At the start of this week’s readings, I wasn’t quite sure how (or even if) all of the readings would examine a similar topic. While thinking about the readings after completing them, I found that each paper was unique in content discussed; however, all of them explicitly commented on the importance of group interactions in the learning process. It was fascinating to see how these researchers took the theories that we have been discussing in class (such as those of Greeno and Vygotsky) and used them to support their experiments and analyze their data. It was also very enjoyable to read about how some aspects of these theories can be applied specifically to a science classroom. I’ve struggled with trying to apply these theoretical frameworks to classroom situations over the past seven weeks, and I now see that this was likely because I was trying to find a situation that encompassed all aspect of each theory.
One point that I believe each researcher made, either implicitly or explicitly, was that language is an extremely important aspect in learning. When discussing Vygotsky’s theory in class several weeks ago, we spent time discussing the significance of developing a common language to enable different members of the same culture to communicate their ideas. The article by Radinsky et al. explicitly emphasized the significance of language: “The science talks were used for making students’ private thoughts public, providing a space in which to think things through and clarify understandings” (p 623). These authors utilized language in their study and found that developing common understandings of words through scientific talk helped the students to developed more well-rounded understandings of the information. Chin and Osborne also encouraged the students to develop a common language through questioning each other and responding to such questions with their interpretations. This argumentation provided the students with a social opportunity in which they were able to further their understandings of scientific material. All three of the articles illustrated the significance of understanding a common scientific language in the process of learning through social interactions.
I found the article by Varelas et al. to be particularly interesting. I had never heard about the use of dramatizations in the learning of scientific concepts, and after reading the title, I wasn’t sure if I would see the significance of using this idea in the classroom. Varelas showed that through student participation in drama activities, they were able to “[negotiate] ambiguity and [re-articulate] understandings, thus marking this embodied meaning making as a powerful way of their engagement with science” (p. 321). It appears that the students were able to increase their understanding of topics such as matter through engaging in drama activities. The students were able to learn the information through their social interactions with each other, illustrating the significance that these interactions have on student learning. I’m not sure if I see the effectiveness of utilizing such a technique in a high school classroom. The article examined the effectiveness with students of elementary school age; I would be interested to see if high school students could learn scientific concepts through dramatizations as well.
Based on the titles of the articles and their provided abstracts, I was under the impression that they would all deal solely with the social aspect of learning. However, this was not the case. The article by Ratinsky et al. explicitly mentioned the importance of using both social and cognitive theories within the classroom. All of the articles recognized that learning occurs on an individual basis, as well as in group situations. As I attempt to figure out where I stand on the spectrum of situated and cognitive, I found it refreshing to see that some researchers identify the various roles that each theory plays in learning. Learning does not solely occur in the cognitive sense, and it does not solely occur in social situations. I’m still grappling with my own interpretations of each theory, but it’s nice to see the applicability of certain aspects to the classroom environment.
Tags: JRST1
It wasn’t until I started the readings for this class that I understood the importance of understanding the scientific language. I understood the importance of utilizing it, but never explicitly understanding the language itself. There are so many words that are used colloquially and specifically that students can get lost in the language.
I really liked your comment’s about the language aspect of what was presented in our articles. I didn’t think of that while I was reading them, but it was a very important connection to make. I think many times students are taught the language of science without having much opportunity to use it, and they are consequently uncomfortable with it. These articles showcased ways to give students an chance to practice using scientific language in a non-stressful atmosphere.
Kristyn, I was pleased to see how our articles all tied together this week as well. I thought that the articles we picked out from JSRT fit very nicely into a category displaying case studies that utilized group work and the repercussions of these learning interactions. The meanings constructed through the discourse in the Radinsky et al. article I thought was an excellent example of how meaning can be constructed amongst people from similar cultures. It was nice to see a real case study example, even though examples lay amongst us in everyday life. I also enjoyed reading the Varelas et al. dramatizing science article because it was so unique, yet I do not know how it would translate to a middle school or high school level. I like your ending note that you provided in your reflection. The articles were not simply to promote one aspect but rather were research with a specific task at hand.
Your last paragraph brings up an excellent point. Arguing the fine points of the cognitive and social perspective will only get you so far. Our goal in the end is to figure out the best way to teach our students. If that means we need to set up complex social contexts, then so be it; if it means we need to track students by abilities and use direct instruction (if new research shows a need), then we should look into that, too. In the end, it’s results that count, and if I have to listen to academic debate between Anderson and Greeno…I may scream. I want applicability, not a plea for grant money!