La Provincia de Cutervo y sus Competidores

As we saw in Chapter 2 (§2.6), the potentially most influential element of teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge is their Orientation Towards Science (OTS), since it acts like a filter through which teachers view and interpret teaching and learning (Kagan, 1992), shaping

72

other aspects of their PCK as decisions are made on the spot (Magnusson et al., 1999). In this section, I portray Adrian’sOTS in terms of (a) his view of science as-a-discipline; (b) the goals and purposes he ascribes to his classroom activities; and (c) his interpretation of the concept ‘explanation’. My first research question (Q1a) brings together these different aspects.

Since producing explanations to make sense of the world is one of the ultimate objectives of scientists, teachers’ understanding of scientific explanations might be related to their general understanding of science as-a-discipline. Keeping in mind this potential connection, in our interview, I asked Adrian what science is for him. He answered that science is “a body of knowledge about the dynamics in our world, which enables us to interpret what happens around us” (I-Ad). When asked to elucidate scientists’ objectives, Adrian remarks that they devote a high percentage of their time to “bibliographical consultation, that is to say, to read and to synthesise what is read” (I-Ad). Besides, he thinks that scientists “also accomplish experiments with the purpose of drawing conclusions”, although he does not specify what types of conclusions they intend to achieve.

Adrian admits that, in his lessons, he never makes explicit reference to how scientists work or what their objectives are, “which might contribute [his students] to conceive science as a product, absolutely depersonalised” (I-Ad). In Adrian’s classes, there is a significant absence of practices aimed at promoting learners’ high order thinking skills. On the contrary, the type of activities he proposed were dominated by low cognitive demanding questions that had a single, closed answer – “The only thing we are doing now is applying the mathematical formulae of Hooke’s Law. They are asking me what the value of the force is, and they give me the value of the constant and the mass” (Y9.O10-Ad)– which contributed to students ‘doing the lesson’ rather than ‘doing science’ (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000). This lack of opportunities to participate in authentic disciplinary practices (Pareja, 2014), coupled with how Adrian presents and talks about science, might hinder students’ formation of appropriate ideas about the Nature of Science and its functioning outside the classroom.

As detailed in his profile description, Adrian’s teaching and assessment performance focus on the acquisition of content that previously “[the department] has considered [they] must transmit to the students” (I-Ad). When I asked him about practice-related objectives, such as learning how to produce explanations, Adrian acknowledged this is not a priority for him. However, it is “something that [he] ha[s] in mind”, since “there is a lot –and dangerous– pseudoscientific ideas that are being disseminated. Then, using this type of arguments and doing it in a way that is irrefutable would help eliminate this type of pseudoscience and ungrounded theories” (I-Ad). Although in my question, I only alluded to explanations, in his answer, Adrian

73

identifies both explanation and argumentation as the same practice. According to him, in this practice, it is not only important to employ language properly to express ones’ ideas, but also to make use of scientific evidence fittingly. This is quite revealing, because it denotes some knowledge about the elements needed to construct an argument, in accordance to the CER framework (§2.5.4).

Despite his aspirational interest, Adrian does not teach and assess the practice of explanation (neither argumentation) explicitly and/or systematically; he mentioned that he lacks the necessary knowledge and resources for it. When asked to specify what these would be, Adrian expanded on a response in which he referred to these kinds of practices as innovations that are demanded of teachers in reform documents. He believes that to accomplish these innovations, teachers should be provided with more means, although he does not name them; he just notes that a more specific pre-service education is needed.

I observed 52 lessons from Adrian. On 28 occasions within these sessions, he launched a why-question or demanded an explanation. But to my dismay, after a preliminary analysis of the collected data, I (maybe quite hastily) concluded that none of these episodes corresponded to my research interest. That is; despite the word ‘explanation’ constantly appeared in Adrian’s discourse, there were no cases in which Adrian requested his students to construct a complete scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon, neither in the classroom nor in the laboratory sessions.

In our interview, I interrogated Adrian about the possibility that students could construct scientific explanations, and he replied he usually asked them to do this, although less often than he would like to. I was puzzled by his answer, because I had witnessed no example I considered might be classified as such. Then, I invited Adrian to specify how he did it, and he said:

“Indeed, at the beginning of the lesson, when we propose the answers to the questions that open the introduction of the topics that we are dealing with. So, it is not something that I have as an objective (…); but I do have in mind that I want, and I wish, that they have the capacity of sufficient and correct expression to defend their arguments. And in this case, logically, arguments of scientific nature. So, it’s not just about explaining it well, but explaining it with facts

that are scientifically objective. So, I would say ‘yes, I do it’, and this either at

74

practical, quantitative or qualitative activities that we are working in class or in the laboratory.” (I-Ad)

By analysing both this reply and the rest of the observational data in more detail, I concluded that Adrian gives the verb ‘explain’ a huge assortment of meanings, and that when he asks ‘why’, he is not always referring to the same thing. This opened new inquiry lines in my research. I re-analysed the 28 selected episodes, and this time I classified them according to the meaning with which the verb ‘explain’ was being used. Under this broader perspective, eight episodes seemed to fit, to a greater or lesser extent, within my characterisation of scientific explanations as an attempt to articulate scientific knowledge to understand why a phenomenon happens. All these eight episodes are examples of oral constructions led, guided and sustained by Adrian, with the students relegated to a fairly passive role.

Within the category ‘scientific explanation’, I found mostly causal explanations –in which Adrian seeks to identify what produces a phenomenon– and some anthropomorphic explanations –in which he attributes human agency to certain entities to explain their behaviour. Within those explanations classified as ‘non-scientific explanations’, there were: i) rich descriptions –consisting of detailed accounts of what is happening; ii) concept clarifications – interpretations of the meaning of a term; and iii) metacognitive explanations –elicitations of the reasoning path followed to find a solution to a problem. In all these cases, students must provide an explication of their ideas and/or findings to their colleagues and Adrian. There were also numerous examples of justificatory explanations –where students provided reasons to believe that something is the case. Finally, there is one episode I labelled as ‘mathematical convention’ –where what is sought are the norms or codes that justify a mathematical representation. Interestingly, in the interview, Adrian did not explicitly allude to any of these meanings, although he connected the ability to explain with the ability to express one’s ideas, which could relate to the notion of ‘explication’.

Table-4.3.1.3 shows some examples for the different meanings of ‘explanation’ I found in Adrian’ teaching practice.

75

TYPE OF

EXPLANATION

EPISODES

EXAMPLE

SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION

Articulation of theoretical and background knowledge to make sense of a certain phenomenon through a process of reasoning

Causal

5; 8; 12; 13;15; 16; 18; 19; 20;

22 ;24

Ad.- If I’m moving at a certain speed, whatever it is, but it’s always the same, and someone comes from behind and pushes me, does my speed change?

Ss.- Yes.

Ad.- Because that is non-uniform. Why has my speed changed? What have they done to me when they pushed me? S1.- Apply a force.

Ad.- They have applied a force to me. And, since I have a mass, applying a force is the same as granting me one ... S2.- Acceleration.

Ad.- Acceleration, indeed! (E#8; Y9.O21-Ad)

Anthropomorphic 10;

Ad.- [T]here is fluid friction because it’s difficult to separate particles from the fluid. (…) You can imagine that this particle of air is in this position [pointing]. If we go right here with a car, we are going to change their positions. So, changing the relative position of the air is why there is a force of friction, ok? Because they don’t want to change, and we are forcing them to change. (…) They are saying: ‘I don’t want to change’. So, I will apply a force in order to not to change. (…) That’s a possible explanation for the force of friction. (E#10; Y9.O26-Ba)

NON-SCIENTIFIC

EXPLANATIONS Explications and Justifications

Clarifying

concepts 9; 11; 14

Do you know the meaning of the word ‘proportional’? Or could you give two properties that are proportional? I mean, explain the concept using an example. (E#9; Y9.O24-Ad)

Ad.- difference between them? Could you give me an explanation for the gravity? Or what do you think the gravity is? Is it a force?

S1.- Yes.

Ad.- And how does it work? [silence] Does it repel us from the surface of the planet? Or does it attract us? (E#14; Y9.O29- Ad)

Rich description 16; 27

Ad.- Could you explain what’s happening here? What are we talking about? We are talking about springs. There is a mass hanging from that spring. The thing is that this first mass is a fourth part of this one, or, what is the same, this can be considered four times the first one, ok? So, this one is heavier, of course. And because of being heavier, that’s why this spring is longer, ok? So, there should be a relationship between the mass that is hanging and the length of the spring, ok? So, if we’ve put more mass, the spring should be longer. (E#27; Y9.O7-Ad)

Table-4.3.1.3) Different meanings of ‘explanation’ found in Adrian’s observed lessons.

76

TYPE OF

EXPLANATION

EPISODES

EXAMPLE

NON-SCIENTIFIC

EXPLANATION Explications and Justifications

Mathematical

convention 26

Ad.- Note that the dimensions of the angular velocity are t-1_{. Why does only time appear at this angular velocity?} What did we say about the angular magnitudes not having dimensions? What did we comment yesterday about it that surprised you a little bit?

S1.- That they do not have dimensions.

Ad.- We said that they do not have dimension. Why don’t they have dimensions? S2.- Because they are dimensionless.

Ad.- Okay, that’s the same, but with another word. But why is it dimensionless, or why does it have no dimensions? S2.- Because the dimensions have to disappear when we do a calculation. (E#26; Y11.O7-Ad)

Justificatory 2; 3; 4; 6; 7; 21; ₂₃

Ad.- Ok, the question is ‘when do we say a body is rigid?’ So, I want you to tell me if the first answer is correct or not, and the reasons why you have made that decision. Raise your hand before talking, please. (…).

S1.- In the question, it says: when do we say an object body is rigid? And the answer says: when it deforms… but if it’s rigid, it does not deform, so…

Ad.- Ok, so, another example could be that if we are talking about this object, that you can imagine it is used as a hair band, if we apply a force, it changes its shape. If I stop [exerting] the force, it recovers its original position. So, what kind of material is this?

S2.- Elastic material.

Ad.- It’s an elastic one. So, this definition is for elastic materials. So, I want you to tell me that this is false just because it’s the definition for an elastic material. So, ‘A’ is not the correct answer. (E#2; Y9.O1-Ad)

Metacognitive 1; 25

Ad.- Could you explain what you have done? S1.- First, I do decimal notation.

Ad.- Ok.

S1.- Then, I apply the conversion factor.

Ad.- Ok, how many steps are there between metres and cubic decimetres? S1.- One step.

Ad.- Ok, you mean three zeros. (…) So, are you going to multiply by 1000 and divide by 1, or are you going to divide by 1000 and multiply by 1?

S1.- Eh…, multiply by 1000 and divide by 1.

77

As can be inferred from the interview passage in which Adrian talks about explanation (pp.-73–74), and from the examples I use throughout this section, it does not seem clear that Adrian has a well-defined conceptualisation of what a scientific explanation is, in the sense used both in this thesis and in reform documents and reports (§2.5.4). His characterisation of explanation is diffuse, conflating it with argumentation, with being able to elaborate a response, and, on numerous occasions, with telling others why they believe something is the case.

Perhaps due to this polysemy, Adrian uses or requests explanations in the classroom with many variated purposes. Sometimes, the main goal achieved through the elaboration of the explanation is, indeed, to understand a phenomenon (e.g., E#16-Ad). But he also demanded explanations (justifications) for other purposes, including: i) Introducing a new concept/property (e.g., friction: E#21-Ad); ii) Consolidating a concept/law (e.g. inverse proportionality between mass and acceleration: E#6-Ad); and iii) Eliminating a misconception (e.g. plasticity vs. elasticity: E#2-Ad; weight vs. mass: E#14-Ad).

In all of Adrian’s episodes, learners’ contributions to the dialogue were quite brief; they said just a few words (e.g., E#4-Ad and E#8-Ad). Thus, although Adrian maintained a great deal of interaction with his students through questioning, the interventions of the latter were generally so short that they hardly allowed the development of deep ideas. Besides, the exchanges were nearly always between Adrian and one/two students who took turns speaking, so they were not authentic community practices. This makes it difficult for an episode to occur in which students elaborate an explanation with some depth. This way of working might justify why Adrian does not make explicit mention of the elaboration of explanation in science. That students become proficient in this practice is, then, an objective far from being fulfilled.