members to generate and select and measure attributes when working with pictures in Baxter Brown Task 3. Attributes of returnability and original or changed form of an object dominated attribute discussion and decisions in Baxter Brown Task 3 as the children worked with pictures of objects to find a solution to the data modeling problem. Isabel in Group 1 classified shoes into the category of reuse on the basis that “someone else might need it” indicating that returnability in its original form were selected attributes. A picture of a milk carton was classified into recycling; “because with recycling, you can get stuff back” suggesting that returnability was the selected attribute. Toby immediately reacted by challenging Isabel’s classification, saying; “no you can’t! That one does” (pointing to the reuse symbol on the paper).
161 Toby’s challenging of “you get stuff back” highlights the importance he placed on the “returnability” attribute. Toby qualified his definition of the returnability attribute explaining that reuse is when, “you use it for something else”, implying that the object is returnable, but in its original form. Toby’s explanation is consistent with the attributes for reuse and recycle he had previously raised in the preliminary whole class discussion (section 6.2.1, p. 157). These examples illustrated a consistency existed in the children’s attributes for the reuse and recycle categories. The
determining attribute that differentiated between the categories was whether or not the form of the object could or should be changed.
Similarly, in Baxter Brown Task 3, Sam (Group 2) alluded to object
returnability as he worked to explain why he would recycle a cereal packet, saying, “because it come, it come back when it was, when it was, when it was, I don’t know”. Sam appeared to be working to articulate whether an object can be returned as an attribute to consider for recycling. Sam’s focus on the importance of
returnability as a category attribute was also visible when he reported his group’s model solution to the whole class in Baxter Brown Task 4. The explanation Sam gave for classifying newspaper into reuse was that “the people, the newspaper…and the people can read it again”. This example reaffirms Sam’s consistent application of returnability as a defining attribute for recycle and reuse. During the group reporting in Baxter Brown Task 4, additional examples were provided that demonstrated that an object’s returnability and potential to change form were attributes worthy of the children’s attention. Carl reported on behalf of his group (with Toby and Isabel) and provided additional reasons for classifying objects that were canvassed during their group discussion when he said “so we’d get it back and back and it would reuse, and the bone in reuse so we get it back, and dogs like to…to er, chew them”. Carl’s explanations reaffirmed the importance of an object being returned and in its original form as core attributes for the category of reuse.
The attributes that were applied by the children to classifying pictures of objects across the small group work in Baxter Brown Task 3 were returnability and change of form. These two attributes are consistent with those raised by the children in the whole class discussions. In those discussions, the children did not use the attributes to classify as they did in Baxter Brown Task 3, however, the attributes used
162 in the whole class discussions, and the small group work using picture data, are the same.
The attributes of returnability and change of form of an object were not visible when the children worked with picture data in Michael Recycle Task 3.The contrast between the children’s model development in Baxter Brown and Michael Recycle is significant, because the children did not reveal any attributes as they developed their models. Across all groups, the children names categories (recycle, reuse or throw away) as they classified pictures into them, but they did so without providing explanations. As a result, the attributes the children attributed to the
categories was unknown. Some instances of picture data classification occurred when a category was named but no explanation was offered for the attributes being relied on to classify the object. For example, in Group 1, Toby said, “I think the paper goes in recycle” and Isabel suggested, “I think jars are recycle”. In Group 2, Jade stated “I think this one goes in um the recycling” whereas Sam proposed, “I think this one goes in the throw away”. In Group 3, Gina said, “I think the paper should be recycled” and Blake claimed, “I think this goes in throw away”.
In other examples, the category was not named and classification
explanations were incomplete or not provided. This is illustrated in Group 2, when incomplete explanations were offered by Eliot who said, “I think that one goes in there ‘cause”, and Jade, who stated “I think that one goes on there for a reason. Because”. Sam did not provide an explanation when he said, “I think this one goes in both” as he placed his bottle drawing on the paper. These examples illustrate that when the children were classifying the pictures into categories and representing the categories as they placed the pictures on paper, they did not provide auditable evidence of the knowledge that was being drawn on to determine attributes for each category.
The group reporting in Michael Recycle Task 4 provided some explanations of attributes the children relied on to classify the picture data. The children used knowledge of actions with objects made by family members to generate and select attributes, with family members specifically named. Isabel (Group 1) explained that she had placed the drawing of her jar into the reuse category “because I see my mum reuse jars” and her cereal box drawing into throw away “because I see my mum
163 throw away those”. Similarly, Jade (Group 2) reasoned that she had placed a can in recycle because “um, I saw my mum put it in there”. When Group 3 reported, the teacher asked Blake about why his peel drawing had gone into reuse, and Blake explained “’cause I seen my mum do it”. Gina reported that her paper drawing was in recycling “ah, because I seen my mummy do it”. These examples illustrate that specific experience of family members’ actions was drawn on to generate and select attributes that were used for classification.
These findings in Michael Recycle are that discussion about attributes by the children was not present as the children developed their models in small group work in Task 3, and that the few attributes that were revealed in Task 4 made direct reference to family experiences. This contrasts with the children’s work with
pictorial data as they developed their models in Baxter Brown Task 3 (section 6.2.2, p. 160). In Task 3, the children discussed and provided reasons for the attributes they used to make classification decisions. In addition, the children predominantly relied on the attributes of returnability and change of form. The Baxter Brown modeling activity however, had a different design focus to the Michael Recycle modeling activity. In Baxter Brown Task 3, the children were provided with pictures of the objects and categories, and the categories they were to work with (recycle, reuse and throw away) were pre-assigned. For Michael Recycle Task 3, the children created their own pictures drawn from real objects and chose their own categories, providing different task demands between the two modeling activities for both the creation and organisation of the picture data. A possible link to the use of real objects to generate picture data in Michael Recycle, and attributes that draw on knowledge of family experiences is reflected in the findings presented in the next section.
6.2.3 Generating, Selecting and Measuring Attributes With Real Objects