A framework for defining physical concepts
Chee Leong Wong · NIE Digital Repository (National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University) · 2014
This thesis reports on the development of a framework for defining physical concepts. This framework can also be used to analyse definitions in textbooks and marking schemes as well as alternative conceptions of students. The framework consisted of three levels. The first level is about definitional problems, which may manifest as ‘challenges’ for experts (or physicists), ‘difficulties’ for educators (or textbook authors) and ‘shortcomings’ for students. The second level concerns four problems of defining physical concepts, such as precision, circularity, context and completeness in knowledge. The third level is based on seven features of definition: object, ontological category, nature, cause (or effect), theory affiliation, mathematical expression and condition of applicability. There are two research objectives in this thesis. The first objective is to develop a framework for defining physical concepts. The framework is first developed based on the three volumes of The Feynman Lectures on Physics that have unusual and extensive discussions on the problems of definition. The four main problems of definition are identified to be the problems of circularity, precision, context and completeness in knowledge. Williams’ (1999) extensive discussion of semantic problems is only limited to two problems of definition, for example. However, this framework cannot be solely determined by The Feynman Lectures. With the analysis of about 500 journal papers, seven features of definition are identified. These seven features are also found to be related to the four problems of definition. The second research objective is about applying the developed framework. The developed framework can be used to analyse the statements of definitions in textbooks. Textbook authors do not seem to have a systematic way of defining many physical concepts. Common problems of definition are identified in this textbook analysis. In a similar way, this framework is used to analyse marking schemes. It also reveals problems of definition and issues of consistency. Finally, the framework is used to analyse selected research studies which are mainly found in Duit’s (2009) Bibliography on Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education. Based on meta-synthesis, this study explains that problems of definition can contribute to alternative conceptions. To conclude, the framework developed is sufficiently and reasonably robust for analysis of definitions and their problems, with implications for learning and assessment. This framework may help to unpack the ‘analysis’ or the knowledge embedded in the definitions. It also possibly breaks new ground for future science education research.