KAPPAN HOME

ARTICLES ONLINE

PDK HOME

PHI DELTA

THE PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL FOR EDUCATION

Will Students Take Advantage of Opportunities for Meaningful Science Learning? By Charles W. Anderson and Okhee Lee No matter how tightly students' classroom behavior is controlled and guided by teachers and curriculum materials, students always retain personal control over their attention and effort, the authors remind us. Thus effective science instruction must start with understanding students' personal agendas and commitments, as well as their conceptions and learning processes in science. Illustration ©1997 by Jem Sullivan

THE STATE of science education in the U.S. has been an enduring concern. National reports on science education have for some time indicated poor academic performance and negative attitudes of American students.1 Student enrollment in science courses as electives or in preparation for science careers has remained low over the years. Furthermore, American students performed only slightly above average in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, the most recent of international comparisons.2

Much of the research on science teaching and learning during the 1980s demonstrated one reason for this persistent pattern of underachievement: most science programs simply did not provide students with opportunities to learn with understanding. Many programs were found to consist of little more than compilations of facts and "hands-on experiences" that rarely provided occasions for students to use scientific knowledge in a meaningful way. When meaningful science knowledge was included, it was often presented in ways that failed to connect with students' own ideas about how the world works. Thus learning with understanding was rendered effectively impossible for many students.

Science education research during the 1980s, often labeled as "conceptual change" or "constructivist" research, was largely cognitive in orientation.3 Through careful study of students' ways of thinking about the world, researchers sought to understand the "critical barriers" that prevented students from learning with understanding and to develop instructional programs that could overcome those barriers.

Current reform efforts in science education have largely shared this cognitive orientation. The science education reform programs of such national organizations as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Research Council have focused largely on changes in the science curriculum that will identify the knowledge, skills, and beliefs that are most valuable to students and on changes in instruction like those advocated by science education research.4

These are encouraging developments, and there is reason to believe that these changes in curriculum and instruction will help many students. For example, in a study of sixth-graders' understanding of matter and molecules, we designed a science unit that took into account the students' conceptions as well as scientific conceptions. This unit used a range of instructional strategies and activities to help students develop scientific understanding. In a follow-up study, we modified the science unit to promote students' problem-solving skills, as well as their scientific understanding, through cooperative learning. The results of both studies indicated that students exposed to the special units displayed greater problem-solving skills and understanding of scientific knowledge than a control group that experienced a more traditional approach to science teaching.5

Although research on conceptual change can help educators to expand greatly the number of students who have real opportunities to learn with understanding, any meaningful learning still requires significant effort on the part of students. Students who cannot be enticed into sustained engagement with scientific ideas are unlikely to benefit from the opportunities for meaningful learning that teaching for conceptual change can provide.6 Even the best-designed curriculum cannot succeed when students are alienated from academic work.

So research on conceptual change and cognitively based science education reforms cannot by themselves answer a series of critical questions: Who will take advantage of the opportunities for meaningful science learning that these instructional programs provide? In other words, how will alienated, unengaged students react to new opportunities? With interest and engagement? Or will they simply continue to go through the motions? In the rest of this article, we describe a study that examined these questions.

Our study was conducted in two sixth-grade science classrooms in two different schools. Both schools were located in an urban district in the Midwest, and both had an ethnically mixed student population. Both teachers were recommended as exemplary by their principals and colleagues, and both used a science unit on matter and molecules that had been designed to induce conceptual change. The goals of the curriculum and instruction in both classes were to make science meaningful to students by making connections between students' conceptions and scientific conceptions and by engaging students in using scientific knowledge to describe, explain, and make predictions about natural phenomena.

We selected for intensive study 12 students from these two classrooms who represented a wide range of abilities, motivational styles, and cultural and social backgrounds. Of the 12 students, five were male, and seven were female; eight were white, two Hispanic, and two African American. Among these 12 students we observed several different patterns of engagement with the content and activities of the classes. We offer brief descriptions of four students who illustrate the differences we found in patterns of task engagement and the reasons for such differences.

Case 1. Intrinsic motivation to learn science. Jason was intrinsically interested in learning science. He was inquisitive, curious, and enthusiastic about science. In and outside science class, he initiated activities and expanded his thinking beyond the requirements or expectations of his teachers. For example, when the teacher was explaining that every substance has its own freezing or melting temperature, Jason reminded the teacher of an explanation he had asked for before: "I asked you a question yesterday, and you said you'd know by the end of the day. If you put whiskey in a freezer, why doesn't it freeze?" Jason was persistent in seeking answers to satisfy his curiosity.

On another occasion, when students were engaged in an experiment on dissolving, using sugar as an example, Jason commented that he was currently growing sugar crystals on a paper clip at home. He had watched the activity on a TV science program and had decided to try it himself.

Jason brought to science class his own agenda, which was consistent with the culture of science and with the goal of scientific understanding. He had substantial knowledge of science even before the unit began. Jason also had a genuine desire to learn science and to understand it. He said that he had "a lot of interest in science, truthfully." Furthermore, Jason had the intellectual tools and personal support (his father was an engineer who often did science activities with Jason) that he needed to help him learn successfully.

The unit increased Jason's understanding of science and his desire to learn more. As he said at the conclusion of the unit, "I've learned a lot more than in September about science. I got different ideas, explanations, and I like challenging work."

Case 2. Ordinary motivation to learn science. Sara tried to understand science and worked to achieve this goal. Unlike Jason, however, Sara did not begin the unit with any particular interest in or enjoyment of science. With support, Sara proved successful in learning with understanding. For example, when she had difficulty understanding the scientific conception that substances consist of molecules with empty space between them, she persisted over several lessons, until she finally understood it. The following statements from Sara after three different lessons illustrate her persistence in seeking to understand.

Lesson Cluster 1 on states of matter: There is water around water molecules. . . . There is nothing between molecules because molecules are all bunched and close together.

Lesson Cluster 3 on molecular composition of air: There is air in between them. . . . Well, something is in between them. There is space between them . . . air molecules, no air without molecules. . . . There is space between the molecules. So it's really air space.

Lesson Cluster 4 on compression and expansion of air: There is just space, nothing between the molecules [of air]. . . . It is empty.

Over the course of our study, Sara showed that she was aware that understanding science would require effort. But, as this excerpt from our interview with her shows, she also experienced the rewards that came with success.

Interviewer: Was the activity difficult yesterday?

Sara: Kind of. Kind of hard for me to understand until he [the teacher] really explained it.

Interviewer: Can you understand it now?

Sara: Yeah. When you understand it, it is simple because you know exactly what happens.

Sara started the unit with little knowledge about matter and molecules. She was not particularly enthusiastic about the topic, nor was she particularly committed to learning science with understanding. However, Sara did want to please the adults in her life, including her parents and her teacher, by being academically successful. And she was willing to expend effort to achieve this personal agenda. The curriculum and the teacher helped her focus her efforts on learning science in a meaningful way. The unit helped Sara both to understand science and to develop an appreciation for the intrinsic rewards of learning science.

It's kind of fun to learn about the world, you know, how it works and stuff, 'cause before I didn't know about molecules, I didn't understand it, and it was fun to learn.

Case 3. Task avoidance. Kim was generally inattentive, uninvolved in class activities, and indifferent to learning science. She often had an empty gaze, played with things on her desk, copied other students' answers, and left assignments unfinished. Although Kim was always quiet and reserved, she tried to minimize her effort and involvement in classroom work. For example, while students were working in small groups on a question about evaporation, Kim sat quietly, staring into space. Suddenly, she started talking to another female student about a friend at a school event. The other student disregarded Kim's comment and urged her to work on the question: "Come on! We are thinking about science today. Answer the question," she said. Kim stopped talking and gazed around at her peers and the room. When a male student in the group wrote down an answer in his activity book, Kim looked at his answer and said, "I'll put that down. I like it." She copied his answer, despite his protests. When asked by the observer about this incident, Kim promptly responded that the answer made sense to her, although she could not give an explanation in her own words.

Kim's low task engagement was related to her poor knowledge of science and her lack of interest. She expressed little confidence in her ability to succeed.

All the work ain't going to be correct. It might be okay, but it isn't all going to be correct all of the time. . . . I know that I ain't better than some of the students in my class.

Kim also saw little value in learning science with understanding.

Interviewer: Why do you study science?

Kim: So that when you go on next year, so that the teacher, they will teach it right over mostly. So when you go to the seventh grade next year, you will know more about why they gonna teach.

For all these reasons, Kim continued her personal agenda of getting by with minimum effort. She chose to reject the alternative offered by the curriculum and the teacher. Kim's perception of her low competence precluded her from even attempting to understand science in the first place. When the unit was completed, Kim showed low achievement, little enthusiasm in giving explanations, and little interest in learning science.

Case 4. Active task resistance. Nora resisted engaging in classroom tasks and often displayed disruptive behavior and disciplinary problems in class. While Kim quietly avoided the classroom work and tried to get by, Nora carried out a campaign of active resistance. For example, while walking around the room, the teacher passed by Nora and reached to pick up her activity book to read her answer (as the teacher sometimes did for other students). Nora grabbed her activity book, refused to let the teacher read the answer, and hid her book behind her. On a number of occasions, Nora made noises by yawning or coughing loudly, read her answers in class loudly and quickly, and made faces at other students. She made faces at the teacher behind his back while he was writing on the chalkboard.

Nora's active resistance to learning science stemmed largely from her negative feelings about her teacher.

I don't like learning about the world because when they talk about different states and stuff, because I don't care about the stuff. If I get the work done, I don't go back and make sure my ideas are correct. If I get them wrong, then they are wrong. I don't like science. . . . I don't like the teacher that much. I don't really like science class.

Nora's personal agenda to demonstrate resistance led her to deny the goal of scientific understanding, even though she recognized its value. Nora eventually disassociated herself from the teacher and from the science class. When the unit was completed, her denial of science learning and the teacher intensified.

Nora: I don't like to understand the world. I don't like to know about things that go on. I don't like to correct my answers, and I don't like to go back and look through things 'cause it's boring and I'd rather do other things. . . . I hate doing work in science.

Interviewer: Can you tell me why your feelings about science class have changed?

Nora: Because, in the beginning, I thought school was fun and that science was fun, too. But now it's boring. The teacher, you know, I don't know, he's weird.

 

Implications for Science Teaching and Learning

As the brief case studies above illustrate, not all students are likely to benefit from improvements in science programs that provide increased opportunities for meaningful learning. The curriculum and instruction in the study were effective for those students who were willing to expend significant effort to understand science, either out of a desire to learn science (like Jason) or out of a desire to please their teachers or parents (like Sara). When students' personal agendas were compatible with the goal of understanding science, the results were rewarding both for students and teachers. The case of Sara is especially valuable for curriculum and instructional development.

For students whose personal agendas were indifferent or hostile to the goal of scientific understanding (like Nora and Kim), the careful attention that the curriculum materials and teachers paid to helping students develop conceptual understanding made little impact. These students had developed coping strategies that enabled them to pur-sue their personal agendas and protect their self-worth, while avoiding the worst consequences of school failure. For example, Kim's decision not to expend effort was perhaps reasonable from her perspective. Even if she struggled to achieve scientific understanding, many other students would still understand better than she. Kim chose indifference to and alienation from science learning and so avoided effort directed toward a goal that she perceived as difficult or impossible to achieve.

The patterns of engagement that we saw in this study had racial and cultural dimensions. Of the four students described in this article, Jason, Sara, and Kim were white; Nora was Mexican American. Of the 12 target students in our study, the six most successful in understanding the science content were all white. Of the six who were less successful, two were white, two were African American, and two were Mexican American. Nora was not articulate about her reasons for disliking her teacher, and we saw no evidence of overt discrimination or unfair treatment on the part of the teacher. It is possible that the persistent pattern of tension between Nora and her white male teacher originated in part from cross-cultural miscommunication and misunderstanding.

The data from this study also reveal a suggestive but ambiguous pattern with regard to gender differences. The distribution of students according to gender was as follows: intrinsic motivation: two boys; ordinary motivation: three girls, one boy; task avoidance: three girls, one boy; active resistance: one girl. The remaining student, a white boy, was inconsistent, shifting between intrinsic motivation and task avoidance, depending on his reaction to a particular activity.

These data, coupled with our informal observations of other students, suggest two general trends to us. First, for these sixth-graders, gender was less clearly associated with patterns of engagement than was race, culture, or social class. Second, gender-linked differences were apparent primarily for the small group of students who were actively engaged in experimenting and reading about science outside the classroom. Among our small number of subjects and among the other students whom we observed but did not study intensively, most of the intrinsically motivated students were boys.

What can educators do to maximize student engagement in classroom tasks? For students like Jason and Sara, cognitively oriented reforms like those embodied in the teaching materials used in this study are valuable. They engage students in "authentic work," which provides extrinsic rewards for success, meets intrinsic interests, offers ownership of learning to students, relates to the world beyond school, and involves some fun.

Instructional programs that focus on cognitive qualities of classroom tasks seem to provide the support needed for meaningful science learning with students who are at least willing to expend some effort to meet the goals of their parents and teachers. Without these cognitive reforms, students (especially those like Sara) might focus their efforts on less important outcomes, such as memorization of technical details or vocabulary words, as is often the case in traditional science classrooms. Such learning does not sustain engagement over the long term.

We need to do more, though, to engage students who are alienated from the culture of science and who reject the goal of scientific understanding. In addition to providing authentic academic work, the teacher should cultivate a sense of membership or bonding with these students by clearly demonstrating purposes, by treating everyone fairly, by providing personal support, by helping them experience frequent occasions of academic success, and by integrating these features into a general "climate of caring." Cognitively based reform efforts must be enriched by a deeper concern for the social nature of classroom teaching and learning.

Some students are unlikely to become engaged in science learning without the resolution of underlying cultural and racial issues. The alienation of students like Nora is deeply rooted in their position in our society and in the conflict between their cultural practices and those of predominantly white, male scientific communities.7 We do not expect that this alienation can be overcome by instructional programs that, like the one in our study, attend primarily to cognitive barriers to meaningful learning. Multiethnic and multicultural practices and beliefs of teachers and students also need to be considered in instructional programs.8

Helping students to learn science with understanding requires attention to cognitive, social, cultural, and gender issues. No matter how tightly students' classroom behavior is controlled and guided by teachers and curriculum materials, students always retain personal control over their attention and effort. Thus effective science instruction must start with understanding students' personal agendas and commitments, as well as their conceptions and learning processes in science. Effective instruction also takes into consideration the dynamic interplay between students' personal agendas and the goals and values of the science curriculum, the teacher, and the school. Eventually, the success of science teaching depends on creating social bonds in which the teacher and the curriculum lead the students to identify the goal of scientific understanding as their own personal goal.9

http://www.pdkintl.org/kand9705.htm
Last updated: 5/16/97. Kappan web pages designed by Carol Bucheri.

(Print version published in V. 78, No. 9, May 1997, page 720.)