Alfredo Bezzi -- What is This Thing Called Geoscience Epistemological

SCE (WILEJ) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

q 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8326/99/060675-26

What Is this Thing CalledGeoscience? EpistemologicalDimensions Elicited with theRepertory Grid and TheirImplications for Scientific Literacy

ALFREDO BEZZIDipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita di Genova, Palazzina delle Scienze,Viale Benedetto XV, 5-16132 Genova, Italy

Received 6 June 1997; revised 20 March 1998 accepted 1 October 1998

ABSTRACT: To appropriately prepare informed citizens, science education must improvescientific literacy, which includes public understanding of science. Therefore, students’perceptions of science is considered a fruitful area of research. This kind of investigationshould elicit the images of science that students are likely to hold when they enter thescience classroom. The main aims of the present investigation are: (i) to explore the per-ceptions held by a university geology instructor and five students of the images of thegeosciences, before and after the teaching intervention; (ii) to claim that the repertory gridtechnique is a powerful tool to assess people’s actual epistemological dimensions beyondany conceptual framework constructed by experts; and (iii) to argue that the societal aimsof geological (science) education must be specifically targeted within a constructivistframework. The subjects were five first-year undergraduates of the geography degreecourse and their geology instructor. This investigation uses the repertory grid technique,the tool envisaged by George Kelly to elicit people’s personal constructs according to histheoretical framework known as “personal construct psychology.” The elicitation of con-structs took place at the beginning and at the end of the academic year. Principal componentanalysis was used to determine the teacher’s and students’ constructs with the highestepistemological value; that is, the constructs that most affect students’ perception andinterpretation of the geosciences. The findings indicate that some stereotyped images ofscience appear, with a characteristic antithesis between physics (considered objective andrigorous) and the geosciences (seen as subjective and approximate). Beyond this, littleconcern for societal issues inherent within the geosciences emerged as a significant con-ceptual dimension from individuals’ construct systems. These results seem to indicate thatthis methodology gives insights into students’ everyday ontology and epistemology, andtherefore can be used to guide teaching interventions relevant for adequate scientificliteracy. q 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:675–700, 1999.

Correspondence to: A. Bezzi; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: The Italian Ministry for University and Scientific Research

676 BEZZI

SCE (WILEJ) LEFT INTERACTIVE

shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textINTRODUCTION

Curriculum planners, science educators, and organizations seem to agree about the needfor promoting scientific literacy among all future citizens through school science education(e.g., in the USA and UK, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989,1993; Department for Education/Welsh Office, 1995; National Curriculum Council, 1993;National Research Council, 1996; Ramsden et al., 1995), but there seems to be littleconsensus about the meaning of scientific literacy (Shamos, 1995). Despite a persistentcontroversy (see Kyle, 1995a, 1995b; Lee, 1997; Sutman, 1996), some key issues of sci-entific literacy appear to include: (i) the “contents” of science (facts, laws, theories, andmodels of science); (ii) an appreciation of the purposes of science; (iii) the comprehensionof the nature and status of scientific knowledge; and (iv) the recognition of the socialstructure of the scientific endeavor (in other words, the epistemology and sociology ofscience). The major goal envisaged is to provide informed citizens with scientific habitsof mind that enable them to participate fully in a modern democracy. Individuals shouldbe able to cope with basic everyday problems in which decisionmaking processes aboutscience- and technology-related issues constitute an increasingly vital part.

If the critical objective of science education to increase people’s scientific literacy isendorsed, then the widely accepted constructivist paradigm affirms that there is the needto have in-depth knowledge of the public’s perception of science (Roth, 1993; Roth &Lucas, 1997; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994). This comprehension implies an elicitation ofthe ideas about science that teachers and students are likely to hold when they enter thescience classroom. Such knowledge is the baseline from which any curriculum planningand/or any teaching activity aimed at restructuring preexisting concepts should depart.Therefore, science education researchers consider teachers’ and students’ images of sciencea fruitful area of investigation for improving the efficacy of the teaching/learning process.(An extended list of authors who dealt with these themes is reported elsewhere [Bezzi,1996a, 1997]; apart from the most recent and/or specific studies, they will not be furtherquoted here).

Although all these generic aims are amply acknowledged, various specific argumentsare raised because of different perspectives. First, which science should become part ofscientific literacy? In the context of (i) a science education that consistently moves towarda greater involvement of science– technology–society (STS) aspects in the curriculum(e.g., Hunt, 1994; National Science Teachers Association, 1991; Solomon & Aikenhead,1994) and (ii) the various problems inherent within the societal challenges posed by asustainable development of mankind (resources, hazards, environments, global change),geologists convincingly call for a more consistent role for geological education in the“science for all” curricula (e.g., Akhatar, 1996; Cooray, 1996; Mayer, 1997; Stow, 1996).The recognition of the importance of the earth sciences would require a shift from thecurrent curricula, heavily focused on biology, chemistry, and physics, toward an integrationof those societal geological topics that should enable future citizens to live more appro-priately on our planet. Such a reform should not be limited to a simple presentation ofsome “new” subject matter, but it should also introduce the peculiar earth sciences modelof scientific rationality (Turner & Frodeman, 1996); besides, student-centered instructionalstrategies should focus more on learning than on teaching (Bezzi, 1996b). Should this goalbe achieved, the public’s appreciation of the geosciences would lead to the establishmentof a more adequate image of this body of knowledge among the general population that,in turn, would be vital to receiving the indispensable social support for the enhancementof its own scientific (geological) enterprises.

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE? 677


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textSecond, even the “public understanding of science” appears to be problematic and ill-

defined because perspectives and definitions of the “nature of science” (NOS) are bothdisparate and complex (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996, chapter 3; Meichtry, 1993).The role played by the philosophy and sociology of science introduces some variables thatcomplicate a framework that is far from a standardized delineation. Philosophical modelshave evolved and myriads of the tenets of the NOS are in circulation, endorsed by differentorganizations and/or inventors of NOS instruments. In searching for an authority to providemore accurate criteria for the NOS, Alters (1997) found that some philosophers of scienceexpressed major criticisms so that many of the existing NOS criteria must be reconsideredand new criteria may need to be developed for future research. Epistemological and so-ciological studies of scientific practices have stressed that the vast existing methodologicaldiversity of the different sciences prevents the definition of “one” scientific method (al-though this idea continues to permeate many science textbooks). Investigators such asSuchting (1995) have argued that there is no final, “ultimate” answer to the question ofthe nature of scientific thought because the sciences are always engaged in the process ofredefining themselves. This conclusion has significant implications for the aforementionedgoals of the science education community in terms of science instruction, curriculumdevelopment, research in science education, and the content and focus of science educationreform (Lederman, 1995).

With such a multifaceted pattern, some further debate about the research methodologyof data collection and analysis is a logical consequence. On the basis of an overview ofthe body of the relevant literature, Koulaidis and Ogborn (1995) affirmed that most of thestudies fail to recognize the existence of conflicting philosophical models of science. Theseinvestigations lack the explicit specification of the philosophical position taken into ac-count in the development of most of the instruments employed in the elicitation of ideas.Therefore, there is an impression that the writer of each instrument presupposes one singlevalid and universally indisputable model of science. Studies from literature concerning theNOS or the image of science and scientists, indicate that investigations were carried outindirectly by means of analysis and observations of textbooks, newspapers, lessons, andtelevision programs, or directly by interviewing people (laymen, students, teachers) andanalyzing written drafts and drawings produced by the interviewees. The techniques usedto collect the data varied widely. Quantitative methodologies were usually conducted withspecific NOS instruments (for a review of these, see Alters, 1997) in which multiple-choice, Likert-scale questionnaires were the usual survey instrument. The format could beconventional or innovative such as the well-known “Views on Science–Technology–Society” (VOSTS) by Aikenhead and Ryan (1992). In qualitative research, which mayprovide a better understanding, more or less structured interviews, action research, shorttests, and simple questionnaires (or a mixture of all these items) were the preferred toolsto explore the images and collect the data in a more naturalistic observational way (e.g.,Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Leach, Driver, Millar, & Scott, 1997; Solomon,Duveen, & Scott, 1994). As has been pointed out, the research problem was often toconstruct instruments to validly and reliably assess people’s beliefs in a way that could beaccessible to the researcher (e.g., Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Roth & Lucas, 1997; Ryan& Aikenhead, 1992). In fact, asking questions (in written form or verbally) always impliesa critical obstacle inherent in the interpretation of responses (Driver, Leach, Millar, &Scott, 1996; Leach, 1996). Because the meaning of words is constructed according, first,to people’s conceptual and cultural background, and, second, to the context, a perfectmatch between an expert’s (the investigator) and a layman’s (the student) meaning is ratherunlikely (“Only the contexts of the beliefs or statements and the conceptual system or

678 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textbody of representation have epistemic/cognitive significance,” Suchting [1995, p. 13], em-

phasis in the original text). Therefore, the elicited views may not adequately reflect theresearcher’s intentions and may be misinterpreted accordingly.

People’s ideas could be elicited and analyzed with a “nomothetic” approach in whichindividual views are compared with some of the views endorsed by a major science edu-cation organization. However, the multiple philosophical, epistemological, and sociolog-ical perspectives previously mentioned undermine the possibility of a unique normativeview. An alternative “ideographic” approach involves an elicitation in which individualsexpress their ideas in their own terms, without any reference to any normative stance. Withthe latter perspective, some authors (e.g., Bezzi, 1996c, 1996d, 1997; Corporaal, 1991;Denicolo, 1993; Descals & Rivas, 1995; Happs & Stead, 1989; Kalekin-Fishman, 1995;Lakin & Wellington, 1994; Pope & Fetherstonhaugh, 1994; Shapiro, 1988, 1996; Shaw,1992; Solas, 1992; Stead, 1983) used the repertory grid to inspect both students’ andteachers’ ideas about certain science education issues (such as content, learning, teaching)and/or their attitudes toward aspects of science. This technique has its theoretical frame-work in the personal construct psychology (PCP) of George Kelly (1955). PCP is basedon the assumption that individuals psychologically work in accord with their attempts togive their surrounding world a meaning. Personal constructs are categories of mind thatallow insight into the ways individuals organize thinking about events and phenomena.What is distinctive about Kelly’s theory is that he held that each person differentiatesthings differently, although using different or, at times, the same terms. Thus, when peopleuse terms, these terms do not reflect, entirely, what people are thinking, because they donot attribute to the words the same “alternatives.” The repertory grid enables people touse their own language to convey meanings; thus, it renders explicit what individuals holdtacitly, and enables researchers to explore the way people construe events with their con-structive alternatives. Lack of space prevents all the aspects of Kelly’s theoretical frame-work regarding both methodologies and techniques of grid analysis from being fullydescribed. In addition to the aforementioned reports, references to the details, as well asthe various fields where PCP has been applied (psychology, psychotherapy, industry, ed-ucation), can be found in other articles (e.g., Bezzi, 1996d, 1996e; Gaines & Shaw, 1993;Pope, 1995).

Researchers choosing the repertory grid argue that this elicitation technique revealsstrictly personal (cognitive, value-related, affective) dimensions and meanings that are trueindicators of the uniqueness of the real dimensions of personal constructions and are freefrom external influences. Besides, the repertory grid overcomes the aforementioned em-phasized difficulties inherent in the collection of data with “traditional” instruments ofinvestigation, in which students are supposed to perceive and interpret the test statementswith the same meaning as given by the researchers. Problems of interpretation also existin the clarification of responses to open items and multiple-choice questionnaires, becausethese may force responders into predetermined channels dependent upon cultural assump-tions and purposes designed by researchers. On the contrary, as stressed by Lakin andWellington (1994), when using the repertory grid there are no previously established di-mensions, except those of the system of constructs, used by the subject to give meaningto his/her own experience, to anticipate events, or to build, subjectively and idiosyncrati-cally, his/her surrounding reality.

Research on the image of science has been oriented mainly toward general aspects;when it was addressed toward single disciplines, physics prevails by far (see, e.g., Olsen,Hewson, & Lyons, 1996; Roth & Lucas, 1997; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993, 1994; Rowell& Pollard, 1995; Schoneweg Bradford, Rubba, & Harkness, 1995). In geology, in partic-ular, there is a lack of specific works: Arthur (1996) discussed semantics and compart-



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textmentalization in the earth sciences and described the contribution of the “Earth Images

Project” toward this end. The present author used the repertory grid to elicit informationabout students’ outlook on some geosciences and relevant instructors (Bezzi, 1996c) andto verify whether the teaching of geology could affect the construction of the geosciencesimage (Bezzi, 1997). The former study confirmed the findings (Eichinger, 1992) that teach-ers’ personalities and teaching styles have a great influence and are likely to be the mostsignificant factors affecting students’ perception of science. The current investigation dis-cusses in greater detail some particular aspects of Bezzi (1997). In the context of the issuesraised in the Introduction, the aims of the present investigation are: (i) to explore theperceptions held by a university geology instructor and by some of his students about somegeosciences, before and after the teaching intervention; (ii) to claim that the repertory gridtechnique is a powerful tool to assess people’s actual epistemological dimensions beyondany conceptual framework constructed by experts; and (iii) to argue that societal aims ofgeological (science) education must be specifically targeted within a constructivist frame-work.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The subjects of this research were five first-year undergraduate students (indicated bypseudonyms) of the geography degree course and their geology instructor. The students’high school background was varied, but everyone had experienced the disciplines thatwere chosen as elements of the repertory grid (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,geology, and geography; see Fig. 1). Details of high-school and university context havebeen given elsewhere (Bezzi, 1997).

It is important to remember here that, first, the six disciplines provided as elements ofthe repertory grid were intended to constitute the range of convenience. This definitionrefers to Kelly’s assumption that, for any given individual at a given time, a construct (ora subsystem of constructs) applies to a finite number of elements representative of thedomain from which the researcher wishes to elicit constructs. Therefore, this range ofapplicability defines the context and the field of the discourse within which the eliciteesfind the application of their constructs useful. In this case, the grid elements allow thegeosciences to be located in the more general domain of science, and thus drawing a widerscientific background from the students.

Second, within the secondary school curriculum, physics and especially mathematicspredominate in terms of teaching hours. This “timetable dominance” alone could not ac-count for the “imprinting” of these sciences in young people’s minds because other vari-ables may influence the learner (such as the students’ attitude toward science, the contentachievement, the school success in some disciplines, the teacher’s personality and teachingstyle, etc.). Nonetheless, their quantitative influence should be regarded as a reasonablefactor modeling the students’ cultural framework. It is likely that the images of these veryspecific subjects (“school science”) are basically derived from learning science at school(Driver et al., 1996), although students’ perception could also be derived from exposureto the wider culture prior to formal instruction.

In this study, the method used to elicit people’s constructs was the repertory grid tech-nique, whose theoretical framework resides in the personal construct psychology (PCP)of George Kelly. The widespread acceptance of this psychological theory has recentlybeen documented in a very comprehensive bibliography (Chiari, 1996) that includesKelly’s published and unpublished works, books specifically devoted to PCP (or widelybased on PCP), selected dissertations and theses, book reviews, a journal index, and soft-ware. The whole PCP literature suggests that Kelly’s holistic approach to people’s “con-

680 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of text

Figure 1. Example of a sketched repertory grid in which some constructs and ratings of elements are shown.

struing” is more than simply “thinking.” In fact, individuals construe their reality in anattempt to make sense of the external world through looking, listening, touching, feeling,perceiving, moving, etc. Consequently, there is a wide consensus on the claim that therepertory grid technique can depict the whole of a person’s way of thinking. The centralspirit of a PCP approach is to reveal someone’s “unique psychological space” through anidiographic explicitation of personal constructs in terms that reflect attitudes, thoughts, andfeelings in a personally valid way. Gaines and Shaw (1990a, 1993) and Shaw and Gaines(1992) discussed more specifically the repertory grid as a knowledge acquisition tool thattranslates human conceptual structures directly to computational form. Their conclusionssupport the usefulness of such a means, which has the advantage of taking a constructivistposition and that provides cognitive and logical foundations for existing knowledge ac-quisition techniques. Fransella and Bannister (1977) dwelled at some length on the con-cepts of reliability and validity of this technique, analyzing these notions in the context ofthe theory. They concluded that the grid is an instrument that enables researchers to inquirereliably into the way in which people maintain or alter their construing, and, from thepoint of view of a construct theorist, its validity resides in its capacity to validly revealpatterns in certain kinds of data and elaborate people’s construing.

As shown in Figure 1, a particular set of elements (the six disciplines) in a rectangularmatrix (the repertory grid) is shown and comparisons are made. The constructs referred tothe elements are generated by having the subject sort out how any two in a triad of elements(indicated by dots in the grid) are alike and how the third is different, in terms meaningfulto him- or herself. These constructs are essentially bipolar in nature (simple examples ofconstructs are laboratory/fieldwork, inductive/deductive, and basic/applied; a complete setof constructs is given in Table 1), and these terms describe the respective poles of theconstruct dimensions. The elements in the triad that show the likenesses are rated 1 and

WH

AT

IST

HIS

TH

ING

CA

LLED

GE

OS

CIE

NC

E?

681

SC

E(W

ILEJ)

RIG

HT

INT

ER

AC

TIV

E

shortstandardlong

Top

ofR

HB

aseof

RH

Top

oftext

Base

oftext

TABLE 1List of Personal Constructs Elicited from the Instructor at the Beginning (A) and End (B) of the Geology Course

Na

A

Emergent Pole Contrast Pole

B

Emergent Pole Contrast Pole

C1 laboratory fieldwork laboratory fieldworkC2 axioms observation data axioms observation dataC3 applied basic concerned with real concerned with abstractC4 synthesis analysis related to territory related to objectsC5 modifies reality preserves reality modifies reality preserves realityC6 calculations descriptions calculations descriptionsC7 rigorous approximate rigorous approximateC8 concerned with real concerned with abstract study the matter study mankindC9 formulas concepts inductive deductiveC10 inductive deductive formulas conceptsC11 analyze the effects analyze the causes scientific humanisticC12 study the matter study the territory synthesis analysisC13 objective subjective concerned with social concerned with materialC14 use of maps use of substances basic appliedC15 experimental theoretical use of maps use of substancesC16 experimental theoretical

aN 5 number of constructs.

682 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textare described by the “emergent pole” of the construct; they are written on the left-hand

side of the grid. The other element is described by the “contrast pole” of the construct; itis rated 5 and written on the right-hand side of the grid. The subject then decides whetherthe other elements in the grid are more like one or the other pole of the construct dimen-sions, rating every element in the grid on a scale of 1–5. If the construct does not applyto some of the elements, then a 0 is entered. When triads of elements are used, they mustbe arranged in as many different combinations as possible to give greater opportunity fordiffering constructs to be elicited. This procedure is repeated until the subject’s repertoryof constructs has been exhausted.

Once the constructs have been elicited, the grid is open to several different types ofanalyses. For instance, one can perform a content analysis based on the verbal labels ofthe constructs in order to have the “universe of discourse” of individuals within the chosenrange of convenience. An inspection of the similarities between rows and columns ofratings can give some indication of possible relationships between constructs and betweenelements in the grid, but a visual examination of the raw data matrix may be inadequateto draw out all these relationships. To overcome this obstacle, it is possible to applystatistical methods to the grid, such as cluster analysis (Shaw, 1980), and principal com-ponent analysis (PCA) (Slater, 1977). The patterns resulting from the clustering emphasizethe similarities that the elicitee attributes to both constructs and elements, reflecting co-herent domains of meanings that this person uses to explain certain issues (a discussionof the results achieved with this method has been presented in Bezzi, 1997). At present,many computer program packages for the analysis of grids allow the ready extraction ofthe structural relationships between elements, and/or between constructs. In this study,PCA calculations have been performed with REPGRID, version 2.1 (Gaines & Shaw,1990b). This software graphically maps both elements and constructs in a two-dimensionalspace in which the two orthogonal axes represent the principal components. The layoutcan be considered a “simplified” expression of the geometry of an n-dimensional space inwhich the major dimensions are “compressed” into a restricted number of components.They, in a sense, condense the larger variance expressed by the element and constructmatrices of the raw data, enabling an easier analysis of the relationships between elementsand constructs. A component is in fact a measurement of one of the ways in which theconstructs and the elements interact.

To be significant, the components must explain a high percentage of variance, otherwiseelements and constructs that may appear close on a two-dimensional space could actuallybe far away if a third or higher component is considered. It is normally assumed that thefirst three components must account for over 80% of variation to give useful indications.It is unusual to find much variation beyond the first two components, but, in this case,further components can be considered if their variance appears to be important. The ele-ment and construct loadings (Table 2) on the principal components are responsible for thepattern correlation on the map; that is, the higher the loading, the greater the significanceof a certain construct to characterize an element on a component. Elements and constructsare plotted within the four quadrants and defined by two axes (components), according totheir coordinates (loadings); therefore, their positions in this two-dimensional space areconstrained by the mutual influence of the components (Pope & Keen, 1981). In the fol-lowing figures, the horizontal axis represents the first component and the vertical axis thesecond. REPGRID 2.1 plots elements as crosses and constructs as dots with their verballabels; therefore, it is easy to envisage particular relationships that reveal specific peculi-arities for each elicitee in the computer layout. (A simple introduction to the process ofcompleting a grid and to these methods of analysis and interpretation can be found inFetherston [1995]; the more mathematically oriented readers can find a detailed descriptionof PCA in chapter 6 of Pope and Keen, [1981].)



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textTABLE 2

Example Computer Output Indicating the Percentage of Variance for eachComponent, and Construct and Element Loadings that Determine Plot Position ofElements and Constructs in the Component Spacea

Percentage of Variance for each Component (Cmp)

Cmp1 Cmp2 Cmp3 Cmp4 Cmp5

% 68.34 26.40 3.21 1.95 0.10

Construct (C1–C15) Loadings on each Component (Cmp)

Constructs Cmp1 Cmp2 Cmp3 Cmp4 Cmp5

C1 3.204 2.427 20.803 20.175 0.016C2 3.761 22.070 0.916 20.249 20.023C3 22.262 2.822 0.584 0.754 20.106C4 24.381 0.126 20.007 20.325 0.134C5 2.787 2.453 21.456 0.298 20.077C6 3.761 22.070 0.916 20.249 20.023C7 4.381 20.126 0.007 0.325 20.134C8 22.595 2.421 0.487 0.028 0.051C9 4.381 20.126 0.007 0.325 20.134C10 22.262 2.822 0.584 0.754 20.106C11 23.667 21.260 20.952 20.229 0.095C12 3.621 2.402 20.150 20.649 0.108C13 3.456 20.804 0.046 1.455 0.356C14 23.620 22.402 0.150 0.649 20.108C15 0.739 3.279 1.342 20.470 0.113

Element (E1–E6) Loadings on each Component (Cmp)

Elements Cmp1 Cmp2 Cmp3 Cmp4 Cmp5

E1 24.698 5.664 1.346 20.107 0.010E2 25.480 0.208 21.860 1.052 20.047E3 24.381 23.280 20.276 21.613 0.079E4 0.304 24.668 1.570 0.975 20.051E5 7.259 0.990 20.382 0.174 0.355E6 6.996 1.088 20.398 20.481 20.346

aData from the instructor’s grid. C1–C15: see Table 1, part A. E1 5 Mathematics; E2 5Physics; E3 5 Chemistry; E4 5 Biology; E5 5 Geology; E6 5 Geography.

RESULTS

A content analysis of elicited constructs has been discussed elsewhere (Bezzi, 1997),and the results are only summarized here. The analysis gave five categories based on theauthor’s judgment of their meaning: (1) objects, areas, and techniques of investigation(such as it studies the matter/it studies the territory; it uses/it does not use maps, charts);(2) nature of science (objective/subjective; simple/composite science); (3) application ofscience and its professional aspects (many/less working chances; it modifies/it preservesthe natural environment); (4) affective aspects (I like/I dislike; difficult/easy to me); and(5) characteristics of the courses (elementary/high school; with lab/without lab). In thiscontext, constructs related to the scientific essence of the disciplines (categories 1 and 2)by far exceed the other categories, with a significant increase in the first and second

684 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH


Figure 2. Principal component display of the instructor’s grid elicited at the beginning (A) and at the end (B)of the Geology course. Crosses indicate the grid elements and dots the elicited constructs.



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textcategory at the end of the teaching episode, essentially at the expense of professional

aspects and characteristics of the courses. In the rest of the chapter some of the results ofthe PCA are presented in detail (with the use of the computer layouts of three grids) andare summarized for the other grids.

Figure 2 displays the first two axes (components) of a principal component analysis ofthe data elicited from the instructor at the beginning (Fig. 2A) and at the end (Fig. 2B) ofthe geology course. Their variance in both cases is quite high: 68.34 1 26.40 5 94.74%in Figure 2A, and 63.98 1 21.55 5 85.53% in Figure 2B. Figure 2A shows that geologyand geography, on one side, and physics, on the other side, are mainly controlled by thefirst component (horizontal axis) whose loading is primarily due to constructs (see Table1, part A) C4, C7, and C9 (which plot in the same spot), and second to C2, C6, C11, C12,C13, and C14. It is reasonable to interpret this component as an epistemological dimensionin which geology and geography are seen as subjective, approximate, and synthetic sci-ences based on concepts. They are in contrast to physics, which is considered an objective,rigorous, and analytic science based on formulas. Although the geosciences analyze theeffects and use the description of observations carried out during fieldwork on the territorywith the aid of maps, physics, starting from axioms, analyzes the causes and studies thephysical matter. C15 exerts the strongest control on the second component, but also C3and C10 and, to a lesser extent C8, play a certain role. This dimension allows furtherdifferentiation: chemistry, which is controlled also by the first axis (and, therefore, withepistemological characters similar to physics), is construed as an experimental, inductivescience aimed at modifying reality; it studies matter in a laboratory, with the use of sub-stances. This perception is shared by biology (which is controlled essentially by the secondcomponent): its experiments are aimed at real, applied objectives. Both components affectthe position of mathematics (with a slight prevalence of the second one): it shares theepistemological dimensions of physics and chemistry, but it is more theoretical, basic, andhas an interest in the abstract.

As was expected from the persistence of the vast majority of the constructs, the instruc-tor’s construction does not vary substantially at the end of the academic year. In fact,Figure 2B reveals that physics and the geosciences are still influenced by the first com-ponent in which the loadings (see Table 1B) of C10, C14, C7, C12, C6, C15, and C4 (indecreasing order of importance) give the most significant contribution. The cartographyof the territory seems to be responsible, in this case, for the major displacement of geog-raphy from geology. Although the epistemological dimension basically preserves its char-acteristics, it is of interest to note that the construct C14 (basic/applied) now has a greaterimportance in discriminating these three disciplines, suggesting an improved awareness ofthe societal role that science can play. This new consciousness is also confirmed by therecently introduced constructs C8 and C13, whose loadings are the highest in the thirdcomponent (not plotted on the figure). C3 now has the greatest loading on the secondcomponent, but considerations about biology, chemistry, and mathematics essentially donot differ.

The principal component analysis of Mel’s first grid (Fig. 3A) also shows a rathercomplex pattern, because a consistent percentage of variance is contained within the firstthree components (50.72 1 25.65 1 13.49 5 89.86%). The constructs with the highestloadings on the first one are use/no use of calculations, concerned/not concerned withbiogeography, concerned/not concerned with the globe, followed by in/not in industrysectors, use/no use of math methods, and rock analysis important/unimportant. The secondcomponent is primarily grounded in laboratory/no laboratory, concerned/not concernedwith energy sources, and in/not in junior school. Finally, with/without botany contentprovides the greatest contribution to the third component (absent in this layout). Many

686 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH


Figure 3. Principal component display of Mel’s original grid elicited at the beginning (A) and at the end (B) ofthe academic year. Crosses indicate the grid elements and dots the elicited constructs.



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textepistemological dimensions contribute to Mel’s perception of these sciences, and it is worth

pointing out that she does not consider geology (which is the most strongly linked to thefirst component) to have anything to do with industry. Also, geography owes its positionto the horizontal axis, but with a notable influence from the second component, in whichsome teaching aspects prevail. Physics faces geography for opposite reasons, whereas, asusual, both axes define the location of mathematics. The second and the third componentscontrol chemistry with a slight prevalence of the former. The situation is reversed forbiology, which loads primarily on the third component and obviously plots very close tothe botany content construct near the third axis (not depicted in this figure).

The percentage of variance in the PrinCom Output obtained from the grid elicited at theend of the geology course (52.03 1 29.23 1 11.87 5 93.13%) indicates that Mel’s per-ception is composed of various constructs that hardly take the leading role in definingsome peculiar dimensions (Fig. 3B). Use/no use of calculations, use/no use of math meth-ods, and deductive/inductive method (with the same loading), use/no use of maps, studyreal/abstract entities, and study/do not study crust deformations are the major contributorsto the first component in which nature and objects of science merge to delineate a sort ofepistemological domain. Use/no use of elements table, study/do not study the cell, studyorganic matter/earth phenomena (with equal loading), and study living organisms/inor-ganic matter are the constructs that yield the major support for the second component.Finally, study/do not study minerals and concerned/not concerned with energy sourcesexplain the variance of the third component. As was reasonably expected from the clusteranalysis (Bezzi, 1997) that presented the disciplines paired, for the first time mathematicsis close to physics in a position substantially due to the first component. They are facedby the geosciences and, in both cases, the construct poles that gather around these sciencesin the layout are their meaningful descriptors, according to Mel. Different from the others,biology and chemistry are grounded in the second and third component, and therefore theirplotting in this figure is, to some extent, deceptive; nonetheless, the poles of the constructsthat lie around them are sufficiently clear to define the basic image perceived by Mel.

Sim’s PrinCom Output of his earliest grid indicates that the first component assumes asignificant moment because it explains a rather high percentage of variance, whereas thesecond and third ones have a nearly identical (but low) value (65.16 1 12.79 1 11.16 589.11%). In decreasing order of significance, simple/composite disciplines, on math basis/little math, need understanding/conversational (with the same loading), based on fixedprinciples/past events, limiting/help to know the world, and earth not implied/study theearth are the constructs that characterize the horizontal axis (Fig. 4A). In turn, with/withoutpracticals, and direct/minor influence on mankind distinguish the vertical axis. Finally,study inanimate matter/also biosphere mark the third component and the latter pole plotsobviously very close to biology in the relevant diagram (not reported here). In this layout,geology is the only discipline that is nearly entirely described by the first component(although it also has a significant loading on the third component for traits opposite tobiology) and appears to Sim as a conversational, composite science based on past eventswhose understanding needs little math. Also, geography is strongly marked by the samepoles of the first component, and its shifting from the first axis is (unfortunately) due toSim’s perception of its minor influence on mankind and the absence of practicals (but,obviously, this has fewer consequences on the societal implications for this science). Phys-ics and mathematics respectively face the geosciences for contrasting reasons, whereaschemistry shares in equal amount the characters of the first two components. Biology issimilar to geology because it loads on the first and the third components and its featureshave already been mentioned.

Figure 4B reflects the changes in Sim’s perception after 1 year of attendance in the

688 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH


Figure 4. Principal component display of Sim’s original grid elicited at the beginning (A) and at the end (B) ofthe academic year. Crosses indicate the grid elements and dots the elicited constructs.

geology course. Most of the variance is explained by the first three components (58.51 114.87 1 13.07 5 86.45%) and we must take into account also the third component becauseits value closely approximates the second one, although only one construct (study evident/concealed phenomena) has a significant loading on the third axis. Lab experiments/directobservation, simple/composite disciplines, indirect study of factors affecting living forms/direct study of living forms, unrelated to living organisms/needed to study living orga-nisms, and based on math/less math applied are the constructs with the greatest contri-butions to the first component and the best descriptors of mathematics, physics, and



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textchemistry on the one side, and biology on the other, as these disciplines are mostly

grounded in these dimensions (with a minor role played by the third component). Thesecond component (essentially due to merely theoretical research/research implies rawmaterials, use/minor use of math and physics, and at the basis of technological develop-ment/not particularly significant for progress) is particularly important because it clearlydiscriminates, for the first time, the geosciences, confirming in some way the result of thecluster analysis (Bezzi, 1997). It is quite obvious that geological research could imply rawmaterials, and the acknowledgment of the use of math and physics in this research shouldbe seen favorably; but the endorsement of a minor role for geology in the development ofsociety (as Sim believes) is quite worrying for reasons that will be discussed later.

It is difficult to envisage some sort of coherent dimension in the picture that emergedfrom the computer layout of Amy’s original grid, elicited prior to the geological instruction,because constructs with major loadings belong to various “epistemological” categories.Chemistry and physics are construed as nearly identical. They are seen as ancient sciences,which need math knowledge, and not aimed at aspects of a territory, with consequent rareor no use of maps and photographs. These sciences are seen as single disciplines that mustbe studied with a constant application. In turn, geology, as well as biology, is perceivedas a composite science that requires less rote learning; both disciplines are based on realphysical concepts, and can be studied without assiduous attention. The plotting of biologyis strongly controlled by the fact that this science is not taught to children, and requiresthe use of a laboratory and formulas. On the contrary, mathematics uses postulates, isbased on abstract concepts, and is taught to children without the use of a laboratory. Theposition of geography is plotted in the quadrant opposite to Geol/Biol on the secondcomponent and this location is essentially due to territorial aspects, but there is also someinfluence from the absence of a laboratory, from its being taught to children, and (lessclearly) from postulates.

The principal component analysis on Amy’s grid elicited at the end of the academicyear illustrates the changes in her construction of the disciplines. Apart from a couple ofconstructs related to curricular aspects, Amy’s construing is notably marked by episte-mological dimensions that allow the emergence of what she feels to be the most importantcharacteristics of the grid elements. The output indicates that geography is the only sciencethat is nearly entirely controlled by the first component and, according to Amy, shows theconstructs more appropriate for this discipline (not based on laws and postulates, basedon other disciplines). Also, chemistry, for opposing reasons (poles of constructs), lies nearthe horizontal axis, but its position is not so markedly affected by the first component asgeography and is influenced by the laboratory (on the second component). In contrast,mathematics is based mostly on the second component for its abstractness, but it alsoshares many of the characters of the first one. Physics owes its location to both componentsto nearly the same degree and it obviously faces mathematics for its concreteness. Theelement loadings of the PrinCom calculation indicate that biology and geology owe theirposition mostly to the third component where laboratory, study mankind, no use of maps,and in junior school characterize biology, whereas the contrast poles cluster around ge-ology.

Gian’s principal component analysis at the beginning of the academic year gives quitea composite picture of his prevailing perceptive dimensions, because three componentsare significant. He perceives geography as a discipline that is not actually scientific buthas a great concern for practical things, is strongly related to the territory and the planet,and also that this science is performed through visual studies instead of formulas or lab-oratory and it is easy to understand. Geology shares with geography some of the previoustraits and mostly owes its position to its high interest in practical things. Mathematics, and

690 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textto a lesser extent chemistry and physics, are seen as being opposite to these peculiarities.

The main constructs used by Gian to characterize biology are the interest in life forms andthe use of a laboratory. Physics, as well as biology, appears to actually be the most scientificdiscipline.

Although the information elicited from Gian at the end of the academic year is lessextensive (only ten constructs in his grid), the principal component analysis is still ac-ceptable. In a practically sense, only geography lies very close to the first component andshares to some extent with geology it being an empirical, not experimental, science thatdoes not require the use of formulas, but it is concerned with the territory. Principally,chemistry and physics face the geosciences on this dimension—therefore being charac-terized by the contrast poles of the constructs. In turn, biology is controlled by the secondand the third components, where the study of organic matter (but not of rocks) are themain features that, according to Gian, distinguish this discipline. Once again, the plottingof mathematics is due to the first two components, thus sharing, in these dimensions, theloadings (and the traits) of the most significant constructs of physics and chemistry, fromwhich it differs for its theoretical studies.

The PrinCom Output of Van’s earliest grid shows that the variance is mostly explainedby the first two components, but also the third has some weight, especially for one partic-ular construct (reasoning/rote learning). Between the two geosciences, geology is notablymarked by the first component alone, and it is easy to realize that its location on thesedimensions (as well as physics) is mostly due to the fact that Van has some aversion tonumbers or formulas, which give him difficulties. With this in mind it is worth pointingout that I like/I don’t like and hard/less hard to me have the first and the third highestloadings in this component, suggesting that affective considerations clearly play a majorrole in Van’s perception. Physics and mathematics have a significant loading on the thirdcomponent, and in the relevant computer layout (not represented here) they plot on theopposite sides of the axis showing (rather surprisingly) that Van considers the latter adiscipline that needs reasoning, whereas the former needs only memorization! Finally,biology and chemistry complete the picture, being controlled to nearly the same degreeby both axes, but in contrasting positions as far as the first component is concerned. Theyare probably positioned on the same side of the second component because Van believesthey offer greater chances of finding a job (a problem of real concern for young peoplehere). It is of interest to note that the disciplines are divided exactly into two facing groupsthat confirm the results of the cluster analysis (Bezzi, 1997).

At the end of the academic year, Van’s PrinCom Output indicates that geography,mathematics, and physics “behave” similarly, because their positions are mainly governedby the first (and to a less extent by the third) component. Although some time passedbetween the earliest and latest elicitation, as it appears from the analysis Van’s dislike forthe mathematical aspects of science still persists. It is evident that she continues to prefera discipline aimed at the study of the natural environment, but not one based on formulasand calculations. Geology owes its location to the first two components in equal amounts,and its shifting toward the vertical axis is evidently due to the study of volcanoes. Incontrast, biology is principally grounded on the second component, presumably becausethis science aims to study human life. In the layout, the position of chemistry could berather ambiguous because the second and the third component are mostly responsible forits image. Nonetheless, also in the relevant diagram (not depicted here) it plots very closeto modern science and do not study man’s distribution on earth that (together with itsconcern with daily life) represent the best descriptors of Van’s conception of this science.

Table 3 outlines the results obtained from the principal component analysis of the in-structor’s grids; that is, they contain all the information expressed by the computer outputs



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of text

TABLE 3Instructor’s Constructs (Table 1, Parts A and B) with the Greatest EpistemologicalValuea

ConstructTable 1, Part A Rank/Load

ConstructTable 1, Part B Rank/Load

1 12 Construct 2/I 23 3 Construct 1/II4 Construct 1/I; Gl 1 Gr 4 Gl 1 Gr5 56 Construct 2/I 67 Construct 1/I; Gl 1 Gr 7 Construct 3/I8 8 Construct 1/III9 Construct 1/I; Gl 1 Gr 9

10 10 Construct 1/I; Gl 1 Gr11 1112 Gl 1 Gr 1213 1314 Gl 1 Gr 14 Construct 2/I; Gl 1 Gr15 Construct 1/II 15 Gl 1 Gr

16

The table takes into account the ranking of the first three constructs (1,2,3) on the firstcomponent (I), and only the first on the second (II) and third (III) component. If more con-structs present the same loading, then they are indicated at the same ranking.

aThat is, with the highest loadings on the first three components (I, II, III). Gl 5 geology;Gr 5 geography; their presence in the cells indicates the constructs that mostly characterizethe geosciences.

and not merely what is visualized by the layouts in which only the first and second com-ponents are present. Two columns show the number corresponding to the instructor’sconstructs of Table 1 (parts A and B), elicited at the beginning and at the end of theacademic year. The other two columns indicate the constructs with the highest loadingson the first three components, identified I, II, and III. The higher the loading, the greaterthe ability of the construct to significantly discriminate the elements—hence, the definitionof their epistemological value because they reflect people’s cognitive and affective di-mensions applied to construe their external reality. As most of the percentage of varianceis explained by the first component, the ranking of the first three constructs is indicated inthe cells. Thus, for example, “construct 1/III” indicates the construct with the highestloading on the third component, “construct 2/I” the construct with the second highestloading on the first component, etc. With an appropriate symbol located in some cells (Gl5 geology; Gr 5 geography), there is also an indication of the constructs that, due to theircorrelations calculated from loadings on the three axes (components), appear to be the bestdescriptors of the geosciences. In most cases, these constructs coincide with those withthe highest loadings.

From the single rows of Table 3 it is easy to infer which are the constructs with thegreatest epistemological value for the instructor. At the beginning of the academic year,synthesis/analysis, rigorous/approximate, and formulas/concepts, are by far the most im-portant, both in general and in relation to the geosciences. Axioms/observation data andcalculations/descriptions follow in the ranking on the first component, whereas experi-

692 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textmental/theoretical is the leader on the second component. Particularly significant for the

geosciences appear to be study the matter/study the territory and use of maps/use of sub-stances. Some slight changes are discernible at the end of the academic year: formulas/concepts is persistently the construct with the highest epistemological value, followed bybasic/applied and rigorous/approximate on the first component. Concerned with real/con-cerned with abstract and study the matter/study mankind are the most significant, respec-tively, on the second and third components, whereas related to territory/related to objectsand use of maps/use of substances are important constructs used to characterize the geo-sciences.

Table 4 is based on the original grids of the students elicited at the beginning (part A)and at the end (part B) of the academic year. It contains all the construct poles with thehighest correlation with the geosciences in the dimensional space defined by the three mainaxes (components). Thus, also in this case, the information is to some extent wider thanthe layouts depicted in Figures 2–4, because those diagrams include only two components.In addition to previous considerations, the Table 4 shows the broad range of constructs onwhich the real students’ epistemology is founded and confirms the efficacy of a researchtool that retrieves the subjects’ cognition in their own terminology, leaving both intellectualand emotional aspects intact. Such a table may appear simple compared with a traditional,sophisticated questionnaire: but, normally, the latter offers only a nomothetic frameworkdefined by researchers’ background that can hardly imagine and therefore include all thepossible idiosyncrasies related to real students’ cognitive and affective structures.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study seem to confirm that the repertory grid is a powerful heuristictool for exploring a person’s underlying construction system without splitting human func-tioning into intelligence, emotion, and motivation. The limited number of subjects preventsthe making of more general statements about the image of (geo)sciences; however, it seemsto be more significant to provide critical cases that delineate unique configurations ofpeople’s thought and feelings than to carry out assessments about a normative scienceimage prepared by “experts.” Because the grid is particularly sensitive to the nature of theperson, the overall picture emerging from the collected data can be looked upon as a mapof the construct systems of the subjects, a sort of idiographic cartography in contrast tothe nomothetic cartography that can be obtained with other instruments.

Solomon, Duveen, and Scott (1994) argued that students see science and scientiststhrough a social and psychological everyday knowledge considered to be an integral partof their epistemologies. Studies of the public understanding of science have shown that itis precisely through the medium of such social and psychological everyday knowledgethat most members of the public understand the science and scientists involved in publicissues. Suchting (1995) affirmed that everyday thinking is a positive obstacle to scientificthought because of its way of discriminating the relevant elements and their relationshipstend to be holistic, syncretic, and analogic rather than analytic and genuinely systematic.This way of thinking involves deeply entrenched conceptions because they are often usefulfrom the point of view of the needs of ordinary life and, therefore, represent undeniablehindrances to scientific understanding. The “everyday knowledge” used by individuals intheir social and physical interactions is not required to be internally and logically consist-ent, nor to be generalizable in the way that scientific knowledge is (Driver et al., 1994).Therefore, insights into the everyday ontology and epistemology commonly used by stu-dents to make personal sense of scientific representations can be of greater use than anyattempt to envisage a normative reconstruction of canonical science. These results can be



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textTABLE 4

Constructs Poles Relatd to the Geosciences with Greatest Epistemological Valuea

Resulting from Principal Component Analysis Performed on Students’ OriginalGrids Prior to (A) and After (B) Geological Instruction

Students Geology Geography

Amy A use of photographs territory aspectsno constant application to study no laboratorycomposite discipline taught to childrenless mnemonic

Amy B not logic science not based on laws and postulatesoral exams recent sciencefieldwork based on other disciplinesuse of mapsin high school

Gian A visual studies studies the changes of the planetconcerned with planetary motions not actually scientificstudies the planet no formulasno calculations easy to understandrelated to underground no laboratory

Gian B territory very significant empirical sciencenot experimental science no use of formulasstudy the rocks

Mel A not in industry sectors concerned with biogeographyconcerned with the globe no laboratoryrock analysis important not concerned with energy sourcesno use of math methods

Mel B studies earth phenomena studies crust deformationsdoes not study the cell use of mapsno use of calculations studies minerals

Sim A composite discipline composite disciplinebased on past events based on past eventslittle math little mathconversational conversationalhelps to know the world minor influence on mankindalso studies biosphere

Sim B research implies raw materials minor use of math and physicsnot particularly significant for on contingent situationsprogress

Van A I like use mapsless hard for me less job chancesno use of numbers elementary school

Van B studies volcanoes not based on calculationsstudies the earth studies natural phenomena

does not use formulasI likeconcerned with daily life

aThat is, with the highest loadings on the first three components.

694 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textused to create informed teaching interventions by highlighting possible mismatches be-

tween students’ everyday knowledge and the assumptions underpinning the curriculum(Leach et al., 1997).

In order to reveal students’ epistemological dimensions, a careful scrutiny of the resultsobtained with the principal component analysis elucidates how, in the earliest elicitation,constructs belonging to the first two categories (Bezzi, 1997) are the most important indiscriminating the disciplines, with a particular role played by constructs connected, tosome extent, with the mathematical aspects of science. Constructs related to the otherclasses showed a lesser influence, although their number was relatively high. This situationis strongly enhanced in the final elicitation in which most of the constructs that have thestatus of differentiating the geosciences belong essentially to the first two categories, but,in this case, with a minor influence exerted by math constructs. The shifting toward a more“scientific” construction of the image of these sciences is not so positive as it might appear,because: (1) it reflects an inadequate account of geosciences methodology; and (2) becauseit occurs at the expense of decreased attention to the professional aspects. Due to theidiosyncratic nature of learners’ and instructor’s constructions, it is difficult to summarizesome general considerations about their epistemological dimensions, but it is possible todiscern some features that have already emerged from Figures 2–4 and Tables 3 and 4.

From an overall review of collected data and analysis, some stereotypical images ofscience do appear with a characteristic antithesis between physics (often joined to chem-istry and mathematics) and the geosciences. As Frodeman (1995) pointed out, physics istraditionally considered as the paradigmatic science that exemplifies the true nature of“scientific method” with a certain, precise, and analytically derived knowledge of theworld. Moreover, arbitrary classifications that rate sciences according to their mathematicalsophistication put the experimental sciences at the top of this hierarchy (Alvarez, 1991).But, the continued embrace of a cartesian standard of what constitutes knowledge willonly encourage the further growth of fundamentalist ideologies that live off an absolutistmentality and reject any type of thinking that recognizes uncertainty and ambiguity (Fro-deman, 1996). In contrast, the geosciences are seen as having many problems that undercuttheir claims to knowledge such as the incompleteness of data, the lack of experimentalcontrol, the huge span of time required for geological processes, and the difficulties inmaking direct observations. Besides, historical narratives, typical of earth sciences, areoften considered a vague form of knowledge lacking the logical rigor appropriate to the“hard” sciences. Conversely, to give more pupils access to science and achieve the goalsof scientific literacy it is worth recalling what some investigators (in particular, Burnley& Frodeman, 1996; Frodeman, 1996; Sutton, 1996) intelligently emphasized the need for“narrative logic”; that is, a way of talking, writing, and teaching that allows scientists toexpress and communicate the meaning and values of the work that they know so well.Earth science disciplines are subject to the vicissitude of time, where certainty, precision,or experimental demonstration are often not possible. Thus, despite the wealth of insightit has to offer to public debate, the usefulness of earth science information is impaired bypublic assumptions concerning what counts as usable knowledge. Narrative logic providesthe context of understanding necessary for people to make sense of facts. For instance,describing the possible scenarios of the global change, the scientist acknowledges his/herlack of certainty, but by placing the results of scientific work within a narrative framework,the scientist helps the community to grasp the potential implications of its acts. The stan-dard type of scientific explanation (the deductive–nomological model) does not organizeinformation in the way best suited to public comprehension. The aforementioned inves-tigators have claimed that narrative understanding is an important supplement to standardscientific practice. Narrative provides scientists with a means of communicating the sig-



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textnificance of scientific research so that the public can make informed policy decisions.

Narrative allows us to place scientific facts within a set of vivid scenarios that are bothmemorable and easily integrated into the public’s preexisting cognitive framework.Through the use of relevant and memorable accounts, scenario building offers the publican intuitive grasp of the consequences of its choices.

Sciences that do not meet the physics standards have hardly (but mistakenly) beenconsidered as such. This continued viewing of the geosciences from the perspective ofphysics emerges throughout all the outcomes of this study, and in particular from dataprovided by the principal component analysis where many of the constructs matching withthis commonplace image seem to be a persistent keystone of teacher and student episte-mologies. This result is not surprising, because, as stressed by Turner and Frodeman(1996), for 300 years our culture has defined rationality in terms of the characteristics ofclassical mechanics. All other sciences have striven to achieve its level of precision, quan-tifiability, predictability, certainty, and value-neutrality. However, the problems faced to-day by society are often intrinsically value-laden, inherently vague, and to some extentresistant to certain quantification or reliable prediction. Turner and Frodeman (1996) pro-posed a shift from the standards implicit within classical mechanics to those within theearth sciences that embody a model of scientific rationality where, rather than absolutecertainty and precision, the standard for scientific knowledge becomes the ability of sci-entists to offer pertinent advice. Undoubtedly, every geologist and earth science educatoragrees with Frodeman’s (1995) conclusions that the two distinctive features of geologicalreasoning, which are its nature as a hermeneutic (interpretive) and a historical science,offer the best model of the type of reasoning needed to overcome some of the most urgentsocietal problems faced by the modern civilized world. The real problem is to convincescience educators and curriculum planners to include earth systems content and method-ology in the evolving integrated science curricula so as to provide students with the knowl-edge that can be directly related to our planet and society (Mayer, 1995).

The analysis of the results shows that aspects connected with the geological professionand the application of science decreased at the end of the academic year. Therefore, furtherconsiderations must be taken in relation to cultural and societal aspects inherent within thegeosciences. Although restricted to a few instances, some elicited constructs do raise someconcern: (i) when geosciences are considered to have a minor influence on mankind and,after one year of geological instruction, they are regarded as not particularly significantfor progress; (ii) when, at the end of the course, only one student (there were three at thebeginning) gives some epistemological value to application of the geosciences; and (iii)when the concern for society does not emerge as a significant conceptual dimension, thenit is legitimate to suspect that, at least in some cases, important educational aims have beenmissed. The understanding of the past, present, and future behavior of the entire earthsystem must be aimed at coping with the societal challenges (resources, hazards, environ-ments, global change) (National Research Council, 1993). If these issues do not emergefrom people’s cognitive framework, then this lack indicates that they are not perceived asbeing fundamental, suggesting that something has to be done to include, implicitly orexplicitly, this matter in any earth science educational project. Changing students’ epis-temological views is not an easy task: even in courses aimed specifically at this objectivethis result has been only partially achieved (Roth & Lucas, 1997; Roth & Roychoudhury,1993) and simply teaching geology does not change students’ images of the geosciences(Bezzi, 1997). It now seems evident that a more complete public understanding of sciencerequires studying the processes of science, not just the content. If the major aim of scientificliteracy is to provide informed citizens with scientific habits of mind that enable them tofully participate in a modern democracy, then people will not be automatically equipped

696 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textto make good public decisions simply by learning science. Kelly, Carlsen, and Cunningham

(1993) ranked as “among the greatest fallacies of our age” the presumption that if studentslearn science content they will be able to make more informed decisions about scientificand technological issues in society. Geologists and earth science educators have the greatresponsibility to transform geoscience education into a process that must go beyond mereteaching and learning the facts, laws, and theories: it must involve understanding the natureof geoscience and its relationships with society (Baker, 1996). Furthermore, the awarenessof the actual students’ epistemological views should be the starting point for any efficientcognitive reconstruction.

Rather than coming to a definite conclusion, it is worth pointing out that all data pre-sented and discussed should constitute a set for further research, because any interpretationmust be confirmed with subjects from whom the constructs have been elicited (Fetherston,1995). Such confirmation has been accomplished in only a few cases (with the instructorand a couple of students) due to the difficulties in which educational research in the domainof the geosciences is carried out within Italian universities. The lack of cultural traditionand personnel and technological facilities, combined with limited financial support and ahostile academic environment, forcefully constrains the research to standards incompatiblewith complete investigations. In any case, it is believed that this study adds aditional datato the body of literature generated by the many investigators mentioned in the Introductionregarding the images of (geo)sciences. The particular methodology applied discloses thelearners’ wide range of alternative ways of construing/making sense of the same elementsand illuminates the rich diversity of intellectual and affective frameworks implied in theconstruction of a physical and conceptual world. These proven different “ways of seeing”reality confirm Kelly’s philosophical position of constructive alternativism and reinforcethe paradigm of a constructivist perspective of teaching and learning to which the vastmajority of science education research is committed (Driver et al., 1996; Pope, 1995;Porlan, 1993; Roth, 1995).

The author thanks the geology instructor, Marino Marini, and the students enrolled in geology 1994/95 who agreed to be the focus of the research investigation. Paul Nixon’s revision of the English isgratefully appreciated.

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science–Technology–Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.

Akhatar, A. (1996, August). Stimulation of awareness of geoscience among the mass population ofthe society. Paper presented at the 30th International Geological Congress, Beijing, PRC.

Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.Alvarez, W. (1991). The gentle art of scientific trespassing. GSA Today, 1, 29–31, 34.American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Amer-

icans. Washington, DC: AAAS.American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Science for all Amer-

icans. New York: Oxford University Press.Arthur, R. (1996). What is geology? In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience

education and training. Joint special publication of the COGEOED of the IUGS and AGID, no.19 (pp. 695–701). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Baker, V. R. (1996). The geological approach to understanding the environment. GSA Today, 6,41–43.

Bezzi, A. (1996a, March). Lo institucional y lo personal en la Ciencia moderna: El papel de lasepistemologıas privadas en el proceso de ensenanza/aprendizaje. Paper presented to the 12th



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textBienal-125 Aniversario Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural. Madrid, Spain (pp. 43–44).

Abstract in Libro de Resumenes.Bezzi, A. (1996b). Is geology teaching also geology learning? An interactive education approach to

solve the dilemma. In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training.Joint special publication of the COGEOED of the IUGS and the AGID, no. 19 (pp. 463–480).Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Bezzi, A. (1996c). Geology: A science, a teacher or a course? How students construct the image ofgeological disciplines and that of their teachers. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.),Research in science education in Europe—current issues and themes (pp. 312–324). London:Falmer Press.

Bezzi, A. (1996d). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and reconstructionin geology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 179–204.

Bezzi, A. (1996e). Aplicaciones de la tecnica de la psicologıa de los constructos personales en elproceso de ensenanza/aprendizaje de las Ciencias de la Tierra. Ensenanza de las Ciencias de laTierra, pp. 22–31.

Bezzi, A. (1997). The influence of Geology teaching on the image of geosciences. In H. Wang, D. F.Branagan, Z. Ouyang, & X. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Geology Congress,Beijing, PRC, vol. 26 (pp. 123–138). Utrecht: VSP.

Burnley, P. C., & Frodeman, R. L. (1996, October). The role of narrative in scientific explanation.Paper presented to the GSA Annual Meeting. Denver, CO (p. A–259).

Chiari, G. (1996). Personal construct psychology and psychotherapy: A bibliography. Roma: Centrodi Psicologia e Psicoterapia Costruttivista.

Cooray, P. G. (1996). Earth-science as a basic component of all education. In D. A. V. Stow &G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training. Joint special publication of theCOGEOED of the IUGS and the AGID, no. 19 (pp. 803–810). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Corporaal, A. H. (1991). Repertory grid research into cognitions of prospective primary schoolteachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 315–329.

Department for Education/Welsh Office (DFE/WO). (1995). Science in the National Curriculum(1995). London: HMSO.

Descals, A., & Rivas, F. (1995, November). Aproximacion a la estructuracion cognitiva del estu-diante en la situacion educativa universitaria. Paper presented to the II Congreso Internacional dePsicologıa de la Educacion, Madrid, Spain.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowl-edge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham,UK: Open University Press.

Eichinger, J. (1992). College science majors’ perceptions of secondary school science: An explor-atory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 601–610.

Fetherston, A. R. (1995). Using repertory grids in classrooms. MASTEC monograph series, no. 3.Perth: Edith Cowan University.

Fetherstonhaugh, A. R. (1994). Using the repertory grid to probe students’ ideas about energy.Research in Science and Technological Education, 12, 117–127.

Fransella, F., & Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. London: AcademicPress.

Frodeman, R. L. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science.GSA Bulletin, 107, 960–968.

Frodeman, R. L. (1996). The rhetoric of science. GSA Today, 6, 12–13.Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1990a). Cognitive and logical foundations of knowledge acqui-

sition. In J. H. Boose & B. R. Gaines (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth AAAI Knowledge Acqui-sition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop (pp. 19–24). Banff, Alberta: University ofCalgary.

Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1990b). REPGRID manual. Calgary: Centre for Person ComputerStudies.

Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1993). Knowledge acquisition tools based on personal constructpsychology. Knowledge Engineering Review, 8, 49–85.

698 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textHapps, J. C., & Stead, K. (1989). Using the repertory grid as a complementary probe in eliciting

student understanding and attitudes toward science. Research in Science and Technological Ed-ucation, 7, 207–220.

Hunt, J. A. (1994). “STS teaching in Britain.” In K. T. Boersma, K. Kortland, & J. van Trommel(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium (pp. 409–417). Enschede, The Netherlands:National Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).

Kalekin-Fishman, D. (1995, July). Constructing a concept of teaching: Construing the role of teacherin a culturally plural society. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on PersonalConstruct Psychology, Barcelona, Spain.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Vols. I and 2. New York: Norton.Kelly, G. J., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (1993). Science education in sociocultural

context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education, 77, 207–220.Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we

understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273–283.Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1995a). Scientific literacy: How many lost generations can we afford? Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 32, 895–896.Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1995b). Scientific literacy: Where do we go from here? Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 32, 1007–1009.Lakin, S., & Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the “nature of science”?: Teachers’ views of

science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education,16, 175–190.

Leach, J. (1996). Students’ understanding of the nature of science. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P.Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe – current issues and themes (pp. 269–282).London: Falmer Press.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about “thenature of science”: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 19, 147–166.

Lederman, N. G. (1995). Suchting on the nature of scientific thought: Are we anchoring curriculain Quicksand? Science & Education, 4, 371–377.

Lee, O. (1997). Scientific literacy for all: What is it, and how can we achieve it? Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 34, 219–222.

Mayer, V. J. (1995). Using the Earth system for integrating science curriculum. Science Education,79, 375–391.

Mayer, V. J. (1997). Global science literacy: An Earth system view. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 34, 101–105.

Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 429–443.

National Curriculum Council (1993). Teaching science at key stages 3 and 4. York, UK: NCC.National Research Council (1993). Solid-earth sciences and society. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.National Science Teachers Association (1991). Science/technology/society: A new effort for pro-

viding appropriate science for all (position statement) NSTA handbook (pp. 47–48). Washington,DC: NSTA.

Olsen, T. P., Hewson, P. W., & Lyons, L. (1996). Preordained science and student autonomy: Thenature of laboratory tasks in physics classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 18,775–790.

Pope, M. L. (1995, July). Constructivist educational research: A personal construct psychologyperspective. Paper presented to the 11th International Congress of Personal Construct Psychology,Barcelona, Spain.

Pope, M. L., & Denicolo, P. (1993). The art and science of constructivist research in teacher thinking.Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 529–544.

Pope, M. L., & Keen, R. T. (1981). Personal construct psychology and education. London: AcademicPress.



shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of textBase of textPorlan, R. (1993). Constructivismo y Escuela. Hacia un modelo de ensenanza/aprendizaje basado

en la investigacion. Sevilla: Dıda Editora SL.Ramsden, P., Baird, C., Bourne, J., Dunne, D., Goldsworthy, A., Hall, H., Hann, M., Ratcliffe, M.,

& Wheatley, J. (1995). Project 2061: Science education for the year 2000 and beyond. Hatfield,UK: ASE.

Roth, W.-M. (1993). In the name of constructivism: Science education research and the constructionof local knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 799–803.

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science lab-oratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis ofhigh school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 34, 145–179.

Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The nature of scientific knowledge, knowing and learn-ing: The perspectives of four physics students. International Journal of Science Education, 15,27–44.

Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about know-ing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 5–30.

Rowell, J. A., & Pollard, J. M. (1995). Raising awareness of uncertainty: A useful addendum tocourse in the history and philosophy of science for science teachers? Science & Education, 4, 87–97.

Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about epistemology of science.Science Education, 76, 559–580.

Schoneweg Bradford, C., Rubba, P. A., & Harkness, W. L. (1995). Views about Science–Technol-ogy–Society: Interactions held by college students in general education physics and STS courses.Science Education, 79, 353–373.

Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). The use of personal construct theory and the repertory grid in the developmentof case reports of children’s science learning (pp. 251–271). In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Developmentand dilemmas in science education. London: Falmer Press.

Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during anindependent investigation in science: Learning about the “Face of science that does not yet know.”Science Education, 80, 535–560.

Shaw, E. L., Jr. (1992). The influence of methods instruction on the beliefs of preservice elementaryand secondary science teachers: Preliminary comparative analyses. School Science and Mathe-matics, 92, 14–22.

Shaw, M. L. G. (1980). On becoming a personal scientist. Interactive computer elicitation of personalmodels of the world. London: Academic Press.

Shaw, M. L. G., & Gaines, B. R. (1992). Kelly’s “geometry of psychological space” and its signif-icance for cognitive modeling. The New Psychologist, October, 23–31.

Slater, P. (1977). The measurement of intrapersonal space by the grid technique. Vol. 2. Dimensionsof intrapersonal space. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learningusing autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research, 62, 205–225.

Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.) (1994). STS education—international perspectives on reform.New York: Teachers College Press.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 16, 361–373.

Stead, K. (1983). Insights into students’ outlooks on science with personal constructs. Research inScience Education, 13, 163–176.

Stow, D. A. V. (1996). Geoscience education and training: Preparing for the 21st century. In D. A. V.Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training. Joint special publication ofthe COGEOED of the IUGS and the AGID, no. 19 (pp. 815–824). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.

Suchting, W. A. (1995). The nature of scientific thought. Science & Education, 4, 1–22.

700 BEZZI


shortstandardlong

Top of RHBase of RH

Top of testBase of textSutman, F. X. (1996). Science literacy: A functional definition. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 33, 459–460.Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science

Education, 18, 1–18.Turner, C., & Frodeman, R. L. (1996, October). Place in contemporary political debates, II: The

Earth Sciences as paradigmatic science. Paper presented at the GSA Annual Meeting. Denver,CO (p. A–259).

Documents

Alfredo Bezzi -- What is This Thing Called Geoscience Epistemological