Reconstructing Student Meaning: A Theory of Perspective

Journal

of

Print

Software

•

Chemical •

Education

Online

•

Books

Owned and Published by the Division of Chemical Education, Inc., of the American Chemical Society

Online Symposium: Piaget, Constructivism, and Beyond

Reconstructing Student Meaning: A Theory of Perspective Transformation Donald J. Wink Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607

Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 78, p 1107, August 2001. Copyright ©2001 by the Division of Chemical Education of the American Chemical Society.

Reconstructing Student Meaning: A Theory of Perspective Transformation

Donald J. Wink Department of Chemistry 845 W. Taylor Street Chicago, IL 60607 TEL: 312-413-7383 FAX: 312-996-0431 E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction: Learning and the Inclusive Perspective Chemical educators often confront a two-fold problem in teaching. First, we work in a natural science where the existence and behavior of fundamental building blocks—atoms—can only be inferred by students, not directly observed (1). Second, students may come to a course with incomplete or distorted prior knowledge. Getting them to add new information or meanings is very difficult, and getting them to change their knowledge or meanings even more so. Thus, educators should be aware of the research and applications associated with how knowledge and meanings change. This includes considering that change may very different things in adults and children. In this paper, I review the way one theory from the adult education literature can be very informative in addressing broad approaches to chemical education in post-secondary settings. This theory has been most thoroughly explored by Mezirow (2), and has been surveyed in a practice-based book by Cranton (3). The first major section of the paper describes some important components of transformative learning theory. The second then takes some of these components and applies them to particular questions and tasks for science classrooms and curricula. Meaning-making, Learning Types, and Critical Reflection Mezirow indicates that transformative learning per se is found in individuals at or above twenty-five years of age, the theory has implications for educators at the college and, possibly, pre-college level. His stated goal is: “Anything that moves the individual toward a more inclusive, differentiated, permeable (open to other points of view) and integrated meaning perspective, the validity of which has been established through rational discourse, aids an adult’s development.” While Mezirow and those who use his work often look only at problems of adults in society (for example, unions, women returning to school, or changes in employment), the same benefits of an open and permeable approach are also important in learning science beyond a simple algorithmic approach. Indeed, the "algorithmic" approach of many students, documented in a variety of papers (4), is an excellent example of how a student can create and maintain a perspective that is not open to conceptual approaches. Three major themes in transformative learning theory are most important to science educators. The first is the centrality of "meaning" in learning. The second looks at different types of learning, and the third delineates the experiences that may support learning. These are each important in understanding how the theory "works" and pointing the way to particular applications in the classroom.


Page 2

Meaning and Interpretation The center of knowledge, in this theory, lie in the meanings that we apply to our experience. Forming new meanings-meaning making-is central to how we can (or cannot) successfully interpret something we are trying to learn. As he wrote (2a): “Learning means using a meaning that we have already made to guide the way we think, act, or feel about what we are currently experiencing. Meaning is making sense of or giving coherence to our experiences. Meaning is an interpretation.” A student who cannot do certain problems, then, is one who may lack particular knowledge. But that student may also not be able to interpret the subject because his or her meanings are not enough for the task. Meanings may be inadequate because, for example, a method for interpreting one kind of problem becomes a method for interpreting all later problems. In this case the earlier meaning may have been sufficient (think, for example, of the different meanings of "hydrogen"). Second, making a new meaning is a problem of fitting new material into an existing structure. If a student does not have or receive appropriate connection points, then the new meaning may not be rooted. In that case, learning is reduced to rote acquisition of certain behaviors, hardly the kind of learning associated with “understanding.” Types of Learning in Transformation Theory If learning is hindered by perspectives that are undeveloped, mistaken, or otherwise closed to new interpretations, then changing those perspectives is essential to learning. Perspectives are altered within three types of learning, taken from the work of Habermas (5). These are instrumental learning, communicative learning, and emancipatory learning. Each has its own mode of action, logic, and validity testing. All three modes of learning are critical in whether a student will be effective in an area, whether at a general level or in a particular discipline. A summary of relevant factors is given in Table I.


Page 3

Table I. Areas of Human Interest for Learning in Transformation Theory. Instrumental Learning

Communicative Learning

Emancipatory Learning

Knowledge Type

Technical

Practical

Self

Form of Logic

Hypothetical-deductive

Metaphorical-abductive

not specified; possibly analytic

Form of Inquiry

Prescriptive (do and observe results)

Designative (use a term and observe how it is understood)

Appraisive (assess how one’s self relates to a topic)

Form of Validity Testing

Demonstrating truth of hypothesis

Consensual validation of meaning

Validation of self by external observers

Example from Chemical Education

Learning titration

Learning to use “endpoint”

Learning a reason why titration is important.

Instrumental learning is what we think of when we talk about learning technical knowledge. It is the kind of learning, Mezirow suggests, that is most important to Piaget, and it follows a logic of hypothesis testing and then deduction to determine the truth and reliability of a statement or method. We need a well-defined problem, and one that can be solved in a clearly interpreted way. But experience, even repeated experience, does not necessarily equal understanding (consider when a student asserts: “phenophthalein can be colorless in some, but not all, basic solutions"). A deeper understanding of a subject is available, however, if students engage in of communicative learning. The individual doesn’t learn whether a statement is true experimentally. Instead, the individual considers the validity of the statement in terms of how it fits with the communication of others, including the understanding others have of the "workings" of the world (consider when a student asserts "phenophthalein is a molecule that undergoes a change in its structure between pH 9 and pH 10", even though that student has no direct knowledge of that structural change). Communicative learning does not use hypothesis testing. Instead, it involves reasoning using metaphor and analogy, usually connected to the standard meanings used by a discipline. The centrality of metaphor in teaching chemistry is well documented in chemistry by Coppola and others (6). And analogies have been long recognized as important in chemistry, even forming one half of a "feature" series in the Journal!


Page 4

Finally, Mezirow understands that learning occurs in a larger context than the classroom, and here we see some possible connection of emancipatory learning. Though this is a very complex process involving learning about one's self, it has direct connections to current discussions of student's participation in science, as highlighted in books written by Tobias (7) and by Seymour and Hewitt (8). Both present a picture of science students who rejects science based their understanding of themselves in relation to science. Reflective Events to Support Transformation The types of learning are categories within which students experience different events. The nature of the "events" is at the heart of pedagogy. Mezirow's work includes important ideas of what actions (i.e., pedagogy) support transformative learning. Critical reflection, especially self-reflection, must be part of any pedagogy that is transformative in character. There are three kinds of reflection that he discusses; all can be incorporated into a transformative curriculum.1 Reflection on content involves looking at what we know and checking its validity against other things. Reflection on process addresses the need to correctly think about things. Reflection on premises is a much more fundamental problem that, though rarely addressed in K-16 courses with traditional students per se are a major event as a student reflects, consciously on why he or she is in a particular curriculum. Applications to Your Teaching Though there is a great deal more in transformation theory, it is important that I turn to issues related to our own classroom. In the following, I present two sets of suggestions. The first set explores the how different learning types–instrumental, communicative, and emancipatory may impact college science classrooms, especially chemistry classrooms. The second set looks at examples of how the idea of critical reflection can be used in looking at recent reports of change in student attitudes and outcomes in science.

1. In addition to these deliberate actions, Mezirow cites experiences of severe disconnection as very important in life-changing transformative events. These include statements such as those made by students who feel their eyes are suddenly and profoundly "opened" after a positive or negative experience. Such events, though central to a major part of Mezirow's work, are of little help in planning actual teaching and learning events.


Page 5

Learning types in the chemistry classroom If we focus on communicative learning, then we see it is essential that students have access to a rich and precise presentation of the accepted meanings of words and concepts. Where possible, experience in the utility of those concepts should be provided. Some other questions for the educator to consider are, I think: 1.

How much do we acknowledge to students that chemists often reason by analogy, not be direct reference to facts? Note that this is a healthy way to reason, but it runs contrary to the idea that chemists are “rigorously” experimental.

2.

If approximations (for example, concentration in the place of activity) are presented as operative quantities, to what extent should the approximate nature of the quantity be specified?

3.

When models of physical and chemical behavior are introduced, is it clear that these are models, not facts? Are students told it is "OK" to use models as a tool in science reasoning? When we think about emancipatory learning, we may be in an area that transcends any individual course, since

it deals so much with the student's self-view. But at the least we should think about why our teaching may influence that view. I suggest that we must make the classroom a place of high value for the student, and recognize that we are in competition with many other valuable things. Here are some ways, I think, to inquire about the "value" of our classroom: 1.

Does instruction link point to point, allowing a student to see at almost any time that the lesson fits a scheme they want to acquire?

2.

If a lesson includes things students find difficult, do we acknowledge the associated anxiety and provide them with support to persevere?

3.

Since learning about oneself involves getting others to tell us what they think of us, do we give students clear assessment of their progress in a fair and honest manner? Reflective Pedagogy in Education It is easy to assume that students are naturally reflective about the science as they are learning it. But that is an

assumption that must be carefully examined, especially in light of research that suggests poor conceptual learning in algorithm-based instruction. For example, do we give students a chance to assess their use of chemical terms? Or, when they carry out a procedure, are they merely graded “right or wrong” or are they asked to reflect on the accuracy and precision of their technique?


Page 6

A general strategy for supporting reflective learning–applied to content, process, and premise–may lie in the use of portfolio instruction and assessment. Portfolio "cultures" include several characteristics where the student considers what is being learned, how this can be applied to different contexts, and even why it is being learned (9). The most extensive descriptions of portfolios in college science are by Timothy Slater, working in both physics (10), and geological science (11). Portfolios have been discussed in the Journal of Chemical Education in the context of high school assignments (12). Portfolio use in college chemistry is not well described, but Dougherty's article on "Grade / Performance Contracts" (13) includes elements of reflective learning that can be considered a form of portfolio. Similarly, Finster has adopted the “Reflective Judgment” model of developmental stages developed by Kitchener and King (14) to structure curricula and lessons to support student reflection on content, process, and premises (15). Besides such a general approach, work on the separate areas of content, process, and premise reflection is also apparent in the literature. There are some excellent examples of how reflection on content may be important in chemical education. Farrell, Spencer, and Moog, for example, deliberately plan exercises, under a "Guided Inquiry" strategy, that let students build a set of data that uncovers a contradiction in expectations (16). Thinking about what content is actually most important, and how it connects to other areas, is also an important theme, for example in the work of Greenbowe and colleagues (17) and in our own recent work on mathematics and chemistry (18). Student's view of the process by which they should study chemistry and then do problems are clearly important to many educators. Strategies to support reflection on process are found in many metacognitive research papers, for example as summarized by Rickey and Stacey (19). Consider the use of molar mass in stoichiometry problems. Most of us, I think, have seen students look at “grams per mole” and then use the wrong value of molar mass because they didn’t ask the question “grams per mole of what substance?” The difference reflects, I think, a change in a student's process understanding. The question of premise reflection, as noted earlier, impacts student persistence in science. But it also may be important in a student's entry into the science community. This can considered the "positive" side of the work of Seymour, Hewitt, Tobias and others. Richmond and Kurth suggest four areas–premises, in other words–where growth is necessary if a student is possess a mature "scientific identity kit." These areas are (a) technical language, (b) collaboration, (c) uncertainty, and (d) inquiry (20). Reflection within all four areas is, potentially, crucial to the formation of a scientist.


Page 7

Conclusion: The Problem of Faculty Development In this paper I have tried to survey a very rich and wide-reaching theory, and to present some implications for chemical educators. In closing, I would like to point out that this theory is also very important in the development of new habits for faculty. It is quite possible that the transmission model of teaching is so popular because it stems from effective methods for sharing research knowledge, and therefore the college lecture hall becomes a kind of repeated seminar on chemistry. Put this way, the problem of change in instruction begins by confronting the way faculty interpret the classroom and their premises about learning. Such an analysis makes faculty development a place for the full scope of transformative learning, so the connection to Mezirow can be a powerful guide. LITERATURE CITED

.

1.

Kozma, R.; Russell, J. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1997, 34, 949

2.

(a) Mezirow, Jack Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1991. (b) Mezirow, J. Adult Education Quarterly, 1994, 44, 222-235. This is the best short presentation of the theory that I have read.

3.

Cranton, P. Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1994.

4.

Nakhleh, M. B.; Lowrey, K. A.; Mitchell, R. C J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 758.

5.

Habermas, J. Knowledge and Human Interests, Shapiro, J. J. Trans. Beacon: Boston, 1971.

6.

Coppola, B. P.; Ege, S. N.; Lawton, R. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 84-94.

7.

Tobias, S. They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different. Tuscon: Research Corporation, 1990.

8.

Seymour, E.: Hewitt, N. M. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder: Westview, 1996.

9.

Gordon, E. W.; Bonilla-Bowman, C., “Can Performance-Based Assessments Contribute to the Achievement of Educational Equity?” in Performance–Based Student Assessment: Challenges and Possibilities, Baron, J. B and Wolf, D. P., Ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1996.

10. Slater, T. F. J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 1997, 26, 315. 11. Slater, T. F.; Astwood, P. M., J. Geol. Educ., 1995, 43, 216.


Page 8

12. (a) Adamchik, Jr., C. F. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 528. (b) Phelps, A. J.; LaPorte, M. M.; Mahood, A. J. Chem. Educ., 1997, 74, 528. 13. Dougherty, R. C. J. Chem. Educ., 1997, 74, 722. 14. King, P. M.; Kitchener, K. S. Developing Reflective Judgment, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. 15. Finster, D. C. Liberal Education, 1992, 78, 14-19. 16. Farrell, J. J.; Moog, R. S.; Spencer, J. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 570. 17. Sanger, M. J.; Greenbowe, T. J. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22, 521. 18. Wink, D. J.; Gislason, S.F.; McNicholas, S. D.; Zusman, B. J.; Mebane, R.C. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 999. 19. Rickey, D.; Stacy, A. M., J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 915. 20. Richmond, G.; Kurth, L. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1999, 36, 677.


Page 9

Reconstructing Student Meaning: A Theory of Perspective

Recommend Documents