An Analysis of “the Pupil as Scientist” Analogies

1. An Analysis of “the Pupil as Scientist” Analogies Yang, Wen-Gin GISE, NTNU, Taiwan, ROC Email: wgy@cc.ntnu.edu.tw

2. How pupils understand the social world --“The child as sociologist” How people build interpersonal relationships-- “lay person as psychologist” How people make sense of their world -- “man-the-scientist” or “people as naïve scientist” Understanding by making analogies 2

3. A Two Dimensional Framework • Individual Versus Social Dimension • individual or social aspects focused? • Conceptual Versus Interactive Dimension • Conceptual understanding or interaction processes examined? 3

4. Four Categories Interactive Cobb, Wood & Yackel (1991), Roth & Bowen (1995), Meyer & Woodruff (1997), Richmond & Striley (1996). Fosnot (1996), Driver (1989), Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott (1994), Chaille & Britain (1997). Social Individual Driver (1983), Chinn & Brewer (1993, 1998), Strike & Posner (1992), Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog (1982), Chaille & Britain (1997). Huang (1994), Chiang (1995), Woodruff & Meyer (1997), Kelly & Crawford (1996) Conceptual 4

5. Individual-Conceptual Analogies • Based upon scientific epistemological commitments, the robustness of pre-conceptions, the role of anomalies in scientific theory changes, and so on. • Viewing an individual student as a scientist and primarily explore issues related to students' conceptual learning or conceptual changes. 5

6. Examples of Individual-Conceptual Analogies • Driver’s “The Pupil as Scientist?” (1983) • Although pupils’ idea are less sophisticated than those of practicing scientists, some interesting parallels can be drawn • Pupils, like scientists, view the world through the spectacles of their own preconceptions, and many have difficulty in in making the journey from their own intuitions to the ideas presented in science lessons. 6

7. Duschl(1990) • The sameness of the underlying principles of both individual science learning and the growth of knowledge in science • Nersessian(1989) • both the nature of the changes that need to be made in conceptual restructuring and the kinds of reasoning involved in the process of constructing a scientific representation are the same for scientists and students of science. That is, the cognitive dimension of the two processes is fundamentally the same 7

8. PSHG Model for Conceptual Change (1982/92) • Acknowledged T. Kuhn’s epistemological and sociological accounts of conceptual changes in science • Based upon “obvious reasons”, the (sociological accounts ) is of limited value in explaining the cognitive growth of students • Stressed on the conceptual ecology of individual student • Viewed science learning as an individualistic process 8

9. Chinn & Brewer (1998/1993) • the use of anomalous data in the classroom has been guided by the assumption that in many fundamental ways science students -- including children -- are like scientists. • Four assumptions: • Like scientists, science students possess beliefs about how the physical world operates. • Both scientists and science students can detect anomalies. • Science students are like scientists in that they recognize that these anomalies pose a threat to their current theories. • Like scientists, science students will sometimes choose to adopt an alternative theory in response to data that are anomalous for their prior theory. 9

10. Chaille & Britain (1997) “The Young Child as Scientist” • many of the traits associated with a scientist -- experimentation, curiosity, creativity, theory testing -- are also typical of young children • Summary: • …a lone child struggles single handed to strike some equilibrium between assimilating the world to himself or himself to the world (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) 10

11. Individual-Interactive Analogies • Drawing from the nature of the social construction of scientific knowledge, the needs of the physical and social environments of the scientist, the dialectical nature of the individual and society, and so on. • Stressing the issues related to how language, social factors, culture, and peers or teachers influence the meaning making in pupil’s experience. 11

12. Examples of Individual-Conceptual Analogies • Driver(1989) • Scientific ideas and theories not only result from the interaction of individuals with phenomena but also pass through a complex process involving communication and checking through major social institutions of science. • Entities such as atoms, electrons, ions, fields, and fluxes, genes and chromosomes....are constructed and transmitted through the culture and social institutions of science. • Learning science involves being initiated into the culture of science. (p. 85) 12

13. Fosnot(1996) • Drawn heavily on physicists' studies of the nature of the atom and biologists' investigations on the relationships between an organism and it’s environment, relationship between an individual's meaning making and symbols, others and medium was proposed. Fosnot's constructivist learning model 13

14. Social-Conceptual Analogies • Possible theoretical backgrounds could be the paradigmatic-like descriptions of theory changes in science and the varieties of science studies. • Group understanding and how it relates to an individual's sense making are stressed by this type of analogy. 14

15. Woodruff & Meyer (1997) • Based on Dunbar, Latour and Pera’s works • scientists construct knowledge in two very different kinds of communities. One community thrives within the scientist's laboratory (intra-laboratory), while the other exists in the community at large (inter-laboratories). All scientists are members of both types of communities. 15

16. The inter-laboratory community provides the public forum for scientists. This forum sets and applies a discipline's standards and benchmarks and supports the arbitration that lets the discipline advance. These environments are high-risk forums for scientists' egos and careers. • Intra-laboratory communities, by and large, are private and low risk environments. Scientists use this private forum to discuss ideas that are not fully worked out without high risk to their ego or career. 16

17. Science classroom could support both intra- and inter-laboratory type communities. • Small cooperatively oriented groups are capable of providing the low risk environments to develop and nurture ideas jointly. • The entire class may be working as an inter-laboratory community that is establishing and maintaining standards and benchmarks as the class advances it understanding. 17

18. Kelly & Crawford (1997) • Based upon SSK • The conception of “Conceptual Ecology” • Viewing meaning as of a group, not an individual, and therefore viewed the substance of cognition as social. • An example • Chiang (1995) • Classroom discussion of “Image of Scientist” 18

19. Both scientific and science student communities tend to be viewed as a whole. Every member is viewed as an integrated part of the given community to which they belong. • The conceptual understanding of a given community (e.g., group's mind) is the main issue addressed. 19

20. Social-Interactive Analogies • Based upon the sociology of scientific knowledge, social studies of science, ethnographic and ethnomethodological studies of science, and so on. • The primarily focused on the social mechanisms for reaching group understandings and the effects of group structures on intra- and inter-groups interactions. 20

21. Meyer and Woodruff (1997) • Identified three mechanisms underlying the consensus building processes during students’ inquiry discourse • Richmond and Striley (1996) • knowledge building will be shaped in particular ways by students' interactions with one another, and that, not unlike what occurs in scientific communities, this construction will be shaped and validated largely by peers with whom they work and with whom they share certain goals 21

22. Cobb, wood and Yackel (1991) • The evolving tradition in the classroom -- communal story • Roth and Bowen (1995) • Investigating the nature of classroom learning in terms of three levels: • Individual • Small group • classroom 22

23. Individual level analysis • Although we have taken a close look at Miles's (a subject's name) understandings, we want to stress that these understanding developed through an active interchange with both physical and social environments. …Through a continuous exchange of ideas with his partner, by communicating his understandings to other students, and by interacting with the teacher and other adults, Miles constructed new understandings as a member of a classroom community so that his knowing and learning cannot be understood in isolation from the social aspects of the learning environment. (p. 124) 23

24. Discussion • Is it appropriate to make “Pupil-as-Scientist” analogies? • Gap between individualistic and social orientations? • Relationship between “Science Studies” and “Science Student Study”? • The Nature of Science or Natures of Sciences?

25. The appropriateness of “The Pupil as Scientist” Analogies • Authentic science: • Is it possible to provide pupils with real science experience without treat them as scientists? • Is it possible to achieve scientific literacy without proving pupils authentic science experience? • Identification of scientist: • Is there existing clear-cut demarcation between scientist and non-scientist 25