In his novel, The
Mangles of Practice, Andrew Pickering discusses the true definition of
science and how it should be practiced.
I found his writing to be very dense and hard to understand, as he used
many new words or made up his own names for concepts. One passage that stood out to me was his
discussion about material agency verses representational idiom and how these
idioms cast science in a different light.
Currently, science is often viewed as representational, where the goal
is to recreate/mirror scientific outcomes that are already found in
nature. The problem with this approach
is that it limits the questions one can ask, requires little higher level
thinking and promotes the view that science is a stagnant body of knowledge. Pickering
makes this statement regarding representational idioms: “people and things tend
to appear as shadows of themselves. Scientists
figure as disembodied intellects making knowledge in a field of facts and
observations” (6). What does he mean by
this statement? I thought it alluded to
the separation between science/its practices and human beings that comes about
through representational idioms.
However, with material agency, people become active agents
and see science as “a continuation and extension of this business of coping
with material agency” which is carried out through “machines” as Pickering
terms it (6-7). With this view of
science, you engage both your mind and body, unlike the representational
idiom. Now science seems much closer and
relatable to the individual. I really
liked how Pickering used the concept of weather and strong vocabulary words (“force”)
to make his point and show the strong and consistent interaction one has with
science.
Many of our previous articles have touched upon this
interactive nature of science. Schwarz
et al talked about this dynamic nature within the concept of computational
modeling, how students continually change and build upon their own models as
they learn new things. I think
Nersessian’s article is also applicable because it shows Pickering’s words in
action. When the researchers could not
understand certain concepts, for example bursting, they made computational
models. These models were innovative and
necessary in the fact that they were able to show what was going on that their
own observations and data collections could not. I think this applies to Pickering’s quote
“Much of everyday life has this character of coping with material agency that
comes from outside the human realm and that cannot be reduced to anything
within that realm” (6).
I do think NetLogo applies to the Pickering article. It allows students to be active and
manipulate variables on their own, collect data, and use it not as an end, but
as a means to an end. I could see my
students using some of the kinetic computational models within the classroom
and maybe as an additional resource/part of a lab. When doing a lab involving kinetics, or it
could even be a different topic, students could use the model to see how
certain variables influence the rate of reaction. However, I am not seeing Netlogo being a huge part of my classroom just because I do not seeing it holding students' interested for an extended period of time. So what would be a good way to incorporate it into a class? Should you only use one per class, give students several options...?
Netlogo models I would use:
1.
Simple Kinetics 2 (1 and 3 are also
good)-focuses on LeChatelier’s Principle.
This model would be good because
students can see the effect certain variable have on a chemical reaction and
the concentration of reactants and products.
Students can also note the relationship between reactants and products. This correlates with NGSS MS-PS1-2. (My computer is not allowing me to open the
NGSS website so I cannot provide any other standards).
Questions:
1.
How could I make a lab experiment (containing
some computational modeling) more interactive and similar to the ideas of
material agency expressed by Pickering and not those of representational
idiom?
2.
How could
I make computational modeling more prevalent in a chemistry class? It seems like these models could only be used
for a short amount of time.
I think you are right about what Pickering means by his comment you put in bold. We tend to look at science from behind a one-way mirror and not interact with it much. Even when we teach with labs and experiments, they are usually situations where the result is pretty standard and everyone gets the same results. Pickering is saying that real science is messier than that and reflects lots of play between nature and man and not just man pushing some buttons and nature responding just like the lab manual says it will.
ReplyDeleteI think to fully get away from the representational idiom you as the instructor must use more than computational models. Models are an excellent way for students to scaffold knowledge, but they must be used at different points throughout various lessons so that students understand their place within science practices. Meaning that models are useful, but they are not precise and science practices involve more planning, inquiry and observational skills. Speaking to your question about the prevalence of models in the classroom, I think that too much modeling will lead to the representational idiom in your first question. Models may be used throughout a lesson but mustn't be relied upon to scaffold knowledge. Models may be used to create knowledge but science practices can be found and used in the lab and in the environment. Models should be used for a short period of time to possibly engage a lesson or revise student thinking. Perhaps spending too much time engaged in a model will lead students to thinking this is perhaps the only way a concept will play out; rather when students should be engaged in the real practice, refining their observational, inquiry and planning skills.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your second question, although it may appear that certain models can only be use for a short period of time in the chemistry classroom, there are tons of other computational modeling opportunities in chemistry besides NetLogo (if you are struggling to find many you like). The Spartan software is a great computational modeling tool that can really help students understand the structures behind chemistry. One of the hardest things for students to do in my opinion is to visualize what molecules look like in 3D, especially if they can only draw them out. For many students thinking in 3D is extremely challenging (organic chemistry and chiral molecules for me were tough). Although the ball and stick models exist in a material form, They are expensive and frustrating to use at times, especially building with single and double bonds that don’t always fit together easily. In Spartan students can not only build 3D molecules on the computer, but they can also examine the different structures (and properties) involved. The program allows for students to look at different lattice structures. It also has bond angles and distances from one atom to another, which can be hard to measure in a physical model. (the effects of single and double bonds on molecule compactness, how does a trigonal planar bond angle differ from a bent bond angle or pyramidal bond angles?) The atom sizes and color also change based on which element you are using. Many ideas can be explored through this software (I’m sure hundreds besides the concepts I mentioned) but this might be one way (or program) that could allow you to make computational modeling more prevalent in your chemistry class!
ReplyDelete