…if you believe that "knowledge is constructed in the minds of students"?
Keith S. Taber
While the students in the experimental treatment undertook open-ended enquiry, the learners in the control condition undertook practical work to demonstrate what they had already been told was the case – a rhetorical exercise that reflected the research study they were participating in
(Ironically, they chose a research design more akin to the laboratory activities in the substandard control condition, than to the open-ended enquiry that was part of the pedagogy they considered effective!)
An imaginary conversation 1 with a team of science education researchers.
When we critically read a research paper, we interrogate the design of the study, and the argument for new knowledge claims that are being made. Authors of research papers need to anticipate the kinds of questions readers (editors, reviewers, and the wider readership on publication) will be asking as they try to decide if they find the study convincing.
Read about writing-up research
In effect, there is an asynchronous conversation.
Here I engage in 'an asynchronous conversation' with the authors of a research paper I was interrogating:
What was your study about?
"This study investigated the effect of the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach on grade 9 students' understanding of chemical change and mixture concepts [in] a Turkish public high school."
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
I understand this research was set up as a quasi-experiment – what were the conditions being compared?
"Students in the treatment group were instructed by the SWH approach, while those in the comparison group were instructed with traditionally designed chemistry instruction."
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
Constructivism
Can you tell me about the theoretical perspective informing this study?
"Constructivism is increasingly influential in guiding student learning around the world. However, as knowledge is constructed in the minds of students, some of their commonsense ideas are personal, stable, and not congruent with the scientifically accepted conceptions… Students' misconceptions [a.k.a. alternative conceptions] and learning difficulties constitute a major barrier for their learning in various chemistry topics"
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
Read about constructivist pedagogy
Read about alternative conceptions
'Traditional' teaching versus 'constructivist' teaching
So, what does this suggest about so-called traditional teaching?
"Since prior learning is an active agent for student learning, science educators have been focused on changing these misconceptions with scientifically acceptable ideas. In traditional science teaching, it is difficult for the learners to change their misconceptions…According to the conceptual change approach, learning is the interaction between prior knowledge and new information. The process of learning depends on the degree of the integration of prior knowledge with the new information.2"
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
And does the Science Writing Heuristic Approach contrast to that?
"The Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach can be used to promote students' acquisition of scientific concepts. The SWH approach is grounded on the constructivist philosophy because it encourages students to use guided inquiry laboratory activities and collaborative group work to actively negotiate and construct knowledge. The SWH approach successfully integrates inquiry activities, collaborative group work, meaning making via argumentation, and writing-to-learn strategies…
The negotiation activities are the central part of the SWH because learning occurs through the negotiation of ideas. Students negotiate meaning from experimental data and observations through collaboration within and between groups. Moreover, the student template involves the structure of argumentation known as question, claim, and evidence. …Reflective writing scaffolds the integration of new ideas with prior learning. Students focus on how their ideas changed through negotiation and reflective writing, which helps them confront their misconceptions and construct scientifically accepted conceptions"
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
What is already known about SWH pedagogy?
It seems like the SWH approach should be effective at supporting student learning. So, has this not already been tested?
"There are many international studies investigating the effectiveness of the SWH approach over the traditional approach … [one team] found that student-written reports had evidence of their science learning, metacognitive thinking, and self-reflection. Students presented reasons and arguments in the meaning-making process, and students' self-reflections illustrated the presence of conceptual change about the science concepts.
[another team] asserted that using the SWH laboratory report format in lieu of a traditional laboratory report format was effective on acquisition of scientific conceptions, elimination of misconceptions, and learning difficulties in chemical equilibrium.
[Another team] found that SWH activities led to greater understanding of grade 6 science concepts when compared to traditional activities. The studies conducted at the postsecondary level showed similar results as studies conducted at the elementary level…
[In two studies] it was demonstrated that the SWH approach can be effective on students' acquisition of chemistry concepts. SWH facilitates conceptual change through a set of argument-based inquiry activities. Students negotiate meaning and construct knowledge, reflect on their own understandings through writing, and share and compare their personal meanings with others in a social context"
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
What was the point of another experimental test of SWH?
So, it seems that from a theoretical point of view, so-called traditional teaching is likely to be ineffective in bringing about conceptual learning in science, whilst a constructivist approach based on the Science Writing Heuristic is likely to support such learning. Moreover, you are aware of a range of existing studies which suggest that in practice the Science Writing Heuristic is indeed an effective basis for science teaching.
So, what was the point of your study?
"The present study aimed to investigate the effect of the SWH approach compared to traditional chemistry instruction on grade 9 students' understanding of chemical change and mixture concepts."
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
Okay, I would certainly accept that just because a teaching approach has been found effective with one age group, or in one topic, or in one cultural context, we cannot assume those findings can be generalised and will necessarily apply in other teaching contexts (Taber, 2019).
Read about generalisation from studies
What happened in the experimental condition?
So, what happened in the two classes taught in the experimental condition?
"The teacher asked students to form their own small groups (n=5) and introduced to them the SWH approach …they were asked to suggest a beginning question…, write a claim, and support that claim with evidence…
they shared their questions, claims, and evidence in order to construct a group question, claim, and evidence. …each group, in turn, explained their written arguments to the entire class. … the rest of the class asked them questions or refuted something they claimed or argued. …the teacher summarized [and then] engaged students in a discussion about questions, claims, and evidence in order to make students aware of the meaning of those words. The appropriateness of students' evidence for their claims, and the relations among questions, claims, and evidence were also discussed in the classroom…
The teacher then engaged students in a discussion about …chemical change. First, the teacher attempted to elicit students' prior understanding about chemical change through questioning…The teacher asked students to write down what they wanted to learn about chemical change, to share those items within their group, and to prepare an investigation question with a possible test and procedure for the next class. While students constructed their own questions and planned their testing procedure, the teacher circulated through the groups and facilitated students' thinking through questioning…
Each group presented their questions to the class. The teacher and the rest of the class evaluated the quality of the question in relation to the big idea …The groups' procedures were discussed and revised prior to the actual laboratory investigation…each group tested their own questions experimentally…The teacher asked each student to write a claim about what they thought happened, and support that claim with the evidence. The teacher circulated through the classroom, served as a resource person, and asked …questions
…students negotiated their individual claims and evidence within their groups, and constructed group claims and evidence… each group…presented … to the rest of the class."
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
What happened in the control condition?
Okay, I can see that the experimental groups experienced the kind of learning activities that both educational theory and previous research suggests are likely to engage them and develop their thinking.
So, what did you set up to compare with the Science Writing Heuristic Approach as a fair test of its effectiveness as a pedagogy?
"In the comparison group, the teacher mainly used lecture and discussion[3] methods while teaching chemical change and mixture concepts. The chemistry textbook was the primary source of knowledge in this group. Students were required to read the related topic from the textbook prior to each lesson….The teacher announced the goals of the lesson in advance, wrote the key concepts on the board, and explained each concept by giving examples. During the transmission of knowledge, the teacher and frequently used the board to write chemical formula[e] and equations and draw some figures. In order to ensure that all of the students understood the concepts in the same way, the teacher asked questions…[that] contributed to the creation of a discussion[3] between teacher and students. Then, the teacher summarized the concepts under consideration and prompted students to take notes. Toward the end of the class session, the teacher wrote some algorithmic problems [sic 4] on the board and asked students to solve those problems individually….the teacher asked a student to come to the board and solve a problem…
The …nature of their laboratory activities was traditional … to verify what students learned in the classroom. Prior to the laboratory session, students were asked to read the procedures of the laboratory experiment in their textbook. At the laboratory, the teacher explained the purpose and procedures of the experiment, and then requested the students to follow the step-by-step instructions for the experiment. Working in groups (n=5), all the students conducted the same experiment in their textbook under the direct control of the teacher. …
The students were asked to record their observations and data. They were not required to reason about the data in a deeper manner. In addition, the teacher asked each group to respond to the questions about the experiment included in their textbook. When students failed to answer those questions, the teacher answered them directly without giving any hint to the students. At the end of the laboratory activity, students were asked to write a laboratory report in traditional format, including purpose, procedure, observations and data, results, and discussion. The teacher asked questions and helped students during the activity to facilitate their connection of laboratory activity with what they learned in the classroom.
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
The teacher variable
Often in small scale research studies in education, a different teacher teaches each group and so the 'teacher variable' confounds the experiment (Taber, 2019). Here, however, you avoid that problem 5, as you had a sample of four classes, and two different teachers were involved, each teaching one class in each condition?
"In order to facilitate the proper instruction of the SWH approach in the treatment group, the teachers were given training sessions about its implementation prior to the study. The teachers were familiar with the traditional instruction. One of the teachers was teaching chemistry for 20 years, while the other was teaching chemistry for 22 years at a high school. The researcher also asked the teachers to teach the comparison group students in the same way they taught before and not to do things specified for the treatment group."
Kingir, Geban & Gunel, 2013
Was this research ethical?
As this is an imaginary conversation, not all of the questions I might like to ask are actually addressed in the paper. In particular, I would love to know how the authors would justify that their study was ethical, considering that the control condition they set up deliberately excluded features of pedagogy that they themselves claim are necessary to support effective science learning:
"In traditional science teaching, it is difficult for the learners to change their misconceptions"
The authors beleive that "learning occurs through the negotiation of ideas", and their experimental condition provides plenty of opportunity for that. The control condition is designed to avoid the explicit elicitation of learners' idea, dialogic talk, or peer interactions when reading, listening, writing notes or undertaking exercises. If the authors' beliefs are correct (and they are broadly consistent with a wide consensus across the global science education research community), then the teaching in the comparison condition is not suitable for facilitating conceptual learning.
Even if we think it is conceivable that highly experienced teachers, working in a national context where constructivist teaching has long been official education policy, had somehow previously managed to only teach in an ineffective way: was it ethical to ask these teachers to teach one of their classes poorly even after providing them with professional development enabling them to adopt a more engaging approach better aligned with our understanding of how science can be effectively taught?
Read about unethical control conditions
Given that the authors already believed that –
- "Students' misconceptions and learning difficulties constitute a major barrier for their learning in various chemistry topics"
- "knowledge is constructed in the minds of students"
- "The process of learning depends on the degree of the integration of prior knowledge with the new information"
- "learning occurs through the negotiation of ideas"
- "The SWH approach successfully integrates inquiry activities, collaborative group work, meaning making" – A range of previous studies have shown that SWH effectively supports student learning
– why did they not test the SWH approach against existing good practice, rather than implement a control pedagogy they knew should not be effective, so setting up two classes of learners (who do not seem to have been asked to consent to being part of the research) to fail?
Read about the expectation for voluntary informed consent
Why not set up a genuinely informative test of the SWH pedagogy, rather than setting up conditions for manufacturing a forgone conclusion?
Read about level of contol in experiments
How can it be ethical to ask teachers to teach in a way that is expected to be ineffective?
- transmission of knowledge
- follow the step-by-step instructions
- not required to reason in a deeper manner
- individual working
A rhetorical experiment?
Is this not just a 'rhetorical' experiment engineered to produce a desired outcome (a demonstration), rather than an open-ended enquiry (a genuine experiment)?
Read about rhetorical experiments
A technical question
Any study of a teaching innovation requires the commitment of resources and some disruption of teaching. Therefore any research study which has inherent design faults that will prevent it producing informative outcomes can be seen as a misuse of resources, and an unproductive disruption of school activities, and so, if only in that sense, unethical.
As the research was undertaken with "four intact classes" is it possible to apply any statistical tests that can offer meaningful results, when there are only two units of analysis in each condition? [That is, I think not.]
The researchers claim to have 117 degrees of freedom when applying statistical tests to draw conclusions. They seem to assume that each of the 122 children can be considered to be a separate unit of analysis. But is it reasonable to assume that c.30 children taught together in the same intact class by the same teacher (and working in groups for at least part of the time) are independently experiencing the (experimental or control) treatment?
Surely, the students within a class influence each other's learning (especially during group-work), so the outcomes of statistical tests that rely on treating each learner as an independent unit of analysis are invalid (Taber, 2019). This is especially so in the experimental treatment where dialogue (and "the negotiation of ideas") through group-work, discussion, and argumentation were core parts of the instruction.
Sources cited:
- Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the Science Writing Heuristic Approach to Enhance Student Understanding in Chemical Change and Mixture. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1645-1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9326-x
- Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69-119. doi:10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058 [Download]
Notes:
1 I have used direct quotes from the published report in Research in Science Education (but I have omitted citations to other papers), with some emphasis added. Please refer to the full report of the study for further details. I have attempted to extract relevant points from the paper to develop an argument here. I have not deliberately distorted the published account by selection and/or omission, but clearly am only reproducing small extracts. I would recommend readers might access the original study in order to make up their own minds.
2 The next statement is "If individuals know little about the subject matter, new information is easily embedded in their cognitive structure (assimilation)." This is counter to the common thinking that learning about an unfamiliar topic is more difficult, and learning is made meaningful when it can be related to prior knowledge (Ausubel, 1968).
Read about making the unfamiliar familiar
3 The term 'discussion' might suggest an open-ended exchange of ideas and views. This would be a dialogic technique typical of constructivist approaches. From the wider context its seems likely something more teacher-directed and closed than this was meant here – but this is an interpretation which goes beyond the description available in the original text.
4 Researchers into problem-solving consider that a problem has to require a learner to do more that simply recall and apply previously learned knowledge and techniques – so an 'algorithmic problem' might be considered an oxymoron. However, it is common for teachers to refer to algorithmic exercises as 'problems' even though they do not require going beyond application of existing learning.
5 This design does avoid the criticism that one of the teacher may have just been more effective at teaching the topic to this age group, as both teachers teach in both conditions.
This does not entirely remove potential confounds as teachers interact differently with different classes, and with only four teacher-class combinations it could well be that there is better rapport in the two classes in one or other condition. It is very hard to see how this can be addressed (except by having a large enough sample of classes to allow inferential statistics to be used rigorously – which is not feasible in small scale studies).
A potentially more serious issue is 'expectancy' effects. There is much research in education and other social contexts to show that people's beliefs and expectations influence outcomes of studies – and this can make a substantial difference. If the two teachers were unconvinced by the newfangled and progressive approach being tested, then this could undermine their ability to effectively teach that way.
On the other hand, although it is implied that these teachers normally teach in the 'traditional' way, actually constructivist approaches are recommended in Turkey, and are officially sanctioned, and widely taught in teacher education and development courses. If the teachers accepted the arguments for believing the SWH was likely to be more effective at bringing about conceptual learning than the methods they were asked to adopt in the comparison classes, that would further undermine that treatment as a fair control condition.
Read about expectancy effects in research
Again, there is very little researchers can do about this issue as they cannot ensure that teachers participating in research studies are equally confident in the effectivenes of different treatments (and why should they be – the researchers are obviously expecting a substantive difference*), and this is a major problem in studies into teaching innovations (Taber, 2019).
* This is clear from their paper. Is it likely that they would have communicated this to the teachers? "The teachers were given training sessions about [SWH's] implementation prior to the study." Presumably, even if somehow these experienced teachers had previously managed to completely avoid or ignore years of government policy and guidance intending to persuade them of the value of constructivist approaches, the researchers could not have offered effective "training sessions" without explaining the rationales of the overall approach, and for the specific features of the SWH that they wanted teachers to adopt.
