Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

A guide on models and modelling

To cite this article: A Heck et al 2019 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1287 012041

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 38.145.94.47 on 21/08/2019 at 17:15

GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

A guide on models and modelling

A Heck1, P Uylings2 and C van Weert3

1
Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Graduate School of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
3
Institute of Physics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract. A new curriculum and examination programme for upper secondary school physics
was recently introduced in the Netherlands. Models and modelling play an important role here-
in. But teachers need help in developing their PCK in this area. To this end we developed a
modelling guide, which introduces physics teachers to the role of modelling in science and
science education, the scientific base of teaching and learning routes of modelling in pre-uni-
versity education, and curriculum relevant computer models. We discuss the design and con-
tents of this guide, and teachers’ first impressions when it was presented to them in workshops.

1. Introduction
In the school year 2013-2014, a new curriculum and examination programme for upper secondary
school physics started. It adopts a context-concept approach to education in which models and model-
ling play an important role. Both computer based modelling and a modelling approach to a given
problem situation are considered cognitive tools for developing scientific literacy.
There is a long tradition in Dutch physics education in using models, in having students engaged in
computer modelling, and in assessing modelling in school exams. The inclusion of models and
modelling in the nationwide physics exams and the introduction of new contexts for modelling has
made the topic compulsory. This has stimulated teachers to update or renew their PCK. To this end,
professionalization courses were organized and papers were written in teacher journals. Reports on
this topic were also published by the Committee Innovation High School Physics Education [1, 2] and
the Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO) [3].
However, what seems missing is a guide that informs physics teachers about the achievement
levels with regards to models and modelling, and contains suggestions and didactic advice for reali-
zing a coherent modelling curriculum. Supported by the Centre for STEM Education in Amsterdam, a
team with experience in modelling at secondary physics level, including the authors of this article,
have set themselves the task of filling this gap. At the beginning of 2018, a web-based modelling
guide for Dutch physics teachers was finalized, published, and officially transferred to the website of
SLO: http://handreikingschoolexamen.slo.nl/natuurkunde/modelleren The English translation is
available at https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/a.j.p.heck/Guide_on_Modelling.
In this article we present the design and contents of this guide, and teachers’ first impressions when
it was presented to them in workshops. We hope and expect that this presentation informs and possibly
inspire others who want to support physics teachers similarly.

2. Design of the guide

This section is organised as follows: first we briefly discuss recent changes in the curriculum and
examination for upper secondary school physics in the Netherlands. This helps the reader understand

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

what motivated the endeavour to develop a guide on models and modelling for upper secondary
physics education. Hereafter we describe the design principles used for the creation of the guide.

2.1. Recent changes in curriculum and examination for Dutch upper secondary school physics
After years of preparation [1, 2], the Dutch curriculum for upper secondary mathematics and science
education was renewed both at general education level and pre-university level. In this article we will
focus on the upper level of pre-university education that comprises a period of three years with school
exams and a nationwide final exam. Because the new physics curriculum started in the school year
2013-2014 for all Dutch students, the physics literacy of all students at pre-university level is exam-
ined according to the new programme from 2016 onward.
The ambitions of the curriculum reform can be summarized as follows:
1. improving students’ scientific literacy and covering modern physics by the introduction of con-
temporary and relevant content;
2. intertwining contexts and concepts in science education;
3. achieving more coherence within science subjects and across the different science subjects,
physics, chemistry and biology;
4. attracting more students and preparing them better for higher education in science.
The first ambition has been realised by the introduction of new knowledge domains such as ‘Quantum
World’, `Theory of Relativity’, and ‘Life and Earth’, and by the introduction of new contexts such as
nanotechnology, climate, (medical) imaging, the human body, sports, modelling of dynamic processes,
and so on. New contexts have been introduced to make physics more attractive, improve learning
results and increase the motivation, interest, and attitude of students towards the study of physics. In
the so-called context-concept approach adopted in some form in all Dutch science curricula, contexts
give meaning to science concepts and to selected instructional materials, and are meant to illustrate
scientific and societal applications. Concepts typify in a broad way the most important insights in
mathematics and science, and they guide the teaching of science. The Innovation Committee High
School Physics Education [1, 2] promoted structuring of upper secondary school physics contents via
contexts and concepts. In other words, it advocated intertwinement of a context-based approach, where
contexts and application of science are used as a starting point for the development of scientific ideas,
and a concept-based approach, which emphasizes that scientific ideas are covered before looking at
applications. The goal of bringing more coherence within and across science subjects is not only
meant to improve the students’ learning of science, but also to prepare them better for higher educa-
tion, in which a multidisciplinary approach is more and more adopted in teaching and learning in order
to reflect that modern science is often carried out in multidisciplinary teams.
Evaluation studies [4, 5] show that physics teachers in general perceive the new curriculum as new
and doable in school practice and that they enjoy the physics teaching within this new curriculum,
although not everyone recognizes the reform as really new because of the long tradition in the Nether-
lands in using contexts to teach and learn physics. Ottevanger et al [4] found that physics teachers
seem to predominantly interpret this approach as a set of particular comprehensive realistic situations
with particular challenging problems that can (only) be solved when the targeted knowledge is master-
ed. They also found that the new physics program appears to be viewed differently and enacted differ-
ently between teachers who were involved in pilot projects and teachers who were not. Pilot teachers
place concepts in contexts and stimulate students to use concepts in different contexts, too. Most
physics teachers use contexts in a quarter of their lessons, mainly to illustrate or introduce new con-
tent. This conclusion is in agreement with the finding of de Putter-Smits et al [6] that teachers with
design experience show more competence in the context-concept approach than their nondesigning
colleagues.
A new physics curriculum also means new school exams and a new nationwide final exam. Folkers
[7] came in her analysis of final exams in the science subjects biology, physics and chemistry with
regards to the intended curriculum innovation to the following conclusions:

2
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

 Exam designers do their best to make space for the reciprocity of context and concepts, but
there is room for improvement of the quality of the contexts used with regards to clarity,
authenticity, relevance for solving problems, and assessment value;
 Modern science is sufficiently addressed in the exam questions, but it is not clear whether it
stimulates teachers to use them in their lessons;
 Only coherence with mathematics can be identified in the physics exams;
 There are not many exam questions about doing science, such as scientific reasoning, inquiry
and modelling;
 Knowing about the nature of science is not assessed in the final exams.
Although finding the right balance between the knowledge domains in the final exams is challeng-
ing, the first exams seem to sufficiently reflect the curriculum reform. The targeted modelling
competency is described in the new curriculum and examination programme as follows [2]: “the
candidate can analyse a contextual problem, reduce it to a manageable problem, translate this into a
model, generate outcomes, interpret these outcomes, and test and evaluate the model. The candidate
can, by consistent reasoning and by use of relevant computational and mathematical skills, convert an
existing model into a computer model and generate outcomes by choosing an appropriate time step.”
The modelling competency is assessed in school exams and, what is new, in the nationwide final
exam. The following task in the physics exam of May 2018, about the motion of a car when propul-
sion stops gives an impression how this is done. An schematic model is given in terms of both compu-
ter code and a graphical model (Figure 1):

Figure 1. A schematic model in an exam question.

Two related tasks are:

1. Given graphs of measured data and model results, how can parameter values be improved?
2. Extend the computer model so that the distance that the car travels until the moment it stops is
also computed.
Having such questions in a nationwide final exam simply means that physics teachers must pay
attention in their lessons to computer modelling. How this is done is left to the teachers and textbook
authors, but system dynamics-based graphical modelling has been advocated in the Dutch science
curriculum [8] and this advice is reflected in the format of modelling questions in the nationwide final
exams. Construction of computer models from scratch by students is something expected to happen in
school exams in the form of practical investigations and student research projects. There is some
tension between the vision of the curriculum innovation committee high school physics and the reality
in the physics classroom, partly because teachers need time and experience to renew or update their
PCK. To this end, professionalization courses have been developed and carried out, papers have been
written about several topics in teachers’ journals, and guides have been offered by the Netherlands
Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO) such as the one about school examination [3]. The latter
guide informs physics teachers about requirements and possibilities in assessment, and it contains
suggestions and didactic advice for realizing the renewed curriculum. About computer modelling, this
guide suggests for example to let students work with simplified representations of the real world and
explore how change of one quantity changes other quantities, and to combine assessment with experi-

3
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

mentation in a practical investigation or student research projects. It also mentions some contexts that
seem appropriate for modelling. But this is hardly enough for physics teachers to get a good view on
how to incorporate (computer) modelling in their lessons. What seems missing is a guide that informs
physics teachers about the role of modelling in scientific practice, the envisioned use of models and
modelling in secondary school physics education and the associated achievement levels in the curricu-
lum, and that contains exemplified suggestions and didactic advice that inspires teachers to realize a
coherent modelling curriculum. The guide on models and modelling presented in this article is meant
to serve this purpose, helping teacher to develop their PCK in this area.

2.2. Design principles for the guide on models and modelling

In an early discussion session of the development team it was decided that the main purpose of the
envisioned guide is to help or enable physics teachers to develop and implement a modelling learning
path for their students. The following requirements for the guide were set:
 The guide describes a modelling learning path that can already start in lower secondary physics
education;
 The doctoral thesis of Onne van Buuren [9] is used as framework because his study is about a
coherent modelling learning path that starts early, say with learners of age 13-14;
 Existing sample materials and instructions are collected, reviewed, and published in the form of
semifinished resources that teachers can use to develop instructional materials and assessments;
 The guide must fit to current teaching methods and match the new physics curriculum. In parti-
cular, it must inform physics teachers in what way models and modelling are key elements of
the context-concept approach;
 Attention is paid to known pitfalls in teaching and learning modelling;
 The guide is a supplement to the existing guide on physics school examination as published by
the Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development [SLO];
 The guide should be of limited size and not require much reading.

3. Contents of the guide on models and modelling

3.1. Outline
The web-based guide on models and modelling consists of four parts:
1. An introduction into models and modelling in science and technology, discussing
 how modelling is both a way of thinking and a way of working in physics;
 what is meant by the notion of scientific model;
 the role of modelling in the scientific search for insight in the real world.
2. An introduction into models and modelling in science education, discussing
 the learning objectives for modelling at secondary school level, which are assessed both
in school exams and in nationwide exams of science fields;
 a modelling cycle that can guide the learning activities and contributes to a systematic
instructional approach to modelling;
 challenges in modelling instruction, which resemble the ones encountered in inquiry-
based learning and practical work;
 the learning cycle introduced by Kolb [10] as guideline for an effective instructional
approach to modelling.
3. A modelling learning path, extracted from the doctoral study of Onne van Buuren [9].
4. Overview of models and modelling equations that are most commonly used in Dutch secondary
physics education.
 Examples come from four subdomains of the examination programme: Force and Motion
(see Figure 2), Oscillations, Energy and Heat, and Quantum World;
 Computer models are presented in the form of semi-finished deliverables instead of
worked-out lesson materials;

4
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

 Both text-based and graphical models are implemented in Coach [11], which is an inte-
grated computer learning environment for STEM education and which is commonly
available at Dutch secondary schools with also a home license.
In the following subsections we present details of the contents and advices for teachers in these parts.

Figure 2. Snapshot of a part of the modelling guide in the format used during its development.

3.2. Models and modelling in science and technology

Because physics teachers may not have personal experience with modelling or may not have a clear
picture of its importance in modern science and technology, the first introductory chapter of the guide
discusses what a scientific model is and how modelling is done by practitioners. In the guide, scientific
modelling is defined in general terms as describing (mathematically) a situation in reality for the
purpose of solving a problem or question in that situation. Modelling is seen as both a way of working
and a way of thinking. It includes an iterative process that demands creativity and inventiveness and in
which mathematical, scientific and technical knowledge is applied to describe new situations. This
includes determining a strategy, analyzing or getting to the bottom of the problem, choosing variables,
setting up connections, and deploying mathematical and computational tools. Figure 3, taken form the
guide, illustrates that readers of the guide are exposed to the perspective of a model as a mediator
between contexts and concepts. On the left-hand side are activities related to empirical research, such
as collecting data that are used in the model and/or can be used to assess the modelling results. On the
right-hand side are conceptual activities that must lead to the development of a model, including crea-
tive thinking and formulating hypotheses to be tested. The modelling process is from this point of
view almost synonymous with the process of ‘doing research.’
Modelling is not just a tool for validating and applying theories. In science and technology, model-
ling is more and more a way of thinking for the purpose of creative development of theories. To illus-
trate this, the modelling guide contains three accounts from experts in psychological methods,
theoretical ecology, and computer games development.

5
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

Figure 3. Three categories that characterize modelling.

3.3. Modelling in secondary education

Although modelling as a skill has been part of the physics attainment levels since 1991, modelling in
the physics programme focusses primarily on dynamic modelling with difference questions or differ-
ential equations, whether or not in the form of graphical modelling. Thinking in models, that is, model
development as meant in the objectives of the new examination programme, remains underexposed.
Readers of the guide are warned to judge the quality of a model not only with respect to its descriptive
value (how well does the model describe observations and measurements?), a viewpoint that tends to
emphasize that a model differs from reality and is merely an approximation, but also to look at the
quality of a model in terms of its predictive power (does the model enable making prediction?) and its
explanatory power (can the model explain observation or leads it to better understanding?)
To emphasize the role of modelling in education, three main learning outcomes can be distin-
guished [12]: (i) learning about models; (2) learning modelling; (3) and learning domain content from
a model. In combination, these three learning objectives make it clear that modelling is not a separate
subject in the curriculum. This is an important message for physics teachers because they may be
tempted under time pressure to treat modelling as a separate subject that can be postponed.
Within the framework of modelling education at secondary school level, the learning objectives
are: learning to recognize situations where familiar models play a role, learning how to construct
models, and interpreting model results in the light of the problem posed. These objectives can be
achieved by systematically teaching students how to model. A tool to shape this is a schematic order-
ing of the modelling process as a cycle of activities, taken from [8] and shown in Figure 4. The fol-
lowing types of learning activities are distinguished in this modelling cycle: orientation, conceptuali-
zation, mathematization, generation of outcomes, interpretation, and validation. In the guide we state
that research [9, 12, 14] has shown that (i) students benefit from a systematic structure of modelling
instruction and from a systematic reflection on process steps and their outcomes; and (ii) that teachers
benefit from the use of the modelling cycle because it structures a modelling teaching and learning
strategy and its implementation in the form of a modelling learning trajectory.
In educational practice it appears that many students have difficulties in carrying out modelling
activities with sufficient quality. Three important factors have been identified [13]: (i) lack of domain
knowledge; (ii) insufficient understanding of the notion of model; and (iii) lack of understanding of
the modelling process. Another factor is that translating a problem into a model (induction) and
applying a model (deduction) are not equivalent in terms of comprehension. Induction leads from the
special to the general and usually requires a greater creative effort than deduction from the general to
the special. For the didactic implementation of the modelling cycle, we advise to separate the induc-
tive and deductive modelling activities into two instructional elements with their own learning objec-
tives: (i) thinking in models and (ii) working with models. Both should play a role in a curriculum that
aims to teach physics through modelling. Figure 4 is used in the guide to illustrate how models and
modelling are key elements of the context-concept approach. It is also used to show physics teachers
that the didactics of this modelling cycle, in particular the phase of model development, has important
characteristics in common with inquiry-based learning and practical work at school. Therefore, when

6
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

thinking about a modelling learning trajectory one can learn from findings and experiences in develop-
ing practical work for secondary physics students.

Figure 4. Inductive and deductive activities in the modelling cycle.

Insights about learning, for example from [10, 15, 16], may help develop a didactics of modelling.
According to these insights, learning is a cyclic process that begins with concrete experiences and
primary observations that subsequently lead to a connection with prior knowledge. The next step
consists of a hypothesis about this connection, followed by actions with the aim of testing this hypo-
thesis. In the modelling guide we link this and the context-concept approach to Kolb’s idea of a
learning cycle (see Figure 5). According to Kolb [10], there are four recognizable phases of learning:
concrete experience, reflective perception, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation and
testing. Deep and permanent learning requires that all phases are completed (several times).

Figure 5. Learning cycle of Kolb.

3.4. Modelling learning path

In the guide, a modelling learning path is described that is derived from the doctoral study of Onne
van Buuren [9]. In his work it is evidenced that modelling, just like practical work, requires a lot of
knowledge and skills, and takes time and effort to master. This holds for both students and teachers.
Important points of attention for the teachers in modelling assignments have been identified and listed
in the form if advice: (i) prepare well; (ii) limit learning goals; (iii) start as early as possible, preferably
already in lower secondary level; (iv) repeat and reflect; and (v) support development of models.
A modelling learning path can be structured over time through a choice of modelling tasks with
increasing degree of difficulty. Four modelling levels can be distinguished that elaborate on each other
[12, 17]: (i) visual modelling; (ii) descriptive modelling; (iii) causal modelling; and (iv) dynamic

7
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

modelling. These levels of modelling as well as the inductive and deductive activities in the modelling
cycle are exemplified in the guide for the motion of free fall and the quantum particle in a box.
The part in the guide on a modelling learning path ends with a discussion of the competencies
needed for modelling. They include reading of diagrams and schemes, collecting and interpreting data,
applying models and working with computer modelling environments, and applying specific
mathematical knowledge and skills such as understanding the notions of variable, function, and
difference equation, and having adequate mathematization skills, Teachers are advised to let student
develop the relevant mathematical knowledge by separate instruction and practice.

3.5. Overview of models and model equations

Four subdomains, which are assessed in the nationwide final exam, have been selected for giving an
overview of popular models and modelling equations in upper secondary physics education: ‘Force
and Motion’, ‘Oscillations’, ‘Energy and Heat’, and (iv) Quantum World. Figure 2 illustrates how
each example is organized: on the left-hand side we give a short theoretical explanation of the
modelled situation and the core lines of the text-based model, plus a link to a corresponding text-based
modelling activity in the Coach environment [11]; on the right-hand side we present the main formulas
and the system of difference equation (differential equations are not dealt with in Dutch secondary
education) as well as a graphical system dynamics-based model, plus a link to a corresponding
graphical modelling activity in the Coach environment. When the reader clicks on the example button,
a concrete example with initial values and graphs of corresponding model outcomes appears.
Working with quantum mechanical theory requires imagination and a lot of mathematical ingenui-
ty. Nevertheless, the essence of the atomic structure can be clearly understood from simplified repre-
sentations and models. In the modelling guide, we introduce dimensionless variables to simplify the
one-dimensional Schrödinger equation. For example, in case of a quantum particle in a box with one
finite wall, we reduce it to the following initial value problem
d 2 d
2
   n2  V   0,  (0)  0, (0)  2n
dx dx
where is the wave function,    2 , V is the potential of the situation with one finite well, and n is an
admissible real number, that is, chosen such that the wave function does not ‘explode’. Figure 6 is a
screen shot of a Coach activity, in which a concrete case is simulated.

Figure 6. Screen shot of a Coach model of a quantum particle in a box with one finite wall.

8
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

Modelling examples included in the guide are always listed in increasing order of complexity.
Many of them have been taken from doctoral studies [9, 14]. For the subdomain `Quantum world’ we
have included the 1-dimensional Schrödinger equation of a free particle, a particle in a box, a box with
one finite wall, a symmetric well, the harmonic oscillator, the hydrogen atom, quantum tunneling, and
alpha decay. These are models that many physics teachers at secondary school would have difficulty
with in designing the computer models themselves. The provided Coach activities help them create
their instructional materials in this knowledge domain.

4. Teachers’ first impressions

Despite the experience of the team that created the guide on models and modelling and the support
they got from teacher educators and secondary school teachers (mostly persons who had been involved
in pilot projects in the past), there is always at the end the danger of having not met teachers’
expectations. Also physics teachers may have suggestions for improvement and extension. Therefore
we organized a workshop at the annual physics teacher conference organized by the Werkgroup
Natuurkunde Didactiek in 2018 (https://wndconferentie.nl/conferentie-2018/), in which we presented
the guide on models and modelling to physics teachers, let them explore the four parts of the guide one
at a time (in the given order), and discussed their first impressions and collected their reactions in a
questionnaire. Below, we summarize the main findings.
The first two parts of the guide on modelling in science and its role in science education are gener-
ally seen as background information that is probably more useful after having obtained some personal
modelling experience. Then the role of sense making of modelling in practice shows up well. Though
a guide is not a piece of text that one needs to read linearly, this finding may lead to a reordering of the
parts of the guide. Initially, physics teachers are more interested in the sample activities in the fourth
part of the guide, followed by the part on a modelling learning path.
The third part of the guide on a modelling learning path is much welcomed, but what many
teachers miss are: (i) guidelines or advice how to get started with a modelling learning trajectory in
school practice; and (ii) a discussion about how text-based and graphical modelling are positioned in
the curriculum and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each modelling style. This part makes
some teachers with experience in modelling wonder whether they do something wrong when they use
at school a somewhat different approach. This is of course not what is intended by the creators of the
guide, but on the other hand it shows that the guide serves its role as giving food for thought.
The overview of models and model equations is the part that physics teachers like most for the
obvious reasons that they can immediately use the resources in their own instruction and that these
sample activities illustrate well a possible progression in complexity that can be built into one’s own
modelling learning trajectory in class. Especially the models in the knowledge domain ‘Quantum
World’ are appreciated because these models are too difficult to create for inexperienced teacher
themselves. But at the same time do these models show that the sky is almost the limit in modelling in
school physics. Some teachers find the texts in this knowledge domain a bit too short; we suspect that
they are wondering how to explain to their students the method of scaling to dimensionless variables.
For the rest, teachers find that the guide provides then with a good collection of models for school
physics.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that the guide on models and modelling is well-accepted by physics
teacher and helps them get a more informed view on the subject and possibilities to implement a
modelling learning path for their students.

5. References
[1] Committee Innovation High School Physics Education 2006 Natuurkunde leeft [Physics lives]
(Amsterdam, Nederlandse Natuurkundige Vereniging)
www.leraar24.nl/app/uploads/Visiedocument_natuurkunde1-1.pdf
[2] Committee Innovation High School Physics Education 2010 Nieuwe Natuurkunde [New
Physics] (Amsterdam, Nederlandse Natuurkundige Vereniging)
http://downloads.slo.nl/Documenten/Eindadvies_20Natuurkunde.pdf

9
GIREP-MPTL 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1287 (2019) 012041 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1287/1/012041

[3] Paus J 2013 Handreiking schoolexamen natuurkunde havo/vwo [Guide on physics school
examination havo/vwo] (Enschede: SLO) http://handreikingschoolexamen.slo.nl/natuurkunde
[4] Ottevanger W, Folmer E. and Kuiper W 2016 Context-based science education in senior
secondary schools in the Netherlands Teachers Creating Context-Based Learning Environments
in Science (Advances in Learning Environments Research vol 9) ed R Taconis, P Brok and A
Pilot (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers) chapter 12 pp 213-24
[5] Ottevanger W, Heijnen, M and Folmer, E 2018. Monitoring en evaluatie invoering beta-
vernieuwing. Eindmeting docenten en leerlingen 2016-2017 [Monitoring and evaluation
implementation science education innovation. Final measurement teachers and students]
(Enschede: SLO)
[6] de Putter-Smits L, Taconis R, Jochems W and Van Driel J 2013 An analysis of teaching
competence in science teachers involved in the design of context-based curriculum materials Int
J Sci Educ 34 701-21
[7] Folmer, E 2018. Centrale examens als drager van betavakvernieuwing [Nationwide exams as
supports of science education innovation] (Enschede: SLO)
[8] Savelsberg E (ed) 2008 Modelleren en computermodellenb in de β-vakken: Advies aan de
gezamenlijke β-vernieuwingscommissies [Modelling and computer models in the sciences:
advice to the joint curriculum innovation committees] (Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute)
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/32409
[9] Van Buuren O 2014 Development of a modelling learning path [Doctoral thesis, University of
Amsterdam] (Amsterdam: CMA)
[10] Kolb D 2015 Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development 2nd
ed (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education)
[11] Heck A, Kedzierska E and Ellermeijer T 2009 Design and implementation of an integrated
computer learning environment for doing mathematics and science J Comput Math Sci Teach 28
147-61
[12] Lijnse P 2016 Models of/for teaching modeling Modeling in Physics and Physics Education
(GIREP 2016 Proceedings) ed E van den Berg, T Ellermeijer and O Slooten (Amsterdam:
University of Amsterdam) pp 22-33
[13] Ormel B 2010 Het natuurwetenschappelijk modelleren van dynamische systemen: Naar een
didactiek voor het voortgezet onderwijs [Scientific modelling of dynamical systems: towards a
pedagogical theory for secondary education [Doctoral thesis, Utrecht University] (Utrecht: CD-
β Press)
[14] Heck A 2012 Perspectives on an integrated computer learning environment [Doctoral thesis,
University of Amsterdam] (Amsterdam: Can Uitgeverij)
[15] Bransford D, Brown A and Cocking R (eds) 1999 How people learn: brain, mind, experience
and school – expanded ed (Washington, DC: National Academic Press)
[16] Donovan M and Bransford R (eds) 2005 How students learn: history, mathematics and science
in the classroom (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press)
[17] Schwarz C, Reiser B, Davis E et al 2009 Developing a learning progression for scientific
modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners J. Res Sci Teach
46 632-54

10