Generating and Selecting Attributes When Discussing Categories

preliminary whole class discussion. In week 5 of the data collection, prior to the implementation of the modeling activities, the children engaged in whole class discussion about the meaning of the categories recycle, reuse and throw away, providing initial insight into attributes they were selecting and generating as criteria for the categories.

Attributes the children provided were criteria for acts of recycling, reusing and throwing away, such as placing objects in specific bins for recycling, giving old or unwanted objects away that could be reused, and taking large, broken items to the

2. BAXTER BROWN

Task 1. Whole class picture book reading Task 2. Whole class classification of real

objects into categories

Task 3. Small group data modeling problem Task 4. Whole class reporting of modeling

solution

2. MICHAEL RECYCLE Task 1. Whole class picture book reading Task 2. Whole class drawing pictures of

objects

Task 3. Small group data modeling problem Task 4. Whole class reporting of modeling

158 “dump” or putting them in a rubbish bin to throw them away. The children gave examples of the consequences of such actions, such as receiving money for recycled objects through community cash deposit systems and being able to play again with reusable objects. These examples indicated that the children had prior knowledge from everyday experiences involving the acts and consequences of recycling, reusing and throwing away objects that they connected to the categories during discussion. The children’s sources of knowledge revealed in their responses were consistent with the research that before school learning and knowledge stems from children’s

physical and social interactions (Ginsburg et. al., 2006).

The children’s discussion exposed abstract attributes they held about

recycling and reusing that focused attention on whether objects could be returned and in what condition. Distinctions were drawn between recycling and reuse. When

recycling was discussed, Gina explained that this meant returning an object to the

recycling bin and said, “If you return it, it means you don’t get it back again, if you put the cans in the recycling bin, and they go in there and you want them back you can’t get them back”. Gina’s comment indicated that once an object is deposited in a recycling bin, it is not recoverable by whoever placed it. Kayla initiated an

explanation as to why an object placed in a recycling bin might not be recoverable:

You put it in the recycling bin and somebody takes it and putted it in another bin and then they come and do some work on it and make more stuff and then it goes to a shop and they sell it all over again.

Kayla’s account demonstrates knowledge of recycling processes and suggests that an object can be modified and made available again. Both Gina and Kayla’s

explanations introduced an object’s returnability as an attribute, that is, whether the object could come back to you. Kayla extended this to include whether the object had physically altered when recycled and therefore made available again in a changed form.

When ideas were offered for what reuse might mean, Bryce, Jade, Sam and Lee gave examples of toys, such as a soccer ball, which they suggested could be reused for playing, either by giving it away to someone else to use or receiving someone else’s to enjoy. Their suggestions reflected that they considered an object reusable if it could be returned in some way. Eliot explained further that in addition

159 to being returnable, toys could only be reused “if they’re still not broken”. Isabel agreed that an object’s physical condition for its original purpose must be maintained in order for it to be reusable, saying “you can reuse um wear um clothes again, like T-shirts and pants and stuff”. Gina, Isabel and Bryce proposed ways that objects such as boxes, could be reused to make cubby houses or to “keep stuff in”. Similarly, cans could be reused “to fill ‘em up with more things”. These statements implied that an object’s purpose could be changed as long as the original form was maintained. Much later in the whole class discussion, when asked what the differences between recycling and reuse might be, Carl pointed out that “if you reuse you get it back, and if you recycle it, it’s gone, you can’t get it back”. For Carl in particular, the

returnability of the object was a defining attribute that differentiated between the two categories.

A whole class discussion about the meaning of the categories also occurred at the beginning of the first implemented modeling activity, Baxter Brown during Task 3. Similarly, the returnability of an object and its potential to change into something different surfaced were the only defining attributes offered by the children for the categories of recycle and reuse. When the category of reuse was discussed, Jade said that reuse, “means …you um… it means if you have toys or things, they will just come back”, followed by Kayla who stated, “you can reuse stuff and it comes back to ya” and Toby who reported, “you get it back”. These explanations indicated that for an object to be reused, it needs to be returned and in its original form. Returnability also featured as an attribute for the category recycle. Chris stated, “ah, we, you don’t get it back”, a view supported by Toby when he said that, “you don’t ever get it back”. Both children affirmed that a recyclable object is not returned, although it is not clear as to whether the children believed that it would never be returned in its original form or at all. Isabel affirmed that two attributes for recycling were returnability and change of form, “ Recycle means…everything that…you can get back because it melt, it gets melted down, then it get mackened into something new”. Isabel’s underlying factual understanding of the recycling process that appeared to have influenced her belief that a recycled object will be returned and in a different form. Isabel continued to explain this view during the subsequent small group work in Baxter Brown Task 3 with Toby and Carl.

160 The examples provided by the children in both whole class discussions

provided insight into the knowledge they relied on for generating and selecting attributes for the categories recycling, reusing and throwing away. A distinguishing element of findings for the children’s generation and selection of attributes in the preliminary whole class discussion and the whole class discussion at the beginning of Baxter Brown Task 3, is that the children were not involved in using the attributes as measures to classify objects or pictures of objects. The discussion engaged the children in generating and selecting attributes, but not in using these attributes to classify objects. The attributes generated in these discussions were defined by criteria that were general and abstract in nature, and focused on whether an object could be returned or not, and whether the form of the objects could be changed.

In each of the two modeling activities, the children would generate and select attributes for categories and then use these attributes to classify objects into those categories. The modeling activities that used objects (as pictures or real objects) therefore moved the children from thinking about generating and selecting attributes for categories in whole class discussion to applying those attributes as a measure to classify an object into a category. The findings for the two modeling activities revealed differences in the children’s use of knowledge to reason about attributes when working with pictures and when working with real objects, which are discussed in the next two sections.

6.2.2 Generating, Selecting and Measuring Attributes With Pictures