Discussion

Vegard Engstrøm: I attended the dissertation of Øystein Guttersrud at the University of
Oslo yesterday, defending his PhD thesis titled "Mathematical Modelling in
Upper Secondary Physics Education - Defining, Assessing and Imporving
Physics Students' Mathematical Modelling Competency".

His opponents were Phil Scott (University of Leeds) and Jens Dolin
(University of Copenhagen) and his supervisors were Carl Angell, Ellen
Karoline Henriksen and Per Morten Kind. Guttersrud and his supervisors
attended and contributed at GIREP 2006 in Amsterdam.

I've secured a few copies of the thesis and I would be happy to send them
to you - please give me your preferred mailing address!

I also got his permission to refer to his thesis and the connected
Norwegian development project "Physics in the 21st century - Phys21" as
one of the projects our new Leonardo project would build on (in addition
to SUPERCOMET 2 and other projects conducted at your institutions).

The Phys21 project has developed new teaching and learning approaches for
upper secondary physics courses in Norway using mathematical modelling,
and the thesis has done a comparative study of the effect of these new
methods in light of more general results using surveys and focus group
studies. Three approaches were used - first a look at how physics is
teached in the classroom, then at student's proficiencies, and then on how
the interaction of different teaching approaches on the understanding of
the students.

Two dimensions of using multiple vs. single representations and
authoritative vs. dialogical approaches were considered. The different
representations were mathematical, conceptual, pictorial, graphical and
experimental. The thesis defined an authoritative approach as concerning
itself with the scientific idea only, whereas dialogical would be
discussing different ideas in the context of students' perceptions, views
on nature of science etc.

I have asked Øystein to consider if he could possibly play a role in the
project - perhaps more on the theoretical side, complenting our already
strong team on development, applications and curriculum development with
modelling.

Our model of learning/teaching physics that we have promoted through the
development of the teacher seminars, guides and animations in SUPERCOMET 2
and soon also collections of experiments in MOSEM would fit well in this
context I believe, and a strong theoretical and practical basis for the
use of modelling would extend our materials in a very important direction,
making it more relevant and useful with regard to the way physics teaching
and learning is currently developing.

Even after our discussions during FFP9 the overall concept for the new
modelling project is still rather open, so I would like to invite you to
consider these possibilities.

I am leaving for Torun and the kick-off conference for the new MOSEM
project new, and will be back on 1 February - then we have 45 days left to
prepare the proposal for the new project.

See the "Partners" tab for the timetable until the application deadline!

PS: Give me your preferred mailing address if you wish to get a copy of Guttersrud's thesis.

I look forward to continue this discussion!

Harvey Mellar: Welcome to Øystein Guttersrud, it is good to have new modelling people on board!

Could I repeat an appeal that I have made before as these projects have unfolded that an important task for someone to carry out is a systematic review of the relevant literature  - it seems likely that Øystein's thesis would contain a good start on this - and we have several theses at the IoE that could be additional starting points.  

It would be useful to see whether some more theoretical work of this kind could be built into the proposal presently under discussion, or whether other sources of funding could be found to enable someone to carry out such a review, perhaps not just a general review in the area but one which made a direct attempt to connect with the evolving SUPERCOMET/MOSEM approach. It is likely that given the specific contributions that a number of partners could make about their own research work in this area, that this might also all build into a publishable book.

Wim Peeters: Hello,
it will be of great importance (not to say a big challenge) to see to what extend this kind of high level know how can be translated to class room teaching tools and methods AND how people (teachers and students) will react (all over Europe!). Knowing and studying is basic and absolutely necessary, but it is only a first step. I will be happy to join thinking forces on how to build bridges towards "the field". MOSEM2 can be a good training on this. So I welcome our newest PhD and congratulate him. Also in my opinion he is welcome on board, in case he wants to sail this trip with us.I would be very happy to get his thesis.

Tomasz Greczylo: Good Morning,
I’ll be glad to get the thesis of Øystein Guttersrud as well.
With regards

paco: Paco Esquembre: I also welcome a theoretician in this field.
As (I understand) Wim suggest, telling teachers what the theory says (in as few words as possible) and showing them how to actually apply this theory in their classrooms is very important. For this reason, I have added the term "Experiment" to the definitions. A collection of (simulation-based) experiments for actual teaching of basic Electromagnetism could (should?) be a deliverable of the project.
The participation from Øystein could help us extend this to provide exampels of how to use modeling in the classroom. As an example, think of a work session which consists in starting from a MODEM2-provided basic model and extend it to include additional features studied in theoretical lectures, or seen important from a table-top MOSEM experiment.