Transformace obsahu ve třídě: vliv detailů výuky na žákovské porozumění struktuře vědecké znalosti

Jiří  Kohout; Václav Stacke; Markéta Kuberská; Petra Konečná; Pavel Masopust; Věra Ferdiánová; Pavel Mentlík; Jan Slavík

doi:10.14712/23362189.2023.2861

Vol. 73 No. 2 (2023): Didactics between Theory, Curriculum and Teaching Practice Research paper

Content Transformation in the Classroom: The influence of teaching details on pupils’ understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge

Jiří Kohout, ¹ Václav Stacke, ² Markéta Kuberská, ³ Petra Konečná, ⁴ Pavel Masopust, ⁵ Věra Ferdiánová, ⁶ Pavel Mentlík, ⁷ Jan Slavík, ⁸

Katedra fyziky, Pedagogická fakulta, Západočeská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0002-5614-2126 doc. Mgr. Jiří Kohout, Ph.D., jkohout4@rek.zcu.cz
Katedra geografie, Pedagogická fakulta, Západočeská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0002-5244-4768 RNDr. Václav Stacke, Ph.D.
Katedra geografie, Pedagogická fakulta, Západočeská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0003-0254-8654 Mgr. Markéta Kuberská, Ph.D.,
Katedra matematiky, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Ostravská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0001-5922-7013 RNDr. Petra Konečná, Ph.D.,
Katedra fyziky, Pedagogická fakulta, Západočeská univerzita. ORCID: : 0000-0002-1769-6636 PhDr. Pavel Masopust, Ph.D.,
Katedra matematiky, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Ostravská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0002-4157-1366 Mgr. Věra Ferdiánová, Ph.D.,
Katedra geografie, Pedagogická fakulta, Západočeská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0002-6068-8615 doc. RNDr. Pavel Mentlík, Ph.D.,
Katedra pedagogiky, Pedagogická fakulta, Západočeská univerzita. ORCID: 0000-0002-0815-6582 doc. PaedDr. Jan Slavík, CSc.,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2023.2861

PDF (Czech)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study, in the context of the historical development of didactics, is to analytically explain the theoretical construct of content transformation including the structure of its sub-terms, to justify its operationalization for the research of relations between teaching and learning through semantic-logical networks (S-L networks) and to demonstrate the application potential of this approach by replication in the teaching of physics, geography and mathematics. The aim of the research was to describe and explain the reasons that caused pupils' difficulties in understanding scientific schemes during the transformation of content in the classroom.

Methods: For the analysis of relations between teaching and learning through educational content, a modified 3A methodology extended by the cognitive layer was used. The methodological starting point of the analysis is the comparison of S-L networks of the three basic dimensions of content transformation: scientific scheme, thematisation of scientific content in the educational environment and representation of pupils' mental schemes in problem solving.

Results: Theoretical constructs and their methodological operationalisation were verified by replication in the educational disciplines of physics, geography, and mathematics. In each of these disciplines they enabled to explain the influence of teaching details on changes in the structure of pupil knowledge with respect to the specific content of the given discipline.

Conclusions: It has been shown that even detailed moments of the S-L structure, difficult to capture in practice, can have a strong influence on pupils' understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge. In doing so, theoretical and methodological constructs have been successfully replicated. The acquired knowledge can serve to directly support educational practice in relevant areas of the curriculum.

Keywords content transformation semantic-logical network teaching details deep structure of teaching and learning powerful knowledge

[1] Ainsworth, T. (2020). Form vs. Matter. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Dotupné z https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/form-matter/. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos UK. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Aristotle (1999). Metaphysics. Green Lion Press. Search in Google Scholar

[4] https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00264022 Open DOI

[5] Artigue, M. (1992). Didactic engineering. Recherche en Didactique des Mathématiques, 13(3), 41-66. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Barrett, B., & Rita, E. (Eds.). (2014). Knowledge and the future of the curriculum: International studies in social realism. Palgrave Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental psychology. Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[8] Bernstein, B. (1971) On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (s. 47-69). Collier Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control: The structuring of pedagogic discourse (vol. 4). Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Bernstein, B. (1999) Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157-173. Search in Google Scholar

[11] https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380 Open DOI

[12] Birnie, J. (1999). Physical geography at the transition to higher education: The effect of prior learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(1), 49-62. Search in Google Scholar

[13] https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269985597 Open DOI

[14] Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Bloomfield, L. (1946). Linguistic aspects of science. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C. W. Morris (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of unified science. University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Bohm, D. (1987). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Boutyline, A., & Soter, L. K. (2021). Cultural schemas: What they are, how to find them, and what to do once you've caught one. American Sociological Review, 86(4), 728-758. Search in Google Scholar

[18] https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224211024525 Open DOI

[19] Bozkurt, F. (2019). Evaluation of geography textbooks in terms of misconceptions about climate topic. RIGEO, 9(1), 149-170. Search in Google Scholar

[20] https://doi.org/10.33403/rigeo.573480 Open DOI

[21] Brückmannová, M., & Janík, T. (2008). Diagram obsahové struktury vyučovací hodiny: ukázka z výuky fyziky. In T. Janík et al., Metodologické problémy výzkumu didaktických znalostí obsahu (s. 89-101). Paido. Search in Google Scholar

[22] Budínová, I., & Janík, T. (2021). Children with reduced cognitive efficiency and addition of natural numbers up to 20. Case study. Journal of Elementary Education, 14(2), 125-148. Search in Google Scholar

[23] https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.2.125-148.2021 Open DOI

[24] Buty, A., Tiberghien, Ch., & Le Maréchal, J-F. (2004). Learning hypotheses and an associated tool to design and to analyse teaching-learning sequences. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 579-604. Search in Google Scholar

[25] https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690310001614735 Open DOI

[26] Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

[27] Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. La Pensée Sauvage. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (s. 61-82). Erlbaum. Search in Google Scholar

[29] Currie, G., & Ravenscroft, I. (2011). Recreative minds: Imagination in philosophy and psychology. Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[30] Daniels, H. (2015). Mediation: An expansion of the socio-cultural gaze. History of the Human Sciences, 28(2), 34-50. Search in Google Scholar

[31] https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695114559994 Open DOI

[32] Davidson, D. (1973-1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47(1973-1974), 5-20. Search in Google Scholar

[33] https://doi.org/10.2307/3129898 Open DOI

[34] de Jong, W. R. (2010). The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege. Synthese, 174(2), 237-261. Search in Google Scholar

[35] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9 Open DOI

[36] Deng, Z. (2007). Transforming the subject matter: Examining the intellectual roots of pedagogical content knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3), 279-295. Search in Google Scholar

[37] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2007.00386.x Open DOI

[38] Deng, Z. (2021). Powerful knowledge, transformations and Didaktik/curriculum thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1652-1674. Search in Google Scholar

[39] https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3748 Open DOI

[40] Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster. Search in Google Scholar

[41] Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of mind. Basic Books. Search in Google Scholar

[42] Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 163-174. Search in Google Scholar

[43] https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653264 Open DOI

[44] https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_2 Open DOI

[45] Dewey, J. (1981). Experience and nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works. 1925-1953, Vol. 1. Southern Illinois University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[46] Dewey, J. (1986a). How we think: Restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey. The later works. 1925-1953, Vol. 8. Southern Illinois University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[47] Dewey, J. (1986b). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works. 1925-1953, Vol. 12. Southern Illinois University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[48] Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society & the child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar

[49] https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226112114.001.0001 Open DOI

[50] DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263-287. Search in Google Scholar

[51] https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263 Open DOI

[52] Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2-3), 109-128. Search in Google Scholar

[53] https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294 Open DOI

[54] https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_5 Open DOI

[55] Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction - a framework for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe (s. 13-37). Brill Sense. Search in Google Scholar

[56] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_2 Open DOI

[57] Dvořák, D. (2017). Vzdělávací obsah: Ukazují Bernsteinova teorie a sociální realismus cestu z krize? Pedagogika, 67(3), 2017, 203-218. Search in Google Scholar

[58] https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2017.774 Open DOI

[59] Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. Basic Books. Search in Google Scholar

[60] https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895698.79 Open DOI

[61] Ferdiánová, V., Kohout, J., & Konečná, P. (2022). Triangles and their properties as a means of understanding the concepts of existence and definiteness. In T. Janík, J. Slavík & Search in Google Scholar

[62] T. Češková (Eds.), Didactic case studies and productive learning culture (s. 69-94). Masarykova Univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

[63] Fisherman, D. (2012). Mind, education, and active content. In C. W. Ruitenberg (Ed.), Philosophy of education (s. 163−171). Philosophy and Education Society. Search in Google Scholar

[64] https://doi.org/10.47925/2012.163 Open DOI

[65] PMid:22428118 Search in Google Scholar

[66] Fried, M. N. (2014). History of mathematics in mathematics education. In Matthews, M. (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (s. 00-00). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

[67] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_21 Open DOI

[68] Geen, R., Bordoni, S., Battisti, D. S., & Hui, K. (2020). Monsoons, ITCZs, and the concept of the global monsoon. Review of Geophysics, 58(4), 1-45. Search in Google Scholar

[69] https://doi.org/10.1029/2020RG000700 Open DOI

[70] Gericke, N., Hudson, B., Olin-Scheller, C., & Stolare, M. (2018). Powerful knowledge, transformations and the need for empirical studies across school subjects. London Review of Education, 16(3), 428-444. Search in Google Scholar

[71] https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.3.06 Open DOI

[72] Ghosh, V. E., & Gilboa, A. (2014). What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104-114. Search in Google Scholar

[73] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.010 Open DOI

[74] PMid:24280650 Search in Google Scholar

[75] Goodchild, S., & Sriraman, B. (2012). Revisiting the didactic triangle: From the particular to the general. ZDM Mathematics Education, 44, 581-585. Search in Google Scholar

[76] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0449-3 Open DOI

[77] Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. The Bobbs-Merrill Company. Search in Google Scholar

[78] Goodman, N. (1988). Sights unseen. In N. Goodman & C. Z. Elgin (Eds.), Reconceptions in philosophy and other arts and sciences (s. 83-92). Hackett Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

[79] Haj-Yahya, A. (2022). Students' conceptions of the definitions of congruent and similar triangles. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(10), 2703-2727. Search in Google Scholar

[80] https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1902008 Open DOI

[81] Henderson, D. K. (1994). Conceptual schemes after Davidson. In G. Preyer, F. Siebelt & A. Ulfig (Eds.), Language, mind, and epistemology (s. 171-197). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

[82] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2041-0_9 Open DOI

[83] Henriques, L. (2000). Children's misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature. School Science and Mathematics, 102(5), 205-215. Search in Google Scholar

[84] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18143.x Open DOI

[85] Hestenes, D. (2006). Notes for a modeling theory of science, cognition, and instruction. In E. van der Berg, T. Ellermeijer & O. Slooten (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 GIREP conference: Modelling in Physics and Physics Education (s. 34-65). University of Amsterdam. Search in Google Scholar

[86] Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158. Search in Google Scholar

[87] https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497 Open DOI

[88] Hewitt, P. G. (2017). Newton's (often misunderstood) third law of motion. The Science Teacher, 84(2), 12-15. Search in Google Scholar

[89] https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst17_084_02_12 Open DOI

[90] Hofstadter, D. R. (2012). Gödel, Escher, Bach: Existenciální gordická balada. Argo, Dokořán. Search in Google Scholar

[91] Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common cores of didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109-124. Search in Google Scholar

[92] https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109 Open DOI

[93] Hunzaker, M. B. F., & Valentino, L. (2019). Mapping cultural schemas: From theory to method. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 950-981. Search in Google Scholar

[94] https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419875638 Open DOI

[95] Hust, M., & Howe, C. (2012). Understanding the beliefs informing children's commonsense theories of motion: The role of everyday object variables in dynamic event predictions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30, 3-15. Search in Google Scholar

[96] https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2011.653876 Open DOI

[97] Jacob, P. (2019, November 27). Intentionality. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Dostupné z https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/intentionality/ Search in Google Scholar

[98] Janík, T. (2018). Od obsahu vzdělávání k žákově znalosti: Kritická místa na cestě do školy a ze školy. Arnica, 8(1), 1-8. Search in Google Scholar

[99] Janík, T., & Slavík, J. (2009). Obsah, subjekt a intersubjektivita v oborových didaktikách. Pedagogika, 59(2), 116-135. Search in Google Scholar

[100] Janík, T., Slavík, J., Mužík, V., Trna, J., Janko, T., Lokajíčková, V., ... & Zlatníček, P. (2013). Kvalita (ve) vzdělávání: Obsahově zaměřený přístup ke zkoumání a zlepšování výuky. Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

[101] Janík, T., Slavík, J., Najvar, P., & Janíková, M. (2019). Shedding the content: Semantics of teaching burdened by didactic formalisms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(2), 185-201. Search in Google Scholar

[102] https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1552719 Open DOI

[103] Janík, T., Slavík, J., Najvar, P., & Jirotková, D. (2020). The same and the different: On semantization and instrumentalization practices in the (maths) classroom. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1-12. Search in Google Scholar

[104] https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020950380 Open DOI

[105] Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research. National Centre for Research Methods. Search in Google Scholar

[106] Kansanen, P. (2009). Subject‐matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge? Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(1), 29-39. Search in Google Scholar

[107] https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360902742845 Open DOI

[108] Kansanen, P. J. (2003). Studying - the realistic bridge between instruction and learning. An attempt to a conceptual whole of the teaching-studying-learning process. Educational Studies, (29)2/3, 221-232. Search in Google Scholar

[109] https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690303279 Open DOI

[110] Kansanen, P. J., & Meri, M. (1999). The didactic relation in the teaching-studying-learning process. In B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen & H. Seel (Eds.), Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as science(-s) of the teaching profession (s. 107-116). TNTEE Publications. Search in Google Scholar

[111] Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In E. Klieme & J. Baumert (Eds.), TIMSS - Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente (s. 43-57). Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Search in Google Scholar

[112] Kvasz, L. (2020). Inštrumentálny realizmus ako možné východisko teoretickej reflexie vyučovania matematiky. Orbis scholae, 14(1), 7−32. Search in Google Scholar

[113] https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2020.8 Open DOI

[114] Kvasz, L. (2022). Instrumental realism: A new start for philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of science. In W. J. Gonzales (Ed.), Current trends in philosophy of science: Prospective for the near future (s. 165-190). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

[115] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01315-7_8 Open DOI

[116] Laborde, C. (1997). Affronter la complexité des situations d'apprentissage de mathématiques en classe: Défis et tentatives [Facing the complexity of learning situations in classroom of mathematics]. Didaskalia, 10, 97-112. Search in Google Scholar

[117] https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/23800 Open DOI

[118] Law, N., & Ogborn, J. (1994). Students as expert system developers: A means of eliciting and understanding commonsense reasoning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 497-513. Search in Google Scholar

[119] https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1994.10782106 Open DOI

[120] Leung, K. C., Ding, L., Leung, A. Y. L., & Wong, N. Y. (2014). Prospective teachers' competency in teaching how to compare geometric figures: The concept of congruent triangles as an example. Research in Mathematical Education, 18(3), 171-185. Search in Google Scholar

[121] https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2014.18.3.171 Open DOI

[122] Lokajíčková, V. (2013). Geography: The warm and cold front, or how to develop learning competence in geography. In T. Janík et al. (Eds.), Quality (in) education: A content-based approach to research and teaching improvement (s. 303-310). Masarykova Univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

[123] Lynch, M. P. (1997). Three models of conceptual schemes. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 40(4), 407-426. Search in Google Scholar

[124] https://doi.org/10.1080/00201749708602460 Open DOI

[125] Mason, M. M. (1989). Geometric understanding and misconceptions among gifted fourth-eighth graders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, March 27-31, 1989). Dostupné z https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED310922.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[126] McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531-566. Search in Google Scholar

[127] https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004531 Open DOI

[128] Métioui, A., & Trudel, L. (2017). Misconceptions and history of science in science-student education: Force-gravity and motion. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications, 5(1), 88-94. Search in Google Scholar

[129] Nelson, B. D., Aron, R. H., & Francek, M. A. (1992). Clarification of selected misconceptions in physical geography. Journal of Geography, 91(2), 76-80. Search in Google Scholar

[130] https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349208979083 Open DOI

[131] Niaz, M. (1995). Chemical equilibrium and Newton's third law of motion: Ontogeny/phylogeny revisited. Interchange, 26(1), 19-32. Search in Google Scholar

[132] https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01439269 Open DOI

[133] Patkin, D., & Plaksin, O. (2011). Congruent triangles sufficient and insufficient conditions suggested milestones for inquiry and discussion. Research in Mathematical Education, 15(4), 327-340. Search in Google Scholar

[134] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks. Search in Google Scholar

[135] Peregrin, J. (1997). Structure and meaning. Semiotica - Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, 113(1−2), 71-88. Search in Google Scholar

[136] https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1997.113.1-2.71 Open DOI

[137] Peregrin, J. (2000). Meaning and structure. Asghate Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

[138] Pluháčková, M., Duffek, V., Stacke, V., & Mentlík, P. (2019). Kritická místa kurikula zeměpisu na 2. stupni základní školy I. Západočeská univerzita v Plzni. Search in Google Scholar

[139] Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 67, 489-508. Search in Google Scholar

[140] https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207 Open DOI

[141] Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 215-225. Search in Google Scholar

[142] https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653268 Open DOI

[143] https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_6 Open DOI

[144] Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1989). Computing in cognitive science. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (s. 51-91). MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

[145] Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341-365. Search in Google Scholar

[146] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002022 Open DOI

[147] PMid:11301517 Search in Google Scholar

[148] Quine, W. O. (1960). Word and object. MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

[149] Ramage, C. S. (1971). Monsoon meteorology. Academic. Search in Google Scholar

[150] Richter, S. (2012). Learning tasks. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning, (s. 1975-1979). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

[151] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_342 Open DOI

[152] Robitaille, D. F. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science. TIMSS Monograph No. 1. Pacific Educational Press. Search in Google Scholar

[153] Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building block of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (s. 33-58). Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

[154] https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315107493-4 Open DOI

[155] Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, Vol. 1 (s. 161-188). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

[156] Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (s. 37-60). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Search in Google Scholar

[157] Ruthven, K. (2012). The didactical tetrahedron as a heuristic for analysing the incorporation of digital technologies into classroom practice in support of investigative approaches to teaching mathematics. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 627-640. Search in Google Scholar

[158] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0376-8 Open DOI

[159] Savelli, S. (2016). Recover the lost paradigm: Technology guided by teaching methods. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(7), 97-109. Search in Google Scholar

[160] Scheffler, I. (1995). The concept of the educated person. In I. Scheffler & V. A. Howard (Eds.), Work, education, and leadership (s. 83-95). Peter Lang. Search in Google Scholar

[161] Schönfeld, A. H. (2012). Problematizing the didactic triangle. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44, 587-599. Search in Google Scholar

[162] https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0395-0 Open DOI

[163] Schütz, A. (1953). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14(1), 1−38. Search in Google Scholar

[164] https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 Open DOI

[165] Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501-522. Search in Google Scholar

[166] https://doi.org/10.1086/443100 Open DOI

[167] Searle, J. R. (2004). Mind: A brief introduction. Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[168] Seidl, M., & Puhl, K. (2007). Order from intermediality: An outline of a model knowledge production and knowledge reception. In T. Hug (Ed.), Didactics of Microlearning. Concepts, Discourses, and Examples (s. 69-82). Waxmann. Search in Google Scholar

[169] https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844653942.019 Open DOI

[170] Seman, S. (2022). Monsoons: Giant sea / land breeze. Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University. Dostupné z https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/node/2271 Search in Google Scholar

[171] Shahbari, J. A., & Daher, W. (2020). Learning congruent triangles through ethnomathematics: The case of students with difficulties in mathematics. Applied Sciences, 10(14), 4950. Search in Google Scholar

[172] https://doi.org/10.3390/app10144950 Open DOI

[173] Shipman, B. A. (2013). On the meaning of uniqueness. PRIMUS, 23(3), 224-233. Search in Google Scholar

[174] https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2012.718730 Open DOI

[175] Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Search in Google Scholar

[176] https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 Open DOI

[177] Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Search in Google Scholar

[178] https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 Open DOI

[179] Schommer, M. (1990). Effect of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504. Search in Google Scholar

[180] https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498 Open DOI

[181] Slavík, J., & Janík, T. (2012). Kvalita výuky: Obsahově zaměřený přístup ke studiu procesů vyučování a učení. Pedagogika, 62(3), 262-286. Search in Google Scholar

[182] Slavík, J., Lukavský, J., Najvar, P., & Janík, P. (2015). Profesní soud o kvalitě výuky: Předem a následně strukturovaná reflexe. Pedagogika, 65(1), 5-33. Search in Google Scholar

[183] Slavík, J., Janík, T., & Najvar, P. (2016). Producing knowledge for improvement: The 3A procedure as a tool for research on teaching and learning. Pedagogika, 66(6), 672-688. Search in Google Scholar

[184] Slavík, J., Janík, T., & Najvar, P., & Knecht, P. (2017a). Transdisciplinární didaktika: O učitelském sdílení znalostí a zvyšování kvality výuky napříč obory. Masarykova univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

[185] https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-8569-2017 Open DOI

[186] Slavík, J., Stará, J., Uličná, K., Najvar, P. et al. (2017b). Didaktické kazuistiky v oborech školního vzdělávání. Masarykova univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

[187] https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-8768-2017 Open DOI

[188] Slavík, J., Janík, T., Kohout, J., Češková, T., Mentlík, P., & Najvar, P. (2021). K teorii aktivního vzdělávacího obsahu v transdidaktickém pojetí. Orbis scholae, 15(1), 9-36. Search in Google Scholar

[189] https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2021.8 Open DOI

[190] Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkaniemi, H., & Maaranen, K. (2014). Beginning student teachers' teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 204-219. Search in Google Scholar

[191] https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.882309 Open DOI

[192] Stocklmayer, S., Rayner, J. P., & Gore, M. M. (2012). Changing the order of Newton's laws: Why and how the third law should be first. The Physics Teacher, 50(7), 406-409. Search in Google Scholar

[193] https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4752043 Open DOI

[194] Strahler, A. (2011). Introducing physical geography. Wiley & Sons. Search in Google Scholar

[195] Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals. Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

[196] Strawson, P. (1966). The bounds of sense. Methuen. Search in Google Scholar

[197] Teppo, A. (1991). Van Hiele levels of geometric thought revisited. The Mathematics Teacher, 84(3), 210-221. Search in Google Scholar

[198] https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.84.3.0210 Open DOI

[199] Terry, C., & Jones, G. (1986). Alternative frameworks: Newton's third law and conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 291-298. Search in Google Scholar

[200] https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528860080305 Open DOI

[201] Thevenot, C. (2017). Arithmetic word problem solving: The role of prior knowledge. In D. C. Geary, D. B. Berch, R. J. Ochsendorf & K. Mann Koepke (Eds.), Mathematical cognition and learning, acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts (s. 47-66). Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar

[202] https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805086-6.00003-5 Open DOI

[203] Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, V. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 51-67. Search in Google Scholar

[204] https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057001051 Open DOI

[205] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar

[206] Warren, J. W. (1979). Understanding Force. John Murray. Search in Google Scholar

[207] Wellman, H. (1990). The child's theory of mind. MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

[208] https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1811.001.0001 Open DOI

[209] Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigation. Basil Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar

[210] Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage. Search in Google Scholar

[211] Young, M. (2007). Durkheim and Vygotsky's theories of knowledge and their implications for critical educational theory. Critical Studies in Education, 1(1), 46-63. Search in Google Scholar

[212] https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480601120996 Open DOI

[213] Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 1-28. Search in Google Scholar

[214] https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07308969 Open DOI

[215] Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101-118. Search in Google Scholar

[216] https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505 Open DOI

[217] Young, M. (2015). Powerful knowledge as a curriculum principle. In M. Young, D. Lambert, C. Roberts & M. Roberts (Eds.), Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice (2. vyd., s. 65-88). Bloomsbury Academic. Search in Google Scholar

[218] Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of education, 1(3), 229-250. Search in Google Scholar

[219] https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017 Open DOI

[220] https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3018 Open DOI

Pedagogika

Content Transformation in the Classroom: The influence of teaching details on pupils’ understanding of the structure of scientific knowledge

Abstract

References

Downloads