Databases for
deductive reasoning
Nick Packard
North Tyneside LEA
Contained
on the CD that accompanies this pack is a database activity called
Crooks! You may have come across a similar idea on the MAPE website,
called Whodunnit?'. The idea is simple enough, a list of potential
suspects has been compiled in a database, including information
about physical attributes, background, legal history and so on.
Would-be detectives are then presented with a series of crimes and
they have to use the information contained within the database to
identify likely suspects.
This
particular pack contains a runtime database ('runtime' simply means
that you don't need a database application to run it as it is self-contained
and you can copy it onto as many computers as you like!) and a series
of printable resources;
There
is also file called 'My Solution' and it is here that the Crooks!
activity and other related activities such as Whodunnit diverge.
The
intended purpose for most similar database activities is to 'find
the right answer'. In the Whodunnit? database each crime is completed
by a message saying 'You have found the culprit…. Next case'.
Sometimes the right answer can be found by accident (what some people
call the 'lucky keys' approach) or by exploiting the thing that
computers are good at, trying roughly the same thing over and over
with just a few minor changes to the criteria… good ICT, but
not such good thinking skills.
With
Crooks! a report is completed, highlighting what the detective thinks
is information pertinent to the case. In other words, a justification
for the conclusion they have reached. This is important because
this activity is designed to focus on the deductive reasoning used
in reaching a conclusion and this is the end product of this particular
activity. By changing the emphasis from the right answer to the
reason, pupils have to be more thorough in formulating their conclusions
and have to focus on making their thinking overt.
Talking, thinking and justifying
I
used this activity with mixed ability Year 5 pupils over a period
of about three, one hour lessons. Initially, as you might expect,
the class were very keen on getting the right answer and became
quite competitive. At this point it became important to make sure
that my responses to their work were clear and consistent. I refused
to answer the question, "Is it….?", instead deflecting
the question by asking for a justification, "Tell me why you
think it is…". Some of the class picked this up quickly
and it was interesting to note that the content of their own discussions
with their working partners changed significantly. They became far
more reflective and began to try to refine their own search criteria
and thinking. In short, they began to think critically about the
information the were presenting and became more interested in their
ability to justify their responses (I used a technique to make sure
that all members of a working group were involved in this. I'm sure
it has a fancy name, but I don't know what it is called. I made
it clear that I was interested in a group response, but wanted a
response to be presented by just one member of the team and I would
pick a person at random, well, as random as a teacher's choice ever
gets!).
It
will come as no surprise that others within the groups I worked
with did not manage to make the leap from 'answer' to 'response',
though almost all made some progress towards this idea and almost
all managed to change their approach to the task in the light of
the responses I gave. Though it was never a planned element of the
activity, the fact that the clues to the crimes become increasingly
obscure did help some make this leap. As multiple potential answers
seem to apply to simple searches pupils were forced to refine their
searches and this often involved detailed debate about criteria
to be used. Other times further searching did not help and what
was required was careful and reflective reading of case notes in
order to make (sometimes extremely tenuous) links.
Extending
the activity is relatively easy. I allowed pupils to design their
own case notes and try them out on their friends. This might seem
like an easy link to make, but it is worth noting what this extension
activity revealed. Pupils who focused on answers tended to give
clues with only one 'correct' response and as such their challenges
were easily met. Pupils who managed to grasp the purpose of the
task a little better spent a lot more time reading notes about the
suspects and using clues that had potentially ambiguous meanings
or multiple matches. Finding the 'right' answer to these questions
contained the same pitfalls as in the original activities, conflicting
responses, which extended the thinking and debate. Again, this pushed
those obsessed with getting it right to review their approach as
well as acting as a fair assessment of progress made.
Bridging
and transfer
This activity was 'stand-alone' in the sense that it was a single
unit of work for ICT and I was working with pupils that were not
in my class. It developed some basic ICT skills such as simple searching,
some knowledge, such as the purpose of databases and some concepts
relating to the nature and accuracy of information. We spent some
time reflecting on these issues in the plenary for each lesson.
However, because this unit was not related to other curriculum contexts,
it did lose some of its impact. Bridging skills and concepts into
'real' situations is important and I regret slightly that this work
was effectively divorced from reality, both in terms of the ICT
skills it developed and in terms of the critical thinking it demanded.
That's not to say that it wasn't worthwhile, however. I still get
emails (three years on) from pupils using the resources with other
teachers asking "Was it…?". But I still don't say!
Full
notes for the use of the software and activities are included on
the CD. They are in Word format, so can be edited but, whether adapted
or not, they should not be sold. Have fun!
