The Role of Classroom Management in Developing Socially Constructed
Knowledge in Science
Summary
Objective
Science educators agree that inquiry science is a quality method for teaching students of all ages science content as well as providing an opportunity for small groups or whole classes to socially construct scientific knowledge (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). One barrier teachers experience in establishing an inquiry setting in a classroom is the need to reeducate students to learn so that the teacher is not the sole distributor of knowledge. In an inquiry setting, students need to have the skills to work collectively in negotiating ideas rather than reiterating what teachers or other authorities have told them. Since the process of inquiry is not didactic, teachers need to learn how to structure class so that they are no longer the sole authority figure with regard to knowledge and to give students the skills and opportunity to work together to construct knowledge. This case study examined the structures that an exemplary seventh grade life science teacher created to manage her class in an inquiry investigation and the students’ reactions to this unique learning setting. If classroom management structures could be identified and taught to other teachers, then perhaps similar outcomes could be produced and provide an environment that encouraged the construction of knowledge through inquiry.
Theoretical Framework
Teacher classroom practices represent an epistemological posture about science from which students, in part, draw from to develop their notion of value on their own knowledge and the impact social interactions have on the construction of knowledge (Larochelle & Desautels, 1991). Traditional didactic teaching features telling and showing scientific phenomena as the knowledge that counts, rather than knowledge that is developed through social interaction. By continuing to teach in a didactic approach, teachers reflect a type of socialization that occurs in formal educational settings (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Meaningful learning requires connection to student prior knowledge, and learning tasks that have substance. On the contrary, rote learning from didactic delivery of information is not related to student experiences with objects or events. Hodson (1988) calls for a break in the vicious circle permitting reproduction of traditional school epistemology concerning science. When students view science as static, they wait until facts become available to them instead of discovering and integrating the science ideas themselves (Chin & Brown, 2000). In science, this didactic transmission of knowledge perpetuates the idea that scientific knowledge is a collection of facts in their final form. Didactic teaching leaves students confused when they are taught that science is a collection of facts in their final form, yet scientists understand this collection of facts to be tentative. This confusion among students can be avoided if teachers understood how inquiry can be used to teach knowledge about science instead of merely scientific knowledge. Science educators face the challenge how to design science instruction that reinforces that scientific knowledge will inevitably change (Duschl, 1990).
The
management structures teachers plan in order to direct classroom activities is
an essential part of setting the stage for student learning. The teachers’ role
in an inquiry classroom is to develop investigations that encourage social
construction of knowledge, to monitor student actions, and to react to
classroom events (Beeth & Hewson,
1999). In their study of exemplary science teaching practices, Beeth and Hewson found that teachers
can foster scientific construction of knowledge by facilitating progress in
directions that are productive for students and that are consistent with his or
her plans for teaching.
Methods of Inquiry
and Data Sources
The case study was completed with a seventh grade life science teacher who was well respected among her peers and supervisors for conducting open and guided inquiry consistently and successfully in her classroom. The participant was chosen because she had 5 years of experience in teaching and had adequate knowledge of the biological sciences. During the time period of the study, the teacher conducted a 4-week unit on genetics. The researcher is a teacher at the same school as the participant, so she was familiar with the environment and procedures of the school. An interview with the teacher which probed beliefs about science teaching in general, instructional planning, and intended outcomes of the unit was conducted before the unit of instruction. Field notes were taken during the unit of instruction (20 classes at 47 minutes each) and teacher resource materials as well as student materials were analyzed. An interview with the teacher followed the unit of instruction, which probed student behaviors, instructional outcomes and previous experiences.
A focus group randomly chosen by the teacher consisted of 6 out of the 26 students observed was conducted to identify student ideas about the structures in the class and their influence on learning science. Field notes and interview transcripts were coded using an iterative process. Initially, the field notes and interview transcripts were read in totality to get a sense of the entirety of the data. Then codes were established that were verbatim from the notes and transcripts (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995). Several iterations of categorizing the verbatim codes revealed organizing codes such as minimizing class rules, the endurance of big ideas, science as experiential, and the value of teamwork. The validity of the data was checked by having other researchers review the categorization of the codes, considering other possibilities for conclusions, utilizing data that reoccurred throughout the data sources, and having frequent member checks. (Maxwell, 1996).
Findings
Jen, the pseudonym for the participating teacher, had prior experiences as a student that influenced her decisions to allow students to have greater freedom in the classroom and for students to take on more responsibility for their own learning. Because she recognized that her classroom structures were different from the mainstream, Jen realized that she needed to show the students from the beginning that inquiry learning required the students to take on more responsibility. If students took a passive role in her class, learning would not take place. She deliberately withdrew her authority over the content to show students that they were capable of taking on the role of active learners. She realized that by providing a basic management structure and access to information, but allowing students to form their own ideas using the information, students could learn content that was meaningful. Students at the 7th grade level don’t have a great deal of background knowledge about science, so they rely on teacher to connect their prior knowledge to the new knowledge.
Jen changed her role as the keeper of knowledge in her classroom. Part of the responsibility of a teacher of inquiry science is setting up a learning environment where the teacher is not the ultimate authority and students feel comfortable in finding diverse answers to open-ended problems. Jen’s ubiquitous underlying structure for inquiry learning was the development of larger ideas from a collection of facts. Jen’s role during the teaching of the unit consisted of her being there to help students to the next level of the process. Within this structure lies a delicate balance between guidance and freedom that was observed in Jen’s classroom throughout the unit.
Sometimes the inquiry structure yielded less than optimal student learning, which needed to be monitored by the teacher. Both Jen and her students saw student errors as an opportunity to learn. Jen saw students as having different levels of abstract cognitive ability at the 7th grade, but even concrete learners found meaningful learning in inquiry.
Students in Jen’s class needed explicit instruction in how to operate in an inquiry classroom structure. They were not adept at taking an active role in researching answers. When explaining the logistics of how their first inquiry activity took place, students talked about the learning that first had to take place regarding how to operate in the setting so that they could learn content in Jen’s classroom. The students were used to having all of the instructions for the process of learning explicitly presented, often in a step-by-step or cookbook format. Before learning about the new content, students needed to first understand how to develop their own process to access the information. The students had cognitive dissonance with the new classroom management structure, but they saw value in it because of the potential for creativity.
The students recognized that inquiry science is not conducted in a free-for-all atmosphere. There are some rules that must be followed in order for valuable learning to take place. Some students had a difficult time breaking out of the model where they were given explicit instructions for the learning process. These students expressed fear in getting a problem wrong because they didn’t accomplish the correct process to get at the “answer”. Students continued to revert back to the didactic model where the teacher tells the student what to do to. Jen had to actively withdraw from her position of authority in order to let the students engage with the material. Jen initiated this shift in authority by exercising the students’ acceptance for ambiguity in loosely structured laboratory activities. Where students are used to having “cookbook” labs where each step is explained in detail, Jen provided questions from which students constructed their own steps toward a solution.
Jen’s students expressed that they learned better by taking on more of the responsibility for learning. The students recognized their lack of learning from a previous science class that operated on a more didactic level. When students obtained information from an authority figure, such as the teacher, they failed to see how it related to them and why they should engage with the material. When discussing an inquiry activity that took place in Jen’s class, students realized that the learning that took place was meaningful to them.
Teamwork and work ethic emerged as important criteria for success in Jen’s class. Jen encouraged teamwork by establishing a seating arrangement where small groups of students could have quiet discussions at their tables, which seated at least four students face-to-face. Students exhibited teamwork by listening to their peers and recognizing that science is a social activity. Jen’s students demonstrated a value in work ethic by working diligently on the project from the beginning of the class period until the end of the class period each day. Since students are constructing their own knowledge in an inquiry setting, the focus of learning is not on minuscule facts that are disconnected from any enduring ideas. Students’ learning in inquiry focuses on how the topic they are studying fits into what they already know. If they can hook the new ideas onto what they already understand, students can build knowledge. Working in a group can aid in the construction of knowledge by contributing different perspectives. Teamwork and work ethic, as defined by the students, facilitated this process.
Implications for the
study
Student-initiated
science explorations under the conditions of uncertainty should be valued so
that students are able to construct ways of investigating and knowing in
science (Crawford, Kelly & Brown, 2000). Currently, teachers use discourse
processes that position science and science teachers as authorities (Moje, 1997). Giving teachers tangible processes for
conducting student-initiated science explorations is a step in moving beyond
traditional teacher as sole authority teaching models. Having students
construct their knowledge by social means makes learning science more authentic
and helps students to reconcile the conflict they experience when learning that
science knowledge is tentative. Socially constructing knowledge in an inquiry
setting is one way of making science less obscure for students. Teachers are
inexperienced at managing discussions that allow for different viewpoints on
scientific ideas to be argued (Driver, 1989), so identifying tangible structures
in classroom management could help teacher become more experienced at this task.
References
American Association for the Advancement
of Science (1993). Benchmarks
for Science Literacy.
Beeth, M. E. & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teacher’s practice: Cognitive and social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education. 60, 738-823.
Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of research in science teaching, 37, 109-138.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J. & Brown, C. (2000). Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws of science: An ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices. Journal of research in science teaching. 37, 237-258.
Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms.
In R. Millar (ed.) Doing science: Images
of science in science education.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science
education: The importance of theories and their development.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I, & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes.
Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72 (1): 19-40.
Larochelle, M. & Desautels, J. (1991).
The epistemological turn in science education: The return of the actor. In Duit, R., Goldberg, F. & Niedderer,
H. (eds.) Research in physics learning:
Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 155-175). Keil,
ALL: Institute for Science Education.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative
research design: An interactive approach.
Moje, E. (1997). Exploring
discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge is a chemistry class. Journal of classroom interaction, 32,
35-44.
National Research Council. (1996). National science
education standards.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Zeichner, K. M. & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher
socialization. In