EFFECTS of STUDENT ONTOLOGICAL POSITION on COGNITION of HUMAN ORIGINS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EFFECTS OF STUDENT ONTOLOGICAL POSITION ON COGNITION OF HUMAN ORIGINS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jeremy Alan Ervin, M.A. * * * * The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. David L. Haury, Advisor Dr. Thomas O’Brien __________________________ Dr. Terri Teal Bucci Advisor College of Education ABSTRACT In this study, the narratives from a hermeneutical dialectic cycle of three high school students were analyzed to understand the influences of ontological position on the learning of human origins. The interpretation of the narratives provides the reader an opportunity to consider the learning process from the perspective of worldview and conceptual change theories. Questions guiding this research include: Within a context of a worldview, what is the range of ontological positions among a high school AP biology class? To what extent does ontological position influence the learning of scientific concepts about human origins? If a student’s ontological position is contradictory to scientific explanation of human origins, how will learning strategies and motivations change? All consenting students in an AP biology class were interviewed in order to select three students who represented three different ontological positions of a worldview: No Supernatural, Supernatural Without Impact, or Supernatural Impact. The issue of worldview is addressed at length in this work. Consenting students had completed the graduation requirements in biology, but were taking an additional biology course in preparation for college. Enrollment in an AP biology course was assumed to indicate that the selected students have an understanding ii of the concept of human origins at a comprehensive level, but not necessarily at an apprehension level, both being needed for conceptual change. Examination of the narratives reveals that students may alternate between two ontological positions in order to account for inconsistencies within a situation. This relativity enables the range of ontological positions to vary depending on concepts being considered. Not all Supernatural Impact positions conflict with biological understanding of human origins due to the ability of some to create a dichotomy between religion and school. Any comprehended concepts within this dichotomy lead to plagiaristic knowledge rather than conceptual change. When conflicts occur, students employ alternate learning strategies for comprehension, but not apprehension, which result in plagiaristic knowledge. These findings suggest that teachers consider the ontological positions of student worldviews because of the potential influence on knowledge construction and conceptual change, especially about topics involving the theory of evolution. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my wife, Amy, my children, A.J. and Danielle, and to my Savior, Jesus Christ. Without any aspect of each, I could not have attained this lifelong goal. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my advisor, David Haury, for his guidance and insight on my writing through the doctoral process. I thank my committee member, Terri Teal Bucci, for her encouragement, enlightenment, and consistency to her paradigm as an educator. I thank my committee member, Tom O’Brien, for his excitement, valuable input, and daily interest in worldviews in education. I am truly grateful to my wife for her patience, sacrificial love, and overwhelming support for me as I worked to realize my dream. I also wish to thank my family, friends and church for the support to finish this venture and the assistance, when needed, even at their own expense. Lastly, I thank the school and participants of this study. Without their support, I would not have had such an incredible opportunity for personal and professional growth. v VITA March 24, 1971 . Born – Youngstown, Ohio 1993 . B.A. Comprehensive Science Cornerstone University 1993-1994 . Science & Mathematics Teacher Junior & High School Howland, OH 1994-1999 . Science & Mathematics Teacher Junior & High School Mansfield, OH 1999-2001 . Graduate Assistant, MEd Supervisor (Secondary) Mathematics, Science and Technology The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 2001-2003 . Graduate Assistant, MEd Supervisor/Instructor Early and Middle Elementary Methods & Technology The Ohio State University, Mansfield, OH 2003 . M.A. Science Education The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 2003 . Ph.D. Science Education The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Science Education vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................................................ii DEDICATION...................................................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................v VITA.....................................................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................xii LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................xiii LIST OF TERMS .............................................................................................................................xiv Chapter 1 ...............................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 Statements of Science Students ............................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3 Rationale for the Study ..........................................................................................................4 Definition of Terms ...............................................................................................................5 Worldview.........................................................................................................................5 Contrived Situation...................................................................................................7 Conceptual Change..........................................................................................................8 Plagiaristic Knowledge....................................................................................................9 Ontological Positions.............................................................................................................9 No Supernatural Ontology...........................................................................................10 vii Supernatural Without Impact Ontology.....................................................................10 Supernatural Impact Ontology ....................................................................................11 OR...........................................................................................................................................12 Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 2.......................................................................................................................................14 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................................14 Theoretical Underpinnings..................................................................................................14 Cognition and Education ....................................................................................................18 Foundation of Constructivism as a Theory of Cognition........................................19 Constructivism ...............................................................................................................20 Culturally Sensitive Pedagogy ......................................................................................20 Worldview and Science Education..............................................................................22 CHAPTER 3.......................................................................................................................................26 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................26 Constructivist Research Paradigm......................................................................................26 Credibility...............................................................................................................................27 Generalizability .....................................................................................................................29 Reliability................................................................................................................................30 Hermeneutical Dialectic Cycle............................................................................................30