Professional Work
Alternative Frameworks in School Science
This project was motivated by (i) the science education literature indicating
various alternative frameworks in students’ understanding of science topics,
which were found difficult to modify and (ii) the availability of large data
sets containing responses to items devised by NBEET and ACER for national
surveys. The theoretical foundation for the analysis was the SOLO Taxonomy with
multimodal functioning of Biggs and Collis; it was deemed appropriate due to the
need for a developmental foundation to study changes in students’ understanding
over the years of schooling. After an initial period of investigation it was
felt necessary to focus on a particular area of science. With starting points
available in the earlier data sets, it was decided to focus on the nature and
extent of alternative conceptions of light and vision. The reasons for their
resistance to change and the general pattern in children's development of
scientific ideas were the important aspects of the research.
The study of children from early childhood to adults, resulted in the
identification of three elements combined in various ways and with increasing
sophistication to construct frameworks for explaining light and vision. The
three elements were “eye”, “object”, and “light”. It was found that for some,
particularly younger children, elements may be considered singly or two may be
combined in an intuitive fashion (termed “ikonic”) which does not involve the
concrete symbolic thinking involved in school science or the scientific model of
seeing. A later stage of development finds children can build an understanding
in three levels based on scientific views of the elements. At the first level
only one of the three elements is considered, the eye, the object or light. At
the second level, the elements are combined in pairs, while at the third, all
three are related to establish the conventional seeing framework. As the
sophistication of responses increases, alternative concrete representations also
arise which are not consistent with a scientific explanation of seeing and these
are of interest for their structure and the information made available to
teachers. As a result of this research a ‘DevelopmentalMap of Seeing’ has been
constructed to summarise the model which helps to explain both how children come
to an understanding of the nature and role of light in the process of vision and
why they can develop alternative understandings. Furthermore, this development
model was found to be viable in an Asian cultural setting after replicating part
of the study in Singapore. The few discrepancies which were identified might be
interpreted in terms of environmental, linguistic and, or, teaching factors.
Following the work on the fundamental seeing framework, students’ understanding
of reflection was explored using other material arising from interviews and
surveys. These responses highlighted the more complex structure involved in the
creation of a scientific framework which includes the reflection of light from
mirrors as well as its function in illuminating objects.
The work in this area continued with a PhD student conducting a parallel study
of students’ understanding of sound. This project involved an application of the
SOLO model for development of understanding of sound to a classroom teaching
unit and the monitoring of student performance.
References
1. Jones, B.L., Collis, K.F., & Watson, J.M. (1993). Towards a theoretical basis
for students’ alternative frameworks in science and for science teaching.
Research in Science Education, 23, 126-135
2. Jones, B.L., Collis, K.F., Watson, J.M., Foster, K., & Fraser, S.P. (1994).
Images in mirrors: Recollections, alternative explanations and modes of
cognitive functioning. Research in Science Education, 24, 191-200.
3. Jones, B.L., Collis, K.F., Sprod, T.J., & Watson, J.M. (1996). How children
develop an understanding of vision. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(4),
54-58.
4. Sprod, T., & Jones, B.L. (1996). Throwing light on teaching science.
Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42 (4), 21-25.
5. Collis, K.F., Jones, B.L., Sprod, T., Watson, J.M., & Fraser, S.P. (1998).
Mapping development in students’ understanding of vision using a cognitive
structural model. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 45-66.
6. Jones, B.L., Sprod, T., Collis, K.F., & Watson, J.M. (1997). Singaporean and
Australian students’ understanding of vision. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
17(2), 85-101.
7. Sprod, T., & Jones, B.L. (1997). “The sun can't bounce off a bird”: young
children and their understanding of sight. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 22(2), 29-33.
8. Collis, K.F., Jones, B.L., Sprod, T., Watson, J.M., & Fraser, S.P. (1998).
Mapping development in students' understanding of vision using a cognitive
structural model. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 45-66.
9. Cavell, S. (2000). Learning and teaching science: Linking cognitive
development and curriculum design. PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania.
Contact me...
Faculty of Education
University of Tasmania
Private Bag 66 Hobart Tasmania Australia 7001
Phone: 61-3-6226-2570; Fax: 61-3-6226-2569
Jane.Watson@utas.edu.au