A Curricular Frame for Physics Education: Development, Comparison with Students Interests, and Impact on Students Achievement and

Self-Concept
PETER HAUSSLER, LORE HOFFMANN Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel, Germany Received 25 September 1998; revised 10 October 1999; accepted 17 December 1999
ABSTRACT: This article presents three interlinked studies aimed at: (1) developing a curricular frame for physics education; (2) assessing the students interest in the contents, contexts, and activities that are suggested by that curricular frame; and (3) developing a curriculum that is in line with that frame and measuring its cognitive and emotional effects on students. The curricular frame was developed by adopting the Delphi technique and drawing on the expertise of 73 persons selected according to specied selection criteria. Interest data of some 8000 students and information of the presently taught physics curriculum were sampled longitudinally as well as cross-sectionally in various German Lander (states) by questionnaire. The third study comprised 23 experimental and 7 control classes. As a result of the comparison between the features of the curricular frame, the interest structure of students, and the current physics curriculum, there is a remarkable congruency between students interest in physics and the kind of physics education identied in the Delphi study as being relevant. However, there is a considerable discrepancy between students interest and the kind of physics instruction practiced in the physics classroom. Regression analysis revealed that students interest in physics as a school subject is hardly related to their interest in physics, but mainly to the students self-esteem of being good achievers. The data strongly suggest physics be taught so that students have a chance to develop a positive physics-related self-concept and to link physics with situations they encounter outside the classroom. A curriculum based on these principles proved superior compared to a traditional curriculum. 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:689 705,
2000.

OVERVIEW Science educators worldwide are confronted with three major problems: (1) the renewal of the current science curriculum in order to meet the needs of a modern society as exCorrespondence to: P. Haussler

2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

690

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

pressed, for instance, in the STS-movement (Aikenhead, 1994), the scientic literacy movement (Bybee, 1997; Bybee & DeBoer, 1994; Shamos, 1995), and large scale projects like 2061 (AAAS, 1993; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989); (2) the decline of students interest in science and the corresponding swing away from science as soon as students have a choice, as revealed in international reviews by Ormerod and Duckworth (1975) and Gardner (1985, 1998); and (3) the disappointing low scores students of some western countries achieve as revealed, for example, by the TIMS study (Beaton et al., 1996). In Germany, where physics, chemistry, and biology are taught separately as early as fth grade, these problems are particularly acute for physics education. In this article, we describe three interrelated studies to address some solutions for the physics curriculum. First, an initiative to innovate the physics curriculum was started by inviting 73 persons to participate in a Delphi study. The design of that study and the main results are described in the section Development of a Curricular Frame for Physics Education. Second, as we believe that a curriculum should be implemented taking students interests into account, we conducted a second study in which we asked to what degree the main features of the curricular frame suggested in the Delphi study meets students interest. This probing into the interest structure was done by gathering data from some 8000 students in the 11 to 16 years age range. The instruments to measure students interest, the data sampling, and the main results are described in the section Students Interest in Physics, Their Interest in Physics as a School Subject, and How They Experience the Actual Physics Curriculum. Third, we developed a physics curriculum for Grade 7 based on the ndings of the rst two studies and investigated how successful it was in terms of cognitive and affective outcomes, in comparison to the traditional physics course. This study comprised 23 experimental and 7 control classes. The development of the curriculum and the main ndings are described in the section Development of an Interest-Oriented Curriculum and Its Effects on Students. Results of each of the three studies have been described previously, but only partially in English, in various articles (Haussler, 1987; Haussler & Hoffmann, 1998; Haussler, Hoffmann, Langeheine, Rost, & Sievers, 1998; Hoffmann & Haussler, 1998; Hoffmann, Lehrke, & Todt, 1985) or published in lengthy research reports (Haussler, Frey, Hoffmann, Rost, & Spada, 1988; Hoffmann, Haussler, & Lehrke, 1998; Hoffmann, Haussler, & Peters Haft, 1997). In this article, we attempt to bring together the various aspects of the research and make them available to English speaking readers.

STUDY 1: DEVELOPMENT OF A CURRICULAR FRAME FOR PHYSICS EDUCATION According to Frey (1971), decisions about any curriculum are inuenced largely by the criteria for selecting the participants who decide on a curriculum, by the kind of communication that is established to ensure mutual exchange of opinions among the participants, and by the kind of response format in which the participants statements are solicited to make them open for further elaboration and to ensure transparency of the decisions. Applied to our case of developing a curricular frame for physics education (Haussler et al., 1988), we adopted features of the Delphi technique for questioning the participants and added curricular criteria for selecting the participants and for stating the response format.

A CURRICULAR FRAME Method

691

The Delphi technique was originally developed by Helmer (1966) as an instrument for predicting the occurrence of technical breakthroughs (hence, the naming after the city of Delphi which was the site of the Greek oracle). Today, the range of the techniques application spans a broad variety of uses, from ascertaining the factors determining the quality of life, through the planning of cities, to curriculum development. Features that constitute the Delphi technique include each participant individually making a written contribution on the subject of the study and sending it to a central research team. This team aggregates all contributions and sends the synopsis back to the participants for further elaboration. In this way, each participant is made aware of the contributions of other participants, can reect on them, and can continue his or her work on the studys topic with a broader base of information. There are usually some 20 50 participants in a Delphi study and three or four rounds of questioning. The 73 participants of our Delphi study were selected according to: (1) their ability to reect on their own professional eld in the light of a wider context, (2) their readiness to discuss with persons from other elds of endeavor, and (3) their active commitment to the realization of educational goals (Haussler et al., 1988). These participants ranged from physics teachers and members of syllabus committees, through educationists for the natural sciences, general educationists, educational administrators, and persons responsible for the recruitment of scientic personel, to physicists, engineers, and science journalists. In three Delphi rounds, the participants were asked to state, revise, and further elaborate a set of answers to the following question: What should physics education look like so it is suitable for someone living in our society as it is today and as it will be tomorrow? Each contribution had to take the form of a couple of statements that a participant holds important to be included in the physics curriculum. No conditions relating to content were imposed on the participants formulation of their statements. However, they were required to include three dimensions in each of their statements, namely to identify a context for studying physics, contents which are considered to have signicance in connection with that context, and the activity that a person should be able to perform in dealing with physics in connection with the other two dimensions. We insisted on this threefold format on the grounds that it prevented the participants from listing topics of physics without having to state reasons why a particular topic was important and without having to indicate which level of command an individual should acquire in dealing with that topic. An exemplary statement of this kind, contributed by one of the participants, is shown in Figure 1. The circa 500 statements of all participants that were produced in the rst round were content analyzed and the identied categories for each of the three dimensions were fed back as input for a second round. Each category description had the form of a half to one page summary using as much original text material as feasible. The participants then had the opportunity to judge the priority of any of these summaries. A third round served to identify educational processes that would be suitable for attaining the kind and level of education in physics they had advocated.

Results In the second round of the Delphi study, the participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the priority that they attached to each of the category descriptions (1 very low priority to 5 very high priority). In order to get a sense of the strength of the

692

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

Context for studying physics

Content being signicant in that context Activity in dealing with that content

Humanity is faced with a new powerful menace because of the ability it now has to embark on large scale technological projects with long-term consequences or possible side effects and which carry the risk of misuse or of accidents. This assertion applies, for example, to the energy, armament and construction industries, to transportation technology, climate control and surveillance systems. Therefore one ought to. . . . become acquainted with the dangers and possibilities of abuse which are inherent in these technologies, to acquire the ability to evaluate them from a moral point of view, and to further the growth of permanent interest in these questions.

Figure 1. Exemplary statement of one of the participants of the Delphi study, showing use of the enforced threefold format.

consensus among the studys participants, we performed a hierarchical cluster analysis using the CLUSTAN program (Wishart, 1975). The consensus of two participants is dened by the product-momentum-correlation of their priority judgments with respect to all categories. The analysis yielded two large clusters of almost equal strength representing the range of views on physics education among the participants. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the categories identied in the rst round and the mean priorities attached to them by the two participant groups. Both groups agree by giving highest priority to the socio-economic implication of physics (Fig. 2). This congruency is also reected in the high priority attached to content areas such as energy, nuclear physics, power plants, facilities for transmitting and processing information, interrelations between physics, technology, and economy, and potential and actual misdevelopments (Fig. 3), and to activities involving evaluations (Fig. 4). Both groups also have similar notions about the function of physics education in qualifying for the work-world. However, the two groups take a different stance as far as the other contexts for studying physics are concerned. Group 1 stresses the intellectual and emotional development, group 2 the practical orientation of physics education. In accordance with these different views, group 1 gives signicantly higher priorities to the contexts scientic knowledge and methods as mental tools, the content scientic methods and their characteristics, and the activity acquiring knowledge by reading, listening, or observing. In contrast, group 2 signicantly ranks all practical context categories (Fig. 2), technical objects (Fig. 3), and activities like measuring, handling equipment, or building something (Fig. 4) higher. In our second study, we empirically evaluated to what degree the curricular frame proposed by the Delphi participants is practiced already in the physics classroom and how it meets the interest of students. STUDY 2: STUDENTS INTEREST IN PHYSICS, THEIR INTEREST IN PHYSICS AS A SCHOOL SUBJECT, AND HOW THEY EXPERIENCE THE ACTUAL PHYSICS CURRICULUM A student who is interested in learning something about a particular natural phenomenon or the functioning of a certain apparatus does not necessarily favor physics as a school subject. This all depends on the match between what she or he is interested in and the

A CURRICULAR FRAME

693

Identied Contexts C1: Physics as a vehicle to promote PRACTICAL competence

Specication Avoidance of dangers and accidents in daily life Proper use of tools and technical systems Guidance in sensible consumer behaviour Understanding of scientic/technological innovations Chances and risks of scientic/technical innovations Seeing the connections between scientic/technical and economic/political developments Guidance in developing proper attitudes towards physics Regulating fear, aversion and fascination in the individuals interaction with the natural and technical environment Stimulation of leisure time interests Physics as a way of thinking Scientic knowledge and methods as mental tools Passing on scientic knowledge to the next generation Imparting basic qualications for many occupations Allowing an orientation with respect to vocations that are shaped by physics

Group 1 2.9 2.7 2.3 4.2 3.8 4.2

Group 2 3.7 3.5 3.4 4.2 4.5 4.2

C2: Physics as a SOCIO-ECONOMIC enterprise

C3: Physics as a vehicle to enhance EMOTIONAL experience

3.4 3.3

2.4 2.3

C4: Physics as an INTELLECTUALLY challenging scientic enterprise C5: Physics as a vehicle to QUALIFY for the work-world

2.8 3.8 4.5 2.7 2.7 3.2

2.7 3.4 2.8 1.9 3.0 3.5

Note: The participants were subdivided by means of a hierarchical cluster analysis into two groups representing the range of different views on physics education. The numbers in the last two columns refer to a Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low priority) to 5 (very high priority). A number in bold type indicates a signicantly higher priority attached by that particular group.
Figure 2. Contexts for studying physics as identied in the rst round of a Delphi study and mean priorities attached by the participants in the second round.

kind of physics that a teacher offers in class. We therefore distinguish between interest in physics and interest in physics as a school subject and show that these are two rather different interest constructs. A comparison of the students interest structure with the physics curriculum experienced by them shows signicant discrepancies. Method All necessary information on the experienced physics curriculum, on students interest in physics, on their interest in physics as a school subject, as well as on background variables considered to be relevant to explain either type of interest, was assessed by a questionnaire (Haussler, 1987). The questionnaire consisted of four parts:

694

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

Identied Contents Fields of physics

Specication Mechanics: kinematics, dynamics, units Acoustics: production and propagation of sound, noise Heat: heat transport, fundamentals of thermodynamics Electricity: electric circuits, induction, magnetism Optics: reection, refraction, white and colored light Astronomy: earths position in the universe, eclipse Energy: forms of energy, conservation, degradation Nuclear physics: radioactivity, nuclear technology Relativity: fundamentals of the special theory Quantum mechanics: limits of macroscopic laws Technical installations in the home Technical installations in the work-world Household appliances Means of transportation Power plants Facilities for transmitting and processing information Natural objects and phenomena Scientic methods and their characteristics Interrelation between physics, technology and economy History of physics Potential and actual misdevelopments Current organization and funding of research Cross-connections with other elds of education

Group 1 3.8 3.1 3.7 4.2 3.3 2.8 4.6 3.9 2.2 2.0 2.9 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 4.4 4.1 3.5 3.8 1.9 3.5

Group 2 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.6 3.1 2.6 4.3 3.7 1.8 1.5 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.3 4.3 3.2 4.1 2.5 3.0

Objects and phenomena

Perspectives on physics

Figure 3. Identied contents considered to have signicance in connection with the contexts of Figure 2 and priorities given by two groups of participants (see also note to Fig. 2).

Part 1: Students Interest in Physics. According to the three-dimensional structure of

the curricular frame constituted in the Delphi study, the construct interest in physics is broken down into: interest in a particular context for studying physics, interest in a particular content having signicance in connection with that context, and interest in the particular activity a student is allowed to engage in in conjunction with that content.

A CURRICULAR FRAME

695

Identied Activity Level A1: Activities on a RECEPTIVE level A2: Activities involving MANIPULATIONS A3: Activities involving HIGHER COGNITIONS A4: Activities involving EVALUATIONS

Specication Acquiring knowledge by reading, listening or observing Measuring, handling equipment, building something Testing a hypothesis, solving problems, inventing something Forming ones own opinion, evaluating, discussing

Group 1 4.2 3.3 3.7 4.2

Group 2 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.8

Figure 4. Identied activity levels in dealing with physics and priorities given by two groups of participants (see also note to Fig. 2).

All ve contexts of Figure 2 and the four activity levels of Figure 4 were systematically incorporated into this test. Contents were restricted to the following eight elds of physics: mechanics, acoustics, heat, electricity and magnetism, electronics, optics, atoms, and radioactivity. In constructing a test along these lines, items were designed that encompassed all three dimensions. Figure 5 gives a few illustrations. Not all possible context-activity congurations have been included. For each of the eight elds of physics, only a reduced number of 11 combinations with the two other dimensions were selected for the nal version of the test. As the test is also being administered to students prior to any formal physics instruction, the problem arises that these students are required to express their interest in elds of which they have no or, at most, rather vague knowledge. To overcome this drawback, students receive a one-page introductory text for every content area covered by the test to familiarize the novice with some ideas and concepts spoken of in the test items. Thus, this part of the questionnaire represented a wide range of different facets of interest in physics. The students were asked to respond to each of the 88 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from My interest in this item is very high to . . . very low. Summing up the responses on all items was taken as a measure of his or her interest in physics.

How interested are you in calculating from the size of an oil spot on water the magnitude of oil molecules? Context: Physics as an intellectually challenging enterprise Content: Atoms Activity: Involving higher cognitions How interested are you in learning more about how colors in the sky (e.g., in a rainbow or during sunset) occur? Context: Physics as a vehicle to enhance emotional experience Content: Optics Activity: On a receptive level How interested are you in discussing and evaluating the positive and negative effects of micro-electronics on our lives? Context: Physics as a socio-economic enterprise Content: Electronics Activity: Involving evaluations
Figure 5. Three examples of composite interest items.

696

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

Part 2: Students Interest in Contexts for Studying Physics and the Experienced Curriculum. Students interest in various contexts of physics education was examined

by items shown in Figure 6, which mirror the ve contexts identied in the Delphi study. Likewise, the students were asked to rate the degree to which these contexts were already part of their physics curriculum. Each item was to be answered on two separate 5-point Likert scales ranging from My interest in this orientation is very high to . . . very low, or This orientation occurs in my physics class very often to . . . very seldom. A similar rating procedure was employed with respect to the activities specied in Figure 4. Part 2 was administered immediately after part 1. In part 1, the students have been exposed in conjunction with the eight content areas to at least one item in which a particular context is made explicit. Therefore, in elaborating part 2, they should have a distinct notion of the meaning of each of the contexts.
Part 3: Students Interest in Physics as a School Subject. This part of the question-

naire contained three items in which the students rated on a 5-point Likert scale their interest in physics courses in general, in relation to the physics course they have at present, and in relation to other science and non-science courses. The sum of the responses on these items was taken as interest in physics as a school subject.
Part 4: Background Variables to Explain Students Interest. In this part of the questionnaire, variables considered to be relevant to explain interest in physics as well as interest in physics as a school subject included various factors of the home and school environment and of individual dispositions like self-esteem or the tendency to be fascinated by natural phenomena or technology.

Data Sampling Data on students interest as well as on variables explaining interest were sampled longitudinally as well as cross-sectionally in six different German Lander (states). The

Your physics teacher may teach physics by giving it rather different orientations. Please indicate on the ve questions below: (1) How interested you are in learning physics in connection with a particular orientation. (2) How often in the last few months has your physics teacher taught physics in connection with that orientation. Objects we often deal with in everyday life (e.g., vehicles, tools, and electrical devices) Applications of physics which are now and in the future of great use to all of us or are potentially harmful to us or the environment Technical and natural phenomena which are astonishing Laws of nature that allow the explanation of physical processes or the calculation of physical quantities How people work in vocations related to physics or technology
Figure 6. Five items to assess students interest in various contexts and the degree to which these contexts are already part of their physics curriculum.

A CURRICULAR FRAME

697

longitudinal assessment comprised 51 classes and took place between 1984 (by that time the students were about 11 years old) and 1989 (by then about 16 years old). A rst crosssection was taken in 1984, sampling interest data from 4086 students in the 11 16 years age range. A second cross-section was taken between 1984 and 1989, sampling data of 2450 students of about 15 years (in the last grade before compulsory school ends).

Results
Inter-Item Variance. We examined the inter-item variance of the 88 interest items by assuming that the mean students response on an item with content i, context j, and activity k, can be written as a sum of terms representing the overall interest in physics, the main effects stemming from each of the three interest dimensions, interactions between two dimensions, and an error term:

I(ijk)

Const

T(i)

C(j)

A(k)

TC(ij)

TA(ik)

CA(jk)

e(ijk)

The unknown quantities of the right-hand side were calculated by means of regression analysis. In this way, it was found that the explained inter-item variance was of the order of 60% and did not increase signicantly when interaction terms were included. (The unexplained 40% stem mainly from the uniqueness in phrasing the individual items.) Of the explained variance of 60%, about one-fth is attributable to the content dimension and the activity dimension. The remaining three-fths are contributed by the context dimension. Thus, the response on an interest item is mainly inuenced by the kind of context with which the item is associated and much less by the particular content or the particular activity involved. We conclude that the most promising way of making physics instruction more interesting is by embedding a given content in an interesting context.

Comparison Between Students Interest in Physics, the Experienced Physics Curriculum, and the Curricular Frame Identied in the Delphi Study. The interest of students

in the ve contexts identied in the Delphi study, the current weight that these contexts have in the physics curriculum as experienced by the students, as well as the mean priorities of the two Delphi groups associated with these contexts, are shown in Figure 7. Although all three variables have been measured on a 5-point Likert scale, the response levels might be different. Therefore, all values are centered around zero, ensuring maximal overlap. There is a remarkable congruency between students interests and the Delphi results in that the students average interest lies between the higher and lower priorities suggested by the two Delphi groups. Following students interests as a guideline for the physics curriculum obviously does not make it necessary to abandon generally agreed upon aims of physics education. On the contrary, the resulting curriculum would be pedagogically highly desirable. However, there is a rather large discrepancy between students interests and the current weight in the physics curriculum which stresses the context physics as an intellectually challenging scientic enterprise and neglects other contexts. Figure 8 shows a similar mist between the interest in various activities and the weight given in the curriculum that the students experience. The quantitative side of physics (calculating) and the receptive modes of learning are overrepresented, whereas activities involving manipulations and evaluations are underrepresented. The mist between the actual curriculum and students interest might be responsible to

698

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

Figure 7. Priority given in Delphi study, current weight in the curriculum and students interest with respect to different contexts of physics education.

a great deal for the rather poor results of physics instruction. Or stating this in a more positive way, a better t between curriculum and students interests could lead to better results in terms of cognitive as well as affective outcomes. This latter concern has been investigated in our third study.

Figure 8. Difference between interest in various activities and weight given in the curriculum: Calculating, Observing, Reading, Listening, Testing a hypothesis, Building an apparatus, Measuring, Forming ones own opinion, Evaluating the benet of an innovation, Discussing the use of a new technology, Handling equipment, Inventing something.

A CURRICULAR FRAME

699

Figure 9. Regression weights of predictors in explaining interest in physics.

Comparison Between Interest in Physics and Interest in Physics as a School Subject. That the present physics curriculum does not meet the students interest is

elucidated by comparing the two interest constructs interest in physics and interest in physics as a school subject whose operationalization is described in the preceding method section. The bivariate correlation of the two variables is of the order .7 and seems to signal a high degree of similarity. However, a multivariate regression to a number of predictor variables which can be considered to explain their variance reveals striking differences. The result for interest in physics as criterion variable in a regression analysis is shown in Figure 9. Judging by the size of the standardized regression weights ( -weights), this interest construct is highly connected to variables like fascinated by technical objects or fascinated by natural phenomena. Figure 10 shows quite a different pattern for interest in physics as a school subject as criterion variable. Now, none of the two fascination variables signicantly contributes to the explanation of the variance of the criterion variable. By far the best predictor ( 0.43) is the physics-related self-concept, a scale which comprises items such as: My achievement in physics is . . . , I expect that my future achievement in physics will be . . . , I believe that my classmates take me as being . . . competent. But what is most revealing is how little the variable interest in physics contributes to explaining the interest in physics as a school subject. Interest in physics courses is not geared by interest in physics but primarily driven by the level of achievement. In other words, a student who is interested in physics and fascinated by technical objects or natural phenomena, who recognizes the general importance of physics or the role that physics may play in his or her future vocation, may nevertheless not be interested in the kind of physics he or she encounters in the classroom. Physics as it is taught in the majority of physics courses does not seriously take into account students interests. Adaptation to the interest of students could be a very effective means to solve some of the current problems of physics education.
Specic Contexts That Are Effective in Stimulating Interest. As we have shown, in-

terest in physics is not so much inuenced by a particular content or activity but rather by

700

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

Figure 10. Regression weights of predictors in explaining interest in physics as a school subject.

the context that a student is provided for studying physics. Consequently, the question arises, which contexts are most effective in stimulating interest? Figure 7 gives only a cross picture about the potential of the contexts proposed by the Delphi participants. More detailed guidelines about how to make a particular physics course more interesting can be obtained by analyzing the students reactions to the specic contexts spoken of in items of the type depicted in Figure 5. Such an analysis yielded the specic contexts of Table 1. An example of how these guidelines can be used to plan a particular teaching unit is given in the next section. It describes the results of the third study in which we developed a physics curriculum that is centered around interest-stimulating contexts and investigated its impact on students achievement and self-concept.

STUDY 3: DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEREST-ORIENTED CURRICULUM AND ITS EFFECTS ON STUDENTS The starting point for the development of teaching units were the specic contexts of Table 1. An example is given in Figure 11. In deciding on the particular specications delineated on the right-hand column of Figure 11, it proved helpful that we had narrowed the range of possibilities to a particular thematic core or leitmotif. In the case of Forces and velocity, we chose the leitmotif Safety in trafc situations. (Similarly, leitmotifs for a unit in acoustics and heat were Musical instruments and Cooking food.) In cooperation with physics teachers for each of the ve teaching units, classroom activities and achievement tests were developed and brought into a written format that could be used as a guide for other teachers.

Investigation Plan and Data Sampling In a government-funded school experiment comprising 30 physics classes of an average size of 25 students, four experimental groups and one control group were formed. Exper-

A CURRICULAR FRAME
TABLE 1 Specic Contexts That are Effective in Stimulating Interest C1: Physics as a vehicle to promote practical competence

701

Anything that has to do with the human body (e.g., enlarging ones senses by optical devices or reducing the risks of trafc accidents) was rated particularly high. Combined with activities like building something or handling equipment it was particularly favored by the younger students taking part in our investigation (age range 11 to 16). C2: Physics as a socio-economic enterprise Particularly older students rate this context as highly interesting. The highest interest scores came from items in which an issue is discussed that had immediate relevance for them (e.g., emission free electricity production or human induced change of climate). However, one should keep in mind that structuring a course around such an issue needs a sound underpinning of physics to allow a fruitful rational discourse. C3: Physics as a vehicle to enhance emotional experience We had two kinds of items in our test: astonishing technology (e.g., the enormous amount of energy stored in uranium as compared to conventional fuels) and natural phenomena like rainbows and thunderstorms. Whereas girls favored only the latter, both types aroused interest in boys. C4: Physics as an intellectually challenging scientic enterprise In items that represented this context no reference was made to any application outside physics. The relatively low interest rating by students does, of course, not mean that an application free part of a physics course cannot be made interesting by a teacher who develops physics problems in a dramaturgically appealing way. However, the data show clearly that interest drops sharply if physics is to be dealt with in a quantitative way. As the quantitative side is an integral part of physics, it certainly would be wrong to avoid it altogether. Any quantication of a physical concept should be precedented by a thorough introduction to the qualitative side of the concept. In addition, students should get a feeling of the usefulness of dealing with physics quantitatively. C5: Physics as a vehicle to qualify for the work-world This context has two aspects to it: Imparting general physics knowledge useful for occupations and giving vocation-related orientation. Students showed particular interest in vocations that are related to medicine.

imental group 1 consisted of four classes that were instructed by teachers who had developed the ve teaching units. A second experimental group of 11 classes was instructed by teachers not involved in the development of the teaching materials. These teachers got a booklet in which the ve units were described in enough detail that an experienced instructor was able to teach them in a way similar to that of a teacher in the other experimental group. Group 2 was installed to be able to discriminate the effect of the new curriculum from a change in attitude toward teaching physics by developing the material under the aspect of raising the interest of students. In the two other experimental groups, measures thought to be particularly favorable for girls, like teaching them in smaller classes and separated from boys, have been implemented to study the differential effects on girls. This part of the study has been published separately (Hoffmann & Haussler, 1998). The control group of seven classes was instructed in the traditional manner. After each teaching unit, an achievement test was administered. To ensure that the achievement test was fair to the control group all test items were

702

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

Identied Contexts C1: Physics as a vehicle to promote practical competence C2: Physics as a socioeconomic enterprise C3: Physics to enhance emotional experience C4: Physics as an intellectually challenging scientic enterprise C5: Physics as a vehicle to qualify for the workworld

Specication for a Teaching Unit on Forces and Velocity Function of safety helmets for bicyclists; measuring the velocity of vehicles; measuring braking distances and reaction times; transforming m/s (as measured) in km/h (as enforced by speed limits) Necessity of trafc rules and speed limits; statistics on accidents Attitudes toward wearing a safety helmet; surprise of how little soft material is needed to keep a delicate object from breaking Planning and carrying out a series of crash experiments with eggs; learning to control the variables involved. Making and interpreting graphs (s/t-diagrams, measurements in connection with Hooks law). Watching a lm on the professional testing of safety helmets

Figure 11. Specications of contexts identied as being relevant and interesting for a teaching unit on Forces and velocity.

strictly oriented to the syllabus prescribed by the Ministry of Education and made no reference to any specics of the curriculum taught in the experimental classes. In addition, all tests were given to the teachers of the control classes with the request to protest against any item that was outside the scope of their teaching a particular unit. (This happened only with one item with the consequence that it was eliminated from the test.) At the end of the school year, parts of the achievement tests were repeated and responses to scales on the physics-related and the school-related self-concept of students were solicited. Results The results of the achievement tests administered immediately following the completion of the teaching units did not show any signicant differences between the two experimental groups or between the control group and any of the experimental groups. The latter speaks for the fairness of the test. However, at the end of the school year, the achievement of the control group was about three-quarters of one standard deviation lower than that of either of the experimental groups, which had, within statistical errors, attained the same knowledge (see Figure 12). The equivalence in achievement of the two experimental groups shows that the higher long-term learning gain in comparison to the control group is related to the new curriculum and cannot be attributed to a shift in the instructors attitude toward students and student learning. Students who were taught the new curriculum with its orientation on what is relevant and interesting to them, and on what they are able to recognize outside the classroom, were more successful in retaining the learned content. Figure 12 also shows that in all three groups, boys were the higher achievers. (The results of the other two experimetal groups in which gender-inclusive measures have been implemented were much more favorable for girls. These ndings will be published separately.) As expected from the theoretical considerations of Epstein (1979) and Rosenberg (1979)

A CURRICULAR FRAME

703

Figure 12. Physics knowledge at the end of the school year.

about the structure and organization of the self-concept, we expected that, on the average, boys physics related self-concept is higher than their general school-related self-concept, and vice versa for the girls. The results shown in Figure 13 conrm this assumption. The results also show that for girls of the control group their physics-related self-concept is signicantly lower than their general school-related self-concept and much lower than that of any of the experimental groups. After one year of physics instruction, they seem to show signs of resignation.

Figure 13. Difference between physics-related and general school-related self-concept at the end of the school year.

704

HAUSSLER AND HOFFMANN

SUMMARY This article addresses in three interlinked studies three major problems science educators worldwide are confronted with: (1) the renewal of the current science curriculum in order to meet the needs of a modern society; (2) the decline of students interest in science; and (3) the disappointing low scores students of some western countries achieve in science courses. Our third study has demonstrated that a physics curriculum which lets the students engage in activities in which they are interested and which presents content in the context of situations meaningful to them is superior to the traditional curriculum. The new curriculum helps to retain more completely the learned content by a better integration into the cognitive structure and by a higher chance to recognize outside school what they have learned in school. The new curriculum also results in a positive development of the physicsrelated self-concept, particularly among girls. Whereas in a traditional setting, girls physics-related self-concept of being good achievers falls far behind their school-related self-concept, this tendency of resignation is absent with the new curriculum. The basis for the development of the curriculum was a detailed assessment of the students interest structure (study 2). It revealed that students in the range between 11 and 16 years of age are not little scientists who strive for inquiring the laws of nature for their own sake. Rather, they are interested in physics in the context of its practical applications, its potential to explain natural phenomena, or in the context of chances and risks which lie in physics-based technologies. This interest structure is quite different from the presently taught curriculum but comes close to a curricular frame developed in our rst study by educational experts in answering the question: What should physics education look like so it is suitable for someone living in our society as it is today and as it will be tomorrow? They emphasized physics education which shows physics more as a human enterprise and less as a body of knowledge and procedures. REFERENCES
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS-science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. S. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS-education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 169186). New York: Teachers College Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC. Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzales, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years: IEAs third international mathematics and science study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on the goals for the science curriculum. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357387). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientic literacy: From purpose to practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Epstein, S. (1979). Entwurf einer integrativen Personlichkeitstheorie (Design of an integrative per sonality theory). In S.-H. Filipp (Hrsg.), Selbstkonzeptforschung (pp. 1545). Stuttgart: Klett. Frey, K. (1971). Theorien des Curriculums (Theory of the curriculum). Weinheim: Beltz. Gardner, P. L. (1985). Students interest in science and technology: An international overview. In M. Lehrke, L. Hoffmann, & P. L. Gardner (Eds.), Interest in Science and Technology Education (pp. 1534). Kiel: IPN. Gardner, P. L. (1998). Students interest in science and technology: Gender, age and other factors. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning. Proceedings of the Seeon-conference on interest and gender (pp. 4157). Kiel: IPN.

A CURRICULAR FRAME

705

Haussler, P. (1987). Measuring students interest in physics design and result of a cross-sectional study in the Federal Republic of Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 7992. Haussler, P., Frey, K., Hoffmann, L., Rost, J., & Spada, H. (1988). Education in physics for today and tomorrow (Physikalische Bildung fur heute und morgen) (bilingual). Kiel: IPN. Haussler, P., Hoffmann, L., Langeheine, R., Rost, J., & Sievers, K. (1998). A typology of students interest in physics and the distribution of gender and age within each type. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 223 238. Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (1998). Qualitative differences in students interest in physics and the dependence on gender and age. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning. Proceedings of the Seeon-conference on interest and gender (pp. 280289). Kiel: IPN. Helmer, O. (1966). Social technology. New York: Basic Books. Hoffmann, L., & Haussler, P. (1998). Orienting physics education to students interest An inter vention project promoting girls and boys interest in physics. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning. Proceedings of the Seeon-conference on interest and gender (pp. 301 316). Kiel: IPN. Hoffmann, L., Haussler, P., & Lehrke, M. (1998). Die IPN Interessenstudie Physik. Kiel: IPN . Hoffmann, L., Haussler, P., & Peters-Haft, S. (1997). An den Interessen von Madchen und Jungen orientierter Physikunterricht (Physics education oriented to the interests of boys and girls). Kiel: IPN. Hoffmann, L., Lehrke, M., & Todt, E. (1985). Development and change of pupils interests in physics (grades 5 to 10): Design of a longitudinal study. In M. Lehrke, L. Hoffmann, & P. L. Gardner (Eds.), Interest in Science and Technology Education (pp. 7180). Kiel: IPN. Ormerod, M. B., & Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils attitude to science. A review of research. Windsor: NFER. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report. Washington, DC: AAAS. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientic literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Wishart, D. (1975). CLUSTAN 1c user manual. London.