Perfil Conceptual: formas de pensar y hablar en las clases de ciencias

Resumen

Este artículo se propone investigar la producción de nuevos significados en las clases de ciencias consider ando que existe una relación entre modalidades de pensamiento y formas de hablar. El presupuesto básico es que en cualquier cultura o persona no existe una única forma homogénea de pensar sino diferentes tipos de pensamiento verbal (Tulviste, 1991). He tratado de caracterizar esta heterogeneidad del pensamiento verbal en términos de un perfil conceptual (Mortimer 1995, 1998) que reconoce la coexistencia en el individuo de dos o más significados para una misma palabra o concepto, que se emplean correctamente en diferentes contextos. Esta coexistencia es posible también en un concepto científico en el que la visión clásica y moderna de un mismo fenómeno no es siempre equiparable. En este artículo analizaré la relación existente entre estas diferentes modalidades de pensamiento, características de las diferentes zonas de un perfil conceptual de la materia, y las diferentes formas de hablar, caracterizadas en términos de lenguajes sociales y géneros de habla (Bakhtin 1981, 1986). Procuraré destacar cómo el choque entre diferentes zonas de un perfil conceptual de la materia es tratado en el aula en términos de la construcción de diferentes estados de intersubjectividad (Rommetveit, 1979a), en los que la expectativa sobre lo que debe ser dicho o hecho juega un importante papel a la hora de determinar lo que en realidad se ha dicho o hecho.

Abstract

The study investigates the production of new meanings in the science classroom, taking into account the interrelation between modes of thinking and ways of speaking. The basic assumption is that in any culture or individual there is not just one homogeneous form of thinking, but different types of verbal thought (Tulviste, 1991). These different modes of thinking are interwoven with different ways of speaking. We have characterized this heterogeneity of verbal thought in terms of a conceptual profile (Mortimer, 1995, 1998) that recognises the coexistence, in the individual, of two or more meanings for the same word or concept, that are correctly used in different contexts. This coexistence is also possible in a scientific concept where the classic and modern views of the same event are not always comparable. The paper studies the relation between different modes of thinking and different ways of speaking. The former representing the different zones of the conceptual profile of matter, and the latter characterised in terms of social languages and speech genres (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986). Particular attention is paid to how different zones of the conceptual profile of matter may clash, and the treatment it receives in the classroom in terms of the construction of different states of intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1979a). Here underlying expectations of what should be said or done play an important role in framing what is actually said or done.

Entended Summary

The study investigates the production of new meanings in the science classroom taking into account the interrelation between modes of thinking and ways of speaking. The basic assumption is that in any culture or individual there is not just one homogeneous form of thinking, but different types of verbal thought (Tulviste, 1991). These different modes of thinking are interwoven with different ways of speaking. We have characterised this heterogeneity of verbal thought in terms of a conceptual profile (Mortimer, 1995, 1998) that recognises the coexistence, in the individual, of two or more meanings for the same word or concept, that are correctly used in different contexts. This coexistence is also possible in a scientific concept, where the classic and modern views of the same event are not always comparable. The paper studies the relation between different modes of thinking, representing the different zones of the conceptual profile of matter, and different ways of speaking, characterised in terms of social languages and speech genres (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986). Particular attention is paid to how different zones of the conceptual profile of matter may clash, and the treatment it receives in the classroom in terms of the construction of different states of intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1979a). Here underlying expectations of what should be said or done play an important role in framing what is actually said or done.

The classrooms analysed are student centred, meaning that students' are encouraged to voice their opinions. In this kind of classroom set-up, teachers must decide how much time to dedicate to promoting students' discussion and how much to teaching a set of preplaned concepts and abilities determined by the curriculum (Mortimer and Machado, 1996). Here Rommetveit's (1979b) theoretical framework may be useful to evaluate to what extent this kind of apparently more open classroom differs from more traditional pedagogical settings in which “the teacher and he alone by virtue of his role is fully in control of the premises for interpretation and the criteria by which comprehension and intersubjectivity are evaluated” (p. 170).

The data analysed in this article suggest that the process by which students construct new meanings in the science classroom is full of contradictions and misunderstandings. Categorisation rules, social language, and speech genres employed by students may not coincide with those used by the teacher. Indeed they might be in conflict with scientific language. The teacher's ability to foresee this, based on an analysis of the conceptual profile of matter, and to address this issue seems to be an important feature of this process. Although the pressure toward univocality, that seems to underline the process of making meaning, can result in the students' mastery of the teacher's role and mode of speaking, this mastery does not always coincide with its appropriation by the students. By appropriation we mean “taking something that belongs to others and making it one's own” (Wertsch, 1998, p. 53). As one of the episodes analysed shows, although the students are able to understand and use the more abstract definition of the physical states of matter, based on the particle model, they do not recognise this definition as something inherently powerful and useful to use in “the street”.

The fact that the students were aware of the appropriateness of using everyday concepts of solids, liquids, and gas for talking “in the street”, shows that as far as different options of genres and modes of thinking are concerned, to be more abstract does not necessarily mean to be more powerful in a broader cultural sense. The students regarded the more abstract criteria for understanding matter as quite strange and not a very convincing way of speaking about a world already populated with everyday meanings and genres.

In our view, this poses important questions for science education. It seems to be impossible to teach science without invoking this more abstract level, where specific phenomena are replaced by very general and abstract entities, i.e., entities whose meaning is strongly rooted in a theory. Even in approaches in which everyday life and students' explanations play a central role, it is impossible to avoid the task of generalisation which seems to be an intrinsic characteristic of science. How can we make these explanations meaningful to students? How can we turn science questions into real question for them? In order to address these questions, we have to take into account that there may be a clear clash between categorisation and attribution rules used in science—which presupposes general categories of phenomena framed by theoretical tools—and the rules used in everyday life, in which prototypes and specific phenomena and objects play an important role. Therefore, teaching science as something that can be meaningful for everyday life will always imply addressing these contradiction between different genres and different degrees of intersubjectivity.

Finally, we hope this way of analysing classroom discourse helps us understand in what ways language is used in the classrooms as an important rhetorical device which helps students give meaning to scientific explanations, genres, and different approaches. This kind of analysis can help teachers' professional development in a subject-matter pedagogical expertise (Schulman, 1986) which we consider to be very important, but which generally goes unnoticed in most teacher training courses: discursive management expertise.

Palabras clave:

• Perfil conceptual
• lenguaje de las clases
• intersubjectividad
• clases de ciencias

Keywords:

• Conceptual profile
• classroom discourse
• intersubjectivity
• science classrooms