Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Recontextualising biodiversity in school practice

Daan van Weelie & Kerst Boersma

To cite this article: Daan van Weelie & Kerst Boersma (2018) Recontextualising
biodiversity in school practice, Journal of Biological Education, 52:3, 262-270, DOI:
10.1080/00219266.2017.1338596

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338596

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 06 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 883

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION, 2017
VOL. 52, NO. 3, 262270
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338596

OPEN ACCESS

Recontextualising biodiversity in school practice

Daan van Weeliea and Kerst Boersmab
a
Het Drachtster Lyceum, Drachten, Netherlands; bFeudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The finding that biodiversity is a concept with different context-specific Context based biology
meanings has implications for its conceptual development when students education; biodiversity;
are required to apply it in a diversity of contexts. An approach that may recontextualising
overcome these implications is that students learn to recontextualise one
meaning to another. Since no empirical studies were available when this
study started, it was decided to conduct a design study to develop a learning
and teaching strategy for recontextualising biodiversity. In this paper, the
design of such a strategy is presented. Testing of the design in two classes
in upper secondary biology education showed that it is largely practisable.

1. Introduction
Context-based biology education is frequently considered as a promising approach that may have a
positive impact on students’ motivation for science education (Bennet, Lubben, and Hogarth 2006).
Since several types of context-based science education were distinguished (Gilbert 2006), it seems
obvious to select the type of context-based biology education that seems most promising in stimulating
students’ motivation for biology (education). However, the choice for a type of context-based biology
education cannot be grounded only in considering which type might maximally promote students’
motivation. It also largely depends on our view on the nature of biological knowledge in general. Do
we accept the view that biological knowledge is true (or not) and that biological researchers discover
the truth about biological objects? Or do we accept that biological knowledge is socially constructed,
and has meaning when it is functionally applied? These two views refer to different epistemologies,
to a positivistic and a relativistic view.
Since the positivistic view is deeply rooted in West-European culture, most textbooks for secondary
and university education support the positivistic view by presenting biological content without dis-
cussing its functionality in contexts. And if scientists who did present new biological ideas as results
of empirical studies are mentioned, the idea is presented without describing the context of discovery.
The term ‘context of discovery’ as such implies that the truth about biological objects is revealed. Since
most of us, biologists and biological educationalists, are educated in the positivistic view, good reasons
are required to make a different epistemological choice.
With the acceptance of constructivism in the last decades, it was generally implied that knowl-
edge construction is an individual process. Several studies, however, made it clear that knowledge
construction can also be considered at the level of the community of practice (e.g. Wenger 1998) and

CONTACT Kerst Boersma K.T.Boersma@uu.nl

© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 263

that communities may develop indigenous knowledge deviating from formal scientific knowledge
(e.g. Lave 1988). These findings resembled the findings in physics education showing that physical
knowledge is not only constructed in scientific domains, but also in lifeworld domains (Solomon 1983).
Although these studies did challenge the current epistemological view, a change in epistemological
view seemed unavoidable when it became clear that the concept ‘biodiversity’ is defined differently
in different practices. In policy discussions it is used as a synonym for ‘nature’ or sometimes ‘natural
resources’, while ecologists are discussing the diversity of biological objects as a measurable quantity
at all levels of biological organisation (Van Weelie 2001). The only obvious conclusion seemed that
biodiversity is a concept with different context-specific meanings. Some explorations of other concepts
like ‘species’ showed that this is a more common phenomenon and that multiple meanings of concepts
should be considered in biology education.
An underpinning for these observations was found in cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT),
and in particular in the studies of Van Oers (1998, 2001). This theory defines the concept of context as
the activity in which knowledge is functionally used. One of the implications of CHAT is that concepts
may have different meanings in different contexts. For the pedagogy of biology this view has far-reach-
ing consequences, since it implies that conceptual development cannot focus any longer on just one
correct meaning of a concept. The recommendation of Van Oers to overcome these consequences is
to recontextualise concepts, i.e. to adapt the meaning of a concept to another context, if application
in different contexts is a goal. However, at the time that it was demonstrated that ‘biodiversity’ has
different context-specific meanings, no empirical studies on recontextualising concepts were available
and it was decided to elaborate the idea in a learning and teaching (LT-)strategy. Unfortunately, the
analysis of the data was delayed when an adapted design of an LT-strategy was available and tested
in school practice. In the meantime, a study on recontextualising ‘cellular respiration’ was conducted
(Wierdsma 2012; Wierdsma et al. 2016). That means that, after completing the analysis of the current
study, it is possible to compare both LT-strategies.
This paper focuses on the following research questions:
What are the design characteristics of an LT-strategy for recontextualising the concept of biodiversity?

To what extent is the LT-strategy practicable in the biology classroom?

In the second section the theoretical framework is explained, and Section 3 describes the design of
the study and the methodology. In Section 4 a number of design criteria are presented, largely derived
from the theoretical framework, and the design of the LT-strategy is presented. Some short transcripts
are added to illustrate what happened in the classrooms. Finally, in the last section, the research ques-
tions are answered and the strategy is compared with the strategy developed for cellular respiration.
The paper is not focused on the question of whether the desired learning outcomes are attained.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Contexts and concepts
Generally a context is understood as a situation, and accordingly the meaning of ‘context’ in pedagog-
ical science practices in the Netherlands is a situation outside or inside school selected and adapted
for educational purposes. Consequently, ‘context’ is a pedagogical concept, which implies that if stu-
dents are required to apply a concept in a context, they have to perform a task in school rather than
application in a situation outside school. This view provides no explanation of why concepts can have
context-specific meanings.
In the Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (e.g. Vygotsky 1987) a context is understood
as an activity performed in a social practice (Van Oers 1998). The activity is a sequence of actions
performed with an object not only by a single individual subject, but by all subjects participating in
the activity. For example, all dentists participate in the same activity and perform the same (or close
to similar) sequences of actions. An activity is always goal-directed (dental care), and it is evident that
264 D. VAN WEELIE AND K. T. BOERSMA

a dentist should have knowledge of human teeth, dental diseases and their treatment. Consequently,
the knowledge used in a practice is functional to attain its goals.
This line of reasoning was adopted by the national committee for the innovation of biology educa-
tion in the Netherlands and was one of the grounding ideas of the so-called concept-context approach
(Boersma et al. 2007). The second line of reasoning was to reduce the overload of the curriculum
by focusing on key concepts and their application in a variety of social practices. According to the
Theory of Ausubel, a key concept is defined as a superordinate concept (Novak 1977) that structures
a cognitive domain. Since a key concept is part of the functional knowledge used in a variety of social
practices, although activities and their goals may differ, it can be expected that the meaning of a key
concept in one social practice can differ from the meaning in other social practices. To maintain the
familiar pedagogical meaning of ‘context’, a distinction was made between ‘social practice’ and ‘context.
A social practice is social structure in which practitioners perform the same activity, while a context
is an adaptation of a social practice and its constituting activity for educational purposes. Summing
up, the implication of these lines of reasoning was that students would have to learn to recontextual-
ise key concepts. ‘Biodiversity’ and ‘cellular respiration’ were both among the selected key concepts.
To operationalise the term recontextualisation, it is necessary to indicate how the expression
‘meaning of a concept’ is understood in this study. Since the focus is on developing a key concept,
recontextualisation is primarily considered as a conceptual issue, and thus as a change in definition.

2.2. Context-specific meanings of biodiversity

The first part of the study on ‘biodiversity’ consisted of expert interviews and analysis of scientific
literature and policy documents and showed that three categories of context-specific definitions could
be distinguished (Van Weelie 2014): (B-1) ‘biodiversity as nature’, (B-2) ‘biodiversity as natural resource’
and (B-3) ‘biodiversity as index’. ‘Biodiversity as index’ conforms with the ecological meaning of ‘bio-
diversity’, and expresses it as a measurable characteristic. The analysis of ecological literature showed
that ‘biodiversity’ refers to different levels of biological organisation, in particular to the level of the
species, the population, the ecosystem and the gene pool, and that there is accordingly a considerable
variety of definitions of ‘biodiversity as index’. The variety of definitions of biodiversity as index was
abstracted into the following working definition:
Biodiversity = the variability (V) in biological objects (B) in space (R) and time (T).
The working definition can be seen as a heuristic and requires specification in each ecological
study. The first test of the LT-strategy in school practice showed that the components ‘variability’ and
‘biological objects’ were confusing. Therefore, the working definition was adapted for educational
purposes as follows:
Biodiversity = the number of species (S = species richness) and the number of individuals per
species (A = abundance) in a particular area (R = spatial dimension) in a particular time interval or
period (T = temporal dimension).

3. Methodology
3.1. Design of the study
To answer the research questions, an educational design approach was followed (Lijnse 1995; Van
den Akker et al. 2006). The design consisted of three empirical cycles of designing, testing in the
classroom and adapting the LT-strategy. Each empirical cycle was considered as a case study (Yin
2003). The first cycle was conducted before the concept of recontextualising was available; analysis
of data collected in the first cycle indicated that the first design was not satisfactory and that a new
theoretical orientation was required. That resulted in the adaptation of CHAT and recontextualisation
(Van Oers 1998). Consequently, recontextualisation was incorporated for the first time in the second
design. Since the first design showed that it was not yet clear how the working definition could be
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 265

introduced, the second design focused only on students’ development of the working definition of
‘biodiversity as index’. After analysis of the data of the second empirical cycle a third version of the
LT-strategy was designed, and the two other definitions of biodiversity (‘as nature’ and ‘as resource’)
were incorporated again. In the meantime, however, the idea of recontextualisation was also incorpo-
rated in the concept-context approach. To safeguard the relevance of the current study, it was decided
to adapt the analysis of the data to the framework of the concept-context approach; consequently, a
secondary analysis was required. This paper is based on the secondary analysis of the data collected
in the third empirical research cycle. The design developed in the three cycles consists of a sequence
of LT-activities, and takes in the design tested in the third cycle 7 lessons of 50’, including a test.

3.2. Scenario, data collection and analysis

To evaluate the practicability, the LT-strategy was elaborated in a scenario. The scenario describes
in detail the desired behaviour of the teacher and students and the desired learning outcomes of all
LT-activities. The practicability of the LT-activities is determined by comparing the desired behaviour
of the teacher and the students with the behaviour exposed in practice. Discrepancies between the
desired and exposed behaviour and disappointing learning outcomes may indicate that adaptation of
the design is required. Consequently, the exposed behaviour also provides the data for an estimation
of the practicability. The practicability was measured intersubjectively by means of a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from insufficient (1) to good (5).
To restrict disturbance in the classroom and facilitate the construction of a transcript of all lessons,
data were collected by audio recording and observation. Furthermore, data were collected by filled-in
worksheets, audio recordings of interviews with the teacher and students and the written answers on
the questions of the test. All audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. All transcripts and answers
on worksheets and the test were analysed. All data were analysed intersubjectively. Where discrepancies
between results of different data sets were noticed, the most plausible interpretations were decided
(triangulation). Data were primarily used to determine whether the LT-strategy needed adaptation.
Data of the test were analysed on occurrence of the components of the working definition of B-3. All
interpretations were discussed with a second evaluator, until complete agreement was attained. The
number of recontextualisations of the components was represented both at the level of the whole class
and at the level of the student. The results of this analysis of the test are not included here because
the paper is focused on the practicability and not on the question of whether the desired learning
outcomes are attained.

3.3. Participants
The third case study was conducted in two mixed gender biology classes in grade 4 of the stream for
general upper secondary education (HAVO) of a public school (1200 students) situated in a village
of about 15.000 inhabitants in the centre of the Netherlands, by two female biology teachers (about
30 years old, 5 to 10 years of teaching experience), and 15 and 15 students (ages 15–16 years).

4. Design of the learning and teaching strategy

4.1. Design criteria
To guide the design of the LT-strategy, design criteria were articulated (Table 1). Most design criteria
were derived from the theoretical framework presented in Section 2.

4.2. The design of the learning and teaching strategy for recontextualising biodiversity
To develop an initial design of the third LT-strategy, the design criteria were elaborated, taking into
account the number of lessons that was available. Table 2 presents the ultimate LT-strategy. Column
266 D. VAN WEELIE AND K. T. BOERSMA

Table 1. Design criteria for the development of the LT-strategy.

1 The concept biodiversity
Development of the concept ‘biodiversity’ as a concept with multiple, context-specific meanings is the main goal
2 Meanings of biodiversity
Students should learn to distinguish and apply three definitions of ‘biodiversity’, ‘nature’, ‘resource’ and ‘index’ in appropri-
ate contexts
3 Working definition
Students should learn to apply the working definition of ‘biodiversity as index’ in the contexts about nature management
and ecological research
4 Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is applied to stimulate students’ discourse about ‘biodiversity’
5 The problem posing approach
The problem-posing approach (Lijnse 2005) is applied. In this approach motives are evoked to identify and apply the
multiple, context-specific definitions of ‘biodiversity’ and the working definition as a tool
6 The concept-context approach (Boersma et al. 2007)
Students learn to use ‘biodiversity as index’ in a flexible way by recontextualising it by means of the working definition

Table 2. The LT-strategy for recontextualising ‘biodiversity’.

No. LT-activity Def. B Recon. P

1 Context: debating nature conservation
1. Individual task about photos showing nature and the human influence on 5
nature
2. Group work exchange of results 5
3. Plenary reflection on tasks 1 and 2, resulting in the introduction of the term 5
biodiversity
4. Homework: categorisation of quotes about biodiversity in B. as index, as B-1, B-2, B-3 5
resource, and as nature; as indicator of the health of nature areas
2/3 Context: taxonomical research
5–8. Practical in pairs with the task to draw organisms and distinguish spe- 5
cies-specific characteristics, exemplifying the diversity of species
4 Context: debating nature conservation (continued)
9. Plenary discussion about the homework on different definitions of biodiversity B-1, B-2, B-3 3–4
Context: taxonomical research (continued)
10. Task in pairs about kinship between man, chimpanzee and cat; the term 5
diversity of species
11. Plenary reflection about the outcomes of the task 5
5 Context: nature conservation
12. Task in pairs and group work about bird diversity (part I), in 2 groups (jigsaw B-3 1–5
method):
A-group: task about a map with data from bird counting (R)
B-group: task about a table showing the number of bird species during the past (A, T)
10 years
13. Task in pairs and group work about bird diversity (part 2), (jigsaw method):Re- (A, R, T) 1–5
combination of groups, exchange of data, and finding general conclusions
about bird diversity
14. Plenary discussion and reinvention of the working definition WD B-3 4–5
6 Context: ecological research
15. Task in pairs about the biodiversity of fish species using a website with data Rec. B-3 1–5
about fish in the West Frisian Area
16. Plenary reflection on the outcomes of the task 0
7 17. Individual test with a task asking for assessment of information about biodi- Rec. B-3 5
versity
Notes: Indicating the lesson number (column 1), the sequence of LT-activities (column 2), the definitions of biodiversity (column 3)
(B-1 = biodiversity as nature; B-2 = biodiversity as natural resource; B-3 = biodiversity as index), and the working definition of B-3
and its components (S = the number of species; A = the number of individuals per species (abundancy); R = spatial dimension;
T = temporal dimension), and the LTA’s were students recontextualise B-3 (Rec. B-3)(column 4). An estimation of the practicability of
the LTA’s by teachers and students (P) is summarised in column 5 (0 = not performed; 1 = insufficient; 2 = moderate; 3 = sufficient;
4 = more than sufficient; 5 = good).

2 shows the sequence of LT-activities and the social practices that were selected and transformed
in contexts. Four social practices were selected: nature conservation, debating nature conservation,
taxonomical research and ecological research. Nature conservation, debating nature conservation and
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 267

ecological research were selected as contexts because the concept ‘biodiversity’ is used functionally
in these practices. A practical about biodiversity derived from the practice of taxonomical research
was adopted from the second research cycle and adapted for ‘HAVO’, since the participating teachers
wanted to do a practical about biodiversity. It may be doubted, however, whether this context is entirely
appropriate because it shows only diversity of species, disconnected from place and time, and ignores
the abundance of species.
The context of debating nature conservation makes clear that the debate deals with different values
of nature. To expose these values, photos of nature and the influence of man on nature are demon-
strated (LTA 1 = learning and teaching activity 1). Students indicate for each photo whether it shows
nature or not, or something in between. Students exchange their answers (LTA 2), and in a plenary
discussion the teacher develops the question of how to make decisions about nature conservation,
considering the different opinions. Finally, ‘biodiversity’ is introduced as a measure for the health
of nature areas (LTA 3). In a homework assignment, students analyse quotes about biodiversity and
indicate whether each one is an example of ‘biodiversity as index’, ‘as resource’ or ‘as nature’ (LTA 4).
For practical reasons, the homework is discussed at a later time (LTA 9). In the meantime, students
take part in a taxonomy practical in pairs. Students search for defining characteristics of the species
studied (LTA 5). Next they compare the morphological characteristics of man, chimpanzee and cat
and relate these characteristics with kinship (LTA 10). The assignment is rounded off with a classroom
reflection and the term ‘biodiversity in taxonomical sense’ (diversity of species) is used (LTA 11). The
focus then changes to the context of nature conservation, and in particular to bird diversity. The stu-
dents work in groups of four students on a map showing data from bird counting (A-groups), or on a
table presenting information about the occurrence of bird species over the past 10 years (B-groups).
The A-groups reinvent the spatial component (R) and the B-groups the components abundancy (A)
and time (T) (LTA 12). Next, the composition of the groups is changed so that the new groups consist
of members of the former A- and B-groups. The new groups are invited to bring the information of
the A- and B-groups together and reinvent a working definition (LTA 13). Then the definitions of
the working definitions are exchanged in a classroom discussion and with the teacher’s guidance a
final working definition is articulated (LTA 14). To apply the working definition in a new context, the
students change to an ecological context and work on an assignment about the West Frisian Area. In
the assignment, the students are invited to recontextualise all components of the working definition
(LTA 15). Finally, students have the possibility to ask questions about the assignment about the West
Frisian Area (LTA 16). The sequence of lessons is concluded with a test that invites students to recon-
textualise the working definition (LTA 17).

4.3. Practicability of the LT-strategy

The practicability of the scenario was determined by analysis of the discrepancies between the desired
behaviour of the teacher and students as indicated in the scenario and their behaviour in practice
(column 5 of Table 2). Since the results for both classes were very similar, the table includes only single
data for the practicability.
The table shows that the practicability of most LT-activities was assessed as sufficient to good.
However, the quality of the assignments performed in pairs or groups, expressed in terms of corre-
spondence with the behaviour of the learning outcomes that was indicated in the scenario, varied
considerably. Since these differences were concluded in particular from LTA’s data on the development
of the components of the working definition, it can be expected that the learning outcomes will vary
accordingly. The same holds for LTA 15, which offers students the opportunity to experience recon-
textualisation of the working definition in an ecological context. The classroom reflection on LTA 16
was not performed due to lack of time.
To illustrate how students recontextualised ‘biodiversity’, two fragments are selected. Both fragments
(Tables 3 and 4) are from LT-activity 15, where recontextualising was practised. Both fragments show
that students are recontextualising some of the components of the working definition.
268 D. VAN WEELIE AND K. T. BOERSMA

Table 3. Transcript of a small part of LT-activity 15 from class H4a, group 3 (G1, 2, 3 = girl 1, 2, 3; B1,2 = boy 1,2).
1 G2 Does this map tell you something about the biodiversity?
2 G1 No, because you are missing a unit of time
3 B2 The biodiversity is rather large
4 B1 Yes. Can you express it this way?
5 B2 Biodiversity has no balance, has it?
6 Teacher What is biodiversity and which data are you missing consequently?
7 G3 For biodiversity you always need some data and if you don’t have those, you cannot look for biodiversity
8 Teacher All right, and which data are you missing to measure biodiversity?
9 B1 A unit of time
10 Teacher O.K., but I do not see that in your answers
11 B2 That is what I said
12 B1 You didn’t write down anything
13 Teacher What kind of values are you missing
14 B2 The unit of time is missing
15 B1 Which one can we use? The numbers

Table 4. Transcript of a part of LT-activity 15 from class H4b, group 2 (G1, 2 = girl 1, 2).
1 G1 [after reading question 1] What can we say about the biodiversity? Do you know that?
2 G2 Yes, O.K.
3 G1 It is only related to plaice
4 G2 It is related to one species
5 G1 You have to do it for several species, the number of species, this is only …
6 G2 I will write it down, I can’t tell because we do not have enough information, we only have information about one
species
7 G1 Yes, only …
8 G2 We do not have enough information about the number .. Here, add it to the answers
9 G1 And what data of the map e can we use? May be the amounts, or something like that? Do you have that?
10 G2 Yes, almost
11 G1 What other information you can find on the map?
12 G2 The number
13 G1 The numbers. We have to go down (to scroll). But you should have it also from different moments, isn’t it, you
don’t know when it is
14 G2 Yes, you are missing those data
15 G1 You only have one year
16 G2 Yes

In LTA 15, the students are working on assignments about the biodiversity of fish in the West Frisian
Area using information from a website. Students have to study maps showing the distribution of some
fish species. Then three questions are asked. In the first question, students have to read a map about
the distribution of plaice. Then, the second question asks whether plaice belongs in the West Frisian
Area. And finally in the third question students also have to read maps for other fish species and they
are asked whether they can tell something about the biodiversity of fish in this area.
Student G3 (Table 3) explains the question that should be answered. G1 is the first student intro-
ducing the component time. The same student mentions ‘numbers’, but it is not clear if she is meaning
abundancy or the number of species, i.e. species richness. The expressions of G1 in r.2 and B1 in r.9
and r.15 are interpreted as recontextualisations, although the students are not explicating their answer.
Both students (Table 4) discuss the components ‘number of species’ and ‘time’, and possibly ‘amounts’
(r.9) refers to ‘abundance’. Expressions of G1 in r.5 and G2 in r.12 are interpreted as recontextualisations,
although they are not elaborating their answers.

5. Conclusions and discussion

An answer to the first research question can be concluded from the previous section; the LT-strategy
for recontextualising biodiversity consists of four contexts, derived from social practices in which
‘biodiversity’ is functionally applied, and is elaborated in 17 LT-activities. It may be noticed that the
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 269

LT-activities in each context form a cycle, consisting of an introduction in a classroom discussion,

one or more student tasks in pairs or groups, and finally a classroom reflection on the performance of
the task and the possibility to articulate conceptual learning outcomes. After the distinction between
B-1, B-2 and B-3 is made, the focus is on students’ development of the working definition for B-3,
biodiversity as index.
An answer to the second research question, about the practicability of the LT-strategy, can be con-
cluded from column 5 of Table 2. It shows that most plenary LT-activities were conducted as indicated
in the scenario. The performance of working in pairs and groups, however, showed a large variety.
Therefore, it can be expected that the learning outcomes at the individual level will differ accordingly.
The written test confirms this conclusion. It may be worthwhile to look for possibilities to improve
instruction and to provide more guidance.
The data presented in the current study allow a comparison with the strategy for recontextualising
‘cellular respiration’ (Wierdsma 2012; Wierdsma et al. 2016). First of all, there are some resemblances.
Both strategies are based on CHAT and the studies of Van Oers (op.cit.), the concept-context approach,
and the problem-posing approach (Lijnse 2005). However, if we compare the structure of both strat-
egies, some differences may be noticed as well. The LT-structure for biodiversity starts by showing
the different definitions of ‘biodiversity’, and focuses next on the development and application of the
working definition of ‘biodiversity as index’. The working definition should be considered as an abstrac-
tion of definitions of ‘biodiversity as index’, and consequently recontextualising can be handled by
operationalising the working definition. The other definitions of biodiversity as ‘nature’ and ‘resource’
seem to be too different from ‘biodiversity as index’ to allow recontextualisation. The LT-strategy for
cellular respiration develops a starting question that is answered increasingly throughout the strat-
egy, by exploring social practices that may provide additional answers. Consequently, students do
not acquire an early understanding of the multiple, context-specific meanings of cellular respiration.
Considering both strategies, it seems that recontextualising also requires a lateral translation, and not
only an operationalisation of an abstraction, like the working definition. For this moment both strat-
egies seem to have strengths and weaknesses. Further analysis and empirical studies will be required
to decide for which concepts the strategies may be applied, or whether a combined strategy consisting
of components of both strategies can be recommended.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Bennet, J., F. Lubben, and S. Hogarth. 2006. “Bringing Science to Life: A Synthesis of the Effects of Context-based and
STS Approaches to Science Teaching.” Science Education 9 (3): 347–369.
Boersma, K. T., M. van Graft, A. Harteveld, E. de Hullu, A. de Knecht-van Eekelen, M. Mazereeuw, L. van den Oever, & P.
A. M. van der Zande. 2007. Leerlijn biologie van 4 tot 18 jaar vanuit de concept-contextbenadering [Biology Curriculum
for Ages 4 to 18 Based on the Concept-context Approach]. Utrecht: Commissie Vernieuwing Biologie Onderwijs.
Gilbert, J. K. 2006. “On the Nature of “Context” in Chemical Education.” International Journal of Science Education 28
(9): 957–976.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice. Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lijnse, P. L. 1995. ““Developmental Research”as a Way to an Empirically Based “Didactical Structure”of Science.” Science
Education 79 (2): 189–199.
Lijnse, P. 2005. “Reflections on a Problem Posing Approach.” In Research and the Quality of Science Education, edited
by K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, and H. Eijkelhof, 15–26. Dordrecht: Springer.
Novak, J. D. 1977. A Theory of Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Solomon, J. 1983. “Learning About Energy: How Pupils Think in Two Domains.” European Journal of Science Education
5 (1): 49–59.
Van den Akker, J. J. H., K. P. E. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, and N. Nieveen. 2006. Educational Design Research. London:
Routledge.
270 D. VAN WEELIE AND K. T. BOERSMA

Van Oers, B. 1998. “From Context to Contextualizing.” Learning and Instruction 8 (6): 473–488.
Van Oers, B. 2001. “Contextualisation for Abstraction.” Cognitive Science Quarterly 1 (3): 279–305.
Van Weelie, D. 2001. “Contextualizing Biodiversity.” In Teaching for Scientific Literacy: Context, Competency, and
Curriculum, edited by O. De Jong, E. Savelsbergh and A. Alblas, 99–116. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Centre for
Science and Mathematics Education.
Van Weelie, D. 2014. Recontextualiseren van het concept biodiversiteit [Recontextualising the Concept of Biodiversity].
Utrecht: FIsme Scientific Library.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1987. “Thinking and Speech.” In The Collected work of L.S. Vygotsky, edited by R. W. Rieber and A. S.
Carton, 39–285. New York: Plenus Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierdsma, M. D. M. 2012. Recontextualising Cellular Respiration. Utrecht: FIsme Scientific Library.
Wierdsma, M., M. C. Knippels, B. van Oers, and K. Boersma. 2016. “Recontextualising Cellular Respiration in Upper
Secondary Biology Education. Characteristics and Practicability of a Learning and Teaching Strategy.” Journal of
Biological Education 50 (3): 239–250.
Yin, R. K. 2003. “Designing Case Studies.” In Case Study Research. Design and Methods, edited by R. K. Yin, 19–53.
London: Sage.