Disessa highlighted the difference camps in conceptual change. While we are struggling (albeit less and less) with the innate differences between the conceptual change (cognitive) and situative (socio-cultural) theories of learning, the theorists themselves are working out the details. Just like when we read the “argument” between Greeno and Anderson, the detailed comparing of the divides within the conceptual change camp helped me to understand the entire theory a little bit better. Part of it was a lack of buzz words like community of practice and discourse. Part of was the very locus of the argument – what knowledge do people walk around within their heads – is it fragmented or is it coherent. My own opinion leans more towards the fragmented case. I find that students think the scientific world is much more complicated than it actually is. Most view each problem as new and different rather than just a slight variation on everything else they have done. They have one “theory” about a block sliding across a table and another about is sliding down an incline when according to physics, both are governed by forces causing changes in the motion.
Blumenfeld et al. has my second favorite was of describing learning and teaching. My favorite was Dewey’s analogy of teaching as engineering. On page 852, the discussion begins of how the various constructivist inspired programs noted that the design as a whole is evaluated and that the individual features within a program are not manipulated to see their individual effects because “the elements are not orthogonal and changing one element of the system affects all elements.” Okay, I admit part of the appeal is the use of the more physics geek word of orthogonal that we use to explain how a bullet fired horizontally hits the ground in the same time as one merely dropped – mythbusters did this one. As an educator in general, I recognize that the process is a complicated one (understatement of the century). If people think the feedback mechanism of global warming are complicated, try teaching! The writing of my paper, or rather the attempt to write it, has shown me how a philosophy of learning can shape my classroom behavior, choices and expectations of students. Add to this the philosophy of the myriad of students, their parents and my administrators and we have a space that requires more independent dimensions that string theory!
Sorry for all the physics references.
Tags: pals
Laughs…I like that analogy of the string theory to teaching. Scott has definitely complicated things, hasn’t he? I knew teaching was hard, but now I have some of the research to back up what I knew intuitively.
I also tend to think learning is fragmented. But I also wonder if some brains are capable of coherence and as they learn can put everything together. I think of gifted and talented kids…or here’s one for you…Einstein. How are their brains different than others? Of course, unlocking the key to the brain which would allow coherence for everyone is impossible…but what if?
By the way, did you add orthogonal in the glossary? 😉
I was thinking the same thing as you when beginning to write my theoretical framework…how a philosophy of learning can shape classroom behavior. Unlike you, I only have past teaching (and future teaching) to reflect upon as I move through this course. I am interested to see how my teaching will/will not change based on what is being learned in our courses.
Good points about fragmented and cohesion…I think I have a lot of fragments in my brain! Now to put them together!