Keywords

1 Introduction

Several studies have already investigated and discussed the complex relationships between science and narratives, and put forward proposals for the classroom (Avraamidou & Osborne, 2009; Hadzigeorgiou, 2016, Orange Ravachol, 2017). Our research contributes to this body of work. Its originality lies in the fact that, whilst being situated in the same theoretical framework of learning through problematisation, it looks at using narratives to construct scientific knowledge from two slightly different approaches:

  • An approach which considers that the use of realistic fiction can contribute to constructing problematised biological knowledge.

  • An approach which considers that some forms of narrative, in particular storytelling, actually hinder the construction of biological knowledge.

These partially contradictory standpoints are useful when examining the extent to which fictional narratives can contribute to constructing problematised biological knowledge and under what didactic conditions the transposition of biological knowledge in fictional narratives can be considered to be an asset from a didactic perspective. They also lead us to question how shifting towards extra-ordinary forms of reasoning (as opposed to ordinary common-sense reasoning) allows us to move away from storytelling. In the first part of this paper, we will present the epistemological and didactic theories underpinning this work. We will then characterise the two approaches using a number of examples. Finally, we will highlight and discuss their compatibility, before looking at the possible implications for curricula.

2 Epistemological and Didactic Theory

2.1 Problematisation and Scientific Knowledge

Our research concerns learning in a rationalist framework (Bachelard, Popper, Canguilhem). The construction of scientific knowledge, by scientists or school pupils, is based on working through explanatory problems, with a view to identifying a common-sense explanation for the situation and then going beyond this. This construction does not focus on the starting points (the problem tackled) and end points (explanations seen as solutions) of the scientific work. Instead, it concentrates on what occurs between the posing of the problem and its resolution. In other words, it deploys a sort of investigation which not only aims to find a solution to the problem, but also seeks to identify the necessities which constrain this solution. This approach, which focusses on the work of explicitly stating problems in order to construct scientific knowledge, is problematisation (Fabre & Orange, 1997). It is a demanding approach which, within a specific framework (incorporating the use of different types of reasoning), explores the possible, impossible and necessary in the solutions (explanatory models) and how these can be controlled using critical thinking and empirical investigation. The knowledge built is not limited to solutions to the problems (assertoric knowledge), but is also characterised by necessity (apodictic knowledge). In the sciences, knowing is not only ‘knowing that’; it is also knowing ‘why it cannot be otherwise…’ (Reboul, 1992).

2.2 Science and Narrative

The sciences (including biology) and scientific research are human and cultural endeavours in which narrative and fiction clearly have a role to play. However, “when we invent worlds which are possible in fiction, we never really leave the universe we know” (Bruner, 2002, p. 82). Popper (1985, p. 191) established a relationship of filiation between myth and science. He writes that what we call ‘science’ distinguishes itself from myth, not by the form it takes (in both cases it involves telling a story to explain a phenomenon), but because it introduces a correlate, critically analysing this story through discussion, comparing it with other possible stories and with empirical evidence. In this way he separates scientific knowledge from our highly subjective, common knowledge, and places it in a third world – ‘a world without a knowing subject’. This is an objective and autonomous world, whose ‘inhabitants’ are the theoretical systems, the problems and the state of these problems (state of discussion, state of exchanging critical arguments) (Popper, 1991).

The sciences, through their proximity to and conflict with narratives, should therefore on the one hand make ‘responsible use’ of stories (Bruner, 1996), in order to preserve the relevance of the problem and critical depth of the work, and, on the other hand, remove themselves from common knowledge, which is so effective in terms of the shortcuts it takes in its reasoning (ad hoc causes, simple causality, for example). As Bachelard puts it, “in common knowledge, the facts are linked to the reasons far too quickly. From the fact to the idea, the circuit is far too short” (1938, p. 44).

2.3 Fictional Narratives and Scientific Problematisation: The Notion of Realistic Fiction

Through the notion of realistic fiction (Bruguière & Triquet, 2012) we have characterised certain fictional narratives for use as didactic objects suited to the problematised construction of biological knowledge. Our work differs from the more psychology and epistemology-focused studies (Egan, 1986; Hadzigeorgiou, 2016) which look at the impact of stories on students’ recall, emotional involvement and motivation. Here, we assign the narrative and the fiction a cognitive function thanks to the narrative’s capacity to question the objects of the world (Barthes, 1966) on the one hand, and to the fiction’s capacity to represent possible worlds on the other (Eco, 1979). The fictional narratives we consider to have this didactic potential are fictional stories which do not provide any answers, never mind any scientific explanation as is the case for the explanatory stories (Reiss et al., 1999), but in which the plot is constrained by underlying scientific phenomena, and in which the fiction, because it creates possible worlds close to the real world of the pupil, unfolds in the pupils’ spheres of reference. In these fictional narratives, neither the scientific phenomena which guide the unfolding plot nor the variations in scientific knowledge in the fiction’s possible worlds are mentioned explicitly. These realistic-fiction narratives can therefore generate problems in terms of interpretation (Eco, 1979) and lead the reader to actively contribute to questioning this scientific knowledge. This involves working on the characteristics of these realistic-fiction narratives, such as the complexity of the plot and the contrast between characters’ intentional and unintentional actions (caused by biological phenomena), all of which are levers for problematisation (Bruguière & Triquet, 2012).

3 Narratives in Learning About Biological Phenomena

3.1 Reasoned Interpretation of Works of Realistic-Fiction

Here we propose a case study based on the interpretive study of the realistic-fiction picture book La promesse (Willis & Ross, 2010), with the aim of problematising the concept of animal metamorphosis with young primary school pupils. In this book, the animal characters undergo the metamorphoses inherent to their species, but against their will. When working on their comprehension of the reasons for the events that go against the characters’ wishes, the pupils are confronted with a number of epistemological obstacles (Rumelhard, 1995, Triquet & Bruguière, 2014) inherent to the problematising of the concept of animal metamorphosis including:

  • the obstacle of the non-permanence of the species.

  • the obstacle of an instantaneous, radical, intentional metamorphosis.

  • the obstacle of the primacy of perception over conceptualisation, which hinders their understanding of the invisible nature of the profound changes which take place during the metamorphosis.

This didactic situation is led by a teacher, who is part of our collaborative research team, with the pupils in her class who are all 6 or 7 years old. They are asked to interpret the last four pages of this picture book after looking at the first four pages. In this opening section, the tadpole character, living in a pond makes a promise to “never change” to the caterpillar character who lives on a branch of a willow tree. However, this promise made out of love is undone as first the tadpole grows front legs, then back legs, despite renewing its promise each time. In the last four pages, the characters are now adults. The butterfly and the frog no longer recognise each other and while they are looking for each other, the frog eats the butterfly. The analysis focusses on two excerpts during an interpretive reading of the end of the story when the frog eats the butterfly (Excerpt 2.1).

Excerpt 2.1

  • Teacher: How can we be sure that the butterfly is the same as the caterpillar at the beginning of the story?

  • Émilie: Because we know that at the beginning of the story the caterpillar calls the tadpole ‘my shiny black pearl’ and then says it again later on.

  • Teacher: So, it’s because it uses the same nickname. Is there anything else which tells us that the butterfly is the caterpillar from the beginning of the story?

  • Enzo: Because the caterpillar is fat and multi-coloured.

  • Teacher: Oh, well, for the colours all right, we have the same colours as at the beginning, so that could be a clue; there’s the nickname, then the colours. And how do you know the frog is the tadpole? It’s not obvious, is it?

  • Younes: Because at the end the legs have grown.

  • Teacher: Yes, but maybe it’s a different frog; we don’t know what happened in the middle of the story. How do we know it’s not a different frog?

  • Clara: Because at the end the frog is waiting for their beautiful rainbow.

In this excerpt, the pupils are invited to think about the identity of the frog and the devoured butterfly: “How can we be sure that the butterfly is the same as the caterpillar at the beginning of the story?” and “How do you know the frog is the tadpole? It’s not obvious, is it?” the teacher asks. The aim is to grasp the continuity between the tadpole/frog character and the caterpillar/butterfly character despite the fact that the characters do not recognise each other at the end of the story, so that the pupils can confront the problem of the permanence of living beings during their metamorphosis. The questioning takes place on two levels. On the narrative level, it involves understanding why the characters no longer recognise each other at the end of the story, despite knowing each other at the beginning of the story. On the scientific level, it involves identifying the permanence of a living organism despite its morphology changing over time.

The pupils identify the clues that point to this continuity. The first clue concerns the nickname given to the characters, as expressed by Emilie: “Because we know that at the beginning of the story the caterpillar calls the tadpole “my shiny black pearl” and then says it again later in the book” or as Clara puts it: “The frog is waiting for their beautiful rainbow.” The second clue identified is that the caterpillar and the butterfly share similar colours: “Because the caterpillar is fat and multi-coloured” (like the butterfly), says Enzo. The third clue concerns the continuity of form, as suggested by Younes: “Because at the end the legs have grown.” It could be argued that the pupils agree on the continuity of the butterfly and frog characters by focussing on the similarities between the adult and larval forms. Although this allows pupils to grasp the idea of the permanence of species, it might also reinforce the idea that the adult form is derived from the larval form and mitigate the profound and invisible changes undergone during metamorphosis. This is precisely what the teacher tries to get the pupils to work on when interpreting Excerpt 2.2.

Excerpt 2.2

  • Teacher: At the start of the story, the tadpole and the caterpillar were in love. How you would describe their relationship now as a frog and a butterfly?

  • Nawel: Before, at the beginning, the tadpole lived in the water. Later they arrange to meet, and at the end, the frog didn’t realise that it had eaten ‘its rainbow’.

  • Teacher: Could the tadpole have eaten the caterpillar before?

  • Milo: Well, no, it isn’t possible, because if the caterpillar falls into the water, it will die, and if the tadpole comes out of the water, it will die, too.

  • Teacher: And, therefore, can the frog eat the butterfly?

  • Milo: Yes, they are still in love, but the frog didn’t recognise the caterpillar, so it ate it.

  • Émilie: In fact, it’s not surprising that the frog eats the butterfly because the butterfly is an insect and frogs eat insects.

  • Teacher: So, for you, the end of the story is logical.

  • Neila: I kind of agree with Émilie because butterflies are insects, but if it had known that it was the caterpillar which had transformed itself, I’d say that it wouldn’t have eaten it.

In this excerpt, the teacher turns the pupils’ attention to understanding the ending to the story when the frog eats the butterfly. More specifically, she focuses on the conditions of possibility of this ending: How is the frog able to eat the butterfly at the end of the story when at the beginning of the story this predatory relationship is not possible? She does this by formulating questions which move away from the narrative towards what is possible and impossible: “Now how would you describe their relationship as frog and butterfly” […] “Could the tadpole have eaten the caterpillar before?” […] “And, therefore, can the frog eat the butterfly?”

The first biological reason suggested by the pupils concerns the environment: For the predation to occur, the animals must be in the same environment. As Nawel puts it: “Before, at the start, the tadpole was down below in the water,” meaning the tadpole was not in the same environment as the caterpillar and “Later they arrange to meet,” meaning they find themselves in the same environment. Milo goes a step further by explaining why it is impossible for the tadpole and the caterpillar to live in the same environment at the beginning of the story: “Well, no, it isn’t possible, because if the caterpillar falls into the water, it will die, and if the tadpole comes out of the water, it will die, too.” The second reason relates to the animals’ diets. “It’s not surprising that the frog eats the butterfly because the butterfly is an insect and frogs eat insects” explains Émilie, a statement confirmed by Neila. The pupils do not directly consider the profound transformations themselves, but rather their consequences, i.e. the change in environment and change in diet.

By making sense of the narrative, the pupils come to question the real-life phenomena, working off their own understanding of animal metamorphosis. The pupils work together to explore the possibilities and identify the conditions of possibility governing the transformations of the animal characters, within the restricted framework of the fictional narrative. This leads them to compare and contrast the change/permanence of living organisms’ duality, as well as the visible/invisible transformations duality. One of the major benefits of these realistic-fiction picture books is that it allows this problematisation work to take place, something which is not possible when using a non-fiction work which sets out the facts and solutions with little debate.

3.2 Methods of Narrative Reasoning and Scientific Problematisation

From our perspective, science education should give pupils access to new ways of seeing the world, new ways of thinking which go beyond what is considered common knowledge. In order to achieve this, it is important to go beyond the teaching of scientific results – “teaching scientific results is not science education” (Bachelard (1938, p. 264). It is important that pupils be confronted with biology problems with real epistemological substance and asked to work on them, as this will allow for proper involvement in the process of constructing scientific knowledge. Furthermore, building on the work by Astolfi (2008), and within the framework of problematisation, we place particular importance on putting pupils in the right conditions to provide them with reasoned access to ways of thinking which go beyond the ordinary – what we call here ‘extra-ordinary reasoning’. This is achieved by going beyond the tendency to provide explanations through storytelling. Here, three case studies in nutritional biology are used to investigate the conditions in which pupils can be led to adopt extra-ordinary reasoning: One in a primary school setting and two in secondary school settings. Epistemological and didactic markers are then used to analyse the pupils’ statements.

  • First example: breathing at primary school (pupils, 8–10 years old).

The teacher wanted to go beyond the notion of inhalation and exhalation (air going in and out of the lungs). She explains to the class that the air we breathe is a mix of oxygen and nitrogen, and that nitrogen is not useful for our body, but oxygen is a vital requirement. She shows the pupils a magnified representation of the composition of air (Fig. 2.1a). Then, in groups of three or four, the pupils are asked to answer the following question: “How do all the different parts of your body get oxygen from the air you breathe?” They are asked to produce a diagram with legends and explanations on a poster on which an outline of a human body has already been drawn. Then the groups present and discuss their posters (Orange et al., 2008).

Fig. 2.1
An illustration and a photo labeled a and b. a, circle and plus symbols represent oxygen and nitrogen, respectively. b, The photo of a drawing of a human-like figure emphasizing the heart, lungs, nose, and lips to illustrate the process of breathing.

The explanation of breathing proposed by one group of pupils (8–10 years old). (a) The main gas components of air (b) The poster produced by group 2

Full size image

This written work produced by the pupils (for example: group 2, fig. 2.1b) and the discussion show the pupils’ explanations have two main characteristics:

  • A clear tendency to provide explanations using storytelling

Some of the pupils think about the distribution of blood around the body according to a schematic representation: blood production (in the heart, for example), distribution via the blood vessels and use by the different parts of the body. This is an irrigation-type explanation. It is based on a series of steps which are linked both by chronology and causality. This type of explanation by storytelling is characteristic of human thought (Bruner, 2002).

  • Intra-objectal explanations

Let us take a look at what ERW, a pupil in the class, says: “And the heart, when it’s too old… the old blood goes back to the heart and then the heart, well, actually….”

He disputes the basic irrigation explanation and proposes the notion that the blood returns to the heart, which leads the class to work on the notion of circulation. However, this circulation is conceived as the old blood returning to the heart to be rejuvenated. In other words, his explanation is based on the quality of the blood considered as a whole, rather than on the idea of the blood as a container or means of transportation. Moreover, we can see that this idea of the blood as a single entity is reproduced in the poster: There is no figurative representation of the oxygen (dots on the top left of the poster) inside the blood vessels, only of the blood. The pupils thus build their explanations based on the qualities assigned to the objects (the blood) rather than the relationships between objects (the blood as a carrier of oxygen): They are intra-objectal rather than inter-objectal (Piaget & Garcia, 1983).

These two types of explanation, storytelling and intra-objectal reasoning, are also proposed by older pupils when tackling problems in nutritional biology or other areas. This contrasts with the scientists’ explanations for whom addressing the nutritional biology problem requires going beyond storytelling, using inter-objectal reasoning, and moving away from irrigation and towards circulation.

  • Second example: blood circulation (pupils, 16–17 years old).

The pupils first work on how the muscles in the body are supplied with oxygen. This is something they had already studied a few years prior. The class does not have much difficulty in agreeing on a double circulation diagram (Fig. 2.2).

Fig. 2.2
A diagram of a double blood circulation mechanism. It presents the intake of O 2 by pulmonary alveoli, then goes to pulmonary veins, left side of the heart, aorta, O 2 distribution and C O 2 elimination by cells, vena cava, right side of the heart, pulmonary arteries, and C O 2 elimination.

Double blood circulation

Full size image

The pupils are then asked to complete the diagram, modifying it as they see fit to take into account the fact that not only do the muscles need oxygen, but also nutrients, and that, as well as producing CO2, they also produce nitrogenous waste including urea, discharged in the urine.

Here are two representative examples of the work produced by pupils when trying to answer this question (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.3
Two diagrams of blood circulation. The drawings present only the parts through which blood flows. The parts labeled in the diagrams include oxygenated blood, the aorta, the intestine, muscles, and arteries. The blood flow is indicated by arrows. The chemical reaction is also mentioned.

Two examples of pupils’ work (16–17 years old). (Orange & Orange, 1995)

Full size image

These two explanatory models position all the organs in series. They are based on storytelling:

The blood is supplied with oxygen in the lungs; then it recovers nutrients in the intestines, before taking everything to the muscle, where it loads up the nitrogenous waste and CO2 which it eliminates via the kidneys and the lungs, respectively.

The pupils’ attachment to explaining through storytelling is striking when they are given a circulatory model based on current scientific knowledge with which to compare their diagrams (Fig. 2.4).

Fig. 2.4
A diagram presents the pulmonary and general circulations of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood. Each blood is two different colors and flow is indicated by arrows. Each part is labeled in a foreign language and some parts are labeled in English.

Blood circulation (muscles, intestines and kidneys in parallel)

Full size image

Many pupils say they do not understand how this model can function. They identify several points as being particularly problematic:

  • They think that it is inefficient for the nutrients absorbed into the blood in the digestive tube to go round the whole system before reaching the muscles.

  • They see the situation regarding the nitrogenous waste as even more critical. They would prefer for this waste to be taken directly to the kidneys to get rid of it as quickly as possible. However, in this diagram, not only is this waste carried all the way around the system via the heart (twice) and the lungs, but also there is no guarantee it will ultimately pass through the aorta into the renal artery. They are extremely disturbed by the idea of this “dirty” blood flowing around the body.

This difficulty in thinking about the treatment of the nitrogenous waste in the model with the muscles and kidneys connected in parallel is due to the fact that the pupils cannot simply tell the story of what happens to this nitrogenous waste, as the fate of these molecules is not determined a priori. This means they have to change their point of view and use a compartmental explanation, which no longer reasons in terms of the story of what happens to the waste molecules, but in terms of inflows and outflows within the body and the concentration thresholds of the substances in the blood.

  • Third example: molecular renewal (pupils, 16–17 years old).

The pupils have thought individually and then in a group about how an animal cell works. Comparing the work produced allows them to create a diagram showing an overview of how a living organism functions and how any given cell within this organism works. The diagram summarises the processes (respiration and cell syntheses) referenced by the pupils, but the type of diagram imposed by the teacher is compartmental, showing inputs and outputs of matter. This aims to move away from the conventional blood circulation/cell or organ representations and thereby move away from telling the stories of molecules. The study continued by looking at molecular renewal, which allowed the pupils to complete the diagram, adding to the cell diagram an arrow moving from the big organic molecules (bOM) to small organic molecules (sOM) as the big organic molecules release small organic molecules (Fig. 2.5).

Fig. 2.5
A diagram presents the function of living organisms and their cells. Each element is labeled in a foreign language, and some are in English.

An overview of the functioning of a living organism and its cells. (Orange, 1997)

Full size image

After this session, two pupils asked to see the teacher as they were having trouble making sense of the diagram. They did not understand how it could work:

I don’t know if that is what happens first.’ ‘So, first of all you eat the SOM, then the SOM go directly to the O2 and make energy and then you have other SOM which arrive at the ….

These pupils want to tell a story, but as they do so, they get to a point where they cannot continue, as the story does not correspond to the diagram.

This third example again shows the pupils’ tendency to explain using storytelling, in which the chronology provides a causal explanation, and intra-objectal reasoning, in which objects have specific properties. These are very real obstacles to understanding how complex systems function and to building reasoned scientific knowledge in the field of biology. It is important to take this trend seriously, as these types of ordinary explanations structure pupils’ thinking and are found in numerous biology problems. When studying biological systems, two types of extra-ordinary reasoning need to be acquired, namely systemic reasoning and inter-objectal reasoning.

4 Discussion

In the theoretical framework of learning by problematisation, should we see narratives as a help or hinderance in the construction of reasoned scientific knowledge?

In terms of modes of reasoning, we can oppose the stories told by the pupils and the scientific explanations. Faced with the same problem, the former will mobilise objects (blood, small organic molecules, etc.), as characters with capacities and/or functions and/or their own intentions, carried along by events, the sequence of which conjugates syncretistically temporality and causality, with the limited constraints resulting in a multiplicity of possibilities. The latter will instead start with possible explanations verified against the impossibilities and necessities. It is, however, interesting to question the types of storytelling concerned. Because in addition to “journey stories” and chronicles (Orange Ravachol & Guerlais, 2005), there are also stories which lead to explanatory impossibilities and thus become levers for building apodictic knowledge.

In terms of the interpretive reading of realistic fiction, we have shown that these can encourage pupils to look for scientific explanations, or at least the biological facts required to understand the plot. In certain didactic conditions, the pupils engage in constructing problems by exploring the possibilities within the restricted framework of a fictional narrative. However, reading these works of fiction does not allow for the testing of necessities, which need to be supported by other types of scientific investigation.

5 Conclusion

Given the importance placed on narratives in our common knowledge, it might seem paradoxical to focus attention on them when building apodictic scientific knowledge in the science classroom. There are therefore two choices as regards learning: Research the conditions under which these narratives can be excluded, or study their complexity and look for levers to go beyond the constraints of some of their forms. We have chosen to pursue the second option. Our focus on working on problems encourages exploration and discussion of the explanatory possibilities and impossibilities, in a doubly-restrictive framework, that of the different forms of epistemology we reference, and of the school timetable. In this process, language practices (argumentation, oral productions in interaction with written productions) are fundamental, as well as teacher guidance to stop pupils falling into the trap of putting forward unquestioned proposals, standardised by true and false, and to guide them towards proposals supported with reasons and transformed through the logic of the possible/impossible/necessary. In this way, pupils are led to look objectively at both the conceptions and types of reasoning they use, and the benefits and limitations of the forms of narrative supporting their explanations.