ESERA Travel Award 2008

Katrina Emmett PhD student
Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education,
Utrecht University
Princetonplein 5
3584 CC Utrecht
The Netherlands
Email: k.m.emmett@uu.nl

Report of visit to Prof. Joan Bliss and Prof. Jon Ogborn, 22-24 July 2008

Introduction
At the beginning of 2008 I was awarded a travel bursary from ESERA to visit Prof. Joan Bliss and Prof. Jon Ogborn in England.
I had spoken to Prof. Bliss during the ESERA2007 conference in Malmo, and she had sent me and interesting collection of articles about her work, and also of work she had carried out together with Prof. Ogborn. Several aspects of this research were relevant to the work I am carrying out for my PhD project in Utrecht, and I hoped to learn more about their approach and find ways of applying that in my own research, by speaking to them in person.
Hence we arranged that I should visit them for two days in July in the South of England.

Motivation for the visit
My research project concerns an innovative module for introducing the topic of Mechanics to 15-16 year-olds in the Netherlands. Our module consists of approximately 12 lessons and makes use of a problem posing approach (see e.g. Klaassen 1995, Vollebregt 1998, Kortland 2001), i.e:

• new knowledge should fit in with existing knowledge
• pupils should be motivated to extend their knowledge in a given direction

Rather than imposing Newtonian concepts of force and motion, we make use of a causal explanatory strategy (Westra 2006) as follows. Starting from how to explain the trajectory of a comet using only their intuitive knowledge, the pupils find that motion can be explained in terms of two basic assumptions relating to:

• how the body would move if no forces were acting on it (influence-free motion);
• the effect of some ‘influence’ acting on the body, which causes the motion to deviate from the above.

This explanatory strategy is also common to Keplerian and Newtonian explanations of motion.

In the second half of the course the pupils then evaluate these possible explanations in order to determine the ‘best’ possible theory of motion. This decision-making process is based on the epistemic values of plausibility (Does it sound sensible?), empirical adequacy (Can it be applied to a real situation?) and finally, generalisability (Can it be applied to motion in any situation?) (Klaassen et al. 2008).

One of the aims of the study is to determine the effectivity of this combination of:

1. a common explanatory scheme; together with,
2. an evaluation leading to choice of best possible theory, in motivating pupils to gain insight into explanation of motion.

As we are particularly interested in attaining an improved understanding of both the teaching and learning processes involved in our approach, we use the method of developmental research as proposed by Lijnse (2003). In this methodology the learning activities are worked into a detailed plan that includes aims and tasks for both teachers and pupils. This plan is worked into a scenario that not only describes the tasks, but also how and why they are interrelated, and hence serves to formulate expected outcomes. Data is collected in the form of video and audio recordings, interviews with teachers and pupils, written material of teachers and pupils. The whole actual teaching/learning process is then analysed in comparison to the expectations. On the basis of this analysis, the scenario can be adjusted for a subsequent cycle. It is aimed in this way to clarify the teaching/learning processes involved and hence obtain a more robust didactical structure.
Hence our study involves a close coverage and analysis of the lessons in the classroom, and the interpretation of both utterances and written work of pupils and teachers (see e.g. Klaassen and Lijnse 1996).

At the basis of our approach is the idea that the pupils’ ‘common sense’ reasoning about motion is not so much at variance with e.g. ‘scientific’ explanation of motion as it may appear; and that it can in fact be used as a starting point for learning about Newtonian mechanics. Prof. Bliss and Prof. Ogborn carried out a lot of interesting and original research on intuitive and common sense reasoning in pupils, among other things with regard to motion (e.g. Bliss 2006). I was hoping that this might for example provide new insights for me to interpret what pupils do and say during lessons, or other ways in which to make productive use of common sense ideas and reasoning.

Questions

1. Bliss (1995) proposes and develops the notion of ‘empirical abstraction', an idea proposed by Piaget but then neglected by him. For her, empirical abstraction is crucial to developing the means by which children and adults understand the physical world. I would like to learn more about how this notion ‘works’ and the empirical support for this idea;
2. Ogborn (1985) has developed a common sense theory of motion, which is very different from a Newtonian approach to motion and which he proposes is closer to the way in which most people reason in a common sense fashion about motion. I would like to understand these ideas in more detail, and also how they are supported empirically;
3. For both the above, in what ways have these ideas proved effective e.g. in the development of learning materials/processes;
4. How I could apply these ideas to (particular cases from) my own research.

Outcomes
On day 1 in the morning I presented my own research. In the afternoon we discussed empirical abstraction and the ontology of common sense, in relation to the first two questions. This is summarised briefly below.
On day 2, in relation to question 3, we discussed the design and development of the Advancing Physics curriculum, and we also discussed the following phase of my own research (question 4). This is also summarised below.

Question 1
Empirical abstraction
My particular interest in this question was that my own research concerns an educational module which aims to tap into and exploit intuitive core causal knowledge to develop insight into explanation of motion. I hoped that some understanding of how intuitive or common-sense knowledge may be structured could be useful e.g. in interpreting how pupils are reasoning when working with our materials.

Piaget was particularly concerned with logical reasoning schemes; although he considered the possibility of abstracting knowledge from the physical properties of objects, for a long time he did not believe that this was as important as the former. Prof. Bliss, however, later developed this idea of ‘empirical abstraction’ further, as something that functions as more than just a “means of providing ... knowledge about a particular object or situation by abstracting information from the objects themselves” (Bliss 2008), because it also allows schemes of a physical nature (as opposed to logical schemes) to be constructed by the individual, “providing a focus on the particular properties of objects or situations” (Bliss 1994).

An example of how this works is as follows. A child may abstract from the object “cup” that it is “white, smooth” but also “solid but can be broken”. However, a more fundamental property of the cup is that it is a container for liquids (within the constraint that it not be broken). This idea of ‘container’ is also applicable in a whole range of other contexts e.g. social: in the ritual of meals, but also in the ritual of bathing, where it may be linked e.g. to the idea of ‘flow’. With a little more effort the child may even come to view a bus as a ‘container’ of people, who ‘flow’ in and out.

Research carried out by Prof. Bliss (see e.g. Bliss 2008), starting from work in alternative conceptions and commonsense reasoning, showed that empirical abstraction does indeed allow construction of several concrete physical reasoning schemes. These are connected to contexts and 14 have been identified, among which: container, movement, action/force/effort, support, fall. It was shown that overall children use these schemes in a rational and stable manner, and it is claimed that these schemes are not so much a fragmented “knowledge in pieces” (as e.g. the p-prims of di Sessa) but provide a “stable framework for children and later adults to reason in a coherent manner about the world. The reasoning schemes function e.g. as building blocks, which in combination constitute a mental model for predicting or accounting for events. An intriguing idea is that these schemes may be used metaphorically in non-physical contexts.

Question 2
Commonsense theory of motion
My interest in this question was similar to that for question 1 above.

In the past much research seemed to indicate that pupils’ ideas of motion differed from a ‘scientific’ explanation, but Prof. Ogborn (1985) suggested it would be worthwhile trying to understand why certain alternative conceptions of scientific ideas commonly exist, e.g. by formulating some theory of the content of the alternative conceptions, i.e. a ‘commonsense’ theory of motion.

This was based on the two ideas of support and falling, i.e. things fall unless they are supported and furthermore, having started to fall, things fall more rapidly the higher up they start or the heavier they are (law of falling). Two other basic concepts are place and path: one kind of motion involves changing the place of the object, another kind of motion involves the object moving by itself, along a path. Both these kinds of motion require an effort, which can have three different sources. E.g. for a car the effort is generated by the car itself, if you kick a football you first supply effort on the ball to get it going, after that the ball carries on by effort of its own motion. And so on. Scientific concepts such as ‘force’ and ‘gravity’ can be accounted for within this theory, but as commonsense reasoning is aimed at efficiently predicting motion in real time and in specific situations, it may not incline towards taking account of something as ubiquitous as gravity.

Prof. Ogborn found support for his ideas relating to an ontology of commonsense reasoning in a much broader perspective, in studies to determine how pupils understand the nature of conceptual entities (e.g. matter, time, space etc) and a varied range of physical events (both everyday and scientific e.g. setting a thing on fire, going shopping, magnetic attraction, etc) in terms of ontological features (e.g Mariani & Ogborn 1991, 1995). In other empirical studies Prof. Bliss and Prof. Ogborn worked together to demonstrate how commonsense ideas of motion develop in young children from initial, more primitive concepts (Bliss & Ogborn 1994, see also Bliss 2008).

Question 3
With regard to this question, I learned that whereas in my own research we aim explicitly to test didactical theory, it is generally unusual for research findings to have an effect directly on the development of learning materials and processes. This was also the case with the Advancing Physics curriculum developed by Prof. Ogborn. However, the latter was guided implicitly by a number of pedagogic ideas, which were still quite interesting from a didactical point of view, for example:

• the idea of introducing variety of experience of science (see also Ogborn 1996);
• another interesting idea was that of presenting physics within a cultural context: the examples used to illustrate the various concepts were chosen from a whole range of contexts (e.g. historical, geographical, biographical) in order to show how much physics is a part of, and relevant to, our general cultural heritage.
• a choice was also made for a strongly visual (graphical) presentation of material. This is not a trivial matter as it requires considerable insight into the nature of what is being expressed (and quite some time to get it ‘right’). However, for many (although not all) people it can be a more effective way to understand an idea;
• the structure of explanations: all explanations have a narrative structure because they are about how and why things happen, and should hence be written in this way rather than as sets of assertions. Also, narrative structures lend themselves to pictures (see point above);
• An interesting point for me was that the curriculum was intended to be flexible in terms of allowing teachers to teach it in their own way. For example, although there was a clear conceptual line through the material (e.g. mechanics as a more fundamental topic is not introduced until the end of the first year, having first provided an overview and ‘feeling’ for physics in general), the material was designed to be sufficiently flexible to allow teachers who so desired e.g. to start the course with the mechanics chapter. Also, although again there was a recommended approach, the supporting materials themselves were also such that teachers could pick and choose to some extent to fit their particular instructional requirements. This was interesting for me as in my research we aim to train teachers to try out a teaching approach that is new to them, and research in earlier projects has shown that this generally meets with quite some resistance.

Question 4
I had hoped to be able to discuss some of my data with Prof. Bliss and Prof. Ogborn, but unfortunately I had not got as far in the analysis of my data as I had hoped and had not yet reached the point of being able to select and translate a relevant selection of data. However, we did discuss a number of practical issues with regard to the analysis of this type of data.
Prof. Bliss also pointed out that even though I am now in the final phase of my own research and the methodology I use has already been defined, it may be possible for me, in addition, to interpret some of my data with the new ideas I have learned.

Conclusion
One of the themes of my research is insight, or more specifically ‘insightful learning’, which we understand in a holistic way to be concerned with learning to understand (some particular aspect of) knowledge within a broader framework and e.g. from a different point of view.
This I think sums up the value, for me, of this visit. Even though the time was quite limited and in the end we did not get round to actual application of news ideas to my own research, I now had the opportunity to look at learning about mechanics and motion from a different point of view (broadening the framework). Also, in presenting my own research and discussing it with Prof. Bliss and Prof. Ogborn, I was able to see my own work from a different perspective. So in this sense the visit most certainly helped to develop my insight into the problem I am working with.

Also, while a lot can be learned about research from the literature, and lectures or presentations can serve to bring out the ideas behind a line of research, it can also be very inspiring to get to know (a little bit) about the person (or people) behind the ideas. And I feel very lucky and grateful both to ESERA and to my hosts, for this opportunity.

References:

Bliss J (1995) Piaget and after: the case of learning science, Studies in Science Education, 25, 139-172.

Bliss J (2008) Common sense reasoning about the physical world, Studies in Science Education, 44, 123-155.

Bliss J & Ogborn J (1994) Force and motion from the beginning, Learning and Instruction, 4, 7-25.

Klaassen CWJM (1995) A problem posing approach to teaching the topic of radioactivity, CDBeta Press, Utrecht.

Klaassen K & Lijnse PL (1996) Interpreting students’ and teachers’ discourse in science classes: an underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, (2), 115-134.

Klaassen CWJM (2003) Science education and constitutive elements of our mode of understanding, Paper presented at the ESERA 2003 Conference in Noordwijkerhout The Netherlands.

Klaassen K et al. (2008) Introducing mechanics by tapping core causal knowledge, Physics Education, 43, 433-439.

Kortland K (2001) A problem posing approach to teaching decision making about the waste issue, CDBeta Press, Utrecht.

Lijnse PL (2003) Developmental research: its aims, methods and outcomes. In: D Kernl (ed), Proceedings of the 6th ESERA PhD Summer School, University of Ljubliana.

Mariani MC & Ogborn J (1991) Towards an ontology of common-sense reasoning, International Journal of Science Education, 13, 69-85.

Mariani MC & Ogborn J (1995) The ontology of physical events, International Journal of Science Education, 17, 643-661.

Ogborn J (1985) Understanding students’ understandings: an example from dynamics, European Journal of Science Education 7 (2), 141-150.

Ogborn J (1996) Science and the made world, Keynote address: Proceedings of the Science and Technology Education Conference, Hong Kong.

Vollebregt M.J. (1998) A problem posing approach to teaching the initial particle model, CDBeta Press, Utrecht.

Westra A (2006) A new approach to teaching and learning mechanics, CDBeta Press, Utrecht.