|
·
Vlachos I., Kokkotas P., Malamitsa K.,
Piliouras P., Plakitsi K., (2003). EARLI: Improving Learning, Fostering the
Will to Learn, 10th Biennial Conference Padova, Italy August 26-30, 2003. |
|
Aim
The aim of this research is to improve teaching practices
used for facilitating students’ understanding in science during classroom
sessions. Teachers use many strategies/practices to promote understanding or
to cure misunderstandings, among which are the “explanation for
understanding” and its variations. These practices and the underlying
conceptions were examined and put under revision in a four session training
program.
Theoretical framework.
The review of philosophical and epistemological
literature shows that explanation aims to answer “why” or “how” questions.
Aristotle’s thesis for explanation (the search for the causes) replaced by
the Deductive –Nomological mode of explanation (Hempel-Oppenheim, 1948).
Contemporary frameworks for the study of explanation are: a) Causal Realism
(Salmon W.,1984), b) Constructive Empiricism (van Fraassen, 1980), c) The
Philosophy of the Ordinary Language (Achinstein, 1983), d) Cognitive Science
(Holland, 1986, Thagard, 1988). Understanding is more complex and is studied
in disciplines such as Cognitive Science, Semantics, Linguistics,
Psycholinguistics, Philosophy, Cybernetics, Systems Theory, etc. G. Pask’s
(1975) “Conservation Theory: applications in education and epistemology”,
offers an intersection point between explanation and understanding because
describes understanding as evolving from agreement between the discussants
at three different levels: a) of events (what happened), b) of descriptions
(how it happened) and c) of explanations (why it happened). So, this aspect
covers both the explanation (the “how” and “why” questions) and the
processes of understanding. In addition this aspect converge with the
constructivistic approach of knowledge acquisition and teaching methodology.
Research design
In order to specify
teachers’ conceptions about explanation and the relevant teaching practices
we used questionnaires, videotaping and interviews. The sample used for this
stage consisted of 50 secondary science teachers who have served for more
than 10 years and who voluntarily took part in the research. The findings
of this research were utilized in an in service training program for the
construction of the pre and post tests and for the intervention tasks.
Data analysis – conclusions
The analysis of data shows that according to the sample,
explanation is either the discovery of the causes or the reduction to them
(Aristotelian view) or a deductive–nomological process. The explanation is
treated as sufficient and satisfactory condition for understanding. The
step-by-step -thinking aloud- presentation of the deductive-nomological
process is highly appreciated. Understanding is treated as the “reassembling
the pieces of the conceptual puzzle”. Teachers try, with explanations, to
show how the pieces should be placed according to the scientific theories
and laws.
Teachers’ reaction to the tasks show that they were: a)
attractive and challenging, b) fruitful in revealing their conceptions about
explanation and understanding, c) Pask’s theory was attractive and
productive. The statistical evaluation of differences between pre and post
test shows that the majority of teachers: a) reconsidered their conceptions
about the explanation and its potency to promote understanding, b) became
more productive and flexible in designing explanatory teaching strategies,
c) accepted the active role of learners in constructing and construing with
others their understandings.
|
