265.
29. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
30. Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 228−240. CrossRef
31. Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2003). Gelegenheitsstrukturen beim Klassengespräch und ihre Bedeutung für die Lernmotivation − Videoanalysen in Kombination mit Schülerselbsteinschätzungen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31(2), 142−165.
32. Sliško, J. (2006). Electric charge on humans: should students buy what the textbooks sell? Physics Education, 41, 114−116. CrossRef
33. Sukhnandan, L., & Lee, B. (1998). Streaming, setting and grouping by ability. Slough: NFER.
34. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, (46). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
35. Terhart, E. (2000). Qualität und Qualitätssicherung im Schulsystem: Hintergründe − Konzepte − Probleme. Zeitschrift fűr Pädagogik, 41(4), 809−829.
36. Tsai, C.−C., & Wen, L. M. C. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 3−14. CrossRef
37. Vašutová, J., & Urbánek, P. (2010). Učitelé v současné základní škole: hledání mezi změnou a stabilitou. Orbis scholae, 4(3), 79−91.
38. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
39. Zlatníček, P. (2011). Kvalita výuky cizích jazyků − od vymezení pojmů k výzkumnému nástroji. In T. Janík, P. Najvar, & M. Kubiatko, et al., Kvalita kurikula a výuky: výzkumné přístupy a nástroje (pp. 115−130). Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
40. Žák, V. (2008). Zjišťování parametrů kvality výuky fyziky. Pedagogika, 58(1), 61−72.
41. Žák, V. (2013). Nástroj ke zjišťování kvality výuky fyziky a jeho použití v longitudinálním výzkumu. In L. Círus (Ed.), Efektivita vzdělávání v proměnách společnosti: sborník příspěvků XXI. celostátní konference ČAPV (s. 98−104). Ústí nad Labem: UJEP.
42. Žák, V. (2014). Kvalita výuky fyziky dvojí perspektivou − porovnání pohledů výzkumníka a učitele. Pedagogika, 64(1), 66−80.
The Quality of Physics Teaching − Cases of Teaching over Time and in Space by Three Teachers is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
157 x 230 mm
periodicity: 3 x per year
print price: 150 czk
ISSN: 1802-4637
E-ISSN: 2336-3177
