Myths and Metaphors Their Influence on Chemistry Instruction Craig W. Bowen Science Education, Room 203 Carothers Hall, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306
Science education is in a crisis, because few Americans are scientifically literate. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science report (11,The Libem1 Art of Science, most people (including college graduates) do not "possess the intellectual skills to act effectively on scientific matters that they encounter in their personal, professional, or civic experiences". One solution to this problem is to develop a new pedagogy for science education that is centered around teaching science6'asit is practiced at its best". In order to achieve this, the way chemistry is taught must change. The report goes on to describe current practices in education that portrays science "as a body of factual information to be absorbed without critical examination and without consideration of how it came to be accepted by the scientific community". In contrast, the AAAS report continues by calling for changes in the manner in which science is taught-teaching in the same way scientists do science. However, changing current instructional practices is not easy. Researchers have studied how teachers structure their knowledge about teaching and make decisions in the classroom (24). The purpose of this paper is to present some ideas about how knowledge about teaching is organized within the context of chemistry classrooms. The primary aim is to discuss how teachers use personal epistemologies, myths, and metaphors, to formulate personal theories about teaching and learning and how they structure their classes. First, statements from two hypothetical iustructors are given about the college chemistry classes each is teaching. In the remainder of the paper these statements are analyzed in terms ofthe myths and metaphors that are used to structure the experiences and actions of these teachers. Teacher 1 The students have come a long way since the beginning of the semester. When they first came in, I gave them a pre-test to see what they had been taught in high school. I was appalled. They could barely balance simple equations, defme differences between covalent and ionic bonding, or perform simple calculations to determine the normality of a sodium hydroxide solution. I realized that I had a lot to do to bring them up to speed before I could really start teaching them chemistry. I started off slowly, because I wanted students to continue the course. While most of these students did not want to be taking my class, I thought I could get them up to a good starting point in a week or so. I started off with the mathematical aspects they would need to know such as logarithms, graphing, and solving simple algebraic equations. I thought fewer people would drop the course if I started talking about math rather than chemistry, because math is the lesser of the two evils to most students. After a week of the math review, I gave them a quiz to make sure they knew the material and also to make them feel better. Because chemistry is so dimcult to learn, I try to give the students easy quizzes so they won't give up. Their quiz re-
sults showed me that they were ready to learn some chemistry. The chemistw lectures beean in a slow manner so that the students cohd keep up. &though I was moving slowly on such topics as balancing equations and solving stoichiometry problems, I knew that the class would have to move faster if I were going to get them through all of the material by the end of the semester. When we started gas laws the students seemed to get a little nervous. When I came into lecture I could hearihem complain to each other that the class was movine too auicklv. If thev would onlv buckle down and work har& I was s&e that most of them would do ok. So I gave them a short pep talk and told them that although chGmistry is a very dkfi'cult subject, if they would just srnve harder, they would learn the material. 1 was relieved afler the first exam. It seems that most of the students had earned fairly high grades on theexam. At least I hadn't heard them complain too much. I hope the rest of the course runs as smoothly as it has so far. Teacher 2 I have really enjoyed-this class, because the students seem to have fun when we are in lab doing chemistry experiments. I was a little hesitant to base the course around problem-centered labs, but it seems to work well. I think ihe studentscan see what is mvolved mth beinga chemst. We started bv develo~ingsome basic assummons about matter. ~lthoughnot ail ofthe students had taken chemistry in high school, we decided that we would begin with some of the ideas some of them had learned in high school. For example, one of the assumptions,they suggested was that matter is composed of atoms or molecules. We talked about what we meant by the terms atoms and molecules so we could come up with a similar understanding of the concepts. Agoal they proposed related to this assumption was that we should strive to understand properties of atoms and molecules. I started by having them do a lab where they reacted sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium metals in water. While experimenting in their groups they noted how vigorous the reactions were. They decided they wanted to figure out why there were differences in the vigor of the reactions. Some of the students who had studied chemistry in high school suggested that they should determine the pH of the solutions they had made. Other students offered the following: Maybe the gases coming off are different, or perhaps vigor was related to the amount of metal or water that was used. As they explored some of the issues they raised I asked them how the periodic table might help to organize some of their results and explain what was happening during the reactions. Some of the students had a hard time adjusting to the looseness of the format of the course. I think as the semester progressed they have become better at coming up with expianations of chemical phenomena, and creatLg questions to investigate. They think that class review of their projects and explanations is a useful way to determine their understanding of what they are doing. Some of the
Volume 69 Number 6 June 1992
479
students have even commented to me that they never realized that learning chemistry could be fun. I just hope they continue to ask and explore questions about chemistry. What do these stories mean? What sorts of interactions, management and assessment activities occur in these classes? Such narrative descriptions, as with life, are organized around metaphors and myths. These descriptions are grounded in theories of knowledge, and different myths and metaphors about teaching and learning chemistry. Prior Knowledge Epistemologies, or theories about knowledge, are a n important component of theories about teaching and leamine. because thev ~ r o v i d ethe moundwork on which all te&hing and leaking is based.*he theories decide what counts and does not count as knowledge and learning. One discussion in this Journal has compared realist and constructivist theories of knowledee (5).A different ammach to this comparison is offered in'the formulation of ;theory of literature. Bruner, while developing a psychology of literature, discusses similarities and differences between narrative and scientific knowledge (6).One difference that he cites has to do with the validitv of knowledee. In science. the euidine validity question asks: Is the &owledge statement true? The midine validitv auestion in the narrative domain is different. 1; the knowiedge statement believable? An important distinction between these questions, that Bruner does not point out, is to whom or what the question is directed. In the case of traditional science, the question is asked for the world to answer. In contrast, the believability of narrative knowledge is evaluated by individuals. With science, the truths of statements are believed to be independent of what individual people think, while in the narrative domain each individual evaluates the believability of statements. An important point to understand from this discussion of narrative and scientific knowledge is the role individuals play in formulating and evaluating knowledge. Individuals interpret the believability of statements. The teaching knowledge that teachers use while in their classmom is best characterized as narrative knowledge. It is not the truth about what to do in a teaching situation, hut it is helievable knowledge that helps the teacher in the classroom. Myths and metaphors are two elements that are included in the development of narrative knowledge. Metaphors for Chemistry Teaching People use metaphors to organize their knowledge and make sense of the world. Metaphors are not just colorful literary devices, but they impose a structure of meaning for one concept in terms of another. Lakoff and Johnson describe several hues of meta~horsand the wav o e o,~ l e use them to understand the wohd (7).
".
Orientational Metaphors Orientational metaphors are used by people to structure a conce~tin terms of a s ~ a t i adimension l (e.e.. "I'm feeling down tiday," does not mean I am lower today than I usually am, but that I am unhappy). Think about the use of orientational metaphors that structure concepts related to teaching and learning.
The students are really on top of the material. This is my top class. Note that these exam~lesuse an UD-downdimension that is used to structure the value of th;statement as good or had. In general. UD is related to eood. while down corresponds to bad. FO; e&mple, the statement "He is on top of 480
Journal of Chemical Education
things" is more upbeat, than "He is a t the bottom of the class". Other orientational dimensions also are used to structure concepts. Some of these dimensions include: In-out (e.g., 'The students really get into doinglabs"), 'ont-back (e.g., "Sam is getting behind with his homework"), and onoff(e.g., "My students are off-task a lot of the time"). Ontological Metaphors Ontological metaphors (i.e., structuring a concept as an entity or substance) provides richer ways of making sense of the world than orientational metaphors. Lakoff and Johnson suggest that ontological metaphors serve various purposes. They refer, quantify, identify aspects, identify causes, and set goals. Two commonly used structuring concepts include land areas and the visual field. Consider these statements and how their speakers structure various concepts. We have a lot of material to mver before the end of the semester. I think if the students can just get over the hump of not heing able to solve limiting-reagent problems, then they will see how to standardize solutions.
Metaphors such as these structure knowledge in terms of land areas (e.g., "cover the material") and visual fields (e.g., "They can't see it"). Implicit in this structuringis the notion that knowledge exists independently of people (i.e., a nonconstructivist epistemology). Structural metaphors provide a useful way for understanding a concept in terms of a richer, more developed conce~t.The o ~ e n i enx~a m ~ l eLakoff and Johnson use to illustrate whai theymean by structural metaphor is that argument is war. They suggest that some people participate in a n argument based on their conceptions of war. While participating in a verbal argument, a person might try to attack, defend, retreat, maneuver, or surrender. Teachers use structural metaphors to make sense and take actions in their classrooms. Acommon structural metaphor that is used is the school as workplace or factory (8). Depending on a teacher's concept of workplace, teaching might involve several activities: marketing, product design, research and development, manufacturing, and quality control. Comments made by teachers seem to utilize the metaphor of school as workplace. s'tI diicult tm develop a course for nonrnnjors when other departmrnrs won't rrll me %.hotthey want the m d e n t s tu know. (Product drslgn., The rrudents I grr in frcshmnn rhemistr).are not as good as they were 20 years ago. (Qualitycontrol of raw materials
Implicit in these statements is the idea that the ideal class will produce students that have a specified knowledge of chemistry. Given that Deode use meta~hors-orientational. ontological, and kructural-to mike sense of concepts and structure their actions, consider some of the metaphors that the two chemistry teachers use to make sense of what they do in their classrooms. Both teachers used different ontological metaphors when describing what goes on in their classroom. The first teacher used ontological metaphors such as these: Knowledge is land (e.g., "cover all the material"), and assessment is seeing (e.g., "Their quiz results showed me"). In contrast, the second teacher seems to use different ontological metaphors that involve the students as people. His include, 'The people in the class are exploring land" (e.g., "We started off'), questions are land built by students (e.g., "They explored some of the issues they raised"), and the class is seeing (e.g., "Students can see what is involved with being a chemist").
The structural metaphors that the teachers use when talking about their class are also different. The first instructor's descriptions could be depicted as classroom (or students) as a vehicle (e.g., "bring them up to speed"), and classroom as a workplace (e.g., "buckle down and work hard"). The second teacher's descriptions seem oriented around the metaphor of classroom as research group. What are some of the wnseauences of these meta~hors in terms of what happens in these classes? Think a h o h the first instructor. What are the roles of the students and the instructor in such a class? The instructor has the responsihilitv for makine sure the class is "driven" in the rieht direction to makesure the students acquire the knokedge specified in the course outline. The instructor will also need to motivate his "workers" to learn chemistry. He is both the mechanic that fixes things that are wrong with the vehicle (e.g., build them up so they can be "brought up to speed" to learn some chemistry), and a foreman that sees that the workers labor hard to learn chemistry and subsequently "earn" a grade. Assessment is seen as something that lets the instructor fmd out what the workers can produce, or the capabilities of the vehicle. The classroom described by the second teacher is structured verv differentlv. The meta~horshe uses to structure his teachkg include; "The classborn is a research group, and questions are land". The consequences of such metaphors makes a very different class. Responsibility for learning involves the entire class--students and teacher. This teacher values the questioning and exploration of chemistry that the class is formulating and engaging in. His role in the class appears to be moderator and research group member. He describes interactions that he has with his class as involving and coordinating group meetings and making contributions to brainstorming sessions. Assessment in the classroom is similar to trying to publish an article or writing for a grant. The peer review that takes place in the classroom helps students feel better about their understanding of the questions they formulate and explore. Myths for Chemistry Teaching I n the previous section examples were given that showed how metaphors are used by teachers to organize their beliefs and actions about teachine .. chemistw. How did these two lfachers arrive at such dili'erent conceptions of classroom life? Myths Drovide one oreanizine framework fnr metaphors. Mythdare widely herd societal beliefs about the world (9). Myths are neither static in nature, nor are they judged by scientific means (i.e., Is the myth true?). Myths are believable knowledge, either tacit or explicit, that people in different cultures use to live. Myths have numerous roles in a society including defining and sustaining a group, explaining cause-and-effectrelationships, rationalizing complex situations so predictable actions can be taken, and concealing and maintaining political interests (10).Understanding myths that teachers use might help to explain the behaviors of teachers that take place. s one For examole. defminc and sustainine the e r o u ~ is function of myths. One %ay to define an; sustkn
