05-Clement2006-Transposicao_didatica_modelo_KVP.pdf

8/10/2019 05-Clement2006-Transposicao_didatica_modelo_KVP.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/05-clement2006-transposicaodidaticamodelokvppdf 1/10

ESERA Summer School 2006

_________________________________________________________________________________________________IEC – Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal, 15-22 July 9

Didactic Transposition and the KVP Model : Conceptions as

Interactions Between Scientific Knowledge, Values and Social Practices.

Pierre Clément

LIRDHIST, University of Lyon-1, France

Abstract

The clarification of the science content on what is taught and learned can be

modelised in several ways. In Germany, the model of Educational Reconstruction is

proposed by Kattamn, Duit et al. In France, the didactic transposition was formalised by

Chevallard for mathematics education, in the context of anthropology of knowledge,

without any place for the analysis of conceptions, and just mentioning the rules of

transposition of the knowledge (knowledge of reference, then to be taught and taughtknowledge). Martinand has insisted on the importance of social practice in technology

education.

This lecture will present the KVP model, defined by Clément in biology education,

and its use in a renewal didactic transposition perspective. In this model, the conceptions

are analysed as interactions between the three poles K (scientific knowledge), V (systems

of values) and P (social practices). This analysis is also extended to all actors of the

didactic transposition: researchers, authors of syllabuses and of school textbooks, teachers,

and students.

The articulation between the KVP model and classical approaches in science

education (conceptions, conceptual changes, …) and sociology (concept of “habitus”

defined by P.Bourdieu, “relation to knowledge” defined by B.Charlot), …) also will be

discussed.

1 - From the didactic triangle to the model of educational reconstruction.

In France, the matter “Didactique des Sciences” (“Science Education” in English, of

more recently, “Didactics of Sciences”) born in the seventies from Didactics of

Mathematics (in the IREM1 of several Universities) and from Didactics of Experimental

Sciences (in INRP2 and its networks of teachers in all France).

The consensual definition of this matter was summarised by the famous “triangle

didactique” (figure 1). Its goal was precisely to insist on the difference between the

research in Pedagogy (which is not specific of the taught contents: e.g. the relationship





between the teacher and the learners in the figure 1) and the research in Didactics, which is

specific to precise contents (the scientific knowledge in at the top of the triangle: the field

of Didactics is focused on the teaching/learning processes of specific contents). In other

words, to teach or learn History is not confronted with the same problems as to teach or

learn Mathematics, or Biology.

Figure 1 : the classical didactic triangle (“Triangle didactique”)

In 1980’s, the French researchers in Didactics of a scientific matter used this didactic

triangle and adapted it. For instance Develay (1992) put the learner at the top of the

triangle, and inserted some new concepts of Didactics in each side of the triangle (figure

2). At this period, the learners’ centred teaching-learning process, in a constructivist

perspective, was politically important.

Figure 2 :The didactic triangle proposed by Develay (1992) (translated and slightly

adapted)

1 IREM : Institut de Recherche sur l’Enseignement des Mathématiques (Research Institute of Mathematics

Teaching) : inside several Universities, with a national network.2 INRP : Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique. In 1970’s, the team of Didactics of Sciences was

animated by Victor Host and then by Jean Pierre Astolfi.

SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

TEACHER LEARNER

KNOWLEDGE

TO TEACH

LEARNER

TEACHER

Didactical contractConce tions

Didactisation

of knowledge





The Model of Educational Reconstruction, proposed by Kattman et al (1996) and by

Duits et al. (2004) is another way to draw this didactical triangle, putting here the teacher

at the top, and designing for each pole not the persons, but the central tasks of the

researcher investigating learning and teaching sequences.

Figure 3 – At left: the Model of Educational Reconstruction (from Duits et al 2004);

At right: its possible relation with the “didactic triangle” of the figures 1 & 2

The goal of this model is theoretical (research) and practical (designing of learning

environments). This perspective is not so far from the “theory of didactical situations”

developed by Brousseau in Didactics of Mathematics (1970-1990).

Concerning the pole “learner”, the students’ perspectives include their conceptions,

skills or interests (Duits et al 2005), that is not the same goal as in the KVP model

presented below (figure 4), where the perspective is more epistemological. In the model

presented by the figure 3, the epistemological approach is limited to the task (1):

“Clarification and analysis of science content”.

BIOLOGIE

son histoire &épistémologie

PSYCHO .

INDIVIDU

cognitionlangageetc.

SOCIÉTÉsociologie,économie,école, médias,etc.

Did.

Bio..

Figure 4 – The Didactics field of a precise scientific matter (here Biology)

from Clément 1990, 1999.

(3) TEACHER(didactical situations)

(1) SCIENCE

CONTENTS(2) LEARNER

conce tions





The epistemological approach is the goal of figure 4, where the 3 circles are not so

different from the 3 poles of a triangle. Nevertheless, they try to visualize the eventual

specificity of the concepts of Didactics of Biology (or of another matter). The researcher in

Didactics of Biology must manage:

the main concepts and methods of biology, and also their historical evolution, andtheir limits, their challenges. Is the pole “scientific clarification” of the model of

educational reconstruction possibly corresponding to this circle?

the main concepts and methods of human and social sciences involved in the study oflearning process (cognition, language, mental representations, …) and of its social

dimensions (social representations, socio-psychology, sociology, economy, politics,scholar system, medias, …). These concepts are symbolised, in the figure 4, by the two

circles “Individual” and “Society”.

The main concepts and methods of the field(s) of Didactics, at the intersection of the 3circles. There are debates concerning this intersection. Is it empty if the concepts

emerged from the research in Didactics of Sciences are transversal (i.e. are they thesame for Mathematics of Biology or History Education? In this case, Didactics is a

speciality of Pedagogy (“Sciences de l’Education” in French). Or it is not empty if

some concepts or methods are specific to precise topics (e.g. teaching ecology, but notfor teaching mathematics or physics)?

As for any important debate, the answer is not clearly black or white. Some concepts

emerged in Didactics of Physics or Biology (e.g. conceptions, conceptual changes) can be

used in Didactics of other matters, but can also have some specificity. For instance

anthropocentrism, spiritualism, hereditarism, … can be specific conceptions andepistemological obstacles related to Biology Education.

Is the KVP model, defined for Biology, Health and Environmental Education, useful

in Physics, History or other mattes Education?

2 - The KVP model : conceptions as interactions between scientific knowledge (K),

values (V) and social practices (P).

Science Education research generally compares learners’ conceptions with the published

scientific knowledge, using the word “misconceptions” when the gap is large.

I disagree with the use of this word “misconceptions” for several reasons:

The researcher has not to judge (as is the implicit of “misconception”), but to try to

analyse and to identify the epistemological and didactical obstacles which underline thelearners’ conceptions (Clément 1999, 2003). Improving learning from conceptions is

more useful than judging conceptions.

The history of science shows that any scientific knowledge at a precise period is notautomatically a definitive truth, and could be called, a posteriori, a “misconception”! In





consequence, it is better to speak about "the conceptions of scientists today", or at anyhistorical period.

The conceptions of scientists, at least in fields as Biology, Health, Environment, but

also in human and social sciences (sociology, economy, …), are often resulting from

interactions between Values (V) and scientific Knowledge (K). The taught content is thenalso an interaction between K and V. I just list some examples coming from our research:

the genetic determinism vs interactions between genotype and environment: as well in

some scientific publications (in Nature for the XYY chromosome: Clément et al 1980)as in biology textbooks (Abrougui & Clément 1997, Forissier & Clément 2003).

the cerebral determinism vs cerebral epigenesis: as well in some scientific publications(here also in Nature: Clément 2001) as in biology textbooks (Clément et al 2006).

the philosophy of Nature and Environment, and the Environmental Education (Clément& Hovart 2000, Clément 2004, Forissier & Clément 2003): we defined 7 axes of

questions, e.g.: is the model of nature with or without human beings ? Utilisation or preservation of the nature ?

The KVP model has been constructed from this kind of research, to analyse the

conceptions of not only the learners (pupils, students, …) but also the conceptions of

researchers, of teachers, and of other actors of the educational system. In all these cases,

the conceptions are analysed as interactions between K, V and P.

Figure 5 - The KVP Model. The conceptions (C) can be analysed

as interactions between the 3 poles K, V and P.

The values are taken in a large sense: opinion, beliefs, ideology, …The importance of social practices is noticed by Martinand (2000) for teaching Physics and

Technology. We enlarge here its meaning, which comprises, in the KVP Model:

Professional practices of researchers (to analyse their conceptions), of teachers (to

analyse their conceptions), of students (to analyse their conceptions), …

Scientific knowledge

K

Values V P Social Practices

C





Future professional practices of students when they are involved in a professionaltraining.

Today and future citizenship practices.

Most of these practices are in interaction with values (e.g. ethical or gender issues

concerning citizenship) and with scientific and technical knowledge.

Every conception is not to be reduced to KVP interactions: other features can also beimportant to take into account, as affective or emotional issues. Nevertheless, this model

can be useful for a renewal of analysis of several researches in Didactics, as the didactictransposition or the conceptual change.

3 - KVP Model and Didactic Transposition

The didactic transposition was first defined by a sociologist, Verret (1975), who described

the constraints for the choice of the contents to be taught: desyncretisation anddepersonalisation of the knowledge, programmability of its learning, etc.

Chevallard (1985, 1989) has then developed these notions in an anthropologic approach for

the Didactics of Mathematics. Didactics of other scientific fields (e.g. Astolfi et al 1997)use the didactic transposition, to analyse why some scientific contents are selected to betaught (external didactic transposition, for the definition of curricula and syllabuses) and

then how these contents are transposed for teaching - learning (internal didactic

transposition).I have proposed several modifications of the schema proposed by Chevallard for the

didactic transposition. They are summarised in the figure 5.





DIDACTIC CONCEPTIONS

TRANSPOSITION of

REFERENCES

- Science publications - science researchers

- Social practices - socio-economic groups

- Dominant values - leaders (politics,

medias,

religion, etc.)

Different levels of - scientists, authors

science popularisation - editors, actors of TV

radio, media, …

- main actors of the

schoolCurricula and syllabuses system, Ministery of

Education, …

School textbooks - Authors and editors of

and other tools textbooks and other

tools

What is taught at school - Teachers

What is learned at school - Students

DIDACTIC SITUATION = ENVIRONMENT OF LEARNING

Figure 5 - A new schema of the didactic transposition, linked to the analysis of the

conceptions of the main actors of the transposition.

K, V, P

K, V, P

K, V, P

K, V, P

K, V, P

K, V, P





Chevallard (1985) proposed only three steps for the didactic transposition :

"Savoir savant""Savoir à enseigner" "Savoir enseigné"

If I try to translate in English:

Scientific Knowledge Knowledge to be taught Taught Knowledge

Figure 5 differs by several points:

* The references are not only the scientific knowledge, but also the social practices

(as proposed by Martinand 1986, 2001) and values (Clément 1998, 2004).

* The number of steps is more complex than three steps. The syllabus is not written

directly from original primary scientific publications, but rather from sciences treatises and

other levels of popularisation of science. The school textbooks, and also the teachers, also

use these diverse documents of popularisation of science, coming from science magazines,

but also from internet, from TV, etc.

* More important: Chevallard is claiming for an anthropological approach which

does not need to analyse the conceptions of the different actors. I disagree with him: the

analysis of conceptions of the actors involved in any level of the didactic transposition can

be very useful in the understanding of the process of didactic transposition. In

consequence, figure 5 suggest that there are specific conceptions (KVP) at all the levels.

The European research project Biohead-Citizen (FP6, priority 7; 2004-2007), that I

am coordinating with G. Carvalho (Portugal) and F. Bogner (Germany), and which implies19 countries is, for instance, working on two levels of the didactic transposition: the

analyse of syllabuses and school textbooks; and the analyse of conceptions of pre-service

and in-service teachers. We have chosen 6 topics for which the KVP interactions are

important: Environmental Education; Health Education; teaching humankind evolution,

human reproduction and sexuality, human genetics and human brain.

The affective dimension, and also the socio-cultural dimension, play an important

role to explain why and how these topics are (or not) taught. We are using the KVP model

to analyse the conceptions related to these 6 topics.

4 – KVP and conceptual changes

Just some words on this important point.

The sociologist P.Bourdieu (1970) defined the concept of "habitus primaire" to

explain why some children are failing or not at school, reproducing the socio-cultural





category of their parents. Nevertheless, this important approach does not suggest precise

perspectives to improve conceptual changes.

More recently, the sociologist B.Charlot (1997) introduced a psychological

dimension into this social determinism, with the concept of "rapport au savoir" (relation to

knowledge). Some research has been done in Didactics of Science using this approach (e.g.Caillot 2000). Several studies show that the learning is strongly related to the motivation of

the learner. Our hypothesis is that we need to clarify the KVP interactions to understand

better the motivations and the relation of the learners with knowledge.

To learn a new scientific content is easier for a learner than to change his or her

opinion / belief. The question of the conceptual change is therefore more complex when

the scientific knowledge is strongly related with values and / or social practices, as for

Evolution or Sexuality.

The understanding of the KVP model interactions is a first step to define the

appropriate strategies to improve the conceptual changes during science teaching –

learning process.

References

Abrougui M., Clément P., 1997 - Enseigner la génétique humaine : citoyenneté, ou fatalisme ? Actes JIES (Journées internationales sur l'éducation scientifique, Chamonix ; A.Giordan, J.L.Martinand,

D.Raichvarg ed. ; Univ.Paris Sud), 19, p.255-260.

Astolfi J.P., Darot E., Ginsburger-Vogel Y., Toussaint J., 1997 - Mots-clés de la didactique des sciences.

Bruxelles, De Boeck Université.Bourdieu P. & Passeron J.C., 1970 - La reproduction. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

Brousseau G., 1998 - Théorie des situations didactiques (Didactique des Mathématiques 1970-1990).

Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.

Caillot M., 2000 - Rapport au savoir et didactique des sciences. In A.Chabchoub (ed), Rapports aus savoirs etapprentissage des sciences. Tunis: ATRD, p.25-36.

Chevallard Y., 1995 - La transposition didactique. Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble: La Pensée

Sauvage. (re-édition augmentée en 1989)

Clément P., 1990 - La recherche en Didactique de la Biologie. Conférence lors des Secondes Rencontres del'AEDB (Association pour la Recherche en Didactique de la Biologie), Rome.

Clément P., 1998 - La Biologie et sa Didactique. Dix ans de recherches. Aster , 27, p.57-93

Clément P., Hovart S., 2000 - Environmental Education : analysis of the didactic transposition and of the

conceptions of teachers. In H. Bayerhuber & J.Mayer (Eds.), State of the art of empirical research onenvironmental education , Münster : ed.Waxmann Verlag, p.77-90.

Clément P., 2001 – Using complex images in the popularization of science : Scientific or ideological agenda? in "Multimedia learning : cognitive and instructional issues", Rouet J.F., Levonen J., Biardeau A.,

eds. London : Pergamon (Elsevier Science), p.87-98 (& p.182-183).

Clément P., 2003 – Situated conceptions and obstacles. The example of digestion / excretion. in D.Psilos etal, Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.89-

98.

Clément P., 2004 – Science et idéologie : exemples en didactique et épistémologie de la biologie. Actes duColloque Sciences, médias et société. ENS-LSH, p.53-69 http://sciences-medias.ens-lsh.fr

Clément P., 2004 - Construction des umwelts et philosophies de la nature. Soc. Linéenne Lyon (co-éd. Univ.

Catholique Lyon : Fac. Sc. & Fac. Philo : J.M.Exbrayat & P.Moreau, L’homme méditerranéen et sonenvironnement ), p.93-106.




Clément P., Blaes N., Luciani A., 1980 - Le mythe tenace du "chromosome du crime", encore appelé"chromosome de l'agressivité". Raison Présente, 54 , p.109-127

Clément P., Mouehli L., Abrougui M., 2006 - Héréditarisme, béhaviorisme, constructivisme : le systèmenerveux dans les manuels scolaires français et tunisiens. Accepté pour publication dans Aster, 42 (25

pp.)

Develay M., 1992 - De l'apprentissage à l'enseignement .Paris: ESF (coll. Pédagogies)

Duit R., Gropengiesser H., Kattmann U., 2005 – Towards science education research that is relevant for

improving practice: the model of educational reconstruction. In Fischer (ed), Developing Standards in

Research on Science Education. London: Taylor & Francis Group, p.1-Forissier T., Clément P., 2003 – Les systèmes de valeurs d’enseignants du Secondaire sur la Nature et

l’Environnement. Une analyse comparative en France, en Allemagne et au Portugal. Actes JIES

(A.Giordan, J.L.Martinand & D.Raichvarg eds, Univ. Paris Sud), 25, p.393-398Forissier T., Clément P., 2003 - Teaching "biological identity" as genome / environmental interactions.

Journal of Biological Education, 37, 2, p.85-91

Kattmann U., Duit R., Gropengiesse H., Komorek M., 1996 – Educational reconstruction ) Bringing together

issues of scientific clarification and students’ conceptions. NARST , p.1-18

Martinand J.-L., 2000 - Pratique de référence et problématique de la référence curriculaire. in A. Terrisse, Didactique des disciplines, les références au savoir , Bruxelles, De Boeck Université, p. 17-24

Verret M., 1975 - Le temps des études. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.

05-Clement2006-Transposicao_didatica_modelo_KVP.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 05-Clement2006-Transposicao_didatica_modelo_KVP.pdf