Until a few years ago, university teaching of science was considered the specialists' private craft in Danish research universities. Excellent research remains the main parameter in young scientists' careers. But for the same reasons as elsewhere — including broader student populations and higher demands on efficiency of educational programmes — universities are increasingly preoccupied by the quality of their teaching, as are funding authorities. The notion of quality may be rather vague, and the means for improvement similarly unclear. This chapter is an attempt to analyze the potential roles and contributions of the didactics of science and mathematics towards the articulation and response to these demands for “quality teaching”. In the continental European tradition, we talk about the didactics of a subject (such as geometry or physics) when we refer to the study of teaching and learning of that specific subject, as explained by, e.g., Chevallard (1999a). Notice that the subject area referred to may be very specific (e.g., “Newtonian mechanics”) or very general (e.g., “(natural) science”), although it is often an institutionally established discipline (e.g., physics)
The pressure on universities for improved “throughput” manifests itself in numerous ways but primarily through a broad scope of “top-down” initiatives (see Horst and Laursen, Chap. 10). Political or administrative demands may or may not originate in genuine pedagogical considerations, and it may or may not result in initiatives that are helpful for improving teaching quality. However, if we leave it to the individual university teacher to interpret these demands, they may often be seen as unnecessary additional administrative burdens rather than helpful tools for improving teaching quality. Since the result of any initiative intended to affect teaching (or learning) depends, ultimately, on the actual educational activities initiated by teachers, un-mediated top-down initiatives are likely to have either no effect or even a negative effect, if teachers spend time on something they perceive as irrelevant extra administration and less time on students and teaching
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Artigue, M. (1994). Didactical Engineering as a Framework for the Conception of Teaching Products. In R. Biehler, R.W. Scholz, R. Strässer & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline (pp. 27–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Bachelard, G. (1938; English translation 2002). The Formation of the Scientific Mind. Manchester: Clinamen Press
Barbé, J., Bosch, M., Espinoza, L. & Gascón, J. (2005). Didactic Restrictions on Teachers' Practice: The Case of Limits of Functions at Spanish High Schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1–3), 235–268
Bowden, J.A. & Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning: Beyond Quality and Competence. London: Kogan Page
Chevallard, Y. (1991). La transposition didactique: du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble: La pensée sauvage
Chevallard, Y. (1999a). Didactique? You Must be Joking! A Critical Comment on Terminology. Instructional Science, 27, 5–7
Chevallard, Y. (1999b). L'analyse des pratiques enseignantes en théorie anthropologique du didactique. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques 19(2), 221–265
Chevallard, Y. (2002). Organiser l'étude 3. Écologie & régulation. In J.L. Dorier, et al. (Eds.), Actes de la 11e école de didactique des mathématiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage
Context Rich Problems, web page for University of Minnesota Physics Education Research and Development. Retrieved May 2005. http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Research/CRP/ crintro.html
Crouch, C.H., Fagen, A.P., Callan, E.P. & Mazur, E. (2004). Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment? American Journal of Physics, 72(6), 835–838
Grønbæk, N. & Winsløw, C. (2007). Developing and Assessing Specific Competencies in a First Course on Real Analysis. In F. Hitt, G. Harel & A. Selden (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education VI (pp. 99–138). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society
Hasse, C. (2002). Kultur i bevægelse — fra deltagerobservation til kulturanalyse — i det fysiske rum. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur
Kim, E. & Pak, S.-J. (2002). Students do not Overcome Conceptual Difficulties After Solving 1000 Traditional Problems. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 759–765
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Rump, C. & Horst, S. (2004). Fysik 1, blok 1, E2004, available through the authors or at http:// www.ind.ku.dk/udvikling/projekter/
Ulriksen, L. (2003). Hvad skal de studerende lære i fysik? Et lærerperspektiv. In N.O. Andersen & K.B. Laursen (Eds.), Studieforløbsundersøgelser i naturvidenskab — en antologi. Copenhagen: Center for Naturfagenes Didaktik
Winsløw, C. (2006). Research and Development of University Level Teaching: The Interaction of Didactical and Mathematical Organisations. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1821–1830). Barcelona: Universitat Ramon Llull – ERME
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rump, C., Winsløw, C. (2009). The Role and Means for Tertiary Didactics in a Faculty of Science. In: Skovsmose, O., Valero, P., Christensen, O.R. (eds) University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09829-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09829-6_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-09828-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-09829-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)