Posted by
jillian on Jun 22, 2005 in
Issue no.3, June 2005,
Volume 04 |
Comments Off on Adventuring: A grounded theory discovered through the analysis of science teaching and learning
By Katrina M. Maloney, M.Sc., Ed.D. Abstract The grounded theory of adventuring, derived from the substantive area of science teaching and learning, explains both why scientific thinking is an evolutionarily important trait and illustrates a common thread throughout a variety of teaching and learning behaviors. The core concept of adventuring incorporates the categories of exploring, mavericking, and acquiring and applying skills that are the hallmarks of positive science education. Learning science is difficult due to the higher order cognitive skills required. This study explains how we could be teaching and learning science in a way for which our brains are best suited, and in ways that reach all learners, and encourages the use of adventuring in all classrooms. Introduction The grounded theory of adventuring explains behaviors of teachers and learners. This study discusses the psychology/sociology of teachers teaching science and students learning science through a grounded theory analysis of behaviors, and elucidates the biological process of thinking by discussing changes over time to the human brain’s physiology and chemistry. In connecting the behaviors of science thinkers to the biology of the brain’s hardware, this work explains how we could be teaching and learning science in a way for which our brains are best suited. Adventuring, as a core concept, contains the three categories of exploring, mavericking and acquiring and applying skills. Ten dimensions of adventuring are also discussed in this study, identiftying conditions, strategies, types and consequences of adventuring. Although the theory of adventuring was discovered through an exploration of the substantive area of science teaching and learning, as soon as the theory was shared with others, it became apparent that adventuring happens in a wide variety of situations and conceptualizes latent patterns of behavior found in many learning scenarios. Rationale: Why is Learning Science Difficult? Studies summarized in Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991) and Shaping our Future (National Science Foundation, 1996) state unequivocally that there is a need to teach science well to promote the type of scientific literacy necessary in a complex and increasingly global society. Science is in our everyday space. The imperative to be active decision makers in our country is a right and, as such, carries responsibility. If we forfeit that right and deny the importance of science education for all learners, we do a grave disservice to our communities, to our country, and to our planet. The higher level cognitive demands of science courses are very difficult for a developing mind. Specifically, science courses blend math skills and linguistic skills, higher order cognition skills of hypothesis generation, analysis and modification. Science courses require rote memorization, sequential organization, and sustained attention to detail. Understanding science texts and participating in class discussion require sophisticated receptive and expressive language abilities (Levine, 1987). Troublesome issues for students identified in college science classrooms by professors include: use of scientific tools (hardware such as microscopes, centrifuges, incubators, balances, pipettes, measuring instruments); science literature (dichotomous keys, graphs/tables/charts, textbooks, journal articles, popular press items); and the cognitive skills of analytical thinking such as basic questioning, prediction, the hypothetical- deductive process itself (proceeding from general concepts to specific events, or, in other words, identifying the causes of results), organization of data and concepts, creating and/or reading graphs and charts, the recursive nature of science inquiry, and the possibility of change in facts/theories/hypotheses. Students bring various strengths to their work in the cognitive realm of science, but severe deficits in background understanding of basic scientific processes...