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

Well all three articles stressed to social nature of meaning-making.  But they all had their own takes on it.

Chin & Osborne had the strongest paper, at least for me, maybe because they seemed to incorporate both the conceptual change and the situational perspectives.  For example, they write on page 884 ” Both sociocognitive conflict … and cognitive elaboration have been proposed to explain why collaborative discourse and argumentation may foster conceptual learning in socially mediated learning.”  That idea of cognitive dissonance from Posner seems to be here. As a practioner, the idea of scaffolding the social interactions with the argument diagram is a needed one – students need to be taught how to learn from one another in the way that scientists learn from one another.  That representation in another tool for students to communicate their thoughts – I guess I could say the diagram mediated the explanations of the students (?).

 Varelas et al. was interesting because of the varieties of the communities of practice in which the students were involved.  They were in a school, in a science class, but also practicing the dramatic arts.  Interesting confluence.  Taken to the extreme, if knowledge is purely situative and does not transfer across contexts at all,  then does that mean that these students may only be able to access their knowledge  while performing in front of others on stage?   

All three articles emphasized the students use of language as key to their learning.  And it was not language filled with scientific vocabulary.  The students expressed their ideas in their vernacular.  Also, the students talked extensively, not just a short response to a teacher question.  This is key to promoting a socially oriented classroom.  Language itself is not enough.  The students must find the language to express their ideas or concerns in a way that others can understand.  Also, the language mediates the data gathered by the researchers.  They are interpreting the language from their own perspective.

Finally, I now want to read a recent,pure ( or close to it) ” in the head” paper to compare what it looks like in the  real life of ed. research rather than from a more philosophical viewpoint.  I cannot believe that I just called educational research “real life ”  – I have been assimilated!

After reading our three articles from the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I have a new found appreciation for how our class is run. The big idea that I got from looking at these three articles collectively was that students derive much benefit from being able to work in groups and discuss concepts with each other. The Chin and Osbourne article was particularly illustrative (is that a word?) to me. I was struck by the description of how the teacher intervention in the “worst” group actually hindered their discussion and might have prevented them from coming to a better understanding of the concepts (pgs 900-901). I thought that while the example was good and showed that students are capable of coming to a higher understanding on their own terms, it wasn’t an example that should taken as proof that teachers should leave students to themselves. I think a certain amount of teacher intervention can be good, although apparently not so much under the specific circumstances of the study in the article.

The Radinsky, et. al. article also demonstrated the power of student discussion.  Through the subtle nudging of the teacher and the questions of the other students, “Camilla” was able to more clearly explain and support her theory about why the days are shorter in fall and winter. I was a fan of the whole set-up the teacher created, through the journals about students initial ideas of the topic, to the explanation of their theory to the rest of  the class and the ensuing explanation. I found the authors’ breakdown of the discourse moves (pg 634) to be pretty accurate of how articles are actually constructed.

The final article by Varelas, et. al. I found to be a subtle argument in favor of student group discussion. While not the main point of the article, I found that in the various excerpts there was evidence of students gaining a better understanding of concepts through their acting and through the teachers asking questions about how the molecules behave or the chains of the food web. I liked the idea of acting out science, although its probably not something that would work well once students got to a certain age.

            The three articles were published throughout the current year in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.  All three of these articles were case studies that in one shape or form had grounding in the construction of meaning through social situations.  First of all I would like to say that it was really neat to be able to read about the set up of the research experiments.  In the future semesters I will be looking to do my own research, and reading about the methods of other researchers was an application that was interesting to receive insight into. 

            Radinsky et al. made the point that the possession of science knowledge by the individual rather than constructed socially is a belief that is stressed and embedded in the current science education culture and standards.  This accepted practice is something that is leading to a huge division between the nature of science in a scientific community, and how students learn within a classroom. Radinsky et al. stated on page 619, in reference to what their research entails, “It emphasizes that professional communities of scientists generate new knowledge through a collective, contested, negotiated process, based on communication and mutual accommodation of ideas, rather than simply through the individual exercise of abstract logical reasoning.” The  Vygotsky-like philosophy that Radinsky et al. brought forward in their research provided students with opportunities to interact and co-construct a shared meaning for a phenomenon.  I believe that this interaction allowed the students to unite with the science learning process in a noteworthy and meaningful manner.  Camila, and the students of the classroom, underwent lesson plans that challenged them to construct a socially accepted theory, and talk themselves through misconceptions in order to arrive at an understanding that was viable to what the scientific world would deem appropriate.  I thought it was really neat to read the discourse of the students, and how the interactions between the students altered the theory and conceptions of the class.  The part of the study that grabbed my attention the most was when Camila was challenged to explain her logic with greater detail, and eventually arrived at a notion of a “wrapping effect.”  Through the questions of Melinda and the teacher, Camila developed her theory by the support of others.  There was a cognitive approach that Camila took to create the  meaning that she derived, but she was able to be influenced and translate this meaning by a social aspect of learning.  Although this process in Radinsky et al. takes longer than simply telling the students what the answer was,  I believe there is no comparison between the two ways to approach this situation.  The thought process helped the students arrive at the correct scientific explanation, while still holding true to the nature of science and the fashion that scientists use to discover new findings.  I was also impressed with this study because of the acknowledgment of developing a learning environment that allowed for the student who is usually perceived as low achieving, to be able to relate to the material and make connections that are stronger than what would occur during a plain old lesson.  When I finished reading this article I was content to have an example of a socially constructed meaning in the classroom, where the researchers do not knock the importance of the cognitive approach.  Radinksy et al. rather demonstrated how the social discourse in the classroom allowed for learning that related to scientific practices. 

            Chin et al. was another group that demonstrated the importance of social activity.  For Chin et al. the social activity that was particularly important was argumentation.  As stated on page 883, “it has been argued that, if our students are to be enculturated into the workings of the scientific enterprise, argumentation should be a core component of school science.”  I found many of the practices Chin et al. did really interesting.  The practice of constructing question webs to organize a structure to the students thought process, and using a scaffolding method to allow students to take more responsibility for a successful argumentation process, were two research methods I thought were very interesting.  The ability to use evidence and create counterarguments are two skills that I think are very important to translate into constructive classroom discussions.  I thought that this article presented a very good case for the importance of teaching students the art of argumentation that is constructive to help build common understandings.

            The only article that I had trouble relating to was Varelas et al.  Overall, I understand the key point that drama in a science class could play on the emotions and feelings of the student, and that shared meanings may be created by this process.  I just don’t know what type of function this could serve when teaching middle school or high school students.  I do like the thought that drama can spark more interest from the students, but I don’t know how it could translate to a lot of the curriculum that is to be taught throughout the year.  I think that this study did not interest me as much because it was an elementary cohort that was studied in the article. 

            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. 

This was a very interesting experience this week.  Reading the three JRST articles, I realized that I have never really considered researchers’ theoretical frameworks very deeply.  I have read a lot of educational research articles over the past several years, but I think I have always taken the theoretical underpinnings as matter of fact.  I certainly have never considered them as I did this week, having spent the last seven weeks reading about, writing about, and discussing theories of learning and knowing.  I now understand that theoretical frameworks can be very different and they provide the lens through which your entire study is filtered.  If I am being honest, I used to think that the explanation of theoretical framework found in a paper was just there to reference previous works and to fill up some space.  The importance is now much clearer to me.  It underpins one’s entire study because when you take a stance on your views of learning and knowing, it illuminates what you find interesting, what you choose to study, how you choose to study it, what you think is important, and how you think education can be improved.

All three of the articles from JRST were dealing with practice.  As I mentioned above, my previous consideration of theoretical frameworks was minimal.  I thought it was really cool how easy it was to understand them now!  From the title and abstract alone, one can generally infer the authors’ point of view.  The following are portions of the titles:  “Constructing an idea; shared intellectual property; drama activities; argumentation; questions and discursive interaction.”  From this, I could see that the articles all have a strong social and situated view of learning.  I may have subconsciously understood that before this course, but now it is so easy to see.  Their theories of learning almost jump off the page!

In discussing the social nature of learning and their research goals, Verelas et al. even state that: “We did not address individual children’s understandings and participation in the drama activities, but rather how ideas, actions, behaviors, and emotions were collectively enacted, developed, and transformed” (p. 306).  I think that the authors still see value in cognitive processes for explaining some aspects of learning, but they also recognize the critical importance of the social aspect.  Evidence for this is that they often reference the abundance of research that has already been conducted on the cognitive side: “Science learning standards and educational research have developed good tools for understanding the individual, cognitive side of the process, but relatively few for studying science learning in classrooms as a shared, social process of knowledge construction.” (Radinsky et al., p. 621).  Finally, even though the article by Chin and Osborne felt much more quantitative in some of its methods (especially compared to the other two clearly qualitative articles), it still had a social learning framework as indicated by their stated purpose: “To create the conditions for collaborative discourse that focuses on questioning and argumentation, by having students pose questions and respond to each other when they were put together in small groups to discuss opposing viewpoints” (p. 884).