Before this week, I had never read anything about learning progressions, so the only insight that I have into what they entail comes from this week’s readings. With that being said, there is one thing that each author seemed to mention at the start of their work: learning progressions are relatively new in the education field, but they have been utilized in other areas for years. What has led to this increase in research in recent years? And why has it taken so long for the field of education research to consider the possible significance of utilizing learning progressions in a classroom setting?
Through their research, Steedle and Shavelson illustrated the difficulty in developing standardized learning progressions. In the research they performed, they aimed to classify students into different levels of understandings – with level 4 being the most knowledgeable students in the group. If the learning progression is reflective of the standardized assessments provided, I would assume that students in level 4 would have enough knowledge base to understand the content being assessed. However, this was not the case. I thought it to be very interesting that these students with the highest level of understanding still possessed misconceptions. This study by Steedle and Shavelson illustrates that a multitude of variables goes into the successful application of a learning progression in the classroom. If one thing is clear to me after reading this article, it is that much more research needs to be done before learning progressions can be utilized to their fullest potential in a classroom setting.
The article by Duncan further reinforced by assumption that more research needs to be done on learning progressions. Much like Steedle and Shavelson, Duncan discussed the variability that comes into effect when applying learning progressions to the classroom. The variations between classrooms have the potential to be quite drastic, only further increasing the difficulty in successfully using learning progressions. One point that I found interesting was the idea that LPs may function more like theoretical constructs in that they cannot be specifically applied to one finite situation. If this is the case, do we have enough research about how students learn to be able to successfully apply something like this to a classroom?
I found the article written by Wilson to be a bit confusing. His aim at simplifying learning progressions by developing construct maps was something that didn’t make too much sense to me. This may be because of my lack of knowledge about learning progressions, but I’m not sure. Although I found this article to be confusing, I did like the point that Wilson made about assessment. He basically stated that assessments need to be created for learning progressions instead of molding learning progressions to fit the designed assessments. I think that this is one of the major flaws of our current school system. Currently, curriculum is developed to fit with standardized assessments, which I believe can greatly hinder learning in the classroom.
The article that I found most interesting and most applicable to my current understanding of learning is the article by Songer et al. This article stated that learning progressions (content and inquiry progressions) cannot be analyzed empirically; instead, they lend themselves to the development of products with the potential to be analyzed empirically. As Duncan stated, LPs may just be theoretical constructs, and thus, they would not be able to be analyzed empricially. If assessments could be developed to properly analyze the content, I believe that learning progressions could become a very effective tool to monitor student learning.
Based on all of the readings for this week, I have come to the conclusion that LPs function (at least for the moment) as research tools. Researchers have not yet established a specific way to utilize them in a classroom effectively. As mentioned in Taking Science to School, LPs have led to the creation of standards that have developed into national standards. Although the learning progressions have led to the development of national standards, I believe that they may have very different impacts in different classroom environments. Anderson showed that the implications of learning progressions may also differ depending upon the grade level. Learning becomes a more complex process as students age and the knowledge becomes more complex.
With all this being said, I enjoyed learning more about a topic with which I was totally unfamiliar. As more research continues to be done, it will be very interesting to see how learning progressions can be utilized as tools in a classroom environment.
Tags: Team MACK
Your comments on not understanding how people learn are spot on, as I have come to realize from this semester. Heck, after 80 years and countless papers and point made, it seems we are still stuck as to what we believe to be the “best”approach to learning.
While LPs are a work in progress and are theoretical constructs that may not accurately group all students, I think they are moving in a direction that at least looks outside the traditional educational systems approach. Why not try to teach core concepts across the science domains, and through analysis of past testing results and feedback, build a cognitive map of where we expect students to be at certain age blocks. It certainly merits some consideration from my view, since our current system blocks students into smaller groups (grade level) and has defined what each should know for each subject (standards). In my view,maybe LPs offer a little more flexibility.
Kristyn, I have many of the same questions that you asked in your first paragraph. I have not read anything about LPs until this week’s reading as well. As we have seen throughout the semester, the field of educational research is very influential to schooling methods, and I wonder how the LP theory developed. In reference to the Wilson article, I think you make an excellent point. Assessments for the LPs should not be what are developed in order to have each LP molded to fit. This would just create another level of standardization (although if it was to be implemented nationally, is this the step to be taken?). Is everything employed in education something that should be standardized? I don’t feel like I have enough grounding for this debate, but what you wrote definitely sparked these thoughts from me. I also am interested to see how LPs develop in the field, and if they can be utilized more than just as research tools.
“If this is the case, do we have enough research about how students learn to be able to successfully apply something like this to a classroom?” (Moloney, 2010)
Your point was thought-provoking to me. We’ve spent the entire semested trying to figure out the mechanism for how learning happens. What have we come up with? Learning is really complex and we don’t know exactly how it happens. So if we don’t know how learning happens, how can we ever figure out when or in what order? Is it even a reasonable assumption that it happens in the same order for all people? I’m not sure, but to me it seems that people learn in very different ways and research into LPs may be fruitless.