SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

What Is this Thing Called

Geoscience? Epistemological
Dimensions Elicited with the
Repertory Grid and Their
Implications for Scientific Literacy
ALFREDO BEZZI
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Universita` di Genova, Palazzina delle Scienze,
Viale Benedetto XV, 5-16132 Genova, Italy
Received 6 June 1997; revised 20 March 1998 accepted 1 October 1998
ABSTRACT: To appropriately prepare informed citizens, science education must improve
scientific literacy, which includes public understanding of science. Therefore, students
perceptions of science is considered a fruitful area of research. This kind of investigation
should elicit the images of science that students are likely to hold when they enter the
science classroom. The main aims of the present investigation are: (i) to explore the perceptions held by a university geology instructor and five students of the images of the
geosciences, before and after the teaching intervention; (ii) to claim that the repertory grid
technique is a powerful tool to assess peoples actual epistemological dimensions beyond
any conceptual framework constructed by experts; and (iii) to argue that the societal aims
of geological (science) education must be specifically targeted within a constructivist
framework. The subjects were five first-year undergraduates of the geography degree
course and their geology instructor. This investigation uses the repertory grid technique,
the tool envisaged by George Kelly to elicit peoples personal constructs according to his
theoretical framework known as personal construct psychology. The elicitation of constructs took place at the beginning and at the end of the academic year. Principal component
analysis was used to determine the teachers and students constructs with the highest
epistemological value; that is, the constructs that most affect students perception and
interpretation of the geosciences. The findings indicate that some stereotyped images of
science appear, with a characteristic antithesis between physics (considered objective and
rigorous) and the geosciences (seen as subjective and approximate). Beyond this, little
concern for societal issues inherent within the geosciences emerged as a significant conceptual dimension from individuals construct systems. These results seem to indicate that
this methodology gives insights into students everyday ontology and epistemology, and
therefore can be used to guide teaching interventions relevant for adequate scientific
literacy. 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:675 700, 1999.

Correspondence to: A. Bezzi; e-mail: bezzi@dister.unige.it

Contract grant sponsor: The Italian Ministry for University and Scientific Research

1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

CCC 0036-8326/99/060675-26

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

676

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

INTRODUCTION
Curriculum planners, science educators, and organizations seem to agree about the need
for promoting scientific literacy among all future citizens through school science education
(e.g., in the USA and UK, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989,
1993; Department for Education/Welsh Office, 1995; National Curriculum Council, 1993;
National Research Council, 1996; Ramsden et al., 1995), but there seems to be little
consensus about the meaning of scientific literacy (Shamos, 1995). Despite a persistent
controversy (see Kyle, 1995a, 1995b; Lee, 1997; Sutman, 1996), some key issues of scientific literacy appear to include: (i) the contents of science (facts, laws, theories, and
models of science); (ii) an appreciation of the purposes of science; (iii) the comprehension
of the nature and status of scientific knowledge; and (iv) the recognition of the social
structure of the scientific endeavor (in other words, the epistemology and sociology of
science). The major goal envisaged is to provide informed citizens with scientific habits
of mind that enable them to participate fully in a modern democracy. Individuals should
be able to cope with basic everyday problems in which decisionmaking processes about
science- and technology-related issues constitute an increasingly vital part.
If the critical objective of science education to increase peoples scientific literacy is
endorsed, then the widely accepted constructivist paradigm affirms that there is the need
to have in-depth knowledge of the publics perception of science (Roth, 1993; Roth &
Lucas, 1997; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1994). This comprehension implies an elicitation of
the ideas about science that teachers and students are likely to hold when they enter the
science classroom. Such knowledge is the baseline from which any curriculum planning
and/or any teaching activity aimed at restructuring preexisting concepts should depart.
Therefore, science education researchers consider teachers and students images of science
a fruitful area of investigation for improving the efficacy of the teaching/learning process.
(An extended list of authors who dealt with these themes is reported elsewhere [Bezzi,
1996a, 1997]; apart from the most recent and/or specific studies, they will not be further
quoted here).
Although all these generic aims are amply acknowledged, various specific arguments
are raised because of different perspectives. First, which science should become part of
scientific literacy? In the context of (i) a science education that consistently moves toward
a greater involvement of science technology society (STS) aspects in the curriculum
(e.g., Hunt, 1994; National Science Teachers Association, 1991; Solomon & Aikenhead,
1994) and (ii) the various problems inherent within the societal challenges posed by a
sustainable development of mankind (resources, hazards, environments, global change),
geologists convincingly call for a more consistent role for geological education in the
science for all curricula (e.g., Akhatar, 1996; Cooray, 1996; Mayer, 1997; Stow, 1996).
The recognition of the importance of the earth sciences would require a shift from the
current curricula, heavily focused on biology, chemistry, and physics, toward an integration
of those societal geological topics that should enable future citizens to live more appropriately on our planet. Such a reform should not be limited to a simple presentation of
some new subject matter, but it should also introduce the peculiar earth sciences model
of scientific rationality (Turner & Frodeman, 1996); besides, student-centered instructional
strategies should focus more on learning than on teaching (Bezzi, 1996b). Should this goal
be achieved, the publics appreciation of the geosciences would lead to the establishment
of a more adequate image of this body of knowledge among the general population that,
in turn, would be vital to receiving the indispensable social support for the enhancement
of its own scientific (geological) enterprises.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

677

Second, even the public understanding of science appears to be problematic and illdefined because perspectives and definitions of the nature of science (NOS) are both
disparate and complex (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996, chapter 3; Meichtry, 1993).
The role played by the philosophy and sociology of science introduces some variables that
complicate a framework that is far from a standardized delineation. Philosophical models
have evolved and myriads of the tenets of the NOS are in circulation, endorsed by different
organizations and/or inventors of NOS instruments. In searching for an authority to provide
more accurate criteria for the NOS, Alters (1997) found that some philosophers of science
expressed major criticisms so that many of the existing NOS criteria must be reconsidered
and new criteria may need to be developed for future research. Epistemological and sociological studies of scientific practices have stressed that the vast existing methodological
diversity of the different sciences prevents the definition of one scientific method (although this idea continues to permeate many science textbooks). Investigators such as
Suchting (1995) have argued that there is no final, ultimate answer to the question of
the nature of scientific thought because the sciences are always engaged in the process of
redefining themselves. This conclusion has significant implications for the aforementioned
goals of the science education community in terms of science instruction, curriculum
development, research in science education, and the content and focus of science education
reform (Lederman, 1995).
With such a multifaceted pattern, some further debate about the research methodology
of data collection and analysis is a logical consequence. On the basis of an overview of
the body of the relevant literature, Koulaidis and Ogborn (1995) affirmed that most of the
studies fail to recognize the existence of conflicting philosophical models of science. These
investigations lack the explicit specification of the philosophical position taken into account in the development of most of the instruments employed in the elicitation of ideas.
Therefore, there is an impression that the writer of each instrument presupposes one single
valid and universally indisputable model of science. Studies from literature concerning the
NOS or the image of science and scientists, indicate that investigations were carried out
indirectly by means of analysis and observations of textbooks, newspapers, lessons, and
television programs, or directly by interviewing people (laymen, students, teachers) and
analyzing written drafts and drawings produced by the interviewees. The techniques used
to collect the data varied widely. Quantitative methodologies were usually conducted with
specific NOS instruments (for a review of these, see Alters, 1997) in which multiplechoice, Likert-scale questionnaires were the usual survey instrument. The format could be
conventional or innovative such as the well-known Views on Science Technology
Society (VOSTS) by Aikenhead and Ryan (1992). In qualitative research, which may
provide a better understanding, more or less structured interviews, action research, short
tests, and simple questionnaires (or a mixture of all these items) were the preferred tools
to explore the images and collect the data in a more naturalistic observational way (e.g.,
Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996; Leach, Driver, Millar, & Scott, 1997; Solomon,
Duveen, & Scott, 1994). As has been pointed out, the research problem was often to
construct instruments to validly and reliably assess peoples beliefs in a way that could be
accessible to the researcher (e.g., Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992; Roth & Lucas, 1997; Ryan
& Aikenhead, 1992). In fact, asking questions (in written form or verbally) always implies
a critical obstacle inherent in the interpretation of responses (Driver, Leach, Millar, &
Scott, 1996; Leach, 1996). Because the meaning of words is constructed according, first,
to peoples conceptual and cultural background, and, second, to the context, a perfect
match between an experts (the investigator) and a laymans (the student) meaning is rather
unlikely (Only the contexts of the beliefs or statements and the conceptual system or

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

678

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

body of representation have epistemic/cognitive significance, Suchting [1995, p. 13], emphasis in the original text). Therefore, the elicited views may not adequately reflect the
researchers intentions and may be misinterpreted accordingly.
Peoples ideas could be elicited and analyzed with a nomothetic approach in which
individual views are compared with some of the views endorsed by a major science education organization. However, the multiple philosophical, epistemological, and sociological perspectives previously mentioned undermine the possibility of a unique normative
view. An alternative ideographic approach involves an elicitation in which individuals
express their ideas in their own terms, without any reference to any normative stance. With
the latter perspective, some authors (e.g., Bezzi, 1996c, 1996d, 1997; Corporaal, 1991;
Denicolo, 1993; Descals & Rivas, 1995; Happs & Stead, 1989; Kalekin-Fishman, 1995;
Lakin & Wellington, 1994; Pope & Fetherstonhaugh, 1994; Shapiro, 1988, 1996; Shaw,
1992; Solas, 1992; Stead, 1983) used the repertory grid to inspect both students and
teachers ideas about certain science education issues (such as content, learning, teaching)
and/or their attitudes toward aspects of science. This technique has its theoretical framework in the personal construct psychology (PCP) of George Kelly (1955). PCP is based
on the assumption that individuals psychologically work in accord with their attempts to
give their surrounding world a meaning. Personal constructs are categories of mind that
allow insight into the ways individuals organize thinking about events and phenomena.
What is distinctive about Kellys theory is that he held that each person differentiates
things differently, although using different or, at times, the same terms. Thus, when people
use terms, these terms do not reflect, entirely, what people are thinking, because they do
not attribute to the words the same alternatives. The repertory grid enables people to
use their own language to convey meanings; thus, it renders explicit what individuals hold
tacitly, and enables researchers to explore the way people construe events with their constructive alternatives. Lack of space prevents all the aspects of Kellys theoretical framework regarding both methodologies and techniques of grid analysis from being fully
described. In addition to the aforementioned reports, references to the details, as well as
the various fields where PCP has been applied (psychology, psychotherapy, industry, education), can be found in other articles (e.g., Bezzi, 1996d, 1996e; Gaines & Shaw, 1993;
Pope, 1995).
Researchers choosing the repertory grid argue that this elicitation technique reveals
strictly personal (cognitive, value-related, affective) dimensions and meanings that are true
indicators of the uniqueness of the real dimensions of personal constructions and are free
from external influences. Besides, the repertory grid overcomes the aforementioned emphasized difficulties inherent in the collection of data with traditional instruments of
investigation, in which students are supposed to perceive and interpret the test statements
with the same meaning as given by the researchers. Problems of interpretation also exist
in the clarification of responses to open items and multiple-choice questionnaires, because
these may force responders into predetermined channels dependent upon cultural assumptions and purposes designed by researchers. On the contrary, as stressed by Lakin and
Wellington (1994), when using the repertory grid there are no previously established dimensions, except those of the system of constructs, used by the subject to give meaning
to his/her own experience, to anticipate events, or to build, subjectively and idiosyncratically, his/her surrounding reality.
Research on the image of science has been oriented mainly toward general aspects;
when it was addressed toward single disciplines, physics prevails by far (see, e.g., Olsen,
Hewson, & Lyons, 1996; Roth & Lucas, 1997; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1993, 1994; Rowell
& Pollard, 1995; Schoneweg Bradford, Rubba, & Harkness, 1995). In geology, in particular, there is a lack of specific works: Arthur (1996) discussed semantics and compart-

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

679

mentalization in the earth sciences and described the contribution of the Earth Images
Project toward this end. The present author used the repertory grid to elicit information
about students outlook on some geosciences and relevant instructors (Bezzi, 1996c) and
to verify whether the teaching of geology could affect the construction of the geosciences
image (Bezzi, 1997). The former study confirmed the findings (Eichinger, 1992) that teachers personalities and teaching styles have a great influence and are likely to be the most
significant factors affecting students perception of science. The current investigation discusses in greater detail some particular aspects of Bezzi (1997). In the context of the issues
raised in the Introduction, the aims of the present investigation are: (i) to explore the
perceptions held by a university geology instructor and by some of his students about some
geosciences, before and after the teaching intervention; (ii) to claim that the repertory grid
technique is a powerful tool to assess peoples actual epistemological dimensions beyond
any conceptual framework constructed by experts; and (iii) to argue that societal aims of
geological (science) education must be specifically targeted within a constructivist framework.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The subjects of this research were five first-year undergraduate students (indicated by
pseudonyms) of the geography degree course and their geology instructor. The students
high school background was varied, but everyone had experienced the disciplines that
were chosen as elements of the repertory grid (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology,
geology, and geography; see Fig. 1). Details of high-school and university context have
been given elsewhere (Bezzi, 1997).
It is important to remember here that, first, the six disciplines provided as elements of
the repertory grid were intended to constitute the range of convenience. This definition
refers to Kellys assumption that, for any given individual at a given time, a construct (or
a subsystem of constructs) applies to a finite number of elements representative of the
domain from which the researcher wishes to elicit constructs. Therefore, this range of
applicability defines the context and the field of the discourse within which the elicitees
find the application of their constructs useful. In this case, the grid elements allow the
geosciences to be located in the more general domain of science, and thus drawing a wider
scientific background from the students.
Second, within the secondary school curriculum, physics and especially mathematics
predominate in terms of teaching hours. This timetable dominance alone could not account for the imprinting of these sciences in young peoples minds because other variables may influence the learner (such as the students attitude toward science, the content
achievement, the school success in some disciplines, the teachers personality and teaching
style, etc.). Nonetheless, their quantitative influence should be regarded as a reasonable
factor modeling the students cultural framework. It is likely that the images of these very
specific subjects (school science) are basically derived from learning science at school
(Driver et al., 1996), although students perception could also be derived from exposure
to the wider culture prior to formal instruction.
In this study, the method used to elicit peoples constructs was the repertory grid technique, whose theoretical framework resides in the personal construct psychology (PCP)
of George Kelly. The widespread acceptance of this psychological theory has recently
been documented in a very comprehensive bibliography (Chiari, 1996) that includes
Kellys published and unpublished works, books specifically devoted to PCP (or widely
based on PCP), selected dissertations and theses, book reviews, a journal index, and software. The whole PCP literature suggests that Kellys holistic approach to peoples con-

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

680

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

struing is more than simply thinking. In fact, individuals construe their reality in an
attempt to make sense of the external world through looking, listening, touching, feeling,
perceiving, moving, etc. Consequently, there is a wide consensus on the claim that the
repertory grid technique can depict the whole of a persons way of thinking. The central
spirit of a PCP approach is to reveal someones unique psychological space through an
idiographic explicitation of personal constructs in terms that reflect attitudes, thoughts, and
feelings in a personally valid way. Gaines and Shaw (1990a, 1993) and Shaw and Gaines
(1992) discussed more specifically the repertory grid as a knowledge acquisition tool that
translates human conceptual structures directly to computational form. Their conclusions
support the usefulness of such a means, which has the advantage of taking a constructivist
position and that provides cognitive and logical foundations for existing knowledge acquisition techniques. Fransella and Bannister (1977) dwelled at some length on the concepts of reliability and validity of this technique, analyzing these notions in the context of
the theory. They concluded that the grid is an instrument that enables researchers to inquire
reliably into the way in which people maintain or alter their construing, and, from the
point of view of a construct theorist, its validity resides in its capacity to validly reveal
patterns in certain kinds of data and elaborate peoples construing.
As shown in Figure 1, a particular set of elements (the six disciplines) in a rectangular
matrix (the repertory grid) is shown and comparisons are made. The constructs referred to
the elements are generated by having the subject sort out how any two in a triad of elements
(indicated by dots in the grid) are alike and how the third is different, in terms meaningful
to him- or herself. These constructs are essentially bipolar in nature (simple examples of
constructs are laboratory/fieldwork, inductive/deductive, and basic/applied; a complete set
of constructs is given in Table 1), and these terms describe the respective poles of the
construct dimensions. The elements in the triad that show the likenesses are rated 1 and

Figure 1. Example of a sketched repertory grid in which some constructs and ratings of elements are shown.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

TABLE 1
List of Personal Constructs Elicited from the Instructor at the Beginning (A) and End (B) of the Geology Course
A
a

B
Contrast Pole

Emergent Pole

Contrast Pole

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16

laboratory
axioms
applied
synthesis
modifies reality
calculations
rigorous
concerned with real
formulas
inductive
analyze the effects
study the matter
objective
use of maps
experimental

fieldwork
observation data
basic
analysis
preserves reality
descriptions
approximate
concerned with abstract
concepts
deductive
analyze the causes
study the territory
subjective
use of substances
theoretical

laboratory
axioms
concerned with real
related to territory
modifies reality
calculations
rigorous
study the matter
inductive
formulas
scientific
synthesis
concerned with social
basic
use of maps
experimental

fieldwork
observation data
concerned with abstract
related to objects
preserves reality
descriptions
approximate
study mankind
deductive
concepts
humanistic
analysis
concerned with material
applied
use of substances
theoretical

681

INTERACTIVE

N number of constructs.

RIGHT

Emergent Pole

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

Top of RH
Base of RH

Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

682

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

are described by the emergent pole of the construct; they are written on the left-hand
side of the grid. The other element is described by the contrast pole of the construct; it
is rated 5 and written on the right-hand side of the grid. The subject then decides whether
the other elements in the grid are more like one or the other pole of the construct dimensions, rating every element in the grid on a scale of 1 5. If the construct does not apply
to some of the elements, then a 0 is entered. When triads of elements are used, they must
be arranged in as many different combinations as possible to give greater opportunity for
differing constructs to be elicited. This procedure is repeated until the subjects repertory
of constructs has been exhausted.
Once the constructs have been elicited, the grid is open to several different types of
analyses. For instance, one can perform a content analysis based on the verbal labels of
the constructs in order to have the universe of discourse of individuals within the chosen
range of convenience. An inspection of the similarities between rows and columns of
ratings can give some indication of possible relationships between constructs and between
elements in the grid, but a visual examination of the raw data matrix may be inadequate
to draw out all these relationships. To overcome this obstacle, it is possible to apply
statistical methods to the grid, such as cluster analysis (Shaw, 1980), and principal component analysis (PCA) (Slater, 1977). The patterns resulting from the clustering emphasize
the similarities that the elicitee attributes to both constructs and elements, reflecting coherent domains of meanings that this person uses to explain certain issues (a discussion
of the results achieved with this method has been presented in Bezzi, 1997). At present,
many computer program packages for the analysis of grids allow the ready extraction of
the structural relationships between elements, and/or between constructs. In this study,
PCA calculations have been performed with REPGRID, version 2.1 (Gaines & Shaw,
1990b). This software graphically maps both elements and constructs in a two-dimensional
space in which the two orthogonal axes represent the principal components. The layout
can be considered a simplified expression of the geometry of an n-dimensional space in
which the major dimensions are compressed into a restricted number of components.
They, in a sense, condense the larger variance expressed by the element and construct
matrices of the raw data, enabling an easier analysis of the relationships between elements
and constructs. A component is in fact a measurement of one of the ways in which the
constructs and the elements interact.
To be significant, the components must explain a high percentage of variance, otherwise
elements and constructs that may appear close on a two-dimensional space could actually
be far away if a third or higher component is considered. It is normally assumed that the
first three components must account for over 80% of variation to give useful indications.
It is unusual to find much variation beyond the first two components, but, in this case,
further components can be considered if their variance appears to be important. The element and construct loadings (Table 2) on the principal components are responsible for the
pattern correlation on the map; that is, the higher the loading, the greater the significance
of a certain construct to characterize an element on a component. Elements and constructs
are plotted within the four quadrants and defined by two axes (components), according to
their coordinates (loadings); therefore, their positions in this two-dimensional space are
constrained by the mutual influence of the components (Pope & Keen, 1981). In the following figures, the horizontal axis represents the first component and the vertical axis the
second. REPGRID 2.1 plots elements as crosses and constructs as dots with their verbal
labels; therefore, it is easy to envisage particular relationships that reveal specific peculiarities for each elicitee in the computer layout. (A simple introduction to the process of
completing a grid and to these methods of analysis and interpretation can be found in
Fetherston [1995]; the more mathematically oriented readers can find a detailed description
of PCA in chapter 6 of Pope and Keen, [1981].)

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

683

TABLE 2
Example Computer Output Indicating the Percentage of Variance for each
Component, and Construct and Element Loadings that Determine Plot Position of
Elements and Constructs in the Component Spacea

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

Percentage of Variance for each Component (Cmp)

Cmp1
%

68.34

Cmp2
26.40

Cmp3
3.21

Cmp4

Cmp5

1.95

0.10

Construct (C1C15) Loadings on each Component (Cmp)

Constructs

Cmp1

Cmp2

Cmp3

Cmp4

Cmp5

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15

3.204
3.761
2.262
4.381
2.787
3.761
4.381
2.595
4.381
2.262
3.667
3.621
3.456
3.620
0.739

2.427
2.070
2.822
0.126
2.453
2.070
0.126
2.421
0.126
2.822
1.260
2.402
0.804
2.402
3.279

0.803
0.916
0.584
0.007
1.456
0.916
0.007
0.487
0.007
0.584
0.952
0.150
0.046
0.150
1.342

0.175
0.249
0.754
0.325
0.298
0.249
0.325
0.028
0.325
0.754
0.229
0.649
1.455
0.649
0.470

0.016
0.023
0.106
0.134
0.077
0.023
0.134
0.051
0.134
0.106
0.095
0.108
0.356
0.108
0.113

Element (E1E6) Loadings on each Component (Cmp)

Elements

Cmp1

Cmp2

Cmp3

Cmp4

Cmp5

E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6

4.698
5.480
4.381
0.304
7.259
6.996

5.664
0.208
3.280
4.668
0.990
1.088

1.346
1.860
0.276
1.570
0.382
0.398

0.107
1.052
1.613
0.975
0.174
0.481

0.010
0.047
0.079
0.051
0.355
0.346

Data from the instructors grid. C1C15: see Table 1, part A. E1 Mathematics; E2
Physics; E3 Chemistry; E4 Biology; E5 Geology; E6 Geography.
a

RESULTS
A content analysis of elicited constructs has been discussed elsewhere (Bezzi, 1997),
and the results are only summarized here. The analysis gave five categories based on the
authors judgment of their meaning: (1) objects, areas, and techniques of investigation
(such as it studies the matter/it studies the territory; it uses/it does not use maps, charts);
(2) nature of science (objective/subjective; simple/composite science); (3) application of
science and its professional aspects (many/less working chances; it modifies/it preserves
the natural environment); (4) affective aspects (I like/I dislike; difficult/easy to me); and
(5) characteristics of the courses (elementary/high school; with lab/without lab). In this
context, constructs related to the scientific essence of the disciplines (categories 1 and 2)
by far exceed the other categories, with a significant increase in the first and second

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

684

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

Figure 2. Principal component display of the instructors grid elicited at the beginning (A) and at the end (B)
of the Geology course. Crosses indicate the grid elements and dots the elicited constructs.

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

685

category at the end of the teaching episode, essentially at the expense of professional
aspects and characteristics of the courses. In the rest of the chapter some of the results of
the PCA are presented in detail (with the use of the computer layouts of three grids) and
are summarized for the other grids.
Figure 2 displays the first two axes (components) of a principal component analysis of
the data elicited from the instructor at the beginning (Fig. 2A) and at the end (Fig. 2B) of
the geology course. Their variance in both cases is quite high: 68.34 26.40 94.74%
in Figure 2A, and 63.98 21.55 85.53% in Figure 2B. Figure 2A shows that geology
and geography, on one side, and physics, on the other side, are mainly controlled by the
first component (horizontal axis) whose loading is primarily due to constructs (see Table
1, part A) C4, C7, and C9 (which plot in the same spot), and second to C2, C6, C11, C12,
C13, and C14. It is reasonable to interpret this component as an epistemological dimension
in which geology and geography are seen as subjective, approximate, and synthetic sciences based on concepts. They are in contrast to physics, which is considered an objective,
rigorous, and analytic science based on formulas. Although the geosciences analyze the
effects and use the description of observations carried out during fieldwork on the territory
with the aid of maps, physics, starting from axioms, analyzes the causes and studies the
physical matter. C15 exerts the strongest control on the second component, but also C3
and C10 and, to a lesser extent C8, play a certain role. This dimension allows further
differentiation: chemistry, which is controlled also by the first axis (and, therefore, with
epistemological characters similar to physics), is construed as an experimental, inductive
science aimed at modifying reality; it studies matter in a laboratory, with the use of substances. This perception is shared by biology (which is controlled essentially by the second
component): its experiments are aimed at real, applied objectives. Both components affect
the position of mathematics (with a slight prevalence of the second one): it shares the
epistemological dimensions of physics and chemistry, but it is more theoretical, basic, and
has an interest in the abstract.
As was expected from the persistence of the vast majority of the constructs, the instructors construction does not vary substantially at the end of the academic year. In fact,
Figure 2B reveals that physics and the geosciences are still influenced by the first component in which the loadings (see Table 1B) of C10, C14, C7, C12, C6, C15, and C4 (in
decreasing order of importance) give the most significant contribution. The cartography
of the territory seems to be responsible, in this case, for the major displacement of geography from geology. Although the epistemological dimension basically preserves its characteristics, it is of interest to note that the construct C14 (basic/applied) now has a greater
importance in discriminating these three disciplines, suggesting an improved awareness of
the societal role that science can play. This new consciousness is also confirmed by the
recently introduced constructs C8 and C13, whose loadings are the highest in the third
component (not plotted on the figure). C3 now has the greatest loading on the second
component, but considerations about biology, chemistry, and mathematics essentially do
not differ.
The principal component analysis of Mels first grid (Fig. 3A) also shows a rather
complex pattern, because a consistent percentage of variance is contained within the first
three components (50.72 25.65 13.49 89.86%). The constructs with the highest
loadings on the first one are use/no use of calculations, concerned/not concerned with
biogeography, concerned/not concerned with the globe, followed by in/not in industry
sectors, use/no use of math methods, and rock analysis important/unimportant. The second
component is primarily grounded in laboratory/no laboratory, concerned/not concerned
with energy sources, and in/not in junior school. Finally, with/without botany content
provides the greatest contribution to the third component (absent in this layout). Many

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

686

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

Figure 3. Principal component display of Mels original grid elicited at the beginning (A) and at the end (B) of
the academic year. Crosses indicate the grid elements and dots the elicited constructs.

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

687

epistemological dimensions contribute to Mels perception of these sciences, and it is worth

pointing out that she does not consider geology (which is the most strongly linked to the
first component) to have anything to do with industry. Also, geography owes its position
to the horizontal axis, but with a notable influence from the second component, in which
some teaching aspects prevail. Physics faces geography for opposite reasons, whereas, as
usual, both axes define the location of mathematics. The second and the third components
control chemistry with a slight prevalence of the former. The situation is reversed for
biology, which loads primarily on the third component and obviously plots very close to
the botany content construct near the third axis (not depicted in this figure).
The percentage of variance in the PrinCom Output obtained from the grid elicited at the
end of the geology course (52.03 29.23 11.87 93.13%) indicates that Mels perception is composed of various constructs that hardly take the leading role in defining
some peculiar dimensions (Fig. 3B). Use/no use of calculations, use/no use of math methods, and deductive/inductive method (with the same loading), use/no use of maps, study
real/abstract entities, and study/do not study crust deformations are the major contributors
to the first component in which nature and objects of science merge to delineate a sort of
epistemological domain. Use/no use of elements table, study/do not study the cell, study
organic matter/earth phenomena (with equal loading), and study living organisms/inorganic matter are the constructs that yield the major support for the second component.
Finally, study/do not study minerals and concerned/not concerned with energy sources
explain the variance of the third component. As was reasonably expected from the cluster
analysis (Bezzi, 1997) that presented the disciplines paired, for the first time mathematics
is close to physics in a position substantially due to the first component. They are faced
by the geosciences and, in both cases, the construct poles that gather around these sciences
in the layout are their meaningful descriptors, according to Mel. Different from the others,
biology and chemistry are grounded in the second and third component, and therefore their
plotting in this figure is, to some extent, deceptive; nonetheless, the poles of the constructs
that lie around them are sufficiently clear to define the basic image perceived by Mel.
Sims PrinCom Output of his earliest grid indicates that the first component assumes a
significant moment because it explains a rather high percentage of variance, whereas the
second and third ones have a nearly identical (but low) value (65.16 12.79 11.16
89.11%). In decreasing order of significance, simple/composite disciplines, on math basis/
little math, need understanding/conversational (with the same loading), based on fixed
principles/past events, limiting/help to know the world, and earth not implied/study the
earth are the constructs that characterize the horizontal axis (Fig. 4A). In turn, with/without
practicals, and direct/minor influence on mankind distinguish the vertical axis. Finally,
study inanimate matter/also biosphere mark the third component and the latter pole plots
obviously very close to biology in the relevant diagram (not reported here). In this layout,
geology is the only discipline that is nearly entirely described by the first component
(although it also has a significant loading on the third component for traits opposite to
biology) and appears to Sim as a conversational, composite science based on past events
whose understanding needs little math. Also, geography is strongly marked by the same
poles of the first component, and its shifting from the first axis is (unfortunately) due to
Sims perception of its minor influence on mankind and the absence of practicals (but,
obviously, this has fewer consequences on the societal implications for this science). Physics and mathematics respectively face the geosciences for contrasting reasons, whereas
chemistry shares in equal amount the characters of the first two components. Biology is
similar to geology because it loads on the first and the third components and its features
have already been mentioned.
Figure 4B reflects the changes in Sims perception after 1 year of attendance in the

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

688

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

Figure 4. Principal component display of Sims original grid elicited at the beginning (A) and at the end (B) of
the academic year. Crosses indicate the grid elements and dots the elicited constructs.

geology course. Most of the variance is explained by the first three components (58.51
14.87 13.07 86.45%) and we must take into account also the third component because
its value closely approximates the second one, although only one construct (study evident/
concealed phenomena) has a significant loading on the third axis. Lab experiments/direct
observation, simple/composite disciplines, indirect study of factors affecting living forms/
direct study of living forms, unrelated to living organisms/needed to study living organisms, and based on math/less math applied are the constructs with the greatest contributions to the first component and the best descriptors of mathematics, physics, and

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

689

chemistry on the one side, and biology on the other, as these disciplines are mostly
grounded in these dimensions (with a minor role played by the third component). The
second component (essentially due to merely theoretical research/research implies raw
materials, use/minor use of math and physics, and at the basis of technological development/not particularly significant for progress) is particularly important because it clearly
discriminates, for the first time, the geosciences, confirming in some way the result of the
cluster analysis (Bezzi, 1997). It is quite obvious that geological research could imply raw
materials, and the acknowledgment of the use of math and physics in this research should
be seen favorably; but the endorsement of a minor role for geology in the development of
society (as Sim believes) is quite worrying for reasons that will be discussed later.
It is difficult to envisage some sort of coherent dimension in the picture that emerged
from the computer layout of Amys original grid, elicited prior to the geological instruction,
because constructs with major loadings belong to various epistemological categories.
Chemistry and physics are construed as nearly identical. They are seen as ancient sciences,
which need math knowledge, and not aimed at aspects of a territory, with consequent rare
or no use of maps and photographs. These sciences are seen as single disciplines that must
be studied with a constant application. In turn, geology, as well as biology, is perceived
as a composite science that requires less rote learning; both disciplines are based on real
physical concepts, and can be studied without assiduous attention. The plotting of biology
is strongly controlled by the fact that this science is not taught to children, and requires
the use of a laboratory and formulas. On the contrary, mathematics uses postulates, is
based on abstract concepts, and is taught to children without the use of a laboratory. The
position of geography is plotted in the quadrant opposite to Geol/Biol on the second
component and this location is essentially due to territorial aspects, but there is also some
influence from the absence of a laboratory, from its being taught to children, and (less
clearly) from postulates.
The principal component analysis on Amys grid elicited at the end of the academic
year illustrates the changes in her construction of the disciplines. Apart from a couple of
constructs related to curricular aspects, Amys construing is notably marked by epistemological dimensions that allow the emergence of what she feels to be the most important
characteristics of the grid elements. The output indicates that geography is the only science
that is nearly entirely controlled by the first component and, according to Amy, shows the
constructs more appropriate for this discipline (not based on laws and postulates, based
on other disciplines). Also, chemistry, for opposing reasons (poles of constructs), lies near
the horizontal axis, but its position is not so markedly affected by the first component as
geography and is influenced by the laboratory (on the second component). In contrast,
mathematics is based mostly on the second component for its abstractness, but it also
shares many of the characters of the first one. Physics owes its location to both components
to nearly the same degree and it obviously faces mathematics for its concreteness. The
element loadings of the PrinCom calculation indicate that biology and geology owe their
position mostly to the third component where laboratory, study mankind, no use of maps,
and in junior school characterize biology, whereas the contrast poles cluster around geology.
Gians principal component analysis at the beginning of the academic year gives quite
a composite picture of his prevailing perceptive dimensions, because three components
are significant. He perceives geography as a discipline that is not actually scientific but
has a great concern for practical things, is strongly related to the territory and the planet,
and also that this science is performed through visual studies instead of formulas or laboratory and it is easy to understand. Geology shares with geography some of the previous
traits and mostly owes its position to its high interest in practical things. Mathematics, and

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

690

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

to a lesser extent chemistry and physics, are seen as being opposite to these peculiarities.
The main constructs used by Gian to characterize biology are the interest in life forms and
the use of a laboratory. Physics, as well as biology, appears to actually be the most scientific
discipline.
Although the information elicited from Gian at the end of the academic year is less
extensive (only ten constructs in his grid), the principal component analysis is still acceptable. In a practically sense, only geography lies very close to the first component and
shares to some extent with geology it being an empirical, not experimental, science that
does not require the use of formulas, but it is concerned with the territory. Principally,
chemistry and physics face the geosciences on this dimension therefore being characterized by the contrast poles of the constructs. In turn, biology is controlled by the second
and the third components, where the study of organic matter (but not of rocks) are the
main features that, according to Gian, distinguish this discipline. Once again, the plotting
of mathematics is due to the first two components, thus sharing, in these dimensions, the
loadings (and the traits) of the most significant constructs of physics and chemistry, from
which it differs for its theoretical studies.
The PrinCom Output of Vans earliest grid shows that the variance is mostly explained
by the first two components, but also the third has some weight, especially for one particular construct (reasoning/rote learning). Between the two geosciences, geology is notably
marked by the first component alone, and it is easy to realize that its location on these
dimensions (as well as physics) is mostly due to the fact that Van has some aversion to
numbers or formulas, which give him difficulties. With this in mind it is worth pointing
out that I like/I dont like and hard/less hard to me have the first and the third highest
loadings in this component, suggesting that affective considerations clearly play a major
role in Vans perception. Physics and mathematics have a significant loading on the third
component, and in the relevant computer layout (not represented here) they plot on the
opposite sides of the axis showing (rather surprisingly) that Van considers the latter a
discipline that needs reasoning, whereas the former needs only memorization! Finally,
biology and chemistry complete the picture, being controlled to nearly the same degree
by both axes, but in contrasting positions as far as the first component is concerned. They
are probably positioned on the same side of the second component because Van believes
they offer greater chances of finding a job (a problem of real concern for young people
here). It is of interest to note that the disciplines are divided exactly into two facing groups
that confirm the results of the cluster analysis (Bezzi, 1997).
At the end of the academic year, Vans PrinCom Output indicates that geography,
mathematics, and physics behave similarly, because their positions are mainly governed
by the first (and to a less extent by the third) component. Although some time passed
between the earliest and latest elicitation, as it appears from the analysis Vans dislike for
the mathematical aspects of science still persists. It is evident that she continues to prefer
a discipline aimed at the study of the natural environment, but not one based on formulas
and calculations. Geology owes its location to the first two components in equal amounts,
and its shifting toward the vertical axis is evidently due to the study of volcanoes. In
contrast, biology is principally grounded on the second component, presumably because
this science aims to study human life. In the layout, the position of chemistry could be
rather ambiguous because the second and the third component are mostly responsible for
its image. Nonetheless, also in the relevant diagram (not depicted here) it plots very close
to modern science and do not study mans distribution on earth that (together with its
concern with daily life) represent the best descriptors of Vans conception of this science.
Table 3 outlines the results obtained from the principal component analysis of the instructors grids; that is, they contain all the information expressed by the computer outputs

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

691

and not merely what is visualized by the layouts in which only the first and second components are present. Two columns show the number corresponding to the instructors
constructs of Table 1 (parts A and B), elicited at the beginning and at the end of the
academic year. The other two columns indicate the constructs with the highest loadings
on the first three components, identified I, II, and III. The higher the loading, the greater
the ability of the construct to significantly discriminate the elements hence, the definition
of their epistemological value because they reflect peoples cognitive and affective dimensions applied to construe their external reality. As most of the percentage of variance
is explained by the first component, the ranking of the first three constructs is indicated in
the cells. Thus, for example, construct 1/III indicates the construct with the highest
loading on the third component, construct 2/I the construct with the second highest
loading on the first component, etc. With an appropriate symbol located in some cells (Gl
geology; Gr geography), there is also an indication of the constructs that, due to their
correlations calculated from loadings on the three axes (components), appear to be the best
descriptors of the geosciences. In most cases, these constructs coincide with those with
the highest loadings.
From the single rows of Table 3 it is easy to infer which are the constructs with the
greatest epistemological value for the instructor. At the beginning of the academic year,
synthesis/analysis, rigorous/approximate, and formulas/concepts, are by far the most important, both in general and in relation to the geosciences. Axioms/observation data and
calculations/descriptions follow in the ranking on the first component, whereas experi-

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

TABLE 3
Instructors Constructs (Table 1, Parts A and B) with the Greatest Epistemological
Valuea
Construct
Table 1, Part A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Rank/Load
Construct 2/I
Construct 1/I; Gl Gr
Construct 2/I
Construct 1/I; Gl Gr
Construct 1/I; Gl Gr
Gl Gr
Gl Gr
Construct 1/II

Construct
Table 1, Part B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Rank/Load

Construct 1/II
Gl Gr

Construct 3/I
Construct 1/III
Construct 1/I; Gl Gr

Construct 2/I; Gl Gr
Gl Gr

The table takes into account the ranking of the first three constructs (1,2,3) on the first
component (I), and only the first on the second (II) and third (III) component. If more constructs present the same loading, then they are indicated at the same ranking.
aThat is, with the highest loadings on the first three components (I, II, III). Gl geology;
Gr geography; their presence in the cells indicates the constructs that mostly characterize
the geosciences.

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

692

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

mental/theoretical is the leader on the second component. Particularly significant for the
geosciences appear to be study the matter/study the territory and use of maps/use of substances. Some slight changes are discernible at the end of the academic year: formulas/
concepts is persistently the construct with the highest epistemological value, followed by
basic/applied and rigorous/approximate on the first component. Concerned with real/concerned with abstract and study the matter/study mankind are the most significant, respectively, on the second and third components, whereas related to territory/related to objects
and use of maps/use of substances are important constructs used to characterize the geosciences.
Table 4 is based on the original grids of the students elicited at the beginning (part A)
and at the end (part B) of the academic year. It contains all the construct poles with the
highest correlation with the geosciences in the dimensional space defined by the three main
axes (components). Thus, also in this case, the information is to some extent wider than
the layouts depicted in Figures 2 4, because those diagrams include only two components.
In addition to previous considerations, the Table 4 shows the broad range of constructs on
which the real students epistemology is founded and confirms the efficacy of a research
tool that retrieves the subjects cognition in their own terminology, leaving both intellectual
and emotional aspects intact. Such a table may appear simple compared with a traditional,
sophisticated questionnaire: but, normally, the latter offers only a nomothetic framework
defined by researchers background that can hardly imagine and therefore include all the
possible idiosyncrasies related to real students cognitive and affective structures.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

DISCUSSION
The results of this study seem to confirm that the repertory grid is a powerful heuristic
tool for exploring a persons underlying construction system without splitting human functioning into intelligence, emotion, and motivation. The limited number of subjects prevents
the making of more general statements about the image of (geo)sciences; however, it seems
to be more significant to provide critical cases that delineate unique configurations of
peoples thought and feelings than to carry out assessments about a normative science
image prepared by experts. Because the grid is particularly sensitive to the nature of the
person, the overall picture emerging from the collected data can be looked upon as a map
of the construct systems of the subjects, a sort of idiographic cartography in contrast to
the nomothetic cartography that can be obtained with other instruments.
Solomon, Duveen, and Scott (1994) argued that students see science and scientists
through a social and psychological everyday knowledge considered to be an integral part
of their epistemologies. Studies of the public understanding of science have shown that it
is precisely through the medium of such social and psychological everyday knowledge
that most members of the public understand the science and scientists involved in public
issues. Suchting (1995) affirmed that everyday thinking is a positive obstacle to scientific
thought because of its way of discriminating the relevant elements and their relationships
tend to be holistic, syncretic, and analogic rather than analytic and genuinely systematic.
This way of thinking involves deeply entrenched conceptions because they are often useful
from the point of view of the needs of ordinary life and, therefore, represent undeniable
hindrances to scientific understanding. The everyday knowledge used by individuals in
their social and physical interactions is not required to be internally and logically consistent, nor to be generalizable in the way that scientific knowledge is (Driver et al., 1994).
Therefore, insights into the everyday ontology and epistemology commonly used by students to make personal sense of scientific representations can be of greater use than any
attempt to envisage a normative reconstruction of canonical science. These results can be

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

693

TABLE 4
Constructs Poles Relatd to the Geosciences with Greatest Epistemological Valuea
Resulting from Principal Component Analysis Performed on Students Original
Grids Prior to (A) and After (B) Geological Instruction
Students
Amy A

Amy B

Gian A

Gian B

Mel A

Mel B

Sim A

Sim B

Van A

Van B

Geology

territory aspects
no laboratory
taught to children

visual studies
concerned with planetary motions
studies the planet
no calculations
related to underground
territory very significant
not experimental science
study the rocks

studies the changes of the planet

not actually scientific
no formulas
easy to understand
no laboratory
empirical science
no use of formulas

not in industry sectors

concerned with the globe
rock analysis important
no use of math methods
studies earth phenomena
does not study the cell
no use of calculations

concerned with biogeography

no laboratory
not concerned with energy sources

I like
less hard for me
no use of numbers
studies volcanoes
studies the earth

Top of text
Base of text

Geography

use of photographs
no constant application to study
composite discipline
less mnemonic
not logic science
oral exams
fieldwork
use of maps
in high school

composite discipline
based on past events
little math
conversational
helps to know the world
also studies biosphere
research implies raw materials
not particularly significant for
progress

Top of RH
Base of RH

not based on laws and postulates

recent science
based on other disciplines

studies crust deformations

use of maps
studies minerals
composite discipline
based on past events
little math
conversational
minor influence on mankind
minor use of math and physics
on contingent situations
use maps
less job chances
elementary school
not based on calculations
studies natural phenomena
does not use formulas
I like
concerned with daily life

That is, with the highest loadings on the first three components.

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

694

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

used to create informed teaching interventions by highlighting possible mismatches between students everyday knowledge and the assumptions underpinning the curriculum
(Leach et al., 1997).
In order to reveal students epistemological dimensions, a careful scrutiny of the results
obtained with the principal component analysis elucidates how, in the earliest elicitation,
constructs belonging to the first two categories (Bezzi, 1997) are the most important in
discriminating the disciplines, with a particular role played by constructs connected, to
some extent, with the mathematical aspects of science. Constructs related to the other
classes showed a lesser influence, although their number was relatively high. This situation
is strongly enhanced in the final elicitation in which most of the constructs that have the
status of differentiating the geosciences belong essentially to the first two categories, but,
in this case, with a minor influence exerted by math constructs. The shifting toward a more
scientific construction of the image of these sciences is not so positive as it might appear,
because: (1) it reflects an inadequate account of geosciences methodology; and (2) because
it occurs at the expense of decreased attention to the professional aspects. Due to the
idiosyncratic nature of learners and instructors constructions, it is difficult to summarize
some general considerations about their epistemological dimensions, but it is possible to
discern some features that have already emerged from Figures 2 4 and Tables 3 and 4.
From an overall review of collected data and analysis, some stereotypical images of
science do appear with a characteristic antithesis between physics (often joined to chemistry and mathematics) and the geosciences. As Frodeman (1995) pointed out, physics is
traditionally considered as the paradigmatic science that exemplifies the true nature of
scientific method with a certain, precise, and analytically derived knowledge of the
world. Moreover, arbitrary classifications that rate sciences according to their mathematical
sophistication put the experimental sciences at the top of this hierarchy (Alvarez, 1991).
But, the continued embrace of a cartesian standard of what constitutes knowledge will
only encourage the further growth of fundamentalist ideologies that live off an absolutist
mentality and reject any type of thinking that recognizes uncertainty and ambiguity (Frodeman, 1996). In contrast, the geosciences are seen as having many problems that undercut
their claims to knowledge such as the incompleteness of data, the lack of experimental
control, the huge span of time required for geological processes, and the difficulties in
making direct observations. Besides, historical narratives, typical of earth sciences, are
often considered a vague form of knowledge lacking the logical rigor appropriate to the
hard sciences. Conversely, to give more pupils access to science and achieve the goals
of scientific literacy it is worth recalling what some investigators (in particular, Burnley
& Frodeman, 1996; Frodeman, 1996; Sutton, 1996) intelligently emphasized the need for
narrative logic; that is, a way of talking, writing, and teaching that allows scientists to
express and communicate the meaning and values of the work that they know so well.
Earth science disciplines are subject to the vicissitude of time, where certainty, precision,
or experimental demonstration are often not possible. Thus, despite the wealth of insight
it has to offer to public debate, the usefulness of earth science information is impaired by
public assumptions concerning what counts as usable knowledge. Narrative logic provides
the context of understanding necessary for people to make sense of facts. For instance,
describing the possible scenarios of the global change, the scientist acknowledges his/her
lack of certainty, but by placing the results of scientific work within a narrative framework,
the scientist helps the community to grasp the potential implications of its acts. The standard type of scientific explanation (the deductive nomological model) does not organize
information in the way best suited to public comprehension. The aforementioned investigators have claimed that narrative understanding is an important supplement to standard
scientific practice. Narrative provides scientists with a means of communicating the sig-

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

695

nificance of scientific research so that the public can make informed policy decisions.
Narrative allows us to place scientific facts within a set of vivid scenarios that are both
memorable and easily integrated into the publics preexisting cognitive framework.
Through the use of relevant and memorable accounts, scenario building offers the public
an intuitive grasp of the consequences of its choices.
Sciences that do not meet the physics standards have hardly (but mistakenly) been
considered as such. This continued viewing of the geosciences from the perspective of
physics emerges throughout all the outcomes of this study, and in particular from data
provided by the principal component analysis where many of the constructs matching with
this commonplace image seem to be a persistent keystone of teacher and student epistemologies. This result is not surprising, because, as stressed by Turner and Frodeman
(1996), for 300 years our culture has defined rationality in terms of the characteristics of
classical mechanics. All other sciences have striven to achieve its level of precision, quantifiability, predictability, certainty, and value-neutrality. However, the problems faced today by society are often intrinsically value-laden, inherently vague, and to some extent
resistant to certain quantification or reliable prediction. Turner and Frodeman (1996) proposed a shift from the standards implicit within classical mechanics to those within the
earth sciences that embody a model of scientific rationality where, rather than absolute
certainty and precision, the standard for scientific knowledge becomes the ability of scientists to offer pertinent advice. Undoubtedly, every geologist and earth science educator
agrees with Frodemans (1995) conclusions that the two distinctive features of geological
reasoning, which are its nature as a hermeneutic (interpretive) and a historical science,
offer the best model of the type of reasoning needed to overcome some of the most urgent
societal problems faced by the modern civilized world. The real problem is to convince
science educators and curriculum planners to include earth systems content and methodology in the evolving integrated science curricula so as to provide students with the knowledge that can be directly related to our planet and society (Mayer, 1995).
The analysis of the results shows that aspects connected with the geological profession
and the application of science decreased at the end of the academic year. Therefore, further
considerations must be taken in relation to cultural and societal aspects inherent within the
geosciences. Although restricted to a few instances, some elicited constructs do raise some
concern: (i) when geosciences are considered to have a minor influence on mankind and,
after one year of geological instruction, they are regarded as not particularly significant
for progress; (ii) when, at the end of the course, only one student (there were three at the
beginning) gives some epistemological value to application of the geosciences; and (iii)
when the concern for society does not emerge as a significant conceptual dimension, then
it is legitimate to suspect that, at least in some cases, important educational aims have been
missed. The understanding of the past, present, and future behavior of the entire earth
system must be aimed at coping with the societal challenges (resources, hazards, environments, global change) (National Research Council, 1993). If these issues do not emerge
from peoples cognitive framework, then this lack indicates that they are not perceived as
being fundamental, suggesting that something has to be done to include, implicitly or
explicitly, this matter in any earth science educational project. Changing students epistemological views is not an easy task: even in courses aimed specifically at this objective
this result has been only partially achieved (Roth & Lucas, 1997; Roth & Roychoudhury,
1993) and simply teaching geology does not change students images of the geosciences
(Bezzi, 1997). It now seems evident that a more complete public understanding of science
requires studying the processes of science, not just the content. If the major aim of scientific
literacy is to provide informed citizens with scientific habits of mind that enable them to
fully participate in a modern democracy, then people will not be automatically equipped

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

696

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

to make good public decisions simply by learning science. Kelly, Carlsen, and Cunningham
(1993) ranked as among the greatest fallacies of our age the presumption that if students
learn science content they will be able to make more informed decisions about scientific
and technological issues in society. Geologists and earth science educators have the great
responsibility to transform geoscience education into a process that must go beyond mere
teaching and learning the facts, laws, and theories: it must involve understanding the nature
of geoscience and its relationships with society (Baker, 1996). Furthermore, the awareness
of the actual students epistemological views should be the starting point for any efficient
cognitive reconstruction.
Rather than coming to a definite conclusion, it is worth pointing out that all data presented and discussed should constitute a set for further research, because any interpretation
must be confirmed with subjects from whom the constructs have been elicited (Fetherston,
1995). Such confirmation has been accomplished in only a few cases (with the instructor
and a couple of students) due to the difficulties in which educational research in the domain
of the geosciences is carried out within Italian universities. The lack of cultural tradition
and personnel and technological facilities, combined with limited financial support and a
hostile academic environment, forcefully constrains the research to standards incompatible
with complete investigations. In any case, it is believed that this study adds aditional data
to the body of literature generated by the many investigators mentioned in the Introduction
regarding the images of (geo)sciences. The particular methodology applied discloses the
learners wide range of alternative ways of construing/making sense of the same elements
and illuminates the rich diversity of intellectual and affective frameworks implied in the
construction of a physical and conceptual world. These proven different ways of seeing
reality confirm Kellys philosophical position of constructive alternativism and reinforce
the paradigm of a constructivist perspective of teaching and learning to which the vast
majority of science education research is committed (Driver et al., 1996; Pope, 1995;
Porlan, 1993; Roth, 1995).

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

The author thanks the geology instructor, Marino Marini, and the students enrolled in geology 1994/
95 who agreed to be the focus of the research investigation. Paul Nixons revision of the English is
gratefully appreciated.

REFERENCES
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on Science
Technology Society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477491.
Akhatar, A. (1996, August). Stimulation of awareness of geoscience among the mass population of
the society. Paper presented at the 30th International Geological Congress, Beijing, PRC.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 3955.
Alvarez, W. (1991). The gentle art of scientific trespassing. GSA Today, 1, 2931, 34.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arthur, R. (1996). What is geology? In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience
education and training. Joint special publication of the COGEOED of the IUGS and AGID, no.
19 (pp. 695 701). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Baker, V. R. (1996). The geological approach to understanding the environment. GSA Today, 6,
41 43.
Bezzi, A. (1996a, March). Lo institucional y lo personal en la Ciencia moderna: El papel de las
epistemologas privadas en el proceso de ensenanza/aprendizaje. Paper presented to the 12th

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

697

Bienal-125 Aniversario Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural. Madrid, Spain (pp. 4344).
Abstract in Libro de Resumenes.
Bezzi, A. (1996b). Is geology teaching also geology learning? An interactive education approach to
solve the dilemma. In D. A. V. Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training.
Joint special publication of the COGEOED of the IUGS and the AGID, no. 19 (pp. 463480).
Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Bezzi, A. (1996c). Geology: A science, a teacher or a course? How students construct the image of
geological disciplines and that of their teachers. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.),
Research in science education in Europe current issues and themes (pp. 312324). London:
Falmer Press.
Bezzi, A. (1996d). Use of repertory grids in facilitating knowledge construction and reconstruction
in geology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 179204.
Bezzi, A. (1996e). Aplicaciones de la tecnica de la psicologa de los constructos personales en el
proceso de ensenanza/aprendizaje de las Ciencias de la Tierra. Ensenanza de las Ciencias de la
Tierra, pp. 22 31.
Bezzi, A. (1997). The influence of Geology teaching on the image of geosciences. In H. Wang, D. F.
Branagan, Z. Ouyang, & X. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Geology Congress,
Beijing, PRC, vol. 26 (pp. 123 138). Utrecht: VSP.
Burnley, P. C., & Frodeman, R. L. (1996, October). The role of narrative in scientific explanation.
Paper presented to the GSA Annual Meeting. Denver, CO (p. A259).
Chiari, G. (1996). Personal construct psychology and psychotherapy: A bibliography. Roma: Centro
di Psicologia e Psicoterapia Costruttivista.
Cooray, P. G. (1996). Earth-science as a basic component of all education. In D. A. V. Stow &
G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training. Joint special publication of the
COGEOED of the IUGS and the AGID, no. 19 (pp. 803810). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Corporaal, A. H. (1991). Repertory grid research into cognitions of prospective primary school
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 315329.
Department for Education/Welsh Office (DFE/WO). (1995). Science in the National Curriculum
(1995). London: HMSO.
Descals, A., & Rivas, F. (1995, November). Aproximacion a la estructuracion cognitiva del estudiante en la situacion educativa universitaria. Paper presented to the II Congreso Internacional de
Psicologa de la Educacion, Madrid, Spain.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 512.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples images of science. Buckingham,
UK: Open University Press.
Eichinger, J. (1992). College science majors perceptions of secondary school science: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 601610.
Fetherston, A. R. (1995). Using repertory grids in classrooms. MASTEC monograph series, no. 3.
Perth: Edith Cowan University.
Fetherstonhaugh, A. R. (1994). Using the repertory grid to probe students ideas about energy.
Research in Science and Technological Education, 12, 117127.
Fransella, F., & Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. London: Academic
Press.
Frodeman, R. L. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science.
GSA Bulletin, 107, 960 968.
Frodeman, R. L. (1996). The rhetoric of science. GSA Today, 6, 1213.
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1990a). Cognitive and logical foundations of knowledge acquisition. In J. H. Boose & B. R. Gaines (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth AAAI Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop (pp. 1924). Banff, Alberta: University of
Calgary.
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1990b). REPGRID manual. Calgary: Centre for Person Computer
Studies.
Gaines, B. R., & Shaw, M. L. G. (1993). Knowledge acquisition tools based on personal construct
psychology. Knowledge Engineering Review, 8, 4985.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

698

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

Happs, J. C., & Stead, K. (1989). Using the repertory grid as a complementary probe in eliciting
student understanding and attitudes toward science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 7, 207 220.
Hunt, J. A. (1994). STS teaching in Britain. In K. T. Boersma, K. Kortland, & J. van Trommel
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th IOSTE Symposium (pp. 409417). Enschede, The Netherlands:
National Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).
Kalekin-Fishman, D. (1995, July). Constructing a concept of teaching: Construing the role of teacher
in a culturally plural society. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Personal
Construct Psychology, Barcelona, Spain.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Vols. I and 2. New York: Norton.
Kelly, G. J., Carlsen, W. S., & Cunningham, C. M. (1993). Science education in sociocultural
context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education, 77, 207220.
Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers philosophical assumptions: How well do we
understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273283.
Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1995a). Scientific literacy: How many lost generations can we afford? Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 32, 895 896.
Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1995b). Scientific literacy: Where do we go from here? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32, 1007 1009.
Lakin, S., & Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the nature of science?: Teachers views of
science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education,
16, 175 190.
Leach, J. (1996). Students understanding of the nature of science. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P.
Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe current issues and themes (pp. 269282).
London: Falmer Press.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about the
nature of science: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of Science
Education, 19, 147 166.
Lederman, N. G. (1995). Suchting on the nature of scientific thought: Are we anchoring curricula
in Quicksand? Science & Education, 4, 371377.
Lee, O. (1997). Scientific literacy for all: What is it, and how can we achieve it? Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 34, 219 222.
Mayer, V. J. (1995). Using the Earth system for integrating science curriculum. Science Education,
79, 375 391.
Mayer, V. J. (1997). Global science literacy: An Earth system view. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 34, 101 105.
Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 429443.
National Curriculum Council (1993). Teaching science at key stages 3 and 4. York, UK: NCC.
National Research Council (1993). Solid-earth sciences and society. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1991). Science/technology/society: A new effort for providing appropriate science for all (position statement) NSTA handbook (pp. 4748). Washington,
DC: NSTA.
Olsen, T. P., Hewson, P. W., & Lyons, L. (1996). Preordained science and student autonomy: The
nature of laboratory tasks in physics classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 18,
775 790.
Pope, M. L. (1995, July). Constructivist educational research: A personal construct psychology
perspective. Paper presented to the 11th International Congress of Personal Construct Psychology,
Barcelona, Spain.
Pope, M. L., & Denicolo, P. (1993). The art and science of constructivist research in teacher thinking.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 529 544.
Pope, M. L., & Keen, R. T. (1981). Personal construct psychology and education. London: Academic
Press.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

RIGHT

INTERACTIVE

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED GEOSCIENCE?

699

Porlan, R. (1993). Constructivismo y Escuela. Hacia un modelo de ensenanza/aprendizaje basado

en la investigacion. Sevilla: Dda Editora SL.
Ramsden, P., Baird, C., Bourne, J., Dunne, D., Goldsworthy, A., Hall, H., Hann, M., Ratcliffe, M.,
& Wheatley, J. (1995). Project 2061: Science education for the year 2000 and beyond. Hatfield,
UK: ASE.
Roth, W.-M. (1993). In the name of constructivism: Science education research and the construction
of local knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 799803.
Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science. Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From truth to invented reality: A discourse analysis of
high school physics students talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 34, 145 179.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The nature of scientific knowledge, knowing and learning: The perspectives of four physics students. International Journal of Science Education, 15,
27 44.
Roth, W.-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 530.
Rowell, J. A., & Pollard, J. M. (1995). Raising awareness of uncertainty: A useful addendum to
course in the history and philosophy of science for science teachers? Science & Education, 4, 87
97.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students preconceptions about epistemology of science.
Science Education, 76, 559 580.
Schoneweg Bradford, C., Rubba, P. A., & Harkness, W. L. (1995). Views about ScienceTechnology Society: Interactions held by college students in general education physics and STS courses.
Science Education, 79, 353 373.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Shapiro, B. L. (1988). The use of personal construct theory and the repertory grid in the development
of case reports of childrens science learning (pp. 251271). In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development
and dilemmas in science education. London: Falmer Press.
Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an
independent investigation in science: Learning about the Face of science that does not yet know.
Science Education, 80, 535 560.
Shaw, E. L., Jr. (1992). The influence of methods instruction on the beliefs of preservice elementary
and secondary science teachers: Preliminary comparative analyses. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 14 22.
Shaw, M. L. G. (1980). On becoming a personal scientist. Interactive computer elicitation of personal
models of the world. London: Academic Press.
Shaw, M. L. G., & Gaines, B. R. (1992). Kellys geometry of psychological space and its significance for cognitive modeling. The New Psychologist, October, 2331.
Slater, P. (1977). The measurement of intrapersonal space by the grid technique. Vol. 2. Dimensions
of intrapersonal space. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learning
using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research, 62, 205225.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.) (1994). STS education international perspectives on reform.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1994). Pupils images of scientific epistemology. International
Journal of Science Education, 16, 361373.
Stead, K. (1983). Insights into students outlooks on science with personal constructs. Research in
Science Education, 13, 163 176.
Stow, D. A. V. (1996). Geoscience education and training: Preparing for the 21st century. In D. A. V.
Stow & G. J. H. McCall (Eds.), Geoscience education and training. Joint special publication of
the COGEOED of the IUGS and the AGID, no. 19 (pp. 815824). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Suchting, W. A. (1995). The nature of scientific thought. Science & Education, 4, 122.

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of text
Base of text

short
standard
long

SCE (WILEJ)

700

LEFT

INTERACTIVE

BEZZI

Sutman, F. X. (1996). Science literacy: A functional definition. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 33, 459 460.
Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science
Education, 18, 1 18.
Turner, C., & Frodeman, R. L. (1996, October). Place in contemporary political debates, II: The
Earth Sciences as paradigmatic science. Paper presented at the GSA Annual Meeting. Denver,
CO (p. A 259).

Top of RH
Base of RH
Top of test
Base of text

short
standard
long