He studied at the secondary school physics
Science education is a complex process which in its simplest form involves at least teacher instruction, student learning and a science curriculum. While this research was focused on a specific problem in teaching grade 12 physics, the outcomes have general relevance to science teaching at all grade levels. The recently implemented Saskatchewan science curricula have at their foundation a view that student learning is an individual process and that concepts in science are constructed by learners through hands-on activities and personal experiences. This research project sought to explore student learning in physics in an attempt to develop a more complete understanding of the process. In particular, this study focussed on how students in grade 12 physics actively constructed their knowledge of the use of vector mathematics to represent certain complex physics concepts and solve associated problems. The study also examined teacher interactions with those students as a means of assisting their learning during part of a five month semester in a regular physics classroom.
During my twenty-three years of experience teaching high school physics, chemistry and science I have seen that most students correctly develop some ability to apply vector mathematics in Physics 30, but at varying levels of competence. This development varies considerably in a typical class of physics students. Some students essentially master abstract concepts, while others are able to answer typical problems correctly, but cannot apply vector mathematics to new or atypical types of problems. Normally, a few students never seem to develop any understanding of vector mathematics.
Mathematics usage is required in most high school science courses in Saskatchewan. Scientific formulae (mathematical models) which are common in most science courses require mathematics and consistently provide learning difficulties for a great many students. These difficulties are a common reason for students not enrolling in science classes beyond those that are compulsory. Although student learning difficulties in lower grades may seem less complex than those in Physics 30, they are of the same form. For example, density in Science 8 and 9 and the mole concept in Chemistry 20 are closely related to the questions investigated in this research, and the outcomes have application to those courses.
In this research project nine Physics 30 students volunteered to participate by describing their reasoning and problem solving strategies over a sixteen week period in a regular classroom setting. The participants were taught the normal ******* of the Saskatchewan Physics 30 curriculum by the researcher who is an accredited, experienced physics and chemistry teacher. Data were collected by video recording of classroom sessions, interviews, student assignments, and field notes maintained by the researcher.
Part I of this report a presents summary of some literature related to the learning in science. Part II discusses the most significant findings of the research into student learning in physics and science. Part III discusses recommendations and considerations for changes in teaching physics and science.
Table of *******s
[SIZE=+1]Part I - Viewing Learning in Science as Knowledge Construction[/SIZE]
Student learning in science is a very complex process partly because of the abstract nature of many scientific concepts and their representation by mathematics. During the last two decades the model of learning in the science education literature has evolved beyond viewing students as passively receiving knowledge transmitted by teachers. In this section a summary of some literature exploring learning in science is presented.
Science education is a complex process which in its simplest form involves at least teacher instruction, student learning and a science curriculum. While this research was focused on a specific problem in teaching grade 12 physics, the outcomes have general relevance to science teaching at all grade levels. The recently implemented Saskatchewan science curricula have at their foundation a view that student learning is an individual process and that concepts in science are constructed by learners through hands-on activities and personal experiences. This research project sought to explore student learning in physics in an attempt to develop a more complete understanding of the process. In particular, this study focussed on how students in grade 12 physics actively constructed their knowledge of the use of vector mathematics to represent certain complex physics concepts and solve associated problems. The study also examined teacher interactions with those students as a means of assisting their learning during part of a five month semester in a regular physics classroom.
During my twenty-three years of experience teaching high school physics, chemistry and science I have seen that most students correctly develop some ability to apply vector mathematics in Physics 30, but at varying levels of competence. This development varies considerably in a typical class of physics students. Some students essentially master abstract concepts, while others are able to answer typical problems correctly, but cannot apply vector mathematics to new or atypical types of problems. Normally, a few students never seem to develop any understanding of vector mathematics.
Mathematics usage is required in most high school science courses in Saskatchewan. Scientific formulae (mathematical models) which are common in most science courses require mathematics and consistently provide learning difficulties for a great many students. These difficulties are a common reason for students not enrolling in science classes beyond those that are compulsory. Although student learning difficulties in lower grades may seem less complex than those in Physics 30, they are of the same form. For example, density in Science 8 and 9 and the mole concept in Chemistry 20 are closely related to the questions investigated in this research, and the outcomes have application to those courses.
In this research project nine Physics 30 students volunteered to participate by describing their reasoning and problem solving strategies over a sixteen week period in a regular classroom setting. The participants were taught the normal ******* of the Saskatchewan Physics 30 curriculum by the researcher who is an accredited, experienced physics and chemistry teacher. Data were collected by video recording of classroom sessions, interviews, student assignments, and field notes maintained by the researcher.
Part I of this report a presents summary of some literature related to the learning in science. Part II discusses the most significant findings of the research into student learning in physics and science. Part III discusses recommendations and considerations for changes in teaching physics and science.
Table of *******s
[SIZE=+1]Part I - Viewing Learning in Science as Knowledge Construction[/SIZE]
Student learning in science is a very complex process partly because of the abstract nature of many scientific concepts and their representation by mathematics. During the last two decades the model of learning in the science education literature has evolved beyond viewing students as passively receiving knowledge transmitted by teachers. In this section a summary of some literature exploring learning in science is presented.
Student Learning in Science
Before the last two decades most teachers accepted a transmission model as appropriate for teaching science because they viewed science in a traditional manner; that is, they believe that science provides right answers and that truths in science are discovered (Carr, et al., 1994). The transmission model of teaching in science is deeply rooted in our culture, in both teachers and students (Roth, W-M. , 1993).
Learning in science is typically a difficult task for students and this is unlikely to change because of the complex structure of science (Duit, 1991). Instead of reading or discovering the book of nature, scientists impose constructs and concepts on observed natural phenomena to organize and to understand them better (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer and Scott, 1994). Driver et al. argue the complexity in science lies in the study of the constructs advanced to explain natural phenomena rather than in the phenomena themselves. Carr et al. (1994) state that exploration of the history and philosophy of science and inclusion of newer models of learning from cognitive psychology have prompted the science education community to focus on student learning in science and, as a result, have begun to change the view of teaching science from a transmission model to one of student construction of knowledge.
Direct transmission models of student learning began to lose favor because of their inability to explain some important intellectual achievements, such as, creativity, decision making and problem solving ability (Gagné, 1985). Our thinking about learning in science has gradually changed because of developments in learning psychology and epistemology. Cognitive psychologists began to describe mental functions of students during learning; and, philosophers moved away from positivist and empiricist attempts to establish truths toward a constructivist view of knowledge building (Novak, 1988).
Discovery and inquiry learning were among early attempts at curriculum development which were built on a view of students as active participants in their learning (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). Discovery learning, pioneered by Bruner (1961), was used as the foundation for curriculum development and led to BSCS Biology, CHEM Study and PSSC Physics which were the standard courses from the 1960s to the 1980s in Canada and the United States. In discovery learning classrooms students were expected to discover laws and concepts but never did discover them as expected. Driver et al. (1994) have argued convincingly that students should not have been expected to discover laws of science because those laws are social conventions communicated through the social and cultural institutions of science.
Ausubel (Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978) was among the first to describe the importance of the knowledge that students held before coming to science classrooms. This experiential knowledge has a profound effect on how what students learn as a result of their science classroom experiences. Edmondson and Novak (1993) included currently-held knowledge when they defined rote learning as “the acquisition of new information without specific association with existing elements in an individual’s conceptual structure (i.e., memorization)”; and, meaningful learning as occurring “when new information is linked with existing concepts, and integrated into what the learner already understands” (p. 548). The goal of teaching science is meaningful learning because students are expected to make connections between what they learn in science classrooms and what they already know.
Piaget (von Glasersfeld, 1984, 1995) argued that a person expects to understand each new experience in terms of what he/she already knows (assimilate the experience). When a learner is unable to assimilate a particular experience to previous ones then some confusion occurs. To reestablish mental balance a learner brings meaning to new experiences through accommodation. This process requires a person to restructure currently-held knowledge or to construct entirely new knowledge (Von Glasersfeld, 1989a). These two processes are important mechanisms in understanding learning in science.
Table of *******s
Student Alternative Conceptions: Knowledge Students Bring to Class
A variety of terms has been used to describe the knowledge which students bring to science classrooms. For example, “alternative frameworks” (Driver & Easley, 1978), “preconceptions” (Ausubel, 1968), “misconceptions” (Driver, 1983), “personal models of reality” (Champagne, Gunstone & Klopfer, 1985b), “spontaneous knowledge” (Pines & West, 1986), and “intuitive theories” (McCloskey, 1983) have been used. In this report alternative conception is used when referring to knowledge of physics concepts brought to class by the students because this term “conveys respect on the learner who holds those ideas” (Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994, p.178).
As the importance of students’ prior or existing knowledge became recognized, Driver and Easley (1978) were among the first to recommend more extensive research to examine and describe student conceptions. They argued for research studies using interviews and classroom interactions, because these methods were better suited to exploring individual student knowledge construction. Driver and Easley felt teachers needed to know something about the range of student alternative conceptions because of their effect on classroom instruction.
A wide range of studies exploring student alternative conceptions has been made over the past two decades. A sample is reviewed in the following. For a more extensive list of the studies that have been done see Pfundt and Duit (1994 as cited in Dykstra, 1996).
Osborne and Gilbert (1980), using a technique called interviews-about-instances (IAI), explored understanding of force in forty students aged seven to nineteen. Students were shown cards depicting familiar situations and asked questions about the scientific concepts represented. Their results showed one group of students confused common meanings of words with their physics meaning; a second group did not think of force unless motion was occurring; and a third group viewed force as a physical quantity possessed by objects in motion which ran out as they stopped. In a similar study Gunstone and Watts (1985) examined concepts of force and motion in students nine to nineteen years old. These authors found that students thought constant motion required a constant force perpendicular to the direction of motion, the amount of motion was proportional to the applied force and stationary bodies had no forces acting on them.
Watts (1982) used the IAI technique to investigate conceptions of gravity held by forty secondary school students. He found many students viewed gravity as being caused by air, and that they believed without air there was no gravity. Some thought gravity increased with ****** above ground and others thought gravity acted on falling objects but not on stationary ones. In a related study Watts (1983) investigated student views on energy. Some students thought of energy as a human attribute, while others viewed it as something stored in objects that caused events to happen. Other views were that energy is associated with activity and movement, and energy was a kind of fuel capable of doing things. Students did not think of energy as conserved; rather, they saw it as a product that was released like smoke. Boyes and Stanisstreet (1990) assessed 1130 boys and girls aged eleven to sixteen about their understanding of the law of conservation of energy. They found that students understood law most frequently as a legal term rather than as a de******ion of objects in nature. Conservation was most frequently interpreted in the environmental sense of using sparingly or wisely.
Jacobs (1989) worked with first year physics students to explore their understanding of vocabulary used in physics. She examined students’ understanding of words which were part of their everyday vocabulary but have special meanings in physics, such as, speed, velocity, mass and weight. She found that student comprehension of the physics meanings was weak and argued this lack of understanding had important implications for teaching physics because confusion occurs when teachers use the physics meaning and students apply their everyday meaning.
Aguirre and Erickson (1984) interviewed twenty grade 10 boys and girls about their conceptions of vector quantities. Their goal was to create a data base of alternative conceptions held by students. Students were given tasks involving position, displacement and velocity of boats in a river. They were asked to solve various problems, such as, how a location on a lake is described, and how fast a boat travels in a moving stream. The authors concluded students intuitively use some vector characteristics in their solutions; for example, students knew the location of a fishing spot on a lake had to be specified by distance and direction, and river currents changed the velocities of boats. Aguirre (1988) interviewed thirty grade 10 students about their conceptions of vector kinematics using laboratory apparatus. He presented three situations during interviews - a power boat crossing a river, a frictionless cart moving across an inclined plane, and two orthogonally moving carts. He found students used the ground as the predominant frame of reference when describing motion and did not use other frames of reference when determining velocities of the objects. Students viewed component forces as acting separately rather than together, and generally confused component and resultant velocities. Aguirre pointed out that teachers need to be aware of these student alternative conceptions to be able to design effective instructional strategies.
Table of *******s
General Characteristics of Students’ Alternative Conceptions
The “Alternative Conception Movement” (ACM) (Gilbert and Swift, 1985, p.682) has carried out research exploring student alternative conceptions in most areas of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science. Miller (1989) stated that the ACM had made significant contributions to science education research by helping us appreciate the complexity of the processes involved when students learn science. The following is a summary of characteristics of alternative conceptions as they appear in the literature:
Before the last two decades most teachers accepted a transmission model as appropriate for teaching science because they viewed science in a traditional manner; that is, they believe that science provides right answers and that truths in science are discovered (Carr, et al., 1994). The transmission model of teaching in science is deeply rooted in our culture, in both teachers and students (Roth, W-M. , 1993).
Learning in science is typically a difficult task for students and this is unlikely to change because of the complex structure of science (Duit, 1991). Instead of reading or discovering the book of nature, scientists impose constructs and concepts on observed natural phenomena to organize and to understand them better (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer and Scott, 1994). Driver et al. argue the complexity in science lies in the study of the constructs advanced to explain natural phenomena rather than in the phenomena themselves. Carr et al. (1994) state that exploration of the history and philosophy of science and inclusion of newer models of learning from cognitive psychology have prompted the science education community to focus on student learning in science and, as a result, have begun to change the view of teaching science from a transmission model to one of student construction of knowledge.
Direct transmission models of student learning began to lose favor because of their inability to explain some important intellectual achievements, such as, creativity, decision making and problem solving ability (Gagné, 1985). Our thinking about learning in science has gradually changed because of developments in learning psychology and epistemology. Cognitive psychologists began to describe mental functions of students during learning; and, philosophers moved away from positivist and empiricist attempts to establish truths toward a constructivist view of knowledge building (Novak, 1988).
Discovery and inquiry learning were among early attempts at curriculum development which were built on a view of students as active participants in their learning (Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). Discovery learning, pioneered by Bruner (1961), was used as the foundation for curriculum development and led to BSCS Biology, CHEM Study and PSSC Physics which were the standard courses from the 1960s to the 1980s in Canada and the United States. In discovery learning classrooms students were expected to discover laws and concepts but never did discover them as expected. Driver et al. (1994) have argued convincingly that students should not have been expected to discover laws of science because those laws are social conventions communicated through the social and cultural institutions of science.
Ausubel (Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1978) was among the first to describe the importance of the knowledge that students held before coming to science classrooms. This experiential knowledge has a profound effect on how what students learn as a result of their science classroom experiences. Edmondson and Novak (1993) included currently-held knowledge when they defined rote learning as “the acquisition of new information without specific association with existing elements in an individual’s conceptual structure (i.e., memorization)”; and, meaningful learning as occurring “when new information is linked with existing concepts, and integrated into what the learner already understands” (p. 548). The goal of teaching science is meaningful learning because students are expected to make connections between what they learn in science classrooms and what they already know.
Piaget (von Glasersfeld, 1984, 1995) argued that a person expects to understand each new experience in terms of what he/she already knows (assimilate the experience). When a learner is unable to assimilate a particular experience to previous ones then some confusion occurs. To reestablish mental balance a learner brings meaning to new experiences through accommodation. This process requires a person to restructure currently-held knowledge or to construct entirely new knowledge (Von Glasersfeld, 1989a). These two processes are important mechanisms in understanding learning in science.
Table of *******s
Student Alternative Conceptions: Knowledge Students Bring to Class
A variety of terms has been used to describe the knowledge which students bring to science classrooms. For example, “alternative frameworks” (Driver & Easley, 1978), “preconceptions” (Ausubel, 1968), “misconceptions” (Driver, 1983), “personal models of reality” (Champagne, Gunstone & Klopfer, 1985b), “spontaneous knowledge” (Pines & West, 1986), and “intuitive theories” (McCloskey, 1983) have been used. In this report alternative conception is used when referring to knowledge of physics concepts brought to class by the students because this term “conveys respect on the learner who holds those ideas” (Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994, p.178).
As the importance of students’ prior or existing knowledge became recognized, Driver and Easley (1978) were among the first to recommend more extensive research to examine and describe student conceptions. They argued for research studies using interviews and classroom interactions, because these methods were better suited to exploring individual student knowledge construction. Driver and Easley felt teachers needed to know something about the range of student alternative conceptions because of their effect on classroom instruction.
A wide range of studies exploring student alternative conceptions has been made over the past two decades. A sample is reviewed in the following. For a more extensive list of the studies that have been done see Pfundt and Duit (1994 as cited in Dykstra, 1996).
Osborne and Gilbert (1980), using a technique called interviews-about-instances (IAI), explored understanding of force in forty students aged seven to nineteen. Students were shown cards depicting familiar situations and asked questions about the scientific concepts represented. Their results showed one group of students confused common meanings of words with their physics meaning; a second group did not think of force unless motion was occurring; and a third group viewed force as a physical quantity possessed by objects in motion which ran out as they stopped. In a similar study Gunstone and Watts (1985) examined concepts of force and motion in students nine to nineteen years old. These authors found that students thought constant motion required a constant force perpendicular to the direction of motion, the amount of motion was proportional to the applied force and stationary bodies had no forces acting on them.
Watts (1982) used the IAI technique to investigate conceptions of gravity held by forty secondary school students. He found many students viewed gravity as being caused by air, and that they believed without air there was no gravity. Some thought gravity increased with ****** above ground and others thought gravity acted on falling objects but not on stationary ones. In a related study Watts (1983) investigated student views on energy. Some students thought of energy as a human attribute, while others viewed it as something stored in objects that caused events to happen. Other views were that energy is associated with activity and movement, and energy was a kind of fuel capable of doing things. Students did not think of energy as conserved; rather, they saw it as a product that was released like smoke. Boyes and Stanisstreet (1990) assessed 1130 boys and girls aged eleven to sixteen about their understanding of the law of conservation of energy. They found that students understood law most frequently as a legal term rather than as a de******ion of objects in nature. Conservation was most frequently interpreted in the environmental sense of using sparingly or wisely.
Jacobs (1989) worked with first year physics students to explore their understanding of vocabulary used in physics. She examined students’ understanding of words which were part of their everyday vocabulary but have special meanings in physics, such as, speed, velocity, mass and weight. She found that student comprehension of the physics meanings was weak and argued this lack of understanding had important implications for teaching physics because confusion occurs when teachers use the physics meaning and students apply their everyday meaning.
Aguirre and Erickson (1984) interviewed twenty grade 10 boys and girls about their conceptions of vector quantities. Their goal was to create a data base of alternative conceptions held by students. Students were given tasks involving position, displacement and velocity of boats in a river. They were asked to solve various problems, such as, how a location on a lake is described, and how fast a boat travels in a moving stream. The authors concluded students intuitively use some vector characteristics in their solutions; for example, students knew the location of a fishing spot on a lake had to be specified by distance and direction, and river currents changed the velocities of boats. Aguirre (1988) interviewed thirty grade 10 students about their conceptions of vector kinematics using laboratory apparatus. He presented three situations during interviews - a power boat crossing a river, a frictionless cart moving across an inclined plane, and two orthogonally moving carts. He found students used the ground as the predominant frame of reference when describing motion and did not use other frames of reference when determining velocities of the objects. Students viewed component forces as acting separately rather than together, and generally confused component and resultant velocities. Aguirre pointed out that teachers need to be aware of these student alternative conceptions to be able to design effective instructional strategies.
Table of *******s
General Characteristics of Students’ Alternative Conceptions
The “Alternative Conception Movement” (ACM) (Gilbert and Swift, 1985, p.682) has carried out research exploring student alternative conceptions in most areas of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science. Miller (1989) stated that the ACM had made significant contributions to science education research by helping us appreciate the complexity of the processes involved when students learn science. The following is a summary of characteristics of alternative conceptions as they appear in the literature:
- 1. Learners come to formal science instruction with a diverse set of alternative conceptions about most natural phenomena. These concepts are used to explain events in manners that are very different from either adult or scientific explanations. Students can hold multiple views and explanations of a natural phenomenon. (Cheek, 1992; Driver & Bell, 1986; Gunstone, 1988; Stepans, 1991; Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994) 2. Alternative conceptions seem to be independent of age, ability, sex and cultural background. They are tenaciously held by learners and are not usually modified by traditional instruction. Alternative conceptions frequently parallel the conceptions of earlier scientists and philosophers. (Cheek, 1992; Driver & Bell, 1986; Gunstone, 1988; Stepans, 1991; Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994)
3. Instructional strategies designed specifically to produce conceptual change have shown some success in facilitating construction of conceptions that match those of the scientific community; however, discrepant events during instruction do not always produce the cognitive changes expected, and the alternative conceptions may be maintained even when learners answer questions correctly on tests. (Cheek, 1992; Stepans, 1991; Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994)
4. Scientific concepts are often presented assuming that learners immediately understand them; however, learners’ alternative conceptions interact with those presented during instruction in unpredictable ways producing unintended learning outcomes. (Cheek, 1992; Stepans, 1991; Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994)
5. Children can hold contradictory conceptions at the same time. One set can be used to operate in science classrooms and answer science questions, while the other set is used to explain happenings in their experiential world outside the classroom. (Cheek, 1992; Gunstone, 1988)
6. Even after several years of science instruction many adults and science teachers hold the same alternative conceptions as students. (Stepans, 1991; Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994)
7. Alternative conceptions have their source in each individual student’s complex experiential history, including direct observation of the world, peer culture, and language, as well as, television and formal classroom instruction. Each individual has a unique history; and, therefore, each holds a set of alternative conceptions that is different from other students. (Wandersee, Mintzes & Novak, 1994)
Incorporating Alternative Conceptions in Teaching Science
Science educators have developed learning and instructional models which incorporate research on student alternative conceptions and student conceptual development. One general feature of these models is the development of some mental connection between new classroom experiences and knowledge already held by learners (see for example, Driver, 1983; Driver & Bell, 1986; Pines & West, 1986; Osborne & Wittrock, 1983, 1985; and Wittrock, 1985, 1986). Some attempts that have been made to produce instructional strategies based on viewing student learning as conceptual development are described below.
Students should not be viewed as empty vessels or blank slates that can be filled by lecturing about science (Gilbert, Watts and Osborne, 1982; Gunstone and Watts, 1985); rather, they must be actively involved in their learning (Millar & Driver, 1987). The traditional instructional strategy of providing definitions of concepts and statements of principles is not sufficient for learners to perform complex intellectual tasks required to learn in science (Reif, 1985). Teachers should not respond to student demands for “right” answers, nor should they yield to the temptation to attempt to transmit knowledge directly through lectures and textbooks (Roth, K., 1990). Pope and Gilbert (1983), and Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) think that effective teachers need some understanding of their students’ conceptions to enable instruction to make classroom facts have personal relevance to students.
Driver and Easley (1978) maintain that teachers have to consider the individuality of learning. The authors think that classroom experiences need to be designed to cause conceptual conflict, but that students have to be in a non-threatening, student-centred environment for such conflict to produce successful conceptual change. Students need to interact with other students and teachers to clarify their own ideas and explore alternative ideas through techniques such as small group discussion (Driver & Bell, 1986) and student debates (Gilbert, Watts & Osborne, 1982; Roth, K., 1990). Other common features of constructivist classrooms frequently include discrepant events (Nussbaum, 1985), experiences designed to distinguish scientific conceptions from everyday views, peer discussion and analogies (Driver, 1989: Glynn, Duit & Thiele, 1995). Julyan and Duckworth (1996) think students should articulate their ideas, test them through experimentation and conversation, and consider connections between their lives and concepts being studied.
Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982) concluded that student learning in science “is best viewed as conceptual change (p.212)” and “teaching science involves providing a rational basis for conceptual change (p.223).” Driver & Bell (1986) and Gunstone & Watts (1985) concurred that learning in science can be profitably viewed as conceptual change rather than reception of knowledge from a teacher. K. Roth (1990) advocated questioning as a means of exploring student conceptions
Millar (1989) has credited the ACM with making important contributions to understanding learning in science; however, he does not accept that a constructivist view of learning implies a single typical instructional strategy. He argues that all teaching strategies can lead to student learning and that regardless of the strategy restructuring of concepts can take place in the heads of learners. Millar has challenged the constructivist movement with creating workable applications that can be used in a class of twenty-five or more students.
Dykstra (1996) has developed a different way of teaching physics to first year college students. Based in part on an earlier work (Dykstra, Boyle & Monarch, 1992), Dykstra teaches classes of about twenty-five physics students in a different way than most traditional university instructors. First, students explore their conceptions of physical quantities, such as velocity, force and acceleration. Groups of students record their predictions and explanations about the way objects will behave in certain conditions. Students then perform laboratory activities and evaluate their data using computer graphing programs. Experimental results are compared with their predictions and discussed with others in the class. Conflicts between experimental results and predictions are resolved through discussion led by Dykstra who carefully avoids judging any proposed solution; rather, he allows class members to decide on resolution. He reports success with his technique, as well as, some frustration among students who are used to instructors providing answers directly. He believes the learning experienced through this style of instruction is superior to that in traditional classes and finds a greater sense of personal satisfaction with the new instructional strategy.
Alternative conceptions research has influenced other areas of science education. For example, Gilbert and Watts (1983) have proposed that curriculum development in science could start by reviewing de******ions of alternative conceptions and using them as a foundation for curricula. Driver and Bell (1986) argue that a spiral curricula is required because of the length of time required to achieve conceptual change in students. Spiral curricula revisit concepts and allow more detail and complexity to be added on each cycle. Driver and Oldham (1986) argued that curricula should incorporate conceptual development as part of the documentation. They believe conceptual development should be included as an integral part of each curriculum document rather than remaining external to curricula as an instructional strategy.
A few authors have suggested that students in science should be taught ****cognitive (thinking skills) strategies to assist them in constructing and reconstructing their concepts in science. Reif (1985) suggests that we should strive to teach students more generic skills about how to learn a new concept and knowledge related to it. He believes that students could benefit from instruction aimed at teaching them about thinking (****cognitive) skills in general. Pope and Gilbert (1983) take a slightly different slant by advocating that learners learn to reflect on their own views and “recognize their roles as theory builders (p.193).” These authors argue that students need to be aware that they construct their own theories and these theories can be refined through reflection and additional experiences. Millar and Driver (1987) accept that pedagogy has to account for the effect of learners’ prior knowledge on learning activities, but see pedagogy being designed to empower people to act more effectively in their daily lives, in their involvement with natural events and with technological artifacts.
A key participant in any science classroom is a teacher. Regardless of how learning is viewed, a teacher is an integral part of the process of learning in science classrooms, and is responsible for implementing instructional strategies that facilitate learning by students. Gunstone (1988) has argued that teachers have reacted positively to alternative conception research because it better informs teachers’ own classroom experience. The results and de******ions of learners are more consistent with teachers’ practical experience than were earlier types of research. In spite of this acceptance by teachers, direct applications of research results to classroom teaching have not been easy to achieve nor are they prevalent.
Driver (1988) suggests that instructional strategies should be developed using a process of action research directly involving classroom teachers. The resulting strategies could be tested in classrooms during their development. She argues that this procedure would be a natural development of accepting a constructivist view of student learning. If teachers are to adopt strategies designed for conceptual change they must be part of the research programs that develop them (Driver, 1989). Driver maintains that students cannot develop scientific conventions by themselves; rather, they must be constructed with assistance from teachers who are part of the scientific community.
K. Roth (1990) points out that teachers have to undergo their own conceptual changes about teaching and student learning if they accept a constructivist model of learning. Recognizing conceptual change is required by teachers, Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) make a plea for teachers and researchers entering into collaborative teaching and research projects. They believe the most effective means of promoting change in classrooms is to involve teachers in the design of change.
Table of *******s
Constructivism in Science Education
This research project and much literature on learning and instruction in science are based on a constructivist model of learning and knowing. This adoption of constructivism as an epistemological base for research in science education has taken place over a number of years. As learning in science began to be viewed as an individual student process of concept development a need for a different view of learning and knowing became necessary. Learning came to viewed as an individual process carried out in each student’s mind. Learning was described as individual knowledge construction and concept development. As this view spread constructivism began to be used in the science education literature to describe and explain learning.
Solomon (1994) credits “Driver and Easley’s (1978) memorable article” with creating the tools necessary “for the accelerated rise of constructivism in science education (p.3).” Osborne (1996) recognizes the same paper as initiating the view that successful learning in science depends more on prior experiences than on cognitive levels of development. In spite of this Driver and Easley did not directly advocate constructivism as an epistemological foundation for learning in science. Magoon (1977) is frequently cited (see for example, Cheek, 1992; Driver & Oldham, 1986; Gilbert & Swift, 1985; Gunstone, 1988) as one of the first to advocate a constructivist model of learning to direct educational research. In his view Piaget’s research and publications, Chomsky’s research on linguistic development in children, and Kuhn’s (1970) de******ions of paradigms in science were the driving forces behind the shift to a constructivist view of educational research and learning. He thought these works showed the constructed nature of knowledge in a range of fields.
Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) argued that no well articulated theory of conceptual change yet exists. They described the process in learners as analogous to Kuhn’s paradigm shift and incorporated Piaget’s processes of accommodation and assimilation to explain how concepts changed. Pope and Gilbert (1983) traced the constructivist position to Kelly (1969, cited in Pope & Gilbert) and concluded that he drew on constructivist principles when formulating his Personal Construct Psychology.
Osborne and Wittrock (1983), and Pope and Gilbert (1983) held the position that learning in science could best be viewed as knowledge construction with learners having an active role in the process. Osborne and Wittrock (1983, 1985) incorporated individual knowledge construction to describe the generation of links between stored memories and new experiences in order to explain alternative conceptions by students. Driver and Erickson (1983) argued that viewing students as actively constructing knowledge was based on a “constructivist epistemology” (p.39), but made no reference to constructivism as described by von Glasersfeld (1984, 1988, 1995). Strike and Posner (1985) described an epistemology similar to constructivism, and Driver and Bell (1986) referred to a “constructivist view” of thinking and learning in science; however, none of these authors made any reference to von Glasersfeld’s prolific writing about constructivism.
Driver and Oldham (1986) cited von Glasersfeld directly in their de******ion of a constructivist approach to curriculum development. As well, von Glasersfeld (1984) was cited by Bodner (1986) in his article describing a constructivist model of knowledge and its implications for teaching. Driver (1988, 1989) drew on von Glasersfeld’s view of constructivism as a foundation for viewing individual knowledge construction, but argued that his view was not sufficient to describe social aspects of learning in science. In a similar manner Millar (1989) acknowledged the value of constructivism in describing individual knowledge construction, but argued that constructivism was not a sufficient explanation for the social aspects of knowledge construction in the scientific community. Wheatley (1991) drew on Von Glasersfeld’s work when advocating the adoption of constructivism as an epistemological base for science. He maintained that constructivism fulfilled many requirements for understanding learning in science.
Cheek (1992) asserted that von Glasersfeld’s version of radical constructivism should be adopted as a theoretical foundation for Science-Technology-Society (STS) education. By the 1990s the constructivist learning model was being described in literature aimed at practising teachers (see for example, Yager, 1991) and in teacher education texts (see for example, Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). When viewed from a constructivist perspective student learning activity during class becomes very important to teachers. To a constructivist, student verbalizations of ideas and concepts function as a window onto student conceptualizing, thinking and concept development. As effective teachers have long realized student dialogue assists in understanding how students are thinking about particular concepts in science or physics.
From a constructivist perspective the function of teacher instruction is viewed differently than from other models of learning. Rather than being seen as transmitters of knowledge, teachers are viewed as facilitators of student knowledge construction. von Glasersfeld and Steffe (1991) recommend that teachers work to develop skills to create conceptual models of individual student learning to aid them in assisting students with their learning. Teachers can use these conceptual models in choosing instructional strategies to provide individual assistance to students in their knowledge construction.
Table of *******s
Social Construction of Knowledge
Even though Driver and Easley (1978) were credited with beginning the move to constructivism, they did not see an individual constructivist model as sufficient to explain learning in science. Because science is a consensually agreed upon **** of knowledge, the authors argue that students cannot independently discover the rules and definitions of the scientific community. Driver (1988) continued to emphasize that science is public knowledge that is better described as “carefully checked construction (p. 136)” than as discovery. Learning in science involves individuals being initiated into the ways of seeing of the scientific community (Driver, 1989). Without the presence of a teacher as member of the scientific community, students would have no way of knowing a particular viewpoint was shared with the scientific community.
Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott (1994) view learning science as involving a combination of personal and social processes. “Individuals must engage in a process of personal construction and meaning making (p.8)” before they can enter “into a different way of thinking about and explaining the natural world” and become socialized in the practices of the scientific community. Learners have to acquire rules to manipulate the symbols of science, a process which is impossible without contact with the community of scientists or their representatives. Concepts learned in science classrooms must be similar to those of the scientific community, because there is little value in students carrying away ideas that are significantly different (Millar, 1989).
Cobb (1996) argues that both individual knowledge construction and enculturation occur when learning a **** of knowledge located in a community. He concludes “that the sociocultural and constructivist perspectives each constitute the background for the other (p.48).” In a similar manner Fosnot (1996) maintains that sociocultural and individual constructivist processes are interwoven because individuals do not act alone; they are social beings and, as such, interact with others to construct mutually shared knowledge and meaning.
Welch (1985) described the state of research in science education and made recommendations for future research programs. He concluded investigations of teacher behaviors had produced very little in the way of improvement in classroom teaching; however, he remarked, “If one thinks of the students as the primary actors in the learning process instead of the teachers, then the study of appropriate behaviors seems highly desirable” (p.443). He noted the lack of research on student behaviors and suggested a great deal could be learned by investigating students while learning science.
Welch (1985) maintained that one important finding in cognitive psychology was that learning is influenced by previously-held student knowledge and stated “cognitive researchers believe that understanding how children learn will lead to improved instruction” (p.436). He also noted that “It is difficult to separate student behaviors from teacher behaviors because they often occur simultaneously” (p.431). Seeing teaching and learning as mutually effecting each other seem obvious to practising teachers, but to this time research attempted to isolate the two process and study them independently.
Table of *******s
Science educators have developed learning and instructional models which incorporate research on student alternative conceptions and student conceptual development. One general feature of these models is the development of some mental connection between new classroom experiences and knowledge already held by learners (see for example, Driver, 1983; Driver & Bell, 1986; Pines & West, 1986; Osborne & Wittrock, 1983, 1985; and Wittrock, 1985, 1986). Some attempts that have been made to produce instructional strategies based on viewing student learning as conceptual development are described below.
Students should not be viewed as empty vessels or blank slates that can be filled by lecturing about science (Gilbert, Watts and Osborne, 1982; Gunstone and Watts, 1985); rather, they must be actively involved in their learning (Millar & Driver, 1987). The traditional instructional strategy of providing definitions of concepts and statements of principles is not sufficient for learners to perform complex intellectual tasks required to learn in science (Reif, 1985). Teachers should not respond to student demands for “right” answers, nor should they yield to the temptation to attempt to transmit knowledge directly through lectures and textbooks (Roth, K., 1990). Pope and Gilbert (1983), and Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) think that effective teachers need some understanding of their students’ conceptions to enable instruction to make classroom facts have personal relevance to students.
Driver and Easley (1978) maintain that teachers have to consider the individuality of learning. The authors think that classroom experiences need to be designed to cause conceptual conflict, but that students have to be in a non-threatening, student-centred environment for such conflict to produce successful conceptual change. Students need to interact with other students and teachers to clarify their own ideas and explore alternative ideas through techniques such as small group discussion (Driver & Bell, 1986) and student debates (Gilbert, Watts & Osborne, 1982; Roth, K., 1990). Other common features of constructivist classrooms frequently include discrepant events (Nussbaum, 1985), experiences designed to distinguish scientific conceptions from everyday views, peer discussion and analogies (Driver, 1989: Glynn, Duit & Thiele, 1995). Julyan and Duckworth (1996) think students should articulate their ideas, test them through experimentation and conversation, and consider connections between their lives and concepts being studied.
Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982) concluded that student learning in science “is best viewed as conceptual change (p.212)” and “teaching science involves providing a rational basis for conceptual change (p.223).” Driver & Bell (1986) and Gunstone & Watts (1985) concurred that learning in science can be profitably viewed as conceptual change rather than reception of knowledge from a teacher. K. Roth (1990) advocated questioning as a means of exploring student conceptions
Millar (1989) has credited the ACM with making important contributions to understanding learning in science; however, he does not accept that a constructivist view of learning implies a single typical instructional strategy. He argues that all teaching strategies can lead to student learning and that regardless of the strategy restructuring of concepts can take place in the heads of learners. Millar has challenged the constructivist movement with creating workable applications that can be used in a class of twenty-five or more students.
Dykstra (1996) has developed a different way of teaching physics to first year college students. Based in part on an earlier work (Dykstra, Boyle & Monarch, 1992), Dykstra teaches classes of about twenty-five physics students in a different way than most traditional university instructors. First, students explore their conceptions of physical quantities, such as velocity, force and acceleration. Groups of students record their predictions and explanations about the way objects will behave in certain conditions. Students then perform laboratory activities and evaluate their data using computer graphing programs. Experimental results are compared with their predictions and discussed with others in the class. Conflicts between experimental results and predictions are resolved through discussion led by Dykstra who carefully avoids judging any proposed solution; rather, he allows class members to decide on resolution. He reports success with his technique, as well as, some frustration among students who are used to instructors providing answers directly. He believes the learning experienced through this style of instruction is superior to that in traditional classes and finds a greater sense of personal satisfaction with the new instructional strategy.
Alternative conceptions research has influenced other areas of science education. For example, Gilbert and Watts (1983) have proposed that curriculum development in science could start by reviewing de******ions of alternative conceptions and using them as a foundation for curricula. Driver and Bell (1986) argue that a spiral curricula is required because of the length of time required to achieve conceptual change in students. Spiral curricula revisit concepts and allow more detail and complexity to be added on each cycle. Driver and Oldham (1986) argued that curricula should incorporate conceptual development as part of the documentation. They believe conceptual development should be included as an integral part of each curriculum document rather than remaining external to curricula as an instructional strategy.
A few authors have suggested that students in science should be taught ****cognitive (thinking skills) strategies to assist them in constructing and reconstructing their concepts in science. Reif (1985) suggests that we should strive to teach students more generic skills about how to learn a new concept and knowledge related to it. He believes that students could benefit from instruction aimed at teaching them about thinking (****cognitive) skills in general. Pope and Gilbert (1983) take a slightly different slant by advocating that learners learn to reflect on their own views and “recognize their roles as theory builders (p.193).” These authors argue that students need to be aware that they construct their own theories and these theories can be refined through reflection and additional experiences. Millar and Driver (1987) accept that pedagogy has to account for the effect of learners’ prior knowledge on learning activities, but see pedagogy being designed to empower people to act more effectively in their daily lives, in their involvement with natural events and with technological artifacts.
A key participant in any science classroom is a teacher. Regardless of how learning is viewed, a teacher is an integral part of the process of learning in science classrooms, and is responsible for implementing instructional strategies that facilitate learning by students. Gunstone (1988) has argued that teachers have reacted positively to alternative conception research because it better informs teachers’ own classroom experience. The results and de******ions of learners are more consistent with teachers’ practical experience than were earlier types of research. In spite of this acceptance by teachers, direct applications of research results to classroom teaching have not been easy to achieve nor are they prevalent.
Driver (1988) suggests that instructional strategies should be developed using a process of action research directly involving classroom teachers. The resulting strategies could be tested in classrooms during their development. She argues that this procedure would be a natural development of accepting a constructivist view of student learning. If teachers are to adopt strategies designed for conceptual change they must be part of the research programs that develop them (Driver, 1989). Driver maintains that students cannot develop scientific conventions by themselves; rather, they must be constructed with assistance from teachers who are part of the scientific community.
K. Roth (1990) points out that teachers have to undergo their own conceptual changes about teaching and student learning if they accept a constructivist model of learning. Recognizing conceptual change is required by teachers, Ebenezer and Erickson (1996) make a plea for teachers and researchers entering into collaborative teaching and research projects. They believe the most effective means of promoting change in classrooms is to involve teachers in the design of change.
Table of *******s
Constructivism in Science Education
This research project and much literature on learning and instruction in science are based on a constructivist model of learning and knowing. This adoption of constructivism as an epistemological base for research in science education has taken place over a number of years. As learning in science began to be viewed as an individual student process of concept development a need for a different view of learning and knowing became necessary. Learning came to viewed as an individual process carried out in each student’s mind. Learning was described as individual knowledge construction and concept development. As this view spread constructivism began to be used in the science education literature to describe and explain learning.
Solomon (1994) credits “Driver and Easley’s (1978) memorable article” with creating the tools necessary “for the accelerated rise of constructivism in science education (p.3).” Osborne (1996) recognizes the same paper as initiating the view that successful learning in science depends more on prior experiences than on cognitive levels of development. In spite of this Driver and Easley did not directly advocate constructivism as an epistemological foundation for learning in science. Magoon (1977) is frequently cited (see for example, Cheek, 1992; Driver & Oldham, 1986; Gilbert & Swift, 1985; Gunstone, 1988) as one of the first to advocate a constructivist model of learning to direct educational research. In his view Piaget’s research and publications, Chomsky’s research on linguistic development in children, and Kuhn’s (1970) de******ions of paradigms in science were the driving forces behind the shift to a constructivist view of educational research and learning. He thought these works showed the constructed nature of knowledge in a range of fields.
Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) argued that no well articulated theory of conceptual change yet exists. They described the process in learners as analogous to Kuhn’s paradigm shift and incorporated Piaget’s processes of accommodation and assimilation to explain how concepts changed. Pope and Gilbert (1983) traced the constructivist position to Kelly (1969, cited in Pope & Gilbert) and concluded that he drew on constructivist principles when formulating his Personal Construct Psychology.
Osborne and Wittrock (1983), and Pope and Gilbert (1983) held the position that learning in science could best be viewed as knowledge construction with learners having an active role in the process. Osborne and Wittrock (1983, 1985) incorporated individual knowledge construction to describe the generation of links between stored memories and new experiences in order to explain alternative conceptions by students. Driver and Erickson (1983) argued that viewing students as actively constructing knowledge was based on a “constructivist epistemology” (p.39), but made no reference to constructivism as described by von Glasersfeld (1984, 1988, 1995). Strike and Posner (1985) described an epistemology similar to constructivism, and Driver and Bell (1986) referred to a “constructivist view” of thinking and learning in science; however, none of these authors made any reference to von Glasersfeld’s prolific writing about constructivism.
Driver and Oldham (1986) cited von Glasersfeld directly in their de******ion of a constructivist approach to curriculum development. As well, von Glasersfeld (1984) was cited by Bodner (1986) in his article describing a constructivist model of knowledge and its implications for teaching. Driver (1988, 1989) drew on von Glasersfeld’s view of constructivism as a foundation for viewing individual knowledge construction, but argued that his view was not sufficient to describe social aspects of learning in science. In a similar manner Millar (1989) acknowledged the value of constructivism in describing individual knowledge construction, but argued that constructivism was not a sufficient explanation for the social aspects of knowledge construction in the scientific community. Wheatley (1991) drew on Von Glasersfeld’s work when advocating the adoption of constructivism as an epistemological base for science. He maintained that constructivism fulfilled many requirements for understanding learning in science.
Cheek (1992) asserted that von Glasersfeld’s version of radical constructivism should be adopted as a theoretical foundation for Science-Technology-Society (STS) education. By the 1990s the constructivist learning model was being described in literature aimed at practising teachers (see for example, Yager, 1991) and in teacher education texts (see for example, Trowbridge & Bybee, 1996). When viewed from a constructivist perspective student learning activity during class becomes very important to teachers. To a constructivist, student verbalizations of ideas and concepts function as a window onto student conceptualizing, thinking and concept development. As effective teachers have long realized student dialogue assists in understanding how students are thinking about particular concepts in science or physics.
From a constructivist perspective the function of teacher instruction is viewed differently than from other models of learning. Rather than being seen as transmitters of knowledge, teachers are viewed as facilitators of student knowledge construction. von Glasersfeld and Steffe (1991) recommend that teachers work to develop skills to create conceptual models of individual student learning to aid them in assisting students with their learning. Teachers can use these conceptual models in choosing instructional strategies to provide individual assistance to students in their knowledge construction.
Table of *******s
Social Construction of Knowledge
Even though Driver and Easley (1978) were credited with beginning the move to constructivism, they did not see an individual constructivist model as sufficient to explain learning in science. Because science is a consensually agreed upon **** of knowledge, the authors argue that students cannot independently discover the rules and definitions of the scientific community. Driver (1988) continued to emphasize that science is public knowledge that is better described as “carefully checked construction (p. 136)” than as discovery. Learning in science involves individuals being initiated into the ways of seeing of the scientific community (Driver, 1989). Without the presence of a teacher as member of the scientific community, students would have no way of knowing a particular viewpoint was shared with the scientific community.
Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott (1994) view learning science as involving a combination of personal and social processes. “Individuals must engage in a process of personal construction and meaning making (p.8)” before they can enter “into a different way of thinking about and explaining the natural world” and become socialized in the practices of the scientific community. Learners have to acquire rules to manipulate the symbols of science, a process which is impossible without contact with the community of scientists or their representatives. Concepts learned in science classrooms must be similar to those of the scientific community, because there is little value in students carrying away ideas that are significantly different (Millar, 1989).
Cobb (1996) argues that both individual knowledge construction and enculturation occur when learning a **** of knowledge located in a community. He concludes “that the sociocultural and constructivist perspectives each constitute the background for the other (p.48).” In a similar manner Fosnot (1996) maintains that sociocultural and individual constructivist processes are interwoven because individuals do not act alone; they are social beings and, as such, interact with others to construct mutually shared knowledge and meaning.
Welch (1985) described the state of research in science education and made recommendations for future research programs. He concluded investigations of teacher behaviors had produced very little in the way of improvement in classroom teaching; however, he remarked, “If one thinks of the students as the primary actors in the learning process instead of the teachers, then the study of appropriate behaviors seems highly desirable” (p.443). He noted the lack of research on student behaviors and suggested a great deal could be learned by investigating students while learning science.
Welch (1985) maintained that one important finding in cognitive psychology was that learning is influenced by previously-held student knowledge and stated “cognitive researchers believe that understanding how children learn will lead to improved instruction” (p.436). He also noted that “It is difficult to separate student behaviors from teacher behaviors because they often occur simultaneously” (p.431). Seeing teaching and learning as mutually effecting each other seem obvious to practising teachers, but to this time research attempted to isolate the two process and study them independently.
Table of *******s