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

Abstract

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.

Notes

	The following quotation, as reported by Gunstone (1992), shows that this is not a self‐evident condition.
	In the following typical example, the student (P) has been asked by the interviewer (O) about the purpose of the activity they have just completed.
	P: He talked about it … That's about all …
	O: What have you decided it [the activity] is all about?
	P: I dunno, I never really thought about it … just doing it – doing what it says … its 8.5 … just got to do different numbers and the next one we have to do is this [points in text to 8.6].
	In addition Gunstone (1992) writes: ‘This problem of students not knowing the purpose(s) of what they are doing, even when they have been told, is perfectly familiar to any of us who have spent time teaching. The real issue is why the problem is so common and why it is very hard to avoid’. As a remedy, much emphasis has been laid on fostering students' general meta‐cognitive knowledge and skills. Students should learn to learn. Without wanting to argue about the value of this emphasis, in our approach we adopt the additional view that it should also be clear to students on content‐related grounds why and what they are doing

In the development of our scenario we focus on the description of an empirically tested optimal ‘average’ teaching–learning process. In practice, the actual process will always deviate from the final scenario to a lesser or larger extent. We call it ‘good enough’, or to have sufficient didactical quality, if the empirical test shows that the anticipated process is feasible for both teacher and students and that the expected learning effects are satisfactorily obtained. This implies that actual unexpected deviations do not essentially disturb the scenario and can be handled adequately by the teacher. It also means that the students in general are able to make the necessary learning steps, so that no lasting conceptual blockades or major misinterpretations result.

It should be kept in mind that the structures will be described here only in summary. A full description and empirical justification of each structure is given elsewhere (Klaassen 1995, Kortland 2001, Vollebregt 1998).

This means that research in didactics is not only content specific but also, to a certain extent, system specific.