At 12:29 +0000 16/10/06, opanky1 wrote:

>the
>researchers do not see texts (like scientific papers, books,
>articles) as examples of thinking.

Yes, but
1) most school age students do not write books, articles etc.
and
2) they are often happier to give up time to talk than to undertake
extra written work.

Their written assignments etc. certainly do offer opportunities to
explore their thinking, of course, but actually
3) an interview is a much better way of exploring student thinking in
depth than interrogating written work.

I think there is a big difference between assuming
a) that the published professional writings of philosophers (or
science educators for that matter) offer a good insight into their
thinking
and
b) the written work of typical school students offer a good insight
into their thinking

In both cases the insight will be partial - in the latter case it is
likely to be extremely partial. A well conducted interview will not
provide perfect data, but will certainly offer the chance of
collecting much fuller and clearer evidence of student thinking.

I do not doubt Mike's approach would be interesting and valuable: but
my professional concern is primarily with the understanding of
learners.

However, I would not wish to to discourage others form exploring an
interesting, if somewhat different, issue in the way Mike suggests.

Best wishes

Keith



>Thanks, Keith for a lengthy explanation. Now, it's my turn to match
>it:)
>
>The first topic: the concept of thinking as extracted from this Dr.
>Taber's casual account of his dealings with `student focused on
>chemical bonding and related concepts'. (I believe there is enough
>text to make some rough conclusions)
>
>This is the impression I've got from the description: the
>researchers do not see texts (like scientific papers, books,
>articles) as examples of thinking. At the same time, it will be
>extremely rude if I assume that the accounts of their research
>published (see Dr. Taber mentioning works done by Scott, Petri,
>Niedderer, Harrison, etc.) is NOT thinking. The researchers choose
>talking to their students and let me believe they want to understand
>how those students think, yet they do not take written texts as
>samples of thinking.
>I am convinced that this very text you are reading right now is the
>best possible representation of what I personally think on this
>matter. I also think that "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant
>represents his (Kant's) thinking.
>That was about material in focus.
>
>Point number two.
>Keith mentions: `this case gave me no reliable basis for assuming
>other students understood the same way or followed the same
>developments in their understanding'. My question is: how many cases
>does one need to make a generalization?
>J.G. Fichte (1762-1814) echoes Kant by claiming that normally humans
>first make a conclusion and then only they find proofs,
>justification, logic to support a hypothesis. The same fenomenon
>allowed Galileo to say, that if any facts do not support his theory,
>so much the worse it is for the facts (one can always find those
>ones that do support).
>
>And still: is there anyone interested to launch a study of thinking
>based on texts?
>
>I open to any suggestions,
>Mike
>
>
>
>


--
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


to join an electronic discussion list on
learning in science
please visit
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]