SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

            This week’s readings definitely provided some clarity for me in terms of the theoretical framework. I have spent the past week struggling to synthesize all of the readings that we have completed into finite and concise summaries, and these readings presented me with a glimpse of how I can do that for myself.

            The article by Blumenfeld provided me with the basic overview of the theories (including their limitations) that I needed at this point in my struggle to gather my thoughts regarding the different theories we have discussed this semester. Blumenfeld also presented concrete ways in which researchers have tried implanting situated instruction into the classroom. Because I am relatively new to reading about educational research, I had never heard about the various programs currently being employed in the classroom.

I have struggled over the past couple months with trying to find exact implications for these theories in classroom practice. Greeno even recognized that putting theory into practice within the classroom may present more similarities between the theories than seen in strictly theoretical discussions:“In a situative study, individual cognition is considered in relation to more general patterns of interaction” (p.84). When discussing various aspects of situated research, Greeno states:”The goal is to understand cognition as the interaction among participants and tools in the context of an activity. For this reason, it is often said that the situated perspectived studies distributed cognition,” (p.84). Again, Greeno recognizes that situated studies may include an examination of the cognitive approach to learning. I find myself struggling with this point. Maybe the situative and cognitive perspectives aren’t two exclusive entities, as I previously believed. Are the theories truly on opposite side of the spectrum, or is the work of Greeno just somewhere more towards the center of the spectrum than the other situated theorists that we’ve read about this semester?

            Blumenfeld also recognized the struggle that teachers often face when implying new techniques in the classroom. Through the discussion of project-based learning, Blumenfeld discussed that it took the teachers several years to be able to apply this proves of teaching to their classrooms. I think that the most interesting point in this discussion was when Blumenfeld recognized that teachers often take an approach and adapt it to fit their unique classrooms. This is something that I have known teachers to do, however, we have not discussed this within the context of these theoretical frameworks. Again, I return to the point that I have made many times before: I think that I read these frameworks and looked for examples of how they could fit directly into a classroom without recognizing the opportunity for teacher adaptation. Could this be the reason why I have struggled to really understand the influences of these different theories on the school system?

            The diSessa reading functioned as mainly a summary of the cognitive perspective for me. DiSessa made me think about misconceptions in terms of their positive and negative influences on learning, as opposed to just a discussion of what misconceptions are. Misconceptions may not be as detrimental to student learning as I sometimes think. As long as the teacher approaches the misconceptions in a manner that can provoke discussion and alter them, they may function as a successful learning tool in the classroom. Is this a difficult task to accomplish? I believe so, but if done correctly, I think that it can be very beneficial. 

            After this week’s readings I feel as though I have a better understanding of the preceding theories that theoretical frameworks have developed in response to.  I enjoyed the Blumenfeld et al. article, Chapter 4: Teaching for Understanding, because it gave a thorough synopsis of many of the concepts we have discussed in class over the last few weeks. Blumenfeld et al. discussed the branches of constructivism, and although they are very different I was able to pick up on how they can relate.   On page 830-831 a quotation from Bruer demonstrated a bridge between the cognitive and sociocultural theories that I had trouble connecting in the past.  It states,  “The significance of sociocultural context, communities and discourse for cognition and learning…emerged in part because researchers have attempted to apply cognitive science to authentic classroom tasks rather than just artificial laboratory tasks..focused on individual problem solvers… when researchers brought ideas about domain specific trajectories, active learning, and metacognition to the classroom they realized that other factors influenced learning as well…” (Bruer 1995).  Although I am still trying to find my own grounding of what I deem to by my definition of how learning takes place, I do know that I believe that it is a mix of the cognitive and sociocultural activities that allow for the process to occur.  The programs that were designed as examples of the constructivist theories were interesting applications to what the theoretical framework provided.  In particular, the Project-Based Science caught my eye.  It seems like a tactic that provides reason and drive to doing an activity. I could see projects and problems that are found in the real world, to be something that could motivate the students to become a part of a scientific community, rather than just passively learning through an independent approach.  The goal of Blumenfeld et al. was to find ways to make the theories into practical techniques in the classroom, but the most important thing is to gain the support of current and future teachers.  As in all professions, teachers need to be developing themselves and changing how they teach their class in order to find the way that learning occurs best. 

            diSessa’s A History of Conceptual Change Research pointed out that the term “concept” is something that is so loosely defined by theorists, even though it is crucial to what entails a misconception.  As quoted on page 269, Toulmin stated, “The term concept is one that everybody uses and nobody explains – still less defines.” In general I feel like I find myself struggling to understand what the theorists are implying based off of the terminology that they use to convey their theory of learning. I did like that this reading also touched base with other readings that we have read earlier in the semester.  I found it interesting that Posner et al.‘s theory was not meant to be something for instruction.  I guess when I first read that article I assumed it was something that should be automatically translated into the classroom, while it was quite different- it was something that simply supported a theoretical framework. 

            Lastly, Greeno’s Learning in Activity also provided a lot of background on the development of theories.  I was confused in particular on page 82 of the reading, under the subtitle- “Including Interaction in Cognitive Analysis.” Was Greeno implying that due to the way experimentation takes place it is impossible to find the activity and tools of an individual through experimentation, and rather this is why the activity system needs to be looked at?  I don’t know why, but I have trouble understanding Greeno’s point here.  If he is saying that people can’t be studied because the social context changes, what good would any experiment have then in his point of view?