Thinking by young children during argumentation: Use of evidence and logic
Carmel M Diezmann & James J Watters Centre for Mathematics and Science Education Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
[email protected] [email protected]
“Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” Albert von Szent-Gyorgyi
Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Thinking, Singapore June 1-6, 1997 and Published in proceedings as:
Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (1998). Thinking by young children during argumentation: Use of evidence and logic. In Q. M. Ling & H. W. Kam (Eds.), Thinking processes: Going beyond the surface curriculum (pp. 115-134). Singapore: Simon and Schuster.
Thinking by young children during argumentation: Use of evidence and logic Carmel M Diezmann & James J Watters Centre for Mathematics and Science Education Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Australia
Abstract
In an enrichment program for 5-7 year old children, the topic of colonisation of Mars was explored. The program was run over a 10 week period with the children meeting for 90 minutes each week. During the program the children were introduced to the topic through a range of experiences, sources of information and activities which encouraged them to develop an understanding of conditions on the planet. As part of these activities discussions and argument were undertaken about topical issues. Analyses of these discussions revealed several interesting features that have implications for teaching thinking and for science education. In particular it was noted that: (a) information from a range of sources were encoded without reference to the credibility of the sources, (b) children displayed high levels of logical and conditional reasoning exemplified through argument and, (c) although beliefs and alternative viewpoints were confronted and evaluated during discussions, revision of original beliefs was rare. These results imply that the children are able to apply domain general reasoning strategies in argumentation but the scientific validity of the arguments are constrained by the domain specific prior knowledge. However, the context of the program facilitated argument and engagement in reasoning processes by its appeal to personal interest. The motivational component of the learning experience became a significant force in sustaining the engagement in reasoning. This paper will explore the processes exhibited during this program and draw implications for teaching thinking strategies in classroom situations. Indeed, our experiences with these children challenges the border between traditional teaching and children’s capacity to reason.
Introduction The contemporary practices advocated in science teaching are being influenced by a greater recognition of children’s prior knowledge, more discussion and argumentation of individual beliefs about scientific knowledge and a more facilitatory role for the teacher (Australian Education Council, 1994; Kuhn, 1993.; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990). Implementation of these strategies requires teachers to reassess their understanding of the nature of science and what is appropriate scientific knowledge (Fletcher & Lowe, 1993). The appropriate scientific knowledge base for children encompasses more than the concepts, laws and principles of canonical science and includes strategic or procedural knowledge (Alexander, 1996; Farnham-Diggory, 1994) and metacognition (Schneider & Weinert, 1989a). There is a mutual interdependence between domain specific knowledge base and knowledge of procedures (Schneider & Weinert, 1989b). Enriched domain specific knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient base on which to express higher order reasoning processes. Experts possesses a broad domain of knowledge encompassing a network of ideas and concepts and the tools to work with these ideas while novices have limited domain specific knowledge situated within discrete contexts (Greeno, 1991). For novices the main goal is often mere exposure to content knowledge on the assumption that this enables them to acclimatise to the field (Alexander, 1996). With a limited knowledge base there is less awareness of what information is important, and its relationship to prior knowledge (Sternberg & Horvath, 1995). Developing expertise involves construction of links and connections to embellish, restructure and reify concepts through discursive practices that involve much discussion, argumentation and evaluation of evidence (Latour & Woolgar, 1986). The perception that science is entirely about inquiry and discovery of truth and that children because of their intense curiosity are therefore natural scientists is challenged by these studies of 1
authentic science. Argumentation is a crucial tool in the construction of scientific knowledge and a necessary component to be developed in young children (Kuhn, 1993). The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework that supports the development of scientific reasoning skills in classrooms. Firstly we explore beliefs about the construction of knowledge by children. Secondly, we discuss the thinking skills of young children and the conditions that promote these skills. Thirdly we provide an insight into the establishment of learning environments that facilitate the development and expression of thinking skills and the construction of scientific knowledge in young children. Fourthly, we draw implications from our study for classroom practice.
Constructivism and young children’s learning Contemporary research supports the view that children build an understanding of their immediate environment through the active construction of meaning based on prior knowledge and experience facilitated by social interaction with other children and adults (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; O’Loughlin, 1992). Social interaction was justified by Vygotsky who hypothesised that individual thinking and conceptualisation was an internalisation of social speech experienced in society (Berk, 1992; Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky (1987) proposed that in cognitive development: Every function in the cultural development of the child appears on the stage twice, on two planes. First, on the social plane, and then on the psychological; first between people, and then, inside the child (p. 145).
Thus in the construction of knowledge there are both individually and socially mediated processes. Thus knowledge can be seen as a organised network or connection of concepts (Thagard, 1991). The organisation of this network draws upon problem solving processes, procedural knowledge and metacognition, all processes subject to social context (Silver & Marshall, 1990). Vygotsky emphasised the interpersonal nature of communication and social interaction rather than the intrapersonal role of language. The Vygotskian classroom would emulate the cultural discourse of the discipline and provide opportunities for children to be extended irrespective of age or individual cognitive structures. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) argue that classrooms need to move from traditional collections of individuals guided by a teacher who delivers knowledge as in the fashion of Moses and the Ten Commandments towards a community with shared responsibility for engaging in practices that constitute knowledge-building. In an environment supportive of learning, the teacher takes on a role different from that in a traditional transmission-absorption classroom. In the words of Prawat and Floden (1994): “teachers abandon the orchestrator role and join the fray, becoming active participants as they attempt to guide the group toward the disciplinary high ground.” To help the learner construct scientific knowledge they need the domain specific tools represented by scientific thinking. Thinking skills in young children the tools for knowledge building Galotti (1989) has attempted to distinguish among the various functions described as thinking, reasoning, problem solving and decision making. She defines the term reasoning as: (the) mental activity that consists of transforming given information (called the set of premises) in order to reach conclusions (p. 333).
In reasoning, there is a deliberate attempt to consider information, construct connections and assess these connections. Causal reasoning was considered beyond the capacity of young children by Inhelder and Piaget (1958). However in contrast, others (Bullock, 1991; Ruffman, Perner, 2
Olson, & Doherty, 1993; Sodian, Zaitchik, & Carey, 1991) have shown that young children can reason causally and identify evidence that co-varies with outcomes. The possible reasons for the discrepancy in findings include assertions that in certain circumstance children are strongly committed to certain beliefs that are tenaciously held (Ruffman et al.; 1993; Sodian et al., 1991). When counter-evidence is presented young children may regard the evidence as spurious. The quantity of evidence and compulsion of that evidence may need to be substantial to challenge beliefs that are strongly held. Furthermore, the plausibility of the alternative hypothesis may need to be high. In contrast, when novel situations are met (such as in fantasy) and prior beliefs are not strongly held, revision of theory and deductive reasoning is less problematic (Watters & English, 1995). Considered from a Piagetian perspective, the ability of a child to engage in causal reasoning or logico-mathematical processes is evidence of formal reasoning and only achieved in early adolescence (Piaget, 1968). Consequently, science education programs have postponed the introduction of causal reasoning until children reach the appropriate “developmental level.” Is scientific thinking a reasonable goal for young children? Metz (1995) has challenged both the interpretation of Piaget’s work and non-Piagetian research that purports to reach similar conclusions about the capacity of young children to engage in abstract reasoning. Whilst acknowledging the constraints of limited domain-specific knowledge and metacognitive skills, she contends that young children are able to engage in authentic science by posing questions, gathering and interpreting data and revising their theories. Thus in a situation where both domain specific knowledge and metacognitive skills exist, the manifestation of causal reasoning or scientific reasoning should be evident. We will now address the role of domain specific knowledge and metacognition in the development of an optimal learning environment. Development of domain specific knowledge The learning of domain specific knowledge is argued by some to require tools that are also embedded within the domain (Greeno, 1991). From one perspective, domain specific knowledge is constructed as described previously by an individual who encounters a new experience and who tries to reconcile that experience with existing understandings. Knowledge becomes represented as schema, mental models, or mental structures that are subject to inspection and reflection. Further, others assert that knowledge is distributed and a product of the social context: “learning, thinking and knowing are relations among people engaged in activity in, with, and arising from, the socially and culturally structured” (Lave, 1991, p. 67). Within a community or culture knowledge is situated (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) and the community share a “common voice” (Wertsch, 1991). Capitalising on individual expertise and beliefs the group construct a shared meaning and understanding that represents a dynamic consensus of views which is richer, more extensive and more negotiable than the beliefs of individuals. Development of metacognition Individual reflection is an important aspect of metacognition however not all tasks require metacognition or are conducive to the use of metacognitive skills. Tasks that are routine or unchallenging can be readily performed without metacognition. Thus if unchallenged in the classroom children have little opportunity to develop their metacognitive skills. Similarly tasks that are not of interest to the student or have to be completed in a set time do not facilitate the development of metacognitive skills because the focus is on completing the task rather than on understanding and solving the problem. Additionally, if the teacher assumes responsibility for monitoring the problem solving strategies and does not afford children the appropriate modelling 3
practices, metacognition will not develop (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1992). Interactions between students, for example, in co-operative group work can also foster metacognitive awareness and demonstrate the influence of metacognition on performance. Giving a student the role of director with the responsibility for monitoring the group’s progress and keeping the group on task provides the student with a model of metacognition for individual problem solving (Granott, 1993). Optimising the learning environment Having considered the role of domain specific knowledge and metacognition in facilitating scientific thinking we now turn to an examination of the strategies that facilitates this in a learning environment. In particular we will consider the role of classroom discourse and the part played by the teacher in the classroom. Classroom discourse Those features that characterise an effective environment can be identified from both social and critical constructivist perspectives. The social perspective, already considered, acknowledges the role of discussion and interaction among students and their teacher. Discourse, communication and autonomy become essential features of a constructivist influenced learning environment and indeed form the foundations of emancipation as expressed by Freire (1972): Without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there can be no true education. Education which is able to resolve the contradiction between teacher and student takes place in a situation in which both address their act of cognition to the object by which they are mediated. Thus, the dialogic character of education as the practice of freedom does not begin when the teacher-student meets the student-teachers in a pedagogical situation, but rather when the former asks himself what his dialogue with the latter will be about (p. 65).
Extensive research on classroom interactions has shown that teachers engage in talk far more than children (Carlsen, 1991; Graesser & Person, 1994; Roth, 1996). The modes of talk range from interrogative to interactive. The interrogative practices that occur, such as questioning, are controlled by the strategies adopted by the teacher who, by responding in particular ways to answers from the child, can orchestrate the nature of discourse (Orsolini & Pontecorvo, 1992). In contrast, the discursive practices that typify a community involve all participants engaging in a collaborative social dialogue that exploits the accumulated expertise. The critical perspective focuses on the interaction between child, teacher, and content (Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994). For example in science a critical perspective is influenced by a the set of features shown in Table 1. Table 1 Features of a science classroom from a critical constructivist perspective Making science seem personally relevant to the outside world, that is, science is driven by a desire to solve a real problem, to make sense of one’s natural environment Engaging students in reflective negotiations with each other by reducing risk factors Teachers inviting students to share control of the design, management, and evaluation of their learning, by allowing for independent investigations Students being empowered to express critical concern about the quality of teaching and learning activities Students experiencing the uncertain nature of scientific knowledge
4
Effective teaching influenced by constructivist principles capitalises on providing opportunities for children to co-operate, to develop skills in critical and creative thinking, and to explore new phenomena through which meaningful learning can occur. Teachers are managers and facilitators of the learning environment working consciously to establish dynamic learning communities and modelling interest, and enthusiasm, as exemplified in the community of learners identified in the research of Brown and Campione (1990), Bereiter and Scardarmalia (1992), and Lipman (1988). The role of the teacher The teacher assumes an active and crucial role in establishing the appropriate learning environment through the process of scaffolding learning. Through scaffolding, teachers can exploit both the metacognitive and domain specific knowledge in children. Scaffolds become particularly useful in teaching higher-order cognitive strategies according to Rosenshine and Meister (1992): Scaffolds are forms of support provided by the teacher (or another student) to help students bridge the gap between their current abilities and the intended goal. Scaffolds may be tools, such as cue cards, or techniques such as teacher modelling ... Instead of providing explicit steps, one supports, or scaffolds, the students as they learn the skill (p. 26).
However in order for scaffolding to be effective, students need sufficient background to learn the cognitive strategy (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Scaffolds are useful only when learners cannot proceed alone but can proceed with teacher support, that is, the strategy enables them to work within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). As the learner becomes more proficient with the new cognitive strategy scaffolding gradually becomes redundant. Hence scaffolding is inherently temporary (Tobias, 1982) and responsive to the learner’s proficiency (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Therefore the scaffolding required by individual learners is variable and dependent upon his or her experiences. The intent of scaffolding is to support learners to develop increased understanding. From the Vygotskian perspective, a child’s peers can also provide the necessary scaffolding. The child becomes as much responsible for developing a learning environment as the teacher. Hence, implicit in scaffolding is the importance of dialogue and peer interaction. The teacher’s function in developing the learning community includes instructing the learner on the procedures and demands of the role, selecting the material to be learned, adapting that material and constructing the most appropriate set of opportunities for the student to gain access to content, to enhance motivation and to monitor and appraise his or her own progress. Given this framework we now describe how this strategy was adopted in the development of the enrichment programme to test the proposition that children are able to engage in scientific reasoning if they have the prerequisite domain specific knowledge and metacognitive skills. The goals of this intervention included the development of: (1) children’s conceptual knowledge, (2) a community of practice that facilitated learning, and (3) opportunities for thinking and reasoning within a scientific context.
The intervention In a community of learners the tasks need to be perceived as authentic and challenging, there should be negotiation of authority structures and a focus on learning outcomes through collaborative negotiation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1992). The programme is described in brief as a more detailed description has been described elsewhere (Watters & Diezmann, 1997). Children (aged 5-7 years) were selected from schools in the metropolitan area of Brisbane, Australia on the 5
basis of a narrative profile constructed by parents and teachers. Criteria for selection include a strong interest in science, and indications of exceptional behaviours such as high reading ability. The children attended one afternoon per week for a ten week period. The class had 15 children and was run for one and a half hours in a University teaching laboratory. The class was led by CMD and supported by JJW and two tutors who were preservice teachers. The ten week programme had three phases with differing goals; a familiarisation phase, a skill development phase, and an autonomous phase. The content within each phase was developed progressively in response to the interests and needs of individual children. The workshops emphasised challenging, open-ended, interactive problem solving tasks and activities built around children’s interests. The programme commenced with a focus on space travel and during the programme children’s interests in astronomy, physics, biology and mathematics were accommodated and developed. The children’s interest in space persisted throughout the programme and during the final weeks the children were encouraged to explore ways and means of planning a “Mission to Mars.” Each week a basic format was adopted. The children sat in a “horseshoe” pattern for an introductory discussion to facilitate discussion. This session allowed a review of previous activities and framed the direction for the day’s programme. This session varied in length from 15 to 35 minutes depending on the dynamics. The children then worked in groups or individually on some task related to an overall goal of the session. The final 15 minutes included a recap on what had been achieved and where we would progress in the following week. A summary of the science content and components of the weekly sessions is shown on Table 2. The effectiveness of this programme with respect to our goal was evaluated to ascertain the extent to which children were able to engage in higher order reasoning through argumentation. The analysis is based on the occurrence of a critical incident in the final week of the programme. The Spontaneous Argument in Week 10 This critical incident in Week 10 was an argument that followed the proposition that life existed on Mars. This incident exemplifies the development of the community of learners who as a group possessed both the domain specific and metacognitive knowledge to engage in the reasoning processes typifying scientific thinking. That such an event occurred was the culmination of a number of incidents which were initiated by the children but supported by the teaching staff. As was customary children were admitted to the classroom, which was a large undergraduate science curriculum laboratory, at 4 p.m. The planned options for the day were listed on a blackboard, and books and newspaper clippings about Mars were scattered on the floor at the front of the room for the children to explore while the stragglers arrived. The group usually constituted about 15 children but as this was the final session just before the term holidays there was an uncharacteristically high absentee rate leaving only 10 children present. The children’s names have been changed to preserve anonymity.
6
Table 2 An overview of the programme Week(s) 1
2
3
4
Science Content •
identification of interests in science
• •
familiarisation with the location
•
space travel
•
•
making and launching a parachute
particular support was given to nervous and shy children or children who had psychomotor difficulties
•
participation by all was encouraged
•
optimising the flight of a parachute
•
discussion of possible sources of information (eg. other people)
•
encouragement to follow up activities at home
6 and 7
8, 9, and 10
introduction of children and staff (first name basis)
•
identification of prior knowledge
•
concept mapping and encouragement of children to present ideas
•
manipulation and testing of variables (parachute)
•
social cohesion developed through the game: “Journey through Space”
•
use of experiments to produce evidence to test assertions
•
modelling of problem solving strategies
•
construction of 3D rockets, paper planes, helicopters
•
setting up a space station
•
modelling of brainstorming and concept mapping
•
encouragement of verbalisation, clarification and elaboration of ideas
•
encouragement of team cohesiveness
•
encouragement of reticent children
•
detailed observation
•
•
light, electricity, energy, design and construction
encouragement of children to help their peers and explain ideas to each other
•
monitoring of participation of individuals and where appropriate intervention undertaken
•
opportunities for children to justify and clarify ideas as a whole group and assume responsibility for evaluation
•
parental involvement (noticeable decline in interaction between children)
•
opportunities were provided for problem solving by children (parents tended to solve the problems and hence children were not challenged)
•
5
Components
•
•
•
making connections between new ideas and with previous ideas astronomy evening which included using and making telescopes, planispheres, skycharts, astronomical computer programs light and sound concepts explored through, e.g. electrical circuits with lamps and bulbs, mathematics using large numbers and model building planning a “Mission to Mars” which included information retrieval and presentation, design of rocket, and developing health and fitness plans
•
provision of anatomical models and textual materials
•
establishment of prior knowledge as a whole group and discussion of concept development at closure of the session
•
encouragement of evaluation of ideas presented by peers
•
working in teams and accepting responsibility for the team’s product
•
selection of tasks and review of progress on the team goal
•
presentation of team projects for parents as final task
A number of children immediately went to the books and commenced reading or talked with the teacher, Carmel. There existed an expectation of engagement in problem solving and exploring new ideas and to support this a mutually agreed protocol of organisation of the group had developed. For example, Jason immediately on arrival started to arrange the matting on the floor into the appropriate format for the preliminary discussion: 7
Just making sure that the mats are in a horseshoe.
At the commencement of the final session, Ann was keen to report on her planning for the trip to Mars. She had extensively researched Mars and its properties by reading an encyclopaedia and a picture book with the assistance of her mother. In her readings she had noted that a series of pictures indicated that Mars had a green equatorial belt which fluctuated in extent during the Martian year. She also noted that in some respects Mars was like Earth in its seasons. Her conclusion was that the green belt represented some form of plant growth which was sustained by the melting of the Martian Ice Cap. The inference drawn by her was that life existed on Mars. When this statement was made there was immediate refutation by Christian. This then initiated a discussion of the possibility of life on Mars that was sustained for some 30 minutes. Prior to this event, children had been exposed to a variety of knowledge sources in relation to Space, these included books, encyclopaedias software packages, newspaper clippings, charts, and a video. The manner in which domain specific, and metacognitive knowledge was developed within a community of learners will be analysed. If these conditions are satisfied the reasoning displayed should be indicative of higher order reasoning, a proposition that will be explored by examining the level of argumentation.
Methods General procedures and data sources All workshops were video-taped with two cameras strategically placed to capture the dynamics of interactions. The tutors also carried audio recorders to capture salient verbal interactions. Field notes were kept by each tutor and after each session, a debriefing of the tutors was audio recorded. Analysis of knowledge development Video recordings, field notes, and children’s work samples were collected and analysed for incidences of knowledge expression. The focus reported here was on core knowledge that contributed to the discussion regarding life on Mars conducted in week 10. In some workshop sessions deliberate ascertainment of prior knowledge was obtained through discussion and interactive questioning. The outcomes of these discussions were recorded as concept maps. The analysis involved retrospective examination of the data sources to identify contributions to the knowledge base of the group. The final argument was spontaneous and hence drew upon a mosaic of experiences during the previous nine weeks. Analysis of argument Mason and Santi (1994) analysed discourse in a community of learners by considering argument as a form of communication the purpose of which was the construction of knowledge. Reasoning in argumentation extends beyond exchange of ideas to a way of testing ideas critically using notions of premise, warrants and conclusions (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984).
Results The development of conceptual knowledge The structure of this programme did not permit formal evaluation of children’s knowledge at the commencement and at the conclusion of the ten weeks. However, the initial workshops allowed extensive opportunities for children to express their existing beliefs both in group discussions and with tutors. The first session involved the presentation of a video on space travel and the ensuing discussion allowed students to explore a number of ideas associated with space and living conditions in space. Children’s ideas were noted and represented as a concept map. As the weeks progressed the students identified a variety of information sources and were encouraged to explore 8
these sources to extend their conceptual knowledge individually. The key ideas that were necessary to engage in the argument episode, their sources and the individual beliefs initially held are shown in Table 3. These data are derived from analysis of interactions in weeks one, two, three and four. It was during these weeks that the children had opportunities to express individual understandings as they existed and were prompted to explore ideas further. The further exploration of ideas was explicitly addressed in later weeks and children were then given opportunities to present their ideas for communal discussion. Table 3 Prior knowledge of individuals Core ideas
Source of knowledge
Examples of ideas
Definition of life includes people, plants, bacteria
prior knowledge, books, posters, internet
Ann: But plants are life.
Belief in alien life forms
newspapers, films, peers
Max: flying saucers and aliens . I don’t know if they are reasons but in my class Joshua told me that there are aliens on the moon.
Conditions for living requires oxygen, proper temperature
prior knowledge, books posters
Cara: well they (plants) breath in carbon dioxide and they breath out oxygen. Most noted that they would need to take oxygen to get to the moon.
No life outside Earth
video of space missions, films
Christian: There is no life anywhere in space only on Earth.
Travel to planets
prior knowledge
Awareness of solar system and the planets.
Properties of planets
Earth, Mars, planets and distances
Ann believes the world is a planet but the world and Earth are the same thing. Phases of the moon understood by Ann and Jessica and relative distances understood by some.
The programme did not involve any deliberate transmission of information about the planets or Mars in particular. Opportunities to engage in knowledge construction were more seductive. In early sessions a video that related many events preceding the landing on the moon was shown. This video was primarily presented to show the problems, difficulties, disasters and the need for team work to solve problems. It did however also contain information about conditions of space travel. 9
In week 9 the students were presented with a newspaper cutting that suggested there existed life on Mars based on the discovery of fossilised remains of bacteria in a meteorite. Subsequently, newspaper headings that announced life existed on Mars and that sleeping bags had been found on Mars were presented. This latter article was an advertisement capitalising on the recent fossil find and accompanying media attention. A discussion of the advertisement convinced all but one child that the article was fantasy. By the commencement of the final week, it was evident that most children had undertaken extensive research on Mars and had contributed to discussions of Mars and space travel in the workshops. Thus information possessed by the children was qualitatively more sophisticated and extensive than at the commencement of the programme (Table 4). Table 4 Knowledge contributing to the community Properties of Mars
Ann made a substantial contribution in relation to the properties of Mars. She had researched in detail the conditions on Mars considering issues such as colour, atmosphere, distance, temperature, land forms, ice-water, and seasons.
Details about temperature
An extended discussion of the temperature on Mars was conducted by several children in which there was a clear understanding of the implications of a minus 100 degree temperature.
Atmospheric properties
The significance of carbon dioxide and oxygen was considered by the group which engaged in an extended discussion of the implications.
Metacognitive knowledge The development of metacognition was attempted in two ways. The concept of thinking and problem solving was explicitly explored with the children. One workshop session that involved a number of activities was analysed at the closure stage in order to allow children to recognise that the key concept related to light. However, it was evident in the responses that the children made that they understood the activity was also related to problem solving and “getting them to think.” The introduction of new resource materials such as Capsela or Lego construction material was always accompanied by a detailed discussion of what children could do if they have problems. The essence was to analyse problem situations and explore the range of factors that could contribute to the resolution of a problem. An analogy was used by the teacher which compared our attempt to understand the problem of life on Mars with Christopher Columbus trying to show the Earth was round. Carmel: So when we come up with a yes and a no we have to think about Christopher Columbus and remember that there were probably people who argued for a long time that the world was really flat and they were and so we have to listen to people’s ideas on both sides. Ann: Like Christopher Columbus? (in reference to the debate about life on Mars).
The children became aware of their own role within the groups and the importance of each other’s contribution to the shared knowledge. There was an expectation that answers would come from their own group membership as well as from the teachers and hence the children were encouraged to: “have to talk with other people in the group so as to decide what to do.”
10
In a segment in which a series of activities were being discussed one child had described how the tuning fork had made water ripple or form waves. Another child had described how the tuning fork also made a sound. Ann interjected and stated that: Those two ideas were actually about vibration. …
The discussion continued for a brief time before returning to and acknowledging Ann’s statement. At this point Ann was asked to clarify her idea. Carmel: Some time if you look at one idea and another idea you can put them together and make a new idea. Talk about the two (ideas) together. Ann: Those two ideas were about vibration. This one was about the tuning fork and how that they make sound, and that one was about ripples and if I put them together they are all about vibration.
Ann was able to describe her thinking in terms of the domain specific core knowledge, sound and vibrations whilst the other children restricted their contribution to a description of the task. Argumentation and Community Discourse In week 10 the critical incident that allowed students to engage in discussion and debate occurred when Ann brought with her from home some drawings she made when reading an encyclopaedia. Ann’s basic assertion was that, from her reading of books and interpretation of the changes in the green colour around Mars shown in drawings, she would predict that life existed on Mars. There were other viewpoints expressed. Firstly, Christian spontaneously initiated a counter argument that challenged Ann’s conclusion. Secondly, Cory agreed with Ann’s conclusion that life exists on Mars but offered an alternative proposition with warrants drawn from an episode in Week 9 concerning the finding of sleeping bags. Ann’s argument and the counter arguments Ann initially argued that the green represented plants. After further discussion the warrant for her conclusion was extended by the statement that the melting of the ice caps provided water which enabled the plants to grow, a phenomenon that was represented in the changing band of colour. No member of the group challenged the validity of the premise. That is, was the colour on the picture a genuine representation of conditions on Mars. The members of the group who rejected her conclusion presented a counter argument. The key ideas that were used to counter Ann’s position were drawn from factual information collected either through discussion in previous sessions or through independent reading initiated as an extension of earlier sessions. That is, conditions on Mars were inappropriate for life. Support for these beliefs included the absolute statement found in posters and books that life existed only on Earth and that there was an absence of air on Mars. The central position established in readings was that there was no oxygen on any planet except Earth. They reasoned that in the absence of oxygen then life (interpreted as human life) could not exist on Mars. Christian initiated the counter-argument. When Ann was first challenged by Christian who indicated that he was “totally the opposite”, Ann asked for an explanation “what is the green?” Christian did not respond to this question directly but instead resorted to the counter argument “there is no life anywhere in space only on Earth.” To seek further support or challenge to her argument Ann asked “well what about everybody else?”. Although the group raised a number of counter arguments, Ann continued to develop her position by answering each argument and clarifying her position. Furthermore, she challenged all to 11
provide better explanations of the data or of her reasoning. She accepted evidence presented concerning the temperature or inhospitable conditions but indicated that these data were not inconsistent with the conditions for the existence of plant life. Nobody had actually challenged her interpretation of the green colour, they had only presented evidence that human life would be unlikely. Implicitly, Ann appeared to accept this proposition but again raised the issue of what was the green: “what can the green be?” Eventually, she dismissed the counter argument and acknowledged the uncertainty of her own hypothesis by asserting that they would need to go to Mars to acquire evidence. The key features of Ann’s proposition and counter arguments are summarised in Table 5. Table 5 Ann’s sequence of reasoning Components
Rebuttals
Premise
Green colour changes in pictures
None.
Warrant
Green indicates plant life and changes represent growth
None.
Mars is like Earth (seasonal changes) Ice caps melt and water the green belt
Counter arguments to her conclusion presented. No oxygen (air, or atmosphere) in space. There is no life anywhere except for Earth.
Conclusion
Life is on Mars
Ann’s sophistication is evident in several ways. Firstly, she argued for plant life and accepted that human life was not the issue. She critiqued Cara’s support of her conclusions by challenging Cara’s interpretation of the notion of life. Although, Cara had agreed that there was life on Mars and was persuaded by Ann’s premises she had extended the interpretation to the existence of life to human life: Cara: How could plants get there if nobody is there to water them? Ann: Well nobody waters them (plants) it is the ice in summer it gets real hot there and the ice starts to melt and it trickles down.
Secondly, Ann prompted others to provide a better argument or interpretation of the green colour, a challenge nobody accepted: So either the green is plant or its just the kind of colour … Because what what can the green be? Can it either be just the colour, or can it be something to do … Mars, or can it be or can it be the colour of Mars or can it (be) plants?
Thirdly, Ann recognised that her argument was subject to verification and that she offered a hypothesis: Nobody actually knows until they actually go to Mars. 12
The subtlety of Ann’s premise was probably not challenged because of the failure of most children to understand the conditions necessary for simple life forms that may require photosynthetic processes. Ann’s knowledge about plants and photosynthesis was more sophisticated than most of the other children. Her ability to use this knowledge was also unique within the group. The only other child who had a sound knowledge of the concept was Cara however she was not able to detect the fine points of Ann’s argument. In contrast, when all children shared a common belief they were able to use that belief to challenge another child’s false premise.
Challenges to the credibility of the premise In the previous week an advertisement about finding sleeping bags on Mars was discussed. All children, except Cory had dismissed the advertisement as fantasy. Cory however continued to believe and had argued in Week 10 that there was life on Mars because sleeping bags had been found there: Um I think there is, yes because um if there is sleeping bags there and no one owns them, owns them, how how could no one own them someone has to be on there.
This premise was challenged by others on the basis that (1) the general rejection of an advertisement as an appropriate source of evidence that sleeping bags were found on Mars, and (2) the implication that sleeping bags could be found on Mars because of temperature, atmosphere and the inhospitable surface. Challenges came from those who supported Ann’s conclusion that there was life on Mars and by those who rejected that conclusion. The identification of major flaws in his argument was accepted by all the group. However, despite the strong opposition Cory retained a belief in sleeping bags being on Mars. The main points of Cory’s argument are summarised in Table 6. Table 6 Cory’s argument and counter argument Components
Previous context
Rebuttals
Premise
Sleeping bags were found on Mars.
The credibility of the evidence which was presented in an advertisement had been challenged.
Temperature, atmosphere, larva surface.
Warrant
If there are sleeping bags there are people.
Conclusio n
There is life on Mars.
Not challenged.
Summary and Conclusions This paper reports on a science programme undertaken with a group of 5-7 year old children. The children in this programme initially had diverse interests and fragmented knowledge and skills. They were keen and enthusiastic and responded to challenges from both the adults present and 13
from their own peers. Within several weeks the dynamics of interactions and discourse patterns showed that the children were developing the skills to work together and discuss ideas in a collaborative way. Individual knowledge and experiences were shared among members of the group and assertions were challenged by the adults or other children. By the seventh week the children were developing a level of confidence and autonomy to the extent that they were prepared to “take over” the closure sessions of each workshop. The role of the adults became more managerial and supportive rather than directive. In the final week an extensive discussion occurred spontaneously. This discussion drew extensively on knowledge shared and developed in previous workshops but also on knowledge that was an extension by individuals of that considered earlier. The interactions demonstrated that children were able to challenge each other’s beliefs and to reflect on their own thinking processes and hence engage in higher order thinking indicative of scientific reasoning. The outcomes of the programme supports Metz’s (1995) hypothesises that if one could overcome the constraints of limited domain specific knowledge and the weakness of children’s metacognitive skills then, with judicious scaffolding, it should be possible for them to pose questions, gather and interpret data, and revise theories. To achieve this aim we attempted to develop a community of discourse by modelling problem solving and inquiry behaviours, establishing a risk-free environment and encouraging children to become more autonomous and willing to challenge the teacher’s and other children’s beliefs. Implications for classroom instructional practices A socio-cultural view of science education asserts that “science classrooms are being recognised as forming communities with distinct discursive practices” (Lemke, 1990) in which students are socialised into the way of thinking and reasoning in the science domain, a process often described as cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Furthermore, the tasks, activities, and goals within the science classroom should be built around meaningful problems through which knowledge is generated and applied rather than simply accumulated. The outcome for children should be the development of knowledge, processes and attitudes that represent understanding of concepts and a view of science as a natural process of uncertainty and conflict, a view consistent with science as implemented in a world of authentic practice. The achievement of these outcomes can be identified in the practices implemented and summarised in Table 7. The experience described in this paper highlighted three issues: (1) the role of prior knowledge and the need for children to be guided towards a critical approach to knowledge, (2) the capacity of children to engage in argumentation, and (3) opportunities and support for revision of beliefs. In the programme we described all these issues were not resolved, primarily because of the constraints of time. However, indications were present that encourage us to pursue the processes with confidence that they are achievable. It possible for young children to “think like experts” when appropriately supported. Clearly the teacher becomes a crucial element in achieving these goals.
14
Table 7 Issues and actions necessary to facilitate scientific thinking Assertions
Enabling processes
Information from a range of sources and opportunities to challenge the credibility of the knowledge and sources need to be provided.
Resources provided to encourage learning through first hand experiences. Encouragement to explore, explain and elaborate on experiences. Opportunities to discuss beliefs in a risk free environment. Variety of sources of information including newspapers, encyclopaedia, texts, internet, models, parents, teachers and peers. Adoption of a belief that knowledge is not the accumulation of concepts but rather action and the making of connections with real experiences.
Children can display high levels of logical and conditional reasoning exemplified through argument.
Opportunities to engage in discourse, and peer questioning to justify beliefs and provide evidence. Encouraging all to challenge, and to evaluate alternative opinions and viewpoints that are established through rational debate. Modelling practices of metacognition and reflection.
Opportunities for children to state and review their beliefs.
Conceptual change requires convincing evidence and hence experiences need to be relevant and meaningful and provide credible support for scientific ideas.
A teacher affects eternity. You never can tell where his (or her) influence stops - Henry Adams
References Alexander, P. A. (1996). Stages and phases of domain learning: The dynamics of subject-matter knowledge, strategy knowledge, and motivation. In C. E. Weinsterin & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), Strategic learning: Skill, will, and self-regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Australian Education Council, (1994). A statement on science for Australian schools. Vic: Curriculum Corporation. Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism and Popper’s world 3. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 21-23. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1992). Cognition and curriculum. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan. Berk, L. E. (1992). Private speech: An overview of theory and the status of research. In R. M. Diaz, & L. E. Berk, Private speech. (pp. 17-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1990). Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Contributions to Human Development, 21, 108-126. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
15
Bullock, M. (1991, April). Scientific reasoning in elementary school: Developmental and individual differences. Paper presented at the biennial meeting for the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157-178. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Farnham-Diggory, S. (1994). Paradigms of knowledge and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 463-477. Fletcher, N., & Lowe, I. (1993). Science education: Contested territory. EQ Australia, 1, 18-22. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (trans. Ramos, M.) Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Galotti, K. M. (1989). Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3). 331-351. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104-137. Granott, N. (1993). Co-construction of knowledge: Separate minds, joint effort, and weird creatures. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments. (pp. 183-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 170-218. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. Latour, B. W., & Woolgar, S. (1986). An anthropologist visits the laboratory. In B. L. S. Woolgar (Ed.), Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. (pp. 43-90). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PN: Temple University Press. Mason, L., & Santi, M. (1994, April). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65, 93-127. O’Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791820. Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo, C. (1992). Children’s talk in classroom discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 113-136. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175. Piaget, J. (1968). The mental development of the child. In D. Elkind (Ed.), Six psychological studies (pp. 373). New York: Vintage Books. Prawat, R. S., & Floden, R. E. (1994). Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning. Educational Psychology 29(1), 37-48. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26-33) Roth, W-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709-736. Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D. R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children’s understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617-1636. 16
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Schneider, W., & Weinert, F. E. (1989a). The role of knowledge, strategies, and aptitudes in cognitive performance: concluding comments. In W. Schneider & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance (pp. 286-302). New York: Springer Verlag. Schneider, W. & Weinert, F. I. (Eds.) (1989b). Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance. New York: Springer Verlag. Silver, E. A., & Marshall, S. P. (1990). Mathematical and scientific problem solving: Findings, issues, and instructional implications. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol, (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children’s differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 59, 753-766. Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9-17. Taylor, P. C. S., Fraser, B. J., & White, L. R. (1994, April). CLES: An instrument for monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Thagard, P. 91991). Concepts and conceptual change. In J. H. Fetzer (Ed.), Epistemology and cognition. Dordrich: Kluwer Academic. Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference? Educational Researcher, 11, 4-10. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), New York: Plenum. Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (1997). Optimizing activities to meet the needs of young children gifted in mathematics and science. In P. Rillero, J. A. Hartman, & R. Jarrell (Eds.), Creative Childhood experiences: Integrating science and math through projects, activities, and centers. Washington, DC: ERIC/CSMEE. Watters, J. J. & English, L. S. (1995). Children’s application of simultaneous and successive processing in inductive and deductive reasoning problems: Implications for developing scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(7), 699-714. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices in the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17
18
