LIBRARIES

\\\\‘M\\\|

MICHOGAN STATE UNN'E

\me “ \u M MM

993

\ \\\i\~\\\‘

i i

3 1293 01

 

i

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Teaching with and without mirrors:
Examining science teaching in elementary school
from the perspective of a teacher

and learner

presented by

Margery Diane Osborne

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

thc degree in Jducation_

Liz/Ma

Major professor

 

 

v

Date _Qc1’.nheLl+_l9_9_3_

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institun'on 0— 12771

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

PLACER RETURN BOXIomnmmbehockomtmnyunoord.
To AVOID FINES return on or baton data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afﬁrmative Mon/Equal Opponunlty InctIMIon
Willa-9.1

TEACHING WITH AND WITHOUT MIRRORS:
EXAMINING SCIENCE TEACHING IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A TEACHER AND LEARNER

by

Margery Diane Osborne

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1993

Thesis director: G.W. McDiarmid

ABSTRACT

TEACHING WITH AND WITHOUT MIRRORS:
EXAMINING SCIENCE TEACHING IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A TEACHER AND LEARNER

by

Margery Diane Osborne

This thesis is about how relationships-between subject matter and teacher, subject
matter and children, children and the teacher-are constructed in the context of teaching science
in the lower elementary grades. Relationships are dynamic and shifting. Rather than try to
characterize them, it is easier to try to characterize their dynamism—how they change. Therefore
this thesis is a study of how relationships evolve, how they are initiated and how they change
over time as the components interact and effect one another.

I have been teaching science in a school with a highly diverse population. In this thesis I
have used transcripts of those classes to reﬂect upon the nature of teaching and upon the
relationships involved in teaching. I ask the question: "How is a practice, based upon certain
ideals about science, children and learning constructed?"

As people develop relationships they learn, they develop a purpose, methods and
methodical ways of interacting. These methodical ways of interacting define patterns that enable
our relationships. In particular, they allow us to understand each other and the purposes behind
what we are doing. Methodical actions and method are at the heart of relationships: they are at
the heart of science and also of teaching. They enable the construction of a community in the
class-a relationship among diverse people enabled by a common pursuit. Method allows people
to understand each other and live together even when doing, thinking, desiring very different

things. It allows people to appreciate their differences as well as their similarities.

But method is seductive—it stops our thinking as well as enables our thinking. To act
methodically means we are acting in expected ways. We aren't thinking about our actions. We
are rather thinking about the outcome of our actions. When doing this we forget the
assumptions, the value choices hidden within the things we are doing. Action becomes oriented
towards a goal, towards the future, towards realizing a purpose. Method allows one to live
within a relationship without thinking about it, but at the core of science and teaching is a
questioning of relationships-a need to see and develop new qualities. To be able to do this
necessitates a recognition of assumptions and a questioning and re—evaluation of them. It
requires that those living within relationships periodically de—construct them and rebuild them
differently.

Much has been written about what teachers need to know about children, diverse
learners, subject matter, teaching skills. Little has been written about how a teacher changes as
she tries to act upon that knowledge-how as she translates her knowledge into actions and
interactions, it changes as the teacher is confronted with the demands of a complex situation. As
the children interacting with the science are confronted by things that they don't know or things
that they need to know differently, a teacher as she interacts with the children or with the subject
matter discovers things that she doesn't know and she must act to change her practice and the
knowledge that practice is based upon. This means fundamentally rethinking the value choices--
emotional and moral as well as intellectualuupon which the knowledge is constructed. This
thesis is an attempt to trace the course of this cycle of thinking, knowing, and learning for one
teacher—myself.

I explore this through my interactions with children and a variety of phenomena—sound,
music, gravity, soap bubbles and dinosaurs. Each chapter of this thesis recounts a story of these
interactions and developing relationships. Bach addresses the question of how teaching practice

is constructed and also altered and evolved as these relationships develop.

COPyrisht by

MARGERY DIANE OSBORNE

1993

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the intellectual and emotional support
of the members of my advisory committee: Deborah Ball, Bill McDiarmid, Kathy Roth, and
Michael Sedlak. In particular I would like to think Kathy and Michael for helping me to find the
ideas that I needed and the courage to speak them in this setting. I would especially like to thank
Deborah for encouraging me with the initial idea for this thesis and for this teaching and for
being so generous in sharing herself and her teaching. Without the last two, Deborah, I would
never have been able to recognize what I needed to see in my teaching much less write about it.
Finally I would like to thank Bill. Bill, I know a thesis is supposed to be an individualistic act of
scholarship, constructed by me in isolation to illustrate to everyone what a smart person I am, but
you know that the ideas in this thesis we worked out together—we talked about them and wrote
and re-wrote them for years. This thesis is not something hatched from my brain alone, it is

something that really we wrote together.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Base

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE SUBJECT-OBJECT RELATIONSHIP IN TEACHING AND

SCIENCE .......................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF DESIGN IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING ................ 21
The ﬁrst class: Figuring out what to do ..................................... 24
The second class: The beginnings of science talk and explorations .............. 37
Discussing problems of design .............................................. 48
Problems of design and their link to science . .................................. 54
Discussion of science increases ............................................. 56
Discussion of science and the role of metaphor ............................... 59
How discussing the act of design facilitates a recognition of human agency in

science .......................................................... 64
The last class: A consideration of background as well as foreground. What this can mean in

science . .................................................. 67
Conclusion ............................................................... 71

CHAPTER 3 PATTERNS AND UNDERSTANDING ............................... 73
An outline 0f the unit on music and patterns ................................... 74
Beginning our explorations of patterns: What is a pattern, how is it constructed,

how is it used? ................................................... 78
Starting to explore music through patterns: Constructing relationships , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 86
Asking scientiﬁc questions intertwined with experimentation:

Working within the emerging patterns ............................. 98
Encouraging experimentation by questioning relationships ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 103
The development of method: Communication and community , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 107
Method, experimentation, maﬁnXWOf Phenomena. ...................... 114
What is music? What is science? The discussion begins ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 122
The meanings 0f variables, deﬁning words . ................................. 132
Defining words continued: Comparing/constructing similarities and differences 135
Deﬁning words continued: What is a pattern in and out of a context?

Playing with context to think about meaning ........................ 141
What is music? Using patterns to examine a fundamental question ,,,,,,,,,,,, 148
Conclusion .............................................................. 153

CHAPTER 4 KNOWING ........................................................ 156

vi

A description of the unit on the solar system .................................. 157
What do you measure when you weigh something? , Finding the fundamen in] question . 161

What is gravity? Our goals and objectives evolve ................................ 175
Constructing and testing scientiﬁc theories and the development of a community:
Out into the solar system ......................................... 184
Gravity and the solar system continued. i realize we have changed direction. ,,,,,, 192
Connecting gravity to motion. Connecting to each others ideas ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 195
Deﬁning words, making statements of knowing: The development of uncertainty
................................................................. 207
Conclusion: The role of the community ..................................... 215
CHAPTER 5 TEACHING: KNOWING AND LEARNING ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 217
First story: Dinosaur stories-Substance or process, choosing instructional goals. 21
Second story: Martin Luther King [r.-The personal and the political in the social
constructivist classroom . .......................................... 230
Discussion . ............................................................. 233
CHAPIER 6 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 239
APPENDICES .................................................................. 248
APPENDIX A: SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM DESCRIPTIONS ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 249
APPENDIX B: CHILDREN'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND PSEUDONYMS ,,,,,,,,,, 252
LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................... 255

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION: THE SUBJECT OBJECT RELATIONSHIP

IN TEACHING AND SCIENCE

This thesis is about method; method in science, in teaching, in research, and in presenting
that research. In order to make that assertion I need to write first about what I mean by method-
what I think method is-—and how my thesis will illustrate and illuminate my definitions.

Method is first of all doing something; purposeful action. But doing what to what? In
this thesis, I will be talking about two things: doing science, doing teaching, with a number of
different objects (who am I doing it to, for, with) and a number of different purposes which may
or may not overlap for the two things. Are the things that I am doing (science, teaching) the
object of the subject/ object relationship? Is the purpose the object or maybe some "other" like the
children I am doing science with and am trying to teach? My inability to define an "object" is not
because there is none but rather because the object is a shifting one. At times it is the children or
the particulars of the science or the purpose behind the things I am doing. At times it is the doing
itself. I think this is in part because of the complexity of the context for the actions that I am
calling method—I am "doing teaching" in a context of a particular subject matter, I am "doing
science" in an environment shaped by particular children and a purpose framed by the word
"teaching." Doing science and teaching are overlapping and each creates a lens through which
the others are constructed and reﬂected upon. In a relationship between, say, the subject matter
and myself, acted upon within the context of teaching, the relationship becomes one between the

subject matter, myself and the children. If we say, in this instance, the object is science, the

2
subjects are multiple and interacting. They interact through a dialectic of subject and object,

between children and myself, the science and myself, the science and the children.

It seems though that I have defined five aspects that method has: purpose, subject, object,
audience, action. I would propose that it is the interrelationships between the first four that
determine action. And at the basis of method is the subject/ object relationship. That relationship
is fundamentally shaped by audience and purpose. Before I discuss this further however, let me

situate this thesis within the larger educational research community.

This thesis speaks to a number of communities. By speaking to and with these
communities, I am joining conversations in these communities. There is a logic in the thinking
which links my participation in these conversations and this logic in turn is underlain by my
thinking about this subject/ object relationship. I will write a bit about how I think my thesis is
part of three conversations in the education community and then I will talk some more about my
ideas about the subject/ object relationship and why this needs to be considered in order for me to
think meaningfully about these conversations. The conversations are:

0 The learning science conversation, particularly the misconceptions interpretation of
learning. A sub-conversation here is the knowledge children bring with them and
what teachers ought to do with that knowledge.

0 The teacher knowledge / learning conversation and the idea of pedagogical content
knowledge. This has implications for teacher educationnwhat prospective teachers
should be taught in their pre-service programs.

0 The socio-cultural learning conversation, particularly the idea that, for cognitive and
emotional reasons, learners' cultures must be incorporated, somehow, in both the
curriculum and the teachers' pedagogy.

- The learning science conversation, particularly the misconceptions interpretation of teaming. The
literature of this community addresses the way that phenomena are understood by both scientific
means and by the practical, commensensical, empirical ways that people make sense of the
world. The latter are termed "naive" understandings or misconceptions in this literature. These
naive understandings are often inconsistent with each other and the scientific canon and are

judged scientifically incorrect. In order to be able to teach the "correct," scientific understandings

of phenomena, the "naive" understandings have to be directly addressed and the student has to

3
become cognizant of how these "understandings" don't worknare insufficient in certain contexts

to explain the phenomena. This theory of learning and the derived theory of teaching owe a lot
to cognitive studies (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978) and especially to Thomas Kuhn (1970) and
other pragmatists.

Teaching prospective teachers (or people in general who know very little about the
workings of the science community) this interpretation of children's mistakes in science tends to
reinforce these people's beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge. That is, many may
already believe that scientific knowledge is "hard," is indisputably established, can be augmented
and expanded but not refuted and revised, reﬂects transcendent "truths" about the universe
rather than soft transcendences about our own (people's) beliefs. They also probably believe that
inconsistent and mutually incompatible scientific theories aren't allowed to co-exist when in fact
they do and scientists happily use whichever one works best in particular contexts. These same
scientists spend much of their time arguing with each other, with no real desire that a final
consensus be reached, about that choice (after all, if a consensus were acheived, the argument
would be over, the purpose of research would be over). Pointing out children's "misconceptions"
or "naive beliefs" without questioning the "correct conceptions" themselves-where they come
from, what can be done with them (and what not), what they reﬂect about their makers-focuses
prospeCtive teachers' attention exclusively on the learners' and how well their expressed beliefs
conform to "right answers."

This thesis offers a different perspective on learners' understandings. In the first place,
my pedagogy is designed to encourage learners not only to express their initial understandings
but to develop these with others. As stated, this is not inconsistent with current conceptual
change literature on effective science teaching (Roth, 1987; Resnick, 1983; Driver, 1985). It differs
from the misconception model because the emphasis is upon developing these understandings in
such a way that their strengths are respected and utilized. Because different children have
different understandings and all are valued (in different ways and in different contexts and uses),

these "naive theories" are portrayed as part of a continuum of scientiﬁc understanding upon

4
which the recognized "scientific explanations" also lie. In the misconception model of teaching

and learning, the learners' manifest their initial understandings in order to merely reveal the
inadequacies of these. I try in my teaching to develop with the children the potential of their
ideas. I believe that these ideas-subject to examination, discussion, revision, revisiting-{an yield
useful, powerful ideas that advance the children's individual and collective understandings.

My vision of science, as it is reflected in my teaching, is as much about the process of
doing science as it is about the content of that science. In teaching science in this way, in which
the various ways of making sense of phenomena-scientific, spiritual, magical, sensual, intuitive,
empirical—are honored and placed on a continuum, I am cognizant that I am working on a re-
definition of the traditional, Western meaning of the concept of science. This is connected to a
continuing conversation about feminist visions of science (Harding, 1991; Keller (1985). Usually
this conversation involves those who are actively doing science-scientists-- and observers of
those people. I am extending that conversation to teaching and education. Maybe by developing
and immersing children in this "other" idea of what science is, the reality of science can be
changed.

At the same time my teaching is not totally relativistic. Not all the ideas the children
have are thoughtful or useful or worthy of extended examination. Gravity boots (Chapter 4), a
theory some of my students developed when asked to explain people being able to walk on the
moon-a place they decided had no gravity-while symptomatic of certain ideas and
understandings, doesn't further a more general understanding of what gravity actually is or why
it is important. The theory of gravitational attraction is a powerful one, it explains the motion
and apparent position of all objects. It is my own understanding of scientific knowledge and
processes that assists me in determining what are or are not potentially fruitful ideas.

Finally, eliciting learners ideas is not without risk. What do I do with theological or
magical explanations for natural phenomena or with explanations that parents give to children
that they believe are true or even just to stop an episode of questioning? (For example: Why do

you get rainbows from prisms? They're made that way, the prisms store them inside and they're

5
let out by the sunlight, god made them that way, they're magical. Where do babies come from?)

Again, it is my judgement--a combination of my knowledge of the child, children in general, the
classroom situation, the subject, politics-that determines the decisions that I can make in a

particular situation.

0 The teacher knowledge/learning conversation, particularly the idea of pedagogical content knowledge-
what do teachers need to know to be able to teach? Following from the preceding discussion of
conceptual change literature, my thesis also addresses the conversations about pedagogical
content knowledge-what a teacher needs to know to be able to teach. Literature on this subject
make the claim that teachers draw on various kinds of knowledge and understandings in
deciding how to teach. My thesis rather than being directly concerned with contributing to an
enhanced description of what this knowledge is in science teaching, addresses what, in my
particular case, it means to "draw on" knowledge. How do I use my knowledge to teach?
Derivative from this might be a description of what this knowledge actually is.

In this thesis I wish to describe the processes that go into and lie behind the decisions that
I make in classes. In discussing the decisions I make, I can give a glimpse of how I appear to
balance my understandings and commitments to the children and to the science. At a deeper
level I can expose how these apparent balancings are actually the tip of the iceberg of deeper and
more fundamental conﬂicts. Striking a balance between what I might like the children to do and
think in science, goals I might have about how people should interact and respect each other,
how I might like to have scientific discourse or educational discourse different than the way it
actually is, involves compromise, discordant choices, sacrifice of one set of goals for others.
Because of this, these kinds of choices shift over time. For example, I usually choose to respect
and work with children's ideas about how things work but sometimes I choose to teach correct
science. (Did dinosaurs co-exist with cave-men?--No.) A similar discussion of the balancing act a

teacher is forced to make between various commitments can be found in Bali (1993).

6
Fundamental to my teaching is my interest in working within these conﬂicts which I

believe are endemic to teaching rather than resolving them—I ﬁnd this sort of conflict stimulating,
it forces me to rethink my values and goals continuously. This quality of myself guides my
choices in designing the things that we do in classes and the ways that we talk about those things.
likewise a need in myself to explore new things guides my choices of the science that we do in
class, the actual content of the classes. It is only interesting to me to teach if I am finding out new
things at the same time, new things about teaching (children, schools, how to teach) and about
the content of that teaching (the particulars of the science, for example why are bubbles round?).
The level of my questions about the phenomena that we explore in class are at a different level of
sophistication than the children's but it is very important to me that they are there. They guide
how I manipulate the children's questions.

Underlying this exposure of my own personal pursuits in my teaching is the idea that I
am continuously altering the knowledge that I bring to my teaching. I do this through the
teaching. This ideal is different from traditional writings about pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 1986). Implied in much of this literature is that knowledge is static-it is a body of
knowledge somehow quantifiable or at least describable. I would argue that the latter can only
be possible retrospectively. Others suggest that during teaching the representations of
knowledge alter, left undiscussed is whether that means the understandings of that knowledge
itself alters (Wilson et al, 1987). Still others suggest that a teacher's use of "rich" subject matter
understandings can be used as a vehicle for learning about other domains of teacher knowledge,
for example learning about the children (McDiarmid, 1989). This leads me to the third

conversation.

- The soda-cultural learning conversation, particularly the idea that, for intellectual and emotional
reasons, learners’ cultures must be incorporated, somehow, in both the curriculum and the teachers'
pedagogy. Again my participation in this conversation follows from the preceding description of

how I engage the "teacher's knowledge" conversation. It is a quality of my teaching that I

7
incorporate a great deal of knowledge of the children into how I teach and also into what gets

taught. Unlike suggestions in the literature about how to do this (Heath 1983; Evans et al, 1989),
for me this knowledge is attained through teaching. Also by the nature of the goals of my
teaching—of my vision of the science, in which different ideas are respected and shared, and the
sources of ideas are recognized-«he ideas themselves and the children's presentations of those
ideas are used to construct a classroom culture which has its own identity. This identity is not
describable as a simple compilation of cultures the children and I bring to class from outside.
Again, the multiple identities of the children and the cultures which we bring to the class and
which we construct in class are often in conﬂict. Knowing a lot about these various cultures
doesn't make it clear how I should interact with students or what the result will be for either the
curriculum or the teaching. This differs from suggestions in the literature that differences in

cultures should be directly confronted and engaged (Delpit, 1986; 1988 ).

When I think about these three conversations, specifying the object of the subject/ object
relationship is central. All these conversations assume a two-fold relationship between the
teacher and child in which the child is the object and the subject matter is the objective. The
evolution of the teacher or the subject matter is igiored. I would argue that the relationship is,
first of all, three-foldubetween teacher, subject matter and child--and the identity of both subject
and object shifts. Hawkins (1974 a,b) also defines this relationship as a triad but one in which the
child and teacher are objects of the subject matter—one member of the triad (subject matter) is
held constant and the other two deﬁne themselves against it. This is a useful simplification, to
hold the identity of one member constant and define the relationship of the other two as
constructed through interacting around it. It also suggests an inversion of the usual (scientific)
subject versus object location-I am defining the one assumed constant as the subject, the other
two which change in nature against it are the objects. But unlike Hawkins, I would argue that the
object identity shifts, relationships shift, methodwthe actions that define the relationship, both

pro-active and reactive-is redefined and reshaped. If I argue that the object can be the

8
relationship between, say, child and subject matter and I, as teacher, am the subject, then those

two interact to define themselves against me. The subject matter and the child redefine
themselves, evolve in nature as I present an (apparently) unchanging aspect. But in this process,
as the subject matter (for example) changes meaning, my relationship to it must change, the
identity of subject and object alter with respect to each other.

Possibly a more real way to look at this is to reject the reduction of the triad into subject
and object and rather say that all three are subjects interconnected, interrelating, interdependent
for deﬁnition. The truth is, though, that the subject matter is a "body" of knowledge that stands
in relation to what we make of it, both the children and myself are sentient, willful beings that act
upon assumptions about each other-assumptions gounded in knowledge which is treated as
static. Although I would be unwilling to say that I "know" the children or even the science, I act
like I do. We act on an assumption of subject and object. I wish to write about why we act the
way that we do so I need to work within this paradigm to push against its usefulness. Then I can

argue for a relationship of inter-deﬁnition through interdependence.

I have been reading Hannah Arendt (1978), The Life of the Mind and (1964/77) Eichrnann
in Jeruselem, Jean-Paul Sartre (1963), Search for a Method , Jacque Derrida (1987), The Truth about
Painting , Luce Irigaray (1985), The Speculum of the Other Woman , Julia Kristeva (1986), Woman '5

Time , Martin Heidegger (1962), Being and Time .lThese readings and other readings that I have

 

1My pathways into this literature have been multiple and have spanned a number of years of
work in many different domains and from many different directions. I would like to write here
about how this literature connects to the more traditional educational literature so that readers,
if they wish, can possibly construct pathways in to it. Most important to my thinking have
been the various writings of Vivian Paley (in particular, 1979, 1981,1986 and 1990). In writing
about her own practice and the reﬂections that she has had about herself, her children and her
teaching, she has demonstrated the suggestive sort of writing that I have tried to emulate. She
has also embodied the qualities of proactive/ reactive reﬂective thinking that I drink Heidegger
writes of in combination with the emotional and subjective feeling described by Arendt. Others
who write about this sort of reﬂection on teaching or more general forms of practice both
during teaching and divorced from the act (but shaping later actions) are John Dewey (1902 / 56,
and 1933), Joseph Schwab (1976, and 1978), Winogad and Flores (1986), and Schon (1983).
Researchers who describe the effect of reﬂection as well as the shape of that reﬂection (that it
often isn't explicit or divorced from actions or a person's history, emotions, desires) are
Connelly and Clandenin (1990) and Johnson (1989). This idea that "reﬂection" isn't purely

9
done in hermaneutics and symbiotics have shaped my thinking about how subject and object are

defined through relationships. I will summarize the ideas from these authors I have used to
construct my own ideas.

All would argue, in a number of different ways, that the subject/ object relationship is not
created and maintained by the subject standing apart from the object—looking at the object from a
distance. Rather the basis of the relationship is in recognizing what the object shares with the

subject. The relationship becomes one that isn't purely one of recogiizing similarities, it's also

 

intellectual in its shape, result, cause has been very important to me. Again this is a link to the
writings of Heidegger in particular.

The writings of Margret Buchmann (1986a, 1986b, and 1989) concerning the role of
contemplation (which is more than just purely intellectual reﬂection), the person and the
teacher's purposes while teaching, suggest an educational philosophy which underlies the
connections between the authors I have just described. Fundamental to these writings is the
idea that a teacher is pulled in multiple directions intellectually, historically, emotionally and
the actions of a teacher reﬂect that struggle. A teacher does not act to fulfill one set of
expectations only but is rather caught in a juggling act trying to please both multiple facets of
herself and multiple audiences (a description of this in context is Lampert, 1985). This quality
of teachers immersed in a struggle is described most significantly by women attempting to
define in their writings "feminist pedagogy" (Maher, 1987a, 1987b, Maher and Tetraeult 1993,
Walkerdine, 1990, Weiler, 1988, and 1993). These women describe teachers struggling with
their own personal political agendas as they teach. What is the role of our own moral / political
beliefs in our teaching? This is also a quality of teaching which I wished to capture in this
thesis and fuse with a description of another struggle concerning subject matter teaching with a
diverse student population.

Paley writes of her own "coming to know" her political agenda and her struggles with
this in White Teacher and also more recently in You Can 't Say You Can 't Play (1993). She does
this by both paying attention to herself-awakening self-knowledgeuand by paying attention to
the children, what they do and say. She must pay attention to both their actions and their
language and how she is able to make meaning of those-the fundamental concern of
symbiotics. Rommetveit (1980) as well as Fish (1980) and Scholes (1985) write about how this
mutual understanding (and misunderstanding) are constructed by the actors in a setting.
Integral to this is a play between the states of "thinking within" and "thinking from outside",
connected and objective thinking (Belenky, M. F., B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule,
1986). This is embodied in the acts of naming and description. In particular Fish and Scholes
speak to this as do the authors Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Iakoff (1987), and Johnson (1987).

A final important author for me has been Nell Noddings and her book Caring. In this
book Noddings describes the sort of caring that a teacher such as Vivian Paley seems to
illustrate. Through this caring which is focused upon an "other" the "one-caring" undergoes a
loss of self. I found this conceptualization of caring both compelling and puzzling. Something
seemed to be missing to me—in caring unselfishly for another there must also be a selfish
component it seemed to me. To be continually compelling for the "one-caring" mustn't there be
something intrinsically rewarding for that person alsousomething beyond seeing all rewards in
the other? I brought this concern to my reading of Hannah Arendt's books. Arendt also
describes a similar loss of self in the book Eichmann in Jeruselem, a similar selﬂessness but here
paradordcally the motivation is selfishness, a selﬂessness that is self-serving. I think that the
loss of self involved in teachinguthe immersion in the other and in actions and subject matter is
both selﬂess and self-serving and needs to be thought of in both ways.

10

one of comparing differences. "The semiotic continuum must be split if sigtification is to be
produced."2 The "object" of inquiry must be differentiated, extracted from a backgound. This
relationship is the "signifying process" in which meaning is constructed through a continuous
comparative movement between identities shared and identities defined oppositionally. This is
intimately tied to the process of naming. The act of naming is fundamental in doing science.
Naming a variable in science separates it from the continuum, gives it identity when before it was
part of another. For example energy: the concept of energy is a human-made idea which can only
be quantized and qualified after it has been named. Before that it was part of the totality of the
phenomenon. Once named it acquires substance and reality. The children in my class also play
with the act of naming, of reducing a phenomenon into parts. For example, in talking about
music (Chapter 3), they separate the "whole" into pattern, rhythm, beat. How the children then
work to make sense of music and sound is fundamentally shaped by these variables (rather than
tone say). But how, in what way, do they partition the whole into the three-what is included and
excluded in each of the terms? Doing this determines meaning and use and occurs through use
(application) and reﬂection on meaning (listening to the sounds identified as one or the other).

The sharing of identities—overlap of parts of the definitions of things—and recognizing
these shared identities, is important because otherwise there could be no understanding
(Rommetveit, 1980). The words pattern, rhythm and beat overlap and are different in definition
and the children use their understandings of each one to construct their understandings of the
others. According to Derrida (1976, 1987), defining what is shared and what is not, so that they
can be recognized is through framing-creating a frame around the "other." This frame is the
context of the object and is also a context in which the subject can place themselves. For example,
a teacher could be teaching science or literacy skills all day long possibly not recognized as such
until the time period is demarcated (named) "language arts time" or "science period." This

context composes the basis or backgound of the relationship between subject and object,

 

2Kristeva (1986) Women's Time. In The Kristeva Reader, ed. T.Moi. New York: Columbia
University Press, page 13.

1 1
something not normally articulated or examined "for-itself." The context or frame is continuously

being re-made by the recogiition and examination of similarities and differences as the object's
definition is refined—there is a developing meaning of "science" from what is done in "science
period" that is different from what is done at other times. How that is understood, though, is
through an interplay between differences and similarities of those actions during science period
and other actions. For example, when I use language and categories taught during language arts
time in science activities (Chapter 5). Thinking about similarities and differences between
ourselves and others can also cause us to become aware of qualities of this context.

In science often the naming of an idea or object obscures both its backgound (frame) and
also its history. Through the scientific process this same idea is often refined and even redefined
further obscuring history and the "oneness-that-once—was." There are two aspects to science. The
first is progessive. Science is done for what it can do to transform an object or the environment
or even ourselves. This buries both the past and the nature of the science. The other aspect
allows a new, critical reﬂection upon both the scientific concepts themselves and upon the
continuum. Science is a balance of the two as is teaching. Teaching involves reaching towards a
goal which in turn can cause reﬂection upon both the goal itself and the process. When and why,
though, are each of these two aspects of science and teaching in play?

The real question is whether one sees the function of reﬂection as bringing something to
awareness in order to confront what is in fact accepted with other possibilities--so that

one can either throw it out or reject the other possibilities and accept what the tradition
de facto is presenting-or whether bringing something to awareness always dissolves what

one has previously accepted.3
Does thinking about the object make us increasingly blind to qualities of the frame or can we turn
our understandings of the object back to a critical examination of the frame? In the children's
explorations of the nature of musical sounds, the usefulness of the concepts they are developing
is balanced between what they can do with them and what new thoughts are enabled as they
examine both music and language. In defining pattern, rhythm and beat they work to construct

music of their own. They apply these concepts to bird song and ask whether or not that is really

 

3Gadamer (1976) Philosophical Hennaneutics.,page 34.

1 2
music or is, rather, language—they think new thoughts about the phenomenon and in turn

question the usefulness of the labels. 1 think in the course of teaching this also can occur. In the
process of transforming both the children, the subject matter and myself during teaching there
are opportunities to reﬂect on this transformation as well as the assumptions that underlie them.
I write about this in Chapters 4 and 5. This process of becoming both cognizant of assumptions
and questioning those assumptions is the essence of arguments of critical theorists such as
Habermas (1991) as well as Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem.

The subject/ object relationship is defined by what the object and the subject share as
much as by how they are different. Now the instruments that the subject uses to "look" at the
object must also be able to access similarities as well as differences. In order to do this, these
instruments mimic in some way the qualities of the object under study and also the qualities of
the subject. For example, we can see the world around us because the wavelengths of visible
light are similar in size to the sizes of the atoms and molecules that make up the world. Our
ability to see is because of this similarity but also what we see (say color) is because of the
qualities of this similarity and also because of differences-there is an object there, different from
light, or there would be nothing for the light to interact with and refract. There would be little
point in teaching children if they were clones of myself. They are intrinsically different. I also
could not teach them if we did not share certain things, for example, a language. A similarity
such as language which is fundamental to the relationship, shapes what can be learned about
differences-between the children and myself and between childrennas they debate the meanings
of scientific words by discussing the different ideas of each child, they learn about each other as
well as the science. Language is a tool, an instrument in the relationship which both reﬂects a
relationship and shapes it. It embodies the culture which contains the relationship and is
instrumental in altering it. Its ability to be a tool is grounded in similarities between subject and
object. Its purpose can be to "see" differences or similarites. The lenses, tools, instruments used

by the subject to look at the object selectively focus or image the similarities and differences. If

1 3
these lenses mimic the subject only rather than the object, the image seen is of the object rather

than the subject. The lens is a mirror and the study is a false one (Irigaray, 1985).

Both the context and the instruments that shape and enable us to look at an object are
designed by us (the subjects) purposefully-40 be able to do particular things. We choose
(consciously or unconsciously) how things appear to us as well as objects choose their
appearance. This idea of presentation being a purposeful act is from Hannah Arendt (1978) The
Life of the Mind. The idea of presentation being a purposeful act also means it is a conscious one,
at least on some level-we choose what we want others to see about us. This makes the
subject/ object relationship a reversible one. If Cory is the object to me, the subject, then I am also
an object to him. If every act is one of self-display then it is that fact that makes ﬂwse acts
meaningful—they are meaningful because of their purpose to the actor.

[When I choose what to show, how to show it] I am not merely reacting to whatever

qualities may be given me; I am making an act of deliberate choice among the various

potentialities of conduct with which the world has presented me. Out of such acts arise

finally what we call character or personality, the conglomeration of a number of
identifiable qualities gathered together into a comprehensible and reliably identifiable

whole.4

Now I think that this presentation or self-display can be a form of play—trying on different self-
images, trying on different effects on the observer. This is enabled by this back and forth, shifting
subject/object identity. The idea of purposeful self-display also links the creation of subject
versus object identity directly to method, to the things done by either the subject or the object.
Defining subject or object is through method. Neither the subject nor the object exist as concepts
without the actions or thoughts in between the two that construct and shape the relationship.
Again this is also what I feel Derrida is saying with his idea of framing—the thing, actions,
context-«hat sets the object apart from a continuum.

This takes me to Sartre. If the subject/ object relationship is based upon both self-
presentation and perception which are purposefulnboth the object and the subject want to do

something-it is motivated by a need. Sartre differentiates between desire and need. In Being and

 

4Arendt (1973) Life ofthe Mind, page 37.

1 4
Nothingness (1965) he claims that acts of free will are motivated by desire. In Search for a Method

(1968) he modifies this to need. The difference between desire and need, it seems to me, is one of
an intellectual desire versus more emotional, felt need. To desire is in your head, to need is in
your stomach. Most importatly need addresses a vanishing point-meeds can never be satiated.
Desires can and then one can move beyond them. I think of Sartre's need as similar to belle
hook's (1990) "yearning"-a longing which emanates from the heart as well as the mind, which
shapes thought, actions, emotions and which is not satiated even when directly addressed.
Desire suggests the possibility of unrestricted movement, of a freedom which may change
the objects of its desire at will. Need brings in something from the outside, a necessity
which man cannot ultimately escape, no matter how much he may vary his reaction to
it.5
The tension between what is known and unknown which I write about as central to both the act
of teaching and of doing science reﬂect needs. For a scientist the need to discover can't be
fulfilled-each new discovery uncovers new questions. Likewise for a teacher—goals in teaching
and learning are always moving away, constantly redefined as progress or even just change
occurs. Presentation of self, of science, of relationships becomes a vehicle for expressing and
acting upon this need but on the other hand so does perception-both sides of the subject / object
relationship are shaped by need.
Presentation is also a symbolic act, I think. It is a way of expressing something hidden. I
think of this as similar to Levi-Strauss's description of ritual as symbolic:
The shaman provides the sick woman with a language by means of which unexpressed,
and otherwise inexpressible, psychic states can be immediately expressed. And it is the
transition to this verbal expression—at the same time making it possible to undergo, in an
ordered and intelligible form, a real experience that would otherwise be chaotic and
inexpressible-which induces the release of the psychological process . . . ..it is a matter of

provoking an experience; as this experience becomes structured, regulatory mechanisms
beyond the subject's control are spontaneously set in motion and lead to an orderly

functioning.6
These regulatory mechanisms occur in a classroom because the act of self-presentation is a social

act to which others react. This is really another explanation of how expressions of thoughts,

 

5Bames, H. in J.-P. Sartre (1963) In Search ofa Method, page xv.
6Levi-Strauss (1963/76) Structural Anthropology, pXXXX

l 5
needs and actions become method. The symbolic quality of actions, where actions mean

something other than what they appear, is at the heart of Julia Kristeva's (1986) concept of cyclical
time. Actions, when perceived in a generalized sense, repeat over and over, form a cycle, are in
cyclical time. They also define a method (methodical). Because they repeat, they acquire a
transcendence in meaning; each time they occur the setting is different, their meaning is different
(yet the same), and they become generalizable in consequence and form beyond the immediate
actions of a particular moment. For example when I ask for the class's attention by turning off the
lights. I am not turning off the lights to make the room dark but for a different purpose. The act
has acquired a meaning other than the obvious one. It is symbolic of something other than what
it does. The action has a generalized meaninguthat the children should give me their attention-
and a specific meaning to the indtance it occurs in, for example at one time I may be stopping
misbehavior at others I may be calling the class to large group discussion. Actions reﬂect
something about the actor, about the actor's beliefs about the perceiver, about the actor's beliefs
concerning what they are acting on. My using the lights as a signal implies that I believe the
children need me to signal that certain actions are appropriate and when and that I know what
the approp[riate behavior is. The act of perceiving is also an interpretive one, active not passive.
The subject brings a lens to seeing also shaped by purposes and beliefs. The children are
interpreting my actions in both a general and specific manner.

Heidegger argues that to separate subject and object, as is implied in metaphors about the
subject "seeing" the object, is artificial. The subject and object occupy the same world-space, life-
space: "By drawing a distinction that I (the subject) am perceiving something else (the object), I
have stepped back from the primacy of experience and understanding that operates without
reﬂection." Heidegger does not deny that we exist purposefully in this world, that we are trying
to do certain things. He claims that this purposefulness involves decisions-~what to do and what
not to do, how to go about doing these things. These decisions are founded upon uncertainty,

they reﬂect needs for things which we don't already have yet and hence don't know. We make

16

decisions on a basis of things felt, not articulated. The actions necessitated by decisions are

symbolic interpretations of their unarticulated foundation.
But Heidegger has a more radical reason for saying that we cannot get clear about the
"beliefs" about being we seem to be taking for granted. There are no beliefs to get clear
about; there are only skills and practices. These practices do not arise from beliefs, rules,
or principles, and so there is nothing to make explicit or spell out. We can only give an
interpretation of the interpretation already in the practices. This is why Heidegger says
in introduction 11 that since phenomenology deals with our understanding of being, it

must be hermeneutic. To sum up, an explication of our understanding of being can never
be complete because we dwell within it-that is, it is so pervasive as to be both nearest to

us and farthest awaynand also because there are no beliefs to get clear about.7

The basis for making decisions are in: 1) emotions-how we feel about our choices:
"Heidegger wants as usual to stress that moods provide the background for intentionality, i.e., for
the speciﬁc ways things and possibilities show up mattering" (Dreyfus, page 174); 2)
understanding—we know how to act:

[E]ach of us knows how to be that particular for-the—sake—of—which each of us is—father,

professor, etc. We are skilled at existing. "In understanding as in existentiale, that which

we have competence over is not a "what", but being as "existing". Moreover we are such
skills. "Dasein [being] is not something occurent which possesses its competence for
something by way of an extra; it is primarily its ability to be. Dasein is in every case what

it can be" .8
and; 3) "falling"-we are already immersed in the situation that requires decisions to begin with.
To me this defines where Derrida's framing context is constructed from. The frame is also a
symbolic miasma of assumptions. We act using "skills and practices" from which we can
articulate "beliefs, rules, [ . . . ] principles" by examining the background in light of our actions. I
think that this idea of how we come to do the things that we do is central to thinking about the
everyday decisions and choices that we make in teaching (Buchmann, 1986). The background to
the things that I do when I am teaching is unarticulated knowledge of science, children, teaching,
context as well as how I feel about those things founded in my history and also in the goals that I

have set for my teaching. Acts of teaching are manifestations of a web constructed of these things

which add up to an "understanding" of the moment and this moment itself is not extractable from

 

7Dreyfus (1991) Being in the World, page 22.
8Dreyfus, page 185.

l 7
the situation itself. It's only when I can remove myself from the moment that I can think about my

actions, knowledge and choices. The same is true in the process of doing the science. This is why
the question of design in science is so interesting. To design an experiment or a course of action
represents this thinking that can go on outside the moment but participating in science, utilizing
the design, means immersion within the moment. The children in my second grade classroom
are asked to participate in both of these ways of thinking as we explore soap bubbles--they design
experiments and then they enact them; finally we discuss their activities-we move in and out of
immersion in the moment.

The blending of subject and object, the dynamic between them constructed in a
relationship composed of methods, purposes, and needs, is related for me to a concept that Julia
Kristeva calls female subjectivity:9

According to Kristeva, female subjectivity would seem to be linked both to cyclical time

(repetition) and to monumental time (eternity), at least in so far as both are ways of

conceptualizing time from the perspective of motherhood and reproduction. The time of

history, however, can be characterized as linear time: time as project, teleology, departure,
progression and arrival. This linear time is also that of language considered as the

enunciation of a sequence of words. 10
The relationship between subject and object conceptualized as metaphorical, symbol-ridden
method is patterned. Qualities of it repeat and it becomes a design. This is how a method can be
defined and also how meaning can be found in method--method can be abstracted from a
background of random action and it attains its own symbolic, transcendental meaning. The
subject and object evolve, though, through the relationship-they become something different
from what they were before. Then how does method respond to this?

[F]emale subjectivity as it gives itself up to intuition I note similarity to Heidegger] becomes

a problem with respect to a certain conception of time: time as project, teleology, linear
and prospective unfolding: time as departure, progression and arrival--in other words,

the time of history.11

 

9 My citing this doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with her argument that this is exclusively
female. Kristeva calls this idea "female subjectivity"-it's the substance of the idea I find useful.

10Moi, T. (1986) Marginality and subversion: Julia Kristeva. In Sexual/1" extual Politics: Feminist
Literary Theory, page 187.
11Kristeva (1986) Woman's Time, page 192.

1 8
Method is right at the place of intersection between these two world concepts. It is the place

where the battle between cyclical time and historical time occurs. As an example, teaching:
There is an internal conﬂict for me when I am teaching-J need to understand, stay in one place
and contemplate what I know about children, science, myself and how I am able to know it, but I
need to change—to teach, to do things, to learn. Method serves both concepts of time, it is
progressive-in the service of change and it is symbolicurepeating. Thinking of method as
purposeful is not the same as the false causality of history in which events are looked back on
from the perspective of an outcome nor is it transcendental in the sense of pointing to an inner
truth which transcends individual instantiations. Method is in historical time because it is not
willy-nilly, the relationship between the subject and the object is purposeful, each is trying to do
something to the object or with the object as audience. This purpose isn't necessarily realized but
change is. Method is in symbolic time because of its own repetitive qualities and also because it
allows the subject to look at the object in ways that are "framed," that have meaning. This is why
talking about method as a form of design is important. In thinking about method and design as
metaphorically linked, I wish to think of the word design as a verb and also as a noun. As a noun
the word design captures the abstract qualities of a pattern signifying something transcendent.
As a verb it should be understood as a plan, an activity oriented towards a goal. Teaching,
learning, science as methods have both of these qualities.

In the second chapter of this thesis I wish to explore an example of design in teaching and
in science through a description of a unit I taught in a first and second grade combination class.
This unit is ostensibly about soap bubbles. The underlying thing it is about is experimental
design. My goals in the unit involve the children participating in a process of experimental
design and enactment using soap bubbles as a medium. Therefore there are two forms of design
occurring in these classes: the design that the children and I participate in as we explore the soap
bubbles; and between myself, the children and the materials we are using to design the teaching.
This chapter is especially oriented toward an engagement of both the learning science and the

teacher knowledge/ teacher learning conversations which I discuss at the start of this chapter. I

1 9
talk about how the children use their previous understandings of many things to construct both

new knowledge and also scientific process as we explore the bubbles. I also talk about how I use
my knowledge to frame this pursuit and how this knowledge is altered as the children and I
interact around the science and each other.

In the third chapter I explore another design problem, that of designing, or maybe re-
designing the science so that I can maintain some particular goals in my teaching. Making a
claim that both teaching and science are methods is, by my deﬁnition, making a claim that they
are both purposeful activities with particular goals. That makes no claim that the goals for both
are the same or that they are articulated ahead of time. My point in this argument that I have just
presented about what method is is that goals, as part of the "need" that motivates action, are in
part unarticulated. Some instructional goals are articulated at the outset of teaching, yet the
experience of designing, interacting, etc. make evident other goals not previously articulated.
Through my work in the classroom I come to recognize the goals (values) that I am using to
shape my teaching. I learn to recognize what my teaching symbolizes. When, through
interactions with others, I come to realize these meanings and that they are not consistent with
each other, I choose to work to redesign the science so that I can maintain the goals of my
teaching. I don't do this in the abstract or all at once. I do this incrementally, as I teach and as I
need to.

The unit portrayed in Chapter 3 is about teaching music and sound. I picked this unit
because the "science" examined is sound but the medium I chose to teach it through is music. I
did this because this allows me to show an intertwinement of science and aesthetics, often not
recognized by non-scientists. It is an illustration about how the definitions of words, both
naming and defining meaning, which with method are the fundamental components of a science,
is a process in itself. A more radical example of redesigning science is in Chapter 4, about
teaching a third grade class about gravity.

Both Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 continue to engage the larger conversations about

children's science learning and teacher knowledge and leaming. They also address ideas about

20
the role of the children's home cultures in these classes. In Chapter 3 I make the argument that

through discussion of the science a unique classroom culture is generated. This culture adds onto
and respects the children's home cultures. This development of a classroom culture around
scientiﬁc explorations and discussions is central to my thinking about how the children come to
learn and also about how I come to use my knowledge and also learn. This is also true in Chapter
4 but here qualities of the "things"-«knowledge as well as ways of thinking and expressing
themselves—the children bring to class and use to construct this classroom culture are often
problematic and cause me to think about how I am portraying the science and also how the
science is evolving in my own head.

The fifth chapter of my thesis is about how teaching is based upon knowing but is also a
process of coming to know. The other chapters are about this too, though. The process of design
and therefore method isn't only a process of demonstrating what a person already knows, it's also
a process of coming to know, of learning. This chapter quite explicitly addresses the questions of
teacher learning and the role thinking about the child's home culture has in teaching. The science

itself is no longer the focus.

CHAPTER 2

THE ROLE OF DESIGN IN SCIENCE AND TEACHING

In order to be a design, an object or an action needs to stand out from a backgound. We
need to be able to "see" it. This happens through framing. The backgound is composed of
emotions, understandings and already constructed ways of doing things. When we enter into a
situation (any situation, including one that appears to initiate with our entrance) we are already
immersed in pre-existing circumstances—we know how to act, how to interpret, what to do. This
is Heidegger's idea of "falling" and explains how we are able to interpret circumstances and to act
upon them-nothing is ever brand new. Qualities of framing, of the backgound, differentiate the
design but without necessarily calling attention to themselves. In looking from the outside,
though, as we can do with this story of teaching and of science, we should be able to abstract the
qualities of the frame. What composes the frame in this teaching-what leads to the decisions
made by me in teaching this unit? What leads to me decisions made by the children as they
design their experiments? For me decisions come out of my ideas of the science and of the
children which existed before we began the unit but are continuously reformed as the unit
progesses. This is both in and out of my control: it is also shaped by the materials and the
children. Similarly the children's decisions come from preconceptions they have about bubbles
and about school, transformed by the discoveries they make as they work with the materials,
each other and myself. As Heidegger also implies, it would be a mistake to view decisions as
only reﬂecting what we know. They also symbolize what we don't know and what we think

we'd like to know. This theme-that actions and decisions reﬂect assertions of knowledge as well

21

22
as uncertainties—threads throughout the rest of this thesis. It will appear many times in the

stories that I tell. It is the basis of my assertion that statements of knowing, by the children in
explaining the science, by myself when making choices in teaching, are also statements of not-
knowingnplaces where learning can take place.

The act of design is purposeful, it expresses a need, is symbolic of that need. The actions
in this class should be interpreted in terms of needs. The articulation of these needs is again
enabled by qualities of the framing backgound. The things the children and I say about what we
are trying to do, what we want to do, are expressions of our interpretations of both the
backgound and foreground. Examining expressions of need exposed to us in the act of design
allows us a pathway back to the background. It gives us a tool to explore selected components of
the frame. When we examine the things the children are trying to do with bubbles in this chapter
we can rediscover the qualities of their knowledge which has been buried as well as their ideas
and theories that are on the surface, that they are working on now. The design, the thing within
the frame, can act as a frame itself for the elements of the backgound. It causes their
differentiation from the continuum. Similarly with the act of teaching. As I write about what I
am trying to do with the science and the children, I expose the hidden assumptions, values and
beliefs which underlie these needs and desires.

Design as a verb--a methodushould serve both cyclical, symbolic time and progessive,
historic time. As expressions of needs it does the former. As we act to realize these needs it does
the latter. This is interesting because what is actually realized can only partially (if at all) satisfy
the needs it stems from Or it may do something entirely unintended. This very much happens
with both the teaching and the soap bubbles. Sometimes I plan for this but usually only partially
so. For example I planned that in our initial experience with bubbles I would "find" what the
subsequent classes would be about. What I actually found was much more sophisticated than
what I had thought would occur. This happens in teaching because actions do not occur in
isolation. It happens in the science because acting on one set of variables locates others. So

design, and method, are both controlled and uncontrolled. They represent both what is known

23
and what can be known. They are both atemporal and integrally of the substance of time-

looking backwards, forwards and at this very moment. Do we have to look at a cross-section of
time to see a design or a method or is it also recognizable in particular moments, actions?

I had planned this unit about soap bubbles during the summer to be a unit about
design.” Design in the sense that Schon (1939) writes and talks about as an interplay between
materials and the person which is shaped by metaphorical images of purpose. I picked soap
bubbles as a vehicle for this because to understand soap bubbles as a phenomernon is very
abstract, non-intuitive. It therefore presents interesting design problems for me as a teacher.
How do I design this curriculum and this teaching? How is this design process an evolving one
that is interactive between people as well as between a person and things and tasks? I also picked
soap bubbles because children can almost be counted on to have some experience with them. But
this experiernce is usually very constricted and proscribed. What I do in this unit is and isn't.
How it is constricted and proscribed by me, the children and the materials is the point of this
being a story about design.

This unit, which I claim to be about design could be described as about involving
children in the scientific processes of experimentation. By saying this I would satisfy the
demands of local and national science curriculum requirements. The unit is, though, much more
than the simplistic view of experirrnentation often advanced as science in schools. For example
what is often called experimentation in schools is really demonstration of what is previously
known-4t is artificial. To be true experimentation there must be a potential for discovery of new
things, for surprise. Experiments are designed-they address particular end points-but still they

also represent questions, the unknown as well as known.

This story (and the stories in the other chapters of this thesis) are written from transcripts

of the class. In transforming those transcripts to a story I have reduced and edited what was said

 

12This unit was taught in a first and second gade combination class. The classroom teacher was
Kathy Valentine. For a full description of the school, class and children, please see Appendix I
and II.

24
by the childrern and myself and also descriptions of what we did. In doing this and in choosing to

focus on science content (rather than control issues, say) I have, strangely enough, deleted much
of the patterned activity of the class. I find this strange because if this is a story of design, and
design as a noun is a pattern, then I have deleted a large portion of that design.

The repetitive acts I am talking about are things such as turnirng out the lights to get the
children's attention, the mental processes I go through to decide who to call on and when in class
discussions, descriptions of speech patterns or activity patterns of individual children. These
small patterns enable and compose the larger design. They are microcosms of my dialectic
between the atemporality and temporality of patterns. We recognize patterns because they
repeat in time, they become a quality of the passage of time but they also punctuate and

differentiate particular moments in time, they exist for themselves.

The first class: Figuring out what to do.

November 7th

The children come in from recess and we discuss what we will be doing now in science
class. While they had been outside I had rrnade up the tubs of bubble solution. I have decided
that each table of three or four children will have one plastic wash tub of bubble solution. I've
nnade the solution with dishwashing soap and water. I say that we are going to work with
bubbles, sticking various things into the bubble ﬂuid. First though we set up the room by putting
down pads of newspapers on the desks. When we are ready, I give them the bubble solution and
ten minutes to experiment with it. I give no otlner instructions than that. They are restricted to
stay in their own pods and to using only their hands to make the bubbles. I have given them no
implements. This is purposeful: I wish to maximize the children's sensual contacts with the
material and I want this contact to be just between them and the soap solution (and of course

other children in the class—there was much discussion irn all this) without anything else added in.

25
I stop the whole thing and by pods have them dry off their hands and go up front to a

learning circle. In this first conversation I am exploring the terrain of things that the children
observed about the bubbles. I have certain possible directions that we might go from this first
activity laid out in my head and I want to see which of these things the children have located for
themselves and if I push a little bit, very gently on those things, how the children respond to this.
I am trying to locate what about soap bubbles the children are actually going to be able to pursue
and discover given that in the teaching that I do with this age group I am disinclined to actually
tell them information to explain the things that we observe. The areas that I have outlined in my
head that we might be exploring are bubble shape, bubble size, colors in bubbles, why bubbles
form in the first place, why they pop. All of these are touched on in this first conversation. We
end up settling in more or less on the first one over the next few weeks. This is in large part due
to Thomas and his techniques of design which are very sophisticated, I think, and to Danping
whose explanations for the shapes of features of the bubbles seemed to me botln simple-derived
directly from what could be seen—and correct. Both of these qualitiesnof the design process and
of the postulated explanations-are very important to me. They are coherent with choices I have
already rrnade about what my teaching looks like. That is, most importantly, that my teaching is
based upon what the children can do so that my role can remain one of facilitator and shaper.

I start the discussion by asking what people were able to see when they were making
bubbles. Thomas said: "Well, something I made, I put my two hands . . . first I blew a bubble,
then I caught it in one hand then I put my other hand on top then I got this long string." He
mimes this witln his hands. I name what he has made a cylinder. Other children have tried
similar things and start discussing this. I get up and draw what I think he has made on the

board.

26

 

I quiet the room and ask Thomas if this is what he means. He agrees.
Thomas: And it was not two [bubbles], sometimes people catch bubbles like that but
what I do is sometimes I catch one and put it in the other hand, sometimes I catch two
and put it . . . together, he shows us with his hands . . . and then you see the silver coin in the
middle but you didn't get a picture of that . . .
I start to ask Thomas about this silver coin but he wants to talk more about how he made the
cylinder. He says that it requires two hands. A bubble in just one hand is "fat out of my hand but
when my hand goes on it, it goes straight up." When he puts another hand on the bubble it
elongates into a cylinder. This is the essence of an explanation of why bubbles are the shapes that
they are-they are ﬂuids which take a shape imposed upon them. I repeat his description of how
he made the cylinder and ask him to confirm that.
Thomas: Yes but what I think is funny is, see, it was sort of fat when I just had it . . . here
I'll, it was sort of like this and see here's my hand and the bubble goes like this when I'm
not have my other hand out but when I put my other hand over it, it just goes zipll . . . He
does this with the bubble solution—I have brought a tub up to the front of the room . . . But it's fat
then it starts going up It turns into a straight person, like kids playing, they get in line so
fast, like when they are playing, they're all fat and then when they say line up, it's just
whup!
I ask if any one else has done anything like what Thomas is talking about. Timmy says that he
did something like this without making the silver coin and he found when you pull the bubble
cylinder too far it stretches and then pops.
In this first short part of this class's conversation we have started talking about the shape

of bubbles and why they break but in a more complex way than could have been suggested from

27
my abstracted list at the beginning of this paper. The discussion about shapes is also about the

intersection of shapes and the discussion of popping bubbles is combined with consideration of
size. Now Andy adds in that he saw Kwanhyo blow a bubble that fell to the ﬂoor and, rather
than breaking, bounced. The conditions which make a bubble break aren't purely those of size.

Emily adds her observations about bubbles breaking, that you can only stretch them so
far and then Surni says: "I had one, I had one, see I catched the balloon and then I put the other
hand on it and stretched it and kept stretching it, then I had one balloon and then when I
stretched it, I had two." I asked him if this was like Thomas's, he made a cylinder and then when
you pulled it far enough apart you got two. Thomas interjects: "Yeah 'cause it broke." I say: "Oh,
so, but it didn't break and there was nothing, it broke and you had two bubbles." This particular
phenomenon, that bubbles can divide into two or nnore or break, is certainly something that I
knew about but not something that I had thought about or had connected up. That I do that or
that others in the class do that is caused I think by the social qualities of how we are discovering
ﬁnings-in class with others and then all together again as we talk about things and put ideas
together. For me this means as we talk about the things we have done and what we think about
ﬁnern we hear new ideas, different ways of thinking than those we have constructed alone. This
has an implicitly critical quality--as someone says something different from my own ideas, I
compare and assess. That, though, is dependent upon my ability to listen and truly hear
(understand) what the other is saying. This combined with a desire to do new things or ﬁnink
new thoughts rather than justify my own or replicate others is ﬁne essence of the creativity
integal to the concept of design I am attempting to foster in this class and describe as a
component of teaching. I think this can only be achieved ﬁnrough conversation around topics in
which the children are genuinely interested. This though has a cyclical qualitynﬁne children also
become genuinely interested because of ﬁne conversation.

An'gele tells us about her technique of bubble blowing: "Um, when I was doing it, I just
would just dip my hands in ﬁne water, I had two hands, I went like this, and I got like a little

crystal ball, a litﬁe circle in my hand like this . . . " She shows us:

28

,9)

Then she tells us that she was able to make a cylinder like Thomas described using her other
hand. Then Cory says : "When I put, um, one in my hands and ﬁnen I took it out, I blew and little
tiny bubbles came out of my fingers." Each time a child says what he has done I draw him out a
bit in his description. I do ﬁnis because I want to develop ﬁne language ﬁnat ﬁne children are using
and lam conducting ﬁnis search for someﬁning that can be developed into a theme so I want to
increase the "dwell" time on any particular observation or statement to see if it is developed
furﬁner and if it resonates wiﬁn others. I talked in ﬁne irntroduction to this chapter of how a design
stands out from a backgound. I am looking for this design to begin to emerge. I listen to ﬁne
ﬁnings the children say about what ﬁney have done and in response to each oﬁner for repetitions in
ideas, for echoes ﬁnat pull one idea into prominence over others. I am looking for ﬁne emergence
of a foreground over a backgound.

The language that I am using to describe this is deceptive; it implies a passivity but in
truth it is ﬁne combined interactions in conversation between us all, ﬁne desire to commurnicate,
that causes ﬁne emergence of a ﬁnenne. Part of my role is to recognize ﬁne commonalities in the
statements the children make and work to construct the conversation to contairn that ﬁnerne more
prominantly--so ﬁnat over time separate ideas and observations become part of a whole and the
children begin to work together on common ideas and questions. For example, after An'gele and
Cory describe to us ﬁne mechanics of making bubbles for ﬁnem and describe what they were able
to make, Sakti says this: "I blowed a bubble like ﬁnis and I held my hand like ﬁnis and I blowed it

and it kind of went like ﬁnis and then it was ﬁnis big and it popped." I repeat: "It popped? Did it

29

ever become separate from your hands? Did you ever get it so it was like separate from your
hands or was it always attached to your hands?" She says ﬁnat it remained attached to her hands.
Her comments are connected to and add to all ﬁne oﬁner children's observations. It's ﬁnis ﬁnat
gives me a feeling of a common topic for us to pursue. Boﬁn ﬁne children and I are playing a role
in developing and creating ﬁnis but it's a complicated pattern of playing off each oﬁner.

Shumshad says ﬁnat when he pulled his hand out of ﬁne water a bubble was made
between his fingers and even an enclosed spherical bubble, held in his hand, followed ﬁne edges
of his fingers. What he actually tries to describe to us is how ﬁne bubble film travels up ﬁne sides
of his wet ﬁngers, clings to his fingers. A bubble not held ﬁnis way was shaped like a crystal ball.
This is an addition to Thomas's early description of how to form a cylinder, a free bubble is round
but it will cling "sometimes" to a surface and be reshaped by ﬁnat surface.

We continue talking about technique and I try to suggest an exploration of bubble size,
one of my original ideas about what ﬁnis might all be about ﬁnat hasn't been mentioned yet. I
don't want things closing down on one topic yet. This is in part because all ﬁne various ﬁnings I
have listed in my mind ﬁnat we might be exploring-size, source, color, shape, etc.-are connected
and I know ﬁnat in order to develop understanding of any one it won't be done in isolation of ﬁne
oﬁners. To ﬁnink about shape we are going to want to ﬁnink about size for instance. The variables
are connected and we are going to want to recognize and develop ﬁnese connections to be able to
ﬁneorize about explanations. Anoﬁner reason ﬁnat I don't want ﬁne discussion narrowed too soon
is personal. There are certain ﬁnings about bubbles ﬁnat I find fascinating and I wouldn't mind us
pursuing ﬁnose because ﬁnen I could ﬁnink about them furﬁner. I pursue my own little research
projects ﬁnrough all ﬁne units I willingly teach. I choose the t0pics of ﬁnese unitsububbles, music,
patterns—because I wish to explore ﬁnem myself. I also bring ﬁnis attitude, I ﬁnink, to how I work
wiﬁn ﬁne childrenuﬁney are objects of my explorations also. I say all ﬁnis because if design is a
purposeful interaction between materials and person, it is also a process of exploration and

discovery.

30
For bubbles, I am particularly interested in color. That isn't ﬁnough what is going to

happen, at least not focally at ﬁne start of ﬁnese classes. It does happen, we have conversations
about color off and on ﬁnrougln ﬁnis unit and in interesting ways, as intertwined wiﬁn explorations
of oﬁner variables. At any rate at ﬁnis point I think we should talk a bit about size and I want ﬁnis
discussion to happen connected to a discussion of how ﬁney actually made ﬁne bubbles. The size
of a bubble depends upon how much air you blow into it and also on how large ﬁne initial film
ﬁne bubble comes from is. I say to ﬁne class ﬁnat I saw Ho Sook making bubbles a different way

from ﬁne description oﬁners have given. I demonstrate this.

 

Then I ask how were ﬁnose bubbles different from bubbles made ﬁne oﬁner way like An'gele had
shown us. Ho Sook says that ﬁney are smaller. This is not so, ﬁney are larger and Paula disagees.
She was also blowing bubbles this way and hers were much larger. Many children debate ﬁnis.
Next Teton says ﬁnat he saw rainbows when he made a cylinder. I ask what he ﬁninks
might make ﬁne rainbows. Paula says: "The bubble soap, when all ﬁne bubble soap . . . and ﬁne
lights . . . when ﬁne lights come down, it seems like all ﬁnese rainbow ﬁnings are swirling around."
Teacher: You saw ﬁnem swirling around?
Danping: You know what? When I was looking at ﬁne rainbow . . . first you know when
I'd put my hands togeﬁner and then I'd go like that [blow the bubble through her hands like

Ho Soak and Paula did] and ﬁnen I'd see the rainbows first . . . ﬁney'd be ﬁnick and ﬁnen
ﬁney'd be skinny and then they'd curl everywhere.

3 1
I ask her why she ﬁninks ﬁney did ﬁnat and she replies ﬁnat she saw it occur as ﬁne bubble

stretched. I repeat the whole ﬁning putting ﬁne two sets of observations togeﬁner to emphasize ﬁne
implied causality. "Danping is saying ﬁnat at first her rainbows were real big and ﬁnen ﬁney got
skinnier and skinnier and started to swirl around and ﬁnat was as the bubble got bigger."

Now I blow a bubble and ask what they see. Shumshad says: "Um it was kind of like a
bag ﬁnat you made." Suni says: "Like blowing a real balloon but you were blowing ﬁnat." Andy
adds ﬁnat as I blew, it got bigger and longer and Teton says that at ﬁne top of ﬁne bubble he saw a
large rainbow ﬁnat changed like Danping told us about. Cory adds: "Yeah it went skinny skinny
and ﬁnen it went longer longer and ﬁnen when it got to ﬁne, um, end it showed the colors, it was
purple, geen and black." Thomas tells us that he saw the rainbow go up and move especially
when ﬁne bubble was about to break. Then Emily and Benjamin try describing how ﬁne bubble
changed shape as I was blowing it.

I blow another bubble and ﬁne children continue talking about ﬁne shape changes while I
blow it. Then Kwanhyo says: "It was going on your hand like ﬁnis and ﬁnen it went like ﬁnis, it
curved and ﬁnen it was going on your hand like this . . . " I say ﬁnat ﬁnen it broke. Sueh—yen says
ﬁnat it was like a ghost and ﬁnat it "turned it bigger and bigger and ﬁnen it was moving and ﬁnen it
popped." Cory says ﬁnat before it popped, it looked like "fire and smoke on the back." I blow
anoﬁner and then anoﬁner. The second pops and generates ﬁne first question that we pursue by
expeimentation and observation. I ask what ﬁney saw. Paula says that she saw it stick to my
arms before it popped. I ask if anyone saw it exactly when it popped and Cory says: "Yeah it
went all over you, first it went down and then it touched ﬁne bowl and ﬁnen it went phoof!" Next
I ask if it popped all over or just in one place and ﬁnat break spread. I want them to look harder
and harder and when no one can answer ﬁnis I blow anoﬁner bubble. Cory says ﬁnat it popped irn
one place and others say all over. I blow anoﬁner. Now Danping describes what she was able to
see. "Um it went sort of like a circle and then it went a litﬁe bit down and it went off one ﬁnis . . .
[she gestures with her hands]." Cory adds: "First it went down ﬁnen it popped, ﬁnen and it went in

one place 'cause it only went down, all of ﬁnem went down, it went . . . " He gestures wiﬁn his

3 2
hands and I catch on: "Oh 'cause it like everyﬁning fell?" Shumshad describes it perfecﬁy: "Yeah

like raindrops."
Next Cory asks me to try to make Thomas's silver coin construction. I do ﬁnis while

Thomas tells me how.

 

I ask if the children can see ﬁne coin. Thomas adds: "Well it's really not a coin it's really just a line
that's circled." I stretch ﬁne bubbles until they break, ﬁnen have to do it again. Cory exclaims:
"The rainbows are going very fast!" I notice: "They are as soon as I rrnade it stretch, ﬁne rainbows
went really fast." Cory: "It's from ﬁne lights!" I make another.

Thomas: Now hook it! There's going to be a coin now see all around ﬁnat . . .

Paula: Now turn it the other side it looks like one of ﬁnose lamps that you put fire in . . .

Emily: The coin was invisible!

Thomas: Seell

Dan: Oh I see it . . .
"I see it!" everybody is shouting. The bubble pops and I do it again, Thomas tells rrne step-by-step
how to do it ﬁnis time. Finally we get ﬁne cylinder made and a "coin" in the center. Thomas:
"There see that round thing, it's clear but it looks like a coin." I agee and point out that ﬁne
intersection is ﬂat. It pops and we make anoﬁner. Lots of children start talking about ﬁnis,
describing what they ﬁnink it looks like. Cory for instance says ﬁnat he ﬁninks it looks like a snow

man.

33
I have Thomas come up and sit in ﬁne center and make ﬁne coins himself. He has

problems getting ﬁne two bubbles to reattach. (This is an interesting problem, by-ﬁne—way: two
bubbles don't always want to "stick" to each oﬁner. I don't know why ﬁnis is but I ﬁnink [because
of ﬁninking about it in all ﬁnese classes] ﬁnat ﬁne surface of ﬁne bubble gets dryuﬁney have to wet
each oﬁner to attach to each oﬁner. Now I know ﬁnat doesn't make sense—after all a bubble is
made from a liquid—but anyway ﬁnat's where I'm at in my thinking. I'm also not sure if my
private research should be in ﬁnis at all except ﬁnat ﬁnere is a lot of parallel ﬁninking for me when
I'm teaching.) I get Thomas to talk as he is working, to say ﬁne ﬁning ﬁnat he is making or trying to
make as he does ﬁnis. This has two effects-to get him to slow down and to focus ﬁne audience.
Once he's made one I ask ﬁne kids to direct comrrnents and questions to Thomas. Cory asks him
how he makes it—when he puts it togeﬁner. Thomas does anoﬁner play-by-play as he makes a
second. Then he does a ﬁnird. I ask Cory why he ﬁninks ﬁnat it makes ﬁnat ﬂat surface in between
ﬁne two bubbles. Cory: "I ﬁnink if it touches something else it can turn ﬂat. Or it got squished in
ﬁne middle and it didn't pop." Thomas: "This is what I ﬁnink, the way ﬁne bubbles attach is I ﬁnink
ﬁne way it happens, ﬁne way ﬁne bubbles attach. You see my hand makes ﬁne bubbles go out and
ﬁnese bubbles go together." Andy: "Well I ﬁnink when it goes together ﬁne other bubble sort of
pushes it and makes it ﬂat when ﬁney come togeﬁner and it makes ﬁne coin." Then Thomas says
ﬁnat he doesn't know if it should really be called a coin because it's not ﬁnat "but that's just what
he named it." I say ﬁnat's ok because it is ﬂat so it looks like a coin,’ it tells us ﬁnat its ﬂat, it's a
good description. Andy says ﬁnat he agrees "it looks like a coin."

Timmy shows us ﬁnat if you' do what Thomas did and pull and pull on it the bubble gets
longer and longer. I ask how far they ﬁnink he can pull his hands apart. Then I ask what ﬁney see
happening as he does pull his hands apart. Kids say ﬁnat it is getting skinnier and skinnie.
Thomas says that means it's going to break soon. Then he makes ﬁne coin and Emily says ﬁnat she
wonders what would happen if the coin were on ﬁne side and I ask if ﬁney ﬁnink it would be any
different. Kids say yes but don't say how. Timmy makes anoﬁner. This time he blows a large

bubble and puts it into ﬁne palm of his hand before he starts to stretch it and there are ﬁnree coins.

34
I ask why ﬁnere are ﬁnree coirns. Cory says because there are bubbles on his hands. I ask how

many bubbles ﬁnere are. Sonne count ﬁnree, I think because of ﬁne ﬁne ﬁnree coins. Or ﬁney are
counting the coins and ﬁnen say ﬁnree bubbles. Others count five or six (ﬁnese aren't attached
ﬁnough and making coins).

An'gele wants to make a big bubble to show us. She makes one and it bounces off ﬁne
ﬂoor. She gets coached by Emily and Paula who used a different technique. An'gele is blowing

ﬁnis way:

at?
. \l

Paula and Emily used ﬁnis method:

 

which produces a bigger bubble because ﬁne initial film is larger. An'gele makes one finally.
I start to end class by asking them what they ﬁnink they learned from doing ﬁnis. Thomas

says ﬁnat he learned that bubbles stretch and he's learned how to do ﬁnat. Cory has learned that

35
he can make it very big. I ask what they are going to do next time. Thomas says ﬁnat he is going

to make one ﬁnat goes over his head like a space man. Cory says ﬁnat he is going to try to make

one ﬁnat goes up and will ﬂy around ﬁne room. I ask ﬁnem to ﬁnink about ﬁnat for next tirrne.

I wrote ﬁnat when I use ﬁne word design 1 can mean eiﬁner design ﬁne noun or design ﬁne
verb, designing, or sometimes I can mean boﬁn. I ﬁnink in ﬁnis part of ﬁne story of ﬁnis unit what is
portrayed is designing not so much a design alﬁnough I think as ﬁne teacher a shadow of a design
already existed in my head ﬁnat was gaining solidity as the class progessed. For sure I found
ﬁnings in ﬁnis class ﬁnrough ﬁne discussions about ﬁne shapes of bubbles ﬁnat I could locate as
ﬁnings ﬁnat we would at least partially focus on in ﬁne next few classes. There are, ﬁnougln,
designs (ﬁne noun) to be found in this. There is ﬁne way ﬁnat I am teaching-the questions ﬁnatl
ask to focus the conversation on descriptions of ﬁnings made and of how the children went about
making ﬁnose ﬁnings, qualities of ﬁne conversation itself ﬁnat I model and develop (for example,
ﬁne subject of ﬁne silver coinuﬁne science grows out of what people have discovered on ﬁneir
own). This is a design because it follows a pattern. I conduct conversations in certain ways in
which ﬁnere are rules of behavior. I develop the science over and over again ﬁnrough ﬁnis
conversation which always starts with observation, moves to explanation and furﬁner
expeimentaﬁon, driven by questions raﬁner ﬁnan answers. There are also ﬁne "ﬁnings," types of
bubbles and observations expressed metaphorically, ﬁnat ﬁne children produce in ﬁne
conversation. These are the results of ﬁneir interactions wiﬁn ﬁne bubble solution and oﬁner
children contextualized in ﬁne task I have given ﬁnem. These ﬁnings are designed because ﬁney are
made purposely, eiﬁner to fulfill my task, because a child sees someone else make one or possibly
because of a developing interest in someﬁning previously known or discovered accidentally. It's
ﬁne way I teach ﬁnat ﬁnese done ﬁnings become works-in-progess, designs become incomplete,
become symbolic of partial acts of designing.

The act of design ﬁnough does appear to be an interaction among materials, ﬁne person

and metaphorical images of purpose, as Schon says, when we examine the bubbles ﬁne children

36

have made. Thomas's coin for example which he made because of ﬁne qualities of ﬁne soap
solution and of his own acts. These were shaped by his person, his past history, which were in
turn developed by his gowing personal aesﬁnetic. Thomas spends a lot of time designing and
competing Lego constructions. I believe you can see ﬁnis--he made bubbles and ﬁne first ﬁning he
did with ﬁnem was try to attach ﬁnem together. People who play wiﬁn Legos don't just gaze at
them, ﬁney try to build things wiﬁn ﬁnem. The idea of building someﬁning is certairnly purposeful,
and transporting ﬁnis idea to working wiﬁn bubbles is certame metaphorical. What do bubbles
and Legos have in common? Not very much from my perspective, quite a lot from Thorrnas's.
For myself as ﬁne teacher engaged in ﬁne act of design, I have ideas about what we should be
doing in ﬁnese classes and ﬁnese ideas start to take on concrete shapes as I interact wiﬁn ﬁne
children and the soap bubbles ﬁnrough ﬁne children. It's purposeful because I have a purpose: I
want ﬁne children to engage in experimental design where ﬁney find out ﬁnings and develop
ideas. That purpose is metaphorical to me because it's shaped comparatively wiﬁn oﬁner ﬁnings
ﬁnat I have done in science, ﬁnings that are like and unlike ﬁnis. Designing experinnents in
crystallogaphy is like and unlike ﬁnis. It gets more and more similar, ﬁnougln, as we go on.

In ﬁne next class we continue to discuss bubble shapes but now the children start to
postulate ﬁneories to explain ﬁnose shapes. I act to keep ﬁne clnildren cognizant of ﬁneir role in
shaping ﬁne bubbles. Unlike other observaﬁon-based science we have done (for example ﬁne unit
on music described in ﬁne next chapter), in a fundamental way, ﬁne bubbles take ﬁne shapes ﬁney
do because of what the children do in forming them (as well as because of ﬁneir own intrinsic
properﬁes). This is why ﬁnis unit is fundamentally about design. Recognizing ﬁne role of ﬁne
expeirnenter is paramount. Discovering ﬁne intrinsic properties of bubbles comes ﬁnrougln eiﬁner
ﬁne success or ﬁne failure of ﬁne design of ﬁne expeiment (boﬁn can tell you information and
augnent your understanding). There can be no illusion of the experimenter's passivity. I try to
keep ﬁne children cognizant of ﬁneir role. This goal is what shapes many of my decisions in ﬁne

whole of ﬁnis unit.

37
The second class: The beginnings of science talk and explorations.

November 12ﬁn

I start wiﬁn having ﬁne children set up ﬁneir tables. Then I ask ﬁnem to all try to make ﬁne
cylinder and coin that Thomas and Timmy had shown us. The operative statement in ﬁnis is ﬁnat
I ask ﬁnem to try to do someﬁning particular. I set a problem in which what they do as well as ﬁne
qualities of ﬁne bubbles play a role. Timmy tells the children how to do ﬁnis. I give ﬁnem ten
minutes to do ﬁnis. Then I have ﬁnem come to ﬁne front in a learning circle to talk about it. I also
bring up a basin of bubble solution in case we need it.

I ask: "How many people made ﬁneir cylinder and ﬁne silver coin? Were any people not
able to make ﬁnem? Kwanhyo you weren't able to make ﬁnem?" A number of children have had
some problem making ﬁne silver coin. My intention in asking ﬁnis question, which I do many
times in ﬁne subsequent classes, is to find out about ﬁnese difficulties ﬁnat ﬁne children have in
making ﬁneir creations and to find out what ﬁnings ﬁne children do about ﬁnose problems. This
isn't particularly to help ﬁne clnildren to achieve ﬁneir original visions but raﬁner to see how ﬁney
alter ﬁneir mental designs because of difficulties or ﬁne strategies ﬁney develop to try to
circumvent ﬁne problems and also hearing ﬁne things ﬁney have found out about the soap solution
in ﬁne process of running up against difficulties. In ﬁnis instance the children talk about ﬁneir
difficulties and exchange hints and techniques.

Cory describes ﬁne way he was able to make ﬁne bubbles. "When I was blowing a
cylinder, when I got very far it, um, they were both big bubbles and when I rrnade ﬁne cylinder it
was a big cylinder and inside of it, I looked, and inside of it it looked like ﬁnere was a circle inside
of it." Thomas exclaims: "That was ﬁne coin." Cory, however, says no it wasn't, it was a "ﬂat
part." Thomas says again "ﬁnat was the coin." I ask Cory to describe his bubble again and agree
ﬁnat was ﬁne silver coin. Then I ask: "Why do you think, you guys why do you ﬁnink ﬁne silver

coin is ﬂat. I mean ﬁne bubble is round but ﬁne silver coin is ﬂat." Cory says: "Because when you

3 8
stick it together it makes someﬁning ﬂat" and Danping adds: "It squashes each oﬁner." I ask her

what squashes each oﬁner means.

This is more ﬁnan just a description of somean she has seen. It is an idea about why
what she has seen is ﬁne way ﬁnat it is-why ﬁne silver coin is ﬂat. She has to be clear about what
she is talking about for oﬁners to understand and for us in ﬁne class to be able to go any furﬁner
wiﬁn her ideas. Because ﬁnis topic of ﬁne silver coin and the shape of ﬁne silver coin seems to keep
resurfacing and because things can be said about it ﬁnat are boﬁn derived from what ﬁne children
can observe wiﬁn ﬁne bubbles and connect wiﬁn oﬁner more fundamental scientific principles
about pressure and directional pressure, I have pretty much decided what I want ﬁne class to
pursue when she makes her statement about ﬁne two bubbles squashing each oﬁne to make ﬁne
coin. This has become a really interesting cut on ﬁne question I had originally ﬁnought we rrniglnt
be interested in about the shapes of bubbles. A free bubble is round because of the pressure of
ﬁne air inside it pushing out equally in all directions. This isn't at all obvious-why is ﬁne air
pushing, for example? It has suddenly become obvious because in Thomas's construction ﬁnere
are two bubbles pushing against one anoﬁner so in some parts ﬁney are round but where ﬁney
connect ﬁney are ﬂat. The roundness becomes understandable because of the ﬂatness. It's
obvious ﬁne ﬂat part is caused by ﬁne bubbles pushing togeﬁner, so ﬁne pushing ﬁnat goes on
elsewhere is pushing ﬁne bubble film out and round.

Danping says: "Because ﬁne bubbles is squashing each oﬁner and it makes . . . like ﬁnis
goes like ﬁnis and it just squashes ﬁnis, it's almost like two bubbles boﬁn put in one but it just
squashes it and lays down ﬂat irn the middle." Cory adds: "Like a ﬂat nose." Next Thomas tells
us: "I can explain it better because it's sort of like . . . see ﬁnis? This is what it's like. It's ﬂat but it's
round because it's skinny, you can see in both sides but, but what we mean by it's ﬂat is it's very
skinny like ﬁnis . . . but it's also round." I ask: "Why is it round?" and Thomas replies that ﬁne coin
is round because ﬁne bubble is round and it is inside ﬁne bubble. This is where I get ﬁne next
refinement in my ideas for ﬁne subsequent classes. In ﬁne future we will begin talking about the

shapes of bubble films and ﬁne shapes created by ﬁneir intersections. The aspects of design we

39
will participate in are around trying to control ﬁne placement of tlnose planes and predicﬁng ﬁneir

intersections.

Thomas and, in a minute, Danping are saying that ﬁne shape of the bubble controls ﬁne
shape of ﬁne intersections between ﬁne bubbles. This gives me an idea from crystallogaphy in
which the shapes of crystal faces are controlled by the places of ﬁne intersections of different faces.
(The relative angles and sizes of ﬁnose faces are caused by someﬁning else ﬁnough ﬁnat bubbles
don't share so again ﬁnis is a partial metaphor.) I don't immediately act on ﬁnis idea ﬁnough, I
have to let it build up pressure for a couple weeks. At any rate my next question is to ask why
ﬁne coin is ﬂat. Thomas says: "Because it's inside ﬁne bubble and if it wasn't, I wouldn't have
called it a coin for one ﬁning, I would have called it an I don't know." Well, here's an example of
false historical causality. I respond by summarizing ﬁne whole ﬁning alﬁnough I ignore Thomas's
last bit of logic. "So Thomas says first of all ﬁnat ﬁne silver coin is round because ﬁne bubble's
round and when they corrne together it's still going to be round and Danping says ﬁnat it's ﬂat . . . "
Thomas breaks in to state: "It is ﬂat!" I continue: " . . . Danping says it's ﬂat because ﬁne two
bubbles are pushing on each other."

Thomas: Right.

Danping: I know why it's round because ﬁne bubble is round, right? And ﬁne edges are

round so when you squash ﬁnem it's going to make a round coin, it's not a square coin.

That would be if it was a square one. 'Cause see if ﬁne bubbles are round ﬁnen they

squash them so it's round when ﬁney squash them.

Teacher: Hum, Cory what were you saying?

Danping has just made a very nice elaboration on Thomas's explanation for why the coin
is round. It adds to my growing ideas about bubbles as metaphorical crystals but I want us to
stay on ﬁne question of why the coin is ﬂat because we are very close to making sense of that I
ﬁnink.

Cory: Um that there's no air inside ﬁne ﬂat ﬁning so it makes it ﬂat. I ﬁnink ﬁnat ﬁnere's no
air in it.

Teacher: Oh I thought when you first started to say that . . . I ﬁnought you said ﬁnat ﬁnere
is no air inside the bubbles.

40
Cory: There is. But inside the ﬂat ﬁning there isn't. There's noﬁning.

This is a pretty important concept. Children ﬁnis age have very interesting ideas about what air is
arnd one of ﬁne places ﬁnat ﬁney form ﬁneir ideas is in blowing up ﬁnings like bubbles and balloons.
Having sorrne idea about what is in the bubbles and where it comes from is important if we are
going to ﬁnink about shape and size and that ﬁney have any control over those ﬁnings. I ask what
oﬁner people ﬁnink is inside ﬁne bubbles. Emily changes the subject, though, and says ﬁnat she
saw an "invisible line" which squiggled around the bubble. We will get back to what is in bubbles
late. "It wasn't really invisible, it was hard to see but it, like on ﬁne side, on ﬁne sides, ﬁnis was, it
was on the side and it would be like a rainbow and right here ﬁnee would be like lines ﬁnat
would go [she traces a wiggly line with herﬁngerl." I say that I have seen someﬁning like ﬁnis also.
Then she says again: "The bubble had, like, little lines in it and ﬁnen on ﬁne side it was like
rainbows and then in ﬁne middle it was like a line and it went like ﬁnis a whole bunch of lines and

it was going like ﬁnis very slowly or someﬁning." This is what she is talking about:

/ m?“
I J. ’9
J.» git-1,0" N
a I’ lg"- . ("'1' I
1.: .:\r \ 9’2...
t’ '- ”<3: \
q .
". " ,
_../ n‘. .3__ - ‘ -...<.
’ 2a "a, ' --.~...
.r . .. s
e ‘25:: s:-. ................ . " c,
. ._;:-:;j;:-.:'- n:
. \, ""-.;~- , """w.
5 \-.7"- n. "~. 2
NIL“, ‘~. \ .
.5 t, \t, r
3 0’ .n ‘s 5
\ If - ?
3 w. 9 f, 5
3‘ ' .-‘
' ..-.--- ,2 - ........ f
f- n‘. «'3 n " ~
\ : '5 I ’5 \l " x /
It {"35 ‘r I 3‘
\‘-;:'\. N "0‘
"NWW we.A
"n.
’ 'rme
2.}
SN
3:-
9'

I spent quite a lot of time wiﬁn Danping and Ho Sook looking at ﬁnese lines on ﬁneir
bubbles. There are two kinds of "lines" on the surface of the bubbles. One is formed by excess
ﬂuid ﬂowing down ﬁne sides of ﬁne bubble to the bottom where it drips off. The second are
interference color bands. The actual colors of ﬁnese bands is dependent on ﬁne ﬁnickness of ﬁne

bubble. The ﬁnicker, ﬁne brighter ﬁne color. When ﬁne bubble is very ﬁnin, ﬁney appear as black or

41
gey lines. The speed ﬁne lines move is variable and is controlled by ﬁne ﬂow of ﬂuid over ﬁne

bubble so ﬁne two types of lines are connected. This ﬂow is more or less downward to ﬁne base of
ﬁne bubble but swirls around. Maybe ﬁnis is like Brownian motion? Anyway Ho Sook and
Danping and I talked about how it seems to do with the "water" ﬂuid on ﬁne bubbles and ﬁnis is
what Danping means when she now asks Emily if she is talking about ﬁne water. Emily doesn't
understand ﬁnis though.

Emily tries to explain what she has seen to Danping, Ho Sook and ﬁne class. "Here's ﬁne
bubble . . . [she indicates a circle with her hands] . . . and then inside would be a little line about ﬁnat
big, you can barely see ﬁnem and ﬁney're so white ﬁnat ﬁney're like invisible and ﬁnen like on ﬁne
side ﬁnere would be like a rainbow." Danping announces ﬁnat she knows what Emily means and I
ask her if what Emily has just described is ﬁne same as the water that Danping and I had observed
running down ﬁne outside of her bubbles and dripping off the bottoms. Danping says: "No I
ﬁnink ﬁnat she is talking about ﬁne lines that are in ﬁne bubble." I ask from what I have observed
myself: "Are ﬁney ﬁne same lines that sometimes look like they are colors and sometimes look like
ﬁney are black and white?" Danping says ﬁnat she isn't sure.

Now Shumshad changes ﬁne subject back to ﬁne ﬂatness of ﬁne coin. He says ﬁnat he
ﬁninks ﬁne coin is ﬂat: "Cause maybe there's someﬁnirng sticking, sticks on and ﬁnat makes it ﬂat." I
ask him what he means and he replies that two bubbles stick togeﬁner making a ﬂat coin. I ask
him what he ﬁninks of Danping's idea that ﬁne bubbles push togeﬁner to make ﬁne coin ﬂat.
Danping repeats he ﬁneory and adds: "And ﬁney're round so when you squash ﬁne bubbles
together so ﬁne coin is round." Shumshad ﬁninks ﬁnat's pretty close to what he's been saying and
ﬁnen he tells us his ﬁneory why ﬁne bubbles are round. "You know why ﬁne bubble is round?
'Cause maybe ﬁnere is sonne air inside it." I ask what the children ﬁnink of ﬁnis idea.

Cory: Yes ﬁnere's air in it.

Suni: Yes there's air in ﬁne room and it's inside ﬁne bubble

Timmy: The air gets mixed in the bubble and ﬁnen when you blow, when you blow ﬁne
bubble it comes out.

42
Shumshad: You know I ﬁnink, what it is inside it, 'cause you know ﬁnat sticky thing? It

sticks the air in ﬁne bubble and ﬁnat's why if you . . . blow it then you know when it turns

around right, and ﬁnere's ﬁnat sticky air ﬁnat will stick on it, ﬁnat's why it makes a bubble.
I really don't know what he means by sticky air so I blow a bubble ﬁnat we can look at while we
talk more about ﬁnis. I want ﬁnem to associate ﬁne act wiﬁn the bubble.

Emily: Did you see ﬁne lines in ﬁnere?

Teacher: There's a bubble why is that round?

Cory: 'Cause of the air ﬁnat's in it.

Andy: The air is pushing. When it's going around, it's pushing.

Teacher: Ok hold it, Cory says because ﬁnere's air in it makes it round and Andy says
because ﬁne air ﬁnat's inside is going around and around and pushing.

Danping: I think because your finger was round and you blow it so . . .

an
\\

I ask if my fingers were square would it make ﬁne bubble square. Some say yes and some

no. I make a bubble An'gele's way:

 

43

and point out ﬁnat ﬁne hole between our hands from which ﬁne bubble forms isn't round. Andy
says ﬁnat it changes to round and Danping adds: "It first went like ﬁnat [elongated] but then it went
to round." Then Danping says ﬁnat even ﬁnough ﬁne hole between my hands is more or less
triangular ﬁne bubbles become round because "ﬁne bubbles down ﬁnere are round so when you
blow it, um, ﬁne litﬁer bubbles get big so they're round." In oﬁner words ﬁne bubbles already exist

in ﬁne soap solution and in making ﬁnem large we are just enlarging them.

Timmy asks if he can say someﬁning about how ﬁne air gets in.

Timmy: 'Cause I think when people breaﬁne, how ﬁney breathe out and then ﬁne air's in

ﬁne room and ﬁnen I ﬁnink after you put it in your fingers like ﬁnis and it's in ﬁnere, I ﬁnink

ﬁne air comes here and it stops here and then when you blow, it goes out wiﬁn ﬁne bubble.

Teacher: 'Cause you're blowing it out?

Timmy: No because ﬁnere's air in the room I ﬁnink and ﬁnen when you have it like ﬁnis,

ﬁne air comes in towards it and ﬁnen when you blow, blow ﬁne bubble ﬁne air goes inside

it when you blow.
Timmy is saying ﬁnat when you blow you aren't blowing air into ﬁne bubble rather you are
making ﬁne opporturnity for air from ﬁne room to go into the bubble. This comes up again.

Finally Tity says: "When I made my silver coin it wasn't a ﬂat circle." This is ﬁne only
time someone observes ﬁnis. The next few classes we concentrate on the shapes of the
intersections between bubbles. These are and aren't really ﬂat. Wheﬁner they have a curvature is
dependent on ﬁne relative sizes of ﬁne bubbles intersecting. This is really hard to observe though
and we never talk about it again.

Then we returrn to why bubbles are round. Cory says ﬁnat it's because you blow into it
like wiﬁn a balloonnyou blow into it and it gets round. The air ﬁnat gets into it makes it get
round. If you blow too fast ﬁne air will just go right ﬁnrough it and pop on ﬁne oﬁner side. I ask
him if ﬁnis is the same as what Andy said about ﬁne air going round and round and he agrees ﬁnat
it is. If ﬁne air goes straight ﬁne bubble pops. Emily agees wiﬁn Timmy ﬁnat it's ﬁne air in ﬁne

classroom that goes into and makes it round. I ask again if it's the air ﬁnat you blow in and am

44
corrected ﬁnat it's the air from the classroom. I ask her if it's someﬁning about ﬁne air itself ﬁnat

makes ﬁne bubble round or raﬁner like Andy and Cory have said ﬁne motion of ﬁne air. She says
it's ﬁne air, the air from ﬁne classroom combining wiﬁn ﬁne air from me combines and makes a
"weir " sort of air that goes into ﬁne bubble and is round. 50 I ask what would happen if I were
to blow someﬁning else, not classroom or my air into it, would it still be round. Danping says ﬁnat
all bubbles are round. I ask her why and again she says because ﬁne little bubbles in ﬁne bubble
soap are round.

Now all ﬁnis is interesting and 1 table pushing on it for ﬁne moment. I choose raﬁner to
ask ﬁne children to clarify ﬁneir statements so ﬁnat we can all be sure of ﬁnem. Not to have ﬁne idea
ﬁnat ﬁne "placement" of the bubble film is at an equilibrium point between competing forces is a
problem but one we will work on. Their idea ﬁnat ﬁne bubbles already exist in ﬁne bubble solution
is irnteresting and ﬁneir idea that air can have shape is wrong. Neiﬁner of ﬁnese ideas can't really
be addressed by the directions we seem to be heading in our interactions wiﬁn ﬁne bubbles.
Neiﬁner effect what we are doing so ﬁnere is no reason for me to want to work to confront ﬁnem.

I ask if they all ﬁnink ﬁnat even when ﬁney can't see bubbles ﬁnat ﬁnere are sﬁll bubbles in
ﬁne bubble soap. They all say yes and Danping adds ﬁnat ﬁnese are what we blow up when we
make the bigger bubbles. Andy says that he ﬁninks ﬁne air inside is going around because of ﬁne
movement of ﬁne color bands. He and Emily start talking about ﬁnis. Andy says ﬁnat ﬁnese bands
form right from when you start to blow.

An'gele says ﬁnat she knows why you can put your finger into ﬁne bubble. She says ﬁnat
it is because ﬁne wet air in ﬁne water hooks on to your fingers so that you are able to go ﬁnrougln.
This is quite right, the bubble needs to be able to "wet" a ﬁning ﬁnat it clings to oﬁnerwise it can't
and will break. This is why two bubbles sometimes will and sometimes won't connect togeﬁner to
make the coin. We work on ﬁnis a bit more and ﬁne concepts behind it come up again and again.
We go into ﬁnis further starting wiﬁn ﬁne next class when I ask ﬁne children to use and make
implements to make bubbles wiﬁn. How ﬁnis works and ﬁne shapes of ﬁne resultant bubbles is

determined by how ﬁne bubble solution is able to wet ﬁne materials we are using for construction.

45
Now ﬁnough Emily asks what would happen if you have one dry hand and you try to put ﬁnat

hand ﬁnrough ﬁne bubble. I tell ﬁne children ﬁnat wet ﬁnings can go ﬁnrougin and dry ﬁnings will
break ﬁne bubble. We demonstrate ﬁnis.

Then i say that I ﬁnought Danping's idea on why ﬁne coin was ﬂat was a good one--I
thought so alﬁnough I wasn't sure. I send ﬁnem back to ﬁneir seats and I ask ﬁnem to blow a
bubble and look for and at ﬁne lines Emily talked about and ﬁnen to make a column and see what
happens to ﬁne lines. They all start talking about how ﬁne lines start moving faster and faster as I
stretch it. Emily points out how when I touch ﬁne bubble all ﬁne lines speed up and start to move

towards my finger "like a magnet." They do ﬁnis until recess.

In ﬁnis class, alﬁnough we have continued to discuss bubble shape we've added in more
sophisticated observations about size and color. The children have also started postulating
scientific ﬁneories to explain what they are seeing. I want to make sure ﬁnat ﬁney connect ﬁne
ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁney see to ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁney are able to do. I want ﬁneir view of experimental
design to include ﬁneneelves as ﬁne lens former: I want ﬁnem to see ﬁnemselves as active in ﬁne
process of making observations and formulation explanations about ﬁne science not start to fall
into ﬁne fallacy ﬁnat ﬁney aren't part of ﬁne process of seeing.

In ﬁne next class I decide that ﬁney should expeiment wiﬁn bubble size. To do ﬁnis I give
each child a lunchroom tray wiﬁn a quarter inch of bubble solution on ﬁne bottom and a straw to
blow the bubbles on ﬁne surface with. This allows ﬁne entire surface of ﬁne tray to form a bubble.
The bubble can be very large because ﬁnis surface is much larger ﬁnan anyﬁning ﬁney can form
wiﬁn ﬁneir hands. I also want ﬁnem to use ﬁne straw because ﬁnat distances them from ﬁne bubble.
They are furﬁner away and ﬁnerefore ﬁney can look at ﬁne bubble differently. Using a straw also
makes ﬁne act of blowing more focal I ﬁnink.

I want to slowly introduce tools. In ﬁne original task ﬁne only tools were ﬁne children's
hands and ﬁne soluﬁon. In ﬁne process of coming to use tools as tools a person has to stop

focusing ﬁneir consciousness on the tool itself and place it on ﬁne outcome instead (Polanyi, 1966).

46
At ﬁne beginning of using a tool, ﬁne tool itself is at focus. By having ﬁne children just use ﬁneir

hands in ﬁne bubble solution at the start I wished to focus them on ﬁne properties of ﬁne bubble
soluﬁon and ﬁneir role in forming ﬁne bubbles. Now I can let ﬁnem play wiﬁn a new tool and let
ﬁnem develop new ways of seeing the bubble solution ﬁnrougln ﬁnis tool after, of course, ﬁney've
explored ﬁne tool. The point of using tools is ﬁnat ﬁney allow a person to see parﬁcular aspects of
ﬁne ﬁnings being worked on. This can be passive looking like ﬁnrough a lens of a microscope or it
can be an active shaping like a saw and wood. Mostly we do want to ﬁnink about what ﬁne tool
shows us about ﬁne object (subject) but (at least in science) we should also be mindful ﬁnat ﬁne tool
is selective and we can look backwards from what we see in ﬁne object to ﬁne tool and say ﬁnings
about ﬁne qualiﬁes of the tool.

This is also true of teaching. In ﬁne introduction to ﬁnis story I talk about ﬁne aspects of
ﬁnis class I have deleted in constructing ﬁnis narraﬁve. Many of ﬁnese "ﬁnings" such as turning out
ﬁne lights to gain control of the class or ﬁnouglnt processes I go ﬁnrougin to decide who will talk
when, are tools of teaching which enable our explorations of bubbles and design. They also
shape what happens in ﬁne classuﬁnings could happen differenﬁy if ﬁne tools were used
differenﬁy or if ﬁnose tools weren't used and oﬁners were. These are my choices because I want
ﬁne class to look a particular way.

As a class we had to learn to recognize ﬁnese actions as tools, as symbolic of someﬁning
else. The children had to learn ﬁne meaning of "lights-out" and to respond to ﬁnat meaning raﬁner
ﬁnan to ﬁne lights being off. They had to learn the conversational patterns of ﬁne class. These had
to become backgound but in such a way ﬁnat they could still delineate, articulate ﬁne ﬁnings we
should be paying attention to--my next instruction or a child's statement of an idea. We can look
backward from ﬁne outcome and ask about ﬁne background patterns ﬁnat enable ﬁne processes of
ﬁne class, ﬁne designing of ﬁne class. That's not to say ﬁnat I do ﬁnat while I'm using ﬁnose tools or
ﬁnat ﬁnere aren't many and multiple levels of asking. For example, deciding who will talk when
can get at particular ﬁnouglnts about particular children in a context or can go furﬁner back and

ask why I feel I need to be in control of conversation (to shape ﬁne science, to control behavior, to

47
hear different children). We can also ask how do ﬁnese tools shape ﬁne science in a small sense--

determine what we are doingnand in a large sense—determine ﬁne concept of science itself we are

developing.

For ﬁne next ﬁnree classes I continue to keep ﬁne exploration of bubbles "open"-exploring
oﬁner, different variables in turn raﬁne ﬁnan closing in on one particular direction. We talk more
about bubble color, discussing and experimenting wiﬁn ﬁnis to some depﬁn. We spend time
ﬁninking about ﬁne conditions ﬁnat make bubbles pop. We continued discussing ﬁne shapes of
bubbles and intersecting bubble films. Finally I start to narrow our explorations down to ﬁnis last
by having ﬁne children write about ﬁnis question of shape and try to construct particular shapes
with the bubbles. The arguments to explain phenomenon become increasingly complex and
concern ﬁne shapes formed by intersecting planes.

After November, I ended ﬁne first part of ﬁnis unit in which ﬁne children nnade bubbles
free—form. In ﬁne classes during Decembe and January I gave ﬁne children ﬁnree-dimensional
geometric constructions ﬁnat I had made out of straws and paper clips to dip in ﬁne bubble
solution. I did ﬁnis because I felt ﬁnat at ﬁnis point we should focus in on one aspect of ﬁne
bubbles: ﬁneir shape and ﬁne shapes made by ﬁne intersecﬁon of bubble films. The children used
my geometric shapes for a week and ﬁnen I set them ﬁne task of designing in ﬁneir notebooks
ﬁnings ﬁnt ﬁney would like to make for ﬁnemselves out of the straws, predicting what they
ﬁnought ﬁnese constructions would look like afte being dipped in ﬁne bubble solution, ﬁnen
attempting to make these ﬁnings so that ﬁney could try ﬁnem out. This turned out to be quite an
interesting process to watch and participate in. It led to many discussions about ﬁne process of
design as well as about ﬁne products themselves. As far as what ﬁne children discussed and
ﬁnought about for ﬁne actual bubble shapes ﬁney were able to make, I ﬁnink ﬁney explored what
effect ﬁne shape of ﬁne external frame had on ﬁne resulting bubble film. There was a general
feeling ﬁnat ﬁne extemai shape controlled ﬁne shape of ﬁne bubble. This is true but not as

simplistic as it initially sounds. The shape of a bubble depends upon if you are looking at a two-

48
dimensional or ﬁnree-dimensional shape (if it is two-dimensional, the bubble film will follow ﬁne

ouﬁine, if ﬁnree-dimensionai ﬁne bubble will be a complex result of intersecting two-dimensional
films), a shape wiﬁn no irregularities (irregularities will warp ﬁne two-dimensionality), a perfectly
staﬁonary shape. Discussions of ﬁne process of design centered on purpose-why design?-and
ﬁne frustrations of translating designs, from paper or from your head, into reality. This is very
much what Schon is talking about I ﬁnink when he calls design a metaphorically shaped process
of dialectics between person and materials.

In ﬁne next phase of ﬁnis unit we focus much more on ﬁnis process of design, boﬁn in what
we are doing and irn our discussions. The science we talk about follows from ﬁne ﬁnings we are
able to make much more ﬁnan the ﬁnings ﬁnat we design follow from ﬁne science. This is not ﬁne
usual way we are taugint to think about ﬁne processes of science (i.e. Popper). The point is ﬁne
designs (noun) and the process of design (verb) control ﬁne science and ﬁne class (teaching).

I return to my narrative about ﬁne class in February. The children have been working by
now for two monﬁns wiﬁn the straws, paper clips and bubble solution. The children have become
deeply involved with the problems of design and many of our discussions start with ﬁnis: what
have ﬁne children been able to do? What wee ﬁney trying to do and what were ﬁne problems?
From ﬁnis we moved to discussions of ﬁne science of bubble making but not in ﬁnis first class. In

ﬁnis class we talked about problems of design and what children did about ﬁnem.

Discussing problems of design

By now everybody in the class has been able to make at least one ﬁning wiﬁn straws and
paper clips and rrnost have tried it out in ﬁne bubble solution. I ask what kinds of ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁney
have made, I ask if ﬁney were able to make ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat they designed and wheﬁner or not ﬁney
found ﬁnat easy. Some respond yes and some no to the question about whether or not it was

easy. I ask who found it hard and ask Teton to tell us why he found it hard. I call on Teton

49
particularly because his design was extremely interesting. He wished to make a dome wiﬁn a

series of arches made from ﬁne straws curved by utilizing ﬁne extendable elbows. He is ﬁne only
child who was interested in ﬁne design phase in using ﬁnis property of ﬁne straws. Oﬁners did use
ﬁnis property but not in a planned way. Raﬁner ﬁney came to use ﬁne elbows during ﬁne alteration
of ﬁneir designs during construction.

This to me was what ﬁnis whole ﬁning was about, an interplay between design and
material in which ﬁne properties of ﬁne material could be altered spontaneously because of ﬁne
difficulties in achieving ﬁne design. Schon talks about ﬁne design his students were engaged in as
an interplay between aesﬁnetics, ﬁne intellect and emoﬁve qualiﬁes of ﬁne individual wiﬁn ﬁne

qualities of the material available for construction.13

Those students are engaged in ﬁne actions of
design as they play wiﬁn ﬁne materials. In my assignments, ﬁne children's initial design is in the
absence of interaction wiﬁn ﬁne materials. I feel that by doing ﬁnis I have generated a problem for
the children.” They are trying to make somean irn particular. When ﬁney go to ﬁne straws and
paper clips and finally ﬁne soap solution ﬁney are trying to use those ﬁrings to make ﬁneir design.
This can be very frustrating and usually involved eiﬁner altering (or attempting to alter) ﬁne
properties of ﬁne materials or of ﬁne design. In the end it could mean a compromise, radical
alteration or, for some children, complete abandonment of one design for another or for just
empirically playing wiﬁn ﬁne materials to try to make sorrneﬁning. There was also a lot of
discussion going on between children, between ﬁne children who were able to turn ﬁneir designs
into real objects and ﬁnose who were experiencing geater degrees of frustration. The reason that
I did it ﬁnis way was because I wanted the children to be ﬁninking at ﬁne initial stages of design
about what it was they were trying to make with ﬁne soap bubbles, not ﬁne straws so much. My

idea in doing ﬁnis was that I knew there would be big surprises in what ﬁney actually did make if

their constructions were ﬁnree dimensional.

 

13Donald Schon (1990) The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey's Legacy to Education.

14Dewey's (1933) in How We Think suggests a concept of what drives inquiry. (The question is
inquiry into what?)

50
The final step, trying out ﬁneir constructions in the bubble solution, was always filled

wiﬁn discovery and surprise. They never got what ﬁney had anticipated except ﬁnose children
who rrnade simple two-dimensional shapes. Now ﬁnis could have gone ﬁnree ways (I figured):
children could have ﬁnen altered ﬁneir constructions to try to make someﬁning in particular wiﬁn
ﬁne bubble films, ﬁney could have just been interested in what ﬁney did make or ﬁney could have
again worked empirically with ﬁneir constructions and ﬁne bubble solution to try new ﬁnings out.
Wiﬁn the straws ﬁney mostly did the second ﬁning. In ﬁne next part of ﬁnis unit, where I give ﬁnem
wire to make ﬁneir constructions (which is much rrnore free-form and easily altered) virtually
eveyone ﬁnat I could see did ﬁne ﬁnird ﬁning. I decided to go to wire because I found ﬁneir use of
ﬁne straws very limited and ﬁney were just difﬁcult to work wiﬁn. Wire lends itself to accidental
forms and also to ﬁnree dimensions much nnore easily.

But back to Teton. I have asked him why he ﬁnought it was hard.

Teton: Because I was trying to make someﬁning and and I got one in my head and I

couldn't make it so I had to make another one but that one didn't work. Only two pieces

worked.
I asked Thomas next. Thomas tried to make huge complicated ﬁnings. Remember ﬁnat Thomas
competes in Lego design contests. He did a lot of making initial ﬁnings and ﬁnen altering ﬁnem
and building on additions. Again I ask him if he had a hard time.

Thomas: Well sort of, I don't remember, well I think I had a hard time, I don't really know

why.
I ask Andy. Andy: "Well first I was going to make something different but I found it too hard so I
made ﬁnis, it was hard too but I didn't give up." I ask him to show kids what he rrnade and ask
him if he drew it ﬁrst or if he had just made it. Andy: "I made it." Teache: "You made it first
before you drew it?" I ask him what was hard about his first one and he says it was just hard to
rrnake. Cory says that his was hard to make because he "had to make two stuck togeﬁner." He
points out Suni's which has ﬁnree stuck togeﬁner. He is talking about the joints made by ﬁne paper

clips.

51

\ Paper clip joint

Sorrne of ﬁnem wanted to rrnake ﬁnings wiﬁn very complicated joints wiﬁn many straws coming off
of one point. I ask Cory why he found ﬁnis so hard. Cory: "Because when I was looking at ﬁnis, I
didn't know how you put ﬁnose paper clips togeﬁner so I did it like ﬁnis . . . "

I show ﬁne children some shapes ﬁnat I have made and also Suni's and I return to what
Cory said about ﬁne paper clip joints. 1 show them Thomas's construcﬁon in which he rrnade a
different kind of joint in which he bent ﬁne paper clips. I ask if anybody else bent ﬁne paper clips.
Paula says ﬁnat she did it at home and ﬁnat she didn't know it would be alright to do at school. I
also show people how Thomas and Teton had bent ﬁne straws at their elbows so ﬁney could get
curves.

I return to asking different kids why ﬁney had a hard time making ﬁneir construcﬁons. I
ask An'gele. She says: "Well some, ﬁnat one ﬁning was ﬁne hardest if I can ﬁnd it, oh here, ﬁnat was
very hard because i was having problems. First I was trying to make ﬁne tetrahedron at ﬁne top,
see? First I rrnade ﬁne tetrahedron and ﬁnen I put all ﬁnese on and it turned out . . . I don't know
how I did it, it was very hard." Teacher: "It was hard to get it to look like you wanted it to look is
ﬁnat what you are saying?" An'gele: "Actually at ﬁrst I wasn't even trying to make ﬁnat, at first I
was trying to make a tetrahedron and ﬁnen it came out and I said well that's neat and I kept it."
Teacher: "So what you are saying is similar to what Teton was saying you couldn't make ﬁne ﬁning
ﬁnat you drew so he ended up making someﬁning else?" An'gele: "Actually I was really trying to
make a tetrahedron but I couldn't but it doesn't rrnatter."

I summarize ﬁnis discussion. I say ﬁnat I have heard ﬁnree ﬁnings, ﬁnat Teton said ﬁnat it
was hard to make ﬁne ﬁning ﬁnat he had drawn, Cory and Suni saying ﬁnat it was hard to use ﬁne
paper clips and materials, and An'gele saying "I was just trying to make a tetrahedron and it was

hard to get it to be shaped like a tetrahedron and when I tried, it came out wrong but I liked ﬁne

52
shape ﬁnat it was so I kept it." I restate ﬁnis "So actually what happened was that you were able to

make a shape ﬁnat you liked better." She agees.

Sakti shows us her's and says ﬁnat she found it hard to have a joint wiﬁn ﬁnree paper clips
and one wiﬁn two. i ask if she is saying ﬁnat it was hard to make it ﬁnis way or to know ﬁnat it
needed to be made ﬁnis way. She says ﬁnat "it was hard to know ﬁnat it would need ﬁnree paper
clips ﬁnere."

The children have been talking about ﬁne struggles they found in trying to implement
ﬁneir designs. These struggles arise because of a lack of knowledge about ﬁne properties of ﬁne
materials ﬁney were working wiﬁn and an inability to articulate, to specify and describe, ﬁne exact
qualities of ﬁne desired construcﬁon. In ﬁneir talk, ﬁne children indicate various strategies for
dealing with ﬁnese difficulties--when they discover what ﬁne properties of ﬁne materials ﬁney are
working wiﬁn are, ﬁne design changes to accommodate ﬁnis. The children could "discover" how to
specify and enact ﬁne steps needed in construction because of ﬁneir vision of ﬁne end product. Or
(as most do) ﬁney change their vision of ﬁne end product. In each case ﬁnere is an interplay
between design and implementation-«ﬁne two are inseparable. The final test of wheﬁner or not a
construcﬁon‘s faults make it undesirable comes when ﬁne child tries to use it. The only child in
ﬁne above discussion to actually try her design in ﬁne bubble solution was An'gele. Note she is
ﬁne one to say: "Actually I was trying to make a tetrahedron but I couldn't but it doesn't matter."
When she tried it out, the undesired ﬁning ﬁnat she had rrnade was suddenly desirable.

I get back to ﬁnose children who had nnade someﬁning wiﬁnout designing it first. I ask if
ﬁnis was easier or harder. Cory says ﬁnat it was easier. Cory: "I didn't design mine because I had
it in my head." I ask him how ﬁnat is different from designing it on paper. Cory: "Unn, because
it's different because it's in your head and ﬁnere's no paper in ﬁnere and you just have to make it."
I ask him if he did have an idea of what he wanted ﬁnough first and he says yes but he was able to
just make it. Then he drew it. Dan also says ﬁnis so I ask again if ﬁney already had an idea in ﬁneir
head how ﬁnis was different from designing it, other ﬁnen just writing it down. Thomas says: "Oh

I ﬁnink I know, designing it means like building it but designing it really means ﬁnat you have a

53
picture and it's easier to design it in your head because you can see what it might look like but if

you try to draw it it might not look like it 'cause it's easier to design in your head because when
you draw it's real hard. Tity says: "And you don't know what it's going to look like later." Suni
says: "You can see it in your head and you can try to draw ﬁnat as best as you can." Thomas: "But
you might draw it wrong." Suni: "It takes time." i ask him if when it is in your head it is a design
and he says yes because "when it is in your head you can ﬁnink about it and remember it."
Thomas agees ﬁnat a picture in your head is a design "but you have to have it in your head for all
ﬁne time ﬁnat you are making it."

In ﬁne next two classes we moved from talking about specific strategies ﬁne children
developed for dealing with ﬁneir design problems to talking philosophically about ﬁne meaning of
the term. In each instance, ﬁne children can be heard to be weighing ﬁneir designs and ﬁne
problems they found in implementing ﬁnem against ﬁne effects ﬁney achieved. The decision to
keep someﬁning ﬁnat has not come out as desired or to continue to work to achieve a pre-
determined end is rnade by weighing ﬁne original "vision" against what is actually acinieved. The
f‘unal value is placed when ﬁne construcﬁon is used. When ﬁnis happens, no matter what ﬁne
qualiﬁes of ﬁne construcﬁon, someﬁning new is seen. The quesﬁon is how much is ﬁnis unexpected
result valued by both the children and myself. This is what determines wheﬁner or not new
science is discovered.

In ﬁne next class I give ﬁne children ﬂexible wire and plasﬁc aquarium tubing to create
bubble construcﬁons. This is, on ﬁne one hand, easier to work wiﬁn, hence designs are easier to
make, but ﬁne material also lends itself to geater degrees of unexpected results when dipped irnto
ﬁne bubble soluﬁon. I invite ﬁnrougin ﬁnis material a heightened level of play between ﬁne
potenﬁai to control and ﬁne realizaﬁon of ﬁne unexpected. In ﬁnis way I hope to sﬁmuiate boﬁn ﬁne

process of design and experimentaﬁon and ﬁne discovery of new science.

54
Problems of design and their link to science.

February 25ﬁn
Today I introduce ﬁne wire and also ﬁnin, ﬂexible, plasﬁc tubes ﬁnat ﬁney can use to make
bubble construcﬁons. I tell ﬁnem I did ﬁnis so ﬁnat ﬁney would be able to make curvey things. I

had made a couple shapes: a sort of pretzel out of pipe and a helix out of wire.

g Q

I suggest ﬁnat ﬁney can use ﬁne wire and pipe or ﬁnose and the straws too.

    

Tity asks how ﬁney are to know how long a wire ﬁney will need and I tell her ﬁnat is part
of designing it.

I ask ﬁnem what ﬁney think ﬁne helix would look like when dipped in ﬁne bubble soluﬁon.
Cory says he doesn't know, "Maybe ﬁnere might be noﬁning." An'gele says: "I ﬁnink it would look
like all circles because ﬁnat's mosﬁy circles but ﬁnat little wire ﬁnat goes ﬁnrough, ﬁnat might pop
one of the bubbles you would have to get ﬁnat wet ﬁrst before you can make ﬁnem." Thomas says
ﬁnat he thinks it will look like somean ﬁnat he can't describe but he ﬁninks ﬁnat "it will cover ﬁnis
and cover all these also and cover ﬁnis end and it will be like ﬁnis is all glass and ﬁnis is holding all
ﬁne glass up." Cory repeats "ﬁnee might be nothing." I ask him why he says ﬁnis but he says he
doesn't know. Then he says ﬁnat he sort of agrees wiﬁn Thomas because ﬁnere is sonneﬁning inside.
Danping says ﬁnat it will look like a "piece ﬁnat goes around, I mean ﬁne inside part, it will go like
ﬁnis, it will kind of twist around." I try it. Many children start to call it a slide. Cory says it looks

like "sort of glass inside of it." Suni says it looks like a glass of water.

55
I ask what they ﬁnink ﬁne pretzel shape will look like and ﬁney all say a circle. I try it. It is

a series of intersecﬁng planes ﬁnat curve. I say it reminds me of ﬁne silver dollar. I point out how
ﬁne shapes are moveable because ﬁne construcﬁon isn't rigid. I do ﬁnis and get ﬁne bubble planes
to rrnove in and out of each oﬁner and make different configurations. An'gele says ﬁnat it reminds
her of a fan. Andy says a ﬂower. I say that ﬁnis would be an okay descripﬁon of a predicﬁon
when ﬁney are wriﬁng.

I ask ﬁnem to go back to ﬁneir seats and start designing what ﬁney would like to make
wiﬁn the materials ﬁnat are now available to ﬁnem. Then I ask ﬁnem to make predicﬁons about
what ﬁne bubbles will look like before they try them out.

They spend ﬁne rest of ﬁne class doing ﬁnis.

I have given the children new materials wiﬁn new properﬁes to work wiﬁn now. These
materials are boﬁn easier to use and harder to control. I invite ﬁne unexpected in our results. The
children respond to ﬁnis wiﬁn a reducﬁon in ﬁneir struggles over tryirng to construct a parﬁcular
design. Raﬁner children now seen to spend much more ﬁme reworking ﬁneir construcﬁons as
ﬁney try it out in ﬁne bubble soluﬁon. The acts of design, construcﬁon and empirical work wiﬁn
ﬁne construcﬁon are compressed.

The new constructions as I have said are much less controlled. When a child makes an
apparenﬁy two-dimensional heart shape out of wire, it is rarely twodimensional. It is always
warped in mulﬁple direcﬁons and asymmetric in ouﬁine. The wire itself once bent never
becomes smooﬁn and straight again—it retains litﬁe kinks and crenellaﬁons. All of ﬁnese
irregulariﬁes have repercussions when ﬁne construcﬁons are used in ﬁne soap soluﬁon. The most
obvious manifestaﬁon of ﬁnis is in a change in the children's attempts to describe ﬁneir creaﬁons in
our subsequent talk. Raﬁner ﬁnen using geometric terms which assume a symmetry, ﬁne children
in ﬁne rnext day's conversaﬁon resort to metaphor. This is ferﬁle scienﬁﬁcaily. Metaphor is a form
of language use that is fundamentally comparaﬁve. It invites discussions of sirnilariﬁes and

differences boﬁn descripﬁvely and funcﬁonally. The new object-how does it look like a water

S6
slide and how not? How does it act like a water slide and how not? This talk is embedded in ﬁne

conversaﬁons in ﬁne rest of ﬁne unit and it is instrumental in ﬁne increased intensity of our talk

about ﬁne science raﬁner ﬁnan ﬁne design facets of ﬁne unit.

Discussion of science increases.

February 27ﬁn

I ask if anyone has ﬁnished ﬁneir design and tried it in ﬁne bubble soluﬁon. A couple
have like Cory, Danping. I ﬁnd Danping's creaﬁon (a helix like ﬁne one I made) and ask lner what
it looked like when she dipped it. She says it looked like a piece of glass. I ask what oﬁner people
ﬁnink it might look like. Timmy says a slide. Emily says a water slide. Cory says a bubble slide.
Sueh-yen says a bubble can. I ask Danping to dip it in. When she does ﬁne children see a rainbow
at ﬁne top of ﬁne helix.

Suni says ﬁnat when he heard Danping say ﬁnat it looked like a glass, he ﬁnought she
meant ﬁnat ﬁne bubble would be all over the shape (I ﬁnink he means like Sueh-yen's "bubble
can"). He says: "I ﬁnink ﬁnat is what it will turn out to be if you don't have ﬁnis middle part. I
ﬁnink it will be like a big piece of glass if it doesn't have ﬁnis ﬁning in ﬁne middle." I ask him what
he means and he says ﬁnat it will just have a bubble around the outside not in ﬁne inside. I say
ﬁnat we should try ﬁnat. (We do later.)

I pick up Emily's who has made a heart out of ﬁne wire and ask what ﬁne kids ﬁnirnk ﬁnat
would look like wiﬁn bubbles. Kwanhyo says that she ﬁninks it will look like a "piece of heart."
Thomas says: "It will look just like that (ﬁne heart) but with glass over it." I ask Emily to try it.
When she does Thomas says ﬁnat is what he meant. Cory says that ﬁnere are rainbows inside of it.
Many kids exclaim over ﬁnis. The prominence of colors in all of ﬁnese construcﬁons wiﬁn the wire
is because of ﬁne irregulariﬁes in ﬁne construcﬁons ﬁnat ﬁne children make. It is really hard to
bend ﬁnese wires ﬁnat ﬁney are using wiﬁnout introducing kinks and curvature changes which are

not regular. Also planar construcﬁons like ﬁnis heart are not planar but are usually warped in

S7
irregular ways. These two ﬁnings 'cause ﬁne bubble surfaces to be bent in a number of different

direcﬁons. This is not an effect ﬁnat we were able to get wiﬁn ﬁne straws and paper clips. Anyway
when ﬁne bubble ﬁlms are bent in these ways the children see ﬁnrough ﬁne ﬁlms easier and ﬁne
ﬁlms are under anisotropic tensions so ﬁnat the light is refracﬁng differenﬁy and ﬁne children are
better able to see the effects of ﬁnis. Cory and ﬁnen oﬁners start naming ﬁne colors ﬁnat ﬁney see.
Then Cory noﬁces ﬁnat ﬁne rainbow disappears and "once the rainbow is gone ﬁne bubble pops."
T'lne bubble gets ﬁninner and ﬁne colors are dependent on ﬁnickness and disappear as ﬁne bubble
gets ﬁninner and ﬁninner.

Then I pick up Thomas's construcﬁon which is out of ﬁne pipe material raﬁner ﬁnan ﬁne
wire. He has made a series of curves which he has put togeﬁner into a sort of dome not unlike ﬁne
design ﬁnat Teton was trying to make out of ﬁne straws. His construcﬁon ﬁnougln is huge, bigger
ﬁnan the plasﬁc basins ﬁnat we have ﬁne bubble soluﬁon in. He has also been doing ﬁne kind of
adding on to his construcﬁon that I noted in ﬁne part of ﬁnis about ﬁne straws. Thomas says ﬁnat
he doesn't know if it will work because maybe it is too big to ﬁt. 1 ask him if ﬁnis is what he had
originally designed and he says yes. Now ﬁnis is not what he had originally drawn but as he
alteed his construcﬁon while he was making it he also went to his drawing and alteed ﬁnat. He
was very careful to do ﬁnis wiﬁn each step of his changes. I ﬁnink ﬁnis is inteesﬁng because often
ﬁne children didn't build what ﬁney had designed but usually ﬁney waited unﬁl ﬁney had
completed a structure ﬁnat they liked before they re—drew ﬁneir design. After Thomas tells rrne
ﬁnat he made what he designed I ask if oﬁner people were able to make exactly what ﬁney had
designed. Some say yes and some say no. I ask Teton and he says not really. He says ﬁnat he
drew his picture and conﬁnued to ﬁnink about it as he worked. Again note how ﬁne acts of design
are a dialecﬁc between construcﬁon and realizaﬁon, materials and ﬁneir properﬁes, vision of ﬁne
ﬁnal product and results.

I ask if people can predict what ﬁney ﬁnink Thomas's construcﬁon will look like wiﬁn
bubbles. This marks ﬁne beginning to ﬁne children's talk in which increased and ferﬁle use of

metaphor can be seen. Cory says "nothing or lots of circles and a rainbow inside." Alyosha says

5 8
"like a circle on the bottom and whatever ﬁnose are (Thomas suggests circles) and from ﬁnose on

ﬁne both sides, ﬁney go all ﬁne way up there." Cory: "It would look like a butterﬂy." Shumshad:
"It already looks like a rainbow." Dan: "Like a wood basket where you put wood." Thomas:
"Noﬁning I don't ﬁnink it will ﬁt in." Then he tries it and gets a lot of it in. It makes a very
complex set of intersecﬁng curves. Kwanhyo: "It looks like a glass basket, ﬁne top of it." Cory:
"Whenever he moves it, rainbows come, but it only works for ﬁne sides." Teacher: "Do you have
to move it to get the rainbows?" Thomas says no, Cory says yes. An'gele asks if he could dip in
ﬁne oﬁner part ﬁnat he nnissed before and I ask what difference she ﬁninks ﬁnat would make. She
says ﬁnat she ﬁninks it would look like a rainbow. "And maybe it would go up and down and also
across." I try it by dipping in one side and ﬁnen ﬁne other. I ask if it did what she ﬁnouglnt it
would and she says sort of. Cory asks me to do it again because he says ﬁnat he saw ﬁne bubbles
shifﬁng inside ﬁne construcﬁon. "There was a crystal ball right here and ﬁnen at ﬁne back of ﬁne
wall, it was weird." Tity says ﬁnat it looked like a sunset "because ﬁnese (the curved tubes) look
like a half of ﬁne sun." Suni says that he saw the back wall and crystal ball also and that he
thought ﬁney looked like "a sun and ﬁne sun's baby."

Next ﬁney conﬁnue on designing, building and tesﬁng ﬁneir construcﬁons.

Much of ﬁne children's descripﬁon of these new construcﬁons makes use of metaphor.
The increased complexity of ﬁne new design has sﬁmulated metaphor use-ﬁne shapes aren't given
to easy descripﬁon. Working on ﬁne science means developirng language, ageeing on meanings:
developing a community irn the discourse community sense. At ﬁne start ﬁne use of metaphor
enables difference/ similarity comparisons which is ferﬁle scienﬁfically—it invites conversaﬁons
about what a child does mean, exacﬁy. Also the use of metaphor has implied explanaﬁon
embedded wiﬁnin it, ﬁnese words are not purely descripﬁve. l ﬁnink ﬁnis is because ﬁne metaphors
are funcﬁonal words as well as descripﬁve. The words ﬁne children use-saws, rainbows, baskets,
glass, slides--imply someﬁning about ﬁne way ﬁne object looks and also how ﬁne object is made

and how it can funcﬁon. Again ﬁnis echoes Schon's ideas about ﬁne use of metaphor in

S9

engineering and urban design.15 This is where and how ﬁney become feﬁle gound for scienﬁfic

discussion.

In ﬁne next class ﬁne children conﬁnue to talk about ﬁneir strategies for ﬁne construcﬁon of
ﬁneir designs. Note ﬁney are acﬁvely reworking ﬁneir construcﬁons as ﬁney try ﬁnem out in ﬁne
bubble soluﬁon. Their use of metaphor goes from being descripﬁve to becoming generaﬁve
scienﬁﬁcally--I have a role in ﬁnis ﬁnough. I ﬁnink because there is an increased discussion of ﬁne
science, raﬁner ﬁnan of ﬁne acts of design (which was primarily individualisﬁc), ﬁnee is a coming
togeﬁner of ideas and people working togeﬁner on one phenomenon. There would suddenly seem
to be a community talking together about shared quesﬁons, proﬁﬁng from differences and

similariﬁes.
Discussion of science and the role of metaphor.

March 3rd

We start class looking at some of ﬁne construcﬁons ﬁne children have rrnade. I ask if
people found it easy to make the shape ﬁnat ﬁney designed and I get a lot of no's. Cory says ﬁnat
he had trouble because his was too big. Andy says his was hard because he didn't really know
what to make. Then he says he made someﬁning and ﬁnen drew it. I ask if some people found
ﬁnat ﬁney tried the ﬁning ﬁnat ﬁney had made and then altered it when ﬁney tried it in ﬁne bubble
soluﬁon. Tity says ﬁnat she made a heart and ﬁnen when she tried it it didn't work so she changed
it so it looked like a wing. She says ﬁnat Shumshad told her to make it smaller but she didn't
want to. She says ﬁnat she ﬁnought it didn't work because it was too big. I pull out a very large
construcﬁon and ask if the kids think it is too big to make a bubble. Some say yes and some say

no. Suni says it looks like a helmet. Paula says it looks like a basket. This is An'gele's. She

 

lsSchon, D.A. (1984) Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting
in social policy.

60
originally rrnade a chain of hearts but after trying them in the bubble soluﬁon she changed ﬁne

design so ﬁnat ﬁne hearts were nested inside each other. It also has a handle. I ask her what she
was ﬁninking about when she rrnade it. She says that she couldn't make it come out like Tity's and
it's not finished yet. Suni says ﬁnat he tried to make somean similar. He ﬁninks it will look like
a glass over it.

I ask ﬁnem what they mean when ﬁney say it's going to look like glass. Suni says "like a
bubble ﬁnat's kind of like shiny and you can see ﬁnrough it and ﬁne bubbles shine just like glass." I
dip it in and ask Suni if ﬁnat is what he had predicted it to look like arnd he says yeah. I point out
part of ﬁne bubble at the top where the wire is all crinkly and ﬁne bubble shows a lot of curvature
changes. Kids say ﬁney see a rainbow.

In ﬁne second half of ﬁnis discussion, ﬁne children start to have inspired ideas about ﬁne
science. Please note how ﬁnis is ﬁed up wiﬁn ﬁne use of metaphor and experimentaﬁon. The
science is dependent boﬁn on how observaﬁons are described and how ﬁney can be acted on. This
is at the core of Schon's ideas of metaphor as generaﬁve in design problems. The metaphors
embedded in design capture aspects of ﬁne problem ﬁne design is constructed to address. In
irnplemenﬁng ﬁne design oﬁner aspects of the metaphor and of ﬁne problem become highlighted.
This is generaﬁve.

We look at anoﬁner construcﬁon ﬁnat no one claims. It is a spiral with no central axis.

Suni says ﬁnat he ﬁninks it won't work as it is rrnade, you have to somehow close off ﬁne ends.
Emily says ﬁnat she ﬁninks it will make anoﬁner water slide. Thomas says ﬁnat he ﬁninks it will
look like "well ﬁnis is just a predicﬁon but I think it will be covered here and it will be like a cone

but ﬁnis won't be ﬁlled because it's not connected but ﬁnis would sort of be like a can I ﬁnink." I

6 1
ask if ﬁnat is what Suni meant when he said it should be connected. Sueh-yen ﬁninks it will look

like ﬁne helix. I ask if at ﬁne top where whoever made it had put a sort of circle but not quite
closed it off ﬁnere would be a bubble. Some say yes and some say no. Sakﬁ says yes because it's a
loop. I ask if she ﬁninks ﬁne loops in ﬁne spiral will make a bubble. She says that she doesn't ﬁnink
so, it will make a bubble at ﬁne top but not furﬁner down. I try it as it is. Noﬁning happens and I
ask why. Thomas says because air is getﬁng into it. I ask what he means by ﬁnat. Thomas: "I
ﬁnink bubbles trap ﬁne air inside but if ﬁnere is a hole in ﬁne bubble it will just pop. like if you, if
ﬁnere's a litﬁe hole, it blows up like a liglnt bulb, if you make a litﬁe hole in a light bulb it will
blow up, on or off." This is a very interesﬁng metaphor to examine in ﬁnis context. The science
ﬁnat we have been working on all ﬁnese months is coming togeﬁner here as are ﬁne children on ﬁnis
one quesﬁon and set of ideas. For ﬁne next few paragraphs of ﬁnis discussion ﬁnere is apparent a
coalescence of children ﬁninking and working togeﬁnerua community.

I squeeze ﬁne rings togeﬁner:

 

and dip it in. Suni says he knew ﬁnis would work. I ask if they ﬁnink ﬁnat the pieces of wire have
to actually touch each oﬁner to get a bubble. They all yell yes at me and Suni says ﬁnat is what he
was trying to say before. I try just getﬁng ﬁnem real close wiﬁnout touching and try it. It doesn't
work. I ask why doesn't it work. Thomas says because too much air is getﬁng irn "like a light
bulb." Alyosha says ﬁnat is ﬁne same ﬁning wiﬁn balloons. "If ﬁnee is a hole in a balloon all ﬁne air
will come out." I rerrnind Suni what he had said about ﬁne spiral making a tube and ask why he

ﬁninks that didn't happen. Suni: "See if you connect boﬁn of ﬁnese ﬁnen it will make a tube." He

62
wants nne to make circles at either end. He does ﬁnis and Cory points out ﬁnat it is litﬁer. We try

ﬁnis and it makes bubbles on ﬁne two ends but not in ﬁne middle. Suni: "I ﬁnink I know ﬁne reason,
'cause see ﬁnis is smaller and ﬁnese are different sizes ﬁnan these two, ﬁney have to be in ﬁne same
order." Shumshad wants to make a loop in the middle and he tries it and gets bubbles in ﬁne
loops. I point out ﬁnat ﬁnere are sﬁll no bubbles between loops.

Suni wants me to try a piece of ﬁne original wire which forms a slinky sort of shape. I get
one. He ﬁninks it is important ﬁnat ﬁne loops are all ﬁne same size. The kids ﬁnink ﬁnat would
work. Thomas says it won't work because "ﬁnere's no support, it can go up but it can not go
sideways. If it went sideways it would be hard for it. It's not too easy to go sideways, I don't
know why but I don't ﬁnink it will work." I ask Suni what he ﬁninks of what Thomas said and he
says he disagees, he sﬁli ﬁninks ﬁnere will be bubbles along ﬁne side. He ﬁnen says ﬁnat he isn't
sure if ﬁne bubbles will be from ﬁne inside (like ﬁne helix) or on ﬁne outside. Shumshad says ﬁnat
he ﬁninks ﬁney can't come from ﬁne inside, it won't work from ﬁne middle unless I squeeze it.
Danping says: "It will turn out noﬁning because it doesn't have a ﬁning in the middle so I don't
ﬁnink . . . ﬁne bubble will just follow ﬁne inside part. 50 it has noﬁning to follow."

I try it and noﬁning happens. Thomas and Suni say ﬁnat ﬁnere wasn't enough ﬁnings to
hold it and ﬁnere has to be anoﬁner part. I ask about Shumshad's suggesﬁon. Danping says she
ﬁninks it will work because ﬁnen it will have a circle. I try it and it does work. Cory says to let it
go (lne ﬁninks the bubbles will extend?). I do and ﬁne bubbles break. Cory says that he ﬁninks he
knows why it won't make a bubble wiﬁnout ﬁne inner axis. "Because maybe ﬁne water is slipping
out and it has noﬁning to hold it in." Cory suggests connecﬁng the wire loops wiﬁn anoﬁner wire.
An'gele says it didn't make a bubble because just like everyone keeps calling ﬁne helix bubble a
slide, "maybe ﬁne bubble keeps sliding down into the water and if you blink your eyes you can't

see it."

There is some talk about their strategies for ﬁne construcﬁon of ﬁneir designs. They sﬁll

remark on ﬁne frustraﬁons of trying to realize an ideal design but much more ﬁney are acﬁvely

63
reworking ﬁneir construcﬁons as ﬁney try ﬁnem out in ﬁne bubble soluﬁon. The children seem

much more ready to abandon iniﬁal ideas about their construcﬁon as ﬁney ﬁnd new and
interesﬁng ﬁnings in what ﬁney have made. As ﬁne children talk about their designs now ﬁney are
actually talking about the results they obtained when ﬁney tried them in ﬁne bubble soluﬁon and
they talk in metaphors. Their use of metaphor goes from being descripﬁve to becoming
scienﬁﬁcally generaﬁve. This is enabled by me irn a manner analogous to ﬁne way I described
searching for a ﬁneme during ﬁne ﬁrst conversaﬁon ﬁne class had about bubbles: I am listening for
commonaliﬁes in ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁne children say but now not just commonaliﬁes wiﬁnin ﬁne class but
also ﬁnings ﬁnat resonate wiﬁn my stores of scienﬁfic knowledge. Ifl hear a number of children
saying ﬁnings ﬁnat are ferﬁle scienﬁﬁcaily, I work to make ﬁne science come out. I do ﬁnis ﬁnrough
quesﬁons rather ﬁnan explanaﬁons: I pose quesﬁons. I want ﬁne children to conﬁnue to offer ﬁneir
own ideas and explanaﬁons and share them with each other. I ﬁnink because ﬁnere is an increased
discussion of ﬁne science, ﬁnere is a coming togeﬁner of ideas and people working togeﬁner on one
phenomenon: the core of a community in an idealistic senses: people talking togeﬁner about
shared quesﬁons, proﬁﬁng from differences and sinnilariﬁes.

In ﬁne next class ﬁnere is even more explanatory scienﬁﬁc theory making by ﬁne children.
Note ﬁneir ﬁneories about how bubbles work are inﬁmately ﬁed wiﬁn statements about the design
of ﬁne experiment. There is an implicit recogniﬁon of interrelaﬁonship of ﬁne design (which ﬁney
have made) and resulting bubbles. The ﬁnings that ﬁney have seen and are trying to describe and
explain ﬁney know that ﬁney have made—ﬁne result must be explained by a combirnaﬁon of
attribuﬁon to ﬁneir own acﬁons and ﬁne qualiﬁes of ﬁne bubble soluﬁon itself. There is an implicit
appreciaﬁon of the interdependence of ﬁne phenomenon and ﬁnemselves as acﬁve shapers of ﬁne
results. The results are dependent upon what they do. Again note ﬁne evidence of a community
wiﬁn ﬁne children working on ﬁne same idea and talking in a manner about ﬁneir construction and

ideas ﬁnat has been developed and validated ﬁnrough ﬁne organic process of ﬁne community itself.

64
How discussing the act of design facilitates a recognition in“ human agency in science.

March Sﬁn

We look at Andy's creation. Clnildren say it looks like a hat.

I1]‘\\\

I dip it in and say ﬁnat in one place the bubbles seem to go straight across but in oﬁner places the

bubbles come together like in ﬁne tetrahedron.

   
 

intersections
of bubble films

I ask why in one place do ﬁney do ﬁnat but not in other places. Thomas says that it's because ﬁnere
is a triangle. I ask him what difference that makes and then if he is seeing a triangle in ﬁne wire
(because I didn't see ﬁnat). He says yes and shows me where and I ask if he means a part ﬁnat is
curvey and he says yes but ﬁnat doesn't matter. Suni says that the wires are like a triangle and it's
because ﬁne wires come together into ﬁnree that ﬁne tetrahedron effect is achieved. Abeni says
that she thinks the straight part of the bubbles are because ﬁnere the wires are straight but in ﬁne
oﬁner part ﬁne wires corrne togeﬁner. Suni says ﬁnat if the wires went differenﬁy and made a

different shape so would ﬁne bubbles. Shumshad has noﬁced something and poses a quesﬁon

65

about it. He asks why in one place do ﬁne bubbles curve up. Suni says because ﬁnere is "no
gavity over here, I ﬁnink ﬁnere‘s . . . it doesn't feel a lot of gavity that holds it down so ﬁney just
try to sﬁck up and sﬁck together so ﬁney make a kind of a hole." Cory says ﬁnat ﬁney sﬁck up
because of ﬁne wire and ﬁnat's the way Andy rrnade it and he tells us to look very closely and we
will see ﬁnat the wires aren't really straight, ﬁney're curved. He points out ﬁnat we need to look
from different angles. It can look straight from one angle and curved from anoﬁner. Then he says
ﬁnat "maybe the bubbles have to hook on to someﬁning so ﬁney have to go to ﬁnere (creaﬁng ﬁne
curve)"

I break one of ﬁne bubble ﬁlms by mistake and ask if anyone noﬁced what happened
when I did ﬁnat. Cory says ﬁnat ﬁne irntersecﬁons between ﬁne bubbles which deﬁned ﬁne shape
we were talking about moved. We do some more of ﬁnis, popping different ones. At ﬁrst we get
a triangle and then as we progessively pop bubbles we get ﬁne circle. Shumshad says ﬁnat when
he pops it, it causes ﬁne intersecﬁon between bubble ﬁlms to move down. We do it again.
Shumslund says that the triangle bubbles hold ﬁne bubble creaﬁon up and when ﬁney break it goes
down. Suni says that he ﬁninks it wouldn't do ﬁnat if ﬁne wire shape was a square. He seems to
be saying ﬁnat ﬁne shape created by ﬁne intersecﬁon is created by ﬁne wires being too close
together and wiﬁn a square ﬁne wires would be furﬁner apart. Cory says ﬁnat he ﬁninks popping
one effects ﬁne others because "if you look very close, I ﬁnink ﬁne bubbles go over ﬁne wiring, they
hook onto the wiring."

Suni suggests ﬁnat if ﬁnere were a wire across ﬁne bottom of ﬁnem it would hold ﬁne circle
even with the oﬁner bubbles. Then ﬁne bubble would be able to "hook on." Shumshad suggests
ﬁnat we pop ﬁne bubbles from ﬁne bottom ﬁrst raﬁner ﬁnen from ﬁne top like we had been doing.
This changes ﬁne whole ﬁning. The irntersecﬁon moves up, different bubbles get differnenﬁally
bigge and in ﬁne end we have windows in ﬁne upper spaces between ﬁne wires. Shumshad says
ﬁnat he ﬁnouglnt when he did ﬁnis that by popping one of ﬁne bottom ﬁlms he would have popped

ﬁnem all. He says he ﬁnought ﬁnis because ﬁne ﬁlm he chose to pop was touching all of ﬁne oﬁners.

66
An'gele says ﬁnat she knows why one part pops before another part. She says ﬁnat one

part "has better gavity and plus ﬁnis part was sort of harder to make and ﬁnis part is bendy and
it's harder for ﬁne bubble to go bendy then straight." Alyosha says ﬁnat ﬁne bubble intersecﬁon is
in ﬁne posiﬁon it is because ﬁne bubbles hold it up and ﬁne air is pushing it up. Suni ﬁninks that
something funny happens, a funny shape is formed when just one bubble is popped.

We start again making and tesﬁng ﬁne wire creaﬁons.

In ﬁnis class the geometric and metaphorical descripﬁons of ﬁne bubble construcﬁon is
closely ﬁed wiﬁn ﬁne children's explanatory scientiﬁc theory making. Their ﬁneories about how
bubbles work (ﬁnat ﬁnere is a play between gavity and the frame of the structure which
determines ﬁne placement of bubble intersecﬁons, ﬁnat the existernce of ﬁne bubble ﬁlms
ﬁnemselves are dependent upon the ability of ﬁne bubble soluﬁon to "hook" on to ﬁne wires).
Explanaﬁon of phenomena is inﬁmately ﬁed with statements about ﬁne design of ﬁne experiment.
The children as ﬁney work on ﬁnese ideas are talking togetheruﬁnere is an increasing sense of
ideas shared and growing because they are being shared. Again I feel ﬁnat ﬁnis is a manifestaﬁon
of ﬁne community developed around a purpose and shared acﬁvity in ﬁne class.

In ﬁne next, our ﬁnal class about bubbles, we re-focus on why ﬁnere are colors, in
rainbows, hologams, bubbles-the science of diffracﬁon and lightuﬁne principles in each context
are ﬁne same. The class moves from a consideraﬁon of bubbles to ﬁnirnking about ﬁne applicability
of ﬁneir ideas to oﬁner phenomena. Being able to do ﬁnis is because a design has boﬁn a
background and a foreground. The apparent and obvious part of ﬁne design is ﬁne foreground.
That is composed of ﬁne ﬁnings we have been doing: working with bubbles, talking about ﬁnat
phenomenon. We can move though from ﬁnis design to anoﬁner by recomposing ﬁne foreground
from oﬁner parts of ﬁne background, by rearranging ﬁne components of ﬁne foregound to
accommodate ﬁnose. In ﬁne class and ﬁne teaching the progress of ﬁnis follows ﬁne same pattern of
our oﬁner exploraﬁons and conversaﬁons: we move between observaﬁon, metaphor, explanaﬁon,

doing things, use of tools and of ﬁne community. These and ﬁneir interrelaﬁonships compose ﬁne

67
pattern, ﬁne design, of ﬁne teaching as well as of ﬁne community of ﬁne class itself. Community,

because it reﬂects ﬁne pattern and design can be dynamic, its focus can shift and move.

The last class: A consideration of background as well as foreground.
What this can mean in science.

March 26ﬁn

This is ﬁne last class we are going to have about bubbles. Kaﬁny and I have planned a
ﬁeld trip to the local children's science museum for our next class. At ﬁne museum, ﬁnere is a
special exhibit about hologams and lasers. I wish the children especially to work wiﬁn ﬁnis
exhibit and draw some connecﬁons to our work with bubbles. For ﬁnis reason we spend quite a
lot of ﬁnne talking about what holograms look like and discussing examples of holograms ﬁne
children have seen (i.e. Princess Leia in Star Wars, on credit cards). We examine examples on my
credit cards.

I ask what they see when they look at ﬁne hologams on ﬁne cards. Abeni says ﬁnat it is
shiny and has rainbow colors. Tity says ﬁnat it's silvery all over. Sueh-yen saw that it reﬂected
liglnt. He also saw ﬁnat ﬁne bird changed shape as he moved it and ﬁne backgound reﬂected his
face. I ask ﬁne kids who hadn't seen Star Wars if ﬁney now had an idea what a hologam was.
Shumshad says that it looks real and it moves. Ennily says ﬁnat it's not real ﬁnough.

I ask where they ﬁnought ﬁne different colors came from. The children say ﬁne light. I say
ﬁnat ﬁne light isn't different colors is it? Dan says ﬁnat yes ﬁne liglnts are different colors. He points
to diffeent liglnts in ﬁne room which are different levels of white. Emily says ﬁnat ﬁne light sort of
reﬂects itself to make colors. Thomas says ﬁnat we could do an expeiment wiﬁn a prism, ﬁne light
may not be different colors but ﬁne prism can show us. I ask him if he is saying ﬁnat ﬁne white
light can be many colors and he says ﬁnat it can be ﬁne colors of ﬁne sun. I ask what are ﬁne colors
of ﬁne sun and he starts to list: blue, purple, . . . . Oﬁner children start to disagree. Oﬁners agree

and conﬁnue to list ﬁne colors of ﬁne spectrum. I ask Thomas if he is talking about a rainbow and

68
he says yes. He says ﬁnat ﬁne white light can make ﬁne rainbow light and wiﬁn a prism you might

be able to see it.

I ask what other people ﬁninkuhow did ﬁne hologam get ﬁne colors in it. Paula says ﬁnat
ﬁne colors in ﬁne rainbow come from white light. Then she says ﬁnat on ﬁne hologram ﬁne colors
corrne from ﬁne light reﬂecﬁng on ﬁne silver pattern. Emily says ﬁnat there is "an invisible rainbow
and it can go ﬁnrougln our school roof and it can go through anng and when it touches ﬁnat,
ﬁnat silvery piece it would shine 'cause you know how a rainbow is like ﬁnis and a sun is riglnt up
here and it moves around in a circle, it could reﬂect 'cause if ﬁney were on opposite sides it could
just go like ﬁnat and it would sﬁll go down." I ask if the invisible rainbow comes from ﬁne sun or
if it is always in the sky and we can see it 'cause the light goes through. "It's in ﬁne sky 'cause the
light goes ﬁnrough." Danping disagrees wiﬁn Emily. "1 don't ﬁnink ﬁnere's such a ﬁning as an
invisible rainbow. I ﬁnink on ﬁne credit card ﬁnere's sort of like a plasﬁc piece ﬁnat's cut out like an
eagle and they put some kinds of ﬁnirngs on it and ﬁnen when ﬁne liglnt shines on it it just comes
out like a rainbow." I say but ﬁne light is white. Sine responds: "I know but when ﬁne light shines
on the plasﬁc I ﬁnink ﬁney put someﬁning on the plastic to make it shine, so it makes it shirne like a
rainbow." I ask her if she is saying it's someﬁning in ﬁne plasﬁc and she says yes.

Shumshad agrees with Danping "a little bit." He says if ﬁney cut out a piece ﬁnat's silver
and put sorrne kind of "nnedicine or someﬁning ﬁnat's kind of shiny and ﬁnen ﬁney put a plasﬁc
piece on the card and then if you move it, it will go.

Suni gets back to ﬁne colors of the sun. He says he disagees wiﬁn Thomas, ﬁnere isn't any
blue on the sun. "They have a different name and ﬁney're not colors like blue but my Dad . . . well
actually I really forgot those names." Thomas says ﬁnat "the colors came ﬁnrougln my window and
I saw blue." Suni repeats ﬁnat it might look like blue but ﬁnat's not what it's called, "it's not really
blue." Thomas asks "well what color is it?" Suni says ﬁnat when his Dad showed him ﬁnis ﬁnat he
ﬁnouglnt it was blue too but it has a strange name. I ask him if he is ﬁninking of indigo. He says
yes. He says ﬁnat ﬁnere were "some other colors in ﬁne blue parts too." He says ﬁnat "all ﬁne colors

mixed make the sunlight, make white light." I ask how ﬁne colors get out of ﬁne white light. He

69
says ﬁnat ﬁney separate but he doesn't know how ﬁney do ﬁnat. Then he says ﬁnat ﬁne sunlight isn't
really white light but is yellow.

Cory says he agrees with Suni and reminds us of what we did last year wiﬁn the rulers.16

How he looked up througin ﬁne rulers and saw rainbows around everyﬁning. I let ﬁnem try out

the rulers.

 

 

I r :41 I r 1 II I
Clearplasﬁcruler

I ask what ﬁney saw. Alyosha says ﬁnat he saw a blue line under ﬁne ﬁning that he was looking at.
Danping says ﬁnat now she disagrees wiﬁn her idea from before "now I know how ﬁney make ﬁne
rainbow, I ﬁnink on ﬁne plasﬁc they just fold a litﬁe bit so if ﬁney fold over here and over here ﬁnen
ﬁnese two will be different colors, if ﬁney didn't fold any ﬁnis whole piece of ﬁne bird would be a
different color." I ask if she is saying that the rainbow is made because of ﬁne way ﬁne plasﬁc in
ﬁne ruler is formed.

Sakﬁ says ﬁnat she saw different colors when she looked at ﬁne light. Meiying did also.
Kwanhyo says ﬁnat she saw a rainbow all across ﬁne room. Thomas says ﬁnat he was
disappointed because he didn't see as many colors as he usually does. He only saw red and blue.
I say ﬁnat they aren't very good prisms.

Surni says ﬁnat he has just ﬁgured someﬁning out. "If you put light ﬁnrougln glass you can
see ﬁne colors because glass makes ﬁne color of ﬁne light separate into oﬁner colors ﬁnat are mixed
to make ﬁnat color, ﬁnat's what I think glass does." I ask him why ﬁne glass in the window doesn't

do ﬁnat. He says ﬁnat ﬁnere isn't too much sun out and I say ﬁnat it doesn't even when ﬁnere is a lot

 

16In last year's science class I had given ﬁnem small clear plasﬁc rulers to use to measure plants.
These rulers have beveled edges so that if held up to the light and looked ﬁnrougln objects
appear to be surrounded by an aureole of ﬁne spectrurrn. Cory is remembering ﬁnis.

70
of sun out. He says ﬁnat it works on his window at home. Danping says ﬁnat it needs to have

corners. Abeni says that she thinks ﬁne ﬁnickness of ﬁne glass or plasﬁc has someﬁning to do wiﬁn
it. I point out that the rulers aren't very fat. She says ﬁnat different parts are fatter or ﬁninner.
Emily says ﬁnat you see ﬁne colors only when you look ﬁnrough ﬁne places where ﬁne ﬁnickness
changes. Tity says ﬁnat you can see colors by looking ﬁnrough ﬁne edges too.

Cory saw a prism at his Grandmoﬁner's and she told him ﬁnat if you don't keep it in ﬁne
liglnt ﬁne rainbows might go away. He says that she said ﬁnis because once she kept orne out of ﬁne
light toolong and ﬁnen when she did put it in ﬁne light ﬁnere were no rainbows. You have to keep
ﬁnem in ﬁne light to get rainbows. I ask him about ﬁne rulers and he says he doesn't know. I ask
him why we don't see rainbows all ﬁne ﬁme and he says he doesn't know.

Sueh-yen says ﬁnat ﬁne rulers and ﬁne prism have ﬁnree sides and he ﬁninks ﬁnis is
important to make rainbows. Shumshad ﬁninks ﬁnat ﬁne reason he couldn't see a lot of colors wiﬁn
ﬁne rulers is because of ﬁne little lines ﬁnat measure. Emily says ﬁnat if she crosses her eyes
eveyﬁning is outlined blue or sonneﬁmes yellow. This also makes it hard to see. Alyosha tell us
about a rainbow he saw in Yugoslavia ﬁnat happened after a rainstorm. He ﬁninks ﬁnat it is light
shining ﬁnrough the water from ﬁne rain ﬁnat makes ﬁne rainbow.

I ask why we can see colors in ﬁne bubbles. Emily says ﬁnat ﬁne light reﬂects in it. I make
a bubble for ﬁnem to look at. The children start exclaiming and calling out ﬁne colors. Oﬁners say
ﬁnat ﬁney can't see ﬁne colors. I ask why ﬁnere are colors and Abeni says it's because like ﬁne
hologam, ﬁne light is shining on it and ﬁnat makes ﬁnem or it might be electricity. I ask if ﬁne
colors are ﬁne same everywhere or different in different places. The children say different. I ask if
ﬁney are moving and children say yes. I ask if in some places ﬁne stripes of colors are spread apart
and in some places close togeﬁner. Children just stare at ﬁnis one.

Then ﬁney start working with ﬁneir construcﬁons again.

71

Conclusion.

In our ﬁnal class about bubbles, we focus upon one parﬁcular aspect, a fundamental
aspect, of ﬁne science ﬁnat we have been studying: color. We extend our ideas about color, formed
ﬁnrougln our interacﬁon wiﬁn ﬁne bubbles as well as from oﬁner places, to new phenomenon.
Being able to do ﬁnis reﬂects ﬁne complexity of ﬁne iniﬁal exploraﬁons: ﬁney didn't address
simplisﬁc and confined quesﬁons but rather larger, rrnore fundamental ones. These exploraﬁons
(I use ﬁnis word because it contairns boﬁn what we did--the substance-and how we did it)
addressed parﬁcular observaﬁons and questions in ﬁne foregound but always contained ﬁne
potenﬁal to address new ﬁnings. We can move from one exploraﬁon and set of quesﬁons to
anoﬁner by recomposing the foregound-what we are expliciﬁy examining-to contairn ﬁne
elements of ﬁne background-«hose parts of ﬁne science which were not focal unﬁl called upon.

A design, in teaching, in classroom interacﬁons, in science, is composed of a backgound
and a foregound. Our perception of ﬁne design is boﬁn through a cogniﬁve differenﬁaﬁon of ﬁne
two but also because of an interplay between the two. They are mutually dependent upon each
oﬁner to construct our percepﬁon of ﬁne whole. We can understand and interpret ﬁne pattern
because ﬁne backgound sets off ﬁne foreground. It is the interplay of background wiﬁn
foregound ﬁnat gives ﬁne foreground meaning. How we construct ﬁne foreground is really a
quesﬁon of why we construct ﬁne foregound. The construcﬁon of a pattern or a design reﬂects
ﬁne ﬁnings we wish to do-our needs and purposes. The pattern and design also reﬂect who we
are, what we know right now. It contains ﬁne potenﬁal to be a tool as we construct our future
selves. As we try to realize ﬁne future we can act to reconstruct ﬁne pattern by recomposirng ﬁne
foregound /backgound relaﬁonships. Our implicit awareness of the backgound has to become
explicit for ﬁnis to happen. We expliciﬁy perceive the foreground but circumstances which cause
us to quesﬁon the pattern can make us aware of ﬁne background. This deﬁnes ﬁne role of ﬁne

teacher.

72
in ﬁnis unit, ﬁne children explore qualiﬁes of bubbles. They construct a pattern in ﬁne

science and irn ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁney are doing. Because I can perceive ﬁne pattern, recognize ﬁne science
ﬁnat is useful and important embedded in the ﬁnings ﬁne children say, I can design ﬁne teaching,
ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat we do togeﬁner, and also how we talk about ﬁnose ﬁnings. I want to do ﬁnis in such
a way ﬁnat we maintain the potenﬁal for reconstrucﬁng ﬁne pattern. In ﬁne backgound of ﬁne
pattern is ﬁne nnore fundamental scienﬁﬁc quesﬁons and the potenﬁal for knowledge of which I
must remain aware.

This pattern constructed ﬁnrough the design of ﬁne teaching which contains boﬁn ﬁne
science, ﬁne way we are doing ﬁne science, ﬁne children's interacﬁons, deﬁnes ﬁne community in
our classroom. It contains all ﬁne elements of idealized deﬁrniﬁons of community: people working
together around a shared purpose, people developing a shared language and rneﬁnods of acﬁng
irn service of ﬁnis purpose. This community is also vital: it can grow, change, shift focus and
direcﬁon. This is a manifestaﬁon of the interplay or potenﬁal for interplay between foreground
arnd background ﬁnat I am trying to maintain. We return to ﬁne idea of patterns and of
communiﬁes in ﬁne following chapters. I wish to develop and challenge ﬁne deﬁniﬁons and uses

ﬁnat I have tried to illustrate here.

CHAPTER 3

PATTERNS AND UNDERSTANDING

The last chapter was about design, design in teaching and design in doing science. It was
about how ﬁne acts of design precede science or teaching and act as lenses or as molding agents
on what can happen next. But design is also interacﬁve-it occurs as a dialecﬁc process between
person, objects and purposes. It occurs while ﬁne science and ﬁne teaching are going on. A design
is recognizable wiﬁnin a context, it is formed out of ﬁnat context. The act of design—designing-
can't be de—contextualized. The trick though is ﬁnat designs, ﬁne noun, give the appearance ﬁnat
ﬁney can exist separate from context, can be abstracted. Designs are metaphors for what can be
done wiﬁn them. They are ﬁnen generalizaﬁons, simpliﬁcaﬁons, ﬁney only capture some aspects
of ﬁne context from which ﬁney are derived. They are recognizable as enﬁﬁes because they are
abstracted, partiﬁoned. In many instances ﬁnis is ﬁne cumulaﬁve effect of patterning. We
recognize a design because of the repeﬁﬁve quality of ﬁne patterns it contains. The repeﬁﬁon of a
design, ﬁnough, also creates a pattern.

Repeﬁﬁons and relaﬁonships create a pattern. The choices behind repeﬁﬁons and
relaﬁonships deﬁne ﬁne act of design. In ﬁnis chapter I will describe anoﬁner unit of science
teaching, ﬁnis ﬁme about patterns ﬁnemselves, ﬁrst examining patterns in ﬁne abstract and ﬁnen
applying patterns to an exploraﬁon of music and sound. This is, at least in iniﬁal approach, an
inversion of ﬁne unit I described in ﬁne last chapter. In ﬁne last chapter we started by examining
design and ﬁnought about how ﬁne teaching and science came from it. In ﬁnis unit we start with

observaﬁons and recognize patterns and ﬁnen explore ﬁne designnﬁne reasons behind the

73

74

observaﬁons we are able to make. A pattern is made up of repeﬁﬁons and relaﬁonships in ﬁne
science and also in the class-ﬁne ﬁnings we do in class, both scienﬁﬁc experimenﬁng and in just
ways of talking, repeat. This, in turn, reﬂects relaﬁonships between people and science and also
constructs relaﬁonships. This deﬁnes a classroom community, a culture though ﬁnat changes as
ﬁne dynamics of the relaﬁonships alter.

The community ﬁnat develops in ﬁnis classroom is not staﬁc, instead it changes and
evolves as ﬁne topic of conversaﬁon and ﬁne ways of talking change. The medium for ﬁne
construcﬁon of the community is the science ﬁnat we are doing (Hawkins 1974a). At different
ﬁmes ﬁnis science is being looked at and ﬁnought about in very different ways. For example, we
start our exarninaﬁon of music ﬁnrough an observaﬁon-based study of sound producing devices.
We proceed to an experimentally-based exploraﬁon. Finally we intellectually examine what
music is and ﬁnen ﬁnink criﬁcally about ﬁnis. Each of the modes of acﬁng, ﬁninking and
communicaﬁng wiﬁn each oﬁner develops as an interplay between people; people wanﬁng to
communicate ﬁneir own ideas and also hear and understand each oﬁner's. This is ﬁne essence of a
community--people interacﬁng wiﬁn each oﬁner for a purpose, out of a need (Sartre, 1963; Schwab,
1976). The purpose evolves because it develops as people interact, ﬁnerefore ﬁne ways of
interacﬁng evolve also.

This chapter is about ﬁnis process in science and ﬁne children's involvement wiﬁn the

science, not as much in teaching". The next chapter (Knowing—Chapter 4) is about teaching.

An outline of the unit on music and patterns.

This unit on patterns and sounds and music had ﬁnree stages which are separate and also

interconnected and interdependent. The ﬁrst stage, in ﬁne fall, was about patterns and seeing-

 

17The teaching in this chapter occurs in the same ﬁrst-second grade
combination as the last chapter. For a complete description of the school and
class as well as a list of the children's countries of origin and pseudonyms
please refer to Appendix I and II.

7S
seeing patterns and developing language to talk about ﬁnose patterns. It was at a more

fundamental level about discussing what ﬁne word pattern meansuwhat is and isn't a patterrn and
why. The second stage began again in ﬁne sprirng when I started ﬁne unit on sound and music.
This stage was about exploring how sound is made. It's about patterns because in order to do
ﬁnis the children looked and listened for patterns in ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat we were using to make sound.
It was also about patterns because in order to do ﬁnis in a way that illuminates ﬁne qualiﬁes and
genesis of sounds, ﬁne children had to interact with the xylophones and rubber bands ﬁnat we
were using in a systemaﬁc manner which was a pattenn in itself. The ﬁnird stage was a return to
ﬁne ﬁrst stage in a way, alﬁnougln the vehicle was different. In ﬁne fourﬁn stage we explored ﬁne
deﬁniﬁons of ﬁne word pattern in music and more broadly.

What ﬁnis synopsis doesn't capture is ﬁnat in all of ﬁnese stages what was focal for me and
what I was trying to make apparent in ﬁne children's discussions/ arguments was ﬁnat a pattern is
a man-made construct ﬁnat captures some aspects of a phenomenon and leaves out oﬁners.
Seeing, hearing, acﬁng in patterns involves choices-conscious or unconscious ﬁnat can be
arﬁculated and talked about either before a choice is made or afterwards when it becomes
apparent ﬁnat everyone hasn't made ﬁne same choices. This is why talking about patterns is also
talking about perspecﬁvesuhaving a perspecﬁve, taking a perspecﬁve. It is ﬁnese differences in
perspecﬁve that drives ﬁne development of a communitynﬁne children share ﬁneir ideas about
sound and music, both learning from each other and developing ﬁne ability to arﬁculate ﬁneir own
ideas.

Back to talking about ﬁne stages ﬁnough.

In ﬁne fall the children made patterns using pattern blocks and ﬁnen talked about ﬁnose
patterns, developing descripﬁve language which ranged from simple stuff like, "it's a red
hexagon," to metaphor and statements involving mathemaﬁcal progessions and relaﬁonships. I
clnose to have ﬁnis beginning abstract and "man-made," arﬁficial, designed. Then we went on to
look at pictures of ﬁnings made by people, like buildings and bricks, and "natural ﬁnings." I put

"natural ﬁnings" in quotes because these are pictures-~ﬁney are framed and chosen. To see

76
patterns in ﬁnese ﬁnings is a reducﬁve process-seeing some ﬁrings in a foregound and putﬁng

oﬁner ﬁnings into a background. It is selecﬁve just as choosing how to shoot ﬁne picture is
selecﬁve. In looking at these patterns which are boﬁn made and not made by whoever is seeing
ﬁnem ﬁnere is a new element (as compared to the patterns constructed by ﬁne children from
pattern blocks): These patterns don't have limits, ﬁney extend beyond what we can see. Even
when ﬁney do have edges and borders in the pictures, it is usually obvious ﬁnat ﬁnese borders are
arbitrary and chosen-ﬁne pattern could extend on. These patterns can be simple repeﬁﬁons or
progessions but all are created by relaﬁonships, relaﬁonships between ﬁne elements of ﬁne
design. The idea was to help ﬁne children arﬁculate both the content-—ﬁne "ﬁning" repeated in a
descripﬁve manner (I mean not to name it) and ﬁne way it was repeateduﬁne relaﬁonships.

In ﬁne spring when we started wiﬁn music and sound, my idea was to use ﬁne children's
ability to perceive patterns and talk about ﬁnem in an applied way ﬁnat enabled and suggested
scientific explanaﬁons and exploraﬁons. So we started wiﬁn an exploraﬁon of a xylophone. I
simultaneously asked ﬁne children what patterns ﬁney could see in ﬁne instrument and hear when
ﬁne instrument was sounded and invited ﬁne children to do ﬁnings to try to relate observed
patterns to other observed patterns. Then we did ﬁnis again wiﬁn rubber bands. The children,
wiﬁn my help, quickly began to relate ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁney were able to observe and postulate
ﬁnese relaﬁonships as explanaﬁons for ﬁne phenomena. Because they were also acﬁng on these
relaﬁonships--tesﬁng ﬁnemuand doing ﬁnis in public we togeﬁner developed systemaﬁc ways of
going about ﬁnis. The children suggested ﬁnat certain patterns of observaﬁons were related and
ﬁnen they tested those relaﬁonships out publicly. Through ﬁnis process of public demonstraﬁon,
communicaﬁon and discussion of results, ﬁnese exploraﬁons got more and more systemaﬁc. In
doing ﬁnis ﬁne relaﬁonships ﬁnat the children were working on became furﬁner reduced-separate
variables were located and tested. In sorrne senses the relaﬁonships ﬁne children held between
each oﬁne also became reduced—for ﬁne purposes of communicaﬁng ﬁneir experiment ﬁne

children had to act and talk systerrnaﬁcaily and unambiguously. The children listening had to

77
suspend ﬁneir own ideas and ﬁnink wiﬁnin ﬁnose of anoﬁner (connected ﬁninking not criﬁcal

ﬁninking alﬁnougln in ﬁne end there is always an interplay of these).

These variables and ﬁne relaﬁonships between these variables became ﬁne focus because
of how ﬁne children were interacﬁng wiﬁn ﬁne musical instruments. The children were now
talking about how sound rrnade vibraﬁons and ﬁnese vibraﬁons were characterized by amplitude
and different periodiciﬁes and these in turn were effected by ﬁnickness, ﬁghtrness, lengﬁn of ﬁne
materials which make up strings and bars of xylophones. They were also talking about how
what ﬁney did when playing the instruments effected ﬁnese variables. This is done by acﬁng
systerrnaﬁcally on the instruments themselves so ﬁnat variables can be isolated and studied alone.
It also gives you ﬁne illusion that you can pretend, you, ﬁne experimenter, aren't part of ﬁne
system, especially if you can conveniently forget ﬁnat you made up ﬁne variables—extracted ﬁnem
from the conﬁnuum--to begin with.

This is, however, one of ﬁne reasons I chose to embed ﬁnis exploraﬁon of the power of
patterns in a study of music and sound (raﬁner than just sound, say). Most people would not
have a problem ﬁnat ﬁne aesﬁneﬁc choices, criteria, made in creaﬁng, listening to, judging a piece
of music don't represent a fundamental. My point is ﬁnat these sarrne choices have parallels in ﬁne
criteria, ﬁne variables, used in ﬁne study of sound. These are just as arbitrary and should ﬁnerefore
be subject to debate and jusﬁﬁcaﬁon. And this jusﬁﬁcaﬁon can be raﬁonal or irraﬁonal; it can be
on a basis of usefulness or on a basis of aesﬁneﬁcs. Or some combinaﬁon but it ought to be
arﬁculatable even ﬁnough when we do make ﬁnese choices ﬁney most often haven't been
arﬁculated by us. We are just acﬁng on reﬂex (Heidegger, 1967).

Well anyway, because ﬁnis is why we are looking at music and sound, not just sound, my
next move was to return us to talking about music so ﬁnat I could work wiﬁn ﬁne children to
arﬁculate ﬁne foundaﬁons under which ﬁne choices ﬁney were making to specify variables could
be examined. I asked ﬁne children what was ﬁne difference between sound and music and also
effecﬁvely what criterion ﬁney would suggest for judging a sound as music. The clnildren all

seemed to agree ﬁnat judging something as music was an inteplay of context and ﬁne presence of

78
cehin components. These components were pattern, beat and rhyﬁnm. In exploring what ﬁne

children meant by these words in the context of "music" that they created to demonstrate ﬁneir
ideas, we found ﬁnat ﬁnese words were, in ﬁnemselves, intertwined and interdependent-mat ﬁneir
meanings overlap and slide into one anoﬁner. That to differentiate between ﬁnem was arbitrary, a
choice of ﬁne user based upon what they were ﬁninking and trying to do. This became a
conversaﬁon about design—that patterns and music are designs. Boﬁn are also arbitrary, made,
reﬂect choices, although it is unclear when ﬁne choices have to be Sade in order to call a design a
design. This hkes us back to music is music because of context. We hiked about bird songuwas
that music? The children argued ﬁnat maybe it was, if ﬁney applied their criteria of patten,
rhyﬁnm and beat but maybe not if ﬁney applied ﬁneir criteria of context, purpose and design.
What is ﬁne purpose of ﬁne bird singinguis it music or communicaﬁon. Again perspecﬁve-ﬁney

as listeners might call it music but ﬁne bird who makes it miglnt not.

Beginning our explorations of patterns: What is a pattern, how is it constructed, how is it used?

For ﬁne ﬁrst six weeks of ﬁnis school year I hught a unit on seeing and using patterns in
science. Many people, in wriﬁng about science and about doing scienﬁﬁc research, write about
patterns and ﬁne role ﬁnat patterns play.18 Patterns are constructs which arise througln
descripﬁons. They are characterized by variables, conshnts and operaﬁons. They make
connecﬁons, see similariﬁes, describe relaﬁonships, create regulariﬁes. They are made: created,
imposed, manipulated, by people ﬁnrough selecﬁve vision. Seeing patterns is a sirnpliﬁcaﬁon; it
dichotomizes reality into ﬁne regular and ﬁne irregular, the explained and the unexplained. Using

patterns involves an interplay between ﬁne reg and irregular. Explaining phenomena is often

 

18For more information on the explanatory and comparative powers of
patterns in science the books Patterns in Nature , Stevens (1974) and On
Growth and Form , Thompson (1961) are particularly helpful.

79
ﬁnrough correlaﬁng patterns in which case ﬁnis interplay is especially important. It becomes a test

of ﬁne patterns: every use (applicaﬁon) of a pattenn is a test of ﬁne validity of its simpliﬁcations.

Patterns order observaﬁons and can be used to explain those observaﬁons. The funcﬁon
of correlaﬁng mulﬁple patterns is to explain. Because ﬁney conhin variables, patterns can be
applied to oﬁner observaﬁons in ﬁne hope of ordering or explaining ﬁnem. To write about ﬁne role
of pattern in science, ﬁnough, presupposes a role for irregularity. Pattenns, both seeing and
making ﬁnem, are compelling in science because ﬁney cause one to see ﬁne tohlity of a
phenomenon in new ways. The parts of the phenomenon that don't ﬁt ﬁne pattern become boﬁn
invisible and are ﬁnrown into sharp relief. I ﬁnink pattern is compelling because ﬁne act of
bringing order to disorder is infused with romanﬁc mystery and wiﬁn power. But ﬁne parts ﬁnat
are left in disorder are even more mysterious and mainhin ﬁne phenornenon's own power! The
phenomenon asserts its own reality ﬁnrough its irregulariﬁes: the components ﬁnat exist and
which we can't explain. We assert our reality through ﬁne imposiﬁon of patterns, ﬁne recogniﬁon
of regulariﬁes, ﬁne creaﬁon of explanaﬁons. The dialecﬁc between ﬁne person and ﬁne
phenomenon, ﬁne pattern and ﬁne irregulariﬁes, ﬁne explained and ﬁne unexplained drives ﬁne
scienﬁst. The imposiﬁon of ﬁneories-generalizaﬁons, pattems~enables seeing ﬁne phenomenon
in new ways because of ﬁne abstracﬁng qualiﬁes of ﬁne process and ﬁne fact ﬁnat it is situated in
ﬁne ﬂow, ﬁne acﬁvity of applying ﬁne patterns. When ﬁne qualiﬁes of ﬁne phenomenon ﬁnat don't
ﬁt ﬁne pattern become imporhnt, the assessment of ﬁne phenomenon or ﬁne pattern itself should
be revised.

It's because pattern exists as an overlay on ﬁne surface of ﬁne real phenomenon ﬁnat
irregularity and regularity coexist. There is more to ﬁne phenomenon ﬁnan can be described by
ﬁne pattern. Recogniﬁon of that causes a scienﬁst to apply exisﬁng patterns to new phenomena
and to discover new patterns. The scienﬁst is ﬁne creaﬁve agent in ﬁne dialecﬁc between pattern
and irregularity which intersects wiﬁnin ﬁne phenomenon. There are two different ways ﬁnat
patterns are looked at and used. A person can look at ﬁne pattern and ﬁne object ﬁnrough the

pattern, using the patten to give one new ways to see ﬁnat object in order to conﬁnue

80
contemplaﬁng ﬁne object. The pattern is a tool to enable seeing ﬁne object itself. Our use and

creaﬁon of pattern in ﬁne fall is for ﬁnis purpose. Or ﬁne pattern is a tool for doing someﬁning wiﬁn
ﬁne object. Our exploraﬁon of pattenns in ﬁne spring in looking at sound and music involves ﬁnis.
This means ﬁnat ﬁne irregulariﬁes, ﬁne features of ﬁne object which don't ﬁt ﬁne pattern or have
been generalized so ﬁnat ﬁneir parﬁculars are lost are probably not looked at again. The ﬁrst
shnce suggests ﬁnat the irregulariﬁes will sooner or later be seen and will cause ﬁne pattern to be
revised, reformulated, ﬁnrown away. We return to ﬁne ﬁrst way of using patterns when we
embed our exploraﬁon in an exarrninaﬁon of music-what do patterns tell us about music, what
don't ﬁney tell us ﬁnat we want to express? I ﬁnink ﬁnis is conhined in ﬁne wriﬁngs of Dewey (How
We Think), Dewey and Benﬁey (The Knowing and the Known) and Levi-Strauss (The Savage Mind)
on commonsense versus scienﬁﬁc ways of knowing and ﬁninking: The use of imposed patterns or
generalizaﬁons in commonsense ways of being are as a tool for doing ﬁnings not as a source of
contemplaﬁon in ﬁnemselves-neither contemplaﬁon of the pattern nor of ﬁne new way ﬁnat it
gives you of looking at the ﬁning that it's applied to. This is also described by Polanyi in The Tacit
Dimension: when an object or an idea becomes a tool used to do someﬁning else, ﬁne tool is no
longer examined for itself. There is in fact a dialecﬁc between ﬁne two which, in effect, causes ﬁne
conﬁnual reassessment and re-evaluaﬁon of ﬁne pattern itself.

If ﬁnere is an interplay between ﬁne two ways of using patterns, ﬁnis interplay is framed
by, caused by a person's purposes. A person's purpose causes ﬁnem to use ﬁne patterns as tools.
This use of ﬁnem for a purpose forces ﬁne conﬁnuous re—evaluaﬁon and evoluﬁon of ﬁnose
patterns. I weigln ﬁne qualiﬁes of the phenomenon ﬁnat I've used to structure my acﬁons, ﬁnrougln
an exarrninaﬁon of ﬁnose acﬁons against ﬁne results. The results are framed by ﬁne assumpﬁons of
ﬁne patterns but also ﬁnose qualiﬁes not conhined wiﬁnin ﬁne pattem—ﬁne irregulariﬁes. This is a
sort of a shtement of ﬁne experimenhl meﬁnod. I ﬁnink it is demonstrated in what ﬁne children do
in ﬁne second part of the unit on music parﬁcularly when asked to explain some observaﬁon.
They apply patterns experimenhlly in attempts to predict outcomes and hence to explain ﬁnose

outcomes.

8 1
I also ﬁnink generalizaﬁons in science are a form of mehphor. As such ﬁney deﬁne

comparaﬁvely; by saying something is like someﬁning else and unlike something different. They
act to highlight cerhin features of whatever is being classiﬁed but obscure oﬁner features. Any
phenomenon is a conﬁnuum of qualiﬁes but in order to name ﬁnese qualiﬁes they have to be
separated out, pulled out of ﬁne context of the whole. But because ﬁnese labels are in reality only
a facet of the whole out of context, ﬁne act of labeling refutes itself when seen wiﬁnin ﬁne whole
again. In other words, oﬁner features of ﬁne whole contradict ﬁnis parﬁﬁoning, if you can see
ﬁnem. But ﬁne creation of ﬁne categories wiﬁn which we "'see' phenomena or people too is ﬁne
source and fundamenhl of hegemony, of nnanifesﬁng a power structure/relaﬁonship between
phenomena, and it's only by developing a sense of criﬁcal consciousness—recognizing the parﬁal
quality of ﬁnose categories-ﬁnat we can ""see anything else in ﬁne conﬁnuum. The point is ﬁnat
ﬁnese categories and generalizaﬁons can be inclusive mehphors—deﬁning what is wiﬁnin to
exclude what is wiﬁnout-- but ﬁney also have ﬁne potenﬁal to be generaﬁve mehphorsuhelping us
to see in new ways, to be shrﬁng points in our exploraﬁons of ﬁne phenomena-ﬁnat enable
science to be a creaﬁve act (Schon, 1984).

The ﬁrst and second gade science curriculum focuses in many ways upon ﬁne
development of observaﬁon and classificaﬁon skills. I thought that by combining ﬁnese
curriculum goals wiﬁn ﬁne study of pattems--boﬁn in the abstract and as observed in nature—it
would be possible to explore ﬁne intricacies of how to describe sensual observaﬁon wiﬁn words
and how to link ﬁnese descripﬁons to explanaﬁon. This is a fundamenhl component of science as
I have experienced it. To ﬁnis end we shrted ﬁne unit using pattern blocks19 to construct patterns
and ﬁnen work on developing ways to communicate those patterns to each other. First students
developed language to describe ﬁne shapes and, then, language to describe relaﬁonships between

shapes. For example, to build a hexagon out of two red trapezoids ﬁne children had to specify

 

l9Pattern blocks are plastic or wooden geometric shapes which are sized and
proportioned so that they ﬁt together nicely and it is possible to make one
shape, say the red trapezoid out of a number of other arrangements of the
other shapes, one triangle and one diamond for example.

82
boﬁn number, orienhﬁon and placement of ﬁne pattern blocks. Finally ﬁne children discovered

ﬁnat to describe complex patterrns ﬁney could use metaphor: a pattern of four yellow hexagons
surrounded by red trapezoids could be described as a "honeycomb wiﬁn ﬁne honey leaking out."

The children described patterns often wiﬁn body movements and hand gestures which
are a way of reducing or simplifying what they have seen. To turn ﬁnis into words can be ﬁnought
of as a furﬁne reducﬁon (but an ambiguous one—words have mulﬁple meanings, for example see
ﬁne ﬁnal discussions of pattern, beat and rlnyﬁnm). Being able to turn ﬁne whole into parts ﬁnat ﬁne
children can hlk about is fundamental to science. Examining ﬁnese parts, trying to qualify and
quanﬁfy, deﬁne ﬁnese parts and ﬁnink about ﬁne relaﬁonship(s) between parts, involves ﬁninking
about differences and similariﬁes (deﬁning frame and overlaps) and thinking criﬁcally about
what can be done with ﬁnose parts and relaﬁonships. Many people have written,20 about ﬁne
links between symbol systems, communicaﬁon, audience, purposes. In ﬁnis literature, ﬁne
auﬁnors talk, in different ways, about hcit knowledge and arﬁculated knowledge and how these
are created and used to exist in ﬁnis world, socially, individually. All of ﬁnese auﬁnors suggest
ﬁnat how knowledge is created has a lot to do wiﬁn communicaﬁon, ﬁrst with ﬁne object ﬁnen with
anoﬁner, boﬁn for a purpose.

After working wiﬁn ﬁne pattern blocks for some weeks we viewed slides of close-ups of
leaves, ﬂowers, bricks, things wiﬁn repeaﬁng patterns. This replicates one of ﬁne ways ﬁnat I
learned to do science-as an undergraduate I majored in geology and had a minor in art history.
Learning to see analyﬁcally and criﬁcally in my art classes has always been very lrnporhnt to me

in my science. Looking at ﬁnings in two-dimensions, in a picture, can be very helpful in learning

 

20Lakoff G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Lakoff G. and Johnson M. (1980) Metaphors We live By.
Polanyi M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Derrida J. (1976) Of Grammatology.
Moi T. (1986) Helene Cixous: An imaginary utopia. in T. Moi Sexual/Textual
Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. Norris, C. (1982) Deconstruction: Theory
and Practice. London: Methuen. Kristeva J. (1973) The system and the
speaking subject. Times Literary Supplement 1249—52. Moi T. (1986)
Marginality and subversion: Julia Kristeva. in T. Moi Sexual/Textual Politics:
Feminist literary Theory. Moi T. (1986) Introduction. in T. Moi ed. The
Kristeva Reader.

83

to do ﬁnis. It seems easier to me to abstract content from form and process in two-dimensions.
We also worked wiﬁn xeroxes of Turkish ﬁle mosaic patterns, coloring in different components
and hiking about the relaﬁonships between ﬁnose components.

Looking at ﬁne pictures of objects and ﬁnen at objects ﬁnemselves, the children noticed
varying levels of arﬁculaﬁon of ﬁne components of ﬁne picture and ﬁnis is what enabled them to
see a pattern: seeing a pattern involves differentiating foregound subject from backgound. For

example in the following picture of a Turkish tile mosaic:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to be able to describe it we can hlk about it being a series of lines but ﬁnat isn't very informative--
it doesn't differenﬁate it from any other series of lines. We can say that ﬁne lines form shapes like
squares, kite shapes, shrs and diamonds but ﬁnat doesn‘t tell us ﬁnat it is a pattern. To describe
the pattern we could say ﬁnat it is a series of squares which repeat along three axes which meet at
60 degrees to each oﬁner. The squares are composed of four kite shapes, two large and two small,
arranged in a fourfold rohtional relationship (two-fold rohtional relationship to like shapes) to
one another around ﬁne perimeter of the square. The intersections of ﬁne ﬁnree axes of squares is
marked by a six pointed shr made from the verﬁces of the kite-shapes. The overall symmetry of

ﬁne design is three-fold. To make this description I have focussed on ﬁne squares and arranged

84
my descripﬁons of the other shapes to help me hlk about ﬁne squares. By doing ﬁnis I have

deﬁned a foregound and a backgound. I could have done ﬁnis by shrﬁng wiﬁn a different shape
and building up the picture from it or I could have shrted wiﬁn a descripﬁon of ﬁne symmetry-
ﬁnree-fold rohﬁon with ﬁnree two-fold rohtional axis intersecting at ﬁne threefold axis and then
arranged ﬁne geometric shapes so that they became derived from ﬁnis.

Here is a drawing of one of ﬁne slides that we looked at.

 

To describe it we could say ﬁnat it is of bricks and plants or we could describe a pattern and say
ﬁnat ﬁne bricks repeat in a cerhin way or ﬁne plants repeat in a cerhin way. To hlk about ﬁnis
repetition would involve focussing on cerhin parts of ﬁne picture and excluding oﬁner parts. The
bricks repeat in shape and orienhﬁon but not in ﬁne number of holes shown. The plants repeat
because ﬁney are all the same type and are spaced evenly but each has a different number of
leaves oriented in different direcﬁons. To make a pattern, to say ﬁnat someﬁning is regular and
repeats means defining ﬁne characterisﬁcs ﬁnat are regular and do repeat and ignoring ﬁne oﬁners.
This is an example of how a pattern can be seen because of contrast, ﬁne repeﬁﬁon of a component
sets it against a background—but it is also true ﬁnat ﬁne application of a pattem creates its own
contrasts by defining cerhin features and obscuring others, by hking features out of context,

generaﬁng a "background."

85
In order to see a pattern in ﬁnis picture we make abstract generalizaﬁons about shape.

We make an idealizaﬁon about an observaﬁon. This is an example of using metaphor to describe
and simplify (to call a plant a plant is an example, recognizing ﬁne ideal in ﬁne real). There is a
tension in ﬁnis process: A pattern can incorporate more and rrnore dehil making it possible to
reduce/ ignore ﬁnat dehil. Again we are deﬁning a foregound arnd a backgournd boﬁn by
subshnce and by relaﬁonships. Recognizing relaﬁonships that are imporhnt-mean someﬁning,
are not just descripﬁve—and knowing what qualiﬁes of ﬁne object can be ignored and what must
be included are fundamental judgements in doing science. They are also judgements constructed
from our previous knowledge and from our purposes. Seeing patterns is an act of design.
Making generalizaﬁons has much in common wiﬁn seeing patterrns. Seeing patterns is in a sense
generalizing about what I do see-ignoring individual differences. And ﬁne purpose of ﬁnis is so I
can see the sirrnilariﬁes between the components of a pattern and see ﬁne pattern as a whole-see
ﬁne whole to re-see ﬁne parts in a new way.

The children also shrted to use maﬁnemaﬁcai relaﬁonships to describe pattern
progessions. For example, Suni said "The bricks . . . ﬁnat one has four holes and ﬁnat one has
ﬁnree holes and ﬁnat one has two holes, four minus one is ﬁnree minus one is two, I ﬁnink ﬁne next
one will have one or four and ﬁne pattern will shrt over." The children began to hlk about how
ﬁney could use ﬁne patterns to predict how ﬁrings looked that weren't included in ﬁne picture. The
children are working on being able to see changes as a pattern because ﬁney can quanﬁfyuuse
counﬁng and numbers as a tool to describe boﬁn the object and ﬁne changes in ﬁne object. Then
ﬁney move to predicﬁng ﬁnrough extrapolaﬁng. There is also a quality in doing ﬁnis ﬁnat is a form
of experimenﬁng wiﬁn ways to include previously excluded qualiﬁes of ﬁne pattern into ﬁne
pattern. I said above that in order to say ﬁnat ﬁne bricks repeated we would have to ignore
qualiﬁes of ﬁne bricks that didn't repeat like ﬁne holes. Suni is attempﬁng to include ﬁnose.

This anﬁcipates ﬁne next step in which I encouraged ﬁnem to extend ﬁneir observaﬁons of
patterns to hiking about how ﬁne patterns have explanatory power in science. The explanatory

power of patterns raﬁner than ﬁne descripﬁve is ﬁnrough correlaﬁng what appear to be

86
unconnected patterns and irn postulaﬁng reasons why ﬁney are correlated. The bricks repeat in

shape and orienhﬁon and ﬁne holes repeat in another sort of pattern. Those two patterns are
associated spaﬁally, is ﬁnere a geneﬁc connecﬁon and does it tell us sorrneﬁning fundamenhl about
the bricks or maybe about ﬁne forces that constructed ﬁne pattern? Are these in reality ﬁne
manifeshﬁons of one, rrnore fundamenhl pattern? And what about ﬁne repeﬁﬁon of ﬁne plants--is
ﬁnat linked to ﬁne repeﬁﬁon of ﬁne bricks?

An observaﬁon can be called a pattern because whatever is observed is observed to
repeat. Can it be assumed to repeat some more? An imporhnt point about patterns is ﬁnat while
many are in reality conhined, limited ﬁnings, an inherent assumpﬁon to ﬁne idea of pattern is ﬁnat
ﬁney can extend inﬁrnitely. Alﬁnough to create patterns we need to be able to generalize and
categorize, generalizing and categorizing construct lirrnihﬁons, what I have been calling borders
or edges. But what I ﬁnink is pointed out in ﬁnis discussion of the science of pattenn making is
ﬁnat in order to generalize or categorize, a pattern must be assunned. This pattern making
assumes ﬁnat ﬁne process is uncontained, infinitely extendable. It also assumes ﬁne validity of ﬁne
generalizaﬁons used to create the patterns but in fact ﬁne pattern and ﬁne generalizaﬁons generate
each oﬁne; are in an interdependent relaﬁornship raﬁner that one independenﬁy supporﬁve.

Finally, I used ﬁne pattenns to make comparisons. We examined a collecﬁon of dried
leaves-maple, tulip tree, sweet gum, poplar, cut-leaf birch-ﬁnat are similar yet different.21 We

also looked at crystals and fossils to ﬁnink about patterns and what ﬁney might mean.

Starting to explore music through patterns: Constructing relationships.

April 14ﬁn
I shrted ﬁnis part of our exploraﬁon of pattern by asking ﬁne children to remember
looking at ﬁne musical instruments at ﬁne science museum (they had just visited Impressions 5)

and then I tell ﬁnem that I want to explore music and sound for ﬁne rest of the year. I say ﬁnat I

 

2 1Stevens (1974), Thompson (1961).

87
want to do ﬁnis because music is to me " a lot of patterns." I ask ﬁne children if ﬁney play or know

anyone who plays a musical instrument. We have quite a long discussion of ﬁnis in which
virtually everyone names someone ﬁnat plays someﬁning. Of ﬁne children in ﬁne room Thomas
has just shrted playing a keyboard and Sueh-yen is on Book 4 of Suzuki in violin. Surni also says
he plays ﬁne ﬂute. Then we go to looking at ﬁne xylophone.

I shrt by asking if anyone sees any patterns. Suni talks about ﬁne grouping of ﬁne bars of
ﬁne xylophone. He says ﬁnat ﬁnere is "one long one and then ﬁnree and ﬁnen two." The bars in ﬁne
xylophone are of the pentatonic scale—ﬁnis pattern in the way ﬁne instrument looks is related to
ﬁne scale. I hke a turn at describing it: "There's one of ﬁnese, ﬁnen ﬁnree, ﬁnen two, ﬁnen ﬁnree.
What kind of pattern is ﬁnat? What would come next if ﬁnat's a pattern?" I'm ﬁninking about ﬁne
bricks here when I ask ﬁnis. Suni replies: "One." I repeat ﬁnis and oﬁner kids shrt ageing and
disageeing and counﬁng sequences. Then Emily says: "Two." I suggest ﬁnree.

There is a lot of debaﬁng going on over ﬁnis. The children seem to automaﬁcally assume
ﬁnat ﬁne pattern extends in boﬁn direcﬁons. See notation discussion in the net to last class (the 28th).
They don't quesﬁon ﬁnat assumpﬁon. I ask why ﬁne bars might be gouped in ﬁnat pattern and
Suni says ﬁht "rnnaybe ﬁney just put it like ﬁnat." In oﬁner words he thirnks ﬁne pattern is made not
someﬁning natural. 50 I suggest ﬁnat maybe we could move ﬁnem around and make different
patterns. I do ﬁnis for a bit and ﬁnen I ask if the children have noﬁced ﬁnat ﬁne bars have letters
written on ﬁnem. The children all have noﬁced ﬁnis (probably because Mrs Veenstra, ﬁneir music
teacher, calls ﬁne notes by name when ﬁne children use ﬁnese xylophones in music class-music as
it is hugint at Sparhn is very hands on and the children get to try out a number of different
musical instruments and observe a number of oﬁners being played by visitors). I go on: "Maybe
we should write them down. Suni can you write ﬁnem on ﬁne board while I say ﬁnem. C a big C
Big D big E big G big A Big C big D big E big (3." We hlk about patterns ﬁne children see in this.
Sonne children ﬁnink ﬁnere might appear to be patterns but ﬁney are created by me or whoever
made the xylophone. Finally Emily suggests tesﬁng to see how ﬁne slats marked wiﬁn ﬁne same

letter of the alphabet sound. "Why don't you see if ﬁne two C8 are different."

88
I ask if ﬁne children ﬁnink ﬁne two different bars wiﬁn ﬁne same nohﬁon written on ﬁnem

sound different. Many children respond ﬁnat ﬁney will sound different and some call out ﬁnat one
is "high" and one "low." I shrt playing ﬁne pairs, low and ﬁnen high. I say as I do ﬁnis large and
ﬁnen small. Many say ﬁnat ﬁne smaller is higher. The point of ﬁnis is to demonstrate a correlaﬁon
between two patterns-4n size and in tone.

I go back to asking about what patterns ﬁney can observe now. I am also trying to
suggest in ﬁnis irntroducﬁon to ﬁnis parﬁcular unit a dialecﬁc between observaﬁon and
expeimenhﬁon. The children shrt to note different qualiﬁes of ﬁne physical design of ﬁne
xylophone. This xylophone has two rows of pegs, one empty wiﬁn no bars, ﬁnis is nice because it

lets us examine ﬁne sound box without ﬁne bars in ﬁne way.

   
 

    

upper level of bars

    

lower level of bars

 

rubber tubing 9'35““ peg —
I"'-

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

)—

 

 

 

 

       

89

The actual shape of ﬁne two parts of ﬁne sound box are a bit different for each row and also wiﬁnin
ﬁne row each is segmented wiﬁn differing lengﬁns parﬁﬁoned off and each parﬁﬁon is at a
different depﬁn--like ﬁne parts of a lock--I don't know why ﬁnis is or if it corresponds to ﬁne
intervals in ﬁne penhtonic scale we were just hiking about. Maybe it has someﬁning to do wiﬁn
how xylophones are often played two notes at a ﬁme? Or maybe it's to limit resonance effects?
Anyway, different children poirnt out ﬁne physical qualiﬁes of boﬁn ﬁne xylophone and ﬁne keys
and finally shrt observing (or construcﬁng) patterns in their observations. For example, ﬁne zig-
zag pattern of ﬁne rubber tubing, ﬁne differing number of plasﬁc pegs on different rows. Finally
Cory describes a pattern ﬁnat a number of oﬁnes have also noﬁced and I ask him to try to
speculate why ﬁnat pattern might be there. I do ﬁnis purposely--ﬁnis unit is about observing
patterns but not passively; it's about ﬁninking about reasons behind observed patterns and ﬁnen
expeimentally tesﬁng ﬁnose reasons. The clnildren have to have it in ﬁneir heads ﬁnat ﬁnere might
be reasons before ﬁne experimenﬁng can shrt though. I am not saying ﬁnat reasons aren't
formulated during ﬁne experimenhﬁon also, I think ﬁney are—as patterns are correlatedubut I
want to irniﬁate ﬁne idea ﬁnat we are working on reasons not just observaﬁon now. In ﬁne fall we
were concentraﬁng on observaﬁon and descripﬁon. Cory's response is to furﬁner dehil his
observaﬁons to emphasize ﬁnat there are two different patterns in ﬁne plasﬁc pegs. He doesn't
wish to speculate though on cause and effect.

I return again to asking for observaﬁons, now about ﬁne sound box. Suni says he sees a
pattern: "Well see it's like one big square right there, well like a rechngle, and ﬁnen like, um, a
litﬁe rechngle and ﬁnen anoﬁner big square and a rechngle and anoﬁner rechngle." I ask him
why it might look like that and why is the top of ﬁne instrument different from ﬁne bottom. At
ﬁrst Suni says he doesn't know ﬁnen he says that "they made it a little different." Alyosha directs

us to look at the bottoms of ﬁne holes inside ﬁne sound box.

9O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ers in the sound box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ I
side-view of the levels of the chambers
of the sound box (cut-away)

Alyosha: I see a pattern, see there is these two . . . I ﬁnink ﬁnere is ﬁnese two over ﬁnere
too.

Teacher: Alyosha said ﬁnat he ﬁnought, he was looking like in ﬁnis square [inside the
chambers of the sound box] in here, see there is like a step in here and he ﬁnouglnt that ﬁnat
was in there too but it's not.

Thomas: Yeah it is!

Teacher: What do you mean Thomas?

Thomas: Well ﬁnere are steps right here ﬁnat goes like ﬁnis and ﬁnen ﬁnere's a big dam and
ﬁh water goes higlner here and a bigge dam here and ﬁne water goes higher . . .

Teacher: Wait let me see if I can say it, okay? so that everybody can see. In ﬁnis one here,
it's like a big space here and ﬁnen a step and then anoﬁner step, so ﬁnere's two steps and
three, um, ﬁnings hee and then up here, it goes up again to get to here and ﬁnee's a space

and then a step and then it goes up again to get to here and ﬁnen up here ﬁnere's a big
space and ﬁnen it goes up like a dam, like ﬁnis is like a dam of water . . .

Thomas: Like um .. .
Teacher: . . . to get to here and it's up higher and ﬁnen it goes up again and it gets to here.

Thomas: So it's like ﬁnis water would be falling all the way down into here and all ﬁne
water would be trapped here.

Teacher: What Shumshad?

Shumshad: But I ﬁnink ﬁnis would have ﬁne most because it's more deeper down.

9 1
Teacher: Would have the most water? [Children nod and murmur yes]

Shumshad: Because it's ﬁne most deepest down, see ﬁnis one is not as deep, it's not as
deep as this one, you see I don't know, but if you put ﬁnese [the bars] on there, ﬁnis is low
and this is high, this one makes lower sounds and ﬁnis one makes higher and those make
medium.

First Alyosha points out ﬁnat ﬁne bottoms of the parts of ﬁne sound box are of different
heights then Thomas describes them metaphorically like levels and dams in a river. For some
reason ﬁnis metaphor seems / ed particularly important to meuﬁnat's why I repeated it to ﬁne class.
First of all I like it when the children use metaphor to describe things ﬁnat ﬁney see-I ﬁnink it is
interesting because it enables subsequent comparative talk. Metaphorical statements invite why
questions from me and also seem to invite other metaphors and ﬁnen exploring how those
metaphors are applicable in different ways—they highlight different things about whatever we
are examining-{an get much more explicit. Second this particular metaphor was interesting, I
think because it made me ﬁnink ﬁnat Thomas was saying sound is like a ﬂuid, I ﬁnought that was
really quite worﬁn thinking about. Often the mediums that transmit sound are ﬂuids but also I
think in a lot of ways sound has ﬁne properties of a fluid. For example, it fills its container and
that seems to be particularly applicable to ﬁninking about sound boxes. I go from Thomas's
metaphor to Shumshad's observations and ask if ﬁney are trying to correlate ﬁne two: "This would
make a lower sound and this would make a higher sound because, are you saying because ﬁnis is
deeper?" Shumshad says ﬁnat "Maybe it would be true . . . " I ask again:

Teacher: 50 would that be true here, this is ﬁne lower sound and ﬁnis is ﬁne higher sound?

Shumshad: I think I need ﬁnis to tell you. See if you do ﬁnis and if you do ﬁnis and try it, it

will be low and if you do it on that and try it [he does both—takes one bar, rings it in one place

moves it again and rings it] see ﬁnat one is more higher.

Shumshad is the first child to have made a conjecture and ﬁnen formulated an experiment
and tried it in ﬁnis part of ﬁnis unit on pattern and music. His interpretation of his results
however are in opposition to ﬁne rest of the class's. "NO IT'S THE SAME!!!" many children call
out. I repeat Shumshad's hypothesis and try it. To me it sounds the same in tone but different in

resonance.

Cory: It's the same because ﬁne wood is ﬁne same.

92

Emily: The wood is the same long.

Shumshad: Or maybe you need a little one for that.

I think this is a classic response of a scientist to an experimental result ﬁnat has not come
out as expected. Shumshad has immediately started to incrementally modify his experiment. Oh
maybe if I try it just a little bit differently it will work . . . Danping makes a new claim by
correlating two different patterns of observations. "I think because ﬁne wood is ﬁne same lengﬁn it
will make ﬁne same sound. Not just because you put it in different spaces." I turn Shumshad's
conjecture into a counter-argument by restating ﬁne observation on which it is based. "Well what
Shumshad was saying was ﬁnat it was ﬁne deepness of ﬁnis. This is shallow, ﬁnis is deep. You
don't ﬁnink that makes any difference?" Danping has her own, different, observation which she
ﬁninks correlates to Shumshad's. "I a little bit disagree with ﬁnat because, see, I ﬁnink that if you
have lots of ﬁnem of course it will make a different sound but if you have one, if you put it over
here, like, if you have ﬁnese space right, if you stacked ﬁnese space up, I think it will still be ﬁne
sanne space even though it's skinnier."

Danping is claiming ﬁnat ﬁne volume of each of ﬁne spaces in ﬁne sound box is ﬁne same,
that ﬁne ones which have larger rectangles in outline have shallower floors. Very interesting but
just like Thomas's metaphor we don't pursue it. I think that the reason that we don't is because
we haven't gotten to a place in our talking about sound yet where enough children in the class
can talk togeﬁner about these ways of ﬁninking. I think there is a development of ﬁnis over the
course of these classes and ﬁnat comes about because ﬁnere is a community ﬁnat develops ﬁnrough
that dialectic process between observation, generalization, explanation, fed ﬁnrough
experimentation and conversation. It's ﬁnat I am working on getting off ﬁne ground. I ﬁnink boﬁn
Danping's and Shumshad's conjectures are very interesting in and of themselves but ﬁne class
wasn't at the point yet ﬁnat could be acted on.

So I continue on pushing the experimentation. I say: "Let's listen to it again and see if
ﬁney sound the same or how ﬁney nniglnt sound different. Listen to it on ﬁne deep one . . . ." I do

it. Children call out that it sounds lower, it sounds higlner, it sounds ﬁne same. I ask a couple of

93
ﬁne childrern all of whom say ﬁnat it sounds ﬁne same. I say: "You know to me and I don't know if

I'm riglnt or not but I do ﬁnink they sound different but I don't ﬁnink ﬁney sound different lower or
higher I ﬁnink ﬁney sound different louder and softer." Thomas agrees wiﬁn me and we try it
again. This time all agree. Actually I ﬁnink I am trying to say here ﬁnat it has a difference in
resonance not volume or tone but I really don't know how to express ﬁnis-wiﬁn ﬁne deeper hole
ﬁne tone was fuller but however it is I said it, I purposely introduced anoﬁner variable.

Cory doesn't agree wiﬁn me. He also ﬁninks ﬁnat only ﬁne size of ﬁne bars matters. Then
he adds in a new variable of his own-how hard ﬁne bar is struck: "Maybe you're doing it harder
over here and softer over here." I invite him to try ﬁne experiment and ﬁnen Shumshad critiques
him: "But he used ﬁnis part instead of ﬁnis part [metal part of pencil rather than the eraser for second
try] ." Suni ﬁninks much more along ﬁne lines ﬁnat I was ﬁninking in. "I ﬁnink I know why, see, ﬁnis
has more of ﬁne sound, ﬁne sound can go much more deeper and it makes it much nnore louder,
but this is not ﬁnat deep so ﬁne sound doesn't make it so loud it just makes it soft but ﬁnis one if it
was just like ﬁnis one on ﬁnis side it would have the same tone, exactly ﬁne same tone." Notice ﬁnat
he is again constructing an explanation by correlating more ﬁnan one pattern of observations. He
also introduces a new word, ﬁne ﬁrst ﬁnat we pursue ﬁne meaning of in ﬁne context of ﬁnis unit. I
ask: "What do you mean by ﬁne word "tone"?" He doesn't seem able to articulate what he means
by tone, ﬁnough, and I drop it. This is okay, we're just working on starting to develop ﬁne
language here and part of ﬁnis process is introducing new words (concepts), trying ﬁnem on and
maybe keeping or discarding ﬁnem. The point is when I hear new words ﬁnat I judge might
become important I give ﬁnem a little air time by keeping ﬁne talk on ﬁnem not just letting them
pass by. The next big word ﬁnat we will pursue is vibration and ﬁnat is also introduced by ﬁne
children in ﬁnis lesson but not chased after for a bit.

Next Shumshad takes over ﬁne experimenting again: "Maybe ﬁnis makes a deeper sound,
maybe ﬁnis makes it harder and ﬁnis makes it softer, let me try ﬁnis . . . raps with knuckles on
wooden bars on floor, gets diﬂ'erent tone . . . It suddenly occurs to me to wonder if ﬁne bars are

hollow and I ask wheﬁner or not ﬁney seem to be to anyone. I am also quite honestly participating

94
in ﬁnis experimenting I do have a lot of questions about ﬁnis too. I say: " Is it hollow by ﬁne way?

Turn it around does it look ﬁne same or is it ﬂatter?" I am asking about ﬁne concave side of ﬁne
bars. Some say ﬁne same some say different. Thomas responds wiﬁn a ﬁneory: ”The tune, ﬁnis is
what makes ﬁne tune, how it's carved under here 'cause these two are different, ﬁney're different
sizes but also ﬁnese two are cut differently." A number of children engage in ﬁnis discussion.
Again ﬁne referent point for ﬁneir ﬁneories (explanations) are ﬁne patterns in ﬁne ﬁnings they
observe.

In each instance of our talk, ﬁne children make statements suggesting explanations for ﬁne
sounds ﬁne xylophone makes. Their explanations relate to ﬁnings ﬁney have been able to observe
about ﬁne xylophone—ﬁne primary basis of ﬁneir explanations are observations up to now.
Periodically I stimulate observation and explanation by making an observation of my own and
ﬁnen waiting to see how ﬁne children use ﬁnat observation—do ﬁney extend it into a pattern, do
ﬁney use ﬁnat pattern to construct or support a ﬁneory about ﬁne sound? Making a single
observation is not ernougln to construct an explanation; ﬁne children have to be able to make ﬁne
same observation repeatedly in differing circumstances to be able to see a significance to it. In
oﬁner words ﬁney need to be able to make ﬁne same observation about ﬁne object in instances
where oﬁner variables are clnanging. I try to stimulate ﬁnis.

The children reach no consensus, however, about what causes ﬁne tone changes and we
return to ﬁnat a number of times. Right now though Meiying wants to show us someﬁning.
Meiying speaks very little English yet her "talk" is quite animated. She hits one bar sitting on ﬁne
ground then holds ﬁne ernd of it and hits it again. The results of doing ﬁnis are really quite
dramatic. lots of children start exclaiming. Danping yells out: "It's dead!" This is ﬁne first of a
couple new metaphors to describe the sound. Again each seems to capture someﬁning about boﬁn
ﬁne qualiﬁes of ﬁne sound and also someﬁning important about ﬁne physics of ﬁnis phenomenon. l
ﬁnink ﬁnis is an example of changing ﬁne wavelength of ﬁne vibrations in ﬁne bar and also causing
ﬁnem to not resonate; it causes ﬁnem to damp out. First ﬁnough Tity, Suni and Cory critique

Meiying's experimental technique. I like ﬁnis, I want ﬁnem to satisfy ﬁnemselves ﬁnat ﬁne

9S
phenomenon ﬁnat ﬁney are observing is real. I encourage them to do ﬁnis by allowing tlnem to

retry ﬁne experiment until all are convinced of ﬁne validity of ﬁne results. Then more children try
to describe what lnas happened.

Abeni: When you hold it ﬁne sound gets more . . . makes gestures, I say diﬂerent? she nods . .
. and when you don't hold it the sound is more . . . she makes aface with eya wide open...

Danping: Um, I'll, see, see I think when you tap it, it makes sounds, ﬁne regular sounds,
but when you just hold it, you kind of like kill ﬁne sound or someﬁning.

Teacher: Huh, interesting word, listen to it again, Cory could you hear a difference in
ﬁnat?

Cory: Um hum, when you hold on to it, when you went like ﬁnis, it's like ﬁne sound was
captured, wiﬁn out it, ﬁne sound would just go free.

Teacher: Yeah you're saying sort of ﬁne same ﬁning as Danping, Danping used kill and
you used capture, why do you ﬁnink ﬁnat would be, why would it sound so different?

Andy: Well because I think when you hit it, ﬁne block vibrates but when you hold it and
you tap it, it doesn't vibrate.

There, the first seriously, scientifically magical word for ﬁnis unit. I don't ask for a
definition yet, instead I ask Andy why ﬁne effect takes place hoping ﬁnat he would continue to use
-ﬁnis word. This is like ﬁshing I want ﬁnem to take ﬁne bait good. I want ﬁnem to get into using
ﬁne word and maybe have different children use it differently and ﬁnen start a discussion of what
it means. I ask: "Why would vibrating make any difference for sound?"

Sueh-yen: Because you're like squeezing it's neck or someﬁning like ﬁnat and then when
you, I can't really say it, but when you tap it wiﬁn holding it, it can't breaﬁne.

Suni: Well ﬁne pressure of your, when you have the pressure of your hand, you might
squeeze it down and when it gets down, it gets someﬁning, it's someﬁning like, when you
have a frying pan and you turn it over and you hold the metal part and it just sounds like
it goes dong dong dong but when you don't hold on to it, it makes a bell sound.

Teacher: Huh did oﬁner people hear ﬁnat? When you hit a glass too . . .

Cory: It's almost like ﬁnat . . . points to Kathy’s bell-one of those one's where you hit a button
on the top and it swings a clapper underneath . . . .

We do ﬁne same experiment wiﬁn ﬁne bell—ding it, ﬁnen put a finger on ﬁne side and ding
it again. I ask: "Is that ﬁne sanne, you killed it or you captured it or . . . Okay I agree wiﬁn you it
does seem to me ﬁnat it makes it vibrate when I hit it but what difference does ﬁnat make? Why

should it vibrate, does it have to vibrate to make a noise?" What makes ﬁne noise? Timmy: "I

96
ﬁnink ﬁnat ﬁnere's a little ﬁning undemeaﬁn and when you hit ﬁne top it hits ﬁne side of it." I turn

ﬁne bell over so everyone can see ﬁne underside. By ﬁne way, Kaﬁny's bell has been a source of
fascination in ﬁne room, when ﬁney ﬁnink she isn't looking ﬁnere is often one or two of ﬁne children
trying to surreptitiously check it out. This is harder than it seems because if it rings by mistake,
or if ﬁne temptation gets overwhelming, everyone gets yelled at. I start to ask what people think
of ﬁnis, how ﬁney ﬁnink ﬁne bell works when Meiying suggests a new experiment on ﬁne
xylophone. Raﬁner ﬁnan holding ﬁne bar as she did before, she suspends ﬁne bar on ﬁne tip of her
finger. She tries it first at just one end. When I strike ﬁne bar wiﬁn and wiﬁnout her finger, ﬁne
children pronounce the sound ﬁne same. Cory puts a finger under boﬁn ends and lifts it off ﬁne
sound box and we try it. The children say ﬁnat it sounds ﬁne same. Then Cory puts his ﬁngers on
boﬁn sides of ﬁne bar. We ring it and he says it sounds ﬁne same. Then he squeezes his ﬁngers,
pressing on ﬁne bar, and we get ﬁne damping effect from before. Alyosha: "I ﬁnink when you hold
it, when you hit ﬁne wood, it shakes and ﬁne music comes out when it shakes, and when you hold
it, you don't let it shake, so no music." Now in ﬁnis statement Alyosha is connecting ﬁne wood's
ability to vibrate wiﬁn ﬁne occurrence of ﬁne musical tones. He's not saying if ﬁne vibration causes
or is caused by ﬁne music. That's ﬁne trick wiﬁn correlaﬁng patterns, ﬁnere is ﬁne appearance of an
explanaﬁon when no causality has been established.

An'gele has an addiﬁon to ﬁnis in which she explains how she ﬁninks music is emitted
from an object. She explains it as a story. "Okay so ﬁnere's a house and ﬁnere's a roof and maybe
somebody's playing music inside and ﬁnen ﬁney get it too loud and it sort of vibrates and ﬁnat
makes all ﬁne noise and it comes out, I ﬁnink ﬁnat's how it works." To me ﬁnis is a bit like
Thomas's metaphor of water and a dam in ﬁne sound box. Boﬁn involve ﬁlling a place up wiﬁn
sound until ﬁnere's too much and ﬁnen it comes out. Both are examples of children using ﬁneir
experiences to try to make sense of a new phenomenon.

We return to ﬁne children making conjectures about what effects ﬁne sound. First
Shumshad suggests ﬁnat it miglnt matter where on ﬁne bar you strike it; on ﬁne middle or one of

ﬁne ends. He ﬁninks this might nnatter because ﬁne hollowed out part on ﬁne underside makes ﬁne

97
center ﬁninner; different parts of ﬁne bar have different ﬁnicknesses. Some ﬁnink ﬁnis will matter,

some ﬁnink not. For example Suni says: "If you hit it on ﬁne ﬁnin part, it makes like a sound but I
ﬁnink if you hit it on ﬁne ﬁnick part, it makes like, just like, um, ﬁnunk." We discuss ﬁnis some
more; do the children ﬁnink ﬁne sound change is because of where ﬁne bar is lnit or how it is held.

Then children suggest ﬁnat ﬁne different sounds of ﬁne different bars might be due to ﬁneir
being made of different woodsuﬁney are different colors. Some start talking about wheﬁner or not
the size of ﬁne bar effects ﬁne loudness as well as ﬁne tone. The size of the hollow on ﬁne underside
of ﬁne bars is brought up again. Thomas arranges the bars by size and by ﬁneir notation and
notices ﬁne correlation between ﬁnis and ﬁne sound ﬁne bar makes. We end ﬁne class with all ﬁnese
observations and variuos ideas about them in ﬁne air. I ask ﬁne children to return to ﬁneir seats
and write why ﬁney ﬁnink ﬁne pieces of wood make noise when ﬁney are hit and why is ﬁnat noise
music? I want to see what ﬁney got out of all ﬁnis discussion about how ﬁne noise is made and
effects on ﬁne quality of noise. Assumed in our discussion is ﬁnat ﬁnese two ﬁnings are linked. I
also want to know how ﬁne children might deﬁne music since ﬁney are referring to striking a bar
of ﬁne xylophone as making boﬁn a sound and making music.

In ﬁnis ﬁrst class, ﬁne children make many different sorts of observations about ﬁne
xylophone and about sound. Often times ﬁney are able to make ﬁne same observation in diffeent
places: for more ﬁnen one bar of ﬁne xylophone, when the bar is held in differenﬁy, for example.
This lends itself to ﬁne construction of patterns. This is the first step to attempting to construct
ﬁneories to explain a phenomenon. Each time a similar observation is made under different
circumstances, oﬁner aspects of ﬁne phenomenon have changeduﬁne oﬁner variables, which could
be used to describe ﬁne whole, have changed. For example the xylophone has many wooden
bar'suﬁne children see ﬁne same ﬁning over and over. Different bars, ﬁnough, sound differently,
are in different places, are somewhat different colors, make new sounds when moved or held in
special ways. This lends itself to experimentation: it sﬁmulates ﬁne children to try to do ﬁnings to
see if ﬁney obtain ﬁne sanne or different results. They can eiﬁner extend a pattern or limit a pattern

in ﬁnis way. Also by doing ﬁnings ﬁney are able to try to connect patterns. When two patterns can

98
be connected, correlated, it lends a great deal of support to an explanatory ﬁneory. For example,

many children seem to ﬁnink ﬁnat hitting ﬁne wooden bars made ﬁne sound. There are two
observational patterns here, one around the bars and sound and one around hitting and sound.

They are connected by what ﬁne child (or I) do. That's an experiment.

Asking scientiﬁc questions intertwined with experimentation:
Working within the emerging patterns.

April 23rd

I started the April 23rd class by asking about the questions ﬁnat I ended class wiﬁn last
time. "Why do you ﬁnink [the wooden bars] make music?" This question is ﬁne foundational
question driving ﬁne observations ﬁne children are making and ﬁne experimentation I am trying to
encourage. The children return to ﬁne variables ﬁney lad located in ﬁne last class: ﬁne length of ﬁne
bars, ﬁne hollow undemeaﬁn, how it is hit, the construction of ﬁne box, if ﬁne bar is on ﬁne box and
where. Finally Emily starts to try ﬁnings out. This is my goal in ﬁnis class, ﬁnat ﬁne children start
to take over control of ﬁne experimentation. I would like ﬁnis experimentation be driven by ﬁne
children's own questions and ideas. I assume ﬁnat different children will have different ideas
about ﬁnings to do and different explanations of ﬁne phenomenon. These different ideas should
fuel ﬁne exploration.

Emily takes a bar off ﬁne box and hits it. Then she and Cory debate wheﬁner or not ﬁnat
results in a change in sound. Cory reminds us of his and Meiying's experiment last time where
he held ﬁne bar tighﬁy and hit it and ﬁne sound was "dead." Then Cory says: "But it's different
wiﬁnyourhand . . . clapshishand . . . seehold myhand reallyhard . . .Iholdhishand, hehits it
again, no diﬁ'erence in sound . . . it still sounds, I don't know why ﬁnat happens, it's not like ﬁnese
[the wooden bars]." This is very interesﬁng I ﬁnink; why is ﬁne sound different when you hit ﬁne
wooden bar and your hand? And why don't ﬁne same ﬁnings effect ﬁne sound? Cory is asking a

great question. Also he's asking ﬁne question. This is different from making conjectures and ﬁnen

99
trying experiments to demonstrate ﬁnose and when ﬁney don't work as expected ﬁne conjecture

turns into a question. I summarize what Cory has done and said because I really want ﬁne
children to pay attention to ﬁnis new point. Cory adds ﬁnis explanation: "[It's] 'cause of ﬁne
vibration, it doesn't not make ﬁne vibration when you're holding on to it 'cause it's not just one
whole big, it's not just one whole ﬁning. Like if my arm was cut off it would be one whole big
ﬁning."

Cory's explanation for ﬁne phenomenon ﬁnat he has poirnted out to us is more an
inspirational leap then the children's previous explanations. As I have been noting ﬁne children's
oﬁner conjectured explanaﬁons are of ﬁne form of correlations between patterned observations.
For example correlating ﬁne progression in wooden bar size wiﬁn ﬁne tone of the sound ﬁne bar
makes when struck, correlating the loudness of the tone with how hard ﬁne bar is hit. A similar
inspirational leap occurred when ﬁne children were talking about ﬁne sound box and about ﬁne
damping process of ﬁne sound when ﬁne bars were held tiglnﬁy. In boﬁn of ﬁnose cases the "leap"
was both reﬂected in and furﬁnered by ﬁne children's use of nnetaphor. To say ﬁne sound box was
like a series of dams and ﬁnerefore ﬁne sound was like water ﬁlling ﬁnat space to different depﬁns
and ﬁnen ﬂowing boﬁn caught something Thomas saw in the object and shaped and transformed
it through ﬁnat expression. Cory's idea isn't like ﬁnat. Cory just suddenly seems to jump between
two ﬁnings.

Children agree and disagree wiﬁn Cory. Benjamin says ﬁnat ﬁne bar of ﬁne xylophone is
different from your arm because it's an "instrument." Meiying points out ﬁne difference in size
between ﬁne bars of ﬁne xylophone and that ﬁne effect of holding ﬁne bar and hitting it is larger for
ﬁne larger bars. Emily disagrees, she hits a bar in ﬁne air, on ﬁne xylophone and on ﬁne ground and
claims that it makes the same tone in all ﬁnree places. I am not sure what she is getting at, I ﬁnink
possibly she is saying ﬁnat ﬁne difference we hear isn't attributable to ﬁne bar, raﬁner the bar has a
particular tone which is effected by ﬁne place that it is played. Suni responds: "Well see I disagree
wiﬁn Emily because see, um, on, um, ﬁnis part when you put it down here. . . because someﬁning

like ﬁne ground is kind of hard and it kind of makes ﬁne sound go away, see on ﬁnis side ﬁnere's

1 00
really, it's like ﬁne sound is louder because if ﬁne other side is touching . . . like ﬁnis side it would

be ﬁne vibration, the sound would go like not so high, it would go kind of not ﬁnat much just a
litﬁe, so I ﬁnink Cory is right."

Emily: Well but if you went, see that gets higlner [louder] when it's on ﬁne ground 'cause
it's so small.

Suni: Yeah but ﬁnere's a difference between ﬁnis, isn't ﬁnis rubber?

Emily: I know but yeah it's got to stay on ﬁne rubber to do it but ﬁne vibration . . . hits the
sticks together . . . 'cause ﬁnat makes a sound too.

Surni: Except you're holding ﬁnis part, except ﬁnis part where it makes ﬁne sound much
better and it needs some space. It needs some space for ﬁne sound waves to come out!

Emily: Yeah I know!
Suni: Watch Emily, see, see when you put it here . . .
Andy: It has ﬁne holes [the chambers in the sound box] . . .

Suni: . . . yeah on ﬁne sides here, to like go inside and make ﬁne sound. But there's no
space here [on the ﬂoor].

Emily: 1 know but if I go like ﬁnis . . . she holds it up in the air . . . it has a whole bunch of
space down here.

In ﬁnis conversation ﬁne children are suggesting ideas to each other (not to me), both
arguing for particular poirnts of view and changing their ideas as different qualiﬁes of ﬁne
xylophone are demonstrated to ﬁnem by each oﬁner. This seems very important to me, by taking
control of ﬁne conversation they signal to me ﬁnat ﬁney have found an aspect of ﬁne phenomenon
that we are examining ﬁnat is engaging-the children have found their own purpose for ﬁne
conversation. Again developing ﬁnis sense of a common purpose is central to ﬁne development of
a community. The conversation is grounded in boﬁn what ﬁney observe and what ﬁney can do—
the experiments ﬁney can design to try out ﬁneir ideas—but moﬁvated by ﬁneir ideas and ﬁne
stunning of each oﬁner's ideas.

We balance a bar irn ﬁne air on ﬁne tips of Suni's and Cory's ﬁngers. Emily rings it. Suni
says: "See ﬁne sound waves go under it but if . . . " I interrupt: "It's still noﬁning like ﬁne sound
down here ﬁnough." The children keep trying different combinations of different sized bars and

ringing it in different places boﬁn on ﬁne xylophone and in ﬁne air and on ﬁne ground. Shumshad

lOl
arranges ﬁnem on his legs so ﬁnat ﬁne hollowed out part rests on his ﬁnighs and rings ﬁnenn. Emily

tries ﬁne largest bar over a deep hole in ﬁne xylophone and over a shallow hole. She says ﬁnat "it
would just need a little more space like . . . 'cause ﬁnis one would be down here and ﬁnat's a really
low one, but if you put ﬁnis one over here, it gets a lot of space to breaﬁne so it makes a really
good sound." Suni again talks about "sound waves." I never do ask him what he means by
waves. Too bad. Paula says ﬁnat when ﬁne bar is over a part of ﬁne sound box ﬁnat is deep, it
sounds hollow.
Danping: See I have someﬁning to say about when Emily put ﬁnat ﬁning on ﬁne ﬂoor, see
when you put ﬁnis ﬁning on ﬁne ﬂoor, ﬁne ﬂoor's a litﬁe bit hard and when you hit it, it's
very low and ﬁnen when you put it back on ﬁne box . . . she does it . . . see ﬁne sounds more
lower, I mean louder.
Suni: Because it has something so ﬁne sound can go . . . hands to indicate out . . . well
because it has, like I don't know what to call it, hole, and see if it went, because if it was
right down here, it wouldn't make ﬁne sound, see when Emily did it down here, it made
like, um, a little sound ﬁnat you couldn't even really hear it, but when you put it here, it
sounds, um, higher because most of ﬁne sound waves could go inside and make ﬁne
sound but if you just put it here ﬁnere's not, ﬁnere's not enougln space for ﬁne sound waves
and I ﬁnink that's why it doesn't make a sound so loud.
Teacher: An'gele?
An'gele: I ﬁnink I know why it was making a different sound because, like, see, because
ﬁnis one is lower and ﬁnis one is higher. See, put your hand in ﬁnis one and you can still
see it, put your hand in ﬁnis one and your hand is gone, and you see, probably you could
do ﬁnis [I have stretched rubber bands across some of the empty pegs], see how high ﬁnis is and
then ﬁnis one, ﬁnis would be low, now if I do ﬁnis . . .
She moves some of ﬁne rubber bands which I had stretched across the empty pegs in ﬁne top half
of ﬁne box. She takes some of ﬁne rubber bands and moves them to different pegs so ﬁney are over
oﬁner levels of the inner chambers of ﬁne box. She claims ﬁne sound change is due to ﬁnis. An'gele
moves some of ﬁne rubber bands and sounds ﬁnem over different places and levels of ﬁne sound
box. She ﬁninks ﬁne differences in sound she gets is due to ﬁne differences in ﬁne depﬁn of ﬁne
chambers. (She ignores the changes in length of ﬁne rubber bands as she stretches ﬁnem to
different pegs.)
An'gele has started to work wiﬁn ﬁne rubber bands. That is what I had planned ﬁnat we
miglnt do today. I ﬁnought ﬁnat by using rubber bands we could work more on experimentally

ﬁninking about how what we did effected the quality of sound produced by a ﬁning and also be

102
able to see ﬁne ﬁning vibrate. I deﬁnitely wanted to have more discussion about vibration but I

didn't want it to be about someﬁning abstract and wiﬁnout a common experience between ﬁne
children. Vibraﬁon, to me, is ﬁne central concept to talking about and understanding sound.
Defining vibrations and ﬁne various variables ﬁnat can characterize vibrations is a powerful tool to
making sense of ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁne children can observe about sound. But to do ﬁnis ﬁne children
need a place where ﬁney can generate boﬁn ﬁne observations and ﬁne questions ﬁnat will lead to
ﬁnose variables. For example amplitude and frequency are boﬁn components of ﬁne vibrations
ﬁnat ﬁney should be able to observe and alter in playing with ﬁne rubber bands and ﬁney should
also be able to observe what effects changes in ﬁnose variable will have on ﬁne sounds of ﬁne
bands. My idea was to have ﬁne children play ﬁne rubber bands by holding ﬁnem between ﬁneir
ﬁngers of one hand and ﬁneir teeﬁn. But before we got to ﬁnat I wanted to do a litﬁe bit more wiﬁn
ﬁnis discussion of effects on ﬁne sound of a bar from ﬁne xylophone being played in different
places. 50 I ask: "You know what I did notice was ﬁnat if I had ﬁnese just like on ﬁne ﬂoor, just ﬁne
pieces of wood wiﬁn out ﬁne hole [sound box] undemeaﬁn, ﬁney still sound different. Listen to ﬁne
wood, just ﬁne wood wiﬁnout ﬁne hole . . . do it . . . you've got to listen very carefully . . . play
them . . . ﬁne wood by itself wiﬁnout ﬁne hole, ﬁney do sound different. What do you ﬁnink
Thomas?"

Thomas: Well I ﬁnink ﬁney do sound different.

Teacher: Why do you ﬁnink ﬁney sound different?

Thomas: Well ﬁney're not vibrating as much but there's more places for ﬁne sound waves
to move.

Teacher: When it's here or down ﬁnere?

Thomas: There [on the box] ﬁney can go way down and bounce around everywhere but
ﬁnere, ﬁney just hit ﬁne ground and bounce up to ﬁnat.

Teacher: Uh huh . . .
Thomas: And here bounce out of ﬁne hole to our ears.
Now I go to ﬁne rubber bands. Each clnild takes three and goes back to ﬁneir seat and tries

ﬁnem out

103

Encouraging aperimentation by questioning relationships.

On April 28 I start ﬁne class wiﬁn ﬁne children working in groups. Each child got one
rubber band ﬁnis time. They played ﬁnem in turn while ﬁne oﬁner members of ﬁne group watched
and listened. Then ﬁne group compiled a list for presentation of what ﬁnings ﬁney saw, what
ﬁnings ﬁney heard, what patterns there were. When ﬁne children present ﬁneir lists, I start to
compile a larger list on poster paper at ﬁne front of ﬁne room. Sueh-yen starts wiﬁn: "The rubber
bands make boﬁn sides sound different, ﬁne rubber bands vibrate, ﬁne rubber bands go up and
down, ﬁne rubber bands are different sizes." I ask, "How do you know ﬁne rubber band vibrates."

Sueh-yen: Because when you ping it, it vibrates.

Andy: Yeah but you have to stretch it to get it to vibrate.

Sueh-yen: Yes . . .

Andy: 'Cause see it's not doing anything [if it isn 't stretched ﬁrst], all it is, is just moving,
it's not vibrating.

Now I can ask what they mean when they use ﬁne word vibrate. Suni says: "Well see I
think ﬁney mean you have to stretch it out instead of like he's, he's just making it fall or
someﬁning, you got to like make it . . . stretch it, that's how it makes ﬁne sound. Sueh-yen then
adds: "Because when you pull it far and let go . . . he wiggles his hand up and down.

Teacher: But what do you mean vibrate ﬁnen?

Sueh-yen: Like it's moving really fast.

Tity: Oh I ﬁnink I know what he means.

Sueh-yen: Like ﬁnat . . . moves his ﬁnger back and forth . . .

Then Sueh-yen wiﬁn Tity's help says ﬁnat it's ﬁne rubber band going fast. I ask if ﬁnat means ﬁnat
anyﬁning going fast is vibrating like me when I'm driving in my car. I am really just asking
anything at ﬁnis point just to keep ﬁne children talking. Not enough has been said at ﬁnis point to
do anyﬁning wiﬁn. Clnildren say ﬁnat no, I'm not vibrating. Cory says ﬁnat "what makes ﬁne sound
is ﬁne vibration . . . " I ask again, "But what is vibration?" Emily repeats Sueh-yen's non-verbal

deﬁnition by gesturing with her hand ﬁnat vibration is movement back and forﬁn.

104

An'gele: I ﬁnink I know what ﬁney are trying to say, it vibrates when you go like ﬁnis [does
it], like when you ﬁnger goes down and ﬁnen it pops up and ﬁnen it goes up and down
sort of air hits it, and ﬁnen it starts making noises.

Teacher: So it, the rubber band goes up and down [nose] and air hits that and maybe ﬁnat
makes noises? '

Shumshad: I ﬁnink they mean, I ﬁnink ﬁney mean , but ﬁnis is just a guess, ﬁnat it makes
sounds, ﬁnat's what it means, like ﬁnis . . . he gestures in the air.

So is it ﬁne noise ﬁnat makes the vibrations or ﬁne ﬁning ﬁnat makes ﬁne noise making ﬁne vibraﬁons
which are noise? I ask: "So are you saying vibration is ﬁne same ﬁning as making sounds? An'gele
said it's when it goes up and down, vibration is when it goes up and down."
Shumshad: I don't mean ﬁnat, see you know what I mean? When you pull it, it makes a
sound ﬁnat's what I think vibration is. But I'm not sure. You know on ﬁne top of houses,
like your house but not on apartments, ﬁnere's antenna's, well maybe ﬁnere's sort of an
antenna ﬁnat makes ﬁne TV go on, I ﬁnink ﬁnat's what it means.
Teacher: So the antennas make vibrations?
Shumshad: Yeah . . .

Teacher: An'gele said ﬁnat it's when ﬁnings go up and down like ﬁnat, Shumshad said ﬁnat
it's ﬁne same as sound and it has someﬁning to do wiﬁn ﬁne antennae on ﬁne top of houses.

Benjamin: I ﬁnink it's the same as sound.

Sueh-yen: I agree with An'gele.

Teacher: You agree with An'gele, Sueh-yen? How about Cory?

Cory: Um, I think ﬁnat what like vibration is, like, that someﬁning hit it, I can't really
explain it real good, but if I hit metal it makes like a vibration, 'cause it makes a sound

and I ﬁnink it's a vibration, it makes a vibration.

Teacher: 50 if you hit someﬁning, if you hit something it makes a vibration, but hitting
something isn't a vibration.

Cory: Yeah and you hold on to it and it's going like really fast and it's going up and down
very fast.

Teacher: ]iggly . . .

Cory: It's going up and down very fast!

We go back to ﬁne lists ﬁnat ﬁne groups have compiled of ﬁneir observations about ﬁne
rubber bands and Suni reports. This time I have the class discuss each ﬁning Suni reads out from

his list. Suni's list is of a form where each statement is attributed to ﬁne person who has nnade it.

1 OS
The ﬁrst ﬁning he says is from Teton, "I ﬁnink Teton is the loudest because he's got ﬁne thinnest

rubber band." 1 echo his statement and ask if oﬁners ﬁnought ﬁne ﬁninnest rubber bands were
loudest. Trying to make a discussion out of ﬁnis was premature. I had assumed ﬁnat Suni was
presenting claims about ﬁne rubber bands ﬁat his group had come to a consensus about and I
wanted these "claims" to start to appear more problematic-J was assuming ﬁnat oﬁner groups
didn't ﬁnd or conclude ﬁne same ﬁnings. It turns out ﬁnat Suni's list actually represented an
argument among his group members raﬁner ﬁnan a report of a consensus achieved. This might be
why each statement was ascribed to a particular person. Oﬁner people in ﬁne class were
ambivalent about whether or not ﬁney agreed or even had shared Suni's report. Cory claims ﬁnat
his was loud and demonstrates. It is also thinner ﬁnan oﬁner people's bands in his group. But
Andy (also in Cory's group) says ﬁnat Cory is pulling it longer ﬁnen oﬁner people, making it
tiglnter. Tity thinks ﬁnat his plucking strengﬁn or size could be varied.

In other words ﬁne children weren't ready yet to start ﬁninking about one variable at a
time. I am waiting for ﬁnem to be ready for ﬁnis because then we can start more systematic
experirnentations around sound. The experimentation ﬁnat I have been talking about which ﬁne
children seemed to develop naturally in which ﬁney relate two separate patterns by doing
someﬁning is not systematic. To be systenatic, oﬁner variables have to be held constant. For
example to "prove" the tension determines the pitch of sound when a rubber band is played, ﬁne
rubber bands played must also have ﬁne same ﬁnickness, be plucked ﬁne same amount, be held ﬁne
same way. I think ﬁnat in order to do ﬁnis what is needed is ﬁnat ﬁne children recognize ﬁne
variables as separate (or separable) from each oﬁner. In other words ﬁney need to set ﬁnem apart
from the continuum of ﬁne phenomenon. That ﬁne children are not doing ﬁnis is demonstrated in
ﬁne next paragraph. On April 30ﬁn, the class after ﬁnis when we discuss Suni's list some more, ﬁne
children do come to do more systematic experimentation. That is an important smp.

I go back to Suni's list. He tells us next what he had added, "I ﬁnink Suni is ﬁne same loud
as Teton." I ask if it was as ﬁnick as Teton's. Suni says no but demonstrates ﬁnat it sounds ﬁne

same. Then he reads what Dan said, "We could hardly hear Dan because he had ﬁne ﬁnickest

106
rubber band." Shumshad breaks in before I get a chance to. "Dr Osborne you know why? It's

because he . . . " Shurmhad indicates ﬁnat Dan played his wiﬁnout pulling it tiglntly. I ask him if
that is what he means in his demonstration and he adds ﬁnat maybe also Dan didn't hit it very
hard. Then Shumshad wants to try using Dan's band but playing it differently. Suni breaks in
ﬁnough to read ﬁne next ﬁning on his list. "We could hear Shumshad better ﬁnan Dan because we
couldn't hear Dan at all." I ask why they ﬁnought ﬁney could hear Shumshad so much better.
Suni says because he stretched it out. That was ﬁne last on ﬁne list so I summarize what I've
written up on the chart: "Suni said ﬁnat Teton's was loudest because it was ﬁninnest, Surni's was as
loud as Teton's but it was ﬁnicker, you could hardly hear Dan's because it was ﬁne ﬁnickest but on
ﬁne other hand he didn't stretch it very far, so ﬁney said two ﬁnings, a ﬁnin one is loude and one
ﬁunt is stretched furﬁner is louder." I start to ask children what ﬁney ﬁnink of all ﬁnis and wheﬁner
or not ﬁney saw anyan like ﬁnat irn ﬁneir experimenting. I ask Andy. First he says ﬁnat it's
interesting and ﬁnat he agrees wiﬁn it. Then he says ﬁnat he ﬁninks ﬁnat if the band is ﬁninner, it
will be louder because it is easier for it to move, to vibrate. Shumshad adds ﬁnat when they are
ﬁninner, it is easier to stretch ﬁnem. It looks like ﬁne debate is about to start up again when I end
class.

In ﬁne previous classes ﬁne children have been working on deﬁning and explaining a
phenomenon by constructing patterns. Deﬁning a phenomenon means recognizing it and
naming it. Describing it follows. It is described through generalizations-recognizing pre-
existing patterns in it-but also linking these patterns up in new ways. It means seeing how ﬁnis
phenomenon is like and unlike what already exists. This deﬁning and describing ﬁne
phenomenon is linked to explairning because of ﬁnis ﬁnal construction of new pattern. It occurs
ﬁnrougln linking observation to question-asking. That process, in turn, causes ﬁne extraction
(articulation, deﬁnition—ﬁne other sense of ﬁne word) of variables which characterize ﬁne
phenomenon. To say that ﬁnese variables characterize the sounds arnd musical instruments means
to deﬁne how ﬁney are related to each oﬁner. Recognizing ﬁnat ﬁnere are ﬁnese variables and ﬁnat

they are related is just ﬁne first step. After ﬁnis comes working out how to act on ﬁne variables to

1 07
elucidate ﬁneir relationships. Acting on variables in science must be meﬁnodical. It is patterned.

Method and pattern are linked. In ﬁne next two classes ﬁne children work on ﬁnis.

The development of method: Communication and community.

I start April 30 ﬁninking ﬁnat we will ﬁnish compiling ﬁne chart at ﬁne front from ﬁne oﬁner
group's lists. I begin by reviewing what we already have and ﬁnen I ask ﬁne class if ﬁney can see
any patterrns in what is written there. We didn't get more than a minute or two into ﬁnis when
Shumshad started talking about ﬁne substance of the statements on ﬁne list and suggesting ﬁnings
ﬁnat he also ﬁnought about playing the rubber bands. Shumshad starts us out by stating ﬁnat he
ﬁninks that even if you stretch a rubber band tighﬁy you still have to pluck it hard to get a loud
sound. He reminds us ﬁnat Dan wasn't doing ﬁnat. I question him for a bit about ﬁnis so ﬁnat it
becomes clear to oﬁners ﬁnat he is differentiating ﬁnose variables.

I ask ﬁne class whether or not they ﬁnink it makes a difference how hard ﬁney pluck ﬁne
rubber band. Most seem to ﬁnink it does but also ﬁnink ﬁnat ﬁnere are oﬁner factors which might
make more of a difference. For example Andy agreed ﬁnat how hard you pluck ﬁne band matters
but how ﬁnin ﬁne band is makes more of a difference. Suni also thinks ﬁnis: "I ﬁnink it's because of
ﬁne thinness because if you stretch it too long, it might break but if you stretch it just riglnt it will,
um . . . maybe it will make, um, and if you pluck it right it might make a louder sound." I ask
Sueh-yen about his violin, wheﬁner or not plucking a string hard makes a difference to how loud
the tone is. He says ﬁnat it does make a difference, "When I pluck really hard it goes louder and
then when I pluck really soft it goes softer." Then I ask him: "Are some of ﬁne strings on your
violin ﬁnicker ﬁnan oﬁners?" He responds that the ﬁnicker ones are louder ﬁnan ﬁne ﬁninner ones.
This wasn't what I thought he would say and it starts us off on a discussion of ﬁne difference
between louder and softer and higher and lower when describing musical tones. I had felt ﬁnat

ﬁnere was a little bit of confusion over ﬁnis developing in our last couple discussions. This is

l 08
important because ﬁne discussion which Slnumshad, Suni and Teton are about to start hinges on

having a shared understandirng of ﬁne difference between ﬁnose two pairs.

Shumshad begins: "See can you give me a tlnick rubber band I'll show you why. See if it's
ﬁnick it doesn't matter, it will make, I don't know." He does ﬁnis and ﬁnen I tell him to do it again
so everyone can see and then ask if ﬁne only difference is in ﬁne loudness and ﬁne softness. The
class says no. Andy says how ﬁnick it is and Timmy says how long referring to ﬁne rubber band
not to what Slnumshad did or to ﬁne results. Shumshad has a new idea before I can pursue ﬁnis
though.

Shumshad: I'm not thinking about lower or higher but maybe, I'm not sure but if you

play a different ﬁning it will make it different sound . . . He demonstrate-me plucks ﬁrst

with a ﬁnger, then with a pencil . . . he and Teton do this, they move to the front of the room at
this point

Cory: I don't hear it.

Emily: It depends on what you pluck it wiﬁn.

Shumshad: I ﬁnink it depends on how hard you do it.

Teacher: How loud depends on how hard?

Shumshad: Yeah but it depends, this makes a louder, lower sound see? But maybe on

ﬁnis side it will make a higher sound. [They are trying ﬁrst one side of the rubber band now

and then the other.] I ﬁnink it's higher.

I remind ﬁnem again to be sure that eveyone can see and hear ﬁnem and also ask ﬁnem to
clarify whether or not ﬁney are talking about lower and higher or softer and louder. "Shumshad,
can you make ﬁne claim you just made over again and be careful when you use . . . are you
talking about ﬁne noise being louder and softer or are you talking about ﬁne pitch, ﬁne tone being
higher or lower?" Shumshad plays the two sides of ﬁne rubber band over again calling one lower
and one higher. In doing ﬁnis ﬁnough Shumshad comes up wiﬁn a new idea. He and Teton try it
out for a minute ﬁnen show us: "See it makes a different sound if you play it in a different place . .
. he is having Teton play it closer and further from his ﬁngers, they have it set up that either one of them
holds the rubber band stretched between two hands and the other plucks it . . . okay see? Okay ﬁnis side,
ﬁnis side. See higher higher higher, oh I mean not higher higher higher but lower medium

higher." First I get them to clarify just exacﬁy where ﬁney have been playing on ﬁne band. It's

109
been ﬁrst close to Shumshad's ﬁnger then away a bit, then at ﬁne middle of ﬁne band. Then I ask

ﬁnem to do it over wiﬁn a thinner rubber band. I ask ﬁnem to do ﬁnis just because I ﬁnink ﬁne
ﬁninner ones are easier to work wiﬁn. This is somewhat more effective, more children can hear
what ﬁney are doing as well as see it and people start responding to what they are doing and
saying. Andy says ﬁnat it changes to being louder and An'gele to higher. I say I can't hear any
difference at all. Tity says she ﬁninks she knows why it might work. Shumshad also has a ﬁneory:
"I ﬁnink I know what is happening, see if you hold it like ﬁnis, see ﬁnis part of it is different, see it's
different, so I ﬁnink ﬁnis part is different, so ﬁnis part plays different and ﬁnis part and ﬁnis part, see
ﬁnis different, see ﬁnis has a different part of ﬁnis finger and ﬁnis has part of the different ﬁnger so I
ﬁnink it will make a different noise." He is holding ﬁne rubber band looped around his fingers.
On one hand ﬁne band is around ﬁne base of one of his fingers and on ﬁne oﬁner hand it is toward
ﬁne middle of a different finger.

Teacher: What do you mean it's different, how is it different?

Emily: I didn't understand a word of what you said.

Sakﬁ: Yeah!

Shumshad: Well see ﬁnis part, ﬁnis part is in ﬁne middle of my ﬁnger, so I ﬁnink they're
different parts!

Teacher: Well how are they different what do you mean ﬁnat ﬁney are different?
Shumshad: Not ﬁngers but ﬁney have lines that are different ways, like some lines of ﬁnat
goes like ﬁnis and some are like ﬁnis so I think that ﬁney are different kinds of ﬁngers, so I
think it will make a different noise, you get it?

Teacher: No I don't get it! But I'm hoping ﬁnat I will soon . . .

Shumshad: See this blue ﬁning . . . points to vein in his wrist . . . it's ﬁne blue ﬁning in your
body ﬁnat ﬁne blood goes in [kids talking and looking at each other’s wrists]. So see?

Teacher: Wait a nninute let everybody catch up with Shumshad, everybody's looking at
their veins, now what about veins?

Shumshad: Now see some veins are different, now see ﬁnis vein and ﬁnis vein, ﬁnen ﬁnis
vein? So I ﬁnink on different ﬁngers ﬁnere would be different veins.

1 ask for clariﬁcation and Shumshad explains how his different ﬁngers have different

rings (in ﬁne skin, patterns of markings in ﬁne skin) on ﬁnem. I start asking children if ﬁney

l 10
understand Shumshad's conjecture and if they can put it in ﬁneir own words. I ﬁnink what

Shumshad is doing is very interesting: he is demonstrating ﬁne dialectic between ﬁneorizing and
experimentation to us. He has made an observation; ﬁnat ﬁne ﬁnicker and ﬁninner rubber bands
make different types of sounds when plucked. But he also wants to make a claim ﬁnat plucking
each differenﬁy alters ﬁne sound. In experimenting wiﬁn ﬁnese two observations he comes up
wiﬁn a ﬁnird, that ﬁne sound varies with how hard ﬁne band is plucked. In playing wiﬁn ﬁnis he
discovers ﬁnat ﬁne two sides of ﬁne rubber band make different noises. Then he and Teton
expeiment wiﬁn playing at different places on one side of the band. Finally he comes up wiﬁn a
theory; ﬁnat something happens when ﬁne band is held between different ﬁngers that cause ﬁne
sound to be different. He has done a lot of leaping around in ﬁnis and I want to make sure ﬁnat
the class is wiﬁn him. Suni says ﬁnat he can explain what Shumshad is up to. He gets about two
words out of his mouﬁn and ﬁnen runs to ﬁne front of ﬁne room to try out ﬁne experiment for
himself. The ﬁnree of ﬁnem now start telling each other what to do. After quite a bit of ﬁnis Suni
announces, "It's not veins, it's your finger prints."

Teacher: Okay would you tell me, all three of you who are doing ﬁnis what it is you are
trying to prove by doing ﬁnat?

Shumshad: Oh I'm not sure but I just did someﬁning wrong see ﬁnis side of ﬁnis wasn't
any different, ﬁnis side of ﬁnis, which is different, so I ﬁnink it's ﬁne same ﬁning wiﬁn ﬁne
thumb.

Suni: Well let nne explain ﬁnis, see what we mean is, okay like if you hold a rubber band
wiﬁn two ﬁngers, two ﬁnumbs, I mean, and you hold it like ﬁnis and then somebody
plinks it, it will make one sound but when you change a ﬁnger and make a sound ﬁnen
you're . . . you plink it and it makes a different sound. I'll show you. Get the stuff
togeﬁnerll Okay watch ﬁnis, okay it makes ﬁnat sound . . . He plucks the rubber band again.
Cory suggests ﬁney pluck it harder. They do it and ﬁne sound is louder. This gets incorporated in
ﬁne original experiment where ﬁne ﬁngers holding the rubber band are changed.
Shumshad: See it depends on how hard you pull it.
Surni: And it depends on what finger you use.

Shumshad: See if ﬁnis is my ﬁnger and ﬁnis is my finger and ﬁnis is both . . . they do it . . .
see ﬁney're different ﬁngers.

Teacher: Okay all of you guys stop, stop. Stand up ﬁnere in a line and stop ﬁddling
around and don't all talk at once. Okay whose going to speak Shumshad or Suni?

111

Suni: Teton!

Shumshad: Teton, say someﬁning you haven't said noﬁning.

Suni: Yeah!

Teton: Okay I'll explain it, it depends on ﬁne size because if ﬁnere are like our ﬁnumbs are

one size and ﬁney're boﬁn ﬁne same size, boﬁn of our ﬁnumbs and if you change a ﬁnger

ﬁney're not ﬁne same size, look . . . He shows us his ﬁngers.

Teacher: Now listen to me, I saw what you guys were doing and everybody else saw

what you guys were doing. It seemed to me ﬁnat not only were you changing what was

holding ﬁne rubber band, you were changing how far apart you held your ﬁngers, you
were clnanging how hard you plucked the rubber band, ﬁnere were all sorts of changes

and all of ﬁnem might have made a difference in the way ﬁne rubber band sounds . . .

Science isn't just fun you know, it's disciplined. In order to make sense of the
phenomenon ﬁneir experimental actions has to be patterned. In ﬁnis way variables can be located
and isolated. Results can be ascribed to changes in ﬁnose variables. All of ﬁnis hinges on ﬁne
construction of a pattern-4n the observation of ﬁne phenomenon and irn ﬁne meﬁnod of interaction
wiﬁn it. The need to do ﬁnis in ﬁnis class has grown organically out of what the children are trying
to do and also commurnicate. The construction of patterned action is necessitated as much by
what ﬁney are working on in ﬁninking about sound as in how ﬁney are trying to communicate it to
oﬁners. The patterns of meﬁnod in science and in communication are linked developmentally
wiﬁn the growﬁn of ﬁne classroom community. A community is deﬁned by shared discourse and
activities.

They try it again, trying hard to only change ﬁne finger they have ﬁne band rapped
around. Finally Suni announces, "It's different, it's different, ﬁnere that proves it." The ﬁnree of
ﬁnem run back to their seats. I call them back up front and tell them ﬁnat ﬁney need to explain to
ﬁne class what ﬁney have done, what ﬁney ﬁnink it shows and ask people what ﬁney ﬁnink of it and
whether or not ﬁney agree and why. I tell ﬁnem ﬁnat I personally don't agree wiﬁn ﬁnem but "I'm
not totally sure I know what you are saying." Suni says that he'll explain: "Well, see we had a
rubber band and then we did one ﬁning wiﬁn ﬁngers ﬁnat were ﬁne same and ﬁnen we plinked it
and it sounded like someﬁning. Then we changed ﬁne ﬁnger except kept one [only changed one

ﬁnger] and we kept it ﬁne same distance. Then we plinked it and it made a different sound, so if

1 12
you changed ﬁngers, it can make a diffeent sound but you have to keep ﬁnem ﬁne same distance."

I ask him if ﬁney plucked it ﬁne same way each time and ﬁney say yes except for Shumshad.

The manner ﬁnat Shumshad, Suni and Teton are interacting is a very visible expression of
ﬁne interacﬁons of members of a community. They listen to each other and try to ﬁnink inside
each oﬁne's ﬁnoughts and ﬁnen, occasionally, one or ﬁne oﬁner contributes a different idea, one
ﬁnat is impliciﬁy critical. This nnanner of interacting is fundamentally creative. It can only
happen socially when people are honestly interested in each oﬁner and mutually engaged in a
common pursuit. The way ﬁne children listen to each other, as well as ﬁne way ﬁnat ﬁney criticize
each oﬁner, is a measure of respect. I think ﬁnis develops because of a genuine interest in ﬁne
subject matter and our explorations and a respect for each oﬁner constructed by me and enforced
by rrne. I model ﬁnis way of acting and after a while ﬁne children adopt it because ﬁney have found
ﬁnat ﬁne ﬁnings that each does are interesting and of value.

Shumshad states: "But Suni sometimes you pluck it and you do ﬁnis much and sometimes
you do ﬁnis much, so it would make a different sound, see you pluck it, ﬁrst you pluck it ﬁnis
much and ﬁnen . . . .You can not go like ﬁnis always, the same lengﬁn, you can sometimes go like
ﬁnis and it will make a different soun

Suni: Yeah except we want it to be ﬁne same so it can make ﬁne, so we can prove it!

Shumshad: Okay do you have a ruler and I'll hold it and ﬁnen let's see . . .

That's exacﬁy what I wanted to hear. Now we are ready to construct a systematic
expeiment. We get a ruler and ﬁney start ﬁneir experiment over again. They measure ﬁne
distance between ﬁneir hands and ﬁnen ﬁne depth of ﬁne plucking wiﬁn a great deal of discussion
of who does what. Also Teton insists on metric. The ﬁnree of ﬁnem work out ﬁnat ﬁney will stretch
the band 14 cm and ﬂick it 3 cm. They are going to do ﬁnis ﬁrst wiﬁn one pair of ﬁngers, ﬁnen wiﬁn
different ﬁngers. They explain all ﬁnis very clearly to ﬁne class. I suggest they ask ﬁne class what
it ﬁninks before ﬁney go on.

Suni, Teton, and Shumshad take questions from ﬁne ﬂoor. Thomas ﬁninks ﬁne ﬂick should

be larger so now it's ﬁve centimeters. Suni explains again even clearer. Emily disagrees wiﬁn

113

their statement of what ﬁne experiment will prove. Suni says " we're not sure we're just testing,
we might be right, we might be wrong." Emily: "In my opinion, I ﬁnink it won't make a
difference." Suni explains agairn. An'gele wants to make sure of ﬁne experimental desigrn. Finally
ﬁney try it and I have ﬁnem talk it out while ﬁney do it. We can't agree if it is different so ﬁney do it
again ﬁnis time twice because Shumshad ﬁninks ﬁnat will make it easier to hear. Emily tlnouglnt it
sounded ﬁne same. An'gele different and so did Sakti. Timmy ﬁne same. Alyosha different. The
group different. I poll: it's about 50/50. Then again and it was 5 ﬁne same and 7 different. So
ﬁney try it again. I hold ﬁne rubber band ﬁnis time-there is no difference in diameter of my
ﬁngers. Different took it.

Emily: I sort of disagree wiﬁn you guys, I'm going to need ﬁne chalk board.

Teacher: Okay.

Emily: Okay, hee's your ﬁnumb and here's you ﬁnger and here's ﬁne rubber band and

you pluck it and it makes one sound and ﬁnen ﬁne next time you do it, and it even makes

a different sound or the same sound.

Suni: Well to us it nnade a different sound.

Emily: Well most people ﬁnought it sounded ﬁne same. It probably . . . well ﬁney were
either right or wrong but we don't krnow that right now.

Surni: Riglnt.

Emily: So I have an idea so we can ﬁnd out... well one ﬁning we can do .. . tries it with

two ﬁngers and one ﬁnger rather than changing the ﬁngers . . . lets see if it makes a different

sound.
Emily repeats so oﬁners can see. This is also ﬁne ﬁrst hint ﬁnat someone ﬁninks it different
diameters of ﬁne ﬁngers ﬁat matters not just something magical about ﬁne ﬁngers ﬁnemselves.
Shumshad coaches her on how to present ﬁnis to the whole class. The argument in ﬁnis class
progresses from arguing ﬁat one idea versus anoﬁner is riglnt to being about meﬁnod. The result
of ﬁne argument about meﬁnoduwhat to do and how to do it— is ﬁnat ﬁne children's nneﬁnodology
becomes systematic, patterned, disciplined. When the method is agreed upon, ﬁne argument can
return to being about ideas. What are ﬁne methodological variables and how do ﬁney effect ﬁne

sound? I make everybody go back to their seats and try ﬁne experiment in ﬁneir groups.

1 1 4
This development of a meﬁnod for acting and a meﬁnod for communicating are very

important in ﬁne construction of a community. They are ﬁne tools ﬁnrough which a common
language is built. They cement a common purpose. A meﬁnod is a patterned way of acting; it
eables people, observers and participants to anﬁcipate what will happen, to know what has
happened. It is a tool in interpretation. Because a method is purposeful action and because it is
patterned, it is a design and it is designed (both senses of ﬁne word design). Meﬁnod, ﬁne concept,

is contingent upon human agency and human interpretation.

Method, experimentation, making sense of phenomena.

May 14ﬁn

On May 14 Thomas brought in a small-bodied guitar wiﬁn metal strings to show ﬁne class.
He has mmtioned to me before ﬁat he might be able to do ﬁnis and I encouraged him. A guitar is
perfect for us to look at at ﬁnis stage of our explorations. The guitar strings clearly vibrate when
they are plucked or strummed. One can control ﬁne vibration and ﬁne resultant sound wiﬁn ﬁne
keys without worrying about changing oﬁner variables (such as ﬁne string lengﬁn). The guitar
lends itself to systematic experimentaﬁon in which only one variable at a time is altered. He
starts the presentation off: "Last time we were kind of tangled up and we couldn't decide wheﬁner
to pull it tight or not [he is talking about Shumshad, Suni and Teton's experiment], well ﬁnis I can get
to sort of do the same thing . . . turns key on the guitar after plucking one stringnat low end . . . okay
when I pull ﬁnis it sounds like ﬁnat because it's two different ones [strings he plucked two strings
together] but if I do ﬁnis, listen to ﬁne same . . . plucks them again after loosening key, kids laugh say it
sounds different, higher, lower, ﬂat . . . 'cause I loosened ﬁne strings too much." I ask him to explain
what he has done and he says ﬁnat by turning ﬁne key he has loosened ﬁne string or it can tighten
ﬁne string also. He continues to do ﬁnis until he gets ﬁne string so loose it won't rrake a noise.
Then Tity asks him to pluck a skinny string, he does ﬁnis and says ﬁnat makes a different noise

because it's a different string. 1 ﬁnink he says ﬁnis because he is trying to rrake a point about how

1 15
ﬁne tightrness of ﬁne string effects ﬁne tone and he wanted us to concentrate on what he was doing

wiﬁn the one string. But he does continue on to say (referring again to ﬁne last class), "And we
were also tangled up wiﬁn how wide and how ﬁnin they were, well I have ﬁnese and ﬁney're
different, rats you can't do ﬁnat one [he has loosened the highest string so that it won 't play at all now]
well ﬁnis one is real higln . . . plays the next one up . . . . It sounds higher and it's ﬁninner and ﬁnis
big one right here starts lower because it's fatter [a lot of murmuringl okay now I'm going to
loosenﬁnisskinnystringso . . . it'sabitl'ardto...IhopeIcanloosenitifIdon'ttightenit .. .
loosens key and plays, kids are murmuring . . . Then Thomas describes to us how each string has a
different ﬁnickness and each sounds different. He plucks each one as he describes it. So I ask him
if he would say ﬁnat those different sounds come from the different strings because ﬁney're ﬁnicker
or ﬁninner. He says, "Um hum . . . continues to play the strings . . . and if they're loose or tighter."

In ﬁnis class, as Thomas demonstrates on ﬁne guitar, ﬁne class again runs ﬁnrough ﬁne
variables we had been examining with ﬁne rubber bands. Different children suggest trying
different things with ﬁne guitar, stating what ﬁney ﬁnink will happen. Thomas tries ﬁnem out and
people suggest counter-ﬁneories to explain what actually does happen. Both ﬁne ﬁneorizing and
the experimentation are grounded in each other. They are also grounded in observations of the
design of ﬁne guitar. There is much debate about various features of ﬁne guitar-for example ﬁne
frets, ﬁne bridge, ﬁne hole. Different children, as ﬁney call attention to ﬁneir observations, suggest
ﬁneories to explain their presence and also suggest ways to test ﬁnem out.

For example Shumshad notices the hole in ﬁne body of the guitar and suggests ﬁnis makes
the sound loud. (Remember ﬁnis same discussion in the xylophone also.) He suggest covering it
to test this. This in turn causes much speculation on what causes ﬁne sound we could hear. There
was defirnitely a correlation between ﬁne sound and wheﬁner or not the hole was covered but ﬁnat
still didn't tell us what caused ﬁnat. This as well as playing wiﬁn ﬁne strings returned us to a
discussion of vibration, now, however, much more sophisticated.

Finally we concentrate on ﬁne strings, loosening ﬁnem wiﬁn the keys as we play. One becomes

loosened to the point it no longer plays. I ask Danping why ﬁnis has happened. "Because I ﬁnink

1 16
when you loosen it you sort of just let it go by itself and then when it goes by itself it's sort of very

loose and I can't say it . . . I mean when it could go anywhere, it just could go . . . I don't know . .

Teacher: If you loosen it, ﬁne string could go any way? Any where? Is that what you
said?

Danping : Yeah but I don't know how to say it out loud.

Alyosha: I ﬁnink, see when you let it go and when you let it go loose, ﬁnen it goes on ﬁne

side longer and ﬁnen it, it can't vibrate very good when it goes on ﬁne sides, when you go

like ﬁnis when it shakes, when it goes out, ﬁnen it looses control of itself.

An'gele: I ﬁnirnk I know why it nakes that noise. Because when you pull ﬁne string it's

like, see how straiglnt my ﬁnger is, now it loosens up and it gets to do whatever it wants

to do, it's like I'll use an example, like if your Mom said you have to stay in your house
and ﬁnen she said you're free to go any where you want.

Danping: Then you just go anywhere.

Teacher: That's very similar to what Alyosha was saying and it's a little like Danping,

you're saying that when it's loosened up it's free to move any old way it doesn't have

much control, is ﬁnat what you're saying?

An'gele: Yes.

Danping: I ﬁnirnk when you loosen it it's out of control.

Shumshad makes a very subtle point next. He says ﬁnat it's not really ﬁne string ﬁnat
changes the sound, it's ﬁne keys--by turning ﬁne keys you control ﬁne tension of ﬁne string
ﬁnerefore you control the sound wiﬁn the keys. Then he says, "See if you can loosen it, it can go
ﬁnis far but if you tighten it, it can go only ﬁnis much . . . he indicates the amplitude of the vibration
on the string changes . . . I ask him: "Are you saying ﬁnat if it's tight, it vibrates just a little bit and
then you loosen it, it vibrates a lot?" He says yes ﬁnat would be true as long as it didn't break.

I ask about ﬁne effect of ﬁne ﬁnickness of ﬁne strings. I remind ﬁne children of ﬁneir
conjectures about ﬁne ﬁnickness of ﬁne rubber bands, ﬁnat they had said ﬁnat ﬁninner rubber bands
make higher sounds. I say ﬁnat ﬁnat seems to be true here too. Why do ﬁney ﬁnink ﬁnat would be?
All of ﬁnis, about ﬁnickness and ﬁninness and lengﬁn is to work furﬁner on ﬁne idea of vibration and
how it effects sound. I want to get at ideas of amplitude and frequency and I know ﬁnat boﬁn ﬁne

stiffness or ﬁne tension of ﬁne string effect ﬁnis and ﬁnis is in turn affected by boﬁn tightness, lengﬁn

l 17
and diameter. With sound, ﬁne amplitude is proportional to ﬁne loudness and ﬁne frequency is

proportional to the pitch (variable and effect). Greater stiffness or tightness of ﬁne string will
decrease amplitude but increase frequency. Greater ﬁnickness increases ﬁne mass of ﬁne string,
decreasing frequency and pitch. These are ﬁne correlations we are working on—ﬁne observations
and phenomena ﬁat are related ﬁnrough patterned action, through meﬁnodological
expeimentation.

Andy says ﬁat he ﬁninks that ﬁne little ones vibrate more because ﬁney're ﬁnin, that's how
they rrake high sounds and ﬁne low ones ﬁnat are ﬁnick don't vibrate much ﬁnerefore ﬁney are low.
Now what does "vibrate more or litﬁe" mean? Is he referring to amplitude or frequency?
Benjamin adds ﬁnat the fat ones are heavier and ﬁne ﬁnin ones lighter. This is proportional to ﬁne
stiffness. I ask Andy what he ﬁninks of ﬁnis and he says ﬁnat what Benjamin has said "lnas to do
wiﬁn how ﬁney can bend." Danping disagees. She ﬁninks that ﬁne ﬁnick one vibrates more ﬁnan
ﬁne ﬁnin one and she starts to draw a picture. Meanwhile I say ﬁnat: " I can ﬁnink of ways ﬁat
ﬁnat's true, for instance what you guys were saying about how ﬁne fat one is less controlled and it

vibrates likeﬁnat Idraw

and ﬁne ﬁnin one vibrates like ﬁnis":

at least I ﬁnouglnt ﬁnat was what you and Alyosha and An'gele were saying about when it was
looser." I was trying for a difference in amplitude here but I also made a purposeful and opposite

difference in frequency which is of course a gross exaggeration of what a string on a guitar or

l 18
violin actually looks like when it is plucked~ﬁnere is usually a small number of wavelengﬁns.

Danping stops drawing and says ﬁat she agrees wiﬁn my picture. I ask, "Which one is vibrating
more?" There would be different answers ﬁne on basis of amplitude or frequency. Danping says
the ﬁnin one, ﬁne one wiﬁn greater frequency, is vibrating more. Andy also says ﬁnis. No one says
ﬁne one wiﬁn greater amplitude.

Alyosha says he ﬁninks ﬁne ﬁnin one and also has someﬁning more to say. He points out
ﬁnat ﬁne fat strings appear to be made of sorneﬁnirng different from ﬁne ﬁnin strings. They are
different colors and ﬁne ﬁnick ones appear to be made of metal. Shumshad shows us by drawing

ﬁnat ﬁne fat ornes look like little springs:

 

Of course ﬁnis doesn't really relate to ﬁnickness but to ﬁne lengﬁn of ﬁne string-if ﬁnese litﬁe
springs were straightened out ﬁne string would actually be very long and ﬁne resulting
wavelengﬁn of ﬁne sound is very long. This is why ﬁne pitch is lower. This isn't what Shumshad
wants to say however. He wants to tell us ﬁat ﬁne fatter strings are harde to pluck ﬁnen ﬁne
skinny strings. He is relating ﬁne ﬁnickness to the tension of ﬁne string. This isn't really ﬁne result
of a property of the string but is a result of ﬁne setting of the keys. His ﬁnal statement is ﬁnat if it

is easier to pluck ﬁne string, ﬁne amplitude is larger. Danping draws Shumshad's idea.

119

Notice that she drew the same number of wavelengths for each string. The result of what she
drew would be a change in amplitude in what we hear not a change in pitch. They aren't,
ﬁnougln, relating ﬁnis phenomenon to ﬁne sound, rather to ﬁne ternsion put on ﬁne strings by ﬁne
keys. All ﬁnese ﬁnings are linked but to rrake any sense of it we have to separate ﬁnem out, ﬁnink
about each separately, construct an identity for each variable.

An'gele has had her hand up for a while. I call on her and she corrects all of us about
how ﬁne strings actually look when ﬁney vibrate. She points out and ﬁnen draws ﬁnat actually
ﬁney vibrate with only the one half wavelengﬁn or multiple of ﬁnis and she says that ﬁnis is true for

boﬁn fat and ﬁnirn strings:

 

120

She adds ﬁat, "ﬁney go all ﬁne way down like ﬁnat, back and forth. That's how they vibrate, ﬁnen
ﬁney go in ﬁnis hole and out ﬁnat hole, ﬁnat's why it makes ﬁnat living sound [she is talking about the
hole where the strings thread into the bridge not the hole in the guitar body]. The children talk about
ﬁnis, most agreeing with her observations about how ﬁne strings vibrate. Suni says ﬁnat means
ﬁat ﬁne difference between ﬁne fat and ﬁnin strings would ﬁnen be how much ﬁney vibrateuﬁneir
amplitude. That isn't riglnt but ﬁnat is ﬁne way it stands at ﬁne end of ﬁnis class. The greatest
debate is now about An'gele's claim ﬁnat the vibration goes into ﬁne guitar body at ﬁne bridge.
People don't see a hole in the bridge and ﬁnerefore don't agree wiﬁn her. Only Sueh-yen agrees.
He says ﬁnat it echoes inside. I remind ﬁne children of Shumshad experiment when he covered up
the hole in ﬁne guitar body and plucking ﬁne string and it sounded diffeenﬁy. Then Suni says
ﬁnat he ﬁninks ﬁne hole and the vibrations going into the hole effects ﬁne loudness. Then he adds:
"It's just like ﬁne xylophones, don't you know ﬁnere was a big hole and you use that xylophone
and when you tapped it, it made kind of a loud tune and when ﬁnere was not ﬁnat big hole and
you taped it, it didn't make ﬁnat loud tune, so I ﬁnink ﬁne same goes wiﬁn ﬁnis, when you pluck it,
it rrakes a loud tune with a big hole and if you used a litﬁe hole, it makes not such a loud tune."
That was the end of class. In ﬁnis class ﬁne children continue to deﬁne ﬁne variables that
characterize sound. This is done as an interplay between observation and experimental action.
In ﬁnis instance ﬁnis is systerratic because ﬁne guitar, ﬁne vehicle for ﬁne exploration, makes it
systematic. Only one variable at a time can be worked on. This is a ﬁnal repercussion of design-
ﬁne design of ﬁne instrument, ﬁne medium through which an experiment is carried out,
determines ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat can be done and seen. The design of ﬁne experiment determines ﬁne
result. The act of design is an imposition of meaning. I ﬁnink a ﬁnal important point about ﬁnis
conversation is how it contains and makes continuous references to ﬁnings ﬁne class has already
done. There is a developing history to ﬁnis unit and ﬁnis community and its pursuits. I ﬁnink this

is another important quality of a community—a shared history.

1 2 1
This is ﬁne end of ﬁne first stage in ﬁnis ﬁnal unit in which we explore music and sounds

and patterns. In this stage I wanted ﬁne children to use the tools we had developed looking at,
seeing, recognizing patterns to "look at" music and sounds and things ﬁnat make music and
sounds. This meant observing patterns passively but ﬁnen also observing patterns actively,
discovering that by doing ﬁnings systematically, or maybe seeing a system in ﬁnings ﬁat weren't
done systematically, ﬁney could observe new patterns which correlated to the patterns ﬁney had
passively observed. This act of correlating lends itself to constructing explanations for
phenomenon, or at any rate, apparent explanations. I say apparent because ﬁne appearance of
causath constructed by ﬁne correlation can be an illusion. For example ﬁnings ﬁnat rrake music,
vibrate—two observations correlated but do ﬁney have any genetic relationship to one anoﬁner
and, if so, what? Does ﬁne music rrake ﬁne vibration or ﬁne vibration ﬁne music? Once you've got
ﬁat kind of relationship you've got to go outside that relationship to find variables ﬁnat
characterize ﬁne two constructs, in ﬁnis case music and vibration, ﬁnat you can ﬁddle wiﬁn
systematically in order to see how ﬁnis experimenﬁng effects ﬁne constructs. In ﬁnis way causality
can be established. But does any of ﬁnis really explain "Why?" or does it actually just push ﬁne
why question to a more fundamental level? Once a relationship is established you can accept it
on one level but ﬁnen you have to ask why it occurs. Music and vibration go hand in hand but
that doesn't tell you why someﬁning can vibrate in the way ﬁnat it does to begin wiﬁn. I believe
ﬁnat ﬁnis sort of "why" question becomes a vanishing point in our exploraﬁons. Wiﬁn each new
discovery ﬁnat apparently explains an observation, ﬁne why quesﬁon is pushed a step back. I
ﬁnink ﬁnis is important because I believe a shared pursuit is focal to ﬁne development of a
community. This pursuit cannot be easily resolved. Rather it must reshape itself and in essence
develop a life of its own to remain compelling.

In ﬁne class about ﬁne rubber bands we have got our initial correlation and now we are
working on characterizing our constructs wiﬁn variables. We are locating ﬁne variables and
seeing what happens when we change those variables. The next class, about guitars, is about ﬁnis

even more so. Doing this is a pattern in itself. Acting systerratically to alter one variable at a

122

time means acting wiﬁnin an established pattern. Doing ﬁnis in conjunction wiﬁn ﬁneorizing is a

mental pattern of logic making, tesﬁng, altering.
What is music? What is science? The discussion begins.

May 19ﬁn

On May 19 I decided to ask ﬁne children what music is and wheﬁner or not ﬁney ﬁnink
ﬁnere is a difference between sounds and music. I am not sure why I did ﬁnis at ﬁnis point but I
ﬁnink I had decided ﬁnat we had done enough systemaﬁc exploration of ﬁne constructs, sound and
vibration, and we'd done enough locating and working on variables which characterize ﬁne two.

I had always planned ﬁnat we should ﬁnink a bit about some of ﬁne more subjective and value-
laden ﬁninking ﬁat underlies ﬁne judgments we had been making or assuming. In oﬁner words,
back to ﬁne idea ﬁnat ﬁninking wiﬁnin patterns should involve an awareness of ﬁgure and ground
and ﬁnat periodically ﬁne choices made to articulate ﬁne ﬁgure should come back up for conscious
re-evaluation. This is important because it keeps us aware of ourselves and helps us to realize ﬁne
relativistic quality of our choices (Haberrnas, 1991; Arendt, 1977). It is also a tool used by me to
work to prevent ﬁne hierarchical development of relationships between people in ﬁne class,
between ﬁne people in ﬁnis community (Foucault, 1980). Boﬁn are important scientiﬁc and
personal values for me.

In ﬁne next ﬁnree classes the children work to deﬁne ﬁnree words: pattern, beat and
rhyﬁnm. They do ﬁnis wiﬁnin ﬁne context of deﬁning ﬁne word music. I asked ﬁnem to do ﬁne
second. The choice of defining music ﬁnrough pattern, beat and rhyﬁnm is ﬁneirs. This choice of
variables very much shapes ﬁne defirnition of musicuhow it is articulated from ﬁne continuum of
sound. The children effectively state ﬁat music is made up of the three oﬁner words. Then ﬁney
work to define those words in such a way ﬁat ﬁne words themselves become differentiated from

each oﬁne and it is ﬁne relationship between constructs ﬁnat deﬁnes music. Again ﬁnere is a

1 2 3
pattern being created in the phenomenon and in ﬁne meﬁnod generated to work on ﬁne

phenomenon and communicate about it.

This is an example of boﬁn the development of a community and a community
developing. There is a shift as we rrnove into ﬁnis part of our explorations from conversations
focused upon sharing our observations and our experiments. Embedded in ﬁne way ﬁnat we
talked about both observation and experinnentation are explanatory ideas about phenomena.
This necessitated ﬁne development of cetain patterns of observing, acting, talking, ﬁninking,
interacting. In ﬁne discussions of the question "what is music?" observing and acting come
second to talking and ﬁnirnking--as ﬁne children try to communicate what ﬁney ﬁnirnk is important
about music, ﬁney ﬁnd they have to "show" us. Through the acts of telling and showing us and
articulating ﬁnat in an environment where people respond, ﬁne children's ideas change.
Portraying what a child ﬁninks ﬁney "know" becomes an act of reﬁninking. Knowing, ﬁninking,
learning become linked. This happens as a new community develops. I call ﬁnis a new
community because the focus--ﬁne qualities that the community forms around—has shifted and
re-coalesced. I would not like to imply here ﬁnat I could specify what ﬁne community was formed
about before or what it becomes fonnned about in ﬁnis ﬁnal portion of our exploraﬁons of sound
and music. It is different ﬁnough. Possibly I could say ﬁnat before we were chasing after
explanations of sounds and now we are ﬁninking about ﬁne uses of sounds. These two are linked
though. I do know ﬁnat ﬁne ways ﬁnat ﬁne children talk about what ﬁney are ﬁninking and how
ﬁney respond to each oﬁner are different. There is a different "feel" to ﬁnis community. A
constant, ﬁnough, is ﬁne respect that I require children to show for each oﬁner's ideas. This doesn't
mean ﬁney can't disagree, ﬁney certainly do ﬁnat, it's a natter of how ﬁney express disagreement.
Again ﬁnis is a fundamental to ﬁne development of ﬁne community-a valuing of each oﬁne and
each oﬁners ideas as ﬁney interact in a mutually shared pursuit.

I start our discussion by asking Benjamin if all sounds are music. When he says no I ask

him what is ﬁne difference and ﬁnen to help ﬁnis along I ask him to name a sound ﬁnat's not music.

l 24
Benjamin says: "Well ﬁnis is a sound—dum, dum, dum, dum and music is like when you hit it a lot

of times and kind of get beat or it's like rock and roll." This starts immediate controversy.

Surni: I have someﬁning to say about that When you did that dum, dum, dum, dum, I
ﬁnink you are wrong. I ﬁnink ﬁnat's a music beat. So, so ﬁnat is a musical sound.

Emily: When we talk it's a sound.

Timmy: Yeah but it's not always music [to Sum].

I ask Suni what he means by musical beat, what is a beat in music? He replies: "Like sometimes
when pe0ple play drums ﬁney go dum, dum, dum, dum and ﬁnen oﬁner people play somean
and that's how ﬁney rrake music."

I clap my hands once and ask if it's music. Everyone says not. Then I clap my hands
ﬁnree times and ask again. Many say yes that it is. I ask Emily what she ﬁninks. "Well music is
one ﬁning ﬁat you, um, it's like one kind of sound that you're playing, it's just like one kind of
sound . . . " I ask her what ﬁne difference between a musical sound and "ﬁne oﬁner kind" is.

Emily: 'Cause like music, it has a whole bunch of different ﬁnings . . . Like different beats
and stuff, it's like, if you were a cow you would just go moooo and ﬁnat's just one ﬁning.

Teacher: So lots of different kinds of sounds makes music?

Emily: Um hum . . .

My interpretation of ﬁnis is ﬁnat a sound is musical because of it's context. This is not ﬁne
answer that I was expecting particularly. I was expecting a conversation about ﬁne qualiﬁes of ﬁne
sound, that musical sounds are different from other sounds because of an intrinsic quality not
extrinsic. Boﬁn ways of ﬁninking fit into what I wrote about at ﬁne beginning of ﬁnis section about
my ﬁninking in ﬁne set up of tlnis. They do ﬁnis in different ways though but I ﬁnink it adds up to
ﬁne same ﬁning. Anyway my response to Emily's statement was to ask: "So what if you went moo,
baaa, meow, is ﬁnat music?" Some children ﬁnought yes and some no. Suni says ﬁnat it's just
noises from animals, not a musical sound at all. I ﬁnink ﬁnat he's meaning what I was ﬁninking-
intrinsic quality of ﬁne soundubut he goes on to place his ﬁninking wiﬁnin ﬁne contextual
deﬁnition Emily had started on. "I think a sound ﬁnat's not music is like when people walk across

ﬁne street wiﬁn their feet stomping, it always keeps going it doesn't like, um, it doesn't like repeat

1 2 S
in ﬁne sarrne way, like ﬁney go like ﬁnis instead of going like ﬁnis and ﬁnis and ﬁnis, so ﬁnat's why

ﬁney rrake a different sound that's why I ﬁnink it's not a musical beat." I ask him about marching,
wheﬁner or not ﬁnat's a regular beat and wheﬁner or not that's music. He says ﬁat it is because
ﬁney "stomp at ﬁne sanne ﬁme." Danping joins ﬁnis but she says ﬁat she ﬁninks music is sound
ﬁnat has rhythm. I ask if rhyﬁnm is ﬁne same as Suni's beat. She says yes, that music is "regular."

. Now Emily asks Suni: "Is ﬁnis music? . . . claps hands on thigh . . . " Suni tells her it's a
musical beat. Emily says that yes it's a musical beat but it's not music. "Musical beats are music!"
responds Suni. Danping agrees wiﬁn Emily. She slaps her hands on ﬁne floor a couple times and
says ﬁnat she doesn't ﬁnink ﬁat is music. I asked her why not but Suni answers both me and
continues his argument wiﬁn Danping and Emily. He says: "Not going like ﬁnat [referring to
Danping's demonstration] you're supposed to make a beat . . . slaps hands deliberately on ﬂoor, with
deliberate pauses in between which he indicates with head nods . . . Then he adds a new phrase wiﬁn
which Kaﬁny describe ﬁne rhythmic hand clapping she uses to get ﬁne class's attention. "Now if
you would want a rhyﬁnm pattern like our class is doing, now ﬁnat's a rhythm pattern, just going
like ﬁnat is music." Now ﬁnis is different to me. First of all, a rhyﬁnm pattern doesn't repeat like
clapping to a beat does. It doesn't repeat but it can repeat, it's like ﬁne deﬁnition of ﬁne word
pattern which means a design ﬁat can be copied. It also doesn't have regular spacings between
claps. It seems to be different from what Suni has just said about beat and music.

Through out ﬁnese conversations on ﬁne nature of music Suni plays a key role. His
definitions, ﬁnough, of patterns and ﬁne components of music evolve as he talks and does ﬁnings.
There is a feel in his talk ﬁnat he has an idea in his head of what he ﬁninks music is and is trying to
ﬁnd ways of describirng ﬁnat. Maybe ﬁne prototype/ schema language could be used here to
describe what he has in his head and is trying to articulate but ﬁnere is also ﬁne feeling ﬁnat he is
construcﬁng ﬁne prototype as he is going from components of different ﬁnings ﬁnat he has
experienced ﬁnat he would call music or not music. Anyway his use of beat and rhyﬁnm pattern

to deﬁne music is somewhat contradictory.

1 26
I ask Andy what he ﬁninks next. He tells us ﬁnat he thinks music is: "a bunch of sounds

put togeﬁner in a type of order." I ask him if ﬁnat means it has to repeat like Suni said and he says
no. Suni corrects me: "It doesn't have to repeat but it can also be a rhythm pattern."

Emily:lthinkhemeans,lﬁninkAndymeansﬁnatﬁnis hitshandonceonﬂoor ﬁnat
canbe

Suni: That's a rhyﬁnm pattern.
Emily: Yeah.

Teacher: Is it a rhyﬁnm pattern if you just do it once or does it have to repeat to be a
rhythm pattern?

Suni: A rhyﬁnm pattern has to do ﬁne same ﬁning over and over again.

There is much talk going on now about ﬁnis wiﬁn children asking each oﬁner wheﬁner or
not they ﬁnink various sounds are music or rhyﬁnm patterns. An'gele says ﬁnat she ﬁninks people
walking do make music. I ﬁnink she is ﬁninking ﬁnat she can hear a rhythm listening to herself *
walk, Surni ﬁnough is ﬁninking about listening from outside, listening to oﬁners. Larkin raises her
hand and says that she ﬁninks that screaming isn't music. My dauglnter, Larkin was visiting ﬁnis
class and the next. She parﬁcipated in each class as a class menber. She and Andy boﬁn say ﬁnat
it's just a loud sound. So I ask what if someone were to scream repeatedly, would it be music
ﬁnen? Lark says no, so I say "Why not? It would have a beat." I am ﬁninking suddenly about
experimental music I listened to in high school in which elements of traditional music were
separated from oﬁners and whole "songs" were composed and played using just one element. I
am somewhat more familiar wiﬁn ﬁnis "playing" wiﬁn ﬁne elennents of art in ﬁne study of
minimalist modern visual art in which an artist purposely pushed upon ﬁne constraints and
denands of various components of painting or sculpture, making the subject of ﬁnat art ﬁne
components and the play ﬁnemselves. When I studied art I was tauglnt ﬁnat ﬁne purpose of such
art was to cause us to reﬂect on ﬁne question "What is art?" I ﬁnink in ﬁne conversations to come
about music, ﬁne children do something analogous-they break music into parts and ﬁnen explore

ﬁne meaning and interplay of ﬁnose parts in the total phenomea. I ﬁnink ﬁne children here are

1 27
getﬁng at whether or not sound has to be purposeful to be music and wheﬁner or not it has to be

purposefully music to be music, I ﬁnink Larkin is saying ﬁne latter and Suni ﬁne former.

[ark agrees ﬁnat it would have a beat and Andy adds ﬁnat if you also had a guitar it
would be a song. Alyosha says ﬁnat sometimes screaming is music. He gives an example from
opera. Teacher: "And ﬁat can be musical screaming?" Alyosha says yeah but Cory says ﬁat ﬁnat
is singing and Andy adds in loud singing raﬁner ﬁnan screaming. Again a lot of children are
discussing ﬁnis. Finally Suni and Benjamin start to talk about rock and roll music and screaming
in ﬁnat context. Benjamin says ﬁnat he has heard rock stars scream and it's music. Emily asks him
how he krnows it's music and he says because ﬁne person was also singing and playing ﬁne guitar
and he was also singing/ screaming words. Also I ﬁnink embedded in ﬁnis was ﬁat what
Benjamin heard was called music and it was on ﬁne radio and on videos on ﬁne TV. So a number
of different kinds of context define ﬁnis screaming as music. Firally people seem to agree ﬁat
screaming could be music sometimes.

Through ﬁnis conversation and those in ﬁne next few weeks the children work on what
they ﬁnirnk constitutes music. In my thinking there would be ﬁnree categories of criteria ﬁnat we
might be playing wiﬁn-intrinsic qualiﬁes of ﬁne sound (tone, pitch, etc.), relational qualiﬁes
between ﬁne sound (ﬁne beat, pattern and rhythm that ﬁne children are talking about) and context
(music is music because it's in a context where it is labelled music). I had ﬁnought ﬁnat ﬁne
children would focus on ﬁne ﬁrst quality because ﬁnis would have been ﬁne most connected to ﬁne
discoveries ﬁnat we had been making in ﬁne ﬁrst part of our explorations of sound. From ﬁnat we
would work on ﬁne second quality because music is an assemblage of sounds. I had hoped ﬁat
ﬁnis would be how we would get back to talking about patterns, and what consﬁtutes a pattern,
rather ﬁnan just continuing to use patterns as we had been in ﬁne part of ﬁnis about sound. I had
ﬁnouglnt ﬁat discussions of context would be our vehicle for callirng into question whatever
deﬁnitions we constructed using intrinsic and relational qualiﬁes of music. The children ﬁnougln
skip ﬁne ﬁrst quality and instead debate at lengﬁn ﬁne relational qualiﬁes of musical sounds.

There is a conﬁnuous interplay with ideas about ﬁne contextual quality of music alﬁnough ﬁnis

1 2 8
does not become an overt quesﬁoning of ﬁne deﬁniﬁons of music unﬁl ﬁne vey last class. At

ﬁmes various children (parﬁcularly Thomas) remind us ﬁnat musical sounds have intrinsic
qualiﬁes but ﬁnis is not important until ﬁne children start to create ﬁneir own examples of music
and ﬁney use ﬁne different qualiﬁes of parﬁcular sounds as components of ﬁneir patterns. But sﬁll
these qualiﬁes are not used to judge ﬁne music, it is sﬁll ﬁne relaﬁonships between sounds which
is ﬁne primary criteria.

Different children deﬁne the relaﬁonships between sounds differenﬁy. They struggle
ﬁnrough conversaﬁon boﬁn to make oﬁners aware of ﬁneir criteria and to define words to describe
what ﬁney mean. This is complicated by ﬁne conﬁnuously interacﬁve and social qualiﬁes of ﬁnese
classes. The children are trying to explain their ideas to each oﬁner as ﬁney are formulating ﬁnem
for ﬁnemselves. Their ideas are a work in progress. In ﬁne final parts of ﬁnis chapter I include a
great deal of these conversaﬁons. I do ﬁnis knowing full well ﬁnat ﬁney are somewhat tedious to
read and confusing to try to make sense of. The children are changing ﬁneir mirnds conﬁnuously.
It was very confusing to parﬁcipate in as a teacher. My primary role in ﬁnis was to keep
conversations open rather ﬁnan focussed between two or ﬁnree people, to conﬁnuously invite new
people into conversaﬁons. In oﬁner words I took as my responsibility keeping ﬁne community
one ﬁnat encompassed ﬁne whole class. To rrne it is amazing that a conversaﬁon like ﬁnis can go on
for weeks and conﬁnue to engage so many of the children. I ﬁnink ﬁnat speaks most powerfully to
ﬁne concept of community ﬁnat I am developing in ﬁnis chapter.

Alyosha returns us to hitﬁng ﬁne ﬂoor, rhyﬁnm and beat, adding in ﬁnings ﬁnat have come
up in ﬁne discussion of screaming. He hits ﬁne ﬂoor once and says: "See ﬁnis . . . hits the ﬂoor . . .
is a musical beat but it doesn't have words and it's not a part of a song . . . ." Suni repeats his
opinion ﬁnat ﬁnat's not a musical beat. And Emily agrees. She says ﬁat it's just a sound. Suni
ﬁnen echoes Emily and demonstrates his idea of a musical beat. He hits ﬁne ground a number of
ﬁmes wiﬁn even and deliberate spacings between ﬁne noises. Thomas calls ﬁnat a rhyﬁnm pattern.
Then Suni says someﬁning a little new. He says ﬁnat a rhyﬁnm pattern is "when you do it fast and

oﬁner people do it, it is a rhyﬁnm pattern." Now Alyosha says: "Tlat has rhythm and it sounds

1 2 9
like some music, it has rhyﬁnm and ﬁnis is just a sound, it doesn't have any rhyﬁnm, when you just

hit it."

I summarize ﬁnis: "Okay you just hit it once and then ﬁne next ﬁme you did it repeatedly
and ﬁnen ﬁne next ﬁme did it an actual [pattern of long and short pause] someﬁning ﬁat was
different, can somebody play something on ﬁat?" I am referring to ﬁne xylophone. Most children
say no way for some reason-J really don't know why because ﬁney showed no hesitaﬁon to
interact with it before. Maybe ﬁney ﬁnought being asked to play music meant play an already
exisﬁng piece of music. Anyway Emily volunteers. I give her ﬁne sﬁcks and she plays kind of
randomly different notes, wiﬁn a sort of progession up in tone but ending on a down note, but
wiﬁn consistent ﬁming between notes. Danping says ﬁnat she ﬁninks ﬁnat is music and ﬁnen she
amends ﬁat to she ﬁninks it's a song. That is an interesﬁng differenﬁaﬁon ﬁnat I don't ever
pursue. I ask Emily why she would call ﬁnat a piece of music. She replies ﬁnat "it has ﬁne sound
of music, of music, and it was well, it's not like ﬁnis . . . hits the ﬂoor a couple time with even spacing
between slaps-mo change in tone . . . it has different beats to it." Suni picks up on her use of timing
to call it music but not on her requirement ﬁnat it have different tones. He says: "Yeah not like
this . . . hits the ﬂoor with random timing . . . but like ﬁnis . . . hits the ﬂoor with a rhythm pattern . . .
like ﬁnat." I point out to him ﬁnat "you could do that on the ﬂoor, but it's different when you do it
on the xylophone."

Next Suni says ﬁnat what Emily played isn't a pattern. I ask him why not. This is
interesﬁng to me because ﬁnroughout ﬁne rest of ﬁnese classes Suni will insist ﬁnat to be a pattern it
has to repeat. The consistent beat doesn't rrake it a pattern. Again ﬁnough ﬁnis is at odds wiﬁn his
use of ﬁne phrase rhyﬁnm pattern. Suni says: "Cause she was doing it in different ways like if you
wanted to, it to be a rhyﬁnm pattern you'd have to repeat ﬁne same ﬁning." Emily responds: "But
Suni just like Andy said it's different parts of music hooked togeﬁner." Now ﬁnat is not what I
heard Andy say but it is interesﬁng. Suni repeats ﬁnat it isn't a rhyﬁnm pattern. I ask if in order to

be music it has to have a rhyﬁnm pattern. Suni says "sometimes."

1 3O
Suni now agrees to play a rhyﬁnm pattern on ﬁne xylophone. He plays ﬁnree different

notes over and over. I ask him if it was music and he says a rhyﬁnm pattern. I ask oﬁner people if
ﬁney thought it was music and if Emily's was music, if only one was music or if ﬁney ﬁnought boﬁn
were. Thomas says ﬁat he doesn't ﬁnink Suni's was music because it doesn't sound like music.
Suni replies ﬁnat it's a part of music.

Thonas: Well sure but it doesn't sound very nice.

Suni: I know because you have to put different beats in it.

Emily: And you have to play different notes.

Suni: Except you didn't make it into a pattern.

Thomas: You should play different notes if you want it to be a nice ﬁning of music, now

ﬁnat could be a part for a piano because when you're on ﬁne xylophone you can't really hit

ﬁne two at a ﬁme and keep them going but when you're playing piano ﬁnat could be a

nice part, you might go . . . sings it again.

Suni and Thomas conﬁnue to argue ﬁnis. Thomas rraking ﬁne point ﬁnat pattern in sound isn't
necessarily music. To be music it has to have some "song" in it too. I don't ﬁnink he ever
communicates what he means by song ﬁnough.

Suni responds raﬁner defensively ﬁnat he was "just showing you a pattern ﬁat's all." I ask
Thonas if he ﬁnought Emily's was music. He says ﬁnat yes it was because it had different notes
but "it didn't have a rhyﬁnm pattern which it really needs . . . Emily says ﬁnat music doesn't
always have to have a rhyﬁnm pattern. Thomas says ﬁnat he can play a piece of music with a
rhyﬁnm pattern and I tell him to go ahead. He plays two, ﬁnree note series wiﬁn ﬁne same
descending qualiﬁes. Suni states, "You have to repeat it over and over again." Thorras agrees,
"You go and repeat the pattern over and over again except it will have different notes." Now
Suni adds ﬁnat then you have to play different notes though. So next Thonas plays a ﬁnree note
pattern and ﬁnen plays anoﬁner ﬁnree note pattern which is ﬁne same but at a different place on ﬁne
scale. Then Thonas changes ﬁne pattern. Suni tells us: "That's a rhyﬁnm pattern with different
beats." Thomas agrees and says that now he is going to: "nake a rhyﬁnm pattern wiﬁn one beat

but wiﬁn different sounds." This starts a new argument with Suni.

1 3 1
He interrupts to claim that each piece of music is one beat. I take it from ﬁnis ﬁnat he

means each note. Thonas seems to have someﬁning of an idea, very foggy, ﬁat a beat can contain
more ﬁnan one note in it. Neiﬁner of them is able to communicate what ﬁney are ﬁninking to each
oﬁner. I ﬁnink ﬁnis is because it's vague and fornaﬁve for boﬁn of ﬁnem. They keep arguing about
it ﬁnough for quite a bit and ﬁnis working on ﬁne deﬁniﬁon of beat continues on ﬁne next day and
ﬁne next few days in even more detail. I ﬂuctuate in all ﬁnis between letﬁng ﬁnem work out ﬁneir
own deﬁrniﬁon and trying to communicate my own. My addiﬁons come next ﬁme.

Thomas demonstrates a beat contairning more ﬁnan one note and Suni conﬁnues to insist
ﬁat a beat corresponds to a note. Thomas tries to explain ﬁnat a beat has to do wiﬁn how you
divide it.

Suni: No no no no I'm asking you why are you saying ﬁnat you are going to make one
beat wiﬁn different music pieces 'cause that would be impossible, why'd you say ﬁat?

Thonas: Well what I mean was . . . plays something with three note . . . maybe it would
be like ﬁat, and you'd play all ﬁnose different notes and it would ﬁt into one beat.

Suni: Well how are you going to get one beat and all ﬁnose different oﬁner diffeent
pieces?

Thorras: One beat and all ﬁnose oﬁner pieces? Well if I cut ﬁnis into one, maybe sixteenth

Surni: No no you have to play it . . .
Thomas: Play it faster!

Suni: But ﬁnat won't rrake a beat, ﬁat will rrake lots of beats . . . Thomas plays about ﬁve
note fast . . . see?

Thomas: See ﬁnat is a beat divided up!

I ask Thomas ﬁnally why he did what he did. He replies ﬁat it would be boring if he
hadn't. Larkin offers her deﬁniﬁon of a beat and how many notes can be put into one beatuwith
a slur. Then she talks about ﬁming and notes having different ﬁming so ﬁat one or more notes
can make up one beat just so ﬁne ﬁming stays even. I ask Sueh-yen what he ﬁninks since I know
about his ability to play. He agrees. Neiﬁner of ﬁnem is able to communicate ﬁnis to the others.

The children debate ﬁnis quite vigorously using ﬁne xylophone to try ﬁnings out.

1 3 2
Cory returns us to ﬁne quesﬁon of wheﬁner or not music las to have patterns. He says

ﬁat it does because he las observed in his broﬁner's music book patterns. I presume that he is
talking about ﬁne way written music looks, ﬁnat it forms visual patterns. Suni doesn't ﬁnink ﬁat
means all music has to have pattems. Alyosha says ﬁnat ﬁney usually have patterns.

I send ﬁnem back to ﬁneir pods wiﬁn rubber bands. I remind ﬁnem of all ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat we
discovered about ﬁne rubber bands and discussed on ﬁne 30ﬁn and before. They are to play wiﬁn
ﬁne rubber bands and ﬁnink about what ﬁney think music is. I had ﬁnem write on ﬁnis--what ﬁney

did, wheﬁner or not it was music and why ﬁney ﬁnought so.

The meanings of variable, deﬁning words.

May let

The class on May 21 st starts with me asking that quesﬁon about what is music. For ﬁnis
class I got ﬁnree more xylophones, two of metal and one of wood and two glockenspiels so ﬁnat
each pod has ﬁneir own insﬁ'ument.

I set up ﬁne rest of class by having ﬁne kids review ﬁne last class for Abeni who was
absent. Emily tells us ﬁnat we had been talking about what sounds were and how sounds started-
-how sounds are made. Danping says ﬁnat we talked about what is music. She says ﬁnat we said
ﬁnat it involved beat which she explairns according to Suni ﬁat you can't put too rrany notes in
one beat. Suni says if you do ﬁat fast, it rrakes it into a beat. I ask if ﬁney have to have beats in
music, all agree ﬁat ﬁney do. Emily says ﬁnat irregular hitﬁng isn't a beat, it has to be regular.
Suni says ﬁnat is a rhyﬁnm pattern. I ask Abeni if ﬁnat is music, she doesn't ﬁnink so but won't
define it herself.

I remind ﬁne kids of what ﬁney had been doing wiﬁn rubber bands and ask ﬁnem wheﬁner
or not ﬁney ﬁnouglnt it was music. Timmy says sort of because it has beat and rhyﬁnm. Sueh-yen
says also it had rhyﬁnm. I ask about being able to make more than one sound. Dan says ﬁnat ﬁne

two different sides of ﬁne rubber band played different sounds. Tity ﬁnought it wasn't music

1 3 3
because ﬁne rubber band just vibrates. Thomas doesn't ﬁnink it's music because ﬁnere's any one

note, he can rrake more ﬁnan one rhythm pattern but not different notes. T'ity says ﬁat even
when she did what Dan described all she got were different "sounds" not notes. Larkin says she
ﬁninks it can nnake music because ﬁne rubber band is similar to a violin string which vibrates to
make music and so a violin needs strings to make music. Tity ﬁninks rubber bands and violirn
strings are different. Suni agrees wiﬁn Tity, music can have more ﬁnan one sound, it doesn't have
to, but it can. Danping ﬁninks ﬁnat with rubber bands, you can rrake rhyﬁnm and different sounds.

Back to their pods in cooperaﬁve learning groups ﬁney work on ﬁne xylophones and ﬁne
glockenspiels. I tell ﬁnem to experiment wiﬁn ﬁnem to ﬁnink about what is music. Then as a group
in ﬁneir pod ﬁney had to decide what music is and what to show us in ﬁne whole group on ﬁne
xylophones.

Differenﬁaﬁng rhyﬁnrrn, beat and finally pattenn is to be the substance of all ﬁne
conversaﬁons unﬁl the end of school. That and ﬁne role of ﬁnose ﬁnree in music. I ﬁnink ﬁnese are
very inteesﬁng conversaﬁons. To rrne differenﬁaﬁng between ﬁnese ﬁnree concepts isn't and
shouldn't be easy or stable. The differenﬁaﬁon of ﬁnese words hinges on establishing
convenﬁons. In turn, establishing convenﬁons is dialecﬁcally ﬁed to ﬁne uses ﬁne words are put to.
This is a fundamental task of a discourse community. The children in ﬁnese conversaﬁons are
working on ﬁne meanings of ﬁnese words as ﬁney work on ﬁneir concept of what music and firally
language is. They are construcﬁng ﬁne meanings of ﬁnese words in the context of what ﬁney are
doing and what oﬁners are doing and also wiﬁnin a context created by ﬁne interplay of ﬁne ﬁnree
words. There is an initial assumpﬁon, I ﬁnink, ﬁat because ﬁnese are ﬁnree different words, ﬁney
must have ﬁnree separate and different meanings. In many ways, I am direcﬁng the conversaﬁon
to bruise ﬁnis assumpﬁon. I want the children to look for ways ﬁne words are related and similar
as well as different and separate. By doing ﬁnis I am posiﬁoning myself outside ﬁne developing
discourse community and effecﬁvely altering ﬁne development of convenﬁons. According to
Foucault (1979, 1980) a fundamental quality of ﬁne process in which discourse communiﬁes are

created is the creaﬁon of dominance relaﬁonships between members of ﬁne community. I don't

1 34
wish for ﬁnis to happen and I work to prevent ﬁnis: I keep our conversaﬁonal referent extemal to

ﬁne personal relaﬁonships developing in ﬁne class. Ikeep our quesﬁons unanswerable. I ﬁnink
ﬁnis is an important point and one which keeps ﬁnis classroom community focussed by science,
dynamic and shifting raﬁner ﬁnan becoming established into a set pattern of ﬁninking or
interacﬁons. My fundamental goals in doing ﬁnis are not about ﬁne science as much as about
shaping ﬁne interacﬁons between people. I want people to genuinely value each oﬁner and irn
parﬁcular value differences between people. Keeping ﬁne science answers receding is a tool in
doing ﬁnis. This is not just a social goal or value for me; it is also intellectual. When voices are
silenced, ﬁnen ﬁnose perspecﬁves are lost. When we lose ﬁnose perspecﬁves, we also lose ﬁne
potenﬁal of ﬁnese to help us understand ﬁnings diffeently. I would argue ﬁat ﬁne accumulaﬁon
of different understandings adds up to a more profound understanding. Those that don't speak
often do so for social reasons. The social and ﬁne intellectual converge in a negaﬁve as well as
posiﬁve sense.

The first group (and only group) ﬁnat presents what ﬁney have done on ﬁne xylophones is
"The Cheetahs". This group is rnnade up of Tity, Paula and Meiying. First ﬁney play a pattern
(Paula plays two note one high and one low and alternating). Then a rhyﬁnm (Paula plays three note
repeatedly, two are the same and are both two bars played at the same time then a third which is lower and
not in a major scale and is just a single note). Then beat (Paula plays the same note over and over about
four time and then she pauses and repeats that same thing).

Teacher: So ﬁne whole ﬁning wiﬁn ﬁne pause was beat?

Tity: No each note.

Teacher: Now what about music, you did patterns, rhyﬁnm and beat but what about
music?

Tity: Well I ﬁnink music is sound and it's someﬁning ﬁnat has rhythm and beat and
pattern.

Teacher: 50 all of those were music?

Tity: Yeah.

1 3 5
I ask ﬁne class what ﬁney ﬁnink. I have Paula play ﬁne pattern over again and ask if oﬁners

would call ﬁnat a pattern. Everyone says ﬁnat yes it is. Then I ask if people ﬁnink it is music and
again everyone answers yes. I ask Suni what he thinks. He says: "I ﬁnink it's a part of music, just
part of music." Darn says ﬁnat he ﬁninks it's part of music and music too. I ask Paula to play
rhyﬁnm again. She does ("The Cheetahs" have written each of ﬁnese out on a piece of paper using
ﬁne notaﬁon carved on ﬁne xylophone bars). Suni says that he ﬁnirnks "it's a rhythm, I don't ﬁnink
it's really rhythm, I ﬁnink it's a rhyﬁnm pattern because it's repeaﬁng over and over again." I ask
him if he thinks it's music and he replies: "Uh huh, part of music." Danping says ﬁnat it is a kind

of music. I end ﬁne class.

Deﬁning words continued: Comparing/constructing similaritie and diﬂ'erence.

May 26ﬁn

I start May 26ﬁn exactly where I left off ﬁne last class. I ask "The Cheetahs" to perform
rhyﬁnm, beat and pattern over again and start ﬁne discussion. I ask "The Cheetahs" ﬁrst, ﬁnis ﬁme,
what ﬁney thought was the difference between rhythm, beat and pattern. Paula says ﬁnat ﬁney all
sound different. So I ask how do ﬁney sound different. I ask Paula what ﬁney were ﬁninking
about when they decided what was what. This didn't get much of an answer so I tried again. I
said: "Well I guess the reason why I'm asking is what you showed for rhythm could be a pattern
and what you showed for pattern could be beat and I didn't know what was ﬁne difference
between ﬁne three from what you showed." She adds ﬁnat to her ﬁney all sound like beat except
rhyﬁnm and ﬁnat rhyﬁnm sounded like pattern.

The children discuss how ﬁney created ﬁne music ﬁnat ﬁney played. Finally Suni adds: "A
pattern repeats over and over again, rhyﬁnm doesn't have to have a pattern in it but it can, it can
just be mixed ﬁnings ﬁnat make it sound like music." I ask him if he can show us an example of a
pattern ﬁat's not a rhythm. At ﬁrst he says sure but ﬁnen retracts: "Well it's impossible to make a
pattern without rhyﬁnm." So I ask if he can rrake rhyﬁnm wiﬁnout pattern.

Suni: Well yeah . . . hits random note with equal timing . . . except it doesn't repeat over
and over again.

136

Teacher: 50 how is it rhyﬁnm?

Surni: It has, like, a kind of beat to it except it's not called beat.

Emily: He means like you can put rhyﬁnnn, you can put anyan irn rhyﬁnm but it has to,
it doesn't have to have pattern but ﬁnen pattern, it won't be a pattern if it's not one ﬁning,
well not one ﬁning but it has to repeat to be a pattern.

Cory: Well ﬁnis isn't really a pattern . . . hits note randomly . . . you're just going . . .
'cause noﬁning's repeaﬁng.

Suni: 'cause that's not a rhyﬁnm pattern.

Cory: I know ﬁnis is a rhythm . . . hits note with equal spacing, all note are diﬂ'erent . . .

you mean a pattern is [plays two note back and forth] it's got to repeat, ﬁnis is not a pattern

[hits random note].

Teacher: Now listen, ﬁnere's notlning that repeats in ﬁnis . . . play the scale decending . . .

but it goes high, lower, lower lower, lower, lower, lower, lower, lower, lower, that's a

pattern but it's not repeaﬁng.

I introduce ﬁnis because I am ﬁninking ﬁat patterns aren't just someﬁning ﬁnat simply
repeats or raﬁner ﬁne quesﬁon is, if repeaﬁng is ﬁne criterion, what is it ﬁat does repeat. In doing
ﬁnis pattern, my acﬁons repeat, ﬁne change between notes repeats, ﬁne ﬁming between notes
repeats. Just the actual notes don't repeat. This is a background / foreground kind of argument--
what is in ﬁne backgound and what is in ﬁne foreground? Deﬁning ﬁnose two generates ﬁne
pattern.

Suni says ﬁnat it's not a pattern. Emily says ﬁnat it has beat. I have said ﬁnat I ﬁnink it is a
pattern and ask how could it be a pattern. Suni says ﬁnat it has to repeat, for music, it has to
repeat but all patterns don't have to repeat, just musical ones. Sueh-yen also ﬁninks ﬁnat music
las to repeat. Suddenly Suni seems to change his mind. "Well I neve said it really has to, did I?
Well it can also make patterns diffeent ways but, um, just rhyﬁnm is mixed up ﬁnings instead of
just going one one one, I mean a different way . . . you have to do it mixed up instead of like, you
have to make it out like a musical sound." Suni subsides to ﬁnink a bit. Danping says ﬁnat pattern

has beat in it. I ask her if ﬁnat means it also has rhytlnm. She says no but it does at least have to

have beat.

1 3 7
While ﬁne children are sayirng ﬁnese sorts of things I ﬁnink about patterns elsewhere. I

mean, I ﬁnink ﬁney are construcﬁng these deﬁniﬁons just thinking about music and what ﬁney are
doing with the xylophones. Whenever ﬁney say someﬁning like ﬁnis I ﬁnink about ﬁne ﬁnirngs ﬁnat
they are doing and showing to us but I also ﬁnink about visual patterns or nnaﬁnemaﬁcal patterns
or patterns in acﬁons and ﬁnink about how ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁne children say apply. That's really
ﬁne source of my counter-examples. When Danping says ﬁnis about pattern having to have beat
but not rhyﬁnm I am ﬁninking about visual patterns. It seems to me ﬁnat to apply her statement to
visual patterns, rhyﬁnm is ﬁne repeﬁﬁon, beat is ﬁne substance of ﬁne patternuﬁne design in any
one unit of the pattern. Her statement doesn't work with visual patterns at least as I've got ﬁnem
defined. Wiﬁn patterns in numbers naybe it does work. That is ﬁne source of my proposed
pattern when I played a scale. Here the repeﬁﬁon, "ﬁming"--ﬁne relaﬁonship between ﬁne units--
is a constant, ﬁne substance isn't. In a scienﬁfic equaﬁon, say E=MC2 (energy equals nass ﬁmes
acceleraﬁon), ﬁne relaﬁonship between ﬁne variables stays ﬁne sanne, ﬁne content of ﬁne variables
can differ in some waysumagnitude—but what is actually being measured stays ﬁne same. E is
always energy, M is always nass. So back to ﬁne number line, the relaﬁonship between ﬁne
numbers stays the same, ﬁne content differs. But does it? Actually each is always a number. The
magnitude changes. But ﬁnat happens as a function of the relaﬁornship. Very confusing. Maybe
ﬁnis is a natter of where you stand to look at ﬁne pattenn, what perspecﬁve you take. Especially
whether or not you stand outside the pattern and look at the meanings of ﬁne variables or you
assume the meanings and effecﬁvely stand inside ﬁne pattern. Then you can see ﬁne relaﬁonships
but maybe not the idenﬁﬁes. Moving between standing inside and outside ﬁne pattem-using ﬁne
pattern and assessing ﬁne pattem-are prinary goals of mine in our exploraﬁons in ﬁne fall and
now with sound and music.

An'gele suggests that if all three were put togeﬁner we would have a little song. Emily
says ﬁnat ﬁnat is what they did in ﬁneir group so I ask if they would like to show ﬁnat to us next.
First of all Emily tells us ﬁnat her group ﬁnought ﬁnat music was pattern, beat and rhythm all

together. Then she says ﬁat they did ﬁnis because then "it wouldn't be so boring, for a pattern

l 3 8
you wouldn't do . . . hits two diﬂ'erent note repeatedly one after another . . . it's kind of boring but

wiﬁn all of ﬁnem, it gets more interesting." I respond: "And you ﬁnink in order for it to be music it
has to be interesﬁng." Emily nods yes. Again ﬁnis is really interesﬁng to me. This is ﬁne reason I
embedded ﬁnis "scienﬁfic" exploraﬁon of sound in a study of musicuto invite aesﬁneﬁc
judgements ﬁnat we could talk about and examine. I ﬁnink an overlay of aesﬁneﬁcs characterizes
science. The generation of patterns is through the applicaﬁon of an aesﬁneﬁc (i.e. Chandrasekhar,
1987). Differenﬁaﬁng background from foreground is ﬁnrougln aesﬁneﬁc judgement-judgements
based on unarﬁculated values and relaﬁonships between ﬁnose values. I boﬁn want us to explore
using such values but also to examine them and how we are using ﬁnem. Construcﬁng music
from sound, as well as deconstrucﬁng music into sound, is a part of ﬁnis process. Understanding
sound by defirning variables—by seeing pattems--is a part of ﬁnis process. When Emily says ﬁat
applying a pattern, beat, rhythm makes it interesﬁng, I ﬁnink she is really saying ﬁnat ﬁne interplay
between pattern and the undifferenﬁated whole, between foreground and background makes it
interesﬁng. The over-applicaﬁon of pattern, so ﬁnat ﬁnere is no irregularity, makes it boring.
Weaving ﬁne irregulariﬁes into ﬁne pattern nakes it interesﬁng.
Emily: No it doesn't have to but it's just more fun when it's interesﬁng, instead of just
going like ﬁnis [hits a couple note] ﬁnat's not very interesﬁng, you're just hitting ﬁnem, well
ﬁne first ﬁning we're going to do is do all of them together and I wrote down a separate of
them.
Teacher: Okay you're going to show us pattern, rhyﬁnm and beat togeﬁner and ﬁnen
you're going to show us ﬁne separate parts, could . . . um, Cory in a second I'm going to
ask you to sit in your chair, could you please give ﬁne group your attenﬁon . . . Emily plays
ﬁrst a simple pattern which she repeats twice then a pattern on a descending scale then a more
complex pattern which she repeats twice then an ascending scale and two simple patterns which
she repeats twice . . . okay so ﬁnat has pattern rhyﬁnm and beat together?
Emily: [Nods] Okay and now we're going to separate ﬁnem, ﬁnis is pattern . . . plays a
pattern of two note alternating then goes down the scale and doe it again then back up the scale
and again . . . and ﬁnen this is rhyﬁnm . . . plays two note in a decending scale with one
timing, then tree more note ascending but with a faster timing, then some other stuff which is
more complicated and ends with a decending scale with a slower timing.

Teacher: That's rhythm?

Emily: Um hum and ﬁnis is beat . . . plays up and down scale with little do da '5 in them but
all with the same timing.

139

Teacher: Okay I don't see how pattern, rhyﬁnnn, or beat were different, how were ﬁney
different?

Emily: Well pattern is like . . . plays three note decending then a different three . . . two or
three at a ﬁme, ﬁnis isn't really pattern . . . plays random note . . . it's not an even pattern
it's not close to a pattern but ﬁnis is pattern playing one or two or ﬁnree at a ﬁme . . . plays
a scale twice.

Teacher: Okay and show me what beat is again?

Emily: Okay ﬁnis is beat . . . plays a little tune with deliberate spacing between note

Suni says ﬁnat ﬁnis doesn't really sound like a beat, raﬁner it sounds like a pattern "a little."
Emily starts to argue wiﬁn him. She plays a descending scale, hitﬁng each note twice and
challenges him: "You call ﬁnis a pattern?!" Suni responds: "Yeah it's a patten, beat just keeps
going, it has spaces, long spaces." Tity agrees, she ﬁninks it's a pattern too. Emily conﬁnues to
play and starts to vary ﬁne ﬁming in between notes. Suni says ﬁnat it should have consistent
spacings between notes.

Then Emily tells us ﬁnat: "What we did, what we decided was ﬁnat we would just do like
three or two at a ﬁme in patterns . . . plays the xylophone . . . and ﬁnen we'd just rest for a nninute
and then go on and do some others and go like ﬁnat . . . repeats . . . and then we'd rest and we'd
go again . . . doe it again . . . . Danping comments: "Emily when you played ﬁne ﬁrst ﬁning, I
think ﬁne ﬁve note, or whatever, in between the two notes or whatever, ﬁne ﬁme was a little bit
longer than at the end because, see, when you went like, ﬁrst, when you went like da do la la la
and ﬁnen at ﬁne end you went like do do do do do [fast] like ﬁnat, well ﬁnat didn't sound like beat
to me, it sounded like a song." Emily replies: "Well ﬁnat's your opinion, it's not our opinion."
That's true but sﬁll I want her to be able to arﬁculate what she is doing and ﬁne base upon which
she and her group have decided to do that ﬁning. I ﬁnink ﬁnough that is an interacﬁve process--
interactive with other children and interacﬁve as ﬁne "music" is created and wiﬁn ﬁne creaﬁon after
it has been made-purposely creaﬁng illustraﬁons and also discovering what ﬁney have done after
they have done it.

Now Alyosha says that he thouglnt what Emily played was a pattern, a beat is much

simpler. He plays ﬁne same note over and over wiﬁn no change in ﬁming. Suni says that he

140
ages but ﬁnen he says ﬁnat "it's a pattern except it's a beat." Alyosha responds: "It's a pattern

because it goes a lot of ﬁmes, but ﬁnis is a beat . . . hits it once . . . ﬁnat's why I ﬁnink it's a beat,
then it's inn rhyﬁnm, well ﬁnat sounds like a pattern to me."
Emily: Well we decided that a beat doesn't always have to have repeats, you can just
keep on going . . . plays diﬂerent note . . . 'cause like every part of music is a beat, music

has to have a beat.

Suni: Emily why did you put rhyﬁnm in it, when you know you're not supposed to mix
things up.

Emily: Well because we decided ﬁnat a beat doesn't always have to be going like ﬁnis . . .
plays something . . . we decided that you could go like ﬁnis and put rhyﬁnm and pattern in
there ... plays different note repeatedly.

Suni: I know but a beat isn't supposed to go like ﬁnis and ﬁnis and ﬁnis . . .

Emily: Music has to have a beat, has to have a beat first.

Suni: I know but it has to hit on the same ﬁning each ﬁme.

Emily: Not to us!

Suni: Well why'd you ﬁnink of ﬁat?

Emily: To us we ﬁnink ﬁnat we can just go like ﬁnat . . . plays random note with the same
timing.

They keep on debaﬁng what a beat is very much like last class. Emily seems to ﬁnink it's ﬁne
timing ﬁnat deﬁnes a beat and Suni ﬁne note. Finally I ask Cory what he ﬁninks a beat is. He says
that he can't really say, a "beat doesn't go anywhere . . . I ask Sueh-yen. He says: "A steady
beat." I ask him if he means that it has the same amount of ﬁme between and he agrees. Suni
says: "A pattern is when you repeat it wiﬁn different notes and someﬁmes you can do ﬁne same
notes." I think his insistence that beat means hitﬁng ﬁne same note is because he is trying out
ways to differenﬁate beat from pattern. Someﬁmes he says ﬁat one is part of ﬁne oﬁner and
someﬁmes he is working on how they are different and he wants to rrake ﬁnem completely
different. Firally he says: "A beat is a pattern except a beat just keeps on going going going just
like Sueh-yen said, a steady beat."

Emily ﬁninks ﬁnat he is trying to differenﬁate between beats and rhyﬁnm patterns which

she calls pattern beats in which I ﬁnink she is saying that ﬁne beat is deﬁned by ﬁne repeﬁﬁon of

1 41
ﬁne whole pattern. This gets confusing because Suni keeps bringing irn different criterion to judge

ﬁnem by. This ﬁme he says ﬁnat ﬁne tone can't change. I ask Andy what he ﬁninks. He says ﬁnat
he sort of agrees wiﬁn boﬁn Emily and Suni. ”The reason why I agree wiﬁn Suni is because beats
do have, um, one note in them someﬁmes and someﬁmes they have different notes that's why I
agree wiﬁn Emily." But Suni repeats: "That's a pattern, beats are patterns too and beats just have
to stay on ﬁne same bar (note) and just keep going and you can add nnore beats to make it music."
Finally he adds: "You have to keep doing it and add oﬁner stuff to it [I think he is talking about
reolving to a tonic] you can add."

I end class by telling them to write irn ﬁneir notebooks a sentence saying what they ﬁnink a

pattern is, a rhyﬁnm and a beat.

Defining words continued: What is a pattern in and out of a context?
Playing with context to think about meaning.

May 28ﬁn

On the 28th we start class trying to write paragraphs togeﬁner ﬁnat deﬁne pattern, beat
and rhyﬁnm. Emily suggests ﬁnis sentence "if a pattern doesn't repeat it wouldn't be a pattern." I
ask Emily to explain why she said ﬁne sentence ﬁnat way. She explairns it by giving an example
hitﬁng on her desk. Suni doesn't agee ﬁnat a pattern needs to repeat.

Danping: If a pattern doesn't repeat it's not going to be called a pattern.

Suni: Yeah but it could be someﬁning else. .

Danping: Yeah but it can't be a pattern.

Emily: It wouldn't be a pattern, it would be something else, it wouldn't be a pattern.

Suni: Well what if it's called a pattern.

Emily: Well there's two kinds of bats, one bat and another bat. [Many children are talking]

Suni: Well see a pattern could have been anoﬁne thing.

Emily: I know but it could be two kinds of patterns.

Suni: Or one kind but it's not what the pattern . . .

142
At this point Emily gets up and goes and gets a dicﬁonary and starts to look up pattern. I

ask Shumslad, who has his land up, what he has to say. He says that he sort of disagrees with
Suni and sort of agrees with Emily because "someﬁmes a pattern doesn't have to be . . . if it
didn't repeat, it couldn't be a pattern, and someﬁme I agree with Suni. I agree wiﬁn Emily and
disagree and I agree wiﬁn Suni and disagree because, see, you could . . . pattern has to repeat
oﬁnerwise it couldn't be a pattern and someﬁmes maybe not." Thomas says ﬁnat he does ﬁnink
ﬁnat patterns have to repeat; he doesn't agree wiﬁn Emily but Emily tells him ﬁnat she has changed
her mind.

Danping: She didn't say ﬁat patterns have to repeat.

Teacher: Well she didn't really say it, she just did it.

Suni: Patterns don't have to repeat. [Many are yelling]

Emily announces that in ﬁne dicﬁonary there are "tons" of meanings for ﬁne word pattern.
She reads from ﬁne dicﬁonary. "An arrangement of forms and colors, designs, the pattern of wall
paper, rugs and jewelry; a model or guide for someﬁning to be made, I use paper patterns in
cutﬁng ﬁne cloﬁn for my coat. A ﬁne example; model to be followed, he was a pattern of
generosity. Make according to ﬁne pattern, pattern yourself after her." I reread ﬁnem and after
each ask whether or not ﬁnat works for music. These deﬁniﬁons appear at ﬁrst to be unpronnising
except that ﬁney link pattern to design, to having a purpose, and to human agency. These are
important concepts for me--patte'n, design, rrneﬁnod are all connected by people purposively
doing chosen acﬁviﬁes. These acﬁviﬁes are chosen wiﬁn respect to ﬁne attainment of a goal. This
is someﬁning I would like to develop wiﬁn the classuﬁninking and talking overﬁy about ﬁnis. To
do ﬁnis I increase the dwell ﬁme on ﬁne ﬁrst deﬁniﬁon.

For ﬁne ﬁrst deﬁniﬁon ﬁne children say ﬁnat ﬁney ﬁnink it doesn't apply to music. All are
ﬁninking about visual designs. They talk, using the word design unﬁl I ask, "Is pattern a design,
are pattern and design ﬁne same ﬁning?" Emily says ﬁnat pattern has different meanings. Cory
has said ﬁnat wood has a pattern so I ask if ﬁnat pattern repeats. Suni says ﬁnat ﬁne wood is like

ﬁnger prints. I ask if this repeats. Suni says 'Well ﬁney're a design." An'gele says somean

143
about people who are talking on Mars, who are from Mars, ﬁat wouldn't be a pattern because it

couldn't be understood by us or recognizable as language by us. I sumnarize the ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁne
children have been saying, "You're saying ﬁnat patterns have designs in ﬁnem, do musical patterns
have designs in ﬁnem?" Now most of ﬁne children seem to ﬁnink ﬁnat musical patterns don't have
to have designs in them. Teton says ﬁat some patterns do have to have designs. I ask him if he
can suggest a pattern ﬁnat doesn't have a design. No one can so I suggest 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and ask
if ﬁnat's a pattern (I think it's both a pattern and a design, I ﬁnink ﬁney go hand in hand). Sonne say
yes and some say no. Teton says that he ﬁninks it is a pattern and so does Sueh-yen. "Yeah 'cause
it keeps skipping two all the ﬁme." I ask him if he ﬁninks it's also a design.

Teacher: Is ﬁnat a design?

Sueh-yen: Ummmm . . .

Danping: And they're all even numbers.

Teacher: They're all even numbers? Does ﬁnat make it a pattern?

Andy: Even even even even . . .

Sueh-yen: And odd odd odd odd odd . . .

Teacher: And ﬁnose aren't designs or those are designs?

Andy: Those aren't!

Teacher: So Sueh-yen how about in music does music have designs?

Sueh-yen: No.

Teacher: Does music have patterns like two four six eight?

Danping: No.

But many oﬁners ﬁnink ﬁnat it does. Danping changes her mind. Such-yen adds ﬁnat
"they have certain kinds of patterns but not ﬁne two four six eights." He suggests that you can
play a pattern like hitting two bars and taking turns between ﬁnem. I do ﬁnis and ask wheﬁner or
not it is a pattern like two, four, six, eight. Everyone says no. I play an ascending scale skipping
every oﬁner bar. People say that is like two, four, six, eiglnt. Timmy says: "When you skip each

one . . . it says out the name, like when you skipped ﬁne ﬁrst one, to me it says, um, two and ﬁne

144

oﬁner one says four." Danping adds ﬁnat "when you write a piece of music, you could use
numbers." I ask her how she would do ﬁat.

She comes to ﬁne board and writes 3 5 7 then she plays ﬁnose bars on ﬁne xylophone.
After doing ﬁnis she explains that you could do ﬁnis same sequence at different places on ﬁne
xylophone and ﬁne notaﬁon for describing ﬁnis would involve putﬁng "dots" above or below the
numbers. If you wanted to sing someﬁning along wiﬁn ﬁnis you could write ﬁne words under ﬁne
numbers. I suspect ﬁnis is from one of ﬁnose little books ﬁnat come wiﬁn simple keyboards ﬁnat
teaches kids to play songs. I remember someﬁning like ﬁnis from a present Larkie got when she
was four. Sueh—yen has a different suggesﬁon he writes do re me fa so la te do. He calls ﬁnis ﬁne
scale and equates ﬁne words wiﬁn Danping's numbers and ﬁne actual notaﬁon written on the bars
of the xylophones. I ask him if it's a pattern and he says yes. I'm not sure if I am getﬁng at or he
is ﬁninking pattern in ﬁne words or pattern in ﬁne correspondence.

I got back to ﬁne definiﬁons in ﬁne dicﬁonary. I read ﬁne ﬁrst one again and ask wheﬁner
or not it has anng to do with music but ﬁnis doesn't get anywhere because Emily wants to talk
about more notaﬁon for the music. She suggests ﬁnat when using numbers, ﬁne numbers should
correspond to ﬁne relaﬁve posiﬁons of ﬁne bars from one end. Then letters above or below ﬁne
numbers could be used to refer to tones that aren't really on ﬁnis parﬁcular xylophone (ones with
larger ranges of notes). I ask how any of ﬁnis could be a pattern though because I don't see how
using numbers leads us to patterns ﬁnat repeat and ﬁney have defined patterns as repeaﬁng. I ask
Danping how her's repeats. Danping says wiﬁn ﬁne dots. Danping, Andy and Emily debate ﬁne
qualiﬁes of ﬁneir different notaﬁons. They get into working ﬁnis out on the xylophone. Danping
seems to be quizzing Emily on whether or not she wants the numbers to just keep on going or if
there is some beginning and endirng. Danping's scale seems to have implicit recogniﬁon of an
arbitrary beginning and Emily's doesn't.

Cory asks Emily why her scale is descending rather ﬁnan ascending. Emily says ﬁnat it
could go eiﬁner way, it's just what she likes best. The two of ﬁnem start playing with ﬁne scales.

They start discussing what of various patterns sounds better and ﬁnen the two of them togeﬁner

l 45
begin to do different incremental changes to one pattern of four notes. Cory seems to want ﬁne

pattern to end on a descending note. I ask ﬁnem why ﬁne firnal choice sounds better to them.
Emily says because it's not boring. This goes on a lot longer with different kids adding in what
ﬁney ﬁnink of ﬁne piece or how they would alter it.

Teacher: I don't understand what any of ﬁnat had to do wiﬁn patterns.

Benjamin: Nothing!

Cory: It had to do with patterns.

Teacher: What?

Cory: Well it didn't have anyﬁning to do with patterns but if me and Emily kept on, ﬁne

last one that we made up, ﬁnat we said was good, we should have kept on, kept on doing

that.

Teacher: 50 ﬁnis is a pattern . . . play their bit again a number of time . . . ﬁnat's a pattern
[yee] and is that a design? Ln/ee and nos] Who said yes? How is ﬁat a design?

Thonas: It's a design in music, well ﬁat wasn't just ﬁneir's, somebody designed it, ﬁney
couldn't have just said we'll rrake D D E or someﬁning like ﬁnat, ﬁney had to design ﬁne
music, to make it, ﬁney had to rrake up ﬁne notes.

Teacher: So a design is someﬁning somebody made?

Emily: They had to go let's try D C C and see how ﬁnat sounds like.

Teacher: What's ﬁne difference though Thomas between your idea of design, which is
somean somebody makes, and a design in ﬁne wood on ﬁne table.

Thorras: Well ﬁney're designing music not a table, I mean somebody didn't really design
it, but ﬁney designed ﬁne shape of it, of how it would look.

Teacher: Oh I see, so somebody had to decide how ﬁat would look and somebody had to
decide how ﬁat would sound.

Thomas: They designed ﬁne wood!

Emily: They had to decide what ﬁney were going to do to rrake ﬁnis and how ﬁney were
going to rrake ﬁnis, what ﬁney were going to do.

I summarize Thomas's definiﬁon of design as "someﬁning ﬁat someone has made so if
you play a piece of music like . . . do it . . . that's a design because somebody made it." Then I
ask what people ﬁnink of ﬁnat. Cory says ﬁnat he disagrees, a design has wriﬁng. Suni doesn't
ﬁnink ﬁnat has to be true. Different people suggest designs like ﬁne school, ﬁne color pattern ﬁnat

ﬁne cubbies are painted, carpets. I ask again if designs are things ﬁat people rrake.

146

Tity: Yeah!

Teacher: So if I write a book is that a design?
Suni: Yeah, you designed ﬁne book

Tity: If you designed a book . . .

Andy: If somebody else made it, if somebody else invented ﬁne book and you put ﬁne
book togeﬁner ﬁat would, ﬁnat wouldn't be your design.

Teacher: You have to invent it too as well as put it togeﬁner?

Andy: Yeah.

Danping: Yeah.

Suni: But army people ﬁney design their faces with paint!

Cory says people are designs. I ask him how and he says ﬁnat "somebody made em . . . if
nobody nade em ﬁnen ﬁnere wouldn't be any of us right now." Some children respond to ﬁnis by
saying ﬁnat god made people. Some start to disagree wiﬁn ﬁnis. Such-yen says ﬁnat people are
designs because ﬁney choose what to wear, how to look.

Then Emily returns to talking about designing ﬁne school. She starts to draw on the
chalkboard and says: "A design is, well, if someone said, "well let's build a school," ﬁney'd have to
design it . . . how ﬁney were going to build ﬁne school, ﬁney'd say, "well how are we going to
build ﬁne school?" and ﬁney'd probably go like ﬁnis . . . draws a school . . . they'd make a school
building and ﬁney'd make a school and stuff irnstead of just going like ﬁnis . . . draws a scribble . . .
it doesn't really look like a school." So I ask her what she would ﬁnink if somebody just took a
whole bunch of wood and started to put it together to nake a school. She says ﬁnat it wouldn't be
a school. Suni says that it would be a building at any rate. I ask ﬁne same quesﬁon again. I am
thinking that the act of designing could occur, does occur as ﬁne building is going on. I don't
ﬁnink you can really separate out design from building. Also what about building someﬁning and
ﬁnen nanning it, when is ﬁne design in ﬁnat? What is interesﬁng ﬁnough is how ﬁne children have
linked design and patten ﬁnrough ﬁne idea of purposeful acﬁon. I would deﬁne meﬁnod as

purposeful acﬁon that mediates between object and subject. I ﬁnink ﬁnis is exacﬁy what ﬁney are

1 47
doing also. This ﬁme Suni responds to my quesﬁon about just starﬁng wiﬁn wood and building

until you got a school: "just because you did ﬁat- you designed it-- so it is a design."
Teacher: It's being designed as I do it, is ﬁnat what you are saying?
Suni: Yeah but you designed it, you wanted to make it, ﬁnen you made it.
Emily: But if you were planning on rraking a school . . .
Suni: That's designing, but you don't always have to plan on it, you can just think it over.

Emily: But if you designed it on a piece of paper and you said ﬁnis is what my school's
going to look like . . .

Teacher: What do you think Teton? Do you think ﬁat you have to design a school, if

you're going to build a school, you have to design it on a piece of paper ﬁrst or do you

ﬁnink you're also designing it if I just go out and start banging pieces of wood togeﬁner

and call it a school?

Teton: I ﬁnink you have to design it because, um . . .

Teacher: On a piece of paper?

Teton: Yeah well you could . . . just if you had lots of people and you do it and each of

you had an idea and if you rrake your idea and if it's at the same place, it's going to be

different.
Exactly my point-a design represents a plan, it enables purposeful acﬁon, it necessitates
meﬁnodical, disciplined acﬁon, it gives meaning to acﬁon. Timmy adds: "They have to do that on
a piece of paper because usually they have like a big piece of paper and ﬁnen ﬁney design what
they are going to rrake and ﬁnen they, when ﬁney make it, ﬁney bring ﬁneir paper wiﬁn ﬁnem and
ﬁnen they look at ﬁne paper so ﬁney can design it like ﬁney drawed it on ﬁne paper." I think he is
talking about making sure ﬁne outcome matches ﬁne design but ﬁnat's not really what I am
suggesﬁng or Teton eiﬁner. Finally Andy says: "Maybe if you just start banging wood togeﬁner
and you didn't know what it was and you were just banging, like you didn't shape it before, and

then when you were finished before you know it, you had a school made."

148
What is music? Using patterns to examine a fundamental quetion.

June 2nd

June 2nd is ﬁne last science class. I start class with a hand clap and ask if it is a pattern.
All seem to say yes but then I ask if it's rhyﬁnm and ﬁney also say yes and Danping says it's
rhyﬁnm but not pattern because it only happened once. To be a pattern it would have to repeat
again. Suni agrees wiﬁn ﬁnis. So does Meiying but she does a simple repeﬁﬁon and someone
argues ﬁnis is a beat. Cory says wheﬁner or not it's a pattern depends as much on ﬁne "rests in
between." There is a lot of argument about ﬁnis. Alyosha and Suni say it depends on ﬁne
regularity of the rests. Timmy and Thomas say if ﬁnere is at least two, it's a pattern.

An'gele suggests as an example of a pattern ﬁnat a person grows from a ﬁny baby, larger
and large and larger and ﬁnen when ﬁney are very old, ﬁney start growing smaller again. This is
important and we get back to it in a nninute. For now though ﬁne children conﬁnue debaﬁng
whether or not a beat is part of a pattern or is a pattern. Finally Cory says ﬁnat pattern repeats
and so does beat ﬁnerefore beat is a pattern.

Sakﬁ has had her hand up for a while and I call on her. She says ﬁnat she disagrees wiﬁn
An'gele, she says that she doesn't think ﬁnat as people get old ﬁney get small again. Danping and
Emily boﬁn say that ﬁney do. Paula says not all of ﬁnem. Cory says ﬁney shrink and giggles.
Shumshad says that he doesn't think that ﬁney go as small as a baby. I ask An'gele to repeat her
claim. "When you are a baby, you are maybe about ﬁnis big and ﬁnen you get bigger and bigger
and bigger and bigger, when you get older, you sort of you loose your balance and you go like
ﬁnis [hunche over] and it looks like you are shrinking a little bit." Sakﬁ and Emily conﬁnue to
disagree. Sakﬁ refers to her grandmother who hasn't shrunk. I ask Sakﬁ if it would be okay if we
amended An'gele's pattern to some people. She nods yes. Emily ﬁnough sﬁll disagrees: "It can't be
a pattern if you're born about ﬁnis big and you get bigger bigger bigge bigger unﬁl you get old
and ﬁnen you just shrink a litﬁe bit . . . I remind ﬁne children of an old pattern we talked about
in ﬁne fall, of ﬁne bricks in ﬁne slide. I sketch it on ﬁne board to remind everyone. Then I conﬁnue:

"It went bigger bigger bigger and you called that a pattern . . . you said ﬁnat was a pattern because

1 49
it went bigger bigger bigger bigger? So how come it couldn't be a pattern, as a child gets bigge

bigger bigger you know that's a pattern." This is like ﬁne two, four, six progression. 1 ask Sakﬁ
what she ﬁninks. She says ﬁnat it takes a long ﬁme for a baby to grow. I'm not sure if she doesn't
want to call ﬁnis a pattern because she ﬁninks it takes too long to see a change or if her point is ﬁnat
the change is conﬁnuousuﬁnere are no discrete "bits" to form the units of ﬁne pattern. Surni says
ﬁnat taking a long ﬁme doesn't matter; it can sﬁll be a pattenn. Emily says that she sﬁll disagrees
wiﬁn An'gele because even if old people do grow smaller, ﬁney sﬁll don't return to ﬁne size of
babies. I ask her if she ﬁninks ﬁnat a person would have to return all the way back down to a
baby's size for it to be a pattem—does it have to be a complete cycle? "Yeah she'd have to go small
bigger bigger bigger bigger small bigger bigger bigger bigger small bigger bigger bigger small." I
ask again about the pattern in ﬁne bricks or just about a pattern ﬁat conﬁnues to progress. Cory
and Tity boﬁn don't ﬁnink it's a pattern. Tity: "It just goes up up up up." Suni and Danping do
ﬁnink it's a pattern. Danping: "Well I ﬁnink it's a pattern 'cause it keeps going up ﬁnough." Abeni
ﬁninks it has to go up and ﬁnen go back down.

Surni: Well, um, what Abeni . . . well when it grows up and up, it doesn't have to stop,

just like a new baby doesn't stop, see just like numbers, ﬁney always grow, ﬁney grow and

they don't go snaller.

Emily: They go one two ﬁnree four ﬁve six seven eight nine ten but if ﬁney were to grow

snaller, ﬁnen they would go one two three four five six seven eight nine ten ten nine eiglnt

seven six ﬁve four ﬁnree two one!

Teacher: Right and ﬁney don't ﬁney just keep one getﬁng bigger and bigger, is numbers
just getting bigger and bigger, is that a pattern? [yees and no '5]

Cory: No 'cause ﬁney never get smaller and smaller.

Suni: Yes they can if you count them backwards [different kids are doing this from diﬂ'erent
starting place].

Teacher: Um, I heard what Emily said, she said it would be a pattern if you count
backwards forwards backwards forwards but is it a pattern if you just start at zero and
count forever? [Nos]

Suni: [Sonny shakes his head.] 'Cause your just repeaﬁng it, repeaﬁng, just repeaﬁng it and
that's a pattern 'cause it's repeaﬁng.

Emily: Repeaﬁng what?

Suni: Repeaﬁng like growing . . .

150

Benjamin: Numbers.

Suni: . . . ﬁney keep going and tlat's a pattern too [many talking] well that's a pattenn too,
numbers are patterns going backwards and forwards.

Shumshad: I agree with Suni because see ﬁney're growing and growing . . . ﬁrst it grows
a little, ﬁnen it grows a little more and ﬁnen it grows a little more and that's a pattern.

Sueh-yen: Well I ﬁnink ﬁne numbers . . . when you just go zero and up and forever is a
pattern because every ﬁme, when you get to one ﬁning, there's always a zero and ﬁnen
one two ﬁnree four ﬁve six seven eight nine and then a zeo and then one two three four
ﬁve six seven eight nine and ﬁnen a zero and ﬁne numbers are ﬁve or six or seven.

I end ﬁnis part of class. I feel ﬁnat ﬁnrough talking about pattern in such a number of
different contexts we have come to examine quite ﬁnouglntfully what we mean by ﬁne word. We
have done ﬁnis also by examining examples of pattems-—what ﬁne word means for different sorts
of pattern, musical, visual, numerical-and by seeing how we could use patterns to construct
oﬁner ﬁnings. Examples of ﬁne latter are when ﬁne children composed music, when ﬁney worked
on musical notaﬁon, when ﬁney talked about building a school, when An'gele discussed how talk
from an person from outer space, an alien's language, wouldn't be a pattern because we wouldn't
be able to understand it.

I have one ﬁnal place in which I would like the children and myself to ﬁnink about
patterns and music. I had planned ﬁnat today, the last science class, we would listen to bird song.
My idea in ﬁnis is ﬁnat bird song varies in pitch and loudness in very complex ways which are
hard to describe. I want to see ﬁrst of all if ﬁne children would call these patterns and ﬁnen how
ﬁney would articulate ﬁne components of ﬁne pattern. I don't ﬁnink ﬁnis is a simple task but it
seems important from ﬁne way ﬁnat ﬁne children up to now have been deﬁning pattern, beat and
rhyﬁnm. I want to know whether or not ﬁne clnildren would call bird song music and what ﬁne
criteria for ﬁnat miglnt be. We start by looking at some feaﬁners and I tell a story, then we listen to
bird song. The bird song is from ﬁne Peterson Birding by Ear (Walton and Whanson, 1989) tapes
out of which I have edited ﬁne talking.

The first song I play is of ﬁne carAminal. There are boﬁn ﬁne call and ﬁne song and each is

repeated ﬁnree ﬁmes. I ask if ﬁne children ﬁnink ﬁnat is music. Andy says yes. Emily says "bird

15 1
music." Oﬁner children are saying boﬁn yes and no. Thomas says ﬁat it is music because: "Well

some people might ﬁnink it's not, some people might ﬁnink it's pattern or beat, I ﬁnink it's music, it
sounds good, it has beat, it has pattern and it seemed like it to me." I ask what music has ﬁnat
pattern and beat don't have alone. Thomas says that music doesn't have really big spaces. He
uses an example from the tape: "At ﬁne beginning ﬁney have a peep peep peep that was not music
ﬁnat was just ﬁne beginning.

Danping says ﬁnat she ﬁninks it was music because it had a pattern. I ask he if ﬁnat is all
it needs and she says no, it also needs rhythm and beat. Suni says ﬁnat it doesn't have to have
beat: "I don't ﬁnirnk it had to have beat, but it did have a kind of pattern, it went chewww, cheww,
chew chew chew, but it went like chewww, chewww, chew chew chew chew, chewww,
chewwww, chew chew chew chew when it went like ﬁnat, I ﬁnink ﬁnat is a pattern 'cause it's
repeaﬁng."

We listen to a meadowlark next. Tity says ﬁnat she ﬁnouglnt she could hear a pattern. I
ask her what the pattern was and she says that she can't say. So I ask how she knows it is a
pattern then. Sueh-yen says because it repeats. I stay with Tity and ask her if she needs to be
able to say how it goes to be able to call it a pattern. She says that she doesn't know. Suni does
ﬁnink it's a pattern and he arﬁculates the sound ﬁat he ﬁninks repeats. Alyosha doesn't ﬁnink it
matters if you can describe what repeats just so it does repeat. Abeni ﬁninks ﬁnat it is just beat not
music. "When ﬁney repeat that pawwk pawwk pawwwk pawwwk over and over again I ﬁnink
ﬁnat's a beat but I don't ﬁnink it's music."

Next I ask how ﬁne children ﬁnink birds rrake ﬁneir sounds. Danping says ﬁnat you'd
have to test them to find out. Shumshad says: "I ﬁnink ﬁnat's their language because we have a
language, because if ﬁnere was a giant and we spoke ﬁneir language and it was just like ﬁne birds .
. . so ﬁnose would be words ﬁnat ﬁney are speaking, so it might be just like our language." I ask
how we make sounds. Shumshad says from our brains. I ask if it's made in your brain. "You
can't talk but you know what you talk about and your brain helps you a lot." To me ﬁnis is a lot

like ﬁne discussion of design as purposeful acﬁon last ﬁme. Bird song or language is the result of

l S 2
design. Emily, Alyosha and Timmy disagree wiﬁn Shumshad. They claim ﬁnat bird song comes

from various parts of ﬁne mouﬁn and ﬁnroatuAlyosha, ﬁne uvula, and Timmy, ﬁne tongue.

Many start to talk about ﬁat. So I ask if you can make sound wiﬁnout talking. Thornas
and Emily says yes and Emily adds ﬁnat she knows a person who has had her tonsils taken out
and she can sﬁll talk. Alyosha says you need ﬁne thing irn the back of your ﬁnroat and your
tonsils. An'gele says that you can't talk wiﬁnout your tongue but you can rrake noises. This is
interesﬁng—it's not what you mean by your noises, it's wheﬁner or not oﬁners can interpret ﬁnem
that consﬁtutes talk. Andy agrees and I ask him where ﬁne noise comes from ﬁnen.

He says from your ﬁnroat but he indicates in your neck. Suni says ﬁnat when you talk you
can feel somean irn your neck but he can rrake a click wiﬁn his tongue that he can't feel in his
ﬁnroat. Sueh-yen says ﬁatwhenhetalkshecanfeel whathesays. Iaskhimifherneanshecan
feel ﬁne vibraﬁon. He says yes and then he does Suni's click. Everybody starts experimenﬁng
wiﬁn ﬁat now and seeing if ﬁney can feel it in ﬁneir ﬁnroat. Some say ﬁney can, some say not.
Andy says you can't because "it doesn't have anything to do wiﬁn your neck or ﬁnroat it only has
to do wiﬁn your'tongue and mouth."

I remind them that ﬁney said before ﬁnat sound happens because someﬁning is hit and it
vibrates so what is vibraﬁng for us or for a bird. Cory says he can feel it vibraﬁng when he talks
in his throat. I ask how ﬁney make it vibrate, ﬁney don't hit anyﬁning. Abeni says ﬁat her voice is
vibraﬁng. Alyosha says ﬁnat ﬁne ﬁning in ﬁne back of his mouﬁn moves, when you scream it goes
up and if you aren't so loud it goes up just a little bit. Andy says that he ﬁninks when you scream
your neck vibrates. He points to his voice box but calls it his tonsils. I ask if ﬁat means it's
making ﬁne noise or is it vibraﬁng because of ﬁne noise. Andy says because it's making ﬁne noise.
Suni says ﬁnat "air waves push ﬁnrough your neck and ﬁnen when it goes ﬁnrougln ﬁnis part, it
makes a soun

Teacher: So ﬁne air waves moving ﬁnough your neck vibrate and when it hits ﬁat part, it
makes a sound.

Suni: Uh huh.

153

Shumshad: See, um, I don't ﬁnink we should talk about ﬁnis anymore, we are talking
about birds we aren't talking about humans.

Teacher: Okay do you have anyﬁnirng more to say about birds? How do you ﬁnink birds
make noise?

Shumshad: Maybe same ﬁning.

Teacher: Like what Suni said ﬁne air moving ﬁnrough vibrates and . . .

Shumshad: I ﬁnink when you scream in your ﬁnroat, it's not loud see when you do it, it's
not loud but when it moves [ . . . out ﬁnrough your nnouﬁn . . . ] I ﬁnink it widens and ﬁnen
it makes ﬁne voice louder, ﬁnat's what I ﬁnink.

Teacher: And is that how birds work?

Shumshad: Um, maybe.

Teacher: Do people think ﬁnat birds nake noises ﬁne same way ﬁnat we nake noise. [nos]

Abeni: I don't ﬁnink ﬁnat birds make sound ﬁne same way ﬁnat we do because birds, you
can't understand ﬁneir words.

Danping: Yeah I kind of age wiﬁn Abeni because maybe ﬁney're not singing, maybe
they're communicaﬁng.

Emily: Okay say ﬁnis was our ﬁnroat, it has a whole bunch of stuff in it like ﬁne bones and
stuff, ﬁnen ﬁnere's a little ﬁning here ﬁnat helps you talk and ﬁnen ﬁnis is a bird's ﬁnroat and
it doesn't have anyﬁning circled so it can't speak, so ﬁney have a certain ﬁning ﬁat nakes
them talk but they don't talk like we do 'cause it has a diffeent ﬁning ﬁan we do.
Teacher: So the inside of ﬁneir throat is different, is ﬁat what you are saying?

Emily: Yeah 'cause if they talk different from us, ﬁnen they've got to have someﬁning
different irn ﬁneir ﬁnroat.

Conclusion.

In ﬁnis last class ﬁne children argue about three possible examples of pattern and design-
a child growing, numbers and bird song. In all ﬁnree instances, ﬁney apply and ﬁnerefore test ﬁneir
working deﬁniﬁons of pattern, beat, rhythm and design. Within ﬁne context of ﬁne child growing
and numbers, they seem to be conﬁnuing their contemplaﬁon of ﬁne meanings of ﬁne word
pattern. There is a sense of ﬁneir weiglnirng meaning against example and ﬁninking criﬁcally about

boﬁn. In thinking about bird song, my attempt to get ﬁnem to ﬁnink about pattern in ﬁnis context

1 54
seems to 'cause ﬁne children to juxtapose music to language. In ﬁnis instance, ﬁnrough being asked

to ﬁnink about the meaning of pattern and music in ﬁnis new context, ﬁney ﬁnouglnt about ﬁne
phenomenon--ﬁne context itself, bird song-and argued that wasn't music at all but raﬁner
language. They reassessed ﬁne phenomenon, ﬁne context.

The children in ﬁne course of ﬁnis unit have engaged in seeing patterns (in the
xylophones, rubber bands, guitar and ﬁne sounds ﬁnat ﬁney make). Seeing patterns in these
contexts means reducing ﬁne whole of ﬁne phenomena into parts-seeing variables which can be
correlated. Because seeing ﬁnese variables was intertwined wiﬁn seeing ﬁne patterns arnd
correlaﬁng ﬁne patterns (ﬁnese last two are fundamentally quesﬁons), ﬁne children became
engaged in developing patterned ways of interacﬁng with ﬁne music and sound and wiﬁn each
oﬁner. They developed a method-a patterned way of acﬁng and interacﬁng around a mutual
purpose.22 This is at ﬁne core of community: shared purposes, shared ways of acﬁng, shared
ways of talking. It also comes about ﬁnrough knowing each oﬁner: anoﬁner aspect of acﬁng in
pattems--when Surni or Emily, for example, speaks, others know to an extent what to expect.

When asked to examine sound wiﬁnin ﬁne context of ﬁne quesﬁon "What is music?" ﬁne
children again reduced music into variables and began to argue about ﬁne mearnings of ﬁnose
variables. Deﬁning ﬁne meanings of ﬁnose words-ﬁne variables-meant deﬁning what ﬁney are
and are not. What diffeent words share wiﬁn each oﬁner and what ﬁney don't. Firally it meant
weighing the developing meanings of ﬁne variables against ﬁne phenomenon, music. To define
music wiﬁn solely the variables the children chose-beat, rhyﬁnm and pattem~excludes many
qualiﬁes of music, tone and aesﬁneﬁcs for example. The children debated ﬁne usefulness of ﬁneir
variables to capture what they ﬁnought was important about music. Often by trying to apply just
their variables ﬁney found that did not describe what ﬁney wanted. They ﬁnought about boﬁn how

music is composed of their variables and also about how it is more ﬁnan just ﬁnose variables.

 

22Note ﬁnis is a different way of viewing ﬁne meaning of meﬁnod in science from ﬁnat commonly
cited in philosophical works about ﬁne nature of science, i.e. Rorty (1991) Objectivity, Relativism
and Truth: Philosophical Papers, "methodical: to have criteria for success laid down in
advance." In a social sense I am agreeing wiﬁn ﬁnis deﬁniﬁon however: to successfully
communicate with each other ﬁne criteria for interacﬁon must often be laid down in advance.

1 5 5
Through ﬁnese discussions ﬁne children worked on boﬁn ﬁne development of a language

as well as "ways" of talking-acceptable ways to present and debate ﬁneir ideas. Aspects of ﬁnis
process parallel ﬁnose of a discourse community. Unlike a discourse community, however, I saw
my role as teacher to be one of prevenﬁng ﬁne development of convenﬁons and hierarchical
relationships of power between ﬁne children. I try to keep ﬁne conversaﬁons of ﬁne community
from reaching closure by keeping the referent point of discussion external to ﬁne relaﬁonships
between ﬁne children--ﬁne referent point was what does our discussion tell us about ﬁne
phenomena, not just what use can we put our knowledge to. In ﬁnis way the community
remained dynamic—it's purposes, quesﬁons, meﬁnods evolving. In effect ﬁne community formed
ﬁnrough ﬁne medium of our exploraﬁon of science. The science was not an end point to ﬁne
community but rather ﬁne opposite: ﬁne science was a tool in ﬁne fornaﬁon of ﬁne community.
This of course was not my intent. My intent was that ﬁne children acquire "habits of acﬁon for
coping wiﬁn reality" (Rorty, 1991). This, ﬁnougln, can be regarded as at ﬁne core of a commurnity23
and expressions of, conversaﬁons about, ﬁnis acﬁvity, its result.24 The development of patterns of
acﬁng—of method--is a manifestaﬁon of and a tool in the construcﬁon of community.

In ﬁne course of ﬁneir conversaﬁons about music, the children came to discuss ﬁne
meaning of ﬁne word pattern and also design in both senses, as noun and as verb. I felt ﬁne
children reﬂected on ﬁne meaning of the word "meﬁnod," alﬁnough ﬁnis was never explicit, in a
number of contexts. The discussion of meﬁnodupurposeful acﬁonugrew out of ﬁne discussion of
design which in turn grew from the discussion of pattern. The ﬁnree are linked.

Finally in ﬁne context of a discussion of ﬁne growﬁn of children, numbers and bird song,
ﬁne children used ﬁneir ideas of ﬁne variables of music and patterns to assess wheﬁner or not ﬁnose
ﬁnree ﬁnings were patterns or music or designs. In doing ﬁnis, ﬁney again ﬁnought anew about the

deﬁniﬁons of ﬁnose words and about ﬁne classiﬁcaﬁon, ﬁne nature of ﬁne phenomena, itself.

 

23 For example see Marx (1983) Theses on Feuerbach.

24"Dewey...any philosophical system is going to be an attempt to express ﬁne ideals of some
community's way of life" (Rorty, 1991).

CHAPTER 4

KNOWING

The focus in ﬁnis chapter is, in a sense, on me—the ﬁnings ﬁat I do in ﬁne class and why I
do ﬁnem. That is not to say ﬁat ﬁne previous chapters were not also about ﬁat. I ﬁnink ﬁat in the
stories ﬁat have preceded ﬁnis, I wished to communicate ﬁat my role was boﬁn proacﬁve and
reacﬁve. I chose the science ﬁnat we were exploring in class and I responded to ﬁne clnildrern's
ways of shaping ﬁat science. This rarely, ﬁnough, meant a fundamental alteraﬁon of my original
choices. In ﬁnis chapter, I have to choose between ﬁne science and maintaining ﬁne classroom
discourse. There are nany fundamental choices ﬁat I have rrade, moral, emotional and
aesﬁneﬁc, about how I nanipulate ﬁne children into interacﬁng wiﬁn each oﬁner as well as wiﬁn ﬁne
science. I hold ﬁnose values more important ﬁnan engaging ﬁne children in ﬁne science. In rrany
instances in ﬁnis chapter, I recast ﬁne science so ﬁat I can maintain my values about ﬁne discourse.

In ﬁne oﬁne chaptes I make ﬁne argument ﬁat ﬁne classroom community is shaped boﬁn
by ﬁne ways ﬁnat I encourage the children to interact wiﬁn each other (respect for each oﬁner and
each oﬁner's ideas) and by what I feel is a genuine engagement ﬁne children have wiﬁn the science.
I have up to now emphasized ﬁne latternﬁnat it is ﬁne sense of shared purpose ﬁnat enables ﬁne
construcﬁon of ways of interacﬁng. This is not enﬁrely true, the community of ﬁne classroom is
dynamic, its purposes and focuses shift and reshape ﬁnemselves as our exploraﬁons evolve. The
constant is ﬁne way ﬁne clnildren interact wiﬁn each oﬁner. Because I require ﬁne children to act in a
cetain way, ﬁne focus of ﬁne community can change without ﬁne community dissolving. The

children value each other and so ﬁney value expressions of new ideas which become new

156

1 5 7
purposes as more and more children parﬁcipate in exploring ﬁnem. (Remember ﬁnese ideas are

expressed prirrarily as quesﬁons and asserﬁons-ﬁnis enables exploraﬁon and discovery, meﬁnod
and purpose.) In ﬁne classes in ﬁnis clapter ﬁnere is a greater tension in ﬁnis choice for nne
between ﬁne science and the discourse. Often in order to maintain my ideals about ﬁne discourse,
I reshape the science radically so ﬁnat we can respect each oﬁner's ideas. In order to naintain ﬁne
sense of a community wiﬁn a shared purpose, I abandon ﬁne science ﬁnat I want to be doing
(exploring simple machines) and allow ﬁne clnildren to shape a new topic (the solar system).
Finally when I want to stay wiﬁn one parﬁcular topic in ﬁne science arnd not allow ﬁne children to
reshape it, I invite conﬂict in ﬁne class, eiﬁner by introducing discrepant ﬁneories myself or by
allowing children to argue ideas out. It is a measure of ﬁne strengﬁn of ﬁne children's valuing of
each oﬁne that ﬁnis cornﬂict does not disrupt ﬁne community. I do ﬁnis raﬁner ﬁan expliciﬁy
telling ﬁne children science. I do not do that because it seems a violaﬁon of my ideas and goals
about ﬁne development of a community in the class. On the oﬁner hand, I am uncomfortable wiﬁn
ﬁne role of manipulaﬁng ﬁne children into acquiring knowledge ﬁnat I have already pinpointed.
This seems a violaﬁon of my ideals about respecﬁng and valuing ﬁne children. It makes me feel
like I am not a member of the community wiﬁn ﬁne children. I ﬁnink ﬁnis is at a fundarrnental level

the source of my discomfort wiﬁn ﬁnese classes.
A description of the unit on the solar system.

In ﬁnis chapter I write about a unit I tauglnt in ﬁnird gade on ﬁne solar system. This unit
developed because of the line of inquiry ﬁnat ﬁne children and I evolved during an exploraﬁon of
simple machines. We went from machines to ﬁne solar system because of an experiment ﬁat we
had done from ﬁne children's science textbook using inclined planes. In ﬁnis experiment ﬁnere was
a lot of confusion about why the weights of objects being pulled up inclined planes of different
slopes would differ. From ﬁnis we started talking about gravity-what is gravity, where does it

come frorrn, what are its effects. From gravity we moved to ﬁne Moon and planets, ﬁninking about

1 S 8
gravity as we talked about ﬁne moﬁons of ﬁne planets intertwined with talking about ﬁne planets

ﬁnemselves because that was what ﬁne children wanted to do.

If I ﬁnink about content, ﬁnis unit had four stages. The ﬁrst was its beginning, while we
were working wiﬁn simple machines. That was when we started talking about gravity. In ﬁne
second stage we started to talk about ﬁne bodies of the solar systen but ﬁnis was so we could
understand gravity better and could then get back to machines. In ﬁne ﬁnird stage I realized we
weren't getﬁng back to machines and let ﬁne children take over choosing ﬁne direcﬁon of ﬁne
class's exploraﬁons of ﬁne solar system. I would call ﬁnis part of ﬁne unit "developing a shared
body of knowledge and language and ways of talking about ﬁne solar systen." It eables ﬁne ﬁnal
stage: the children's conversaﬁons and sharings about the planets in ﬁne ﬁnird stage rrake ﬁne
conversaﬁons about ﬁne workings of ﬁne solar system possible. In ﬁnese conversaﬁons ﬁne
children return to talking about gravity.

Talking about content, which is what actually happened in ﬁnese classes, obscures ﬁne
emoﬁonal and intellectual groping ﬁnat shaped ﬁnis content. Wriﬁng about ﬁnis unit is wriﬁng
about curriculum construction. This construcﬁon was by nne and by ﬁne children. As we
construct ﬁne curriculum I arﬁculate my beliefs and values-ﬁnrough ﬁnis process I give shape to
what was ill defined, amorphous, part of a conﬁnuum. The ﬁrst and most important statement
that can be made about ﬁnese beliefs is ﬁnat ﬁnis construcﬁon/arﬁculaﬁon occurs during teachirng
(Heidegger, 1962; Schwab, 1976). The beliefs arﬁculated are done so reacﬁvely—in reacﬁon to ﬁne
things that happened in class—as well as pro-acﬁvelyuin order to shape ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁat will
happen. They are defined by context. What is done in class is not an illustration of pre-exisﬁng
values. What is done in class is ﬁnose values. I am saying ﬁnis strongly on purpose. Let rrne give
an example to explain why.

To say a teacher respects children has no meaning wiﬁnout giving substance to ﬁat
respect; wiﬁnout illustraﬁng how ﬁne teacher acts on ﬁnat respect and ﬁne children are able to act
wiﬁnin ﬁnat respect. Giving substance to an amorphous statement like "I respect children"

involves instantaneous choices and acﬁons made emoﬁonally as well as intellectually and which

l 5 9
appear raﬁonal and intellectually defensible retrospecﬁvely because ﬁney leave historical

arﬁfactsuthe content described in ﬁne previous paragraph. Values and beliefs such as respect for
children are known ﬁnings ﬁnough, but ﬁnis knowing often isn't arﬁculated unﬁl suddenly ﬁneir
embodiment appears before me.25 I am not saying ﬁnat ﬁnis knowing is without intellectual
qualiﬁes-~it has ﬁnose but it also has inﬁmately intertwined emoﬁonal and even sensual / aesﬁneﬁc
qualiﬁes.

This is about "knowing" certain ﬁningsua "knowing" ﬁnat enables acﬁng. Not "krnowing"
because ﬁne ﬁnings known can be "arﬁculated"-stated-but raﬁne because ﬁnose ﬁnings develop an
arﬁculaﬁon as ﬁney are given substance througln what is done in class. The values and beliefs ﬁnat
I ﬁnink are being articulated concern how people should interact wiﬁn each oﬁner wiﬁnin ﬁne
context of science. The science is shaped by ﬁnis as much as ﬁne interacﬁons are. In order to
enable each child to parﬁcipate in ﬁne inquiry, ﬁnis unit is about irnquiry itself-asking quesﬁons
(which is by arﬁculaﬁng what you know as well as don't know) and working on answers (which
is ﬁnrough feeling and judging as well as ﬁninking). The subject of ﬁne inquiry is ﬁne solar system.
That's ﬁne vehicle. This is not a unit about learning facts about a parﬁcular area of science
although it does contain some of ﬁat. It's about ﬁninking in science which is someﬁning created
by people and ﬁnerefore has people in it. And science, which is a living, growing ﬁning (to me
anyway), has people interacﬁng. This interacﬁon, between people and between people and
ﬁnings, is how it grows. I am not saying ﬁat ﬁne way ﬁne science is portrayed or ﬁne way I want
ﬁne children to interact reﬂects eiﬁner science or scienﬁsts as I have experienced ﬁnem. I hold ﬁne
value that all should parﬁcipate ﬁrst and I reﬁnink and reshape ﬁne science to make ﬁnis possible.
I do ﬁnis by looking for ways and places ﬁnat oﬁner ways of ﬁninking and knowing-emotional,
religious, aesﬁneﬁc--intersect wiﬁn ﬁne science.

The parﬁcular conversaﬁons that I have picked to talk about are places where ﬁne
children and I illustrate various ways of knowing, ﬁninking and interacﬁng, all of which are both

intellectual and otlnerwise, scienﬁfic and oﬁnerwise. The conversaﬁon between me and Timmy

 

25I am awakened to ﬁnis self knowledge (Habermas, 1991).

1 60
and ]in about gravity and gravity boots is about ﬁne relaﬁonships between ﬁneorizing,

quesﬁoning and ﬁne phenomena. It's about how different explanaﬁons work depending on your
purpose. It's also about ﬁne relaﬁonship between knowing, ﬁninking and taking chances. The
conversaﬁon between Ricardo and Yong Sun about wheﬁner or not the Moon and Sun will crash
into eacln oﬁner is about ﬁne same ﬁning and also about people trying to understand each oﬁner
raﬁner than just asserﬁng ﬁneir own ideas. The conversaﬁon between Daniel and Yong Sun about
the word satellite is about meaning and understanding of words in context and in isolaﬁon: Can
fundamental meanings be defined?26 The conversaﬁon about ﬁne orbits of ﬁne planets about ﬁne
Sun between [in and Joey is about portraying what you know, knowing with certainty but sﬁll
laving ﬁnis "knowing" being quesﬁoned and changed. They boﬁn portray ﬁneir knowing as
"certain" because ﬁney are attempting to communicate ﬁneir ideas to one anoﬁner. But because
ﬁney are attempﬁng to communicate, which also means to hear and understand what anoﬁner is
saying, each child's "certainty" is infused with inherent yet unstated uncertainty. Because ﬁney
are talking to one another, a statement of knowing becomes a statement of not-knowing
(Heidegger, 1962; Wittgenstein, 1969; Haberrras, 1991).

The reason ﬁnese conversaﬁons portray science in ﬁnis manner is because I, ﬁne teacher in
ﬁnis class, choose to portray science ﬁnis way. I acﬁvely shape ﬁnis class to conform to values and
beliefs I already have about science, about children and about how I ﬁnink people should interact.
I also shape these classes as ﬁnose values and beliefs take on substance ﬁnrougln ﬁne concrete
realiﬁes of what is actually happening, ﬁne quesﬁons and observaﬁons we have about ﬁne science,
ﬁne ideas and qualiﬁes ﬁne children arﬁculate, ﬁne emoﬁonal as well as intellectual ways ﬁney

interact wiﬁn each oﬁner and with me.

 

26Can meaning be divorced from use and context (Wittgenstein, 1968)?

1 6 1
What do you measure when you weigh something? Finding fundamental quetions.

February 27ﬁn

I started this ”unit” in ﬁnird grade” on machines at ﬁne end of January. Up unﬁl ﬁne
class before ﬁne following class we had just been exploring ﬁne terrain of simple machines and
deﬁniﬁons of ﬁne word nachine. In the class before ﬁnis story starts we did an experiment in ﬁne
book about inclined planes.

On February 27 I started class wiﬁn a return to a discussion we were having previously
about an experiment that they had done in ﬁneir science textbooks in which a weiglnt attached to a
spring scale is pulled up a short inclined plane and a long inclined plane. The height each plane
is raised to is kept constant as is ﬁne object weight being pulled but because ﬁne lengﬁn of ﬁne
board varies, the steepness of ﬁne slope changes. This means ﬁnat the effecﬁve weiglnt beirng
pulled changes-ﬁne shallower slope gives ﬁne lowest weight, the greatest weight is from pulling
straight up. This change in apparent weight is a measure of ﬁne work being done to lift ﬁne
weightumore work for more weiglnt or, conversely, ﬁne efficiency of ﬁne machine at helping
decrease the work ﬁnat you are doing. Of course all of this neglects fricﬁonal pull on ﬁne ﬁning
being dragged.

This expeiment is, I ﬁnink, pretty confusing because of the use of ﬁne two different
boards-it’s not obvious ﬁnat what you lave done when you change boards is change ﬁne slope--
raﬁner children say ﬁnat they’ ve clanged ﬁne length ﬁat ﬁney drag ﬁne weight along. Also
embedded in making sense of ﬁnis experiment is understanding what you are actually measuring
when you measure the weight of someﬁninguwhere ﬁnat weight comes from. Weight (of
someﬁning moving at ﬁne same relaﬁve speed to its surroundings) is derived from the interacﬁon
of ﬁne object's mass and gravity and gravity is also a funcﬁon of nass. So ﬁne object itself has its

own gravitaﬁonal ﬁeld too. Gravity is a measure of an attracﬁve interacﬁon between two bodies

 

27See Appendix I for a descripﬁon of ﬁne school and classroom setﬁng in which ﬁnis unit occurs.
See Appendix H for a discussion of children's pseudonyms.

1 62
determined by mass if ﬁne bodies are staﬁonary wiﬁn respect to each oﬁner. At least ﬁnat’s ﬁne way

that I ﬁnink about it (I ﬁnink about ﬁne relationships F=MA and F=G(M1M2/r2) in which F is
force, M is mass, A is acceleraﬁon, G is ﬁne gravitaﬁonal constant and r is ﬁne distance separaﬁng
the two bodies, and ﬁnink about ﬁne way ﬁnose ﬁt togeﬁner in pictures I construct in my head. I do
ﬁnink about how space around a body is warped by a gravitaﬁonal ﬁeld and how objects wiﬁn less
mass fall down ﬁne contour lines of ﬁnat warped ﬁeld as analogous to a glass of milk spilling in
my bed—ﬁnese ﬁnree images / ﬁnings fundamentally shape the science for ﬁne next monﬁn.

It occurs to me here ﬁat I should say someﬁning about my background in ﬁninking about
the science ﬁnat is about to come up in ﬁnis story. As a child I was absolutely fascinated by
astronomy. I read anyﬁning I could get my hands on in ﬁnis subject. Prinarily ﬁne sort of
”popular” science books written by Isaac Azimov or George Gamow. I think in ﬁnis I had a lot in
common with some of ﬁne little boys in ﬁnis class, parﬁcularly Yong Sun. In college I conﬁnued to
take a number of classes in astronomy. My very favorite class in college was in astrophysics.
Astrophysics was ﬁne place were classical physics finally started to make sense to me I ﬁnink
prirrarily because in ﬁat class ﬁnere was an assumed understanding of differenﬁal equaﬁons and
because of ﬁne kinds of understandirngs mechanics were used to construct. For example, it never
trade sense to me to ﬁnink of acceleraﬁon as velocity divided by ﬁme but it does make sense to
me to ﬁnink of it as ﬁne change of velocity over ﬁme. Then constant acceleraﬁon becomes a special
case. And ﬁnis made sense to me because I could think about it in terms of orbits of planets or
more accurately I could deconstruct what I knew about ﬁne orbitals of planets and come up wiﬁn
equaﬁons from mechanics and suddenly I could see how ﬁney worked. I really liked ﬁnis feeling.

When I went on to teach, as well as teaching in my field, in crystallography and opﬁcs, I
tauglnt a course on Earth Science which was a ”service course." It was a full-year course,
extremely highly enrolled and it was ﬁne major way our department funded itself so everybody
taught it. It was roughly divided into a half-year of geology and a half-year of atmospheric

science and astronomy. I always tauglnt the atmospheres and astronomy half.

l 63
Anyway at ﬁne end of ﬁne last, ﬁnird-grade class I had asked which experiment was

easiest and most people said that pulling straight up was easiest because experimentally it was
ﬁne simplest. We started wiﬁn a recap of ﬁnat. Alﬁnough most children ﬁnouglnt ﬁat pulling ﬁne
weights straiglnt up was easiest, Selamawit thought the short board was easier because ﬁne
distance pulled was shortest and Yong Sun ﬁnought ﬁne long board was easiest because it
required ﬁne least amount of work. He knew ﬁnis because ﬁne numbers for ﬁnis experiment were
ﬁne smallest. The trick here is what ﬁne numbers mean. I ask Hamal ﬁnis. He replied: "It means
whatever you weigh, ﬁne number, it means ﬁnat's how much it weighs."

I ask John and Daniel what ﬁney ﬁnink. All agree wiﬁn Hamal ﬁat ﬁne number signiﬁes
the weight of ﬁne object lifted so I ask: ”Do you actually ﬁnink, I mean ﬁnose numbers ﬁnougln are
different, when you did it on the long board you got a different number from ﬁne short board and
when you lifted it, do you actually ﬁnink it changed how much it weighed?” This to me is ﬁne key
quesﬁon to seeing how ﬁney are making sense of ﬁne experiment and also leading ﬁnem on to try
to work on making sense of what they have done. It’s my confrontaﬁon of what I suspect is a
place where ﬁney have stopped having it make sense. Where ﬁney are eiﬁner being passive or
trusﬁng or are invoking tragic. The children answer my quesﬁons wiﬁn boﬁn yeses and nos.
Yong Sun yells out ”Always weighs the same!” I choose though to call on Joey to comment on
ﬁnis raﬁner than recognizing Yong Sun and ﬁnen quiz Joey to push the class on ﬁnis. So I chose to
ask Joey to speak for two reasons: I am checking out Joey who I would like to bring out in class
more and who I ﬁnink knows a lot. I also don’t want Yong Sun to talk yet-Yong Sun is
recognized as knowing a lot and I want to hear more of what everyone is ﬁninking before I focus
ﬁne argument. That is how I use Yong Sun: to focus or redirect an argument. To excuse my not
recognizing Yong Sun, I remind ﬁne class about ﬁne hands up rule. (This is a convenience, ﬁnis
rule, ﬁnat I use as a controller in many ways involving social stuff and content and personal
relaﬁonships wiﬁn ﬁne different children. It's a rarity ﬁat I cite it for Yong Sun.) Then I call on

Joey. He says ﬁnat it always weighs ﬁne same but I push: "So why are ﬁne numbers different?"

1 64
Joey: Because when you have to pull them up different heights, 'cause when you lift it, it

goes all the way down [the pointer on the spring scale], as much as it weighs, but if you pull

it up someﬁning, it won't say as much as it weighs.

Teacher: So if you pull it up different heights it weighs more or less?

Joey: Um . . . less.

Teacher: But it actually doesn't weigh more or less it stays the same weight ?

Joey: Um hum . . .

Teacher: Why does it seem to weigln different?

Joey: Because you're not pulling it up ﬁne same ﬁning every ﬁme.

Teacher: Oh so it has someﬁning to do with what you're pulling it up . . .

Joey: Yeah.

Teacher: What do you ﬁnink Krisﬁn?

Krisﬁn: I disagree. I think it's different, 'cause I can prove it . . .

Krisﬁn points to the numbers ﬁat her group has recorded on ﬁne chart. For one
experiment they are very different; her group measured 150 grams and when she did it alone she
measured 250 grams. I had watched ﬁnis group do ﬁne experiments quite closely because Krisﬁn
presents a social problem in ﬁne class and in parﬁcular in her group—Krisﬁn wants to be "in
charge” and her group won’t let her. Anyway ﬁney got very different numbers because ﬁney
measured differenﬁy. This is obviously a valid issue in scienﬁﬁc experimentaﬁon. I let Krisﬁn
explain what the group had done and then I asked for comments. Ricardo responds ﬁat he
knows ﬁat ﬁne object keeps ﬁne same weight and the apparent weight change in ﬁnis case is ”a
rrnistake." I table ﬁnis (we return to it at various times later because it is important: knowing
wheﬁner or not to ﬁnink about or reject an unexpected or out-of—ﬁne-orAminary answer is really
important in experimental science) and redirect ﬁne conversaﬁon back to comparing ﬁne numbers
between experiments.

Teacher: 50 the difference . . . when you weighed it on ﬁne long board it weighed 70

grams and on ﬁne short board it weiglned 110 grams and when you lifted it straight up it

weighed 160 grams and ﬁnat was just because you trade mistakes?

Ricardo: Uh no, 'cause like wiﬁn ﬁne ﬁrst ﬁme we got three ounces but it was really
supposed to be 2 and a half ounces.

16S

Teacher: That was a rrnistake. But what about ﬁne difference between on ﬁne long board
you got ﬁnree ounces and on ﬁne short board, I can't see, you got four ounces and lifﬁng
you got five and a half or six ounces. What about ﬁne differences between the different
experiments?

Ricardo: Oh 'cause one takes ﬁne most force and one takes ﬁne middle and one takes ﬁne
least force. So . . .

Teacher: So ﬁne numbers aren't just weight, ﬁney are also a measure of the force? Do ﬁne
numbers have someﬁning to do wiﬁn ﬁne force?

Ricardo: Yeah.

Now suddenly we have here introduced an IMPORTANT word but whenever ﬁnis
happens I know ﬁnat it’s also a magic word and suddenly I get all stressed out trying to keep ﬁne
conversaﬁon centered on examining that word in this context. It's like when Bullwinkle pulls a
rabbit out of his hat and it's a lion. In some senses he’s pulled off ﬁne trick but it's starﬁng to go
completely out of control. I feel like ﬁnis conversaﬁon which is ﬂowing and has it's own rhythm
and which I am shaping by following, suddenly I have to stop ﬁne waves, hold it in one place.
But not really because we would work on what ﬁne word "force" means as it is applied by ﬁne
childrenuﬁne class would sﬁll moving and evolving. So ﬁnere is ﬁnis tension . . . And in some
senses ”force” is a truly magic word. What does it signify anyway? It is a word we invoke to
silence quesﬁons. A rabbit irn a hat that makes relaﬁonships between oﬁner real data,
measurements, observaﬁons work. Forces aren't things we can talk about directly. We can only
talk around ﬁnem.

Raﬁner ﬁnen going wiﬁn ﬁne ﬂow and letﬁng Ricardo keep on talking, I call on Joey for
comments. Joey is of course in a different place: ”Um it can't change its weight because it's not a
ﬁning ﬁnat's living” which is a wonderful statement ﬁat normally I would draw out, but no we’ve
got to talk about force now. I recapitulate ﬁne quesﬁon/ answer dialogue. ”What do you ﬁnink
about what Ricardo said about why ﬁne numbers are changing?” But I get no real response. I try
Mwajuma. She responds ﬁnat ﬁne object pulled did weigh differently on ﬁne two boards but not
because it really was a different weight but because ” . . . you pull it more [on ﬁne short board]

and [on the long board] you don't pull it so much.” The key phrases irn ﬁnis statement are around

1 66
pulling the object and around differences in magnitude of pullirng That is a deﬁniﬁon of force but

raﬁner ﬁnan relaﬁng ﬁnis to ﬁne change in slope of ﬁne two boards, Mwajurra connects it to ﬁne
lengﬁn of ﬁne boards and again Hamal restates ﬁnis: ”When you pull it on ﬁne long board you pull
it longer and when you pull it on ﬁne short board, um, you pull it um, in not that much ﬁnne and
when you lift it, all you do is lift it up.”

I stop the conversaﬁon at that point and have ﬁnem redo ﬁne experiment just using ﬁne
long board and dragging ﬁne weights up a slope constructed wiﬁn different numbers of books (6,
3, 0—pull along ﬁne ﬂat board) and also lift them straiglnt up. Between ﬁnis experiment and ﬁne
class having a conversaﬁon about ﬁne results a week passed. This happened because Sylvia
Rundquist, the classroom teacher, wanted to have ﬁne children read in ﬁneir textbooks about
simple rrachines and also she took one class period wiﬁn ﬁnem to talk about wheels. In ﬁne
middle of this class on wheels I started to ﬁnirnk about how hinges are so similar to wheels ﬁnat I
didn’t understand how ﬁney were different. After class I tried to tell Sylvia about ﬁnis and said
that I ﬁnought the difference was around ﬁne perspecﬁve you took on what was moving relaﬁve
to what was staﬁonary. After talking about ﬁnis for a while I went home and had ﬁnis insight
about how boﬁn wheels and hinges were reducible to inclined planes. That’s why ﬁney seemed so
similar to me. Then I started ﬁninking about ﬁne oﬁner simple rraclnines as reducible to inclined
planes. This was getﬁng me very excited because all ﬁnose vector diagrams I used to just
memorize were starﬁng to seem like they might make sense. I had always ﬁnought of each of the
simple machines as unconnected before ﬁnis. This seemed to me what I really wanted to do wiﬁn
ﬁne kids in class-explore ﬁnis idea.

So ﬁnally in class we come back to talking about ﬁnis second inclined plane experiment a
full week later on March 10th. I start by reviewing ﬁne problem wiﬁn ﬁne children and then
having ﬁnem take a couple minutes to discuss ﬁneir results in ﬁneir groups and ﬁnen start ﬁne
conversaﬁon. Dembe is the ﬁrst to present her goup’s numbers: ”We got one hundred grams
and 3 and 1/2 ounces, oh, we got 110 grams or4 ounces with six books and 3 books we got 80

and we noﬁced ﬁnat each ﬁme we used less books we got less ounces or granns and so it doesn't

1 67
weigh as much . . . Lifﬁng it weighed more because you have to pick it up and lifﬁng it you

used energy and ﬁne weiglnts are very heavy . . . because when you're using a board you can just
lift it up on ﬁne board and you can lay it on ﬁnere instead of having to pick it up yourself.”
Ricardo, ﬁnough, conﬁnues to argue that it's easier to pick ﬁne weights straight up. "I ﬁnink lifﬁng
is sﬁll easier 'cause all you have to do is wrap a spring scale round the ﬁlings, put it on and ﬁnen
lift it."

Timmy clearly disagees and starts a discussion wiﬁn Ricardo. I rerrnind ﬁnem again about
ﬁne hands up rule~ﬁnis lappens a lot in ﬁnis class and is a measure of ﬁne level of anirraﬁon of ﬁne
discussion going on-«and then call on Krisﬁn. She says ﬁat she agrees wiﬁn Ricardo, ﬁnat it’s
easiest just to lift ﬁne object raﬁner ﬁnan drag it up any of ﬁne inclined planes. But when I ask her
for her reasons she is back to talking about the experimental condiﬁons not ﬁne actual results of
ﬁne experiment itself. So again I ask: "But how come if it's easiest it weighs ﬁne most?” Krisﬁn
starts to answer but Dembe cuts her off: "It uses rrnore energy!” [Anoﬁner rragic word!]

Teacher: It uses more energy to lift it?

Dembe: Yeah because like for example on ﬁne board you can just slide it instead of having
to lift it.

Timmy: Yeah but . . .
Teacher: Hands up . . . Timmy?

Timmy: Yeah but you have to get all ﬁne stuff ready with ﬁnat after you've done ﬁne rest
you just pick it up . . . now you don't have to lay anyan down you just do it!

Dembe: She's not talking about ﬁnat she's talking about how come it weighs more when
you lift it

Timmy: Because because you're just poinﬁng it down you're just poinﬁng it down, ﬁnat's
all you're doing.

Timmy gets very excited when he talks in science class. He also gets all tongue ﬁed wiﬁn
his ideas. He does a lot of ﬁninking out loudnhe seems to come to class wiﬁn quite a good store of
outside knowledge on ﬁne various topics ﬁnat we talk about but not to have ﬁnouglnt about ﬁnem
in ﬁne ways ﬁnat I like to try to encourage in ﬁne class whee connecﬁons between ideas and

between ideas and observaﬁons are important. I put quite a lot of pressure on him in rrany

l 68
classes to work to reconstruct his knowledge and understandings to enlarge ﬁneir applicability

and ﬁne cornnecﬁons between ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat he knows. I do ﬁnis for two reasons prirrarily. He
does do his ﬁninking out loud so ﬁnat oﬁner kids can parﬁcipate in it and he does ﬁnis quite
happily. He seems to enjoy it when I push and pull on him and his ﬁninking and to enjoy it when
ﬁne other children join in. I don’t mean to imply ﬁnat he is playing a game wiﬁn ﬁne discourse and
ﬁne content in the class because ﬁat would be far from ﬁne truﬁn. He is very passionate about his
ideas but he seems to enjoy ﬁne sﬁmulus of ﬁne class’s discussions and challenges. I feel ﬁnat my
relaﬁonship with him is quite special. We like each other a lot. One ﬁning ﬁnat is interesﬁng
ﬁnough is ﬁnat while I really value his chance taking and mistake making in the class, Sylvia
listening to ﬁne conversaﬁons in ﬁne class and labels his ideas ”rrnisconcepﬁons,” I respond to her
that I ﬁnink ﬁat ﬁnose are ﬁnings ﬁnat are constructed irn ﬁne class ﬁnrough ﬁne discourse that
Timmy and I engage in in ﬁne class. I think ﬁnis is interesﬁng because it illustrates ﬁne subﬁety of
what it means to parﬁcipate in ﬁne loops of logic the children are arﬁculaﬁng. I am detailing ﬁnis
right now because of Trmmy’s big role in ﬁne next few classes.

I should also probably say some ﬁnings about Yong Sun because in ﬁnis parﬁcular class he
says some very surprising (to me anyway) ﬁnings. Yong Sun does a great deal of reading and
talking about science outside of class. He and a nurrnber of other little Korean boys apparenﬁy
(ﬁnis is what he has told me) get togeﬁner after school and read books on science. He seems to
know a lot about chemistry-atoms and that kind of stuff, planets and astronomy but with big
holes. For example he seemed to know about stellar evoluﬁon but not what ﬁne Sun was made
up of or how it generated heat and light. Those concepts are rather inﬁmately ﬁed. I normally
count on using him in class discussions to feed in bits of scienﬁﬁc irnforrnaﬁon when I need ﬁnem
to goose a conversaﬁon along. In ﬁnis class he plays a role much more similar to Timmy’ s usual
role-he takes a stance which is only parﬁally okay and I generate a discussion which challenges
it. He however responds in ways very different from Timmy. He is clearly accustomed to being
”right” in science.

Teacher: Because what,Timmy? I didn't understand ﬁnat.

169

Timmy: You're just bringing it down, like bringing the spring down. It‘s not sideways [he
indicate movement along the board with his hands], it's not like ﬁnis, it's just going straight
down . . . [He is talking about the spring in the spring scale and the pointer also; a part of the
scale which indicate the weight. This is the ﬁrst hint of a connection to the concept of gravity. 1
had planned class discussion to include this]

Teacher: 50 ﬁnen you could just pull it up ﬁne board, if it weighs less you can pull it easier

Timmy: No gavity pulls it down and it will weigh more.
Teacher: Yong Sun?

Yong Sun: I ﬁnink Timoﬁny's confused 'cause gravity doesn't pull it down, ﬁne weights
pull it down.

Jin: Plus gravity!
Teacher: What did you say Yong Sun, say ﬁnat again?
Yong Sun: Gravity does not pull it down, ﬁne weiglnts pull it down.

Timmy: Yeah but plus it, plus gavity does, and ﬁnose aren't weights . . . [They’re washers
in plastic bags]

Yong Sun: Gravity makes you fall or someﬁning like that. Gravity, it doesn't pull ﬁnings

down . . . [Children start yelling: ”Ye it doe, ye it does. ”] Look! Is gravity pulling ﬁnis

down? [pen in hand]

Timmy yells out: ”You're holding it!” and oﬁners chime irn: ”Yeah! Yeah!” Dembe and
Timmy make ﬁne connecﬁon back to the experiment and claim that it’s ﬁne scale ﬁat’s holding ﬁne
weight and gravity is pulling it down against ﬁne scale. Everyone conﬁnues to yell at Yong Sun
until Jin says: ”If ﬁnere isn't any gravity ﬁnen if you drop it, it will just go in ﬁne air.” Everyone
ages but Yong Sun: ”We're not talking about gravity, we're talking about how much it weighs.”
Jin counters: ”But if there's no gravity when you lift it . . . then it will weigh less!" Yong Sun at
ﬁnis point starts to get offended. So I interrupt and ask: ”So why does it weigh anyﬁning? Why
does it . . . what are you measuring when you weigh it?"

Yong Sun: You're measuring how much it weighs and how much force it uses.

Teacher: How much force it uses to do what?

Yong Sun: Like if you pull someﬁning ﬁnat's heavy ﬁnen it just will use rrnore energy and
that's using more force.

1 70
Of course what Yong Sun just said is a descripﬁon of gravity, he just isn’t connecﬁng his

”force” wiﬁn ﬁne force of gravity. I suspect ﬁnis happens because of ﬁne way books talk of gravity
as if it were anoﬁner property of an object, as if it were a "ﬁning." I could have chosen at ﬁnis point
to work wiﬁn Yong Sun to make that connecﬁon, instead I chose to return to Timmy. I did ﬁnis
because both children are saying correct ﬁnings and both of ﬁnem need to connect what they are
saying togeﬁner. I need to keep ﬁnem engaged with each other and also work to have ﬁneir ideas
converge. It is important for me ﬁnat members of ﬁne class work togeﬁner on making sense of ﬁnis
topic. This means using children who have interesﬁng things to say to sﬁmulate oﬁners. In ﬁnis
process holes in ﬁneir ﬁninking are often exposed and ﬁne "working togeﬁner" becomes
increasingly genuine.28 I ask Timmy what he ﬁninks now and he responds ﬁat he sﬁll ﬁninks ﬁat
gravity has someﬁning to do wiﬁn it, that” . . . gravity is helping it to stay on the ﬂoor, it's not just
the weight ﬁat is on it.” Then ﬁne class starts talking about how if ﬁnere were no gravity ﬁne desk
would ﬂoat. I turn ﬁnis to a discussion of whether or not ﬁnis would mean ﬁnat it would have no
weight. This is an important conceptuto differenﬁate between weight and mass. I ﬁnink ﬁne root
of ﬁne confusion in ﬁnis part of the conversaﬁon is ﬁnat ﬁne children are unwilling to say ﬁat
someﬁning that exists, ﬁat is and remains an object, has no weight because ﬁney have not learned
to differenﬁate weight from mass.

Timmy: Yeah, no I'm not saying ﬁnat it wouldn't weigh anyﬁning I'm just saying ﬁnat

gravity’s helping it to stay on ﬁne ground, it's when it's hanging down, it's heading

toward ﬁnat way so . . . just like when you drop someﬁning, like when you drop it, ﬁne

gravity's pulling it down, you don't feel it pull it down but it’s pulling it down, if ﬁnere

were no gavity when I dropped it, it would stay right up.

Now Alice makes an interesﬁng comment. She says that: ” . . . you know how Dembe is
standing up? That's gravity ﬁnat‘s helping her stand up.” This seems to rrne to be similar to ﬁne
observaﬁons about how a person can hold an object up despite ﬁne force of gravity, ﬁat ﬁnere is a

balance between ﬁne things ﬁnat we can do—moving, standing, picking ﬁnings up—ﬁne force of

 

28It also nakes paramount my role in anﬁcipaﬁng who might be able to nake those sorts of
contribuﬁons as well as in knowing when to invite those contribuﬁons. How I do ﬁnis I would
describe as a process of "nibbling" as well as developing a depth of knowledge about each
child. The two are linked though.

1 7 1
gravity and properﬁes of ourselves, ﬁne ways ﬁnat we are constructed. This gets picked up and

amplified when Dembe and ﬁnen Amina start talking about gravity as a tug-of-war and will again
be returned to (by Alice) in a subsequent class in which she asks ”how can birds ﬂy?” I ask:
”How is gravity helping he stand up, I ﬁnought gravity would pull her down?”

Alice: Well I mean help her stay on ﬁne ground because if she wasn't on ﬁne ground ﬁnen
she would be ﬂoaﬁng up in ﬁne air somewhere.

Amina: I have a comment for Yong Sun, Dembe and Jin . . . Jin and Timothy. I agree
wiﬁn them and I have someﬁning . . . I agee wiﬁn them because if I jumped up, I would
be up in space, I would be up and ﬂoaﬁng, I would be, well actually, your cup would be
floaﬁng ﬁne book would be ﬂoaﬁng, everyﬁning would be ﬂoaﬁng and we would be like
doing our studies up ﬁnere and Krisﬁn would be drawing . . . .

Timmy: She'd be drawing upside down!

Amina: And ﬁnere'd be no way for us to stay on ﬁne ground we'd have to have something
hold us like a rope or someﬁnirng.

Teacher: 50 are you saying that if ﬁnere were no gravity ﬁat ﬁnings wouldn't weigh
anything?

Amina: They would just be ﬂoaﬁng up in ﬁne air.

Ricardo: They'd be ﬂoating . . .

Amina: I don't understand what you're meaning, Yong Sun, I mean if you if I just hold a
book, you’re holding ﬁne book, you’re holding it, but if I don't, if you just drop it . . . your
book, it just . . .

Yong Sun: Wait a minute, wait a minute, are you saying that wiﬁnout gravity ﬁnis doesn't

weigh anything?

Timmy says ﬁnat yes ﬁnis is true in space, ﬁnings don't weight anything. There is no gravity and
they weigh noﬁning. He read ﬁnis in Florida at ﬁne Kennedy Space Center. Oﬁners ﬁnougln ﬁnink
they will sﬁll weigh someﬁning, it just nniglnt be less.

I summarize: ”Okay it seems to me Yong Sun is saying ﬁat if ﬁnere was no gravity, ﬁnings
would sﬁll weigh someﬁning? Is ﬁnat right Yong Sun? And other people are saying ﬁat if ﬁnere
were no gravity ﬁnings wouldn't weigh anyﬁning like Derrnbe's building. Is ﬁat true are people
saying ﬁnat?” The children yell boﬁn yeses and nos. I call on Dembe who has very paﬁenﬁy had
her land up ﬁnrough all ﬁne yelling. Dembe states ﬁnat she agrees wiﬁn Timoﬁny and Yong Sun.

Krisﬁn turns in surprise and asks her why.

1 72
Dembe: Because gravity is part of ﬁnis because you know when we're lifting ﬁnis it [the
weights on the spring scale], it's pulling it down and also because if you're holding it, ﬁne
gravity won't be pulling it down ﬁat much because it's sﬁll going up but gravity is sﬁll
pulling it. It's like um, tug-of-war? When you're pulling it and the gavity is pulling it . .
Teacher: You're using force against it?
Dembe: Yeah!
Amina: You can't do that, you can't have a tug-of-war wiﬁn gravity.
Teacher: Why do you say ﬁnat?
Amirna: Well if there's a rope and ﬁnere's one side, well ﬁnere's just one person against
gravity . . . ﬁne person would win . . . so ﬁnat you can make ﬁnings go down, you can
nake things go up, like hold it, ﬁnat makes it go up I mean but if you let go, it will fall but
gravity just lets ﬁnings go down, it doesn't let ﬁnings ﬂoat, all it does is make ﬁnings go
down, all it does is let ﬁnings go down and it can't move the rope unless you ﬁnrow it up

in ﬁne air.

Teacher: So are you saying that if you hold someﬁning up irn your hands gravity is no
longer working?

Yong Sun: Yeah it's working.

Teacher: Dembe, why did you say tug-of-war?

Dembe replies: ”Because tug-of-war is like you’re, if you have a rope and one person is
pulling it, okay, for example, one person is pulling on my right hand and ﬁne oﬁner person is
pulling my left hand and of course Krisﬁn would win because gravity is pulling it down but she's
pulling it up and she's a lot stronger ﬁnan me . . . ” At ﬁnis point Dembe and I have to sﬁﬂe sonne
interrupﬁons. I remind everyone ﬁnat they need to put their hands up to talk and ﬁnen ﬁnally
Dembe conﬁnues: "I mean ﬁnat, I'm not even done Timoﬁny, I mean ﬁnat like gavity if you're
pulling . . . okay for example you have Joey's shoe and ﬁnen somebody is pulling it but gravity is
pulling it down and you're pulling it up and you would win of course.” Suddenly I felt that I had
had enough-J ﬁnink ﬁne idea of gravity as a piece of a tug-of-war is extrerrnely important but ﬁnere
are too many other ﬁnings going on. I also don't like it when ﬁne children just seem to be arguing
rather ﬁnan arguing ideas. Oﬁner children are not a part of ﬁnis. I want ﬁne whole of ﬁne class
focused before we conﬁnue wiﬁn a central idea to the concept of gravity. When Timmy started to

respond (”Then why'd you just say . . . ”) I stop him (”Hands up!!”) and change ﬁne subject:

173
”Krisﬁn are you ready? [Kristin has been drawing a picture on the board that she wants to use to

preent an idea to the class] Can you show us what you drew?

2

Krisﬁn: Well see on the Moon here, a nan can walk and he can jump up and down but on
the Moon ﬁnere's no gravity so if he went to the bottom of ﬁne Moon and just stood ﬁnere
he wouldn't fall because ﬁnere he could just . . . he would not fall because ﬁnere is no
gravity and gavity nakes you fall.

Timmy: No, gravity makes you stand!

Teacher: Hand up Timoﬁny . . .

Krisﬁn: Okay Timoﬁny! Okay here here's some chalk, okay, now ﬁnis is ﬁne Moon but it
goes back onto ﬁne Earﬁn and it's got gravity now watch . . .

Jin: It's still on the Earﬁn.

Krisﬁn: It makes ﬁnings fall, gravity makes ﬁnings fall.

Krisﬁn has been a delicate problem in science class since we started ﬁne unit on machines.
She has reached the ”social” level ﬁnat I sometimes see in ﬁnird graders where all discussions take
on personal overtones. I am uncomfortable wiﬁn ﬁnis facet of children. I am very aware of
children’s abiliﬁes to exclude and wound each other. I am not vey good at handling it. In ﬁne
ﬁrst part of ﬁne machine discussions Krisﬁn turned out to be very knowledgeable-more so ﬁan
Timmy or Yong Sun. This was I ﬁnink due to her spending weekends working wiﬁn her faﬁner in
a garage rebuilding cars. She also seemed to possess a better intuiﬁve grasp of how maclnines
worked ﬁnan ﬁne oﬁners. I spent a lot of ﬁrrne in ﬁnose classes reafﬁrming her knowledge and
encouraging her to share it with us in class. I rrade sure ﬁat she had enough room to speak
whole ﬁnoughts wiﬁnout interrupﬁon and ﬁnen often I would organize ensuing discussion so that

people were talking in response to what Krisﬁn had just explained to us. I made sure ﬁnat ﬁne

1 74
(apparent) antagonisms between Krisﬁn and sorrne of ﬁne litﬁe boys like Jin and Timmy were

suppressed. I wanted Krisﬁn to have a chance to exercise a krnowledgeable voice in my science
class—often ﬁnis was difﬁcult because Timmy, Jin or Yong Sun would just assume ﬁnat ﬁney krnew
more. Things are different in ﬁnese classes on gravity and the planets. The children argue unﬁl I
stop ﬁne class and have ﬁnem write in ﬁneir notebooks what ﬁney ﬁnink gravity is.

At ﬁnis point I felt like ﬁnere was a huge amount of stnrff out on ﬁne table, all of which we
needed to deal wiﬁn in order to make sense of ﬁne experiment. There were so many ideas in ﬁne
air because each child was in a different place, coming from a different perspecﬁve or source of
knowledge and experience. I wanted to center ﬁne argument on gravity and to do ﬁnis I took it
back to ﬁne abstractnto a deﬁniﬁon. I chose to do ﬁnis because I wanted a common point to end
class on. I wanted to have everyone cognizant ﬁnis was what we were talking about. I needed
ﬁme to ﬁnink about the children’s different examples of gravity and ﬁnink of an example of my
own that would catch someﬁnirng ”common” to each of their's. In ﬁnis way ﬁney could ﬁnink
through ﬁneir own ideas wiﬁnin ﬁnis one, common idea and I would have children ﬁninking
convergenﬁy as well as divergenﬁy. So I felt I needed to ﬁnink through ﬁneir ideas and ﬁneir
abstract deﬁniﬁons in conjuncﬁon to do ﬁnis. I also ﬁnink ﬁnis is a valid approach to science-as a
conjuncﬁon of abstract ideas and concrete, personal, experience-based sense-making. I started
the next class (on March 12th) with ﬁnis.

In rrany ways ﬁne nature of ﬁne exploraﬁons irn ﬁnis unit are different from ﬁnose
described in ﬁne previous chapters. We started out unfocussed—our exploraﬁons were about
simple machines. This was similar to ﬁne work with sound and music. This, however, became
focussed as we tried to make sense of how a machine worked. This is very different from my
usual teaching--ﬁnee is a parﬁcular goal here which I am maintaining. I am shaping and
manipulaﬁng ﬁne conversaﬁon in service of ﬁnis goal-ﬁrst to understand ﬁne nachine and ﬁnen to
understand gravity. For ﬁnis reason ﬁne conversaﬁons ﬁne children parﬁcipate in are qualitaﬁvely
different. Raﬁner than sharing ideas which listeners try to understand and only secondarily

criﬁque, the children have been engaging irn argument with each oﬁner in which ﬁney are making

l 75
claims and attempﬁng to convince oﬁners of ﬁneir validity. I am fostering ﬁnis, in ﬁne subsequent

classes I even introduce conﬂicts in logic to further ﬁnis process. It is, ﬁnough, problemaﬁc to me—-
ﬁnis sort of argument is a part of ﬁne acﬁviﬁes of a discourse community in ﬁne sense of Foucault
and I am uncomfortable wiﬁn ﬁne sorts of inter-personal relaﬁonships constructed in such a
community. For example, Krisﬁn or Amina—-I will not allow ﬁnem to be silenced by more
convenﬁonal scienﬁﬁc ﬁninkers. I believe in ﬁne validity of ﬁneir ways of ﬁninking and irn ﬁneir
riglnt to boﬁn speak and be heard respectfully. It is stressful for me to be playing ﬁnese mulﬁple
and conﬂicﬁng roles—of scienﬁﬁc expert (in shaping ﬁne conversaﬁon so that it stays focussed on
first machines and ﬁnen gravity), of being so controlling of ﬁne class, of being respectful of oﬁners

ideas, beliefs, feelings, desires.

What is gravity? Our goals and objective evolve

I start the next class by asking the kids to open ﬁneir notebooks to the page where ﬁney
had written about gravity. ”Would somebody like to read what ﬁney wrote about gravity?
Karen?” Karen reads: ”Gravity is a force ﬁnat tends to pull someﬁning . . . [I start to write her
deﬁnition on the board] . . . Gravity is a force that intends to pull someﬁning down ﬁnat has gotten
off the surface.” Next I add Ricardo’s: ”Oh, someﬁning that keeps you down.” Then Alice’s: ” . .
. it's a force, it's someﬁning ﬁat holds ﬁnings down.” I ﬁnish wriﬁng and read ﬁne ﬁnree
definiﬁons emphasizing the verbs: ”Holds things down . . . keeps ﬁnings down, pulls things down
. . . . Anybody have anyﬁning different ﬁan that? Amina?” Annina responds not wiﬁn a deﬁniﬁon
but ﬁnat she disagrees wiﬁn Kristin’s argument from last ﬁme. I stop her for ﬁne ﬁme being
because I want more deﬁniﬁons. In parﬁcular I am looking for one ﬁnat connects the idea of
gravity to the Earth. I have decided ﬁnat today we are going to play more wiﬁn ﬁne difference of
weight and weightlessness and environments where ﬁnis occurs. So I ask Jin if he has anyﬁning
different from what is on ﬁne board. He adds: ”Gravity makes you sﬁck to something.” And

Mwajuma asks him to explain.

176

Jin: . . . if we jump up it sﬁll makes us come down!

Teacher: Why's ﬁat..you just said it makes you go down, I don't understand how ﬁnat's
"sﬁck to someﬁning . . . "

Jin: I mean it nakes you sﬁck to ﬁne ground.

Timmy: I know what he means.

Teacher: Mwajurra?

Mwajurra: You don't really sﬁck to ﬁne ground . . .

Jin: I know, it's like it's sﬁck to it.

Ricardo: Then it would stay on ﬁne ground!

Jin: T'l'at's what I mean. I found it in ﬁne glossary . . .

We go to their textbooks. This almost immediately becomes different kids looking up
different things. We had started ﬁnis pattern of textbook use when we were exploring plants.
One of ﬁne ﬁnings I did when we ﬁrst started to use ﬁne science books was to teach them how to
use the index because I regard ﬁne textbooks primarily as references. Anyway I ﬁnd ﬁnat letting
kids chase after ﬁnings in ﬁneir texts using ﬁne index is a useful irniﬁator of bracketed wanderings.
I found ﬁnis very useful in discussions—different people would ﬁnd different ﬁnings and ﬁnen we
would share and discuss ﬁnem all with a common referent.

Finally I call ﬁne class togeﬁner to listen to Jin read ﬁne defirniﬁon of gravity given in ﬁne
book: "The force of one object pulling on anoﬁner object, gravity pulls ﬁnings toward ﬁne Earﬁn."
(Wrong, I ﬁnink, gavity is ﬁne pull. The measure of gravity is how much ﬁne object is being
pulled, ﬁne degree of pull.) I start asking different children what ﬁney ﬁnouglnt ﬁat def'rrniﬁon
meant. I start wiﬁn Amina.

Annina: Urn, that means ﬁnat, well I don't understand ﬁne ﬁrst part, ﬁne force of one object

pulling on anoﬁner object . . . um, um, OH one object is pulling on anoﬁner object, this is

an object [she holds up a pen], so if I jump off wiﬁn ﬁne pen gravity pulls boﬁn ﬁnings down
at one ﬁme.

Teacher: Is ﬁne pen pulling on anyﬁning?

Amina: No. The pen can't be pulling on anyﬁning 'cause it's not living.

Teacher: When you jump up in ﬁne air wiﬁn the pen in your hand what's pulling on you?

177

Arrnina: Gravity, gravity it's not like sonneﬁnirng, it's white like air, you can't see it, it's like
clear.

Teacher: But ﬁne deﬁniﬁon says ﬁnat gravity is a force, from one object pulling on

anoﬁner? The force of one object pulling on anoﬁner object . . . oh if gravity is pulling you

down it must be pulling you, someﬁning is pulling you . . .

Arrnina: I'm jumping and ﬁnen gravity is pulling me down, like ﬁnis. I can't ﬂy like a bird,

but I don't know why gravity can't pull a b . . . well gravity can't pull down a bird

because it has wings.

We're going too fast; again there seems to be just too many ideas out and in parﬁcular ﬁne
children are using the idea of gravity to explain different phenomena rather ﬁnen focusing on
talking about what gravity is--I sﬁll want more talk about ﬁnat. I move back a step: "Where is
gavity coming from?" Timmy answers: "Gravity is coming from down in ﬁne Earﬁn." I repeat
his answer and he adds that gravity can also be on all ﬁne different sides of ﬁne Earﬁn. So I ask
him if the Earth is also pulling on him. He replies: "No, gravity's from ﬁne middle of ﬁne Earﬁn." I
ask him if ﬁnis means gravity's pulling on him and he agrees.

Jin: I ﬁnink gravity pulls birds down cause, well 'cause when ﬁney're ﬂying and ﬁney're

trying to pull it down and then ﬁney're sﬁll ﬂying and it nakes ﬁnem more ﬁred and it

makes ﬁnem have to go down.

Teacher: They're working pretty hard to stay in ﬁne air, is ﬁnat what you're saying and
ﬁnen they get really ﬁred and ﬁney have to come down?

Jin: Um hum, yeah 'cause if ﬁnere wasn't gravity ﬁnen they could ﬂy like for over an hour
in ﬁne air wiﬁn out stopping.

Sook Chin and John boﬁn ﬁnink gravity comes from ﬁne Earﬁn. Krisﬁn wants to return to Jin's
staterrnent about birds. "I have a comment for Jin, um, Jin if ﬁnere was no gravity wouldn't people,
ﬂowes, ﬁnings be ﬂying up in ﬁne air?"

Jin: Uh uh, not trucks!

Krisﬁn: Uh huh!

Jin: No because it's like, people going to the Moon ﬁnen there's no gravity but they're
wearing very heavy boots so ﬁney won't ﬂy 'cause it's very heavy.

Krisﬁn: They can't wear very heavy boots 'cause then ﬁney couldn't walk.
Jin: They could 'cause ﬁnere's no gravity.

Krisﬁn: Then I'm saying ﬁney could ﬂy!

1 78
Jin: If they don't wear heavy boots ﬁney can!

Krisﬁn: So you're . . . ﬁney can't walk!

They start to argue seriously so I interfere: "I don't understand, what's the point of what
you're arguing about?" Krisﬁn responds (wiﬁn Jin breaking in repeatedly): "Well I ﬁnink ﬁnat
anyﬁning could ﬂy up in ﬁne air if ﬁnere was no gravity . . . [Jin interrupts] . . . and um, but Jin
said, "but not a truck" because um, because it's too heavy because um, ﬁne gravity . . . [Jin
interrupts again. I ask, thinking about the talk of birds, if she means ﬂy or ﬂoat. She answers ﬂoat] . . .
and um, ﬁne people on ﬁne Moon ﬁney wear boots ﬁat just nake ﬁnem, ﬁney don't quite ﬂy but
they jump up really high but ﬁney do come down." Jin really doesn't like ﬁnis. He says again:
"No ﬁney wear really heavy boots ﬁnat rrake ﬁnem stay on the ground if ﬁney don't wear ﬁnose
boots like um, I ﬁnink if you're on ﬁne Moon ﬁnen I ﬁnink ﬁnings weigh six ﬁmes less, I'm not sure
but it was much less so, so if like, if you have, if we were running right now and we were on ﬁne
Moon ﬁnen we would be ﬂoaﬁng because our shoes are not heavy enough!"

Teacher: Is there gravity on ﬁne Moon?

Jin: No.

Teacher: There's no gravity on ﬁne Moon? But you do have a weight on ﬁne Moon?

Jin: Yeah 'cause if you have boots or like heavy boots like six pounds or sonneﬁning really

heavy, well not six pounds but like really heavy, ﬁnen, ﬁnen you'll stay on ﬁne ground and

but you can sﬁll hop really high you can sﬁll jump really far and high ﬁne boots just nake
you stay on ﬁne ground.

Krisﬁn: How?

Teacher: How do ﬁney make you stay on ﬁne ground if ﬁnere's no gravity?

Jin: 'cause they're heavy.

Teacher: But if ﬁnere's no gravity what difference does it make how heavy ﬁney are? If
ﬁnere's no gravity doesn't everyﬁning just ﬂoat?

Jin: No.
Timmy: No!
Teacher: Gravity's ﬁne ﬁning ﬁnat makes ﬁnings sﬁck togeﬁner . . .

Yong Sun: But there's a . . .

1 79
Jin: Then if there's no gravity on ﬁne Moon, ﬁnen ﬁne ﬁnings on ﬁne Moon would go up . . .

Teacher: So why would heavy boots make any difference?

Jin: They'd nake you stay on the ground.

Teacher: But ﬁnere's no weiglnt, I mean ﬁnee's no gravity, ﬁney're not going to help.

Jin: Some boots make you stay on ﬁne ground . . .

Teacher: But you said ﬁnere's no gravity.

Jin: I know ﬁnat's why they made gravity boots!

Teacher: You mean ﬁne boots have their own gravity?

Timmy: Yeah ﬁney give it out, ﬁnat's what I just told him, ﬁney're gravity boots!

Jin: That's what I'm trying to say.

Timmy conﬁnues, his enﬁnusiasm mounﬁng: "The gavity boots can make you sﬁck on
ﬁne ground where ﬁnere's no gravity, That's why ﬁney have ﬁnem but ﬁney have to jump or else it's
too hard just to walk in ﬁne gravity boots but if ﬁney jump ﬁney can't ﬂoat away ﬁne gravity will
bring them back down but they'll jump!" The children in ﬁne room are very interested. The room
is full of huge round eyes. I can hear wheels turning. Now I ask Yong Sun what he's ﬁninking.
Yong Sun, though, is also ﬁninking real hard: "I don't know if ﬁney actually can, if they can jump
real high, higher than we can . . . ﬁnen how can they sﬁck to ﬁne gound?" Timmy, Jin and
Amina start arguing about how high they could jump on the Moon. I stop ﬁnis wiﬁn a summary--
I want us to talk about what I ﬁnink are ﬁne main points raﬁner ﬁnan ﬁne repercussions of ﬁnis
theory. "So Jin and Timmy are saying ﬁnat on ﬁne Moon ﬁnere's no gravity so people would ﬂoat
away except they wear ﬁnese gravity boots ﬁnat make ﬁnem sﬁck to ﬁne moon's surface and then
they can jump up in ﬁne air and ﬁnen ﬁney come back down and it’s all . . . ﬁney corrne back down
because ﬁney're wearing gravity boots. Is ﬁnat correct, is ﬁnat what you're saying?" Timmy says
yes. Joey, who I ﬁnink of as a conservative, careful ﬁninker (ﬁnat’s why I call on him here) also
agrees wiﬁn ﬁne ﬁneory. He does so ﬁnougln by applying it elsewhee; to irrages he has of men in
space ships who don't seem to have control over themselves like astronauts on ﬁne Moon do.

Timmy adds: "They have someﬁning that they put on each ﬁning ﬁat ﬁney take up, ﬁney make

1 8O
ﬁneir own gavity." A major argument starts about ﬁnis and about ﬁne Moon. The class talks
especially about ﬁnings ﬁney see in pictures in ﬁne book. Finally I stop ﬁne talking and call on
John.
John: If there was gravity on the Moon they would stay on the Moon, and if you jumped
you wouldn't start ﬂying around or ﬂoaﬁng you would jump and then you wouldn't do
ﬁnat and Krisﬁn’s saying that there's gravity on ﬁnat [ . . . remember her picture. . . J ﬁnen
you would fall off but I don't ﬁnink so, if you fall off there's nothing to go on to, you'd just
sit ﬁnere.

Teacher: 50 are you agreeing wiﬁn Timmy and Jin that because ﬁney wear their boots ﬁney
go back down? [John nods.]

I ask anoﬁner quesﬁon which I hope will turn ﬁne conversaﬁon back from examining ﬁne
effects of Timmy and Jin's idea to looking at more foundaﬁonal assumpﬁons. "Can I ask a
quesﬁon? Why does ﬁne Earﬁn have gravity?" Daniel answers: "Maybe it was made that way."
Then Karen: "Cause people need to live on it, 'cause ﬁnat's where people live and where all ﬁne air
is, so they can breaﬁn, I don't know why the air is except ﬁne gravity is where all ﬁne people are
and ﬁne air and if there wasn't any gravity everything wouldn't be, it wouldn't be organized, it
would be hard to do ﬁnings." This is a common sort of response to ﬁnis kind of why quesﬁon. A
sort of inverted logic or causality ﬁnat makes me ﬁnink a lot about Habermas and Arendt and ﬁne
nature of rrnoral claims. It’s also horrifyingly realisﬁc scienﬁfically. For example scienﬁﬁc
evidence and arguments for differences between men and women, ﬁne superiority of ﬁne white
race, naﬁng behavior of birds . . . I respond: "Well, maybe if ﬁne Earﬁn didn't have any gravity
we wouldn't be here."

Alice: True we'd be up ﬁnere maybe . . .

Teacher: Floaﬁng around . . . Ricardo what do you ﬁnink, why do you ﬁnink the Earﬁn
has gravity?

Ricardo: The people need gravity to because um, what if ﬁney need . . .

Teacher: No that's not the quesﬁon. It's not if people need gavity. It's why does ﬁne
Earﬁn have gravity?

Ricardo: Because so ﬁne people can live on it and ﬁnen ﬁney can walk . . .

Teacher: If people didn't live on it would ﬁne Earth sﬁll have gravity? [People nod their
heads and murmur ye] Why does the Earﬁn have gravity?

1 81
Ricardo: I don't know.

Alice: Well I ﬁnink ﬁne Earﬁn has gravity well I have two reasons, I‘m sure about ﬁne

second one. The ﬁrst one is because . . . maybe it was nade ﬁnat way. And my second

reason is, I'm not sure ﬁnis is right but, ah, space doesn't have any gravity . . .

Teacher: Space doesn't have any gravity?

Alice: I don't ﬁnink so.

Teacher: You don't ﬁnink so. Why do you ﬁnink space doesn't have any gavity?

Alice and ﬁnen Arrnina, though, just repeat ﬁat ﬁnere is no gravity because ﬁnings ﬂoat ﬁnereuﬁney
have no weight. I ﬁnink ﬁnat for me ﬁne difﬁculty I ﬁnd in shaping ﬁnis sort of discussion is in ﬁne
sort of cyclicity of the children's logic irn ﬁne statement ﬁnat ﬁne Earﬁn has gravity because it was
nade ﬁat way. It does have ﬁne gravity ﬁat it has because it was made ﬁne way it was. It was
also made the way it was because of gravity. You have to step outside ﬁnis cycle to rrake sense of
it or for ﬁat rrnatter to ﬁnink differenﬁy.

Sook Chin has been drawing a picture to show us since I asked ﬁne quesﬁon about where
gravity comes from. Finally he is ready to present his picture. He is only recenﬁy becoming
competent in English so he talks a little English ﬁnen goes to Korean and Yong Sun translates.
Notice, on his diagram, ﬁne direcﬁon of ﬁne arrows. The way he has chosen to draw his arrows

has important repercussions for ﬁne rest of ﬁne monﬁn. Arrows indicaﬁng ﬁne direcﬁon of ﬁne

force of attracﬁon would go ﬁne oﬁner way.

 

Yong Sun: He ﬁninks ﬁnere's gravity everywhere so urn, [it's from] under ﬁne Earﬁn, ﬁnere's
gravity but we can't feel it.

182

Teacher: So everywhere on ﬁne Earﬁn ﬁnere's gravity even if you're on top of ﬁne Earﬁn or

on ﬁne bottom of ﬁne Earﬁn ﬁnere's always gravity so you . . . that's why people on ﬁne

bottom of ﬁne Earﬁn don't fall off.

Sook Chin: Yeah and ﬁney don't feel that [he gesture to indicate upside down] . . .

Teacher: They don't ﬁnink ﬁney're on ﬁne bottom of ﬁne Earﬁn.

Sook Chin: Yeah, ﬁney can't, but I ﬁnink ﬁney can't fall because outer space is very large.

I decide at ﬁnis point to tell ﬁne children about gravity and ﬁnen see what sense ﬁney can
make of it raﬁner ﬁnen seeing if ﬁney can "discover" it. I do ﬁnis because I ﬁnink ﬁnat ﬁne kids (and I
ﬁnink ﬁnis is borne out again in the next class) are postulating ﬁneories which are more-or-less
spontaneous bright ideas (or insights if you'd raﬁner). They are based on almost noﬁning. Many
are constructed on ﬁne spot. I ﬁnink ﬁne gravity boots is an example of ﬁnis. Jin was saying ﬁney
held the astronaut down because ﬁney were heavy. My poinﬁng out or him recognizing ﬁnat ﬁnis
was inconsistent wiﬁn his claim ﬁat ﬁne Moon had no gravity led to the claim ﬁnat ﬁne boots made
gravity. The children who liked ﬁne idea were busy trying to apply it to other ﬁnings to see if it
would work there. This is in line wiﬁn ﬁne manner Kuhn (1970), for example, describes ﬁne
testing and assessing process scienﬁsts put new ﬁneories ﬁnrough. In ﬁne same line I suggest a
ﬁneory and invite ﬁnem to see wheﬁner or not ﬁneir data make sense analyzed wiﬁnin it. My
theory, I know, has ﬁne advantage of greate simplicity and consistency. It has greater
explanatory power, it can be extended beyond ﬁne immediate phenomenon. I rarely do ﬁnisutell
the children a scienﬁﬁcally rrnore correct answer. I choose to do it in ﬁnis instance in a parﬁcular
manner. I am careful to portray what I say as anoﬁner ﬁneory because I don't wish to make an
authoritaﬁve statement which would stop ﬁne sort of weighing and assessing Kuhn describes. I
wish to keep my idea wiﬁn ﬁne pre-exisﬁng norms of our classroom conversaﬁons in which
people share ideas and ﬁnen ﬁney are discussed and weighed. I want ﬁnem to ﬁnink about my
theory in the same way as they have gavity boots-weighing its usefulness in explaining what
ﬁney know about phenomena. I do ﬁnis because I respect boﬁn ﬁnat forrrn of ﬁne scienﬁﬁc process
and I respect ﬁne children-«their ﬁneories (gavity boots, like any other scienﬁﬁc ﬁneory is

discarded only when it proves not useful) and ﬁneir ability to ﬁnink criﬁcally and creatively. I

1 83
don't acﬁvely disprove ﬁneir ﬁneory, raﬁner I give anoﬁner ﬁneory ﬁnat's more powerful for ﬁnem to

try out. I feel I have to be extra careful in doing ﬁnis (and in describing it here) because I do feel
ﬁne children rray attach more weight to my statements, when I rrake ﬁne, but I wish in this
instance to minimize ﬁnis.

Teacher: Listen to rrne, let me tell you an idea, ﬁne reason why ﬁne Earﬁn has gravity is
because it's a great big ﬁning . . .

Krisﬁn: Bigger ﬁnen ﬁne Moon?

Teacher: [nods] . . . ﬁne bigger the ﬁning is ﬁne rrnore gravity it has, everything has gavity,
everyﬁning has gravity like you said at ﬁne beginning Amina . . .

Timmy: Except . . .
Teacher: Wait! Everyﬁning has gravity but how much gravity it has is because how big it
is. [This make me very uncomfortable using ”big" rather than ”mass” but I didn’t want to
introduce a new word at that moment] 50 ﬁne Earﬁn has gavity and it has a lot of gravity,
the Moon has gravity but the Moon is smaller ﬁnen ﬁne Earth so it doesn't have as much . .
Jin: One quarter . . .
Teacher: It doesn't have as much gavity as the Earth.
Timmy: So it's not easier to get around?
Teacher: So it's easier to jump in ﬁne air. I have gravity but I don't have nearly as much
gravity as ﬁne Earth but if I was in outer space where there is no gravity, ﬁnere's no
gravity in outer space because there's noﬁning there, but if I'm in outer space, I have
gravity and if Annina was to bring a pen up ﬁnere and let go of it, just let go of it so ﬁnat it
is ﬂoaﬁng, it would be attracted to rrne, it would be pulled to nne because I have gravity.
[Many children start murmuring to each other]
Timmy: Dr Osborne I have a quesﬁon.
I repeat my ﬁneory before I let ﬁne children talk. Ricardo says ﬁat boﬁn ﬁne Sun and ﬁne planet
Jupiter must have a lot of gravity ﬁnen. I agree wiﬁn him and emphasize ﬁnat it is because ﬁney are

so large.

Jin: I ﬁnink it's interesﬁng that if you were in outer space and if someone gives you a,
maybe if someone would hold a pen and it will stick to you.

Teacher: You ﬁnink ﬁat's interesﬁng? Okay Timmy?

Timmy: Unn, I have a quesﬁon. Does ﬁat mean if someﬁning's bigger ﬁnan you, you
would be attracted to it?

Teacher: Uh huh.

184

Timmy: Oh ﬁnen I say ﬁne same as Jin.

John adds his own interesﬁng idea: "What's interesﬁng is if a space ship were to ﬂy too
close to ﬁne Sun it can't get away 'cause ﬁne gavity of ﬁne Sun is pulling it towards." But Amina
disagrees wiﬁn ﬁne new theory. She draws a picture and then states: "The Moon has noﬁning on it
because it has no gravity right?" I tell her ﬁnat no ﬁnat's not riglnt or at least ﬁnat's not what I had
said. I emphasized the I. I reiterate that according to my ﬁneory ﬁne Moon has gravity because of
its size. But Annina insists ﬁat it doesn't have gravity--at ﬁrst because ﬁne book says it's in space
and that has no gravity and then because: "Well I think I'm sort of revising because I ﬁnought if
you ﬁnink it's ﬁne Moon, ﬁne Moon could have gravity because I ﬁnouglnt if ﬁnis is the Earth ﬁnere's
lots of people, 'cause there's lots of living ﬁnirngs on it, ﬁnat's why it has gravity. But ﬁne Moon it
has nothing on it." On ﬁnat note I end ﬁne class.

Constructing and teting scientiﬁc theorie and the development of a community:
Out into the solar system.

We start ﬁne next class, on ﬁne 17ﬁn, in ﬁne same spot we left off. Krisﬁn disagrees wiﬁn
my ﬁneory. ”I don’t ﬁnink ﬁne Moon has gravity because it says it in our own science book.”
Arrnina also still disagrees and goes to the board to redraw he pictures. It is very important ﬁnat
these two were ﬁne parﬁcular children who started ﬁne conversaﬁon in ﬁnis class ﬁnrougln
disagreeing with my ﬁneory of gravity. These are ﬁne two children I am most focussed on in my
worries about discourse. They alter ﬁne shape of the ensuing conversaﬁon so ﬁnat it feels more
like ﬁnose portrayed in the chapters on ﬁne ﬁrst and second combinaﬁon class. They tell us ﬁneir
ideas and we listen to them and work wiﬁn ﬁnem and through ﬁnis process become criﬁcal.

I ask Krisﬁn to find in the book what she is ﬁninking about. Meanwhile Amira explains
her picture. ”Now ﬁnis part, just pretend it's ﬂat, um, ﬁne Moon has no gravity, some people ﬁnink
it does but it doesn't. These lines are the people [on earﬁn] and ﬁne Moon, it has noﬁning but

bumps on it and ﬁnat's why the Moon has no gravity.”

185

Teacher: 50 in order to have gravity you have to have living ﬁnings is that what you are

saying?

Annina: Yeah um, I don't ﬁnink I should say ﬁnis, but whateve one you believe in, god,

well god, urn, he ﬁnought that ﬁnere should be, well, I don't know but maybe this, but

naybe it's just because ﬁne Moon doesn't have to have gravity because ﬁnere's noﬁning,
why should it have gravity because there's noﬁning on it ﬁat should have gravity.

Teacher: Oh so ﬁne Earﬁn needs to have gravity because ﬁnere are living ﬁnings?

This is very true, would the concept of gravity exist wiﬁnout us needing it? Mightn’t
there be anoﬁner way to visualize the whole relaﬁonship ﬁnat doesn't require pullirng out or
defining a concept like gravity? This is on a conﬁnuum wiﬁn Karen’s explanaﬁon of why ﬁnere is
gravity (because we are here and we need it). Amina’s linking ﬁnis to her concept of god and
what god’s plans are is also a part of ﬁnis sort of teleological argument; arguments which hirnge on
a higher auﬁnority or a greater purpose-stated or unstated. In tradiﬁonal science ﬁne higher
auﬁnority is ﬁne rule ”This must rrake sense!” It doesn’t have to be ﬁnat way eiﬁner or it can rrake
sense in mulﬁple, often conﬂicﬁng ways. Both Amira’s and my concepﬁons of gravity arise
because of different qualiﬁes of ﬁne abstracﬁons we make about what we sense in ﬁne external
world. Concepts such as gravity or god arise because our arﬁculaﬁons of reality are parﬁal and
incomplete. God and gravity are different because our abstracﬁons are different. Amina's way
makes sense to her as does mine to me but how we can use ﬁnat sense making is very different.
Tlat’s how I like to ﬁnirnk I approach ﬁnis sort of argument in class-asking children quesﬁons so
ﬁney can try out ﬁneir arguments in different places and contexts, wiﬁn different data. That’s also
the approach I ﬁnink you can see ﬁne children adopﬁng. When Amina talks about god as an
explanaﬁon no one challenges her right to talk about ﬁnis. They listen to how she is using it ﬁnen

present ﬁneir ideas. In a much later class (where we were discussing ﬁneories of ﬁne origin and

end of the solar system) Arrnina asked me privately whether or not she could tell about her

l 86
religious beliefs. I asked her to ﬁnink before she did it wheﬁner or not she would be connfortable

wiﬁn kids challenging and discussing her ideas as problemaﬁc. She chose not to share.

A funny ﬁning about Amina and my interacﬁons is that I don’t feel ﬁne sarrne sort of moral
dilemma in encouraging her to quesﬁon and think in ﬁnis way as I did in oﬁner classes wiﬁn
different students such as Farzoneh (a child from Iran ﬁnat I had in ﬁrst grade in ﬁne year before
ﬁnis-I talk more about ﬁnis in ﬁne next chapter). I suspected at ﬁne ﬁme of ﬁnis series of classes
ﬁat ﬁney were from ﬁne sarrne sort of conservaﬁve Moslem background ﬁnough. This is actually
not true but it is what I was ﬁninking and acﬁng on at the ﬁme of ﬁnis conversaﬁon. Maybe ﬁnis is
because Amina’s age and the age of ﬁne oﬁner children give me opportuniﬁes to talk wiﬁn ﬁnem
about ﬁne discourse and what we are doing in class ﬁnat I didn’t get to do in ﬁrst grade. About
Amina ﬁnough--she acts extremely femirnine and very silly but is very percepﬁve about the
discourse of the class. She writes to rrne in her lab notebook commenﬁng on ﬁne kinds of
quesﬁons ﬁnat I ask and why I phrase ﬁnem ﬁne way that I do. She is ﬁne only child who does ﬁnis.

Amina: Uh huh gravity, um, people would be ﬂoaﬁng . . .

Jin: Yeah we couldn't breaﬁn!

Teacher: Hand up! Urrn, but how does ﬁne Earﬁn make its gravity?

Amina: Well it comes, I'll draw a picture right here . . .

Dembe also wants to draw a picture at ﬁnis point. While ﬁne two girls draw, Ricardo has
a comment: ”I think wiﬁnout, wiﬁnout gravity ﬁne sharks wouldn't be able to live because wiﬁnout
gravity, ﬁne ocean would fall into space.” This is a classic Ricardo sort of comment to me: right on
target but warped by his own strange head space. I never know what to expect from Ricardo
except ﬁat it will be percepﬁve. Many children make comments like ﬁnese in all my classes. I
have included many of ﬁnem in ﬁnese transcripts. They are said too loud to be side comments but
they never become central to our classroom talk or if they do it is at a very later date. I feel ﬁnese
comments are important because ﬁney indicate someﬁning about ﬁne atmosphere of ﬁne class-ﬁney
are usually said in a humorous way and connect to the topic at hand in a peripheral or even

eccentric manner but indicate (at least to rrne) ﬁne child is connecﬁng to ﬁne topic. I usually srrnile

1 87
at ﬁne speaker or laugh a bit but don't respond directly to ﬁne comment. In ﬁnis instance, I

respond, not about Ricardo's statement about sharks but just to Ricardo in general: ”So do you
ﬁnink ﬁne Earﬁn has gravity because there are living things and ﬁnerefore the Moon doesn't have
any gravity?” Ricardo says ﬁnat he ﬁninks ﬁne Moon needs to have at least a bit of gravity. When
pressed he can't say why ﬁnough.

Annina explains her new picture. She tells us ﬁnat gavity comes from ﬁne center of ﬁne

Earﬁn and out ﬁne north pole.

 

 

 

 

Then she changes her mind: ”Well wait a minute ﬁat wouldn't nake sense because I don't ﬁnirnk
I agree wiﬁn my picture 'cause that would mean down here I don't know what it would be down
here but it might not have no gavity." She decides to draw anoﬁner picture. I suspect she is

confusing magneﬁc field drawings into her sense making about gravity. We never return to ﬁnis

though so I don’t know. Now Dembe shows us her picture.

Dembe: I ﬁnink that ﬁne Moon does have a litﬁe gavity.
Teacher: What's your picture of?
Dembe: Um the Earﬁn and ﬁne Moon, and I think ﬁnat ﬁne Moon does have a little gavity

because if ﬁne Moon didn't lave gravity, well it should have gravity because it's a little
srraller than ﬁne Earﬁn, and it should have gravity and like you said, well, like ﬁne Earﬁn is

1 88
big, but the Sun would have more gravity 'cause it's bigger ﬁan ﬁne Earﬁn and ﬁne Moon

and, um, I ﬁnink ﬁnat since it’s sﬁll a size and it’ s kind of big too and so it has gravity and
also ﬁne Earﬁn because it’ 3 big.

Teacher: 'Cause of ﬁne size.

Dembe: Um hum.

Teacher: Okay Ricardo?

Ricardo: I ﬁnink the Moon does have a little gravity. If ﬁnere wasn't any gavity on ﬁne
Moon it was, um, if ﬁne astr'onautseven with heavy boots, they won't be able to touch the
ground.

Amina: Remember . . .

Teacher: Yes Arrnina?

Annina: Remember when Timothy said they have gavity boots . . .

Timoﬁny: Well I disagree wiﬁn myself now because when I heard what Dr Osborne said
and I agreed wiﬁn her.

Amira: Dr Osborne what did you say?

Teacher: I said ﬁnat the Moon had gravity but it had less gravity ﬁan ﬁne Earﬁn and ﬁne
amount of gravity ﬁnat it has is dependent upon . . .

Amina: Oh I ﬁnink that it doesn't . . . doesn't have any, ﬁne [moon] doesn't need it because
it doesn't have anyﬁning on it except bumps, it doesn't have ﬁnings, it doesn't have space
creatures.

Joey also ﬁninks the Moon has gravity. When I ask him what gravity is he replies:
”Someﬁning ﬁat helps you stay on ﬁne gound.” Yong Sun adds on to ﬁnis an extension of ﬁne
ﬁneory from someﬁning he has read: ”Well I was kind of ﬁninking ﬁnat some stars are bigger ﬁnan
the Sun and um, if you're out in space, if somean was really big, ﬁnen it would pull you to it, it
would pull you to it." I get back to Amira and ask her what she’s doing. She is musing over her
drawing of ﬁne Earth wiﬁn people and the Moon wiﬁnout. ”I know ﬁne mountains should have
gravity I mean they're bumps.” Dembe reminds her: ”You said ﬁne Earﬁn doesn't have bumps . . .
.” and Joey adds in: ”Or doesn't need bumps.” Annina: ”No, No No No what I meant over here
was all there is on ﬁne Moon is bumps, bumps is not living ﬁnings!" Denbe: ”But when you were
over there you said ﬁnat the Earth does not have bumps and I ﬁnink it does.” To which Amina

answers: ”Well yes ﬁne Earﬁn does have bumps like the rocks like in ﬁne roads um, I'm gonna

1 89
revise." I ﬁnink ﬁnis is an example of Dembe and Joey trying to ﬁnink inside Amina’s ﬁneorizirng.

But ﬁneir approach to attempﬁng ﬁnis is criﬁcal. I don’t ﬁnink ﬁneir statements should be

interpreted as counter-arguments. Rather ﬁney were trying to ﬁnink along wiﬁn Arrnina and ﬁnese

were problems ﬁney saw in ﬁne ﬁneory through ﬁnis process. This is much more similar to ﬁne

workings of ﬁne community in the conversaﬁons in the last chapter about sound and music.
Firnally Dembe says: ”I ﬁnink the Moon has to have gravity." I ask her "Why?"

Dembe: Because if it doesn't have gravity, how can you go to ﬁne Moon. Like ﬁne space
rockets and stuff when ﬁney're going to ﬁne Moon, do ﬁney just glide riglnt . . .

Arrnina: Dembe, Dembe! I ﬁnink you're getting a little carried away, see ﬁneir space suits,

they have in their space suits to carry gravity, there's ﬁnis little plug goes in, there's air and

there's gravity.

Timmy: No it's just oxygen.

Krisﬁn: No it's for oxygen.

Arrnina: Oh ﬁnen I ﬁnink it's ﬁne boots that helps therrn.

Timothy: It's ﬁnose boots you saw how ﬁney have gravity on ﬁne Moon, you saw how ﬁney

jump, it's because ﬁney, ﬁne gravity's not real big so ﬁne gravity's not real strong, so you

ﬂoat up but then you corrne down because ﬁne gravity pulls you down but ﬁnen you ﬂoat

back up because the gravity isn't very big . . . I made a rrnistake because now I don't

ﬁnink ﬁnere is and I don't and all ﬁney do is ﬁney have oxygen packs on ﬁnem and ﬁnat's all.
The children have seen these ﬁnings in pictures and books and in movies or television and ﬁney
believe there has to be reasons for ﬁneir observaﬁons so ﬁney try on ﬁneories, to see if ﬁney work
for a bit, ﬁnen keep them or cast them aside. A tesﬁng process. Note: ﬁnis is very different from
ﬁne way science is normally taught but very much what goes on in research. Amina does ﬁnis for
herself. Slne adds on addendums to her ﬁneory, tries it out for its explanatory power and
coherence ﬁnen throws it out. Like epicycles in pre-Copernican astronomy.

Annina: Air and gravity are opposites.

Teacher: Air and gavity are opposites?

Amina: Uh huh. [Many children start asking her to clarify] Not opposites, well ﬁney're not
opposites actually, but ﬁney're sort of ﬁne same, they're not really ﬁne same but . . .

Timmy: Opposites means different.

Krisﬁn: Like yes and no are opposites.

1 90
Arrnina: Yeah but I think they're sort of ﬁne same, gravity and air.

Teacher: You said that last ﬁme you said ﬁnat, air and gravity were ﬁne same because you
can't see eiﬁner one.

Annina: Yeah it's true . . .
Ricardo: Um, ummm . . .

Amina: . . . 'cause they're like the same like, Dembe my I erase ﬁnis? It's clear and it
helps people . . . air helps ﬁnem breaﬁne and gravity helps ﬁnem stay on the ground.

Teacher: Is air like someﬁning that you can hold in your hand? Am I holdirng air in my

hand? [All repond ye.] Okay, can you hold gravity in your hand? [Amina says ye all the

others say no.]
Arrnina and Yong Sun argue about wheﬁner or not you can feel gravity. Arrnina seems to be
claiming ﬁnat you can feel gavity because you can feel the effects of gravity. I’m inclined to look
at it ﬁnis way also alﬁnough she is also saying that gravity is located just on the ﬂooruwe feel
gravity because we are held to ﬁne ﬂoor. I don't agree wiﬁn ﬁnat part.. So I ask ﬁne children: ”Let
me say someﬁning about a way you can feel gravity, if you pick someﬁning up, you pick it up and
it weighs a lot is ﬁnat feeling gravity?” Now everybody agrees with me (while ﬁney didn’t wiﬁn
Amina). So I ask why ﬁney ﬁnink ﬁnat is feeling gravity.

John: It has weight and it, um, pushes down on your hand.

Joey: Um, I disagree with her [Amina] because if gravity is just on ﬁne ﬂoor because riglnt
now I'm not touclning it [the ﬂoor], if it's just on ﬁne ﬂoor I felt it all over.

Annina: That's not what I mean . . . [Lots of arguments start.]

Teacher: Wait wait wait stop hold it I'm not totally sure I even heard what Joey said, Joey
you said gravity's all over, it's not just on the ﬂoor so you wouldn't just feel it on ﬁne ﬂoor
you'd feel any old place?

Joey: Yeah or I'd just be ﬂoaﬁng up riglnt now.

Teacher: Okay any comments to what Joey just said? John?

John: Um I agree wiﬁn him 'cause if it was just on ﬁne ﬂoor then you'd be half ﬂoaﬁng and
half on the ground right now and if you'd want to stay on ﬁne ground you'd have lie

down on your back or someﬁnirng or your stomach.

Jin: I agree that gravity's all over 'cause ﬁnen you'll be sﬁcking, you'll be like . . . your one
arm will be going like that and your oﬁner arm will be going like ﬁnat and . . .

Ricardo: Then your head may rip off!

191

Teacher: That might be true if wait a nninute, your saying ﬁat might be true if gravity
were all over, not just on ﬁne ground, are you saying gravity's just on ﬁne ground or
gravity's all over?

Jin: It's only on ﬁne ground 'cause if it were over ﬁnere ﬁnen it will sﬁck.

Dembe: If, if I age with Joey because gravity is all over, if you um, if gravity wasn't all
over your hair would be going like ﬁnis and everything.

In ﬁne last ten minutes of class, Krisﬁn reads a page in her textbook on experiments in
outer space while Timmy struggles for words with Dembe to describe how space is nothing.
Ricardo says that space is different from ﬁne Moon-ﬁne Moon is in outer space. Joey joins ﬁne
word struggle to describe space [words- like air, night, noﬁning]. Karen takes us back to Amina's
drawing and points out it makes no sense for ﬁne souﬁn pole, also where would ﬁne gravity go at
ﬁne norﬁn pole? Krisﬁn talks about ﬁne ozone layer, ﬁnat it would hold gravity in and spread it
around the Earﬁn. Yong Sun thinks ﬁnis is a mistake and I deﬁne ozone as part of ﬁne atmosphere.
I ask if she means that ﬁne atmosphere, the air keeps ﬁne gravity in. Slne replies: "Noﬁning can get
out except rockets and l ﬁnink ﬁne rockets have a special ﬁning that makes ﬁnem able to get in and
out of ﬁne Earﬁn because ﬁne ozone keeps everything from getting out of ﬁne Earﬁn, helps ﬁne
gravity to work." Yong Sun says ﬁnis is a nnistake and draws ﬁne Earth wiﬁn ﬁne atmosphere
around and explains the greenhouse effect and says it has noﬁning to do wiﬁn gravity. Firally I
ask ﬁnem to write in notebooks where do ﬁney ﬁnink gravity comes from? At ﬁne last nninute two
children (Timmy, Daniel) want to bring someﬁning in to share next time-I invite ﬁnis and ﬁnis
becomes very important in shaping ﬁne subsequent classes.

In ﬁnis last class ﬁne children construct consistent ﬁneories. I give ﬁnem new "stuff" to do
ﬁnisuﬁneories, phenomena» which 'cause ﬁne children to revise old ﬁneories to accommodate ﬁne
new ideas or to ﬁnrow their ﬁneories out, Amina is attempﬁng to do ﬁnis revisionushe is
unwilling to release her own ﬁneory. Others are tesﬁng ﬁne new theory ﬁnrough its self
consistency and by its ability to explain phenomena they are familiar wiﬁn or by extending to ﬁne
unknown (example: Yong Sun). Again ﬁnese are all examples of ﬁne workings of a discourse

community. Describing the workings of a scienﬁﬁc community upon ﬁne publicaﬁon of a new

l 92
ﬁneory, Kuhn (1990) argues that ﬁne scienﬁsts weigh the ﬁneory against ﬁne phenomena and accept

or reject it on ﬁne basis of wheﬁner it explairns more and wheﬁner ﬁne new theory is generaﬁve.
According to ﬁne ideas of Foucault (1980), ﬁnis process is mediated by ﬁne abiliﬁes of ﬁne members
of ﬁne community to communicate with each oﬁneruthere must be shared language and shared
understanding of that language. The later is developed by ﬁne use ﬁne language is being put to.

This comes about in a scienﬁﬁc community by the process Kuhn describes.

Gravity and the solar system continued. I realize we have changed direction.

We start March 19ﬁn with a short review of what has been going on about gravity for
Alice (who missed ﬁne last class). I ﬁnought for sure ﬁnis was going to be a short process and we
would return to ﬁne inclined plane experiment today. The real class starts when I ask Alice what
she ﬁninks of our discussions.

Alice: I agree with Dembe [Dembe has just deﬁned gravity as something that keeps you on the

ground and as proportional to the size of planets] and I have a quesﬁon for her, if gravity

keeps ﬁnings down and it helps you stay down, well why aren't you laying on ﬁne

ground, because it's pulling you down?

Dembe: I mean like gravity holds you, I rrnean, like on ﬁne bottom of your leg, you see
when you jump, it pushes you back down on your legs . . .

Jin: It pulls you . . .
Dembe: It pulls you on your legs!
Teacher: But why aren't you lying in the ground ? That doesn’t nake sense . . .

Dembe: Well because ﬁnat, you’re up, your feet are on the gound and ﬁnat's why gravity
comes from ﬁne ground.

Teacher: What do you ﬁnink about ﬁnat Alice?

Alice: I don't really understand.

I see ﬁnis as a chance to revisit Alice's and oﬁner’s quesﬁons about birds and ﬁnd a place
to explore how we ”feel” gravity—work against it, ﬁne tug-of-wat idea. I say: ”Remember we
were talking a couple days ago about how birds can ﬂy? I mean how can birds ﬂy if ﬁnere is

gravity, Krisﬁn?” Krisﬁn responds ﬁnat birds have no bones. Everyone disagrees. I say: ”Well if

l 93
they do or don't what difference would ﬁnat nake? I mean shouldn't gravity work on someone

wiﬁnout bones?” Krisﬁn tries again: ”Birds don’t have weight.” This is again shouted down.
Everyone is debaﬁng my quesﬁon. I stop ﬁne conversaﬁons and call on Yong Sun. ”They don't
look like they have any weight but ﬁney do have weight and ﬁney use ﬁneir own force to keep
ﬁnem up.”

Teacher: How do ﬁney do ﬁat?

Yong Sun: By pushing ﬁne air to ﬁne ﬂoor and lifﬁng ﬁnem up.

Teacher: By ﬂapping ﬁneir wings? [Yong Sun nods.]

We start talking about how they are able to ﬂap ﬁneir wings. Yong Sun says because ﬁney
have a skeleton. I ask ﬁne class ”Is it just ﬁne skeleton or sorrneﬁning else ﬁnat helps ﬁnem?" Timmy
says ﬁney have muscles and Jin says feaﬁners. I push it furﬁner: ”Okay let me ask ﬁnis, if birds
krnow ﬁnere is gravity and birds do have weiglnt but ﬁney can ﬂy because ﬁney have wings and
ﬁney have muscles and ﬁney have skeletons and ﬁney have feaﬁners so we have weiglnt but we
aren't lying ﬂat on ﬁne ﬂoor, why are we not lying ﬂat on ﬁne ﬂoor? There is gravity and we do
have weight but we aren't lying ﬂat on ﬁne ﬂoor.” John says: ”Bones, if we didn't have bones
we'd be ﬂat on the ﬂoor."

Alice: Well I agree with John and because ﬁnere's not enougln gravity to pull us down on
the gound.

Jin: Yeah there is!

Teacher: There's not enough gravity? What's ﬁnat Jin?

Jin: Yes there is because if you don't have bones then you'll fall down.

I ask: ”Can you ﬁnink of any animals ﬁnat don't have bones?" My reasons for asking ﬁnis
are because I want them to ﬁnink that ﬁney have to work to stand up and ﬁnat their bodies are
constructed to facilitate ﬁnis. Anirrals wiﬁnout bones are supported by ﬁne ground, water or
exoskeletons. I want ﬁnem to see ﬁat ﬁne morphology of living ﬁnings is related to ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat
they can do—a funcﬁonal morphology argument. The danger of funcﬁonal morphology
arguments is that they are often discovered to be the inverted forms of logic and causality ﬁnat I

talked about when Karen suggested that ﬁne Earﬁn had gravity because pe0ple needed it.

l 94
From Ricardo we hear about worrrns and whee ﬁney live. Karen talks about snails and

slugs. We talk a bit about snakes and rerrnernber ﬁat ﬁney do have skeletons. I suggest jellyﬁsh
and Ricardo adds shrimp. At last Amira says: ”I have a comment for Krisﬁn and Dembe and
also for you Dr Osborne, not only your bones hold you up but also your muscles and your force.”
Everyone seems to agree ﬁnis ﬁme so I summarize: ”Someﬁrrnes your muscles don't work and you
fall on your back but you don't lie on your back because you can't get up like because what Alice
was saying about gravity, if ﬁnere’s gravity why doesn’t it just hold you ﬂat on ﬁne ground? I
ﬁnirnk ﬁne reason why it doesn't just hold you ﬂat on ﬁne ground is because, as you guys have just
answered, because you have muscles and you have bones and you use ﬁnis force ﬁnat keeps you
up, ﬁnat allows you to stay up. Does that make sense to you Alice?" Alice says ﬁnat it does.

Then I return to ﬁne Moon: "Well what would happen to us if we were on ﬁne Moon, is
ﬁnere gravity on ﬁne Moon?” All but Krisﬁn and Amina agree ﬁat ﬁnere is. We talk sonne rrnore
about how people move on ﬁne Moon and in outer space. Timmy looks ﬁne Moon up irn an
encyclopedia he has brouglnt in to show us. It talks about ﬁne calendar, ﬁne phases of ﬁne Moon
and craters. Sook Clnin deﬁnes ﬁnese by drawing a picture. I talk about my research on lunar
rocks and soils.

The children effecﬁvely planned out next ﬁme and probably a number of days after with
ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁney want to share about ﬁne planets. I was sﬁll not happy wiﬁn what ﬁney are saying
about gravity. I really wanted ﬁnen to understand weiglnt as the manifestaﬁon of a dynamic
tension between two bodies. I wanted to get back to ﬁne machines. I didn’t want to do rrnore on
gravity or ﬁne solar system. I didn’t like ﬁne feeling of manipulaﬁng ﬁnem into knowledge ﬁnat I’d
already got. On ﬁne oﬁner hand ﬁney really wanted to do ﬁnis. The only children I really didn’t
ﬁnink were very interested were Mwajuna and Selarrawit. I felt ﬁnat I must do ﬁnis ﬁnough
because ﬁney clearly wanted to and I wanted to respect how ﬁney shaped ﬁne science we were
doing.

This was ﬁne last class in which I ﬁnouglnt our primary purpose was exploring gravity to

get to weight to get back to machines. After ﬁnis class I let us explore ﬁne solar system (and

1 95
gravity) for ﬁnemselves alﬁnough in my head I still kept ﬁne idea of relaﬁng ﬁnings back to what I

ﬁnought were underlying concepts in making sense of the rrachines. In oﬁner words, in my head
ﬁne organizing ﬁnerrne of ﬁne children's exploraﬁons of ﬁne solar system was an exploraﬁon of
gravity-its meaning and effects.

I let ﬁne children lead ﬁne way on a superﬁcial level by letﬁng ﬁnem control (introduce)
ﬁne materials we would discuss. I nnade no attempt to ask why parﬁcular children chose to share
ﬁne things ﬁnat they did. I ﬁnink ﬁnere was an interplay of children bringing ﬁnings ﬁney had ﬁat
ﬁney ﬁnought were perﬁnent to a discussion going on (I ﬁnink ﬁnis because often we didn’t get to a
child’s offering for days and when we did, ﬁne child would say ﬁnings like, ”Oh let's not read ﬁnis
now, we aren’t talking about it anymore”), were points ﬁnat ﬁney would like to nake to support
ﬁneir views of an argument, were very interesﬁng to ﬁnem. How what ﬁne clnildren brouglnt in

played out in class was someﬁning I manufactured ﬁnough.

Connecting gravity to motion: Connecting to each others ideas.

So we started in on Monday, March 23rd wiﬁn me recapping ﬁne children’s plan from ﬁne
last class. I had asked Sylvia if I could teach on Monday ﬁat week (normally I don’t) because I
had ﬁnought that one long class and ﬁnen ﬁne shorter classes ﬁat I norrrally tauglnt on Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday in which ﬁney shared ﬁnings ﬁnat ﬁney had brought from home would
end ﬁneir interest in planets. The Monday class is an hour and a half. My oﬁner classes are 40
minutes. First I poll ﬁne room for who brought stuff in, ﬁnen for who else planned to, ﬁnen of ﬁne
children who had got stuff, what they had. This is how I arranged ﬁne conversation. I also
explicitly said we were going to end talking about planets on Thursday.

I start wiﬁn Timmy who has informaﬁon in his encyclopedia to share. Before we get to
his choices ﬁnough I ask him to look up gavity. Then he asks me to read ﬁne selecﬁon. The

paragraph I read defines gravity ﬁnrough Newton's law which states ﬁnat any two objects are

l 96
pulled towards each oﬁner wiﬁn a force ﬁnat has to do with ﬁne amount of their nass and ﬁne

distance between ﬁnen. The closer ﬁney are togeﬁner ﬁne more they are attracted to each other. I
deﬁne mass for the children as having to do with size as I was telling them before. Then ﬁne
encyclopedia talks about how in order to escape the Earth's gravity an object has to be moving
very fast, at an "escape velocity." So ﬁnis is where I suddenly get the idea that exploring ﬁne
revoluﬁon of one body around another would be a way to start ﬁninking about gravity as a
dynamic inteacﬁon between two bodies; anoﬁner version of Dembe’s tug-of-war. I bring ﬁnis up
later in class.

Timmy asks for quesﬁons or comrrnents. This is how I have established ﬁat children lead
discussions in my classes. A child who wishes to share someﬁning—a book or a drawing for
example-presents it to ﬁne class, explaining why ﬁney ﬁnought it was important. Then they take
questions from the class. Children who ask quesﬁons must raise ﬁneir hands and be recognized
by ﬁne speaker. To an extent, ﬁne speaker controls who talks and for how long. The speaker also
responds to ﬁne quesﬁoner. When ﬁne topic seems parﬁcularly fruitful or becomes important as
ﬁne quesﬁon / response progresses, I often step in and interfere wiﬁn what is talked about and who
does the talking. I also step in to make sure certain people who I suspect have sonneﬁning
important to add get air ﬁme and I also step in wiﬁn ﬁnese people to increase ﬁne ﬁme spent on
their ideas. In oﬁner words, I don't rely on the speaker to know what is important scienﬁﬁcally. I
feel it is my role to keep ﬁnese sessions focused on ﬁne science and I break ﬁne norms of ﬁnis type
of conversaﬁon to do ﬁnis. Timmy calls on Amina ﬁrst. Amina asks about anoﬁner experiment
ﬁat ﬁne class did on staﬁc electricity. In ﬁnis experiment, ﬁney rubbed balloons on their hair and
tried to sﬁck the balloons togeﬁner, or not, depending if the other balloon was also rubbed.
Timmy and Amina argue about whether discussing ﬁnis is applicable to a discussion of
gravitaﬁonal attracﬁon. Timmy ﬁninks she is arguing ﬁnat gravity and electricity are ﬁne same
ﬁning.

It’s pretty obvious I feel ﬁnat Amina is poinﬁng out the similarity in ﬁne descripﬁons of

the attracﬁon between two bodies due to gravity and ﬁnat caused by electricity, not saying ﬁnat

l 97
ﬁnese are the same ﬁning. I think ﬁnis is very percepﬁve. The equaﬁons ﬁat describe ﬁnis are of

ﬁne same form. The diffeence ﬁnougln (and it's a fundamental one) is that while gravity can only
attract, electricity can both attract and repel. I want to know if the children see ﬁnis sirrnilarity also
and see ﬁne difference so I conﬁnue polling ﬁne room. No one seems confused by ﬁne two as
different and Alice does point out ﬁnat most fundamental difference between ﬁne two. This is a
nice short exploraﬁon of similariﬁes and differences ﬁnat adds to ﬁne understanding of both
concepts I ﬁnink. A similar sort of discussion will happen between Yong Sun and Daniel about
deﬁniﬁons of ﬁne word satellite in ﬁne next class. These two conversaﬁons are different in
substance alﬁnough ﬁne form is similar-here we are exploring ﬁne differences and similariﬁes in a
phenomenon. Around ﬁne word "satellite" we are discussing ﬁne meanirng of a word, a human-
rrade construct. It is important to ﬁnink of Wittgenstein's ideas about meaning and language in
ﬁnese contexts and ask if and how words have meanings outside ﬁne use they are put to, ﬁne
contexts ﬁney are found in. How we construct meaning and that meaning is shaped by ﬁne social
context in which it is formed.

Next Timmy has me read from his book on planets. I-Iis encyclopedia deﬁnes planets as
bodies moving around a star each in its own orbit. It lists ﬁne planets irn our solar system and I
show ﬁne children ﬁne picture ﬁne book has of ﬁne planets, labelled, in orbits around ﬁne Sun. I ask
the children what ﬁney have in ﬁneir textbooks. Karen starts us by talking about a picture of ﬁne
orbitals of the planets about ﬁne Sun. I ask Karen why she ﬁnirnks ﬁne Sun is in ﬁne middle. She
answers: ”Because all ﬁne planets have to move around it, like planet Earﬁn, ﬁnen one half isn't
warm while ﬁne oﬁner half’s cold.” This is very true. The only planet ﬁat only presents one side
to ﬁne Sun is Uranus, a gaseous planet, ﬁnat can convect and even out ﬁne temperature differenﬁal.
But Karen’s answer really explains why planets rotate not revolve around ﬁne Sun. So I ask her
why ﬁney have to go around the Sun, why can't ﬁney just sit? This quesﬁon returns us to ﬁne idea
ﬁat planetary moﬁon represents a dynamic tension between gravitaﬁonal attracﬁon and
centripetal force. My reason for pushing on ﬁnis as a means to try to develop an understanding of

gravity with the children relates to my own understanding of gravity. Remembering ﬁne

1 98
equaﬁon which describes gravitaﬁonal attracﬁon: F=G(M1M2/ r2) in which F is force, M is nass,

A is acceleraﬁon, G is ﬁne gravitaﬁonal constant and r is ﬁne distance separaﬁng ﬁne two bodies,
there is a force of attracﬁon between any two bodies. They must work to stay apart. We work to
stand upright on ﬁne Earﬁn but because we do it constantly we aren't aware of it. The fact ﬁnat ﬁne
planets revolve around ﬁne Sun is a manifestaﬁon of ﬁneir gravitaﬁonal attracﬁon towards ﬁne
Sun. It is hard to understand gravity as a force if you can't recognize ﬁne work (ﬁne moﬁon) being
done to counteract it. She replies: "Cause ﬁney'd burn up in ﬁne same spot." Dembe adds: "Well I
ﬁnink it's in ﬁne middle because [? ﬁney can't share ﬁne same orbit then ﬁney'd] share ﬁne heat."

Then I interrupt and draw ﬁnis picture:

/O
M0

I also want to know why ﬁne children ﬁnink planets can't share orbitals.
Dembe: That wouldn't be a good idea because, 'cause if ﬁney were too close to each oﬁner
you would just have to jump to get to one and anoﬁne ﬁnirng, ﬁne Sun would only be on
ﬁne one side and it needs to get on ﬁne other side because ﬁnen on ﬁnat side ﬁnere would be
something and on ﬁne oﬁner side ﬁnere would be noﬁning and it needs to be around.
Teacher: Karen didn't you have your hand up?
Karen: Um hum, if it were to stay in one spot and ﬁne Sun is in one spot, um, ﬁne pe0ple
ﬁat was on ﬁne half ﬁnat was cold ﬁney would get kind of ﬁred of having it freezing all
ﬁne ﬁme, and ﬁne people where it's warm ﬁney'd get real hot . . .
Ricardo: Not if you live in Florida or California, you're used to it.
Yong Sun: All ﬁne planets have to do is spin around irnstead of go around it.

Teacher: Oh okay let me see if I can draw, so like here's ﬁne planet here and so it would be
just spinning around like that?

199

Yong Sun: Yeah ﬁnen everybody could get Sun.

Teacher: But it sﬁll would just be sitﬁng here, it wouldn't be um, going around ﬁne Sun. It
would just sit right here and spin around by itself?

Yong Sun: Yeah but ﬁne bad ﬁning would be um, then astronomers, I mean ﬁnen people

wouldn't know how long a year would be 'cause every ﬁme ﬁne year spins around ﬁne

Sun one ﬁme is a year.

A debate starts up about what is a day and what is a year, about the difference between
rotaﬁon and revoluﬁon. We spend a lot of ﬁme trying to demonstrate different people’s ideas of
how you could get a day ﬁnrough revoluﬁon and whether or not ﬁnat kind of ﬁninking makes
sense using globes and people walking around each oﬁner. Timmy takes ﬁne globe and revolves it
around the Sun once and says ﬁnat's what makes a day. Yong Sun, ﬁnougln, says ﬁnat is a year.

Alice: 1 ﬁnink I know how it gets dark and light and um, ﬁne days because when ﬁne world

turns around, like Timmy was doing, see, when it turns around ﬁnen on the oﬁner side of

the Earth, ﬁne Sun is on that side so if you are on ﬁne opposite side of ﬁnat, ﬁnen it would
be dark over ﬁnere.

John: The Earﬁn doesn't go around ﬁne Sun every day . . .

Timmy: It has to!!

Teacher: Timmy . . . let John ﬁnish.

John: It takes ﬁne Earﬁn a year to nake one revoluﬁon around ﬁne Sun.

Teacher: So when it goes around ﬁne Sun like ﬁnis line, ﬁne white lines ﬁat are in your
book . . . those are ﬁne revoluﬁons around the Sun and it takes a year for ﬁnat to happen?

Both John and Yong Sun age but oﬁner people are sﬁll all tangled up and Timmy keeps arguing
back and forth. So we do more demonstraﬁons wiﬁn globes. Finally I summarize again and
Timmy agrees to the logic behind a day and then he asks my irniﬁal quesﬁon. He asks why if it is
spinning does it have to travel around ﬁne Sun also.
Teacher: Okay good quesﬁon, why does it go around me, why doesn't it just spin? And
ﬁne reason why different people are saying it just spins I ﬁnink, like Karen said if it didn't
spin and I think Dembe said ﬁnis also, if it didn't spin ﬁnen ﬁne Sun would always hit ﬁne
sarrne place and ﬁnen it would burn up, is ﬁnat what you guys said? Or it would get very
very hot.

Karen: I sﬁll ﬁnink it goes around [ﬁne sun] and at ﬁne same ﬁme, it, it's turning and then
it's also going around [the sun].

Teacher: You ﬁnink so? Why though?

200

Ricardo: Why would it do boﬁn?

Karen: I think it does because if it was turning in one place ﬁnen it would be hot and ﬁnen
it would be cold and then it would be hot and ﬁnen cold, I've changed my rrnind, in one
day ﬁnen it would be hot ﬁnen cold, so I ﬁnink it just goes round ﬁne Sun.

Teacher: You ﬁnink it just goes around the Sun, it doesn't spin too?

Karen: You see while it's going around ﬁne Sun, it's heading ﬁnis way and it goes, ﬁne Sun
is poinﬁng ﬁnis way and ﬁnen it's like ﬁnat.

Teacher: So are you saying that it goes around the Sun once a day, every day it goes all
the way around ﬁne Sun?

50 now Karen has argued herself back ﬁne oﬁner way. We demonstrate Karen’s ﬁneory
wiﬁn the globes and Karen revises. Timmy says: ”I ﬁnink ﬁnat I agree with Jin but I'm just not
sure, I don't know if eiﬁner one is right, I'm not sure I'm not saying Jin is riglnt and I'm wrong or
I'm right and his is wrong, I'm not sure . . . "

We debate ﬁnis some more. I am letting ﬁnis talk go on for so long because of two ﬁnirngs.

I ﬁnink ﬁnis talk recapitulates a long debate in ﬁne history of science and is a good place to try
working on rraking sense by ﬁneorizing wiﬁn ”data” ﬁnat we ”know” for sure. We know ﬁnere is a
year and a day. Where do they come from, what causes ﬁnem? Second we can’t make sense of
gravity using these concepts wiﬁnout making sense of ﬁne concepts ﬁrst. The Earﬁn must revolve
around the Sun or fall into the Sun. The Earﬁn's orbit is ﬁne result of ﬁne gravitaﬁonal attracﬁon
between ﬁne two and ﬁne Earﬁn's tangenﬁal velocity away from ﬁne Sun. That's why I started us in
on ﬁnis in the ﬁrst place.

Krisﬁn suggests we look at a picture she doesn’t understand in ﬁne book. This is a
drawing of ﬁne Earth going around ﬁne Sun and ﬁne Moon around ﬁne Earﬁn. I name ﬁnem.

Krisﬁn: I always ﬁnought ﬁne Moon was bigger than ﬁne Sun.

Yong Sun: The Moon is always smaller ﬁnan ﬁne planet.

Teacher: Who said ﬁne Moon is always smaller ﬁnan the planet? Why is ﬁat? I happen to
age wiﬁn you but why is ﬁnat?

Jin: I don't know but um, in a book I have ﬁnat has all ﬁne planets and the moons, none of
the moons were bigger ﬁnan the planets.

201
We’ll come back to ﬁnis on ﬁne 30th. Again ﬁnis is a place to make sense of gravity as

dynamic but right now we go back to revoluﬁon and rotaﬁon. We go back to my picture on ﬁne

board.

 

O
0 e 0
People are questioning it. Jin and Amina found my drawing ﬁne arrow indicaﬁng revoluﬁon only

half way confusing so I complete ﬁne diagram.

C‘I/T—Eoo

v

But Amira has rrnore. She goes back to Dembe’s comnnent about being able to jump between
planets. She doesn’ter ﬁat idea. She is talking to Dembe:

Annina: The part where you said ﬁat um, you're not allowed to touch ﬁne Sun, you're not
allowed to be ﬁnat close to ﬁne Sun and Dr Osborne said sorrneﬁning about ﬁne planets, and
you have to jump, and Dembe said if ﬁne planets are real close together you have to jump

Teacher: And you [Dembe] argued ﬁnat that couldn't possibly be because ﬁney'd be way
too close togeﬁner and also because . . .

Dembe: Well maybe if ﬁney turn around and they, if ﬁnere was a planet riglnt here and
anoﬁner here and it's turning around, it might bump possibly.

Amina: I disagree because, if the Moon or if ﬁnis was, well, if ﬁnis was here and anoﬁner
planet was here, you couldn't jump, if you did you'd probably be ﬂoaﬁng between, just
because ﬁney're close togeﬁner doesn't mean you could jump from each one.

Dembe: I said you probably could.

Amina: But you, but you can't . . . well those two big ones right there um, ﬁney're close,
but if you put ﬁne one on ﬁne right, if it was close, well the one on ﬁne left, if you were on
ﬁnat one, the one on the left and if you were going to jump off to get to ﬁne next planet
you'd be, you wouldn't get to ﬁne next planet because ﬁney're really not close togeﬁner.

Teacher: Why do you say ﬁnat?

Amina: Urrn, that's just ﬁnere, um, a picture, it's really the planets are not close togeﬁner,
they're far apart.

202
Arrnina often brings ﬁnis sort of ﬁning up. It’s like she wants to reafﬁrm and make sure

everyone agrees ﬁnat diagrams illustrate ideas not reality and what we see can be misleading
ﬁnerefore we have to remember the way ﬁnings are. Again I ﬁnink ﬁnis is important in science and
how we represent scienﬁfic ideas. When the discussion about ﬁnis ends I take us back to my
original quesﬁon which is the one in which I hope to expose gravity some more.

Teacher: Now I have a quesﬁon I've heard lots of good arguments why ﬁnis should spin

around and around so it doesn't get too hot and burn up and so we can have days, I don't

understand why it has to revolve around ﬁne Sun ﬁnougln, why couldn't it just spin round
and round and rournd in one place, wouldn't that keep it from getﬁng too hot on one side
or too cold on one side, wouldn't ﬁat be enough? Why does it have to go all ﬁne way
around ﬁne Sun and come back every year? What do you ﬁnink Jin?

Jin: I wouldn't know how long a year is.

Teacher: Oh so it needs to go all the way around ﬁne Sun just to tell us how long a year is?

Is ﬁat right, the Earth circles the Sun just to tell you, Jin, how long a year is. Why does it

need to do that, why does it need to tell us how long ﬁne year is?

Alice: Well, I ﬁnink I have a reason and I have a comment for Jin. What my reason is

maybe so it can tell you ﬁnat a year is and ﬁnere's anoﬁner way someﬁning could tell you a

year is, well you could tell by ﬁne monﬁns you could count how many months ﬁnere have

, been and see if that’ 5 ﬁne number of months and ﬁnat would be a whole year.

Teacher: Okay it's almost recess ﬁnne and before you go out could you please write about

ﬁnis quesﬁon "Why does ﬁne Earﬁn go round the Sun and doesn't fall in, if ﬁnere's gravity

and ﬁne Sun is ﬁnis great big huge thing, ﬁne Sun is a great big huge ﬁning and ﬁne Earﬁn is

a little ﬁny ﬁning and if ﬁnere is gravity, why doesn't ﬁne Earﬁn become attracted to ﬁne

Sun and go crashing riglnt into ﬁne Sun and burn up.

1 revised the question to be somewhat more starﬁing and also to give somean of a lead
in ﬁne direcﬁon I want. I start ﬁne next class, on ﬁne 24ﬁn, wiﬁn ﬁnis question. Yong Sun tells us he
wrote: ”It doesn't because if it did it would get out of its orbiﬁng system.” I write ﬁnis up on ﬁne
board and repeat it. This is a key statement if we are going to work on orbiﬁng as a resoluﬁon
between compeﬁng forces (gravity and centripetal force). Then I ask Krisﬁn what she wrote.
Krisﬁn reads: ”Because ﬁnere is a force field ﬁnat keeps gravity inside ﬁne Earth and ﬁat's why
ﬁnere's no gravity in space, 'cause if ﬁne Earﬁn lets out gravity ﬁnen ﬁnere would be gravity in
space.” I write it on the board and quesﬁon her. This is why it’ s essenﬁal to think of gravity as a
warping of space raﬁner than a ”ﬁning.” If you ﬁnink of space as ”noﬁning” how can ﬁnings

interact across it?

203

Teacher: Now why does ﬁnat stop it from going crashirng into ﬁne Sun?

Krisﬁn: 'Cause if ﬁnere was gravity it would go straight to ﬁne Sun.

Ricardo: If ﬁnere was gravity out in space ﬁnen boom!

Kristin: Right.

Teacher: Ricardo what did you write?

Ricardo: I ﬁnouglnt ﬁat gravity keeps ﬁne Earﬁn from ﬁne Sun.

Teacher: Gravity keeps ﬁne Earﬁn from ﬁne Sun?

Ricardo: I mean gavity keeps ﬁne Earﬁn back so it doesn't go crashing into ﬁne Sun.
Teacher: The earﬁn's gravity or who's gavity?

Ricardo: The Earﬁn's.

Yong Sun: The Sun's.

Teacher: Ah so ﬁne Sun and ﬁne Earﬁn have gravity and ﬁne Earﬁn's gravity keeps it from
crashirng into ﬁne Sun . . . but ﬁne way I understood gavity was ﬁnat it was someﬁning
ﬁat pulls ﬁnings togeﬁner how does it keep it back?

To understand Ricardo’s statement ﬁnink of ﬁnis diagram of Sook Chin’s:

 

He eiﬁner means ﬁne side of ﬁne Earﬁn away from ﬁne Sun is pulling away from ﬁne Sun or ﬁne side
of ﬁne Earth away from ﬁne Sun is pulling ﬁne oﬁner side of the Earﬁn towards it or (invert ﬁne
arrows in ﬁne picture) ﬁne Earﬁn is pulling in on itself and ﬁnis is strong enough to counteract ﬁne

Sun's attracﬁon.

 

204

Ricardo: Um because gavity pulls, pulls real hard.

Yong Sun: But ﬁne Sun has more gravity . . . and ﬁne other side of it ﬁne Earﬁn would
push it ﬁnis way but ﬁne Sun goes here.

Teacher: What do you ﬁnink Ricardo?

Ricardo: I sﬁll ﬁnink ﬁnat it keeps it from . . . 'cause ﬁne Sun is far away from ﬁne Earth
and if it's real far away ﬁne Sun's gravity would hardly reach ﬁne Earﬁn.

Teacher: And what about ﬁne oﬁner ﬁning ﬁnat Yong Sun said about gravity on ﬁne oﬁner
side of ﬁne Earﬁn, did you say gravity on ﬁne other side of ﬁne Earth would push it, is ﬁnat
what you said?

Yong Sun: Um, hum . . .

Teacher: What do you ﬁnink about ﬁnat Ricardo?

Ricardo: Only one, I ﬁnink only one part of ﬁne Earﬁn would pull it.

Yong Sun: Well you ﬁnink ﬁnat on one side, ﬁne side, where ﬁne Sun is facing, it pulls it ,it
pulls um, into the Sun but on ﬁne oﬁner side it's pulling around.

Ricardo: That's not what I mean.

Yong Sun: Then I didn't understand it.

Ricardo: Well what I mean is ﬁnat 'cause gravity in ﬁne middle of the Earﬁn is pulling and
pushing from . . . from ﬁne Sun so ﬁnen we won't go into ﬁne Sun. [The third of my
suggetions above. .]

Teacher: What do you think Yong Sun?

Yong Sun: You haven't answered my quesﬁon yet, what about ﬁne other side’s gavity.
Ricardo: Well it's ﬁne gravity goes from ﬁne middle of ﬁne Earﬁn and one part of ﬁne
gavity stays where it was and, um, ﬁnen ﬁne oﬁner side goes on the pulls from ﬁne oﬁner

side.

Yong Sun: Well, I ﬁnink like ﬁne Sun is here and ﬁnen ﬁne Earﬁn is here and ﬁnis side of ﬁne
Earﬁn is pushing ﬁnis way and the oﬁner side is pushing ﬁnis way.

Ricardo: One side is pulling and one side is pushing away from ﬁne Sun.
Yong Sun: So you mean one side pushes and one side pulls and it just stays here.

Teacher: Does that convince you Yong Sun? What about what you said about ﬁne Sun
being a lot bigger and having a lot more gravity ﬁnan ﬁne Earﬁn?

Yong Sun: Well I can take what Ricardo says.

Teacher: You can take what Ricardo says? You thirnk ﬁnat it convinces you?

205
Yong Sun: Well actually a litﬁe.

Teacher: Actually a litﬁe?

Yong Sun: But he does have a good point ﬁnough.

Teacher: I ﬁnink he does too. Dembe?

I really liked ﬁnese arguments and ﬁne reasoning of boﬁn are correct. The only resoluﬁon
that I can ﬁnink of would be to put numbers to it. This is ﬁne kind of ﬁninking I like to leave
hanging. I was really pleased wiﬁn ﬁne form and content of ﬁnis conversaﬁon. Dembe, ﬁnough,
introduces someﬁning new to consider-there are planets, Mercury and Venus-between us and
the Sun. She also nakes ﬁne point ﬁnat ﬁne Earﬁn and Sun are far apart. She recapitulates
Ricardo’s and Yong Sun’s argument about the Earth staying in its orbit. Dembe makes a drawing

of her interpretaﬁon of Ricardo’s theory:

(3*

Earth
Sun

I ask her about ﬁnis using the children’s deﬁniﬁon of gravity as an attracﬁve force: ”Well gravity
works so that it's pulling towards anoﬁner ﬁning, one ﬁning towards another ﬁning, why can it pull
ﬁnat way.” Dembe cites tragic: "Let rrne revise about ﬁnat I want to say ﬁnat, I, you see the ozone
on the Sun?” I tell her ﬁne Sun has no ozone so she revises to ﬁne Earﬁn’s ozone. I ﬁnink ﬁnis is
interesting how ﬁne children have latched on to ozone as ﬁne universal explanaﬁon. She seems to
want to say ﬁne ozone keeps the Earth togeﬁne. Yong Sun tells her ozone has noﬁning to do wiﬁn
gravity. Dembe starts to amend her theory--ﬁnis is similar to Amina, a couple of classes back—and
drifts off in her talk so I call on Krisﬁn who again has a problem wiﬁn a picture in ﬁne book and a
too literal interpretaﬁon.

Krisﬁn: On one of the pages it looks like we are really close to the Sun, riglnt here, here's
ﬁne Sun and here's the Earth.

206
Dembe: It looks quite close but it's really far . . .
Arrnina: Well it's like up there ﬁne Sun looks real close and ﬁne Moon looks real close, like
one ﬁme I was outside and the Moon it was so so really close and I jumped for it and
tried to get it . . . and I saw the bumps and everyﬁning . . .
Jin: It's impossible to jump all ﬁne way to ﬁne Moon.
Amina: I know but it looked ﬁnat way, really, really close like I could reach it.
Krisﬁn: Well I have someﬁning else to say, in anoﬁner picture in ﬁnis book on page 230
where it shows the rotaﬁon, ﬁne orbits of the Earth and ﬁne Moon, um, I ﬁnink ﬁat it only
takes twenty four hours for ﬁne Moon to go around ﬁne Sun too.

Teacher: Why do you ﬁnink ﬁnat? For the Moon to go around ﬁne Sun or for ﬁne Moon to
go around ﬁne Earﬁn?

Krisﬁn: Well I might be wrong but for the Moon to go around the Sun.

Dembe, Jin, Ricardo, Amina all interrupt to point out she is misinterpreﬁng ﬁne picture. It
shows ﬁne Earth orbiﬁng ﬁne Sun and the Moon orbiting ﬁne Earth. I ask ﬁnem to let Krisﬁn ﬁnish
what she is saying because buried in ﬁnis is what Karen was talking about wiﬁn Mercury and
Venus, orbits wiﬁnin orbits and also ﬁne true statement ﬁnat ﬁne Moon does take ﬁne same amount
of ﬁme to go around the Sun as ﬁne Earth. Krisﬁn states: "I see that ﬁne Moon is going around ﬁne
Earﬁn and if the Earth is going around the Sun ﬁnen ﬁne Moon has to go around ﬁne Sun too." I
ask: "You guys who were complaining understand what she is saying?" and ask if ﬁne people who
wanted to argue wiﬁn her now understand what she is saying. Finally I repeat Jin's statement for
everybody. We will come back to ﬁnis.

We look up facts about the distances of ﬁne planets from ﬁne Sun for a while in ﬁneir
textbook and ﬁne encyclopedia. After a while I ask again about crashing together. Jin and Joey
say ”Because ﬁne Earﬁn’s orbit keeps ﬁne Earﬁn in its place ﬁne Earﬁn can't go any oﬁner place.”
Yong Sun agrees and I end the class wiﬁn: ”For next ﬁme write about how did ﬁne Earﬁn get into
an orbit where it goes around ﬁne Sun, how did that ever happen?"

What Jin, Joey and Yong Sun are saying is really no different from what we started out
class with but I feel like we've given it a lot more meaning in ﬁnis discussion. I phrased my ﬁnal
quesﬁon the way I did because I ﬁnink it pushes on ﬁne idea we’ve been working on all along

about orbits being ﬁne result of a dynarrnic between gravitaﬁonal attracﬁon and tangenﬁal

207
velocity. I’m searching for someﬁning that causes us to ﬁnink about orbits in terms of ﬁnese two

components. I wish I had tried asking about orbiﬁng space craft, why ﬁney didn’t crash to Earﬁn
now because of course in the quesﬁon I did ask I’m asking ﬁne children to construct a false
argument-ﬁne Earﬁn-Sun system was always in orbit, always in moﬁon.

The next two classes are not transcribed. They were furﬁner exploraﬁons of the ﬁnings
children brought in about ﬁne Moon and oﬁner bodies of ﬁne solar system. The quesﬁon of orbits
was really tabled unﬁl ﬁne next Monday, March 30ﬁn when it returned. Obviously we didn't end
talking about planets at the end of the week like I had planned. On Wednesday ﬁne 25ﬁn I
ﬁnought ﬁnings were petering out but ﬁnen on ﬁne 26ﬁn ﬁney got going again when people started
talking about ﬁne evoluﬁon of the solar system and a couple kids shared books wiﬁn pictures of

Jupiter’s and Saturn’s nnoons from ﬁne ﬂybys.

Deﬁning words, making statements of knowing: The development of uncertainty.

On ﬁne 30th two really interesﬁng ﬁnings happen. The ﬁrst is a discussion in which ﬁne
children deﬁne ﬁne word satellite. They have done ﬁnis type of discussion a number of ﬁmes in
ﬁnis unit, about ﬁne meaning of ﬁne words orbit and astronaut for instance. This conversaﬁon
about satellite is quite long and shows a nice inteplay of deﬁning a word by what it is, what it
represents througln its intersecﬁon of meaning wiﬁn oﬁner words and also comparaﬁvely, by how
it’s different from other concepts. So deﬁning ﬁnrough difference and ﬁnrough similarity. This
sort of conversaﬁon like ﬁne one between Ricardo and Yong Sun could only happen I feel,
between children who want to understand what ﬁne other is ﬁninking not just push ﬁneir own
ideas. This sort of connected ﬁninking which leads to criﬁcal ﬁninking is quite different from ﬁne
creaﬁve tension which is ﬁne result of a Foucault-style discourse community. These conversations
are based on a respect for each oﬁner raﬁner ﬁnan a desire to dominate.

The second ﬁning that happens is an interesﬁng return to quesﬁons about planetary

orbits. The two children talking in ﬁnis conversaﬁon, Jin and Joey, are arguing from posiﬁons of

208
certaintynthey both argue ﬁnat they "know" what ﬁney are claiming about ﬁne manner that planets

orbit about each oﬁner. When I say "certainty" I mean as deﬁned intellectually in the Wittgenstein
sense—the children think ﬁney know and believe they can defend their ideas logically but also
emoﬁonally or taciﬁy in a more Heidegger-like manner. Each child feels ﬁnat orbitals must work a
certain way. This feeling is not seated in ﬁne intellect but in a more spiritual place or emoﬁonal
place, like Arrnina ciﬁng god. The Heidegger and Wittgenstein forms of certainty are brought into
play wiﬁn each other because ﬁne children are making claims in their attempts to communicate to
each oﬁner. Because each child has to try to truly understand ﬁne oﬁner's argument in order to
argue against it, certainty is recast as uncertainty. This is an important quality of my community.
It is an illustraﬁon of how I try to use conﬂict to strengthen ﬁne community, strengﬁnen ﬁne need
people with different ideas and opinions feel for each oﬁner. Because certainty can be recast as
uncertainty, ﬁne children can value their differences. This is a community based upon differences
between people rather than on likeness.

We start ﬁne class wiﬁn me reading something of Arrnina's on ﬁne Moon. In ﬁnis book ﬁne
Moon is called a satellite. I ask ﬁne class if they understand ﬁne word.

Daniel: I don't get it . . .

Teacher: What? The word satellite? It says ﬁne Moon is a satellite ﬁnat revolves around
the Earth.

Daniel: What I don't get is, how does a satellite revolve, usually satellites take pictures.

Yong Sun and oﬁner children start searching in ﬁneir science books. Daniel looks in his
book on ﬁne Moon for a picture to illustrate his idea of what a satellite is then he shows us a
picture of Skylab. Yong Sun finds what he wants in the book and reads it: ”We will soon send a
satellite into space and it will help us look at stars and idenﬁfy ﬁnings ﬁnat have moved, so ﬁnat's
one kind of satellite, one that takes pictures like Daniel said but ﬁne Moon is a different kind of
satellite, and ﬁne Earﬁn is a satellite too.”

Daniel: Why would ﬁne Moon be a satellite if it didn't do much . . .

Teacher: Yong Sun how can all ﬁnree of ﬁnose be satellites, what is a satellite?

Yong Sun: Well it's just like one word can mean different ﬁnings.

 

209

Daniel: What special work does ﬁne Moon do?
Yong Sun: Well it sort of does ﬁne same ﬁning, it kind of goes around a planet.
Daniel: Yeah but how can . . .

Teacher: Wait can Ijust ask someﬁning? Are you saying ﬁnat it's a satellite because it goes
around a planet?

Yong Sun: Yeah like ﬁne Earth goes around ﬁne Sun . . . . I'm not really sure why ﬁney call
the ﬁnings wiﬁn cameras a satellite.

Daniel: How could, um, if ﬁne Moon is sirrnilar to ﬁne, um, to a regular satellite, how could
it take pictures?

Yong Sun: It doesn't take pictures.
Daniel: Then why did you say it's similar to ﬁne um . . .
Yong Sun: I didn't say that everything is ﬁne same!

Teacher: What do you ﬁnink, if you used Yong Sun's defirniﬁon ﬁnat it goes around
someﬁning else, why would ﬁne ﬁning ﬁnat takes pictures be a satellite?

Daniel: That's what I don't get, why would ﬁnat be a special kind of word, 'cause ﬁne
Earﬁn and ﬁne Moon do the someﬁning . . .

Teacher: Go around someﬁning.

Darniel: . . . And usually a special word is where you do ﬁnings differently.
I ask what is special about ﬁne one type of satellite from ﬁne oﬁner type. Joey says ﬁnat he ﬁninks
ﬁne Earth is different from ﬁne oﬁner planets because it is ﬁne only satellite ﬁnat can support life.
Jin disagrees with ﬁnis. He says ﬁnat he heard on ﬁne news ﬁnat while ﬁnere may not be life on
oﬁner planets now there might be in ﬁne future. Everyone finds ﬁnis argument very interesﬁng.
After some discussion, I ask, if Joey’s comments helped Daniel ﬁnink how ﬁne Moon, Skylab and
Earﬁn could all be satellites and sﬁll be different. When Joey repeats his statement, sliglntly
doctored to pacify Jin, Dembe starts in:

Dembe: In ﬁne newspaper, it said that some aliens ﬁney were buried under ﬁne Empire
State Building.

Teacher: What does ﬁnat have to do wiﬁn ﬁnis?

Dembe: Well I ﬁnink ﬁnat ﬁnere are some things living on other planets right now.

2 10
I included ﬁnis last interchange between Dembe and myself because I ﬁnink it is an

especially vivid illustraﬁon of how ﬁnis whole unit was a play off of ﬁne ﬁnings / knowledge
children brought in from elsewhere. And like with Dinosaur Stories (next chapter), ﬁneir
irnformaﬁon is mixed in quality. Science ﬁcﬁon plays off being scienﬁﬁcally plausible. It is also
an example of another side comment such as I wrote of earlier concerning Ricardo's statement
about what would happen to sharks if ﬁnere were no gravity. In ﬁnis instance ﬁne whole class
000's and ah's and we just leave it. I ﬁnish my part in teaching this unit, however, after one nnore
week and a student teacher conﬁnues. I suggest to him that he take ﬁnis topic and work wiﬁn ﬁne
children to construct science ﬁcﬁon stories-experimenting wiﬁn teaching science in ﬁnis manner.
So ﬁnis is an example where a side comment is left for ﬁne moment but returns as a more central
topic. Anoﬁne example of that process are ﬁne irniﬁal comments about birds ﬂying by Amina
which ﬁnen become central a few days later.

I summarize ﬁne discussion between Yong Sun and Daniel and Joey and then ﬁnrow in a
litﬁe demo of my own. At ﬁne end of my summary I have Ricardo run around Joey to
demonstrate a satellite. Joey is by far ﬁne snallest child in ﬁne class.

Hana]: Ricardo's a satellite.

Timmy: That's wrong, that's wrong, ﬁnat's wrong! Ricardo's bigger than Joey!

Teacher: What difference does that make?

Timmy: It means ﬁat if he's bigger, it can't go around, it means that Joey's got to go
around him . . .

Jin, Ricardo, Dembe all don’t ﬁnink it matters. Actually, of course two bodies orbit
around a fulcrum point (barycenter). Fortunately, I didn't ﬁnink to try to get ﬁnem to connect ﬁnis
to levers or we would sﬁll be at ﬁnis. Timmy repeats: "It's just like ﬁne Sun, ﬁne Earth goes around
ﬁne Sun, ﬁne Moon goes around ﬁne Earth . . . " I ask why ﬁnat is, why does ﬁne smaller go around
ﬁne larger. Timmy says because it's bigger. Sook Chin adds ﬁne Sun has nnore gravity and ﬁat's
because it's bigger. Timmy says ﬁnat ﬁnis "is like a pattern." I ﬁnink he's saying ﬁat someﬁning

large can go around someﬁning small if it has an orbit.

21 1
Ricardo ”kind of agrees and kind of disagrees" with Timmy. Timmy repeats his

argument but says he ”just doesn’t know" what he ﬁninks of Sook Chin’s explanaﬁon. Next
Dembe, who agrees wiﬁn Timmy now, adds her logic.

Dembe: I ﬁnink it's big and if it's big it really weighs too much and it can't really go
around.

Teacher: That seems to be a lot like what Sook Chin said but, anyway I'm sorry go ahead .

Dembe: And then I disagree with Ricardo but I agree wiﬁn Timoﬁny, I ﬁnink ﬁnat small
ﬁnings have to go around big ﬁnings because big ﬁnings can't go around small ﬁnings, for
one thing the Sun, I ﬁnink it weighs too much.

Timmy: If ﬁne Sun went around ﬁne Earﬁn, it probably could burn us.

Dembe: Yeah because it would get too close and stuff.

Then there is a short animated discussion of ﬁne ways we would all die if ﬁnis were to be
true. But back to naking sense of Timmy’ s asserﬁon . . .

Teacher: I don't understand that, ﬁnat doesn't make any sense to me, I mean if the Sun
goes around the Earth or the Earﬁn goes around ﬁne Sun, it sﬁll seems to me ﬁnat they'd
sﬁll be far enough apart so that we wouldn't burn up.

Timmy: No because if the Sun, the Sun went around ﬁne . . . see ﬁne Earﬁn goes around
the Sun and it can go in its orbit, and it goes around but if ﬁne Sun went around ﬁne Earﬁn
ﬁnen ﬁne gravity from ﬁne Earﬁn . . . Ijust don't think it would work, if it went ﬁne oﬁner
way ﬁne Sun would get, I don't know how to say it, I know it would be just burning up
but I don't know how to explain it.

Alice: I disagree ﬁat it might burn you because when ﬁne Earﬁn goes around the Sun ﬁnen
that's just like the Sun going around the Earﬁn because ﬁnat's just like the Earﬁn moving
around the Sun, ﬁnat's turnirng like ﬁne Earﬁn usually does so it wouldn't burn us and if
the Sun goes around the Earth it would be like ﬁne same ﬁning.

Timmy: There's just got to be something wrong or it wouldn't matter.
Teacher: So Alice why do you ﬁnink the Earth goes around ﬁne Sun?

Alice: Um I'm not sure I just know that it doesn't matter which way it goes, if the Sun
goes around the Earﬁn or the Earﬁn goes around ﬁne Sun.

Yong Sun: I disagree wiﬁn Timoﬁny ﬁnat we'd all burn up . . . 'cause ﬁne Earth has an orbit
and if the Sun went around the Earﬁn, the Sun would have an orbit too.

Timmy: Yeah but ﬁne Sun doesn't have an orbit ﬁnat's why, and also ﬁney've gotten
someﬁning wrong oﬁnerwise it wouldn't matter which way it would go so I revise what I
said and say now ﬁnat someﬁning’s got to be wrong or else ﬁne Sun would go around ﬁne
Moon or someﬁning, someﬁning’s got to be wrong or I don't know . . .

2 12
I remind him of Sook Chin’s explanaﬁon and ﬁat seems to pacify him for a moment. But

ﬁnen a whole new argument starts. Joey returns us to the point of orbits of planets wiﬁnin oﬁner
orbits. Because of ﬁnis, larger planets do go around smaller planets. ”I disagree wiﬁn Timmy ﬁnat
ﬁne Moon can't go around ﬁne Sun because in our science book Mars and Mercury are smaller
ﬁnan Saturn and it sﬁll goes around them, it's in a different orbit . . . ” Jin gets very excited about
ﬁnis. He disagrees: "No, if ﬁnis was Mars and it had a different orbit and Saturn was going

around it ﬁnen Saturn would be like ﬁnis . . . ” and draws a picture.

O o 0

Joey says again: ”It's in a different orbit here's Saturn and here's Mars right ﬁnere [points]." Jin
sﬁll disagrees and keeps interrupﬁng Joey as he tries to explain. So I draw a picture which is like
ﬁne one in the book of ﬁne planet’s orbits around ﬁne Sun. I ask Joey if ﬁnis is what he means. "So
here's Mercury, it's going around ﬁne Sun but in order to go around ﬁne Sun, Venus has to go
around Mercury and ﬁne Sun, is that what you're saying?” Jin, ﬁnough, conﬁnued to argue for his
interpretaﬁon of Joey’s words. ”Yeah but he's saying ﬁnis is Mars and ﬁnen it has its orbit and
then here's Saturn’s orbit and ﬁnen here's Saturn. I ﬁnink that's what he's saying.”

Joey: Here's Saturn and in order to go around ﬁne Sun it has to go around boﬁn of ﬁnem
just to go around the Sun.

Teacher: Well I ﬁnink ﬁnat is true if ﬁnis is what you're saying in my picture not in that
picture?

Joey: Yeah ﬁnat's what I'm saying.
Teacher: 50 it's going around the Sun as well as going around something snaller ﬁnan it.
Joey: Um hum . . .

Jin: Well if it's going around it ﬁnen it has an orbit by it, you know.

213

Jin gets more insistent in his disagreement and Joey gets more vehement in his
explanaﬁon of his argument. ”NO, if I'm, ah, a planet and ﬁnen someone else is I'll sﬁll be going
around it and the oﬁner person's just in a different orbit, or a different place! ”

Jin: If it goes round the planet it has to go like ﬁnis . . . [He geture with his arms that the
planet would circle around the other planet as well as around the Sun.]

Joey: No it doesn't, I can walk around you but far away.

Jin: I know but you're sﬁll going around me.

Joey: I know so it's sﬁll going around ﬁnose oﬁner planets

Jin: But ﬁne oﬁner planet has to go around it like that . . . closer to it.

Joey: No it doesn't, I'm far, very far away and you're the different planet, I go around you
and it's not, it's not, and you say you're not going around me I'll sﬁll be going around just

from farﬁner away.

Jin: No 'cause if I were moving ﬁnat way and you were moving ﬁnis way you'd be going
like ﬁnat . . .

Joey: No because if you wee ﬁne planet and I was Jupiter no not ﬁnat one, Mercury and
ﬁnen you'd be moving too the same way but I could sﬁll be going around you.

Jin: I know but but you're saying that going around like ﬁnis going around ﬁne planet.
Joey: No I'm saying it can sﬁll go around a bigger ﬁning just in a different orbit.

Jin: I know but like ﬁnis is sﬁll a different orbit, you're saying it goes around ﬁne Sun and
ﬁne planet so it would go like ﬁnis like ﬁnat.

 

Joey: No 'cause if it's going around Venus or Mercury it would go around both of ﬁnem or
Venus wouldn't even go around the Sun.

Jin: But you said um, that it goes around the planet and ﬁne Sun so it has to go like ﬁnis?
Or like that or someﬁning like that . . .

214

 

Now ﬁnis one is true, but exaggerated and Jin has now modiﬁed his theory to
accommodate Joey's but ﬁney conﬁnue to argue unﬁl I have Joey, Ricardo and Jin demonstrate
Joey’s model. I summarize and everyone agrees wiﬁn Joey. But ﬁnen it starts up again when

Dembe draws ﬁnis picture to explain why a large thing can't go around a small ﬁning.

Jin says agairn ﬁnat if something large were to go direcﬁy around ﬁne Earﬁn it would crush
ﬁne Earﬁn, Joey is adamant, I stop ﬁne argument and ask them to all write in ﬁneir notebooks what
ﬁney ﬁnink of what Joey, Jin and Timmy are arguing about, ﬁnen I polled and almost everyone
said ﬁnat litﬁe could go around big, Alice said she's sﬁll ﬁninking about it, Sook Clnin has

converted, Denbe isn't sure.

2 1 5
Conclusion: The role of the community.

In ﬁnese classes with ﬁne ﬁnird grade as in ﬁnose in ﬁne ﬁrst and second combinaﬁon, ﬁne
shape of conversaﬁons and the qualiﬁes of ﬁne community are intertwined wiﬁn each oﬁner and
wiﬁn ﬁne science. The difference is in my purposes, my role in ﬁne two contexts. In ﬁne latter class
my role is primarily reacﬁve on a superﬁcial level-around ﬁne science. My role is proacﬁve-I try
to instanﬁate values ﬁnat I hold around how children should treat each oﬁner. The children and I
negoﬁate ﬁne science that is talked about because I hold ﬁnese values about ﬁne way people should
interact-there is a dependency between ﬁne discourse which springs from these values and ﬁne
science we are doing. This is also true in ﬁne ﬁnird grade except my proacﬁve role extends to ﬁne
science content. I am quite acﬁve trying to shape and center ﬁne science. The discourse in sonne
senses follows ﬁnis. Because I wish to stay wiﬁn parﬁcular ideas and get to parﬁcular places in our
ﬁninking about ﬁnose ideas, ﬁne discourse patterns have changed. I encourage and sﬁmulate
conﬂict. This feels at odds wiﬁn my ideals and values about how I ﬁnink people should respect
and value each oﬁner. Because I will not give up ﬁnese ideals, I reshape ﬁne science to allow ﬁnem.

The community in ﬁnese two classes is, I ﬁnink, characterized by children entering
imaginaﬁvely, intellectually, empaﬁneﬁcally into one another's concepﬁons of the world. This is
done in order to understand each other. This ﬁninking becomes criﬁcal. This is common to boﬁn
classes. The entry point to ﬁnis is different. In the ﬁrst and second grade ﬁne progression of ﬁne
community is as simple as described above-listening and hearing each other, ﬁnen ﬁninking
criﬁcally. In ﬁne ﬁnird grade from ﬁne start the criﬁcal and connected modes of ﬁninking inter-
ﬁnger. This is a reﬂecﬁon of what I am doing, ﬁne choices I make. I work in these classes to keep
ideas problemaﬁc, to generate conﬂict. I do a balancing act between ﬁnis and my more
fundamental values about how people should treat each oﬁne. The ways ﬁne children express
ﬁnemselves and interact reﬂect ﬁnis. A criﬁcal quality of ﬁnis is how I use conﬂict in ﬁne class to
increase ﬁne children's need for each oﬁner. The children express different ideas and logic in ﬁneir

ways of ﬁninking. Raﬁner than divide ﬁne class into facﬁons, differences strengﬁnen ﬁne need each

216

child feels for anoﬁner. By hearing an opinion ﬁat is different from your own but is respected, it
can cause you to quesﬁon yourself and modify your ﬁninking. This process is valuable when it is
around something engaging, important. Again ﬁnis cycles back around to ﬁne tension I feel in
taking a proacﬁve role shaping the science. To keep conﬂict a strengﬁnening quality of ﬁne
community, I must keep ﬁne focus of ﬁne conﬂict of ﬁne clnildren's own choice. There is no

resoluﬁon in ﬁnis. It is a tension.

CHAPTER 5

TEACHING: KNOWING AND LEARNING

In ﬁnis chapter I argue that a teacher's pracﬁce reﬂects boﬁn arﬁculated and unarﬁculated
knowledge. Praxis proceeds from ﬁne personal epistemological standpoints of ﬁne teacher. This
knowledge is constructed from ﬁne teacher's prior experiences and ﬁnerefore is only parﬁally
applicable to parﬁcular situaﬁons in ﬁne classroom. The immediate circumstances in which
teaching occurs present different and unique qualiﬁes from ﬁnose in which knowledge and values
were created. The classroom environment is also an interacﬁve one. The teacher is, ﬁnerefore,
conﬁnuously confronted with ﬁne inadequacy of her krnowledge. The circumstances and
children's acﬁviﬁes tell her ﬁnat she needs to do ﬁnings differenﬁy. In ﬁnis situaﬁon, ﬁne act of
teaching as an asserﬁon of knowing becomes a recogniﬁon of not-knowing. Teaching becomes an
occasion for learning about subject natter, children, self. I offe two examples of teaching in a
ﬁrst grade classroom to give ﬁnis argument substance.29 One focuses on an example from my
teaching in which parallels between scienﬁfic ﬁneorizing and story telling are drawn and
capitalized upon. The second story is about, ﬁne teacher I have collaborated wiﬁn in ﬁrst and
second grade, Kaﬁny Valenﬁne's teaching of a social studies unit in which ﬁne words "fact" and
"opinion" are examined while reading biographies of ﬁne life of Martin Luﬁner King Jr. This
became especially problematic because ﬁnis instrucﬁon occurred during ﬁne recent Gulf War

when issues of tolerance and prejudice took on more ﬁan philosophical meanings.

 

29The teaching described in ﬁnis chapter occur in ﬁrst grade in ﬁne year previous to that described
in ﬁne rest of ﬁnis ﬁnesis. For a full descripﬁon of the school, classroom and children please see
Appendix I and II.

217

2 1 8
Like Jin and Joey in ﬁne last chapter, when acﬁng, talking, teaching in my classes I expose

the ﬁnings ﬁnat I think I know. Again like Jin and Joey , I am exposing ﬁnis knowledge in a context
changing, in ﬂux, one deﬁned as social. Through ﬁnis process I am recasﬁng ﬁnose known ﬁnings
as unknown, as quesﬁons. The acts of teaclning are acts of making asserﬁons but ﬁnese asserﬁons
quickly become conjectures subject to revision and change. They become opportuniﬁes for
Ieaming. When teaching I am often surprised when I realize ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁat I am teaching, am
learning, ﬁnat I know. And I have noﬁced ﬁat oﬁner teachers are too. When we teach, we act on
assumpﬁons founded in knowledge: knowledge about children, curriculum, teaching. This
knowledge is an assumpﬁon—unarﬁculated, unacknowledged—because it has beconne translated
into a value, something we have decided is of value and no longer ﬁnink we have to defend. This
knowledge has passed from ﬁne intellect and has become beliefs and emotions which are
unquesﬁoned, felt to be true. But when we are teaching, ﬁnings happen to make us aware of
ﬁnose assumpﬁons; to make us ﬁnink about and quesﬁon ﬁnem and ﬁne values on which ﬁney are
based. This quesﬁoning and subsequent learning occurs because of ﬁne social, interacﬁve
qualiﬁes of ﬁne classroom.

The teacher as well as the children are members of a community. A community contains
people who share some goals, purposes,values, ways of acﬁng and communicaﬁng, but not
oﬁners. The basis of a community is similarity on one or nnore dimensions--wiﬁnout similarity a
commurnity would not exist, could not funcﬁon. The driving force, however, the life force behind
a community is difference-we need each oﬁner because we are different from each oﬁner. When
we act in a community, we act on an assumption of similarity but often ﬁnose acﬁons expose our
differences. This exposure moﬁvates change, in ourselves as we learn from ﬁnis and in ﬁne
community as its members evolve. This process is fundannental to my classroom. I try to detail it
from the teacher's perspecﬁve in ﬁnis chapter.

In ﬁnis chapter I argue that ﬁne knowledge base of teachers is boﬁn the foundaﬁon upon
which they are able to teach and also a velnicle ﬁnrough which ﬁney are able to learn because

through teaching they come to quesﬁon ﬁnat knowledge. Teachers know many ﬁnings and ﬁney

2 l 9
base their teaching upon ﬁnis knowledge. Translaﬁng knowledge irnto teaclning involves making

choices which are based upon ﬁne teacher's values and beliefs. Teaching is inherenﬁy interacﬁve
and social. Because students don't share eiﬁner the knowledge, ﬁne experiences upon which ﬁnis
knowledge is formed, or ﬁne teacher's values when she translates what she knows into
curriculum, the teacher is conﬁnuously reassessing, reforming her knowledge arnd values. The
specifics of the context in which she is using her knowledge challenge ﬁnat knowledge.

There is an increasing body of work in which researchers and pracﬁﬁoners write about
the ways in which teacher’s personal and professional selves evolve.30 In oﬁner wriﬁngs,
teachers tell us how ﬁne domains of knowledge ﬁney bring to teaching are broadened ﬁnrougln
ﬁneir teaching.31 Much can be said about ﬁne sources of ﬁnese ”ways of knowing." In general
boﬁn personal and professional values and belief systems derive from a variety of sources but
especially from lived experience.32 These personal experiences and ﬁne memberships in socio-
cultural groups which create ﬁnem, deﬁne a person’s epistemologic standpoints from which ﬁneir
beliefs, values, acﬁons are derived. These epistemologies are created and naintairned emoﬁonally
as well as intellectually.33

I am arguing in ﬁnis chapter ﬁnat ﬁnrougln teaching we are forced to arﬁculate and act
upon our values and beliefs in a context different from the ones in which they were formed. In
doing ﬁnis our values and beliefs are altered because of ﬁnis new context—which includes

interacﬁon wiﬁn students-and ﬁnrough ﬁne act of arﬁculaﬁon and ﬁne self-awareness ﬁnis entails.

 

30 For example, Michael Connelly and Jean Clandirnin ( 1990) Stories of experience and narraﬁve
inquiry. Mark Johnson (1989) Embodied knowledge. Vivian Paley (1979)White Teacher .
Shirley Brice Heath (1983)Ways with Words: language, Life, and Work in Communitie and
Classrooms. 1983.

31 Examples are: Deborah Loewenberg Ball (1990) Halve Piece and Twoths: Constructing
Repreentational Contexts in Teaching Fractions . Timothy J. Lensmire (1992) Intention, Risk, and
Writing in a Third Grade Writing Workshop,.

32 Sandra M. Harding (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women '5 Lives;
Mary Field Belenky, Blyﬁne McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, Jill Mattuck Tarule
(1986) Women '5 Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind; John Dewey
(1902 /56) The Child and the Curriculum.

33 Two references which I have found parﬁcularly helpful to me in forrnulaﬁng ﬁnese ideas are:
Jurgen Habermas (1991) Moral Consciousnes and Communicative Action. Hannah Arendt (1978)
The Life of the Mind .

220
I write about two elementary scth teachers, myself and a woman that I work wiﬁn,

Kathy Valenﬁne, who know a lot about certain things. I know a lot about science and about how
to teach science-I have had my Ph.D. in geology for ten years and have been teaching science to
children and young adults since 1978. Kathy knows a lot about teaching small children—she has
been an elementary school teacher for 13 years-and about literacy and social studies instrucﬁon.
I will argue, in ﬁnis chapter, ﬁnat as we teach ﬁnese "ﬁnings" ﬁat we know so well to children, we
boﬁn purposely and iradvertently expose to ourselves ﬁnings ﬁnat we don't know. This is a
funcﬁon of boﬁn how we are teaching-with "social construcﬁvist" rrneans and ideals» and what we
are teaching. Boﬁn process and content become problenaﬁc ﬁnrougln teaching. When we expose
ﬁnese areas where we don't "know" the right ﬁnings in ﬁne right way, ﬁnat exposure occurs
simultaneous with learning. This nakes it hard to arﬁculate what is "learned" because it doesn't
really occur isolated from previous knowledge or from ﬁne context in which learning occurs.34
But what does happen is ﬁnat new meanings of our choices and values become apparent to us.35
I will present two stories of teaching, one by Kathy Valenﬁne and one by me to illustrate
my argument. The ﬁrst story focuses on my teaching a unit about scienﬁfic ﬁneory-making-fact
and opinion in science-by having children research and write stories about dinosaurs. This
raised quesﬁons for me about process and about literacy instrucﬁon. In ﬁne second, Kaﬁny is
teaching a unit on Marﬁn Luﬁner King combined with a part of ﬁne social studies curriculum in
which ﬁne meanings of statennents are assessed as "facts or opirnions.” This teaclning occurred
during the recent war in Iraq. This context and the context provided by ﬁne children in the
classroom infused ﬁne substance of ﬁne unit wiﬁn intensely felt meanings which becanne quite
problenaﬁc as ideas were shared. In all cases, the teacher's knowledge of 'how to teach" enabled
learning about the children, the subject matter, and our own purposes in naking certain

curricular and pedagogical choices.

 

34 Donald Schon (1990) "The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey's Legacy to Educaﬁon".
3’5 Joseph J. Schwab (1976) "Educaﬁon and ﬁne state: learning community".

22 1
First story: Dinosaur stories-Substance or process, choosing instructional goals.

I decided to teach about dinosaurs and prehistoric life in ﬁnis ﬁrst-grade classroom
because ﬁne district science objecﬁves required it This requirement was raﬁner simplisﬁc: It asked
that at ﬁnis grade level children be introduced to ideas of geologic ﬁme scale and ﬁne fossil record
and be exposed to dinosaur names. I was interested in enabling the children to ﬁnink criﬁcally
and creaﬁvely in science and about science. This was really ﬁne sub-text or maybe ﬁne "real"
curriculum for ﬁnis unit: ﬁninking about where scienﬁfic krnowledge comes frorrn, how it is
constructed, how clues and parﬁal knowledge can be put together to create someﬁning wiﬁn ﬁne
someﬁmes misleading appearance of coherence and completeness. Using dinosaurs for ﬁnis is
parﬁcularly powerful, I ﬁnink, because a lot of material about dinosaurs available for children is
of varying quality and scientific orientaﬁon.36

I decided to teach ﬁnis unit on dinosaurs using ﬁne parallels between story wriﬁng and
scienﬁfic ﬁneorizing, story reading and interpretaﬁon, and ﬁne reading and interpretaﬁon of ﬁne
naterial on dinosaurs found in trade books. If children were to engage irn construcﬁng stories
about ﬁne lives of dinosaurs using ﬁne parﬁal evidence-reconstructed morphology, environment,
associaﬁonsuof scienﬁsts they would be parﬁcipaﬁng in realisﬁc scienﬁﬁc acﬁviﬁes. The
children, in sharing ﬁneir stories with each oﬁner, would subject ﬁneir ﬁninking to ﬁne criﬁcal
inquiry of myself and their peers. I envisioned ﬁne vehicle for ﬁnis unit to be similar to units
Kaﬁny had done on story parts and ﬁne interpreﬁve reading of stories and descripﬁons I had read
of wriﬁng workshops.37 I had hoped to be able to use ﬁnese structures to frame our criﬁcal

assessments of the children's scienﬁﬁc thinking.

 

36 I beleive ﬁnat people in general nake sense of ﬁne world and ﬁneir lives ﬁnrough ﬁne use of
stories and of story telling. An example of a teacher making similar use of story telling in ﬁne
classroom to make sense of children is Vivian Paley (1990) The Boy Who W ould Be a Helicopter. I
am also extending ﬁnis idea to help my understanding how children ﬁnink about subject matter
and I am using story telling as a tool to challenge ﬁnese understandings-J also teach ﬁne subject
natter through story telling.

37 Donald H. Graves (1983)Writing: Teachers and Children at Work; L.M. Calkins (1986) The Art of
Teaching Writing; Arﬁnur N. Applebee (1986) "Problems in process approaches: Toward a

 

222
I started the dinosaur unit with talk about ﬁne things ﬁnat ﬁne children knew or thouglnt

they knew about dinosaurs and the sources of that knowledge. I wanted to see ﬁne range in ﬁne
sophisﬁcaﬁon of ﬁneir knowledge. Then we talked about wheﬁner or not ﬁat knowledge was fact
or ﬁneory or ﬁcﬁon and how ﬁnose start to blend together when talking about someﬁning like
dinosaurs. I parﬁcularly used ﬁne words "fact," "ﬁneory," and "ﬁcﬁon" wiﬁn the clnildren because
of ﬁneir importance to my goals in ﬁnis unit and to connect ﬁnis unit to oﬁner teaching ﬁnat Kaﬁny
had been doing all year in language arts and social studies.38 I wished to know what ﬁne
children understood about how ideas about dinosaurs-how ﬁney lived, what ﬁney did, how ﬁney
looked—were constructed. I also wanted to open up ﬁne discussion to include ﬁcﬁonalized,
fantasy dirnosaur stories because, to me, ﬁnis is on a conﬁnuum wiﬁn ﬁne scienﬁﬁc ﬁneorizing. And
I wanted people to start ﬁninking about ﬁne criteria ﬁney should be using to judge dirnosaur
material. This became a discussion of ﬁne movie The land Before Time.39

I asked the class what kinds of ﬁnings ﬁney had found out about dinosaurs in The land
Before Time. Maria Theresa said that she learned ﬁat sonne dinosaurs were egg eaters. Bulli told
us ﬁat ﬁnere are big dinosaurs ﬁat eat little dinosaurs. Claire added, "It was a tyranrnosaurus
rex!" I responded ﬁat The land Before Time was a story that sonneorne has written just like Charlie
and the Chocolate I-‘actory‘10 (the children were reading ﬁnis in class during story ﬁme). I said boﬁn
are stories and both have authors. Kyong Min, ﬁnough, disagreed, "Its not real . . . " So I asked
her how she knew ﬁat Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wasn't real. She responded by lisﬁng
ﬁnings in the story ﬁnat are components of ﬁne fantasy. The children debated wheﬁner ﬁnings ﬁat
were considered plausible had to be real also. Then ﬁney talked about why ﬁney ﬁnouglnt some
things were plausible and some ﬁnings weren’t. Oﬁner children wanted to conﬁnue talking about

ﬁnis and I also thought it was important irn ﬁnis context. Part of Roald Dahl’s power is, I ﬁnink,

 

reconceptualizaﬁon of process instrucﬁon"; J. Willensky (1990)The New Literacy: Redqining
Reading and Writing in Schools.

38 An example of Kathy's teaching in which ﬁnese words are used is ﬁne next story in ﬁnis chapter
concerning Kathy's teaching of ﬁne life of Marﬁn Luﬁner King Jr.

39 Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall (1988) The land more
Time.

40 Roald Dahl (1964) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

223
ﬁnat his fantasy is stretched truﬁn, caricatured reality. Things ﬁnat people and especially children

really do contemplate. That is also, I ﬁnink, ﬁne power of children's dinosaur stories and ﬁnese
sorts of conversaﬁons about what we believe and why and were what I wanted ﬁnis unit to be
about.

I returned ﬁne conversaﬁon to The land Before Time and what was real or stretched truﬁns
or fantasy in ﬁnat. The clnildren said ﬁnings like, "dinosaurs are real . . . ﬁney did lay eggs . . . eat
meat . . . take care of ﬁneir babies." Each ﬁnne ﬁney said ﬁnese ﬁnings I challenged their statements;
"How do you know ﬁat though?" and ﬁne children responded wiﬁn statements about ﬁneir beliefs,
magic, the evidence presented in ﬁne story, or constructed by the children from other experiences.

I summarized ﬁne children's discussion about what was real or not, what might be real,
and why ﬁne children thouglnt that. Then I set up the construction of our own stories by
reviewing ﬁne unit they had done in language arts on story parts-setting, characters, problem,
resoluﬁonuusing ﬁnese to boﬁn construct a story and interpret stories. We went from ﬁnis to ﬁne
preliminary construcﬁon of a story about ﬁne dinosaurs depicted in the mural, The Age of
Reptiles.41 This involved nnore criﬁcal ﬁninking and surfaced more of ﬁneir ideas about dinosaurs.
I asked ﬁne children to start talking about what they ﬁnought ﬁney saw going on in ﬁne picture and
gradually helped ﬁnem to weave a story out of that. I would also periodically interject "why"
quesﬁons into ﬁnis. For example, when ﬁney said a parﬁcular dinosaur was doing someﬁning, I
would ask ﬁnem why they ﬁnought ﬁnat and, ﬁnen, why they ﬁnought ﬁnat the arﬁst felt able to
depict ﬁne animal in that waynreconstrucﬁng their logic and then ﬁne arﬁst’s logic.

The next ﬁning we did in class was from a handout from a "Ranger Rick" publicaﬁon on
dinosaurs42 which depicts nine pictures of different dinosaurs and setﬁngs like a volcano and a
mesa ﬁnat they could cut out and rearrange into different orders to make stories. After ﬁne
children constructed ﬁneir stories, I asked each child to present it to ﬁne rest of ﬁne class. This was

done by children arranging large versions of the pictures on ﬁne board at ﬁne front of the room

 

41 R.F. Zallinger, The Age of Reptile.
42 Judy Brans ed. (1989) Ranger Rick's NatureScope: Digging into Dinosaurs.

224
and then telling ﬁneir story using ﬁne pictures as props. Then ﬁney took quesﬁons from ﬁne ﬂoor.

The quesﬁoners usually asked ﬁne clnild to clarify some point or give more details or defend ﬁne
sequence in such a way that the result was an enlargement of ﬁne story and ﬁne story’s logic. This
was in essence a rewrite. On a subsequent day, I read back a number of ﬁne stories and ﬁne child
each ﬁnne revised again and again interacﬁvely wiﬁn the class.

Farzoneh started us off. First she arranged her sequence of pictures on ﬁne board, ﬁnen
she began to present her story. I wish to give a full text of her story presentaﬁon because it shows
how, as an interacﬁve social event, ﬁne presentaﬁon becomes a constructed act of story wriﬁng.
The quesﬁons and addiﬁons ﬁne class contributes in ﬁnis piece of dialogue are extrenely
important components in ﬁne science and in ﬁne process of wriﬁng. My focus, ﬁnougln, was ﬁne
science.

Farzoneh: First tyrannosaurus comes and ﬁnen ﬁney see it, but they have to run away,

then he sees it. This guy sees it and then ﬁne ﬁnunderstorm comes and ﬁnen ﬁne moﬁner

comes and she sees ﬁne babies are hatching. The babies look at ﬁne sky because of ﬁne
ﬁnunderstornn. They have to run away but they can't so ﬁney try another way but ﬁney
can't swim and ﬁnen ﬁne volcano erupts.

Teacher: And ﬁnat's ﬁne end, ﬁne volcano erupts? Okay, let me see if I can say it. The

tyrannosaurus rex [points] and ﬁne herd of hadrosaurs see tyrannosaurus rex and ﬁney try

to run away and then ﬁne pteranodon sees tyrannosaurus rex, then ﬁnere is a

thunderstorm and ﬁne mother triceratops is in ﬁne ﬁnunderstorm and she sees ﬁnat her

babies are hatching and she wants to get ﬁnem away from ﬁne thunderstorm but ﬁney
can't go by the rocky cliffs, ﬁne rocky cliff is in the way and ﬁney can't swim so ﬁney can't
get across the water hole and there's a volcano too . . . Very nice story, I liked ﬁnat story

[we clap]. Everybody, Farzoneh is sﬁll up ﬁnere and she will answer your quesﬁons. I

personally would like to ask first of all who are ﬁne characters in the story?

I ask some quesﬁons using ﬁne story parts ﬁat Kaﬁny has introduced to ﬁne children, as
tools to help develop criﬁcal reading skills. I wish to model a form of criﬁcal quesﬁoning which
would lead to elaboraﬁng and rethinking ﬁne stories. I am interested in developing ﬁne clnildren's
ﬁninking around ﬁne content of ﬁneir wriﬁng rather ﬁnan ﬁne mechanics of wriﬁng. My interest is
not so much in ﬁne literary value of their stories but in ﬁne scienﬁfic. Then oﬁner children started
asking quesﬁons. These quesﬁons, ﬁnough, were usually about why Farzoneh had nade ﬁne

narraﬁve choices ﬁnat she had trade intertwined wiﬁn discussions of altemaﬁve choices and ﬁne

variaﬁons in reasoning that might lie behind ﬁnose choices.

225
For example, Tatyana asked Farzoneh why she had put ﬁne picture of ﬁne tyrannosaurus

where she had and ﬁnis led to a discussion between ﬁne two girls, Clnen, Cory, and Claire about
the predatory habits of tyrannosaurus and wheﬁner or not the moﬁner triceratops would be wiﬁn
her young and if so whether or not she would be helping ﬁnem and how. I push ﬁnis along by
asking: "Would the moﬁner triceratops take care of her babies or do the eggs just hatch and ﬁne
babies are all by ﬁnemselves? How do you know ﬁnat the nnoﬁner triceratops is going to take care
of her babies?" Farzoneh replies: "'Cause she doesn't want them to die . . . ."

Teacher: She doesn't want them to die? But some animals lay ﬁneir eggs for ﬁneir babies

and then ﬁne babies are born and they're not ﬁnere, ﬁne moﬁners and fathers aren't ﬁnere.

Birds have ﬁneir eggs and ﬁne babies hatch and ﬁne moﬁners take care of the babies but

snakes don't. Snakes lay ﬁneir eggs and ﬁneir mothers and fathers go away and when ﬁne

babies hatch the babies are all by ﬁnemselves . . .

Chen: Alligators do.

Teacher: Alligators . . . do ﬁney leave ﬁneir babies all alone or do they take care of ﬁnem?

Chen: They don't take care of them.

Teacher: They don't take care of ﬁnem? You're saying ﬁat the mother triceratops was

ﬁnere when her babies hatched. Do you know if that's true? [Farzoneh makes aface.] You

think ﬁnat might be true? Is ﬁnat a guess, a ﬁneory? [yee]

Kyong Min: How do you know ﬁne mother dinosaurs take care of their babies? How did
the dinosaur know ﬁnat ﬁne babies would be born?

Kyong Min and Farzoneh talk for a short bit about why Farzoneh ﬁnought ﬁne moﬁner
was taking care of the babies but Tatyana wants to know more about the nanner of ﬁne
interacﬁons between the rrnoﬁner and young, "How come you need to put the moﬁne's swim with
the babies. How come she swims, why did you put it right there? Why did you put ﬁne babies
over there and not over ﬁnere?"

Farzoneh: Because I ﬁnought when she was, she saw ﬁne ﬁnunderstorm she was running
and she saw her babies hatch.

Teacher: Oh, I see so she was running and then she saw ﬁne babies hatcln. She didn't run
over to see if ﬁne babies hatched? Oh.

Farzoneh, in essence, reconstructs her story as she talks about her choices, her reasoning,

the science with ﬁne rest of the class. This conﬁnues irn ﬁne next class which I open by reading a

226
transcribed version of Farzoneh's story. But Farzoneh has decided she wishes to tell it herself a

different way.

Teacher: This is Farzoneh's story. There was a tyrannosaurus coming. And a herd of
hadrosaurs saw it and ran away. A pteranodon saw it and ﬂew away. Then a lightning
storm came and scared ﬁne tyrannosaurus away. A nnoﬁner triceratops was scared by ﬁne
lightening. As she tried to run away, she saw her eggs were hatchirng. She and her
babies tried to run away but ﬁney couldn't climb over ﬁne rocky cliffs and ﬁney couldn't
swim across the water hole, so ﬁrst ﬁne babies died in ﬁne volcanic erupﬁon and ﬁnen ﬁne
moﬁner died. And ﬁat's the end. Farzoneh has revised some of her story and she wants
to tell you her new version of ﬁne story. She's kept ﬁne pictures ﬁne same but she's
rewritten ﬁne story. She's revised it.

Farzoneh: First he comes to eat ﬁnose but ﬁney look at him because he's coming to eat ﬁne
babies.

Teacher: Oh ﬁne pteranodon is coming to eat ﬁne babies?

Farzoneh: So the stor [?] comes and then he has to run away but he ate ﬁne babies so she
can't ﬁnd ﬁnem, she went, she wouldn't go and ﬁnd her babies but she didn't care so she
went here, but she couldn't go over ﬁne rocky cliffs so she went here, but she couldn't
swim and ﬁnen she, ﬁne volcano came and ﬁnen . . . but ﬁney sﬁll didn't die, only ﬁne
babies did because he ate them.

Teacher: 'Cause ﬁne pteranodon ate ﬁnem?
Farzoneh: And ﬁnis because she went close . . .

Teacher: So now ﬁne story is the tyrannosaurus . . . .There was a tyrannosaurus and ﬁne
hadrosaurus saw him and ran away, and pteranodon canne and ﬁne pteranodon tried to
eat ﬁne baby triceratops and ﬁne moﬁner, is ﬁnat ﬁne moﬁner or ﬁne father triceratops now.
I Farzoneh answers: "Mother. '] The mother triceratops came looking for ﬁne baby
triceratops and couldn't find them and she looked and she looked and she looked in ﬁne
rocky cliffs but she couldn't really get over ﬁnem because ﬁney were rocky cliffs and she
couldn't find them and she looked by ﬁne water hole but she couldn't go any furﬁner
looking because ﬁne water hole was in ﬁne way and ﬁnen ﬁne volcano came and what
happened with the volcano?

Farzoneh: The babies died because of him [the pteranodon] and ﬁne mother died because,
um, she was close to ﬁne volcano.

Teacher: Ah, so ﬁne babies are dead because ﬁne pteranodon ate ﬁnem and ﬁne moﬁne
triceratops died in ﬁne volcano. Do you want to answer some quesﬁons? [many children
murmur "sad ending "] Those are comments do you want to take comments too Farzoneh
or just quesﬁons?

Farzoneh: Comments and quesﬁons.

Cory: That's a sad ending, ﬁnat's my comment.

The children again start quesﬁoning Farzoneh's narraﬁve and debaﬁng ﬁne reasoning

behind it. Bulli asks: "Um, why did ﬁne, wait a second, I ﬁnink ﬁne pteranodon, um, oh why did

227
he eat the babies?" Arnd I ask: "Is ﬁne quesﬁon Bulli, is ﬁne quesﬁon why did ﬁne pteranodon eat

ﬁne babies or why did Farzoneh ﬁnink ﬁnat pteranodons would eat babies?" Bulli wants to krnow
ﬁne second but Ok Ran ﬁne ﬁrst. "I ﬁnink it really was hungry!" Farzoneh explains. Once again I
return ﬁne conversaﬁon to ﬁne debate about wheﬁner or not ﬁne children know or can ﬁneorize ﬁnat
moﬁner dinosaurs look after ﬁneir young, "How would you know ﬁnat ﬁnat might be true. I ﬁnink
ﬁne last ﬁme ﬁnat I asked ﬁnat quesﬁon and Clnen remembered about alligators, ﬁne moﬁners have
ﬁneir babies hatch out of eggs and ﬁne moﬁners aren't ﬁnere to take care of ﬁneir babies. Why
wouldn't a triceratops be just like a moﬁner alligator?"

Kyong Min: They were different.

Maria Theresa: They're not alligators.

Ok Ran: The moﬁner alligator stays with ﬁne babies, when ﬁne babies hatch. I saw it on a

book, ﬁnat the mother stays, ﬁne mother stays wiﬁn the eggs, ﬁne eggs hatch and ﬁnen ﬁne

moﬁner is there!

Teacher: Claire can you ﬁnink of any reason to ﬁnink ﬁat moﬁner triceratops take care of
their babies?

Claire: I'm not so sure because a bunch of people said yeah and ﬁnere aren't any people
who have seen dirnosaurs so we will never know and I wouldn't be so sure about ﬁnat.

I asked the children what sort of ﬁnings we could do to be able to say what nnoﬁner
dinosaurs do wiﬁn ﬁneir young. Paula suggested ﬁnat we look in books. Bulli and Chen said a
dicﬁonary. Ok Ran suggested asking their moms or dads. Claire ﬁnouglnt we could go to a
museum. I settle on looking in books: "Well you know we have all ﬁnese books over here and
maybe you guys could be looking to see if ﬁnere is any evidence for ﬁat. That's all ﬁnat we could
do in ﬁnis room I ﬁnink."

My role in ﬁne story telling was to quesﬁon foundaﬁonal assumpﬁons in ﬁne science and
ﬁne children picked up on ﬁnis and started doing it for each oﬁner also. This was, for example,
asking ﬁnem how ﬁney knew the mommy dinosaurs looked after ﬁneir young, how ﬁney knew ﬁnat
cetain dinosaurs ate certain ﬁnings or behaved in certain ways or lived in certain places. This
was to generate discussion on ﬁne content of ﬁneir story telling raﬁner than to criﬁque ﬁne stories

by literary criteria. That's not to say ﬁnat ﬁne two~ﬁne content and ﬁne formuweren't linked or ﬁne

228
development of ﬁne two weren't linked because I ﬁnink ﬁnat ﬁney were. For example Farzoneh

wrote her story so ﬁnat it opens wiﬁn a problem, which is based upon a number of embedded
assumpﬁons about ﬁne nature of dinosaurs, where ﬁney live, what ﬁney do, and her resoluﬁons
are also based upon assumpﬁons. The way ﬁnat she moves ﬁne story by adding problem after
problem continues ﬁnis and plays upon ﬁnis.

At the end of ﬁnis phase of story telling, I listed quesﬁons on a poster and said ﬁnat naybe
we needed to try to ﬁnd out about them and then we looked at books on dinosaurs and modern
analogues. This was wiﬁnin cooperaﬁve learning groups at ﬁnis point wiﬁn one quesﬁon per
group but one book per child. Each child would use a book and ﬁnen share what ﬁney had
learned with others in ﬁneir group and ﬁnally we had a large group discussion.

The quesﬁon about how dinosaurs care for ﬁneir young or even wheﬁner or not ﬁney do
seenned from ﬁne start to be ﬁne nnost compelling to ﬁne children. It is also ﬁne one about which I
could present a number of different current ﬁneories and also pull in modern analogues to
dinosaurs such as birds and alligators so ﬁnat's ﬁne one I concentrated on. We had a very
interesﬁng discussion about ﬁne logic behind ﬁne various ﬁneories about wheﬁner or not dinosaurs
and different dinosaurs in different ways took care of ﬁneir babies. As counter-examples to ﬁneir
theorizing, I used modern animals. We started doing nnore research on ﬁnat topic and ﬁnen I
asked a colleague who had documented a family of hawks to come in to ﬁne class and give a slide
presentaﬁon about how hawks bring up ﬁneir babies. The result was ﬁat some members of ﬁne
class conﬁnued doing research on dinosaurs and others started to research birds and all
conﬁnued to write and share their stories. But ﬁnis ﬁnal process was conceived of and used by
me to moﬁvate research and ﬁninking which resulted in new wriﬁngs, not explicit rewriﬁng and
perfecﬁng of one piece of work. In oﬁner words we focused out from our wriﬁngs raﬁner than in
on ﬁne wriﬁngs ﬁnemselves.

This was not really what I had expected ﬁat we would be doing. I purposely modelled
the irniﬁal framing of ﬁne curriculum of ﬁnis unit after descripﬁons I had read of wriﬁng

workshops. I found ﬁnat because I had certain goals in mind about ﬁne substance of the children's

229
wriﬁng ﬁnat I lad to lay aside ﬁne workshop's wriﬁng-sharing-ediﬁng-rewriﬁng cycle. I stopped

pursuing ﬁne literacy aspect because I perceived the goals of ﬁne two, literacy and science
instrucﬁon, to be in sonne senses anﬁﬁneﬁcal. For example, envisioning stories as "complete
ﬁnoughts" which I understood to be one of the wriﬁng workshop goals raﬁner ﬁnan as velnicles for
arﬁculaﬁng questions. This was a disquieﬁng choice for me to make; I felt that in doing ﬁnis I was
forfeiﬁng ﬁne literacy instrucﬁon I had planned.

Alﬁnough I had planned purposely ﬁat ﬁne instrucﬁonal goals of ﬁne unit were to be ﬁne
creaﬁve and criﬁcal qualiﬁes of scienﬁﬁc ﬁninking, I had never really criﬁcally examined ﬁnose
values in myself. Through ﬁnis teaclning I came to do ﬁnis and to see ﬁnose values as potenﬁally
problematic. The child, Farzoneh, whose story is ﬁne springboard for much of ﬁnis unit is from a
tradiﬁonal, conservaﬁve culture in which knowledge is widely regarded as received not created
and in which a woman's place is to live wiﬁnin that knowledge not to challenge it. Many of ﬁne
oﬁner children in ﬁne class come from similar cultures. All of these children would be retumirng to
ﬁnese cultures. In many ways I have a ﬁnought-out poliﬁcal purpose in teaching children to be
criﬁcal and creaﬁve ﬁninkers but I have done most of ﬁnis ﬁninking in ﬁne abstract, divorced from
particular interacﬁons wiﬁn parﬁcular children. How defensible are ﬁnese choices really? How
would I feel, as a parent, if my daughter's teachers based their instrucﬁon at a fundannental level
on values radically different from my own?

When I teach science to children a major belief ﬁat I brirng to the curriculum is that
science is a place where children are involved in active learning. There is no place for passivity in
science, no place for uncriﬁcal knowledge. This is an important issue for me as a scienﬁst, for a
person who knows what it means to act as a scienﬁst, but also as a woman, as a person interested
in teaching girls and minoriﬁes science. But is my urging little girls who appear to be passive irn
school to be acﬁve learners in a social context really effecﬁve? Is it okay for nne to be urging ﬁnis
on children whose success might be more dependent on knowing certain things certain ways

rather ﬁan being criﬁcal, creaﬁve ﬁninkers?

230

Second story: Martin Luther King ]r-
The personal and the political in the social constructivist classroom.

This is a story about how a teacher's pedagogical acﬁons are infused wiﬁn moral and
eﬁnical choices and about how a teacher can become aware of ﬁnose as choice ﬁnrough her
teaching. To introduce ﬁnis, I will tell some short anecdotes about my own and oﬁner's
experiences of schooling as poliﬁcal.

I went to junior high and high school during ﬁne second half of ﬁne 19605 and early part of
ﬁne 19705. I lived in a conservaﬁve comer of northwestern Connecﬁcut, in a farnning town
peopled primarily by second-generaﬁon Swedes, and a minority of English and Scotﬁsh colonial
descendents. My social studies and history teachers came from New York or Boston. Many were
poliﬁcally acﬁve outside the community and frustrated by ﬁne poliﬁcal inacﬁvity of ﬁne
community.

The common joke among my peers, when we talk about American History educaﬁon in
high school, is that classes never get beyond ﬁne Civil War. My personal experience was ﬁnat we
never did anything but the Civil War. We would start wiﬁn Jacksonian Democracy and end wiﬁn
Reconstrucﬁon. In five out of six years we read Civil Disobedience in classes. Why was ﬁnis? I
would argue ﬁnat ﬁnis choice of curriculum relates to the poliﬁcal purposes of my teachers.
Purposes that maybe ﬁney didn't wish to state or even defend to ﬁne community but sﬁll purposes
rooted in values and moral judgements that ﬁney were willing to act on in ﬁnis covert sort of way.

My moﬁner did all of her schooling in the 1930s in Brooklyn, New York. The rrajority of
her teachers were first- and second-generaﬁon Gernan-Jewish immigrants. Many of ﬁnese
teachers were poliﬁcally acﬁve, in the community, their union, naﬁonally, intemaﬁonally, around
economic and social issues. They were union acﬁvists, ﬁney housed refugees. These teachers
brought ﬁnese concerns to their teaching but rarely overtly, expliciﬁy. Usually ﬁne poliﬁcal, moral
content of ﬁneir teaching was submerged wiﬁnin other parts of ﬁne curriculum--what children read
in reading or civics and how it was discussed, what children wrote about in composiﬁon or

worked problems on in math. Not explicit but there.

23 1
I have a friend, schooled in econonnics and left-wing poliﬁcs who taught business

educaﬁon to colored children in Souﬁn Africa. The formal curriculum concerned simple
maﬁnemaﬁcs, balancing check books, keeping a ledger. What he really taught was in how he
taught these ﬁnings and in parﬁcular in the conversaﬁons which went on in class about ﬁnis
curriculum. The curriculum was in the pedagogy as much as in ﬁne subject-matter content.

In ﬁnese ﬁnree examples, teachers were acﬁng as poliﬁcal, moral agents. They were
moved to do so by ﬁne intensity of feelings ﬁney lad about parﬁcular issues focussed and
acﬁvated by circumstances of ﬁne ﬁmes in which ﬁney were teaching. These same "ﬁmes" also
made ﬁnese moral, poliﬁcal choices around how curriculum was depicted more apparent and
potenﬁally more problemaﬁc. My teachers and my mother's were often called upon to defend
ﬁneir teaching by parents who did not agree with the teacher's beliefs. My friend, teaching in
Souﬁn Africa, counted on his students and ﬁneir parents keeping ﬁne ﬁnings going on in his class
secret.

During ﬁne week in January, 1991, when Marﬁn Luﬁner King Jr. Day was celebrated,
Kaﬁny read biographies of Dr. King to ﬁne children. Then the children composed togeﬁner a
pattern book about King's life in which each sentence began wiﬁn ﬁne phrase: "My dream for a
better world is . . . This unit was combined wiﬁn a unit from the social studies curriculum in
which the meanings of ﬁne words "fact" and "opinion" were examined boﬁn in the contexts of ﬁne
books being read and ﬁne book written by the children.

Kathy's understandings of literacy teaching and teaching students whose primary
language isn't English has led her to emphasize ﬁne structure of sentences and stories as a means
to enable boﬁn interpretaﬁon and communicaﬁon. Her pedagogy invites interacﬁon with ﬁne
children, as a group and as individuals. Kathy conﬁnued ﬁnis while reading about Marﬁn Luﬁner
King Jr. combined wiﬁn working on the meanings of ﬁne words, "fact" and "opinion." This
combinaﬁon allowed Kaﬁny to attempt someﬁning very poliﬁcal in ﬁnis class-to portray her own
moral beliefs about racism but softened by intertwining ﬁnat portrayal wiﬁn ﬁne social studies

curriculum. I-Ier beliefs and those of ﬁne auﬁnors of the books were portrayed as personal

232

opinion. Kaﬁny's relaﬁvisﬁc portrayal of her moral views concerning racism was rraintained
through her choice of process in which she expresses her beliefs about ﬁne development of voice
in ﬁne children. The children have ideas ﬁnat differ from Kaﬁny's and the publicness of ﬁnis
sharing and debate was heightened by circumstances: ﬁne Gulf War. This created dilemmas-ﬁne
substance of ﬁnis unit was problemaﬁc to some parents of children irn ﬁne class, particularly wiﬁnin
ﬁne context of ﬁne Gulf War. There are children in ﬁne room and in the school from Iran, Palesﬁne,
Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. These clnildren brought ﬁneir own and ﬁneir families beliefs
about racism as experienced in ﬁneir cultures. The percepﬁons of many of ﬁnese families were
ﬁat ﬁne Gulf War, Sadam Hussein's attacks on Israel, the Israeli treatment of Palesﬁnians were all
racist. Their desires concerning ﬁne resoluﬁon of ﬁnis racism may or nay not be the same as ﬁnat
sought by Marﬁn Luther King Jr. in ﬁne United States in ﬁne 19603 or by Kaﬁny in ﬁnis class. Oﬁner
parents agreed with Kathy's values and poliﬁcal purpose and wished to make ﬁnese ideas more
explicit. They objected to allong ﬁne children to voice different views. Sﬁll other parents
ﬁnought discussion of ﬁnese ideas shouldn't be part of public schooling at all. In ﬁnis teaching
neiﬁner process nor substance are the "private property of ﬁne teacher.“3 Raﬁner ﬁne curriculum
is "a medium evoking the criﬁcal reﬂecﬁon" of ﬁne teacher. This happens because ﬁne act of
teaching is a public and social one.

The examinaﬁon of ﬁne structural components of language-ﬁne use of the words "fact"
and "opinion"-in a moral context deviates from ﬁne purely syntacﬁcal way ﬁnis unit is normally
tauglnt. For example, ﬁne handouts which come wiﬁn the text for ﬁnis social studies unit involve
classiﬁcaﬁon of a series of statements on 18ﬁn century Briﬁsh pirates. These sentences can be
classiﬁed as fact or opinion through a syntacﬁc analysis, wiﬁnout any factual knowledge of
pirates. By combining ﬁnis unit wiﬁn a controversial subject matter in a classroom in which
discussion of meanings is invited ("What does ﬁne word "segregation" mean anyway?"), ﬁne child

is asked to examine the contextual meaning of ideas in ﬁne books and as felt in ﬁneir own lives

 

43 Mary Field Belenky, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, Jill Mattuck Tarule,
Women '5 Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, page 219.

233

and experiences. The meaning of segregaﬁon and prejudice is different and mulﬁple for a
Palesﬁnian child, a girl from Bangladesh, a child from Iran wiﬁn relaﬁves in Kuwait, a white
middle-class American boy, a girl from inner-city Detroit-all of whom were in ﬁnis classroom. It
is different yet again from ﬁne lived experiences of ﬁne teacher. These personal contexts for
meaning are also different from ﬁne context induced ﬁnrougln a sympaﬁneﬁc (empaﬁneﬁc)
consideraﬁon of ﬁne life of Marﬁn Luﬁne King. All of ﬁnese personal contexts and derived beliefs
are invited by ﬁne process of ﬁnis teaching. Because ﬁnis teaching was done ﬁnrough people
sharing diffeent ideas and beliefs, ﬁnese ideas and beliefs went from ﬁne tacit, felt, emoﬁonal state
to ﬁne intellectual and arﬁculated.44

This is different from what individual parents want--to avoid moral issues entirely or to
preach parﬁcular viewpoints. This is ﬁne American dilemrra of ﬁne role of school in moral
educaﬁon—should moral values be expliciﬁy taught in schools or is ﬁnis educaﬁon ﬁne private
prerogaﬁve of individual families? The teacher is caught in ﬁne middle because her teaching
directly reﬂects her own moral choices and eﬁnical code. In ﬁnis instance, Kaﬁny's beliefs about
racism and her beliefs about ﬁne rights of children to say ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat they believe are boﬁn
exposed. Because ﬁnis is done publicly during ﬁne Gulf War when sensiﬁviﬁes were parﬁcularly
acute about many issues, Kaﬁny had to arﬁculate her foundaﬁonal values. This act of arﬁculaﬁon
of previously assumed, tacit values requires ﬁnat ﬁney be re-raﬁonalized, ﬁne logic behind ﬁnem
reconstructed wiﬁnin ﬁne concrete parﬁculars of ﬁnat moment. It means the development of a

criﬁcal consciousness about ﬁnose values.

Discussion.
A teacher's foundaﬁonal knowledge, ﬁne knowledge upon which she makes assumpﬁons
in order to be able to teach, can be thouglnt of as a "standpoint"-ﬁne "place" in which her
professional being is grounded. This place reﬂects her experiences and idenﬁﬁes: it is from ﬁnese

experiences and idenﬁﬁes ﬁat her standpoints are constructed.

 

44 Habermas (1991) Moral Consciousnes and Communicative Action.

234
Sandra Harding, in Who '5 Science, Who ’5 Knowledge, writes about feminist standpoint

ﬁneory as an epistemology which arises from an articulaﬁon of an individual's membership
wiﬁnin historically and socially constructed commurniﬁes. For example, a person who would call
herself an African-American, working-class woman, would also recognize that naming is a
manifestaﬁon of certain systems of values, beliefs, ways of ﬁninking and believing derived from
memberships in ﬁnese groups. These memberships are mulﬁple and ﬁne values, goals and means
each entail are often in conﬂict. Values derived from being working class can be at odds wiﬁn
ﬁnose derived from being a woman. The values are formed, however, from ﬁne "lived" experience
of ﬁne person ﬁnrougln her membership in ﬁnese goups and ﬁne interrelaﬁonships among her
experiences of ﬁnese groups. This situates ﬁne experience of the individual-experience has
meaning and signiﬁcance because it is socially constructed with and by a subset of certain "kinds"
of people. Then Harding goes on to argue ﬁnat because ﬁnis ontology is personally and
expeienﬁally derived, epistemology is also-ways of knowing are derived from ways of being.
This becomes translated into doing parﬁcular ﬁnings in parﬁcular ways. It becomes nanifested
ﬁnrough meﬁnods of acﬁng.‘1'5

Harding and Doroﬁny Snnith in The Everyday World as Problematic discuss how
arﬁculaﬁng a personal lens can beconne a foundaﬁon for asking quesﬁons which drive research. I
am suggesﬁng in ﬁnis chapter ﬁnat an arﬁculaﬁon of ﬁnis lens acts, for ﬁne individual, as a vehicle
in developing a criﬁcal consciousness of personal beliefs and values; ﬁne pursuit of quesﬁons
developed in ﬁnis process feeds back to a reexanninaﬁon of ﬁne lenses and ﬁne values derived from
ﬁnem. This is a background / foreground argument like ﬁne ones I have used in previous chapters
to talk about how conversaﬁon on one scienﬁﬁc topic can shift to be about a different topic, to
explain how ﬁne focus of a community is dynamic and changing. In ﬁne community of ﬁne
classroom we as teachers act upon beliefs and knowledge but ﬁnis acﬁng can cause us to arﬁculate
ﬁnese in a new community, one which is different from the communiﬁes in which ﬁne beliefs and

knowledge were fornned. This causes us to reﬁnink both the values, ﬁne knowledge and ﬁneir

 

45 Dorothy E. Smiﬁn (1990) The Everyday World as Problematic.

2 3 5
source. This process is a vehicle for learning about ourselves and about ﬁnose people or ﬁnings

causing us to do ﬁnis ﬁninking.

Harding doesn't expliciﬁy write about a "standpoint" posiﬁon as evolving and changing
because, I ﬁnink, she writes primarily of a standpoint as a "possession" of an individual rather
ﬁnan as a dynamic construcﬁon created through the conﬁnuing interplay of ﬁne individual wiﬁn
ﬁne group. Smiﬁn hints at ﬁnis because she is discussing the interacﬁons of sociologist(s) and ﬁne
irndividual(s) they study represenﬁng different standpoint posiﬁons. This is not unlike my
descripﬁons of the interacﬁons of teachers and students. I would argue ﬁnat any arﬁculaﬁon of a
"standpoint" acts to alter that stand, parﬁcularly if a person occupies mulﬁple and potenﬁally
conﬂicﬁng standpoints. Boﬁn ﬁne act of arﬁculaﬁon--how someﬁning comes to be arﬁculated is
impliciﬁy criﬁcal--and reﬂecﬁon on that arﬁculaﬁon because of ﬁne new context in which it occurs
act to alter a "stand."

Both of ﬁnese ﬁrings are illustrated in my stories. I ﬁnink ﬁnis is because ﬁne arﬁculaﬁons
that I am wriﬁng about are occurring during and ﬁnrough praxis, not divorced from praxis. They
are what Dewey or Schon46 call "reflecﬁon-in-acﬁon": they are arﬁculaﬁons constructed wiﬁnin a
context franned by ﬁne irndividuals involved but also by a purpose. Teaching is purposeful acﬁon.
This arﬁculaﬁonnwhat is done in a class, ﬁne curriculum-derives meaning from a retrospecﬁve
understanding of historical context and a forward-looking recogniﬁon of ﬁne purpose, the needs
it addresses. This purpose, the goals of teaching, direcﬁy reﬂect ﬁne teacher's irniﬁal standpoint
and are both naintained and altered because of interacﬁons between people and between people
and subject natter in the class. The needs of ﬁne future rewrite ﬁne past.47 For example, a teacher
draws on her knowledge wiﬁnin ﬁne domains of ﬁne discipline, ﬁne learner, and ﬁne milieu in order
to act but enabling acﬁon is not the goal in itself. Raﬁner, ﬁne goal is in the results of ﬁnat acﬁon.

A teacher may krnow certain ﬁnings about a child and she may know ﬁnat she wants ﬁnat child to

 

46 John Dewey (1933) How We Think: A Retatement of the Relation of Reﬂective Thinking to the
Educative Process; Donald Schon (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Profesionals Think in
Action.

47 For example, Marx (1983) Theses on Feuerbach; Buck- Morss (1990) The Dialectics of Seeing:
Walter Benjamin and the Arcade Project.

236
learn to read. She nay draw on her knowledge of reading, teaching, and the clnild to formulate

actions which enable ﬁnis goal. This goal of learning to read has, ﬁnrough ﬁnis procedure, taken
on concrete yet changing parﬁculars from ﬁne evolving knowledge ﬁne teacher is using to
formulate it wiﬁnin ﬁne context created by ﬁne child. These new concrete meanings act, in turn, to
rewrite ﬁne past, or at least ﬁne interpretaﬁon the teacher puts upon her past.

Habernas argues ﬁnat communicaﬁon fulﬁls three purposes: to make statements about
actions, to nake statements about ﬁne quality of those acﬁons, to make statements about how we
feel about ﬁnose acﬁons. These statements are in fact claims made by ﬁne person speaking; claims
about what is true, ﬁne speaker's beliefs, and about a person's feelings. A hearer evaluates ﬁnese
claims and judges them. This hearer can also be ﬁne person making ﬁne claims. Habernas, in his
later wriﬁngs, argues that ﬁne arﬁculaﬁon of beliefs in a new context causes ﬁnem to be altered.
This alteraﬁon can be congruent wiﬁn ﬁne original beliefsuﬁney can be merely enlarged or
constricted in applicaﬁonuor ﬁney can be challenged and more fundamentally altered.

A teacher in portraying a subject matter in a parﬁcular way or in choosing to teach in a
parﬁcular nanner is also making claims, implicit or explicit, about ﬁne subject natter and about
what is "proper" behavior.48 All of ﬁnis is done wiﬁnin a context constructed by ﬁne inteacﬁons
of people, ideas, and ﬁnings. This is not a passive context. Sonne ﬁnings a teacher does work,
oﬁners don’t, nnost work in part. It is also true ﬁat for ﬁnese claims ﬁnere is an audience of
children ﬁnat judges ﬁnese claims and will express these judgements, given ﬁne opportunity, again
either explicitly or impliciﬁy.

Thought of in ﬁnis way the "pedagogical knowledge“9 of a teacher becomes anoﬁner
example of a standpoint. A teacher's knowledge of students, learning, milieu, subject matter, and
how to teach ﬁat subject matter are constructed from abstract moral and eﬁnical values and nnore
concrete experiences of teaching and subject matter boﬁn as it is encountered in school and in ﬁne

world outside of school. A teacher's ways of knowing, as Schon points out, are "knowledge in

 

48 Michael Apple (1979) Ideology and Curriculum. Linda MacNeil (1988) Contradictions of Control:
School Structure and School Knowledge.

49 Lee S. Shulman (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growﬁn in teaching.

2 3 7
acﬁon."50 Therefore, ﬁney are nnost construcﬁvely ﬁnought of as dynamic ways of knowing; ways

of knowing ﬁat are both speciﬁable-a teacher knows certain ﬁnings in certain ways-and
conﬁnuously altered and evolving, unspeciﬁable. It is teacher knowledge which is created in the
act of teaclning, when ﬁne different "ﬁnings" ﬁat a teacher knows are integrated in ﬁne choices ﬁat
deﬁne an acﬁon. Those "ﬁnings" ﬁnat ﬁne teacher knows are transformed ﬁnrougln ﬁnat integraﬁon-
-ﬁne sum is not a pure addiﬁon of parts, ﬁne "ﬁnings" interact with each oﬁner and interact wiﬁnin
ﬁne context of ﬁne act; ﬁnat knowledge is transformed ﬁnrough irnplementaﬁon. An act doesn't
stand in isolaﬁon, it follows other acts and acﬁons succeed it.51

The acﬁons of a teacher are also interacﬁons wiﬁn students. This interacﬁon becomes a
vehicle for teachers to define ﬁneir own knowledge, recognize what ﬁney know, and what ﬁney
don't know. A teacher's acts of teaching can be ﬁnought of as claims to knowledge. By asserﬁng
these claims in public they are opened up to judgement and criﬁcal evaluaﬁon. By naking a
claim of certainty of knowledge, of what to do, a teacher makes a complementary claim of not
knowing, of uncertainty.52 This becomes a vehicle for learning and a vehicle for recognizing and
examirning the rrnoral underpinnings of parﬁcular choices, representaﬁons, beliefs.53

Shulman describes pedagogical content knowledge as knowledge of how to teach which
entails an intersection of subject matter knnowledge, knowledge of children and of milieu. A
teacher can say what ﬁney know about a parﬁcular student at any one ﬁrrne but ﬁnis knowledge is
conﬁnuously altered as ﬁne teacher and student interact and ﬁne student interacts wiﬁn oﬁners in
ﬁne teacher's presence. That knowledge of ﬁat student is also conﬁngent upon the teacher's
knowledge of ﬁne oﬁner domains -ﬁnis knowledge speciﬁes ﬁne form ﬁat ﬁne teacher-student
interacﬁon will take. The teacher's knowledge of ﬁne student does not exist out of ﬁne context

constructed to contain ﬁne oﬁner domains of teacher knowledge or out of the interdependent

 

50 Schon (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Profesionals Think in Action.

51 Kerr, DH. (1991) The structure of quality in teaching.

52 Ludwig Wittgenstein (1969) On Certainty.

53 Habermas (1991) Moral Consciousnes and Communicative Action. Kaﬁnleen Weiler (1988) Women

Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power. Schwab (1976) "Educaﬁon and ﬁne state: Learning
community."

2 3 8
evoluﬁon of ﬁnat knowledge. Slnulrnan emphasizes ﬁnat pedagogical content knowledge draws

upon a teacher's knowledge of mulﬁple domains which intersect in enabling ﬁne act of teaching
but this irntersecﬁon is one of mutually dependent variables. The different domains of teacher
knowledge are located within a web a inter-supporﬁng beliefs, facts, theories, eﬁnical choices. An
arﬁculaﬁon of ﬁnis knowledge takes on parﬁcular meaning and substance in ﬁne context of ﬁne act
of teaching. This context is different from ﬁne ones in which ﬁne knowledge was originally
constructed. This arﬁculaﬁon can also rrake obvious ﬁne ﬁnings a teacher doesn't know and give
the teacher pathways to learn.

In teaching ﬁne unit on dinosaurs, I knew what I wanted to teach, how I wanted to teach it,
and why. Because of ﬁne parﬁculars of ﬁne children and ﬁne context of ﬁnis teaching, I found
myself quesﬁoning ﬁnis knowledge. I was making a claim about knowledge and ways of doing
ﬁnings which I becanne increasingly uncertain of ﬁnrough those acﬁons. The past contexts in
which my knowledge of ﬁne subject matter and how to teach ﬁat subject matter were formed-
ﬁnat of being a woman scienﬁst in a rrale domirated ﬁelduwere diffeent from ﬁnose in which I
tried to apply ﬁnat krnowledge. In ﬁnis parﬁcular irnstance, I abandoned one set of values and
goals—about using a wriﬁng workshop model to teach scienﬁﬁc ﬁneorizing-and I am sﬁll
quesﬁoning oﬁners--about ﬁne morality of teaching science in ﬁne way ﬁnat I do. Kaﬁny, in
teaching the way that she does, learned new facets and interpretaﬁons of subject matter. She
learned ﬁnings about her students and ﬁneir beliefs which broadened and extended her own ideas
or caused her to re-raﬁonalize and re-ﬁnink those ideas in ﬁnis new context. In boﬁn cases, Kaﬁny's
teaching and my own, we came to learn about subject matter, teaching, our student's, ourselves
ﬁnrough our teaching. Our teachirng was predicated upon an arﬁculaﬁon of ﬁnings we knew and

ﬁnis arﬁculaﬁon became a vehicle for quesﬁoning ﬁnis knowledge and leanning.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

In ﬁnis ﬁnesis I have tried to show how relaﬁonships are constructed and developed.
Teaching, learning and science are all fundamentally about relaﬁonshipsubetween people and
between people and ﬁnings. These relaﬁonships are developed, ﬁney change and evolve over
ﬁme, as an interplay between ﬁnose involved (both aninate and irnanimate), as each side of ﬁne
relaﬁonship is affected by ﬁne oﬁner. Relaﬁonships begirn wiﬁn staterrnents (implicit or explicit) of
assumpﬁons and of purposes. As ﬁne relaﬁonships alter, assumpﬁons are challenged and
changed, purposes grow and shift direcﬁon.

I began ﬁnis work claiming ﬁat ﬁne ﬁnesis was to be about meﬁnod, how and why we do
the ﬁnings ﬁnat we do. I have built up an argument ﬁnat ﬁne ﬁnings ﬁnat we do, in science, in ﬁne
classroom, as we interact wiﬁn each oﬁner, are done for a purpose. A purpose guides and shapes
our acﬁons and also develops and evolves as we act. As ﬁnis purpose shapes our acﬁons, ﬁne
acﬁons become "meﬁnod." A difference between tradiﬁonal, "scienﬁﬁc" defirniﬁons and uses of
the word "meth " and ﬁne one ﬁnat I have constructed is ﬁat I have tried to show ﬁat nneﬁnod
develops (it isn't preexistent, it isn't a "standard" of belnavior) as relaﬁonships between people
and phenomena, people and people, evolve. People develop norms for these ways of acﬁng
because of ﬁne demands of boﬁn ﬁne relaﬁonship and of the purpose itself. Methods and their
norms underlie scienﬁﬁc ideas, discoveries, procedures and ﬁne construction and need for
community. Because it reﬂects an evolving relaﬁonship and changing purposes, method itself

changes ﬁnrough ﬁme-it is a tool not an end-point. Anoﬁner word for ﬁnis "method" might be

239

240
"knowledge". Knowledge of facts and ideas and of ways to do ﬁnings is boﬁn an end-point of

what we are doing in class but it also exists before we do ﬁnings and guides our acﬁons. This ﬁrst
knowledge changes and grows. Knowledge is a vehicle for learning because it is acted upon and
shared wiﬁn oﬁners. In ﬁnis ﬁnesis, ﬁnis knowledge is of science, of each oﬁner, of teaching—all
evolve.

Relaﬁonships are also tools not end-points. For ﬁnis reason ﬁne tradiﬁonal "scienﬁﬁc" idea
of the dichotonnizaﬁon of subject from object becomes a ﬁcﬁon. In realty ﬁnis relaﬁonship shifts
and changes also, wheﬁner or not ﬁnis is acknowledged. The relaﬁonships described irn ﬁnis ﬁnesis
are between ﬁne children and ﬁne phenomenon we are examirning, between myself and ﬁne
phenomena, between children and children and between myself and ﬁne children. Each
relaﬁonship results in two ﬁnings, ﬁne construcﬁon of science and ﬁne construcﬁon of a
community. Science and communiﬁes aren't "'ﬁnings' ﬁnat exist separate from peson and
phenomena, they exist in the conceptual space between the phenomena and ﬁne actor, science is a
relaﬁonship and communiﬁes are relaﬁonships. Each relaﬁonship is shaped ﬁnrougln a dialogue
between partners and also between ﬁnose partners and ideals and needs formulated outside the
relaﬁonship. These ideals and needs are not just ﬁne manifestaﬁon of an individual's ﬁninking but
are also constructed and shaped ﬁnrough ﬁne interacﬁons among people in the class. Ideals
(values, beliefs, goals, dreams) and needs are formed ﬁnrough conversaﬁon, wiﬁnin a community.
It is ﬁnese ideals and needs and ﬁneir means of formaﬁon ﬁnat keep ﬁne relaﬁonships dynannic,
prevent ﬁnem from reaclning a climax, fulﬁlling ﬁnemselves. That lack of closure, of coming to an
end, drives ﬁne community wiﬁnin the class, causes people to need and appreciate each oﬁner.

In ﬁnis ﬁnesis I have written of ﬁne words design, pattern, meﬁnod, community. I have
suggested but not defended the idea that ﬁnese are legiﬁmate goals of teaching irn general and
science teaching in parﬁcular. In each chapter I have worked to develop ﬁne meanings of ﬁne
words, in science, in teaching, in relaﬁonships between people. I have worked to develop ﬁne
interrelaﬁonships between ﬁnese words—these words and ﬁneir applicability in my stories is

through an organic interdependence. It is because of ﬁnis interdependence ﬁat ﬁney are

241
legiﬁmate, and I would argue, unavoidable goals, of teaching and of science teaching. In ﬁnis

ﬁnal chapter I would like to underline ﬁnis interdependence. I will do ﬁnis by recapitulaﬁng ﬁne

meanings I have given to each word.

The ﬁrst word that I talked about at lengﬁn is the word design. The word design has two
meanings as I use it in ﬁnis thesis. Design is a noun and a verbuﬁne end result of designing is a
design, a pattern. A design is constructed ﬁnrough framing-given meaning differenﬁally,
comparaﬁvely; meaning is dependent on context. The act of framing creates a backgound and a
foreground from the whole of the phenomenon. By doing ﬁnis we, in turn, create lenses, develop
selective vision. The net result of ﬁnis process can be that ﬁne background, ﬁne ignored parts of ﬁne
phenomenon, become forgotten, are lost. Rather, in ﬁnis thesis, I argue ﬁnat ﬁnis process of
differenﬁaﬁon and use can remain an interplay of the background and the foreground. This can
lead to ﬁne development of a criﬁcal consciousness, an awareness or quesﬁoning of context and
the process of differenﬁaﬁon.

Design, the verb, is an interacﬁve process between person, naterials, purpose, context,
reﬂecﬁng assumpﬁons about all of ﬁnese. In ﬁne act or process of designing, ﬁnese assumpﬁons
also compose ﬁne background. When ﬁne design is completed, reﬂecﬁng upon ﬁnat design or
putﬁng the design to some use can cause us to ﬁnink back on ﬁnose assumpﬁons and reconsider.
The act of design is purposeful, it expresses a need, is directed toward a need. It is ﬁnis need ﬁnat
underlies our assumpﬁons and conversely our assumpﬁons underlie our percepﬁons of need.
Recognizing ﬁnis in combinaﬁon wiﬁn an understanding of ﬁne interplay of
backgound/foreground which makes up the design can also generate a criﬁcal consciousness
concerning ﬁnat need.

Design serves cyclical concepﬁons of ﬁme as a verb, as patterned action. It serves
progressive concepﬁons of ﬁme as a noun because it addresses needs. For example-what ﬁne
children are doing with soap bubbles, what I am doing in teaching, what we are constructing as

science-all of these embody patterned acﬁon but ﬁney also address needs. What we are doing

242
and ﬁne needs we are addressing also shift and change ﬁnrough ﬁne foreground/background

interplay which I generate and encourage. The design-of science, of interacﬁon, of teachinguis a
tool as we (myself, ﬁne teacher, and ﬁne children) construct a community in ﬁne classroom.
Because of our designs we become people with a shared purpose, language, meﬁnods of acting
and these are vitaluthey can grow and change. Curriculum is a design and is formulated through
ﬁne design process. Science and community are also.

The concept of design ﬁat I ouﬁine is criﬁcal for understanding science—how science
explains and acts as a vehicle to create new ﬁnings and knowledge-ﬁne role of people in science,
how science changes and evolves. The concept is also criﬁcal for understanding ﬁne idea of
community. The scienﬁﬁc community is a sub-set of ﬁne larger community. The scienﬁﬁc
community has its own ways of communicaﬁng and acﬁng; its own special quesﬁons. All of
these, though, are derived from ﬁnose of the larger community, constructed and naintained in a
relaﬁon to the larger community. The word design captures ﬁne qualiﬁes of human agency

fundannental to an understanding of boﬁn science and community.

The second and third words ﬁnat I talk about are pattern and method. Designs are ﬁne
cumulaﬁve effect of patterns: ﬁney contain patterns. Patterns are characterized by variables
situated in a relaﬁonship. Deﬁning ﬁnese variables defines ﬁne foreground. Pattern as design (ﬁne
noun) is composed of a background and a foreground. It exists as an interplay between ﬁne two.
Therefore pattern has ﬁne sanne potenﬁal to foster criﬁcal ﬁninking as design. The ability to
construct a pattern, to design a pattern is dependent upon our ability to selecﬁvely create a
foregroundumove some elements of a phenomenon to the fore and oﬁners to ﬁne back. The
decisions that we go ﬁnrougln to nake ﬁnis differenﬁaﬁon are often buried by ﬁne ﬁnings that we
are able to do in and with ﬁne foreground. If we can remember to criﬁcally confront ourselves
wiﬁn ﬁnirngs we can 't do wiﬁn ﬁne foreground we can remind ourselves of those decisions, rennind
ourselves of ﬁne ﬁnings we have excluded and reconstruct the foreground / background

relaﬁonship and ﬁne assumpﬁons buried wiﬁnin ﬁne relationship.

243

Patterns are created ﬁnrough repeﬁﬁon and relaﬁonships. Patterns irn science, in class-
boﬁn reﬂect relaﬁonships and construct relaﬁonships. There are patterns in relaﬁonships between
people and between people and ﬁlings. Boﬁn result from a purpose. This deﬁnes meﬁnod.
Patterns in relaﬁonships between people deﬁne community. Because patterns reﬂect
relaﬁonships, they can alter as relaﬁonships alter. The ideas of pattern and nneﬁnod follow from
design. They are components of design, make up design, ﬁne noun and verb. As such ﬁney are
components of boﬁn science and community. They are ﬁne means of interpreﬁng (through
description, making sense of, doing ﬁnings wiﬁn) phenomena. Patterns don't always appear to be
created by people (alﬁnough ﬁney are, if only passively, by selecﬁve vision)--someﬁmes ﬁney
appear to be "found." This is why the concept of design in science is so important. Through ﬁne

idea of design, hunan agency is recognized.

The fourﬁn word is community. Communiﬁes are constructed through a medium: In ﬁnis
thesis and ﬁnese classrooms, ﬁnis medium is ﬁne pursuit of ﬁne science. A community is composed
of people who are different and ﬁne same simultaneously. Similariﬁes are constructed (not
necessarily present beforehand) by developing a common language and ways of doing ﬁnings
framed by ﬁne medium, ﬁne science. This process is driven by a shared purpose. Differences
between people drive the need for community-a shared need for each other. The essence of
community is people interacﬁng with each other because each can contribute someﬁning diffeent
and unique towards a purpose, towards fulﬁlling a mutual need. Unlike a discourse community,
in ﬁne community in my classroom, hierarchical power relaﬁonships don't develop because of my
acﬁons to keep the need, ﬁne quesﬁons, which drive ﬁne community, a vanishing point,
unfulﬁlled. The idea of community focuses ﬁne word relaﬁonship. When I say that science,
teaching, learning are fundamentally about relaﬁonships, relaﬁonships that can not be adequately
described by ﬁne subject-object dichotomy, I am arguing ﬁat ﬁne relaﬁonships are reciprocal—all
sides contribute and ﬁne contribuﬁons of all sides are formaﬁve and important. That is a

expression of ﬁne foundaﬁonal ideals of community.

244

This leads to the teacher's role, my role, in enacﬁng ﬁne above four words. As ﬁne teacher
I act as a designer of experiences and acﬁviﬁes. By choice my acﬁons are proacﬁve around
instanﬁaﬁng values about how children should interact but reacﬁve about ﬁne science-ﬁne science
follows from ﬁne conversaﬁon which results from ﬁne interacﬁons of the children. The teacher's
choices, my choices, reﬂect standpoints which, in turn, reﬂect personal history and ways of
knowing. Acﬁng on ﬁnis knowing introduces opportuniﬁes to learn, because whenever I act it
basically doesn't work out in some dimension(s). Asserﬁons of knowing (ﬁne basis of praxis) are

also statements of not-knowing, of uncertainty. They are also quesﬁons.

As I teach, I act on my values, I impose ﬁnose values on oﬁners. Often ﬁmes ﬁnese values,
formed from different experiences, reﬂecﬁng different parts of my history, are actually irn conﬂict
wiﬁn each oﬁner or conne into conﬂict wiﬁn each oﬁner when enacted in a social situaﬁon wiﬁn
oﬁners who come from different backgrounds and histories. Since vital communiﬁes contain
people who are boﬁn fundamentally different and ﬁne sarrne, conﬂict is an irntegral, essenﬁal part
of community.

For example the nnost obvious place of conﬂict between my values (and ﬁnis is illustrated
ﬁnroughout this ﬁnesis) is between my desire to impose ways of acﬁng and interacﬁng on ﬁne
children but to take a reacﬁve role in ﬁne science. The two value choices are linked-much of my
discussion about community hinges on ﬁne idea ﬁnat social interacﬁons and ﬁne interacﬁons which
compose "science" are co-constructed, interlinked. In separaﬁng ﬁnem from each oﬁner as I plan
my classes, as well as when I am acﬁvely teaching, I am setﬁng myself up to conﬁnually be at ﬁne
focus of ﬁnis conﬂict.

A second and equally fundamental conﬂict is between myself and ﬁne children. My value
choices arise from my history but ﬁne children are not blank slates, lacking values or scienﬁﬁc
knowledge and understanding. There is a conﬂict between how I ﬁnink people should act and

how the children assume ﬁney should act. This is condiﬁoned by ﬁne fact ﬁnat we are boﬁn in ﬁne

245
setﬁng of school. We inherit roles and relaﬁonship expectaﬁons ﬁat we didn't create, a conflict

not of our making. This is heightened, I would argue, because I am rarely explicit about how I
think ﬁne children should act. Therefore ﬁney never state their assumpﬁons about how ﬁney
should act and so ﬁne conﬂict rarely becomes arﬁculated, talked about. It remains a struggle
beneath ﬁne surface. This is how learning and change occur on both sides (myself and ‘ﬁne
children). If ﬁne struggle was explicit, on ﬁne surface, sooner or later a resoluﬁon would be
reached and ﬁne problem would appear to disappear but ﬁne point is that if the community is to

remain alive, vital, it can't and shouldn't.

There is an obvious conﬂict in roles here—as I have ouﬁined ﬁne conﬂicts between values
and portrayed ﬁnem as opportuniﬁes to learn and change, I am portraying myself as a learner as
well as ﬁne children. When ﬁne children explain a phenomenon or state a ﬁneory in class
conversaﬁons, when ﬁney create a design for ﬁne bubble soluﬁon, when I set up a class, we are all
saying "I know" in one way or another. This statement is fundamentally in opposiﬁon to ﬁne
actuality of it which is to say "I really don't know and actually I know I don't know." There is a
conﬂict between the role of ﬁne knower and ﬁne role of ﬁne learner.

To be a learner requires more ﬁnan just a statement of not-knowing, it also requires an
internal recogniﬁon of not-knowing. It is hard to combine wiﬁnin yourself ﬁnis recogniﬁon wiﬁn
the social and oﬁner demands of a situaﬁon which ask you to claim ﬁat you do know. I would
argue ﬁat ﬁnis tension between knowing and learning is fundamental to science and to teaching
(and, because boﬁn are social, is why community is also fundamental to boﬁn). It is ﬁne driving
force behind the curiosity which is central to boﬁn. The difference between ﬁne two (science and
teaching) is I believe ﬁnat in science ever having to arﬁculate ﬁnis fundamental form of not-
knowing can be avoided but ﬁnis arﬁculaﬁon (recogniﬁon) is central to teaching. It can be buried
in science because of science's progressive nature: ﬁne present buries the past, future desires and
goals bury the past and ﬁne present. There can be an accumulaﬁon of knowledge wiﬁnout an

accumulaﬁon of wisdom.

246

In teaching, knowing more means knowing less (as in science) and also recognizing ﬁnis
(which isn't necessarily true in science). For example, I know a lot in science but as I teach and
use ﬁnis knowledge, I am again and again confronted by ﬁnings I don't know, by new subﬁeﬁes of
understanding, by new quesﬁons that generate new connecﬁons. As I teach I come to know a lot
about ﬁne clnildren I am working wiﬁn--about each individual's qualiﬁes, history, beliefs and
desires. As I consider ﬁnis knowledge and act on ﬁnis knowledge in my interacﬁons wiﬁn ﬁne child
I ﬁnd ﬁnat ﬁnis knowledge is parﬁal. The more I know ﬁne more I realize I don't know. This is ﬁne
basis of my claim that I take a reacﬁve role in my teaching, that I set up potenﬁal experiences for
the children in science and wiﬁn each oﬁner and then I react to shape ﬁnose experiences based
upon what the children show me. I can only do ﬁnis because I recognize that I know a lot and
also know almost noﬁning.

So much has been written on what teachers need to know and ﬁne knowledge base of
teachers but I am aware of little that addresses ﬁnis "knowing that isn't knowing" which I am
arguing is central to both teaching and ﬁne discipline. In the introducﬁon to ﬁnis ﬁnesis I claim
that I will address ﬁnree conversaﬁons:

- The leanning science conversaﬁon, parﬁcularly the nnisconcepﬁons interpretaﬁon of
learning. A sub-conversaﬁon here is ﬁne knowledge children bring wiﬁn ﬁnem and
what teachers ought to do with ﬁnat knowledge.

0 The teacher knowledge / learning conversaﬁon and the idea of pedagogical content
knowledge. This has irnplicaﬁons for teacher educaﬁonuwhat prospecﬁve teachers
should be taught in their pre-service programs.

0 The socio-cultural leaming conversaﬁon, parﬁcularly ﬁne idea ﬁnat, for cogniﬁve and
emotional reasons, learners' cultures must be incorporated, somehow, in boﬁn ﬁne
curriculum and the teachers' pedagogy.

Central to all of ﬁnese are claims about teacher's knowledge-ﬁne knowledge ﬁat ﬁney should have
and how they should use that knowledge. In ﬁnis ﬁnesis I am not making an argument for a
parﬁcular kind of knowledge that teaclner's should have. I am arguing for an atﬁtude towards
knowledge, ﬁnat knowledge is not an end-point. It is a starﬁng point for Ieaming. Acﬁng upon
ﬁnis krnowledge doesn't reify ﬁnat knowledge. Raﬁner ﬁne asserﬁons of knowing and the

knowledge itself become increasingly questionable. As a teacher, ﬁne more I know, ﬁne more

aware I am ﬁnat to expliciﬁy state ﬁnis knowing would act to ﬁx it in one place, solidify someﬁning

247
ﬁat should never be made solid. Knowing for me doesn't lead to direct action. It leads to the

creaﬁon of possibiliﬁes.

Embedded in ﬁnis are value assumpﬁons about purposes of educaﬁon ﬁnat have noﬁning
to do wiﬁn imposing a canon of knowledge and societal beliefs on a child. Raﬁner I am suggesﬁng
as an end-point to educaﬁon ﬁne sanne atﬁtude toward knowledge I am claiming to manifest in
my teaching-ﬁat knowledge has little value except as a starﬁng place for asking quesﬁons. The
societal beliefs, ﬁne standards for acﬁng, which I am imposing on ﬁne children are boﬁn vehicles irn
irnparﬁng ﬁnis atﬁtude towards knowledge and goals in themselves. It would be dishonest for
me to claim otherwise. The knowledge and attitude towards ﬁne discipline, ﬁne ways ﬁne children
interact wiﬁn each oﬁner and myself, ﬁne developrrnent of a community are linked. None are
possible wiﬁnout the oﬁners.

The quesﬁon is how defensible are any of ﬁnese as educaﬁonal goals? Looked at in
isolaﬁon, each ideal entails quesﬁonable outcomes. For example, respecﬁng children, ﬁneir ideas,
values, history, necessitates redefining wlat science is. Valuing ﬁne community and its evoluﬁon
means not staying wiﬁn topics long enough someﬁmes to reach a closure saﬁsfactory to me as a
trained scienﬁst. When I don't act as an authority in the one domain, science, does it make
quesﬁonable my right to act as an authority over the clnildren's acﬁons?

These seem to be inherent paradoxes. Embedded in ﬁnis educaﬁon is a reverence for
knowledge as well as a quesﬁoning of ﬁat knowledge. There is a similar paradox in ﬁne values
that underlie ﬁne class. I would argue ﬁnat it is ﬁnis paradox which feeds ﬁne need for community.
A vital community embodies both a love of ﬁnings as ﬁney stand and a love of change. A vital
community must boﬁn know and learn. If ﬁnat is so, ﬁnat these paradoxes form ﬁne foundaﬁons
for ﬁne community (the community of science, of ﬁne class), ﬁnen ﬁne paradoxes must be
maintained. The goals of ﬁnis educaﬁon become defensible through ﬁne cyclicity of ﬁnis
argument. To quesﬁon the goals would necessitate stepping outside ﬁne argument someﬁning

that a person wiﬁnin the community, involved in the teaching, is not able to do.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM DESCRIPTIONS

The school in which I teach ﬁne science units described in ﬁnis thesis is a public
elementary school which serves primarily ﬁne clnildren of married students at Miclnigan State
University. The populaﬁon of ﬁnis school is diverse; it is not characterized by a parﬁcular class or
eﬁnnic background. The children represent approximately 50 cultures from around ﬁne world. In
ﬁnis paper, I have given all ﬁne children pseudonyms which preserve as much as possible an
irndicaﬁon of their culture. There is a list of children wiﬁn their country of origin in Appendix II of
ﬁnis ﬁnesis. The classes in which I worked were a ﬁrst grade, a ﬁrst and second grade
combinaﬁon and a ﬁnird grade. These classes each had approximately 20 children. I say
approximately because ﬁne number of children changed over ﬁne course of ﬁne year as children
left and children came as ﬁneir parents enrolled or gaduated from ﬁne university. The children
listed in Appendix II are children who stayed for a lengﬁn of ﬁnne but did not necessarily
complete ﬁne year. Children who only came at ﬁne very end of ﬁne year or who only stayed for a
short amount of ﬁme are not included.

The ﬁmes ﬁat I taught ﬁrst grade and ﬁne first and second grade combiraﬁon, I worked
wiﬁn Kathy Valenﬁne, the classroom teacher for all oﬁner academic subjects. The classroom
teacher in ﬁne ﬁnird grade class was Sylvia Rundquist. In ﬁne ﬁnesis I refer to ﬁnese teachers by ﬁne
correct (real) names by ﬁneir choice. During ﬁne ﬁnne ﬁnat I was working in ﬁnird grade I was also
collaboraﬁng wiﬁn ﬁne art teacher of ﬁne school, Phyllis Victoria. This collaboraﬁon does not
feature in ﬁnis thesis but it did frame ﬁne projects that I was doing in ﬁnis room. I have not

expliciﬁy discussed ﬁnis in ﬁne chapter which revolves around ﬁne ﬁnird grade class.

249

250

My involvement at ﬁnis school was through an internship wiﬁn ﬁne Michigan Partnership
for a New Education. The projects that I was involved in were collaboraﬁve wiﬁn ﬁne classroom
teachers and, in ﬁne case of the ﬁnird grade, with ﬁne school's art teacher. In each case, ﬁne
teaching collaboraﬁon was around integraﬁng science and literacy teaching and, in ﬁnird grade,
science, literacy and art.

I collected ﬁne data used in ﬁnis ﬁnesis from transcripts of audiotapes—I audiotaped each
class and transcribed ﬁne tapes myself. I also kept copies of the najority of ﬁne children's written
work. The children were always aware of ﬁne audiotaping going on and quite interested in what
I was doing. The children periodically requested ﬁnat they could listen to the tapes and would
comment upon ﬁnem. The children also knew ﬁnat I was wriﬁng about my teaching in the classes
and using ﬁne classroom discussions in ﬁnese wriﬁngs. I asked ﬁne children to help nne pick ﬁneir
pseudonyms.

In transforrrning transcripts to stories I have reduced and edited what was said by ﬁne
children and myself and also descripﬁons of what we did. In doing ﬁnis and in choosing to focus
on science content (raﬁner ﬁnan control issues, say) I have, deleted much of ﬁne everyday acﬁvity
of the class. I would like to describe some of ﬁat here.

I tried, in my teaching in ﬁnese classrooms which were not my own, to conform to and
respect ﬁne classroom teacher's rules and methods of procedure for classroom control. I adopted
Kathy's and Sylvia's methods of classroom control. The meﬁnods of classroom control ﬁnat I
found myself using were ﬁrst: to clap my hands in a rhyﬁnnnic pattern to get ﬁne children to stop
whatever ﬁney were doing and listen to me. In doing ﬁnis ﬁrst I would clap and ﬁnen ﬁney were
expected to clap the same pattern back. I also used a ﬁmer to constrain acﬁviﬁes. The ﬁmer had
a bell and when ﬁne bell went off children wee expected to follow some prearranged pattern of
acﬁvity. I turned the lights off to get ﬁne children to immediately stop ﬁneir acﬁviﬁesnﬁney were

expected to freeze when the lights were off and wait for instrucﬁons.

251

Classroom discussions were usually teacher centered-I determined who would talk and
usually what about. To do ﬁnis I required ﬁne children to raise ﬁneir hands and be recognized by
me before ﬁney could speak. Often a child gave a semi-formal presentaﬁon of an idea or of some
item and ﬁnen the procedure was that they controlled ﬁne conversaﬁon, again semi-formally-
children who wanted to nake quesﬁons or comments raised ﬁneir hands and were recognized by
ﬁne speaker. Classroom discussions in ﬁne ﬁrst and ﬁrst-second grade combinaﬁon usually
occurred irn a "learning circle"-children and I would sit in a circle at ﬁne front of ﬁne room,
Discussions in ﬁnird grade occurred with ﬁne children at ﬁneir desks while I tended to walk about
the room. As I say, ﬁnese discussions were controlled by me irn a semi-formal manner. They
almost always, though, becarrne conversaﬁons in which ﬁne children directly addressed each oﬁner
rather ﬁnan waiting for my recogniﬁon to talk. These free conversaﬁons were punctuated by rrne
taking ﬁne control back and choosing who would talk. 50 discussions would usually start wiﬁn
me posing a question or asking for a descripﬁon, calling on a number of children unﬁl ﬁnis
pattern broke down into a freer discussion. I would allow ﬁnis discussion to go on for a few
minutes and ﬁnen I would stop conversaﬁon and return to my irniﬁal pattern of calling on people.

In all classes the children were seated in groups of desks, usually ﬁnree or four facing
each oﬁne raﬁner then a parﬁcular orientaﬁon in the roonn. In the ﬁrst and ﬁrst and second grade
combination I did ﬁne seaﬁng arrangements by agreement wiﬁn Kathy Valenﬁne. In ﬁnird grade
ﬁne children's seaﬁng was primarily done by Sylvia Rundquist wiﬁn some suggesﬁons by myself
and Deborah Ball, ﬁne mathemaﬁcs teacher. In all classes ﬁnese seaﬁng arrangements played an
important role in the social and academic qualiﬁes of ﬁne classes. In parﬁcular in my teaching,

experiments and informal discussions were carried on wiﬁnin groups.

APPENDIX B

CHILDREN'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND PSEUDONYMS

First Grade:
Bangladesh

Ghana-Malawi
Iran

Korea

Malaysia

Pakistan

Palesﬁne

People's Republic of China
Russia-Bangaladesh

Sri Ianka

Taiwan

United States

Venezuela

Bulli (f)

Kojo (m)
Farzoneh (f)
Kyong Min (f)
Chun 50 (f)
I-Io Sook" (f)
Ok Ran (f)
Titon (m)
Yasin (m)

Mira (f)

Ahmed (m)
Amina (f)

Hanan (f)
Yu" (m)
Tatyana (f)
Vijay’ (m)
Chen (m)
Claire (f)
Cory (m)
Mike (m)
Sondra (f)
Paula (f)

Maria Theresa (f)

* English as Second Language Student These children did not speak English and were in a pull-
out program for approximately 30 minutes per day during which ﬁney received English language
instrucﬁon. The form of ﬁnis instrucﬁon was what I would call "immersion"-the children were
involved in reading and wriﬁng books in English in which ﬁne meanirngs of words became
apparent ﬁnrougln context and use. The children also parﬁcipated in acﬁviﬁes such as cooking,
gardening, ﬁeld trips, in which ﬁney learned English ﬁnrough use. Typically a child spent one to

two years in ﬁnese classes.

253

First and Second Grade Combinaﬁon:
Egypt

India

Korea

Malaysia

Nepal-India
Nigeria
Pakistan

People's Republic of China

United States

Yugoslavia

" English as Second Language Students

Ahmed (m)
Sakﬁ (f)

Kwanhyo (f)
Ho Sook (f)

Tity (f)
Teton (m)

Surni (m)
Abeni (f)

Shumshad (m)

Meiying: (o
Sueh—yen (m)
Danping (f)

An'gele (f)
Emily (f)
Paula (f)
Andy (m)
Timmy (m)
Thomas (m)
Cory (m)
Benjamin (m)
Dan (m)

Alyosha (m)

Third Grade:
Birundi

Brazil

Costa Rico

Egypt

Eﬁniopia

Japan
Japanese-American
Kenya

Korea

Korean-American
Malaysia

People's Republic of China
Russia

United States

* English as Second Language Students

254

Diane-Dembe (f)
Estevao" (m)
Ricardo (m)

Arrnina (f)
Hanal" (m)

Selamawit" (f)
Sen" (0
Evelyn" (f)
Mwajuma (t)

Yong Sun (m)
Sook Chin" (m)

John (m)

I ihad (m)

I in (m)
Antoninya‘ (f)
Alice (f)

Daniel (m)
Joey (m)
Karen (f)
Krisﬁn (f)
Timothy (m)

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Apple, M. 1979. Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.

Applebee, A.N. 1986. Problems in process approaches: Toward a reconceptualizaﬁon of process
instrucﬁon. In The Teaching of Writing, ed. A. Petrosky and D. Barﬁnolomae. Clnicago: University
of Clnicago Press, 1986.

Arendt, H. 1964/77. Eichmann in ]eruselem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin
Books.

Arendt, H. 1978. The Life of the Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Azimov, I. 1966. The Universe: Prom Flat Earth to Quasar. New York: Avon.

Ball, D.L. 1990. Halve Piece and Twoths: Constructing Repreentational Contexts in Teaching
Fractions. Naﬁonal Center for Research on Teacher Educaﬁon, Craft Paper 90-2, East Lansing
Michigan: Michigan State University.

Ball, D.L. 1993. Moral and intellectual, personal and professionsl: Resﬁtching pracﬁce. In
Detachment and Concern: Topics in the Philosophy of Teaching and Teacher Education, ed. M.
Buchmann and RE. Floden, New York: Teachers College Press.

Barnes, H. 1963. Introducﬁon. In In Search of a Method. J.-P. Sartre, trans. H. Barnes. New York:
Vintage Books.

Belenky, M. F., B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, J. M. Tarule. 1986. Women '3 Ways of Knowing: The
Development of Self, Voice, and Mind . New York: Basic Books.

Brans, Judy ed. 1989. Ranger Rick '5 NatureScope: Digging into Dinosaurs. Washington D.C.: The
Naﬁonal Wildlife Federaﬁon.

Buchmann, M. 1986a. Teaching Knowledge: The Lights Teachers Live By. Institute for Research on
Teaching, Occaﬁonal Paper 106, East Lansing Michigan: Michigan State University.

Buchmann, M. 1986b. Role over person: Morality and auﬁnenﬁcity in teaching. Teachers College
Record. 87: 529-544.

Buchmann, M. 1989. The Careful Vision: How Practical is Contemplation in Teaching? Naﬁonal Center
for Research on Teacher Educaﬁon, Issue Paper 89-1, East Lansing Michigan: Michigan State
University.

Buck- Morss, S. (1990) The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcade Project. Cambridge
MA.: The MIT Press.

Calkins, L.M. 1986. The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouﬁn, NH: Heinemann.

256

257

Chandrasekhar S. 1987. Truth and Beauty. Clnicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Connelly, M., and J. Clandinin. 1990. Stories of experience and narraﬁve inquiry. Educational
Researcher 19(5): 2-14.

Dahl, R. 1964. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. New York: Knopf.

Delpit, L.D. 1986. Bowing to ﬁne master

Delpit L.D. 1988. The silenced dialogue. Harvard Educational Review. 58(3): 280-298.
Derrida J. 1976. Of Grammatology. Balﬁmore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, J. 1987. The Truth about Painting, Clnicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey J. 1902/56. The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think: A Retatement of the Relation of Reﬂective Thinking to the Educative
Proces.. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company.

Dewey, J. and Bentley, A.F. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: The Beacon Press.

Dreyfus, I-I.L. 1991. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I.
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Driver, R, E. Geusne, and A. Tiberghienn. 1985. Children '5 Ideas in Science. New York: Open
University Press.

Evans, C.L., M.L. Stubbs, P. Frechette, C. Neely, J. Warner. 1989. Educational Practitioners: Absent
Voice in the Building of Educational Theory. Wellesley College Center forResearch on Women,
Working Paper 170, Wellesley MA.: Wellesley College.

Fish, 5. (1980) Is There a Text in This Class: The Authority of Interpretive Communitie. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press.

Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. 1972-1977. New York:
Panﬁneon Books.

Gadamer, H.-G. 1976. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Los Angeles: Univeristy of California Press.
Gannow, G. 1961 / 70. The Creation of the Universe. New York: Bantam Books.

Graves, DH. 1983. Writing: Teachers and Children at Work Portsmouﬁn, NH: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. 1991. Moral Consciousnes and Communicative Action.Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Harding, SM. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women '5 Live. Iﬁnica NY:
Cornell University Press.

Hawkins, D. 1974a. I, thou and it. The Informed Vision: Essays on learning and Human Nature. New
York: Agathon Press.

258

Hawkins D. 1974b. Messing around wiﬁn science. The Informed Vision: Essays on Learning and
Human Nature. New York: Agathon Press.

Heath, SB. 1983. Ways with Words: language, Life, and Work in Communitie and Classrooms. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Heidegge, M. 1962. Being and Time. New York: Harper

hooks, b. 1990. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: Souﬁn End Press.
Irigaray, L. 1985. The Speculum of the Other Woman. Iﬁnica NY: Cornell University Press.
Irigaray, L. 1991. The Irigaray Reader. Margaret Whitford ed. Cambridge MA: Basil Blackwell.
Johnson, M. 1989. Embodied knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry 19: 361-377.

Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason.
Clnicago: University of Chicago Press.

Keller, E. F. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kerr DH. 1981. The structure of quality in teaching. In Philosophy and Education: Eightieth Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education. ed. J. Solﬁs, 61-93. Chicago: University of
Clnicago Press.

Kristeva, J. 1986. The system and ﬁne speaking subject. In The Kristeva Reader, ed. T. Moi. New
York: Columbia University Press.

Kristeva, J. 1986 Women's Time. In The Kristeva Reader, ed. T.Moi. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientiﬁc Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categorie Reveal about the Mind.
Lakoff G. and Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Clnicago Press.

Lampert, M. 1985. How do teachers manage to teach? Perspecﬁves on problems in pracﬁce.
Harvard Educational Review. 55:178-194.

Lensrrnire, T. J. 1992. Intention, Risk, and Writing in a Third Grade Writing Workshop. unpublished
Ph.D. dissertaﬁon East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1963/76. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Levi- Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Clnicago: University of Chicago Press.

MacNeil, L. 1988. Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowledge. New York:
Routledge.

Mahe. F.A. 1987a. Inquiry teaching and feminist pedagogy. Social Education 51(3):]86-192.

259

Mahe. F.A. 1987b. Toward a richer theory of feminist pedagogy: A comparison of "liberaﬁon"
and "gender" models for teaching and Ieaming. Journal of Education. 169(3): 91-101.

Maher F.A., Tetraeult, M.K.T. 1993. Doing feminist ethnography: Lessons from feminist
classrooms. Qualitative Studie in Education. 6(1):19-32.

Marx. K. 1983. Theses on Feuerbach. In The Portable Karl Marx, ed. E. Kamenka. New York:
Penguin.

McDiarmid, G.W. 1989. What Do Teachers Need to Know About Cultural Diversity: Retoring Subject
Matter to the Picture. Naﬁonal Center for Research on Teacher Educaﬁon, East Lansirng
Michigan: Michigan State University.

Moi T. 1985. Marginality and subversion: Julia Kristeva. In Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist
Literary Theory, ed. T. Moi.

Moi, T. 1985. Sexual/Textual Politics. New York: Rouﬁedge.

Moi. T. 1985. Helene Cixous: An imaginary ut0pia. In Sexual/1' extual Politics: Feminist Literary
Theory, ed. T. Moi. New York: Rouﬁedge.

Moi, T. 1986. Introducﬁon. In The Kristeva Reader, ed. T. Moi. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Noddings, N. 1984. Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University
of Califorrnia Press.

Norris, C. 1982. Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London: Methuen.

Paley, V.G. 1979. White Teacher. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Paley, V.G. 1981. Wally '5 Stories. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Paley, V.G. 1986. On listening to what children say. Harvard Educational Review. 56(2):122-131.

Paley, V.G. 1990 The Boy Who Would Be a Helicopter: The Use of Story Telling in the Classroom.
CambridegMA: Harvard University Press.

Paley, V.G. 1992. You Can ’t Say You Can ’t Play. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Piaget, J. 1964/ 72. Development and learning. In Readings in Child Behavior and Development. eds.
C.S. Lavatelli and F. Stendler. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.

Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday and Company.

Popper, K. 1958. Conjecture and Refutations: The Growth of Scientiﬁc Knowledge, 1-65. New York:
Harpe and Row.

Resnick, LB. 1983. Maﬁnemaﬁcs and science learning: A new concepﬁon. Science 220:477-478.

Rommetveit, R. (1980) On 'meanings' of acts and what is meant and nnade known by what is said
ina pluralisﬁc world. In The Structure of Action. ed. M. Brenner, New York: St. Martin's Press.

260

Roﬁn. K. J. 1987. Learning to be Comfortable in the Neighborhood of Science: An Analysis of Three
Approaches to Science Education. Naﬁonal Center for Elementary School Teaching, East Lansing
Michigan: Michigan State University.

Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Sartre, J.-P. 1963. In Search of a Method. New York: Vintage Books.
Sartre, LP. 1965. Being and Nothingness.. New York: Citadel Press.

Scholes, R. (1985) Is there a fish in this text? In Textual Power: Literacy Theory and the Teaching of
English. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

Schon, D. 1983. The Reﬂective Practitioner: How Profesionals Think in Action. New York: Basic
Books.

Schon, D.A. 1984. Generaﬁve metaphor: A perspecﬁve on problem-setﬁng in social policy. In
Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schon, D.A. 1990. The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey ’5 Legacy to Education. talk presented as The John
Dewey Lecture, American Educaﬁonal Reasearch Associaﬁon annual meeﬁng: Boston
Massachusetts.

Schwab, L]. 1976. Educaﬁon and ﬁne state: Learning community. In Great Ideas Today, 234-271
Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

Schwab, JJ. 1978. The pracﬁcal: Translaﬁon into curriculum. In Science, Curriculum and Liberal
Education: Selected Essays. eds. I Westbury and N. Wilkof, Clnicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Shulman, LS. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growﬁn in teaching. Educational Reearcher
15(2): 4-14.

Snniﬁn, D. E. 1991. The Everyday World as Problematic. Chicago: Norﬁneastern University Press.

Spielberg, S., G. Lucas, K. Kennedy, F. Marshall. 1988. The land Before Time. Los Angeles:
Universal Pictures.

Spielberg, S., G. Lucas, K. Kennedy, F. Marshall. 1977. Star Wars . Los Angeles: 20ﬁn Century Fox
Films.

Stevens, S. 1974. Patterns in Nature. Boston: Little, Brown.
Thompson, D'A. 1961. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: University Press.

Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Procese. Cambridge
MA: Harvard University Press.

Walkerdine, V. 1990. Schoolgirl Fiction. New York: Verso.

261

Walton, R.K. and R. Whanson. 1989. Birding by Ear A Guide to Bird Song Identiﬁcation. Peterson
Field Guide Series, Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin.

Weiler, K. 1988. Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power. South Hadley MA: Bergen
and Garvey.

Weiler, K. (1991) Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review 61 :449-
474.

Willensky, J. 1990. The New Literacy: Redeﬁning Reading and Writing in Schools. New York:
Routledge.

Wilson S.M., L. Shulnan, A. Richert. 1987. 150 different ways of knowing: Representaﬁons of
knowledge in teaching. In Exploring Teacher Thinking, ed. J. Calderhead, Eastboume, England:
Cassell.

Winograd. T and F. Flores. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for
Deign. Norwood New Jersey: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Wittgenstein, L. 1968. Philosophical Invetigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty. New York: Harper and Row.

Zallinger, RE The Age of Reptile. New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History.

HICH

IGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES
|HilllIllllHHlIHIllllllllllllllllllllll
9301 4099380

312