Introduction
In this chapter we attempt to describe the process of learning in science in terms of how ideas are modified by experience. In the first section examples are used to suggest a framework, or model, of how different parts of classroom activities come together to help children to develop their understanding. This framework is based on the observation that learners invariably bring ideas from earlier experience to try to make sense of new experience or answer new questions. The framework is used to identify the role of process skills in developing ideas and show how non-scientific ideas may persist if process skills are not developed and used. The notion of pro-gression in process skills is discussed and three dimensions of change are identified.
The framework also describes how ideas are developed to become ‘bigger’. This is one of the three dimensions of progression in ideas that are suggested.
Analysing learning in Graham’s classroom
Looking back at the description of Graham’s lessons on soil (pages 4–6) we can identify certain stages in the children’s activities and thinking, as set out in Figure 7.1.
The children were given a new experience in the form of the soils to observe and a question about how the differences between the soils might affect how well plants would grow in them. In exploring and making a prediction about which soil would be best they used their existing ideas (dark, damp soils). To find out more about which would be best (and test their prediction) they planned and conducted various tests. The evidence from various groups was collected and interpreted. What they predicted was not supported by the evidence, so the ideas on which the prediction was based were not confirmed. As a result the ideas were modified: dark soil is not necessarily the most fertile. They had not only learned that their initial ideas were limited; they also had reasons for changing them and reached a better understanding of the properties of soil.
In their subsequent work with the soils, they would go through the cycle of thinking again – this time with a more informed idea as a basis for predictions.
A general framework for learning in science
Similar patterns can be seen in other classrooms where investigative science is in action. This suggests a general framework, as in Figure 7.2. Starting with an experience to be explained, or a question that has been raised, the first two stages, (a) and (b), relate to making a link with something similar encountered in previous experience. The link may be made because of some physical property or something else that calls it to mind, such as a word or situation. Creativity and imagination also have a part. Indeed, in the case of the scientist faced with an unexpected phenomenon, it is the ability to try ideas outside the immediately obvious that may be the start of a ‘breakthrough’.
A framework for learning in science 73
New experience of soils Question raised: which
is best?
Exploration Links to earlier experience
Prediction as to which is best
Ideas about what
Figure 7.1Analysis of children’s activities in Graham’s lesson
Stages (c) and (d) are concerned with testing the idea by making a prediction and gathering evidence to see if the idea ‘works’ in terms of predicting something that actually happens. If when the evidence is interpreted (e) it does not support the prediction it is probably necessary to think of another link that might provide a better idea. If what is predicted is actually found, however, then we might cautiously accept that the idea helps to explain the new experience. The idea is modified by becoming one of wider application than before; just a little ‘bigger’.
An example: using alternative ideas
These stages can be seen in the case of some children who were investigating the difference felt in placing their hands on three surfaces in the classroom: one metal, one wooden and one of polystyrene foam.
■ The metal felt considerably colder than the other two surfaces, which raised the question: why? This was stage (a).
(a) New experience
Figure 7.2A framework for learning through investigation
■ They immediately said that the metal was at a lower temperature, because that was usually the case when something was felt to be cold, as when touching an object just taken out of the fridge or touching things out of doors on a cold day (b).
■ Their teacher asked them what they would expect to find if they measured the temperature of the surfaces and they predicted that the metal would be lowest, the wood next and the foam about the same as their hands (c).
■ Using a temperature sensor connected to a computer, they tested their prediction (d) and found almost no difference among the three surfaces.
■ They were so surprised by this (e) that they wanted to repeat it and to try it in different places. In particular, they wanted to take the surfaces out of the classroom to where it was colder. The result was the same; no difference in measured temperature, although the metal still felt much cooler than the other surfaces.
■ It was clear that their idea that the metal was at a different temperature from the other surfaces was not explaining what they found. An alternative had to be found.
The teacher helped them to link to a different experience by asking them to think of things that had made their hands cold. Among the suggestions was snow-balling. With a little scaffolding (see page 97) the teacher helped them to realise that heat was lost from their hands when they felt cold.
■ Could this account for the hand on the metal getting cold (back to (b))?
■ If so, then the hand would really be colder after touching the metal than after touching the other surfaces (c).
■ A fair test of this was devised by the children (d).
■ This idea seemed to be confirmed (e).
To see whether they could apply this idea, the teacher challenged them to predict what would happen if the surfaces were all warmer than their hands rather than colder. For safety’s sake their predictions were not tested, but various experiences were collected that helped to provide supporting evidence: the handles of cooking pans being wooden or plastic rather than metal, the kinds of gloves that keep our hands warm and so on.
What if there are no alternative ideas?
Children may ignore contradictory evidence in interpreting findings and hold on to their initial ideas even though these do not fit the evidence, as in the example in Box 7.1. Here we have an illustration of a common way in which children deal with the situation of lacking experience to give them alternative ideas, so as to A framework for learning in science 75
modify the idea they do have in order to accommodate the conflicting evidence.
It seems characteristic of human beings to try to explain things and if ideas that really fit are not available then less satisfactory ideas will be used. It is more comfortable to modify an idea than to abandon it, especially if it is your only way of making any sense of an observation.
Box 7.1 Children holding on to ideas because there is no alternative accessible to them
Faced with the evidence that varnished cubes of wood stick to each other when wet, several groups of 11-year-olds concluded that the blocks became magnetic when wet (Harlen 2000: 34). The resemblance of a block sticking to the underside of another, without anything to hold them together, to a magnet picking up another magnet or a piece of iron was clearly very strong. An equally good alternative explanation was not available to them and so they held on to their view of magnetism, modifying it to accommodate the observation that the blocks only stuck together when wet by concluding that ‘they’re magnetic when they’re wet’.
Had they had experience, say, of ‘suction cups’ being held to a surface when air is forced out from under the cup they might have used a different linking idea – that air pressure can ‘stick’ things together.
In such circumstances teachers have to decide what alternative ideas are within the reach of the children and support them in trying out ideas that can explain the phenomenon. This is described as scaffolding and we look more at what it means, with examples, in Chapter 9.
The role of process skills in the development of ideas
Using the framework to reflect on learning enables us to identify the role that process skills play in developing more scientific ideas.
Suppose that the tests that the children in Graham’s class carried out were not
‘fair’, because the soils were not compared equally. Or suppose that the children testing the surfaces did not use the temperature probe correctly and came up with findings that supported their sensations. In such cases the results of their investi-gations would not lead to a change in ideas. We can see that the development of the children’s ideas is dependent on the extent to which scientific process skills have been used.
If the observing, predicting, testing etc. are rigorous and systematic, in the way associated with scientific investigation, then ideas that do not fit the evidence will be rejected and those that do fit will be accepted and strengthened. But it may not be the case that the testing has this quality. The skills of young children – and those of some adults – may not have developed to the appropriate degree.
Young children may base their predictions on unscientific ideas, as in the cases in Box 7.2.
Box 7.2 Children with untestable ideas
Luis had an idea about what made snow melt, which was that it was caused by the presence of air; he did not consider heat. He wanted to preserve some snow and said that it would not melt if it were put in a jar with a lid on to keep out air. His first attempt led to the snow melting when the jar was brought into a warm room.
He said that there was still some air there and that if the jar were to be packed with snow it would not melt. But however much snow was put into the jar he still said that there was room for air. He had, therefore, turned his claim into one that was irrefutable, since it would never be possible to have only snow in his jar.
Emma was convinced that something that did not float would do so if the water was deeper. To try to test this, more water was added. But it was never enough and all the time she maintained her claim that it would float in very, very deep water. Again, the idea had become untestable.
Thus the extent to which ideas become more scientific (by fitting more phenomena) depends both on the way ideas from previous experience are linked to new experience and on how the testing of possible explanatory ideas is carried out; that is, on the use of the process skills. Process skills involved at all stages have a crucial part to play in the development of ideas. This is one important reason for giving attention to helping children to develop their process skills and to become more conscious of using them with appropriate rigour. The other reason, of course, is that these skills are needed for making sense of new experiences in the future and for learning throughout life.
Progression in process skills
What are the changes in process skills that we take to be ‘progression’? By identifying these we find clues to how to help the progression from limited to more rigorous use as needed in scientific investigations.
We can describe changes in how children of different experience and maturity use all the process skills. But rather than going into each skill at this point, we can look for patterns in change across all the skills. We find three types of change, identified in Box 7.3.
A framework for learning in science 77
Box 7.3 Dimensions of progression in process skills
1 From simple to more elaborated skills
This is the most obvious dimension, comprising the development of the ability to perform more aspects of a skill. A parallel in another field is the development from just being able to move round an ice rink on skates to being able to jump, twist and dance and still land on your feet. Both might be called
‘ice skating’ but one is much simpler and less elaborate than the other. In the case of science process skills it is the difference between observing main features and observing details, between predicting what might happen in vague terms and being more specific, between concluding that a change in one variable does affect another and identifying the direction and nature of the relationship.
2 From effective use in familiar situations to effective use in unfamiliar situations All process skills have to be used in relation to some content and it is not difficult to appreciate that what the content is will influence the way children engage with it. Some children who may be able to make a reasonable prediction or plan an investigation about, say, how far paper darts will fly, may be less likely to do these things effectively in relation to the effect of resistance in an electric circuit. The reason is that some scientific knowledge is always involved in using science processes. Whether or not the required knowledge is the main obstacle in a particular case depends on familiarity with it. A consequence of this is that the extent to which young children can conduct scientific enquiries can only be assessed when they are engaged in enquiries about things familiar to them or ones they have thoroughly explored (we say more about this in Chapter 15).
3 From unconscious to conscious action
Unconscious action here means doing something without recognising just what one is doing; for example, noticing something without consciously observing it, or finding an answer to a question by enquiry without recognising the kind of question that is being answered in this way. This dimension of change is connected with the previous one, since becoming aware of one’s thinking is necessary for applying certain thinking deliberately to unfamiliar problems.
The kind of thinking that is at the conscious end of this dimension is meta-cognition, being aware of one’s thinking and reasoning processes. It is often considered that primary children are not able to stand back from their enquiries or problems and reflect on how they tackled them, so opportunities to do this are not offered. Recent attempts to involve children in such thinking (AKSIS and CASE projects) have, however, provided evidence of some positive effects (see, for example, Robertson 2004; Serret 2004). Giving children more opportunities of this kind may well advance the development of their process skills and thus their ability to make sense of the world around. We return to this in Chapter 10.
The development of ‘bigger’ ideas
We have noted in Chapter 6 that a major aim of science education is to help children to develop ‘big’ ideas. These are ideas that help us to make sense of a number of related events or phenomena. They contrast with ‘small’ ideas that apply only to specific situations. We can see how the model describes the gradual enlargement of ideas.
Using an idea from previous experience immediately links two experiences and if the idea is found to explain both, it becomes ‘bigger’. Often several other related events can be linked when a teacher asks children to apply their newly modified ideas to other situations. For instance, in the investigation of the temperature of different surfaces, the teacher took the opportunity to see if the children could extend the idea of metals conducting heat to give a reason for metal pans often having wooden or plastic handles.
Progression in scientific ideas
We can ask the same question about progression in ideas as we have asked in relation to process skills. What are the main differences between the ideas of younger children with less experience and those of older children with more experience? One dimension we have already identified is from ‘small’ to ‘bigger’
ideas. Others come from considering the different levels of explanation that we can have for a particular phenomenon.
For instance, consider the ideas which younger and older children might hold about adaptation of living things to their environment:
Younger Older
There are different kinds of living In a particular place some things will be things in different places and able to live and some things will not.
each kind likes a certain kind of The reason for this is that each living place. Some animals would not be thing needs food, water, air, shelter and able to live where other ones live protection for its offspring, but different because they would be too hot ones obtain these in different ways.
or too cold. What suits one will not suit others because of differences in their bodies and structures.
When we look at the difference in these ideas we find the three main changes set out in Box 7.4.
A framework for learning in science 79
Box 7.4 Dimensions of progression in ideas
From description to explanation
The ideas of the younger children are closely related to gathering information, finding out what is there and what is happening, as opposed to explaining why.
There is the beginning of explanation in terms of what the habitat provides for the living things in it. The ideas of the older children are clearly much more related to explanation.
From ‘small’ to ‘big’ ideas
Each experience leads to a small idea that helps to make sense of specific observations. ‘Worms can live in soil because they can slither through small spaces and can eat things that are in the soil’ is an idea that applies to worms only. It is transformed to a bigger idea when it is linked to other ideas, such as ‘fish can live in water because they can breathe through their gills and find food there’, to form an idea that can apply to all animals. Eventually this idea may be linked to ideas about the habitats of plants, to become an even bigger idea about living organisms in general. This is an important dimension of progress, since the formation of widely applicable ideas, or concepts, is essential if we are to make sense of new experience.
From personal to shared ideas
It is characteristic of young children to look at things from one point of view, their own, and this is reflected in their ideas. These are based on their personal
It is characteristic of young children to look at things from one point of view, their own, and this is reflected in their ideas. These are based on their personal