Physics Pedagogy: Research and Practice

Authors

  • Ghaida Abedelhakim Mohmmad Khadoor Master’s in physics, Teacher at International Private School, Qater.

Keywords:

Technology Integration, Physics Education, Student Engagement

Abstract

This literature review critically examines the current state of physics pedagogy, focusing on research and practice in secondary school education. The review identifies significant themes and challenges by synthesizing critical studies, such as conceptual understanding, active learning strategies, and technology integration. It evaluates the effectiveness of various pedagogical approaches and provides recommendations for educators and policymakers to enhance physics teaching practices. The review concludes that while significant progress has been made in advancing physics education, ongoing efforts are required to address persistent gaps in teacher training, curriculum development, and student engagement.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13364947 

References

Bryan, L., Moore, T., Johnson, C., & Roehrig, G. (2016). We integrated STEM education. In C. Johnson, E. Peters-Burton, & T. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23-37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bunyamin, M. A. H., & Finley, F. (2016). STEM education in Malaysia: Reviewing the current physics curriculum. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Reno, NV.

Bybee, R. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. USA: NSTA Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 395-411). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duit, R., Schecker, H., Hottecke, D., & Niedderer, H. (2014). Teaching physics. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 434-456). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 189-207). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Jayarajah, K., Saat, R. M., & Rauf, R. A. A. (2014). A review of science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) education research from 1999-2013: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10, 155-163.

Kertil, M., & Gurel, C. (2016). Mathematical modeling: A bridge to STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 44-55.

Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers and Education, 91, 14–31.

Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Twohy, K. E., Immonen, A. D., & Navotas, A. C. (2018). “We do STEM”: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school STEM classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 118(8), 335-347.

Ministry of Education. (2005). Integrated curriculum for secondary schools: Curriculum specification of Form Four Physics. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025 (Pre-School to post-secondary education). Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. –H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 31-44.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Siew, N. M., Amir, N., & Chong, C. L. (2015). The perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers regarding a project-based STEM approach to teaching science. SpringerPlus, 4, 1-20.

Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D. L., & Faikhamta, C. (2017). Perceptions of in-service teachers toward teaching STEM in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 18(2), 1-23.

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., McClelland, J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2011). Impressions of a middle grades STEM integration program: Educators share lessons learned from the implementation of a middle grades STEM curriculum model. Middle School Journal, 43(1), 32-40.

Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42-53.

Wang, H. –H. (2012). A new era of science education: Science teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration (PhD dissertation). Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/120980.

Downloads

Published

2024-08-23

How to Cite

Khadoor , G. A. M. (2024). Physics Pedagogy: Research and Practice . International Journal of Art, Social, and Managerial Sciences, 1(1), 27–31. Retrieved from https://sobraj.com/index.php/ijasms/article/view/11

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024)

Section

Articles

License

The journal is licensed under a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Journal Hosting, Support, and Customization by | OJS-Services.com