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.
Tags: Team MACK
I could not agree more with Greeno’s point about the difficulty in using new strategies. I find myself, after many trainings I go to, attempting to apply the new techniques. However (at least) two problems always arise: 1) lack of experience in teaching that way, and 2) how do you assess your new activity to determine if it is “better”?
The idea of misconceptions also gets me thinking. Over the years, no matter what teaching strategy was used, many people overcame these naive understandings somehow. Why is it easier for some and not for others? Does metacognition play a big role? If you realize your thinking is illogical, you will probably pursue the better understanding aggressively. Or is it motivational? Maybe some people just don’t mind being wrong.
Kristyn, I thought that this week’s readings provided a nice summary while defining factors that associate certain theoretical frameworks together. For example in the Blumenfeld et al. article, the authors made it clear that the sociocultural and the cognitive are two theories that branch off of constructivism. These readings helped me to create a logical flow that I was not connecting upon before. I also appreciated the limitations of the theories being organized in specific sections in the Blumenfeld et al. piece as well. This paper is a useful resource to tie together the basics of everything we have been reading and discussing about for the past weeks.
That is a very interesting point that you make pertaining to the Greeno article. I wonder what area of the spectrum Greeno lies in as well. As you know, I think that learning occurs not strictly the way one particular theoretical framework presents it. Since my learning theory is a hybrid of the cognitive and the sociocultural I need to be diligent and careful when considering which components of the theory I am in agreement with. Are the theories so insanely different? I do not want the subtle overlap of the theories to be lost by the clearly defined differences these theories usually give insight into.