One of the most central tenets of chemistry education is developing an understanding of the processes that involve the Transformation of Matter. Current German curricula postulate content-related abilities (Kompetenzen) that are expected to be achieved by secondary students when graduating from the lower secondary level at grade 10. These abilities can further be differentiated as relating to either structural aspects of matter or to aspects of chemical reaction. Little is known of howKompetenzenin these two fields develop over time on the lower secondary level. This study aims at elucidating this development by suggesting a hypothetical learning progression for the lower secondary level. This learning progression is visualised as a Strand Map and is investigated using methods from three statistical approaches: Rasch-analyses, Classical Test Theory, and Bayesian Networks. Concurrent data from all three strands of analyses inform the evaluation of the learning progression and support the notion that an understanding of the Transformation of Matter relies on interrelatedKompetenzento conceptualize Structure of Matter and Chemical Reaction. Moreover, Bayesian networks underline that there is more than one progression when learning about chemistry on the lower secondary level.

No abstract

Students are expected to learn scientific inquiry. It consists of several individual processes that need to be coordinated. Recent teaching concepts have suggested fading students into a limited set of interconnected processes, mostly using backwards-fading techniques. The efficiency of open approaches to learning has been criticized repeatedly in science education research. Following a brief discussion of previous scaffolded inquiry teaching concepts developing students into “open inquiry”, it is argued that these have been interpreted too strictly in science classrooms: (i) restricting inquiry to too few processes; (ii) delivering support to students in an all-or-nothing fashion; (iii) understanding opening of inquiry as a one-way-street insensitive to needs of momentary closing. This is not justified by the situated character of pedagogical considerations that depend on learners’ needs and potentials, teachers’ strengths and insecurities, and potential constraints from content. An alternative matrix for teaching inquiry is suggested that distinguishes five processes in four variations of openness. An example from chemistry shows that the achieved degree of openness is derived from situated considerations and is not ruled by a priori decisions on openness. Nor is this decision governed by faithfully adhering to a schematic sequence (confirmatory → structured → guided → open inquiry).

There are some crucial critiques on scientific inquiry and “the” Scientific Method in current science education. Recent research literature is replete with arguments against inquiry’s legitimacy to be included in science classes, and it has even been abandoned from the Next Generation Science Standards. Critics of scientific inquiry in schools blame it to be a caricature of authentic inquiry suffering from five shortcomings: (1) knowledge becomes desocialized from its generative contexts, (2) scientific inquiry in schools suggests methodological monism favoring (3) a primacy of experimentation, (4) which portrays scientific inquiry as a knowledge automaton (5) raising an illusion of determination with regard to the generation of knowledge. This article argues for a reorientation of scientific inquiry in schools tentatively embracing “the” Scientific Method anew since critics appear not to sufficiently consider that scientific inquiry operates differently in schools from science. It will be shown that most critiques can be defused when untangling such an illegitimate mix-up of science proper with school science. It will be argued that current (and recent) descriptions of how science generates knowledge lack authoritative validity and should be fundamentally revisited. “The” Scientific Method will be shown to be a valid idealization that can serve as a frame of reference for introductory science classes. Still, it is understood that science education needs to extend beyond “the” Scientific Method if it is to prepare for science-related careers.

No abstract