This article was downloaded by: [University of Wolverhampton]On: 15 May 2013, At: 17:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Cooperating in constructing knowledge:case studies from chemistry andcitizenshipRejane Barbosa a , Zélia Jófili b & Mike Watts ca Federal Rural University of Pernambuco E-mail:b Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil and CatholicUniversity of Pernambuco, Brazil E-mail:c University of Surrey Roehampton, UK E-mail:Published online: 22 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Rejane Barbosa , Zélia Jófili & Mike Watts (2004): Cooperating in constructingknowledge: case studies from chemistry and citizenship, International Journal of Science Education,26:8, 935-949

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000138842

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online © 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000138842

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 25 JUNE 2004, VOL. 26, NO. 8, 935–949

Cooperating in constructing knowledge: case studiesfrom chemistry and citizenship

Rejane Barbosa, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco; e-mail:rmnbarbosa@uol.com.br; Zelia Jofili, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco,Brazil and Catholic University of Pernambuco, Brazil; e-mail:jofili@uol.com.br; Mike Watts, University of Surrey Roehampton, UK e-mail:M.Watts@roehampton.ac.uk

This paper looks at three case studies within the teaching and learning of chemistry. Each case considers theeffectiveness of group learning activities in terms of the ways in which they enhance cooperative learning. Grouptasks are generally undertaken in order to encourage learners to develop their understanding of particular issues,although one key disadvantage is that much of the process of the group work is lost as soon as the groupdisbands. The cases explored here aim to: (i) investigate the development of cooperative attitudes amongstudents, looking for significant learning of scientific concepts, (ii) encourage the development of ethicalattitudes, to motivate, and then (iii) empower the participants so that they can build upon the communalknowledge that is generated. In this way learners enhance their levels of partnership and cooperation with othermembers leading to a fuller and broader understanding of the collaboration required within the values ofcitizenship education. Using science to educate for citizenship is a growing concern across many countries of theworld, in this case illustrated by work in Brazil and the UK.

Introduction

This paper is premised on four beliefs:

1. A climate of cooperation in classrooms, created through the behaviours ofthe teacher and students, enhances motivation and, through this, improvesstudents’ learning and, more broadly, their approach to citizenship.

2. The joint, cooperative, communal construction of knowledge in groups isan essentially different process to the personal construction of knowledgeby individuals.

3. Information and communications technology (ICT) has changed the wayin which much knowledge is organized – it allows learners to cooperate inthe construction of communal knowledge within fields that are often highlysubjective and open to multiple meanings.

4. The communal construction of knowledge requires both structures, toinitiate and maintain it, and a climate of security – so that both teachersand learners can acknowledge needs, be experimental and take riskswithout fear of derision or of exclusion.

These beliefs come together in a clear rational for the research we describe here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

936 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

Following the changes that have occurred in the twentieth century in manyareas of human activity (economic, political, military, and – above all – scientific andtechnological), education in citizenship has become an urgent requirement. Theworld is moving through decisive times, with some forces acting to push humanitytowards attitudes that are more cooperative and less competitive. As Rotblat says:

The advances made in science and technology during the last century have created asituation in which citizenship education has become a necessity, while at the same timeproviding the means for making world citizenship an achievable goal. (2002: 186)

The development of citizens who are more committed to social values and toprinciples of communal responsibility is a movement that is currently being takenup by schools. The exercising of citizenship implies the effective participation of theindividual in the production and use of values and commodities within socialcontexts and in the right to speak and be heard by others (Brasil 1998). But, morethan that, it also implies individuals participating by interacting creatively in theconstruction of society and in notions of shared freedom and responsibility, and inthe shared construction, use and organization of knowledge. Freedom is shared tothe extent that it occurs within a social context and thus no individual has wholesalefreedom, since, in seeking the satisfaction of one’s own needs, rights or demands,the individual has simultaneously to consider those around him/her.

Citizenship education has the potential to help people make informed decisionsabout their own lives, to understand both how public policy is formed and how toinfluence it. In the UK, citizenship has become a national curriculum subject forstudents aged 11–16 in all secondary schools from August 2002. The developmentof citizenship as a curriculum subject is therefore very timely – while regarded witha degree of unease among some educators as a potential competitor for curriculumspace.

This paper takes as an initial premise that tolerance and mutual respect arebasic requirements for public debate in a liberal society. In order to tackle issues ofcitizenship, students must be encouraged to develop the ability to weigh upviewpoints and learn to distinguish between commercial, political and moraldimensions to public issues. As Busquin says

In a knowledge-based society, democratic governance must ensure that citizens are able tomake an informed choice from the options made available to them by responsible scientificand technological process. (2002: 173)

This paper aims to investigate the development of cooperative attitudes amongstudents, looking for significant learning of scientific subject matter at the same timeas encouraging the development of ethical attitudes. It also seeks to show how thecritical overlap between issues of science and society will foster the development ofcitizenship education and presents excellent opportunities for collaboration as wellas theoretical reflection and analysis at interdisciplinary levels. The relationshipbetween science and citizens is generally one of pressing local, national andinternational importance. Juxtaposing issues of science and society provocativelyassesses whether citizenship and science can really make a difference to local,national or international communities. However, it is important to appreciate thatwhile school science is taught to the many, it is only practised by the few. This issomewhat true at university level, too, so that the study of chemistry, for example,may be a stepping stone to a career in chemistry, but may equally well take thegraduate student into numerous non-chemical careers. Very little of what science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 937

teachers and lecturers teach will be directly used in their students’ lives. In thissense, teachers need to look beyond the ‘utility argument’ of the subject to see whataspects of science are needed to enrich lives with an understanding of people andthe universe.

For this reason, in order to meet a ‘citizenship agenda’, it is important thatscience courses emphasize scientific literacy, ideas about the nature of scientificknowledge inquiry, and deal with the ways that decisions are made about issuesinvolving science technology. For example, the teaching of science should includean understanding of radiation, the cosmological perspective of humanity’s place inspace and time, together with teaching on the brain, genetics, pollution, themaintenance of life, and so on. Moreover, students should discover that scientists donot always agree among themselves about such issues, and yet choices and decisionsmust be made.

In addition to the learning of specific subject matter, it is important to note thatschools have responsibility for the complete education of the students – with theethical issues concerning citizenship being an important part of this. The challengefacing schools is to enable students to develop attitudes and skills that enable theirintervention in, and transformation of, the society to which they belong (Freire1991). For example, students in the UK aged between 11 and 14 years are, amongother things (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2002), expected to:

(a) Think about topical political, spiritual, moral, social and cultural issues,problems and events by analysing information and its sources, includingICT-based sources.

(b) Justify orally and in writing a personal opinion about such issues,problems or events.

(c) Contribute to group and exploratory class discussion, and take part indebates.

and be taught to:

(a) Use their imagination to consider other people’s experiences and be ableto think about, express and explain views that are not their own.

(b) Negotiate, decide and take part responsibly in both school and commu-nity-based activities.

(c) Reflect on the process of participating.

While some of these broad educational goals can be the province of the individuallearner, some require strong interpersonal group skills in terms of, for instance,constructing joint understanding and meaning from a variety of sources ofinformation, collaborating in choosing essential features relevant to the problem orissues at hand, critiquing and contesting the quality and sources of the information,and contributing to the outcomes of the work though group and class activities.

This paper presents three ‘case illustrations’ of work in classrooms, which areunderlined by a theoretical context and orientation for collaborative learning withinformal educational settings. Given the diversity of learners and views in manylecture rooms and classrooms, the science teachers’ role needs to be different – lessabout being the ‘know-all’ in the classroom, more about managing the co-construction of knowledge between participants. To succeed, it is clear that theteaching of ‘citizen science’ will need to use pedagogies that are more commonlyfound in humanities lessons with, for example, a variety of activity types to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

938 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

encourage close reading, with cooperative group work methods designed tofacilitate structured discussion. As Campbell says:

It is one thing to encourage wide-ranging class discussion, so that citizenship concepts aretouched on as well as science concepts; it is quite another to plan for learning outcomes thathighlight citizenship concepts and involve the whole class. (2002: 193)

In the research work we report in this paper, we draw upon three cases where wehave used different approaches to constructing group knowledge in science.

Cooperative learning through group work

There has been a developing interest in the use of cooperative groups as effectivelearning contexts in classrooms. This interest has been fuelled by the increasingrealization of the link between learning and social interaction (Bennett 1994).Hertz-Lazarowitz and Miller (1992) raised an interesting comparison between‘traditional’ and ‘cooperative’ classrooms in order to illustrate and clarify a modelthat motivates educators who are searching for a constructivist perspective as analternative to staple classroom methodologies. Cooperative classrooms are moretypical of a complex social system: the class functions as a set of small groups, or‘groups of groups’; learning tasks are of a divisible and/or investigative nature anddeal with multifaceted problems rather than with unitary tasks that can be solved bya simple correct answer. In these classrooms, teachers offer guidance to develop theskills that pupils need as members of relatively autonomous groups; the teacher actsas a ‘learning facilitator’ or resource rather than simply as a dispenser ofinformation; pupils must rely on and develop their social interactive and cognitiveskills to carry out their learning tasks; pupils exchange information, generate ideas,and participate in active information gathering as well as in multilateral commu-nication networks, and pupils take on various roles in the learning process. That is,pupils’ behaviours follow a broadly social constructivist approach to learning, ratherthan the passive-receptive approach typical of many classrooms.

Cooperative learning methods are defined by Cohen (1994) as studentsworking together in a group small enough for everyone to be able to participate ona collective task that has been clearly assigned. Moreover, students are expected tocarry out their task without direct and immediate supervision of the teacher.Kutnick (1990) has argued that small group interaction, leading to cooperation,must take place in a situation that does not impose constraints on children, such asthe domination or specific control of teachers or authoritarian peers.

Slavin (1987) has classified this kind of work into two major theoreticalperspectives that he calls ‘developmental’ and ‘motivational’. He presents a theoryreconciling the two perspectives, and stresses the role of group rewards for individuallearning in motivating students to offer high-quality assistance and elaborateexplanations to the rest of their group. According to Slavin, the motivationalperspective on cooperative learning arises from a different starting point from thedevelopmental view. The developmental perspective is based on Piaget’s (1926) andVygotsky’s (1978) theories. The basis of these studies is that ‘task-focused interactionamong students’ improves learning by producing cognitive conflicts and by exposingstudents to higher-quality thinking. The fundamental principle of the developmentalperspective on cooperative learning is that interaction between children aroundappropriate tasks increases their control of critical concepts and skills. Incentives for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 939

group learning efforts are unnecessary. The motivational perspective stresses thevalue of rewarding groups on the basis of the individual learning of all groupmembers, generating norms and sanctions in the peer group, favouring achievement-related efforts and the active helping of peers. Providing an incentive for grouplearning efforts is crucial to improving the learning outcomes.

Noddings (1989) also argued that such theoretical differences are importantbecause they suggest orderly ways of designing research to shed light on both thegeneration of theories and the group processes themselves. They highlight asystematic way to define the variables that researchers need to consider as theydesign their investigations. These conclusions are reinforced by Light and Littleton’s(1994) review of cognitive approaches to group work (based on the devel-opmentalist perspective). This looked at historical and practical case studies ofchildren interacting with others, sharing and challenging perspectives amongthemselves, and conceptualizing this social experience as the basis for their cognitivedevelopment. The review confirmed previous evidence that learning is best notconsidered as an individualist enterprise.

There are many instances of group work in the education system and schoollearning has long benefited from the introduction of such classroom methods.Science education, in particular, has traditionally used group work for practicalactivities and project-based learning. One of the recommendations for practice thathas emerged from constructivist research is that small-group discussions should beused in science lessons as a means of helping students explore their ideas and movetowards more scientific ideas and explanations. Impetus for the inclusion of small-group discussions in science lessons has come from the development of ideas aboutsocial constructivism (Driver et al. 1994). These authors, for example, report astudy of the social construction of knowledge with a group of 13 year olds, who wereinvited to develop a model to explain the properties of ice, water and steamfollowing activities relating to change of state. The effect of the discussion in groupswas a significant success. The pupils brought together their knowledge that particlesare in constant motion, and that this motion increases with temperature. The ideaof the force between particles being present all the time was used to explain theapparent ‘making and breaking’ of bonds. It showed that pupils can bring ideas andpast experiences together to take their thinking ahead, if motivated and given theopportunity. Barbosa (1996) investigated the influence of social interaction on theclassroom learning of science, focusing specifically on the conservation of mass inchemical change. Her study involved 200 students aged 11–15 years from twocountries, England and Brazil. The results reveal that the social group outperformedthe control groups, in relation to higher quality of understanding of the subjectcontent. This suggests the potential for cooperative groups to promote learning ofabstract content and that the very processes of group work can deliver much morethan the sum of the individual parts. In a similar vein, Johnson and Johnson (1985,2000) have claimed considerable evidence to show that cooperative learningexperiences promote higher achievement than do competitive and individualisticlearning experiences. Of their 26 studies, 21 studies demonstrated that cooperativelearning promoted higher achievement, two studies had mixed results, and threestudies found no differences. These US studies have included college studies andstudents from the eighth grade (age 13). Moreover, they have included males andfemales, different social classes (upper, middle working, and low) and differentstudents’ ability (medium and low).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

940 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

Some disadvantages of group work, in our view, are that (in certaincircumstances) the collective knowledge constructed by the group itself could belost or, at the very least, degraded. It is common in many teaching situations that theintended product of group activity is to enhance the learning of the individuals whoare involved and, while individuals may prosper, it is the ‘collective knowledge-in-action’ that can disappear. Moreover, when particular key members move awayfrom the group, or when the group disbands and disperses, the organizationalknowledge and the cohesive structures of the group knowledge that have beencreated are then often diluted and are irretrievable. Finally, it is rare for the teachingof groups to allocate the time and resources necessary to develop the knowledge,skills and understanding of the group members.

In this paper we are searching for practices that allow for the creation andretention of communal knowledge so that there is co-construction and co-transferof understanding both within the group and between groups – knowledge that hasthe possibility of being retained. Our case studies highlight approaches to thegeneration and retention of collective, communal knowledge.

Shared generation and organization of knowledge

Communal constructivism (Holmes et al. 2001) is an approach to learning in whichlearners not only construct their own knowledge as a result of interacting with theenvironment, but also actively engage in the process of constructing knowledgefrom within a community and retaining it in some form. Building on constructivisttheories, ‘communal constructivism’ is less some conjunction of individual andsocial theories than a hybrid of the two. While it trades upon both the individual andcollective aspects of knowledge construction, it also incorporates a furtherinteractive dimension that, in some cases, makes use of ICT systems to organize andretain that knowledge. The argument here is for a communal constructivism whereteachers and students are not simply engaged in developing their own information,but are actively involved in creating knowledge that will benefit other students andteachers.

The idea is that courses of learning are deliberately structured so that the workof one group is developed and retained in such a way as to be easily available toother groups. Subsequent groups are not simply advised, but are required to buildupon this work. Their efforts, too, can be stored and so the process continues.

In some forms of communal constructivism extensive use is made of groupwork and project-based learning. Assignments are undertaken in groups of two,three or four. Student work is developed into a portfolio allowing for reflection onthe 1-year learning process, and which must also enable future students to see theprogress of knowledge acquisition. All coursework and projects have presentationbuilt in as a fundamental part of the exercise. Students must present their work totheir peers and also store it for use by students in subsequent years and forinspection by the wider community. Students are actively encouraged to submittheir work to outside groups not simply as an addition, but as an integral part oftheir studies.

This communal constructivist approach requires that the course be dynamicand adaptive. It means, from the very outset, that students see themselves asproducers and not just consumers of information. Creating an environment wherestudents leave their imprint on the course and the field as an integral part of their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 941

learning not only benefits their own learning, the learning of their colleagues in theirclasses, and those that will come after, but more importantly creates graduates whowill be well aware of the importance of knowledge construction in education. AsHolmes et al. say:

In this model students do not simply pass through a course like water through a pipe butinstead, river-like, leave their own imprint in the development of the course, their school oruniversity, and ideally their discipline. This results in a gain for the institution or course but,more importantly, the students themselves will benefit. Using a river analogy, the river waterwill leave rich mineral deposits and slowly influence the course of the river itself. That is, ifstudent learning processes and their work can be captured then the course might build upknowledge rather than simply repeat it year after year. (2001: 4)

Case study 1: chemistry and the cooperative learning methodsat university level

Cooperative methods based on Aronson and Patnoe (1997) and Perret-Clermont(1980) have been developed in the teaching of chemistry to students of veterinarymedicine and students undergoing teacher training in chemistry, at the FederalRural University of Pernambuco, Brazil (Barbosa and Jofili 2002). The group ofveterinary medicine students involved six classes of 40 first-year students each,covering the period from 1997 to 1999, and the group of teacher training inchemistry involved four classes of 45 second-year students each, during the periodencompassed by 2000–2001. Therefore, 420 students took part in this study. By theend of each course, all students were asked individually to evaluate the methodologyadopted and to give suggestions in order to improve it. The aim of this case studywas to overcome some initial teaching difficulties, when these particular under-graduate students reacted to changes in the teaching-learning process, notablyagainst those involving group work. Students considered group work as a ‘lazy’option – characteristic of teachers who did not want to give themselves the work ofpreparing classes.

In the work that has been carried out some adaptations were tried. Owing to thenature of the structure of the discipline taught (organic chemistry), both methods(Aronson and Patnoe 1997, Perret-Clermont 1980) have been used on the sameclass. For example, at the beginning, when the activities to be carried out involvedmolecular structures, chemical bonding and the nomenclature of organic com-pounds, it proved more suitable to use the Jigsaw method (Aronson and Patnoe1997) based on students’ motivation.

In the Jigsaw Method the academic material is divided into small parts and eachmember of the group (‘original’ group) is assigned just one part of the class work tostudy. These students are then taken from their groups and re-organized so that theyjoin with others who have read the same piece, and they are then asked to discusstheir materials together in ‘secondary’ groups. After the discussion, each studentreturns to their ‘original’ group and teaches their part to the other members, suchthat, at the end, all have learned the whole subject. To illustrate the structure of theJigsaw method we suggest the diagram shown in figure 1.

However, in topics that demand a higher level of competence (e.g. theformulation of hypotheses and the solution of problems), the developmentalperspective based on Piaget’s (Perret-Clermont 1980) and Vygotsky’s studies (Molland Whitmore 1993) proved to be more appropriate. Based on Perret-Clermont’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

942 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

(1980) suggestions, each group comprises a mixture of higher-level students andlower-level students, who are asked to discuss the subject until they reach aconsensus. Work of this kind is more directed towards the study of the nature of theinteractions and is suited to abstract topics that are difficult for the students tounderstand. The exchange of ideas can then facilitate the acceptance, rejection orrestructuring of previous conceptions brought by the components of the group,which is extremely important. The formation of these groups implies that theteacher has previous knowledge of the level of competence achieved by each studentin class activities or in previous disciplines. For example, in the study ofhydrocarbons, each group choose the topic they wished to develop (alkanes,alkenes, alkynes, aromatics and others). After combining and studying in theirsecondary groups, the students then returned to their original groups (see figure 1)to share the material and to pose questions for discussion. Therefore, all the subjectsare shared in the original groups.

In the final stage, the class was brought together under the teacher’s supervisionto discuss and systematize their understanding of the subject matter. The groupswere asked to make predictions about the results of experiments to be carried outor, in the case of the introduction of new subjects, to present and discuss previousideas. Each group then presented its results to the class, setting off a collectivediscussion in which the teacher, as the mediator of the process, clarified queries,corrected distortions and complements the knowledge constructed. The resultshave been very encouraging. Besides the better comprehension of the subjectmatter, the students showed greater levels of motivation during these classes. Onemeasure of success has been the testimonials of older students (having been throughthese classes) to the new arrivals on the course, when they demonstrated theirsatisfaction with both the method used and the learning outcomes:

It’s amazing how I could learn something so boring (nomenclature of organic compounds)in a very interesting way.

This is really a constructivist class. The group work made me more active, so . . . I did learnbetter!

There has been no loss of individual performance; having worked through themethods already described, the students have shown excellent mastery of the pre-requisites of chemistry in the development of subsequent subject matter. In

Figure 1. The jigsaw method.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 943

addition, students report that the sharing of ideas has developed their self-confidence, cooperation and motivation, making them more participative. In theevaluation of this work by the group, each member has realized how essential theyare for it to work. For example, when the students have been clear about the tasksto be carried out, they have understood the importance of their own role and havetried to fulfil it in the most responsible way, so as not to compromise the overalllearning of the class. The analogy used is that of the strength of a chain is only equalto that of its weakest link. The failure of one component implies the poor workingof the system as a whole.

The benefits to the teacher have meant that this approach has enabled effectivework even with large classes because, on dividing a class of 50 students into 10groups of five, this spreads teaching time between the 10 groups, which is morepersonal than with a group of 50 and more manageable than with each studentindividually. On observing a member of the group encountering difficulties, theteacher asks those who have already absorbed the subject matter to help work withtheir classmate. Clearly, cooperation represents an alternative agent for change inthe classroom system, stimulating the engagement of the students, creating theirinterest in the subject and even possibly reducing anxiety.

Case study 2: chemistry and cooperative learning methods atschool level

In this case study 69 science students participated from two eighth-grade classes(age range 13–15 years) from a private school of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil (Nuneset al. 2001). One class used the Jigsaw method and the other carried out its workindividually. In the latter, the teacher explained the subject matter, performedexperiments as demonstrations and solved numerical problems. At the end of theclass, the students were given a sheet similar to that of the ‘Jigsaw group’ (generalquestions), to be answered individually. The teacher then brought together theanswers to the questions together with the group.

The teacher’s motivation for undertaking that investigation was her concern forher students’ lack of motivation, disinterest, and their difficulties in understandingchemistry concepts. She also observed their disregard for mutual cooperation and,more than this, their acceptance of values such us individuality, competition, andpersonal reward. She took the view that, where teachers are committed to a‘transmission view’ of knowledge, one that considers students as ‘objects’ of theeducational process (Freire 1972), then this denies them opportunities to maketheir own decisions. Such a perspective moved her to question and reflect upon herpedagogical procedures and to look for means to introduce changes towardsimproving the ‘citizenship skills’ within her classes.

Her investigation was, consequently, an attempt to use cooperative methods inthe ‘Jigsaw’ classroom, to rescue some ethical values, leading pupils to actively andcollaboratively participate in the construction of their own knowledge. Individualtests were applied before and after these interventions to assess their learning ofchemistry concepts. The topics developed were ‘properties of the matter’ and‘physical and chemical phenomena’, and the students worked in groups of fivemembers.

Although the learning outcomes of the two classes were similar – in that theevaluation of the understanding of chemistry concepts improved in both classes –

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

944 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

they point to the relevance of the Jigsaw method since, in this class, the students hadthe opportunity to teach and learn with one another, performing and explainingexperiments to their classmates in a dynamic atmosphere with companionship,enjoyment and interaction. The motivation of the students in the cooperative classwas clearly noticeable as the work proceeded. Students previously considered to beuninterested in other classes actively participated in the activities, as could bedocumented in video recordings. Conversely, in the class in which the studentsworked individually and the teacher carried out the same activities, the students didnot display the same motivation, interest or participation in the classes.

Positive results could also be observed in the performance of the teacher, whohad to take on the role of mediator in the teaching-learning process rather than thatof mere transmitter of information. Also of significance was the teacher’s testimonialthat the group work provided, in addition to learning, the development of self-confidence, socialization, motivation and enjoyment, observed in other activitiesfollowing the research and duly documented. The results also suggest thatcooperative learning seems to be very encouraging for science education, where agroup approach to learning may help resolve problems in many pupils’ minds thatare left unresolved in the individual-learning environment.

Case study 3: Web-based chemistry

The work reported here derives from the Communicare Nelle Science (CONSCI)project, a European-funded project between France, Italy and the UK. The projecthas attempted to work between mother-tongue teaching of science and the teachingof modern languages in schools. These have been ambitious goals: both teachersand learners had been working on scientific activities in both their own and at leastone other language. In this way, this case study has involved group work at threelevels: at the level of the school, between schools, and between countries. Eachschool has developed group project work around a particular set of topics. Thesehave in most instances been shaped in that school’s mother tongue, and thentranslated into one or to each of the other languages.

As the topics have been developed for the project, care has been taken toaddress both the intellectual content of the science involved as well as themotivational factors that encourage young people to undertake work in science. Inthis instance the youngsters were from the latter part of the secondary system, agedbetween 14 and 18 years. Three main topics how formed the backdrop to this work,concerning the development of electric motor cars, satellite technology, and mobilephone communication systems. In each case the science involved has spannedphysics, chemistry and biology. Examples here are drawn from the teaching ofchemistry.

The groups in each school have communicated their work to schools in othercountries by means of a project website. This has enabled schools to formpartnerships and for classes to trade their ideas between the three countries. So, forexample, youngsters have explored the chemistry of cells and batteries pertinent tothe working of hybrid and electric cars. Teachers have taken and amended articleson these topics to form the backdrop to the students’ work. Students haveundertaken projects and investigations in their own localities, on the chemistry andengineering of electric cars, and have proposed activities for groups in othercountries. Each contribution is posted on the website and this allows subsequent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 945

groups to build on this by undertaking similar projects, thereby contributing afurther swathe of data, or by tackling variations on the original project, therebyextending the line of investigation.

In a second example, students initiated an e-mail discussion on the effects offacid rain in order to collect information on the ecosystem in a particular region ofFrance, a sensitive river delta area. Teachers in Italy and the UK supported thisactivity both in their own mother tongue and then in French. This curriculumactivity, supplemented with e-mail exchanges between linked local schools, involvedstudents in asking questions about the chemistry and biology of the local region andenvironment. The cross-curricular nature of the project enabled students to giveconsideration to both the environmental aspects of the region and also some of thecultural aspects. This is an example of developing a communal constructivistapproach to learning; it is an authentic real-world task in which students activelyconstruct new knowledge about a specific geographical region. Students appre-ciated their own contribution, as the work is made accessible to the public by fullonline publishing. An added motivational factor was an awareness of writing for anexternal audience through using the Internet, and therefore requiring high-qualitypresentation.

Some of the activities have been language-based, such as crossword puzzles andtext-based activities, with invitations to partner schools to reciprocate. There is achat room provided through the Web page that allows much more informal contactbetween students, while still providing the overall structure and security of amanaged learning environment. In most cases the students have worked in same-age groups, generally drawn from science and language classes in their own school.In other instances, however, students have come together in mixed age groups,drawn from after-school science classes, or language hobby classes. Similarly, whilegroups may have been communicating to students of the same age in the othercountries they may equally well have been engaging with learners younger or olderthan themselves. It is quite clear that in many cases the teachers have been at thesame level or even struggling to keep up with their students.

In this case study, communications technology has been integral to the qualityof the overall project and the collective knowledge and understanding that isdeveloped. First, the ICT systems support access to knowledge beyond the learner’simmediate surroundings. Second, this technology allows for affordable high-qualitypresentation and publication of the knowledge created by students in forms that areaccessible and well within Internet-based technologies around the world. Third, thetechnology allows others to build on and republish this knowledge for their ownpurposes or in conjunction with the creators of the knowledge. Learners canconstruct a multitude of different routes through the information given, by takingand using various elements from a number of databases. They can design multipleresources and combine pre-recorded video clips with lines of dialogue thus, in thissense, directing their own ‘show’ and presenting their own interpretations of theissues within world chemistry. There is incremental growth in the quality andamount of knowledge of the targeted areas generated year on year by students asnew knowledge, and that is put back into the system for others to build on.

One of the key aims of the project has been to provide the ability to think,reflect and solve problems in a stimulating group environment, combined withinstant feedback and a cataloguing of each stage they have reached. This is apowerful platform for learners. Learners are actively involved in the construction

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

946 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

of group knowledge and have control over its outcomes. Such notions may requirea shift in thinking from a linear, rational, view of the world to an acceptancewhere collaborative relationship and interpersonal connections are important. Asecond key idea of this work has been to involve authentic real-life problems andissues. Each of the topics have involved some dimension of social responsibility,moral and ethical decision-making, and issues that involve citizenshipeducation.

Summary comments

We present the key elements to be drawn from our three case studies as follows.

1. Group work, although extremely important, cannot be considered just asan end in itself, but rather as a means for the intellectual, personal, socialand ethical development of learners. It is a means by which teachers canrealize a series of objectives. In our cases, this has been to facilitatecollaboration and cooperation through shared projects with groups andcommunities both inside and outside the school, as observed in casestudies 2 and 3. While small-group discussions have been advocated for anumber of years as one of a range of learner-centred teaching approachesor ‘active learning’ strategies, the case studies reported here illustrate boththe mechanisms and advantages of this way of working. These particularapproaches have significantly increased learners’ autonomy over thelearning activity, and have acted as a means of stimulating students’ interestin what they are studying.

2. Group work is important in raising students’ self-esteem as they activelycontribute to the construction of knowledge. As students becomestakeholders in their own learning and in the knowledge that they arecreating, they grow in acceptance that knowledge is not static, butorganic and continuously created and changing, as showed in case studies1 and 2.

3. There can be an internationalization of the curriculum through communalcollaborative projects and involvement, in different ways, in the learningprocess of a range of communities. For example, there are strongopportunities for students to learn about the plight of others in moreimpoverished and difficult circumstances. This leads to a wider sense ofcitizenship. In this way they can be in touch with groups of young scientistsor student communities living in particular locations and with particularexperiences, as seen in case study 3.

4. ICT can be harnessed to support access to up-to-date knowledge. This isparticularly the case where tasks are relevant and authentic, being appliedto and drawn from contemporary real-world experience. Technology can beembedded in practice as a tool for use as an appropriate rather than adistracting innovation. The audience for students’ work includes their ownpeer community in the school, children from other schools and the widerpublic. The use of a range of ICT tools allows the publishing of high-qualityoutcomes through Internet publishing opportunities. These publicationscan be revisited, revised and elaborated by subsequent groups oflearners.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 947

5. Student awareness that they are studying with a particular audience inmind enhances motivation and adds a real-world dimension to class work.This kind of constructivism must be identified with inclusiveness, mutualresponsibility and support, creative working and the use of real-lifesituations in chemistry. It is, of course, a value-laden theory that contrastswith fair competition, independent learning and self-reliance. And, giventhe emphasis upon active participation by the learner, it must alsosomehow be shown to motivate, encourage and engage shy, quiet,individualistic and reflective students as well as the naturally confident,responsive, verbally fluent and extrovert team player.

6. Group work entails developing knowledge-rich groups with strong memo-ries. The sharing of knowledge, for example the outcomes of group work,requires the availability of data and the management of information flow.To this end, the intervention of the teacher is necessary to help studentsappreciate the importance of this form of cooperation. It is important tosafeguard the collective growth of the group, as individual growth will notreceive special attention, but will rather depend on the performance of thegroup as a whole. The link with awards, so emphasized by Slavin (1987) asa characteristic of these methods, will be shifted not to individualperformance, but to an intrinsic motivation generated by groupparticipation.

7. The characteristics of different methods of group work should be observedto guide the choice of which one is best suited to the activities andobjectives that the teacher intends to achieve. Teachers need not limitthemselves to the use of a single method, but go beyond this and allowthemselves to experiment with combinations of methods in such a way asto promote, in addition to cognitive development, the development of otherskills and abilities necessary for the complete education of the student.

There is growing evidence that teachers welcome support and guidance on runningsmall-group discussions (for example, Newton et al. 1999). In particular, theevaluation of courses that focus on teaching socio-scientific issues and developingscientific literacy, such as the new AS Public Understanding of Science course(Osborne et al. 2002) and the Valuable Lessons project (Levinson and Turner2001), indicates that teachers recognize their need for support and guidance onrunning small-group discussions. While the ability to engage in discussion is seen asan important part of the science education of young people, science-based learningactivities aimed at developing this ability are not well known to science teachers.Cooperative group work through discussion and collaborative work is not yetsystematically present in school science education, and such ways of working inscience lessons tend to challenge the established pedagogy of science teaching,placing new demands on science teachers.

Some, like Peters (1998), question whether a ‘conversation model’ is at allsuitable for the teaching of scientific content. The need, he says, is to impart thepresentational forms, methods, ways of thinking and results specific to a subject –like chemistry – that is not in practice compatible with the rather incidental form ofa conversation. What should be aimed at, argues Peters, is the introduction tomethodological, and above all, critical observation and evaluation of phenomena,which demands a strict train of thought.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

948 R. BARBOSA ET AL.

Students should be introduced to scientific thinking through the way in which terms aredefined, problems are illustrated and compartmentalised, hypotheses are formed, methodsare tested for validity and apparent solutions are tested sceptically. Scientific thinking istargeted, logical, systematic and conscious of its methods and cannot be brought about withthe help of a constant conversation. (Peters 1998: 22)

In our view this epitomizes an outmoded view of teaching within a scientificdiscipline that is designed to fragment and alienate students from the subject, itssocial relevance and from each other. With Simmoneaux (2001), we believe thatcollaborative classroom discourse encourages student participation in science. Thefundamental value of the cooperative strategies discussed here lies in their potentialfor opening up school environments to a dimension that reaches beyond theacquisition of knowledge, by socializing and contextualizing such knowledge anddiscussing the issues that arise from it. A major feature of scientific literacy is theability to participate in informed discussion and debate of scientific issues, and thispoints to the need for promoting small-group discussions in science lessons. Whilesmall-group discussions form an important strategy in new courses specificallyaimed at developing scientific literacy, for example Science for Public Under-standing (Hunt and Millar 2000), they are not yet widespread practice in schools oruniversities. The fundamental goal is to help students become full and activemembers of society. The case studies reported here illustrate that a cooperative,communal, discursive approach is a virtuous system that needs to be encouraged,not least of all because of the rich possibilities social cohesion to be gained fromcommunal construction and cooperation in learning.

References

ARONSON, E. and PATNOE, S. (1997). Jigsaw Classroom (New York: Longman).BARBOSA, R. M. N. (1996). The influence of social interaction on young pupils’ learning. Unpublished

PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia.BARBOSA, R. M. N. and JOFILI, Z. (2002). Aprendizagem Cooperativa e Ensino de Quımica:

parceria que deu certo (Cooperative Learning and Chemistry Teaching: a valuablepartnership). Proceedings of the XI ENEQ (National Meeting of Chemistry Teaching),Recife, Brazil, 8–11 October.

BENNETT, N. (1994). Co-operative learning. In P. Kutnick and C. Rogers (eds.) Groups in Schools(London: Cassell).

BRASIL (1998). Secretaria de Educaçao Fundamental. Parametros Curriculares Nacionais: terceiro equarto ciclos: apresentaçao dos temas transversais (Brazilian National Curriculum Guide)(Brasılia: MEC/SEF), 436 pp.

BUSQUIN, P. (2002). Science and Society Action Plan (Brussels: European Commission Office), sdne06/62.

CAMPBELL, P. (2002). A citizenship dimension to physics education. Physics Education, 37(3),191–196.

COHEN, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Reviewof Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

DRIVER, R., SQUIRES, A., RUSHWORTH, P. and WOOD-ROBINSON, V. (1994). Making Sense ofSecondary Science (London: Routledge).

FREIRE, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: Penguin).FREIRE, P. (1991). A educaçao na cidade (Education in the City) (Sao Paulo: Cortez).HERTZ-LAZAROWITZ, R. and MILLER, N. (1992). Interaction in Cooperative Groups (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).HOLMES, B., TANGNEY, B., SAVAGE, T., MEHAN, S. and HEGARTY, J. (2001). Communal

constructivism: students constructing learning for as well as with others. Conference Proceedingsof the Society for IT in Education (SITE), Trinity College Dublin, 22–24 February..

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013

COOPERATING AND CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE 949

HUNT, A. and MILLAR, R. (eds.) (2000). AS Science for Public Understanding (Oxford: HeinemannEducational).

JOHNSON, D. W. and JOHNSON, R. T. (1985). Classroom conflict: controversy versus debate inlearning groups. American Educational Research, 22(2), 237–256.

JOHNSON, D. and JOHNSON, R. (2000). The eight steps of ensuring diversity is a resource. Newsletterof the Cooperative Learning Institute, 15(1). Available online: http://www.cooplean.org/(accessed 25 January 2002).

KUTNICK, P. J. (1990). A social critique of cognitively based science curricula. Science Education,74(1), 87–94.

LEVINSON, R. and TURNER, S. (2001). Valuable Lessons: Engaging with the Social Context of Sciencein Schools (London: The Wellcome Trust).

LIGHT, P. and LITTLETON, K. (1994). Cognitive approaches to group work. In P. Kutnick and C.Rogers (eds.) Groups in Schools (London: Cassell).

MOLL, L. and WHITMORE, K. (1993). Vygotsky in classroom practice: moving from individualtransmission to social transaction. In E. Forman, N. Minick and C. Stone (eds.) Contexts forLearning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development (New York: Oxford UniversityPress).

NEWTON, P., DRIVER, R. and OSBORNE, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy ofschool science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

NODDINGS, N. (1989). Theoretical and practical concerns about small groups in mathematics. TheElementary School Journal, 89(3), 607–623.

NUNES, L., BARBOSA, R., AMARAL, E. and MENEZES, M. (2001). O Uso de Metodos Cooperativosem Sala de Aula para o Desenvolvimento de Habilidades e Competencias no Aluno (Theuse of cooperative methods in classroom to develop pupils’ abilities and competences).Proceedings of the XXV SBQ (Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Chemistry Society), 28–31May).

OSBORNE, J., DUSCHL, R. and FAIRBROTHER, R. (2002). Breaking the Mould?: Teaching Science forPublic Understanding (London: The Nuffield Foundation).

PERRET-CLERMONT, A.-N. (1980). Social Interaction and Cognitive Development in Children(London: Academic Press).

PETERS, O. (1998). Learning and Teaching. Analysis and Interpretation from an InternationalPerspective (London: Kogan Page).

PIAGET, J. (1926). Language and Thought of the Child (New York: Harcourt Brace).QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (2002). Citizenship Education: Key Stage 3, 4

Science (London: HMSO).ROTBLAT, J. (2002). Citizenship and science. Physics Education, 37 (3), 186–190.SIMMONEAUX, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students at argumentation and

justification on an issue in animal trance Genesis. International Journal of Science Education,23(9), 903–928.

SLAVIN, R. (1987). Development and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: areconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161–1167.

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

olve

rham

pton

] at

17:

42 1

5 M

ay 2

013