Conceptual change and changes of heart: A reflexive study of research in science literacy in the classroom

In this thesis, I present my themes at two levels. On one level I am concerned with learning in secondary school science, which the science education literature has shown to be problematic in some areas, while at the second level, I am concerned with my own learning, which leads me to search for a methodology consistent with my developing theory about learning and change.

I have constructed a partial explanation for unsatisfactory learning in science, using a cross-disciplinary body of literature (including that relating to critical literacy teaching, second language learning, social and cognitive psychology, and sociolinguistics). Taken as a whole, the literature seemed to suggest that deep learning and change depend to some extent on the nature of interpersonal relationships in the classroom, and (tacit) cultural rather than rational factors, and that these needed more research in the science education context. As a result my research became focused on teacher-student interpersonal relationships and the language mediating these. After early studies exploring several science education contexts, I finally collaborated with a teacher of a Year 8 science class in trialing an intervention using affirmational dialogue journal writing. This resulted in a more democratic and generally improved psychosocial learning environment, as well as some new insights into the nature of the communication problems associated with typical science classroom discourse. Articles written at different stages of this overall research program were accepted for publication by major science education journals on three continents.

At the same time, my desire to use a methodology consistent with my own developing theories about the nature of learning and change led me firstly to using different methodologies in successive case studies (multivariate analysis of survey data, ethnography, and action research). As I became increasing aware of social factors involved in the construction of knowledge, I wrote two articles dealing with emerging methodological issues and these were accepted for publication in international publications. However, I later went on to become more aware of broader ecosocial system factors (cf. Lemke, 1995), and then ecobiological factors (Maturana & Varela, 1992), and this led to my becoming increasingly reflexive about the underlying process implicit in my repeated epistemological and methodological revolutions. I found that non-rational aspects were implicated, and decided that this somewhat intuitive underlying practice needed to be presented explicitly as my metamethodology, not only because ofits apparent productiveness, but because it exemplified and extended the theories about learning that I had developed with my research in science classrooms. This new methodology, which I call "ecobiosocial system analysis", is a synthesis of sociocultural, psychological, and physiological principles in an ecosocial system that includes tacit biological aspects of understanding.

Moreover this shifting understanding had serious implications for how I (re)presented my research in the thesis document, which I had originally assumed had to be an objective scientific account. As my epistemological beliefs changed, this became a decision to present first a narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990), and then a critical action research account (Kemmis, 1994). Finally, however, I realised that such unified narratives misrepresented research practice as I had experienced it and, ifI were to be consistent with my own theories, a new method of presenting my research needed to be found.

This series of changes could be seen as an evolution, in which case it would make sense to disregard the earlier thinking and present the research only in relation to the final theoretical paradigm. My preferred perspective is to see my research as moving between paradigms, none of which has ultimate superiority. Hence, I insist on presenting the whole (somewhat messy and multi-paradigmatic) process, by juxtaposing the differently voiced articles and my final meta-account. In fact the knowledge resulting from earlier studies had already been validated by the research communities to which it belonged (by fact of publication), while the final stage of knowledge has yet to gain such validation by researcher peers.

As a consequence of my conviction that my learning should be seen as a particular case created by a particular ecobiosocial system, I present a central autobiographical chapter. This focuses on sociocultural and psychological childhood and adult experiences, which I suggest have influenced my epistemological beliefs and research practice at a deeper level than the literature I read during my PhD. Even though the resulting metamethodology is shown to be an implicit one to some extent, often operating at tacit levels, I nevertheless present both design and methods chapters. The design chapter proposes a justification of the (meta)methodology in terms of current theories from a range of fields (cognitive science, organisational change theories, critical theory, and socio-biological ecological system theories). The methods chapter then analyses my somewhat intuitive research process in retrospect, based on samples of my personal journal writing, on-line communications, and other associated activities.

In summary, the thesis explores the nature of deep learning and change in two rather different contexts, and proposes that such processes involve a complex of interrelated cognitive, social and biological aspects. This proposition not only has implications for teaching and learning science but led me to a new methodology, ecobiosocial system analysis. It also led me to challenge the traditional thesis structure which represents learning as an entirely rational process and knowledge as unitary. Moreover, given that I challenge the belief that either thought or practice can be significantly changed by a purely logical account, I do not draw explicit conclusions but rather trust to what I have been able to communicate in a more organic way throughout the thesis document.