Designing Theory-Based Teaching-Learning Sequences for Science Education

Koos Kortland & Kees Klaassen (Eds.) Designing Theory-Based Teaching-Learning Sequences for Science Education Proceedings of the symposium in honour of Piet Lijnse at the time of his retirement as Professor of Physics Didactics at Utrecht University [ Faculty of Science FISME ] Designing Theory-Based Teaching-Learning Sequences for Science Education Proceedings of the symposium in honour of Piet Lijnse at the time of his retirement as Professor of Physics Didactics at Utrecht University Koos Kortland & Kees Klaassen (Eds.) Designing Theory-Based Teaching-Learning Sequences for Science Education; Proceedings of the symposium in honour of Piet Lijnse at the time of his retirement as professor of Physics Didactics at Utrecht University – Utrecht: CDBeta Press – Freudenthal Institute for science and mathematics education (FIsme), Utrecht Uni- versity – FIsme series on Research in Science Education; nr. 64; 2010. ISBN: 978-90-73346-70-3 Key words: secondary education / science / physics / design research / teaching- learning sequences / didactics / didactical structures The full list of publications in the FIsme series on Research in Science Education can be found at the FIsme website: http://www.cdbeta.uu.nl > English > Research > FIsme series. 2 Contents Introduction 5 Section I Symposium papers 1 Establishing and communicating knowledge about teaching and learning 7 scientific content: The role of design briefs – John Leach, Jaume Ametller & Phil Scott 2 Physics education research and inquiry-based teaching: A question of 37 didactical consistency – Laurence Viennot 3 Using research to improve practice in science education: Where should 55 we begin, and what should we aim to produce? – Robin Millar 4 Curriculum development as practical activity – Jon Ogborn 69 5 Lessons I have learned – Piet Lijnse 79 Section II Key publications 6 ‘Developmental research’ as a way to an empirically based ‘didactical 91 structure’ of science – Piet Lijnse 7 Interpreting students’ and teachers’ discourse in science classes: An 103 underestimated problem? – Kees Klaassen & Piet Lijnse 8 Didactics of science: The forgotten dimension in science education 125 research? – Piet Lijnse 9 Methodological aspects of design research in physics education – Piet 143 Lijnse 10 Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching-learning 157 sequences? – Piet Lijnse & Kees Klaassen 3 4 Introduction On Friday, October 9, 2009 a symposium was held on the occasion of the retirement, and thus in honour, of Piet Lijnse – now Emeritus Professor of Physics Di- dactics at the Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. The topic of this symposium, as outlined in the box below, clearly relates to much of the work Piet has been doing for decades. And the symposium can be seen not only as an event to honour him for his contribution to science education research, but also as a stimulus for continuing work of this sort. Symposium Designing Theory-Based Teaching-Learning Sequences for Science Education The systematic study of design and evaluation of educational interventions – such as teaching- learning sequences – not only aims to provide solutions to complex problems in educational practice, but also to advance our knowledge about the characteristics of these interventions and the process of designing, implementing and evaluating them. Part of this knowledge reflects a local didactical theory: a didactical structure – an empirically based description and justification of the interrelated processes of teaching and learning – for teaching-learning processes for a certain topic (Lijnse, 1995). Beyond simply creating designs that are effective, a local didactical theory explains why designs work and suggests how they might be adapted to new topics and/or new circumstances. The symposium will focus on the issue of designing theory-based teaching-learning sequences for science education: what can be considered a local didactical theory and how does such a theory inform the design of teaching-learning sequences? Reference Lijnse, P.L. (1995), “Developmental research” as a way to an empirically based “didactical structure” of science. Science Education 79 (2), 189-199. The first section of this book presents the contributions to the symposium: the lec- tures given by John Leach (also on behalf of Jaume Ametller and Phil Scott), Laurence Viennot, Robin Millar, and, of course, Piet Lijnse himself. Due to family circumstances and much to his regret, Jon Ogborn was not able to attend the symposium, but his intended contribution is also included. The second section of this book offers reprints of a number of key publications by Piet Lijnse, often referred to in the symposium contributions. All contributions, of course, relate to the symposium theme, albeit it in different ways. John Leach, Jaume Ametller and Phil Scott (chapter 1) elaborate on how knowledge about teaching of specific scientific content, at a fine grain size (and thus useful for classroom practice), can be established and communicated to teachers in the form of ‘design briefs’. Laurence Viennot (chapter 2) focuses on ‘critical details’ and ‘common-sense, linear causal reasoning’ when dealing with experi- 5 ments in inquiry-based science education. Robin Millar (chapter 3) addresses the assessment of learning outcomes (a forgotten dimension in science education research) and the character of the research-based guidance required to improve practice in the teaching of X (where X is any given science idea or topic). In contrast, Jon Ogborn (chapter 4) discusses science curriculum development as a practical activity, questioning the role of theory to inform the development of teaching- learning sequences. Finally, Piet Lijnse (chapter 5) reflects on his thirty-six years of work in physics education, which focussed on finding research-based ‘didactical structures’ that could potentially improve the teaching and learning of X’s, and result in the emergence of ‘didactical theories’ that are useful for curriculum develop- ers and teachers. This effort is further elucidated by the reprints of some of his key publications (chapters 6-10) in the second section of this book. Clockwise: Lijnse & Leach, Lijnse, Leach & Viennot, (part of) the audience, and Lijnse & Millar. Photographs courtesy of Fridolin van der Leck. The symposium organisers – Koos Kortland, Kees Klaassen, Harrie Eijkelhof and Elwin Savelsbergh – wish to thank all those who contributed to and attended the symposium. We very much appreciated seeing you there. A special word of thanks to Robin Millar for his great help in co-editing chapters 2 and 5-10 of this book, written by the non-native English speakers at the symposium. And finally, we ap- preciate the cooperation of the editorial boards of the journals in giving us permis- sion to reprint some of Piet’s key publications in the second section of this book. October 2010 Koos Kortland & Kees Klaassen 6 John Leach, Jaume Ametller & Phil Scott Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education University of Leeds, UK Establishing1 and communicating knowledge about teaching and learning scientific content: The role of design briefs Abstract How can knowledge about the teaching of specific scientific content, at a fine grain size, be established and communicated? This is perhaps the central theme in Piet Lijnse’s work. The focus of this paper is primarily methodological and conceptual. Its central premise is that much remains to be done to establish a reliable and agreed body of knowledge about the teaching of specific scientific content in such a way that students’ understanding is maximised. The paper begins by present- ing different strands of research on the teaching of specific scientific content in order to promote learners’ understanding. Drawing on examples from design-based research and learning sciences research in North America, and European didactics research, we show how claims from such research are normally in terms of features of the learning environments at a large grain size, rather than in terms of features of specific content. The example of design briefs is then presented and exemplified, to illustrate one approach to establishing and communicating knowledge about the teaching of specific scientific content. The paper concludes with a discussion about how research on the design of science teaching can become more cumulative, enabling researchers and designers to draw explicitly upon findings from each other’s work. Introduction “I still remember my disappointment when, as a newly appointed didactician, I had to develop an innovative series of lessons to introduce quantum mechanics at secondary school. I turned to theories of education and educational psychology for help. However, hardly any such help appeared to be available, a frustrating result which unfortunately was (and is) in line with the ‘traditional’ scepticism of physicists concerning the ‘soft’ sciences.” (Lijnse, 2000: p.309) Piet Lijnse goes on to argue that decades of research in science education have not fundamentally changed the situation described in the above quotation, as there is still no broadly agreed body of knowledge about how to teach specific scientific content in order that it is understood by as many learners as possible. A cursory re- view of the international research literature, textbooks and curricula will indicate that there are some shared assumptions about teaching and learning science that arise from research in

Load more