Keith S. Taber
*
"Tim Howard is a little frustrated with himself that it wasn't a tidier save, because he feels he ought to have done better with the first attempt."
Thus claimed the commentator on the television highlights programme Match of the Day (BBC) commenting on the association football (soccer) match Everton vs. Spurs on May 25th 2015.
It was not a claim that was obviously contradicted by the footage being shown, but inevitably my reaction (as someone who teaches research methods to students) was 'how do you know?" The goalkeeper was busy playing a game of football, some distance from the commentator, and there was no obvious conversation between them. The answer of course is that the commentator was a mind reader who knew what someone else was thinking and feeling.
This is not so strange, as we are all mind readers – or at least we commonly make statements about the thoughts, attitude, feels, beliefs etc. of others, based on their past or present behaviour, subtle body language, facial expressions and/or the context of their current predicament.
Of course, that is not strictly mind reading, as minds are not visible. But part of normal human development is acquiring a 'theory of mind' that allows us to draw inferences about the thoughts and feelings of others – the internal subjective experiences of others – drawing upon our own feelings and thoughts as a model. In everyday life, this ability is essential to normal social functioning – even if we do not always get it right. Yet we become so used to relying upon these skills that public commentators (well, a sports commentator here) feel no discomfort in not only interpreting the play, but the feelings and thoughts of the players they are observing.
A large part of the kind of educational research that I tend to be involved in is very similar to this – it involves using available evidence to make inferences about what others think and feel. [There are many examples in the blog posts on this site.] Sometimes we have very strong evidence (what people tell us about their thoughts and feelings) but even then this is indirect evidence – we can never actually see another mind at work (1). We do not "see the cogs moving", even if we may like to talk as though we do.
In everyday life we forgive the kinds of under-determined claims made by sports commentators, and may not even notice when they draw such inferences and question what support their claims have. Sadly this seems to be a human quality that we often take for granted a little too much. A great deal of the research literature in science education is written as though research offers definite results about students' conceptions (and misconceptions) and whether or not they know something or understand it – as though such matters are simple, binary, and readily detected (1). Yet research actually suggests this is far from the case (2).
Research that explores students' thinking and learning is actually very challenging, and is in effect a enterprise to build and test models rather than uncover simple truths. I suspect quite a bit of the disagreement about the nature of student thinking in the science education research literature is down to researchers who forget that even if people are mind readers in everyday life, they must become careful and self-critical model builders when they are seeking to make claims presented as research (1).
References:
Taber, K. S. (2013). Modelling Learners and Learning in Science Education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Dordrecht: Springer.
(2) Taber, K. S. (2014). Student Thinking and Learning in Science: Perspectives on the nature and development of learners' ideas. New York: Routledge.
* Previously published at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/science-education-research: 25th May 2015
