Discourse, Cognition, and Chaotic Systems: An Examination of Students' Argument About Density

This article examines an extended argument about density among a small, multi-graded, middle school class of 10 studeWnts. The argument is examined from several perspectives with the primary focus on (a) the argument as an example of a chaotic and complex system, (b) the emerging development of understandings, and (c) the underlying cognitive structures affecting the students' understandings. Student talk during the class sessions were audio and videotape recorded. Each group of 3 or 4 students was individually audio recorded. A single video recorder was used to capture excerpts of each group's dialogue, as well as intergroup dialogue. The argument began after students predicted which of an assortment of different objects would or would not float. The specific case of a block of ebony initiated the argument and acted as the initial attractor, which developed into 2 opposing assertions: 1 side proposing that the pressure on a larger volume of water affects the density and the other side proposing that the molecules of water cannot be compressed. Extensive conceptual development occurred as the argument progressed with a variety of bifurcation points leading to new but related conceptual themes and higher levels of complexity. Several underlying structures, which have been referred to as interpretive frameworks (Bloom, 1992a) and p-prims (diSessa, 1993), played a central role in the development of both understandings and the argument itself. Such interpretive frameworks included (a) uniformity of molecular size and weight across different substances, (b) directionality of pressure, (c) external forces (e.g., gravity) affect pressure, (d) pressure affects density, and (e) surface area affects action of external forces on pressure.

[1]  L. S. Vygotskiĭ,et al.  Mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[2]  J. Lemke Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[3]  M. Patton Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[4]  A. diSessa Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[5]  Jeffrey W. Bloom Contexts of meaning: young children's understanding of biological phenomena , 1990 .

[6]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory methodology: An overview. , 1994 .

[7]  Eugene D. Gennaro Assessing Junior High Students' Understanding of Density and Solubility , 1981 .

[8]  J. Bruner Actual minds, possible worlds , 1985 .

[9]  Giorgio De Michelis,et al.  Designing for Communities , 2000, D-CSCW.

[10]  M. Bakhtin,et al.  Speech genres and other late essays , 1986 .

[11]  R. Rohwer Order out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature , 1986 .

[12]  Jeffrey W. Bloom The Development of Scientific Knowledge in Elementary School Children: A Context of Meaning Perspective. , 1992 .

[13]  D. Edwards But What Do Children Really Think? Discourse Analysis and Conceptual Content in Children's Talk , 1993 .

[14]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[15]  Courtney B. Cazden,et al.  Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Second Edition. , 2001 .

[16]  H. Maturana,et al.  The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding , 2007 .

[17]  Elliot W. Eisner,et al.  Cognition And Curriculum Reconsidered , 1994 .

[18]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[19]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[20]  L. Vygotsky,et al.  Thought and Language , 1963 .

[21]  Alan Durant,et al.  That's Not Right! , 2002 .

[22]  J. Lemke Genres, semantics, and classroom education , 1988 .

[23]  Connie Tadros,et al.  I'm not sure , 1985 .

[24]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING Technical Report No . 628 ON THE LOGICAL INTEGRITY OF CHILDREN ' S ARGUMENTS ' , 2012 .

[25]  Neil Mercer,et al.  Common Knowledge: The Development of Understanding in the Classroom , 1987 .

[26]  Michael F. Young,et al.  Principles of Self-Organization: Learning as Participation in Autocatakinetic Systems , 1999 .

[27]  D. Laplane Thought and language. , 1992, Behavioural neurology.

[28]  M. Hewson The acquisition of scientific knowledge: Analysis and representation of student conceptions concerning density , 1986 .

[29]  Karen Gallas,et al.  Talking their way into science : hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula , 1995 .

[30]  Debra J Tomanek A Case of Dilemmas: Exploring My Assumptions about Teaching Science. , 1994 .

[31]  David N. Perkins,et al.  Patterns of Misunderstanding: An Integrative Model for Science, Math, and Programming , 1988 .

[32]  J. Shea National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[33]  G. Bateson,et al.  Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity , 1979 .