Discussion Paper from Work Package 5
Thinking pedagogically about scientific thinking:
Towards a taxonomy of investigations.
Colin A. Smith
Strathclyde University
With additional material supplied by
Fearghal Kelly
East Lothian Education Department
And
Sinclair Mackenzie
Thurso High School, Highland Region
S-TEAM Conference
Nottingham
January 2010
Colin Smith
Page 1
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
The business of science involves more than the mere assembly of facts: it demands also
intellectual architecture and construction. (Toulmin, 1961, p 108)
Scientific ideas and practices are essentially interconnected and networked. To
understand science, one must consider not just the links between a theory and
observations, but between a theory and other theories, and the influence of theories on
observations. It is global and holistic, in the sense that it is not found to be in any one
isolated component. (Kosso, 2009, p.36)
Colin Smith
Page 2
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
Introduction
The S-TEAM project has taken on the task of ‘firing up’ science education across
Europe through helping teachers more often to adopt advanced teaching/learning
methods. Encouraged by the EU, we have focussed on investigation-led science teaching
as comprising ‘advanced’ methods likely to bring about greater learner engagement with
science and retention of those learners into science careers.
Of course, our acceptance of this challenge is not merely opportunistic within a
particular political agenda. We too, based on research and argument, think that
investigative methods in science education need to be encouraged and supported. For
example, McNally (2006) identifies a number of reasons for adopting investigative
methods in science lessons, including facilitating an understanding of the nature of
science, to meet a need to do science as well as to learn it, and to approach something like
‘authentic scientific activity’. However, the idea of doing ‘authentic scientific activity’ in
the school laboratory is problematic. There is a gap to be closed between inquiry in
research and school science (Gengarelly and Abrams, 2009) requiring, perhaps among
other things, a reconceptualisation of science from lab to school (Sharma and Anderson,
2009). Leaving aside the further issue of whether this gap can be fully closed in practice,
this discussion paper aims to begin to flesh out a ‘tool’ for connecting the work that is
done by teachers using classroom investigations to (features of?) authentic scientific
thinking. The tool, hopefully, will empower both ourselves and teachers to think
pedagogically about supporting our young people in developing aspects of scientific
thinking that underpin authentic scientific activities. It may also help in integrating our
work across the work packages. To put it another way, this discussion is based on three
assumptions. First, that through using investigative approaches in science education, we
wish to facilitate the ability of our pupils to develop scientific thinking. Therefore, and
second, we need to theorise in pedagogically useful ways, the connections between
investigation in school science and scientific thinking.1 Third, this theorising will help in
integrating our work across the work packages.
Feist’s analysis of scientific thinking.
Feist (2006)2 conducts a major review of studies that can be said to contribute, at least
implicitly, to the psychology of science and the study of the origins of scientific thinking
in the history of humankind. His aims are not pedagogical but to establish the psychology
of science as a sub-discipline of psychology on a par with, and complementary to, subdisciplines of other disciplines such as the philosophy of science, the history of science
and the sociology of science. Nevertheless, along the way he provides powerful
1
Another issue being set aside at this point is differences (if any) in thinking between the scientific
disciplines. Obviously, this cannot be permanent.
2
I was tempted (but resisted for the moment) to test out Feist’s analysis for myself against the science
education literature - a literature not considered by Feist – and perhaps starting with Williams et al (2004).
I could possibly justify this by claiming I am using the ‘confirm now, disconfirm later’ heuristic (Table 2),
and this is probably partly true. However, the more pressing reason is to get this out to hopefully
demonstrate that this kind of thinking that I have used here, and before in practice (see, Brownie et al,
2008), is a useful way to bring together theory and practice in solving pedagogical problems. If I can
convince you of that, then, no doubt, contributions will be made to testing this particular model and
refining it.
Colin Smith
Page 3
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
arguments for identifying certain cognitive activities as constitutive of scientific thinking.
These cognitive activities, here called aspects of scientific thinking3, are brought together
in tables 1 and 24.
Table 1: Fundamental aspects of scientific thinking and human thinking more generally
Scientific Thinking/scientific mind (Adapted from Feist, 2006)
Attribute/skill
What it involves
Observation
Using all sensory modalities –hearing, tasting,
feeling, smelling and seeing- to input information
Categorisation
Classifying information from observations into
meaningful systems
Pattern recognition
Seeing patterns of relationships between different
things and events the classified information refers to
(E.g. Thing A is always found with Thing B. Event
Y always follows Event X)
Hypothesis formation and testing. As develops in
Arises initially from pattern recognition. Begin to
scientists, becomes an ability to systematically test
expect world to behave in certain ways and test
hypotheses.
these expectations
Cause and effect thinking
Arises initially out of pattern recognition and/or
hypothesis verification. (e.g. recognition of pattern
that Y follows X or verification of this as a
hypothesis leads one to think about causes).
More sophisticated when one realises that covariation is necessary, but not sufficient, for
causality.
Table 1 shows those aspects of scientific thinking that Feist argues are found in both
the implicit scientific thinking of children and adults, and the explicit scientific thinking
of scientists. Indeed, they are fundamental to both everyday and scientific thinking. That
is not to say that children’s, adults’ and scientists’ thinking are the same in all respects. If
I understand Feist correctly, the factors that seem to differentiate these forms of thinking
are found largely in table 2. The aspects of scientific thinking in table 2, along with
language, enable thinking to become ‘less and less immediate and sensory-bound and
more and more consciously represented, explicit and metacognitive’ (Feist, 2006, page
71). The acquisition of language makes this progress from implicit to explicit thinking
possible and is achieved to its most advanced degree in science (and, presumably, other
organised systems of thought)5.
3
‘Aspects’ is preferred to ‘skills’, at least for the moment. ‘Skills’ has too many connotations of being
easily measured and practised in isolation.
4
Note, these tables should be considered to be draft attempts at representing Feist’s analysis. As noted
above, his agenda was different from ours and so these points are embedded in complex arguments about
the relationship between divisions of psychology and what he sees as a case for a psychology of science.
Therefore, the ‘aspects of scientific thinking’ in the tables have been extracted from this argument and may
still require modification to ensure accuracy with the data he presents.
5
Feist is careful to point out that science and its ways of thinking are not the direct results of evolution of
the human mind but are ‘co-opted by-products of evolved adaptations’ (page 217). He also begins his thesis
with an analysis of the contributions of other sub-disciplines (the philosophy, history and sociology of
science) to our understanding of science and clearly values these contributions. Nevertheless, he sometimes
reads as if he thinks science is the pinnacle of human thinking.
Colin Smith
Page 4
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
Table 2: Further aspects of scientific thinking
Scientific Thinking/scientific mind (Based and adapted from Feist (2006)
Attribute/skill
What it involves
Ability to separate and co-ordinate theory and
I have put these together as they seem related.
evidence.
In relation to these, Feist discusses avoiding
confirmation bias, not ignoring disconfirmatory
Not ignoring/recognising the importance of
evidence outright, and avoiding distorted
disconfirmatory evidence.
interpretations of evidence to fit preconceptions. We
might want to add ‘distinguishing examples from
Realising one’s thinking may be wrong and in need
principles.6’
of revision.
Visualisation
Feist identifies thought experiments, models and
diagrams. I wonder if he has overlooked graphs,
charts and tables. These tables, for example,
comprise an attempt in visualising scientific
thinking based on Feist’s analysis.
Making the implicit explicit in one’s thinking.
Again these seem related. In Feist’s scheme,
‘implicit’ means more sensory bound thought. By
Developing control of thinking and representations
making these implicit representations explicit by
- metacognition.
redescribing them, they become available for
thought and modification. This is part of
metacognition, along with becoming aware of and
directing one’s thought processes.
Ability to use metaphor and analogy
Analogy – seeing how something (target) is like
something old (source). Metaphor – an ‘as if’
comparison. Think about X as if it was Y. Both
useful in hypothesis and theory formation, thought
experiments, creativity and problem solving.
Dunbar and Blanchette (2001) also report how
scientists use analogy to fix experimental problems.
Analogy and metaphor provide useful constraints to
solutions to problems by focussing strategies
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm late’ heuristic
Apparently many successful scientists when
formulating theory look for confirming evidence
first (‘make it a goer’), then seek to find evidence
and arguments against it.
Collaborative (distributed reasoning)
Based on long-term analyses of weekly lab
meetings (e.g. Dunbar, 1995, 2002; Dunbar and
Blanchette, 2001). Apparently, an important process
is the sharing of reasoning and ideas that goes on in
the more informal settings (behind the scenes in
hallways, etc.) and is the result of input from, many
people.7 Also, in the formal lab meetings,
conceptual change of various levels or forms can be
brought about as a scientist’s results are discussed
and interpreted by the group.
6
This is presumably to be found in the literature, if I looked, but is added here from personal experience of
debates.
7
I may be missing something, but I was surprised on reading Feist on this that no mention seemed to be
made of more formal meetings. I have subsequently been unable to access Dunbar (2002) but both his other
citations, Dunbar (1995) and Dunbar and Blanchette (2001), seem to focus on these formal settings,
particularly lab meetings and the contribution they make to conceptual change in scientists’ thinking.
Therefore, I have added it here.
Colin Smith
Page 5
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
Another thing we need to remember is that we should not regard those aspects of
thinking in table 1 as developing purely in a linear fashion. Although Feist argues that
observation is first to appear, then so on down the table, as the others develop complex
relations happen between them so that they each affect each other in dynamic interplay.
Feist does emphasise this point but could possibly have usefully developed it further into
a description of how they co-develop (Lagnado, 2006).
However, our purpose here is to see if modelling scientific thinking helps us to think
pedagogically about investigative led science teaching. One question to ask about science
investigations in the classroom is, “What aspects of scientific thinking do they help the
pupils to develop?” However, if that is one pedagogically useful question to ask about
investigations, there are at least four others. Let us look at these before returning to this
question.
Four other dimensions of investigations.
These additional questions and the dimensions of investigations they imply, concern
the origins of the investigative question or problem being pursued and the locus of
control. Firstly, is the origin of the question based on everyday observation, common
sense, folk science (call it what you like) of the pupils or does it follow from the pupils’
understandings of scientific theories, and/or hypotheses encountered or developed in
science lessons, and/or previous experimental or other forms of data gathered? This issue
was raised during our discussions in the Scottish National Workshop.8 Another way of
putting this question is, “To what degree is the question underpinning the investigation
rooted within the scientific discipline being studied and to what degree is it rooted in the
ad hoc interests of the pupils? An example of the first type of investigation might follow
if the pupils know, come across or are introduced to the basic equation for respiration. It
could be treated as a hypothesis and a number of experiments carried out with plants,
yeast or invertebrates to test its components. In fact, this was standard practice in my
school.
An example of the second type of investigation might be when a pupil asks, “What
grows faster, a daffodil or a tulip?”9 In the Scottish context, this might arise because they
noticed both these plants appearing in the early part of the year (their everyday
observations). Of course, it could also be an example of the first type of investigation
arising because they had been introduced to vegetative reproduction in plants (so,
perhaps, to some degree from within their understanding of biology). Another example
would be an investigation of the way light makes vision possible. In my experience, a
group of Scottish pupils hypothesised (and argued strongly) that light rays come out of
the eyes onto the object being viewed, a bit like the way Superman’s heat vision or XRay vision is depicted. This clearly arises from within their folk science.
8
The issue seems to me to be an often overlooked or too little discussed dimension of investigations.
I am indebted to Jim McNally for this example which he threw at me during a heated debate, ‘well oiled’
through the excellent hospitality, and many toasts, in the home of two Norwegian colleagues. We shall
return to it as it is a more complex question than it seemed that night. The point, if I remember correctly,
that Jim was making was that, if a pupil asked that question, I would know how to find out and could either
lead or permit an investigation of the question as a form of opportunism to explore an issue of interest to
them while achieving the other benefits of investigations outlined in the introduction..
9
Colin Smith
Page 6
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
The second dimension involves who initiated the investigation – the teacher, a pupil
or pupils, or some sort of combination. This may not always follow from the first
dimension in the ways expected, For example, the above pupils believed with so much
certainty that their model of vision was correct that they saw no need to test it. They had
to be challenged to devise a test or tests of their belief that would convince others of its
validity. That is, the investigation arose not from their understanding (dimension 1) but
from teacher initiation (dimension 2). The set of respiration experiments comprised a
more traditional form of teacher-instigated investigation.
The third dimension concerns how much control the teacher or pupils have of the
actual investigation. This can lead from complete direction by the teacher to greater
freedom for the pupils, with the teacher acting more or less as a facilitator. Note that it is
possible for the pupils to raise the question and the teacher to direct the resulting
investigation. Also, as we saw above, it is possible for the teacher to raise the question or
challenge and for the pupils to set out to investigate it.
The fourth dimension concerns how open or closed the investigation is10. The sense
meant here by this is, ‘Is the investigation focussed on a narrow or closed question
requiring only one, or a few, definitive piece(s) of evidence or finding(s) to answer it (the
eye and light issue above) or a wider one (how the eye works in detail), or a wider one
still (how the senses work together in a co-ordinated way), to an even wider one (how do
all the organs of the body co-ordinate their various functions), and so on.’ The more
open, in this sense the question, the more indeterminate the end of the project would be
(another sense of open in which there would still remain unanswered questions that arose
during the investigation itself). Also, of course, it is possible to start with a closed
question and, motivated by answering it, move onto a more open question.
Finally, we have the dimension of aspects of scientific thinking outlined above.
Five dimensions of investigations
So, we have at least five dimensions of investigations. Table 3 shows these, and some
pedagogical questions11 associated with them, that teachers, and those wishing to support
them, might need to ask. Note that one advantage of this approach to thinking about
investigations is that it relieves us of the question that seems to vex some as to what
counts as an investigation (Barrow, 2006). Instead, we can think about educational
activities that may be argued to be investigative more profitably in terms of their
pedagogical aims and outcomes. Note also that it does this without necessarily implying
that our pupils are working in exactly the same way as scientists. It could be that the best
we can do is to provide them with opportunities to develop and practice the same aspects
of thinking that scientists use. Opportunities for them to participate in a range of
investigative activities, some of them more contrived than others, may be required to
ensure this development.
As you can see from table 3, dimension 5 (aspects of scientific thinking) emerges as a
key dimension connecting the others and, if it is correctly described, linking what we do
10
A seemingly parallel description of problem-based learning was raised at the Scottish National
Workshop as being relevant here.
11
I am under no illusion that this list is exhaustive ( I will not have thought of all possibilities) and
recognise that it will be open to variations for different teachers working in different contexts.
Colin Smith
Page 7
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
Table 3: Five dimensions of investigations and some associated pedagogical questions.
Dimension of Investigation
Some Associated Pedagogical Questions
1) Origin of the investigation question in pupil a) Does the question behind the investigation derive
understanding.
from pupils’ thinking inspired by folk or everyday
understandings, or does it derive from pupils’
thinking inspired by new scientific understandings
they have developed or are developing?
b) Can I justify pursuing it within the content
requirements of this course? If not, have I got time
to pursue it for other reasons (e.g. 1c and 1d or 2b,
2c) and what are the consequences, such as
continued misconceptions, if I leave it?
c) Can I justify pursuing it because it is likely to
promote engagement?
d) What aspects of scientific thinking (dimension 5)
would be supported by this investigation?
2) Origin of investigation question in learners’ and a) Did I instigate this investigation, or did the
/or teachers’ goals.
pupils, or is it the result of a jointly felt interest?
b) Did I instigate this investigation as a challenge to
pupils’ pre-understandings?
c) Did the pupils instigate this investigation out of
interest and will it promote engagement?
d) What aspects of scientific thinking (dimension 5)
would be supported by this investigation?
3) Control of the investigation.
a) Will the pupils be able to devise unaided a
suitable investigative strategy, or do we devise it
together, or do I suggest the strategy to them?
b) Am I controlling the investigation to ensure
coverage of course aims and ability by the pupils to
deal with assessment requirements? Can I achieve
this without exerting this degree of control?
c) (related to ‘a’ above) What aspects of scientific
thinking (dimension 5) do they need to devise and
carry out an investigation of this question and when
and how do I put scaffolding in place when these
aspects are absent or need help in developing? Are
some of them only able to be practised when pupils
have a certain amount of control?
4) Degree of openness of the investigation
a) Is the investigation question closed enough to be
answered quickly and with a reasonable certainty
that the pupils will come to scientifically accepted
conclusions?
b) Is the question too open to be fitted in to the
constraints of time and course requirements?
c) In open and, possibly also, closed investigations,
how will I monitor the development of pupil’s
understandings and challenge any initial and/or
developing alternate or misconceptions?
d) What aspects of scientific thinking (dimension 5)
are supported by closed and open investigations?
Are some of them particular to certain types of
investigations?
5) Aspects of scientific thinking used in the a) What aspects of scientific thinking would be
investigation
supported by this investigation and do I need to do
other types of investigation to ensure all are
practised effectively?
Colin Smith
Page 8
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
in the school to what scientists themselves do. The other dimensions involve pedagogical
decisions that have to be made to ensure other aims are met, such as adequate coverage of
required content without misconceptions (arguably equally important as developing
scientific thinking skills, Seatter, 2003) and ensuring engagement with the investigation
and the related content, while allowing or facilitating aspects of scientific thinking to be
developed and practised. I am arguing that this five dimensional model of investigations
allows us to focus on the pedagogical aims and outcomes for learning activities that can
be broadly described as investigative. We can analyse these activities using the five
dimensions and monitor the degree to which our pupils are able to use and practice the
aspects of scientific thinking The next section tries to illustrate this with some examples.
The five dimensions of investigations applied to examples.
(Since I am retired from teaching, I thought it useful to have the model tested by
people still involved in educational practice. Therefore, Fearghal Kelly and Sinclair
Mackenzie from the Reference Group have kindly provided extra examples in Appendices
2 and 3.)
‘S’ grade investigations.
In Scotland, as part of their formal assessment, pupils doing Standard Grade Science
Courses12 have to complete two investigations. These investigations are generally not
very popular with teachers and criticised for a number of reasons. 13 Most relevant here is
the argument that they are not like real science investigations. However, the purpose here
is to get away from this kind of thinking and replace it with an analysis of whether they
contribute to scientific thinking.
Probably the main reason for criticising them as investigations is that they are
undoubtedly contrived in nature. For example, in Biology pupils may be asked to
consider what might affect the rate of germination in small seeds. They are given an
assessment booklet to complete. This guides them through the process of choosing an
independent variable to investigate, formulating a hypothesis, planning how to carry out
the investigation, controlling other relevant variables, considering how they will change
the independent variable and measure its effect on the dependent variable, recording their
results, graphing them and drawing a conclusion. There are, however, certain rules that
also have to be indicated to the pupil if they are to get the maximum assessment marks.
For example, they must have at least three values for the independent variable (so that a
graph may be plotted) and to do the experiment twice so that they can average their
results. It probably depends on the teacher whether these have to be told just before the
investigation or have been part of their general training.14 How does this investigation fit
onto our 5 dimensional model? Table 4 gives a simplified analysis. It is simplified
12
It seems increasingly likely that these courses will either be voluntarily or compulsorily phased out
within the current policy and curriculum framework. However, at the time of writing, many schools still
follow these courses with 14-16 year olds.
13
In my experience at least.
14
In my case, I found myself doing a bit of back tracking on earlier teaching. I would normally emphasise
‘the more measurements you can realistically take, the better’ rule but resources would make this
Colin Smith
Page 9
Table 4: Analyis of ‘S’ Grade Investigations
Dimension of Investigation
Aspects (where relevant)
1) Origin of the investigation
question in pupil understanding
2) Origin of investigation
question in learners’ and /or
teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Jan 2010 Nottingham,
Analysis
Depends on investigation
Germination is in the course, so
may be construed as relating to
their developing biological
understanding. However, if they
have not reached germination,
they still generally have no
problem generating lists of
relevant variables from their own
understanding.
Teachers’ assessment goals
Teacher through assessment
booklet and allocation of
resources
Relatively closed
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and coordinate theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
one’s thinking.
Developing control of thinking
and representations metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and
analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm
late’ heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)
Supported15
Not supported
Supported through analysis of
graphs
Supported
Supported, at least in terms of
choosing how to measure
dependent variable – see foot
note 15
Possibility of need to revise
thinking supported if their
hypotheses are not in line with
results actually obtained
Supported through graphs
Supported through booklet.
Not supported
Not supported
Not supported
impossible here and so I had to tell them that three measurements per experiment is all that is needed to
meet the assessment requirements.
15
It is worth emphasising again the interdependence of these aspects of scientific thinking. The pupils have
to choose what to observe as a suitable measurement (e.g. the time to the emergence of a young root
(radicle). This depends on at least some rudimentary understanding of the fact that when a seed germinates,
it will cause a root to grow (cause and effect thinking)
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 10
Jan 2010
because, obviously, it is possible to say much more about some of the aspects than
statements such as supported/not supported. For example, observations are noted as being
supported by this form of investigation but no attempt is made here to expand on this in
terms of how it interacts with other aspects of scientific thinking. The aim here is simpler,
merely to show that the tool can be applied. However, this form of deeper analysis would
probably be a requirement for anyone wishing to either impose investigations on
teachers, or for teachers themselves planning how to utilise a range of investigations to
help their pupils to develop scientific thinking.
Perhaps the table suggests that this form of formally assessed investigation is more
use than we might suspect and could be justified as one tool in supporting some of the
aspects of scientific thinking. Nevertheless, even in accepting this, we should also be
aware that a table like this, however useful in some respects, might hide issues. For
example, as recorded in the table, the booklet can be supportive of metacognition related
to how to direct one’s thinking through an investigation aimed at hypothesis testing
through what might be called a ‘fair test procedure’, but only if the pupils perceive it as
such. If they see it as no more than an assessment booklet to be completed, then that
metacognitive support may be lost. There is always a context to be set by the teachers,
but for them to realise that and find ways to create that context, they need to be aware of
the issue and see it as one worth resolving. To be aware of the issue teachers need
conceptual tools - if not this model, then something else.16
Experiments to test respiration equation.
As with the Standard Grade investigations, these are included here to see what, if any,
support the more traditional forms of science teaching may give to pupils developing
scientific thinking so that we may get a clearer picture of the added value of other
approaches. Although there are variations, a more or less standard set of experiment can
be found in Scottish textbooks (e.g. Torrance, 2001) that can be presented as testing the
validity of the equation for respiration17. In addition to presenting an opportunity for
Figure 1: Oxygen uptake (Torrance, 2001, page 72
16
I will always argue that once teachers have the conceptual tools to understand and act with, and the
freedom and will to do so, they are best placed to come up with solutions.
17
Carbohy drate + oxygen
carbon dioxide + water + energy
The examples shown here test the
uptake of oxygen, release of carbon dioxide by a variety of organisms and release of energy by as many
organisms one has time to test.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 11
Jan 2010
Figure 2: Release of Carbon dioxide in respiration (Torrance, 2001, page 73)
Figure 3: Release of Carbon dioxide by green plants (Torrance, 2001, page 73)
Figure 4: Release of heat by respiring animal (Torrance, 2001, page 74)
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 12
Jan 2010
pupils to engage in practical work, understanding these experiments also constituted
useful preparation for formal exams in which questions were designed around these or
similar forms of experiment. In general, these experiments use a fair test procedure
through the use of controls- see examples in figures.
Other experiments on similar themes can be carried out.. They might be introduced to
the pupils as something like, “Experiments to test the validity of the respiration equation.
There is some analogy required as the pupils are guided to see the process of respiration
as being similar to burning without them going on fire. Therefore the energy is released
in a more controlled way. Also, note that the thinking in some of the experiments is fairly
sophisticated. In the experiment in figure 2, they have to understand that carbon dioxide
changes the pH of Bicarbonate Indicator and hence its colour. For that in figure 3, they
have to follow the facts that sodium hydroxide absorbs the carbon dioxide from the
incoming air, that lime water A container checks that no carbon dioxide is entering the jar
with the plant, and, therefore, any carbon dioxide showing in lime water B must have
come from the plant. In example 4, they have to grasp reasoning about heat causing the
air in test tube A to expand relative to that in B. So, how does all this come out against
the dimensions of investigations (Table 5)?
Table 5: Analysis of series of experiments investigating respiration
Dimension of Investigation
Aspects (where relevant)
1) Origin of the investigation
question in pupil understanding
2) Origin of investigation question in
learners’ and /or teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Analysis
Pupil understanding but guided to
issue by teacher
Teachers goals usually. Teacher
would need to find ways of making
pupil feel goals were there own
Teacher since are following standard
experiments, rather than designing
them from scratch
Closed
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and co-ordinate
theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in one’s
thinking.
Developing control of thinking and
representations - metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm late’
heuristic
Collaborative (distributed reasoning)
Supported
Supported (Plants and animals, for
example)
Supported
Supported
Supported
Ability to co-ordinate theory and
evidence, Other aspects less clear.
Supported by diagrams
Potentially, but probably needs
skilful signposting by the teacher.
Supported if analogy with burning
pursued.
Not supported
These experiments tend to be teacher
led, so this would depend upon the
quality of interaction.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 13
Jan 2010
Again, there is more support for the aspects of scientific thinking than we might
assume at first sight. However, this and the first example are beginning to highlight a
responsibility for science teachers18 not to merely follow the experimental pathways in a
“we must do this” frame of mind but to find ways of engaging pupils in ways that enable
them to see the connections between the ways they are being encouraged to think and the
way that scientists think. Hints emerge for teachers in developing their practice, such as
encouraging forms of interaction between oneself and the pupils that promote
collaborative thinking. From the point of view of this project, advanced methods might
not be only teachers doing more investigations, but doing the ones they already do with
more advanced thinking and preparation on their part. To support them in this, how do
we help teachers to find ways to communicate the dimensions of scientific thinking to the
pupils and to be aware when they are practising them?
My Understanding of the Eye
This was a project that a colleague19 and myself devised a few years ago for a class of
thirteen year olds out of a concern to help pupils improve their understanding of topics in
the curriculum. It was also intended as an alternative way of teaching the topic from the
more teacher led approach set out in the teaching materials normally used, while ensuring
that the pupils learned what the needed to for the end of unit assessment. It is included
here, not as an example of brilliant practice, but as something that might not normally be
included as investigative in the more usual sense, although it did give rise to an
unscheduled experiment. We had began to develop what we thought of as a pedagogical
model of understanding in science. Quite simply, it conceived of understanding as
moving from disconnected understanding (things a person might know or, as it turns out,
think he/she might know, about the topic but have not thought about in a connected way)
to descriptive understanding (being able to describe the phenomenon or, in this case, the
object, its parts and what they do) to explanatory understanding (being able to give
reasons for the phenomenon or, again in this case, explain how the parts of the object
work together to produce the result we observe – seeing).20
The materials we provided were quite simple. First, a blank sheet of A3 paper with
the words, “I know” scattered a few times at random across it. The pupils were asked to
18
As if they do not have enough already.
This was a former physics teacher who now works in supporting pupils with learning difficulties of
which there were a number in this class, sufficient to make it difficult to keep the class as a whole engaged.
20
This pedagogical model of understanding in science was loosely based on Mayr’s (e.g.1997) analysis of
types of questions in science – “What?”, “How?” and “Why”. In Mayr’s view, Biology is more heavily
descriptive than Physics and Chemistry. In the above activity, the forms of understanding aimed for are in
line with Mayr’s descriptions of “What?” and “How?” questions. “Why?” questions are, in Mayr’s way of
describing them, to do with the reasons why the object (the eye) is the way it is and not some other possible
form. The answers to this type of question lie in the historical narrative that tells the story of the evolution
of the eye and were not pursued in this activity. According to Mayr, this type of “Why explanation” is a
factor that makes biology different from the physical sciences. In our own minds, we were distinguishing in
our pedagogical model between “How explanations” and “Why explanations” and focussing here on the
former. However, in practice, ‘how descriptions’ and ‘how explanations’ probably merge. For example,
describing how the heart works is a major part in an explanation of how it pumps blood round the body.
19
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 14
Jan 2010
turn the ‘I knows’ into statements about the eyes and to add as many more as they liked.
If they saw that some were related, they could write them close together. This represented
their disconnected understanding or, in some cases, various degrees of connected
understandings that comprised everyday or folk understandings of the eye. Perhaps
naively, we had not really expected the strength of some pupils’ prior understandings.
One group, who became increasingly voluble and persuasive to their peers as the project
progressed, subscribed to the folk explanatory understanding mentioned earlier of light
coming out of the eye to make vision possible. However, we thought that they would be
silenced as we moved onto the next stage.
The second material was again a sheet of A3 paper, This time there was a space with
the heading labelled, “Diagram of the Eye’” and a large two columned table with the
headings, ‘Part of Eye’ and “Description of What it Does”. The pupils were able to use
the various resources available to work in groups to complete these sheets. The resources
included the usual school textbooks, videos of the eye (including one of an eye
dissection21), models of the eye and access in turns to the internet. All the groups
successfully completed these sheets through interacting with all of these resources with
the usual set of acceptable descriptions of function (i.e. in line with the normal scientific
descriptions). However, to our surprise, the ‘superman vision’ theory persisted and was
actually spreading amongst the class. This was despite having noted, for example, that the
lens focuses light on the retina. The theory22 seemed to be something like this.
 We see because light comes out of our eyes and hits objects.
 As evidence of this we can see in the dark – for examples, I can make out
objects in my bedroom after the light is out.
 The reason that it takes a bit of time to see these objects after the light goes
out is that the iris has to widen to let out more light in the dark.
 Bright light makes it easier for me to see because it charges up my eyes (some
pupils) or my eyes only have a certain amount of light so in bright light I don’t
need to use so much to see well (other pupils).
As noted earlier, they were so convinced of their theory that light comes out of the eyes
that they saw little need to test it, despite our argument for a different theory and attempts
to point out inconsistencies within theirs. However, for reasons that will become obvious,
we had to resolve this issue before moving to the third part of the activity. In the end, we
had to challenge them to do an experiment that would convince us to drop our theory and
to adopt theirs. The solution they came to was to use a reasonably large, windowless store
room and to black it out completely, including the spaces round the door and the keyhole.
We then gathered together in the room and, of course, could not see a thing, no matter
how long we left the light off. They extended the experiment by pointing a small,
unidirectional beam from a ray box at various objects and noted they could only see what
the beam pointed to. They tried charging up their eyes with the beam, but again noted
they could not see anything as soon as they switched it off. They therefore, concluded
21
At this time, we were not allowed for Health and Safety reasons to allow dissections of eyes by the
pupils or as a demonstration. The video had been recorded to get round this restriction to a degree .
22
I wish now that we had recorded their theory and arguments in detail .
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 15
Jan 2010
that our theory was better, though I am not sure that ‘better’ meant it was ‘definitely
correct.’
Table 6: ‘My understanding of the eye’ project
Dimension of Investigation
Aspects (where relevant)
1) Origin of the investigation
question in pupil understanding
2) Origin of investigation
question in learners’ and /or
teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and coordinate theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
one’s thinking.
Developing control of thinking
and representations metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and
analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm
late’ heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)
Analysis
Original question derived from
teachers’ conceptions of pupil
understanding. Unscheduled
experiments originated directly
from pupils’ understanding
Originated in teachers’ goals,
including unscheduled
experiments, though these were
turned into goal for pupils of
proving their theory
Teacher set parameters through
materials provided, but pupils
directed themselves within these.
More open than simple
hypothesis testing but closed in
that resources provided would
tend to direct them towards
particular answers. Also,
experimental test of pupils’
theory closed in sense that it
could be resolved relatively
easily.
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported (more so through pupil
experiment)
Supported (through pupil
experiment)
Supported through models,
diagrams etc.
Supported
Supported in theory debate
Not supported
Supported through group work
and theory debate
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 16
Jan 2010
This allowed us to move to the third activity. The sheets for this can be found in
appendix 1. Although we billed this as moving on to a higher form of understanding, we
also conceived of this as providing evidence of their individual understanding. We,
therefore, organised this as an individual rather than a group activity.23 Although they had
a choice of ways of presenting, this seemed too radical for them and they all chose to
write it up or to do a poster that they could talk about.24 In talking through these with
them it was obvious to us that there were variations in how well they could integrate their
knowledge of the individual parts of the eye into an explanation of how it works. There
were also variations in their awareness of unexplained issues, such as the fact that the
image would be inverted on the retina but we do not experience it as such in our brains.
However, given our aims to engage the pupils more effectively and to better support their
development of understanding, we counted the project as successful since more pupils
were better able to give descriptions of how the eye worked than had been able to give
similar descriptions in the past. The point here is, though, how does it fare against our
dimensions of investigations (Table 6)? From the table, and thanks to the unexpected
extension, quite well it would seem. One point worth noting however, is that the
hypothesis testing involved in this example is of a different type to the experiment and
control model used in the “S” Grade example above. In this case, predictions are made
based on the theory and those predictions are then tested and the weight of evidence
assessed.
Which grows faster – tulip or daffodil.
As indicated earlier, this example is not a real investigation in the sense that I have
never used it with pupils but one that derives from a debate about the use of
investigations in science and taking advantage of opportunities raised by pupils to carry
them out around questions they raise themselves. In this way, they can experience some
of the benefits of investigations. This point is not in dispute here, but this particular
investigation does raise some issues that only came to me on further reflection upon this
conversation, and so is included in this section.
At first sight, the problem might seem quite straightforward to investigate, at least if
there is sufficient time to wait for the results. We could get hold of a set of daffodil bulbs
and a set of tulip bulbs and ensure that they are planted in conditions in which all other
variables such as aeration, water supply, and temperature do not vary. We need to agree a
measure of growth – say, time to flower opening – but it seems like a straight-forward,
‘fair test’ methodology. However, minimal research of daffodils and tulips25 quickly
reveals complicating factors. Both daffodils and tulips have examples that flower as early
as February and as late as May. This can be found by either reading the literature or
observing people’s gardens but, either way, time to flowering does not look such a good
23
In retrospect, it may have been better to continue with group work, but we were responding in part to the
pressures of the time to assess individuals in individual ways
24
Forms of presentation using ICT are more likely nowadays but pupils had more limited experience of
these at this time.
25
I have only carried out minimal research on various gardening websites, so the problem may be even
more complicated.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 17
Jan 2010
method of measuring rate of growth. Do they start at different times but grow at the same
rate, or are later flowering varieties just slower growing in both tulips and daffodils?
Table 7: Possible analysis of daffodil/tulip investigation
Dimension of Investigation
Aspects (where relevant)
1) Origin of the investigation
question in pupil understanding
2) Origin of investigation
question in learners’ and /or
teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and coordinate theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
one’s thinking.
Developing control of thinking
and representations metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and
analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm
late’ heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)
Analysis
Depends. Bulbs are in the course,
so question may be construed as
relating to their developing
biological understanding..
Pupils’ goals
Probably both through discussion
Closed (at first sight). Opens up if
more background research is
done.
Supported26
supported
Supported through analysis of
graphs
Supported
Supported, at least in terms of
choosing how to measure
dependent variable
Possibility of need to revise
thinking supported if their
hypotheses are not in line with
results actually obtained. More
supported if widened through
pupils doing background research
Supported through graphs or
other forms of presenting results
Supported generally, but perhaps
more meaningful if more
background research is carried
out
Not sure
Not supported
Supported through discussions
that are likely to result
Some bulbs, at least, apparently start growth as early as the previous October by
putting out roots, hence the reason for ensuring they are planted by early autumn.
However, the question if all start at this time needs further literature research or
observationally investigated in its own right. There are many varieties of both types,
ranging from natural species to hybrids selected for particular features attractive to
26
Again the interdependence of these aspects should be noted.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 18
Jan 2010
gardeners. Again, has this ‘muddied the waters’ and has it done so to a degree that makes
the original question actually meaningless, in scientific or any other terms.
We, therefore, have an example of an investigation that might analyse out as in table
7, according to how much background literature and field observational research is
carried out before the investigation. If we went for the initial experiment of simply
getting a collection of each type of bulb and measuring time to flowering, we may find no
difference, or that daffodils grow faster than tulips, or that tulips grow faster than
daffodils. However, this would tell us nothing really meaningful about daffodils or tulips
as a whole, only the examples we used, even if it did allow practice at some aspects of
scientific thinking. Carrying out, as scientists probably would, some prior background
research transforms the problem from a seemingly straight-forward, hypothesis testing
experiment, using a ‘fair-test’ format, to something more complex. It possibly even
makes the original question meaningless. This raises the interesting question of whether
we are content if investigations support aspects of scientific thinking, even if the lack of
setting them in the wider context of what is known already would make our results
erroneous (if, for example, is possible if our results with the examples selected come out
in favour of one or the other reaching flowering first)27 or if it even makes the original
investigative question meaningless in the context of the wider knowledge it provides. It
also makes us aware that, where the knowledge from the investigation is perhaps more
important than this example in exam terms, there is a need to ensure that the wider
understanding of the pupils will render the investigation and the results meaningful for
them and that this may require either careful prior teaching or ensuring the background
investigations of the literature and/or the setting to which the investigation applies are
carried out.
Utility of the 5 dimensional model of investigations
From the examples, including those found in appendices 2 and 3, and the comments
of the practitioners involved stating that it helped their thinking, the model of school
science investigations appears to have some utility. Firstly, it begins to allow us to
consider reasons for doing the investigation, including not only which aspects of
scientific thinking it supports, but also other pedagogical justifications or issues such as
the origin of the question being investigated and who should direct the process. It also
provides a focus for thinking about how to improve the investigative experience for the
pupils. However, the examples of analyses based on this model are relatively rudimentary
at this stage. For example, we need to discuss and develop better ways in which the
contributions of investigative activities to aspects of scientific thinking can be described
than ‘supported’ or ‘not supported’. Also, of course, it would be advisable to further
explore the categories in the model and revise them where necessary. This is very
important to this project as the analysis of the model suggests that innovation in teaching
may not involve only doing more investigations, but also doing the ones we do already
(including activities we might normally hesitate to call investigative) in ways that make
27
I have no idea if other methods of measurement, such as rate of shoot growth from first appearance,
would produce a more reliable measure. Presumably, artificial selection for flowering time must be
changing some variable of growth, such as rate of shoot growth, or time growth begins.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 19
Jan 2010
clear to the pupils that they really are practising to be scientists and to use aspects of
scientific thinking. Finding ways to help pupils direct themselves towards the goals of
scientific thinking (have the aspects of scientific thinking as metacognitive goals) is an
important pedagogical aim for this project and for teachers generally.
Second, the model begins to empower us to make pedagogical decisions regarding
which investigations should be done in which circumstances, for example:
 Is it worth doing at all/ has it been worth doing?
 Is it worth doing because it models scientific practice and supports scientific
thinking, even if the results do not tell us much that is useful or meaningful
within a broader scientific understanding?
 What support do I need to put in place, if any, to ensure a valid method is
followed?
 How do I monitor the development of misconceptions when this may be a
problem?
 Do I need to do some expository teaching to deal with the above two points?
 What investigations do I need to do to support the development of scientific
thinking? Do I need to develop a ‘pathway’ through different types of
investigations to support the development of all aspects of scientific thinking?
Can I go backwards and forwards between different types of investigations
(closed/open, teacher controlled/ pupil controlled, teacher initiated/ pupil
initiated, and so on) to support the development of all aspects of scientific
thinking?
We can, therefore, use the model to develop a taxonomy of investigations with
different aims and outcomes in mind.
From the examples so far, one row in the model seems worthy of further comment at
this stage. It is perhaps, not surprising that the ‘prove now, disprove later heuristic’ may
be particularly difficult to support in school science lessons. This, in Feist’s description,
is applied by scientists who are successful in making original contributions to the
development of science. It is possibly, therefore, only likely to occur in rare situations in
school science and be something that is only regularly found in the work of professional
scientists.28 Certainly it seems to require investigations that are more than usually original
and open.
Another point, certainly surprising to those of us who provided the examples, was the
fact that some of the traditional investigative activities (using the term broadly) come out
as more supportive of scientific thinking than we expected. Yet, there was still no great
28
In discussing this with Fearghal, I could only think of one school example - a pupil who may have used
this heuristic in a Sixth Year Studies’ investigation. Sixth Year Studies is a now defunct course that was
intended to prepare pupils for the transition from school to university. Therefore, as one of its components,
pupils were encouraged to carry out an investigation that was as original as possible. This pupil chose to
investigate the effect of keeping male mice within the scent of female mice but physically isolated from
them, then comparing the males’ learning of a maze with females at the goal with other factors such as food
and water, of which no mice had been deprived. This is probably an unusual idea for a pupil to have.
Fearghal referred to his experience in a research context before taking up teaching. Then there seemed to be
a process of following up ideas for which there was only a little evidence by initially trying to find more
evidence.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 20
Jan 2010
feeling amongst us that this support was being fully utilised in practice. Perhaps, this was
because the investigations, in the main, were not instigated by the pupils (see appendix
2). Or possibly, as touched upon earlier, there is an issue of metacognition – the links
between the activities and the aspects of scientific thinking are not clear in the minds of
the pupils and, perhaps, also the minds of the teachers.
Further issues arose regarding the levels of ability of the pupils to think abstractly
(Appendix 3) and of the knowledge the pupils (and teacher) require to carry out a
scientifically meaningful investigation (Appendix 3 and daffodil/tulip example above).
There is, perhaps, a danger that we forget the importance of knowledge and that we need
to be careful to try to make our investigations truly meaningful in relation to this, as well
as meaningful in terms of the aspects of scientific thinking that are being practiced.
Taking the above together, the model is useful to teachers and ourselves when
working in partnership or alone to promote investigative-based science lessons. The
examples of pedagogical questions in table 3 and above might be answered in different
ways in different countries and there might even be different questions to be asked.
However, the model does bring the asking of such questions to the fore and encourages
us to think through the issues arising in pedagogically fruitful ways.
Connecting to Work Packages- an integrating tool?
In the days of trying to put together our proposal in response to the EU Call, we were
constantly reminded not to use the ‘research word’. To paraphrase, our brief was to find
ways of using what is already known to help teachers to use more advanced teaching
methods, particularly investigative ones. Of course, like it or not, that in itself is a
research question. How do we begin to bring together the ever- growing literature on
science education in ways that teachers can utilise in the range of curricular and cultural
contexts across Europe? In fact, how do we bring together our Work Packages in the
most profitable way for this end? One answer is that we develop a conceptual framework
that is both theoretically and pedagogically/practically satisfying and it is suggested here
that the five dimensional model of investigations, particularly, perhaps, for ourselves
dimension 5 (aspects of scientific thinking), is the beginning of such a framework. The
other dimensions are, again perhaps, more of a focus for teachers in thinking about what
they are doing. Can the claim of facilitating integration of our work be justified?
Firstly, research can be said to usually have a basis somewhere in a, sometimes but
not always, philosophically disputed claim or organising principle that is, nevertheless,
taken as common sense, at least by the researchers concerned– events have a cause, there
are laws of nature, life evolves, and so on (see, for example, Bird, 1998, Ellis, 2002,
Good, 1981, Ladyman, 2002). The organising principle here is that in order to retain an
interest in science, people have to be able to think scientifically. Scientific literacy, skills
in scientific argumentation, and even the ability of teachers to teach science are enhanced
when we are able to think scientifically.29 I am not going to spend time trying to justify
this principle philosophically, theoretically or empirically. It is simply the foundation on
which the following is based. It is left to others to decide how shaky it is and to offer
29
The issue that science teachers may themselves have had little experience of investigative work and so
have a limited ability to think scientifically was also discussed at the Scottish National Workshop.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 21
Jan 2010
alternatives.30 Second in the five dimensional model of investigations, we have a tool for
describing scientific thinking and how educational activities may contribute to its
development. How does this fit with the work packages?
Work Package 2.
This package is working towards a deliverable of a final Policy and Practice Report.
A component of this might be how supportive policy is of the dimensions of
investigation. A draft attempt of this for the Curriculum for Excellence’s (the curriculum
framework currently being developed in Scotland) relationship with dimension 5, aspects
of scientific thinking is attached as Appendix 4.
Work Package 3
The 5 dimensional model of investigations might be a useful tool promoting
..co-operation between teachers in order to implement innovative
approaches at school level. Teachers will be supported to reflect upon,
develop and evaluate their own instruction. The training units, which can
be combined with packages from other WPs, enables teachers to design
learning environments that focus on students' learning and develop
their interest in science and technology. (WP3, my emphasis)
Examples have been provided in this paper that point towards how the model of
investigations suggested can be used in this type of professional practice.
Work Package 4
This work package is also concerned with collaboration and reflection amongst
teachers and again the model may be useful in aiding this. Specifically, the tool might be
useful in supporting the following outcome.
A workbook is planned for M12. It aims to support collective reflection
during workshops about the ways in which teacher collaboration could
reinforce IBST, encourage positive consideration of learner's diversity
and enhance pupils' learning outcomes (scientific knowledge, motivation,
self-esteem, metacognition (WP4b).
In addition, this WP is already considering metacognition (See Michel Grangeat’s
presentation on Events page of Wiki) and may be able to adapt this work to show how
metacognition as an aspect of scientific thinking develops, while also influencing the
development of the other aspects.
Work Package 5
This work package aims specifically to develop knowledge, practices and tools to
help teacher educators and pre-service teachers overcome constraints on the
30
This is a paper aimed at promoting discussion. All I ask is that this section be evaluated separately from
the previous ones.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 22
Jan 2010
implementation of innovative methods in science education. A theme is to help teachers
to overcome the problems that they raise themselves. The tool offers a framework within
which these problems (possible curriculum constraints, ways of evaluating likely utility
of the investigations, and so on) can be discussed.
Work Package 6
Due to its close alliance with WP5 and its focus on more experienced teachers, the
above points also apply.
Work Package 7
Based on the following statements made by this WP, it is obviously well placed to
flesh out, and perhaps augment, dimension 5 of the model, particularly those aspects in
table 2 and to provide some guidance in how to work through different kinds of
investigation to cover aspects of scientific thinking.
3. The resources consist of teaching sequences and tasks for use in teacher
education, to support the construction of conceptual tools and the
development of argumentation competencies; and in the classroom in
primary, middle and secondary school.
4. The tasks require students and student teachers to demonstrate the
appropriation of discursive practices of science, e.g. writing reports about
laboratory inquiry tasks or about decision-making, including articulating
written arguments; presenting oral summaries of the tasks and discussing
them with their peers (persuasive dimension of argumentation).
5. To support dialogic communicative approaches in the classroom,
WP7 focuses on learning environments and tasks supporting deepreasoning questions, on the influence of students' 'answering words' on
classroom discourse and to the role of questioning in argumentation, e.g.
generating deep-reasoning questions; questioning claims on the basis of
available evidence; students' spontaneous questions
Work Package 8
Again this work package, through its analyses of scientific literacy is well placed to
elaborate on and, possibly augment, the aspects of scientific thinking. Together, WP7 and
WP8 may find ways to improve the descriptions of how different types of investigations
support scientific thinking beyond ‘support’ and ‘unsupported’
Work Package 9
Although this WP is giving priority to exiting indicators it does state that:
WP9 aims to provide knowledge and tools that will be useful to science
teachers and teacher educators in the formative assessment of practice,
including the perspective of students in science classrooms.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 23
Jan 2010
The tool offered here may be able to contribute to this.
A note on disciplinary differences in the sciences.
This issue was deliberately set aside, but has to be paid some attention now. The
model, as it currently stands, can probably deal with some differences between the
disciplines. For example, we could most likely develop descriptions of cause and effect
thinking to take account of Mayr’s (1997) arguments that Physics, Chemistry and
Biology all involve descriptions and explanations involving proximal causation, but that
Biology (at times, at least) also makes use of evolutionary causes. However, there may be
something missing from the model.31 As Gardner and Boix-Mansilla observe:
Disciplines consist of approaches devised by scholars over the
centuries in order to address essential questions, issues, and
phenomena drawn from the natural and human worlds; they
include methods of inquiry, networks of concepts, theoretical
frameworks, techniques for acquiring and verifying findings,
appropriate images, symbol systems, vocabularies and mental
models. (1994/1999, page 81)
The issues for us here are that these components of disciplines are not independent
(see also, Driver, 1988; Kosso, 2009 and quotes on title page), and that networks of
concepts and theoretical frameworks are not common sense, or the sciences would not
have needed to develop them. The genius of people like Newton, Darwin and Einstein is
that they were instrumental in providing sufficient argument or evidence to convince
enough people to change their ways of thinking about the world. Thinking about an
object as continuing to move unless a force acts upon it to stop it or change its direction is
a different perspective from thinking this object moved because I pushed it with a certain
degree of strength. Thinking about species as evolving (or being likely to evolve in a
variable environment) is a different perspective from thinking of them as fixed and
unchanging. In other words, theoretical perspectives such as these effect the way we
observe the world around us, they effect our cause and effect thinking, the sorts of
hypotheses we are likely to form, and so on. Pupils who have not ‘fully absorbed’ these
theoretical perspectives may be construed as using alternative conceptions (for example,
Driver, 1989) so that they are operating by different conceptual frameworks from those
used by scientists and sometimes continue to do, despite teachers’ efforts to give them
experiences that change this state of affair (Mortimer and Scott, 2003; Solomon, 1983).
In Table 3, the pedagogical question was raised under ‘openness of investigation,’
regarding how misconceptions, or alternative frameworks, could be monitored and dealt
with (Table 3, question 4). Making teachers aware of the problem in this way, and
leaving them to deal with it, may be the best help we can provide. The issue of
conceptual frameworks is raised without specifically placing it in the model of
31
This is not a criticism of Feist. In terms of his original purpose, this may not be an omission. That it
appears as one here may be an artefact of the way his analysis has been adapted in this paper.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 24
Jan 2010
investigations32. However, I am not actually sure at this stage if this is the best solution
but cannot see how to incorporate conceptual networks and theoretical frameworks
directly into the model.
However, raising the issue of concepts and theoretical frameworks raises questions
that are pertinent to this project. What if, as some authors (for example, Airy and Linder,
2009, Hyland, 2008; Korn, 2005; Maynard Smith, 2000; Mayr, 1997; Rosenberg, 1985)
have argued, biology has various differences in the nature of these components compared
with physics and chemistry? How do these various differences interact with other aspects
of scientific thinking and what, if any effects do these interactions have on how pupils
learn science through investigations? Against this, we also have to consider the
possibility of sciences achieving new forms of synergy with each other, as appears to be
happening between Biology and Physics (Britton, 2000). Are new forms of investigation
becoming possible and new opportunities for finding engaging investigative questions
opening up? In thinking about these questions we need to remember that the tangled web
that is the nature of science (Kosso, 2009) is likely to become ever more entangled and
that we should beware of the ‘lure of the simplistic’ (Dupré, 2002). Succumbing to this
lure may be appropriate at times to make progress but may also harbour dangers. I have
argued, with examples from real and imaginary school science activities that the model of
investigations offered in this paper is useful to both teachers and ourselves in thinking
how to advance the use of investigations in science teaching to help our pupils to develop
aspects of scientific thinking, and this may be a legitimate surrender to the simplistic.
However, even for this purpose, we can work together to enhance its capabilities and
utility by bringing together the efforts of the different work packages. At the same time,
we need to be aware that there are still many questions to answer about how the
components interact with each other and with the conceptual networks and theoretical
frameworks that make up the different sciences and that these are complex questions
requiring us to develop ever more powerful pedagogical models.
Conclusion
The prime motivation in working towards the model of investigations was to explore
how investigations support the development of scientific thinking. That is to help us to
better think pedagogically about supporting scientific thinking in our young people. That
is probably the prime way in which it should be evaluated. Does it do this? Examples
from practice have been offered to support the claim that it does, not only from myself,
but also from practitioner members of our Reference Group. One suggestion emerging
from these examples is that current practices may potentially provide more support in
developing aspects of scientific thinking than we think. To realise that potential,
however, may require us to find ways to allow pupils to metacognitively connect what
they are doing with scientific thinking. It would be useful if we could find a way to have
the aspects of scientific thinking represented to them in a form they can understand and
use as a metacognitive goal. A related and, it is suggested here, useful feature of the
model is that it frees us from the need to define which activities count as investigative
32
As discussed by myself elsewhere in this paper and by Sinclair in Appendix 3, there are possibly
occasions when both teachers and pupils need more background knowledge to make an investigation really
meaningful.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 25
Jan 2010
and which do not. Instead, we can ask how activities contribute to helping pupils to
develop aspects of scientific thinking. We also need not worry so much as to whether
what the pupils are doing mimics the work of professional scientists. Again, what is
crucial is the ability for both teachers and pupils to connect the activities to aspects of
scientific thinking. Of course, there is no reason in principle (except any constraints of
curriculum and time) why we should not aim to allow pupils to engage in ‘full blown,’
original and open ended investigations and the model may help us to plot a route (or
routes) to that end. That is, to create and follow a taxonomy of investigations.
The five-dimensional model of investigations seems also to promise the ability to
think about how supportive policy is of investigations and aspects of scientific thinking,
and goes some way towards helping us to integrate our work across the WPs. It provides
a way of working towards an organising principle for this integration - that in order to
retain an interest in science, people have to be able to think scientifically. Nevertheless,
in all of these roles, it should be regarded as a prototype in need of further development
and refinement. There is much for us to discuss around these issues alone. It remains to
be seen if it can develop in all of these possible roles, or just some of them. In attempting
this, we are working towards dealing with the procedural understandings (Roberts and
Gott, 1999) of all the science disciplines – the aspects of thinking scientifically.
However, as both the discussions of disciplinary differences and of some of the
examples of the application of the model to possible and actual pupil investigations show,
there are issues of background scientific knowledge and also substantive understanding –
concepts, laws and theories (Roberts and Gott, 1999) - that may vary between the
disciplines and so impact upon how aspects of scientific thinking are supported or even
affect whether the results of such thinking leads to scientifically meaningful results. At
the moment, given the apparent difficulty in adding the effects of these to the model, we
seem to be able to little more than leave it to the current expertise of the teacher to tweak
or intervene more substantially in the investigative process, or alternatively prepare the
pupils through some other form of teaching prior to the investigation, to try to ensure that
substantive understandings develop in line with the currently accepted forms in the
scientific community. To ignore this complexity and not to develop theory that might
help the teacher in this task may be giving in to the ‘lure of the simplistic.’ On the other
hand, not to do what we can now with the model as it stands is not using the ‘simplistic’
to our, teachers’ and pupils’ advantages. There is a balance to be struck between relying
on the expertise of teachers to overcome the shortcomings in our models and working to
overcome those shortcomings.
The main point, however, is that the three assumptions made at the beginning of the
paper are realisable through using this model. Using the model, we can support our pupils
to develop the ability to think scientifically and so retain an interest in science, even if
they do not follow it as a career. The model enables us to theorise in pedagogically useful
ways the relationships between classroom activities (and policies) and scientific thinking.
The model provides a framework that can help us to integrate our work more
effectively.33
33
Through all of this, we should recognise that teachers may be developing their own advanced methods.
As an example, Sinclair Mackenzie’s blog is well worth a visit, as is his site aimed at his pupils. The
recording of his presentation to the Highland Learning Festival on the first (blog) site is a good way of
getting into Sinclair’s work, then followed by a visit to the pupils’ site.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 26
Jan 2010
References
Airey, J. and Linde, C. (2009) A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science
Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 46, 27-49
Barrow, L. B. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal
of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265 – 278.
Bird, A. (1998) Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.
Britton, P. (2000) Teaching physics and biology: seeking synergies. Physics Education,
35, 198-202
Brownlie, S., Curran, M., Falconer, L, McAllister, J. and Smith, C (2008). Supporting
our pupils in developing their information skills: How do we do it? Caldervale High
School, Airdrie and Learning and Teaching Scotland. Copies of this report and a full set
of the teaching materials developed can be obtained on CD by emailing
profdevgroup@caldervale.n-lanark.sch.uk. The report and samples of the materials can
also be found on the Learning and Teaching Scotland website at
http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sharingpractice/c/supportinginformationliteracydevelopmen
t/introduction.asp?strReferringChannel=sharedsharingpractice
Driver, R. (1988) A Constructivist approach to curriculum development. In Fensham.
P. (Ed) Development and Dilemmas in Science Education. London: The Falmer Press.
Driver, R. (1989) The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In
Millar, R. (Ed) Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education. London: The
Falmer Press.
Dunbar, K, (1995) How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real world
laboratories. In Stenberg, R.J. and Davidson, J.E. (eds) The Nature of Insight. Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press.
Dunbar, K. (2002) Understanding the role of cognition in science: The science as
category framework. In Carruthers, P., Stitch, S. and Siegal, M. (eds) The Cognitive Basis
of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. As noted in footnote, have not been
able to access this reference to date.
Dunbar, K. and Blanchette, I. (2001) The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition; The
case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5(8), 334-339
Dupré, J. (2002) The lure of the simplistic. Philosophy of Science, 69. S284-S293.
Ellis, B. (2002) The Philosophy of Nature: A Guide to the New Essentialism.
Chesham: Acumen.
Feist, G.J. (2006) The Psychology of Science and the Origins of the Scientific Mind.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gardner, H. and Boix- Mansilla, V. (1994) Teaching for understanding in the
disciplines and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96, 198-218. Reprinted in Leach, J.
http://blog.mrmackenzie.co.uk/
http://mrmackenzie.co.uk/
Also, these sites, and Fearghal Kelly’s below, provide a useful insight to the high level educational debates
that teachers are already engaging in. I am sure there are many more examples, and we should be aiming to
develop partnerships with them.
http://edubuzz.org/blogs/fkelly/
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 27
Jan 2010
and Moon, B. (eds) (1999) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman and Open
University Press.
Gengarelly, L.M. and Abrams, E.D. (2009) Closing the Gap: Inquiry in Research and
the Secondary Classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 74-84
Good, R. (1981) The Philosophy of Evolution. Stanbridge: The Dovecote Press.
Korn, R.W. (2005) The emergence principle in biological hierarchies. Biology and
Philosophy, 20, 137=151
Kosso, P. (2009) The large-scale structure of scientific method. Science and
Education, 18, 33-42.
Ladyman, J. (2002) Understanding Philosophy of Science. Abingdon: Routledge
Lagnado, D. (2006) How do scientists think? Science, 313 (September), 1390-1391
Hyland, K. (2008) Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language
Teaching, 41, 543-462
Maynard Smith, J (2000) The concept of information in Biology. Philosophy of Science,
67, 177-194
Mayr, E. (1997) This is Biology: The Science of the Living World. Cambridge, Mass.:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
McNally, J. Confidence and loose opportunism in the classroom: Towards a
pedagogy of investigative science for beginning teachers. International Journal of
Science Teaching, 28, 423-438
Mortimer, E.F and Scott, P.H. (2003) Meaning Making in Secondary Science
Classrooms. Maidenhead: Open Univrsity Press.
Roberts, R and Gott, R. (1999) Procedural understanding: its place in the biology
curriculum. School Science Review, 81 (294), 19-25.
Rosenberg, A. (1985) The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seatter, C.S. (2003) Constructivist science teaching: Intellectual and strategic teaching
acts. Interchange, 34, 63-87.
Sharma, A. and Anderson, C.W. (2009) Recontextualization of science from Lab to
School: Implications for Science Literacy, Science and Education, 18, 1253-1275
Solomon, J. (1983) Messy, contradictory and obstinately persistent: a study of
children’s out of school ideas about energy. School Science Review, 65, 437-422.
Torrance, J. (2001) Standard Grade Biology (3rd Edition) London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Toulmin, S. (1961) Foresight and Understanding. New York: Harper and Row.
Williams, W.M., Papierno, P.B., Makel, M.C. and Ceci, S.J. (2004) Thinking like a
scientist about real-world problems: The Cornell Institute for Research on Children
Science Education Program. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25,107–126
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 28
Jan 2010
Appendix 1
Third Step of
‘Understanding of the Eye’ Activity
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 29
Jan 2010
Getting to my explanatory understanding.
In the last lessons, you started by considering what you knew about the eye, but had not
really thought about in a joined up way – what we are calling unconnected
understanding.
Then you started to build up a descriptive understanding – you can name the parts of
the eye and what they do. With this type of understanding, you can describe how the
parts of the eye fit together and what they do.
Now, to complete the process, it is time for you to build your explanatory
understanding. With this, you will be able to explain how the eye works.
Please turn over
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 30
Jan 2010
You have 1 period to produce an explanation of how the eye works. As the diagram
shows, you start with light coming from what you are looking at and explain how a
picture of it occurs in the brain.
To help you, remember what is in the following box.
You can choose to do the explanation in any of the following ways.
• You can write it in the usual way – illustrated with diagrams if you wish.
• You can do it as a cartoon script.
• You can speak it – we have a few tape recorders so that we have a record.
• You can do a flow chart.
• You can write a poem.
• You can make up a rap song.
• Or you can choose any other way that you can think of but, remember, it has to be
finished by the end of this period or it becomes – that dreaded word – HOMEWORK!
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 31
Jan 2010
Appendix 2
Fearghal Kelly
(Fearghal is a teacher of Biology in Central Scotland who is currently working as a
Development Officer for his Local Education Authority and is a member of the
Reference Group)
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 32
Jan 2010
Example A2.1
This investigation was carried out with pupils in their first year of secondary schooling,
who were, therefore, around age twelve. The question being investigated was, ‘What are
the factors limiting plant seed dispersal by wind?’ The investigation was organised as a
competition with the pupils working in teams to produce various designs of model seeds
using a marble, newspaper and sellotape and then get them to travel as far as possible
Table A2.1: Testing models of seeds to investigate factors limiting seed dispersal by wind
Dimension of Investigation
1) Origin of the investigation
question in pupil understanding
2) Origin of investigation
question in learners’ and /or
teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
Aspects (where relevant)
Analysis
Question developed by teacher
from understanding of learners’
concepts.
Activity instigated by teacher, but
competition element encourages
goals taken over by learners.
Controlled by teacher.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Page 33
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and coordinate theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
one’s thinking.
Developing control of thinking
and representations metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and
analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm
late’ heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)
Jan 2010
Closed – activity is deliberately
limited.
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported through models
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
with a fan. The weight is taken into account when calculating the winner (score =
distance/mass). Table A2.1 shows the analysis using the five dimensional model of
investigations.
Example A2.2
Transpiration is the evaporation of water from the leaves of plants. This can be
measured using a piece of apparatus called a bubble potometer (Figure A2.1) in a
standard series of experiments in which temperature, humidity or air movement can be
varied. These experiments form the basis for a formal piece of work by pupils at Higher
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 34
Jan 2010
Figure A3.1: A bubble potometer that can be used to investigate evaporation of water from leaves.
Level Biology. Higher pupils are in their fifth or sixth year of secondary education and
the investigation contributes to their final assessment, since they have to produce a
satisfactory write-up of an experiment. The question they are set is, ‘What factors affect
the rate of transpiration in plants? The analysis is shown in table A2.2.
Comment
In both these examples, I was surprised at the number of aspects of scientific thinking
that were supported. The crucial factor that seems to be missing is that pupils did not
instigate the investigations, and this may make this support less effective. However, I
found this process of analysis useful because it provided a structured tool that supported
me in reflection upon these activities. The analysis clearly highlights which aspects of
scientific thinking my investigations support and encourages me to consider whether the
investigation can be modified to add more dimensions.
Table A2.2: A transpiration investigation using bubble potometer.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Dimension of Investigation
1) Origin of the investigation
question in pupil understanding
2) Origin of investigation
question in learners’ and /or
teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Page 35
Aspects (where relevant)
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and coordinate theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
one’s thinking.
Developing control of thinking
and representations metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and
analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm
late’ heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)
Jan 2010
Analysis
Question chosen from booklet of
Higher Biology investigations.
Instigated by teacher to reinforce
content knowledge and
understanding and to carry out an
investigation.
Controlled by teacher.
Closed
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Not supported
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 36
Jan 2010
Appendix 3
Sinclair Mackenzie
(Sinclair is a teacher of Physics in the North of Scotland and a member of the Reference
Group)
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 37
Jan 2010
Example A3: Does the colour of light affect plant growth?
The investigation described below was introduced to a science class towards the end of
S2 with the aim of answering the question “Does the colour of light affect plant growth?”
The question itself arose at a Curriculum for Excellence (see appendix 4) workshop. The
investigation was designed to be as open as possible. Pupils were required to design the
experiment, select the criteria and build the equipment, the latter with the aim of
maintaining engagement among pupils less interested in Biology.
Lightproof cardboard boxes were fitted with light emitting diode (LED) circuits for red,
yellow or blue monochromatic illumination, see figure A3.1 below. Pupils were required
to learn about circuit diagrams, wiring of LEDs and how to solder components onto a
stripboard.
Figure A3.1 Test board showing operation of blue LED lighting circuit.
Pupils agreed as a class that plant height, leaf width and leaf colour would be used as
criteria to determine plant health. In the case of width and height, a ruler could be used.
For leaf colour, pupils generated colour charts similar to those used in DIY stores to
display paint ranges. A progressive sequence of green shades was painted on white
paper. When dry, squares were cut out and glued to a piece of card to provide a range of
reference colours.
Figure A3.2 Construction of comparative leaf colour chart.
Additional information available at
http://blog.mrmackenzie.co.uk/2008/04/07/is-there-really-dead-time-in-the-school-year/
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 38
Jan 2010
Table A3.1: Analysis of effect of colour of light on plant growth investigation
Dimension of Investigation
Aspects (where relevant)
Analysis
This investigation provided an
1) Origin of the investigation
opportunity for engaging practical
question in pupil understanding
work related to earlier study of the 514 photosynthesis topic and the
chance to learn wiring and soldering
skills. It was designed to appeal to
pupils whether they had expressed a
preference for biology or physics in
S3 (about age 15).
The question had been suggested at a
Curriculum for Excellence meeting
during a discussion on opportunities
to bring the three sciences together
with practical activities.
In whole class discussion, pupils
knew the role of sunlight in
photosynthesis and could state that
sunlight contains all the colours of
the spectrum but were unable to
suggest which (if any) of these
colours were more important for
plants to grow.
Working in small groups, pupils
generated ideas on how to answer the
question. All ideas were shared with
the class and pupils voted on the best
strategy to adopt for the
investigation. Occasional questions
from the teacher were used to probe
for gaps in the project plans
produced.
Colours of light were limited to red,
yellow and blue. This essentially
split the class into three teams for all
tasks related to the investigation.
Investigation was relatively open in
that pupils chose their own success
criteria and metrology methods for
determining the health and growth of
plants.
2) Origin of investigation
question in learners’ and /or
teachers’ goals.
3) Control of the investigation.
4) Degree of openness of the
investigation
5) Aspects of scientific thinking
used in the investigation
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Supported
Measurements of plant height, leaf
width and leaf colour all used to
determine plant health.
Information obtained from plant
observations were plotted to give
visual representation of findings.
Pupils used these to identify
relationships in the data.
Pattern recognition was also inherent
in the manufacture of the lighting
circuits. Pupils soon discovered for
themselves that light emitting diodes
(LEDs) only operate when connected
the correct way round. Similarly,
defects, such as overheating or using
too much solder, could prevent the
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 39
Jan 2010
circuit from functioning correctly.
Hypothesis formation and testing.
Cause and effect thinking
Ability to separate and coordinate theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
importance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising one’s thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
one’s thinking.
Developing control of thinking
and representations metacognition.
Ability to use metaphor and
analogy
Use ‘confirm early-disconfirm
late’ heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)
Supported in plant analysis by
prediction of leaf colour (comparison
with colour chart), leaf width and
plant height for each of the light
colours in use.
Pupils involved in electronics work
were able to design circuit layout and
test for equal brightness on all LEDs.
Through use of colours, height, leaf
width and function of electronic
circuit, all pupils were able to provide
an input into this at their own level.
This was easier for those working on
the electronics tasks as problems with
a theory could be spotted and
rectified relatively quickly.
With plant growth, several weeks of
data from each group (red, yellow,
blue) were required before pupils
could test their hypothesis.
Supported through use of weekly leaf
width and plant height line graphs.
Also “paint chart” for leaf colour.
This was encouraged through group
updates to teacher on findings each
week and discussions on the causes
on week-on-week changes.
For electronics tasks, discussions
around problems encountered and
strategies adopted to obtain the
required functionality, sharing of
soldering advice, best way to clean
soldering iron tips, etc.
unsupported
unsupported
See metacognition entry above.
Weekly reviews with each groups to
discuss findings of plant health,
comparison to other group data.
Soldering “masterclasses” where
pupils share their solution to a
common issue.
Comment
I found the analysis helpful in scaffolding my own reflection about what I was trying to
achieve in terms of learning with this investigation. In particular, I recalled several
interesting points from the classroom discussions instigated by the project question.
The first of these was that all pupils were convinced by a point put forward by one of
their peers that the investigation would only be “fair” if the lights inside the box were
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 40
Jan 2010
turned off at night. The general feeling in the class was that plants in an outdoor location
do not receive sunlight 24/7 and any deviation from a “natural” situation would produce
an invalid result. To accommodate this viewpoint, a timer switch was fitted to the power
socket providing electricity to the low voltage supply used to feed all three lighting
circuits. Pupils decided to switch the lights on at 7am and switch them off at 7pm and set
the timer accordingly. While this clearly demonstrates the pupils’ sense of ownership, it
also indicates the stage of cognitive development within the peer group. Is pupils’ ability
to think in abstract terms something that science teachers need to consider more carefully
when developing investigative work for pupils?
The second point relates to the selection of criteria to determine whether or not plant
growth had taken place since the previous observation. Pupils used “everyday”
knowledge to explain that one symptom of a houseplant failing to thrive is yellowing of
the leaves. They had real world evidence for looking at leaf colour, despite the
measurement difficulties that it may entail in the classroom. Of the other indicators
chosen, there was agreement on plant height but a 50/50 split between “leaf width” and
“distance between leaf shoots on the main stem.” Supporters of “leaf width” persuaded
their classmates to switch sides and so the former metric was chosen as the third response
measurement. I did not influence their choice and without the necessary botanical
knowledge I can say only that I think the latter option may have been a better indicator
for their investigation. While this analysis seems to fit the investigation quite well, it
seems that the need for appropriate background knowledge (teacher, learners or possibly
both) is not captured by the model of investigations in its current form.
Colin Smith
Nottingham,
Page 41
Jan 2010
Appendix 4
Model of investigations used to analyse support in Curriculum for
Excellence documents for developing scientific thinking.
Science Experiences and Outcomes document available in Word friendly form at
https://lsewdssps.ces.strath.ac.uk/cfe/CfE%20Science%20Experiences%20and%20outcomes/Forms/AllItems.
aspx
Note: Tables should be regarded as drafts. More reading of, and closer familiarity as a
practitioner, may alter the way the Curriculum for Excellence documents are interpreted.
Note: The Curriculum for Excellence is a major initiative in Scotland to produce a
Curriculum covering all school ages from nursery to the end of secondary. Information
available at
www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/index.asp
Scientific Thinking/scientific mind (Adapte d from Feist,
2006)
Attribu te/skill
What it involves
Observation
Categorisation
Pattern recognition
Hypothesis
formation and
testing. As develops
in scientists,
becomes an ability
to systematically
test hypotheses.
Cause and effect
thinking
Using all sensory modalities Πhearing,
tasting, feeling, smelling and seeing- to
input information
Classifying inform ation from
observations into meaningful systems
Seeing patterns of relationships
between differe nt things and events the
classified information refers to (E.g.
Thing A is always found with Thing B.
Event Y al ways follows Event X)
Arises initially from pattern
recognition. Begin to expe ct world to
behave in certain ways and test these
expectations
Arises initially out of pattern
recognition and/or hypothesis
verification. (e.g. recognition of pattern
that Y follows X or verification of this
as a hypothesis leads one to think about
causes).
More sophisticated when one realises
that co-variation is necessary, but not
sufficient, for causality.
Curriculum for Ex cellence: Science. ΤPrinciples and Pr acticeΥand ΤExp erience and
OutcomesΥ documents
Exp licitly identified?
Implicitly iden tified?
Notes and related
capacity (ies) (if any).
Yes , although not in terms of
Although the components of
It is argued that these five
all senses
this group are identified
attributes or skills
individually and explicitly in
recapitulate human
the ΤExper iences and
development Πbabies start
Yes
OutcomesΥdocument, it is
with observations, then
less clear that they are
categorisation and so on.
Yes
conceived as developing into
Language development also
the more comp lex and
dramatically adds to the
dynamic interrelationships of
preverbal forms . However,
science (see next column).
once all are in place they
have dynami c relationships
Yes , although not clear if
with each other Πobservation
more systematic testing of a
Is this an issue of simp le
is affected by causal thinking
series of hypotheses
versus
advanced
and so on. In science, so the
specified. However, this is
investigations, the latter being imp lication appears, they
likely to occur in more
more grounded in scientific
have become particularly
extended investigations
theory and the forme r mor e in well developed and integrated
everyday concerns? If so,
with some of the other
Yes
which is appropriate to our
features below.
aims? Age group differences?
Therefore, as they are such a
fundamental part of human
thinking, they can probably
be argued to contribute to all
four capacities.
Curricul um for Excel lence : Science. ΤPri nci ples and PracticeΥ and ΤExperience and Outcomes Υ
docu ments
W hat it i nvolves
Explicitly identifi ed?
Impl icitl y i dentified?
Note s an d rel ated capaci ty(ie s)
(if any).
Page
1 together as they seem
Jan No,
2010
Nottingham,
I have
put these
unless
we take
Yes, but only for those whose
All capacities
related.
ΤopennessΥ (Pinciples
r
conceptions of investigat ions and
In relation t o t hese, Feist discusses avoiding
and Pract ice) equate to.
science teaching generally,
confirmat ion bias, not ignoring
at least, some of t his.
incorporates them already
disconfirmat ory evidence outright , and
avoiding distorted interpretat ions of
evidence t o fit preconcept ions. We might
want to add dist inguishing examples from
principles.
Feist identifies thought experiments, models
Yes for diagrams,
Not sure. Indirect ly to all through
and diagrams. I wonder if he has overlooked
charts. Less clear on
its part in scient ific thinking?
graphs, charts and tables. This table, for
ot her features
example, is an at tempt in visualising a
relationship.
Again these seem related. In FeistΥsscheme,
Not in t his form
Yes, page 4 Principles and P ract ice
All capacities, since part of all
implicit is more sensory bound thought . By
thought ?
making these implicit representat ions
explicit by redescribing t hem, they become
available for thought and modification. This
is part of metacognition, along with
becoming aware of and direct ing oneΥs
thought processes.
Analogy Π seeing how something (target) is
No
Yes, but only so far as the scient ific
Do we expect young people t o
like something old (source). Metaphor Πan
theories/explanations t he young
develop t heir own analogies and
Τ as ifΥcomparison. T hink about X as if it
people are aiming t o master are
metaphors in t heir invest igations
was Y. Both useful in hypothesis and theory
based on metaphor and analogy.
or adopt those already used by
format ion, t hought experiments, creativity
scient ists?
and problem solving. Provide useful
const raints to solutions t o problems by
All capacities, since part of all
focussing strategies
thought ?
Apparent ly many successful scient ists when
No
No
Not sure. Indirect ly to all through
formulating theory look for confirming
its part in scient ific thinking?
evidence first (makes it Τ goerΥ)
, then seek
to find evidence and arguments against it.
Based on long-term analysis of weekly lab
No
No
Can we hope t hat young people
meet ings (Dunbar). Apparently, an
discuss t heir invest igations
important process is the sharing of
informally in the playground, etc?
reasoning and ideas that goes on in the more
informal sett ings (behind the scenes in
All capacities, but part icularly
hallways, etc.) and is the result of input
effect ive contribut ors?
from, many people.
Scientific Thi nki ng/scientifi c m ind (Feis t (2006)
Attribute/skil l
Colin
Smith
Ability
to separate and co-ordinate
theory and evidence.
Not ignoring/recognising the
im portance of disconfirmatory
evidence.
Realising oneΥs thinking may be
wrong and in need of revision.
Visualisation
Making the implicit explicit in
oneΥs thinking.
Developing control of thinking and
representations - metacognition.
Ability to use m etaphor and
analogy
Use Τconfirm early-disconfirm lateΥ
heuristic
Collaborative (distributed
reasoning)