Introduction
First of all, this is not about teaching science. Science is simply the vehicle for delivering the programme.
Thinking Science Australia (TSA) was created by the School of Education of UWA in 2009. It has existed since 1980 and was the brainchild of Professor Phillip Adey from Kings College, London, UK. The original programme was known as Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE). The programme has proved to raise the academic achievements of its participants across the whole curriculum, i.e. in all subjects. In the UK it was proven to raise the GCSE grades by one full increment (C to B, B to A etc...)
I was first introduced to CASE in 1988 as a newly qualified teacher in a UK school. Many years later, as Head of Science at a leading Catholic College in Perth, I was invited by Dr Mary Oliver from the School of Education, to pilot the Australian version at the College. The project was adopted for the Year 7 cohort of 2010. It was no surprise to me that the College achieved their best WACE results for some time with the Y12 cohort of 2015. (year 7 cohort of 2010). The College jumped from 51st in 2014 to 6th in 2015.
It is a stand-alone programme aimed at raising the academic standards across the board. Science is simply a vehicle for delivering the programme. However, the concepts of the programme fit perfectly with the goals of the Science Inquiry Skills strand of the Australian Curriculum. The programme develops thinking and collaborative skills. Students are challenged by persuasive questioning that requires them to critically think through their logic about other possibilities. The teacher is not an instructor but instead becomes a facilitator. Having said that, the skills required of the teacher are extensive. The quality of the question in the metacognition phase is essential in causing cognitive conflict. The teacher also needs to be aware of the different phases of cognitive development (the five pillars) and skillfully transition the students between phases.
The thinking behind Thinking Science
The Thinking Science materials are designed to promote better thinking for students aged between eleven and fourteen so that they become more effective learners, not just of science knowledge but in other subject domains too. Currently there is a lot of interest in promoting children’s ‘thinking skills’, particularly those related to ‘critical thinking’. So, what is critical thinking? In a review of current ‘thinking skills’ programmes being used in schools in England, Wales ad Northern Ireland, Professor Carol McGuinness quotes some generally accepted definitions of ‘critical thinking’:
‘The ability to reach sound conclusions based on observation and information….’
‘…assessing the authenticity, accuracy and worth of knowledge claims, beliefs, or arguments…’
Thinking skills help students to:
‘…apply everything they already know and feel, to evaluate their own thinking, and especially to change their behaviour....’
Other terms would include logical thinking, scientific reasoning or being ‘objective’. Whatever the name, it is a skill that may be improved in everyone. Science teachers will recognise that these definitions fit easily with what science education is all about.
The Thinking Science materials are effective in raising achievement because they are built around a strong model of how children learn. Two psychologists have been the major influences, Piaget and Vygotsky.
A bit of Piaget
Sometime between the ages of about 12 and 18, many people’s thinking goes through a qualitative change, something like shifting up a gear. Using Piaget’s labels (without implying a hook, line and sinker adherence to Piagetian psychology), whereas in the early teens the student is still using concrete operational thinking, later adolescents are more likely to be able to use formal operational thinking. To relate Thinking Science to this qualitative development of thinking, we must first say a little more about the nature of concrete and formal operations.
Concrete operational thinking is sometimes mistakenly linked directly to concrete ‘hands-on’ experiences. Concrete operations are thought processes, which a child performs on his or her perceptions. The perceptions may arise from some practical activity, but may also arise from something read, or something someone says. Important characteristics of concrete operations are that children can cope with only a limited number of variables, often describing situations, but not to explaining them. By contrast, formal operational type thinking can handle multi-variable problems, and allows people to provide explanations for events. In describing an ecosystem, for instance, a child using concrete operations can describe simple food chains and see that the population of one species(ladybirds) is related to the population of another (aphids). This understanding is accessible whether or not some practical activity is performed. But the ability to comprehend the dynamic equilibrium of multiple variables in that ecosystem and appreciate in principle how a small shift in one factor may have far reaching effects, or alternatively may be compensated by a shift in the equilibrium position, requires a higher level of thinking.
During adolescence, many people develop the ability to think in formal operational terms. The mechanism by which this development occurs is by no means certain. Piaget described it in terms of interaction between the individual and the environment, with new stimuli being assimilated into existing cognitive structures and the cognitive structure accommodating to fit the new stimuli.
Accommodation and assimilation are continuous and simultaneous processes.
Whether or not one accepts such a theory, the development of cognition is surely influenced by a person’s genetic make-up, by maturation, and by physical and social environmental factors from the moment of conception onwards. Included in the environmental factors must be the influence of schools and of teaching. While it would be foolhardy to try to quantify the relative effect of these different factors on an individual’s cognitive development, it seems reasonable to assume that the influence of secondary school teaching is significant. The optimism of the Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education (CASE) project lies in that assumption.
A bit of Vygotsky
Lev Vygotsky died in Moscow at the age of 37 but he left behind an extraordinary record of teaching and writing in literature, drama, art, Marxist philosophy, and above all, psychology. In the 1960s his work became known in the English-speaking world through the work of Jerome Bruner and Reuven Feurstein. Unlike Piaget, Vygotsky’s interests lay with the interaction between people learning together, rather than a detailed analysis of individual cognitive performance. He described the importance of a ‘mediator’ in the process of learning, someone who encourages the learner to ‘talk his thoughts out loud’ so that both the speaker and listeners can interact to modify each other’s ideas. Obviously, where the group consists of a teacher and her students, the teacher will play a leading role in helping the students to construct new knowledge. But more influential in a student’s development is their interaction with peers. Students working together also construct knowledge as they question each other about meanings and argue over possible explanations.
Teachers using Thinking Science lessons are expected to become adept at classroom management skills which maximise the opportunities for students to work and talk together as ‘peer coaches’.
Vygotsky hypothesized that half-formed or potential problem-solving strategies turn into complete or successful skills either by chance, by spontaneous effort on the part of the learner or by the mediation of more able peers or older people (e.g. parents or teachers). The process of mediation involves either ‘framing’ the problem – helping the learner redefine it, or demonstrating how to do specific examples related to the problem so that the learner can ‘mirror’ the actions of the ‘expert’.
Vygotsky invented the term ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) to describe the difference between the actual performance of a child as determined by their independent problem-solving performance and the level of potential development (increasing success with processing the problem) as determined by problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.
‘… instruction is good only when it proceeds ahead of development, when it awakens and rouses to life those functions that are in the process of maturing or in the zone of proximal development.’ (Vygotsky 1978 p.82)
Using Vygotsky’s ideas of social construction, was developed what is now known as ‘the five pillar’ teaching model:
1. concrete preparation
2. cognitive conflict
3. construction
4. metacognition
5. bridging
The basics of the programme
The first year of the two-year programme involves fifteen lessons delivered throughout the year. The programme starts with a baseline test of science reasoning tasks (SRT II) from which the students are categorized according to their thinking skills on a Piagetian scale. The second year also contains fifteen lessons, with an increase in the cognitive challenge as the programme progresses. No science needs to be taught in preparation for these lessons as the scenarios are simply setting challenges in a science context. Other versions of the programme also exist, such as CAME (cognitive acceleration through mathematics education, and CATE, through technology. The programme finishes with a second set of science reasoning tasks (SRT IV) which again measure cognitive ability, from which progress can be measured.
3A Highest Level of formal operations
3A/B
2B*
2B
2A/B Lowest level of concrete operations
Conclusions
CASE or TSA has proven links with academic performance. Tangible gains in formal examinations are achieved by those that participate in the two year programme, but only if the teacher is trained to effectively deliver the programme. The temptation to step-in when students start to struggle is inherent in all teachers. Like coaching, one needs to learn to avoid becoming ‘an advice monster’.
In addition to academic gains, soft skills are also developed such as: teamwork, communication, collaboration, reasoning, and debating.
For many teachers, myself in particular, learning how to effectively deliver this programme is a game changer. The skills learned in becoming a facilitator result in improvements in one’s ability to act more as a coach than an instructor, learning how to manage from a distance, and ask good questions. I guess this was the start of my journey in developing the essential skills of coaching and mentoring.
Gerard McCann
MBA: Leadership, Coaching and Mentoring.
Resources: CASE handbook (1980), TSA (2009).
Comentários