Re: Supporting vs stifling curiosity

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

The real problem is often not explored in the journals.  I would agree that
being confident in your understanding of the subject material is certainly a
good step.  However even science majors are often not exposed to good
inquiry and discussion.  As a result they treat science as a body of facts
which must be taught.  They then use the same teaching by telling tactic on
their students and the problem is perpetuated.  This happens even with
extremely well educated teachers at all levels.

The PER publications do not often discuss this problem directly.  It is
certainly background to many PER articles, but explicitly bringing out this
problem is not often done.  By contrast the more general journals such as
Jour. of Res. In Sci. Teaching (JRST) has a number of articles on this
problem.  I am catching up on my articles and a couple that I can recommend
show that lower level students can benefit greatly by using inquiry rather
than just teaching facts.

JRST, 36 #1 pp 23-37 (1999) Effects of Learning Cycle and Traditional Text
on Comprehension of Science Concepts by Students at Differing Reasoning
Levels by Musheno&Lawson shows that the learning cycle can be incorporated
into the design of a text.  The result is that lower level students benefit,
but upper level students benefit less.  JRST, 37 #8 pp807-838 (2000) Lower
Track Science Students' Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction, Randy
Yerrick details some of the results of using open inquiry on lower level
students.  Essentially he observed an increased ability of students to
formulate scientific questions.

The first article shows how exposing students to the ideas by first giving
them examples before definitions helps them learn.  This is actually a form
of textbook inquiry.  The second article shows how inquiry in the classroom
can foster independent thinking and help students learn to ask appropriate
what if questions.  I wish textbook authors would take note of the first
article, while most science teachers could benefit from the second one.

Incidentally all of the articles that I have been reading highlight the
problem that "education" researchers and PER do not intersect.  Most of the
JRST articles have no references to any PER articles, and most PER articles
have few if any references to JRST articles.  The obvious exception is the
Heather Brasell article which is cited in practically all articles involving
MBL.

The amount and type of inquiry is certainly a hot topic open to much
argument.  However the body of evidence points to the idea that students do
not learn to make their own arguments unless exposed to it.  Only a
miniscule minority of teachers have used inquiry in any century prior to the
21st.  Some obvious exceptions such as Socrates come to mind.  While being
confident in the material may make inquiry more likely, it also can make the
teacher more of an authority.

Incidentally a membership in NARST includes online access to JRST articles
from 1995 without any extra fees.  At $100 it is a bargain compared to AAPT
membership.  They also publish the proceedings of some conferences online
for anyone to read.  The wealth of articles can keep you busy for a long
time.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> At 14:19 -0400 2/10/02, Chris Horton wrote:
> > From my limited observations of ninth grade science classes,
> reports from my
> > children on 5-9 sci classes and my own recollections, this response is
> > rampant in our public school systems.
> >
> > My daughters flatly refused to let me teach them any physics.
> They clearly
> > stated their reason: they didn't want to know more than the teacher; it
> > would make her angry.
> This problem is widespread throughout our educational system. It
> seems to be the fallout of the "educational reform" of the first half
> of the 20th century, in which the idea was that in order to be able
> to teach, it was not necessary to know the content of the subject
> being taught, only to know "how to teach," and so that was all that
> was taught in education schools. Administrators, imbued with this
> false idea, feel free to assign teachers to any class without regard
> to their qualification to teach the subject. Is it any wonder that
> the teachers are defensive about their subjects, when they are being
> graded by their supervisors on what amounts to their ability to hide
> from their students the fact that they know nothing about the subject
> they are teaching?
>
> A few states have instituted requirements that, at least for high
> school teachers, they must first get a BS or BA in an "academic
> subject" before taking a masters in education in order to qualify for
> a teaching credential. But even that doesn't keep the principal from
> assigning any teacher to any class where there is a vacancy,
> irrespective of their qualifications.
>
> It has certainly been my observation, not only in schools, but
> throughout the adult world, that the best leaders are, in general,
> those who understand what the people whom they are leading are
> supposed to be doing. Only when they understand the nature of the
> task to be done, are they capable of letting those charged with doing
> the job get on with it without undue interference.
>
> I have long advocated that teachers need to know *more* of their
> subject than they will be teaching. It is only this excess of
> knowledge that enables them to have the confidence to conduct an
> effective class and encourage effective thought among the students.
>
> But when put in the position of trying to teach something for which
> you are not well qualified, I have found it best in all cases to
> admit your ignorance up front, and be willing to tell a student when
> you don't know the answer to a question, and to turn the question
> into an assignment for both of you to seek the answer. Nothing will
> lose the respect of the students faster than the teacher's trying to
> cover up their ignorance. The students will see it and recognize it
> for what it is and will make the teacher's life miserable. Whereas,
> if the teacher admits their ignorance but shows a willingness to
> learn along with the students, they will usually respect that.
>
> Hugh
> --
>
> Hugh Haskell
> <mailto://haskell@ncssm.edu>
> <mailto://hhaskell@mindspring.com>
>
> (919) 467-7610
>
> Let's face it. People use a Mac because they want to, Windows because they
> have to..
> ******************************************************