Adolescent students' ideas about provisional historical explanation
Adolescents' ideas about provisional historical explanation were analysed in a sample of Portuguese 12 to 20 year-old students, attending the 7th, 9th and 1 1 th grade. In the light of a theoretical framework considering three conceptual clusters - explanatory structure, explanatory consistency, and objectivity and truth - students' ideas were categorised in a model of five levels of progression, functioning as the main working hypothesis, and generated through a qualitative analysis. At Level 1 (the story), students' ideas appear mainly related to description. At Level 2 (the right explanation), there is a focus on the correct explanation, explanations are assessed in everyday terms, and the direct observation paradigm tends to be valued. At Level 3 (the more factors the better), students' concerns appear linked to an ideal of aggregation of factors, evidence is discriminated as sources to the explanation, and the ~memory paradigm~ tends to be valued. At Level 4, (a consensual explanation?), there is a preoccupation about a perspectiveless neutrality, valuing verification and interlinked factors (explanations may take the narrative form). An objectivist trend defends the search for a consensual explanation
Barca Oliveira, Maria Isabel
Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment
Adolescent students' ideas about provisional historical explanation. Adolescents' ideas about provisional historical explanation were analysed in a sample of Portuguese 12 to 20 year-old students, attending the 7th, 9th and 1 1 th grade. In the light of a theoretical framework considering three conceptual clusters - explanatory structure, explanatory consistency, and objectivity and truth - students' ideas were categorised in a model of five levels of progression, functioning as the main working hypothesis, and generated through a qualitative analysis. At Level 1 (the story), students' ideas appear mainly related to description. At Level 2 (the right explanation), there is a focus on the correct explanation, explanations are assessed in everyday terms, and the direct observation paradigm tends to be valued. At Level 3 (the more factors the better), students' concerns appear linked to an ideal of aggregation of factors, evidence is discriminated as sources to the explanation, and the ~memory paradigm~ tends to be valued. At Level 4, (a consensual explanation?), there is a preoccupation about a perspectiveless neutrality, valuing verification and interlinked factors (explanations may take the narrative form). An objectivist trend defends the search for a consensual explanation
adolescent student_idea provisional historical_explanation idea provisional historical_explanation analyse sample portuguese student attend grade light theoretical_framework consider conceptual cluster explanatory structure explanatory consistency objectivity truth student_idea categorise model level progression function main working hypothesis generate qualitative_analysis level story student_idea appear mainly related description level right explanation focus correct explanation explanation assess everyday term direct observation paradigm tend value level factor well student concern appear link ideal factor evidence discriminate source explanation memory paradigm tend value level consensual explanation preoccupation neutrality value interlink factor explanation may_take narrative form trend defend search consensual explanation