According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998)1, while role-playing activities have been commonly used in social studies classrooms, they have been infrequently used in science and mathematics classrooms. It is my belief that role-playing activities are not as common in science because of the nature of the subject. Science at its core is supposed to be an objective study to find truth around us. Role-playing is when one assumes the role of another person, trying to put oneself into their proverbial shoes, which means taking on their beliefs, perspectives, and biases. Since scientist are supposed to be unbiased, this is perceived to be a poor fit. While I am not a big promoter of role-play for these same reasons, I think there is a place for it in science. Using brief activities to engage students, to have them move around, and to embody their learning is worthwhile. I have had students role-play chemical reactions, the movement of electrons in the Electron Transport Chain, enzymes, and the bonding of nucleotides in DNA. The content itself may also be a barrier, as science is not really interested in alternate or individual’s perspectives on something, but rather on find the best explanation available. Much of traditional science is fact based, which is not conducive to role play again. However, through constructivism, experientialism, and similar theories, people are becoming interested in these very things – all part of the process of science in contrast with the content of science.
Winn, (2003), makes a case for the embodiment of knowledge: “bodily activity is often essential to understanding what is going on in an artificial environment”. Niebert, Marsch, and Treagust (2012) fo farther, arguing that science needs embodiment for understanding: “thinking about and understanding science without metaphors and analogies is not possible”. They took another look at the use of analogies and metaphors to support understandings of scientific concepts, particularly those that can’t be seen by students. What they found is that the most effective use of metaphors and analogies is when they are “embodied, meaning grounded, in real experience”. I would place role-play in science in a similar mold – a creative way of building understanding of an abstract concept through a relatable, real-world conceptualization. Niebert et al see great merit in this type of thinking and development of cognition: “imaginative thought is unavoidable and ubiquitous in understanding science”, (2012). I agree. Much of what I teach in chemistry, optics, or senior biology can not be seen or understood just observation. It is very important for students to have access to model-building activities such as simulations or role-play, and embodied metaphors and analogies to help them visualize the components and the processes not visible to their eyes. Relating to the real world is essential to supporting their understandings and preventing misconceptions.
“To say that cognition is embodied is to say that it involves our entire bodies, not just our brains.”
– Winn (2003)
“Imaginative thinking tools, such as examples from everyday life, metaphors, and analogies, have to be embodied to be effective in understanding science.”
– Niebert, Marsch & Treagust (2012).
For Discussion:
- Is role-play comparable to physical metaphor?
- What is necessary for a role-play to be effective in science?
- Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.21026
- Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from:http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf