While learning progressions are not a panacea for all of educations ills, I think it biggest use can be as a tool for reflective teacher development. It affords a way of looking at content holistically and as big ideas instead of as section 2.3 of the textbook. Looking at your teaching content differently could foster a sense of renewal in veteran teachers and give newer teachers a larger focus as they struggle with the day to day responsibilities. Learning progressions could foster conversations among teachers of the same content across grade levels, adding coherence to the curriculum. I think the most useful aspect is the stating an upper level of understanding. This could lead teachers to reach a level, that perhaps they themselves have never thought about. My own personal view is that many classes are not rigorous enough. This does not mean that there is not enough work, but that the concepts are not sufficiently developed beyond vocabulary and rote problem solving- but I could go on and on about that.
I also like the idea of the learning progressions being empirically grounded – working with real students in real classrooms with real teachers- WOW! I want to learn more about how some researchers look at the effects of specific teaching practices on the students’ movement through the progression whereas other explicitly ignore the teaching in order to establish a “baseline” progression.
Learning progressions can be used with either cognitive or situative or hybrid models of learning. Perhaps they lean towards a cognitive grounding since, in the case of the long term variety progressions, the students will need to “carry over” the concepts. However, learning progressions themselves are socially constructed around agreed upon concepts. So I have talked myself into a circle as usual when I try to delineate between the two models.
Would we (educators and educational researchers) eventually have a learning progression for all content taught in schools? Obviously not, but emphasizing some the big concepts could lead to a greater overall understanding about the way that scientists view the world. For example, I have working with global climate change with my environmental class. I have many skeptics who are asking a lot of questions that show to me that they do not understand the conservation of mass, evolution and how science is done with peer review. Perhaps teachers working from learning progressions on these topics would be able to aid the students to decrease the fragmentary and incoherent knowledge that students tend to have an increase their ability and their reliance on basic science “rules” like those I stated above.
Also, there probably isn’t a single learning progression for every topic that applies to every student. I do not picture them as strict guidelines. In fact the literature cites that a single learning progression represents a possible pathway, not the pathway.
Learning progressions are another way to look at curriculum – another tool that does not preclude the need for a coherent theory of learning, engaging teaching strategies, deep content knowledge, etc.
Tags: pals
physical exercise
Usefulness of Learning Progressions | SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning
Seems like Leah really wanted to comment on your blog…4 times!
I agree with your points regarding the “no one size fits all” and that they are not the “panacea” for all of education’s ills. I do think there is promise and like your idea of LPs being used for teacher development and would like to hear some of your ideas on this.
I think that Leah’s comment about doing more harm than good is very appropriate when considering an early (premature, perhaps) implementation of LPs in education.
Yes, I also thought that LPs were a good direction for curriculum. The idea of including various disciplines in the creation of these progressions seemed to be a novel idea. As Stevens, Shin, Delgado, Krajcik, and Pellegrino (2007) stated, “learning progressions informed by a long-term understanding of learning and development that is grounded in the findings of contemporary cognitive, developmental, education, and learning science research can have a great impact on the success of instruction and assessment strategies. pg. 3. I like the idea that we are “complexifying” things, to quote Scott. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if we can really do adequate justice in the creation of these various progressions. There is arguments about their validity (Steedle & Shavelson), and questions from David Hammer about their thoroughness in regards to addressing the Nature of Science. Yes, it’s great to have the big idea for teachers, but unless there is through understanding of LPs and how to implement them into the classroom, will there be more harm than good done? But then on the other hand, it’s got to be better than what we are currently doing! So like you, I also talk myself into a circle!
Yes, I also thought that LPs were a good direction for curriculum. The idea of including various disciplines in the creation of these progressions seemed to be a novel idea. As Stevens, Shin, Delgado, Krajcik, and Pellegrino (2007) stated, “learning progressions informed by a long-term understanding of learning and development that is grounded in the findings of contemporary cognitive, developmental, education, and learning science research can have a great impact on the success of instruction and assessment strategies. pg. 3. I like the idea that we are “complexifying” things, to quote Scott. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if we can really do adequate justice in the creation of these various progressions. There is arguments about their validity (Steedle & Shavelson), and questions from David Hammer about their thoroughness in regards to addressing the Nature of Science. Yes, it’s great to have the big idea for teachers, but unless there is through understanding of LPs and how to implement them into the classroom, will there be more harm than good done? But then on the other hand, it’s got to be better than what we are currently doing! So like you, I also talk myself into a circle!
Yes, I also thought that LPs were a good direction for curriculum. The idea of including various disciplines in the creation of these progressions seemed to be a novel idea. As Stevens, Shin, Delgado, Krajcik, and Pellegrino (2007) stated, “learning progressions informed by a long-term understanding of learning and development that is grounded in the findings of contemporary cognitive, developmental, education, and learning science research can have a great impact on the success of instruction and assessment strategies. pg. 3. I like the idea that we are “complexifying” things, to quote Scott. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if we can really do adequate justice in the creation of these various progressions. There is arguments about their validity (Steedle & Shavelson), and questions from David Hammer about their thoroughness in regards to addressing the Nature of Science. Yes, it’s great to have the big idea for teachers, but unless there is through understanding of LPs and how to implement them into the classroom, will there be more harm than good done? But then on the other hand, it’s got to be better than what we are currently doing! So like you, I also talk myself into a circle!
Yes, I also thought that LPs were a good direction for curriculum. The idea of including various disciplines in the creation of these progressions seemed to be a novel idea. As Stevens, Shin, Delgado, Krajcik, and Pellegrino (2007) stated, “learning progressions informed by a long-term understanding of learning and development that is grounded in the findings of contemporary cognitive, developmental, education, and learning science research can have a great impact on the success of instruction and assessment strategies. pg. 3. I like the idea that we are “complexifying” things, to quote Scott. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if we can really do adequate justice in the creation of these various progressions. There is arguments about their validity (Steedle & Shavelson), and questions from David Hammer about their thoroughness in regards to addressing the Nature of Science. Yes, it’s great to have the big idea for teachers, but unless there is through understanding of LPs and how to implement them into the classroom, will there be more harm than good done? But then on the other hand, it’s got to be better than what we are currently doing! So like you, I also talk myself into a circle!