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" studentcentred 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 studentcentred) 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 coordination" (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 in a continuous context-dependent spiral process: perception1 ~ expectation~ ~ action~
--* perception2 ~ 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 o f 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 A N D L E A R N I N G PROCESSES

roller blind

387

electrometer

Figure 1. A roller blin~l conductively connected with

an electroscope.

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

O1
02
03

ca:
Je:
Ca:

07
08
10
I1

Je:
Ca:
Je:
In:

14
15
16

Je:
In:
Je:

(is PULLING THE ROLLER BLIND)

(to Ca) The electroscope doesn't react ...
(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 ...
(to Ca) Yes, now this should conduct!
('MANIPULATING THE ROLk~R BLIND.) We have to connect this with this...
(to C) Yes, if this is moving ...
(to Ca) But, why this (SPOTS THE ELECTROSCOPE) get charged if I come
close to here? (POINTS TO THE ROLLER BLIND)
(to Ca) Yes, exactly!
(to Ca) That is not the reason. I don't believe that!
(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 o f "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 charge 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

operation

2.

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

property

3.

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

event

4.

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

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-cognitiondevelopment." 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-updevelopment" of complexity during situated cognition.

systems.
networksconnectionsprinciplesComplexity
programmes8v~nl$ -

propertiesoperationsaspectsobjects

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

~ste~

~twor~

~m~'tio~

Complexity

principles -

J H

programmesevents -

properties
operations
as~
objects

//::

situation I

situation 2

~ittmtion 3

Situation

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.

Notes
I.

This reconstruction is a process of interpretationwhich needs trainingand experience on the

part of the observer.

392
2.

3.

4.
5.

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.
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.
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.
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
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
9

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~ilernfiber 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. 157186). 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 desig9. 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.