Thinking Contextually:
Windows into Adolescents’ Reasoning About Science Based Issues
Chris L. Lawrence
Under
revision
(last revised July 2008)
Abstract
Science education reform efforts promote students’ understandings of the nature of science, science as inquiry, and science related to societal concerns. Secondary science students are now asked to apply their knowledge, engage thoughtfully in inquiry, integrate conceptual understandings, and make reasoned judgments. However, it is necessary to explore the nature and quality of adolescents’ thinking and how more sophisticated forms of thinking can be promoted in order to interconnect the different goals into a more cohesive framework of thinking. In this paper, I present data from several different studies illustrating how students interconnect ideas, structure their thoughts, and use a rich array of understandings and ways of knowing in approaching more complex science based and social issues.
The distinction between content dominated answers and imaginative responses invoking explanations is crucial in this study of adolescent thinking ... The transition from content dominated to possibility evoking answers seemed to be the predominant feature of early and mid-adolescent thinking. (Peel, 1971, p. 26)
Current science education reform efforts promote students’ understandings of the nature of science, science as inquiry, and science related to societal concerns (National Research Council, 1996). Secondary science students are now asked to apply their knowledge, engage thoughtfully in inquiry, integrate conceptual understandings, and make reasoned judgments. Incorporating ideas about the nature of science with classroom teaching and learning has become an important goal to pursue as " ... science educators seek models for science teaching that are philosophically authentic” and “... that also serve the goal of making science accessible and relevant for all students (Kelly, et al, 1993. p. 208)”. Kuhn (1991) asserts the need “... to examine how people reason about real, complex issues of genuine importance, issues they are likely to have occasion to think and talk about in their everyday experience (p. 264).”
Little in the current literature in science education sheds light on the development of more sophisticated reasoning in adolescence through contextually oriented approaches. Most attempts to study or define the nature of science, as related to classroom learning, focus on specific conceptual understandings and/or concentrate on particular scientific understandings and subject matter knowledge (see work by Leach & Phillip, 1995, and Soloman, et al, 1992 & 1996 for examples). Additionally, many researchers have adopted a theoretical frame based on situated learning and have considered how students world views interact with science learning, but the contexts are often limited in these studies and constrained by past notions of curriculum, i.e., learning specific subject matter instead of integrated science, or by defining the goal of science learning as coming to know science as a scientist would. Context and relevance often become add ons to this primary goal. Even when science as inquiry is promoted or a project based approach, thinking is often still restricted (or is viewed in a restricted sense) as we do not account for simultaneous ways of knowing interacting at the same time and consider amore holistic perspective of adolescents developing sophisticated understandings. Adolescents are naturally capable of simultaneously engaging in many different ways of knowing, but we do not often account for nor tap this capability. While we want students to learn science and to leave the door open to those who want to become scientists, promoting science as the primary way of knowing in classrooms may lead away from other goals as it becomes the goal.
Our sociocultural views of science teaching and learning have advanced greatly in the past decade where " ... classrooms are ecologies that involve social and cultural forces exemplified by students and teachers (Roth & Lucas, 1997 pg. 146). “ We now look at the classroom as a social environment, at thinking as more of an ongoing and dynamic process, and learning as occurring through social interactions. However, our theories of cognition and thinking have not made such significant paradigmatic shifts, and, the two lines of research have not converged significantly. Some studies directly look at students’ views and understandings of the nature of science exploring the broad question of science as a sociocultural endeavor such as Driver, et al’s (1996) study, but do not look at how students’ apply their understandings within actual contexts. Most current sociocultural views in science education only incorporate theoretical notions of conceptual change or a schema approach as a basis for cognition (see Aikenhead on collateral learning, 1996, or Roth and Lucas, 1997, students’ talk about scientific knowledge) instead of advancing a more sophisticated stance on knowledge building and cognition, one that bridges current sociocultural views and cognition. While the conceptual change literature may account for students’ development of conceptual understandings, it is lacking as a framework for a broader perspective of thinking, particularly complex reasoning, reasoning that might involve integrated understandings and subtle nuance. One's view of the goals of science education, the curriculum, and of adolescent development can serve as limitations on the type of research conducted and the development of theoretical frames that define a broader picture of science learning and of thinking that connects different ways of knowing with science as a way of knowing. The primary goal of any schooling should be holistic development and not the learning of subject matter, hence the goal of learning within subjects should be embedded within these broader purposes of schooling in ways that form bridges from one subject matter to the other, schooling and society, the subculture of science and student everyday thinking, and between adolescence and adulthood.
Many of our theories still seem to just tack on existing views on thinking. While these views are still useful, they do not aid in looking at a broader picture of adolescent thought. Most researcher s have not considered looking at the ways adolescents more naturally think and structure their thoughts and perceptions in more complex and contextually bound experiences. A focus on more contextual and complex thinking can help bridge these gaps. Learning experiences situated in rich, broad, relevant science based contexts provide the necessary opportunities for students to engage in such complex thinking and more closely mirror the type of experiences and learning adolescents will encounter as adults. The theoretical frame that is presented here is based on situated learning, adolescent reasoning, and current goals of science education has evolved from both the literature and from several related research studies how students interconnect ideas when considering more complex science based issues, structure their thoughts, and use a rich array of understandings and ways of knowing in approaching such issues. Attempts have been made to formulate a theoretical frame that is informed by and congruent with classroom practice and current goals in science education. Examples from classrooms and research, throughout this paper, help illustrate the way adolescents use everyday reasoning (Roof & Lave, 1984) and structure their thoughts in richer contexts. Most of the examples here are all taken from children and classrooms in rural Mid-western communities and are based around similar themes of water quality to provide cohesiveness. Other populations, themes, and place based contexts would be unique, but similar issues in theory and practice could be researched.
Brown, et al. (1989) originally proposed that a student’s learning experience in school is much different from most learning students will engage in outside of schools. “The general strategies for intuitive reasoning, resolving issues, and negotiating meaning that people develop through everyday activity are superseded by the precise, well-defined problems, formal definitions, and symbol manipulation of much school activity (Brown, et al., 1989, p 34).” Schooling has generally promoted the learning of laws and symbols through memorization or solving well-defined problems where the meaning is fixed and concepts are immutable. Furthermore, there are no cognitive or cultural bridges between the two cultures or ways of thinking, i.e., school vs. practitioner.
In everyday life, most people face situations and reason similar to practitioners. The context of the task within which learning is embedded plays an important role in the thinking that is elicited. While many research studies promote thinking through ill-structured problems, the contexts are typically not as rich or open as those that would encourage contextual reasoning, but are more akin to problem solving or developing more specific conceptual understandings in science. What is defined as informal, everyday reasoning problems covers a fairly broad range, from more to less limited in the inherent richness and openness of the problem as well as the amount of information supplied. Many studies on ill-structured problem solving in science classrooms (most are in physics) would employ quite different problems than we present in this study. These problems are generally confined to a subject area and thinking is typically studied from a mental schemata or conceptual change theoretical orientation. While the conceptual change literature may account for students’ development of conceptual understandings, it is lacking as a framework for a broader perspective of thinking. particularly reasoning that might involve integrated understandings and subtle nuance. Even Brown, Collins, and Duguid’s (1989) seminal paper on situated cognition does not present mathematical thinking in a very rich context. Contextually richer situations that are science based and that are intra- and interdisciplinary in nature, necessarily result in different thinking.
Kuhn (1997) has identified the need to “... link
scientific thinking to thinking more broadly (p. 146). "In situated
learning, students are enculturated into authentic practices of
activity and
social interaction that doesn’t require a large qualitative shift in
the
way people act and think (Brown, et al., 1989). Lave and Wenger (1991)
express
their concern that context has previously been defined as a
static rather than dynamic concept in learning. The context provides
cues and
subtle variation in how thinking manifests itself.
Science/Technology/Society
orientations and problem- or case based approaches help to promote
students reasoning and embed their experiences in real life contexts.
The contexts of real issues are dynamic and provide cues and subtle
variation
in how thinking manifests itself (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The context
also
provides a knowledge rich environment within which students develop
their
reasoning, both scientific and general. The following story helps
illustrate
how my high school students entered into authentic activity in
the
classroom:
I asked the students what they thought about the quality of the water in their town, West Branch, Iowa, a small rural town of about 5,000 people. Do they think the water is good? Polluted? Jake immediately said we should check out the creek near the concrete plant, he thinks it is polluting by the way the water looks. I asked if we could find out what kinds of chemicals concrete plants produce, or this plant produces, and if they could get into the ground or water? Jake goes on to describe how the water also smells. I asked how these clues can be used to determine what are possible pollutants. “What would sulfur smell like? Several answer, “Rotten eggs!” Well, does the concrete plant use sulphur, or something that smells like this?
I had put a large map of the West Branch area on the wall. Students located the concrete plant on the map and how close it is to the Wapsinonac Creek. They also wanted to know about the map. Where did I get it? I told them it was from a topographic map of the West Branch quadrant. That I enlarged it, but I had only copied some of the relief lines. I asked if they knew what a topographic map was and one student explained it shows the hills. I asked, “What does the ‘790’ mean?”. A student explains it is the height. Another adds “... it is feet above sea level.” I asked how the topography might effect pollution. “Is it important when thinking about pollutants?” “Why?“ Several ideas were raised and discussed about the flow of water.
Some students jokingly told me I had the Sewage Disposal Plant in the wrong spot. “Hmm?” I said it must have been moved since the map was made in 1984. They wanted it located in its rightful place on the map, so a couple of students jumped up and labeled it correctly on the map. Other students were concerned with a hog facility north of town. ”Yea, blame the farmers! The farmers are always to blame!”, one student expressed in frustration. I said, “Is this a confinement facility or just a small farm operation with a few hogs?” The answer, “confinement”. I asked, “What would be the difference concerning pollution?” John offered an explanation of what confinement meant, ”large numbers of hogs confined in a small space”. I asked if this would make a difference in pollution and how? They said that both the number of hogs in a small area was important as well as the operations of a confinement facility since a large amount of waste is flushed out during cleaning. “What would be in this waste?” All the students knew it would be a form of nitrogen. We also talked about whether there would be anything else in the waste or other hazards from the facilities. The question was unanswered but left as a possible topic to search in the media center.
In less than one classroom period, the context
was set for
many avenues and further learning. Learning in relevant, rich, and
dynamic
contexts allows for a more connected knowing as advocated by
Belenky, et al. (1997). Just as indigenous people have traditional
environmental knowledge (Snively & Corsiglia, 1998), children
living in
different environments and different cultures have local and
practical
knowledge they use in interpreting the world around them. During the
process
meaning is negotiated and understandings are socially constructed as
problems
and dilemmas emerge. This kind of reasoning " ... is characterized by
wholeness, by the relationship between parts, and by the assumption
that
knowledge changes (King and Kitchener, 1996, pg 40).” Both learning and
teaching are fluid and adaptive to dynamic contexts. The concept of
dynamic
contexts is also important to weaving in other important educational
goals such
as adolescents developing a sense of self, developing and pursuing
their own
questions, and more broadly, students as active in their own learning
and in
developing the curriculum.
It is important to view thinking from a broader perspective if the current goals of science education include such ideals as developing interdisciplinary understandings, responsible decision making, using concepts of science and technology and ethical values in solving everyday problems, weighing the possible consequences of alternative options, defending decisions and actions using rational arguments based on evidence (NSTA Task Force, 1990).A previous study (Lawrence, et al., 1996) provides one window into how rural adolescents integrate many different ways of knowing when asked to reason about science based issues. One eighth grade student responded to a realistic scenario about the possibility that pollutants in the river could be causing many illnesses in the town.
In this situation I would study the river. Start at the very south end of town and put on chest waders and walk up town to the end were the farmland meets. Now this town looks a little bigger and it would take longer to walk so start at the north end of town and float down stream with a flat bottom boat and examine it. When looking for things I would look for culverts dumping into the river and for streams that run into the river that come from the farm ground. The stuff that is contaminating the water is farm chemicals I think. It said in the paragraph that it was raining a lot up north. That leds me to believe that it is spring. Farmers are preparing fields for planting at this time and that means that they are applying nitrogen now to. They are also slurry spraying their fields with hog manure. When it would rain the nitrogen (some of it) would run into the stream or river in this case. If you have farmland around the river for many miles your talking about a lot of acres, and if they all applied nitrogen or hog poop then it could shurly contaiminate the water. The paragraph said it was raining up north. North is the direction on the map were the farmland was and the farmland is were there getting the fields ready and the river runs by and thats were the nitrogen runoff runs into. The way I would test to see if my ideas were accurate is by taking a water test above the farmland. I would then drive down and take a test in the river before the golf course. If the tests are different (north low levels of nitrogen, south high levels of nitrogen) then it is happening in the strech of water.
In this example, the student brings in his
knowledge of
time and space as well as his everyday knowledge related to this
familiar
context. And this student is engaging in causal reasoning as well as
ideas
about systematic testing and accuracy. Some individuals are quite
sophisticated
in their reasoning. Others are not so sophisticated, but may have
particular
knowledge, conceptual understandings, and ways of knowing the teacher
and
student can work from in promoting further and more sophisticated
understandings. While, it is important to look at the development of
students
thoughts overtime and in a more dynamic fashion, windows into how
students
structure their thoughts and weave in different understandings into a
coherent
whole at a given time can also provide us insight.
McDaniel and Lawrence (1990) described five
levels of
complexity that emerged in analyzing adolescents reasoning about
complex
social issues. In lower levels, reasoning is limited and thoughts are
organized
around narrow ideas, utilize mostly factual knowledge, paraphrased
information,
or blanket assertions and offer minimal or no support for their ideas.
As
individuals progress to higher levels, they use broader ideas to
organize their
thought, provide support and elaborate on their ideas, and analyze and
integrate information. Causal connections also increase as does the
quality of
the relationships formed. Higher levels indicate the use of world views
and
broad frames of reference, e.g., political influences that shape
societal
values, trends in science/industry and human interventions concerning
our past,
present, and future lives.
After seeing this videotape and reading the article it is obvious America has a problem disposing of its nuclear waste. Although just two plants were mentioned, I’m sure that nearly every nuclear plant in the country is in some way illegally disposing of nuclear waste. I think this is a great injustice to Americans, especially today when so many Americans are concentrating on their health. In the every day hustle and bustle Americans can be inconsiderate and uncaring, but when major issues come up I think Americans form strong opinions and are willing to unite together. This is such a case where Americans are realizing that we don’t need as many warheads anymore and that production must slow down. We must concentrate our efforts, time and money, on finding out how to safely dispose of nuclear waste, and all other industrial waste, and how to safely disarm and store nuclear weapons.
Nuclear energy has only been used for forty or fifty years. I consider us to still be in the early stages of nuclear energy where we can’t realize the full potential and dangers of nuclear energy. American industry boomed in the late 1800’s and was a heavy polluter. Now after 100 years of heavy industry we are clamping down on pollution with our knowledge of industry. I hope that we can learn from the past and put restraint on our nuclear energy industry now instead of 50 more years from now.
Most importantly I
think we must
immediately begin extensive research on how to safely control the
nuclear waste
that is so quickly created.
The most notable aspect of this response is the
construction
of a global organizing framework. An almost sociological view of
Americans is
presented. Historical ideas are woven into an integrated frame of
reference:
trends in science/industry and human interventions concerning our past,
present, and future lives. Ideas are well integrated and extrapolated.
The bomb
factories are viewed as one instance of the more general problem of
industrial
pollution. Nuclear energy is perceived as a young industry for which
the future
potential and dangers are unknown. There is extensive use of
generalizations
and world knowledge. The thinking elicited opens up avenues for making
larger
interdisciplinary connections: to economics, politics, sociological
concerns,
and so on. And, therefore, provides fertile ground for further thinking
and
discussion in history, language arts, mathematics, and science. In
science,
many avenues arise to discuss technology (what is technology what is
its role
and relationship to science, and how is it connected to current
societal
issues). From this issue, questions may arise such as “Can we truly
ever
control nuclear waste safely? Issues such as the bomb factory are also
ongoing.
The historical impact of nuclear energy in general or nuclear
technology can be
examined. Such issues are even raised by the students.
The problem of contamination by radioactive material has been around for a long time, but only now are we beginning to pay attention to it. Only now, after innocent people have suffered the effects of exposure to radioactive materials, do we even recognize this problem. It seems a shame that these people had to suffer before anyone would listen.
We should have thought about this a long time ago. The people who design the bomb factories supposedly are experts, and as experts in their field, should be well aware that exposure to radioactive materials is damaging to people. I suspect they did know the dangers - but did they sit down and think of a way to avoid them? The consequences and effects of setting up a bomb factory should have been carefully considered before the plant was even opened. Perhaps, with some advanced planning, we could have avoided the problem by finding solutions to the potential problem first, before it became a problem. As it was, there was either no thought given to future consequences, or, if plans were made on how to deal with radioactive waste generated by the plant, these plans were often not carried out completely. I don’t know if this was because it was purely an oversight, or if it was that safety considerations were knowingly abandoned in the name of faster or more efficient production.
The reason why this
problem
exists is not the issue, though. The issue, the thing we must focus on
now, is
to try to find a way to help the people who have suffered from exposure
and to
make sure it doesn’t happen again. We need to solve this problem now,
quickly, so no more innocent lives are touched by suffering from
exposure to
radioactive wastes from these bomb factories. We owe the people in the
world
their safety, after all these bombs are supposed to protect us by
providing
national security, when in reality they are hurting us by contaminating
people
with exposure to dangerous materials.
We asked students in grades seven through 12 (200 participants all in the same rural Midwestern middle/high school) to write an essay based on a hypothetical scenario about health problems occurring in a town due to possible water contamination. The scenario on water quality was chosen because of its community relevance to these students. The students, in this school, study water quality related issues over the course of their middle and high school experiences. Students, as a whole group, were allowed to ask questions about the nature of the task and the scenario. Teachers were asked to clarify anything necessary but not make assumptions or add to the information given in the scenario. It was reiterated to students by the teachers to make any assumption they like. Following are the typical questions students asked before writing their response.
The numbers of questions of the sort, What kind of farm is it? Dairy, or crop or what?, What does the factory make?, What kind of business is in the picture?, and What is the unmarked building in the center of the scene?, Indicate students were aware of and concerned with what kinds of pollution could be generated by the possible sources shown on the map. Questions, indicating they have some previous knowledge of specific pollutants related to possible sources were also asked: Are there any cattle on the farm?, Do they fertilize the golf course? What kind of things are sprayed on the farm land? And, even more specific, How is any animal manure stored?
Students also asked questions such Is there a town
north of
Hillsboro?, Where does the river start?, Is there anything besides the
farmland
upriver?, Does the water come from sources other than the reservoir?,
and, Are
there other streams flowing into the river up north?, indicating they
were
aware of other sources not shown on the map and, that the
causes of
pollution may occur at a distance from the effects. Where’s the
landfill at?, and, Where are the sewers located? and of typical sources
of
pollution.
Often students asked fairly sophisticated questions their understanding that time is a variable that could be effecting the situation: What time of year is it?, Which is the most recent part of town to be developed ?, Has there been recent flooding?, When was the last time the water was tested?, How many weeks/months has this been happening?
A number of questions show students are relating more scientific understandings to the situation: Does the rain have acidic qualities to it?, How widespread were the rains to the North? Is it a clear nice river or a muddy one with erosion and chemicals? Are the plants that are growing in the water toxic? Can radon molecules get into water and cause pollution?
Several student questions related to the number of people either in the town, how many fell ill, or various assumptions connecting the water problem and illnesses occurring: Do they treat their water?, Is there another reason people are getting sick besides the water?, and Are they sure the water is the cause of the illness? And some asked more social/political type questions such as, Why are the inspectors waiting?
Some students also realized and raised questions about the inherent difficulty in responding to the ambiguous situation presented in the Hillsboro scenarios: There are so many variables it’s hard to say what might be the cause, and As time goes on the variables will be changing, and Do we have to write on one reason why or can we use more than one?
Participants responses were sorted into
qualitatively different levels using McDaniel and Lawrence’s (1990)
levels and current ideas on science content as theoretical guides in
interpreting qualities related to reasoning. During this process, we
also let
students responses guide our analysis through a constant comparative
method of
qualitative analysis. The result is descriptions for five levels of
contextual
reasoning.
Level 1: Concrete Dimensions The student lists single or multiple causes of the problem. These items in the list are typically unrelated, unanalyzed, and unelaborated declarative statements concerning where the cause of the problem might be occurring. Lacks any proposed method to solve the problem through information gathering. The ideas or items in the list don’t connect to one another. May present highly improbable cause and effect relationship or leaps to conclusion without support or evidence.
Level 2: Simplistic Method Student describes a very simplistic method to identify the cause(s) of the problem, usually through simple information gathering. Approach taken appears as a list with minimal support shown for their reasoning. Typically, the ideas or items in the list don’t connect to one another, i.e., no interrelationships. Occasionally, an argument is built on a single idea, but one that can’t serve as an organizing agent or is improbable.
Level 3: Emerging Systematic Approach Student describes a simple but systematic approach and list possible causes. Statements made recognize the complexity of the problem and of identifying a cause/solution. Difficulties and dimensionality of considerations are implicitly or explicitly stated. Relationships are suggested and elaborated upon, explanations for choices are given, and/or some major assumptions are made explicit. Analyses of data based on simple tests are suggested for finding or eliminating possibilities. Seeks to further define the problem.
Level 4: Systematic/Generalizable Approach Student describes a systematic and/or generalizable method to explore the problem, solution, or cause. Statements made recognize the complexity of the problem and of identifying a cause/solution. Analyses of data is based on consideration of broader and specific dimensions affecting this situation, i.e., social, economic, scientific. Discussion of scientific analyses relates to process, validity, and accuracy of the research. All key ideas are interrelated or cohere as a holistic treatment of the situation.
Level 5: Contextualized and Systematic Treatment Student offers a contextualized and systematic treatment of the situation as a whole. Generalizable plans and rich scientific knowledge maybe employed in exploring the problem and is often embedded within the analysis and used appropriately based on the context. Discusses scientific analyses and relates to process, validity, and accuracy of the research to this context, larger considerations, and/or specific dimensions affecting this situation. All ideas are interrelated into a holistic treatment of the situation. Complex causality is explained and integrated into the treatment.
The following examples help portray the qualitative differences seen between a typical lower level responses and higher level responses (although length of essay was not an apparent difference in responses, particularly when comparing closer levels).
Example Level 1: The chemicals and manure from the farmland cause they could wash in to the river. The chemicals that they put on the golf course could wash into the river. The campers could be dumping their waste in the river. The resident could be dumping their waste in to the river and they could be dumping trash in there also. The waste and chemicals that the factors gives out can wash in to the river.
Example Level 3: I think the pollution is coming from the farmers fields and the golf courses. Fertilizers washes off the fields and ends up in the rivers and down to the reservoir. People can get sick from the fiterlizer it explains why the plants are growning better at the reservoirs. The problem get worse when heavy rains make the firtilizers and chemicales off faster from the farmland. The way I would test if my theory is true I would get some of the strips that checks for fertilizer. Test the water above the farmers spots and test below the farmland and keep on going down the field until you find what is running off and could be making people sic
Example Level 5: The residents of Hillsboro assume the problem lies with the drinking water. If this assumption is correct, there are a number of possible causes of the pollution. Two synthetic causes are immediately apparent: the factory and the farm(s). But what kind of factory is it? Does it pour chemicals directly into the reservoir, bury toxic waste nearby, or pollute the air? Or does the factory heat the water and then pump it back to the reservoir? This might explain the increase in plant life in the reservoir. Warmer water less oxygen, and fewer fish, which allows the vegetation to increase and microbe colonies to thrive as well, as the reservoir water becomes more and more stagnant. The exact cause and symptoms of the illnesses in the town are not given, so it is hard to pinpoint the culprit or culprits. The farmland upstream from the town could be livestock grounds, releasing animal wastes into the river, or crop land where pesticides/herbicides are used. Another possibility is that the floods have been dredging up soil into the water, and the bacteria in the silt are causing illnesses. But since the date of the first illnesses is not given, if the illnesses are related, we can’t assume the floods were a direct cause of the problem.
Our quantitative analyses indicate a pattern of increasing sophistication. In lower levels, students do not use explanation well if at all, but merely make concrete assertions. They tend to develop simple lists of causes and sometimes even through mid levels do not examine the feasibility of causes, e.g., that trash from picknickers in the campground is as viable as farm run-off. Moving to higher levels of sophistication, students start to integrate possible evidence they could collect and become more systematic in their approach. They also realize the situation may not be so simple and tend to focus their thoughts more broadly to help them organize their ideas. Ideas of prioritizing and the elimination of variables are woven together with the idea that one cannot just develop a solution based on the givens of the situations, but must formulate multiple and interacting plans based on what information could be acquired. In levels four and five, we see a more contextual treatment of the situation and reasoning that is elaborated upon.
In order to explore the patterns in responses over grades, simple statistical analyses were conducted. Trained raters obtained high inter rater agreement when using the initial rationale to score 70 random papers (p=.86). Subsequently, all papers were scored and differences ameliorated. With more advanced grade levels, the mean increases as the range of response shift from lower levels to upper levels (Table 1).
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Levels of Contextual Reasoning of Secondary Science Students
|
grade |
n |
M |
SD |
range |
|
7 |
30 |
3.07 |
.66 |
1-4 |
|
8 |
48 |
2.79 |
1.07 |
1-5 |
|
9 |
38 |
2.61 |
.86 |
1-4 |
|
10 |
50 |
2.94 |
.87 |
1-4 |
|
11 |
27 |
3.88 |
.51 |
3-5 |
|
12 |
13 |
3.85 |
.80 |
2-5 |
|
All grades |
209 |
2.90 |
.90 |
1-5 |
The importance of this work is in the actual
description
of how students organize their thoughts when confronted with a more
complex and
open ended situation in science. We hope in the future this work may
help us to
understand how to lead students to more sophisticated levels of
thinking in
science and examine the influences on adolescent development such as
effective
feedback and intersecting with students in self assessment. Further
study is
needed on how rich contextual science learning experiences help promote
such development,
the dynamic changes that occur overtime with individuals and in groups,
and
whether the results of such studies simply reflect normal maturational
development of moving from describer to explainer (Peel, 1971).
To further explore students views that might be important to their understandings and developing contextual
thinking in science, a subset of this same population from eighth and tenth grade (n =44, initially reported in
Lawrence, et al., 1998) were presented two peer essays to students and asked what science is evidenced in each,
which essay they prefer, and to explain their reasoning. There is widespread consensus that the nature of science
should be understood and presented authentically in the classroom. That is to say that science is characterized by
tentativeness in scientific knowledge, has dynamic sociocultural processes, and constitutes a value and moral
laden endeavor (Cleminson,1990; Kuhn, 1997; Kyle et al, 1991). The two essays clearly depicted two different
epistemological stances which can be related to conceptions of the nature of science; Essay 1 - a positivist stance,
and Essay 2 - a more constructivist and tentative stance in evaluating the problem. Students who prefer the first
essay identify more concrete facets of the science evidenced, such as “pollution”, and procedural facets such as a
specific method in both essays. Their preference
for essay
one is due to the certainty of the knowledge portrayed, a set plan of
steps to
be taken, and specific action to solve the problem. Alternately, they
do not
like the second essay because of the author’s vagueness and expression
of
uncertainty due to the complexity of the problem. Students who prefer
the
second essay also identify some procedural and concrete facets as
science
evidenced, but additionally, identify the problem solving and process
of
inquiry as science. They prefer the second essay because it recognizes
the
complexity of the problem and proposes multiple possibilities of
causes,
eliminating variables, and recognizing alternative approaches. They
criticize
the first essay for a limited perspective and no alternative plan.
In a related study, (again within the same population, Lawrence, 1997, unreported data) several small groups or pairs of students in grade seven and eight were asked to read each others initial essays on the Hilllsboro scenario then to have a discussion about the ideas. Most all the discussion were very dynamic as students challenged each other on some major ideas as is evidenced in this transcript.
(Meg-062) I know in the story you had a bunch of ideas ... can you stick with only one idea and you also thought maybe it didn’t have anything to do with the water. You thought maybe that it was the food ? ... something to do with the food that they might buy at the supermarket. That was bad instead of that ...and you didn’t really seem to go off any ideas off that map [the scenario]. Really you just only used the idea that the water might have been high error something might not ...
(Dusti-047) Uh, huh
(Meg-062) Well, it would effect the test
(Dusti - 047) Well, I like yours because you seem to be on the idea about the farm. Like the fields could have been contaminated by like a chemical they sprayed it with and I like that cause you seem to base it on one idea and how you would go about testing it ... like space it out on a long term thing so you could see what the results would be ... and I like that ... and (Meg-062) I have to think out a way of like explaining each step that ...
(Meg-062) ... explain what I was doing, like here I think it was good because if I was sticking with one if my one idea wasn’t right , with yours, if one idea on your paper wasn’t right there was always something else it could be not just that one thing ...
(Dusti - 047) um, huh (picks up scenario) ... I’m looking at the map ... seen this a few times...uhm ... I don’t really think there could have been anything from the camping really cause it doesn’t look like there could be cause its kinda farther down doesn’t really have any streams or anything.
Subsequently to these conversations, students were asked to revise their essays. However, while new ideas were introduced into the revisions and sometimes large changes were made, the overall quality of essays remained unchanged because students didn’t restructure their thoughts when revising (although they may have during their conversations and in their own minds). One limiting factor of looking at changes is that student do no want to stay with a problem very long, it loses its novelty and they think they have fully considered it so in general will put much less effort in with each consideration. This suggests also that the tasks they are asked to complete must be varied such as asking them to develop concept maps, focused questions, etc. Hypothetical scenarios even if realistic loose their appeal sooner as compared to real issues that can actually be researched, but they can possibly obtain more appeal if the tasks are related to a similar local context and problem.
While the intent of developing levels is to
explore how
adolescents structure their thoughts given rich contexts, the
underlying
assumptions are that their previous knowledge, experiences with similar
problem
solving, and reading/writing level can have a significant impact on the
level
obtained. Many adolescents appear to function within a range of levels
even
given different but similar contexts perhaps indicating that some
general
thinking capability is functioning. Further studies may show how their
conceptual, ontological, and epistemological frameworks interact with
each
other in developing thought. The literature is replete with studies on
how
students can seemingly understand a concept in one context but not
another,
however, this view may be too simplistic. In a previous study
(Lawrence, 1992) looking at individual preservice teachers’ broad
pedagogical understandings across contexts and over a semester, I
characterized
these sets of understanding as simplistic, disparate, fluctuating, and
developed epistemological frameworks. Simplistic and developed
frameworks form
a unified picture with most understandings cohering with each other
almost
seamlessly. Individuals with disparate frameworks typically spanned the
entire
range of levels of understanding. For example, the concept of the
teacher and
students’ roles are often disjoint from social roles and may not be
seen
as connected (or it is not understood how they are connected) to
cognitive
growth. The teacher may be oriented toward a democratic environment,
but has
some difficulties in grasping the ideas of students being in control of
their
own learning. In a fluctuating framework, understanding do not seem to
be fully
developed yet and span a smaller range of levels (usually three)
anywhere along
the continuum. For instance, solid connections between individual
differences
and how students construct meanings may be lacking if criteria for
assessing
students’ responses are not based on meaning making as a dynamic and
evolving concept. Likewise, an individual may identify and discuss
student
development (both cognitive and social) as an important individual
difference,
but the concept of the development of meaning remains relatively vague
and
unrelated to gross student development. Perhaps student broad science
understandings could be looked at in a similar light. This perspective
may also
help connect thinking in science classrooms to thinking in other
disciplines
given richer contexts.
When eighth grade, students who were studying locally relevant issues, were interviewed about their individual research projects, they often explained a broader purpose for their research project than is typical of many science research projects:
Our issue was if land use effects water quality and in what ways... it’s an issue around this region because land use is varied around here ... we’re trying to figure out what kinds of land use will effect the streams around the area like farming or urban development.
Students also tended to know their science well ... and could apply the conceptual understandings of content along side concerns for how to implement a good study and their constraints due to available resources:
The question we were wanting to answer was if ... well, how toxic the water level is by using two tests nitrate tests and larval tests. The nitrate test is just an indicator of other pollutants that may be in the water ... we cant test for other pollutants because the tests are way too expensive. (S2) Our question would be if the water is bad would land use be affecting the water and what is it doing to that. If farmers are using chemicals ... that are dumping chemicals into the stream or if there is a feedlot ... natural wastes. Our study found that levels of nitrate in that stream are extremely low, larva is abundant that are pollution sensitive, the stream is in pretty good shape, for instance the stream has mayfly and dragonfly nymphs, all of those are pollution sensitive, they couldn't exist if the water is polluted.
Current goals of science education not only ask that student learn science content and the nature of science, but that we also educate them to be informed and active citizens, that they connect science to societal needs.
This topic definitely needs future study because we don't know when someone uses a dangerous pesticide and it gets into the streams, endangers the wildlife. or flooding breaking sewer lines... that's probably more likely to happen. If we were on this advisory panel on water quality we its hard to say from our project, we haven't gotten anything conclusive our project turned out to be low nitrate readings and other people got high ones so we're still trying to find out why.
In these explanations we can see that this student is using many different facets of thinking and ways of knowing. This gets back to the original premise that there has been an over focus on scheme and conceptual change theory which does not fully account for integrated and more contextualized thinking.
Several dimensions of contexts affect students thinking including the richness, openness, complexity, possibilities for dynamic interaction (real, realistic, and/or local situations), and connections to other disciplines. How can the context can be seen to promote thinking and conceptual understandings embedded within a larger framework. Two studies, the one mentioned by Lawrence, et al. (1997) and the one by McDaniel and Lawrence (1991), when existing data are compared, show that different issues elicit different levels of thought and types of knowledge students bring to bear in their responses, although there is much overlap in these types of thought. McDaniel and Lawrence looked at broader social issues (cancer and plutonium plants, simple response below) that have stronger political, social, and economic connections, while Lawrence, et al., looked at social issues (water quality and human illness) that had links to these concerns but were more directly science based. Combining these two approaches in the science classroom as well as continuing a focus on conceptual change at a more specific to understanding particular science concepts and processes could help forma more holistic framework for learning science and connecting it to thinking in other disciplines.
A comparison of responses given different contexts will be beneficial to learning integrated science in middle school classrooms and provide a balance in the types of thinking elicited. Further studies are needed that follow students through an entire year of study where they engage with dynamic contexts and where the teacher integrates different contexts as well as embeds conceptual change strategies within larger contexts. Although, there are objections in the science education community to an over focus or any focus on issue based science, not only does this research preliminarily indicates that adolescents can use larger frames to organize subordinate conceptual understandings and subframes for science, but additionally this research can contribute to making natural intersections across middle school subjects and blend sociocultural and cognitive concerns more seamlessly. Theories of cognitive development favor mathematical and scientific thinking (Gilligan, 1987). Few favor cognitive development that might cross over disciplinary lines or promote thinking in science that does not strictly fit into scientific thinking paradigms. Scientific thinking paradigms cannot help promote many of the larger goals of science education reform in and of themselves. Embedding these paradigms within more authentic and situated activity to promote students reasoning intersects well with a more holistic vision of promoting adolescent development in middle school science classrooms.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, C. L., Craven, J. A., &
Crandall,
B. (1996, March). Assessing and promoting reasoning through
Science/Technology/Society experiences in high school. Paper presented
at the
annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching,
Chicago
McDaniel, E., & Lawrence, C.L. (1990). Levels of cognitive complexity: An approach to the measurement of thinking. New York: Springer-Verlag.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Peel, E. A. (1971). The nature of adolescent judgement. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Rogoff, B. (1984). Introduction: Thinking and
learning in
social context.
Rogoff, B & Lave, J. (Eds.). Everyday
cognition:
Its
development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelly, et al, 1993
Leach & Phillip, 1995
Soloman,
et al, 1992 & 1996
Roth & Lucas, 1997
Driver, R, 1996
Aikenhead, 1996
King and Kitchener,1996
NSTA
Task
Force, 1990
Belenky, 1997