I am posting my second critique as my Memorandum # 8. Stay tuned for more.
| Review of… | Submitted by: |
| Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on their learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. | U ED 70300 Prof. K. Tobin |
William Sandoval (2005) reviews research to-date on how exposure to inquiry-based instructional strategies is related to students’ practical epistemologies (their ideas about their own science knowledge) and their ideas about formal epistemologies (ideas about the science done by professional scientists). He provides a rationale for and encourages research in reconciling students’ practical epistemologies and their conceptions of formal epistemologies and the relationship between both of these and the use of inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning in science classrooms.
Sandoval identifies two camps among researchers in the area of student’s scientific epistemologies: one arguing that students’ epistemological beliefs can be directly investigated and modified by direct instruction; the other arguing that practice by students is the only, or at least the primary means, by which they can develop epistemological beliefs for themselves. Sandoval chooses a middle ground, arguing that learners’ practical epistemologies can be studied as both practice and expressed beliefs in an effort to study and help students to bridge their own scientific knowledge production with formal epistemologies of professional scientists.
Sandoval defines four distinct, but interrelated epistemological themes which he then systematically uses to explore first students’ formal epistemological beliefs, then how inquiry practice mediates students’ practical and formal epistemologies. These themes are:
· Scientific Knowledge is Constructed
“Probably the most important epistemological notion for students to understand is that scientific knowledge is constructed by people, not simply discovered out in the world. Indeed, science may be best characterized as the effort to explain observations of the natural world” (p. 639).
· A Diversity of Scientific Methods is employed by scientists
There is not “any one method [that] necessarily can be considered scientific. Rather, scientific fields appear to rely on standards for evaluating methods and the knowledge they produce according to criteria related to systematicity, care, fit with existing knowledge, and so forth” (p. 640)
What is taught in school as the Scientific Method is, in fact, a set of practices frequently employed (in a non-linear fashion) during the course of scientific investigation and experimentation. “[C]ontrolled experimentation [what most students think of as science] is certainly a an important means of generating scientific knowledge, but entire disciplines rely on other methods because controlled experimentation is infeasible, including astronomy, ethology, [and] paleontology…Of course, these fields are considered science” (p. 640).
· There is a variety of Forms of Scientific Knowledge
Sandoval argues that “students should understand that there are different forms of scientific knowledge, varying in their explanatory or predictive power and in their relation to the observable world” (p. 640). He observes that, curiously, “[u]nderstanding forms of scientific knowledge seems to be a blind spot in standards documents and expert opinions that instead focus on scientific methods.” He cites research that indicates that students have unclear ideas of the nature of and distinctions between laws, theories, hypotheses, models, explanations, predictions, and arguments. (p. 640)
· Scientific Knowledge Varies in Certainty
“[A] sophisticated epistemological viewpoint acknowledges that scientific knowledge is tentative.” Sandoval advocates a refinement to the principal of tentativeness, in part in response to the perception it allows in students of an implication of “an inescapable relativism: since scientific knowledge is not known to be absolutely true, then there is no particular reason to believe it.” He points out (citing J. Osborne, et al., 2003) that “some claims are more tentative than others. For all practical purposes, the force of gravity is not a tentative idea; whereas string theory is quite tentative.” The importance of this refinement of the tentativeness assertion is that “the removal of absolute certainty decenters authority with respect to knowledge, from teachers toward students.” Scientific knowledge is recognized as depending on underlying philosophical axioms and subject to change as a result of new ideas and information—it reflects “the cultural, historical development of scientific theories.” (p. 641)
Sandoval asserts that the ample body of research on inquiry largely neglects epistemological issues. He asserts that inquiry-based instruction without explicit reflection and discussion about epistemological issues does not result in higher levels of epistemological awareness among students. However, he cites a small number of studies that provide some evidence that (a) consistent long-term inquiry-based instruction yielded more sophisticated practical and formal epistemological ideas among students, and (b) learning via inquiry-based instruction is more effective in students who hold more constructivist beliefs about the nature of science. Sandoval contends that the uniqueness of these studies, especially the promising work of Smith, et al. in 2000, where students consistently engaged in inquiry-based science learning with the same teacher for six years, demand support from additional research in order for us to better understand how inquiry learning mediates students’ epistemological development.
Sandoval has a point of view that he makes explicit. He believes that, contrary to the results of a number of studies, that an inquiry approach to the learning and teaching of science does impact both students’ practical epistemologies and their view of formal epistemologies. He identifies areas in the research done to date (including his own research) that do not fully address the issues and lead to what he believes to be erroneous, or at least incomplete conclusions. He offers some directions for future research that will support the employment of inquiry-guided approaches and modifications to those approaches.
In what appears to be a thorough review of research in this area, Sandoval presents what he feels has and has not been satisfactorily addressed. He does not accept or reject particular findings, but analyzes how well they illuminate the issues with which he is concerned. This includes highlighting weaknesses in his own previous work as he counsels caution in accepting even research that supports his agenda until more work has been done.
Sandoval offers that his framework is not complete and likely not the only or even the best way to explore these issues. Throughout this paper, he makes this explicit and he provides rationales for decisions about what to include and what not to include in this analysis.
I am certain that there are other fruitful methods…than I have outlined here, and also that efforts to make this connection between practical and formal epistemologies will enrich our understanding of epistemological development not just in science, but more broadly. (p. 652)
Sandoval ends his review with the proposal of a six-point research agenda for “documenting practical epistemologies and tracing their links to formal epistemologies” (p. 649). Here he is not mapping the course for his own research alone, but encouraging other researchers to add their voices to this exploration in order to produce a useful body understanding in this area. An annotated list of the six aspects of his proposed research program follows.
Study Authentic Science Practice
Science learning and teaching should be inquiry-based. Typical science instruction has been well-studied and additional studies are unlikely to lead to a better understanding of students’ practical epistemological beliefs and their relation to formal epistemologies. Therefore, for the purpose of the proposed epistemological studies, students should be engaged in the construction of scientific knowledge through the use of scientific methods.
Examine Students’ Practical Epistemological Ideas
Investigate students’ perceptions of their own authentic science practice using both artifacts of that practice and the discourse in which students engage during that practice. Sandoval also advises researchers to develop interview protocols that will cause students to reflect on and explicate their epistemological reasoning grounded in their actual work. He also suggests the use of prompted recall interviews with students as they watch videotapes of their own inquiry.
Explore Relationships Between Classroom Discourse and Individual Epistemologies
Monitoring and documenting explicit discussion of epistemological ideas and beliefs directly associated with students’ doing of science may help us understand how forms of discursive practice reveal and develop students’ epistemologies. Sandoval points out that this type of analysis may be difficult and time-consuming, but may, as in the few studies of this nature cited, provide valuable insights not available through other means and provide compelling evidence that might provide solid arguments for changes in classroom practice.
Compare Practical and Formal Epistemologies
Currently used instruments for the determination of students’ formal epistemologies generally are abstract and the student responses they elicit are usually not very informative. Sandoval argues that students’ responses to interrogation about their own practices must be more reflective and more epistemologically relevant. He expresses the hope that pursuit of this type of research will result in the development of better instruments for these purposes and help us to better understand the relationship between students’ science learning experiences and their epistemological beliefs.
Examine Practical and Formal Epistemologies Across Disciplines
Some of the cited research indicates that epistemological conceptions are domain dependent, both across broad fields such as science, mathematics and history, but also among the various scientific disciplines. Sandoval stresses the importance of pursuing research across disciplines even as he acknowledges the difficulties in doing this kind of work as it will require collaboration of researchers from different disciplines that is rarely realized in educational research.
Study Epistemologies Developmentally
Sandoval writes that longitudinal studies are necessary to examine the development of epistemological ideas across age/grade levels. This requires the development of appropriate instruments and is hampered by the difficulty of identifying and developing comparable inquiry experiences that span the age/grade levels to be studied. He advocates the initiation of this work in the hope that findings will guide the further development of research in this area.
Sandoval’s approach is polyphonic (he includes sometimes conflicting results of diverse research in his analysis), polysemic (he ponders various meanings or interpretations of data and findings) and multilogical (he explores the strengths and weaknesses of his own research and acknowledges the value of specific alternative approaches as well as other approaches in general). This is true more of his approach to education than to the doing of science. His goal is that students understand and reconcile their practical epistemologies with the formal epistemologies of professional scientists, not to challenge the work of the scientists or the scientific knowledge itself. This is not to say that Sandoval holds a strictly positivistic, authoritarian view of science. He explicity rejects this as he discusses the tentativeness, contingency and historicity of scientific knowledge and scientific epistemologies. But, his interest in this paper, is to advocate the building of educators’ capacities for designing instructional strategies/learning opportunities that employ inquiry-based approaches to support students’ epistemological development.
Sandoval’s paper seeks to combine and trans-inform what he identifies as two major thrusts in the study of epistemology in science education that have previously remained somewhat separate: using students’ science inquiry practice to understand their epistemological development; and developing methods to help students connect their practical epistemologies with the formal epistemologies of professional scientists. Sandoval provides the rationale for his recommendations in his conclusion by stating his assumption that “sophisticated epistemologies are critical to full democratic participation in the 21st century, as science increasingly pervades aspects of daily life and public policy” (p. 652).
No comments:
Post a Comment