Pigeon Project, TE 401 Fall 2008

Pigeon Project, TE 401 Fall 2008

Pigeon Project, TE 401 Fall 2008

The Pigeon Study:
The goal of the pigeon study unit was to learn to recognize the different color morphs of pigeons. It required about 3 class sessions involving a field trip to observe a pigeon population in the school neighborhood.
Part 1. Pigeon KWL chart /
  • The class completed the “what we know about pigeons” and “what we want to know about pigeons” columns and discussed the columns together.

Part 2. Pigeon watching /
  • During the field trip, the class found a pigeon “hang out” in the school neighborhood and observed pigeons for several minutes.
  • In class, students were asked to make detailed drawings of pigeons.

Part 3. Pigeon statistics /
  • During the field trip, the class provided pigeons with food (bread) to attract them. Then, the students counted and recorded all the pigeons by their morphs and feet colors.
  • In class, students made a graph of the pigeon data and analyzed them.
  • The class completed KWL chart by filling out the “what we have learned” column.

In general a KWL chart is a simple yet powerful tool when educators try to understand what goes on in students’ minds. The KWL chart developed by Mr. Nader’s class provides insight into what students know and care about and how it connects to what they understand about pigeons.

Table 2. Pigeon KWL chart by Mr. Nader’s class

What we know about pigeons (K) / What we want to know
(W) / What we learned about pigeons
(L)
  • All pigeons are alike
  • Rats with wings
  • They are dirty
  • Eat leftovers
  • Tend to fly in groups
  • They are ugly
  • Carry diseases like Rabies
/
  • Do pigeons carry diseases?
  • Where do they come from?
  • How many times they eat?
  • Why do they like Grains or rice?
  • Do they carry encephalitis disease in brain?
  • Do they eat other pigeons?
  • How often do they mate?
/
  • Follow each other
  • Many types or morphs
  • Majorities are bluebars and checkers
  • They get along together although they are different types
  • Pigeons don’t attack (not aggressive)
  • They fly fast.

The “K” column shows that what students knew drew upon both direct and secondary sources of information in their everyday context. These ideas also drew upon their personal experiences, feelings, and perceptions. Students drew not only on their personal experiences in and of places, but also from indirect sources (e.g. “my mom said…”, and “someone told me…” ).

Also, in the “K” column students revealed how they, as members of social or cultural groups, viewed and valued their environment. Many of the students presented rather negative attitudes towards pigeons, stating such things as “rats with wings”, “it eats leftovers” and “they carry diseases,” which reflects the view of the social and cultural group where the students belong. Although the sources of these statements are not identifiable, this kind of hearsay may reveal not only the children children’s’ perceptions, but also the general perceptions that people in the city may hold towards pigeons.

After analyzing and discussing data the students collected from a field trip to observe pigeon morphology and behavior, the class was wrapping up the pigeon unit. The teacher was about to sum up what they did the previous week. Mr. Nader just started to talk about organizational tools and use of graphic organizers, “One of the tools we used…” but he did not get to complete his sentence because he was interrupted by Andre. Andre did not even raise his hand. Out of blue, he threw a question to Mr. Nader and to the class, “Can pigeons be racists?” “What?,” Mr. Nader did not hear him the first time. “Can pigeons be racists?” Andre repeated his question. Andre’s questioning led to a whole class discussion which is described below.

Andre’s question reveals how he leveraged his sense of place -- his understanding of the social phenomenon of racism to make sense of what he had observed previously in science class about pigeon polymorphism. To make sense of his observation, he imposed what he observed in society to what he observed among pigeon populations. Andre’s use of anthropomorphization as a sense making strategy shows how he conceptually navigated between academic disciplines (social studies and science). It shows how Andre blurred boundaries and moved between dimensions of place (social, cultural, and biological) to understand what he had observed in science class.

When students were studying pigeons in Mr. Nader’s class, the focus of the curriculum was to study the biology of pigeons: to learn about diversity of pigeon morphology and their behavior. Conventionally speaking, science learning of environment and ecosystem is often limited to biological and geographical dimensions of a place. Although the focus of the lesson was on biology, students’ sense of place leveraged during science learning was not limited to biology. Students may cross the conventional boundaries of academic disciplines and leverage their sense of place to make sense of what they learn in science class.

Andre’s questioning, “can pigeons be racists?” shows another example of how his sense of place developed into a learning opportunityfor the whole class. Following is a transcript of what happened right after Andre posed the question, “can pigeons be racists?”

Mr. Nader: / Ah.. That is a big question… I mean what is racism?
Students: / (several students talking simultaneously, inaudible)
Mr. Nader: / Yeh. Humans do that. Right. Do you think that they judge each other by color?
Students: / (several students talking simultaneously) Yep! I think so.
Mr. Nader: / The same way that humans do?
Students: / (several students talking simultaneously) Yes, I think so.
Mr. Nader: / Wait. Christina has her hands up. Let’s hear from her.
Student: / I actually do.
Mr. Nader: / Christina…
Christina: / I think probably yes the different kinds of pigeons …(inaudible)
Their own group that’s the same… they look after for one another.
Fred: / It’s like a wolf pack.
Mr. Nader: / Very good point. Why don’t you raise your hand… so I can call on you. Fred?
Fred: / (inaudible)
Mr. Nader: / OK! Paul?
Paul: / I don’t think they are racist. pigeons are racists.. they all
Jason: / Racist?
Paul: / (inaudible)
Jason: / That’s racist?
Mr. Nader: / He says that he doesn’t think they are racists to each other.
Paul: / They all fly together..(inaudible) … all types of birds together..
Mr. Nader: / You didn’t see them segregating each other. OK
Anyone else want to say something? Anyway… just as a side comment, do you know what anniversary is now?
[And he talks about Brown vs. Board of Education anniversary]
Mr. Nader: / OK.
(see Fred’s hand is up) Are you gonna comment on pigeon question?
Fred: / Yeh
Mr. Nader: / Go ahead.
Fred: / Like.. If they are racism… like the.. which pigeon has the most money or stuff..
Students: / (Laughing)
Fred: / Like who got the most stuff…

Andre’s personal sense making effort became a community inquiry inviting and engaging many students in this sense making process. It seems that the question itself was stimulating enough to open up a learning opportunity of the whole class conversation. Students developed their discussion building on and responding to each other’s ideas. At first, many students quickly responded with “yes” to Andre’s question. This answer was not based on their observation or any evidence regarding pigeon behavior. Rather they simply assumed pigeons could be “racists” like human beings, as Christina’s answer hints, “I think probably yes.” However, Paul brought the students’ attention back to what they observed during their pigeon field trip. They observed that all different morphs of pigeons were gathered together. They did not see any segregating behavior among the different morphs. Andre’s questioning brought up an opportunity for the class to revisit what they observed and to re-think about meanings in a new way.

In addition, it appears that Andre’s sense making (applying a characteristic in a human society to a pigeon population) was shared with the class as well. Toward the end of this discussion, we observed that Fred was trying to formulate a question using a similar strategy. In sum, when Andre’s sense of place was leveraged through questioning, it not only helped Andre’s personal sense making but also benefited the whole class with engaging learning opportunities related to both pigeon content and sense making strategies.

What the students learned and the tensions that result

If we look back at the KWL chart, the “what we have learned” column reflects what and how the class studied pigeons. The column reflects the scientific ways of thinking and learning promoted and practiced in Mr. Nader’s class. Contents of the column are observational (e.g., they fly fast; they are not aggressive) and factual (e.g., majorities are bluebars and checkers) information without involving or revealing the students’ feelings or attitudes toward pigeons.

Tensions in ‘ways of knowing’. Often science is viewed as a subject that students learn in a school. School science is one thing and a student’s life is another. These two do not necessarily meet or connect. Sometimes when teachers try to value and invite students’ everyday knowledge and experiences into science class, it results in tokenism. They make a list of things that students know and talk about what students do outside of school but they do not necessarily go further to utilize and integrate them into connected science learning. During the pigeon study, Mr. Nader’s class had the opportunity to learn about diverse pigeon morphs and behavior. Although the class made very interesting lists of what they knew and what they wanted to know about pigeons, the class didn’t get to pursue their pre-existing questions through in-depth inquiry. The curricular focus was on examining pigeon morphs and behaviors. The result was that while most kids learned something about pigeons, most kids did not change their attitude or beliefs about pigeons. And, some of the kids did not see the purpose of the pigeon project:

I: What did you think about the pigeon study?

A: It was stupid.

I: Why?

A: I don’t know why I would want to learn about pigeons.

I: What would you change about it?

A: I wouldn’t have studied pigeons in the first place.

I: What would you study instead?

A: Neighborhoods or something, not pigeons. It doesn’t affect, what we are we going to do change the way pigeons look or something. It really didn’t help me with anything. I didn’t really like it.

If Anna could extend the pigeon project she would extend it so that it involves comparison of neighborhoods rather than just of the pigeons themselves:

I: If we had more time to study pigeons how would you like to continue the pigeon study?

A: I would go to other neighborhoods, not just where we are. Let’s say to a cleaner neighborhood to see how many are there because pigeons don’t really do anything they just eat and that’s it. To see where pigeons like to live, in dirty neighborhoods or clean neighborhoods.

This is important because she states earlier in the interview that:

I: Do you think it would be better done with little kids, or older kids, or maybe just not done?

A: Just not done. It had no point. Do it at a point like, do you see more pigeons in poor neighborhoods? On 42nd Street you do not see a lot of pigeons because it’s cleaner.

Procedural tensions. As we observed from Andre’s questioning event (“Can pigeons be racists?”), students’ leveraging sense of place brought out unexpected and unplanned learning opportunities for the class, which created tensions for Mr. Nader in terms of making curricular decisions. While he valued and wished to accommodate students’ sense of place fully, he also had to carry out science curriculum as it was planned. As we described previously, Mr. Nader switched back and forth between his desire to move on with his plan and a desire to venture out with the learning opportunity brought up by Andre’s questioning. This tension demonstrates how the teacher was trying to negotiate two different learning opportunities for the class.

Reflection Questions:

1. What are the teachers goals in the pigeon project? How does this shape the “composite culture of the classroom”?

2. What funds of knowledge and goals did the students bring to the pigeon project? How does this shape the “composite culture of the classroom”?

•What did the students know about pigeons?

•How does this knowledge shape what their goals might be for the pigeon project?

•How was this knowledge about pigeons useful in science class? In other words, how did the teacher draw upon the students' funds of knowledge to help them engage in the pigeon project?

•How does Mr. Nader try to balance his goals versus his students’ goals? How does he draw upon his students ideas and experiences in ways that go beyond “tokenism”? Do you think he should have done more?

3. Does it matter to you if students can show they “learned” but you get evidence that that learning doesn’t really mean much to the students?

4. What would you do if you learned that your assessments of student learning really missed the boat?