GOWIN’S KNOWLEDGE VEE: USING TO IMPROVE
PRESERVICE TEACHERS ABILITY FOR CONDUCTING
AND DIRECTING SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS
Piyush Swami,
Robert Shields,
Abstract
Gowin’sKnowledge Vee, a constructivist heuristic, was introduced to undergraduatesenrolled in two introductory biology courses at a community college in
Our study suggests the Vee can beused to assist undergraduates to learn science and science education. Moreover, the students, none of whom werescience majors, showed a willingness to try a heuristic they had never beforeused, a facility to use it and sufficient positive experience to consider usingit in their future course work. Giveneven this limited experience, we believe that the Vee can be employed in theundergraduate classroom and, in turn, K-12 classrooms.
The Constructivist Theory ofLearning
Whether classicbehavior modification or cognitive behavior modification, the classroom hasbeen teacher centered with students treated as passive receivers and learningconsidered to be a stepwise process. Atthe same time that behaviorism was employed as the primary teaching processother research was beginning to point to learning as a constructedprocess. In fact, the development of theconcept of learning as a constructed process is itself a construction whichcan, at the least, be traced back to Piaget and Inhelder. Piaget’s concept of cognitive development,assimilation and accommodation in particular, evolved through the work ofothers so that today there is a more complete picture of how we learn.
Vygotskyintroduced the role of social interaction in cognitive development while Brunerproposed that learning is an active process in which learners construct newideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge. The cognitive structure is a schema or mentalmodel which provides meaning and organization to experiences and can assist thelearner to go beyond the information given.As with Vygotsky, Bruner saw education as a social and interactiveprocess in which the goal was to assist students with their cognitivedevelopment rather than a reception process in which they were presented factsto memorize without a well established, if it was at all, context.
Subsumption,according to Ausubel, is the primary process of learning in which new materialis related to similar material already existing in the cognitive structure in asubstantive and non-verbatim basis. Tofacilitate cognitive development, Ausubel (1963) recommended the use of theadvanced organizer. Advanced organizersare:
“. . . introduced in advance of learning itself, and arealso presented at a
higher level of abstraction,generality, and inclusiveness; and since the
substantive content of a given organizer or series of organizers is selected
on the basis of its suitability for explaining, integrating,and interrelating
the material they precede,this strategy simultaneously satisfies the
substantive as well as theprogramming criteria for enhancing the
organization strength ofcognitive structure.” (1963, p. 81).
Withthe work of Piaget and Inhelder (Gallagher & Reid, 1981), Vygotsky (1978),Bruner (DeBoer 1991) and Ausubel (1963), constructivist learning can be seen asa process in which the student assimilates and accommodates new knowledge andexperiences in the context of the prior knowledge and experiences and creates anew and personal or idiosyncratic understanding.
Until 1984constructivism in education was a theory for which there did not yet existmethodologies by which it could be applied in the classroom. Novak and Gowin (1984) introduced twoconstructivist heuristics: the conceptmap which is a tool for helping students to understand the meaning ofknowledge, and the knowledge Vee diagram, a tool to help students understandthe structure as well as meaning of knowledge.The Knowledge Vee, also referred to as Gowin’s Vee, is the heuristicwhich may assist students in understanding science literature as well aslaboratory experiences.
Gowin’s Knowledge Vee
Concerned withthe apparent inability of students in science laboratories to place their workin a larger context, Gowin began in the 1970s to develop a process that wouldhelp students make those crucial learning connections. Students were, and still are, familiar with“shake and bake” laboratory experiences which, upon completion, normallyrequire the submission of a laboratory report.Gowin, as have many science educators, noted that students could easilyidentify the materials and methods they used and the results they achieved;they could not explain how their results were connected to an underlying theorynor could they generalize their results.In short, they had disconnected information which, in that form, was ofno learning value. The students were notable to explain the meanings of their results yet “. . . meaning must beconstructed, and we must show how all elements interact when we construct newmeanings.” (Novak & Gowin, 1984, p.56). Novak (1990, p. 31) described theVee as a heuristic representing the “. . . constructivist view of knowledge andillustrat(ing) the . . . epistemological elements that interact in the processof new knowledge construction.”
The Vee heuristicwas developed to illuminate the structure of, as well as help studentsconstruct, knowledge. It emphasizes thestructure of, and interplay between, the theoretical and methodologicaldimensions of knowledge. Gowin’s Vee,which evolved over more than 15 years (Gowin, 1970, 1981), had in its originalconfiguration 16 epistemological elements which, in practice, has been reducedto elements. The structure ofknowledge is in two parts: conceptualand methodological. Gowin choose to usethe “V” for the form of his heuristic simply because it has two sides, a centerand an apex.
The left orconceptual side of Vee (Figure 1) is composed of philosophies, theories,principles and concepts; those constructs that provide the foundation orcontext for further learning.Philosophy, although we don’t often think of it in everyday science orscience education, underlies all that we do.Gowin described philosophy as the belief about the nature of knowledgeand knowing which guide inquiry. As thisis so broad and science laboratories are usually limited in scope, philosophyis usually not used in a Vee applied to a laboratory. Subordinate to philosophy is theory that isdescribed as “logically related sets of concept permitting patterns ofreasoning leading to explanations”(Novak & Gowin, 1984, p. 56).Note that the description in Figure 1 differs from that here; this isdone to provide for a wider understanding of that concept. Theories such as that of the diversity oflife, cyclogenesis and photosynthesis are usually presented in discussion orlecture sections of a class and are thus included usually as the highestconceptual level in a student’s Vee as noted in Figure 1. Theories contain one or more principles orconstructs which are “ideas which support reliable theory, but without directreferents in events or objects” (Novak & Gowin, 1984, p. 56). They, in turn are supported by concepts whichGowin describes as “signs or symbols signifying regularities in events andshared socially.” (Novak & Gowin, 1984, p. 56) It is the conceptual side which provides themeaning of, and foundation for, the methodology and is also the side which asbeen traditionally overlooked by both students as well as some teachers.
Figure 1. Gowin’s Knowledge Vee (after Novak and Gowin,1984)
Conceptual Methodological
<![if !vml]>
<![endif]><![if !vml]>
<![endif]><![if !vml]>
<![endif]><![if !vml]>
<![endif]>
Philosophy: Interaction Value Claims:
<![if !vml]>
<![endif]><![if !vml]>
<![endif]>The beliefs about the Theworth or value of nature of knowledge theinquiry
andknowing guiding the
inquiry Focus Knowledge Claims:
Question Answers to the focus
Theory: question(s)- reasonable
Thegeneral Principles guiding interpretationsof the records
theInquiry that explain why andtransformed records/data
eventsor objects what is
observed Transformations:
Reorganized, rearranged
Constructs: recordsmore manageable &
Ideasshowing specific relation- meaningful representation of the
shipsbetween concepts, without event – tables, graphs etc.
directorigin in events or objects
Concepts: Raw data:
Perceivedregularity in events or objects The observation(s) made and recorded
(orrecords of events or objects) from the events/objects studied
designatedby a label.
Events &Objects: Description of the event(s) and/or object(s)
to be studied inorder to answer the focus question.
The focusquestion in the center of the Vee is based on the conceptual side and mustclearly address an issue specific to the left side. The apex, especially, points to the eventsand objects which “. . . are at the root of all knowledge production . ..” (Novak & Gowin, 1984 p. 57). Events and objects are the activities andmaterials which comprise the normal laboratory experience and have as theirimmediate foundation the focus question.Although not stated explicitly, Gowin chose to use events and objects inlieu of “materials and methods” to insure that those epistemological elementswould not be confused with same named elements of the positivists’ scientificmethod. Moving up the right side are theresults of the events and objects, first of which is the record or specificresults of the experience. They in turncan be transformed to a more useable format such as graphs or statisticalanalyses which in turn can be used to create knowledge claims in which newgeneralizations answer the focus question.At the top of the methodological side, and supported by the elementsbelow it, are the value claims which identify the worth of the knowledge claimsor place them in the context of the underlying theory. Such worth in the context of the underlyingtheory is the purpose of Kuhn’s (1970) “normal science”. Note the “interaction” arrow connecting theconceptual and methodological sides; it is this which calls to the attention ofthe student and teacher the connections between knowing and doing. If a laboratory is constructed well thefocus question is clearly based on the conceptual side, and the methodologicalside both answers the focus question and adds more understanding to theconceptual side. The Vee functions inhelping students see the interactions between theory, methods and results. In its use, the Vee functions much like anadvanced organizer in that it enhances the organization strength of thecognitive structure.
Gowin’s Vee inthe Laboratory
Novak and Gowincontended that the Vee heuristic is a useful constructivist tool and fieldstudies by others support their contention.In keeping with the purpose for which the Vee was originally developedGurley-Dilger (1992), in one of the earliest articles on the Vee, used it in ahigh school laboratory by having her students fill in the conceptual sidebefore a laboratory experience and then completing the methodological sidefollowing the experience. The completedVee served as their laboratory reports and were easier for the teacher torespond to than the traditional laboratory report. She reported that they learned better inthat they could not only see the interaction between the two sides, prior andnew or constructed knowledge, but the teacher could easily identify to them anyproblems they appeared to have with that interaction. Her results were supported by otherstudies: Qin (1997), Lebowitz (1998) andPassmore (1998) also found the Vee to be effective in college sciencelaboratories. Novak (1984) also notedthat Gowin’s Vee had been tried with some success in elementary schoolsalthough there is little in the literature on this. The limited number of articles and even fewerdissertations concerning the Vee are primarily focused, as was Gurley-Dilger’s,on the use of the Vee in science laboratory experiences.
Gowin’s VeeUsed With Preservice Teachers
If Gowin’s Vee isto be used in the classroom it has to be introduced to students by theirteachers. Novak (1998) suggested amethod by which students can be introduced to and learn to use the Vee. His method has, however, yet to be tested asthe majority of Vee studies occurred prior to the publication of his 1998 bookand studies conducted subsequent to his book do not reference his method. That Novak choose to suggest a methodacknowledges its importance if the Vee is to find wider use in scienceeducation.
Okebukola (1992)found that preservice teachers of mathematics and science can learn to use theVee but find it difficult to teach students how to use it. Wandersee (1990) noted the same problem andsuggested that of the constructivist heuristics, the Vee was the most difficultto use. Its difficulty notwithstanding,teachers in Okebukola’s study did have a positive attitude towards usingGowin’s Vee. Roth and Roychoudhury(1993) found that preservice elementary teachers could learn to use the Vee,they had a positive attitude towards its use and it helped them to “reflect onthe process of learning and teaching science” (p. 243). They also found that the Vee could be used incollaborative situations. Nelson andEpps (1996) also found that preservice elementary teachers could learn to usethe Vee and were willing to use it in laboratory investigations but, as foundin other studies, the students had difficulties with the higher order elementssuch as value claims and principles.
Gowin’s VeeUsed for Analyses of Science Literature
Gowinsuggested however (Novak & Gowin, 1984) that “Papers, texts, literaryworks, lectures, and other forms of exposition can be analyzed and criticallyevaluated using the Vee” (p. 117). Theliterature provides only one article (Stewart, 1997) which examines that use ofGowin’s Vee and thus there is a need to further examine Gowin’s contention.
Current Study of Gowin’s Vee
With the belief,based on available research, that Gowin’s Vee can be a very useful tool in thescience classroom and recognizing that there yet remains a dearth of researchconcerning it, we engaged in a two pronged study of how to teach it as well asdetermine, to a limited degree, its efficacy.The results reported herein are preliminary and will serve as the basisfor future studies. Our primaryinterests in these preliminary studies is to learn best how to help studentsuse it as well as learn how receptive students are to this heuristic to whichthey had not been previously exposed.With such knowledge further research on its efficacy will be lessinfluenced by the variable of teaching the tool. That said, we did take an non-rigorous lookat its efficacy.
In this study heVee was introduced to undergraduates enrolled in two introductory biologycourses at a community college in
Discussion
In the communitycollege introductory biology classes, students were required to read assignedarticles from science magazines and then write a paper which illustrated theirunderstanding of the topic as well as present a critique of the article. The treatment group prepared the requirednarrative only after receiving instruction on the use of the Vee and preparinga Vee on their article. The controlgroup did not receive such instruction nor were they required to prepare a Veeprior to writing their narrative. Bothgroups were further assessed through the use of an exam essay based on yetanother science article.
This part of thestudy utilized a static-group comparison, quasi-experimental design, (Table 1)a design also referred to as pre-experimental (Newman, personalcommunication). This design was chosenas the participants could not be truly given random assignments to a treatmentor control group and that a posttest was administered to both group but nopretests were used. Convenience sampling wasused to determine which class would be the control and which would be thetreatment group.
Table1
The Static-Group Comparison Quasi-ExperimentalResearch Design
Actionprior to treatmentTreatment given Posttest
TreatmentGroup - X O
ControlGroup - - O
______________________________________________________________________________
Key: - = no action taken
X = treatment administered
O = posttest administered
The hypothesis being testedwas: there is not any difference in thequality of understanding of science article between students who have learnedand used Gowin’s Vee and those who have not as expressed in the form of awritten review and critique, and in the form of an examination essayquestion.
Participants inthis study were students attending an
During the studyeach group was assigned to read and respond to specific articles from first Science News and later Scientific American. Students in the treatment group received aninitial introduction to and instruction in the use of Gowin’s Vee for 80minutes when they received their first writing assignment. Classroom instruction followed thatrecommended by Novak (1998) and included an overview of the structure and useof the Vee as well as examples of the Vee, developed by the instructor, asapplied to science articles. It shouldbe noted that examples of such a use of the Vee do not exist in the literature. In addition to the classroom instruction theywere given a four page handout which included a description of the Vee, asample of the Vee and a blank Vee for their use. The students in the control group received anassignment that did not include information specific to the Vee. The students in the treatment group wererequired to complete a Vee for their assigned article and submit it forcritique. Upon return of the Vee theywere allowed to discuss it among themselves but no further instruction or classcritique was provided as it was believed it would confound the results byproviding each student in the treatment group with, in essence, an instructordeveloped Vee for the article. The Veeswere evaluated using the rubric developed by Gowin (Novak and Gowin, 1984, pp.71-71). The reviews were assessed usingan instructor developed rubric.
Examinationessays were based on a specific article from Scientific American.Students in the treatment group were encouraged but not required toproduce their own Vee for the essay article and to share their Vees and discussthe articles prior to the exam. For bothgroups the articles were provided a week before the exams.
The pre-serviceteachers enrolled in a methods course received their introduction to the Veealso using the method recommended by Novak (1998). An analysis of the efficacy of the heuristicwas not conducted in this part of the study.The Vees produced by the preservice teachers were for laboratory exercisesand were evaluated using Gowin’s rubric (Novak and Gowin, 1984). At both the community college and theresearch university students were asked to respond to a survey concerning theirperceptions of the Vee.
In the communitycollege part of the study there was a difference in the quality of the articlereviews and critiques and examination essays between the treatment and controlgroups but the differences were not significant. The surveys indicate that most of thestudents thought using the Vee for both articles was difficult but they wouldbe open to continue using it. Thisfinding is in agreement with Lebowitz’s (1998) findings. The students’ comments from this study alsosupport the continued use of the Vee and, again, are very similar to thecomments provided by the students in Lebowitz’s study. Some of the comments were:
“. . . it definitely made me graspthe material.”
“I can also see myself using the Vin the future for my own
purposes/helping to get a papertogether.”
“I wouldn’t say it was amazing, butit was helpful.”
The Vee was very helpful and a goodtool. At first it was very
confusing but then I got it.”
“It made me read the article more.”
“It helped me organize my info . . .I will use Gowin's Vee in the future.”
Conclusion andRecommendations
Although preliminary, thisstudy provides us first with support for the usefulness of the Vee, second, abetter understanding of the difficulties students found with the Vee and,finally, it suggests the need for improvements to how we teach and evaluate thetool.
Although therewas not a significant difference between the treatment and control groups inthe community college part of the study, that there was a difference suggeststhe Vee may be useful. Certainly, intheir critiques of the Vee, the students opined that the Vee is useful. With a more critical review of Novak’smethods for teaching the Vee and more practice at doing so we may moreeffectively introduce Gowin’s Vee to students.Of particular interest is the difficulty students have determining valueclaims and theories, and to a lesser but still notable degree, knowledge claimsand principles/constructs; this is consistent with the findings by Nelson andEpps (1996). They had few problemsidentifying focus questions, events and objects, raw data and transformationsand, in spite of the problems identifying theories and value claims, they wereable to make the connection between the conceptual and methodological sides ofthe Vee. In this, we agree withWandersee’s (1990) assessment that the Vee is difficult to use and Novak’scontention that “. . . using the Vee requires significantly more training,incubation time, and reorientation in the way most people think about knowledgeand knowledge creation.” (1998, p. 110).
Although notconclusive, this study supports Gowin’s contention, and agrees with Stewart’s(1998) conclusion, that the Vee can be useful for the analysis of sciencearticles. It also supports the studiesby Okebukola and Roth and Roychoudhurythat preservice teachers can develop a positive attitude towards the heuristicand appreciate its usefulness in the constructivist classroom.
Another aspect ofeffectively introducing the Vee to students is the rubric by which their Veesare assessed. The only rubric developedfor evaluating student Vees was done so for use with middle school laboratoriesand is not an effective tool for evaluating Vees developed for analysis ofscience articles. Such a rubric needs toand will be developed. The importancefor this rubric this lies in the focus on scientific literacy as the overarchinggoal of science education. Sciencearticles can be used to supplement text books and, after students havecompleted their formal science education, often become an important if not solesource of science information. Theability of students to understand articles in commercial and popular magazinessuch as Scientific American, and theability of teachers to help students learn to effectively use such sources ofscience information are critical to the development of a scientificallyliterate citizenry.
As evidenced bythe paucity of literature on this heuristic, Gowin’s Vee has long beenoverlooked as a tool to be used in the constructivist classroom. The literature which does exist and ourinitial study suggest this is an oversight that does a disservice to studentsstudying science. Our initial study alsoleads us to hope that Novak is not quite on the mark with his guess “. . . thatit will take 2 or 3 decades before the power and utility of using the KnowledgeVee for knowledge capture and facilitation of thinking takes hold . . .” (1998,p. 110). We believe that it need not,nor should not, take that long.
References
Ausubel,D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to
school learning.
DeBoer,G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice.
Gallagher,J.M., & Reid, D.K. (1981). The learning theory of Piaget &Inhelder.
TX: Pro-Ed.
Gowin,D.B. (1970). The structure ofknowledge. Educational Theory, 20 (4), 319-328.
Gowin,D.B. (1981). Educating.
Gurley-Dilger,L. (1992) Gowin’s Vee: Linking thelecture and the laboratory. The
Science Teacher 59(3), 50-57.
Kuhn,T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed).
Lebowitz,S.J. (1998, April). Use of Vee maps in a college science laboratory. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association ofResearch in
Science Teaching,
Nelson,M. & Epps, N.V. (1996, January). An analysis of elementary majors’ pogress
with Vee diagramming. Paper presented as the annual meeting of the Association
for the Education ofTeachers of Science,
Novak,J. D. (1977). A theory of education.
Novak,J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Veediagrams: Two metacognitive tools to
facilitate meaningful learning.Instructional Science. 19: 29-52.
Novak,J.D. (1998) . Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept Maps as
facilitative tools in schoolsand corporations.
Associates, Inc.
Novak,J., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn.
University Press.
Okebukola,P.A. (1992). Attitude of teacherstowards concept mapping and Vee
diagramming as metalearning tools in science and mathematics. Educational
Research, 34, 201-213.
Passmore,G.G. (1998). Using Vee Diagrams tofacilitate meaningful learning and
misconception remediation in radiologic technologies laboratoryeducation.
Radiologic Science &Education, 4(1), 11-28.
Qin,Y. (1997). An investigation of the effectiveness of the Vee heuristic for studentpre-
laboratory preparations inchemistry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Roth,W-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993).Using Vee and concept maps in collaborative
settings: Elementary education majors construct meaning inphysical science
courses. School Science and Mathematics, 93,237-244.
Stewart,G. (1997). The use of Gowin’s Vee to improve post-graduate critical analysis of
research papers. Retrieved November 2, 2003 from http://www.hsb.baylor.edu/
ramsower/ais.ac.97/papers/stewart2.htm.
Vitgotsky,L.D. (1978). Mind in Society.
Wandersee,J.H. (1990). Concept mapping and thecartography of cognition. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27, 923-936.
