- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Educational reconstruction of nuclear astrophysics in a design-based research project

Ellen Karoline Henriksen1,*, Maria Vetleseter Bøe1,2, Øystein Sørborg2, and Ann-Cecilie Larsen1

  • *Contact author: e.k.henriksen@fys.uio.no
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020108 – Published 12 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ybmb-vknr

Abstract

This paper presents the first iteration of development and classroom testing of Stars and Elements, a web-based learning resource for Norwegian upper secondary physics students focused on how heavy elements are produced in stars and neutron star mergers. Combining the model of educational reconstruction (MER) with the pedagogical link-making framework and design-based research (DBR), we identified core ideas to be communicated, reviewed the physics curriculum and research on student understanding and motivation, and formulated design hypotheses that guided development of a 90-min learning resource with animations, videos, interactive tasks, peer discussion, and teacher consolidation. Six classes (N = 120) participated; data comprised students’ written responses to three open tasks, brief evaluations, and classroom observations. Most students could describe central concepts and processes concerning red giant stars and neutron star mergers as sites for heavy element production, notably the slow and rapid neutron capture processes, and many benefited from animations and varied task formats. Some displayed uncertain grasp of concepts such as fusion and beta decay. Nature of science (NoS) aspects concerning how physics knowledge is developed were found to be insufficiently represented. From these findings, we propose design principles for research-based learning resources on similar topics, including emphasizing explicit link-making across scales and prior knowledge, scaffolding for challenging nuclear concepts, multimodal visualizations, and explicit NoS focus. We argue that combining MER, link-making, and DBR is a promising approach for developing learning resources that reflect the frontiers of science while having a solid grounding in the classroom.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (46)

  1. LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration et al., GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017).
  2. M. R. Drout et al., Light curves of the neutron star merger GW170817/SSS17a: Implications for r-process nucleosynthesis, Science 358, 1570 (2017).
  3. D. Kasen, B. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Origin of the heavy elements in binary neutron-star mergers from a gravitational-wave event, Nature (London) 551, 80 (2017).
  4. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, Curriculum for physics. Established as a regulation by the Ministry of Education and Research (2021), www.udir.no/lk20/fys01-02.
  5. S. M. Mork, Viten. no–digital teaching programs in science education, Nord. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2, 84 (2006).
  6. R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, U. Kattmann, M. Komorek, andI. Parchmann, The model of educational reconstruction–a framework for improving teaching and learning science, in Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective, edited by D. Jorde and J. Dillon (SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2012), pp. 13–37.
  7. P. Scott, E. Mortimer, and J. Ametller, Pedagogical link-making: A fundamental aspect of teaching and learning scientific conceptual knowledge, Stud. Sci. Educ. 47, 3 (2011).
  8. T. Anderson and J. Shattuck, Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?, Educ. Res. 41, 16 (2012).
  9. S. McKenney and T. Reeves, Conducting Educational Design Research, 2nd ed. (Routledge, London, 2018).
  10. A. S. Palincsar, Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49, 345 (1998).
  11. I. Metaxas, E. Michailidi, D. Stavrou, and I. V. Pavlidis, Educational reconstruction of size-depended-properties in nanotechnology for teaching in tertiary education, Chem. Teach. Int. 3, 413 (2021).
  12. S. Satanassi and O. Levrini, Second quantum revolution: The progressive design of an approach to value its cultural and conceptual scope, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010112 (2025).
  13. G. Zuccarini, C. Sutrini, M. Bondani, C. Macchiavello, and M. Malgieri, Teaching quantum information science to secondary school students with photon polarization and which-path encoding, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 11, 74 (2024).
  14. P. Chatzidaki, U. Eriksson, S. Zoechling, S. Schmeling, and T. Fredlund, What makes digital learning effective? Evaluation of a digital learning module about positron emission tomography, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010143 (2025).
  15. M. Kersting, E. K. Henriksen, M. V. Bøe, and C. Angell, General relativity in upper secondary school: Design and evaluation of an online learning environment using the model of educational reconstruction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010130 (2018).
  16. E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Synthesis of the elements in stars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 547 (1957).
  17. A. G. W. Cameron, On the origin of the heavy elements, Astron. J. 62, 9 (1957).
  18. P. W. Merrill, Spectroscopic observations of stars of class S, Astrophys. J. 116, 21 (1952).
  19. L. J. Shingles, C. E. Collins, V. Vijayan, A. Flörs, O. Just, G. Leck, Z. Xiong, A. Bauswein, G. Martínez-Pinedo, and S. A. Sim, Self-consistent 3D radiative transfer for kilonovae: Directional spectra from merger simulations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 954, L41 (2023).
  20. Ø. Grøn, Flersignal-astronomi [Multi-messenger astronomy], Naturen 142, 48 (2018).
  21. OECD, Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education (PISA, OECD Publishing Paris, 2016).
  22. A.-K. Westman, A. Jidesjö, and M. Oskarsson, Reoccurring science identities: Swedish secondary students’ interest in science and technology examined 2003 and 2020, Nord. Stud. Sci. Educ. 21, 102 (2025).
  23. A. Lelliott and M. Rollnick, Big ideas: A review of astronomy education research 1974–2008, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1771 (2010).
  24. V. M. Rajpaul, C. Lindstrøm, M. C. Engel, M. Brendehaug, and S. Allie, Cross-sectional study of students’ knowledge of sizes and distances of astronomical objects, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020108 (2018).
  25. S. Salimpour, R. Tytler, M. T. Fitzgerald, and U. Eriksson, Is the universe infinite? Characterising a hierarchy of reasoning in student conceptions of cosmology concepts using open-ended surveys, J. STEM Educ. Res. 6, 102 (2023).
  26. P. Bitzenbauer, S. Navarrete, F. Hennig, M. S. Ubben, and J. M. Veith, Cross-age study on secondary school students’ views of stars, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020165 (2023).
  27. B. B. Tekin and C. Nakiboglu, Identifying students’ misconceptions about nuclear chemistry. A study of Turkish high school students, J. Chem. Educ. 83, 1712 (2006).
  28. G. Tsaparlis, S. Hartzavalos, and C. Nakiboğlu, Students’ knowledge of nuclear science and its connection with civic scientific literacy in two European contexts: The case of newspaper articles, Sci. Educ. 22, 1963 (2013).
  29. A. Kohnle, S. Mclean, and M. Aliotta, Towards a conceptual diagnostic survey in nuclear physics, Eur. J. Phys. 32, 55 (2010).
  30. T. Bouchée, L.de Putter-Smits, M.Thurlings, and B.Pepin, Towards a better understanding of conceptual difficulties in introductory quantum physics courses, Stud. Sci. Educ. 58, 183 (2022).
  31. R. Duit, H. Schecker, D. Höttecke, and H. Niedderer, Teaching physics, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell (Routledge, New York and London, 2014), Vol. II, pp. 434–456.
  32. H. Koura, Three-dimensional nuclear chart—understanding nuclear physics and nucleosynthesis in stars, Phys. Educ. 49, 215 (2014).
  33. E. C. Simpson and M. Shelley, Nuclear cartography: Patterns in binding energies and subatomic structure, Phys. Educ. 52, 064002 (2017).
  34. A. J. Wright, H. V. Willett, S. R. Beanland, M. Carson, R. A. Davies, G. Duffett, and A. Pastore, The implementation of binding blocks in the classroom, Phys. Educ. 52, 054001 (2017).
  35. F. Abd-El-Khalick, J. Y. Myers, R. Summers, J. Brunner, N. Waight, N. Wahbeh, A. A. Zeineddin, and J. Belarmino, A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 82 (2017).
  36. N. G. Lederman and J. S. Lederman, Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell (Routledge, New York and London, 2014), Vol. II, pp. 600–620.
  37. P. Scott, E. Mortimer, and O. G. Aguiar, The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons, Sci. Educ. 90, 605 (2006).
  38. B. Bungum, M. V. Bøe, and E. K. Henriksen, Quantum talk: How small-group discussions may enhance students’ understanding in quantum physics, Sci. Educ. 102, 856 (2018).
  39. K. W. McElhaney, H.-Y. Chang, J. L. Chiu, and M. C. Linn, Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials, Stud. Sci. Educ. 51, 49 (2015).
  40. T. Aa Strømme and S. M. Mork, Students’ conceptual sense-making of animations and static visualizations of protein synthesis: A sociocultural hypothesis explaining why animations may be beneficial for student learning, Res. Sci. Educ. 51, 1013 (2021).
  41. H.-F. Hsieh and S. E. Shannon, Three approaches to qualitative content analysis, Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277 (2005).
  42. M.-H. Huang, Designing website attributes to induce experiential encounters, Comput. Hum. Behav. 19, 425 (2003).
  43. D. C. Edelson, Design research: What we learn when we engage in design, J. Learn. Sci. 11, 105 (2002).
  44. J. S. Krajcik and K. Mun, Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. G. Lederman and S. K. Abell (Routledge, New York and London, 2014), Vol. II, pp. 337–360.
  45. K. A. Renninger and S. Hidi, The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement (Routledge, New York, 2015).
  46. K. Juuti and J. Lavonen, Design-based research in science education: One step towards methodology, Nord. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2, 54 (2006).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020108– Published 12 August, 2026
  • Received 4 November 2025
  • Accepted 18 May 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation