As I was reading diSessa’s chapter in the book The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences entitled A History of Conceptual Change, I couldn’t help but be thinking about the theoretical framework looming in background, waiting to be written. As I struggle with authors’ viewpoints regarding conceptual change vs situated learning vs behaviorism vs the next “new” idea, I couldn’t help but smile at diSessa’s comment on pages 268-269, stating “Kuhn’s incommensurability established an enduring thread in conceptual change work. In contrast, the more sociological aspects of Kuhn’s views, such as the importance of the disciplinary matrix, were not imported into conceptual change work. This is ironic since, to Kuhn, sociology is absolutely central. Few conceptual change researchers comment on this core precept when adapting Kuhn to individual learning. Those who do treat is as something one can take or leave.” I guess I shouldn’t find it so fascinating to see people select only parts of a concept or idea they like and expand on this selected segment while ignoring the “rest of the story.” Do people become so ingrained in their ideas they can’t be open to other aspects? Or is all about making their point? They are right and others are wrong. It makes for an interesting argument, but does it really help in working towards a consensus of how people learn? As a side note, I do find it interesting we did not read Kuhn, considering by diSessa’s accounts, he was “immensely influential in conceptual change research”. pg. 277.
It reminds me of Greeno’s evolution from a cognitive change advocate to one who sees the importance of the social environment in learning. He was able to change his basic tenets and consider other possibilities. Take his chapter, Learning in Activity, found in the same book, about a program of research in the learning sciences that he calls “situative”. He states, “the situative perspective is a synthesis of the two major scientific approaches to understanding human behavior: cognitive science and interactional studies”, pg. 92. He goes on to state that “participation in practice is a central part of what students learn.” He is emphasizing the importance of both cognitive and social aspects in learning. So yes, understanding how people learn is a very complex. I guess if it were easy, we’ve have the key to unlocking everyone’s mind and would have solved all the issues plaguing mankind. What are the implications in teaching for conceptual change?
I think Hewson et. al. summed up the point of complexity I was making here when the stated, “Teaching for conceptual change requires a great deal of teachers. With respect to content, they need to know the content of the science curriculum, its associated pedagogical content knowledge, the range of ideas that their students are likely to hold about the content topic, an understanding of conceptual issues significant in the historical development of the topic, and the empirical underpinnings of the content. They also need to be well founded in philosophical issues related to the nature of scientific knowledge (e.g., its methods of inquiry and epistemological foundations). With respect to learning, teachers need to know about the conceptual change model of learning and the role and function of components of a learner’s conceptual ecology in assessing the status of ideas (e.g., anomalies, analogies, metaphysical beliefs, images of real world objects, exemplars of phenomena, epistemological commitments). With respect to instruction, teachers need to know a variety of pedagogical techniques. In addition to those in the typical repertoire of good teachers, there will be others related to and outlined in the discussion of the guidelines presented above. Implicit in all of these are the teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science, learning and teaching that support teaching for conceptual change.” pg. 215. That indeed, is a lot “to knows”.
Tags: pals
I have read a few of the other groups’ blogs and we all read with that paper in mind.
i like that it gives a focus, although the blinders probably cause me to miss some good information like
your point about ignoring the social aspect of Kuhn’s work. When I read it, I was immersed in the idea of scienceas socially constructed. It seemed like a big point. Of course the other big point being how concpetual change occurs. He seemed to see the need for both social and cognitive. Could it be that all of this dichotomoy has not advanced further than Kuhn’s ideas because the two camps can’t/won’t see that the other side has equal merit because learning is moer complex than a single theory can explain?
I like your last comment regarding a lot “to knows” – that is the truth. It is somewhat overwhelming when we, as teachers, think about what our jobs entail. Futhermore, it is quite discouraging when Joe Public thinks that the job/life of a teacher is something that is easy. I will get off my soapbox.
I found you mention of Kuhn coincidental, as my article also mentions him. We read about him, extensively, in another course. I am not as familiar with Toulmin and may have to look into his work.
In reviewing the cognitive change articles…I may have to give that concept another shot…either that or I am getting confused again!