of butterflies and beetles: first graders' ways of seeing and talking about insect life cycles

Of Butterflies and Beetles: First Graders’ Ways of Seeingand Talking about Insect Life Cycles

Daniel P. Shepardson

School Mathematics and Science Center, Department of Curriculum and Instruction,Purdue University, 1442 LAEB, West Lafayette, Indiana 47909

Received 20 June 1996; revised 24 June 1997; accepted 27 June 1997

Abstract: First graders’ understandings of insect life cycles are explored through pre- and postin-structional interviews, as well as through the analysis of children’s journal entries and talk that occurredthroughout an instructional unit on beetle and butterfly metamorphosis. The data indicated that children’sinformal experiences resulted in the construction of one of three models of insect life cycles. Children’sjournal writing provided an avenue for contextualizing their experience with beetle and butterfly meta-morphosis. Although the children’s ways of seeing and talking about beetle and butterfly life cycles werechanged by the instructional experience, the instructional experience constrained their understandings ofinsect life cycles. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 34: 873–889, 1997.

Constructivist theory frames learning as an active, continuous process whereby learnerstake information from the environment and construct personal interpretations and meaningbased on prior knowledge and experience (Driver & Bell, 1986; Roth, 1990). Moreover, learn-ers construct knowledge by physically and mentally acting on objects or phenomena in the en-vironment (Piaget, 1970) and through social interactions with members of the community (Vy-gotsky, 1986). Social interactions both direct and mediate knowledge construction through thecommunication of expressions, actions, and use of written and oral language (Vygotsky, citedin Light, Sheldon, & Woodhead, 1991). Although children construct understanding for them-selves—personal meaning—it does not occur in isolation of others (Bishop, 1985; Rogoff,1990). Learning thus involves both a personal construction of meaning and a socially negotiat-ed meaning (Cobb, 1990).

Everyday events provide a wealth of sensory input from which children informally con-struct meaning for explaining scientific phenomena. Children’s everyday concepts are based onthe appearance and characteristics of the phenomena and objects experienced in everyday situ-ations and events (Vygotsky, 1986). Children’s initial science understandings therefore may bemore directly connected to everyday experiences (Schollum & Osborne, 1985) than to formalschool instruction. Further, children construct meaning about phenomena outside formal school-ing from social interactions with more knowledgeable individuals—adults, siblings, and peers(Rogoff, 1990). Children’s understandings of scientific phenomena prior to schooling are shapednot only by their everyday experiences with the phenomena, but by the language and perspec-tives others bring to explain the science phenomena at hand. Thus, children bring existing ideas

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 34, NO. 9, PP. 873–889 (1997)

© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/97/090873-17

(informally learned) to formal science learning situations that influences their science learning,often in unanticipated ways (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985).

Although much research has been conducted on children’s ideas in science (cf. Driver,Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1992; Driver, Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994; Glynn,Yeany, & Britton, 1991; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985), little is known about the ideas childrenhold concerning insect life cycles. Studies of children’s ideas indicate that children hold com-mon notions about natural phenomena that can inform practice (Driver et al., 1994). Therefore,if science teaching is to promote children’s science learning, it is essential to determine whatchildren think and why they think that way (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to further investigate children’s informally learned ideas andhow these ideas changed as a result of formal science learning, as a means for informing prac-tice. Specifically, (a) what prior ideas concerning butterfly and beetle life cycles (metamorpho-sis) are held by first graders, and (b) in what ways do children’s ideas about butterfly and bee-tle life cycles change?

Significance of Study

The significance of this study lies, in part, in that it provides insight into young children’sideas and ways of thinking about insect life cycles, building on and extending our understand-ings about children’s science learning and how classroom instruction shapes children’s ideas andways of thinking. The study emphasized children’s small-group work (e.g., self-produced jour-nals and talk) not only as a pedagogical vehicle, but as a window for looking into children’s de-veloping conceptual understandings. Finally, the study draws on the sociocultural work of Vy-gotsky (1978, 1986) as a lens for seeing, talking, and thinking about children’s science learning,making available a view of science teaching and learning from which “. . . science can becomemore meaningful and interesting and where the ideas of pupils are valued and encouraged to de-velop” (Driver et al., 1992, p. 201).

Background

Although relatively little is known about young children’s understandings of insect life cy-cles, there exists a body of research on children’s understandings of biological concepts. Whileinvestigating children’s understandings of living and nonliving, Tamir, Gal-Chappin, and Nuss-novitz (1981) found that most children believe that caterpillars (larva) change into pupa and theninto butterflies; however, the children viewed the pupa as being dead. In young children, Carey(1985) and Inagaki and Hatano (1987) indicated that children view scientific phenomena as liv-ing based on the characteristic of movement. Carey also suggested that children’s understand-ing of living is linked to their experiences and access to biological knowledge about living andnonliving.

Leach, Driver, Scott, and Wood-Robinson (1992) investigated children’s reasoning aboutecological phenomena. They reported that young children tend to think about ecological phe-nomena from an egocentric perspective and through anthropocentric and teleological reasoning.Further, young children’s thinking progresses from individual organisms as pets that need hu-mans to survive to wild organisms capable of surviving on their own. Leach et al. also notedthat most children were capable of identifying food and shelter links between organisms in a

874 SHEPARDSON

community, with young children capable of understanding food links between two organisms.Most children, however, view food as a substance an organism obtains from the environmentthat is a requirement for growth versus a source of matter for growth (Leach et al., 1992). Al-though young children’s understandings about habitat have not been investigated, middle schooland high school students believe that organisms are able to change their body structure to sur-vive in a particular habitat, or that they change their habitat to live in a more favorable envi-ronment; this perspective is thought to be reinforced by teachers and textbooks (Jungwirth,1975).

Typically, the use of journals in elementary classrooms is confined to language arts activi-ties (Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1991). Children’s self-produced journals are often neglected or un-derestimated in the science teaching-learning process (Elstgeest, Harlen, & Symington, 1985).Yet, the products children create with their drawing and writing as they construct and representtheir understandings provide insight into children’s understandings (Doris, 1991; White & Gun-stone, 1992) as well as enable children to clarify and verify their understandings about sciencephenomena (Neuman & Roskos, 1993). Although children’s self-produced science journals pro-vide an opportunity to access and assess changes in children’s understandings and thinking inscience (Dana, Lorsbach, Hook, & Briscoe, 1991), most research has occurred in the area oflanguage arts—children’s writing (e.g., Dyson, 1988, 1989, 1990).

Method

Theoretical Framework and Methodological Perspective

A constructivist and interpretivist approach provided the theoretical framework for thisstudy. Both constructivism and interpretivism aim to understand the meanings constructed byindividuals participating in context-specific and socially situated activity through social inter-actions involving history, language, and action (Schwandt, 1994).

The methodological perspective of the study was qualitative in nature and based on induc-tive analysis. The study was guided by the research questions and employed a search for pat-terns versus the imposing of patterns on the data (Patton, 1990). Specifically, the categoriesemerged from the open-ended observations as I came to understand these first-grade children’sideas and ways of thinking about butterfly and beetle life cycles.

Researcher Role

I assumed the role of participant observer (Denzin, cited in Patton, 1990) inasmuch as I si-multaneously combined the analysis of children’s journal entries, conducted informal teacherand child interviews, and made direct observations of small-group and whole-class activity. Idid not conduct classroom instruction or plan instruction with the teacher. I did provide theteacher with feedback about instruction when requested; however, such requests emphasizedtechnical aspects about raising caterpillars and mealworms and children’s understandings aboutbutterfly and beetle life cycles.

Setting

The setting for this study was two small groups of four children each within a first-gradeclassroom. The teacher established the classroom groups through her everyday grouping prac-

BUTTERFLIES AND BEETLES 875

tice. Two small groups were randomly selected from the teacher-established groups. Therefore,the setting represented naturally occurring learning communities in that I did not determine thecomposition or establish the course, actions, or outcomes for the two small groups (Patton,1990). The elementary school (Grades K–5) was located in a rural midwestern county near amajor university and metropolitan area.

Participants

The participants consisted of an experienced (6 years of elementary school teaching) first-grade elementary teacher and two small-groups of children from her science classes. The teachertaught science to all first-graders. That is, the three first-grade classes rotated into her classroomfor their science experience, one class at a time, during the afternoon. The groups therefore werederived from two different classes. The two small groups selected for study consisted of fourchildren heterogenously mixed by gender, academic ability, and verbal ability, as determined bythe teacher. The first small group consisted of Jack (J), Steve (S), Erin (E), and Laura (L). Sal-ly (S), Jill (J), Peter (P), and Mike (M) composed the second small group. All names are pseu-donyms. These 8 children served as key informants for the 24 children who comprised the twoclassrooms.

Instructional Context

The butterfly and beetle life cycle (metamorphosis) unit was implemented over a 15-dayperiod in May. Each class period lasted 30 min, providing approximately 20 min of instructionaltime. The remaining 10 min was allotted to settling the children before the instructional activi-ties began and cleaning up at the conclusion of the day’s activities. The instructional unit wasdeveloped based on the Generative Learning Model (GLM) (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Thepurpose of the GLM is to foster conceptual change by engaging children in sharing their un-derstandings and actively exploring phenomena, and by the teacher sharing scientific ideas aboutphenomena. The description of the instructional activities that follow is intended to provide acontext for interpreting the findings and not a detailed description or critique of the instruction.

The preliminary phase activity revolved around the children’s journal writing and drawingin response to the teacher’s initial questions, “How do you think the caterpillars will changeover time?” and “How do you think the mealworms will change over time?” This activity wasintended to identify children’s ideas and understandings about butterfly and beetle life cycles.The focus phase emphasized the children’s observation of the phenomena, caterpillars and meal-worms, and their journal entries (writing and/or drawing). The importance of the focus phasewas to provide children with concrete experiences with the developmental stages of butterflyand beetle life cycles.

The focus phase, small-group instruction revolved around children’s observation of cater-pillars and mealworms and the recording of those observations in their journals. The use of jour-nals and small-group instruction was a standard practice used by the teacher since the begin-ning of the school year (teacher preinstruction interview). Thus, children had prior experienceand were comfortable with using journals and working in small groups. During the focus phaseactivity, the teacher moves from group to group interacting primarily with individual childrenwithin each group: focusing children’s observations and journal entries, eliciting children’sideas, introducing terminology (larva, pupa, and chrysalis) when appropriate, and assistingchildren in their writing and spelling when requested. According to the teacher, the purposes ofsmall-group settings were to (a) “allow children opportunities to experience the science con-

876 SHEPARDSON

cept [metamorphosis] through observing caterpillars and mealworms,” (b) “develop theirprocess skills,” and (c) “share ideas about butterfly and beetle life cycles” (teacher preinstruc-tion interview).

The teacher felt that it was important for each child to have his own journal, because “thechildren need opportunities to write and draw their own ideas and because some take them homeand share them with their parents” (teacher preinstruction interview). Each child provided hisown drawing materials (markers, ink pens, pencils, and/or colored pencils), which varied amongchildren. Each small group received a container of caterpillars, a container of mealworms, anda hand lens. The children were grouped with desks facing each other forming a square, to fos-ter social interactions and collaboration.

The whole-class discussion activity reflected the challenge phase. The teacher’s purpose forthe whole-class instruction was to provide children an opportunity to share their observations,ideas, and understandings about butterfly and beetle life cycles. The teacher also presented thescientifically accepted understanding of insect life cycles during whole-class discussion. Duringthe whole-class discussion, the teacher told the children that (a) caterpillars and mealwormscome from eggs laid by adult butterflies and beetles; (b) mealworms and caterpillars are larva(the teacher explained larva as the newborn stage of growth); (c) pupa are the resting stage; and(d) butterflies and beetles are the adult stages of growth. The teacher linked each stage of meta-morphosis to the observations shared by the children. The teacher further differentiated betweencocoon (developed by moths) and chrysalis (developed by butterflies).

The children’s completion of the insect life-cycle diagrams represented the applicationphase. In the small-group life-cycle activity, each child was provided a butterfly and beetle life-cycle diagram, that contained four blank boxes connected by arrows and labeled with the wordsegg, larva, pupa, and adult. In this activity, the children drew pictures representing how the phe-nomena looked at each stage of development. The activity was intended to provide children theopportunity to organize their understandings of butterfly and beetle life cycles (informal teacherinterview), linking language to the appearance of the phenomena. Prior to the completion of theunit, the teacher led all three classes (with the aid of the other two first-grade teachers and au-thor) on a hike in the field and woods near the school, to look for insects in their various stagesof development.

Data Collection

Data collection procedures were directed at capturing the children’s understandings aboutbutterfly and beetle life cycles, as well as changes in their understandings. Therefore, data werecollected on children’s ideas about butterfly and beetle life cycles through pre- and postinstruc-tion interviews, the children’s journal entries, informal conversational interviews concerningchildren’s journal entries, and classroom observations recorded as field notes and videotapedrecordings of children’s activity.

The pre- and poststructured interviews were conducted to obtain information on children’sunderstandings of the life cycles (metamorphosis) of butterflies and beetles, as well as other in-sects (postinstruction interviews only), and the origin of children’s ideas. During the structuredinterviews, children were also asked questions based on their journal entries. The interviewswere tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Informal conversational interviews (Patton, 1990)were conducted to obtain children’s interpretations and explanations of their journal entries and spontaneous events that occurred within the small groups. All (n 5 24) children’s journalswere photocopied and served as artifacts of their understandings about butterfly and beetle lifecycles.


The teacher was also interviewed before and after the instructional unit, using an interviewguide as a framework. Classroom observations or field notes were maintained on the context,content, actions, and interactions of children during instruction. The two small groups werevideotaped throughout the instruction, from which transcripts and field notes were produced foranalysis. The pre- and postinstruction interviews and children’s journals and informal interviewsabout their journal entries served as the primary data sources. Classroom field notes, videotaperecordings, and teacher interviews served as secondary data sources.

Data Analysis

Methods of single and cross-case analytic induction (Patton, 1990) were combined to ana-lyze the data. Case records on the key informants’ ideas about butterfly and beetle life cycleswere constructed from the pre- and postinstruction interview transcripts, children’s journal en-tries, informal interviews, videotape recordings, and observation field notes. From the first view-ing and reading of the data, initial patterns in the children’s ideas about butterfly and beetle lifecycles were constructed. Revision of the emergent patterns occurred during the second viewingand reading. The data sources were then viewed a third time, when the children’s ideas aboutbutterfly and beetle life cycles were placed into the emergent categories. The data were analyzedfor both confirming and discrepant situations.

Results and Discussion

The results and discussion are presented in three sections. The first reports children’s pre-instructional models of insect life cycles and the nature of these models. The second describeschanges in children’s understandings about insect life cycles, as reflected in their journal entriesand talk, and is based on their experience with the phenomena. The final section presents thechildren’s postinstructional models of and understandings about insect life cycles.

Children’s Preinstructional Models of Insect Life Cycles

Children’s preinstructional models of butterfly and beetle life cycles may be categorizedinto a one-, two-, or three-stage model. The one-stage model is based on children’s idea that theinsect larva simply grow and get bigger with no change in body shape, form, or function, es-sentially a nonmetamorphosis model. Based on their journals, the key informants, except forSally, and all other children (n 5 16) exclusively applied this model to the mealworms (beetlelarva). Children’s initial understandings of beetle life cycles were constrained by the lack ofphysical experience with mealworms or social interactions with a more knowledgeable peer.One key informant, Jack, did associate mealworms with what he called “tree worms”; the oth-er key informants described them as “wormlike.”

The two-stage model reflects children’s ideas that the adult insect (butterfly) emerges froma larva (caterpillar). In this model, the caterpillar transforms directly into a butterfly, a larva–adult model, generally reflecting incomplete metamorphosis. This two-stage model was illus-trated only for the butterfly life cycle and by one key informant, Jack. One other child’s journalentry also reflected a two-stage model. Jack’s model of butterfly life cycles was constrained bythe context of his experience and social interactions. Jack had physically experienced only cater-pillars and butterflies.

The three-stage model depicts the larva–pupa–adult metamorphosis process, excluding thedevelopment of the larva from a fertilized egg. This model of insect life cycles was the domi-

878 SHEPARDSON

nant model applied to the caterpillar (butterfly) by the key informants, and was reflected in 15of the 16 children’s journals. It also reflected the understanding that Sally held about beetle lifecycles. The three-stage model is developed by children who have had physical experience withcaterpillars, cocoons/chrysalis, and butterflies/moths; and who have interacted with more knowl-edgeable peers about butterfly life cycles. However, the three-stage model also reflects a con-straint on children’s understandings in that they have not had experience with either butterfly orbeetle eggs, as they failed to understand not only that larva come from a fertilized egg, but alsothat adults lay fertilized eggs.

The preinstruction interviews and journals illustrate these first graders’ contextually con-strained experiences with butterfly and beetle life cycles, and that their understandings were so-cially constructed through interactions with a more knowledgeable individual. The interviewwith Peter is typical of the responses and ideas provided by these children.

I: Tell me about your caterpillar drawing.P: This is what I think it’s gonna turn out to look like. They are caterpillars and this is

what I think they’re gonna look like when, they’re done changing out of their co-coon.

I: What do you mean by cocoon?P: It’s kind a like an egg, it’s like stuff, silk wrapped around them. They go in it, see

when they’re caterpillars, when they come out they’re butterfly.I: How do you know that a caterpillar turns into a cocoon and then into a butterfly?P: I’ve got two at home that are changing right now.I: Have they changed into butterflies at this time?P: No. They’re in their cocoons.I: Then how do you know they will change into butterflies?P: My dad. They told me that they change into butterflies and moths. My dad knows a

lot more than I do about them so he told me.I: Where do you think caterpillars come from?P: [Pause] Don’t know. Maybe baby caterpillars?I: Okay. Can you tell me about your mealworm drawing?P: Well, um, I am not sure. I think they’re just gonna get bigger.I: Will they look the same or different?P: They will look the same, but they’re gonna be old.I: Have you ever seen a mealworm before?P: No. They look like worms.

Peter’s interview illustrates how his physical experience with caterpillars, cocoons, and butter-flies constrained his understanding of butterfly life cycles, and how his lack of experience withbeetle life cycles contextually constrained his thinking about mealworms. Further, his social in-teraction with his father provided a lens for seeing and talking about butterfly life cycles.

Sally, like Peter, had observed caterpillars form a cocoon (as Sally called it), but unlike Pe-ter, Sally’s socially constructed meaning was mediated by a picture book, an author.

I: How do you know they will change into butterflies?S: Because. I have seen them. I have seen pictures of them.I: In a book, at home?S: Yes. My mom showed me the book.

Sally was also an exception in understanding the beetle life cycle. Sally knew that meal-worms would change into beetles, as a result of her informal experience with mealworms as


food for her pet lizard. Thus, Sally’s understanding of beetle life cycles was contextualized andconstrained by raising mealworms as a food source for her pet lizard.

Although these children used physical appearance to separate the stages of butterfly devel-opment (and that of the beetle in Sally’s case), they did not identify the important function ofmetamorphosis: the reduction of competition and hindrance in growth and development betweenoffspring and adults. The stages of metamorphosis broaden the ecological habitat and niche, reducing competition between offspring and adults through space and time. Insect offspring gen-erally live in different environments and use different food sources than adult insects, thus re-ducing competition and increasing the survival rate of offspring. Although complete metamor-phosis is the physiological process of most insects, gradual metamorphosis (often identified asincomplete metamorphosis), incomplete metamorphosis, and no metamorphosis also occur ininsects (see Table 1 for the scientific perspective on insect life cycles).

The preinterviews indicated that only Sally had had prior experiences with the beetle lifecycle. In addition, none of the children had drawn or indicated that caterpillars (and mealwormsin Sally’s case) were preceded by a fertilized egg. It appears for the most part that first gradershave experienced insect life cycles only in the context of butterflies and moths, and that suchexperiences are incomplete in that they have experienced only the larva, pupa, and adult stagesof metamorphosis. Thus, these first graders’ informal understandings of insect life cycles werecontextually constrained by their everyday experiences with butterflies and moths. Further, thekey informants socially constructed an understanding of their everyday experience with the but-terfly life cycle through interactions with a more knowledgeable individual (parents, book au-thor, and siblings). It seems that the socially accepted understanding is linked to direct physicalexperience with the phenomena—caterpillars, cocoon/chrysalis, and butterflies/moths. This isconsistent with Vygotsky’s (1986) view that everyday concepts are assimilated based on thechild’s experiences with phenomena, and their everyday appearance and characteristics.

Changes in Children’s Understandings of Insect Life Cycles

Children’s ideas about insect life cycles were shaped by their physical experience with thephenomena and social interactions surrounding that activity. Further, children’s understandingsabout butterfly and beetle life cycles were made visible in their journal entries, as well as throughthe talk that surrounded their journals. This section illustrates, using the children’s journals and

880 SHEPARDSON

Table 1Scientific perspective of insect metamorphosis

Type of insect metamorphosis Stages of metamorphosis

No metamorphosis Egg–juvenile–adult; juvenile similar in form to adult, developmentconsists of growing larger.

Incomplete metamorphosis Egg–naiad–adult; naiads are aquatic life forms from which terrestrialadults emerge.

Gradual metamorphosis Egg–nymph–adult; nymphs resemble adults without wings or genital. Same food habits.

Complete metamorphosis Egg–larva–pupa-adult; comprise approximately 90% of known insects.

Note: Metamorphosis separates physiological processes of growth (larva) differentiation (pupa), and reproduction(adult), and functions to reduce competition or hindrance among stages of development by broadening the ecologicalniche (different food sources) and habitat (different living environments).

talk, how children’s ideas about insect life cycles changed over time. I first present and describeexamples from children’s mealworm journals; then I follow with examples from children’scaterpillar journals. I close this section with a summary and discussion about children’s journalsand science learning.

Beetle Life Cycle. All key informants except for Sally drew and described mealworms asbeing worms. For example, Steve drew a picture of four mealworms and labeled his drawing,“they Are worms [sic].” When Steve was asked why he thought they were worms, he replied,“They look like worms . . . have lines [segments] on body . . . move like worms.” For Steveand the other children, the beetle larva (mealworms) appear similar to earthworms in bodyshape and movement; therefore, mealworms must be worms. These children drew on their pri-or perceptual experiences with earthworms as a way of characterizing mealworms. The chil-dren’s thinking about mealworms “. . . is no more than a dependent component of perceptual,object-determined thought”; that is, their thinking is perceptual bound and “. . . lack[s] a dis-tance from immediate experience” (Vygotsky, 1986, pp. 199, 205). The factual characteristicsof the mealworms controlled the children’s thinking versus the use of signs or concepts as toolsfor thought.

Children initially viewed the pupa stage as either “sleeping/resting” or “dead.” For exam-ple, Erin stated, “This one is sleeping as it is not walking now. . . . When it gets up it still be amealworm.” Steve, on the other hand, believed that the pupa stage was synonymous with beingdead. Steve drew a picture of three living (whit[e]) and two dead (black) mealworms. For Steve,the two mealworms were dead because they were “. . . dark and not moving. If you’re not mov-ing you[‘re] dead.” Because Steve’s conception of living and dead provided a lens for seeingthe beetle pupa, he failed to observe the differences between beetle larva and pupa body formand shape.

Steve, like all children (except for Sally) at first thought that bugs had gotten into their meal-worm container, when the beetles emerged from the pupa stage. Eventually through teacher in-teractions, Steve realized that the beetles had emerged from the mealworms, as depicted in hisjournal; however, Steve believed that the beetles came from “living mealworms . . . becausewhen you’re dead you’re dead.” Thus, for Steve, as depicted in his journal at this point in time,the beetle life cycle consisted of two stages: mealworms that change into beetles. Only throughteacher interactions did Steve reconstruct his view of dead mealworms to one of seeing restingmealworms or pupa from which the beetles emerged. The social interaction with the teacher alsoresulted in Steve labeling the pupa in his journal drawing. For Steve, then, his way of seeingprovided an everyday lens for observing and understanding the mealworms, while the teacher’sinteraction provided a conventional framework for seeing beetle life cycles. Observation of phe-nomena alone does not provide children with access to knowledge, but must be interpreted inlight of existing knowledge and beliefs: “concepts . . . are produced by creative acts of abstrac-tion and invention. They do not arise directly from observations by a process of inductive gen-eralization” (Hodson, 1991, p. 21).

All children’s journal entries contained drawings that depicted the mealworms or beetles asobserved within the container. Thus, the context of the classroom investigation constrained thechildren’s understandings of mealworms: observing mealworms and beetles in containers inschool. Few children used scientific concepts (words) to label the beetle life cycle in their jour-nal. Further, none of the children associated the stages of beetle metamorphosis with a meansof reducing competition for food and habitat. Although the children’s journal entries and un-derstandings of beetle metamorphosis were constrained by the context of the classroom inves-


tigation, many children’s journal entries and understandings of butterfly metamorphosis werecontextualized in ways that reflected children’s informal experiences (see section below).

Butterfly Life Cycle. All key informants first drew pictures of caterpillars with various de-grees of observational accuracy. Erin, for example, drew a picture labeled “Whet [sic] he lookslike now.” She described her picture: “. . . it’s a hairy caterpillar . . . has lots of legs. It will bea butterfly someday.” Although not all caterpillars formed a chrysalis at the same time, Erin’sdrawing depicted all caterpillars hanging from the lid. When asked to explain her drawing, Erinsaid, “. . . the caterpillars are in the cocoons. . . . When they come out they be butterflies.” Erinfurther described the cocoon as being “spun by the caterpillars so they can change into butter-flies.” One of Erin’s final drawings illustrated the emergence of a butterfly with the remainingstill in their “cocoon.” In describing her drawing, Erin noted that the butterfly “. . . came fromthe caterpillar cocoon. The caterpillar turns into the butterfly.” The informal interview with Erincontinued:

I: How do you know the butterfly came from the caterpillar?E: Because they came out of the cocoon . . . some are still in them. I think what they do

is they grow up until they get real fat and have antennas and then they get wingscause the caterpillar part still has the head and that is the head of the butterfly.

I: Why is this a butterfly?E: It looks like a butterfly. It has . . . two wings, a head with antennas.

The children’s initial butterfly journal entries reflected a contextualization of the classroominvestigation; however, as the butterflies emerged, some children (13 of 24) reconceptualizedthe investigation in terms of their informal experiences with caterpillars, cocoons/chrysalis, andbutterflies/moths. Britsch and Shepardson (1996) noted that children often use these worldviews(investigative and experienced worlds) to make meaning about school science activities. Sally’slast journal entry, for example, depicted a flower and a plant with a cocoon, which contextual-ized and gave meaning to the science activity. Sally’s explanation of her journal entry follows:

S: There are three butterflies that just came out of their cocoons. This is a flower . . .this is a flower with one cocoon left.

I: What is the flower for?S: I drew the flower ‘cause butterflies eat them, they like suck its juice for food.I: Can you tell me why you drew this plant with the cocoons?S: Well, that is the way they are. Caterpillars make cocoons on these like flowers.

For Sally, as for the other children, the construction of the journal page is a cognitive activitythat reconfigures the science investigation and phenomena to fit her framework for butterfly lifecycles, her way of seeing, talking, and thinking.

Laura and Jack also recontextualized the investigation in their butterfly journal entries;however, Jack drew the butterflies and cocoons inside an imaginary house, as “they needed ahome.” Jack, like two other children, recontextualized the investigation on the journal page inan anthropomorphic setting. Laura’s journal entry is like Sally’s in that it places the caterpil-lars and cocoons in a tree. Laura’s description of her journal drawing was, “these are the cater-pillars and these are the cocoons . . . they live in the tress . . . like in our backyard.” Althoughthe children contextualized the investigation by drawing caterpillars and butterflies in their nat-ural habitat—flowers and trees—alluding to caterpillar and butterfly niches and habitats, none

882 SHEPARDSON

of the children described the importance of metamorphosis in terms of reducing competitionfor habitat or food.

Jack’s, Sally’s, and Laura’s butterfly drawings are similar to most primary-age children inthat the children tended not to produce drawings that represented the phenomena or objects asobserved (Elstegest et al., 1985). What is important, however, is the purpose of children’s draw-ings. If it is to focus their observation of details, then Jack’s, Sally’s, and Laura’s drawings con-strained their understandings. On the other hand, if the purpose is to give meaning to observa-tions, then Sally’s and Laura’s journal drawings provided a tool for contextualizing theirunderstandings about butterfly life cycles, placing the science investigation into a real-worldcontext.

As with the children’s mealworm journal entries, their caterpillar journal entries tended notto contain scientific concepts (larva and pupa). Many of the children, however, used the wordscocoon, caterpillar, and butterfly in their journals as a tool for labeling the stages of the butter-fly life cycle. These words or language that the children were the most familiar with were of-ten used as a way of seeing and talking about butterfly life cycles, the taken-for-granted sym-bols of science as a means for labeling versus explaining.

Summary of Children’s Journal Entries. Through their journal entries, these children madeexplicit their ideas about beetle and butterfly life cycles, and aided their thinking by clarifyingand organizing their ideas on the journal page. Drawing and writing in journals provides a toolfor enhancing children’s observations of phenomena, providing a base for extending theirknowledge (Harlem & Symington, 1985). By creating their own journal pages, children are ableto impose their way of seeing and thinking about the phenomena, constructing or reconstruct-ing the phenomena through their own lens of experience.

Children exposed to scientific phenomena can only generate meanings from their own per-spective of the world—how they see and talk about the phenomena—and can only create theirown meanings for the taken-for-granted ways of seeing and talking about the phenomena basedon their experience with the phenomena. Insect life cycles—egg, larva, pupa, and adult—havemeaning only when children can link language as a tool for seeing and knowing to experience.Learning science thus involves learning to see phenomena in new ways (Sutton, 1992). Vygot-sky (cited in Wertsch, 1991) viewed the learning of scientific concepts as being mediated by andlinked to participation in the discourse community. For children to learn science, then, they musthave access to physical phenomena and the cultural tools of science, as well as the discoursethat supports their construction of meaning about the phenomena (Driver et al., 1994). Thus, forchildren to learn science, they must learn to see the situation (phenomena) in the same way asscientists. Wertsch (1985, p. 159) made the point that although scientific phenomena are per-ceived by both teacher and children, they may not “be in the same situation”—that is, they donot see the situation in the same way. For example, the teacher saw larva, pupa, and beetles,whereas the children saw worms (larva), worms sleeping (pupa), dead worms (pupa), and bugs(adult beetles). Through the teacher’s discourse, the children were socially pulled into seeingthe situation in the same way.

As these children constructed their journal pages, their ways of seeing and thinking aboutbutterfly and beetle life cycles began to take shape, and their mental activity took on a physicaland social existence in the form of the journal page. There is an externalization of the mind ontothe journal page, shaping the way in which children see the phenomena. The physical and so-cial existence of the journal page makes public to peers and teacher the child’s ways of seeingand knowing that may then be reshaped through dialogue with others. Thus, children come to


see and know butterfly and beetle life cycles by engaging in a self-dialogue about the phenom-ena and through social dialogue with teacher and peers. Further, the children’s journal pagesabout butterfly and beetle life cycles may be viewed as a story that unfolds as the observed phe-nomena (caterpillars and mealworms) change over time. The children molded the story to fittheir way of seeing; therefore, the story may be distorted from that of the entomologist orteacher. Yet, the story reveals the child’s socially constructed understandings.

Children’s Postinstructional Models of Insect Life Cycles

At the conclusion of the instructional unit, all key informants had developed a four-stagemodel (complete metamorphosis) of insect life cycles. Although the children constructed a com-plete metamorphosis model of insect life cycles, there was a difference in the language used bythe children to describe butterfly and beetle life cycles. With regard to the life cycle of the but-terfly, 6 of the key informants still referred to the pupa as a cocoon instead of as a chrysalis, 1(Peter) identified the pupa as a chrysalis, and 1 (Mike) used the scientific words “larva,” “pupa,”and “adult” in describing the butterfly life cycle. With respect to the beetle life cycle, all but onechild used “mealworm” to describe the larva stage. Mike was the only key informant to use thewords “larva,” “pupa,” and “adult” to describe the beetle life cycle.

The results of postinstruction interviews suggested that children linked new (teacher-intro-duced) scientific words to experience; thus the experience provided a context for constructingmeaning. In addition, children failed to modify their understanding of scientific words (e.g., co-coon) which were informally learned. Steve’s postinterview exemplifies the ideas held by firstgraders following their exposure to the instructional unit.

I: Can you tell me what you think happens to a caterpillar?S: Caterpillars turned into butterflies. They wrap up in a cocoon and come out as but-

terflies.I: If caterpillars turn into butterflies, where do caterpillars come from?S: Caterpillars come from a[n] egg.I: Okay. How do you know that caterpillars come from an egg and that caterpillars

change into butterflies?S: Mrs. T. told us that caterpillars come from eggs. She showed pictures. I saw the cater-

pillars change into butterflies.I: Where do you think the eggs come from?S: Butterflies! Butterflies lay the eggs [inaudible].I: How do you know that the eggs come from butterflies? Have you ever seen butter-

flies lay eggs?S: From class. You know, Mrs. T. showed pictures.I: Okay, let’s talk about mealworms now. Do mealworms change?S: Yes. They turn into beetles. They’re, like, sleeping first, you know, a pupa thing, like

when the caterpillar is in his cocoon.I: Does the cocoon make the caterpillar different from the mealworm?S: [Long pause]) Sorta. The caterpillar has a cocoon and the mealworms don’t, but

they’re both, like, sleeping.I: What can you tell me about insect life cycles?S: Well, they change as they grow. They hatch from an egg and become [long pause] some

become a larva like the mealworm, then they turn into a pupa, and then into an adult.

This postinterview indicates that while Steve was able to use scientific concepts (e.g., egg,pupa, larva, and adult) to describe his experience with butterfly and beetle life cycles, he was

884 SHEPARDSON

unable to replace his idea of cocoon with chrysalis. His description, “wrap up in,” suggests thestrength of his acceptance of cocoon versus chrysalis. It appears that scientific concepts (words)introduced and linked to experience by the teacher were assimilated by the first graders, where-as informally learned concepts (e.g., cocoon) linked to informal experiences were not suffi-ciently challenged as a result of instruction, and thus did not change. The instructional unit didnot provide the children with phenomena (moths) which exemplified a cocoon, or the differencebetween a cocoon and chrysalis. Although these children’s models of butterfly and beetle lifecycles changed to a more appropriate scientific view, their model of insect life cycles was con-textually constrained by their experiences with insects that undergo complete metamorphosis;that is, they viewed complete metamorphosis as the model for thinking about the developmentof other insects such as crickets, grasshoppers, and ladybugs.

When the key informants were shown photographs of crickets, grasshoppers, and ladybugs(at the conclusion of the postinstruction interviews) and then asked to describe how these in-sects developed, all children except for Jack attempted to fit complete metamorphosis to the de-velopment of these insects. The degree to which they were able to fit complete metamorphosisto describing cricket, grasshopper, and ladybug life cycles, however, varied.

For all three insects, Mike described metamorphosis as involving egg, larva, pupa, andadult. Unlike the other key informants, he showed little hesitation or confusion about his de-scription.

M: They are going to come from an egg. Then, you know, a larva, pupa, and adult, crick-et, or whatever they are.

I: All three insects?M: They are bugs just like the butterfly and mealworm . . . so they will grow just like

them.

Mike’s understanding of insect life cycles reflects what Vygotsky (1986) called a complex;that is, Mike’s understanding is controlled by the concrete properties of the phenomena ex-perienced (butterfly and beetle life cycles) that gave meaning to the words (egg, larva, pupa,and adult) used to describe the phenomena, a sign–object relation. Further, the words appearto structure or regulate Mike’s activity. Mike’s complete metamorphosis complex is formedthrough what Vygotsky (1986) referred to as a factual bond: the connecting of “bugs” (in-sects) to life cycles (egg, larva, pupa, adult), in which all bugs (insects) undergo completemetamorphosis. For Mike, then, butterflies, beetles, crickets, grasshoppers, and ladybugs areall similar in that they are all bugs, and thus are factually connected to complete metamor-phosis. Mike’s seeing and talking in a complex is an artifact or constraint of instruction, whichprovided only experiences with and discourse about insects that undergo complete metamor-phosis.

Sally, on the other hand, struggled with fitting a complete metamorphosis model to thecricket and grasshopper, but was able to fit her understanding of complete metamorphosis to theladybug. Sally was able to see the similarity in appearance among mealworm beetles and lady-bugs:

S: The cricket must come from an egg, as everything comes from an egg.I: Does the egg change or turn into a cricket?S: I have never seen a cricket before it is a cricket. I don’t know. [Pause] It might be

like a little cricket . . . it then, it, like, rests and turns in a grown-up cricket.[Interview continues with grasshopper followed by ladybug.]

I: Okay. Can you tell me about the ladybug?


S: Looks like a little mealworm beetle. It must have a worm thing before it turns . . . la-dybug.

I: So. Does it change from a worm into a ladybug? Or does it change into somethingelse first?

S: It’s egg first . . . worm like, like the mealworm. Oh, oh, pupa and then ladybug.

Sally, unlike Mike, attempts to contextualize her understanding of complete metamorpho-sis to explain other insect life cycles; however, her thinking is also constrained by her experi-ence with and discourse about butterfly and beetle life cycles. Her ability to associate completemetamorphosis to other insects is dependent upon her ability to relate the familiar to the un-known, giving meaning to complete metamorphosis. Sally appears to display what Vygotsky(1986) called a pseudoconcept, a transition between complexes and conceptual understanding.Sally’s thinking was partially controlled by the phenomena—crickets, grasshoppers, and lady-bugs—yet she exhibited some control over the phenomena through the use of words.

Steve, Erin, Laura, Jill, and Peter struggled to fit a model of complete metamorphosis to thelife cycle of crickets, grasshoppers and ladybugs. Each had difficulty trying to describe the lar-va and/or pupa stage for the cricket and grasshopper. For example, Erin indicated that she knewthere was a developmental stage but did not know what it was called: “There’s something afterthe egg, I don’t know what you call it.” Jack, however, reverted back to a two-stage model, withno metamorphosis (juvenile–adult), to describe the life cycles of these insects: “I have seen big,little crickets in the garage . . . they must get bigger.”

Thus, for these children, the classroom science activity provided a way of seeing and talk-ing about insect life cycles that constrained their way of knowing about insect life cycles. Themeaning of words is given to children through their discourse with the teacher; the elements(egg, larva, pupa, and adult) of complete metamorphosis also come pregrouped (Vygotsky,1986). The child “. . . follows the practice already established by adults. In a word, [the child]does not create his own speech, but acquires the speech of adults” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 122).Thus, the classroom discourse provides not only a way of talking about insect life cycles, but away of seeing and thinking about insect life cycles. The instructional activities and discoursedid not expose children to insects that do not develop through complete metamorphosis. Fur-ther, the instructional discourse emphasized language (scientific concepts) as a tool for labelingphenomena versus a tool for explaining phenomena.

Conclusions

Vygotsky (1978) noted that knowledge is socially constructed through talk, activity, and in-teractions around meaningful problems and tasks. Vygotsky (1986) emphasized that everydayand scientific concepts are interconnected and interdependent; everyday concepts are mediatedand transformed by scientific concepts, and scientific concepts are in turn mediated and trans-formed by everyday concepts. The interplay between these provides children with the tools forseeing, talking, acting, and knowing.

If science is conceptualized as a discourse, then the learning of science is not the acquisi-tion of facts and procedures but a social and cultural way of thinking and knowing (Longino,1990). This view of science learning suggests that children need to be enculturated into the waysof making meaning of the science experience (Roseberry et al., 1992). Language, written or spo-ken, plays an important role in mediating children’s science learning, providing a system forthinking and talking about science, as well as a means for communicating and sharing ideas(Roseberry et al., 1992). Language must be viewed as a system for explaining and interpreting

886 SHEPARDSON

versus labeling phenomena (Sutton, 1992), providing children with the tools for seeing, acting,talking, and thinking about phenomena.

Implications for Classroom Instruction

Considering these children’s preinstructional models and ways of thinking during instruc-tion, implications for classroom practice may be explicated. Closer, detailed observations at-tending to the larva and pupa form of the mealworm beetle are necessary for children to iden-tify the differences between larva and pupa. Second, the contextual experience with insectmetamorphosis needs to be expanded. Children need to observe metamorphosis in terms of oth-er insects such as crickets and silverfish, to see that not all insects undergo metamorphosis sim-ilar to beetles and butterflies. Third, because these children associated the beetle larval stagewith earthworms, children should observe and compare the differences between earthworms andlarva to assist them in better differentiating and understanding larva. Children also need to in-vestigate the characteristics of life—specifically that locomotion is not the sole condition for liv-ing—to better understand the pupa stage. Fourth, children need to explore insect life cycles innatural settings to better contextualize their understanding of metamorphosis beyond the class-room investigation. Finally, the importance of metamorphosis in terms of niche and habitat sep-aration needs to be addressed to promote a conceptual framework for understanding insect lifecycles.

In terms of children’s journals, Papert (1990) asserted that children learn when they are con-structing products that allow them to externalize their way of seeing and thinking in a mannerthat is of value or importance to them. Children’s journal entries make public their ideas, andthus function to mediate children’s learning. Therefore, science instruction must provide op-portunities for children to construct products and engage in dialogue about their products. Pro-viding time for children to question and explain their journal entries to each other is essentialin understanding the ways others see and know the science phenomena. It also provides an op-portunity for children to take the perspective of others. Further, existing products or resourcesshould be used as tools for providing children with a new way of seeing phenomena, as a meansfor shaping their construction on the journal page.

References

Bishop, A. (1985). The social construction of meaning—a significant development in math-ematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 5, 24–28.

Britsch, S.J., & Shepardson, D.P. (1996) Science journals: Tools for the construction of un-derstanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As-sociation, New York, NY.

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cobb, P. (1990). Multiple perspectives. In L.P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming chil-

dren’s mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 200–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Dana, T.M., Lorsbach, A.W., Hook, K., & Briscoe, C. (1991). Students showing what they

know: A look at alternative assessments. In G. Kulm & S.M. Malcom (Eds.), Science assess-ment in the service of reform. Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Science.

Doris, E. (1991). Doing what scientists do: Children learn to investigate their world.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Driver, R., & Bell, B.F. (1986). Students thinking and the learning of science: A construc-tivist view. School Science Review, 67, 443–456.


Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1992). Children’s ideas in science. Buckingham,UK: Open University Press.

Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of sec-ondary science: Research into children’s ideas. New York: Routledge.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientificknowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 25, 5–12.

Dyson, A.H. (1988). Negotiating among multiple worlds: The space/time dimensions ofyoung children’s composing (Tech. Rep. No. 15). Center for the Study of Writing, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Dyson, A.H. (1989). Multiple worlds of child writers: Friends learning to write. New York:Teachers College Press.

Dyson, A.H. (1990). The word and the world: Reconceptualizing written language devel-opment of do rainbows mean a lot to little girls? (Tech. Rep. No. 42). Center for the Study ofWriting, University of California, Berkeley

Elstgeest, J., Harlen, W., & Symington, D. (1985). Children communicate. In W. Harlen(ed.), Primary science: Taking the plunge. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Glynn, S., Yeany, R., & Britton, B. (1991). The psychology of learning science. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Hodson, D. (1991). Philosophy of science and science education. In M.R. Matthews (ed.),History, philosophy, and science teaching: Selected readings. Toronto, Canada: OISE Press.

Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1987). Young children’s spontaneous personification as analo-gy. Child Development, 58, 1013–1021.

Jungwirth, E. (1975). Preconceived adaptation and inverted evolution (a case study of dis-torted concept formation in high school biology). Australian Science Teacher Journal, 21,95–100.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1992). Progression in conceptual un-derstanding of ecological concepts by pupils aged 5–16. Leeds, UK: Center for Studies in Sci-ence And Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.

Light, P., Sheldon, M., & Woodhead, M. (1991). Learning to think. New York: Routledge.Longion, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.Neuman, S.B. & Roskos, K.A. (1993). Language and literacy learning in the early years:

An integrated approach. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rienhart, Winston.Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Children’s science. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.),

Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heine-mann.

Papert, S. (1990). Introduction. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning (pp. 1–8). Cam-bridge, MA: Media Laboratory.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia Press.Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Ox-

ford, UK: Oxford University Press.Roseberry, A.S., Warren, B., & Conant, F.R. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse:

Findings from language minority classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61–94.Roth, K.J. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B.F.

Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139–176). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

888 SHEPARDSON

Schollum, B., & Osborne, R. (1985). Relating the new to the familiar. In R. Osborne & P.Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Auckland, NewZealand: Heinemann.

Schwandt, T.A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: University Press.Tamir, P., Gal-Chappin, R., & Nussnovitz, R. (1981). How do intermediate and junior high

school students conceptualize living and nonliving? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,18, 241–248.

Tompkins, G.E., & Hoskisson, K. (1991). Language arts: Content and teaching strategies.New York: Macmillan.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process-es. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


of butterflies and beetles: first graders' ways of seeing and talking about insect life cycles

Documents