Investigating Conceptual Change in Science Teaching and Learning:

How Establishing Community, Dialoging, and Journaling

Work Together to Foster the Conceptual Change Process

Sarah LaurensSixth Grade Science Teaching

Whitehills Elementary, East Lansing, MISpring 2009

During this year of teaching science and language arts in my sixth grade classroom, I have been preoccupied with how students’ concepts of scientific explanation and understanding change. In particular, I have identified several themes in this area of research: How establishing a sense of community and using discussion and journaling can provide an environment conducive to the exchange of ideas as well as tools to document the students’ conceptual change process. Simultaneously, I have struggled with the science curriculum and “kit” science approaches used by K-8 teachers and will offer my insights on curricular conflicts and how to successfully teach conceptual change within a school district’s curriculum.

Richard Duschl (2008) summarizes the two major reform efforts in K-12 science education that have taken place during the past 50 years. The first was the curriculum reform efforts (1950-70) motivated by the launching of Sputnik and sponsored by the newly-formed National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States and by the Nuffield Foundation in the United Kingdom. The primary goal for these reform programs was to produce courses of study that would get students to "think like scientists," thus placing them in a "pipeline" for science careers. The second U.S. and U.K. reform effort in science education began in the 1980’s and continues to this day as part of the national standards movement. Referred to as the "Science for All" movement in the United States and the "Public Understanding of Science" in the United Kingdom, here the education goal was and is to develop a scientifically literate public that can participate in both the economic and democratic agendas of the increasingly global market-focused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) societies. Justin Dillon (2008) studied progress in science teaching and dialog in constructivist teaching since 1980.

James Shymansky (1998) conducted a study project with 52 elementary science teachers from Iowa City using an interactive constructivist model of teaching and learning that uses hands-on activities selectively and purposefully to challenge students’ ideas, promote deep processing, and achieve conceptual change in science learning. This research, as well as other that I have reviewed, uses children’s misconceptions related to specific science concepts as problem-centered focus projects for teachers’ professional development activities. This aspect of constructivist and conceptual change teaching models underlies how students’ understanding can be successfully constructed. If the classroom teacher is not comfortable teaching student-oriented inquiry and problem-solving in science, then I believe that true conceptual change teaching is undermined (see K. Roth 1992 and Cennamo 1995).

1

Establishing a Learning Community

In my own classroom, I have worked all year to establish a learning community where students feel comfortable expressing their ideas and “wonderings” about the world around them. The atmosphere of mutual respect and focus upon participation in exchanging multiple perspectives is modeled by my coordinating teacher and myself. When students share ideas, all comments are accepted without judgmental comments and students are encouraged to explain their thinking and give examples (evidence) to support their explanations. Without this “safe” environment and sense of collaborative thinking and doing, our inquiry-based teaching would be very “atlas” and teacher-oriented. With students’ inquiries and idea sharing framing our daily discussions, the learning experience becomes student-oriented and thus generates a true sense of equity of participation and community.

As Kathleen Roth (1992) points out in her research with fifth grade science students, a learning-centered classroom focuses on how and why work is being done as new ideas are explored as opposed to work-oriented classrooms where the focus is on completing the task at hand. The activities themselves (thinking, questioning, discussing, making mistakes, exploring new ideas) create the quality to be fostered in the larger learning community. When sense making and learning become the goal, the focus leads to shared responsibility by each member of the class. In turn, as students collaborate, each student experiences the sense of commitment and ownership within with community. Learning is no longer a private activity, but it becomes collaborative in nature as expertise comes from all members of the community and not just the teacher (“atlas” model of instruction).

This constructivist learning environment has been well documented by many researchers (Cennamo 1995; Driver 1986; Linn 1989; Minstrell 1984; and Roth 1992). The basis of which is students revising and reconstructing their explanations (Marshall 1990; Hewson 1984; Johansson et al. 1985; Posner et al. 1982; and West et al. 1985) stems from Piaget’s (1969) premise on creating cognitive conflict and puzzlement as the spark to ignite conceptual change and construction of new knowledge. As Kathleen Roth so aptly describes the conceptual change instructional model: “It is not a straight forward process […] In reality, it is a messier process in which student conceptions are continually elicited, and decisions must be made about which ideas to focus on, to challenge, and how.” (1992, p. 32). As students and teachers work together to establish a learning community, students develop trust in the teacher and in their fellow classmates to respect their ideas as valid and to challenge their ideas with evidence rather than judgments.

Discussion and Journaling in Science

Students observe phenomena in the world around them and then relate it to something else they have experienced on a personal level, thus linking an observation to whatever prior knowledge and experience they may have. Often the past experience may have no relevance whatsoever, but it is all that the learner has to compare the new experience with and subsequent misconceptions form. This is why we must provide extensive experiences for young students of science to explore and compare. I agree with the findings of Neil Mercer (2008) regarding the

2

instrumental role that discussion plays in student understanding: “[…] available evidence shows very clearly that the role of talk and social interaction is so significant that it cannot be ignored. It is therefore necessary for theoretical accounts to deal with both social (i.e. communicative) and cognitive aspects of conceptual change.” It is through individual writing (journaling) combined with shared group discussion that these concepts and misconceptions are exposed and confronted in a safe, trusting environment. Roth (1992) points out the functions of student writing for conceptual change:

To stimulate students to clarify and articulate positions and ideas (writings become a “still image” for examination at a later date, enabling students to revisit their ideas and revise them),

To elicit ideas in order to compare, contrast, build, and change them, and To extend and support overall inquiry process.

The tentative nature of ideas and need for re-examination and revision (which is a vital aspect of scientific inquiry) provides the need for writing in addition to discussion in the inquiry-based science classroom. Writing must be less of a product for evaluation and grading purposes, and more a tool to support thinking and sense making. I have found daily journaling to be personal and reflective in nature, thus engaging students’ emotional involvement in the subject matter. Active inquiry and questioning of scientific concepts are valued and encouraged by the kinds of writing tasks that we do. Hence, the reflective nature of journal writing facilitates questioning and conflicting of new experiences with old preconceptions. Richard Heckathorn, a fellow middle school physics teacher and NSTA member recently communicated these thoughts (via email) on the subject:

“1. Provide the students with an activity where the results are different from what the student expects.

 2. As the result does not agree with the students ‘naïve’ idea, the student has a conflict. Thus their attention has been obtained. (Or I hope so.)

 3. Next provide students with additional activities that support the ‘new’ correct concept.

 4. Now with that said, the students will have achieved. But wait a minute. It is NOT that easy.

While the students have seen, have had discussions and quizzes and tests about the concept, they have internalized within the classroom. But when the leave the classroom, most easily convert back to their original ‘naïve’ thought.

I have heard it said that whenever one has an experience, that experience is stored somewhere in ones brain. The result is that if the student has encountered  situations and thought about it from the ‘naïve’ point of view, it too is stored. So storing the correct concept in one place in the brain, it must compete with the other locations that stores the ‘naïve’ idea. Thus in my opinion students need experience and experience and more experience encountering and applying the new concept in a real world environment. Thus reading about it, memorizing it and writing the answer on a test does not do it.

3

Example as to reality: In two honors physics classes of 44 students we discussed, did investigations etc., about the interaction of two objects. There were problems, quiz and test questions as to which of the two objects had the greater force exerted on them by the other object. They knew that according to Newton’s third law that the two forces were equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Fast forward three months to physics day at an amusement park. Question: When a dodgem cart loaded with three football players slams into a cart loaded with three small cheerleaders, or is it the reverse, which experiences the greater force on them, the cart with football players or the cart with cheerleaders? All 44 responded with the cart with the cheerleaders experienced the greater force. Back in the classroom I gave them a similar question on a quiz. All but three or four responded correctly. Moral: physics is only true in the physics classroom. Thus my thoughts indicate that the students must experience physics in the world outside the classroom. They must see the world through their eyes and see that physics is everywhere. Maybe then they will finally get it.” (Personal thread on NSTA’s pedagogy subscribers’ list serve, 2/5/09).

In Mr. Heckathorn’s comments, I feel that his students’ disconnect between classroom physics and amusement park physics could be soldered together via daily journaling and discussion activities that supplement his students’ hands-on experiences. Daily personal writing provides a scaffold to students’ thinking. The goal for students is to be able to explore questions on their own in ways that will lead to new understandings and more scientifically-appropriate explanations. Writing can play a critical role in students’ need to scaffold their thinking and journals can be a tool for dialog.

Each student begins and finishes at a unique place in the learning process. Science journaling can be a valuable communication tool to capture important aspects of each child’s growth and change in science learning. Although reading and assessing student knowledge based upon journaling requires more patience and feedback on the teacher’s behalf when compared to assigning grades, I feel that it has provided me with further insight into my students’ learning and thinking during my unit on forces and motion.

Curricular Conflicts and Recommendations

Chang (1996) found in-service science teachers to have a positive attitude toward a social construction of knowledge instructional model, but teachers argued that time limitations and the textbook materials were barriers to adopting constructivist-teaching approaches. In my experience with the Battle Creek Math and Science Center curriculum materials this year, I found it necessary to discard many lessons in order to allow adequate time for students to experience daily journaling and grand discussion activities. Of 16 investigations in force and motion, I chose to go in-depth with 8 of these in our allotted time for the teaching of this unit. I see this as a trade-off in terms of losing breadth in favor of depth of constructed understanding based upon exploring students’ preconceptions about the concepts being studied. In a sideline, I just recently read a Science Daily article about Robert Tai et al. and his research on over 8,000 college students studying introductory biology, chemistry, or physics and concluded that students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, in high school have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time

4

on each (see NSTA Express newsletter of March 9, 2008). This being the case, should we not do the same at the elementary science teaching level?

Like Chang, Tomasini (1990) notes that the importance of conceptual change in teacher training is crucial to understanding the importance of allowing time for discussion and comparison of students’ explanations of phenomena at the elementary level. Teachers must be well versed in the research behind conceptual change science teaching and they must be comfortable with exploring and discussing scientific concepts themselves. Jane Watson and Ben Kelly (2009) study the issue of regression in conceptual understanding in their longitudinal study that suggests some of the intuitions and understandings that form the intermediate steps to a complete understanding of outcomes for two dice, as well as documenting the conceptual regression likely to occur when a more difficult task is encountered. This research helps me to understand my own students’ ability to discuss Newton’s laws of motion, but then revert to earlier preconceptions when presented with more difficult scenarios. Once again, conceptual change in science learning is slow and science curriculum must take into account the developmental progression of student understanding and conceptual change and consider the educational implications when planning the pacing of science curriculum teaching. Wolff-Micheal Roth (1991) calls this teaching method of modeling cognitive apprenticeship. Cognitive apprenticeship involves teachers modeling scientific skills and coaching students in their attempts to handle the practical and conceptual tools in the sciences. This can be accomplished via community building, discussion and journaling alongside scientific investigations and observations.

5

Artifacts from My Science Teaching: Pre- and Post-Assessments Administered Before and After My Teaching Unit

Student A

Dec 2008

March 09

6

Student B

Dec 2008

March 09

7

Student C

Dec 2008

March 09

8

Student D(Differentiated post-assessment to accommodate language needs)

Dec 2008

March 09

9

Analysis and Reflection

In comparing both the pre- and post-assessments of Students A, B, C, and D above, as well as their investigations journal and daily journaling reflections, there is a wide spectrum of force and motion conceptual change with this sampling of student work.

Student A brought many concepts connected to force and motion into the unit of study last December, yet this student redefined “mass” and revised his thinking about mass and gravity (see page 6) by the end of February 2009.

Student B had word knowledge of “variable” in only one context (mathematics) and demonstrated how her definition of variables expanded to include the pragmatic situations she had encountered in our investigations. However, she states in the pre-test that both the ping-pong ball and the bowling ball will “hit the ground at the same time” without describing how they will fall, thus making interpretation of her conceptual change difficult. In the post-test, her statement remains the same, but she credits the equal falling action to “aerodynamics”. Here I see evidence of intake of observations from our investigations, but without more explicit explanation, I am cannot fully grasp this student’s understanding. I will venture to say that her concept of gravity and mass was based upon what she had read (as she is an avid reader), and now she is beginning to construct a mental understanding of gravity as she begins to explain the phenomena she has experienced in class.

Student C (who had no idea what a variable was before this unit of study) defines a variable in terms of his experiences, but his participation in group discussions and journaling demonstrates his understanding of variables and controls in a scientific investigation. His pre-assessment shows his concept of the nature of the scientific method (“Have a plan” and “Do it again” were themes that he revised throughout this unit in his writing). His concept of mass and gravity is developing as he attempts to relate his understanding of mass to gravity. I do not see evidence of his observations from our in-class investigations and tend to interpret his explanation of the ping-pong ball and bowling ball falling as an accommodation into his prior schema of concepts.

Student D, a special education student, had very little prior knowledge on our pre-test (which was administered orally as he wrote his responses). I developed a differentiated post-test in collaboration with one of our special education teachers to be used with all of our students who require language arts support. This student demonstrates the largest difference between pre- and post-assessments on concepts of force and motion. He is able to list all the steps of the scientific method (based upon our numerous investigations) and he is able to define and give examples of variables and friction from his daily life. This student struggles with written output and has a paraprofessional who accompanies him to science and social studies classes while he goes to the resource room for math and language arts instruction. While brief, his journal entries and discussion participation demonstrated his assimilation of new knowledge into his explanations of daily observations and data recorded from his numerous in-class investigations.

In conclusion of my science teaching experience, I have seen how each of my students begins and ends at a unique point in their understanding of a scientific concept. As Wolff-

10

Micheal Roth (1991) describes cognitive apprenticeship as a teaching method, I have endeavored to do this by modeling scientific skills and the scientific method of problem solving in my science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts teaching this year. I believe that scientific skills must be integrated across the curriculum and connected to all facets of a students’ school and home life in order to facilitate conceptual change and deep understanding in science.

Bibliography:

Cennamo, K.S., et al. (1995). A "Layers of Negotiation" Model for Designing Constructivist Learning Materials. Proceedings of the 1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

Chang, W-H. (1996). Introducing Philosophy of Science through an Activity for In-Service Teachers to Experience Social Constructing of Knowledge. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (St. Louis, MO).

Dillon, J. (2008). Discussion, Debate and Dialog: Changing Minds about Conceptual Change Research in Science Education. Cultural Studies of Science Education 3, 397-416.

Driver, R. et al. (1986). A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development in Science. Studies in Science Education 13, 105-122.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals. Review of Research in Education 32, 268-291.

Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2005). Examining Young Children's Conceptual Change Process in Floating and Sinking from a Social Constructivist Perspective. International Journal of Science Education 27, 259-279.

Mercer, N. (2008). Changing Our Minds: A Commentary on "Conceptual Change--A Discussion of Theoretical, Methodological and Practical Challenges for Science Education. Cultural Studies of Science Education 3, 351-362.

Milne, C. et al. (2008). Understanding Concetual Change: Connecting and Questioning. Cultural Studies of Science Education 3, 417-434

Roth, K.J. (1992). The Role of Writing in Creating a Science Learning Community. Elementary Subjects Center Series 56.

Roth, W-M. (1991). Aspects of Cognitive Apprenticeship in Science Teaching. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.

11

Tomasini, N.G. (1990). Teaching Strategies and Conceptual Change: Sinking and Floating at Elementary School Level.

Shymansky, J.A. et al. (1998). Students' Perceptions and Supervisors' Rating as Assessments of Interactive-Constructivist Science Teaching in Elementary School. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Watson, J.M. and Kelly, B.A. (2009). Development of Student Understanding of Outcomes Involving Two or More Dice. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 7, 25-54.

12