After reading this collection of articles, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that research is showing that learning has progressed from once being suspected as a process solely occurring internally to a process that combines both internal thought and social interactions. These social processes allow students to learn from each other and to engage more actively in the information itself.
One point that resonated with me was when Brown et al. mentioned the significance of dialogue in the development of a common knowledge base. We spent a lot of time discussing the significance of word choice and language last week in class, but this concept still fascinates me; it is something that I never spent much time thinking about until recently. It is only through language that we are truly able to convey our unique interpretations of different objects and ideas to others. It becomes problematic when individuals do not share a common interpretation of the various words that can be used to describe something abstract – such as thought. According to Brown, teachers need to create environments for students that allow for discourse; through this dialogue the students will be able to learn from each other and develop a common (yet non-identical) understanding of the information. Creating an environment in which there is a common knowledge base can be essential for students to actively engage in learning in social contexts.
The idea of using dynamic assessments presented by Brown was intriguing to me. When I think of assessment, I instantly think about tests, quizzes, papers, reports, etc. I think about needing to get the right answer because my previous schooling has taught me that there is a correct and an incorrect answer to almost everything (although I know now that this is not the case). Providing students with the opportunity to think through their own ideas and understandings – with the assistance of an expert when needed – is something that would be very interesting to see employed in a classroom environment. The teacher would be able to assess the learning of the student beyond the concrete factual information provided within the text. These dynamic assessments would also provide the students with insight into their own learning processes, potentially providing them with information that could be useful in future learning experiences.
In many of our recent discussions, we have spent time asking what impact motivation has on student achievement and the learning process. Although the Pintrich article did not explicitly address the exact nature of how motivation impacts conceptual change, it did provide insight into the idea that different motivational factors can promote or inhibit conceptual change. After reading about accommodation earlier this semester, I felt that Posner had failed to consider the influence of internal/external factors in the accommodation process. It was nice to see Pintrich et al. comment on this point and provide some insight into the impacts that motivational factors may have on a student’s willingness to alter his/her conceptual understanding. I don’t think that the school system today encourages students to utilize motivation throughout the learning process. Schools appear to emphasize test scores and passing students from one grade to the next, potentially decreasing the intrinsic motivation that students bring to the classroom. The students may memorize the required information, but this loss of motivation may inhibit them from developing a genuine understanding of the content (loss of individual conceptual change). What can teachers do today to allow their students to develop into motivated learners? Does the school system need to be restructured as Pintrich suggests in order to allow for individual conceptual change to take place?
Tags: Team MACK
Sharedroom In Arpora Villas
Distributed Expertise and Motivation | SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning
fully furnished homes by the beach for rent in Mobor
Distributed Expertise and Motivation | SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning
I also thought the dynamic assessment piece deserves some type of consideration for the classroom. Now certainly this needs to be balanced and could prove to be impossible to be the norm for every assessment. But how many times to we understand the concepts better than we understand some of the vocabulary type components of exams, but don’t do well because we can’t get past understanding the vocab. This made me think of using a word wall for the classroom (thanks Matt!). Why not give students the aid of the definition of certain common words they will encounter in science (independent vs. dependent variables). What we are after is their understanding of the concepts works or how to apply the concept, not the strict definition of its components. Food for thought for Wednesday.
Kristyn, isn’t it funny how we are programmed to think that an exam or paper is the only way to assess if people understand the material? I believe that the example of the dynamic assessment that Brown et al. discussed (in relation to the clinical interview) was a way of gauging student understanding that would provide greater insight than almost any exam I could think of. The only concern with this was that it is time-consuming and hard to do with proper classroom management ( I couldn’t imagine doing this in a classroom of 25-30 students and still manage to get work done). When I read this I thought of how you wished you could just explain your answers to our 430 teacher rather than take the test. Along the same line, I really liked this part of the reading when Brown et al. stated, “How does one maintain standards of accountability – to students, teachers, and parents, to school officials who are responsible for the students’ progress and to fellow scientists- while at the same time keeping the social contract with students, who are encouraged to view themselves as co-equal participants in a community of sharing?” This is a question we soon will need to figure out when we keep working on our PBL unit, and how we can assign a grade to each group.
Kristyn, isn’t it funny how we are programmed to think that an exam or paper is the only way to assess if people understand the material? I believe that the example of the dynamic assessment that Brown et al. discussed (in relation to the clinical interview) was a way of gauging student understanding that would provide greater insight than almost any exam I could think of. The only concern with this was that it is time-consuming and hard to do with proper classroom management ( I couldn’t imagine doing this in a classroom of 25-30 students and still manage to get work done). When I read this I thought of how you wished you could just explain your answers to our 430 teacher rather than take the test. Along the same line, I really liked this part of the reading when Brown et al. stated, “How does one maintain standards of accountability – to students, teachers, and parents, to school officials who are responsible for the students’ progress and to fellow scientists- while at the same time keeping the social contract with students, who are encouraged to view themselves as co-equal participants in a community of sharing?” This is a question we soon will need to figure out when we keep working on our PBL unit, and how we can assign a grade to each group.
Kristyn, I’m glad you brought up assessment. In the Pintrich article, they talk about students that are just out for a good grade not using more complex thinking skills. In my estimation, that’s the teacher’s fault…that is, if the assessment truly is a measurement of the student’s understanding, students taking a “shortcut” should not be able to do as well. True/False and Multiple choice questions really have limited uses in assessment, but is one of the reasons why students can get a good grade but not truly “learn” something.