APPROPRIATING SCIENCE FROM A TECHNOLOGICAL CONTEXT Gilda Legal and Mark Cosgrove University of Technology, Sydney,Eton Road, LINDFIELD N.S.W.2070, AUSTRALIA ABSTRACT We designed a gender inclusive learning model to address expected negative attitudes to studying science of some final year student primary school teachers ( a predominantly female group) in a science discipline subject. Our intention was to provide a learning environment which would encourage students to choose to appropriate science from the technological context directly to deepen their understanding of scientific content areas. The majority were reluctant to begin to learn autonomously from the technological context, in spite of our carefully planned, gentle introduction. For those students who were already alienated from science, accessing science, even where supportively designed learning models were designed was problematic. We suggest that these studentsÍ reactions to the learning model, at first anxious, then seemingly passive, were powerful. Their complete disinterest in the traditional, technical and scientific aspects of the context persuaded us rapidly to offer them social and historical access to science, an approach made possible by the pluralism in epistemology of our learning model and the gender inclusive nature of the context. Thus in the process of students achieving success in accessing science through social and historical investigation, we and they, repressed initial approaches offered by this model. INTRODUCTION As part of its extensive review of science teacher education in New South Wales, the panel of The Discipline Review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science, (Speedy, Annice, and Fensham 1989) recommended that primary science teacher education programs Ohave the equivalent of one unit of science discipline knowledge (including physical science) which is explicit and assessedO (p.110). Given that many student teachers lake confidence and interest in science and technology, (Klindworth, Martin, & Tyler, 1991), this recommendation challenges teachers educators to adopt alternative methods to the traditional approaches to teaching and learning science that have alienated student primary teachers in secondary school. THE STUDY The setting for this study was a primary teacher education discipline subject, Science and Technology in Australia. Participants were 27 students (Female = 23) in the final semester of their three year course. The project occupied 5 weeks of class time ( 3 hours per week) of the 10 week subject. The nature of the activities, the research methodology and the learning and reactions of the class in general have been described elsewhere (Segal, 1995; Segal & Cosgrove, 1992). Here, we briefly summaries the nature of the learning and teaching model, our proposed method of analysis of learning and factors of the teaching that bear on that analysis. Learning and teaching model The multi-faceted gender inclusive learning and teaching model (cooperative groups, learnersÍquestion and learning model context) was designed to allow students to make significant choices in their learning to negotiate outcomes and to be active in and responsible for their learning, as recommended by who advocate ways of learning with which females are comfortable (Gilbert & McComish,1990) the extensive research base in which each standard of the model is grounded has been described elsewhere (Congrove,Newman, & Forret, 1987; Segal & Cosgrove,1992) ANALYSIS OF LEARNING We have previously described,as part of this research, the deep learning of two young women, mary and simonc ,who successfully probed the technological context of heat pumps to learn about heat transfer,change of state and how a refrigerator works (Segal & Cosgrove,1993) the context of maryÍs and learning was dynamic and emergent,dependent upon learners and teachers working in collaboration and on background factors including our preparations for the subject In this paper we further examine the emergence and subsequent fading of another dynamic learning context-a context we have called the anxiety context. the presence of anxiety was pervasive early in our study (Segal & Cosgrove,1992). our analysis in this paper adds to our previous interpretation by attributing greater agency to learners in achieving alternative pathways to achievement; we also propose to examining more closely our own roles in seeking to understand the anxiety context. before proceeding with our analysis o f learning, we first clarify further what we mean by our analytic construct of dynamic learning context. we give necessary detail about the first few sessions of teaching and our respective roles in those sessions that will enable discussion of the anxiety context to proceed DYNAMIC LEARNING CONTEXT our construct may be compared to the analytic unit,activity setting,used by tharp and Gallimore(1991)and to the disability category of Mcdermott(1993). our dynamic learning context can be imagined to comprise features of both. dynamic learning context,like activity setting, Oincorporates cognitive and motoric actions and external environmental and objective feature of the occasionO (p. 73). unlike tharp and gallimore, we have not restricted dynamic learning context to setting with goal-directed action; our definition also encompasses context that are emergent-that arise as a result of events,but that do not have a specific purpose similarly to the formation of the learning disability of McDermott, our dynamic learning contexts are constituted through interaction between students,lecturers,their physical setting,their historically and culturally determined backgrounds of traditional new south wales education system and their learning teaching models used. THE TEACHING Aspects of the teaching that relate to the evolution of the anxiety context are listed here for ease of understanding the ensuing analysis. two critical aspects bear upon the dynamic learning context that evolved. 1.In the second week, we received an influx of 11 additional students, who missed the first session due to unexpected internal arrangements. 2.We came to this study with differing backgrounds and purposes. Make was the lecture in charge of the subject and responsible for its planning. He invited Golda to act as researcher and to blend any additional inclusive learning model feature with his L technological context of heat pumps and learners question approach. Gilda assumed that her responsibility was explain and organise the cooperative groups strand of the learning model and other requirements for obtaining research data. Problems due to late arrival of one third of the class the first session had been intricately planned to offer students a long,shallow introduction to the subject, to the learning model, to the choice between the technologies of refrigeration and robotic (not the subject of investigation in this study) and to indicate the social relevance of each technology. The second session would then encourage students to gradually take more responsibility for their learning. therefore,in the second scheduled class we attempted to develop a shallow-end first approach with these late students too, by repeating some of the first weekÕs introductory activities with them,prior to integrating them into groups in accordance with student preferences. a problem that directly affected gildaÍs role arose as a result. GildaÕs researcher role and the problem of late arrivals: If the influx of late students had not occurred,Gilda,in her researcher role, would have watched Mark introduce the learnersÕ questions approach to the refrigeration group in session 2; this was a novel approach for her too. Instead,she missed this introduction, as she was involved in introducing learning to the late students.when this was completed, the late students were invited to join either refrigeration or robotics. Mark asked Gilda to look after the refrigeration group, while he guided the robotics group (which was also assisted by a researcher). In GildaÕs absence, Mark had asked the refrigeration group to write down their prior views about how a refrigerator works, to look closely at the refrigerators on display,to sketch them carefully,and to list any questions about the refrigerators that occurred to them. When Gilda arrived and Mark left,some students assumed that Gilda was there as a resource, rather like a talking encyclopedia, to answer their questions; others seemed to have finished writing questions and prior views and seemed to be sitting passively,waiting to be told what to do next. GildaÕs unpreparedness for this situation and her uncertainty about MarkÕs preferences as to weather studentsÕ questions should be answered by her at this stage added to the unease of some students. Some reported this directly in their journals after that session and some told Gilda later. The situation near the end of session: 2. Mark had anticipated that would groups would start to engage in their own planning after some focus demonstrations of dry ice near the end of session 2, but most students did engage in active discussion or planning; the general atmosphere was one of unease and disquiet. We addressed this by holding a discussion with the entire group so that they could voice their concern; these seemed centered on how they expected to go about their learning without being told exactly what to learn ,and on exactly what needed to be submitted for assessment. session 3-a turning point: Observing four of the six groups sitting quietly, apparently without focus at the beginning of session 3, Mark decided to broaden the extent of the project to make it easier for those students to plan their learning without necessarily engaging with the technological and scientific aspects of heat pumps. He arranged a class discussion and suggested that students could plan their investigation in areas such as social and historical implications of refrigeraion, issues in wise use of technology of refrigeration, in addition to (or instead of) the technology of refrigeration (for example,the anatomy and design of a refrigeration, feedback mechanisms and control) and science of refrigeration. session 4 and 5: All groups were actively involved in planning and carrying out their learning. Individuals prepared during the week so that groups used class time effectively. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION First,we develop further understanding of students of anxiety and its alleviation through use of the analytic construct of dynamic learning context. Then we discuss social and personal relevance of learning model context to students, as a factor in the emergence of dynamic learning contexts in which all students participated successfully in managing their learning. Anxiety: We have already identified possible contributing factors to student anxiety (Segal & Cosgrove,1992): the complex arrangements by the late arriving students; display of equipment; the prospect of carrying out a investigation; the nature of the assessment, studentÕs low experience of self-directed learning. In keeping with our focus on understanding our own roles in relation to the high level of anxiety, we add to our previous list of possible reasons for anxiety GildaÕs role in her interactions with students in session 2 and the clash in MarkÕs preparation for studentÕs learning with studentÕs preferred learning style. These lead to refined understanding of the dynamic learning contexts that evolved. Before considering our roles, we present student statements that make clear the nature of their anxiety. Evidence of early anxiety the first time Gilda detected apparent anxiety with the learning model was when a student, Annette,came to see her two days after the first session. AnnetteÕs reaction surprised Gilda,as session 1 was teacher directed and the group was small, promising at the time (before we released that one third of the class had not yet arrived) a very small student-teacher ratio. AnnetteÕs sensitivities to how much direction she was (not) receiving were finely tuned, as she was highly concerned that exactly what for accomplish for assessment had not been spelled out. She said in relation to her experiences in all subjects: Well if they donÕt give us a direct path as to what to do and itÕs all airy-fairy and up in the air, I get, as I said, really uptight and worried and donÕt know where IÕm going, just because I donÕt know ; and I know, that is because itÕs the way IÕve been brought up in the education system and even in work and everything, and if someone doesnÕt irectly tell me what I have to do, IÕm directly, directly at a loss (Annette, pre-session 2). This conversation seems to indicate, as Annette herself recognized, that her dependency on direction was now her preferred learning style, a legacy of her school education. Unfortunately,the confusion in session 2 engendered by the arrival of so many new student was too much for Annette. She changed electives after this session. In individual and group interviews, Gilda later asked students about their apparent reluctance to investigate the refrigeration at close hand. TinaÕs answer is representative of their reasons. In individual and group interviews, Gilda later asked students about their apparent reluctance to investigate the refrigerators at close hand. TinaÕs answer is representative of their reasons. I think it was something that was quite technical and I donÕt think felt confident and that was the main reason why they didnÕt do it- fear of failure, the fear of youÕre not going to understand and you donÕt really want to know anyway (Tina,post-session 10). GildaÕs role: Unwittingiy, Gilda contributed to anxiety of one of 4 students. They asked Gilda to join them in session 2, they showed her their diagram of the refrigerator and many questions they had written about it. They assumed she was there to answer their questions; Gilda assumed that MarkÕs intention was that they were to be responsible for finding out answers themselves later. The conversation contributed to Lemma, feeling that there was insufficient direction about the whole subject, to increasing her anxiety at coping with the whole subject structure, and to her probable feelings of Òanger, despondency and dwindling enthusiasmÓ. Thus a relatively small interaction like this, mishandled, for complicated and various reasons as described here, can have significant repercussions. MarkÕs role Mark believed that his role was to arrange contexts to stimulate autonomous learning, not to lay out a well defined path for students. For example, he did not explicitly explain that his focus activity of dry making was relevant to refrigeration; he was prepared to answer questions, but students did not ask them. Although he had anticipated some insecurity due to possible lack of student background, Mark thought that the carefully planned and slow introduction, combined with supportive friendship groups where cooperation and support were being promoted, would have alleviated to a very large extent any worries about the independent approach. We both thought that the discussion at the end of session 2 would have clarified what was expected for assessment. The passive appearance that were still problems. An anxiety context awaiting some teacher education students a network of preparations assembled prior to meeting the students Ð the technological context, the learning questions approach, the loosely spelled out assessment requirements on the subject outline and MarkÕs focus arrangements for studentsÕ learning could be said to have created a context quite different to the one we assumed we had created; all that remained was to unite that context with these students and anxiety was inevitable. Thus for many students in this subject, what might be called static anxiety context had been unintentionally planned; when these particular and static context met, a dynamic anxiety context developed with rapidity. Alleviating anxiety Lectures and students modify context in our first example of student anxiety. We assumed students were helpless and passive (Segal & Cosgrove,1992) we attributed all the decision making power to ourselves in alleviating anxiety and attributed success to MarkÕs design to broaden the technological context in session 3. A closer look shows the analysis to be too simple and perhaps too stereotyping of analyses criticized by Walkerdine & her unit (1989) and by Dives (1993) that assume that females do not have power to influence events. A different reading could show that many of the students who appeared to be sitting so passively were exercising their student power of resistance; they forced us to recognize the unsuitability of MarkÕs plans for them and to change the way that the subject was to be conducted. The refraction context did not interest them technologically or scientifically and through their apparent passivity, effectively refused to participate; this was an action that carried great risks for them in the final semester of their course, yet they were not prepared to compromise. We assume now that both analytical readings are dynamically interactive and contributed to MarkÕs decision to modify his planning. AFTER ALLEVIATION OF ANXIETY With the requirement to examine the refrigerators and to use equipment removed, it became obvious that all groups were quite capable of directing their own learning when motivated to do so,and when assessment requirements were described. It was also clear from conversation and journal entries that students liked the opportunities provided to convey their feelings about the teaching to their lecturers. StudentsÕ Agency GildaÕs conversation with group 5, initially the most alienated group, made it very clear that they rejected the initial context, that they were very pleased with their new emphasis and considered themselves eminently capable of planning their own learning in a context of their choice. Enid: WeÕve actually turned it in a way.we havenÕt done the technical side of the project as such. WeÕve turned it in a way that we are really interested in what weÕve found out. Chorus: mm. Enid: WeÕve been quite excited about what weÕve found out. ItÕs more social which has given us a great aim. Gilda: IÕve got that down to ask you actually. Are you more interested now in the topic or the course than when first stated? Chorus: Because itÕs strand that we wanted. ItÕs something that interests us. Shelley: We didnÕt really get into the technical side. Jenny: no. Shelley: I mean I think it frightened us a bit. Chorus: mm. Shelley: We didnÕt know much about it. So we went more to the social side. Jenny: Like we thought: how much can we write on the fridge? ThatÕs the thing. Shelley: We didnÕt really want to get into all technical parts of a fridge, cause that quite obviously did not interest us at all and as soon as Mark said that at the beginning Ð you know Òthat weÕre doing technology of a fridgeÓ, Jenny: oh (a moan) Shelley: We just went Ð our jaws just hit the floor, but when you said we could do an in-depth study on what we wanted, well we sort of, Jenny: ...took our social implications, Enid: Plus itÕs been very exciting, itÕs been interesting. Shelley: We would not have liked it if it had a narrow focus and you would have virtually directed to us Ð you have to do that Ð youÕve left it sort of open. (Conversation with group 5, session 4) This conversation exemplifies the feelings of class groups who chose to investigate historical or social aspects of the learning model. Context groups achieved success in managing their own learning through cooperating with each other and answering their own questions; they modified their learning model context to suit themselves and enjoyed their learning. In this respect they were similar to Simon and Mary(Segal &Cosgrove,1993) and to the other scientific investigator group. They differed from these investigators in that they become self-sufficient in their plans; control of learning moved rapidly form teachers to students, investigations were not in technoscientific areas. The scientific investigators and lecturers were occupied jointly for much longer periods and as we have predicated,(Segal &Cosgrove,1992: Segal & Cosgrove,1993), this has advantages for increased communication between lecturers and students and for development of trust. The conversation above also assists understanding of choices learners are free to make when their learning model contexts seem relevant to them. RELEVANCE Newton(1988)and Ziman(1980) believe that science lessons should explicitly make apparent the relevance of science, through its human and social dimensions, to adult life. Although it may appear that conventional science curriculum makes science socially relevant by technic: abstract theory first and then its technological applications, Ziman claims this approach does not penetrate the social environment. ÒFor example, calculations of the efficiency of internal combustion engines.....say nothing about the social effect of the automobile,or about energy resources(p. 112).Ó In its emphasis on Òwhat silence has done, there is little encouragement to think about what it might do or ought to do(p.113).Ó Newton notes that history of history Òthat has been advocated so often as an appropriate humanizing contextÓ can be used like Òa trojan horse to develop foundations which explicitly point out the elements of why (students) are taught science(p.11).Ó MarkÕs trojan horse was the social relevance of heat pumps to young Australian adults. Personal relevance is also attained when learning experiences are related to the outside world and where there are explicit connections of connections of science to human relationship (Schollum & Osborne,1985). Relevance in this Òseems to be synonymous with relationship (Newton,1988: 7),Ó an aspect considered desirable for gender inclusive approaches (Gilbert & McComish,1990; Rosser,1986). The third strand, cooperative groups, was incorporated into the learning model to provide peer support for students as they engaged in autonomous learning through questions that were salient to them. Thus relevance for learners in this study could be sought in aspects of the learning and teaching model with the multitude of possibilities for investigation its technological context offered by Mark in session 3 ADVANTAGE OF USE OF DYNAMIC LEARNING CONTEXT FOR ANALYSIS The use of the dynamic learning context as a construct for analysis prevents analysis of learning focusing upon the a contextual learning of individuals. A contextual analysis has the potential to assign blame to individuals who do not respond to opportunities offered for learning. Indeed, this method of analysis clarified an assumption (that we do not initially assign) underpinning the questions we asked ourselves previously. We previously wondered what factors prevented these students taking risks to adopt alternative ways of learning. This question does not assign blame, but it also assumes that risk-taking, a social behavior that is admired in males, is the standard which by all people should be judged. Such questions assume a deficit model by which young females are to be implicitly compared to male norms and found to be lacking a quality of risk-taking in science. Asking different questions and analysing events in the construct of dynamic learning on text allows understandings of learning to emerge that are relations within the context and that do not seek to assign praise or blame to individuals (lecturers or students) or groups for gender-associated social behaviors. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Inadvertently,and in spite of planing for gender inclusive learning,anxiety that disturbed most females of this study were created and student entry in the first sessions of the study to become fully operational. These early dynamic learning contexts may have originated in factors related to prior secondary science learning, fear and dislike of independent investigating such a large technological object as a refrigerator, uncertainty of what was for assessment, GildaÕs inexperience with the learnersÕ questions component of the model, and a mismatch between MarkÕs intentions for their learning and the preferred learning style of most students. The anxiety context did not persist when alternative pathways to success were offered. These pathways were only possible because a heat pump trojan horse and its scientific contents were introduced as a whole to learners. Learners and teachers jointly exercised power and decided that those who wished to investigate the Trojan horse, rather than its contents alone, could do so. The nature of the learning model made the modification possible, without appearing to lower expectations of learners; the Trojan horse existed along with its contents. The learnersÕ questions and context components of the learning model provided the flexibility to accept and act on the unreadiness and unwillingness of the majority of students. This was accomplished by encouraging them to ask questions of social and historical concern, within the same context, but without the technoscience emphasis. We conclude that successful dynamic learning contexts evolved for social investigation in this study. These were different, not inferior, to those of the science investigators. REFERENCES Cosgrove, M., Newman, B., & Forret, M. (1987). Teaching technology - Refrigeration, an example from New ZealandÕs economic history. In K. Riquarts (Ed.), Science and technology education and the quality of life (Vol.2). Kiel : Institute for Science Education. Crossman, M. (1987). TeachersÍ interactions with girls and boys in science lessons. In A. Kelly (Ed.), Science for girls? (pp. 58-65). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Device, B. (1993). Shards of glass. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Gilbert, J., & McComish, J. (1990). Science learning language and feminist pedagogy. In A. Begg, B. Bell, F. Bidduph, M. Carr, M. Carr, J. McChesney, & J.Y. Loveridge (Eds.), SAME papers, Hamilton: Center for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato. Longman Paul. Klindworth, A., Martin, M., & Tytler, R. (1991) Perceptions and attitudes to science among primary teacher trainees. In L. J. Rennie, L. H. Parker, & G. M. Hildebrand (Eds.) Sixth International GASAT Conference ( Late papers, pp. A1-49). Melbourne: National Key Center for School Science and Mathematics. McDermott, R.P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Learning in doing: social, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 269-305). New York: Cambridge University Press. Newton, D. P. (1988). Relevance and science education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 7-12. Rosser, S. (1986). Teaching science and health from a feminist perspective. New York: Pergamon Press. Schollum, B., & Osborne, R. (1985). Relating the new to the familiar. In R. Osborne & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science (pp. 51-65). Auckland: Heinemann. Segal, G. (1995). Developing gender inclusive learning models in primary science education. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation (in preparation), University of Technology, Sydney. Segal, G., & Cosgrove, M. (1992). Challenging student teachersÍ conceptions of primary science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 22, 348-357. Segal G., & Cosgrove, M. (1993). Developing an inclusive technoscience learning environment. In S. Haggerty & A. Holmes (Eds.), Contributions to the Seventh International GASAT (Gender and Science and Technology) Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 833-841). University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: OntarioÍs WomenÍs Directorate. Speedy, G. W. Annice, C., & Fensham, P. J. (1989). Discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science (Vol 1). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Walkerdine, V., & the Girls and Mathematics Unit, (1989). Counting girls out. London: Virago Press. Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.