Description is not enough:
10
P RIMARY S CIENCE R EVIEW 74
Sept/Oct 2002
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
R
○
P
○
E
○
M
○
By far the most prevalent
was the use of description
ARGARETHA
as explanation. The
children identified
BBERS AND AT OWELL
adaptive features,
such as chest
LOOK AT HOW WE CAN HELP
muscles, but did
not attempt to a r CHILDREN BECOME MORE
ticulate any reSCIENTIFIC THROUGH
lationship to flight.
As the unit proDEVELOPING THEIR
g r e s s e d , t h e y began
to identify particular
LANGUAGE SKILLS
features and attempt to
articulate their roles with
respect to flight. On rare
occasions, the children generated
an explanatory model. In these how a phenomenon occurs. The
explanations, the children linked relationships are constructed to
an adaptive feature (strong chest account for the features of the
muscles), the role of the feature phenomenon. Observations may
(keeping them in the air) and then be made to generate evidence
what was accomplished by the to test an explanation. Since the
feature with respect to flight aim of science is to provide (albeit
(pushing them up). These tentative) explanations for
explanatory models occurred natural phenomena, our science
more frequently during class classes should reflect this aim.
discussions than in written tasks. Hence even our youngest primary
children must be given situations
Language as an important
in which they link investigative
part of constructing
activity with the building of
explanations
explanatory frameworks. TeachThe ability to write more complex ers can facilitate this linkage with
scientific explanations comes as an emphasis on the role of
a result of two intersecting evidence. Primary children, like
scientists, can be encouraged to
abilities.
Firstly, there must be sufficient generate evidence out of the pool
understanding of the relationship of data they collect. They can use
that is being explained. Scientists this evidence as a basis for
use models as a way of articulating defending their own explanations
relationships that may explain during an investigation, as well as
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
As part of a two-year research
project investigating the relationship between science and
language in two primary classrooms, we examined children’s
explanations. Those in Table 1
were generated during a fourmonth period when the children
were studying the topics of ‘Air and
aerodynamics’ and ‘Flight’, which
are mandatory components of the
year 6 programme (ages 11–12).
These explanations are based on
two adaptive features of birds for
flight, hollow bones and chest
muscles. Children constructed
their explanations during class
discussions or in written tasks
that followed the discussions. As
seen in Table 1, the explanations
could be differentiated on the
basis of their complexity.
○
Examining children’s
explanations
○
○
T
○
he use of language figures
very heavily in the
enquiry process. The
purpose of enquiry is not just to
collect data useful for describing
phenomena but to explore the
relationships that provide a
possible explanation of how a
phenomenon occurs. Here we
examine the explanations of some
Canadian primary school
children and point to how
teachers might use language to
scaffold children’s explanations
so that they can achieve greater
degrees of complexity.
○
scaffolding
children’s
explanations
○
Birds have hollow Their hollow
bones.
bones enable
them to be light.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
They need strong
chest muscles,
purpose is to flap
wings and control.
Strong chest
muscles help the
bird flap their
wings with force.
Very strong
chest muscles.
Huge chest
muscles good
for strength
and keeping
them in the air.
Large muscles in
their chest which
they use to flap,
pushing them up.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Child’s comment
They [birds] flap their wings too fast
to see movement.
Teacher response
Good! Flapping could be too fast for
us to see the movement. They’re very
powerful chest muscles, aren’t they?
Those two go together. They can flap
very quickly when they need to,
most birds.
They [feathers] have a large and
smooth surface.
They have a large wing surface, and
it’s smooth. That helps with
aerodynamics.
They [birds] need strong chest
muscles to be a strong flyer.
What are those chest muscles
moving? In order to flap the wings,
right? They have to have strong chest
muscles to flap those wings. So
don’t just say it has to have strong
chest muscles; say the purpose of
those strong chest muscles is to flap
their wings.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
In many primary science
programmes, children are introduced to the structure and
Table 2 Building
on children’s
responses to
develop more
complex
explanations
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Teachers frequently use class
discussions as a way of constructing explanations or as a way
to model explanations (Asoko and
de Boó, 2001). During these
discussions, teachers have
opportunities, through artful
questioning, to move children
beyond description. The teachers
in our study had different ways to
encourage the growing complexity of children’s explanations.
One teacher, Lara, focused on the
links that could be made between
the description provided by the
child and the role of the feature
in aiding a bird in flight (Table
2). This teacher used the
children’s responses to either
elicit further ideas or to scaffold
the relational nature of
explanations.
Developing complexity
through writing
○
Developing complexity
through talking
The second teacher (Hannah)
regularly asked the children to
provide evidence for their ideas.
Common questions during
discussion in this classroom, from
child to child as well as teacher to
children, included ‘How do you
know that?’ ‘Where did you find
that?’ and ‘Are you sure?’ Hannah
also encouraged children to debate
ideas as they used their evidence
to test explanations. She insisted
that they both listen and respond
to one another as seen in the
following excerpts:
T: Do you agree with what Paul is
saying?
Several: No.
T: Now, Larry brought up contour
feather. Contour feathers he said
were not the same shape as the
○
to consider alternative explanations.
Secondly, a writer must have
the language tools for assembling
and communicating the relationships in a more complex
explanation. Hence, science
teachers must be concerned with
specific literacy practices related
to scientific text as well as enquiry
practices. In the following
sections we point to ways in
which teachers can support
children in constructing more
complex explanations and, in so
doing, go beyond description.
other flight
feathers. What do
you think?
Talking provides opportunities to transform
data into evidence by
articulating perceived links
between observations and
explanatory ideas. In this
way, children can rehearse
the relationships needed for deve l o p i n g m o r e c o m p l e x
explanations. But talking is
transitory, and relationships
between ideas are not necessarily
captured by all children.
Moreover, not every child
participates in the classroom talk.
Writing allows children and
teacher more time to resolve the
uncertainties of relationships
emerging from the classroom
talk.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Table 1 Complexity of children’s
explanations
○
They have
powerful chest
muscles.
○
Chest muscles
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Very light so it
stays up in air.
○
○
They have light
bones.
○
○
○
Hollow bones
Explanatory
model
○
Relational
explanation
○
○
○
Descriptive
explanation
○
Adaptation
P RIMARY S CIENCE R EVIEW 74
Sept/Oct 2002
11
P RIMARY S CIENCE R EVIEW 74
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Developing complexity
through reading
○
○
○
○
○
○
Although Holly has not made an
explicit statement on the plant
operating as a system, her
explanation is very close to being
an explanatory model as she
points to the idea that it is the
parts of the plant working
to g e t h e r t h a t h e l p s a t i s f y
particular needs.
○
○
○
○
○
Primary school children are just
beginning to learn the variety of
textual structures at play in our
literate society. They need to
○
○
○
○
○
○
Scientists frequently use analogies
and metaphors to draw attention
to specific features of an object or
event (Asoko and de Boó, 2001).
Teachers may introduce analogies
to help children recognise a
relationship by linking something new to what is known.
Analogies are a vital part of
explanatory models and can be
I’m a hungry plant. In order to
get food I need to suck in air with
my leaves and water with my
roots. I collect the Sun’s energy
and it gives me energy to make my
food. I mix my air and water
together in my leaves. The oxegyn
goes out and the carbon dioxide
stays in to make my food. It turns
into a sugery substance and I send
it all around my stem to feed
myself, kind of like sending mail
to my family. That’s how I satisfy
my hunger, and make my food.
[Holly, age 10]
Sept/Oct 2002
○
○
○
12
Analogies
○
○
○
○
○
After a number of investigations
exploring the stem, roots, leaves
and flowers of plants, children
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Persuasive writing
were asked to choose what they
considered the most important
part of the plant and defend their
selection. One child’s response,
Mr Root, is shown in the panel.
This writing assignment had
children scrambling through
their investigation journals as
well as the class book collection
in order to find sufficient detail
to support their points of view.
Many of them complained that it
was difficult to choose a specific
part since ‘all the parts are important
in keeping the plant alive’, a first
step in developing an explanatory
model of a plant operating as a
system.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
function of plant parts. An
explanatory model for the way
plants function is the idea that a
plant can be described as a system
of interconnecting parts.
Frequently, however, children
learn to describe the various jobs
done by the individual plant parts,
and do not move beyond this
description. One of the things
teachers can do to move children
towards more complex explanations is to shift the emphasis
from reporting information to an
examination of why particular
information might be important.
This shift can be done by
structuring writing tasks so that
children are required to do more
than simply use language for
labelling (Sutton, 1992). The
following examples are provided
by one of the authors of this article
who currently teaches science to
10 and 11 year-olds.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Mark, age 10
These analogies are useful, too,
for identifying misconceptions,
as in Trent’s idea of a leaf
‘cooking’ the food. When Holly
was asked later to explain how a
plant meets its needs for food,
she incorporated her analogy in
her explanation:
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
You should never take roots for granted. I know the
other parts of the plant do things too, but I do the
most. I wonder if the stem and flower had to run a
plant by themself, I’d love to see them find their own
water and minerals!
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Thirdly, I help some lucky plants survive in the
snow, wind, and ice in the winter. Summer
comes, and I’m back to my suck up water and
balance act.
○
○
○
○
○
For another thing, I anchor the plant in the soil,
making it hard for not only the wind, but animals
trying to rip it out of the soil.
○
○
○
○
○
○
If I wasn’t here, the whole plant would suffer. For
one thing, I suck up water and minerals from the
soil and give it to the stem.
A stem is like an elevator because
it pumps water up and food
down. [Kent]
A plant is like a light bulb because
they both need energy to work.
[Phoebe]
Weeds are like little brother is
because they never go away. [Amy]
A leaf is like a stove because it
cooks the food. [Trent]
A vein is like a mailman because
it brings food to and water
around. [Holly]
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
My name is Mr Root. My Seimese twins, the stem and the
flower, both say that they are better than me. Now I have
to do something that they never did: prove it.
○
○
○
Mr Root
used with even very young
children. Here are some of the
analogies generated by 9, 10 and
11 year-olds as they investigated
the importance of different plant
parts:
Asking questions
Wordsearches
PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICOVOLCANOCONIOSIS (a
lung disease caused by
breathing in certain particles) is
the longest word in any Englishlanguage dictionary. I found this
interesting fact by asking the
question and typing it into the
Ask Jeeves for Kids Search
Engine www.ajkids.com. This
website is extremely useful for
developing children’s language
and research skills. It can also
be great fun if you ask those
questions that have really played
on our minds, such as Why is
the sky blue?, Why do we have
a belly button?, Do fish sleep?,
Why don’t they make mouseflavoured cat food? Most
questions you ask will get some
response; three out of four of
mine were answered directly.
A series of these useful time
fillers can be found at
www.kidcrosswords.com
which provides a list of various
crosswords and puzzles. Some
of these have a scientific theme
such as nutrition and energy:
www.kidcrosswords.com/
catalog/science.htm. The
puzzles can be printed or can
be completed on-line.
If you would like to make your
own wordsearches then why
not download a program to do
the job for you or for children to
use to make their own. A search
of a shareware site
www.zdnet.com listed 19
programs that will create word
puzzles. The most popular
download listed was Word
Search Factory 2.0. This is free
to use and can be downloaded
directly from:
www.schoolhousetech.com/
dlwordsearch.html.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Asoko, H. and de Boó, M. (2001)
Analogies and illustrations –
representing ideas in primary science.
Hatfield: Association for Science
Education.
Heselden, R. and Staples, R. (2002)
Science teaching and literacy, part
2: Reading. School Science Review,
83(304), 51–62.
Staples, R. and Heselden, R. (2001)
Science teaching and literacy, part
1: Writing. School Science Review,
83(303), 35–46.
Sutton, C. (1992) Words, science and
learning. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
References
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
‘because’, ‘so that’, ‘this results in’,
and others.
In these lessons, we saw that
children not only come to the
classroom with personal explanations, but are also eager to build
explanations. Through talking,
reading and writing in science
lessons, explanations can be
modelled, rehearsed and refined.
However, for these explanations
to develop in complexity, children
need appropriate scaffolding by
the teacher. Such support must be
provided in teaching about key
concepts and with a focus on the
role of language in putting
together relational explanations
and explanatory models. The
examples we have provided
indicate that we should never
underestimate children’s ability
to generate such explanations;
with appropriate scaffolding,
children can move beyond
description.
Margaretha Ebbers is a science educator who
teaches at both the primary (Edmonton Public Schools)
and tertiary level (Department of Education, Concordia
University College of Alberta).
Patricia Rowell teaches in the preservice and graduate
science education programmes in the Department of
Elementary Education, University of Alberta.
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
become familiar with the textual
features of the genre of explanation (Staples and Heselden,
2001; Heselden and Staples,
2002). This can be done with a
focus on the books used to support
a science programme. As teachers
gather together resources for
particular topics, they can sort
through their book collections to
make sure they have included
books that model appropriate
explanations.
Children need to be taught the
appropriate book-handling skills
such as using a glossary, table of
contents and index so that they
can freely harvest required
information. However, children
also need instruction geared
towards how explanations are
structured. Text can be deconstructed in order to point out how
authors carefully sequence
information and the role of
particular linking words such as
Going Batty
Translations
If you are looking for a website
that uses word games and
puzzles to develop knowledge
and understanding of its subject
then try: http://
members.aol.com/bats4kids2/
boxpage1.htm. This site has a
variety of word puzzles
including wordsearches,
crosswords and a magnetic
poetry board. Even if you are
not studying bats this site will
give you and your class ideas of
how to create different word
games for the areas you are
currently studying.
Are science words in English
the same as those in other
languages? Find out at http://
babelfish.altavista.com/tr. This
site allows you translate words
into, amongst others, Italian ,
German , French and even
Chinese. So science looks like
this in other countries: scienza,
Wissenschaft, la science,
ciência. No Welsh though,
unfortunately, so in case you are
wondering, science in Welsh is
gwyddoniaeth. For an English to
Welsh dictionary try: http://
www.cs.brown.edu/fun/
welsh/LexiconForms.html
Dictionaries
There are a large number of
dictionaries on the Internet, one
I find particularly useful is the
Encarta English Dictionary, http:/
/dictionary.msn.com/. This
gives you a comprehensive
definition of the word and a list
of similar words and there is a
facility to hear the word being
spoken. The Kids Astronomy
Dictionary, http://
www.kidsastronomy.com/
dictionary.htm, provides a comprehensive list of words ideal for
an Earth and Space theme.
This listing is compiled by
Stuart Ball. If you have a
favourite website with some
good science content or links,
especially one related to one of
our forthcoming themes (see
page 3), please e-mail Stuart on
[email protected] so
that it can be included in this
column.
P RIMARY S CIENCE R EVIEW 74
Sept/Oct 2002
13