Perhaps I should explain my point about
complementary studies, bearing in mind that my
area of experience is learning in science. This
is not a new idea - I don't claim any originality
here. (For example, in the early 1980s Watts was
involved in publishing both kinds of study
relating to learners' thinking about the concept
of force.) My own work has tend to be more
focused on the in-depth individual work: but not
exclusively
(http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kst24/publications.html).

The complexity of student conceptual frameworks,
and even more so learning processes that lead to
their development, require in-depth studies if
they are to obtain more than superficial
descriptions of learner's ideas. Ultimately, when
exploring learning over time, this may even mean
in-depth case studies of individual learners.
Scott published such a case from the UK context
in 1992. Other excellent examples have come from
Petri & Niedderer in Germany and Harrison &
Treagust in Australia. Only by in-depth studies
can we do justice to the complexity of the
phenomenon.

However such studies have two obvious drawbacks.
I undertook such a case study based on over 20
interviews with a student focused on chemical
bonding and related concepts, over a 2 year
period. Most interviews were over an hour in
duration, some over two hours. I was able to
obtain what is sometimes referred to as 'thick
description' - real detail. This was useful as it
showed a level of complexity that could otherwise
have been missed, and enabled me to follow
aspects of progression in understanding. However,
I would be very naive to believe that this
learner's 'conceptual trajectory' closely
resembled what it would have been in the absence
of all those long probing conversations about the
topic.

And in any case [sic], this case gave me no
reliable basis for assuming other students
understood the same way or followed the same
developments in their understanding. Once we
start to have evidence from such detailed
studies, we need to consider how we will find out
if the educationally salient features are
strongly represented among other learners.

Another example. In my chemical bonding studies I
primarily worked with a little over a dozen
learners, all in the same college. A few of these
made comments that led me to suspect there were
some interesting 'misconceptions' about
ionisation. For example, a few clearly thought
that if an atom was ionised, then the remaining
electrons were more strongly attracted to the
nucleus because the removed electron's share of
the nuclear force was redistributed. This seemed
a crazy idea, and I had no idea if it was an
isolated notion among a small group of students.

I later developed a diagnostic probe - a simple
written instrument to look for the level of
support for this and other ideas I'd found
relating to ionisation. Among a group of over a
hundred chemistry students, from the same
college, I found this was a principle that many
agreed with. Later I tested the idea among a
larger group drawn from a wide range of UK
schools and colleges - not a representative
sample, but certainly a diverse and
geographically spread one - and found similar
results. This seemed to be a common alternative
conception in the UK.

Daniel Tan in Singapore then led development of
the instrument, and applied it in the context of
another educational system. He developed an
instrument that he was able to administer in a
fair proportion of relevant Singapore colleges -
showing that the 'conservation of force' notion
was common there as well. It is now being tested
in several other educational contexts: US, China,
Spain and NZ.

In this case, ideas that were identified by
careful interpretation of in-depth interviews of
a few students have been found to be widespread
ways of thinking about an aspect of chemistry
that teachers should be aware of. This might not
have been the case. (I also have a case of a
student who consistently interpreted charge
symbols to mean deviations from full shells, i.e.
+ means one electron more than a full shell: but
have yet to see this 'replicated' in data from
another learner). I do not think this
'conservation of force' notion could have been
identified by survey methods: but I also know
that it is only by survey type methods that is it
possible to test out whether ideas that are
potentially significant educationally are
idiosyncratic, or more widespread and likely to
occur among students in the classes of most
teachers.

I hope that clarifies what I meant. The programme
suggested by Michael sounds fascinating, but I
doubt I am best qualified to help carry it out.

Keith




At 20:28 +0000 14/10/06, opanky1 wrote:
>Dr. Taber,
>Your idea `for a complementary variety of studies on the second (in
>depth studies of individual learners, supported by large-scale
>surveys to test out the generalisability of findings from
>more `invasive'/interactive studies)' sounds like long due.
>
>Let me suggest some topics and material to focus on.
>How about 
>1. extracting the logic and worldviews used by great thinkers in
>their conceptual works;
>2. extracting the same (logic patterns and basic assumptions) used
>while solving regular mechanical problems every civil engineer
>should be able to do;
>3. the methods and axioms we (those who will undertake the proposed
>quest) have to utilize while performing the first two steps.
>
>As the material why not take some major works by Plato/Aristotle,
>Kant/Marx, Husserl/Wittgenstein for the first one;
>Some major mechanical problems for the second one,
>And our own cogitation for the last one.
>
>The material is easily accessible, and we can do it on-line.
>Do you want to try?
>
>Michael (aka Mikhail) Chumakin, metodolog
>

--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
University Senior Lecturer in Science Education
Convener, Science Education Academic Group
Programme Manager, Part-time Ph.D. in Education
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 2PQ
United Kingdom