PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 10 April 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794150240

Rethinking pedagogy and curriculum in post-secondary science educationJan van Aalsta

a Simon Fraser University,

Online publication date: 26 January 2010

To cite this Article van Aalst, Jan(2004) 'Rethinking pedagogy and curriculum in post-secondary science education',Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4: 2, 263 — 273To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14926150409556610URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926150409556610

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

REVIEWS

Rethinking Pedagogy andCurriculum in Post-secondaryScience Education

Jan van AalstSimon Fraser University

Taylor, P.C., Gilmer, P.J. & Tobin, K. (Eds.). (2002). Transforming Undergraduate ScienceTeaching: Social Constructivist Perspectives. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 0-8204-5293-9

With their book Transforming Undergraduate Science Teaching: Social Constructivist Per-spectives, Taylor, Gilmer, and Tobin hope to expedite a transformation in post-secondary scienceeducation that has been going on for 20 years in K-12 science education. This transformation isepistemological and involves a rejection of knowledge as representation, in favour of a notion ofknowledge as participation in a discourse community. The educational transformation that contrib-utors to this book want to expedite also calls for greater sensitivity to the prior knowledge, learningstyles, goals, and interests of the learner. The book represents a challenging and worthwhile under-taking.

The 17 chapters are written by a mix of science professors and education professors, with mostchapters (11 of 17) discussing science courses for prospective or practising teachers. The book isarranged into four sections. Section 1 ('Identifying the Barriers') comprises 6 chapters that providea gradual exposition of the problems to be addressed by the desired transformation. In chapter 1,Peter Taylor argues that interpretive research in science education has remained rationalistic,reflecting values of neutrality and unfeeling objectivity (p. 20). Taylor is interested in including 'anemotional dimension that sensitizes us to the mood or ambience of an educational setting' (p. 33)and introduces the 'impressionistic tale.' He provides several examples, notably one describing asomewhat harsh and cold 'Dr. Stem,' and another, the more empathic 'Dr. Mary Buenos.' In chap-ter 2, Craig Bowen provides a narrative in a student's voice, describing the student's experience ina chemistry course. In chapter 3, Noelle Griffiths introduces the problem of language. She monitorstwo prospective teachers' experience in a science course and documents how, in the absence of alanguage shared by the professor and the students, the professor is unable to engage students in a'discourse'community of science' (p. xviii). In chapter 4, Hedy Moscovici discusses uneven powerrelationships. Concerning her chapter, the editors state, 'We learn how a professor's predilection fora distancing language of power and control compromised students' development of both conceptu-ally sound understandings of science and of themselves as learners capable of thinking critically'(p. xviii). In chapter 5, Kathryn Scantlebury introduces another aspect of power in science class-rooms and outlines the characteristics of a feminist pedagogy that involves cooperative learning, anethic of care, linking knowledge and personal experience, and contesting masculine images of sci-ence as overly rational, logical, unemotional, and positivistic (p. xviii). In chapter 6, Wolff-MichaelRoth and Kenneth Tobin discuss knowing as participation, drawing from philosophy of language;they illustrate their points with two examples—a traditional lecturer ('Miller') and a professor('Ashmore') who has aligned his teaching with the participation metaphor.

© 2004 Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

CJSMTE/RCESMT 4:2 April/avril 2004

Section 2 is called 'Pushing the Envelope'; it provides illustrations of recent transformativeendeavours. In chapter 7, Abdullah O. Abbas, Kenneth A. Goldsby and Penny Gilmer discuss thecase of a teacher who has designed teaching for 'active learning,' using journey-related metaphors.In chapter 8, Rosalind Humerick discusses an action-research project that focuses on guidedinquiry. In chapter 9, Harold B. White, III, discusses problem-based learning as an approach toaddress William Perry's (1968) dualism: 'Knowledge comes from professors, learning and gradesshould be directly proportional to effort, and problems have a single correct answer' (p. 232).Chapters 10 to 12 then focus on the process of change within science departments. In chapter 10,Susan Matson discusses a cooperative effort to co-design an assessment system for a new biologycourse for prospective elementary school teachers. In chapter 11, Sabitra Brush examines an effortat team teaching a 'hands-on, minds-on' physical science course for prospective elementary schoolteachers. In chapter 12, Carol Briscoe provides an account of two years of work with a professor ofbiology. She provides an account of 'the teacher struggling to change his teacher-centred instruc-tional beliefs, and of the changes resulting from his successful attempts to listen actively to stu-dents' (p. xxi).

Section 3, called 'Potentialities,' provides an overview of some possibilities for transformingthe teaching of science in post-secondary institutions. In chapter 13, Tobin discusses his own use ofthe Internet to create communities of learners. In chapter 14, Ben Cunningham advocates the use ofspirituality in research, arguing for the validity of knowledge based on spirituality. In chapter 15,Margarita Cuervo reflects on how her spirituality has shaped her professional practice as a mathe-matics teacher. In chapter 16, Mark Campbell Williams discusses a Jungian dream analysis: 'Marktakes us on a journey of the researcher exploring his unconscious self, learning from his dreamshow to become a more mature and balanced person' (p. xxiii).

Section 4, called 'Being Realized,' consists of a single chapter by Gilmer, a chemistry profes-sor, in which she discusses an action-research project using electronic mail to enable students tothink reflectively about their learning and to probe the nature and quality of that learning. Gilmeruses a dream-inspired 'triple-point' metaphor to illustrate how teaching, research, and service to theuniversity are integrated in her professional practice.

The text has a number of features that appear to be designed to support the desired epistemo-Iogical transformation. First, each chapter has a brief metalogue, in which the editors converseabout what, for them, are the most salient features of the chapter. Implicit in these metalogues is aninvitation to keep the conversation going with our own ideas and reactions to the text. Second, thebook does not have a traditional final chapter that summarizes 'lessons learned' from the variouschapters. In accordance with social constructivism, perhaps, what we will learn from the chaptersdepends on many factors, including our prior knowledge and our openness to new ideas. Presum-ably, the editors want, not to provide practical tips that teachers can implement, but to invite us tothink about the ideas presented and about our own practice and to develop our own approaches formoving toward the desired transformation.

Reading this book has been an interesting and exciting journey for me. The text led me to re-examine social constructivism and metaphors of learning and introduced me to some novel per-spectives on research in science teaching. The book 'grew on me' as my reading continued. In whatfollows, I will first provide my general impressions and describe what, for me, are the lessonslearned; then I will elaborate on two issues that the book raises for me—the limitations of theknowing-as-participation metaphor that underpins the desired epistemological transformation, onthe one hand, and teaching effectiveness, on the other. My choice of issues has much to do with myown experience, and other readers may have different lenses to help them learn from the book.

General impressionsIt is difficult to reconcile the title of the book with the book's content. Undergraduate science

tends to be taught by professors trained in science but not in pedagogy, in large-enrolment courses

264

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

Reviews

that have too much content. By contrast, the book's chapters are based on studies of small-enrol-ment courses for (prospective) teachers, a relatively small sector of the university and college stu-dent populations who take science courses. Many authors of the first section ('IdentifyingBarriers') criticize lecturing for a variety of reasons, but none addresses how we might advancefrom such criticism to transforming science education for large numbers of students. How do wescale up from the ideas and teaching examples described in this book to transform undergraduate(science) teaching? Moreover, the book is not pitched at science professors. 'We confess to not hav-ing pitched the book at science professors per se; for the most part, the chapter authors belong to aneducational discourse community' (p. xv). This is a missed opportunity to attempt to improve dia-logue between science and education professors. Improved dialogue is important because, as I havediscussed elsewhere (van Aalst, 2000), science professors often distrust education professors for alack of understanding of science; whereas education professors may criticize science professorswho do education research for relying too much on research methods from science. In my opinion,some of the chapters are capable of supporting a conversation aimed at examining broadly scienceeducation in post-secondary institutions (e.g., Roth & Tobin, ch. 6; Briscoe, ch. 12; Gilmer, ch. 17).

Moving on to the audience intended by the editors (science education professors and graduatestudents), the book offers a number of chapters that describe innovative approaches to educationresearch ('Impressionistic Tales,' Taylor, ch. 1; 'The Validity of Knowledge Arising from Spiritual-ity,' Cunningham, ch. 14; and 'Dream Interpretation,' Williams, ch. 16). I expect that these chapterswill stimulate discussion of research methods, and it will be interesting to watch for further studiesthat elaborate and illustrate these approaches.

In some other chapters, I feel attention to rigour leaves something to be desired. For example,it would have been useful to have more researcher perspective with the student narrative in chapter2 (Bowen). Some authors appear to confound issues of power and discourse with what I interpret asineffective communication. Humerick's study (ch. 8) is presented as action research, but no evi-dence of iteration or action is presented, two elements that are essential to action research (Carr &Kemmis, 1986). And while the purpose of Tobin's chapter 13 is 'to provide an overview of the useof interactive computing to provide practicing teachers with convenient access to graduate levelcourses and degrees in science education' (p. 324), Tobin discusses only his own efforts in thisdirection; I would have liked to see more reference to the growing research literature on the use ofinteractive computing.

Some lessons learned for transforming post-secondaryscience education.

In this section, I describe what, for me, are some of the lessons for transforming post-second-ary science education that can be learned from the book. I discuss students' experience of lecturesand the importance of incorporating personal stories, values, and ambitions into teaching. Then Ihighlight two chapters that offer, in my view, significant lessons; the first of these is chapter 6 byRoth and,Tobin, illustrating how teaching can be aligned with the participation metaphor, and thesecond is chapter 12 by Briscoe, describing a two-year study of an attempt to change the nature ofclassroom interactions.

Student experience of lectures

In chapter 2, Bowen provides a narrative account in the voice of a student ('Diane'), who tooka course advertised as 'Chemistry Appreciation.' The chapter consists of a series of letters to afriend, with a narrative that connects the letters. The narrative account discusses what Diane thinksof the instructor's approach and how she approaches learning. I think that science professors willfind Diane's narrative compelling because Diane, initially interested in learning to appreciatechemistry, eventually writes to a friend (p. 59),

265

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

CJSMTE/RCESMT 4:2 April/avril 2004

Dear Dale,

Just say 'No!' to Chemistry. Talk to you soon.

Disgusted,

Diane

Diane wants a more personal relationship with the professor, in which the professor makes aneffort to connect with her world: 'If I am there and I have to come out of my dance world, my homeeconomics world, to broaden my horizons in this discipline, you as the person teaching that disci-pline have to get out there too and do the same thing.' (p. 49). Diane also provides insight intoaspects of the lectures she finds difficult. For example:

So, even though I tried to write down all. the examples, I missed what I needed to understand it.There were tons of examples on the board. I mean, I got tired of writing that after a while. I stoppedwriting because I would get home, look at my notes, and I would have all these examples, but I hadnothing on what the examples were really about... I was not getting the highlights, (p. 51)

Diane is not saying that lectures are ineffective per se but that the lecturer's skills are inade-quate. 'And to compound the problem, I really feel that it was a deficiency on the part of the teachernot knowing how to improve his delivery, and how to deal with such a large population.' (p. 53)

In the next chapter (ch. 3), Noelle Griffiths makes similar points about ineffective lecturedelivery. Griffiths provides a microanalysis of biology lectures that reveal a certain drift becausequestions are not answered and sentences not completed. She explains this as an issue of 'bordercrossing' between two communities:

In any community, the members are so comfortable with the language and discourse pattern that sen-tences and phrases don't necessarily need to be finished for other members to understand. Whenspeaking with other members of a community the discourse can often contain slight mistakes. Thesedo not have to be corrected because it is extremely likely that any others participating in the dis-course will mentally correct the error ... However, this type of discourse is more difficult to main-tain across borders, or between two different communities, (p. 81)

For me both of these chapters are more about teacher effectiveness than about an epistemolog-ical transformation. Undergraduate science teaching would already be improved if teachers under-stood the lecture experience better from the student's point of view. The study reported by RosalindHumerick (ch. 8) provides interesting additional data. She asked students and faculty where theybelieved learning takes place. 'All of the faculty interviewed professed that the majority of learningtakes place outside the classroom ... In chemistry, 75% of students believed that 50% or more oftheir learning takes place inside the classroom, with many of them placing it as high as 85%.' (p.219).

Don't leave your personality at the door!

A theme that I also read as about teaching effectiveness is the need not to leave personal sto-ries, values, and ambitions at the door when teaching. Teaching is a relationship; the effort studentsare willing to invest in a course depends on the nature of that relationship. 'Mary Buenos' (Taylor,ch. 1) uses an ethic of care to create a positive learning environment: The start of class is flexible,the classroom discourse moves back and forth from English to Spanish, apd Mary exudes empathy.She is aware of the problems students face. Mary is provided by Taylor as a contrast with 'Dr.Stem,' who takes a much more common and hard-nosed approach to lecturing. In chapter 15,Cuervo provides another example. In her view, 'The ideal professor relates to the total student, aca-demically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically; establishes a mutual zone of comfort in andout of the classroom; and exudes enthusiasm, energy, empathy, and excellence' (p. 377). She then

266

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

Reviews

illustrates how she uses something as simple as finding a parking space as an opportunity to con-nect to the students:

The first challenge of my daily life as a teacher is finding a parking place, but I am always verylucky in that respect. Somehow, I always find a parking spot at the last minute, just when I need it.You can laugh if you want, but I will tell you that I have an angel in charge of parking. So my firstfeeling of the day is of thankfulness ... So I enter the classroom in a grateful mood and with a spiri-tual debt. An important problem was solved for me, so it is my turn to do for others, (p. 381)

Knowing as participation in a discourse community

Chapter 6, by Roth and Tobin, is significant because it provides the clearest example, throughthe autobiographical character '.Ashmore,' of how teaching can be aligned with the participationmetaphor, without using lectures. Roth and Tobin draw from a review of the philosophy of lan-guage and its importance to understanding knowing:

Why is participation in language as a form of life so important? Our hunch is that much as with per-ceptual acts (seeing), our competence in using a language has to be experientially grounded. That is,we cannot learn a language or more simply, an individual word, without using it in a variety of dif-ferent situations. We have to get a feel for what it can do for us: We have to learn a language throughuse. This is at the root of Wittgenstein's advice that words have no meanings in themselves; theyachieve meaning only through their use in particular language games, (pp. 153-154)

Roth and Tobin posit learning physics as participation in the practices of physics. Just as we donot expect to become basketball players by watching others, '[W]e no longer expect that studentslearn physics practices by observing professors' (p. 164).

Ashmore teaches a physics course for elementary pre-service and in-service teachers; as Rothand Tobin explain, the course consists almost entirely of collaborative, empirical, small-groupinvestigations and problem solving, centred on focus questions. The students are given minimalprocedural guidance (p. 166). Ashmore watches video recordings of his collaborative work withstudents to evaluate the extent to which physics practices are going on. Roth and Tobin describehow Ashmore's views on teaching and learning changed after he began viewing such recordings.

What I like about this chapter is that Roth and Tobin provide a well-developed framework forthinking about learning, a framework that suggests a need for discourse. This discourse requiresthat Ashmore be as intent on learning from what the students are saying (doing) as the students areon learning from what Ashmore is saying (doing). So teacher and students need to find a conversa-tional space, and the detailed 'curriculum' depends on how that conversation unfolds—on the diffi-culties the students and teacher experience as they try to understand each other. The intentionallydialogical character of the classroom discourse is, in terms of epistemology, an improvement onother educational approaches to science education that depend on collaborative inquiry, such asworkshop physics (Laws et al., 1997) and physics by inquiry (McDermott, Shaffer, Rosenquist, &the Physics Education Group, 1996), in which curriculum designers articulate learning goals with-out direct input from the students.

Changing classroom discourse

Briscoe (ch. 12) describes the evolution of a biology teacher's teaching practice over twoyears. 'Chris' taught a biology course designed for prospective elementary-education majors. Thecourse was designed by a team of teachers, including Chris; the team consulted with a variety of'stakeholders, including classroom teachers, scientists, philosophers, science educators, and a dis-trict science supervisor' (p. 302). The course was intended to provide a broad overview of biologyand included field experiences. Briscoe examined teacher-student communication and student-stu-dent communication over two consecutive years.

267

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

CJSMTE/RCESMT 4:2 April/avril 2004

In the first year, the majority of teaching questions were in the 'presenting' category. Mostquestions did not require students to answer with more than a word or two (p. 307). Briscoe dis-cusses a number of constraints that were operative in Chris's teaching at that time. One constraintwas that the curriculum had deliberately been kept broad; a second had to do with metaphors:'Chris believed that, as a guide to learning, the teacher held primary responsibility for students'learning. Thus, in the role of guide he selected what was important for the students to know andused lecture to ensure that the students would get the information' (p. 309). Briscoe goes on to saythat Chris believed that learning should be enjoyable and that it should assist students to develop astrong motivation to learn science.

Briscoe describes how, in the second year, Chris planned to reduce the number of conceptsintroduced. However, there was no substantial change in the number of triadic interactions he initi-ated. On the other hand, students more often took the initiative and asked their own questionsrelated to the topics being discussed. Briscoe concludes that 'the reduction in the number of topicsafforded students more opportunities to interact with Chris and encouraged them to do so. Yet thestudents did not take the opportunity to take the discussion a step further and develop a commondiscourse for their ideas, mainly because Chris continued in the role as 'guide' and used lectures toensure that students learned what was expected' (p. 312). Briscoe says that the change process wasmade difficult by conflicts in Chris's belief system:

His belief that students needed more time in class to participate in discussion of ideas, to addressquestions that came up in the laboratory activities, and to come to consensus regarding their scien-tific understanding conflicted with his belief that breadth of content coverage was important in acourse for future teachers. Furthermore, Chris felt constrained from changing classroom interactionpatterns by his belief that maintaining control of discussion, answering questions, assessing stu-dents' learning by asking questions, and focusing learning on predetermined topics were the essenceof the role of a guide and encourager. (pp. 313-314)

I like this study for several reasons. First, it illustrates that even when a course is otherwisedesigned to promote discourse, through emphasis on field experiences, laboratory work and a smallstudent-teacher ratio, the classroom discourse may still be superficial if there are too many topicson the course. In the second year, when the number of topics (concepts) had been reduced, studentsbegan to ask more questions. A second strength of this study is that Briscoe discusses a tension, thatpersisted into the second year, between letting the discourse run its course and stepping in to guidestudents toward canonical understandings. This tension may reflect relapses into an old learningmetaphor (knowledge acquisition). It is a tension often observed as teachers attempt to teach in asocial constructivist framework (Roth and Tobin also mention it; see Cummings, 2003, for ateacher account). It is useful to see how one teacher struggled with this tension.

Two issues for transforming post-secondary scienceteaching

In the remainder of this review, I will discuss briefly two issues that this book raises for me.The first issue is the adequacy of the participation metaphor that underpins the desired epistemo-logical transformation. I will sketch arguments by Carl Bereiter (2002) and Kai Hakkarainen(2001) that the treatment of representations in the participation metaphor is problematic and that athird metaphor, a knowledge-creation metaphor, is needed. I will then use the discussion of partici-pation by Roth and Tobin (ch. 6) to elaborate how this metaphor may improve on the participationmetaphor. The second issue is teaching effectiveness. Here, I will outline some ways in which weneed to rethink pedagogy—including the role of the lecture—in post-secondary science educationand some ways of getting the conversation started.

268

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

Reviews

Knowledge acquisition, participation, and knowledge-creation metaphors

Sfard (1998) discusses two metaphors for learning—the acquisition metaphor and the partici-pation metaphor. According to the acquisition metaphor, individual students acquire pieces ofknowledge through transmission or by constructing it themselves. The acquisition metaphor seemsto depend on what Bereiter (2002) calls a 'folk theory of mind' that treats the mind as a container.One problem with the acquisition metaphor that the authors labour against is that it treats knowl-edge as separable from the context in which it is created or used. Indeed, as students listen to a lec-ture, they may think that little effort is required to understand the information presented (Redish,Saul, & Steinberg, 1998), that the information is true, and that it will always be true. The socio-his-torical discourse through which the expositions in lectures and textbooks have been produced isusually hidden.

The participation metaphor is used throughout Transforming Undergraduate Science Teachingand is based on the notion of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). It posits knowledge asembedded in social practices and material tools—to know is to participate in the social practices(discourse) of a community. Roth and Tobin describe this metaphor as follows:

We understand knowing a subject as participation in the activities of the community with its specificrecognizable practices. This is an antirepresentationalist view of knowing. Rather than thinking ofknowledge as something represented (such as a concept), which is constructed and held somewherein the mind, we talk about competent participation. Knowing physics therefore means to participatein talking about relevant objects and events in the ways physicists do, using acknowledged words,sentences, gestures, inscriptions, and so forth. Learning physics, rather than being the transfer orconstruction of some mental content, is regarded as increasing participation in the life world of thosewhose conversational objects are related to the field of physics, (p. 152)

The participation metaphor improves on the acquisition metaphor because it does not treatknowledge as separable from the context in which it is created or used, but it introduces a newproblem in that it does away with representations almost altogether. Roth and Tobin treat the notionof representational knowledge as incompatible with knowing according to the participation meta-phor, presumably because the two metaphors are based on theories of mind that seem to have littlein common. However, dissatisfaction with the notion of learning as the transfer of knowledge fromone mind to another mind does not warrant a diminished role for representations—it just means thatrepresentations are not stored in peoples' heads. Representations are essential to science for tworeasons: The goal of science is to create new knowledge that can be applied to a wide variety ofproblems, and concepts mediate scientific discourse much as inscriptions and other material toolsdo.

A possible improvement on the participation metaphor consists of two parts. First, a theory ofmind is required mat does not depend in a literal sense on the notion of a mind as a container ofknowledge structures but still permits representational knowledge. Bereiter (2002, ch. 6) has indi-cated how such a theory might be developed, drawing from theories of parallel distributed process-ing (RumelhaA, 1989) and emergence (Wilson, 1998). Second, Hakkarainen (2001) has introduceda new metaphor, the knowledge-creation metaphor. 'The knowledge-creation metaphor ...addresses relations between symbolic and practical aspects of learning and inquiry. In order to dothat, the meaning of knowledge [italics original] must be enhanced to take into account many ofthose aspects that the participation metaphor has emphasized.' (p. 5)

I suggest the knowledge-creation metaphor here as a point of departure from the participationmetaphor; clearly, much work is to be done to understand its educational implications. Suffice it tosay, here, that it is worthwhile to think of educational practice in terms of innovation, as innovationis increasingly regarded as a survival skill: 'To survive and prosper in the long term, people in com-panies need to create and innovate. And they need to do so as regularly and reliably as they breathe'(Mauzy & Harriman, 2003, p. 1). A culture of innovation seems imperative to educational change;new teachers (and professors) need to see themselves, not as participants in stable and well-under-

269

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

CJSMTE/RCESMT 4:2 April/avril 2004

stood practices, but as participants in practices that are still poorly understood and require substan-tial research and development (Bereiter, 2002, ch. 11).

To conclude this section, I briefly relate representational knowledge to participation. Am I anobjectivist? I do not think so. First, the content of textbooks and lectures does not represent objec-tive and static truth; instead, it represents the current state of the discipline—the explanations, theo-ries, and methods that have been scrutinized and developed in the discipline so far and that may bedeemed to have cultural significance or may currently be used by scientists. Disciplinary knowl-edge is a product of a knowledge-creating discourse. Theories are not proposed in ready-made formbut become more fully articulated and understood as scientists make them public and collectivelywork to improve, test, evaluate, and apply them; both their content and their status in the disciplinedevelop over time. This dynamical aspect of disciplinary knowledge is not usually evident in text-books and lectures because the content presented is not currently undergoing change or the subjectof controversy; however, as the discipline continues to develop this situation may again change.Because the dynamic aspects of disciplinary knowledge are not self-evident, the professor mustattempt to make them evident for students. Second, disciplinary knowledge involves representa-tions, but the meaning of those representations is embedded in social practices. For example, wecan describe a method for solving mechanics problems that involves writing down a Hamiltonianfunction and using it to derive a set of differential equations, and then solving these and interpretingthe solutions. We can also write down some agreed-upon conclusions about the advantages of thisapproach over other methods of solving mechanics problems and make a list of problems solved bythe Hamiltonian method. But none of that adds to understanding Hamiltonian mechanics. Under-standing derives from many bits of insight that come from having worked with the Hamiltonianmethod in different circumstances—knowledge about what features of problems permit them to besolved exactly, about what to treat exactly and what to approximate, and about what are goodresources to help with mathematical details, in addition to insight into why the method works.Often, people cannot state such insights on demand but do recall them in the context of a conversa-tion. 'Try this ... It worked in another problem I did.'

Improving (post-secondary) science teaching

For me, this book is as much about effective science teaching in universities and colleges asabout an epistemological shift that reflects contemporary philosophy of science. Indeed, the issueof the ethics of portraying ineffective teaching is discussed by the editors in several of the meta-logues. In this final section of the review, I therefore offer some points that the book raises for meabout post-secondary (science) teaching.

Perhaps the most important point is that teaching is a relationship; in my experience, studentswill often increase their effort if they feel supported by that relationship and may give up if they donot (see Diane's narrative, ch. 2). Professors need to invest considerable effort in knowing their stu-dents. First, professors need to become aware of how students are thinking about the ideas theyencounter in a course. There are several ways to accomplish this. There is an extensive research lit-erature in this area, but teachers can also elicit student thinking informally, especially in smallclasses. Jim Minstrell has developed a technique where he begins a topic to be studied by providinga context for thinking about the problems to be covered (diSessa & Minstrell, 1998). He spends afull class listening to the students as they attempt to make sense of predict-observe-explain demon-strations. As Minstrell listens to the students, he may write down ideas offered, without validatingthem, and at the end of the session, give his interpretation of what the main points of disagreementare, asking students for corrections or omissions in the list. This list then provides a set of 'bench-marks' to be returned to in the subsequent instructional sequence. Teaching of this kind is informedby MinstrelPs understanding of the research literature but also by the students' thinking and inter-ests. The students have considerably more ownership in the specific way in which the course con-tent is 'covered' than in lectures that are prepared without this initial investment in learning about

270

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

Reviews

the students. A second aspect of knowing the students is knowing how they are approaching theirstudies. How are they preparing for and using the time spent in class? How many courses are theytaking? How many hours are they working to pay for tuition and living expenses? What anxietiesdo they have? In Transforming Undergraduate Science Teaching, 'Mary' (ch. 1) and Cuervo (ch.15) provide strong examples of this aspect of knowing the students. In small classes, teachers canget a handle on the issues from informal 'check-in' conversations, but periodic surveying of studentissues at an institutional level may additionally be useful. When asked about their experience in sci-ence courses, students often ask for a more personal relationship with the teacher ('Diane,' ch. 2;Tobias, 1990). Cuervo shows how her spirituality affects her teaching, but a personal relationshipcan be formed in smaller ways too; for example, with anecdotes about the teacher's experiences asa scientist or through the teacher's relating a personal reaction to current events. For example, afterthe 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States, a colleague began a lecture by expressing his hopethat the families of students from the US were OK; he acknowledged not only that many studentsmight be thinking about these events rather than about physics, but, I think, also that he was shakenby the events. A gesture like that can go a long way toward building a supportive relationship withstudents.

The book also points to the need for good oral communication skills. Chapter 3, by Griffiths,makes an interesting theoretical point about differences between talk with colleagues, who cancomplete unfinished sentences for us, and talk with students, who cannot. But more than that, myreading of this chapter is that one must communicate clearly and empathically; 'JoEHen,' the lec-turer Griffiths describes, might have benefited from a public-speaking course. Also an aspect ofcommunication, teachers need to be aware of ways in which they may unknowingly create distancefrom students and inhibit communication. For example, 'Dr. Stern' (ch. 1) and 'Miller' (ch. 6) areportrayed as confident, inflexible, and unapproachable. Brush (ch. 11) points out that the appear-ance of being very knowledgeable may intimidate students and prevent them from asking ques-tions.

A better understanding of the role of the lecture in learning may also improve science educa-tion in post-secondary institutions and is worth more attention than it has been given in this book.In chapter 1, 'Dr. Stem' claims that little learning occurs in lectures. 'I would be surprised if thestudent really learned [in class (added by Taylor)] ... I think they learn this little bit, and how thislittle bit connects to this little bit, and the big picture develops on the sidewalk after they've leftclass or when they are preparing for an exam or something sometime, I hope' (p. 12), This view isconsistent with (social) constructivism—it takes a lot more effort than listening to lectures to learnscience. Typically, professors expect students to invest this effort in laboratory work, reading, prob-lem solving, and reviewing for exams. Students, however, tend to see things the other way around.They expect to leam most of what they need to know in lectures and tend to see other activities, likereading, as 'filling gaps' in that understanding (van Aalst & Marjoribanks, 1999). In a study of stu-dent expectations about learning university physics, van Aalst and Key (2000) observed a 7.5%decline after one semester in the extent to which students saw building an understanding of physicsas effortful. These last two studies suggest to me that, even when professors do not, students expectlearning to be a transmission of knowledge. In this respect, lectures are also problematic: Informa-tion may be communicated that is inaccurate or that does not force students to re-examine their cur-rent belief systems (see Roth & Tobin, pp. 146-147).

We can learn more about how to use lectures in social constructivist learning by looking at howscientists use them in their research. At conferences, scientists attend many short presentations.Mostly, they do not expect to learn much, in detail, from these presentations, but they return homewith a few new ideas. Scientists may develop deeper understanding of such ideas by studying theconference proceedings or publications, talking with colleagues, and so forth. If an idea seems veryimportant, the scientist may invest considerable effort in understanding it. Scientists also attendlonger lectures, such as keynote addresses and colloquia. They may leam more from such lecturesbecause they tend to be general, drawing from disciplinary knowledge that can be assumed or is

271

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

CJSMTE/RCESMT 4:2 April/avril 2004

first reviewed and describing general developments over progressive research programs rather thanthe specific details of an individual study. This way, scientists acquire a general impression ofrecent developments in some line of research.

My conclusion from these observations as far as science education is concerned is that,although students can learn some things from lectures, we should have modest expectations abouthow much lectures can do to facilitate understanding. Perhaps a (short) lecture can 'put a bug intostudents' ears' so that they are thinking about science, with a sense of wonder or puzzlement, asthey leave the lecture. Lectures can also provide a direct and personal connection with a scientist.And if students are primed adequately, lectures can be used to reinforce main ideas or illuminatedifficult points that they have already studied to some extent. But to think of lectures as the majormethod of teaching ('covering the curriculum') is a doomed project. For large-enrolment courses,Eric Mazur has developed a lecturing style that makes some progress in this direction (Crouch &Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 1997). Mazur assumes that students have made themselves familiar with themain ideas before the lecture; he then explains a few key ideas per lecture and has students thinkwith those ideas (by themselves and in pairs), using conceptual questions designed to differentiatecorrect thinking with the concept from thinking indicative of misconceptions.

SummaryTransforming Undergraduate Science Teaching: Social Constructivist Perspectives is a

thought-provoking book that should be read and discussed by scholars in (higher) education. Thebook discusses many important issues and the presentation is. well matched to the epistemologicalunderpinnings of the research reported. In this review, I have discussed two issues that I hope willstimulate further thought about (science) education in universities and colleges. First, followingarguments by Bereiter (2002) and Hakkarainen (2001), I suggested that we need to go beyondfocusing on the contrasts between the metaphors underpinning knowledge acquisition and knowl-edge participation and develop an educational framework that makes clear how concepts and disci-plinary knowledge are used in knowledge-creating discourse. Second, I described how the booksuggested some ways to improve science pedagogy in universities and colleges. The strategies Isuggested would require significant changes in how post-secondary institutions think about teach-ing, including increased attention to training in pedagogy for professors; placing more value on sit-uated instructional design that can respond to student needs and interests; and placing more value,in faculty evaluations, on education research and on the development of teaching. The role of thelecture requires more attention because it seems crucial in scaling up practices informed by socialconstructivism from small classes to large-enrolment science courses.

ReferencesBereiter, C. (2002) Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research.

Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American

Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.Cummings, M. (2003, April). Knowledge building discourse offline: A teacher's perspective. In J.

van Aalst & C. Chan (Chairs), Probing individual, social, and cultural aspects of knowledgebuilding. A structured poster session presented at the annual conference of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Available: www.educ.sfu.ca/kb/resources.html (accessed August 22, 2003).

diSessa, A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J.G.Greeno & S.V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practice in mathematics and science learning (pp.155-187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

272

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011

Reviews

Hakkarainen, K. (2001, April). Metaphors of learning and computer-supported collaborativeinquiry. A paper presented to the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Laws, P.W., with Boyle, R.J., Cooney, P.J, Laws, K.L, Luetzelschwab, J.W, Sokoloff, D.R., & andThornton, R.K. (1997). Workshop physics activity guide. New York: John Wiley.

Mauzy, J., & Harriman, R. (2003). Creativity, Inc.: Building an inventive organization. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.McDermott, L.C., with Shaffer, P.S., Rosenquist, M.L., & the Physics Education Group at the

University of Washington (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: John Wiley.Perry, W.G., Jr. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A

scheme. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Redish, E.F., Saul, J., & Steinberg, R.N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics.

American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212-224.Rumelhart, D.E. (1989). The architecture of mind: A connectionist approach. In M.I. Posner (Ed.),

Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 133-159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing one. Educational

Researcher, 27, 4-13.Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb—They're different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ:

Research Corporation.van Aalst, J. (2000). An introduction to physics education research. Canadian Journal of Physics,

78, 57-71.van Aalst, J., & Key, T. (2000). Physics expectations of pre-professional students. Canadian

Journal of Physics, 78, 73-78.van Aalst, J., & Marjoribanks, R. (1999). Introducing research-based innovation into physics

teaching: A case study of 'peer instruction.' Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto.Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.

273

Downloaded At: 09:39 10 April 2011