Research in Science Education, 1997, 27(3), 383-394

Student-Centred Instruction and Learning Processes in Physics

Manuela Welzel University of Bremen

Abstract

During the 1970s, student-centred ~nstruction---that is, "play orientation in physics education" (Spielorientierter Unterricht)---was at the centre of curriculum development at the Institute of Physics Education in Bremen. During the past decade, we investigated this kind of instruction with a particular focus on students' learning processes using a situated cognition perspective. Our research group at the Institute conducted several empirical studies of physics learning for different age groups. The aim of these case studies was to construct detailed understandings of how individu.al learning processes unfold. On the basis of these studies, we attempt to design physics lessons more effectively than they have been in the past. This paper exemplifies our approach providing information about the theoretical and methodological frameworks, the main outcomes of our studies; and reflections about the possibilities for "'more effective" student- centred instruction.

Traditional physics instruction, predominantly based on lectures and manipulation of formulae, has largely been ineffective (Duit, 1996; Pfundt & Duit, 1994). During the past four decades, much work in physics education was devoted to deal with this ineffectiveness. This has led to widespread adoption of student-centred pedagogies which are based on the findings of rigorous studies. Recent research in physics edt/cation is characterised by a strong interaction between physics education research, curriculum development and teacher education (see, Brown & Clement, 1991; Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994; Duit, 1991; Dykstra, 1992; Goldberg & Bendall, 1992; Hewson & Hewson, 1984; Hewson & Thorley, 1989; Osborne, 1991; Pfundt & Duit, 1994; Scott, Asoko & Driver, 1991; Vosniadou, 1994, 1996). In our research group (e.g., von Aufschnaiter & Schwedes, 1989), we developed a new conception of instruction to improve the teaching-learning situation on the basis of Moore and Anderson's (1976) studies on "Clarifying Educational Environments" and Helanko's "play systems" (1958) as typical domains of action for human learning. Our conception is based on the observation "that every individual creates his own experiences as a part of a self-constructed reality, the learner autonomously determines the kind and direction of learning experiences" (yon Aufschnaiter & Schwedes, 1989, p. 469)rain the way it frequently happens during playing games. In this conception, students and their actions and intentions move into the centre of instructional design, for it "is of great importance ... to acknowledge the student's active part as a subject in play systems" (yon Aufschnaiter & Schwedes, 1989, p. 470). To develop, students therefore require many different instructional opportunities to act, discuss, and be creative.

In the course of our research studies, curricula in different content areas--including electric circuits, thermal expansion, work, energy, and electrostaticsmand different age levels were designed, taught and tested. The play orientation of these curricula met with the approval of teachers and students (von Aufschnaiter & Schwedes, 1989). But there existed unanswered questions regarding the variability of intra-individual and inter-individual actions and learning outcomes. It seemed that specific individual factors influencing students' learning pathways had to exist. In this way, the focus of our research shifted away from curriculum development to detailed analyses of individual learning processes. The main research question was what it means

384 WELZEL

to learn during student centred instruction in physics (Schwedes, 1992; von Aufschnaiter, Fischer, & Schwedes, 1992). Our approach to research was characterised by the use of unobtrusive observations of students during their engagement with the activities that the curriculum provided. Through a series of studies, descriptions of individual cognitive processes and corresponding methods of investigations and analysis were developed (Breuer, 1995; Fischer, 1989; Langensiepen, 1996; Prfim, 1985; Schoster & von Aufschnaiter, 1997; Seibel, 1995; yon Aufschnaiter, 1992; von Aufschnaiter & Welzel, 1996; Welzel, 1995a, 1997; Welzel, 1995b, 1997).

Situated Cognition and the Description of Students' Learning Processes

To understand the dynamic nature of cognition during learning physics, we take a situated cognition perspective (e.g., Clancey, 1993; Roth, 1996; von Aufschnaiter et al., 1992; Welzel, 1995a, 1997). Onthe one hand, this situated cognition framework is agent-centred (so far student- centred) and uses agent-in-the-world (Agre, 1993; Chapman, 1991) as the basic unit of analysis. That is, cognition and action emerge as students act in settings. On the other hand, "Learning is inherently 'situated' because every new activation is part of an ongoing perception-action co- ordination" (Clancey, 1993, p. 95). Accordingly, we assume that in every new situation sequences of new meanings are produced that coordinate ongoing perceptions, expectations, and actions resulting i n a continuous context-dependent spiral process: perception1 ~ expectation~ ~ action~ --* perception 2 ~ expectatioq --, actio]a ~ perceptign and so on. All processes of situated cognition are generated in the context of the interaction with the environment.

This model accounts for the observation that individuals always act in the worlds they perceive and experience. As researchers, we may want to focus exclusively on the activities of individual students or track students' activities within the social and material context. In either case, we reconstruct students' processes of perception, expectation, and action. Students' cognitive processes are reconstructed based on the observed actions. 1 The result of these reconstructive processes are acceptable if the cognitive processes thereby constituted are consistent with those that occur before and after. We also make clear distinctions between situated cognition of the observed students and the results of our reconstructions. We use the notion of "idea" (with quotation marks) to denote students' cognition reconstructed by the observer. We assume that these "ideas" are plausible sources for the student activities we observe and use them as the basis for subsequent analyses.

Complexity of Situated Cognition

Following the activities of individual students during instruction, one observes an increase in the complexity of the "ideas" (and correspondingly, students' activities). In addition, the number of elements the students treat and the relationships they construct (between these elements) in a specific context grows. This development can be described in terms of increasing complexity. We developed a heuristic that allows us to describe this kind of development by means of ten levels of complexity: (a) objects----construction of stable figure-ground-distinctions; (b) aspects--links between objects and/or identification of specific features; (c) operations--systematic variation of objects according to their aspects; (d) properties---construction of classes of objects on the basis of common or different aspects; (e) events--links between some stable properties of the same or of different class(es) of objects; (f) programmes--systematic variation of a property according to other stable properties; (g) principles--~:onstruction of stable co-variations of pairs of properties; (h) connections--links between several principles with the same or different variable properties;

INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING PROCESSES 385

(i) networks--systematic variation of a principle according to other principles; and (j) systems--construction of stable networks of variable principles.

When the complexity of one student's "ideas" in a specific context (e.g., electrostatics) are plotted against time, a development to higher complexity can be observed (Welzel, 1995a, 1997). During activities in a new context of a physics course, students thereby pass through two periods of development: first, students get to know and to describe phenomena; second, students treat and explain these phenomena in terms of different relationships. Passage through these periods increases the number of elements they attend to and the relationships they construct between elements. The following example from electrostatics, taken from my doctoral dissertation (Welzel, 1995a), illustrates these developmedts.

During the first period the students act with new objects within this new context "electrostatics." They manipulate plastic films (transparencies), metal plates, glow lamps, different rods, an electroscope and others. Acting with the objects (focusing on aspects and operating with the objects within the context) they be~n to distinguish features relevant in the new context. Some of these features become properties of a whole class of objects of the context such as being chargeable, unchargeable, and conductive. Students construct relationships among stable properties and thereby form events: a light bulb glows if you touch it with a charged plastic film or the pointer of the electroscope turns if.the electroscope is touched by a charged object. In the second phase of development, students systematically connect several properties--at least one which varies continuously--and in this way design programmes. These programmes are tested in different contexts. For example, a light bulb will be used as a test instrument for charges in different experiments or an electroscope will be charged by "influence and earth." Subsequently they construct principles, that is, co-variations of variable properties for classes of contexts. These are principles based on individual experiences with programmes, for example, each time you reduce the area of a roller blind, its charge density increases. The next higher level of complexity can be described as connecting certain principles--at first spontaneous links (connections) and then with a systematic variation (networks) across different contexts. Systems are produced when students construct relationships between variable principles of variable contexts. ~

Research Design and Methods

All our studies follow the same methodology. The following details from my doctoral dissertation exemplify our approach. One major objective of the investigation was to provide detailed descriptions of the dynamics of students' individual activities while studying electricity in the context of student-centred instruction. The second major objective was to analyse the influence of interactions on these individual learning processes. All activities of two student ~oups were therefore videotaped, partly transcribed, and analysed.

Classroom Setting and Data Collection

As part of the investigation, I taught a physics course about electrostatics and electric circuits. The unit lasted 15 weeks and consisted of two 45-minute lessons per week. The students were in Year 10 (approximately 15 years of age) at a Gymnasium in Bremen (Germany). 3 During this period I was a member of the teaching staff of this school. Another researcher assisted in planning the curriculum and made observations throughout the study. German provinces establish curriculum guidelines ("Rahmenrichtlinien") for teachers which gives them considerable flexibility in devising the contents of lessons and organising students' activities to implement the topics.

386 WELZEL

The lessons investigated in this project were designed to allow students sufficient time to investigate and interact with one another. One of the main planning principles was to provide students with opportunities for brining their own experiences to the activities and for getting new experiences with the materials. Students self-selected into groups of two to four members. Students were free to walk about the classroom to get experimental materials or interact with other individual students or groups. Two groups of students were recorded using one camera per group.

Physics Curriculum

In the course of the 15-week 'curriculum, students studied a variety of topics including electrical contacts, testing for presence of charges, charge transmission, charging by means of influences, charge density, polarisation, energy of charge, capacity, voltage, and electrical circuits (Ohm's law). Throughout the course, students conducted experimental activities and were provided with appropriate materials including plastic films, metal plates, pieces of cloth or dusters, small neon glow lamps, electrometers, and rods. Students predominantly decided for themselves whether to design and try experiments or work on teacher-framed investigations. In their groups, students conducted experiments, described experimental activities and reported the results in the form of laboratory reports, and reported their experiments in whole-class meetings where they also explained and discussed what they had done.

Data Interpretation--Step by Step

All relevant video sequences are transcribed, 4 meaning, all observable activities (e.g., spoken words and sentences, gestures, mimics, and addressees in the communication) are listed in chronological order for each student. That is the first step of interpretation and requires some experience with such classroom contexts and with the usual idioms of the participating persons (Fischer, 1989; Oevermann, Allert, Konau, & Kranbeck, 1979).

The main objective of the data interpretation consists in the reconstruction of students' "ideas" from transcribed sequences. This pr~ess includes thre~ steps: I. videotaped sequences are carefully observed (for the understanding of the observable interactions); 2. single actions of each student are identified; and 3. lists of ideas of every student ("ideas" reconstructed by the observer) are abstracted. Following these steps, every action of a student is described in terms of an "idea." The researcher implies that each situation-related "idea" might be a cognitive construction (situated cognition) that generates the action of the student. The results of such interpretative processes are chronological lists of"ideas" for each student through all chosen activity sequences. The criterion for appropriate interpretation is the consistency of the sequence of "ideas." The following example illustrates the analytic progress from the raw transcript to the assignment of complexity to a cognitive activity. The example was chosen from the sixth double period on electrostatics in the Year 10 class I taught.

Jessica and her group stand around the table and inspect a charged electrometer which is connected with a roller blind made of aluminium foil (Figure I). They attempt to find out about the charge density on this apparatus if the roller blind is moved.

INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING PROCESSES

roller blind electrometer

387

Figure 1. A roller blin~l conductively connected with an electroscope.

Transcript: (Ca - Caren, Je - Jessica, In - Inga)

O1 02 03

07 08 10 I1

14 15 16

ca: (is PULLING THE ROLLER BLIND) Je: (to Ca) The electroscope doesn't react ... Ca: (IS LOOKING INTENSIVELY AT THE DEVICE) Yeah, no miracle! May be we

have to connect the wire with this (takes the wire of the roller blind and connects it with the tripot) That is the first ...

Je: (to Ca) Yes, now this should conduct! Ca: ('MANIPULATING THE ROLk~R BLIND.) We have to connect this with this... Je: (to C) Yes, if this is moving ... In: (to Ca) But, why this (SPOTS THE ELECTROSCOPE) get charged if I come

close to here? (POINTS TO THE ROLLER BLIND) Je: (to Ca) Yes, exactly! In: (to Ca) That is not the reason. I don't believe that! Je: (to Ca) So it is connected with that too! (POINTS TO THE ROLLER BLIND)

Through this thing here, and so on. All that conducts!

Jessica expects that there is a change at the electrometer when she unrolls the roller blind (line 01). But when Caren does unroll the blind, Jessica does not recognise an effect (line 02). This gives rise to the following sequence of "ideas."

Jessica 1: Jessica 2:

Jessica 3:

Jessica 4:

The electrometer does not react to the motion of the roller blind. (line 02) The electrometer can't react to the motion of the roller blind because there is no more contact if the roller blind is turning. (lines 07-10) This can't be the fact, because one can charge the roller blind using the plastic film. (lines 11-14) If it is possible to charg e the roller blind, the apparatus must be ok. All parts are conductively connected. (lines 16 and 17)

From this sequence of"ideas," we can see that Jessica generates physics-related "ideas" when she looks for mistakes in her actions and expectations. She assumes that the electrical contacts of the apparatus are faulty (Idea 2). So she tests her hypothesis of a faulty apparatus (Idea 3) and subsequently gives it up again (Idea 4).

This short piece of a reconstructed succession of"ideas" characterises Jessica's process of "situated cognition development." Again and again, single individual "situated cognitions" (as processes which are enacted) are produced contextually (see Ideas 1 to 4) and further developed. One "idea" follows another, which is produced in a process of fitting perception, expectation, and action. So, every succession of ideas (i.e., succession of situated cognition) is related to the current context of activity:

388 WELZEL

The Analysis of Ideas

Using the above described heuristics of complexity levels the reconstructed "ideas" are now further analysed. That is, each "idea" will be related to a certain level of complexity.

At first Jessica recognises that during the motion of the roller blind (systematic variation of an object) there is no reaction on the other object, namely the electroscope (Idea 1). This cognitive process takes place on the operation level. Then, Jessica constructs the property of electrical contact between the different objects and their features (Idea 2). With the next "idea" she links this property of having contact to the chargeability of the whole device (Idea 3). With this linkage of properties she reaches the event leveL'With the last "idea" of this sequence (Idea 4), Jessica links the property of being chargeable to the property of all elements being conductively connected.

Table 1 Jessica's Ideas and Their Corresponding Level of Complexity

Jessica's ideas Level of complexity

I. The electrometer does not react to the motion of the roller blind

2. The electrometer can't react to the motion of the roller blind

3. This can't be the fact, because one can charge the roller blind using the plastic film

4. If it is possible to charge the roller blind, the apparatus must be ok. All parts are conductively connected.

operation

property

event

event

So she is once more on the event level. At this point the succession of "ideas" ends. The students try to find another solution for their problem and begin a new development of cognition.

During this short sequence the complexity of Jessica's co~itions increases. The first "idea'" is at the level of operation and gets further developed until lessica reaches the event level. A bottom-up dynamic of cognition development can be observed in the sequence.

Overview of Results from Our Studies with Respect to Situated Cognition

During the past decade, the described analyses were employed for a number of data sets. The studies conducted at the Institute of Physics Education allow general descriptions of students' activities in terms of the complexity of cognitive processes in different topics and at different age levels. In this section, I present an overview of the results from nine completed case studies. These results are presented in the form of assertions followed by a brief discussion.

Assertion 1: In each situation every student passes anew through a "situated-cognition- development." This situated cognition development is (always) characterised by an increase of complexity (bottom up)

When we plot the complexity of ideas of several students across several situations, we find that in each situation and at a timescale of minutes, students over and over again start a series of ideas (Figure 2). Each series begins at a relatively low level of complexity which increases, and

INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING PROCESSES 389

often reaches higher levels of complexity than before. During this process a certain level of complexity is also differentiated. This dynamic of increasing complexity can be observed across students and contexts. During physics tasks in a sequence of a lessons, situated cognition therefore becomes increasingly complex. With respect to this dynamic we are speaking about a "bottom-up- development" of complexity during situated cognition.

Complexity

systems. networks -

connections - principles -

programmes - 8v~nl$ -

properties - operations -

aspects- objects

J "time

Figure 2. Increasing complexity of ideas in a specific context.

Assertion 2: Learning is a process characterised by the long-term drifts of the average complexity of situated cognition to higher levels

We investigated the dynamics of situated cognition development in rather similar contexts and in different age groups (Welzel, 1995a, 1996, 1997). A change of the dynamics of situated cognition during several periods of the physics courses (Figure 3) was observed. The level of complexity on which the successions of situated-cognition-development be~n and end is increasing during several periods. In a first period a low level will be differentiated (many ideas are successive on this level), after that a new and higher level with a higher complexity will be reached and then further differentiated. The highest levels students reached previously are now attained more and more quickly if they have passed more (nearly similar) situations. That is, advanced students begin their situated cognition development on a low level of complexity, and reach the higher level more quickly (the same level reached more slowly in earlier situations) and undergo development of situated cognition on these higher levels.

Less advanced students also begin their situated cognition development on lower levels of complexity but take more time to differentiate the low levels and to reach a higher level than that reached previously. They need more situations to reach the same level as the advanced student. But at the end of a course both have passed nearly the same development of situated cognition development.

This type of individual development was found in several case studies, covering students of different age goups, in which the individual development of single students learning physics was analysed. The contexts there have been less complicated. So far we do not know all about the dynamics of individual learning processes in contexts which are more complicated. With our next investigations we want to analyse in detail what happens as the contexts get more complicated. These are investigations at university level (first year) covering laboratory work, exercises and lectures.

390 WELZEL

Complexity

~ste~ 9

~twor~ -

~m~'t io~ -

pr inc ip les -

programmes - events -

properties operations

as~ objects

t / / : : / J situation I situation 2 ~ittmtion 3

Situation

H

Figure 3. Change of the dynamics of situated cognition across situations from several lessons.

Assertion 3: Situated cognition is age-dependent

Our studies show characteristic similarities and differences between cognitive development at different age levels. First, at all age levels, we observe the same kind of bottom-up development of the complexity of situated cognition. However, the average levels at which students operate increase with age. Thus, we observe:

1. In Year 5 (age 10) there are mainly individual developments through the levels "objects--aspects--operations---properties---events." The level of "programme" is reached only very rarely.

2. In Year 10 (age 15116) mainly there are developments through the levels of "properties--events----programmes." The level of"prineiples" is reached only by advanced learners in advanced lessons of the course.

3. In Year 11 (age 17118) there are developments through the levels of "events--programmes--pdnciples." The levels of "connections" and "networks" are only reached by advanced learners in advanced lessons of the course.

The complexity reached by students depends on their interpretation of the situation and their experiences in the actual context. It has to be noted that the design of all reported courses demanded rather similar situations at the beginning but not at the end. That is, at the beginning of all courses (all age groups) the contexts were similar. But during the courses the increase of complexity of the contexts was different.

Conclusions

In this article, I have sketched the theory, methods and findings of the investigations conducted in the Institute on individual learning processes during student-centred instruction. In all instances, the participating students and teachers were satisfied with our concept of instruction. Students enjoyed the lessons and learned physics in a more successful way; teachers felt that they had done effective jobs. Our investigations provide some rationale as to why these lessons were

INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING PROCESSES 391

so successful. Our instruction: provided opportunities for students to construct situated cognitions on their own; allowed students to construct repeatedly the "same" situated cognitions, meaning more then one or two times; allowed students to construct cognitions on a low level of complexity before they were guided to higher complexity; and allowed students to go through a process of increasing complexity according to their own abilities, skills, and experiences.

We believe that student-centred instruction will be successful if teachers follow our example. Our results show that in learning processes, exchange of information does not take place. Rather, "learning" is constituted by individual processes of situated cognition development. These processes are generated internally on the basis of experiences of a learner and according to the opportunities he/she has within the lharning environments.

Our results show that all students construct and develop situated cognition on the basis of their own experiences. Processes of reaching higher complexity are context dependent and take place everywhere and in all learning situations. Knowing this allows us to plan courses in new ways--student-centred, rather than telling students abstract content. We provide students with opportunities to have experiences in new contexts and on lower levels of complexity. Students need to construct relevant objects and properties on their own, manage special situations, interact with them, and predict events when they combine properties of objects. After that they are able to reach the levels of principles and.systems.

Our data analyses showed that even advanced learners (such as students of upper high school and as new results show, second year students of university in physics) pass through such developments of situated cognition in each new situation of their learning environments be~nning from a very low level of complexity even in learning environments which are normally more complicated. Our research group is in the process of designing new investigations at the school and university levels to find out how to guide students effectively through their learning processes. We want to experiment on how teachers can provide questions, hints, and tasks at the "right" level of complexity. In addition we want to investigate how to interact in an appropriate way with students on different levels of complexity development. We want to find empirical data up to the system level of complexity through an investigation of physics experts such as physicists with graduate degrees. Among the questions we will attempt to answer with future research are, "On which level of complexity must hints and questions of the teacher be formulated to scaffold students' learning processes?" "Which are the 'right' formulations for each level of complexity?" and "Under which conditions will the system level be reached?"

Acknowledgements

This paper could not have been written without the intensive and stimulating interactions in our research group. I am grateful to Stefan von Aufschnaiter who provides me with opportunities for my own development; I extend my gratitude to all members of his ~oup at the Institute of Physics Education at the University of Bremen. I also thank Hans-Ernst Fischer for his hints and critical discussions during the past years and Wolff-Michael Roth for extensive discussions regarding research and his help that allows me to publish in English.

I.

Notes

This reconstruction is a process of interpretation which needs training and experience on the part of the observer.

392

2.

WELZEL

None of the students we observed reached these high levels of complexity. We therefore continue our research in higher age groups-~at the university level. The highest level we observed was the level of connections in Year 12.

3. In the German school system the pupils go through two to three periods: compulsory for all is the primary school (Year 1 to 4 that means age 6 to 10). Finishing this the students can chose between three different levels of secondary school (Year 5 to I0, means age 11 to 15): Hauptschule (lowest), Realschule and Gymnasium (highest). It is compulsory to enrol in one of them and it is possible to change in between after each year, if the success is not adequate to the level. Only successful completion of Gymnasium gives the qualification for going further to the upper secondary level (Year 11 to 13, age 16 to 19) at Gymnasium. So the students of our investigation are on the higher level in their age ~oup and they want to go to the upper secondary school.

4. The relevance of sequences depends on the objective of the analysis. In this case I chose sequences with activities on physics problems and interactions between the students.

5. The activities of the other students of course influenced ~e activities and the cognitive processes of Jessica. But that interaction will be a focus for another paper analysing the influence of interactions during learning physics. I want to concentrate exclusively on one individuals cognitive processes in this paper.

Correspondence: Dr. Manuela Welzel, Institute of Physics Education, University of Bremen, PF 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany. Internet email: MWELZEL@physik.uni-bremen.de

References

Agre, P. E. (1993). The symbolic worldview: Reply to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 61-69.

Breuer, E. (1995). Zur orientierung indibidueUer entwicklungen im physikunterricht durch erfahrungen. Eine faUstudie in einem physik-leistungskurs elektrostatik [The orientation of individual cognitive development during physics instruction through experiences]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Brown, D., & Clement, J. (1991). Classroom teaching experiments in mechanics. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 380-397). Kiel: IPN.

Chapman, D. (1991). Vision, instruction, and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Clancey, W. J. (1993). Situated action: A neuropsychological interpretation response to Vera and

Simon. Cognitive Science, 17, 87-116. Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education,

75, 649-672. Duit, R. (1996). Lernen als konzeptwechsel im naturwissenschaftlichen unterricht [Learning as

conceptual change during science instruction]. In R. Duit, & C. von RhSneck (Eds.), Lernen in den naturwissenschaftlichenfdchern (pp. 145-162). Kiel: IPN.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. Research into children's ideas. London: Routledge.

Dykstra, D. (1992). Studying conceptual change: Constructing new understandings. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 40-58). Kiel: IPN.

INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING PROCESSES 393

Fischer, H. E. (1989). Lernprozesse im physikunterricht. FaUuntersuchungen im unterricht zur elektrostatik aus konstruktivistischer sicht [Learning processes during physics instruction]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Goldberg, F., & Bendall, C. (1992). Computer-video-based tutorials in geometrical optics. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer, (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 356-379). Kiel: IPN.

Helanko, R. (1958). Theoretical aspects of play and socialisation. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Ser. B., 70, 1-48.

Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change 9 r 9 . .

and the design of science instruction, lnstructtonal Sctence, 13, 1-13. Hewson, P. W., & Thorley, N. R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom.

International Journal of Science Education, 11,541-553. Langensiepen, B. (1996). Die entwicklung physikalischer beschreibungen. Eine vergleichende

lernprozeflstudie im elektrostatikunterricht. [The development of physics descriptions]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Moore, O. K:, & Anderson, A. R. (1976). Einige prinzipien zur gestaltung von erziehungsumwelten selbstgesteuerten lernens. [Some principles for the design of learning environments of selfdirected learning]. In J. Lehmann, & G. Portele (Eds.), Simulationsspiele in der erziehung. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.

Oevermann, U., Allert, T., Konau, E., & Kranbeck, J. (1979). Die methodologie einer "objektiven hermeneutik" und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische bedeutung in den sozialwissenschaften. [The methodology of "objective hermeneutics"]. In H.-G. Soeffer (Ed.), Interpretative verfahren in den sozial- und textwissenschafien (pp. 352-434). Stuttgart: Metzler.

Osborne, J. (1991). Approaches to the teaching of AT 16---The earth in space: Issues, problems and resources. School Science Review, 72(260), 7-15.

Pfundt, H., & Duit, H. (1994). Students' alternative frameworks and science education. Kiel: IPN. Priim, R. (1985). How do 12-year-olds approach simple electric circuits? A microstudy on learning

processes. In R. Duit et al. 0Eds.), Aspects of understanding electricity, Proceedings of an International Workshop, IPN Arbeitsberichte 59 (pp. 227-234). Kiel: IPN.

Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129-166.

Schoster, A., & von Aufschnaiter, S. (1997)9 The influence of different complex learning environments on individual learning processes. In R. Pinto (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Summerschool Theory and Methodology of Research in Science Education (pp. 150-154). Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E.S.E.R.A..

Schwedes, H. (1992). Ziele und perspektiven einer lernprozeBforschung unter konstruktivistischem paradigma. [Aims and perspectives of research on learning processes using a constructivist paradigm]. In K. H. Wiebel (Ed.), Zur Didaktik der Physik und Chemie: Probleme und Perspektiven. (pp. 346-348). Alsbach/BergstraBe: Leuchtturm-Verlag.

Scott, P., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. (1991). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310-329) Kiel: IPN.

Seibel, C. (1995). Analyse von lernprozessen im handlungsorientierten physikunterricht, fallstudie zum thema "Kurzschlufl" in der orientierungsstufe. [The analysis of learning processes during action orientated physics instruction]. Aachen, Germany: Mainz.

von Aufschnaiter, S. (1992)9 Versuch der beschreibung eines theoretischen rahmens fiJr die untersuchung von lernprozessen. [A trial of a description of a theoretical framework for the investigation of learning processes]. In Forschergruppe "Interdisziplin~re Kognitionsforschung" (Eds.), Bedeutungsentwicklung und Lernen. Schriftenreihe der

394 WELZEL

forschergruppe "lnterdisziplini~re Kogni~onsforschung'" (Band II) (pp. 109-124). Bremen und Oldenburg: Universities of Bremen and Oldenburg.

von Aufschnaiter, S., & Schwedes, H. (1989). Play orientation in physics education. Science Education, 73, 467-479.

von Aufschnaiter, S., & Welzel, M. (1996). Beschreibung von lernprozessen. [The description of learning processes]. In R. Duit, & C. yon RhSneck (Eds.), Lernen in den naturwissenschaftiichenfdchern (pp. 301-327). Kieh IPN.

von Aufschnaiter, S., Fischer, H. E., & Schwedes, H. (1992). Kinder konstruieren welten. Perspektiven einer konstruktivistischen physikdidaktik. [Children construct worlds. Perspectives of a constructivist physics education]. In S. J. Schmidt (Ed.), Der diskurs des radikalen konstruktivismus II (pp. 380-424). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch-Wissenschaft.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the processes of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45-70.

Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6(2), 95-109.

Welzel, M. (L995a). Interaktionen und physiklernen: Empirische untersuchungen im physikunterricht der sekundarstufe 1 [Interactions and physics learning. Empirical studies during physics learning in a secondary 1 class]. Frankfurt: Lang.

Welzel, M. (1995b). Eine methode zur empirischen beschreibung von bedeutungsentwicklungen und lernen bei sch~ilern fiber verhaltensbeobachtung. [A method to be used for the description of students' situated cognition and learning processes through the observation of their behaviour]. In Forschergruppe "Interdisziplin~re Kognitionsforschung" (Eds.), Repriisentation und Bedeutung. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums fiir Kognitionswissenschafien (Band HI) (pp. 157- 186). Bremen und Oldenburg: Universities of Bremen and Oldenburg.

Welzel, M. (1996). Bedeutungsentwicklungen in unterschiedlichen altersstufen. [Situated cognition in different age ~oups]. In H. Behrendt (Ed.), Zur Didaktik der Physik und Chemic: Probleme und Perspektiven (pp. 195-197). Alsbach/BergstraBe: Leuchtturm-Verlag.

Welzel, M. (1997). Investigations of individual learning processes: A research program with its theoretical framework and research desig 9. In R. Pinto (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Summerschool Theory and Methodology of Research in Science Education (pp. 76-84). Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E.S.E.R.A.