Kees Klaassen

Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teaching–learning sequences?

This paper describes ‘didactical structures’ as a possible outcome of research on teaching–learning sequences. Starting from an explicit didactical perspective, in this case a so‐called problem‐posing approach, the research emphasis lies on the didactical quality with which this particular perspective can be put into classroom practice in the teaching and learning of a certain topic. This is done by a process of developmental research, in which a research scenario, as a detailed prediction and theoretical justification of the hypothesized teaching/learning process, plays a crucial role. Three empirically supported resulting didactical structures are described, developed for the solution of different content dependent didactical problems. By reflection on these structures, more general structures and features are abstracted that enable transfer of the outcomes to the didactics of other topics. Finally, it is discussed what these results can offer to the development of a more general didactical theory.

The feasibility of systems thinking in biology education

Systems thinking in biology education is an up and coming research topic, as yet with contrasting feasibility claims. In biology education systems thinking can be understood as thinking backward and forward between concrete biological objects and processes and systems models representing systems theoretical characteristics. Some studies claim that systems thinking can be readily introduced at the level of primary-school education; other studies claim that even in upper secondary-school education the introduction of systems thinking requires a carefully outlined approach in order not to strain students’ capacities too much. In order to explain these contrasting claims a procedure of analysis was used to map and compare the conceptual frameworks of the various studies, focusing on the selection of systems, references to systems theory and definitions of systems thinking. The analysis demonstrates that the frameworks include different elements of systems thinking. In particular, the analysis shows that the studies recommending the introduction of systems thinking in primary- or lower secondary-school education did not measure students’ ability to think forward and backward between concrete objects and systems models. The analysis contributes to a discussion about useful preparatory learning and teaching trajectories, preceding the formal introduction of systems thinking.

Teaching about radioactivity and ionising radiation: an alternative approach

This article reviews childrens ideas about radiation and radioactivity and identifies several common areas of misunderstanding. A new approach to teaching the topic at school level, which seeks specifically to address these known difficulties, is then proposed and outlined.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MEANINGFUL CHEMISTRY EDUCATION

In this paper we elaborate on three potential strategies to promote meaningful chemistry education: using relevant contexts, offering content on a need-to-know basis, and making students feel that their input matters. We illustrate that it is educationally worthwhile to incorporate these characteristics, through our work on a particular chemistry module. Such emphasis leads to concrete, empirically based designs of modules and to heuristic guidelines for educational design decisions. It also productively informs further theorizing, such as an improved conceptualisation of the relations between the three characteristics. We therefore suggest that the type of investigation discussed in this paper, and the scenario-based design method which goes along with it, deserves a more prominent place in science education research.

The concept of force as a constitutive element of understanding the world

This paper concerns interpretation and constitutive elements of understanding the world, both of which are treated in relation to the concept of force. Studies are criticized in which students’ conceptions are formulated, without further clarification, in terms of the word ‘force’. From such reports it can neither be concluded what students believe nor how their beliefs relate to science. Instead, reasons or criteria for applying ‘force’ need to be made explicit. Those reasons concern the effects that forces produce, namely deviations from an influence-free state; they also concern their sources, as made explicit in laws from which, for a given situation, the forces acting in it can be derived. The general concept of force, thus associated with the two-tier explanatory strategy of specifying (1) influence-free states and (2) force laws to account for deviations from those states, is a constitutive element of understanding the world. Within the constraints set by this explanatory strategy, the concept of force can still be variously applied, both in everyday and in scientific explanations. The differences between these various applications are partly anchored in distinct explanatory interest