ENACTING SCIENCE [PDF]

UWERSITY OF ALBERTA

ENACTING SCIENCE BY ANTHONY LE0 MACDONALD

@

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN PARTIAL FüLFiLLMENT OF THE REQUREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DûCI'OR OF PHIIDSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDMONTON, ALBERTA SPRING 1997

The author has granted a nonexclusiw Iicaice allowing the National Lhrary of Canada to reproduce, Ioan, cbtci'bute or seil copies ofhismer thesis by any means and in any form or format, m a h g this thesis a d a b l e to interested persons-

The author retalis ownership of the copyright in h i d e r thesis. Neitbcr the thesis nor substantial extracts

fkom it may be printed or othenvise reproduced with the author's permission.

L'auteur a accofde une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliodièque nationale du Canada de rrpromiirr,prêter, distni.uerou vendre des copies de sa thèse de queIque manière a sous quelque fornie que ce soit pour mettre des exemplaires de cette thèse à la disposition des personnes intéressées.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du &oit d'auîtur qui protège sa thèse. Ni la thèse ni cies extraits substaatieis de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation,

0 1996 A. L m MacDonald

This worlr is dedicated to my parents. Donald C. MacDonald and Muy S. MhcDondd

ABSTRACT My study examines the developcnent d f m s of knowing tbat arise when students engage

in open-eaded explorations involving self-directed design and building invdving simple materials. It is gnninded in an enactivist themetical perspective on cognition which holds

that the cfeation of actim-thought processes f a mgagllig the world is interwoven with tbe meanings tbat an coastructed fix these experieaas. A dynamic conception of persons-

acting-in-a-setting is fundamental to an enactivist view d cognition. How is derstanding eaafted in building activity? How does the shape of a problem emerge? How do students enact meaning and understanding when they expeciewe a high degree of physid engagement in building things? What are some characteristics

O€

an

enactive learninJteaching envinmment? My research settings comprise a range of individual, group and classroom engagements of

varying Iengths over a three and one-half year p e n d The first research episode involved two grade eight students in an investigation of Paper Towels. The second four month engagement was in a grade nine science class that culmuiated in the building of a Solar House. The third grade tea e @ d einvolved a one month jmject to build a Mousetrap Powered Car. A fouith Invent 8 Machine project was conducted in two grade eight

science classes taught by the teacher who participated in the Solar House project Two

students were pnsent in three of the four projects. I interviewai one of these sadents upon

completion of his hi@ s c h d physics courses. 1 found thai building is a fam of ihinaag which develops competency in managing

complex prsacticai tasks. A iriadic relationship of exploration, planning and acting is present. Practicai and piiredural understandings emerge as students enter and re-enter selfdirected problem settings. Thinking patterns depend on the kinds of materials chosen, the

ways they are used, and on how students contextuaüze the probiem. Classroom assesment procedures gain complexity and incapwate prucess oomponents as students bezome

invdved in estabiishing aiteria for iheir worlc

Contemporary science pro~ramsempbasize ushg pafoxmanœ criha @ evaluatc shdent

Ieaming in inveatigative activity. My study seeh ta expand the notion of performance by identifying and portrayingessential features ofstudent action-thought

This dissertation is a path laid down in wallang. Many people have waliced with me as 1 have lived thejoliraey. Iacknowlsdge with dccpst @tude the fdlowing:

Heidi Ka+P, my sumsor and fricnd, who introdud me to doing research with students aml teachers and guided my joumey. Heidi's cornmitment to nsearch helped me to focus my gaze, hine my actions and leam how to "listen with"&ers. Her participation with the teachets. students. and me in the clasaooms we joined made an enactivist mearch approach possible in this study. It was tbrough Hadi's kindness and genedty that 1 was able to have opporninities io meet and interact with kter Fensham and other science educators fmm amund the world. When 1 stumbled, and it was fquently, she picked me up. dusted me off, and helped me to get on ?rackagain.

Tom Kieren who introduced me to enactivism and a breadth of d n g that todc me beyond the sape of science education discourse in an ongoing four-year enactivist seminar that some of us d e r to as our "moveable ffeat''. Tom's passion for teaching and research helped me to open up new possibilities in the enactments and re-enactments of my own rrsearch engagements and see signifieance in the ontology oi thinking. Wytze Brouwer who asked questions sumunding philosophical issues associated with enactivism and its relationship to constnictivism. He challenged me to be more precise in my thinking and to wmmunicate my developing understandings as clearly as possible. Peter Femham who graciously took me on as his student in Australia It was a privilege to leam from someone who has cunüibuted so much to the international science education sceae and to meet fimt band Rter's colleagues at Monash University and Curtin University.

The members of my examining cornmittee. M e n Enckson, Joe Noms. Daiyo Sawada, and Sd Sigwbon for their searching questions and helpful comments. Their assistance in helping me to mgnize and refine f k q concepts in my work has k e n invaluable. The students and teachexs who worked so hard to enact their understandings of what it means to engage in self-directeci building in science and their patience in shaiing their understandings with me. This dissertation is their story. I also appreciate the generosity of

the students and parents who invited me to k i r homes and thus allowed me to explore leanllng contexts that e k n d beyond the barndaries of schod.

M y family for k i r unfaüing support and encomgement.

Chapter Four: The Design

................................ 61

TheR#leprchSettings ......................................... 61 Limitations ................................................ 64

................................................ 65 Enacting Understandings oC Qassroom Researçh by Doing ........... 66 The Re~earcheras Teacher in an kmctivist Approach ...............-70 How Dao an nieEtivist Pcfs~cctiveConsider the Cuniculum? ........ 72 PhenomemgmphicDtscnption ................................. 73 Validity aad Reliability Issues .................................. 79 DataFortrayai ............................................... 81 Assumpticms

Chapter Five: Enacting Understanding .................. The embodiment of experience and cognition: laying dowu apathinwalking ...................................... Evdving conceptions of aQquate conduct: dynarnics of viabiiity ...... A way to think of experience ................................... Recusive strucairal mupling betwcen persons and setting ...........

Chapter Six: Shape of the problem

.........................

Bringing forth a shape in doing a clinical study of a broad coatext task seîting .............................. Shape of the problem and pedagogy .............................. Tony inventing an idea by shaping the possible into the actuai ......... 139 Dave and Johnny two boys who lœt track of their problem .......... 148 The Mousetrap Pbwend Car Roject .............................. 161 Shap of Structurai Coupling ................................... -167 Shape of Ian's stmcaual coupling to social dimensions of the @lem ............................... 172 On working together with his Father on the pmblem ................. 173

Chapter Seven: Buiîding Things

........................... 176

uMah'ngthiags" matters: A perspective on engaghg in an action environment ........................ 177 Acting-thinking "like a Lid" .................................... 180 Crcating psibilities by building ................................ 187 It worlc9!: Expanâing the w a i d of sipnificance ..................... 192 Ernergenœ of an affordancc space f a action-thinking ................ 197 Taking a risic Wading an affbrdanœ space ...................... 201 Creating worlds of significanœ .................................. 2L6

Chapter Eight: An Enactive Learninfleacbing Ciassmm...... 222 Developing a classroom research approach ........................ - 2 2 2 The dissemination of ideas and actions ............................ 223 Entering into effective action ................................... -229 A wodd of significance emerges for the teacher .................. 233 An emerging style of teacher-student discourse ................... 238 Bridget's perspective on the development students' thinking ....... 241 Becoming an e f f d v e participant ............................. 243 Role of curricuîumltcxt in action-thought ....................... 245 A shift toward embodied and proscriptive forms of assessrnent ..... 248 Adquate conduct and assessrnent .................... .. 253

. . . .

Chapter Nine: Discussion and impiicaîions

................

259

Repris6 ................................................. 259 A response to my guiding questions........................... 261 Interpretations of ldnB/teaching ............................ 267 Enactivism as a theoretical basis for the interpretation of leamingteaching 271 Comments on the ontdogy and epistemoiogy of understanding ....... 275 A note on the munial specifïcation of theory and pmctice ............ 2?7 Can a rcsean:h account be enactivist? ............................ 277 FOffuRhermcarch ......................................... 280

APPENDICES

. m . * . . . . m m . . . m . . . m m o m - * m * - m * m * * m * * . . . m e m

................................. Appendin B: Student Work and Comments ..................... Apptndix c: Sdected Interviews and hversaricm ...... ......... Appendix A: Administration

2% 293

3U 381

LIST OF TABLES Table

pile

1

Vantage points on Constnictivism and Enactïvism ..............

45

2

Mark and T i ' s individual accouab of events in th& pject .....

119

3

Jduiny's and Dave's rrspoases to the rrflections worksheet ........

157

4

Student responses indicating what they like about building ........

193

5

Student nsponses indicating what stnngtbs they discovered about themselves ......................

194

Student responses indicating pject pans they found ea9y ancüor dif'ficult ........................

195

Student responses describing unexpected aspeds of (heu projects ...............................

197

Bemie and Paul's responses to the solar house project focus questions ...................

219

More excerpts of Erin's writtcn nflectiom .....................

256

6

7

8

10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure

Page

Vectm linked head to tail

24

Vectors Iinked taiI to tail

24

Convection box apparatus

85

Keithlsdiagram describing his car

97

Keith's flowchart describïng the worliings of his car

98

Keithls written description of his pmject

100

A typed version of Keith's written description of his pmject

100

Keith's wriüen cespouses to the reflection worhheet

102

A typed version of Keith's wrinen rcspaises to the reflection wmbheet

102

Laura's, Helen's, and Karla's drawing of their sdar house

109

Tim's and Mark's depiction of their car design

116

Part 1 of Dan and Tsïsten's written work for the Paper Towels activity

134

Part II of' Dan and Tristen's wnüen work for the Paper Towels activity

135

Tony's initial plan for his macbine

141

Tony's final design

145

Dave's and Johnny's machine

153

Fiowchart for Dave's and Johnny's machine

154

Johnny's and Dave's wnttai analysis

156

Linday's and Sasha'a Candy Dispensing machine

161

Donna's and Cathy's eady sketch of their machine idea

181

Donna's and Cathy's final illustration of their machine

182

Donna's and Cathy's summary description, flowchaa, and

interpretation of how energy was transfonned in their machine

184

Andrea's and Janesta's sketch of their Cactus Watering machine

185

Mari's worfang sketch depiding two p i b i l i t i e s for building

LSS

Man's f i d e drawingof her beatndispensing machine

189

Mari's flowchart and descriptionof energy transfonnatioas fot her machine 190

Clarence's drawing of his completed d a r house

203

Dan's and Tristen's sale drawing of their sdar house

205

Dan's, Tristen's. and Mt's drawing of their Ice Cube box

207

Bemie's and h l ' s drawing of their solar bouse

217

Daia fecocded by Bemie and Paul during the Solar Houîe test

218

Heatinglcoohg gmph constructex! by Bernie and Paul

218

Sill's drawing of her sdar house

220

Willie's and Ronnie's response to the reflection w h h e e t

230

Willie's and Roanie's depiction of their sdar house

23 1

Sequence of my research engagements with students

261

Chaptcr 1: The Problem Buüdùg is ihgwrtluttfor gemng p u tiunkutg. (Bit&, FU&? 8)

Introduction CIassrooms are amplex enWonmencp. By complexity we *fer to patterns of munial interactions which emerge f m differcnt d e s of involvement and analysis. Such complexity may k viewed as organic in its natue in that it is dynamical and evolving in iîs structures and processes. The paîhway to describing and understanding the canplexity of the classnwmi leaming/teaching expnence for its participants involves lodring at the nature of the action-thought pathways created by students and tcacher as they engage in cwicular tasks which can k carried out and interpreted in ways ailowing for individual initiative and imagination.

My research intmst in enactive fonns of Lnowing (Maturana and Varela, 1987; Varela, Thompson and Rosch, 1991) is grounded in both practicai and theoreticai concerns. The current cycle of curriculum revision in the sciences recognizes the multiplicity of varieth of kKwvledge that together form the domain we characterize as science (Martin, Kass and Brouwer, 1990;b s , 1990). Science cunicula today incorporate historical, science-technology-society, and nature of science dimensions among the aspects of knowledge to be introduced to students. While epistemological compiexity has been intmiuced, a corresponding inrroduction of complexity to descriptions of leamers in their varieties of ways of engaging in learning and meaningrnaking is just beginning to emerge in the discourses on the teaching of science (Shapiro, 1994; Roth, 1995). The leamer's role is still regardeci as primarily one of assimilatingand re-presenting in a symbolic propositional way the fxts and principles of science!. The curent preoccupation with assessrnent reinforces this orientation. At the same tirne, questions surrounding the nature and function of human cognition are receiving renewed theoretical attention. Discussions of its nature or whether indeed there is such a thing as a cagainng subject are achieving a new relevance in relation to

fundamental questions of biological evolution (Maturana and Varela, lm.cognitive science (ChUrchland, 19û4) and the coastructionlnconstruction of the self (Searle, 1992; Bateson, 1979). Varela, Thompson and Rosch (1991) have proposed the texm enaction to emphasize k i r conviction that

"...cognition is not the representatim of a pregiven w d d by a pregiven mind but is rather the enactment of a w d d and a mind on the basis of a history of the variety of actions that a king in the wodd performs." (p 9) 'cogniPion is no longer ecen as problem solving on the basis of representatiioas; instead, cognition in its m a t encompassing sense consists

in the enactment or bnnging rath of a world by a viable history of structurai coupling. (p.205).a Varela, Thompsm and Rosch (1991) are among those chaiienging the assumptions of Cartesian thought, namely separation of mind and body (Le. the self and the environment), thought and adion, product and pioces9 (Merieau-Ponty. 1%2; Foucauît, 1977;Kuhn. 1970; Polanyi, 1983). Held in common among these theorists is the position that knowledge canwt k separated from the knower (Kuhn, 1970; Polanyi. 1983). the actions of the knower (Eoucauit, 19?7) or the knower's environment (Medeau-Ponty, 1962). Our knowledge is constructed in our dynamic encouter with the environment in which our activities are mnstituted (Lave, 1988).Furthemore, the notion of envimunent is made cornplex by recognizing that it bas a dynamic quaiity of its own. Vaiela, Thompson and Rosch (1991. p.174) note that "organism and environment as bound together in reciprocal specification and selection.'

The science leaming settings of interest in my study are ones in which students engage in thinking. planning and acting processes directed towards the design and development of some type of constnicted object or model. This construction is to meet a piuti-culargoal or

-

end-in-view it must 'work" in the sense of achieving this goal and its functoniing is demonstrated as a part of the praject.

-

Research questions surroundhg the nature and development of hiowledge-in-action Le. enaction imply an investiptive stance that fecognizes the mutually specifying nature of the knower with tbeir environment. Organism and e n v i m e n t are mutually constituted in an ongoing interactive pmces (Merleau-Ponty. 1%2; Mahirana and Varela, 1987). One cannot concepnialize one without the other. For example, the perception of a nonnewtonian material can k thought of as an enacted experience. A non-newtonian material (e-g. mixture of comshr~hand water) is charactenzed by the tact that certain of its properties change depending on how the material is handled by the perceiver. If the material is defonned on a fast enough time sale then it will appear to the person

handiing it to have solid like pperties. Conversely. the peison engaghg this environment wili experience the matmal as having Iiquid like -es if it is defonaed on a slower time scale.

Enaction and Know1edge Building A perspective on cognition as enaction and kmwledge-buiïdiag baPed on an expanded view of iîs nature and developmeut holds promise for the explomtion of the leamingteaching process. Far ûm long s c h d leaming has k e n COPlfied by a view that it can be represented as facts and principles to be transmitteâ to tk student. The job of the leamer is to assimilate these and to reproduce them when requirrd on tests. In the case of practical activity, the role of the leamer is often simply to reconstnict a lmown result When d e n t s are a s k d to be creative. the focus is typicaiiy placed on the outcorne of their activities. Consequently. students do not consider the pathways of action which they aeate in the process of le-ng to be a signifiant part of tbeir leaming. This view is reinforad by the product or outcorne orientation inherent in most schwl activities.

Then are many ways of engaging in intelligent action (Gardner, 1993). A school classroom is a complex cognitive system at the individual. group or clasmom levels in that it is continuously evolving. It can be thought of as being a dynamic environment tbat yields many kinds of connections and possibilities for intelligent action. Classrmms may be viewed as

"about or directed towani somerhing that is missing: on the one hand. there is always a next step for the system in its perceptually guided action; and on the other hand, the actions of the system are always dirrcted toward situations that have yet to become acnial (Varda, Thompson and Rosch. p. 205)." A classroom is simultaneously a growing organism and a pattern of growth. This is similar to a plant expanding its network of mot stnictures. Many "next stepswin the growing network cm be perceived but a detailed pattern i s never fully reaiized Both the mot structure and its environment develop together. A b m t of growth in one area of soil expanâs the mot network in that area of soi1 and typically reduces the amount of water in that area of soil. Similady. an environmental change (Le. a reduction in the amount of water in one part of the soil) wül encourage root growth in a new area of soil. In other

words, the growing root pattern plays a rde in determining its local environment and, conversdy, the local environment contributes to the determinarion of the pattern of p w t h in the root smicture of the plant (i.e. they mutually determine each other). A classroom is comtituted by perswp engageci in actions directed toward (1) the resowces and phenornena at hand. (2) theu own pefsolliil histories. and (3) other persons. Each of these may k thought of as king in a state of coastant flux. A classroorn mmmunity is constantly projecting itscif dong many potential pathways toward multiple future States but its pattern emerges only in jmsent action. In the vocabulary of V a l a , Thompson and Rosch (1991). a stnicttm and its envimnment are said to coernerge in the sense that each depends on the shape of o d m to reaüze its own shape. Each is a pattern which continues to emerge and rramrge in tandem with the actions taken and serves to

enable more actions. Given that a classmorn is also a social setting this can occur on multiple levels and on multiple time d e s .

Petroski (1992, pp. 127-129) describes how craftsmen through the ages have developed hundreûs of new uses and purposes for the tool we cal1 the 'hammerw by using it in many different situations. In tandem with the developrnent of its varied uses, the hammer itself has evolved into multiple foms, each one capable of perfonnïng some function al1 other hammers fail to acoomplish - at least according to the inventor. Thus it can be said that, for the "hammerR,form and function cœmergePetrosici (1992, pp. 125-126) also describes a similar progression in the development of the Amencan "pdled axw.The ax was originally designed with a single edge. Fanners had easy access ta sharpening tools to hone a dulled air but woodsmen working far from home did not Thus the two-edged an emerged and woadsmen were able to travel f d e r from home in their work. As woodsmen encountered different trees in different parts of the country the ax continued to evolve into new shapes. Over time. as different people used the M, each with their own personal approach and preference for wielding it, the diversity of its foms and the variety of its uses i n d even furdier. People put their own pemonal stamp on the form of the ax as the form of the tool contributeci to their understanding of its utility. Fonn and fuction coemerge for "pe~~011s-axing-h-settiag~. 1t is the doing and the muniality of the interaction tbat emerges among the participants in

the action-setting tbat is of particular interest to me. My hypothesis is that, given the appropriate conditions, students build their own meanings of and actions for the

processes they use to develop lcnowledge during sientîk activities and investigations. The action-thought prooesses are intricately interwoven with the kinds of meanings they constmct. In aber WO*, h u g h t and ac&n sa not prccumors b or oirtcomm of ~rondYnd,,lJIcl-~n~*

The pu~poécof my study is to k a - fatum of the knowledge bullding pmces6es that dudents ipontrncously c m t e as they &velop muiuigs and understiindinp Thinking and understanding for sadents in science c l a s s ~ i ~ ~is r nas pnxxss which is highly contextualized and occm on multiple levels within time and place. An important consideration is that settings characterizad by a high degne of thought and action and an extended period of time are essential for revealing the processes formulateci in constructing-enacting understanding. There are theoretical and methodological reasons for choosing settings of this kind First, seüïngs which q u i r e a high degrce of physical engagement allow students to emboày their ideas and understandings in theù actions. High activity settings also open up opportunities for the researcher to participate with students as an active meaning maker who can engage both phenornena and people in the setting. Second, self-directed settings dlow students to choose their own ways to develop meanings and understanding. A selfairected student is also fiee to choose if, when, and how the researcher can participate with ?hem in a a n g . Third, students who build physical artifxts experience the evolutioa of a setting which bas embodied within it their physicai actions. Physical artifacts provide an object of discussion, an oppominity for conversation, around whicb students seem to be able to describe in detail their actions and ideas both dun'ng and after a building activity. Building is a kind of activity which can provide opportunities for cdlaboration between students and the researcher. Students who consider a researcher or teacher to have k e n an active wntributor to the development of a physical anifact seem to talk easily about the physical artifact and the actions and ideas that were chosen and rejected duiing its construction. Settings which provide extended tune provide both student and mearcher with more opportunities to explore and find ways of enacting action-thought which they consider to "workn for them. Extended time pfovides opportunities for the mearcher to engage students in conversationsabout their thinkiag during a project as opposed to after it has been completed. Therefore I will examine the mtwe and development of enactive foms of knowinglunderstanding in science knowledge-building settings in which students engage in open-ended activities involving selfdirected design and development

of a mode1 and structure- To miterate, rny focus is on the processes sadents use to generate the outcornes of their activities, not oniy on the products they generate- There are two general purposes: (1) to explore enactivism as an interpretive framework for rrsearch on student understanding in action, and (2) to portray features of hiowledge building processcs and envimnmentsas rievealed by an eaactivist stance.

Enaction and SelCidirection Knowing is a fomi of practical activity. By practical 1 mean action-rhought dincted toward something which is in the process of king cfeated. Tw example, the construction of a device to keep an ice cube fmm melting involves bowleûge of materials and k a t transfer put into practicai action. The practicai actions generated during such an activity are both a pfocess and an outcome to a pocessThere exist various types of science classroom activity and each cails for exploration of its properties in knowleàge building on its own tcnns. At the level of ernbodied process (Johnson, 19û9) context and p r d e m create each other (lave, 19ûû; Chaiklin and Lave, 1993). In science classmms, 1 bave noticed that snidents often transforrn a problem setting into someüung which they consider more workabie and meaningful than the one initiaily set by a teacher. Fbr example, 1 recently taught a group of grade niae students a unit on elecûicity. One activity 1 asked the saidents to do involved exploring what happens to the brighrness of smaü Iight bulbs ananged in a series circuit when the number of bulbs included in the circuit is changed. Students also used a hobby motor in their circuit as a devia to reduce the curent in the circuit and prevent bulbs from buming out. Some students noticed that they couid change the brightness of their buibs when they squeaed the spinning axle of their motor, reducing its rate of spin. Squeezing the motor axle was not something 1 had cwsided as a possibility when 1 selected this activity. Expioring this dimension of the pmblem context cbanged the seaing for these students and new possibilities for action-thought began to unfold. Suddenly the problem focus was shifted fmm undemtanding light bulbs to understanding hobby motors and these students taok the initiative to dismantle (after a s h g for permission) and investigate the ber workings of the motots.

The leamer's active participation in transfonning a context has a powerful impact on the shape of the problem and the kinds of questions which emerge. Active participation means that the leamer i s implicated in the experience of transfonning the context. In

other words, the leamer must 'feel" her d e as an agent of change, ibrough her actions and thoughts (i.e. action-tboughts) in üansforming her w d d . Transformative action may k motivated by a sndentfsintrinsic desire to act in a way (s)k considen successful. When a student does mt initiaüy "sec' or 'fel" a way to act suarssfully within a problem setting (s)he sptaneously searches for new ways to accompfish this goal. T h e affordances of action which arc available to a student in a setiing play a role in determining if and how (s)he t r a n s f m s the pcrson-setting unit into a viable entity.

F'or instance, it bas traditiody b e n the case in practical science activity to provide students with what a teacher decides is 'just ewugh" materiais and equipment in order to accomplish a task Most students quiekly becorne a w m of this and engage in theu practical work with such a constraint in mind. When a snident does not consider herself to be implicated in shaping the envifonment, what viable actions and understandings can be expected to emerge? This seems to k an open question. Piaget in conversation with Bringuier (lm)describes the actions of an organism within their wodd as emerging from two goals:

The two objectives of khavior are, fmt, the extension of the environment, having an environment larger than the present one, ....,and second, the increase, the growth of the organism's pwers over the environment. (pp. 116-117).

The person acting is not only an agent of change within their environment but is also an object of transfomative action. When both the 'personscting-in-a-settingH and the wsetting-in-which-tbe-pe~on-acts' are fiee to change the capacity of a system to becorne viable increases. Selfdirection is not only a 'way of actingwin a worid but is dso a "world" within wbich a person acts. Setting or envifonment is not a backdrop but is i w l f a dynarnic and changing set of influences. The environment itself becornes an "agent of change" which acts upon the organism. A context cxpands into one Mth more dimensions of possibility, more qualities to k noticed and acted upon, when a student considers it to have properties of seIf4irection. The way we perceive the world can have a dramatic impact upon how we act to have a world.

What is the natue of the understandings embodied in the actions and thoughts which emerge from a pemn's dynamic relatio~~ship with their world? Let us =fer u> them as action-thoughts for now. Jobnson (1987) daims that they arr the foudation of language meaning concepts. Our bodies move, engage and mengage the world in complex ways. Action-thought can be a pocess quite close to wbat is traditionally r e f e d to as thought ( i r an idea that play itself out in the mind). Action-thought can also k distributed away fiom that region we commaùy refer to as the mind (located somewhere in the head usually!). Action-thou@ can be extcuded out into the body into the amis, the legs, the figers, and into the complex ways the body makes contact with that which is wt the body (sometiws caiied the environment). Even the tods we use can become extensions of our own body, if we allow them to be by enacting them as a part of O- understanding. Action-thought can k distributed hto even more complex arrangements when more than one person is involved. Piaget (1963.1972) considers the childs' engagement in recursive action to k the way concepts and meaning are created. Scientists work in a similar way (Polanyi, 1983).

Affordances as openhgs to viable action Van Aufshnaiter and Schwedes (lm)and Roth (1995) descrik action settings in which students physically participate with tods and materiais as being "open". An open learning system can be thought of as one containhg a large and variable number of potential pathways for action-thougbt. Physical movement affords the body and environment multiple deof fresdom which can actualize the cognitive system. By this 1 mean that the coordination of an environment and a person acting in that environment allows certain kinds of physical motion that generate new i d e s in action (i.e., a new personacting) and a aew environment For instance, the young chiid who ihrwgh playing on a swing may discover that she cm spin by "wrapping upwthe chaias of the swing in a circular fashion and letting go. In dohg this she may also discover that she can control the rate of spin by extending and contracting her amis. After such an experience the child has developed a aew understanding of herseif, ber way of engaging the swing, and the nature of the swing. k m 0 0 and environment have developed together*

T d s and materiais likewise are flordsnces of the person-environment combination which can kcome a part of the individual in a process PManyi (19s) refers to as "indwellingw. An open learning sysrem is similar to a network of interdependent and generative affordances involving both the leamer and the environment. The vhbility of a

learning system is dependent on thrre things: (1) the number of affordances which are actualized, (2) the complexity of the coupling ôctwccn affOrdSiIla3 in the networlc, and (3) the capacity of the system to gewaie new a f f m c e s and rcofganize existiag ones. 1 will use the t e m lcarning system to mean a combinaiion of organism and environment co-emerging in mutuai spcciftcatioa. The numkr of potential pathways for actionthought of a system are not prrdetermiaed They increase and decrease in numkr as the person and setting coemerge together in a proccss of mutual spccification.

Way is Bniiding Important? An important camponent of my research approacb is to identify building activity (e.g. using materials aud tools to make somethuig) as a specific type of science learning activity Building is aa inventive process that is essentiaüy self-directed when the articulation of the problem, decisions, and actions are, within limits, initiated and controlled by the students withui a relatively extended arsd flexible tirne frame. In other words, an environment for action-thought can emerge where the role and perspective of the teacher and the resean:her in contributhg to the UIlfolding nature and directions of student activity is changed. Rather than acting as an obsemedinterpreter of action, a teacher or researcher interacts and CO-parücipateswith students as a person interested in contributhg to the maintenance of action-thought by offering assistance, cornmentary, andor suggestions when inviteâ to do so. This allows a teacber or rcsearcher to situate himself as an occasioned Iistener who is equally ready to act toward a student and their unCoMing setting as he is to wait for the studeat or setting to act toward him. Such a perspective May be more effective in allowing dimeasions of student ideas and thinking to emerge b u s e bey are generated as the saident and re~eaccheract together within a dynarnic setting to accomplish a goal that is mutually specifieâ.

Selfdincted building is a kind of afFordance to action. It can be thought of as either a setting for action or a way for acting whkh can open up possibilities for exploration by a student or by a student and researcher acting together. A person engaged in building with materials (e.g. constmcting a mousetrap p o w e d car to explore energy and motion) operates in a setting where the number of affordances to action is likely to increase as the building goes fofward. As the number of &ordances to action grows larger, the occasions for a researcber to enter a stuclent's unfdding setting and contribute in a way that is considered to be meaningful by the student is also increased. For instance, engagements with simple materials (Le. scraps of wood, wheels, axles, tape, glue, string,

nails, mousetrap) g e n e d y le& to a pnwess of invention ami testing. Such processes often cequire an extra set of han& aad a mearcher cari fmd and take advantage of these oppominities when they arise. Students seem CO naturally talk about what they caa do next, what they wiil do next, and what they would iïke to do next when they are engageci in building activity. However, building is also a convergent expsience in the sense that limitations are enwuntered as action-thoughts t a k physical shape. An understanding of wbat kinds of action-thought are not possible in a given environment emerges from ihe experiences of building. It may k the case that this understanding of the possibilities and Limitations m u n d i n g a building activity can not be pcescribed bylfor a studen~They must k experienced and undemood inaction. How this might a r u r is something 1intend u> explore in my study. Stuàents intuitively distinguish between activities that ailow for self expression from tasb where answers are specified and outcornes are known. Open entry into activity as described by Simmt (1995) is a pmcess which may depend on the nature of the activity and the nature of the way persons are engageci in the activity. For instance, wiU a student choose to enter an activity in which they have some controi over factors such as time, materiais, and workspaœ (ia. open-ended activity) in the same way as they wil1 an activity in which these factors are pe-specified and prepared? The way a student chooses to re-enter a process of action-thought may be more cornplex than it appars to an outside observer. For instance, can we say tbat a student considers herself to be engagiag phenornena in the same way when they mengage an activity setting? How can we know if a student is even perceiving the same phenomenon as before? The open-ended quality of building activity may introduce additional cognitive complexity in the snise that it generally requires participants to repeatedly enter and re-enter processes of actionthought. How does enhy and Mntry in open-ended task environments contribute to the kinds of action-thought which can emerge during practical activity? Does the entrylreentry into an activity or the ernergence from practical activity take on different forms and meanings when it is mnsidered from different perspectives (Le-,active participant versus observer)? 1will explore issues surroundhg these questions in my dissertation.

The Research Questions The aim of my study, as stated earlier, is to identify, portray, and interpret feahnes of the knowledge building processes that are important for studenu in developing understanding

of the proMem in which they arr cngaged. Knowledge building processes are enafted by students on many ovedapping and interacting sociai-cognitive levels withia a science classmorn in which fiedom of action is e~x)uraged.M y research questiolls an constructeci in a way which allows me to address issues conceming the mature of knowledge building ptoasses from various ptrspeaivts.

How do studentp enact meaning and understanding in a high-activity, hands-on science classraom where they arr given the frcedom to accompüsh tasb in a self'riected faPhion over an extendeci period of the? How can 1. as a teacber or researcher, panicipate in such a classrann environment in a way which allows me to aâdress how students make actual that which they consider possible? The four questions mund which 1 will cwsmict the report of my research fmdings are as follows: 1. How is understanding enacted in building activity?

2. How does the shape of a proMem emerge in building activity?

3. How do students enact meanhg and understanding when they experience a high d e p of physical engagement in building things? 4. M a t are some characteristics of an enactive leamiaglteaching environment?

Each of these questions is explored in a chapter d my thesis report.

The need for the study and how it might inform practice in science ducation The position ihat students develop and use theù own p e m d approacbes to construct ktmwledge is well established in the literature- Piaget (1963,1972) was one of the first to incorporate this position into a re~eatchappmach whose goal was to describe the nature of cognitive development. He engaged chilàren in relatively short (several minutes) action tarks which were designcd to externalize their ideas about concepts and constnicted pottrayals of their undersbndings.

The large body of constructivist research hes acknow~edgedthe importance of viewing the student as an individual and social cognizing agent. This body of research ,for the

large pan bas focused on identifjhg and describing the cognitive structures (Le., ooncepticms) which various pople arc presumed ta hold. Constnictivist rrsearch in cognition. aithough it views imowleüge building as a prress, has tended to focus on the outcornes of kaowlcdge buiîdhg as describing and interprcting conceptions. As Solomon (1994) points out, while wnsüuctivist ft~earcbhas contributeci a great deal to our understanding about whst people kaow. the p W e m of how they a m e ta know it has not k e n fuiîy addrrssed. It has been r c c o for ~ some time that practicai work is an impagat component of a science d c u l u m (Alberta Education. 1994; Roject 2061. 1991). However, there is no clear understanding about how stuüents use practical work to develop meaning and understanding. In fact, tbuP daes not even seem to k agreement on what "practical work" means. Wmlnough (1991) describes practicai work as a holistic process. However, as it is applied in cunicula, practical work often focuses on using pre-selected materials to nconstnict a pce-ciefined path in order to reproduce a known result. Whiie there is p w i n g dissatisfaction (Woolnough. 1991; Roth, 1995; Driver, 1981; Driver et al., 1994) with this khd of context for practid wodc it continues to k used in mmy science classmoms. My experience is that this kind of practicai work tends to be considemi by students to k a W of target pciictice. Students tend to disengage from the process and focus oniy on the achieved closeness of their solution to a known d t or target The process and the outcorne of the pocess seems to have little or no sustained meaning for them and almost no generative power in tems of subsequent action-thou@ Science cumcula have attempted to enpand the notion of practical work to include more open-ended activities. Some curricula (Alberta Mucation, 1994)encourage students and teachers to explore a variety of novel materials in self-directexi building and invention activities. However, linle is biown about the variety of processes for lcuowledge building that students develop when they participate in p&cd work or the meaaings that students and teachers attach to those process. A better understanding of what knowledge building processes are used, how they are used and why they are used by students in open

inquiry settings is needed if teachers are to find ways to effectively participate in these settings. My study seeks to contribute interpretive portrayais of action-thought as it emerges and develops in selfairected practical science c ~ a s s m msettings which can be read and rc-interpreted by teachen. cumculum developers. and students who engage in and interpnt the significance of practical work in leamhg contexts.

The importace of practical wofk in cumnt cumcula is highlighted by a p w i n g interest in finding new ways in which it might k assesscd E'or instance, performance assessment activities are cumntly k i n g developed and field tested in Alberta and other provinces in Caaada My concern with some of the cunmt approaches to pnfarmanœ assessment is that they dten tmd to assume that the outoame of perfar~1anceis a gmd iadicataof the quaiity of performance i ~ l fMy . own txperienœs in o p inquiry anà in participaring with students in simiiar settkgs bas iadicateû to me that such an assumption is not vaüd. Kass et al. (1994) have f-ci tbat the interpretation of performance takes on more complexity when it is considerrd fmm a perspective which allows it to be vîewed as a holistic process as op@ to a product. If approaches to performance assessment are to satisfactorily ncognize that the= are many ways to engage in intelligent action (Gardner, 1993) then we need to know more about the nature of processes for viable action. This goal may be more difficult to accompiish, but it is clearly needed given the cumnt emphasis on assessing performance, and its b i n e n t widespread implementation in Alberta and other provinces.

Brown (1992) hm calleci for an increased understanding of how teachers can participate with students in classroom settings. Open inquhy classroorn senings offer us a challenge to find ways for teachefs-mearchers to participate which are meaningful to both students and teachem. My participation as a researcher in these settings and the interpmtation and portrayds of shident Lnowledge building processes has the potential to infonn ihis participation in science classmms. A research perspective which focuses on student action has the potential to infonn teacher action. Science. Technology and Society (STS) perspectives have influenceci much of the most recent cmicula introduced in science education. A wide variety of perspectives can be situateci under the STS umbrella and each proposes different emphases for STS science education. Such perspectives may emphasize logid ceasoning (Aikenhead, 1991). history and philosophy of science (Hodson, 1985, 1988; Matthews, 1991). ethics, and socio-envimnmental issues. Such appmches are considend important to the development of responsible and scientifically aware members of society who caa make informed decisions in a constantiy changing w d d . However,1 am conccmed that the "end-in-viewu may be closing off important pathways for arrïvhg at this destination. For example, some teachers have told me that they will not allow certain materials or certain building activities in their classrooms because they are wasteful ami w t "aodogically friendly".So, for instance. the student who decides to explore the efficacy of using motor

oil as a heat si& in building a solar col1ector or the student who decides that styrofoam is a good building matmal for a model car mi@ fmd that these pathways of action-thought are c l d to them. This position is justifiecf by appeahg to just one interpretation of an STS perspective for science teachïng and learning wbich pmmotes environmentaily fesponsible action.

I am certainly w t arguing in f a v a of URspoDsible use Oc materials. The d e n t using ~ be made aware that shehe is respwsible motar oil and the sadent ushg s i y i o f must for the d e disposal or recycling of these materials in the best available fashion. However, they should not be discoursiged from uciag these materials to build and put their ideas into action. What meanings do students enact for the ways in which they engage the worid when pathways of action-diought are restricted? My mncem is that the experience of baving action-thougbt processes blocked befoce they can be enacted may encourage the construction of plocesses for disengaghg the world. Enaction might becorne inaction when ways to make physical contact with a worid are lost or not considered to be important. Meaningful engagement with a pnonally coastnicted world embodies a playfulness of action as well as a caring attitude for its development. A person who is not fuliy engaged in their worid will not care about it (or for it) as much as the person who is. Responsibility is itself an action, not just a perspective on action. The pathways of action we discourage may be just as important as the pathways we encourage in our science classrooms. When we choose for a student how shelâe should engage their world we rnay close down more than we o p n up. Respoasible members of society know how to take action in worlds of possibility and reshape them into wodds of acaiality (Bruner, 1986). A ktter understanding of how these plocesses can oocur in the world of a science classroom is needed and worth sûiving for. This study is intended to contribute to the development of a more mmplex understanding of how students enact meani-ng and understanding through persona1 action in hi&-activity science classrooms.

Personal Ground My experiences as a student researcher have influencecl my thinking on how actionthought pfocesses may wnuibute to the development of understanding. One story from an early experienœ in selfdirected open inquiry serves to illustrate what 1 mean.

11

At the end of my f m ycar of university I acceptai an invitation to work with a scitntist as a SwllIIIer -h student I was wry excitai about opportunity.

Iw~~~hg10b1~~~thCœdc1ofpiiscniel~hpoject,Iwasgoingl0 leam how ta da things, and 1was going to get paid to do it. It beat the hell out of digging up watcr pipe for tbtown of Pincher Cmk,but tbat's aaothcr stary. 1 met with Ernst, the scientist wbo would supervise and assign m tasks. He

describeci how our work would be a part of a hgcr theoretical pmject ta undcrsbad a special class of phemmena known as phase transitions, A phase ttansition, he explainecl, was simpIy the occurrence of a very large change in one

thing as a canaque= of a very small change in amthet. For instance, many matenals have a specjfïc temperature where they suddedy change from one state of matter into another (Le. soiid to Liquid). In such cases, a small cbange in temperature brios about a large change in a property of the matenal.

One component of the mearch had already been done. The outcorne of that component was a set of mathematid representations for materials whose atoms were known to be arranged in a particular three-dimensional geometric distribution (Le. body centered cubic structure). These mathematicai representations took tbc form of a set of puer senes. Power series were simply ordered sequences of numbes. Taken by themselves they did rmt tell you much but if tbey could be transformed into a set of mathematicai functions then a pattern of behavior rnight be noticeable wbich could be uscd to predict how other materials wouid bebave,

My job was

to help in tbe pmcess of transforming the power series into

mathematical fu~ctions.Of course tbis was not a simple proces. Several mathematid fUIlCti00~couM emerge as masonable candidates for a given power series. Ernst thought it migbt k Wpfd if we explorrd what would happn by "workingtbe proMem backwardsa4c start with a b w n mathematical fmtion and use it to gerrrate a powa series wbich caild be cornparrd with the one we wen interestecl in). This idea was the inspiration for my first task Ernst wanted me to write a computer program wbich would allow us to select from a wide range ofpossible fu~ctions.Ernst thougbt it would be a good way for me to get started. Howcver, be did mt realize that 1 had never used a computer before. 1

didn't evcn know b w to "si@ on",kt done program one. This w u aii rhat musuaï at tbat tirne. Computc~~ o d y came in the amidrame variety at tbaî time and were still a novel item ai campus. Ernst scribbled Qwn some sample fU11Ctiom 00 a piea of paper befoie amoUllClIlg quickly tbat hc wps going to be away for a couple of days- "Wo& on yora OWQ sec what you camc up witha he said as he disappared oiit tbe chor. I was so bisy thinking about the probIcm tbat I mis- the oppoRimity to tell Ernst about t b extent of my cxptriace with cornputers (or lack tbcrcof).

M y naiveté with amputer pmgramming erncrged pretty quickiy as 1 began my seifdirected task. 1 had no idca about how a mathematid fullction couid be represented in a cornputer program but 1 was p t t y sure it must be pcwsible. 1 dove into a book describing the intriCacies of FORTRAN and decided tbat commands sufh as "Read"and 'Writew were a good place good place to kgin. "Ili get tbe computer to 'tead' the fuaction 1want it to use and tben 'wnte' it back to me as confiirmationu1thought to myseK 1 tned dohg this. AU 1 seemed to get was an endless series of rather ctyptic emr messages. Why can't 1 just get the amputer to read the whote tbing 1 wonderrd as 1 ûied tyPng "F(x) = (3x + 2û)I(~-5)~. Nothing seemed to woilr 1 had no idea tbat in ar&r to represent a fimction in a computer program it had to be broken &wn into compoœnt symboiic parts. For me, mathematical fUIlCtions were holistic entities. The nature of my confusion became apparent to Ernst and myself when he renirned, He Iooked at my Rowcbart and listend as 1 &scribecl it for him. It was a hodgepodge of FORTRAN statements with a sprinkling of mathematical fu~lctions.Ernst thought about my flowchart for a while and thought about how 1 expected to be able to communicate with the machine. "He must be wondering how 1 ever got this job in the f m place" 1 thought to myseK Ernst smiîed and said "we should tallt about opcratïng systems soonn. He said tbat he b a i often thought about how people d d interact mom d y with camputers and that my ideas simwed imagination and potenriai.

Emst suggested some changes for my cornputer program. He wrotc dwvn a series of steps that couid work wComputeisdo not make functioos work the same way that we do. We do it etegantly, we only need one line to understand, but cornputers need several steps ami everything must be definexi expü~itly.~ 1

u n c l c m bnmediately. The series O€ FORTRAN statcments Ernst wrote down tmk c m a xocanin@ul sbape f a me. 1 f l a msonably good program wakïng

almost immcdiaaly ami it was mt long bef- 1was wiitbg rtl sorts of çanputcr pgrasns on my OWP New w d d s fm pvtting idcas action were openhg up for me and aew oiws wtrc emnging- Enst and 1 bod mmy intercsting conveISafj011sabout cornputeroperathg envin,nmcnts-

Self-dirccted exprieilas of this sat have made an important conaibution to the way 1 think and a u Creating my own ideas and putting them into action. even when they didn't work as intended. helpcd me to generate and piay with new ideas. It also became easier to visualize ideas in motion. 1 kgan to 'drramn about multiple solution paths whenever I encountered problems in matbematics, physics or computer programming. Envisioning action is itself a kind of action wbich c m generate new worlds of action-thought It can aiso m a k going to sleep at night take on a whole new meaning! Learning through doing and Mecting on the doing became an empowenng and exciting approach for me which has shaped mon of who 1 am than I d l ever be able to tell. 1 have blown up the odd power supply, crashed even more computea (big and small), and constructed lots of inwrrect solutions to problems by trying out rny idcas. But these experiences have enabled me develop a d e p of confident playfulness and commitment for engaging with a setting that heips me better understand its shape on many different levels. 1 usually get as much pleaswe in wo&ring clbout possïbiIities as 1do in Rnowing about actualities in the worlds 1 enact. I want to leam more about the multiple ways other people engage in action-thought in order to bring about a personal worid where knowledge building and understanding can develop.

The Research Setting My resuuch focus lies with a particular type of science learning activity. namely extended investigation of a p d e m setting that is broadly characterized as invdving the construction or building of something (e-g. an apparatus or a model). The inventionfbuilding process is essentially self-directed by the students. Contributions to the nature and directions of such an emergent process is largety controiled by the students involved. The investigative sequences oî p d c u i a r interest in my research involve snidents in responding to a "variable entiy" challenge by creating a personalized actionsetting and constnicting a physicai building within that sening. By this 1 mean that what

constitutes the poMem as weU as howlwhcn it is appmached is established and maintaid primarily by the student in daboratiai Mth the teacher mdlor -cher. Such a setting provides a potentially actiou-rich Icamjns/teaching environment which I tenn an enach've se&cbrwoom

My appooch is qualitative and invdves intemcting oomponents. During the the the pmjects were carricd out, my supenrisa and 1 were prescrit every class p r i a i . W e v i d e and audio-tapd classroom events and grwps of students enpged in investigative tasks and Ealked with thcm as they woiLed 1 i n i e ~ e w e dstudcnt groups when they fullshed their pjects. My questions focused on tkir intefpretations of their actions. 1also a n a l m their written w& which forms one of the main sources of data in this thesis. Interviewsand meetings were ais0 held with the teacher. A hoIistic approach to the portrayai of science investigative activity recognizes that knowledge and understanding have both personal and social dimensions and involve multiple meanings. My &ta portraya1 is based on an interpretive technique which allows prescntation of an investigative episode in a way which integrsites four components: student actions, student verbal discourse, student meaningsassociateci with the actions and verbal discome. and my interpretation of boa student actions and dimurse. Instances are presented in the f o m OF vignettes, extended analysis, and reflections on pemnal enaction. My orientation is proscriptive in naîure (see p. 35). I am particularly interested in describing a divenity of cunceptions of' pcmns-acting in the various settings that present themselves. The rationale for this approach is presenteâ in Chapter 4.

Eco (lm)uses the metaphor of "a walk in the woods' for writing or reading a story. Che can experience the woods in numemus ways depending upon one's action-thoughts in a setting (e.g. to k traversed quickîy, to linger, and the like). Similariy, in classrmm research settings, the mearcher can choose a v ~ e t yof ways of pticipating in the unfolding dynamic. The way which is c b n influences what is salient to the portraya1 (i.e. the meanings which are created for both author and mader). 1 cecoguïze h t as tbe author 1 create a personal account groudeci in my larger research objective, namely how students thidc and develop undeisbnding. My participation in the student pmject activities an&r the &clion of dlb rfudcnt is centrai to coming to understaad what the experieaces meant to the stuâent. My approach involves a second-ordu component in that the faus of my research interest (the ways students develop scientific understanding and the meanings these W d for

them) is embedded within the locus of student attention (iiccomplishing an extendeci investigative tesk). This appmach has ken infiuenced by Mariw's a c c ~ u n tof phenomenography (Maaon, 1981). In phenomenography conceptions reside in the interactions pople have with the w a l d anniad them. Its aim is to find, describe, and systematize "the differcnt ways in which pople exprrieacc. interpret, understand. appnknd, pcrctive or collcepmaiize various aspects of d i t y u . If the phenornena of the worid are disiinguished (Le. heat, light, matter, force) then each phenomenon cm be said to be characterized by an 'outcorne space' which describes the Limited number of qualitativety merent ways in which people can conœptueliu the phenomenon. Phenomenographers make a distinction ktwc+n fmtader and secondorder perspectives. A fm-order perspective aüempts to descrik a person's conception of a phenomenon. In a seconderder perspective faus is shiftcd from the person's conception of the phenomenon to the wuy in whicb the ppan tbinks about i t

The implication of an enactivist perspective to research methodology is that these secondorder portrayais are an important element in describing the evolutioa of dynamic understanding. This calls for multiple kinds of engagements by the researcher as part of the setting, and for portrayals that reflect thïs multiplicity of engagement. 1 am open to the emergence of a diversity of conceptions enacted by persans in the various senings that present themselves.

A Unit of Andysls: Stridents-researcher/hcher-actiw-togetherghm setting As noted above, my a p p m h is qualitative and involves several interacting mmponents.

1 consider an approach incocporating multiple perspectives to be usefui. For instance, if one is interested in studying somethiag, then it is productive to view it from perspctives which are larger and smaller than the perspective ordinarily taken. This strategy is well known in science and is considercd by Pblanyi (1983) to be the essence of how concepnial understanding is developed. How one n'si& and nvisits a setting c m yield portrayds that focus on very different f a t s of the seaing or situation (Eco, lm).As noted by (Mahuana and Vareta, 1987. p. 26) "EveyyInlng fr raid b someone." The unit of analysis 1 will use is "pesons-acting-in-setîing" (Lave, lm).aPersonsarefers to both the saidents and researcher acting together in the settîng. Instances will be pnsented in the forni of vignettes, extended analysis. portrayai and reflectiom on pcrsollitl enaction.

Chapter 2: Theoreticai Rationaie We propse as a nmnc the tcm LII(IC#YC10 cm@&& the gmving conviction lh41 cognition iS not the rept&entarZon @ a pregiven world by a pregivrn mind but is rarkr the enacbncnt of a world ami O mind on the k s i 3 of O &tory of the vQticty of actbm t h a ~a k î k g U, the worcd prfonns. (Vwelo, lkmpson & Rosch, 1991.p. 9)

My research is grounded in the cumnt orientation toward cognition lcmely known as eaactivism. Whüe similar in their fmdamentai arguments, there appear to be two somewhat distinct groups of writers/researchers wwlang in this area One group of theorists (Varela. Thompson, and Rosch, 1991; Johnson, 1987, 1989; Merieau-Ponty, 1962) qproach the questions of cognition fmm a pâiiosophical and biological stance. The other group (Lave, 198û; Cbaüdin and Lave, 1993; Salomon, 1993) grouid their approach in empirical studies of what they term "siaiated cognition, legitimate pripheral participation, and distributed cognition". While some of the distinctions may be regarded as mattea of language, there appear to be pment some differences in theoretical presentation as well. 1 will explore! some of these differences later in this section. In this section 1 will lay out -me ideas su~oundingthe following key terms in enactivism: embodiment, enaction, coemergence, structural coupIing. laying down a path and adequaic conduct (viability). While this listing by no means exhausts the complexities of this developing list of ideas about human cognition and meaning making, it includes the key elements that will iafonn both the theoretical orientation and methodo~ogicai appxmch in my dissertation. 1 wiil also describe a fwdamental reconcepûtaiizaîion of the relationship between person and contact that is provoked by Medeau-Ponty's (1962) writings on the phenomenology of perception. Both neurophysiological and psychologid work support his omjectur#l. Enactivism is a cornplex and evdving orientation toward the study of cognition. 1 wili argue that the ideas of enactivism may offer a way out of the pwent stagnation that many writers (Driver et al., 1 W . Cobb, 1994; Solomon, 1994) daim afflicts the area of constmctivism. While some may view enactivism as an extension of constnictivist approaches to cognition 1 will explore sorne of its differences and describe areas in which

enactivist notions seem to address limitations of cotlstructivist theory and nsearch. 1 will

conclude this chaptet with some speculation surmunding five questions:

1. What is the naturr of knowing? 2. How does knowing and understancihg corne about? 3. Where does meaning mide for an individuai. for a group. for a society? 4. How is understandingeILacted? 5. What cen enactivism contribute to our understanding of biowinglmeanhg making?

Johnson (lmaddresses the agesld question of how we cau krow and communicate our knowîng to each other with a provocative linguistic hypothesis. Johnson argues that the fundamental meanïngs of our language reside in our M l y experiences of our king in the world. These meanings can be held in physical experience (e.g. force, energy, work as defined in the physicai sciences), in sociallpsychological experience (bard work, high energy, forceful argument) or in the metaphoric projections of experience (e.g. life is a joumey, tirne is an m w , stars are constellatioas. cumculum is curare ninning a path) (Bateson, 1979; Lakoff. 1987; Lakoff and Johnson, lm).The three domains infom each other in the meanings we attribute to our use of language and our experienas of king in the world.

-

Understanding involves more than the imposition of static fdters (e-g. propositions, schemata, templates. plans) to our perceptions. In Johnson's words, "understandingis an evolving pmcess or activity in whicb image schemata (as organizing stmctures) panially order and forni our experie~ceand are m d i f e d by their embodiment in wncrete experiences. (p. 30)'

The notion of image schemata is central to Johnson's description of linguistic understanding processes. John (1981) claims that comprehension of meaning and connection of experiences emerges out of our having patterns and order to our actions, perceptions, and conceptions. An image schemata is "a recunent pattem. shape. and regularity in, or of. these ongoing ordering activities (Johnson. lm, p. 29)".Johnson's daim is essentially a restatement of Piaget's notion of schemata (Raget, 1963). However, he extenâs this notion into the realm of linguistic meaning making and reasoning.

For example. tbe tnm 'foraa can k tbought of as an image schemata which serves to organize our expriemes and sunantic structures. We expenence f a c r in multiple ways simultanmusly. rOrce is expnenced through physical intemction and fdlows a sequenœ of c a d i 5 It involves a sense of directionaiity and bas a path of motion. Fbrœ is perceivcd as having a source and having variabit àegrees of intensity. Taken together these prcepaisi faiaires form a hdistic dynaunic structure of uaderstaading which evolves as we continue to have more physicai expriences in the worid. The preading chanicterizaticm of f o r a as a ~pcatableexpaiential structure which m e s to give shape to new experiena is what Johnson =fers to this as an experiential gestalt. In Johnsonvs (1987)wads. a gestalt structure is "an organïzed, unifid whole within our experience and understanding that manifats a repeatabie pattern or structure (p. 44)". Expexiential gestalts are meanhg making structures, not stnictured backgrounds for meaning making actions. It therefore follows tbat reasoning is something people do with pmpositions (or symboiïc representations), not some abstract relation among them. Reasoning is an embodied pnxrss, not something that happens "out therem.Both orientations toward enactivism (Le., Varela, Thompson, and Rosch, 1991; Lave, 1988) share this view. Johnson (lm p., 126) identifies twenty-seven differuit p a s i v e image schemata which he considers to k important in constraining our reasoning and understanding. Among these are balance path, ünk and cyck Johnson holds tbat klance can k uaderstood both as an expenence and as a concept. Our multiple conceptuai understandings of balance cocmerge with our bodily experiences of balance in our envimnment. The diffemt senses of "baiance" are ~ o ~ e ~ by t emetaphorid d extensions of balance schemata. W e need to kgin with the pre-conceptual gestait structures which are emkdded within Our network of rneanings if we are to kgin to understand the tenn balance in a conceptual way. In other words in order to conceptuatize our understanding of "balancewthen we need to consider the acts of balancing in wbich we engage our badies.

The meaning of balance is brwght forth by acts of balancing Acts of balancing give us experiences of bdancing which are nahirally organizcd into image-schemata (these involve our bodies and are thenfore not completely abstract). The preconceptions make

subsequent belancing experiences cmhemt and salient In other words, the structural pattern of balance which have been bmught f d by our personal histories of our k i n g in the environment are integrated into our bodies and serve to fun&t organia and connect our subsequent experiences with meaninp.

The notion of balance in schod science can talcc many fonns, the implied mpanings of which for -dents emerges fnim thcir "bodily" experiences. For instance, sndents leam about balance as: 1. a state of d-c equilibrium w ben they leam about diffusion acniss membranes, 2. a mathematical state when chernical equations are in balance, 3. a static situation wherr the net force acting on an object is zero when the forces acting on it balance. 4. a tod for mdng and weighing.

Johnson argues that our intriasic understanding of a path schemata involves three fundamental aspects from our experience. When we think about pths we include the notion of a starting point, an end point and a contiguous set of points linking the start to the f i s h . The path schemata is simply a route for getting from one place to another. However, because the path schemata arises from experience we typically incorporate many other components into our path schemata. for instance. we usually perceive a passage of time and have a purpose for moving from one place to another. Tbus purpose and time can be intrinsic parts of a path schema M e n Varela, Thompson and Rosch (1991) describe our meaning making pocess as 'laying down a path in walkingwthey are asking us to invoke a oomplex set of embalied ideas in making sense of what they mean. When students leam scientific concepts they are often asked to masider multiple image schemata simultauleously. For instance, in considering vector arithmetic students may consider notions of path, UnL. balance, pert-whole and cyck Consider a set of four vectors linked head to tail which form a closed loop (Figure 1).The vector fepresenbtion may invoke an image of a linked pathway which forms a mmplete balanceci cycle. Now consider the same four vectors (same lengths and orientations as before) narraaged so that their tails are al1 comected to a cornmon point (Fi~gure2).

What image schemata are invoked for students when we tell them that this new vector representation is the same as the previous one and ask them to consider the whole as a oollection of parts to be added togethet? Wil the schemata invoked by students for balance, path, link, or cycle stiU k the same? In teaching about vectors we often view leamers to k engaged in acts of abstracting away fmm experience. However, students may be engaging in a pniass of movïng closrr toward experience when they invoke image schemata in their processes of understanding scientific concepts. The understandings which arise fmm an individual schemata may be quite diffetent fnnn the understanding which emerge fmm the use of multiple connectai scbemata. As Lemke (1995) points out, it is often the impücit emôudied meanings of everyday language that cause conceptuai diffculty for students rather than the scientific ternis themselves. For example, what does positive and negative mean in discussions of vector diagrams scaiar diagrams, electrdytic cells, or attitudes toward school?

Johnson's argument for embodiment is based on the notion that Our bodies and Our symbolic meaning making processes are c 0 ~ e ~ t edong d some kind of expenential continuum. In The Tree of Knowlede Matuma and Varela (1987) present a deeper argument for embodiment based on our evolution and our being in the wodd as biological organisms with a dynamic structure and organization which encompasses our physical and cognitive activities. In Maturana and Varda's (1987) notion of embodiment the microscopie physiological pfoctsses within the body and the macmscopic biologïcal processes of the worîd f o m a hdistic continuum. The cogm*Pnghuman organism is not separate from its environment, it is an integral pan of a larger dynamic whole. Meaning making is not oaly a cognitive activity; it is an enacted biological activity involving the organism, its history, and its e n v i r o m n t in reciprocal shaping or mutuaf specilication of each other.

In this research the idea of embodiment occm in three possible ways: (1) as a vantage point for interpreting my observations of saident action-thought in selfdirected science activity; (2) as a means of sensitizing myseîf to the undcriying meanings embodied in students' verbal desaiptiais of how t&y am thinking when they engage in activities; (3) as an agenda fot mysdf as the researcher to engage in the acnial doing of similar kinds of activities in o&r to develop a pcrsoaal embodied understanding of what is invo1ved in the development of shdent meaning.

At a recent conference 1 participated in a simple demonstration of an optical phenomenon which yielded an unexpected result one that is not explained by conventional presentations of the physics of light. The apparatus consisted of a cdlirnated beam. a sbeet of paper with a square hole near its center, and a surface (Le. a wail) upon which the beam of light was pjected. The sheet of paper was position& in the beam so that light fint passed through the hde beron illumiaating the wall. One typically expects the illuminated a m on the wail to be a two dimensional representation of the shape of the hole in the paper. In the case of a square hole one expects to see a square shaped area In fact, that is what you get when the papet is held pupndicular to the kam. However. when the paper is tilted away from that position the illuminabxi area on the wall appears to aquire new properties. The bnght two-dimensional square area now appears to be transfortned into a threedimensiond cube. How can this be? One expects the shape of the illuminated anxi to change as the pper is tiited but one does not expect W h e r perception of a twodimensiod representation to k traasformed into a ihrcedimensional xepresentation.

-

The presenter (Reinhold. 1995) described this phenomenon as an example of a openended activity for secondary physics sndents. 1 was thinking about perception and representation. Eacountering this phenomenon was an opportunity to explore further. 1 appmhed the presenter at the end of the talk and got permission to "playnwith the apparatus. As 1 manipulatecl the apparatus and noticed how some changes seemed to cause certain effets 1 began to ask new questions and make new attempts to better understand this phenomenon througb my actions. ldeas like forming a square hole out of four separate pieces of papa (each contributhg an eâge at different distances from the wall) or manipuiating the light source or the beam collimator or changing the shape of the

hole or introducing multiple hoks emersed as my physical engagements with the phenomenon grew more complex. 1 was mt only enacting my pior undeistanding of light, 1 was also enacting my N m n t understanding of this pariicular phenornenon* Enaction was more than mete prception. It was perceptuai action.

Consider the issues sunounding pelpcption and nprcsentatiioa Varela. Thompson and Rosch (1991) ,as does Merieau-Panty (1962). argue that perception, r o t representatiian, is centrai ta cognition. Such a view goes a long way to explain why students often fail to 'see" the science in a laboratory adivity even though they are doing thiags in an active way. Our cognitive structure/exprience orients us to observe or in science, to make obsewations. It is thus not surprising that the science iacher and the students experience a phenomenon. say in physics or chernistry, in different ways. Being edined in science, the teacher sees the phenomenon as a scientific event. Many other aspects are bracketed out. The students, instead. may attend to al! kinds of features that are "imlevant"as far as the scïentific point k i n g made is concemeci. They literaliy exprience a different phenornenon (F;ensharn and Kass, 1988). Oftca pedagogic and scientific language complicate matters furllier. How is one supposed to, as physicists tell us. "ignore friction"? Why is phenolphthaiein in a basic solution termed 'pinka while iitmus in an acidic solution is temed "mi" whea they both look very similaf? As the phrase 'to make an obse~vation" implies what is being apprehended is more than just the environment, it is the outcome of a complex neurophysiological interaction with the enviromnent - an enaction.

Context Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) empbasize tbat perception is a cocreation of organism and environment but they do not say much about the nature of the environment or context. Although they do not use the specific language of figure-grouci, Vanla, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) seem to make a distinction between person and setting. In other worâs, setting or c o n t a (environment) is described by what it is not Thus setting becornes everythiag that is not defined to be organism. Varela, Thompsm, and Rosch offer no specific help in distinguishing one content fiwi another after organism, everything else is envininment By placing most of their emphasis on the interaction betwcen organism and environment (context). Varela, Thompsoa. and Rosch tend to avoid developing a clear description of the nature of either organism or environment (context). This may seem Iike a harsh criticism. Varela, Thompson, and Rosch take the

-

organism as a 'givenw in the bidogically evoIutionary sense, a view 1 will consider in my subsequcnt amimentary on structurai cwpliag.

Lave (19ûû) places mon! importance to describing the nature of setting or context She draws a clear boundary betwec~lsetting and envirionment in the sense tbat she allows for the existence of many specific seüings within an environment Whereas Vareia, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) would extend OoIItext to include eveiything in an environment, Lave (1988) draws a sbarper focus for conte% In doing this Lave (lm) introduces the idea of situateû b w i n g within "arcnasof actiona.

The nature of context from Lave's standpoint seems to be b d on her -ch perspective as an observer of pecsons acting in settings. ûnce a particular context is described it remains fied and the phenornenon of interest becornes the actions of the person operating within that context. Although Lave's (1988)unit of analysis is persansacting-in-setting it seems that she considers setiuig to be the more stable aimponent of that unit 1 believe that this is a consequence of ber role as an observer of action as opposed to an active participant in action. 1s the naaire of a context, in terms of its substantive description or its stability over a period of'tirne, the same for an observer of an action setting as it is for a participant in tbat action seaing? I intend to explore this issue by assuming, whenever pedagopidly possible, the stance of a participant in my work with students as they engage in selfdirected activity and to contrast this with situations where 1am an observer. This question raises a sticky problem in rrsearch involving people acting in settings. While it seems at first @ance that Lave's supexposition of pemons, person's actions, and setting provides a coherent mit for analysis. it is not clear to me that this is the case. First, this unit of analysis assumes that petsons acting together encwnter a cornmon setting. This seems proMematic when considered from either the perspectives of persansacting-together or person-acting-with-obsewer. Second, it assumes that a person's actions within a seaing are as salient to the group as they are to the individual. 1s context for an individual the same as it is for a pair of individuals working together? Can a person simultmeously act in accordance with a personal context and a shared context? Third, Lave's wiit of anaiysis assumes that setting is relatively stable during a p e m s engagement with a setting. It allows action to emerge from context but it does not allow context to emerge from action. Lave asserts that problem and context emerge together but it is not clear that she intends that to mean that continu4 action within a problemantext

can influence the nature of tbat p r o b l e m a t n n Contcxt can not o d y be thought of as the backgrad f m which d e r phemmena emergc, it can dm be thought of as k i n g an emergent p h ~ e n c mitseif. A view of context as dynamic and evolving seems implicit in the notion of co-ewrgenœ (see below). Merieau-Eonty (1%2) dcvelops another difEercnt view toward the nature of context. He does this by daaîbing the nature of the world as interpreted by phewmenology.

The nal is a closdy woven fabric- It dœs await out judgment kfon inmrporating the most surprishg phenmena, or before ~jectingthe most piausiMe figments of our imagination- Perception is not a science of the worid, it is not even an act, a deliberate taking up of a position; it is the background fmm which al1 acts s t a ~ dout, and it is presupposed by them. The worid is not an object such that 1have in my possession the law of its making; it is the nacural setting of, and fieid for, aii my thoughts and al1 my explicit perceptions. (pp. 10- 11). Context becomes a woven fabric of thoughts and perceptions. Context is not an act of perception, it is perception. In this sense. Merleau-Ponty (1962) includes the person as an intrinsic and inseparable part of their worid or antext. This gives conturt a relational quality which depends on the persons who are includod Context also aoquires a dynamic quality in the sense that the fabric of our perceptions and thoughts is constantly changing and k i n g re-woven. The question of where does meaning reside when a person is engaged in meaningf' action in a setting can now be considend Medeau-Ponty (1962) jminted out over thirty years ago that

The phenomemlogical world is not the bringing to explicit expression of a pmxïsting king, but the layiag down of king. Philosophy is not the reflection of a pre-existing tnith, but, like art, the act of bringing tnuh into king. One may well ask how this creation is possible, and if it does not fecapture in things a pmexisting Reason. The answer is that the oaly preexistent Logos is the worid itself. and that the philosophy which bring it into visible existence does not begin by king possible; it is acnial or real like the world of wbich it is a part, and no explanatory hypothesis is

clemr than the act whercby we take up this d i s h e d w d d in an effort to cornpiete and conceive it. Rationality is wt a probkm. Thcre is behind it no unlaiown quantity which ha9 to k detennined by deduction. or, beginaing with if demonstrated inductively. We witness every minute the mirade of relateci experienas, and yet M y knows baia than we do how this miracle is worked, for we are ourselves this network of reIationship. (p. 20). It is clear that Merieau-hty situates meaning in the co-aeation of knower and known pemn and setting. Such a view challenges the notion of meaning as ismething which is transmiaed in propositional fonn.

Coemergencel Structural Couplhg/ Adequate Conduet The creation of meaning is an embodied and memergent phenownon. Understanding or meaning making is not abwt stepping out of and contemplating the world. It involves noticing how we are a part of the world and how we are connecteci to i t As MerieauPonty has pointed out

The phenomenological world is not pure being, but the

sense which is

reveaied where the p a h of my various expenences intersect and engage each other like gears. It is thus inseparable from subjectivity and intersubjectivity, which find their unity when 1 either take up my pst experienas in those of the present, or other people's in my own. For the first time the philosopher's thinking is suffkiently conscious not to anticipate itself and endow its own results with reified fonn in the worid.

(p. 20).

The notion of coemergence raises the question of whether any activity, including that of science. is usefully viewed generically. If leamhg is an enactive and/or a constructive process tbat takes place in a contextual world, what is k i n g enacred and/or constructed? The context in which the learning is situated becornes an important part of the pictue. Then are various types of science activity. Each calls for exploration of it's pmperties in the knowledge building of pemns-acting on its own terms. Content and problem create each other (Lave, 19ûû; Chaiklin and Lave, l m ) .

An enactivist perspective d s into question tbe fu11ctid staais of auy discrete or component part charecterizatim of scientüic thinking (or pnsCnbcd scientific methai, scientific p d e m sdving. and the WC). Considerd as situated in a particular amtext, the whole is more than its constituent parts. Criticisms in science ediiration of the linear step by step appoach to the description and evaluaa'm of labaatory or practicai activity are as yet few (Millar, 1991; Millar and hiver, 1987). ûna p r i a i note. 1 suggest that viewing a sciena investigative activity as an embodied whde allows one to examine the nature of its âevelopment frwi eariy b later stages, thus revealing aspects of the learning that takes place over ie course. Fbr me, lemhg and doing normally separated as thought and action are dynamically inturrlatcd, as they arc in scientific and technoiogical work in out-of-schoal conkxts. A more complete approach to the portrayai of science investigative activity rrcognizes that notions of personai and howledge and undmtanding involve multiple meanings about the nature of this reality as MerleauPonty (1%2) put it, or of reason (Johnson, 19û7), or of king (Matunma and Varda,

-

-

1987)-

How do students go about doing science-reiated things in practical settings chamcterized by a high degree of autonomy in thought and action? What processes do students use in understanding what is involved and how do they p about the task as they extend and reinterpret it? How is such a potentiaiiy idonnation-rich arena transfomied i n b a specific activity-in-setting? I suggest (and this study explores) that students evolve their own meanings of, and actions for their knwvledge building processes, in the science activities themselves and the investigations b e y enact, if given the opportun@ to do so. Furthemore. processes of p r d e m articulatiodmanagement are dialectic in natue, with prognss toward resolution taking on both strategic and ncmive elements. If more than one person is involved, investigative work is also a social activity. Negotiation and communication arc found to be present (Sdomon. 1991) in diaborative investigative activity among veiy young as well as more mature leamers. in these cases, as the p d e m and coatext coernerge, 1 can explore how the investigative task is enacted in the different contexts of the participants. 1 can also explore the coconstruction of and shifting nature of contexts ai the clasmom teachingfleaming level. What changes? What stays the same? In this way, differwt orientations to science, to knowledge and to leaniing may yield multiple accounts of the understanding process a research agenda which deepens in scope progressively. Rather than arguing for one or the other perspective, 1 agree with Bruner (1986) when he suggests that there may be multiple

-

world views which can be used to characteriizt a complex phenornenon like the devdopment of understanding.

Structural coupüng Maturana and Vartla (lmand Varda, Thompson. and

R d (1991) talk a b u t the

term ustni~tiiralmupling" as follows:

The basic level of categorization, thus. eppuirs to k the point at which cognition and envimment becorne simultaneously enacteci. The object appars to the pezaiver as affording certain kinâs of interactions, and the perceiver uses the objecis with his body and mind in afforded mamer. hm anâ fuction. nonnally investigated as opposing properties, are aspects of the same process, and organisms an highly sensitive to their coordination. (p. 177). Merleau-Ponty identifies a pmess similar to structurai coupling. Reflection dœs not withdraw from the world towards the unity of consciousness as the world's basis; it sreps back to watch the forms of transcendence fly up like spiuks from a fa;it slackens the intentionai threads which attach us to the world and thus brings tbun to our notice; it aloae is cwsciousness of the world because it reveals that world as strange and paradoxicai. (p. 8). My critical commentary here focuses on the notion of structurai coupling. In any emerging understanding, the challenge is to 'give voice" or "find v o i e " for the expression of initial ideas in a way that ohers can grasp enough of the notion to k able to engage in a discourse designed to clarify and refine the ideas. In this context, the choice of vocabulary in "structuxal cwplinga seems to me to present severai logical difficulties.

"Coupling"seems to imply the union of two discrete entities. This is not consistent with the idea of coemergenœ. It also flatly contradicts Varela, Thompson. and Roschls (pp. 123- 130) argument that there is no 'self". If the- is no %elTthen what is there that is "smichually coupleda with the environment?" If there is only an "interco~ectedself"

then how am one distinguish "fîgun" frwi "groundn? 1 am not dispuiing the idea of structurai coupling that Varda, Tbompson, and Rosch (1991) seem to k trying to express and illusinite with this tenn and their examples in evdutimary theory. Rather, I suggest that the choice of vOcabuIary and the images this c h o i e evokes may need revision to express this idea more cleariy.

How might a teacher encourage the emcrgenœ of an enactivist 1-ng perspective ammg pelsolls-acting-togetherin a classmm? Consider the foilowing assertion from Varela, Thompson. and Rœch (1991):

... cognition

is no longer seen as problem solving on the basis of representations; instead, cognition in its mcst enanipassing smse consists in the enactment or bringing forth of a world by a viable histoiy of structural couplhg. It shouid be noted that such histories of coupling are not optimal; they are, rather, simply viable. This diiferenœ implies a corresponding ciifference in what is reqdred of a cognitive system in its structural coupling. If this coupling were to be optimal, the interactions of the system would have to be (more or l a s ) pnscnbed. For coupling to be viable, however, the perceptually guided action of the system must simply facilitate the continuhg integrity of the system (ontogeny) andlor its lineage (phylogeny). Thus once again we bave a logic that is pmaiptive rather than prescriptive: any action undertaken by the system is pemined as long as it does not violate the consedint of having to maintain the integrity of the system W o r its lineage. (p. 205)." If one substitutes 'persons-acting-togetber-in-setting' for "systema then this statement suggests that there exist a wide range of effective structural couplings between persoa(s) and coatext? However, this issue is not really dealt with by Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991). 1 think tbat there pmbably is a variability in the possible levels of a structural coupling between person(s) and theit environment but 1 thidc that it is likely perceiver-dependent. In other words, what may a p p to be a strong or weak coupling from an observer (teacher) perspbctive may be quite different from a student perspective. 1 think that a person will see themselves as more or l a s strongiy coupled to their environment (which in thîs study includes me as the researcher) dependhg on many

-

things (e.g. an action component to the engagement, the numkr and quality of the sehsory cainections to their socidcognitive envirobment).

In laboratory sciena 1 favor an apprœcb which attempts to accommodate and improve the structural coupling between sndent and envin,nment by poviding multiple ways or affordances in which a stu&nt can couple to their environment. The fanis is placed on how we 'sec" as o p p e d to " w W we sœ. In other words. w b t we 'seea is always contextualid within the technique used to "seea. This pocess can not be donc if a "seeing* technique is chosen fot the d e n t andor only one technique for "seeing"is available. I Iike a laboratory environment which aiiows students' own prefemd techniques of mupling to an environment to emerge. The mmmoa practice of pnparing materials for students before they engage in a lab activity constrains this sort of thing. 1 think it would be interesthg to see what materials and strategies students wodd suggest are necessary for a given investigative task As the action-context for my research 1 have sought classrooms in which the students are engagad in science activities which have a strong element of selfdrection in estabüshing the parameten of the task and the materialsipfocedures to be us& The secondary science cmiculum in Alberta pmvides for such activity and numerous local teachers use hem as part of science leaming.

Adequate Conduct The issue of adequate conduct is relevant to most perspectives on leaming and teaching. In this regard 1 am assuming that leaMng and teaching are intentional acts. Under that assumption it makes sense to say that leamers and teachers are concemed with what constitutes adequate conduct on their own part or on the part of others. What do 1 mean by adequate conduct? Adequate conduct in processes of meaning making simply refers to any actions which allow for understanding to occur. If one adopts a processaienteci, as opposeû to a product-orienteci. approach to leaming then adquate conduct refers to any actions which allow processes of lcaniing to occur. But adequate for whom and in what sense? This tenn can be applied at many levels. For instance. one might addrcss "adequate coaduct" fmm the perspective of the individual leamer, a group of leamers acting together. a researcherlteacher and leamer acting together, or an entire classroom. I am interested in developing deeper insights into how adequate conduct can be identifiied, described and enmurageci.

A key point in the Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) argument regarding evolutioa dso has fundamental implications for cognition and, bence, for learning and -hg:

T h e first step is to swîtch frcm a pmaiptive logic to a prosaiptive one. that is, fmm the idea that what is not atlowed is forbidden to t k idea that wbat is not foibidkn is alloweda(Varda, Tbmpson. and Rosch, p. 193

Western orientation to cognition is not comfaaaMe with the presenœ of contradictory ideas or interpretations within tbe same amtcxt. If such a state of dfiairs should arise, the immediate motivation is to msolve the contradiction. k t i n g e k theory of cognitive dissonance rntinger, 1%2) is amoag the best knom of such psycbdogical theories. The "discrepanteventu strategy in inquiry teaching appcoaches b science is predicated on the theory chat recognition of discrepancyldissonanceprovides in itself the impetus for cognitive change. With the notable exception of Piaget (accorbing to von Glasersfeld) most Westem modemist appmaches to cognition rest on the ideal of an ultimate "comct" or "miewanswer. Indeed, our whole notion of authority is based on this idea. Teaching science and mathematics, according to such a view, is about mastering correct procedures to anive at true amwers. The depth to which this view is ingrainad is reflected in the often exprwsed statement (by both teachers and students) that an expriment 'didn't wodca Le. that atkmpts that dont work out as expected, yield wrong answers. This is the prescriptive view of nature and of school science.

In a proscriptive view there is no concept of experiments 'not workinga. Al1 experiments work. Nature always "worksW.Nature is not w m t or incorrect-nature simply is Human designs and stmtegies may k sucœssful or unsuccessful in meeting the conditions of nature in specific instances (c-f. Vanla, îhompson, and Rach's 1991 treatment of intentiondity on p. 205). This is a shortcoming in human interpcetation andlor cognition, not a sbrtcoming in nature. h m i n g and teaching becorne ooevolving processes of understanding in which a dynamic environment is m u W y established and dlowed to drift as new enactions emerge. Such a view seriowly challenges the notion of a geaeric student It allows for the coexistence of qualitatively different starting points and directions for the development of understanding by individual students-a very different oontext for teaching than one implied by the prescriptive view of nature and of school science.

... intelligence shifts fiom king the capaa-ty to solve a pb1em to the capacity to enter into a sbarcd woild of signi-fiance(Vatela, Thompson,

and Rosch, p. 2û7) This is a powerf' statement Sband by whom? S h d in what sense? Wben a pair of students and a fc~earcheffteacher wodr together in a probltm setting, what cwstitutes adequate ccmduct f a the thrce pople inside the group. or f a a fourth person obsewing fmm the outside? 1 am intngued by V a l a , Thompsw, anâ Roschts (1991) statement that "...clostueand coupling suffce to briag forth a world of devance for a system (p. 156).' This is

connected to: cognition is no longer seen as probiem solving on the basis of representations; instead, cognition in its most encompassing sense consists in the enactment or bringing forth of a world by a viable history of structural coupling ... such histories of coupling are not optimal; they are, rather, simply viable (Varela, Thompson, and Rosch, p. 205). 1 will explore the conditions under which poscriptive c i a s s n x ~ lleaming/teachiag environments emerge and barnne viable, and their implications for how students

conceptualiz their actions within their leaniing engagements.

Bruner (1986) distinguishes betwetn two foms of knowledge: procedural knowledge and nanative Lnowlodge. Once one accepts that there are multiple ways of knowing then it m e s easier to amsider cornmon-sense fonns as king relevant to science learning.

"If, however, our lived wodd does not have predefined boundaries. then it seems d i s t i c ta expect to capture cornmonsense understanding in the f o m of a repfesentation where representation is undemtood in its stmng sense as the re-presentation of a pregiven world. Indeed if we wish to ncover common sense. then we must invert the represemtationist attitude by treating context-dependent know-how not as a midual artifact that can be propssively eliminated by the discovery of'more sophisticated d e s

-

but as. in fact, the very essence of cognitive crcaticm (Vanda, Thompson. and Rosch, 1991, p. 148).'

Despite the above assertion. Varela. T h o m p n and Rosch (1991) seem somewhat supeificiai in th& trcatment of cornmonsense bwledge. characterizhg it as merely 'background know-how" (p. 147). This a m is compicx and subject to at least two differcnt intecpretatiioris depending on whether it is the "cornmon" or the "seose" aspect which is being emphasued Exœpt for a few vague ülusiom to "folk psychologya, little grounding is provideci by Vanla, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) for global assertions such as that we must treat 'context dependent know -how... as. in fact. the very essence of creative cognition (p. 148)' and that "cornmonsase is nme odKr than our M l y and social history (p. 150)". What is meant by "creative cognition'? How is "contextdependent know-howmrelated to u>mmon sense know-how?

...

The tendency to l a v e tenns vague tends upon closer examination to make a number of nominally incisive statements rather vacuous. The above statement about the "essence OC creative cognition (p. 148)" is a case in point. Another is: knowledge is the result of an ongoing interpretation that emerges from our capacities of understanding. These capacities are rooted in the structures of our biological embodiment but are lived and expenenced within a domain of c o n s e d action and culturai history. They enable us to make sense of our world; or in more phenomenological language. they are the structures by which we exist in the marner of "having a worlda (Varda, Thompson. and Rosch, p. 15û).

What is meant by 'understanding" and 'capacities for understanding' in this discourse? At the curriculum design level. the implications are quite clear: cognition involves enaction, providing stmig support for the positionkg of activity onenteci cmicula and teaching appcoaches at the center of schooling. It also irnplies that transmission approeches to teaching and cumcula which empbasize verbal and symbolic "knowing thata at the expense of "knowing bowa leaà to sterile and nonfimctional compilations of information rather than fmctional understanding. Varda, Thompson and Rosch (1991) would likely approve of some of the cumnt orientation of grades 7. 8. 9 science and Science 10.20.30 (grade 10.11.12 science) in Alkrta. Students engage in sequences of science and technology related activities which provide experience with the phenornena

in question and permit (within limits) expioratim and cnative poblem solving. Learning, however, is still viewed as the outcorne of such engagements.

How is Understanding Enacted? Andersson (1986) descfibes an underiying expcriential gestalt of causation which reprrsents a common core to the r w m h g employed by children. A given gestalt consists of a numbcr of different components which together fonn a whole that is greater than the sum of its putts. 1s the= evidence of an enperiential gestalt in student selfdincted investigations? This is a question I consider usefd because it may r e v d evidence for a larger more hoiistic aspect of an invcsiigative sequence which can not k addressed by a 'pnxrss skills" analysis of the separate parts of the investigations. 1s a "bringing forth" of the world implicitly adment?

I suspect, dthough it is very dificuit to identify, that some students develop a sense of "pattern building" as they move through an investigative sequence or develop a tendency to divergent thinking by switching strategies during their investigations. Fbr instance, students may leam that it can help them if they pnodically switch strategies from focused action to unfocwd play during an investigation. It rnay be that students would progress even more effectively tbrough an invcstigative sequenœ if' they were given a second opportunity to engage in another open-eaded activity or investigation similar to one they had just completed. It would k worthwhile to engage student groupr in a series of open-ended investigations with the goal of looking for evidence of similar strategies over individuals and settings and impmvement in investigative appmaches. For instance, do students who seem to prefer impmvisational sequeuces as pnécursors to more focused action continue to employ tbis approach in other open-ended activities?

There is a very good chance that s h d e n ~can leam somethiag quite powerful from their engagement in the whde iavestigative squence that is more compelling tbaD anyihing they c m learn f m their engagement in any single part of it. 1 think it is worthwhile to ask students if and what they felt they Iemed as a ~ u l oft their engagement in openended selfdirected activities. McClelland (1984) bas raised the issue of salience in engagement activities. McClelland states that unless an aciivity leads a student to theorizt about the phewmenon involved in the activity it can not be considend a scientifc activity. K u b , Amsel and OZwghlin

(1988) take a similar position. Whüe 1 a p tbat thdzing is a necessary component of science 1 think it becmes probiernatic when one anempts to distinguish betwcw activitics which include thealling ami thme which do not, based on infenntial evidence frnn an outside absewcr. In other words, how is th&zing enacted by people? 1s it possibie that certain kinds of action are m e fomi of tiieorizing? My view is chat it is important to k open to how ascientifkabebaviocs might appear to an observer or participant in f m s which differ f . how we traditionally view thcm as occurring. Helanko ( in Van Aufsbnaiter and Sdiwedes. 1969) d e f i play as an activity which is selfdet#minexi due a herhs own perception. and which is pumied without extemai interference. Heianko maintains that every individual is inclined to transfom non-play systems into play systems ,i.e. to transmît given extemal objectives and actions by way of identification and modifcation. Accordhg to Helanko. learning (meaningfu! iearning) preâominantly takes place in play systems. or whenever non-play systems are transfonned into play systems. It must k emphasized that this play pmcess is subjective and individual. and that the individuai takes an active part in al1 leaming prooesses.

Play orientation does not mean that games predomiaate. It means that the teacher provides students with oppominities to act and tbink independently during instruction. It also means that direct teaching engagements are planneci with the intention of enabling students to build up new play systemsWooinough(l991) offers another definition of play in wbich he identifia ihrae types of activity: (1) play to build up interest and basic familiarity; (2) practice to build up basic cornpetencies and confidence; and (3) expldng to challenge. and extend frontiem. A leamer needs to k ooatinually moving fmn one type of activity to another. Sensory (especialty visual) evidence appears to have a rather profound impact on students as they engage in piayfui and exploratory action. It is important to distinguish this holistic notion of the visuai from the more traditional (pmess skill) perspective of the visual. In a process ski11 perspective. emphasis is p l a d on obtaining a high degree of nsolution and spcificity from an observation. It is a deductive enterprise in that the students seek to namw and sharpen their focus. A stuâeat with a more hdistic view of observation "notices" many different things but does not neceffarily focus immediately on any one. Emphasis is placed on getting a sense of the diversity of the phenornenon and a "feel"for some of the boundaries and connections which are embodied in the phenornenon-person

system. It is a more inductive enterprise in that studeats seek to M n and extend theïr focus. 1 will atkmpt to capture sow of thea nacting-moments" in my descriptive interpretive portrayais.

Learning: Enactivist and Constructivist Viens Coristnictivism deals with questions d the nature of biowledge - what is bowledge and where does it onginate? In the past fifteen years a dominant research paradigm bas emerged incognition and leaming in the field of science education. It is widely described as *co~l~f~ctivisrn~. While puadexi in the ideas of Piaget and Ausubel the impeais for a great deal of empirical worL haP been the attempt to identify and catalogue the misconceptions, preconceptions, naive theones, andfor alternative conceptions (Driver and Easley, 1978) of students at various levels about various topics in school science. A data base listing these studies (Pfuadt and Duit, 1991) is cumntly in its fourth edition and contains thousands of tittes.

The establishment of a m o n research focus under the nibric of constructivism has, to some ex-

accomplished the following:

1. It has attracted a large numkr of mearchers frwi a wide range of developad and developing countnes thus establishing an intexnational rr~ear~ community. n

2. It has estaMished a cornmon vocabulary for desaibing and interpretlng its research findings. 3. It shares a theoretical interpcetive framework in that it views knowledge as an active construction by a person. 4. It has developed a relatively forthright set of research procedures which can k broadly grouped iato tm categories: (1)interview about instances (Osborneand Gilbert, 1W, Posaer and O e m ~ g1982; , Osborne and Freyberg, 1985) and (2) predict-observe-explain (White and Gunstone, 1991).

What constilutes the domain of COt)Stntcrivism? 1s it an epistemological orientation, a psychological orientation, a pedagogical orientation, or a combination of these? As in any complex and large rrsearch community the= are "witbuigroupa differences regarding the natwe af cotl~~n~:tivism. Views range f m a radical canstructivist perspective (Von Glasersfeld, 1984. 199% 199s) to a d a 1 comtructivist perspective (VygotsLy. 1978. 1986. Wcrtsch, 1991; Wertsch and Tonia, 1995).

Most empiricai studies in science education have tended toward a social cwsmictivist interpretation (O'Lx,ughiin, 1992). hplicit in the rrsearch approach is the notion of a comct scientific intexpretation against which students rrsponses are assessed. What is considered as a correct scientific interpntation would be referred to as a component of a scientific paradigm (Kuhn, 1970)or as adquate conduct (Varela, Thompsoa, and Rosch, 1991). Furthemore, implicit in the sociocuiturai view is the pedagogic goal of teaching for conceptual change (Driver and hsley. 1978;Driver. l a 1 ; Hewson. 1981; Driver and Erickson, 1983; Driver and Bell. LW, Fensham, 1988; White and Gunstone, 1991). which has spawned a pedagogic approach known as constmctivist science teaching (Posner. Strike. Hewson, and Gertzog. 1982). Discussions about the nature of constmctivism as a theoretical position constitute a small part of the published research in the field of science education. (This is an interesting difference from mathematics education research whem the theoretical nature of consmctivism is hotly debated.) Perhaps ,as pointad out by Cobb (1994). the radical-social constructivist debate is a false issue in that the two views of co11~tructivism complement each other. Cobb nsolves the issue in a figwe-ground sense in that he advocates thinking abwt each view as emerging from the other in a wmplementary way. Cobb (1994) asserts that "the socioculturai and constructivist perspectives each constitute the background for the other (p. 19)?

The constnictivist research program bss been usefui in making science educators aware of the range of alternative ideas that students have about a variety of topics in science such as gravit% heat, ewrgy, f a a . Iight, the structure of matter, motion. evolution. genetics and others. Knowing about the range of ideas that can exist in a classraom of leamers is one thing; how to stimulate the leamer to adopt a view which is consistent with a scientific position is samething dsc. Eariy approaches to concepaial change stress the importance of wnfronting the leartlet wiih the discrepancy between hisher own ideas and a scientifically acceptable position (Posner et al., 1982). Empirical studies which have attempted to bridge the gap betwem a personally held conception of an individual and the scientific view have in generai revealed that the conceptions of an individuai are

extremely mcuit to change. Even whcn conceptions aie apparently changed in a sch001 setting, eariier C O M X ~ ~ ~can O ~ quiddy ~S cas sert themselves in the contacts of further schooling or of the evayday warld- Two conmm examples arc an Aristotelian versus a Newtonian view of motion (Clement. 1982)a thinking about heaî as a flowing substance as oppapeC l m d d a r motion (Ericksan, 1979,1980). A numkr of wnters (r;ensbam. Gunstone and White, 1994) are now suggwthg that a direct conCmntational appoacb 80 conceptuai change may intimidate snidents rather tban praviding the hoped for stimulus for caiaphial mrganization. There is an argument to be made in favor of a m o n p d u a i i s t view to conceptuaï change. For instance, Fkmharn, Gunstone and White (1994) talk about evolutioaary as opposai to revolutionary c011ceptualchange. Some writers such as Solomon (1994)have goae as far as to say that

the la& of a direct pedagogic strategy within the constnictivistorientation is a mark of its failure*

Despite its limitations 1 rhink that the constructivist orientation has yieldeà some very useful pedagogic approaches. For insta~ce,White and Gunstone (1991) describe techniques for probing student understanding which can k used as both research and teaching instruments. Among these are concept mapping, interview about instances, pndict-observe-explain and fortune lines. While one would hope that research findings can translate into pedagogic practice, the route of such influences is often more complex than first appears. 1 regard the appmaches developed within the consmictivist research program in science educatioa (Bell and Pearson, 1992) as useful observationai techniques both within the contexts of science education research and science teacher education. However, the jdagogic proMem is that these are genenc techniques wbich rely for the most part on the teacher. wt the student for their successful implementatioa. One notable exception is the work on metacognition developd by Baird (1988) and Baird and Mitchell (1986) in which some ofthese techniques are used by students in order to make themselves awaie of their own cognitive functioning. By and large the use of the techniques relies on student verbalization of herlhis ideas which are then intefpteted by the researcher/teacher in a repfesentationist way. In other words, it is assumed that bow students use language is a direct minor of'how they are thllilring about the phenomenon selected for them by the teacher. It is also possible that peer pressure will Muence a student to verbalize a conception which is not consistent with what he/she really thinks. 1 have argueci d i e r that how an individual perceives a task is a complex creation of persoas-acting4n-setting.

Techniques such as interview abwt instaars or predlct-observc-explaininvolve boa the researcher and sbdcnt in stnrtiacd du.From a saident's pempective these activities are initiated and moddated by the rescarcher. The studenttsconception of the nature of the interaction between herselfibimself and the rrsearcher may play a signifiant d e in how to engage and thhic about a phewmieiiai and it infïuenas what is revealed. An enactivist resea~chapproach, ai tht otha band, may have the potential for allowing a more naaaal interaction to emerge in that the idea of adquate d u c t by teacher and student(s) (see p. 34) allows for a range of meaningfid and viable actions and interactions to be expresseci. This goes to the validity of the data that are obtained (issues of validity and reliability will be addrcsseâ in Cbaptcr 4). Consmctivism involves a perspective on the nature of knowledge and a view of the nature of the student A student is n e w d as a person who is actively involved in creating hidher own prsonal kmwledge which ha9 individuai meaning. Kaowledp is considered to k held by or to enist within a person. The goal of the constmctivist science education rrsearcher is to engage students with phenornena in such a way chat they will reveal knowledge which they hold. The purpose of the research engagement is to act as a conduit for information about what the student knows to be passed from the sndent to the researcher. There is a clear separation in the Ends of actions in which the researcher and the student are allowed to participate. In viewing knowledge as existing within a person the const~ctivistresearcher tends to neglect the d e of cmtext or setting in the construction of knowledge. Tasks are rypically simple nanval pbeaomena devoid of context and pesented as simple demonstratioas with everyâay materials. Tasks may also consist of line drawings involn'ng stick figures and cartoons (Fehcr, 1990; Shapiro, 1994) or films (Aguim and Erickson, 1984). The stuàent is rarely enmurageci to explore or modify the stimulus situation in any way or to add herlhis own representations of the phenomewn and the settiag. ûften the response fonnat involves the student in picking a comct answer fmm a set of multiple choices. If we recognize Lave's (1988) daim that Imowing involves intelligent action within a setting. then what is ~ v e a i e dabout knowing in context-sterile situations such as the ones just describeci? In ncognizing that the crration of meaning is an embodied antextuai occurrence, an enactivist view expands and problemativs the notion of what it means to be a researcher with a student in a parricular setting.

One consequence of igming context bas teen thaî ~~nsûuctivist researchers tend to overemphasize the importance of verbal desaipion in revealing student understandings. What sndents w r k a say is assumed to reflezt in a direct way what they understand abait a particular pbenomenon that the researcher considers important. However. the phenomenm which is notiad or descnkd by a student is not necessMly the same as the one intendcd by the iewarcher. In fact, the pbewmenon wbich most influences a student may k h i d e r uudemtanding of the rrsearch setting. Fa exampIe, mearchers inte~ewingstudtats about insîanccs bave at times fonneû the impression that students

create their conceptions in the course of the interview rather than revealing any preexisting understandings. This uncertainty may k reflected in the lacL of consensus

among the research community about whether one is studying prrconceptions, misconceptions or alternative conceptions @river and Easley, 1978). If a student has never thought about gravity until (s)&e is engaged in a research interview then what is king mvealed? 1s it pemnaily held views. conceptions. meanings and understandings or is it something else? When amstnictivist researcheis do consider setting or context they tend to draw a boundary in such a way that they am outside chat boundaiy. If and when they do consider themselves to k a patt of a setting they tend to m m p t to minimize or explain away their d e in the sening. Constnictivist researchers tead to view students as the creators of action and themselves as the obsewers of action. In adopting this view, wnsmictivist researchers artempt to minimize their engagement with the person, the setting. or the phenmenon. Thus, a second collsequenœ of the view that knowledge is held witbin an individual is that a coastnictivist research approach tends to ignore the role of the researcher in the construction of hiowledge in a setiing. As alreaây noisd my research orientation is one in which the researcher is a particijmt in the developing setting or context. The forcgoing camments on constructivism are rmt intendeci as a thomugh analysis and critique of this cornplex research pmgrani. Rather I have toucheci on mue of its features in mntrast to key ideas of enactivism. G d et al (1995) caution against the uncritical adoption of novel theoretical positions in anas of cognition aad learning. 1 do not consider enactivism to k another *isrnnin opposition to constructivism. In fan. 1 prefer to think of awismictivism aod enactivism as cognitive perspectives rather than cognitive theories. Viewed as perspectives. constmctivism and enaetivism offer differeat (but not

of acting toward and interacting with the action-thought worlds (i.e. prsonsdcting-in-setting)ft~earchersattempt to explore and undentaad. separate) ways

The wnstmctivist metaphor of the knower as an active creator of h i d k r knowledge seems to me to be powerCul aad p w i d e an impcxtant ana oC overlap for the two perspectives. What 1 am attempting to do is to contrast a vantage point on icnowing M intelilgent utiw as reflected in the views ofenactivist theaisu with that of some of the implications of amsbmctivist vïews. Table 1 ptsents a summaiy of some of the points I wnsider important The descriptive phases in the two cdumns are wt intendeci to identify cattgorits. Rather they describe positions that disthguish various features of enactivism and constructivism.

Van-

Pdnts ai Constnictivism and Enrctiviwn

Views kmwicdge as existing within a person

Views knowledge as existing in the coemergence of a personaad their worid

Views understanding as king expresseci in explanations and theories

Views understanding as king exprtssed in embodied action

Focuses on verballsymbolic aspects of cognition (thinking is done by min&) Learner rationaiizes, evaluates and decides whether to reconstmct or add to existing cognitive structure

"layingdown a path in walkingm cœmergence of person and setting

LRaraerIteacher/researcher are independent Learner engages in leaming T e d e r engages in teaching Researcher engages in observing

Lemnerfteacherffe~earcherare complicit in leamingfteaching Each participates in othefs action Actions of otbers has meaning for each

1 now rem to the five questions that have guided my joumey through the ideas cited in

this chapter.

In my sady 1 adQcss this question from the position that bowing is an embodied paeas.

2. How àoes Lwwing or understanding em-?

My stariing point here is to say that embodied action plays a central d e in pracesses of b w i n g or understandhg. A goal of my dissertation is to provide interpretations of aspcts these processes as 1experience them.

I consider meaning to k a cwmergent phenmenon. It resides in the actions ami interactions between individuais and phenomeaa My engagements with students as we enact our understandings will examine aspects of personal and collective construction of meaning. 4.

Hoa is undeistanding enacteà? A focus of the empiricai cwiponent of my study is poctraying how

unciersbnding is enacteci. 5. What un enactivism contribute to our understandingof knowinJuoderstandjug? 1 consider enactivism to provide a perspective fot engaghg in action-

thought and a perspective for interpreting action-thought In other words, ôecause enactivism is both a theoretical and a methodological position, 1 think it has the potential to contribute to our understanding of knowinglunderstanding from the perspectives of students, teachers, and researchers. I am challenging and testing the ideas of eiiiactivism as 1 use it as a framework for the interpretation of action and of kaowing and as a way of choosing my own action in research settings.

Attending to the pmcess of coming to understaad f m an enactivist perspective both probiematizes and illuminaîes aspects of science doing snd leamin$. It problematizes in the seme that the research coemerges in reciprucai spccificatim with student enaction in bringing focth their woild. One pnxrss is embedded anci hdd in relation to tbe other within the overall situatedness of th endeavaf. Both have implications for revealing the mture of practice 1 am intiigued by the psibilitiilities inberent in these metaphors as ways of caphiring holistic aspects of'such thought-action pattern.

What is the nature ofooming to understand in expressive envir~ll~llents in which sudents are. within mason. given the latitude to do what they want to do? The power of a proscriptive stance to generate Wbilities is illuminating. When students ad accordhg to the implicit guideline that "what is not expressly forbidden is allowedn rather than "al1 that is not spacifically diowed is forbiddena, the range and diversity of thought and action that is revealed bas the potential to k rich a ~ complu. d Pemns-acting who focus on what they can do instead of on wbat they cannot do demonstrate to themselves and to others that their understanding is in their doing. 1 now tum to questions of schmling and peifo~~lii~lce assessment in order to present a rationale grounded in pedagogic practice. In particular, 1 address the issues which involve performance assessment to which my research is directed.

1 wili now amsida implications of an enactïvist perspective in ternis of issues of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Cumnt cunicula, in which Alberta has k e n a participant in the m a t wave of reforrn. empbasize student activities in which students are expecttd w k skilled in seIf-directcd activity involving builàing and devising practical soiutions to techn010giical and environmental challenges. Teachers are called upon to devise, oversee, and *de leadership in a range of cornplex projects that cal1 for changed thinking about what is invoIved in the pedagogic relationship and in the assessment of student performance and understanding.

Performance assessment is a "hot" topic in science education today. Provincial ministries such as Alberta Education are devoting resources which in former years were devoted to curriculum development to the establishment to national performance bench marks against which students. school systems. and programs are to k evaluated. The creation of the Western Canada Protoc01 and a national assessment project conducted under the Council of Ministers of Education attest to the importance placed on obtaining and monitoring bench mark data on the performance cornpetencies of Canadian youth. As a result of studies such as the Second IEA study, (Conneliy, Craker, and Kass. 1985, 19û9) and various OECD studies. pdicy makers, science eâucato~~. and business leaders have become increasingly interested in how the science knowledge and understanding of Canadian youth compares with that of other industrialized munnies. Science education re~ea~chers have long been interested in questions abwt the nahm and development of probkm solving sltills of students and in how snidents engage in science investigations (Kuhn et al., 1M;Carey, 1989). Various performance assessrnent strategies have been implemented in England. Australia, Israel, and elsewherr. In England, the Assessrnent of Rrformance Unit (APU) @river et al., 1984) played a signifiicant d e in inf'iuencing teachem. resean:hers, and curriculum developcrs a m u d the world to include extended investigations and bands-on bsks in their approaches to assessment. The more m e n t British Columbia science assessment (Erickson et al., 1991) was strongîy i d l u e n d by the APU's approach to practical performance assessment and included a component in which teacher-observers monitond students' activiries over the

entire course of their extended investigations. CUmculum developers in Alkm have recently taken notice of this body ofwork and Alberta Education is cumntly field testing puformancc assessrnent instniments mud the province. It appears. bowever, tbat Alberta Education intends to view student pedannana as a coastnict wbich can be m e a s d as an outcome of a pocess rather than something which necds to be evaluated as it occws in paxss.

The purpose of this cbapter is tn examine issues surrounding questions involving the nature and use of p t i c a l action by educators as a ccmtext fix assessing student

understanding. A centrai purpose of my study is to address the f0110wing question: b w do shidenb use pircticaj action to gain meaning md understuidlng in d e m e clllssroom? Rrfomance assesrnent attempts to i n t e p t student practical action in order to assess understanding. Implicit to such assessment are the asswnptions that educatos kiow what practical action is. how it can be used to engage students in adequate conduct, how it can be interpreted, and what meanings it holds for students. Issues surrounding these assumptions anci the questions they raise have been generally ignored by test designers in their rush to implement alternative foms of assessment such as performance assessment. It is these issues and the questions which emerge from them that 1 will now address.

What are the Purposes of Practid Activity in Science? According ta a precminent pmponent of meaningful verbal learning: Scienœ courses at ail acadernic levels are ... aganized so that students waste many valuable houn in the laboratory cdlecting and manipulating empirical data which, at the very bt,help them rediscover or exemplify principles that the instmctor could p n t verbdly and demonstrate visually in a matter of minutes. ... Rimary nsponsibility for transmittiag the content of science should k delegateâ to teacher and textbook, whereas primary nspaisibility for transmitting appnciation of scientific methai should k delegated to the laboratory (Ausubel. 1% p. 345).

The above statement captures the tension between telling and doing t&at continually faces the science -ber in planning instruction. Should one start with action or with verbal exphnation? What kind of balance is appropriate for the leamhg goals to k achieved?

Recommendations of science cducators are wt Coosistent on tbese matten. For example, Wodnough and AUsop (1985) argue that a 'tight coupling of practice and theory can have a detrimentai efiect on both the quaüty of practid wodc done and on the theoretical understandings gained by tbe studentsa (p. 8). As science cunicula kcome mort aad more tightly psackad in the ltinâs of knowledge students are expected to acquirt, l a b o r ~ a yworlr, if includcd at aii, is restricted to illutrathg and verifjing the textbodc. matcrial. This tendency becanes incrrasingly more pronounced at the senior levels of s e m h y scboding. One nason for choosing to worlc at the middle schml level in my rescarch p j e c t s is that one is more likely to enCounter settings where al1 the students are encouraged to explore and develop their own ideas ibrough an assortment of pmjects. What purposes are served by practid work? This question has k e n addressed in a number of different ways by science educatom. Tamir (1991) has summarized the purposes of practical wodc as it is cumntly viewed by science ducation mearchers around the world. The purposes Tamir identifies anz to: (1) develop an understanding of scienœ concepts, (2a) develop inquiry skills, (2b)develop particular practical skills, (3) engage students in science activity that is qualitatively different from non-practical activity, (4) identify. diagnose, and change the altemative conceptions of students, and (5)motivate students. Millar (1991) daims that it is the first two of these purposes which are most often used to justify the use of practical work Millar (1991) argues that while practical activity can facilitate (1) and (2b). it m o t k used to teach (2a - the separate intellectual inquiry or prwcess skilis) successfuliy. Miilar's position is that practical activity should k usecl to pmmote the deevdopment of a general set of inter-related practical skilis which he refers to as procedural understanding. An e ~ c t i v i s position t would support Millar's contention in t&at investigative activity is considemi holistic in nature and involves cycles of p r o p s i o n and reclusion. Implicit in these arguments is the assumption tbat understanding and practical activity are distinct categories. 1 do not a p with this position. As stateà eariier, my view is that praetid action is not 8 p m u m r to or an outcomc of underauidlng, it Ir a fonn of undenstanding. Roblem development/solution and intelligent action are contextuaï. . c RevoluEions that formalisms of Kuhn (1970) points out in The S t n i c ~ ~ofc M scienœ are 'law-scherna'. It is the experience of working hem out in real contexts that provides their content and, hence, understanding. The meanings of key tenns associateci *

with sciena are embodied (Johnson, 19a7) and need to k exprienced in order to k understood. "Qualities we cannot experit~l~e. we csnwt bow.' (Eisner, 1988. p. 15). The quotation fmm Layton (1991) which appars at the beginning of this chapter supports tôis view. The purpose of p t i d activity in science is not to be used as a means to an end, it is its own end.

My consideration of the purposes of pRctical activity in science n d s io include the perspectives of students- What pirposes do sudents consider practicaî action to have for practical action in the themselves? Students and ttachtt/cc~earchetmay not &der same way. Developing a ncher and mon cornplex undemtanbing of how students create meaning and understandingin practical action is a cenûai goal of my study.

Issues in Performance Assessrnent For two years 1 taught a pre-service tacher education course in science for students who were destined to be teachers at the elementary level. Most of the students in this group had very littie formal science expenence in their ducational backgrounds. 1 decided to include a performance composent to this course- Students would conduct a "science investigationnand report their ~ s u i t tso the rest of the class. Eacb student could choose to study anything (s)he Iiked and a ten week period was negotiated as k i n g sufficient to complete the work. 1 was unsm at the beginning about how I would evaluate their performance, but 1 handed out a standanci checklist style evaiuation form which was similar to many 1 had used at science faim. This checkiist divided the total grade for a student's performance into discrete categories ~ l a t e dto such things as quality of display and severai science process skills. I was unprepared for the level of anxiety this task inspireci in my class. Students were tearing their &airout rrying to think of ideas and eventually 1 decided to provide several examples of 'apppriaten choiœs. üitimately the whole thing kcame a very product oriented event and 1 completed my checlilist evaluations so that al1 the student performances could be 'assessed".

Most students were quite pleased with the outcornes of their wok The collection of presentations filled a large room and made a d e r imptessive display. Expenences such as this coupiecl with my history as a judge in schod science faim cause me to question how 1 measured the performance of students in extended investigative activities. Does the

finai product rcprrscnt the cumulative peirormance of the students who prepared the display? Afta the assessments w a e completed I spoke to many of my students about their expenences during the p j o c t . I found that students' descriptions of k i r explofations were far more exciting and interesting than what they chose to present in their f d reports. I discovend that m y audents whose wmk 1 dcciQd to be beiow average had, in f a d u c t e d some txtrcmely intuitive and imaginative trials which they âid wt report b u s e they felt they were mt satisfid with the outcornes producd Every convemation iocluded descriptions of ideas. faileâ attempts and smiggies to retool an approach which were part of the untold story associated witb a student's thinking. It becamt apparent to me that I haâ not assessecl tôe scientific actions of students. Ratber a large component of my evaluation judged their abilities to orgaaize and retrospedively report data scientifidy and. ultimately. to produce a finished product 1 decided to explore these issues further in my research engagements with students in the present smdy.

Performance Assessrnent There are many ways in which educators can assess students. Each of these involve observing some form of sndeat "performance".Students' observable "perionnancesacan include a wrïtten, spoken, or an action component which may give measurable evidence of thinking and leaniing. Traditional fonns of assessment have tended to focus on the verbal domains by assessing whaî students say or write. For instance, students are asked to demonstrate their aldity to "perfamna cognitive task when they are given a pen and paper test. While it is the case that some p p l e could describe this as an example of perfomance assessment where studeiits are asked to convert thought activity into writing "actiona1 would like to ~ c x a m i n the e issue of "perfbrmancen. Woolnough (1991) points out that many students seem to q u i r e immediate experience in order to be successfui in a îask Pen and paper activities usually require a student to begin a task with thought beforc writing and do not include a manipulative componenL Consequently, 1 do not consider pen and paper tasks aione to be adequate assessments of perfomance in the context of science education. Performance, in my view, must not ody contain a forward linkage between thought and action it must also include a recursive linkage between action and thoughr In other words. action-thought fonns a comecred loop or cycle. Furtherrnore, in my estimation, the action component of a test or activity must contain an opportunity to manipulate more than just pen or paper - Le., materials or

-

equipment in order to qualify as a science pafomiance activity. One m t l for this re~uircmentis that it is not obvious to me that al1 students can successfuily engage in a ta& by beginning at the thought stage of tk action-thaughtcydc

Questions pertaining to wbat students do. what tbey think they do. and wôat they learn when engaged in investigative scieaa-nlated activities are important wiihin the current remncepcuaiization of sciena teaching (Wdnough. 1991; Fenssham. White and Gunstonc, 1995).What d a s it mean to understand science and how can understanding k revealed at various schml levels and in various disciplinary contexts? Reconceptuaiizations of science cmiculum @nsham. lm; Rnsham, White and Gunstone. 1995) minforce the notion that it is important for science students to biow how to do science-related things in various practical settings. When multiple and sometimes competing outcornes an mught, the cwtext in which learning is situated becornes an essentiai part of the picture- It is no longer useful to view science activity in genenc tenns. There are various types of science activity, and the contributions to knowledge-building of each require examination on its own terms and in its own contexts. In addition to the need for a broader base for student assessment to coincide with the changes in emphasis of contempotary science cumcuium. two other factors are seen as contributhg to the cumnt interest in pexfofmance assessment. International and National assessrnents carried out in various countries including Canada (Comelly, Crocker and Kass, 1985, 1989) have indïcated that studeats performance is not adequate for today's technoiogical needs in society. Performance assessment is a response to this perceived shortcoming. A second oontributing factor is relateâ to the cumnt increasing involvement of business and industry in educationai partnerships and pdicy setting. Performance is widely useâ in the business world as an evaluative tod to pnwote productive change. The movement of ministries of educatim toward pefionnance assessment as a means to responding to public dernands for eocountability seems consistent with the motivation of business and industry toward this fom of assesment. Provincial ministries of education e.g. Alberta and British Cdumbia are cumntiy implementing a science performance cornpontnt at selected giade levels in order to assess students'attainmeut of cmicular goals.

-

-

In this chapter 1 wiU describe various approaches to performance assessment and examine some of the issues surrounding these approaches within the context of cumnt initiatives

in Alberta and British Columbia. 1 w i l l a h present some of the current thinking surzounding vaiidity issues in perfmmœ assessrnent in dation to the purpose of my study. 1argue that the question of what a holistic evaluatïon strategy is. and how it muid be applied. d g n d s na< ody on how m e conccpuaiizes pcrfonnance but also on the purpose f a which the assessrnent is intended, 1 suggtst that the degrce to which

performance assesment taslrs place empbaPis on describing tbe "scientifid' rume of a student's investigative pacss is not of central impodanœ in PolÉfaying the &ph and complexity of hisher understanding.

Practid Science Activîty Woolnough (1991) idenmes t h types of practical activity in school science exercises. experiences. and investigations. Activities designed to develop a particular skill - ag. measurement, familiarity with apparatus like a micros~ope,or proficiency with procedures such as tittation may be termed Iaborrtorg or prrctid exercises. This category of activity is conceptuaily relateci. perhaps UIlfortunateiy, to the process ski11 approach to science education (Amencan Association for the Advanœment of Science, 1%7) found in many cmicula, including that of Aiberta.

-

Activities designed to acquaint students with selected scientific phenornena may k t e d Iaboritoy or pmcticd experiances. Measuring the speed of rocket cars. experimenting with various chemical quilibrium situations, and examining life f o m collectecl from pond water build a base of personai lmowledge and understanding for the student which is the basis for futuxe action l d n g . The majority of secondary schwl laboratory activity is of this nature.

Woolnough's third category of adivity is termed Iaboratory or practtcai investigation. Investigations are characterized by continual modification through feedback of actionthought which accompanies the testing of ideas and the development of understanding of an authentic pmblem (Roth. 1995).

Self-directed investigation is an important component of performance assessment strategies in that it views student activity in a holistic way. Criticisms of the discrete or component pan approach to the description and evaiuation of labonitory or practical activity have appeand in the litetatwe (Millar. 1991; Millar and Driver, 1981). In chaptcr two I argued from an enactivist perspective that the whole is more than the sum of its

component parts. paaidarly when considered as situaîeà in a specific context Including faidy extended investigations as part of pdonnance assessrnent ailows an to assess the nature of the p a e s s as it evdves over a paiod of tirne. Aspects of student understandings that an not appannt in schoo! p m d d exercises where t i w is a dominant amtraint are given an apportumty to emerge and take sbape. My resmrch seeks to nveal appuiches with potentia! applicability to the asessrnent of - such

prooes=*

Approaches to Performance Assessrnent There are at psent essentially t h appro~chesto perfomance assessment used with students in the context of schod science: process skilis, rotrrting stations, and extended investigations. A process skills approach mats science investigation as king composed of an hierarchical set of disaete skills and cornpetencies (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1967; Kuhn et al.. 1988; Carey. lm).These sküls are viewed as king mutually independent and it is often the case that activities are wnstructed which purport to assess one specific ski11 such as measuring, o b s e ~ n gor , hypothesizing. Quite often the activities in tbis approach are really only paper and pend tasks involving no manipulative component In the context of this study, I do not consider these sorts of tasks to be performance assessment tasks. Rocess ski11 taslrs which do include sn action compomnt are often pnsent in mtating stations sets of tasks. The British Columbia assessment (Erickson at al, 1991) is a case in point. The rutating stations appronch is characterized by an array of about 6-8 stations with a specifc thne allocation (usually 810 minutes) assigned for the completion of each task Students may be engaged individually (Alberta Education, 1995) or they may work in pairs (Erickson et al.. 1991). It is usuaiiy the case that only the requind amount of equiprnent is provided for the student to successfully cornpiete the task acoording to a pre-defined strategy. Results are FecOcded on a respoase sbcet by the student which is then analyzed according tc~a p m ~hierarchy t of skills. Inen is usually same effort to constnict tasks which brOQdlyreflect the content srras of the curriculum. In addition the British Columbia science assessment includes two extended investigations. One of these tasks, the h p e r Towels investigation, is used in my nsearch.

Performance assessment aiso occurs in contexts outside of school. For instance, students receive feadback about the effectiveness of their activity when they participate in science

fair and science 01ymPad evcnts which are usuaîly umducted outside of a science classroom, A substantive difftrenoe bttween these two farms of assesment is that science fairs tend to encourage students to engage in self-dlrected adivity wbiie science olympiads tend to encourage thinking in a dlaboraave environment In addition, whereas science fpirs p v i d t students Mth essentiaily unfimitcd titime to canplete an investigation, science 01ympiads tend to limit the amount of time avadable f aan activity to occw. The mtwt of the otber tasks (i.e Ice Cube, Solar House,hvent a Machine, and Mouseüap Car activities) which an part of my study display similarities to both science fair and science dympiad activities. They are similar to science olympiad evenis in that they are mostfy (with the exception of the Mousetrap Car aciivity) situateci within a sociaily dynamic building environment and tbey are similar to science fair activities in the sense that they @de more t h e than is usually available in science oiympiad events.

An important starting p i n t in the design of any assessment strategy involves construct validity. What is it that is described andlor measured?

In order to establish cumplementary mles for conventional (Le.. paper and pencil) and alternative (i .e.. performance assessment) appapproaches, Linn, Baker, and Dunbar (1991) present the following validity critena. (1) consequences: intended and unintendeci effects on the ways teachers and students spcnd their time and think about what they are doing; (2) faimess; (3) transfer and generalizability; (4) cognitive cornplexity; (5) content quality and coverage; (6) rneaningfulness; and (7) cost and efficiency.

Two important components of the construct validity of a perfocmance assessment are validity of the interpretation of the assessment and validity of the impact of an assessment on the educationai systcm (Moss, 1992). This is a mœnt distinction made in response to concerns about the pirposes for which peiiomance assessment data art used. Moss (1992) States that

In the context of educationai measurtment, attention to social coasequenccs bas burgeuned with p w i n g concem and expectations about the influence of assessment on the curriculum. In fact, many of the arguments raging today about extemally imposai versus classroom-

generated assessments or about muitipiechok versus performance assessments are wananted, mt in tcrms of technid validity considemtions. but in ternis of the caasequences f a instruction and Iearning and for quity (p. 236). Several sets of validity aiteria have becn pcposed for the above wncern with the consequeaces of testing. Erederickscn and Cdlins (1989)emphasize a systems approach to performance assesment They consider a systematidy valid test to k one that induces cbanges in the educational system that are with wbat the test meas(i.e., the test is re@ed as an agent of change). The Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) is a case in point.

Haertel (1991) proposes a set of design strategies to enhance the vaiidity of judgmentbased performance assessments. In a judgment-based performance the data are dlected by an observer as the task is carrieci out This differs fmm the cases above where student responses are dkcted and rated.

Performance assessment tasks need to provide the oppor[unity for students to engage in scientific behaviors. This meam that the task should have enough diversity that a student will k able to include aspects of herself into the task and awsider the task as an opportunity to design and explore questions and phenornena as they emerge for the student. As long as a task accomplishes this. then the question of whether or not it is a "scientificW task is irrelevant In my research 1 have selected a variety of instances of students engaged in tasb at different grade levels, leaming contexts and curriculum areas.

Holistic Aspects ïnherent in Performance Assessment Activities How should performance be assessed? What basic assumptions about performance in a science classraw setting are educationally valid? Questions such as this suggest a need to consider the holistic aspects inherent in performance assessment activities. For instance, one c m consider the overail quality of an entire performance and a s s i p either a qualitative or quantitativejudgment ta it ( i r satisfactory, unsatisfactory, pasdfail, etc.).

.

In a holistic appioach to performance assessment it is not enough for the prson perf'oming the assessment to act as an extemal observer and judge. Student perfonnanœ

can be anisidend at differcnt levels of inclusion with respect to the sequence of actiontbought which emerges during an nivïty. Haüstic asscssment nquires that the person(s) assessing practical work k at ieast prisent for the whole time that the action-thought progressiolls develop. It is not good enaugh to abserve, intecprcf and poriray only the products oî jmccical w o k Such appmaches are bctter d e e b e d as assessments of the

outcornes of performance rather than perfamance assessrnent Unfortunateiy. it is this sort of approach which is cumnîly king coasidcred for use in Alberta schools. Holistic assessment aeeds to,in some way,allow the p e m assessing, the petsons k i n g assessed, and m y other "nader"of the assessrnent to participate in the interpretive process. In other words, students and teachedreseacchers need be able to contribute to the interpretation of practical worir if the purposes of the assessment is to have meaning for them. A holistic assessrnent needs to be Mvid enwgh that a reader of the assessment *in develop herlhis own meanings for the action-thought demibed and interpreted by the author of the interpretive portrayal. In short, the nader must k able to enact a plausible story in rradllig a portrayai. This kind of holistic portrayai can most plausiMy k constnicted by an author who is implicated as a participant in the development of actionthougbt in a practical setiing.

Students and teacherslre~earchersare actors in the practicai action-settings and each has multiple interpretatiom for the action-thought which emerges. Students' verbal and physical dialogue with thernselves, the setting, and the teacher-researcher and the artifats and poducts (i.e.. written work. sketches, working models) they construct in their practical wo& can k viewed as multiple perspectives which contxibute to the development of hoiistic portrayals and interpretations of portrayais. Teacherslresearchers contribute their own actions and multiple perspectives to a holistic interpretive portrayal. The point is that holistic postrayal not ody requins multiple perspectives, it also requires multiple levels of engagement by bath students and teacherlnsearchers.

In considering extended investigations, the brœdest and most holistic consideration possible would be to masider an entire collection of investigations or action-thought prognssions, successful and unsucœssful. as a whole unit. The nsponse of the BC science assessment was to consider sub-units (i.e.. short sequences of investigative activity where one appcoach was apparently k i n g us&) holistically by selecting a single "bestwinvestigation and assigning a subjective overail quaiity raring. Alberta Education

wnsiders each station task as an indepeadmt unit and suûiivides performmœ on a task into Ievels of competcncy (Alberta Wucation. 1995). A second issue conœms the question of whether or not the= cxists a single correct

investigative pathway that students should fdlow when bey pra#d through a ia9k Carey (1989) proposes a scheme for scaing extendcd investigations tbat is baseâ on the arsumptian that thcm is an optimal or ideai way of carrying out an investigation. Careyts scheme has aa hierarchicai stiucairr in tbat it divides the ovemü exjerimental process into compoaents to which scons an assigned. nKse are then agpgateû into an overaîi composite score. It appears that the question of what holistic assessment is, or at what level it shouid be

used, is not well understood. The validity of an assessment sirategy seems to depend not only on the validity of the interpretation but also on the purposes that it sewes (MOSS, 1992). What purposes do educators bave for assessing sndents practica! work aad what purposes do they consider it to have for tbemselves? White and Gunstnn (1991) argue that assessment is al- a leamhg activity for students. If we are to pmperly address the validity issues surroundhg practical assessment in science. then we n e 4 to develop a better pichue of how students engage in action and what meanings they develop for it Questions ngarding the use of performance assessrnent as a ~searchtod are just beginning to emerge- My own experience and that of ohers suggests that there are several important issws which nced further examination. For instance, consider the case of the pre-service elernentary teachers who engageci in a science pmject as part of a clas I taught What sorts of things did these people leam in doing this activity?

ûther questions involving performance assessment emerge when one mnsiders the area of the transfer of meaning and understanding aaoss contexts. What meanings and understandings do students transfer when they move from one practical science activity to another? Woolnough (1991) daims that the most fu11damental competency that students acquire in practid science activities is an emerging sense of confidence and competency in their ability to take subsequent effmtive action. Wodnough ûansforms the well b o w n phrase 1 do and 1 understand into I do and 1 know that 1 cam do more. Such an e d v i s t claim. if valid. is a very powerful and motivating mind set for students to adopt in the course of the doing of their science activities. Its implications are explored in the cumnt study.

-

The development of good pifonnana assesment

can be a time mnsuming and

expensive piaess. It is not oniy the kveloping and fidd testing of appopriate tasks which makcs performance assessrnent difficuit. but designing. assembling, producing and distributing of the wide anay of equipwat also introduccs added difficdty and cost. It is one thing to enmurage -hem to include performance assessment as a unnponent of their teaching straegy. but it is anotbet to expect them to carry this out reguîarly in nal classroom envuaiments. Much more worL needs to k done in developing a thearcticai basis f a the design and implementatim of assessment techniques of pracricaï activity in classroom environments and in dacumenting how students engage in such tasks. It is an open question. in rny opinion, whether or not performance assessment as it is

cwrently conceived ad& a new dimension to science education. 1 think tbat many educators wouid agree that including a practicd action component in science teaching and learning is fudamental to the development of understanding. But what does engaging students in such tasks reveal?

Chapter 4: The Design Inc oet of

...

representrrtion &O povi&s rlic OCCOSW~for di;scovety UIrirnotciy, however, repeseiittOrion must givc w q & the Prunacy of eqwùnce. ha the end, 1 ir the qvalitics WC ~ n c that e proviüè the content rbough whkh meaning U secured. (Dner,198%.p. 16).

In this chapter 1 d l describe tbe nature and criteria for the sdecticm of the research settings which yield the data base for my snidies of the development of understanding. These settings are natudistic and are selected accordhg to how weIl they lend themselves to my evolving nsearch appmach. 1 will d e s a i k my rrswch approach as it bas developed over a seria of studies. my data gathenng methods, and some of the rnatdafs and engagements that 1 have introduced into these settings. 1 will consider the possibilities, limitations, and assumptions underlying my choice of the events selected to be documented and interpreted in the data portrayals. 1 will also discuss

validity issues and ethicai considerations surmunding my wearch approach.

The Research Settings The research settings comprise a range of individual, group and classrmm engagements over various spans of time. These engagements are either extensive in time, intensive in the level of engagement, or both. 1 have worked with one pair of students at various times over a period of t h e years in a

number of research episodes. The fust reseamh episode invdved a study using the Paper Toweb task (Shavelson and Baxter, 1992) which was useâ in the BC assessrnent The second engagement designate-the S o l u Houe pmject O C C U K ~during ~ a four month nseazch engagement with their grade nine science classroom. This was followed by a one month engagement descrikd as the Mousetnp C u pmject in their grade ten science class. One cornponent of the grade ten engagement involved an interview at the home of one of the students (who I will later refer to as Dan) in the pair as they worked on designing and building a mousetrap p o w e d car. A second. summative i n t e ~ e wwas

conducted with one cf the sadents (Dan) dter k bad campletecl his high s c h d physics courses 18 maths later. A fairth pmject nawd the lamit a Machine p j e c t was coaducted in twa graQ eigbt science classes taught by the same teacher who participated in the Sdar House pject.

The four month Solar House pmjcct in a grade aine ciassroom prmided many opportunities ta engage aU the students in their class. My d e in this classmrn evolved f m that of an observer to that of a full participant in daily activities. I interacted with al1 the snidents in this classroom during the priod of this study and at no time did 1 select individuais to borne standouts ammg the group. My daily agenda was to aUow the sening to unfdd in whatever way it would and to engage those students who decided to include me in their work on a piuticuiar day. If a -&nt appeared indiffmnt toward an engagement on a particuiar &y 1 simply looked foi other opportmities to obsewe or participate. As noted previously. my unit of analysis is personsactinq-in-setting (Lave, 1985). This includes me as well as the students and teacher in a variety of cornplex enactions and interactions. Part of my analysis involves a construction and interpretation of various m&ng making episodes from multiple perspectives. During t&is research students engageci in severai acrivities invofving two diffenent units from the grade nine curriculum. Two student activities w e n more extenâeâ in nature and emerged from their study of a unit on heat. Onc involved students in constructing a device for the purpose of minimizing the melting of an ice cube over a pend of time. The second activity invdved students in designing, coastructing. and testhg a device similar to a soiar bouse. 1 Iookeâ for instances of selfdirection, co-emergence, and embodied action-thought throughout these activities. Various fonns of communication, including day to &y discourse, an intefpfetive micipoint Mtten account, and a culminating interview were used to explore the teachers perspective.

I retumed to the same teachefs classniom at her invitation in the subsequent year and worked with her two grade eight classes as a resource person while we engagexi in a selfdirebuilding pmject. The Invent a Machine pmject involved the design, building, and testing of a composite machine incorporahg thrct simple machines. 1 was involved in the classes on a daily b i s over a one month p e n d of time. In addition to the ongoing conversations and consultatio~ls,I i n t e ~ e w e dthe teacher about eighteen months later in otder to explore the longer terni infiuence of such activity on her pedagogic practice.

In the course of my research in the Invent a Machine pmject i learned that the two students fiom the $rak nhe Sdar House pmjsct m e year eadiet who were ais0 the subjects for the Papa Towels task wcre students in a grade ten science class taught by a teacher with whom 1 was piannïng to work. This pwided a twofdd opporiuniv. (1) to continue my interactims with the two boys f aa third year, and (2) to observe a buïidùig projcct in a new setting. m e it was wt possiôie f a me to participate in the Mousetrap Car pmject clam on a daily basis, 1 attendcd th class cm severat occasions before the project began, tbriougbut the time tbat îhe project was canied out, and then again on a more sporadic basis until the culminationof the pmject. Sina the pmject extended over a Christmas bieak (during which students w&ed on their pjezts).I was able to internew two of the students @an and Tristen) at Dan's home as they developed their car. 1 was also invited to the home of one of the other students in this class to conduct an interview that focused on the out of s c h d building activities of his group. Other members of this group preparrd a video of their activity as they worked on their car during the Christmas break.

Eighteen months later 1 intemiewed Dan who bad by this time completed his graâe 11 and grade 12 high s c h d physics courses. This interview was designed to explore Dan's perceptions of his entire secondary school building expezience. One of the main aims in my saidy was to locate naturally oocuning peùagogic instances

and settings which can k interpreted from an enactivist perspective. My purpose was not to enter cla~~foom seaings with predesigned taslcr that 1 construct to provoke specific kinds of saident actions. but rather to take advantage of actionaientecl learning enviroments as they emerge naturally, with me as an active participant While 1 do not preclude the possibility of introducing ideas, materials or activities into the classrmm environment, I do this as a participant in the nanual environment, and then only as a consequence of the emergence of student's ideas and quests to incorporate the things to which 1 have access (and they do not). in order to allow continued exploration of a particufar area of interest. 1 may suggest things for students to ûy. but 1 will ody do so if the student agrees that it is somethiag (s)he would Iike to try. and only if we both tâink it fits into the activity coatmt. This is important because it includes students as active decision makers in tbeir own learning and helps to ensure that settings can evolve naturally. Viewed theoretically. 1 am thus part of my unit of analysis. the personssctingin-setiing (Lave, lm).

Limitations The followlng considerations circurnscrik the Qrnain of my research in this study. 1. While 1rrcogiùm tbat the clawrocnn leamhg en-t is a cornplex social system 1 wil faais my attention cm action-thougbt as displayed in acting moments involviag both laaguage and physical action.

2. Since my unit of aaalysis is persans-acting-in-setting, the basis of my portrayais wil1 k the action seaings which infonn enactivist ideas and not a sclectioa b e d on individuais. The= will k no attempt to d d b e the pjects or actions of dl class members in any given pmject or engagement

3. The settings selected far study are middle schod classrooms (Le., grades eight to ten). The main rrason is lhat the settings provided by these grades offer: a) a stmng emphasis on activity-onented science.

b) students who are generally experienced in building and using their hands. c) teachers who are flexible in the amount of time spent on activities, and d) a cumculum which has opportunities for open. seifairected exploration. 4. My study fmuses on activities which are related most directly to the area of the physical scieuces. The main reason is that this is an a r a in which 1 have experience and a certain amount of expertise. 5. Even though there is varie9 in the time spans that are described in my po~trayals,

these are relatively short (a series of classrmm periods or weeks). By and large they are culminating activities in units of science leaming. The nature of understanding as it emerges in action at other stages in the cmiculum units has not k e n explored. 1 have attempted to counteract this ümitation by revisiting bth a snident group and the cooperating teacher's classrmm over more than one project aciivity in my research. 6. Except in settings wbere the teacher's statemenfs and actions bave a direct kanng on saident actions-thought,the teachefs interpetations of classroom actions and events will not k a direct focus of' my attention. 1 do, however, ncognize that the shared and personal histones of the teacher and students in a classroom are an important influence on

what 1 observe and the nature of my engagements with students. The teackr in the Mar House and Invent a Machine pojccts was i n t e ~ e w e on d two occasions.

-

1 recognize the iahnent limitations hposed by my data gathering methods namely (a) the vide0 camera wbich is dirtcted toward somme or someching, (b) verbal discourse

with its multiple meanings and interptttations, (c) observation as incorporahg f m e s of refemnce of the ~ t r sand , (d) writîen wodc and dtawings produced in an assessrnent context of which 1am not a part.

There are assumptions which are embedded within the theoretical and methodological positions 1 have adopted in this stuây and which have been outlined in Chapters 1-3. My research starts from a position that meaning and understanding are embodied and eaacted. 1 am assuming that students an capable of demonstrating the meanings and understandings they develop through actions as well as lauguage. Furthemore 1 assume that 1 will be able to identïfy, i n t e p t and portray action situations in which meaning and understanding develop. A second assumption is implicit in the methodology

aml how it is used. My research assumes that a rrsearcher holding a video carnera and working in close proximity to students and among students can simultaneously record and participate in sequences of student action-üioughr The same assumption holds for the use of an audio-tape macbine wom by me. This is problematic, and was partidly overcome by the presence of my supervisor in the classroom to videotape classrmm events. while 1 worked closely with individual students and group. Other assumptions are embedded in the processes of selecting and interpreting sequences of action-thought during classtoom engagements. I will identify and interpret student actions and words as they engage in practicai work in classraws in order to portray aspects of the meaning making prrresses involved. Al1 interpietatioas and portrayals of a student's (or group of students') action-thought progressions will be done by me a k r 1 have participated with them. I am assuming that my interpretations and portrayals of their action-thought processes will k recognizable to the students, or to other

researchedteachers as beïng potentiaüy pIausible, and/or to have verisimilitude (Bmer, 19845)

Enacting Understandings of Clsssroom Research by D o i When 1 f i encuuntered the ideas sucrou~ldingenactivism and begaa tbinkuig about an enactive appmech to cognition, my focus was prïmariiy on how it might k used as a theoretical fiamewoilr for the interpntation of sequenœs of action-thou@. The idea that thinking d d be considemi as being embodied in physical action tesonated with my own intuitive sense of the importance of physical involvement in the development of understanding in scientific activity. The idea that thinking can k viewed as a phenomenon involving a dynaniic recuisive relationship which unifies subject and object, or figure and ground, in coemergent and cœvdutionary processes, adds a level of wmplexity which bas tyPcally been absent in previous rrsearch interpretative approaches. 1 continue to k excited about these ideas, and intend to conrinue to explore how enactivism mi@ provide a theoretical framework for interpreting student actionthought During my classroom research engagements over the p s t two years. a second set of implications for my mearcb bas emerged fmm my explorations of the ideas swfounding enactivism. These implications concern the nature of my elrnsroom rcsurrh engagements, and are the implications which may emerge for the processes of construction of data, interpretation of data and the evaluation of each pnxuss. I began to ask questions about how enactivist idem could be used to inform some of the method010gicai issues sumunding my tesearch engagements. 1 consider enactivism and constnictivism to have many similarities in both theoretical and metbodological domains. Both perspectives view individuals to be actively involved in the consûuction of knowledge. Both perspectives coasider direct engagements between

raearcher and student in meaningful seuings to be critical to nsearch which attempt to explore the complexities of classmom meaning making ptocesses. Enactivism, however, seems to allow new questions of how biowledge d d be constnicted to be addressed. My thinking a b u t a rrsearch approach in a hi@-activity science classroom context bas been provoked by the ideas which have emerged f r m my discussions with rny colleagues about enactivism and its implications for research into cognition and learning.

Enactivist ideas have opened up new possialities for my cdleagues and 1 in considering the roks of the rrsearcher and student as active meaning makefs in a leaming/îeaching settllig. Let me begin by making a comperison between how anistnictivist and enactivist appraaches view the sadent acting in a setiing. This extends. in the amtext of rcscarch design, the cornparison began in Chaptet 2 on pp. 39-46. A ço~~sfnictivist appoach tends to view the actions of students ia isolation to the actions of the researcher. Furthemore, students and language are usuaily viewcd as 'nvealingu aspects of their knowledge or thinking. An enactivist approach tends to view the actions of students and researchers as an embodied whole. The reseafch engagement is viewed not oniy as a procas where one side reveals aspects of their thinking to the other but also as a process where each participant (rrsearcher and student) contributes to the creation of new thinking. Such a rrsearch engagement is a procas of aeation and revefation in which both the student and researcher am implicated.

The difference in views just desaibed has a profound impact on how a researcher tends to consider h i d e r involvement and the implications s m u n d i n g hisher participation in a research setting. A mnstntctivist researcher typidly places great emphasis on setting the stage, constructing the background. and providing the context for student action. This allows the researcher to focus her/his attention on mording and inierpreting student action and language during a research engagement. The constructivist cesearcher tends to consider herlhis own impact on the actions of students in a research setiing as something which ought to k contrdled, structured or even minimized Sudents and researcher have very distinct d e s in the rrsearch setting. The student is expected to engage the setting provided, and the mearcher is expected to observe and record the student as they act in

the setting.

An enactivist rrsearch engagement shifts the emphasis away from providing a student with a predetennined context foi action toward allowing students to provide their own contexts for action. An enactivist mearcher may coastnict elaborate and carefully designed nsearch settings a d o r activities in which the students engage or (s)he may not, relying on a natural setting for the engagement to occur. The cornmitment toward the constmcted or the natural setting is much different than it is in a constructivist approech.

An enactivist m h e r is preperrd to ailow students to abandon or change signïficantly a cantext, if that is sometbing which emerges during the engagement. In fan. an enactivist -cher needs to encourage chis kind of emeqenœ because it is a good indicthat shdents arc fully implicated in developing meaning through action-

thought.

This is a sipifiant diffemce. A amsûwtivist approach tends to view context as a static component in a rrscarch setfing. For imtma, COllStNctivist approaches which use concept mapping as an instrument for exploting student knowledge building typicaüy apply a two stage design in their nesearch engagements. Students spend a priai of time in order to b a a n e comptent with concept mapping and then data gathering kgins in a faidy stable mntext. Data which migbt be d l 4 during the first part are not considered useful because the context of the setîing is judged to be too unstable. This may k a consequena of a research agenda which f a r w s more on what students know rather than on how they develop Lnowledge (Solomon, 1994). What may appear to k "commoaaseniags for the various participants may be viewed in different ways dependhg on whose perspectïve is considered. Students andor mearcher may view a setting to be relatively stable on some occasions and nlatively unstable at other times. My agenda as an enactivist resemher is to becorne implicated in the unfolding development of rneanings and understandings in a learning and research setting by contributing to the action-thought as a participant and an observer. This has allowed me to develop vignettes which portray action-thought from various perspectives and Ievels of engagement in high activity scienceclassrmms.

There are a number of different perspectives from which 1 intend to engage and reflect about ways of making meaning in my research. Eor instance, in the Invent a Machine project, building my own machines helpeü me to think about some of the complexities involved in the activity and to engage studentp in conversations about building. It is not surprishg that my aedibility with students is enhanced when 1 aui make reference to personai experience in discussions about their building. My experience is that snidents seem to offer more reflections of their own action-thought when they engage with me in thinking about my action-thought in similar activity. 1 act as a participant with students in the dynarnic action-settings they mate. This allows me to observe and talk with studene, or engage in silent action with them as they work.

These engagements may k as sbon as a -pie of minutes to as long as an entire class pend (4080 minutes). dependhg on the arrangement of consecutive claps priods. Entering a withdrawing from students' workspaccs is not M e m a t i c in a higis-activity building enviraiment Al1 my engagements with stu&nts during the high-activity building phase of my nsearch are infotmai. My focus is on lmking for oppooûinities and invitations to @cipaie with students in ader to help them accomplish sucœss as it is defieû in their own terms. This enbaces the quelity Oc the more extended conversations 1 will have with students as they finish their building engagements and enter a reflective pend, where they anaiyze or test the pfoducts of lbeir building. It a b enbances my ability to put into context a d intexprct what students say during interviews with me.

Thus 1 consider an enactivism to be (1) a rnethodological perspective which can help a cesearcher engage in actions which are meadngful and beneficial to al1 the m e m k r s of a rrsearrh setiing, and (2) a recursive interpretive perspective which helps to mate, interpret, and portray action-thought An enactivist research a p p m h therefore embodies interpretation withïn action and action within intespretatim. It is both generative and regenerative. It p v o k e s the researcher to rectusively surge forward in order to join as an interpnetive participant in action-thought as it emerges within a cognitive environment, and to withdraw backward as an interpretive obscwer of action-thought as in unfolds. The reseafcher is always a part of the n s w c h setting. but at a variety of different levels of engagement. The levels of a researcher's engagement may change vexy quickly depending on students, context and mearcher. Why study student action-thougbt in setîings where building and physical movement an: central? This question netds to be addressed from both a nsearch and a pedagogical perspective. These two perspectives are not independent. I klieve that the value of research in science education can k assessed accordhg to the degree to which it informs the practice of science education. It is with üiis in mind uiat 1designed my study. Its fundamental purpose is dioa a the way persans interact with that construction but the mganidon of the building p c e mains the same.

Making thuigs alsa tnaüem b u s e it d o w s people to bt "in motionw.Actim-thought is not just is not just a fancy aime for baads-on science activity. Action-th-t involves aeating and dcveloping a w a l d of'sigeificaact by "faelingw y a n own motian as you move through an activity. Students were COIIStailltly ca&a8ed in purpive moticm throughout the pmject At the beginning a good dcal of the movenient was focused on esîablisbing an affordanot W .Maacnais were pickcd up. discardeci and picked up again. Pemual spaces f a building, for staing items, and a space fot cnoving through the various pmjects emerged. If an itan wasn't nailed down it was potentially useful and if it wasn't inside somme else's pmmal spsa thm it was - d d to be a Wke agmt" availaôle for use.

The 4'noticingw of mmmmpiacé things is an important form of thinking which is characteristicd tbinking in building activity. As me engages in thinking by noticing. more things fmm the envimunent baPme sigriir~cantas they arr taken into a student's aorciance space. In otber words a person's environment grows in significance as they find new ways to t a k hold of it As new cmpomnts of the local environment baxnne usefd the signifiicaace of the sumunding context expds. Being 'Sn motionn is important because it has a generative effcct on daborative actionthought . An importaat quality of the hvent a Machine projet was the amount of collaborative interaction which occunod between students.

W n g tbings matias b u s e building aüows a person to n-present themselves in an embodied fashion. Many students aie shy. They are not confident or aggressive enough to give voia to their ideas during classroom discussions and drey do wt write @cularly well. Furthemore. once ideas are rcleased in e i h r spoken or written form the speaker essentially relinquishes amtrd over those items. Spoken and written words may be attributed to a person but once they arc evokexi tbcy amnot be eaàly re-covered or reworked by a speaker. Making things allows a builder to ammUI1I.cate ideas in a more secure spacc ûnc is able to speak sdtly and eaad loudly if me c h m . This gives actionthinking a plastic quality whicb is important. The organjsm is able to âistribute ideas Usto a more pubüc space and then m v e r them to a mat pivate space. The persons never lose touch or contml over tbat which is uncovcred. This is mt to say ibat the spnad of an idea may bc caitrolled What is oontrolied is the embadied elements of that idea Tony's way of using the building activity b ceveal aspects of himself which b e ~ m esigaificant to other students in the classroom. especjally Bnan (described in Chapter 6)is an example of such

a pocess

(Le. where significence d meaning emerge fmm action rather tban from

language). The significamx of hiawlsdge is usuaîly meastmd by iîs m e n t with an estaMished standard (i.e. its concctags). 'Ibis giva knowlcdy a &polar sigdkance, it is cither comctaincomct,~~~:fulanotheIpful.Kno~ b embodied in proeeues o t creatiag and developing wben atudeit make things. These proass dlw for a broad spectnrm of efféctive d a n a d thus ailow for a W e n d spece~mof the sigaificana of the hiawldge wbich is developed in a ôuüding proœss.

Taking a risk: Extendhg an offordance space So far in this chapter 1 have f

d attention on studcnt work from the Invent a Machine pmject. I wül now extend and broaden the discussion about buiidiag by iacluding selected ponioas of the Solar House pmject. Tbt amrext of this building enviraiwnt differed F m that of the Invent a Machine project in a number of ways.

Both pmjects involvecl students from Ms.B.'s science classrooms in self-difected building challenges using simple tools and materials. In each case the building pmject was a culminating activity to a unit of work. In both pmjects, saidents were asked to enact k i r understandings of science concepts and idem from the unit of work they hadjust completed by designing. constnictuig, and Ming a device tbat aammpüshed a -c

goal or set of

gds. The Solar Houe m e c t was a culmination of a grade 9 unit on bcat and energy. Rior r> beginning the cmsfmctiioa of tbar solar houses, sadcnts had completcd a numbcr of demonstraticms on conduciion,ccwccticm, and iadiation. The r d e r may rrcall the episode from Chapter 4 in which Ti investigptes che flow of heat in a convection box. As a p r c u r s a to what 1 refa to as tbc Mar House Roject the students designed and testeci a stnicture to pceserve an ice cube. The Laura, Hden anâ Karia episode pesented in -ter 5 was a pan of U s engagement As the ailminahg activicy in this unit sndents wem challenged tu design and collshuct a box-Iike shuaurr or one-roan passive sdar "house" that used the principies , proadures, and matr?rials t b t they had encoulltered in the unit. This assignment d i f f d f m the Invent a Macbine project in that a cornpetitive compment was included Specific performance criteria involveci measunng the a m under the heating and coolhg graph for cbe sdar bouses- Heatinglooaling graphs which generated larger

anas were judged to have outperformed t h e with d e r areas. The muïts of tbc areas

measUrrd unda -dents heatingJCOOljllg grapbP were tabulatad and compsnd Grade assignrnents werc based mthe rank Ordering of lbt perflrxmance of the constructions.

The sampie dcsigns shown below in Figures 27 - 33 illustrate how four groups of students (Clarcncc, ï h and Tristm. Paul & Bernie, Mi)deveIopeû and repsesented thcir work in the Mar House project. One way to distinguish engagcment in a building activity is in the ama of visibüity and risk. In the Invent a Uâchbe prqcd che elernmts of visiality and risk weE iielatively subtie. Some studenîs designed their projecîs to be vkibie and imprcssive to others. However, most snidenîs focused on the inkrnal challenges of m&g the crima tbat they h d fmuiaied. in contras&the Solar House pmject environment was pervaded by a sense of cornpetition. In th& writien anaiysis. Wn and Tristen, who have been introduced to the rrader in the mntext of the Papr Tbwels task, dwcribe their strategy in this environment as

follows: We, the designers, decided to go out on a Iimb and try to use an active solar heating system in our buse. We Ked this by heaüng waier in a plastic tube ooated with biack constniction papr. designeci to absorb radiant heat energy fmm the iïght and r e d t it so as to heat the water in the tube.

My interviews with snidents revealed thai there appear to be two appmcbes to designing and building in this sort d project. Some students try to distïnguish themselves from meir peers by including ideas tbat have not been expticitly d i s c d in tbe unit. These students desaibe their adions as %king a risk". 0 t h students focus on the ideas that am a pan of the unit. W e t h e are no new ideas imrporated tbe g d is to use k i r existing lmowledge in as effective and sophisticated a way as possible. This often indudes the imaginative use of materials mdlor innovative f*uurrs in design. Figure 27 Pfesents Clarence's solar house.

Students who describe their appmcb as W n g a risr consider it to be more experimental in nahue than appco~chestaken by otba students who do not attempt to enhance the design of their ccmstniction by iacliding new ideas. For exampie, in my conversation with Clarence he explained bow be sees risk and experirnentd approacb u> be cunneded:

tco: -.. you werr the ody perscm in the c h to use a liquid Chnaet: Yeah, everyom else was using soli&. It workcd the way 1 planned i t ...

ho: Wbat do you mean by imagimtion, thc imaginative mind? ... Clinnce: Weii, 1 took crcdit for someone else's bit. 1 mcan not reaîly. No. net r d y . I mean, bccause 1 sugptd tbat maybc 1 sbould use Mack oil for a

liquid O K . I ~ ( L L M y D a d j u s t s u g g c s t c d t o i r n c a i i q u i d

Uo: How im-t

do you thinlr tbat is, to be imaginative in your work?

Clu+ace: Well tbe tbing about this one was that it was warth 20 pet cent of the mark. So evexyone clsc k h i of stuck to the bits of using big rocks and black stuff inside because that's al1 m e learncd about, We hadn't leamcd about if liquids arc gooâ kat abscxbcrs. We badn't Ica& that so 1 jus&tried tbia IdizedthatIcouldstiU getagoodmarkI1 workedredîybardontbis kit I dso wantcd b tmy ... because otherwise we're liahd to only trying wbat she has taught us. You can't reaiiy be experimentd since it's worth so

much- Tbat's one thing a lot of my frieads came up to me and said, " 1f it wasn't wath so much. thcy'd I a m a lct more." And if it wasn't so cornpetitive citbcr. if sbe bad it not as a compctitÏcm. U a OK,let's taîk about that a Iiale bit more then, about wbat it would be iike if it was more expcrimedal. Chmmee: W a people would think of bttttr k b , I'd say. 1 mean if they thinL more about it, thcy might corne up via somc IEW tbings tbat no one w d d extbcm to come up with.

Lea W d d you dwcribe wbat you did in your solar house as being expcrimentaî? Cbnmce: Yeah, 1 mean I didn't originally expect it ta work 1 just wanted to

sϕfitwauld.Ytah,soItodrarisk

Aad ?bat is a part ofbeing experimcatal? Clucnce: Yeah, takc a risk Int's of people hate taking tisks, so they don't takc risks and they just use the sniff tbat we have already leaniod about

Clarence's wmments highüght a dilemma wbich many shidents emtmtered in che Sdar House pmject. Building is a fam of embodied thinking whidi inspires crieativity and the creatim of a pemnal space. Whai I asked Clarence about his written comments regarding "the young imaginative mind at WM he Uutiaiiy mmed embarrstssed about desaibing his own thinking as imaginative. Hs father had played a rde in helping him develop his idea. However, it is dear mat Clarence considered his use of black 91 to be his own cniginal idea This idea was his own unique coatribution to the collaborative building spaœ which emerged in Ms. B.'s c1assroom. He seems disappointcd mat some otber students felt tbat they couid not W e a nsk" in the same way as bt did. Clarence clearly values being aüe to engage in an action-thought spice wherr explorhg ideas is as important iro making t&em work.

The design of Dan's and Tristen's solar bouse also ~flcctsthe spirit of Clarence's wmments on risk. The boys seemed to be m a t viabiy engaged in the building project when they considerrd themselves to be "gokg out on a iimb" in their approach.

Figure 28 prescrits Dan and Tristen's drawing of their solar house.

FIgure 211: DM'S and Tristeni seaie drawing of the soi-

bouse

The d e drawing das not ade!quateIyreflect the actual sizC of the construction which was very large compered l~ others. nie boys seemed to ceIebmte this aspect of tbeir constniction by aaming it "hn and Tristen's Sols Mansion". B e f a embarloag on an account of Wn and Tristen's eppmch io taking a risk in the Sdar House pmject, 1 will d e s n i k how the theme of "taking a risic" emergeci inthe earlier the Ice Cube activity. The f i time 1 noticed Ran and Trisrn takin8 a risk was in the Iœ Cubc activity. Tbe I œ Cube activity is simüar to tbe SoIat House activity in Piat t challenges stuclents to design, build, and test a &vice which w p l i s b e s a goal. The goal was to desip and build a mail insulating box which r e d d the rate of melting for an iœ cube . Students evaiuated the pafamance of their boxes by d u c t i n g a conWed test Each group weigheù their i œ cube and d e d it inside ib i d a t i n g box. Afkr three houn the boxes were ope& and the weight of the remaining iœ cuk was compand tD its original weight. Pdn of students'

grades for thev pafomiaircc in the accivity wete âetermjned by tbc rank onier of the p e r f i a of iheir insulatuig box in caapenpenson to tbt othem. T k rat of k i r grade was based on Ms.B.'s assessrnent oT wriwark which includd an anatysis of the ice cube

box and nspoases to quc~stionscm the reflecîicm workshat (sec Appadix B).

Dan and Tristcn considercdthcmsclves to ôe i n t d l e d leaders in Ms.B.'s class. Dan was quick to vuce his @nion during dass discussions and dicn cbaiiengsd id- put fornard by otha students and by the @acher. Tristen, whik somewbat quieta. was also a keen participant in giaup discussiolls. Dan, Tristen. snd Ji11 decided to work together on the iœ cube activity. fran the outsct, Dan tDok cbarge of the enterpise. 'ïhe idea he desaibed to Tris- and JiU invdved mating a near vacuum inside an extra thick, high density foam endosure. The class had kca leaming abau oonductian and collvecticm and Wn thought that ducing the!number of air molecules sumninding the iœ cube wodd duce its mte of melting. Figure 29 pmsents their diagram of t&e smictue they built.

Fiyc 29: Dam's, Tristen9s, and JU19s drawing of their Ice Cube box

Wn wanted to expiore this idea because he felt tbaî it extended and enhariad the heat muisfer concepts tbat had becn calked about during cldiscussions. He dso felt that he was one of the few saidents in the class who was c@e of a#rmiplishing a task as compiex as creating a vacuum. Creating a sophisticated sdution to the ice cube challenge provided Wn witb a way of maintai~nghie stature as a "leadhg thinker" among his classrnates. It also pmvided Dan with a way to cnate a pemaal space in which to think iadependcntly. Dan and Tristen were memkrs of Mr. Te'sIndustrial h ?'echnology (LA Technology) class. He agrred to let them use materiais and tools fmm the iA Technology classroom and

to kiild mcir iœ nibe box there. Raa uscd sbeet rnetal, e%ûa thick hi@ density pdystyrene. duct tape. a d a bicycle pump to COIIStlW:t an insufating bon. The idea was u> seal the iacube ina vacuum iaside a smell airright mctal box which was e d insi& a thick laycr of'styrofc#ni. Tbe mecal box was e n @ d with a small caincaiag pipe which stuck out of tbe lyaof s t y ~ o f mActa . the iœ cube was fdty d e û inside the apparahisDaaamœcteâaspecïafôandpunp bon;owedf~IATechm,logytocvacuate airfr~minsidttheb~.Thc~bokapparaais.~cyçkpmipandd. wascbcnkfttosit for the thrce hour test. Everyaie was impcssed with t k design of D d s iœ cube box. It was much larger than the othets and arcaialy appearsd more cwipiicated. It was tbc ody one that required the owner to actually "do sometbing" (Le. pump a i t air) &ter the iœ cube w& inserted Dan, Tristea, and Ji1 were very d d e n t tbat their strategy w d d exccl. Unforninately, their ice cube box did m t perfom very well in the test Whai it was opened aü tbat was left was a puddle of water. Every other box wtperformed i t The essence oftheir approach remaineci the same in the Sdar House pmject. h ' s adysis of his and Tristen's sdar bouse provides a deiailed description of the design, construction and testing d their invention (see F i p 28). The construction which ibey d d b e as an active sdar heating design is presented &tail in Appendix B. Wn and Tristen appoached the design d building of tbeir sdar h o u e in a way tbat was similar to the apprmch they used dunDg the Ice Cube activify in a number of ways. Qxe again they cook advantage of materials and equipment from the IA Technology classnxmi to caistruct specific psrts of their device (Le. the solar ref'lecîor see Figure 28). Once again an original idea which they considerai to be sophisticated was developsd and given a chance to work. They were never sure it wouid wodc. Tristen mmmented to me privatdy at difCerent tiws tbat he was quite sure lbat it would not work. However. they oonsidered an approach in which they pushed their capabiiities bond iheuc l a s s l~d n g to k the way to go.

-

In fwt, Uwr working" is enarcly wbat happeued. When Wn and Tristen tested their sdar house tbey fouad tbat tbe water did mt cycle Oirough t k chdation system as tbey had hoped it would Dan was perpfexed as to wby tbis ocairrsd and. in fmtration. pîcked the whde thing up md manualy circulated the wata through tbe hoses by tiiting it back and fortb. By the end d the testing period (i.e. at the end of the scbool &y after approximately 300 minutes later) the inside tempniture had risen anly slightly. Ran was notiœabiy disappointcd with this outcome and he continued to think about it after he anived home a

short time later. The following exat barn=

fiwi Dan's witten refledion dcscribes his thinking

... at abut tbc 450 minute mark I crackcd it open at hame ancl a warm breeze rase out of it for a second. According to the graph it would bave been appnrximately 295 &gms in tbei. r tbe üme. As statcd above, 1 at f i tbought tïmt m e had stnvk out, and this daply fmtrated me. But w l e n 1 found out that our heat ioss rate w m so 10% 1 OOUIdn't help but ~jcia et its success, so much as to dance an cmbanassiagiy siliy jig in my iütcbca a f k f cxamined the &ta.

Dan's observationat hamt seems tn have pfayed a significant d e in the development of the understandings he considend to km a t signifiaait His peraptioil of the sdar house was suddenly tramfawd fmm 'bot workingw l~ 'krorking". Wn describes an important dimension of bis uaderstaading in the following segment fiom bis writîen reflectim: 1 confirmed tbat 1 like dohg &tahi work, in respect to both the analysis and actuaI bouse, as well as puüing a lot of thought into things. This may of (sic) k e n a p d e m because the first test of the bouse was the olfrcial test. so as fiu as 1 was concemed, it was al1 or aothing. While it didn't perform as weli when heating up, it retaiaad b a t so effiicatly tbat it more than campensated. From this 1 leanied that waiting patieotiy far aü the &ta to be in, insitead of getting mad at the initial results, would be a good trait to adopt if 1 were to peruse (sic) a c - ras a scientist-

But 1 think that after having recently discovered that my forte is thought, when on a tigat scheduie, perbaps I would d e a good theoreticai physicist

It appears that Dan developbd a deepr understanding of himself as a leamer during the d a r house pmject. Cleariy Rm was a highly anpetitive student for whom success was mainly detennined by the aiuxwe of a project. However, while the appoach of taking a risk may have compmised the grade he rsceived. ndiag the emotionai d e r cOaSter of perceived success-failure-sucas sams to bave influenceci Dsn to barme more process oriented in his thinking. This aspect of Wn's thhichg is reflectd in the sfory-tike quality of his written andysis. An interesting feabue of his account is how it is structured. aganiaxi the account into tbree main headings which refled a kind of jouruey of imreapùig depth into tbc probIem. Dan begins with a heading iitled Wn tbc Surface ...".He then moves to 'Tâe Insides" and finally to Testing It". In a sense, Dan's acaiunt describes a p o a s s of entering into and emerging fmm a wodd of significancc. He mmrnents in his wiitten reflection tbat h was

stuprised at how easily he was aMe to amtmct his writrui anaiysis after sucb an intense

engagement.

Dm and Tristcn made an atpiicit m p t to change the amttxt of both the I a Cube and Mar Harse projets by adding design coa~piexitieswhich d r y fdt would k original and unique. What uaderstandingp of viabit paesses f a action-thought cmcrgd from the I œ Cube activity for Wn and Tnstcn cbrr could be enaard in the amtext of t k Sdar House tasic? In considering this question fiom a cmstrwtivist paspctive, à would appear that î k y had wt l d vety much because they insisted on rPenacting an apparently unsuccessiul strategy. However, viewed f m an emctivist paspctive, this question taka on an ontdogicai dimension. Wn and T&cn scem b have wanted to leam about taking intellecaial nsb, not a#ussarily about the phenoinemn of k a t gain. Their appeeiappeeiation of the experienœ denacting risk in a building cantext was one the= which tbey continuexi to explore. Perhaps tbek motivation to thiak in tbis way was d a 1 in nahirr in that it involved maintainhg status with their tcacher and ammg th*r peers as creative and original thinkers. In my co~lversaîionwith D m and Tristen. they explained k i r moàvation as follows: l''&&a: ... in the ice-cube exjmiments. It dida%do so weU. Dan: Because we went out on a limb and ûicd something. -: 1 mean it was a ris@ idea. The same with the solar house. 1 mean we could have made something that wae probgbly more, what do you cal1 it, middle of the Ioad, You b w ,basic- It probably would have waked fine but you kmw, we wanted to ûy somcthing new, tbat could work d y weii or that amid totally fail.

1 think tbere is a second more embodied fador that amtributed to tbeir chcice of enacting a "risky idea". This factor invdves the emotioaal and inteI1ectual mmectim which emerges when one's own idea is put into motion. Did DBD anci Trisen regad the Grade Tm Mousetrap Car project to be simila.to the Gratk Nine Ice Cube and Solar House projects? ûnœ again lhey adop flcx a lot l e s ..." and so on We just w m able to analyze and wonder

about these things

...

Dan is talking about an emerging Capaality to visuaik new pathways for action-thought He bas moved from a considdm of the physical reworking of the praject to a casideration of the mie biat viable acti~-tbought processes play in tbe developnent of understanding. He recognizes this change as a signifiant step in his cognitive maturation:

The qwte at the begiimiag of this cbapîer is an exfrom my fuial interview with Dan. On the d a c e , Dm's comment sccms &I amaadict a central of this study hypothesis (Le. tbat action-thou@ is a form of understanding). Let me now re-present ttiis excerpt from my interview with Dan in a samewhat koader amtext Lto: Do you thW you will continue to buüd tbings? W d d you say that you arc kolding something in another seme whw you are dang tàe CAD (Cornpiter Aided Design) work and wül y a i amtinut to do physical buüding in the future?

DM: The physid bwlding is au extension ot the nal building which is in hae (pointa to head) and ihat 111 aiways be doing, I biow thar I'U stop when I'm dead. Building things physidy is of the process ami building thuigs mmelly & the process, priai. Cleariy, Dan considers tbe pmess of action-thought to be cenoal to bis own way of knowing. The proass of physicai building is now embodied for Dan.Building has -me a part of Dan's appmch to thinking and has allowed him to cnatc a new world of signifiiauce.

Cnating worlds of signiT~cance 1 wii1 close this chapter with a brief acwmt of how a prsoaal world of sipificance was created within two otber building projects. It seems that the significance which emerged from the different worlds created by sadents during the Mar House and lnvent a Machine projects was highly contextuai. W e it may appear on swface îhat mœt shdents developed a common understanding of the science concepts being taught, what snidents considend to be most impatant was often quite different. Fbr exampie, Bemie and Paul

describe the proHem as they interpret i t In creating Our solar home there were sevual "key issues" that had to be answered but the 2 most important questions wete: "How do M get maximum heat gain; bow do wr kecp our heat in" and tbis is how we answered our question.

ai the other hand, JiU descnbed tbat her understanding of the Mtuie of ctie poblem changed over the course of the project. In the reflectims worksheet she wroie: 1 found it difficuit to understand the primary goal w k n heating. 1 didn't know wbat 1 was supposed to achieve (e.g. highest temperature d o t retaios kat longest).

However, in ber writtem anaiysis (Appcndur B) sbt pesents the pmblem as something mat she now understandS. At the top of her analysis she wioct tbe following description of the problem as sht saw it:

PROBLEM To build a %usen which has a maximum sdar gain and ntentim. AND which dUCéSJprevents heat las. Notice how Jill bas capitalized the w a d "and", apparently f a emphasis.

CRating and cxpaading a world of sigriificana can bc s u c c ~ ~ ~ f uaccomplished lly by students in different ways. Fbr instance. îhe natue of inventive proccss for Bernie and Paui displayed simüarities and difierences fran the proces developad by Ji11. Figure 30 presents Bemie's and Paul's drawng d their d a r house.

B d e and Paul's &tien aumunt is prcsented ia AppDdur B. The exœrpt f i this accouDt which fdlows describes how biey dealt with k i r pmbiem.

To

summarizt what happenecl. tbe sun's ray entered through the plastic window radiation a d hit tbc black M e r Sitting on the stand in fiwt of the window. papr conductcd tbe bert to tbc wanning it up through a üüie qm#.e(sic) wann vapous escapeci a d wumed the tiny living (bcatedarca) space. To kœpin kat, blinds w~itpiacedinthewiadowandthe insulation kcpt in tbe bcat.

prrscnts the FaMe of data mat Bemie and h u ï mUecteüduring the iesr

nsun 31:

Data recordcd by Bernie and Paul during the Solu House test

Figure 32 presents the heating/caoiUig graph Bemie and Paul &W.

as SUS

Figure 32: Heatin&mling grapb constructed by Betnit and Paul

The ideas Bernie and Paul used in designhg and caurtnicting their solar house were essentïally the same as tbe ones tbcy w a e leamhg in class. Tbe d e mataialsi such as Mack paper, th foil. watcr and stpfcisim play in bat gainlloss w m ali chings that they had dealt with in class. Nonetheles. tbey stiil coiiJi&nd their approach to be inventive and onpinai. The imparanrr Bernieand Paul atiadisd to a novd cumpent Le. using a sports card cover for tbt window of kir house highlights the aiia mie 5 played in the uadefftaadings that emerged f athan duiing the pmject In otber words. Bemie and kui created and expanded Iheir world of sipiticancc by enacting their ability 0 buiid and irimrnue the Mding process. Tabkt 8 p s e n t s the mponses tbaf the boys -te to seleaed questions fmm the adysis (sec Appendin B).

-

Table 8 Bernie ami Paul's responses to the d a r house projeet forus questions

Wbrt stamgths .boat y o o d v a did yoa discover o r rffirm while doiag tab pmject?

TbeFe was oaly 1 d suquise ihat

WG stpmbled on- Wbar WC e t cut a giass rvindwPaitcomatywe~foranewroindow.Wef d a b û , plastic s p t s cnd owcr.Wbatthïsdid, d s d stmlight to cnkr&rot& tbt d d o w aid wbai we bad to &ut off the ügbt, wc put a sporrs cad wrappad in duuünum (to d a c t bcat beck iato t kh) nhinny side down and placeci it thrwgh the m v a .

I

B o n neIl pro/ect?

dM y o i meet yomr

o w i cxpectatiois i m completiig thir

I

Cleady the innovation of incorporating somethhg chey had brought fmm their wodd outside the classroom into their pject was of œnûai importame to the development of their understanding. Inmrporah'ng novel materials was sanethhg rhat JiII also did in the construction of her solar house. Figure 33 presents Jil's drawing of her sdar house.

Figure 33: JU9s drawing of her s d a r bouse For Jill. two caaponeats of ber house were innovationson her pan. These wen the use of a rock as a mateiial retain heat and a plastic magnifying dass to focus beat on the rock. These iâea were nota part of the classroom discussions Icadiiig up to the helar House pmject. These were innovations dimdy ammxkâ to to scientifïc ideas king lcamed in the unit on heat and energy. In her miaen rdlections Ji11 -te:

My pmject is very original. I applied many concepts and the resuits wen, in

my miad, successfuL 1 was a

d v e in regards to focusing iiicomhg Light ont0

the r a t which would distribute k a t equally. 1 am happy tbat I thougbt out and executed my design carefully-

These an!multiple ways that sadents crmte and maintain a world of signifieance when they are building thhgs. Building is a visible acîivity that is pàysicaily experienced on bth individual and a cdlective lads When stu&nts buüd tbeù own constructions and obsave and expneuce the pavss as it emerges m n d tbaa they develop a more canplur understanding of themsclves as leamcm and of mQt cdpabilities to be successful in carrying through a cunplex d extcndtd task. The a d structures crcaDed ipe not an end in themselves. Most students realk this. Rather, the kiilding pmcess is a pachway to further engagement in complu action-thought and the experïenœ of how to engage in this action-ihought The understanding tbat 'V c m do thls and 1 know 1 ean do mon" desMibes an impatant outcome of the building pnxwss. Being sble to envisage oneseîf in future action is a powerful maivation and incentive f a the developnent of future action.

In t&e foregohg tbnt cbapters 1 bave pcntmyed tbe devdopnent of understanding in the caitext ofenactive clapsroom envimmcnts in ways that foais cm the individual student w smd pups of students. 1 wiil now discuss the cunpiex social-cognitive environment of an eiiaciive learningltcaching classroom. The classmwi setting is wt just a bacMrop to student action-thought. It dynamically evolves as the people witbin it to shape it. 1 will describe some of the emagiag characteristics of the leacning/teacbing environmen& in which 1conducted my inquiries. The teacher perspective in ie interaction with the student actions will be viewed from the vantage point of my participation in this environment

The nature of my pariicipatioa as a riesearcher deveIoped during the coune of my invdvements with M.B.'s classes fmm that of essentïally an obsewer and interviewer to that of an actively engaged ~ s w r c e person. Entering a classrwm mmmunity is not a simple task My research engagements with Ms. B. and ber students kgan with the Solar House piqed . hiring my eady invdvements in her classmm 1 tendeci to main on the pairneter and observe the students as they worked. 1 was present every day and soon certain students kgan to beawne visible to me as individuais (As part of my re~eacchsirategy I did mt ask for &ng plans or s u e n t grades). An essential mmponent of my approach was to wait for students COa p p m h me, which they did. An eariy incident involved a boy who was investigating viscosity of various Iiquids by deprssing tbe plunger on a syringe containhg each of the liquids in turn. After completing the assigned task the student coatinueci playing witb the sMnge and wticed the formation of a cloud within tbe enclostue. He aplwoacbed me rather than Ms. B. (whowas occupied elsewhere) and showed me this discovery. The actim ccmstituted a "breaktbrOughnin that other studene began showing me things they considend signifiant niese invitations from stu&nts emmura@ me io get out of my sait and beawe a more active participant in the classroan community. Eventually, 1 was invited by Ms. B. and ibe students to take piut in the classroom discussions and demonstratons. ûione occasion 1 conducted a demonstration of some of the properties of liquid nitmgen which generated

considaable intmst and excitement h m tbat point on 1 was considercd to be a member of the cla~sroorncunmunity.

Ms.B. frequentiy gave her shidcnts appoiauiities to do the many "haads-on* âctivities tbat arr a p s of ~ the gRde nine cuniculum. This was WpCul to me as a nesearcher because the incrresedlevd dactivity dunng these sessions pvided mc with opporiumties to inma with individuai students as &y worked. However, 1 was siin acting in a minâset which situa&d me as an obsewer engagin8 students in c011versationabout their ideas. Students seemed pieased to pause and arplain what tbey are doing as tby worked. I eniercd a second and &epr leveî of engagement in the course of tbt Jili episode wbich 1 bave descxibed in CbapGer 4. 1 alrcady ncogDizcd the Mique value of myself doing tbe investigations which wem a focus of my research in the couse of the Wn and Tristen paper towels activity. Wlthin a classruw ccmtext a similar opportunity amse when 1 asked AU if 1 d d try some manipulations with the convection box. The natue of my conversation with Jiu chan@ as 1joined the problem ccmtext in a m a e signiflcant way by attempting (o physically -cipate in the experiencing of phemmena in a way simiiar u> ber own way. 1 amtinued this participatory approach during the lnvent a Machlne project when 1 arrived with an assortment of hand tools. wood, wheels, and hobby motors. Ms. B. uitroduced me bo the class as a resource person. 1 bave describexi my iaiioaale in mon detail in Chapter 4. and the tbrre subsequent chapcrs pomy the quality of my

engagement with different p u p s and individuais. My presence in the classrami ineroduced a d d i t i d mnpiexîty to tbe sodal-cognitive dynamic of the classroom as a whde. For instance, the presence of a second adult with whom tbe students cwld inplayed a role in the deveIopment of tbinking for many students. Ms. B.'s pempective on the changed dynamic that my plesence introduœd wili be presented later in this cbapter.

The dissemination of ideas and actions One of Ms.B's favorite teaching techniques was to involve her ciass in guidexi discussion. She was very good at this and mosi students participted enthusiasricaily by mntributing ideas and suggestions. Ms. B. would from time to tiine invite students who had r a i d a particularly good point, or who seemed to bave a problem. io pursue an independent investigaîbn during class while the remaining students worked on other activities. Ms. B.'s invitation was invariably accepted by students. and ihey would report back to the mi

of the ciass wbat they had fouad. The episode in which JiII spnt an mQe class investigating the convection box is an exampie of this type of engagement. In short, Ms.B. is an excellent teacber who has a @ai iaknt for enooutaging ha snidents to be inquisitive, take adon cm their curiosity. and npon th& findings to a larger a>mmunity. These techniques arr an intnnsic partofscientific appmeches in gcneral.

The mrnment which fdlows is inteaded more as an observation thau a criticism. How can m e criticipc this IMd of icaching? Why should one aitiaZe tâis sort of apprœch to engaging students in Uiinking abait &etlot? My oomment emages from my own observations, sndent comments. anci Ms. B's nflectiais of this teachibgiîearning technique.

1noticeci that an hiemhy of opnion b d developexi ammg the studeius in Ms. B's grade nine class. In short, students considenxi the opinions of same of thgr pers to be more important than those of others. Usuaily when these students spoke, which was often. most

of the ''lesser lightsn wouid withdraw or simply concur without amiment Ms. B . would try to involve other students and a discussion would &velop which involveci typicai nonparticipants but it scemed to inevitably end with closing arguments from the "star thinkers". Sometimes, it seemed to me tbat the nrightest" students would pditeiy defer from comenting on the ideas of ibe so called lesser Iights". In d e r words, whde the class appeared to be a community ol thinkers contributing a large number of ideas available to the whde class, it seerns that some students were excluded. Other students seemed to fwus m m on being heard by the teacber racha than listening to each other during class discussion. 1 was not aware of this hieiarchy when 1jumd the class, and I klieve that this allowed me to intemct with ali students m m amstructively than if 1 had hiown. Were the sndents aware of this ampiex ampetifive dynamic or hierarchy of inteUectuaî authority among theu peas? The following exfrwi my conversatian with Clarence about risk ami cumptition touches on this questiotx Chnace: ... As 1 said before, we would bave Ieamed more if it hadn't k e n so competitive.

k How would you have Ieanied more if it wasn't so cornpetitive? Clucnct: Ok,if 1 want a goad mark, say 1 want a 95, then I'm not going to

do something totally different fmm what the book bas said already, anâ then I

just foUow what the book said If it wasn't so comptitive then I couldn't care

less wbat the d

t is so l'd just tzy anything- I'd certainly be a lot more open

to ideas thaa 1 was during ibis.

Lee: So you bave said tbat you wouid take more risks. Wwld it change the way that you did the pcojcct? Would it change tbe way tbat you thought during the pmject? Do you thinit your project woukl bave lookcd a lot diffcnnt if this poject badn't b e n m oomPCfitivc? Ciutmet: It's still kind of cornpetitive in a -y, you art Jtill trying to k a t your friends. It's almost like a cbaia mctiom Let's say that Dan and Tnsten came up with a rcally strangc idea. tben I'd p ô a b l y try myseîf to corne up with a &y sbange idea. So we'd jwt put tbosc idcas to etber and test those idePr. They are kind of a d e t y soit of a herd or wkmver you d i it ... they can mock people a Id far what thcy do in scbod so tbey can feel highet than tbem ... so thetc is still a certain amount of mmpetitiveness even if it is

...

not

formaiîy sbown.

Clarence is one of the inîeiiectuai leaders in the class. He is aahirally inquisitive aad 1 often obsewed hun noticing what othr students were doing and king intensted in the kinds of resuits they were obtaining. For instanceî Clannœ appoached Jiil as she worked on her impromptu mnvection knexploration and mtributed some of bis own ideas in an attemp to explain the observations she was making. However. when 1 asked her about what Clarence had done she semned to be disinteresteci and dismissed what he had done by sayiag "Oh that was just Clamce's i d d 1 1clearly bad strong ownership about her own investigation and at thai point was not h c W fo incaporate Clarence's id- hto ber emerging wotld of sigdicance. Her nsponse did not dekr Clarence in the least bit from ayùig out his id- In tbis case, the focus of attention was on the phemmena which each student noticel, and not on tbeir relative intellectual status in the class.

In contras&Me dissemination of ideas in the ampetitive enviraiment of the Solar House pmject was something tbat was donc inteatidy and cotlsciously by stuâents and was influenceci by theh perceptions of each other's intellectual standing. Afta dl, theu mark dependeù on the pediomÿure of their creation relative io the prfamance of the pmjects of the other students. For instance, Tristen spnt a good ded of tixne ÿisiting" the work spaces d other snidents and watching what they wete doing. 1 notiœd one such occasion on which he suggesteû ?O two of the so calkd "iesser ligh@''( R d e and Willie) his idea tbat clmxud d d be a useful heat absorbing materiai for th& soiar house. This was Tristen's own idea which he seemed to consider unworkabie in the amtext of the house that he and Dan wen coastructing. Rerbap~Tristen felt that & e ~ gbis idea to R d e and Wiiîie was one way tbat he cwld sec it put in@ ac6m that did not threarn his Uitellectuai standing. He regarded, as did most students, R d e and Willie to be unlikely ta achieve a grade higher tban his and Dan's. Tristen did not, for instance, offer this idea to Clarence

whan he also visited. Perhaps it is casier fastudents to share ideas with those they do wt consider to k "serious" com@to occur ifter tbe project was canpleted as students reflected on their biiaking ad the relative sucœss of their machine in relation io the externai Cntaia. Perhaps. for most of the students in the Sdar House project, a recursivequality O tbeV exprieaas in designing and building and deveioping an understanding far the shape of the pmbîem had not emerged by tbe end of the sequenœ of their wcxk This suggests that the emergence of ramion as a cornponent that a sadent considers useful in her approach to action-thought may &pend on how she views herself to be uivolveâ in shaping the "end al the problem". Perhaps a student will k m m capable of recursively 7risitingnmultiple endpoints wbere chy amsider themselves to be re-enwing a process of beginning the poblem again when she is f d y implicated in shaping the nature of the end of a pmcess of aaion-thought. If so, then the pedagogic approacb of faQlitating effective snident action by primarily acting for sndents (e-g. by not fully invdving students in the detemination d the boudaries and comtraints of a @lem or by setting constaintr on how groups am caisiituted) may have unïntended consequences. Perhaps the pedagogïc approach to faa;litabg v i d e action-thought would be i m p v e d by reconside~git as a process of arthg with students in that it rnay enhance the Iikelibood that students wiU see connectiam ktween the processes of action-thoughtand its products.

The students in t&e Invent a Machine pjezt engagcd in action-thougbt on a broadec level in the sense that they ~6emedmore aware of the s h a p of their ways of acting-thinking as the pject developed. By actively participahg in shaping tbe pmblem each stu&nt laid down hermis own path in wallcing. aie d d desaik this as a pfocess involving a sequeme of continuai cecursive engagements tbrougbout the cairseof tkir work- It seems that a qualitaiively different envimament for action-thougbt emerges out of a amnunity of buiidem who are able to interact a d cdlabomk on a continuous and repeateà basis.

Recursive visiting is an exprientiai process f a dcveIoping understanding fmm which new possibilities and a ncw enviroament f a action-thought cwrge.

Ms.B emauraeed the students O makc a sketch of k i r initial pian. They wac requirad to show the diagram to ha befae pocccding with tbcir COI1StrillCtionactivities. A majority of students were abk b acmmmocb tbis nequcst with pians showing varyi-ng dcgrees of detail, end q@cklyentercd iato oohstmction activity. However, some students, iike the aforementioaedRo& and Willie, seemed u n d e to begia in this way. They haci not been successful in same of the lead-up activities to the Sdar Houe pmject, aad tencW to fod a r o d insteaù of attending to the task et band C h several occasions Ms.B trïed to hdp them in their planning with little success. 1 became interested in Ronnie and WiUie and sat d o m with thern. The exœrpt which follows b my interpetiveaaiount of what happened .

Ronnie ami Wiïlitls Solar House As mual. Ronnie a d Wülie are having trouble getting started on their project Tbey appear glum as they sit and watch d e r students who have already begun. "Sbe (teacher) wont let us start until we draw a plan ... that's stupidw Wiliie compIains to me. Ms. B. ovethe comment and asks the boys wbat

they nced, R d e says that they need to try out the materiaïs in order to get some ideas. Us. B. agrees and Willie and R o d e begin handling the stymfoam, the insulation and the other matends that are available. They quickly assemble a box as a protatype for tbeir idea. Both boys are suddenly very focused on their work.

Nai ideas emerge from manipulating the materials and new manipulative actions emerge from each idea. "How big should w e make the window Willie?" " 1 don? kww, let's just try using this glass." They try holding a smalt rectangutar piece of glass Ms. B. bas given them against o n e side of theu styrofoam bon. "That's too small, m need to get im much heat in as posst'bIe" dectiucs WiUie. Eventuaiîy R d e a d Willie choosc a pane of glass that fiils one whde si& of their sdar bouse. "How are me going to keep the heat in?" asks Wi."1 know what ue can do, let's make a cover .,. ve can put it on after." They spend a long time (acarly a wbole class) working o n tbe design of'a mver for their wbdow. After trying materials Like tin foil and pi* insulation they eventuaUy consttw:t a hinged styrofoam sbutter with a metai foil coverîng facing insi&. They enplain to me tbat they think ibis design wül keep heat f m u radiating a conâucting away oncc the shutter is in place. They proudly demonstrate thcir innovation by opening and closing tbeir shutter for everyoe w b stops ta see what they are &hg. Tristen notices that Rode and Willie are warking productively. This is something aew (notrnally they just wsstt time) and he is curious to l m w more about wbat tbcy are Qing. The two boys happily demonstrate their i&a for Trisien. "How are you going to kecp the heat in?" Tristen inguires. R o b e points t o the shutter and closes it again. 'You should try putting

cbarwaî insi&, it will hdp to bold tbe btatwWilIK and Ronnie seem pleased that Tristcn is atüling to buggcst an impovernc~]tto their design and a couple

ofdPyslatertheymcaponictbeiaPimotbeusdarboracdesign The relationship between the two boys and Ms. B. changes significantly during the pmjcct The boys am cager to explain every œw innovation duting k r visits to tbtu w a k taMt. Ms. B. sams to visit their work arcs more oftcn and stay longer during each visit Tht boys tak constnntly to eacb other about thcir pmgress. '&y, welre actua(ly working ... 1 can't belitve we're actualiy working" Ronnie happily announces. Tome on Wük. hurry up ... get the tape."

Tbe expiore-planact tnâd seems to ka cornplex anci recursive dialedic with varyïag entry points for Werent persons and tasks. Ronnie and Wüüe did mt secm to bc able to imagine an end-in-view in Ibe abstract, Handsoa man~manlpulaîion was nccdcd to start their fiow of ideas. Ms. B 's flexiûie appoach to student knowledge-building enabled her to ailow them to depart from tbe conventid rieqWrement b comtnict a writîen pian fïrst, thus enabling chan b get sgned. R d e and Wüüe worked with what was for tkm an extraordinary degree of diligence and created a v a y successfui solar house (see Figure 35). In this process theu relationship with Ms.B was transfonned into conversations about their ideas rather than about their behavior. Their conversations with Ms. B. became more frequent ami extended, cbanging the leamhglteaching relationship. Wïe's and Ronnie's wriüen response to the reflection worksheet is presenteà in Figure 34.

Figure 31: Wil1ie9s and Ronnk9s response to the nllectîon worlrsbut

Ms.B.'s engagements with W'ie and Ronnie m u t bave bad sane signifiTwo years later, she vividly recalls the transfonnarion:

for her.

Mr BL There WC= many ti& though wbo wenn't successful on papr and pend tasks w b bcamc suc~cssfril...in the comüucaion, Li& who had taken no initiative in the traditional approachcs w b took iots of initiative ... and crcated samething froxn the Machine or from the Sdar House, 1 think about Wiliit and Rcmnïe ...

Figure 35: Willkb and Ronnie9s depietion ot tkir s o l u house There were many instances in both the Solar House and îhe Invent a Machine projects where students who were baving difkuky @ciping successfully in tbe reguiar activiiies of the science cmiculuai r d ways to enter into effective action-thought This occmed when they were given tbe opportunity to think by developing thek own building environment. Typically students are mt expird to mate or even think about tbc prarss by which they can put their ideas into action. Sdfdrected building is a kind of engagement which raquires a student to be continuaisly aware of the p t h she is laying dom. Focushg on improvising mail solutions on an ever cbanging pîhway seems to duce the atlxiety of reaching a fuial destination. again. dowing students to participate in detennining the nature of' the OutCome to a pnress of action-thought seems to provide adequate

opportunities for them to engage in viable thinking (i.e. thinbiiig that holds significancefor students) . Understanding i s embodied Mauy sndents arr aot able to v d i z e k ir understanding adequately but, givai tbe oppaaiaiity tby arr abk to ab it out in a camplex and c d v e way. Our s c h d s place a high value cm verbslizcd and symbdic bowledge. Prrhaps such

projectsas ihe~~dcsaibdhaeainbdptoexpaadtht~~~~~oTwhatitm~to~w into a more diveme set of capabilities. Fix some studcnts (ie.Paul. Romie and Willie) bie expriene o f e n m t e ~ suarsg g o p a s the dmr to mare acaâemic sucœss. The question of how the emergcnce of success for speciric students in eiaia the Solar House or Invent a Machine projects innuenwd 1&irfuture academic S& is not ane that 1 have attempted to address in this study. However, 1 did encounta students fmm the two projects with Ms. B. in aber cmtexts. For instance, in the fdlowing d m i c year 1 emuntered many students fmm the Sohr House pject in the conidors of the schwl where tbe Mouseûap car pmject was king ccmducted. uivariably they wodd greet me enthusiastically and tell me about how much they bad enjoyed the Mar House pmject (nie of the sadentî with whom I briefly met a couple of times in this way was WiMie. These discussions revealed that he did not consider the Solar House pmject to have coatributed in any sigaificant long tam way (pitive or negative) to his c m n t academic pursuits. Willie explained that the War House project was interesthg and fun to do. but that it was only signifcant f a him during the time he was involved in it. 1 also met students from the Invent a Machine project at a city wi& fair a few m a t h s later. Two of these students, Tony and Sarah, descrikd their experienœ in tbe Invent a machine pmject as king helpful for tbem in d u c t i n g thar science fair pmjects. Sarah explained iIiat the thing she found mœt belpfd was the experieme of seing a more extended pmject slowly take sbape during îhe Invent a Machin projet, Perhaps dcveloping an holistic understanding of the shape of such an open pmject helped enbance ber confidence in her abiiity to be successful in her upoaming science fair pmject. Wha 1 asked Tony if the Invent a Machine pmject haù helped hun develop bis science fair p j e c t he gave me a big srnile and said "Ob yes!". He explained t b t the expaieme of building with various maiends helped bim to thllik about how he would construct the experimental device he used to conduct his science fair pmjcct.

The impwt that seKdÏrectcd building engagements in science bave on future academic success remains an open questioa. 1 cm say that al1 of the students 1 talked with subsequent

building adivity amsidercd it to be a wcxthwhiie expriena. The fa~tthat they were able to remember what they bad doae a d tslL about it with me in degil is i ~ i f important Rrhaps the mait important ouof this khd of engagement in science has less to do with the specifïc science amcepts tbat are invdved, raüm it d o w s one to experience a pnress of building pnsonaî ~ig~ficance f a a way of engaging in a science leaming cxmttxt to t k i r

One of the aitmmes of the Mar House and Invcnt a hihdiinc building projects. tbat was fat h shdents aad f a nr was tbe way that the estabiisûeci classrmm une-

hierarchies seemed u> beoome l e s Aient. Many students w a e surprised when tbey discovered that the sndents tbey expctcd to be most successful were nom sacial Qmain are able ro contribute when they panicipte in action-OCientsdbuilding/leamingeavinmments. Bcidget was not the oniy person in tbe dassroom who was actively 'qistdng". Students, especialIy in the Invent a Ma&k project, also liste& to each other. The way in which 'listening" occurred is a more complex ptwcess than one based ody on Ianguage. The point 1wish to make here is that students can "fed" the enadive learning environment in which they participate and a "Tek significancenemerges for students which recursively

"fie& beckWto numm and sustain the development of dvir thioking. Evidence to support tbis daim is based on my own expaitnccs as 1 peaiciped with stuclents in the research pmjectn I noticecl a ciramatic incnase in the scx5al classrmm enew levei. as oompared to

the @a dassroom aidiVities I observeci. during che Mar House and Invent a Uachine projects as students "got into" cheir work and Bridgct d c e d that students who were n o d y slow to becune invdved in tasb w m caabled î a k ownership of the development of their own tbinking and understanding.

My app~oachto productive listening emerges out of my intenst in natural phewmena and the way students think about and engage ihe phenornena they bring forth. For instance, in the Solar House pmject 1 found ibat I d d bave more complex conversations with sndents when 1began to physically interact with the phemmena and marmals that were a part of a student's w~rkspace~ In the Invent a Machine pmject 1 became even more deeply involved with students' action-thought. This was partiy enabled by Bridget's decision io introduœ m to her sadents as a m u t c e person with expertise they caild use if' they wanted to do so.1found that neariy every snident wanted to include me in their poject in some way. My engagements with each s e and their workspace was mernt but there were some cornmonalties. For instance. I would focus my attention on the setting anâ the natuid phemmena emerging f m the setang. In this way, my agenda for engaging becarne similar to the snident's. We both focused our aüention on solving a cammon problem. The advantageof this is thai my engagement with a student beaune an oppominity for Wshe to enact rather tban react their undemtanding. Rather than ask them specifc questions about what or how they were diinking 1 would participate in the action-setting as a productive helper. In this way I was able to listen to stu&nts as they described whaî they were trying to acmmplish as they worked, either in spoken Ianguage or silently in manipuiative action. In a sense, my research focus was not aimed t o w d revealing anything, it was ~o Men for a way to caibibute to the developnent of more thinking. I was listening for m m tban what bad already passed, 1 was iistaiing for tbe moment and looking toward the future. This orientation allowtd me to develop an understanding for segments of many s e p t e tmjectones of acticm-thought, Students considerd me to k acting not only for k i r own benefit but dso for ttr bendit of the mtk class. In tbis way 1 was abk to maintain a cmnection to individual pmjects while enpgiag the whde class. Roductive Listening is not so much a technique f a hearing as it is a way of king in the w d d .

Bridget9s perspective on the development of students9 thinking Earlier h tbis chapet 1 presented a description of how R d e and Wae enterrd into a productive building piacess during the Solar House projest .Bndget considered cbis to be a signifiicantacawpiisbment, both for bcr and the two boys. She commeais as foiiows: BMg& 1 cadt remcmbcr what WiIlie and Ronnie had d i s c o v d but it was it was reaïly incredible wotk for them. 1 inean it would bave betn excellent work

for any group but thcy bad discovc12d somcthing and 1 rernemkr bringing some aber kids over thcm and saying somethiag to W i l ü e lîkc 'Let me pick your braina ... 1 think it was b u t 8 .-. and they taught tam. or told Laura, the line of inquiry they wem doing and thPt for me marked a turning point in b w they ... in the responsibility they took for their pmject. It scemed like dter that ... and also after you bad them in your room and gave them some special encouragement that they took some ownership and got a redly good bous built. So part of wbat 1 leamed. part of the new ideas tbat 1 picked up. part of the process I learned was to let them lead with theu ideas and Iots of new ideas emerged

There are a number d interwoven ideas which emerge from Bridget's comment above. It is evident that she oonsidered îhem to be students who were iiot often successful in their science activities. Inviting the two boys to present k i r idcas to Laura, wbo was often successful in science activities, seems to have been a way for Bridget to encourage Rohe and Willie to sustain the " intellectual breakthroughwthey achieved My early interaction with the two boys seems to have helped them "break inertiawand enter into a more proscriptive fona of thinking in the sense tbat they began to imagine pomibilities rather iban "see" constrziiI1ts for the development of their thinking. A promiptive approach is a g d description of how 1 tried io orient my thinking as I sat down with thcm to try to enwurage h m to "break f d fran the unhappy and unproductive state they foimd thernseives in at the beginning of the Mar House pojecr In aher words my interest during rny coavexsation with Willie and Rom-e focusecl on phenornena and the way we could engage the phemmena associateci with theu task rather than on the behaviar of the two boys themselves. When they explaineci that they thought that t k y needtd to begin by working with matmals and Bridget a m . 1 simply repiied "Ok, let's do that" My presenœ may bave helped to embie the transition to action and 1 remained with Ronnie and Willie as they quiddy began cutting and m g h g materiais for a preliminaiy solar bouse.

The transition to actim also ailowed me to "poductively listw" with t& boys as they w a l e d Wsteaing poductively" invdves @cipDcing in the noPichg of phemmena and mtributing to the developumt of soiutions as the poblcm emaged anô t e shape. In other words, by focusing my engagement oa waLulg on ihe same proMeta as Wfie and R d e 1 was able to gct a sense for the way they engaged tbek environment (which induded me) to h g foith a world of dgnificance. I was nat so much concemed with t&e amceptuai ccmctness of any of ibeir idcas (@en or demcmstrated) as I was in encouragiag the boys to pursue idesr as dwy ewrged. For instance. at one point Rocmie and 1 held eiiha side of thc open end d t k maiiy canpictcd styrofhn box (sdar house) as Willie manipulateci the üght sourcc to sec w h m the shadows Tell" inside. As we âid this. the idea of an angkd window occwred to me and I suggested it to the boys. Was the angled window idea my idea dane? No. The idea emergeû out of and existed witbin the interaction between the tbree of us working mgether. Did R d e and Wflie adopt the angied window idca? That is na d y important. The purpose of "productîvely listering" with students is mt to enmurage thern to &velop or aâopt any particular idea, it is to ailow students and me to pursue interacting tmjectdes d action-thought Some of the ideas that were first spoken by me were adopted and some were not Rrhaps the angied the window idea was transfomeci into a new idea. In the end Ronnie and WiUie chose not to include an angled window but ihey did "prop upn the side of their sdar house with a window in d e r to maximize the illuminated area bide.

In her comment above. Bridget desaiks me as giving Ronnie and WiUe "speciai encouragement"in a seprate m m . T b Speaal encouragement she refen to emerged out of a technique 1 aied for a kief cime during tbe War House pmject. At the begùuung of the class CoUowing the one in wbich R o d e d WiUe began to make progress 1 invitcd them to view tbemselves on videotap on a video piayback unit I set up in a store-room cunaected to the classmm. Tbe video depicted the boys as they made the transition to effective action in duriag their previous class and I was hoping that the boys could enhance my understanding of how they were thinking by selecting and oommenting on sections from the excerpt 1play& for them. The outame of the vidco nplay engagement with Ronnie and Willie was not what 1 expected. The boys were very interesteci to see themsdves in action k i t were imaMe to describe much about the way they were thinking. 1 disoovered tbat the video replay was reaily a new experience f a Ronaie a d Wiliie, not a re-experiena. Ultimately I abandoneci

this technique not beçause d what 1 bad I e d afkx üying it out with Romie and Willie but simply because 1 fouad it impossible to be in two piaces at the same time. Using this techniqu would rquire m to -ce time for classrmm interactians with students as they worlrcd Howevcr, it accrns mat the kKf vidco ceplay engagement with Ronnie and Willie did bave aa impct on the social dynamic of âhe classroom. Krst, it hdped to elevate R d e and Willie's cogaitive statu amaig tbeir pars, sometbuig cbat was not vexy hi@ before cht began. Sccond, it Mped to reinfime îâe notion with Bridget and her students tbat 1 was inteIieStCd in intcracring with everyone, not just the "starsn of the

classrom. It is clear tbat the solar house engagements were a tumïng point for Wdlie and Ronnie. They disoovered that they could successfully participate in the dassmm com~nunity. Ibe

signifïcanceof the pmject grew caatinuously for tbem as they incldeci new ideas in their house. The ernergence of Ronnie and Willie's viaality in the solar bouse pjsct imeasd the signifiaiace of the building engagement for Bridget Bridget's nlationship with Ronnie and Wiiiie was somewhat strained prior to the solar house pmject It seemed mat whenever Bdget visited tbe boys to check on the& work they ineviiably rieeded 0 be admonished for "fooling aroundn and pushed to "get on taskW.As the boys developed momentum in building meir sdar house. 1 lloticed tbat the! nature of her interaction with them changed. She began to engage in m m extended cmveisations with Ronnie and Wilie, sometimes even sitting down at their table and listening as they W b e d their ideas. 1 am not sure if' her invitation to the boys to explain k i r thinking to Launi was intended as a mvard or not but it is dear tbat the two boys considerrd themselves to have i n d their intellectml stature among their p r s during the project.

Becoming an efktive participant Other pedagogic ideas tbat began to grow in sipn*icancc fot Bridget as she üstened to the ideas her studentsdeveloped during the Sdai House pmject Two students wbo stimuiated h a to thinic about leamiog/teaching were Bemie and Paul.

B

m Like I'm thinking about wben Paul and Bemie developed this special blind tôat they had on theu window tbat they made out of an Edmonton Transit Pass case (actually it was a sports card case) and tbey covered one side of a piece of cardboard with foil. He w a so proud of that i&a, you know. Tbat was their own idea. ... WeU none of those ideas came from me. I coulàn't have thought of al1 the iâeas that came. It was the kids. Tbey kind of possessed their idea, you kmw, and tcally got attacheci to them and wanteâ to

foIîow through with b w it wodd work out 1 wouldn't thiak that kind o f ptswssion. owlltmhip. involvement with an idca e v a would bave boppened if it bad k n my idta. It'sbeauseitwa~tbdrWa.

Bridget's commeai iüustrates an essential canpoaent ofan enactivist classrmat. Bemie was a disccwery thcy were now putting into d o n . Incapaving a sports card amer

window iato rbeir d a r house was a way of gaiing inside th& constructicm. What câanges, Y any, did Bridget notice in Baaie and Fâul as a wnsequcnœ of their expenences in the Sdar Haise pject? The 001lversatiioaoontinuts: Lco: Leg t a k about Bemic oad Paul a littk bit Wouid you say tbat they were actling in a t y p d fmhion? Bdâget No. They chan@ so much during tbe sdnr bouse. Bernie had been quite ... I have to think of the nght wor& ... typically Bemie's way of k i n g in dass would be to f o d around most of the chss, 1 mean befocc tbis project started, to fool around most of the clas and then either to ask special permission ta band somcthing in late and stiil gct €dl marks for it or do it at the very end. But he never nally got hooked on anytbing ... he never r d l y was enthusiastic about anything in science until we did the ice cube saver and they got really good results. Bridget They üied cmling i t Tbcy did two of them. Tbe f i t time they did it they had it sitîing in the alcobol 1 tbink and the s e c d t i w they put it sitting on some cdton batting and they came in first or second ... and tbat was like Wow! ... they had quite a low-tech solution and Dan's bombed ... and 1 think thete was something in thete th& kind of activated Bernie.

Lco: That he was on to something anâ that he had ideas tbat were wotthwhile? Bridget 1think so. Well, remernbcr ...I don't know if you were in c k that time but 1 was dlediag hypotheses to explain some concept and Bemie put forth a hypothesis and then Dan put forth a hypothesis and JiU put forth a hypotbcsis and we lodred at aii of the evidence for and against and the ody one that was supported by aii the evideire wa Bemie's. And that happened right about the same time as his success with the ice cube saver and I t h i d kind o f a light went on. like that's what the mental picture 1 bave is. 1 think kind of a light went on and Bernie went "Hmm.you know mayk 1 can do ihis after ail and btat Dan." Anyway bc did Rally excellent work, he and W. on the Solar House. Up to tbat tirne, tbey bod r d i y done just enough to keep me off tbcù case. And it was et the beginning of tnm thrce wbich wis in March that Bernie sd his goal ta get honon with distinction this term, wbich be did Tbat meam homm in ail oî bis subjects. So it seems likc several things happened around tbe same time ancl be d l y changed in bis way of king invdvcd in the class. He kciac more d a prtkipiat haal d a i obwer.

An enactive classroam has an atmosphme of involvement Bernie and F?aui found a way u,

more fuîiy emct their capabilities for action-thought in the Sois House project Baaie and Paul focuseci on satisfying their own local goal for a window that wouid be " g d

enough". Tbey disoovered that what is " p d enoughn on a persaial level a n be equaily viable cm a bruacier social level. EDadtogundcrstanding in action-thought provides studeats oppommities to show tbcmsctva and t k r peers that they can k successfuî. In Bernie and Ruil's case it seems tbat tbe emergcnce of effective actiaa-thaight aiiawed dicm ta change theu way d king in the science dassmm. Some students tiad already esoiblisbsd etrkctive ways of participating in the scîence clasmom. Fbr them, the Sdar House pojcçt kcame an oporauiitty t~ m x m e n c e and re-enacttheir potential to aigage in mativedan-thought. Tor example. Bridget describes Clarence's way of k i n g in the classnxm during the pmject as f d w s : 1 didn't see as much change in Clarence. Like Ciareuce took the initiative fmm the very beginning of the y-. He workeâ with Sean and did that re-enactment of the Hindenburg [classrmm demonstration for a school open house]. ... You know, tbroughout the year they have k e n puttïng fonvard iiew ideas. T a n wc change this?" and "Can wc go down this Little side road?". And so that didn't change much. He went down his own side road of the charcoal. Wbat was different I mess was that he worked by himself bstead of the partaers tbat he's useà to Ming. He got the best results in al1 the class with bis solar gain and retention and he got help with his Dad on that

Leo: Yes. with the idea with the oil.

Cleariy, Bridget considers Clamce's way of engaging in tbe Sdar House projet to be a continuation of a viable a-h which was already well established The metaphor of "going down liüie side roads" helps to describe the n a t d tendency of many students, especiaiiy thwho have a l d y found ways to be successful, to extend their thinking beyoad the pathways available in tbe regularcumcuium. 1 think it is importaat to note that Bridget pwided maay sndents iacluding Clarence oppaa>nities to "go down si& roadsn of interest for them during the Solar Hwse p j a c t It is another exampie of her capabilities as an exceilent science teachet.

Role of cumcdumltext in action-thought However, even good science teaching may mit k eaough to win over che huiris and minds of sadents. The curriculum with its associatexi materials and activities dso plays a pafi My perspective in the Sdar House and Inveat a Machine projects was not entinly the sune as

Bridget's. 1 baâ a sense tbat sune students were mon W y about theu learning aetivities to me rat&r tban b Bridget.

(D

rnake a nicical a m i m a t

Om reascm why sune students took tbe oppaainity to speaL in an open anâ sanetimes aïticai mamwr with lll~a h t tbQr science 1gm y have to do with a fundamental ciifferencc in the way 1 was situatrd in the d a s s ~ ~as~compand ~ll to Bndget She was

responsible for determining kir grade whereas I was not Students h K w tfiat 1 would not be invdved in ttvV aosegnnent and 1 coasider this as* to have ken aii important canpoaent ia being able tD bave mirnin@ul ccmversations wih them. Perhaps thïs aspect of my nsearch appioach wouid not have been so im-t if Bridget bad mt inciudeù a cornpetitive a w p m i t in h a assessment appmh. However, given Che assessrnent approach that wcis used in the Solar House poject 1 W v e tbat mt becomllig involveci in the grading of stuûent work increased the complexity of the interviews 1baâ with sndents.

reason has

with how committeû students paceived me b be to the cmicular activities. H m open a criticai would a student be d u h g a conversation with me if they PrcQved the activities they were canmenting cm to '0elong" to me? The design and implementaîicmof the ~Umcularâcrivitieswas an inin winch Heidi and 1 interacteci with Bridget but as far as the students were concemed, Bridget was in charge of their activities.

A second

0 do

A third rrason is that students have a lot of relevant and worthwhile things to say about the

nature of th& leaming environment Students &y

get ibe oppahiiiity to speak with an

adult about the nahm of their classroom leamhg experiences. When an advlt demonstrates an interest in their ideas they are usually very pleased to respond in depth. Claxenœ was a g d student who did exœknt work. From Bridget's perspective. it appearrd that Clarence was eajoying science as mudi as aayone couid and be enthusiastically took advantagc of wide latituâe she gave hÏm to explore his own ideas. However, Clarence was not cmpietely happy with everyihing he was doing in science and his expiences in the Solar House pojcct a d the IA Technology class prwided a backdrop to dtiQze bis engagements in some of the cunicuiar aaivities. In the course of my interview with Clarence hc ctecided to tell me about an opencnded investigation distillation which he had involving the mnstniction and use of a &vice for &mi& dd with d e r sndents in the IA tcchndogy class. How be considers this kind of engagement to k different frwi the activities provided in the grade aine science curriculum is as follows:

Clucace: Weii, I can ttIi you wbat a whdc bt of p p l c iikc was fire, not just the Bunsen bumer flow but the othcr flme and tbat we achiOy cm&ed -. If you mix cbanids yat cor, pcdict tbt d t , M t .tbis tbey told us we'd have somctbing in tbe bottom bere but ... h tbt ebemlcril rait whea you ctcated diffcicnt subîamm and stuff, (ky (a yom w b t Y% loimg b crtate In tbis thcy didn' t d l y tell us what m weit going to make and you could set the layen of the different substances and wt leamcd wbat is sdUny in w c d and it's jiirt an iateresring* acot expriment

...

Ctuence: Yab, weil WC brd to c o m ~ n rf t m d dl tbe Iiak nPme m g .

C h n e t : W d w t reaüy but I haven't beat glas in a long time so it n r a ~ fun. It's more fun than just being handed t&e materials 'Hem, do (be experiment and we'U Imve ou. "

Lca h,if wc could just return to some of the activities that descnbiag b me from tbe grade nine textbook

you were just

Clurnce: And not told what the results are going to be and maybe add a Little bit. You see, that's the added bit, the flame. We created essentially our own oil rig. So it was interesting. W e dlda9tLaow w h t w m goimg to happes, we just went ahead and did it,

Cleariy Clarence makes a distinction between the preseriptive nature of textbwk activities and the pmcriptive quality of open-ended investigation. My conversations with Clarence and other students revealed that many of the students in the Mar House project consider their textbmk science activities to be uainteresting and ILcOOked'' to produce a periicuiar pre-specified or b w n nsult

An efléctive cantext for thinking bas both an epistemdogid anci an ontoiogical dimension. Whiîe the nehire of tbe epistemdogicaî dimension (Le. amceptuai biowldge and associateci activities) irnpücit within ibe junior high science cwiculum may MY have cbanged substantiaüy since it bas been irnplemented it may k the case that tbue bas been a m o n h a t i c shift in the ontoIogicai àimeasion (i.ethe way people experience or interact with cumcuium). The nature of what a student "karas" may be somewhat similar today to what it was years ago but the nature of how Wsk "t&inkp" about and engages what is being "Ieamedn may be quite different. In othcr words, che "shap" of a student's engagement with ber/his leaming environment bas been shifhg toward a more pniscriptive orientation .

A reason for an ontdogicai shift in studmt thinking may emerge from thei prception of how teacbcrs engage ami pticipstc with studentî in explaiag tbc cucriculum. Students seem a k aMe to rida if a teacha is gcauinely infemted in the pheMunena assaiated with tbe activitia in a nmicuium. What happeas to t k levd of a teackrs engagements with tbe same phenornena aftcr exptrimchg it in t k samc way year a f t a yeaR What happeas to a studcnt's cognitive levd of invdveumt if they proeive the teacber to be guiding tbaa daag a m b e d pnthway in a pçc+smbiisheci d v i t y as opposed m aavigating uncbattd tmitory in a dynamidy cbaagiag activity?

A

shift toward embodied and proscriptive foms of assessment

A shift toward more embodied and m p t i v e appmches to assessment involves essentidiy two things: involving students in the assessment pnress and giving a b d e r consideration of what oounts as king worthwhile in a sndent's learning engagement.

Epistemdogid developmeats such as leaming s e c concepts a m to occwon mther long tim d e s (i.e. several montbslyears) for students. It rnay be the case that the emergence of ontologicai change (i.e. discavering new ways to participate effectively in a worid) OCCUIS on a much shorter time scde (i.e. days) and is therefore more appropriate as a way of assessing viability. If this is the case. and 1 thinL it is. chea fonising on how students engage their worid is a pedagogic technique which is just as important as one that focuses on what students know about their world. There was a progressive re-shaping of Bridget's involvement in the Mar House pmject as she attempted u> constmct an effective appoach tD evaluating student understandings. The Invent a Machine pkject providad Bridget with an opptunity to coatinue developing complexity in her appaach to assessrnent in an actionuiented science leaming environment. In a sense, dr Invent a Mach pmject was an occasion to mcwsively n enact her understandingsof an effeaive p~oeessoriented appniach to assessment.

In the Sdar House p j e c t Bridget began with an assessment technique based on c o n s ~ t i n ag rank ordering of students' acbievernent based on the outcornes of a scientific test. This was a technique with which she was familiar. It is commaniy useû in science classnxm building projects and Bridget used it in both the Ice Cube and Sdar House aciivities. The appraach can be summarizeû in sybpsis fonn by the fdlowing sequenoc of student and teacher actions:

1. Shdents plan and sktch a &vice (k&Aar House or Ice Cube Insulator). 2. students build tbt &vice. 3- Students use the &vice to d u c t a scientific test and obtain a mult in quantitative fam (i.e fraction of ice cube prcsewed in sdid f m or area under a beating cading curve). 4. Teachcr ooas(nicL1 a rank &ring of pafomuw resuits for the &vices. 5. Teachcr assigris grades by organizing tbc rank ordering within a range of minimum and maximum sacs (e-g. '108 10096)-

-

Bridget also evaluated the warlr that the students producd for the written assignments she gave in both the Ice Cube and Sdar House pmjects in order to amsmict an overail evaluatioa of each student's understanding. Given chat the Solar House project was a culmination to a unit of work. Bridget's assessment was esscntiaüy an evaîuatioa of each student's uaderstaading for tbe entire unit on Hcat and Energy. aie reason why many teachers use this apploâch is kcause it seems to enwurage students to remain "involved" tbroughout a ploject because of the high &gree of anticipation mat builds as they work toward obtaining a f i d d t . That was c e M y the case in the Solar House project

My aniœm with this eppoach is twofold First, this assessment approach enmurages students to pl= more emphasis on the outcomes of their work rather thaa on the actionthought processes they use to &tain nule an& their developing depth of undentandhg of the scientificconcepts leamed. This is inevitabie given ihat snident anticipation builds progressively toward a finai rrlease. Second, the ampetitive atmosphere that is an explicit panof the design of this arsessment approach a n have unintended outcomes in that sane students may interpet it as an incentive to avoid interacting and collaborating with their

pee=* As the Mar House pmject developsd Bndget began b add camplexity to her appruach to assesment. As her engagements with $tudents' iduinin-action grew in signifiame she becarne interested in laiowing more about how her students were interpreting the task and thinking. The reflective writiag workpheet (see Appendix B) was developed by Bridget in milabomtim witb me towand the end of the Mar House project, It represents a shift in emphasis tawarâ a m m prarss oriated assessment approach. It provides students with an occasion to fannally describe sorne d the meanings theirengagements hdd for them. In addition to providing me with resuvch data, it allows a teacher to engage in a second-order

fom of interpretatim of' stu&nt thinkiag and undetsCaaang in the seme tbat the focus shifts toward how snidents t W about tbeir leaming experiences and away from wbat students m p l i s h e d in those leamhg expcritnces. Reading her snidents' nsponses io the refiective writing worlcpheet s a m s to have bel@ Bridget extend her undastanding of the Ends of things that she mnsidered to be wonhwhile i~~x~cpocatiag into her assessment appraach. Afkr icadllig 1& mpoases of students in the Mar House pmjcct to the reflective questions she cos~llllatcdas fdlows:

... 1 d y founci it belpiùi for me pcrsonally to read their responses to the rcfieaive Maa of the kids responded vay thoughtfuny and 1 got a lot of iaformation about good teaching from tbeir responses and insights into the Li& too, Iand of the process thcy used. Bndget continued to sWt her assessment focus toward a more process orienteci perspective in the Invent a Machine pmject .Thar was an iocrease in diversity and canpiexity lo tbe occasions she povided for students to emct their understandings of scieire concepts and the praesscs they developed to undecstand those cotlcepts. The q u e n c e of engagement is now as follows:

As desCnbed in Cbsper 7. Shdentp dcveiapod tbeir own evdving set OC c r i a f a adequatc d u c i as t k y worked in the Invent a MPchuie project. In a classrmm

pnsentation, each p p of students explaincd the gaals they had set for ibeir machk and desaïbeâ how weM tbey had been aMe r~ meet those gœis. includllig the diffmities they encountered Studene also wmtc refldve acmunts of (bQr experiences in desiping, building and W n g ibeir machines. Perhaps a move toward a m a e embodied eppoach O assessrnent is a naîmi wtmne of allawiag students to kcane more invdved in the shaping k i r problem environment

Compeliing evidence of tht emergence of Bridget's expaading world of signifïcance i s mmected with her sense of ber relaticmship with her stuâents. At the end of the Solar House pmject she coaunented as fdlows: BMget ... my relationship with them reaüy changed- 1 think that part o f it was to wbtever extent that they secmed to blossom during the open-ended project 1 don? know that it is cause and effect but the two wed hand and band and 1 enjoyed teaching them more and more and they seemed to get more on track in science.

Bridget seems to kdescribing a cœmergent relationship between her reiationship with her students and their abililies to engage in effective action-thoughi. The theme coemergence appears a multiple levels. For instance, Bridget also mîiced a cœmergent relationship in the various processes that sndents used to engage in effective action-thought. Law .-.Do you have a scme tbat =me kids plan it and then do it or do some kids do it a d then get awc i&as out of that? How dm it move dong for the kids? k M g e t 1 &n't think tbat eitherlor ... 1 thinL it's b o t h / d ... 1 thinr tbat ... in no way did they say '"Ok fud we'n going to controI this variable and then we did an expriment and siiv the results" or "Ok. so we're going to make sure our buse has this and now we'ce going to wntml this variablen. 1 mean that dîdn't happa at ail and 1 guess 1 m a i i d 4bt htOYy of tryîng to ariicb,m pmcess, tbst proecsi, doc~a'tbappem in 8 Uneu w.9, 1 mean it's jwt kind of Wre an anny marching h u g h a swamp taclding dl things on all fmnts at once. A Id of the way that we kach science ... whcn you try to make it ünear it is so counter-intuitive or counter-productive ... counter-something or other.

Cledy, Bridget's thinkuig abatt tbe nature of ha reacbing was cmmztd to her expiences of the nature d ber students learning and h a own lear'ng. Heidi and I imitexi Bridget to Rada pepa t&atwe had and prrsented at a conference. It descrïbed many ofthe theorctical idcas f m enactivism tbat we &dmd to bc important to our etnerging understaaduig of tbe mûue of saiden&' thinking in the Sdu House pmject. I tbink it is worth n d n g tbst sow of cht enactivist idces we prtsented in chat papa also mllilted with Bridget's expcriewcs in teadring science. Tbt fdlowiag exülusaates one

Lee: You W a sense that the studcnts were thinking a Iittie differentîy as the pmject got starkd. as they got a sense of the open-endedness of the pmject and the seme of the way that you were going to inttract with them on the project?

Brldget 1 think tbatfs part of it 1 think the nature of your interaction with them and my chaoging interaction was part of it but what you talkexi about in tbat paper. about you b w . apii catching-n and kind of seizing some aspect of tbat expriment 1 think tbrt bappeneü with experience aspects of his father's engiaeering world. C h a m-ci d e , he was recursively explaiag ways in which nikrids and equipment could be shaped and reshapexi into an organhtion o f ' i n t e r ~ ~ ~ lstructures ~ l e c ~ i.e., his enactment of a machine. In a sense, be was inventing a way to explore a culture or world of significance brought forth by his history of structuraiowpling. In Tony's case, tbe plastic quality of the shape of the p d e m emerged in the muhipk possibilities he contïnued to bring forth and explore. The shape of Tony's probiem was ais0 plastic because he seemed to want it to =main unfinished. In other words, bu problern shape was plastic because Tony was himself s e i a c ~ gfor new pathways of adicm in his desirr to bring fort&and experience new worlds of significail~x.Tbe shape of t k poblem was @y decamllwd by the ernbodied nature of Tony's invdvement in tbe invention prarss and he sams io have extended aspects of his uaderstanding of Che shape of the p d e m into the evdving machine he was building. While the shape of the pmbiem appars to "drift" as new significanœ is brought fort&.it seems that it may be important f a a student to maintain some levd of embodied oonnection to the shifting shape of the poMem if hdshe is to maintain a viable path of action-thought.

As noted in Chaper 6. Dave and Jduiny seemd to "lose touchwwith the shape of what they had bem doing and, as a collsequence, last dvir sense for the possibiîities of where they awid go ncxt The shape of tbe pobkm s&ms to bc ainnectcd to the social compfexities of a problem sening. In the cas of Ian's Mousetnp Cu projcct, it sams tbat the most signiricant "shap" which unfdded f ahim was dateci to the inttractiiaas between tiimsclf and his brdher (-me), between himsdf and bis father, and between himself and the other mernôers of his group. In this case, the evdvïng "sacid" shape of the probiem ailowed Ian to gain ddence in his abiliy to bc successful in sciemce b u s e it nquind him 0 manage a complex set of social relationdip.

3. How do students construct meaning and understanding when they experiencea hi@ degree of physical engagement in building thlngs?

Physical engagement. at some level, is essential in the development of understanding. My study has ~ v e a i e dmany instances of stuâents fonstnicting meaning in action. When strdents are dlowed to impnwise their own ways of acting they tend to include an element of nsk talang in their approach. way tbat students do t&is is by stnving for physical complexity and sophistication in the structures that they build. A second way is to expand the realm of scienmc concepts included in their creations bey& the infocmation present in the curriculum. Both m h e s are impücaied in the cmof a personal position within the culture of the classmw. Students arr capaüe of king highly inventive in chocsing maiaiais and establishing ways in which they open up possibilities for developing understanding. Building is a process which ailows a person to "envelop" and "be enveloped by" ik evdving problem. It may be dcscribed as a process of self reorganization involving the embadiment of aff'ardances Cran tbe environment In other words, building is both a menîai and a physical process. The key b developing understanding is mt only in transmitted knowledge. Yes, its quaiity is important, but it is what one dues with it and how one connects oneself to it that is central.

4. What are some cbaracteristicsofan enactive leaming/teaching environment?

1 bave d d a d som of t k feaof an cnactive Iearninglîeaching e n v i m e n t in Chapter8 Such an enviconment yields a culturc of doing and malring in which individual action-thoughtd group &on-thou@ arc muoually specifying. Viewed cdlestively the fwtion of tbe group or dass is to produce "wotks". Bnmer (1996) maintains tbat the "worksn or the artifsts. and pro~fcssin CSeating them. gmratt s h a d and negotiable ways of thinking in a group. 1 bave observai the emof a shami purpose or cohacnce of d a n in the classes as students, tcacher, and 1 w d e d together O devebp and put ideas into action Spmtaner>us instances dsharing, belpïng with. and parricipating in each other's work wem numemus and 0011ttibuted to an environment in which everyow leamed with and. in a sense, taught with sach d e r .

.

Bruner (19%) points out that the mle of schods in "self" construction is very mudi a part of education. I mted eariier tbat building may k viewed as a lchd of participation in story telling. There seems to be a narrative quality to action-thought when pople M d together in a coopadtive settiag and experienœ each other's unfdding stories. N d v e kmowing differs fmm pmpositioiial hiowhg in tbat it seeks reasons. not causes (Bruner, 1996). Furthennom, it is embeddd in amtext and culture. Stones deal not so much with events, but with wbat the events mean. These meanings are "open" in the sease chat tbe reader or audience is oomplicit in thnr mation i.e.. in briaging forth a world of significance.

The a'sclfas dœr" char;icterization emerged over and over again in my conversations with students. Over tbe thne d my classmm engagements, 1 did not encountera single instance of "disruptiveW sadent khavior in the sense of discipline or classroom management. Furthermore. the teacher and most students seem to have had a similar expaience. In short, discipline was never a significant issue; we aU considerd ourseives to k productively engaged At tûnes tbt noise level was high but the atmosphen was exubemt, "playful". and dirrctcd towad making things happen. It was as if we wem aII engaged in an adventure - an adventure with rising anticipation,developent, local setbacla. challenges, tensions. and resolutions. In othcr worâs, a cœrnerging story.

What is revealed about the ptential and place of building activity in the science curriculum and how d a s an eMctivist stance toward tbe portrayai and interpetation of such aaivity inforrn questions of le-nB/teaching?

The question of "Wbat is IeSIIhed?" is m important aie tbaî ultimateiy goes back to aie purposes of schooling and thc bsliinot or colltinuaiiy sbifhg position of equiiibnum among ttme fiundamental aims: the accpisition of hiawledge and skiils, the developmmt and identification of ofrscmat capealities. and the formulation of one's view of his ielatiollship to and pbcc witbin the lsrga environment An enactivist stance seems CO be successful in rweaiing aspects fnm a p e m d pempeaive of'what is l e a d in making thirigs. In aeating a d o r entering into a w d d of signihnce the person is Icarning about themselves as a person-in-a-seaing. Such IeanUng was dtscribed by stu&nts both in the seme of opening up possialities for further &(]Iand I in the sense of m a t abstract perceiveci pemnaf capddities such as wülingness to iakt risks. willingness to tacide cornplex problems (e-g. Dan),or. as in the case of Ian, willingness to assume leadership. If one reconterrtualizesthe question as "What is l m e d through making things in sciet~ce?" some i n t e m g puzzies emerge. It car^ be argued mat as a science education community we do not understand wbat saidenu are luuning in muchof science because our models of cuniculum, cognition, and assessment are nstricted to a nanow set of outcornes and methods of assessment. In order to consider this question funher, one needs to look a what is maat by "sciellcew or, at least, u~hooIscience". Numerous analyses exist and 1 wiii not enmerate them h m . Suffsce it u, say that in aii but a few instances &ence is presenteû in schod as if it is a freestanâing structure of concepts, processes. and phenornena that, taken mgetber, describe how tbt physical wodd "works". Students and teackr are both situated firmiy outside this domain. Questions of 'What is science leaming?" and W o w do I biow when 1 am 1gSaence ...?" are generally out of

bounds. Teachers such as the persons participatingin my studies tend to view projects. partiailarly selfdnxted prqects which q u i r e a nlated extended period ot "in class" and %ut of class" time, as culminating activities to uni&of w o k Tbere is an expectation tbat stuôents will leam how to apply some of the fa-, principles. and pnxxdufes of science in a mherent way to a padicaî problem. Wbüe the snidents may have leamed about science principles. processes, and phenornena in the course of their building engagements. it seems the bases of my study that this is not the prllnary focus of their attention or conversation. Doing has au ontdogy and an epistemology of ib own, one that does not invite overt ansideration O€ the standard symbolic foms in which science ideas are expnssed or which ovemdes such wnsidemtioas with other ways of knowing. Student conversation

na about

üie meaerical ideas mty had kni sndying. Teacher c o n v c ~ o n shicted f m monitoring how well the students undersrmd the scientific pincipies invdved to an M t h g of the students' O w n ideas. Both werr, in a sense, now lnsidt the poblem. was about specific actïans and tbings.

How tbe teachcr's evaluation appmch devdopd in compicxity as a resuit of her conversations and her engagements has been v k w d from an aiactivist perspective and is demitmi in Chaptcr 8. The pavasiveness of the enanalusd view of Laowiedge tairai by students is also illustratbd. In Chapa 7 1 him descrÏkd quaiitative differences in tbe nature of the sketches and the diagrams of îbek ideas that students ppand for themeIves during "work in progrtss'' and the more rigid, formalirad, abstnrt diagrams subminEd for the teacher in some fuial reports. These qualitative difEenmzs suggest drat thre may be some "inside-outsi&" cognitivdpercepaiai shifts involved in students' thinking when they engage in and describe their work in science. In my conversations wiih them. students (typdy) descnbeû their work in nprrscatationalist tem even when their engagements were, from my vantage point, highiy active.

Schon (1983) suggests a distinctian betwem espoused lcnowledge and knowledge-inaction. Science assessrnents, cumnt talk about pcrfomüuice assessment notwithstanding, ernphasize espoused krowledge over enacted knowledge throughout most of schooling. It seems as if there is an assumption "out there" that high levels of espoused h o w l e d p cany with thmi a kmnowledgbin-action component Challenges to this view ate beginning to appear (Gardner, 1993; Lave, 19BS). The issue bas importance, not only in an assessment context, but also in manlating to curriculum. Curriculum, considemi from an enactive perspective, may be demibed as a m e r g e n t phenmenon i.e., what is learned is a function of the laimer end how it is Iearned. Tbe aced for appropriate functionai Laowledge Le., knowiedge-in-actionamong school graduates is widely pointed out by educatocs. the business cwirnunity, and the public at large. However, most assessment practicc, including sodled prfonnance assessment is dcted to pedomance which tecapitulates acths and processes that du sndeDt bas already (in a relatively aanow range) bcea shown how to do. Iae portrayais ptesented in this study iadicate tbat a revelaticm of penoaal potentiai. abilities, and sauigths is taking place (at least for sane students) in a high âction selfdirecteci science leaniing environment. Studen~have toid me rbat they are, in tbe course of their building activity, feaming to deal successfully with mmplex ancl extended tasb widiin shifting contexts and cbat they consider thernselves

If such leamingkaching environments are valuable, what 00 be said about k i r d o n ? Ms.B.. in a fuial interview held more tban o ycar after tbe Solar House and lnvent a Michlne bad been c u n p i d was cicar cm this. It is very diffacuit for a teacber acting aione to sustain such kvels of aeativity for any kngth of the. The presence of one or more Lwwledgeabîe aduit "resouroc personsu to inwith and faaütate sndent attempts to put thtir ideas into action is highly desiraMe. 1 did ihis during the h e e of tbe pmjects comprîsingcbis shdy as a way of k u i g "inside" the poblern setting. Membeis of the awmunity. fezw:hcr aides. or otha campetent and apcroacbabie adults could, under appropriate circumstances. assume this mie. Ways of enabling teachers to mate such learninglîeaching environments can perhaps be developed if it is pointed out that selfdirecteci such as the ones describecihem are a "paf' of the heculum and mt the "whde" cumcuium, hence d i n g for person-cesource support for finite p e n d d time.

Fiaally. the majority of the portrayals presented in this thesis are situated in "the prrsent" in the sense of an occasion or a uplace" in real time.Enactivist thecny seems to be particularly suiteci to desaibing and interpeting action-thougbt "in-themaking". As such, it may have instrumental value in teaching. It has bccn suggested tbat in order to change teaching pxactice one does not need to look at changing tbe smc actions of tbe teacber. Rather one needs to look toward cbanging the way the teacher views leaniing and the leamer in order u> enmurage significant pedagopic change. In this thesis 1 have used leaminglteaching as a single semantic unit -as a way of drawing attention to the mutual specification of the two compents of the process. The language of enactivism is evocative and may have the potential to stimulate changes in the teacher's perspective of the leamer and h e n a of teaching. Ms. B.'s perspective changed as her views d the capabilities and pogsibilities for acting with her studene changed. The language of enactivism grew in signïfiauice for her pcdagogic -ce as she engaged in conversations with me and my supervisorover the course of the two pmjects and as she participated with her students in creating the leaniing aivinnumat

The= is evidenœ in my descriptions of our claamom engagements that a ptential exists for the teacher to mxamine and possibly change her teaching and assessrnent plaaice when she views herseif and her students as engaging in and axreating a amplex "conversation"or "emerging nanative". The îeacher can now focus on herlhis own leaming

within the culture d the classroom a d henœ beoome more opn to a m e r g e n t pmperty in cuIncular eveo*. Rrbaps introducing the teachcr to the language of e d v i s m is a way of starting îhe process. In Cbapcer eight, Ms. B. described how hcr perspective on pedagagy changed As she put it. she found that sbe d d at tiws ?et go" of a îeacher-asauthority ide aad aüaw eadents to dcvelop tbcV own pathways of action-tùought. Emdvist tbray Mplia tbat p m naaually atianpt to engage kir worid in a way that allows them to be mpitivcly viable. Peibsps a more cunpiex and poductive aognitive environment can be bmught forth in classroams where the teacherand stu&nts cecreate an emergent dcuium in which thete are multiple ways to be successful (aviable).

Enactivism as a theoretical basis for the interpretation of

I have descriôed a nuinber of episodes which raise interesthg questions about tùe ways in which students seem to use resowces fmm their focal environmentas aftofdances to action. These rrsources include m i s , materials, othet persoas, and artif- created by others, and the dynamic of the culture of the classnxmi. One! way of describing the student learning environment is to locate these flordances

within the environment. In the Varda, Thompson and Rosch (1991) sense, the structurai coupling then takes place berneen the student Le., the ''o~panisrn" and the environment. Another way ddescribing the relatimship imfled in the term structurai owpling expands and probiematizes the notion of boundary between the organism (the student) and the environment. In the interviews with stuùents dwing the Invent a hiladune project I ndced many instances when students would hold ihar machine cl- to their body as they explained their thinking. It was if the mahine had beame enveloped as a part of themselves. a part tbat tbey wexe evoking in adcr to bring f d thQr descriptions of how they worked. The frequent occurrenceof this phenmencm raises the questions of Wlhat is coupleci?" in the Varela. T h o m p n and Rosch (1991) notion of stnicairal cwpiing and "Where is the boundriiy?" in the organismcnvir~~unent mlatioaship. Does a m e n t icmain sepanite f m his enviraiment or can he incorporate parts of his environment into his "seif" in the cognitive sense?

Piaget suggests that it is a natural course for every organism to attempt to braaden the range of its influenœ over ie environment. Vareh, Thompson and Rosch claim that organisms

naturaîîy erncnd the mnge and canpitrtity of tbar sm>ctural wuplings with their environment in ader to maintah tbar 'Yitntsswa viaality as mcir actions tr;illsform t&e enviconment in which îhey act. In a sense, Aagct and Varda, Thomand Rosch an pmposing similar growth pcocesses. The episodes of' studmt action-thought 1 have presented support the idea d a growth insi@cance f a a studcnt in h a understanding of her nlati0llsàip with ber environment Thcy also lemi support to the idea that ". mind is an extensiond the han& and tools h t you use and of the jobs to which you apply thean" (Bruner,19%. p. 151). Whm Tim ami Ma& (and Kcith) describeci their umkmtdhg of their machines as being intimatcly cumectd to breir actions and dccisions in building tbe madiines. they werc, in effcct, saying tbat tbcir p e m d b w l e d g e was embodied in bu machine as a physical object and,conversely, thai tk building pmcess i Hin some sense enabled the machine to became embadied within themselves In other words they are saying tbat they "are" tbe machine and tbat tbe machine itself 9s" them. 1 consider mis to be a remarkable insight C r w i eighth grade shidents.

..

For instance, when Tim said Y have this mmoiiaed now.I could malte a drawing of this

after not seeing it for a long time and 1couid get evecyjoint or piece ... in the nght place. I have sucb a goad feding for it", be is desaibing how the machine has baame embodied within himself in that he am reproduce it at will. Dan, in his final conversation, reflecting on his buiiding expiences tbrougbout axondary school science, expresseci a similar iasight ai a metacognitive level. When asked about building Wn responded that the buiiding process was now a "mental" poass for him;a pnxrss drat he enacted whenever he explorsd a cmiplex p d e m setting. It appears that Dan's perspective on "making" evolved fmm ow that portrays the body and miad as separate entities to one that views the body and mind as king part of a larget cognitive systaa. In so doing, he moves toward an eaactivist p s p c t i v e on knowing. hrhaps tbis shift is @y a oonsequence of his extensive experieiw in participetiag in s c h d leaming environmen& tisat uicaporate open explorariai and physical building as central cornponents of the cunicuim.

Enaictivism essentially describes chc worid as caistituted by two entities, a hiower and a known. Whüe enactivism allows for tbe sort of miprocal relatioaship between the two entities i.e., organism (student) and environment that the prwious examples describe, it does not aNow for the possibility of eitber ait@ subsuming or king subsumed by the other. If an organism can. in some sense. iacorponite aspects of the environment w i t k itself, then this action implies numerous chanp. ûne kind of change pertains 0 a change

in the boundary betwan aganism and environment. Varda, n i o m p n and Rosch seem to imply such a change wkn they describe hiowingas eii&ringinto a w d d of significance. d f o w on cbe mganhiion-structure ~laticmshipwitbin the organism. MatUranaand Vanla &&r Q aganiration of an orgaaism as 1& biolopical invariant. W b Q leamer mmcatally, in the Eapa'an sense, is it die orginidon that changes a i s it tbc stndure? Vda, Thompsai and Rosch arr not clear on this matter, pertiapS b u s e tbcy do wt providt us with enough apzpiate exampies to derstand what tbey mean by "~rga~sm", "structure". anci " s t r u e coupüngW ~ when applied to cognitian. It may Bcem that in the biological ieelm what ccmstihites an aganism and what caistitufts thc boundary between an oqpïsm and its environment is relatively straightfomard- Upon closer exambation this is not iweessarily the case. Mingers (1995) indicates mat for hurnaa kings, Varda has proposd a model of the idea of " s e r that underlies his devefopmentof enaction. The identity of an cxganïsm may be re-coastituted in the autopoietic sense at kvels of: Awther biad of diange d

"1. biologicai (œiiular identity) 2 bodily (immunological identity)

3. wgnitive (behavid identity) 4. socidinguistic (personal identity) 5. collective (-al identity)" (Mingers. 1995. p. 1%).

A discussion of the impücatiom of this five-Ievel model of the organism is kyond the scope of this thais. However. questions of mplexity and of the poperties of boundary

between organism (however constituted) and environment seem in ns#l of clarification in understanding the nature of the relationships inbennt within and between levels. û r p i z a î i d closme of aie orgam-sm does not imply interactionai closure. Tbe question of the ôouadary between the organism and its envùonment is important in mapertaining organizational closure. This q u h m e n t is centmi in Mahiiaaa and Vatela's conception of autopoiesis, which they identify as a fundamental chacteristic of living

systems. Furthermore, while autopoiesis repuires cxganizational closure. it does not imply structurai invahce. Structures can anâ do change e.g.. a sced growing into a plant To use MatUrana's term. structures can be plastic. The invariance of organkation becornes poblematic when an orgauïsrn is aôie to imrpocafe aspezts of its environment iato its reinvenîed self. 1have k n arguing thai one seems to be abie to add, subhact, and modify, in some sense, the affbîances which anstitute our cugnitive orpnization. It is not clear how an enactivist conception of organization, structure. and structural coupling help us to

understand such capaciiies for shaping our selva in tbt cognitive domain. As well, our bang as emotionai and intentional mganisrns needs considdon in relation to key ickas of ewtivist theay. Creatinga worid of signüïwnoe can be undemtood in tnms of acquisition OC knowledge. When we Ieam abcnit tht Incas or the shvcûue of a sonnet tbtse domains hpimne m m meaninNd to us. When we mgkt samethihg we are not d y leaming about smie thing, we are also ltamiag to 'be-rith" the thing and to "be-cornewthe thïng in the sense tbat we are now an embodied crrata of samething which is a part of oursdves tbat is aiso accessible io othem. Understanding such enaction setms to involve oatoîogical questions in addition to epistemologid mes. A proass of building is a pmcess of invention in which a sndent not d y enacts an at'Totdaace space and a way of engaging with that emerging space. but the snident dso "re-invents"berself as well.

The episodes 1 have presented illustnuc the ptesence of a distributed amipaient to actionthough~1 referred eariier to a story-lik qudity of the action-rhought which emerges from cdlective building activity- During each ppct it was dien the case tbat several students would engage in periods of exploration with 0 t h students' constxuctions. These periods of e x p l d o n might involve watching othes as they worked. manipuiatiag aspects of k i r constructions, or helping other students as they invented k i r own devices, In a sense, the students engaged in a kind of s h d and coordinated c a n p e n t of action-thought Such a phenornenon is mt considend in eaactivian which views occunenœs of stnrairal coupling to oaiur between an organism and an environment. Rhaps one can betier describe tbis typ of pattern in iemis of consensual d i n a t i o n of action (Vygotsky, 1%2). Language is cleariy invdved.

The notion of adequate d u c t or viability of action is centmi to an enactivist position. MatUrana and Varela talce a proscriptive stance which m t s die h v a l of an organisrn with the idea ofdequate coaduct. If an of8anism s u ~ v e sthen , its conduct with respect to its environment is adequate. The= are many organisms. hence many ways of being viable. This idea is amactive wiihin the caimt deducation in the sense that it ailows for multipie criteria in considering notions of cognitive sucass Attention is thus shifted away from cbe "col~ect"response or the "best way" to multiple ways oT being successful in a setting, including making changes to the setting itself. The notion of "fit"aui k used to refer to the complexity of the "shape" of the ~ganismcnvimnmentstnictural coupling. Whik many trajectories of action-thought can be considered viable in the sense of being adequate,

distinctionsarc p s i b l e in the %oaduct"pact d the idea of dequate d u c t . In matters of cognitian and the making ofmeanin8 it may k the shap of rht stnw:tural coupihg (Le.. the oompiexity d 'Yt") ratha than its straigth thaf emerges as a Lry factor. Interestingly, the same obsetvation bas k e n made in t h M d of 008mdogy (Zurek, 19%). The significance of a W e r conception of dequate d u c t bscdme apparent to Ms. B (Bridget) durhg the SoLr House piojact and was sukquently extended in the Invent 8 Machine pject as her app10acbto cvaluaticm shiftcd toward m MacDonald of the University of Alberta during January April, 1995. The investigators may vidco-tape and

-

audietape my sonidaughter during the nsearch pcriod,

NO

1 do not wish to have my sontdaughter (insert nrme) includcd in the mearch project-

Signature

Date

APPENDIX B Shident Work and Cofnments

You have in fmnt of you three kinds of paper towei: pink. white and brown. This is what you have to find out:

-

Which kind of paper will hold the most water? 4

You can use any of the tftings in front of you. Choose whatever you need to

answer the question. Make a clear record of the results so that someone else can understand what you have found

out

-

'kil~r(utyou'~(~hdo*-

pe*I

Which kind of ~ p owill r hoid the most mer3 YOUQ" 8-

f ;fi

m.

quartion,

SAVE Tf3f ICE CUBE PURPOSE: Ta build a container w h i c b i keeps an ice cube from rnelting by reducing the f l o w of heat into the container.

BACRGROUM) INFORMATION: You know heat flaws from where there i s a l o t of i t to where there i s less o f it, L e . from a

region o f high temperature to a region of Icw temperature.

CONDUCTIVIM ocnirs when heat f l o v s through material. The b e s t conductors are metals aad the worst is a i r . How can you reducs heat loss by conductivity? CONVECTION occurs when heat flows v i a a heated f l u i d

easpanding and rising, and cooler air flowing in t o replace it. For convection ta occur there must be a fluid and circuiatioa. How c u i you reduce heat loss by canvection? RADIATION occurs when a n u g y travels i n waves, either through matter or through space. Both absorption and cmission of radiation oeeurs most i n non-shiny, black surfacer and least in shiny, silver surfaces. How can you reducc the lois of heat by radiation?

-

MBTERIALS: From school shredded newspaper, cotton batting, Styrofoam pellets, wood shavings, sand, sawdust, aluminug foil, glue, scissors, tape From home a container, any other insulation

-

.

PROCLDü2Z : 1. Plan pour container (diagtam, notes). Show your teamer.

.

2 . Cocstruct your container 3 . TO TEST YOÜR CONTAINER: Get an i c e cube, weigh it, and put f t into your container. A f t e t several hours open your

container and weigh the remaining ice cube. improvements to pour container and test again.

4. Eake

OBSERVATIONS : time

trial 1

mass tg) o f ice cube trial 2 trial 3

start at end at total tinre(min) 8 maso of i c e los+ ANAtYSf S

1. Write paragraph(s) describing hou you created your most Be sure to t e l l how you redueed heat l o s s bp a.) eonduction b.) convection c.) radiation 2. Dtaw and label a Ncut-oway' diagram o f your most effective container. e f f e c t i v e container.

i OW~~GS

5

re-n--W

4

Tïioi.*Z t- -b &sec&

QKWFCL ticai.resvrtr Gom Triai + i -5

more

BUILD A SOLAR HOOSE

PROBLEM: To build a "housert which has maximum s o l a r gain retention. AND which reduces/prevaats heat loss. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Use your textbook to make notes on Passive Solar Heating ( p .

158) and Active Solar Keating(p.159) PlATERIALS :

-al1 materials ftom Ica Cube experiment, polystyrene, g l a s s

PROCEDURE : -

1. Read the Procedure on p . 160 of your text. Brainstorm answers to questions. 2 . ~iagrama plan for your solar house. Show your teacher. 3. Build a whouse" (one room is OK) with features o f pcssive or a c t i v e solar heatina. 4. To test your house: a. Position a 200 watt lamp 50 cm away from the frontlroof of your house b. Take the-starting temperature of the air inside yout house by inserting a themorneter into the house. c. Shine the light on your house for no more than 30 min. d. Take the temperature after heating and at intervals until the house is at room temperature. 5. Make improvements to gour house and test aqain.

-

-

OBSERVATIONS: time

temperature(oC) inside solar house trial 1 trial 2 trial 3

**immediately after heating

*before heating

1. Write paragraph(s) describing how you cteated your most e f f e c t i v e solar house. Be sure to tell how your house: a.)gained maximum solar enerm b . )retained maximuni solar en&v c ) reduced heat loss by conduc~~on, convection, radiation 2. Dtaw and label a wcut-awayn diagram of your most e f f e c t i v e solar house-- - 3.)Graph your data with time on the r a x i s and temperature on the y a x i s , using the scale your teacher gives you.

.

---

FOCUS QUESTIONS COR REPLECTION

1. What do you like about your completed project? 2 . What strengths about yourselves did you discover or af f irm while doing this pro ject?

3 . What parts of this project did you find easy? did you find d i f f i c u l t ? 4. Did you f i n d anything t h a t was

you as you worked on this projeet?

What parts

uaaxpected or surprised If so, please describe

it.

S. What limitations did you a c o u n t e r while doing this project? (Limitations of time, effort, enthusizsm,resources or other limitations) 6 . If you were t a do the project again, what changes might you make?

7 . Kow well d i d you meet your owrr expectations in completing this pro ject? 8. (Class 9B ONLY) Did you have an opportunity to discuss your project with Mr. MacDonald? How did those conversations affect the development of your p r o j e c t ? - -

2. what strengths about yoursebes d i d you discover or a f f i n while doing this p t o j e c t ?

what l i m i t a t i o n s did you encounter w h i l e doing t h i s project? (Limitations of yourselves: t h e . effort, enthusiasm or limitations of resources) 3.

4.

If you were t o do the project again,

what changes might you

make?

5 . How well did you meat your own expectations i n completing this pro ject?

6 . what do you t h i n k your classinates l i k e d about your project? Didn't l i k e ?

7 . Discuss how your group worked together. On t h e reverse s i d e , l i s t the rnembers of your group. Assign each one a percentage based on the share of the work on your pro ject t h e y completed. (If al1 rnembers of a 4-member group shared the work equally, each one would be assigned 25%) When you have r e a c h d agreement, please initial beside y o u r name. If you would l i k e assistance w i t h t h i s , please ask.

Solar House Analysis Dan and Tristin, 9B

We,the daignes decideci UJ go out cm a Iùnb and ûy to use an active sdar heaîing Pystem in our house. We did this by heating w a t a in a plastic tube aiaod with b k k construction paper, dcsigned to absabradiant kat enf m the ligbt and m m i t it so as to heat the water in the tube.

We bad planacd ta use convection as the mean0 of circulating the water throua the house (wder in Madr tube wamied by sdar encra gains mergy so prticks move fartcr and farter a m Density darrassso the w a r w d warcr rises and cold water is drawn from the "spent water retum &O& by the area of low prrssurr Ieft when the warmed watcr rises. At the highest point of eIeva!ion tbat th water wouid reach, the mbkr hcec was co~ectedto the copper, at which point, we Imew, that heat would begh to be conducted away from the water by the copper pip. and then emiW inro the room in our house. When loosing tbis energy it would begin to grow dense and Cuculate d o m through the 96.55 cm copper a i l . To t&eend ofcopper pipe was c c m i d the "spent watv ntum hose" through which the c d e d water would mve1 back to the base of the black tube.) Unfortunately. ckxiation did not OCCUT so we manually pourrd the watcr out of the black tube and into the house &ter the

30 minute heating process had aoncluded.

Alsa, we wd a curved piece of rcfitctive metal b help focus light rays back on the black tube (sec illustration, fig. 1):

We dso covercd the outside of the house with b k k construction papr tbat muid absorb

radiant energy and recmit t as heat on the surface of the house. That probably wasn't a huge fafta in bre fuial outcome because the insdatiou didn't let kat energy out of the house so it probabfydidn't let any m to stan witb. But it lodred cod anyway, and was better than nothing.

We didn't put any windows in our house because tr.e I w w that tao much heat could k lost

by conduction through tbe g l a s and convection through any leab around i t Also. we were conœntrating on getting the active sdar system to wak

The last feature visible f m the outside was our "glass tree" (see illustration, Fig. 2):

fhe fmction of the balImns was to protide a place for the pressure 0 go biat would d t fmm the subsquent expansion of tbc water as it was heated by the Iight If the pressure had built up to a hi& it would be impossible for the water without either popping a hose off of something or the wata's density not kiag abk to inaease, either way interferhg with the o p a b o n of ouf systmi.

Tbe walIs of our house were comprised of, fmm the outside in. the a f ~ mentioncd t black constmction paper.then at least4 cm of p o i y s ~ ~ ~(Styrofoam) nc indation giud together and then "caulkednwith glue to prevent air from arcuiating from inside to the outside, and loosing kat through diat rype of convection. The pdysfyrene has exedlent indation properties oiat ccme from the mauy tiny air podrets, a medium through whkh heat conducts very poorly, aad they'rc too d to have coavcction currents fomiing wïthin them. Also, tizc plastic iadf bas no lanice formafion among its particles, thus it is a poor conductar of bcait, Next was the fiberglas indation, which bas pmperties simitar to thosc of the pdystyreae for the same reasons (the air pockets formai in-bemn tbe strands of fikrgiass). Mowing that was the layer of aluminurn foi1 tbat despite being a good conductor of heat it wili dso reflect heat back, and anyway, whatcver go< pst the aiuminum f d had to cüai with the fikrglass strands. In-ktwcen the layes t k c was no airspaft so as ta prevait a convection c m n t f r w forming in then. Every wall bad thu same configuration, inciuding the roof. which was built up with extra insulating matmals because heat rises. sa the point of highest heat loss would bt the roof, except that we took case of bat with 6 cm of fibergIass strand inslatioa and 5 an of p lystyrene*

The fiberglas had a duai purpose. mer than just kœping the heat energy inside, it dso fiIIed up aiSpace so that thcm was Iess air to heat Using the logic of -c beat capacity aod the foxmula H=mAts. with l e s air, m (mass) is lowcr so Iess heat enis quired. And although the ~ e r e n c may e be Im than a w b l e milJigram. air's S.HLis very hi@ so even a slightiy smdler volume of air wouid ~ s u lin t a noticeabie fcduction in the amount of heat quired to mgse(hc w b l e vo1ume's temperature by 1 deCelsius. Inddentdly. the intemal volume of the house was 9328'8.We measured by filling a plastic b g with water b i d e the house's walls so that the water levd was at the point whete the walis end and the roof begins, then measured the roiurne in a graduateci cylinder.

In the house we had a c d of coppcr pipe ( t h we shapeà ourselves by heating and then carefuiiy knding it aroimd a 5 inch piece of PVC pipe so as to get it nicely munded) and because copper is a gaod conductor of hcat (16,ûûû tims bepcr tbao air) we f i g d tbar heat exchange (fmthe wata to the air in au bouse) wouid not bt a probIem, and whm we assÏstcd (he circuïatiian with gravity the ttmpemtmc danhoue pranply rosefrom 24 degrees to 38 degrrcs CêIsi~s.Noct. when W~Ewbddtêd Q spmt ~tum hoie from thebIacktukaftawe h a d c i m k d the watcrthrough the "kat cxcbangd or"radiator" (the copper pipe). it ü@iy bmed my (don's) hand it was Stin so hot. At tbat point we Mockcd îhe mbkr horing with cIothespi*nsto hdd what was Idt of the hot watcr in the copper pipe so tbat it couid continue lo mit heat energy.

Although our house didn't mach the spec&cuiariy high tempcrature of 79 degnes Celsius, as did Clarence's. it was so weD put together tbat heat loss was only about a degree an houf, so it would conceiWy take 13.5 houn to drop back to the s-ng temperature of 23 degrecs Celsius. This gave us 84 square centimekm for thc a m of Our triangle, better than would thought it would be. We an pleased with the mulr

Soiar House Project

Response to Focos Questions

ZIdllIILtdOntIlih&ing dcisiled work. inicapnio bath the h e y s i s andScaial house, as well as putthg a lot of hugbt into things. Tbip may of becn a probIcm because the fust est of Ibe how was t k offîciai test, so as f'as 1 was ccmccmed, it was ail or nothhg While it didn't @mas wdl whcn heating up. it nrained beat so tfficimdy ihat it more than comptnsarcd, homthisIicantedtbat~aiting~~tiyCor9 Qcfatato b e i a ~ o gaingmcmadatthe f initial rcsults. would be a gobd üait ?Dadopt if 1wen to pusue a career as a scient&.

But 1itDalr WC were actuPay cornpuhg pnd giving each other our ideas, how to make the buse wark,

b:Ok.wtll tbPt's p ü y goad guys. 1 meaa I'm learning something here. Irm interested in how people kam. not jirrt JI. High stuclents but Sr. High studtnts and CoUege studcnts*ail stucknts iIICluîing myseif anâ IO ibn inteabout wbat sxts of tbings work when people are M g . Whst wauld you teil me if you had to summarizt it into somtthing? Wbat sorts of thinp w a t wbcn you're laming?

P d : And explanation. b w to do certain tbings.

Lco: Understanding it, if you were to describe tbat for me, what is the difference between Qing your expriment snd undtrstaadiog your expehent? k a k : Ok,lets say tbe ice-cube b use right ... you just h o w that insulation works because itfs in your bouse. you dont know ... why. Y& Ok, the ice-cube let's say. You got stymfoam*you've got insuletion in ït to keep all the âeat out, right Let's jiut say that it works reaüy good but you &nt Lnow why it wated, you jwt like kind of 'fiuked". So you donft reaily kmw why it works. TWs wbat Dan thought about Our project because it worked so good and bis, he put so much thought in, you saw his. right? Big pink thing and bis didn't work as well as ours. So he just thaught that ours ~s a fiuke. But m knew what we were

doing.

Paul: We actualîy widerstood it.

Lco: So tbat meam tbat you sort of have an idca of what wiil happen beforeband?

Lco: And wbat bappened? Lco: Ok, ww thac's interesthg for m. Do you bave a fceling when you'n leaming or when youlre uIIcietstandïng something as opposed ta w h you'n wt understaading somethiag? Paui: W a ue do checkpoints now. You have to answer questions and then if you were listening and undeistood you'd get ail the questions. If you didn't undetstand at . I Iyou'd guess on every one

Lca Wbas it like to be jmt doing something as opposed to be doing something and undentanding it m. at the spmc thne? Bernie: We& if you just do sometbing. 1 don't think you're rcally Iearning anything about what you & because you don't b w why everythiiig hpppened Lets say the ice-cuk house and it didn't WC& you wouldn't know why it didn't work because you didn't learn anything and then if you were to do the expriment again you wouidnt hiow what to change because

p u didnt know wbat ciidnt wock and what wotbad, But if you know wbat you did and if you w e n to do it agah y m can maLe the jmpr changes.

L m Havt you &œ anythiag in your scie=

w

h you do somcthing again?

LAoC Ok one k t question and ïW Id you go. Do you guys foUow a method when you're

~0rkin$?

Berak: You mam follow a method when we're

...

Lco: Pm not taiking about methoci. I'm just taiking about any method that you guys use ... any similaritics in wbat you did in this ice-cube project to f ..,anyWaeothertherepojeds you've waked on?

when you're doin the solar buse?

Pa&

O

Planning out wbat you're going to use and ...

Ba&: Ok,weii we plan it out first and then discus everything tbat we dont agree on and then if ue stül can't find a solution of which one to pick 1 guess then we flip a coin or something üke that. Paul: Or go ask an opinion.

Bernk: Yeab, ask a teacher's opinion, ask someone's opinion if ue cadt get to agree o n something and then ue start building. I guess k t ' s it until w e k done and then IR do Our dysis.

Selected Excerpts h m the Interview with Th, Mark, and Keitb ï a x 1 like you to cornparc your thinking during this project with your thinking in your other science activitics,

Kdtk 1 thint 1was a liale more ouUandish with this oae ... fike aimost ail the pa~&are usCd and are king uscd ... it bas a ... they bave a different look ... othtr than that scientific sort of look ... if you wül ... from iike sciena parts and s m f f lïke that from science Iab in here ...tbert's not very much that can look very senous about this thing .* 1 mean when 1 thintr about it tbis is iike a pop boak f a îhe outside of tbe car ... W s pretty weird ... but it wo*,

h

Can you tell me a little bit more about what you mcan by a scicntific look?

Kt& WeU it doesnt look that normal ... it isn't normal for sometbing like this to be used in a s c i e s e poject.

TInr

you did

... that's why 1 said not normal. TLn: A n you not normal? ... 1 mean a science ptoject can be anything ... that's part of science ... you're creathg œw things Ueltb: Weli

Kelth: Thank-you 1 kmw that. Mark: ... Wd ..-the problem m e had with this was getting it to go ,.. sa 1 just thought of something tbat we could [do to] reduce the weight by over haif (points to Keith' car) ... just sort of Keith's idea ... put a pop bottle aDd have some wheels on it ... and just put this [rocket enginel through the middIe ... make a hale and have it go much faster ... you could just put the weights inside and it woutd still be lighter than U s [bol& up their CONSTRUCTS car).

Tlm: But the only different ... the only thing I'd lilre to do now is ... if 1 made out an extension of bow to puncturc the CO2 cartndge with a very small hole ... but egually ... you can just have a way of tying a tubufar mil here ... and you can somehow just push them together and theyll puil something üke this (gestwes with his bands) ...and that WUpoke a hole in it and then it will sboot (gestiires with bands some more).

Lto:

... Will you be aMe tb & wcll on that [analysis] do you thinlr?

Mark Because we understaad out poject Kcitb: Anybaiy could & d y weU on tbat if they k w w what their machine docs and what types of pmblems tbey. They can & weii if t k y know their macbine wcll ewugh

IRO: TeU me about this "knowing your machine" or "understanding your machinen.What is it that was special about your thinking and your way of thinking in this project that ailows ~ not to kmw their machine quite so weii? you to lmow your machine and maybe s o m c o ~else Keltb: Weil I knew what my proiezt was going to bt fmm the start ... I bad sort of a vision ... sball we say ... of a car ... mt gomg too fPst or anything ... but just moving ...just enough to keep a five hundred grsm mas going ... a d if you have an i&a right h m the beginning it

s o i t of &velops as you go Plong and it gcts cmbcdded in your memory off by hcaxt from tbere-

... Iike you know it

fAa (huas to Tim Bt Mark) OK ... what is it tbat allows you guys to understand your projcctanâ wiliaiiow y~)guystoUÜnktbatyoucaudopcttywelionthk mitclip?

...

TIar WC wockad d l y bard in cimm like rrit atver fwled around ..- 1 have this memonzed m w ... 1 coutd make a drawing of thÏs &ter aot seeing it for a long time and I coutd gct evesy joint or picce of plash'c on tbU in the right place .. 1have a r h a good faling for it ...because 1 hiow it ... rnd 1 a b bave dcvclopd lmowledge of it ...like how you w a k with Cq cartridges. 1 lmaw why it dicint p well Tm tbe clas ptcscntation]...and 1know wby it did go well the f m time [ftrst twt).

Lca ...Tim ... how about you ... can you compare your thinking and the way you were tbuiüng in this pmjed with the way you t h k whcn you're doing dha science activities? The Wdi ... it4 a bit different when you do something Iüre this wlvn you can actuaïly make tbings. A lot of the other science adivitits you do ... at have somethiag that weit supposeci to & ... ahh ... we bave .... we Md fmm tk textbwk and we bave to put .... to see who can dissolve Salt or somcthing ...rad hem we cari do wh.tcvu we w ~ ...tand it was ... so U t tlica 1 tbou@t dlltmeoüy ... I didn't think from the book and think o f from like a professionai scientists kind of point of view ... 1 was thinking of ... of wbat a lrid would like ... but aiso someone tbat maybc like ... a SEientist wouidn't me as much about like those Little mcket powcred cars ... 1 was thinking m m of people my age, of what pcople our age wouid

like.

Mark WeU ... whea 1 have a project that I can cha>sc wbat Fm going to do ... I'm usually ... usually a lot of people dont do wbat I'm thinking of ... last year 1 did for my science fair pmject an expriment with ah ... bem se& and stemiâs ... and no one else did that ... in the schod ... and tbm are other projects that wexe repeated by other people and I'm just doing an extension of that this year ...and 1 found that no one else had the idea of using a CQ cartride or a racket launcher or a rocket in a scie= project with machines.

Lcot

So you Cecl tbat you bave an oppoctunity to bave some ociginaiity in a project when you thint for yoursclf that isdt present ... m a y k as much ... when youlre doing sometbing from a textbmk or somebody e l r is giving you directions?

Tlm & Muk: Ycs.

Lco: 1was interestcd Tim. in your comments just m w that you were thinking more about

what someone ynir age wouid Iike to do do you were saying that w a ~ a üttle different from your other normal science activities ... in the textbook for instance wbere ifs stuff that a scientist wauld want p u to do. Can you teIl me a bit more abwt that?

TbP WeU. ifs îike when we do science d l y WC have to do ... we have to leam about ... different aspects of tbe science world ... but were actuaily not inventing anything ... whereas hm ... weli this didn't actually bnn out dl that well ... but lüce 1 made a car ...anci t&rels tons of Little ki& ...a people of my age that would like a a.I. b.w .. ... our IA tacher 1 found out has made oaes t b t are much dürerent ... they're made out of wood and ... they got like close to a hundicd kiiometcfs an hour ... Yes ... r d fw with catridges.

a

Lea Pethaps you could tel! me a l i a about bow you guys see younclves as thinken there anything special about you Tim?

... is

Thi: Weil ... 1 dont reaily tbink Fm d l y special compared to other people ... but 1 tend to be kind of creative ... in tenns of using different things ... because like the tbing 1 don't like

otber people Qing is like ttsing ... weii ususlly m e use LEGO and use a motor with it ... because tbaî's just m e t h h g a liük peisan ... lïke and d d o ...and like nght here nie use CONSTRUCTS which is soniahing that tbcy dont evcn mairc anymorc ... 'Ibn: Yes ... 1iLc Mark collects CONSTRUCTS ....but ... so thars really different ... but also som ioclatr get very advonad ...1 bave quite a bit of e x p r i e n a with them ... and there1s different ones that can they can carry eggs and ... insects and thcy have dinerent wmpeitmcnts a d y bave-" diffint ways ...yw am have oae rocket p ...it wiil

='zegB"

goupsiditdIiittbcaatoae~itligbtup~imtociea>itt&poagenuigexe~pwer ...so 1 think I'm a ôit dicfemnt tôat way ... I take a bit of a sttategy and m*ngsometbing more powerful than just a n o r d motor a bsticy paverd car. Lto: C h you add anytbing to that Mhtk?

Mark Wdi ...the problem WC had with tbir wm gening it to go ... so 1 jupt thought of something that we could reduce the weight b y over half .-.just sort of Keith's idea ...put a pop boale anci bave m e wheels on it ... and just put tbis tbrough the middle ... make a hole ... and have it go much faster ... you could just put the weights inside and it would still be lighter than this.

Lco: Yes ...it was a nice ides ... 1agnt ... Thi: The thing with tb* 1thought ...we ahh ... 1 wanted something that Iooked more üke a real car ... like LEGO things ...they c m like ... so they can turn into anything ... you can turn a car into a robot ... you can tum a car into a frog ... and like with this ... 1 still h o p that we can get ...more of a real construction look to it ... that's with squares and rectangles ... 1 thought it was more nalistic this way ... before we had the inclined plane kïnd of like a windshield

Leo: Right ... 1 remember ... 1 remember it well ...it was nice ...

Mark: Pd iike to do this again ... but wicbout the weighls ...just to see if wt could have it go straight this time ... Keitb: W hy not just take off the top deck hem ... like take off most of the unnecessary pieces

Mark: Well that's not the problem here ... because when m tested it in the hallway it didn't

go straight ...

Tim Actually it did ... actualiy 1 tbought of a way to do this ... y a i take this &hg out ... this part ri@ bere ... aod you can actually get it in tbe midme ... Iike sometime it kind of bulges Out

...

Mark: Dont break it .. Tlm: He really mes his mnsûucts

Muk: Weil my moni said she diânt even want me to bririg it ...

Mark: Yes

Lto: Why not? Mark: They're worth a lot of money.

... and t h it's in t b rniddle and it can go straigbt ~ O W ... Lto: And why is it important fm it to be in tbe middk ... oh ... it wiü hclp it go ...

Xbm See it's kind of like that

'Inn: Ycs .,. we couidnt put it in the middtt bef- because d t h e b m s ... they are down in the middk on both sides ... can yau see h i & the=?

Léo: Yes... yes. Thn: And the sûip insi& is forcing this part up ... ami if rcaily was a pmblem. which 1 Rally dont think it wouid be, we c d d use tape ar something just to hald this here ...

b:More stability -.-ok ... t m Maybe ~ we couid compare this a lïttle bit to ...

Keitb: Each othet's?

Lco: No ... 1 l&t you to compare your thinking during this project with your thinking in your other science activities. Keîth: 1 think 1 was a little more outlamlish with this one ... like almost aü the parts are used and are stili being d ... it has a ...they have a different look other than that scientific sort of look, if you w u from like science parts and stuff lïke that from science lab in hert ... thexe1s not very much that can look vtry serious about tbis thùig ... 1 mean when 1 tbink about it this is liJce a pop bottie for the outside o f the car ... tbat's pretty weiid ... but it wotks ... at least -..

Leo: Can you eu me a iittle bit m a n about what you man by a scitntific Lodr KeW: Weîi it dasn't look that oamPl ... it isn't normal f a something like tbiJ to be used in a science poject ...

Tlm: You did ...

Kt&: Well ... tbatls why 1said not normal ... 'Lha A n you not normal? ... I mean a science pmject can be anything. Thatfs part of science, you're creating aew tbings.

Keitô: Thank-you 1 lrmwv that ...

k OK Keith ... th& great ... I appreciate yout comments ... Tim ... how about you ... can you cornpue your thinking snd the way you werc thinking in this project with the way you thinlr when you 're &ing oiher science activitis. Tbr WtU ... ifs a bit different wben you do someibllig like this wben you CM actuaîly make things ... a lot of tbe other science activities you do ... we bave something that weic supposed to do ... abh .. wc bave .... we read fiom the textbook and w e have to put .... t o a# who can dissolve salt or something ...and hem we can do whatcvcr we want ... and it was .., so like then 1 thought differently ...1 didn't thinic from the book and thr'nkof from like a professional

tbinling of ...of what a kid would like ... but also scientists Und of point of v*v ...1 someone that maybe iike ... a s ü e ~ ~ t i wouida't st care as mucb about îike those liüîe rocket powacd cam ... 1 was thinking mat of psopk my a p ... of wbat people out age would like

Mark: WeU ..wbcn 1bsv. a poject tba 1can choœe what Fm going to & ... I'm u s d y ... usually a lot of people don't do what I'm thinking of ...hsi y c u I did for my science fpir pmjcct an expriment with ah ... bcan saeds Md atetoids ... ancl m one else did tbat ... in the s c W ... and tb#c ut otber pojects that WCEC repeatcd by otber people and I'm just doing an extension of that tbis y u r ... and 1 fourid tht no one cles had the ideo of using a 04 cartridg6 a a rocket launch a a rocket in a pmjcct with machines.

fAa O k ...so you fml tbat you bave an opportunity to have some orighdity in a pmject when you think for yowself thai isnt prcsent ... rnaybe as much ... when you're doing something fmm a kxtbook or somcbody else is giving you directions?

Th& Mark: Yes. L m 1 wap interested ... Tim ... in your mmrnents just m u that you were thinking more

about what romeone your agc would like to do a d you werc soying tbat

wps a little different fmm your dher normal science activities ..-in t k textbook for instance w k r e it's auff that a scientist would want you to do ...can you tell me a bit more about that?

Tlni: Weii it's like when we do science nomaily nt have to do ... we have to leam about ... iike different aspects of the science world ... but were actually not inventing anything ... whereas bere ...wel this didn't actually tum out al1 that weil ... but Iike 1 made a car .-.and the& tons of little Iuds ... or people of my age tbat would tike a car...I know ... our IA teacher I famd out has made oaes tbat are much different ... they'n made out of wood and ... they got like close to a hundred kilometers an hour ... MON ... Yes reai fast with CO2 cattndges ...

Mark: That's because they only weighed a few grams ... Tlm But ... the only different ...the only thing I'd like to do now is ... if 1 made out an extension of how to punctum the CO2 CaNidge with a very small hole ... but e q w y ... you can just Wre ... Wce bave a way of tying a tubular coi1 here ...and you can like .... somebow just p h them togttber a d theyll puil someibing like this ... and tbat will pote a hole in it and then it will shoot ... but ... il's just W r if you can do something thot you would Iike ... that's def'iitely something tbat 1 am interestcd in ... somethiag tbat dber people are interested in ... more than ...like ... doing something with saits ... that like ah ... I'm not going to go home ... Wre hi guys ...my fnend a i l s me up and says "bey. want to p skating on the rink?' .... "ah no Ifm gohg to & an e c x p b e n t on saitsl" ... like a's just somethhg that I'd rather do.

Final interview witb Dan August 16, 1996 University of Alberta

Heldl: Did you do any more projects? Did yau & any more building in the Physics Xi/3û?

Du: In Physics 20 WC did a catapuit pmject w b tbe mass o f your catapdt was Iimited to 900 g m s or somcthiag and m w a c launching a scïenEificaiIy stpodatdized -Hacky Sackw a f u as YOU COUld 1ik 1 tbinL my friend Tristen wbo ptticipatcd earlier on in

tbùpojcnw~~myp.icacrfathibmdwecomedI(buitButtbetappcoplc.tbarDpd was an enand they ma& it out of plastics and fibetgiass and the rest u m a mssively rei~orccddcll and of coune Tristen and 1 buiït ours the nïght bforc in tbe garage in my buse as h t k nocm Wjth nmt of our po@s except for ihc car. Tbat one ~ ~WU l thougbt s out in advance. But OUM launchcd somcthing hke 18 meters and the ôest one taunched 23 and tben everybody elsc was &wn ammi 6 to 8 meters.

Hc#LOK.so that is ïntercsting. Ye. thinking about those pmjects that you have doue over the years in the building projeas, do you stiil have any of them. Do you dill bave your car or your Sdar Housc?

Dm: 1 stiii have the Solar Houe ami 1 Mi have .-. Hem Do you! Dm: Yes,it's in the basement somewbere.

DM: Oh,1don't b w , 1 suppose. 1 tbhk it mi@ be missing one or two of the key paris but 1 think "in spirit" it's SUaiive. anyway- And 1 have the catapuit tuo. Hddt Ycs, the catapult w u n ' t rcaiiy a part of our project, ruc didn't se it, at didn't l t m w tbis was happening. We w e n engaged in some other things. But wouid you mind? 1 just taought it would be very interestïng ...

Dan: It's taking up space in my basement right ww- Abmluteiy. if you want to swing by mi get i t

HeMI: 1 think I#,couId probably put it togethet again

Dan: (lmks toward Lm)1 think it's misshg a picce of glasswa~i~ tbat w m borrowed and bad because wc bad some sort of kllows strapped on to it because WC I m w thme was going to be some pressure changes in the systern.

Lca You waatrd to equaiizc the pressure. 1 think you wantcd to keep the pressure from popmg t k tube. Du: (gestweswith bis hands) Yes. Because you nmember we had. past tâe conckarer b i d e

tbm. well it wasn't o condenser because wtbuig would evaporatc, it wan't that hot. But past the heat exchanger ail when tbe wata was on its way k c k out WC had a "T-piece" of giass tubhg andouraiba wnnectedoii1& baramdges of tkT andtbcntbm wouid b e t h vertical portion which had a ballaon stnpped on to the edge that Lep the pressure from cbanging. But 1 thinlr the glas tubt is gone. Hem Thinking back what stands out in your mind nov tbat you bave fuished your high schwl pbysics about tbis sequencc of pojects that you bave panicipated in over the years.

Du: WC& 1 guess the trend 1 lloticed va thit jmt about eveiytbing wc did related to dynamics or loaematics and then m did some cxpdmeamion with eIectrcmiatics and magnetism. But t h e is a ml fin Physics 30 wbcn t h y changed the course a fcnr yepre back tbey put a huge stress on atdc tbeory things ...But the= wasn't a lot of stuff tbat ue couîd do in class f a those. It wasn't a pmbkrn f a me becaust 1 cuuld uhdcrstaad the thwry while we werc going tbrough t b things riad 1 w w l d r a d in the textbook to get a diffetemt perspective. an explsiiption dways, rad jmt to veMy cvaytbg. rad gct just a diffeient sense from a dif'fetent 'explainet". a dUf&c~~t explanation on whatcver w e w a r Dllting about in class tbat &y a tbe &y bdorc. Hekli: Could you tell w a iirtle bit about this diffcrent perspective or diftecent cxplainer?

... For different people with different learning styks, somctimes somtthing he says is not going to corne pclo~~~asconcreteas bemightüke. Andoltcatimatbentbeatxtstep.ntherthsng6 to Mr. G. because Ws gohg to ty to explain it to you the spme way again just out o force would be to either of habit, becaust tbat's tbe way be has been exptaining fw all tbose y-. p to one of the other physïcs teachers in tbc school or as a sort of f m stcp try the physics textbor,fr, and look in thrc and sec bav thcy would explain i t Because out textbook can be extremely obtuse at t h e s but other PimcJ it was rcaliy good just to hear sort of witb somebody else's voice. And if you h w something twke from the same person then you're going to ignore f ... but if you hcar it twice from dïfferent people then because thete are subtie differences in tbe way things arc matcrializing in the explaoation tbcn you arc going to pay better attention and then from the two assemble romething hopefully even greater than the sum of the parts. Du: WeU, tb* was something Mr. G. bad explainal to us eailicr in the y=.

Ykk

HeMt W h about yourself as an explaincr? W= tbat a way that you could perbaps look at those building projects that you did? Was there anything thpt you weie cxplaining to yourself when you were building the d a r bouse or the car or the catapult?

Dan: WeR, wbat aU of those projects, sort of, w a t forcing us to do was take a look at what was going on. why things woiked the way they did and if you didn't understand tbat then

you could ut something together that kind of worked but it wasn't going to be as satisfyingly unctioopl as if you understucd what was going on anci tried to hamess the forces at work For the Solar Home you had to understand the principle of k a t retention in water and insulatioa And those are foirly basic concepts but some of the people just were not motivated or didn't see any ml incentive to ûy and understand. But 1 rralized that the only way tbat we were goiog to do anyihiog spectaculu vitb the project was to look at the theory and Iooking at the theory fnst in what we bad learneâ in the classrmm and then trying some things out ourselves to makc sure that what we were seing happening o n the chUrboard uis the same PP wbat w e were sceing in the book. And w k n uc WQC satîsfied that those things wen coinciding tbcn we werc happy and t h tûat's wkn we finisbcd the bouse.

f?

Lca One of the themes tbst you and Tristcn desaibai as your way of doing ... the Solar House projcct ... VPI the idea of takhg a risk, of wanting to add something new into the pmject ihat pabpps bad wt k c n in cl^ in wbat you bad becn leamhg c l a .

Dar Well thpt's the mrgical part of ICatning, ... wbcn you un takc something tbat somebody bas told you and then add sowtbing yourself to it so that at the end of the day you're left with way more tbian you stwkd with anâ sometimcs the ordy way to get tbat is to take a cbanct. Is ta v sometbing, do something diffemtiy, ste out o n a iimb, and sec if somtbing works and i it doesn't. you've leamcd something an ! t if it dm.you've learned something ...equally valuiMe* maybe more vrliiable, maybe kss valuable. But ... then wbat that does. is that causes you to ask more questions, sod thst's wbpt the paie ïs al! about

"r

Lca

... You and Tristen have continucd to work together for quite some time now. Have

you noticed any progression in the way t h t the two of you tbink and d o things wben you

work together on building pmjccts?

Dam Wa I've found that 1 stüi likc to take rish and try things new but I'm a Little more consecvative m w in t k pmccss of just ûying thinp. lnstead of just whacking thiags togeher and ûying tbem, I'm bcing a liak more carcfd m w with keeping ttack of what I'm doing and Leeping track of the subtlc variatiaas and results tbat we'ce finding wben wt'm fwling amund with ncw thiags tbat worlr or M t wotlt And that strctcks beyond just science, that gaes imo werytbing 1 do. I (lin* Tbcre's a littk more of a pocess, a littk more something wncrete bebind (puse) mmething metbodical m w , is wîmt I'm fmding, more of a metbad. more O€ r -nt I guess you lœe some of the excitement tben, but you gct more out of it at tbe end of the day.

...

Lca Are you tclling w thut, in a sense ... you don't rcally sec yomulf as playing ... as much as you uscd to at the beginning of things - beforc you get into the more serious building of an appafatus and &velophg a clunr idca of wûat it is you will do w k n you work on a piojact? Do you ... have a bctter sense of wbit thst is DOW. from the k-g? D u - Wcll. my perception of tbe vaiue of luK,wledge itsclf bPs chnged In Junior High when liçe was one &y to the next and it ws who b dating whom and what's o n W tonight. then science fun because despite ail of the STS - Society, tecbwlogy. and wbatever. 1 can't remember.

Dmt Science-techriology-socitty.Despite d l of that, the fwus on that, ue were kind of (shrugs) tbrough science class anyway. WCjust wanted to have fun fooling arouud with the concepts and understanding wbaî was going on, but we didn't really sec necessarily the value of i t But MW. maturing as an iridividuaï but also entering society as an ad& 1'm starhg to se more the value of Lnowledge itseff scientific. doIogical, anything like t&at So the process of 1e&g hPs becorne a lot more serious for me ovet the papt few ycais. So it is srül playing, it's just tbat the rtwards art more mature, more adult

-

Lax Wodd you characterize some of these more extended pmjects as contributing in a positive way mimis tbat ncw clearer focus that you have about the value of the learning tbat you are dohg ww?

Dan: W a 1 guess what I'm sort of gcüing at is that learning was fun and it's sîiU fun but m w thcre's a v a i u t~ it, not rcmething tbat you can put a &Uar sign in front of and anyone who limits tbemclves to that is foolish, but a value both to yourself and then potentially to Society too. You never kmw.

Eeldl: So it's dceper. in a sens. It's man cornplex?

D u Y- it's a much more mcaningful experience to leam bccause the pthering of knowledge Ls what makes you stronger. 1 pity the ignorant, 1 guess. Just because Ieaming things ....1 mean cspecialiy in physks. l d g about atomic theory and these otlier things anci having it aU corne togetbcr was a fascïnating experienœ fm me W u s e 1 knew -.. and it was ULlfottunate. so many people had said "No. I'm not going to take Physics 30. 1 don't aecd to,1 don't want to, 1 don't necd to hiow about that". YOUdon't n e to know about very much to suNive in the woild but if you don't waut to hwm tbcu you re misshg out.

.

Lm

So o u t h i d tbat

desiret0

L

B somethhg t h t is very rlive for you, "the need to ltww and the

WrnOIt"?

Dm: To understand the wodd amund. That's what modern mon bas been trying to do for the last couple of thousand yand aie are getting soct of increasingly close to a whok understanding of what is gohg on and 1 fïnâ thst just tnumphant.

Heiàt Do you sec youtsclf partkipating in this uaderstaading, or arc you thinking about that?

DM: Weil, thet's dways in the back of my minl. 1caa ntvcr decide wbat 1 want to do. 1 did one of t h e CZlher assammt q m ondime d 1 got wpJte disposPl manager. That's not sometbing that 1 a q h to but tba jmt C O I l f d w tataiiy. 1 just want to continue to enlarge my mdmtambg of wbat's gohg on. Lca Asde from the spccific concept ta"gs that you Icameâ in something üke the solar house pmject or the musetrap car projtct or tfnp more m e n t catapuit projcct, ... are there 0 t h things tbat you leun over tirne by piticipting ia those lriadr of projacts? DM: WcU. tbac was W dways, wbcn we were Qing thosc khds of pmjccts. an emphasis o n the seientific method, But you had to apply it w w b a . evcn subconsciously you had to apply it, in t& sense tbat ou bad a hyporhesis into how sometbing might work and then you tried it out. But iata on, d e with our catapuit, cven ihougb it was done the night before, we were kft with just tryingto figure out wbat sire of "bungie" con& to put on it So we tobk it out into the bpck Ianc and we let fly with the different "buagie" m d s d we werc carefd to make sure ~t didn't rip the thing apart and sa on, and we kept track of our teSule and w wanted to find out what one was going to work the ôest. Because if we put on oet tbat was too big, we were @g ta break the &hg, and if we put on one that was ta, small tben we weren't going ta take f a aâvantage of the mechmism.

So tben was a mctbOd and tbcm was an analysk and tbm was, t h u g h that wbole piocas. ... a scientific a p p h - a methoditai appoach to it which some of the other people (who) just whacked it togetber with duct tape anci old hockey sticks the night before didn't bave. ThPt's somethiag, you know, a step in the process which became more and more apparently usefui as we went through i t Becausc if we had gone back and wc had tried some different things with the solar house before m had just whacked it together. there are a couple of W g s in retrospct we rnight have done differcntly. And it goes that way with every project, ... things that we couid have &ne differentîyAnd that wsp one of the things about our Iearning experiences ... with those projects. ... Afterwtudo. most of the people jist threw tbeir tbings away. A lot of them are jim siüing in the back physics room in the schw1 or in the basement or they're just in a "dumpster". Some people thmw theirs on the Calgary Tiail and watcbcd a truck run over it. No. that was the Moustrap Car. They wem disappointed with tbe performance of tbeir car so they threw it onto the major road. (ït was a pathetic car acnially, 1 must admit) But that was one of the things tbat we âid dürerentiy. ... W e took the mousetta car apad (and). as ar were talcing it apart, we werc asking oursclves "1f WC had done this ifferently ...?" And when ue had the catapult, aftcr ruc w a e done and ae had rcen wbat the other people had dom, wc wcre likc "Oh yes! That different bit af Jmrmnl reinforcing there aüowcd tbeu thing to flex a lot less ..." and so on. We just weze able to analyze and wonder about these things. ... 1 mean wt didn't takc our pioject away and tkn tly to rcfm i t I mean we w d d bave. but WC diân't

B

-

But 1 think it a major stcp to be even askhg the questions after the Tact kcause that demonstratcû to us. and to the teacher. and to some of the other people in the c h who we were talkïng to about the pmjects. tbat the expetience uss more than jusi putting the thing togethet a d dohg the triais anci thcn tbiowing it away. Tbat asking the questions about what you could have done better. bow ya, wodd have changed it, (and) bow p u would have done things differently is anothet integrai part of the leaming experience and the importance of tbat is kcoming increasingly apparcnt to me ovet the years. Lmx 1 am reaïly intriguai about your more -nt, in the past year. ... projects tbat you developed prsoaally on your awa FCKinstaact, the CAD (Cornputer Aided Design) project in which ... you bave begun your own busiaess. Has any of the work that bas gone before, the project work tbat bas gone before. ... contributed in any way to the kinds of streagths that

you bavt now ...? F i of all, ttll us about this plojcct, siact vie don? know what tbis project is-

Dia: Oh,right Wdl, a fnend o f mine and 1 toc& a drafting course togethet at schwl. For mOSt peapk, tbe drafting coutst mrr a "mouser" couse, a "mouser' option so they didn't care wbat wsl going on but my fricad and 1 vcrr just having a bïast and m dccided eveatually, 1 can't remember W . to s t a n our own drafting company doing computer mecbanid dmving. arcbitectunl drafting, 3-Drradering. thge tinds of things for people who wert w i l b g to pay for L And mostly it was just romething to do, somcthing to refine out slolb in thcm erras.

Lco: That's an intenoting projcct- You wmld characttrize it as a pmject aav. would you?

Or how wouid you cbatacteria it?

Dia: Weii, I'm mt suie tbat 1 wodd charadeh it as a sped'ic pject, more of a kïnd of a mission ami it's not a thing daigned b nt* us a wbole tan of money because if we charged a whok bunch of money then people could go off md get it done by people wbo have certificates to p v c h t they'rc goad at this. Lco: What 1 am asking W ... the skills that you bring to this company with your partner ... have they k e n developed in any way by your expericnces in mon extended building pmjects in the past?

D u Weil the poass of design for me has changed. 1 used to draw tbings. when 1 was sketching, with pen but m w it's pend just because the concept of setting anything in Stone early in the pocess ... that d a s n ' t work for me anymott. that doesn't d o anything for me anymore. That's one of the t b g s that the computer has dowed me to d o now. moving from the pencil to the sort of ultimate erasable d m ,the computer. So 1 can just "select" areas anâ "dragn them around. 1 can say 'No. the kitchen h stupid thea. 1'11 just move it 1 can ceally bave the different over here. It works better there." 1 can flip things am& dimensions of sowtbing at my finsrtïp right thre. It is a procc~gof, 1guess in a sense it is a simüar p o a s s of vpiyiag wbat 1 d o and then trying some different tbings with it and running things through the 3-d rendering program to see wbat they look like because something can lwk 8006 on papr ... In the old days something would l m k good on papet rind then you'd build it and then you'd look at it and you'd say "No. that's stupid" or you would have to build one of those homndously complicated cardboard models tbat take hom and bom and hours to do. But now with the computer we c m just punch evecything in and do a 3 1 reodtring of what the place will look like from the outsih and we can dso renâer the inside and we can p so fat as to put appliances in and so o n and get a teal, very We-like perception of wbat it would be, wbat it woufd look like if somebody chose to build sometbing baseû on out daigns. But then we can g o in then and we can look at it and we can say "No,that doesn't workn and go back and change it again and it's a sort of a never ending process, tûc samt way as cverything that we bave done before with tht pmjects, the building pjccts. Gca- ... During the Sohr House pmj- you did quite a bit of wiiting, not a lot of writing but you did compkte a fsiily detailed repat of the project One of the tbings tbat is interesting is that you arc a good writer and so you gave a vcry good description of the proccss that you and Tristen followed and that you developed Wbst role dom the Mting contribute t o your thinlcing iIithcsc kiids of projects?

Dan: Well. it's one more incarnation of the project Building the actual S01a.r House iîself is sort of the fuot and most obvious incarnation of wbat you do. But then tbis subsequent materiabation, one of them was on paper a d one of them w a we& ~ the frst one afkmads was in my minci. of whpt 1w d d have done aIferently and thca îhe p apr that we wmte was a refinement and an extension of that again. So that's sort of another element of the never ending process tbtrc.

Heldk Do you rcmember b w you organizcd tbat report because we tound it very that you submitted dong with the diagrams, you interesting? Whaî you did Dan. in tht rc wbat wcrc Or kacbgs? Lco, do you remembcr the organized the report in a certain way beadings?

z

LmK Y- the general hcadings wffc, you talked about the "outsides", the "insides", and then " W g it".

Du: WdL 1 guess wbPi we wmc doin t w ~ rtaking the w b d t pmject and brcaking t down from the outer lcvd to the most speeif!c. So tbot's b w M progressecl fmm the outsides of the bouse iisclf. But dso the thcory tbat goes dong with tbat, the @ve solsr. Bcidl: OK.so what do you mean by tbe outsik?

Dan: Well, what we were &kg then was mt of cutting things in half each time w e went and spütting thuigs open and loobing at things at a fmr Pnd more &taiied level each the. EtMi: Sec, tbere it is. (Leb shows diagram fmm thesis to Dan).

Dan: Yes, well cbat's a fine looking diagram if I do say so myseff. Hem: ... You taiked somethhg about the outsides and then the insides, and then testhg it. So tell us a Iittîe bit m a e about what & you mean by the outsides.

Dan: Weli, the outsidcs is sort of the surfaœ of tbe experiment and then the insides is a more detailed look at it and then wbatever we did after was the sort of ultimate theoretical implicationsllS Eeidi: OK, so this a conceptual rnoving from the outsi&?

Dm: Yes. We were breaking things dom and gem'ng soct OC pognssively more detaifed and fooking closer and closer at wbat was d y gaiag on. going from the outside, sort of wbat we v i s d y perceived to wbat is going on. One of the things that strwk me is tôat some stuclents seem to treat their work as a : W of a one shot thing and wbcn 1 ask them to talk about their thinking they don't often talk about the overall process that led into the design of something. They talk about where they ended up, f a instance. Your d t e - u p va striking because it seemeâ to cbaracterize the whole roeess of builâing from start to finish. Perhaps it didn't include everythhg but it s e e d t o be more poccss orienteû as oppossd to jwt describbg "This is wbat we cnded up with". Would you descxibe that as something you are aware of in your work in pneraî. that you do think about "How we are getting dong" in ... developing something? For instance, in the Solar House projet?

D r WC& nothing is a one shot deal for me. Everything is interconnecteci, everythhg relates to cverything else. Sometimes you bave to look for the signifiicanee in a mlationship and 1 thinlr that chaiîengc of having to somczims look for w W s going on is wbat stimulates me to look for wbat is going on. But at the same timc. for so many people that is what prevents them from looking at i t That's just a part of my prsonality. I kmw it's cliché but 1 question ratber than 1 quit m t ' s so bad. 1 know. It cornes from Sesame Street or something.)

Leo: DO you think you will continue to build tbings? Wodd you say that you are building sometbhg in anotbcr SC= whcn you a m &hg tbt CAD (Cornputer Ai&d Dcsiga) work and will you continue to & physid building in the C m ?

D a The physid building is an extension of the d building WH is in hcre (points to hcad) and that 1'11 aiways be &hg. 1 kuow that. 1'11 stop whea I'm dead. Building t h i q of the poasp a d building things mentaliy & the pnrx~s.priai physically is