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

The Big Picture that this week’s readings brought into focus for me was one of a growing spiral in the education research community that is comprised of an increasing understanding of what science is and an increasing realization of learning as a multi-dimensional process. The spiral, however, is not a smooth one but one pocked with recurrent impediments, real or perceived, to advancing improvements or innovations in classroom education, e.g., “tradition, imitative reproduction, response to various external pressures wherein the strongest force wins out” (Dewey, 1929: 15); “cultural inertia” (Skinner, 1954: 97); the fear and loathing of “a national curriculum” (NSF, 2007: 12). Nonetheless, these readings do chronicle the advancements education research has made in articulating its desire to improve science education, in defining of what science is, in understanding what scientists do, and in acknowledging that understanding how learning takes place should influence teaching practices.
As much as things have changed over the 83 years between Dewey’s 1929 paper and the 2012 Framework there were some ideas proposed in the past that sound quite similar to ideas proposed today. In particular, B. F. Skinner’s promotion of technology as a way to promote learning is not unlike the call for computers on every desk or gaming in the classroom today. His belief that “mere manipulation of the device will probably be reinforcing enough” to keep students engaged as they work with the “multiple-choice self-rater” (Skinner, 1954: 96) to learn arithmetic or reading will result in learning seems to me naive. Immediate gratification of selecting the correct answer is touted by Skinner as a way to increase learning—but, what is the student learning? Are they learning to take a multiple choice test or are they learning arithmetic? In the interest of full disclosure, the Psych 101 class I took as an undergraduate was taught by a disciple of Skinner. After a semester of watching pigeon-pecking films, I came away from the class thinking that those pigeons may have learned to make the correct choice while in the test box but was any of that transferable to situations outside of the box? Can successfully moving a lever or turning a knob really be “taken as evidence” of “mental states or processes” of understanding or mental development of anything more than learning to move a lever or turn a knob to get a reward?
Practices of education and education research and the development of theories of learning matured during the last half of the 20th century, thankfully. That researchers recognize “scientists have learned how to learn about nature, deepening scientific understandings and methods of inquiry” (National Research Council, 2007:18) and that “learners know when to ask questions, how to challenge claims, where to go to learn more, and they are aware of their own ideas and how these change over time” (National Research Council, 2007:19) are developments similar to those Dewey was calling for almost eighty years earlier. The recognition that experts understand and use core principles and theoretical constructs to make sense of new information and tackle new problems and that novices may hold disconnected and contradictory bits of knowledge as isolated facts that are difficult to organize and integrate (National Research Council, 2012) seems to have lead to a better understanding and more articulate explanation of science as an intellectual endeavor, a social enterprise, and a set of practices that are established and refined by the science community. This better understanding of science, and the recognition of the validity of multiple learning environments (formal and informal) and that all children have the capacity to be successful in science seems to be moving science education, or at least the idea of science education, in a direction that has the potential to engage more students in learning what science is, how science works, and to develop more interest in science and understanding of how science influences everyone’s life. I would like to think the “longitudinal, the temporal span of growth and change” (Dewey, 1929: 68) in education is no longer being neglected.
Science is a complex endeavor. Education is a complex endeavor. Learning is a complex endeavor. I feel Dewey (1929) and the authors of Taking Science to School and the Framework recognized the complexities and were willing to embrace them. Changes and progress in learning about learning, meaning making, and knowledge gains have been made. Although the progress at times seems circular I think it moved off the circular, 2-dimensional path onto a spiral, 3-dimensional one.
“Education is by its nature an endless circle or spiral. It is an activity which includes science within itself” (Dewey, 1929: 77)

One thing that struck me when reading Dewey was what he would think of the state of education today.  He kept mentioning that education has not had the time to be sufficiently developed as a science the way the physical sciences have.  How much time did he believe it would take though?  If he were to read the 2011 Framework, would he feel adequate progress had been made or shake his head in dismay?  An answer to the first question may be that, as stated in his conclusion, education is an endless process, and therefore one could not say how long it would take.  However, I am thinking of the question as meaning “how long would it take for the science of education to reach the level of prestige and development that the physical sciences had in Dewey’s day?” which could have a finite answer.  As far as the second question posed, I’m not sure of my opinion, but I’m curious to see what the rest of the class thinks.

It is a bit disheartening that, although Dewey was considering the problems of the educational system as early as 1929, a concerted effort at reform did not come until the 1960s, as revealed by the first chapter of Taking Science to School.  It also says something about our priorities that the reforms of science education of both the 60s and 80s were driven by concerns of global competition and the economy.  It would seem the nation only values science for its ability to make us the best and make money.

The new Framework at least seems to have more noble reasons for reforming science education.  One reason is to provide a supply of well-prepared students to fill the growing number of scientifically related jobs.  This is still largely an economic concern, but I believe it is also due to the valuable, necessary services these jobs provide.  The Framework also recognizes that all students need a good science education in order to be informed citizens who are able to engage in public discussion about the many political issues that are affected by science.  This seems to me to be the best reason for reform, as it is both the betterment of the individual and the betterment of the country, rather than just one, and applies to all students, not just future scientists.

This week’s topic of “Big Picture” is certainly captured in the historical readings of Dewey and Skinner as well as the more contemporary works of the NRC’s Framework for K-12 Science Education and Taking Science to School (TSS). TSS gave a little historical context to the development of science and science education. It is interesting how the potential of the US weakening its cold war position instigated and maintained the drive to excel in science and thus to produce well-trained scientists which stem from early education. Furthermore, TSS also really stresses that learning is beyond skillful performance and that it includes understanding and application or knowledge in use. On a related note, Dewey (1929) pushes for critical thinking, which serves as a foundation for practicing science. He warns against just taking the word/ideas of previous “mentors” without truly understanding those ideas, which also occurs in subjects that lack the scientific method. Similarly, he stresses that educators should be well-informed so that they have a wide range of alternatives to choose from when dealing with individual problems. I think this even happens at the highest level of education. For example, some clinical/counseling psychologists tend to not use research-based interventions/practices in their own practices; rather, they use anecdotal evidence. Dewey refers to this as “arm-chair” science or the lack of connection between field-work practice (applied science) and the research work (basic science). Skinner (1954) also questions the generalizability of lab setting studies that focus on learning because they cannot take into account the realities of the classroom. Skinner also focuses mainly on contingencies of reinforcement and the Law of Effect that states that effects occur under conditions which are optimal for producing changes called learning. What exactly are these conditions? In our last class, we questioned what has to happen (i.e., what condition is needed) for learning to take place? Is it a state of instability to allow components to reorganize into different expressed behavior (e.g., dynamic systems)? One last comment on Skinner—he discusses “progressive education” which he explains that positive consequences are more immediately effective rather than trying to avoid punishments. He then briefly mentions this idea has implications for motivation, but how so? Could this imply that children then then put forth maximum effort to receive maximum positive reinforcement whereas, children trying to avoid punishment may put just the right amount of effort forward to avoid punishment? Also, these reinforcement contingencies implies an external source of motivation rather than an internal source (e.g., I want to learn this so that I can become a better thinker, scientist, etc.)? Shouldn’t educators push for internal motivation?

The NRC’s framework, chapter 2, does not get into detailed theory, but implies it when they discuss that children are born investigators and learn through everyday activities and interactions (e.g., Piaget and Vygotsky). This chapter also indicates that children are more capable of learning science at young ages than people actually think. Thus, curricula in K-5 should have progressively more sophisticated explanations of scientific phenomena as opposed to focusing only on description. One question that I had pertaining to this is that how is the level of sophistication of these explanations determined (e.g., the use of lab experiments)?

The four articles we read for class discussed unique ideas and theories of teaching and learning science. The articles range in date from 1929 with John Dewey’s educational theories to more contemporary ideas as discussed in the book, A Framework for the K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012). Each reading had similarities and differences on how the teaching of science should be taught.

In chapter two of the book, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012), the main points outlined are learning science and research on teaching. The framework for this is composed of three dimensions: describing scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The main themes, in addition to the three dimensions, include how all children have the capacity to learn and gain a true understanding over time. It is essential to teach a combination of knowledge and practice, and to link student’s interests, experiences, and create equity, especially in the K-5 classroom. During my own K-5 science classroom experience, I can only remember a time when knowledge was presented. I do not remember any type of practice incorporated into my science lessons before grade 4. I believe this is part of why I never felt I could understand and “do” science, which hindered my self-esteem in the high school science classroom.

Research suggests that pre-K students have a sophisticated way of viewing the world that transcends all backgrounds and socioeconomic levels. Teachers can also build upon students direct and everyday experiences. The teacher’s role is to prepare and guide students, which was also suggested in the B.F. Skinner article, The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching (1954).

Skinner discusses the importance of teacher reinforcement in education which contributes to learning. He suggests that through contingencies of reinforcement learning becomes a force of habit. While I do not necessarily agree that the majority of learning is acquired through this type of teaching method, I do see the value in student reinforcement in learning and education. Skinner also discusses how technology (used for instant reinforcement) is the future of education.

The importance of technology adaptation in education was also discussed in chapter one from the book, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (2007). This chapter outlines the past and present of science education. It was interesting to learn the reasons science reform took place, such as in the 1960’s Cold War era when the U.S. was concerned they would lose ground in the field of science to the Soviets. This was also a time in education where direct observation was taught in the classroom. The NSF curriculum was driven by theories of teaching and less by theories of learning.

The article by John Dewey (1929) focuses on the teaching of science as an art form. Dewey describes that teaching is intuitive and some people are natural educators. The problem with learning is not necessarily teachers (although he discusses negative influences some teachers may have on students), but as a society because we are looking for immediate results. Overtime as I continue to read Dewey’s writing, I cannot believe how relevant some of his theories are almost 100 years later. I believe our society is even more focused on immediate results. We need to look toward the whole student and focus on teaching to their unique learning abilities which require time and patience.

Questions/Discussion

1.)    Dewey (1929) and pragmatism in education. Can we discuss exactly what this means in an educational context?

2.)    Skinner (1954) discusses reinforcement in education. He gave examples using pigeons. Does reinforcement actually help learn? Is it situational?

3.)    NRC (2007) discusses how policy makers are controlling educational reform. Even though classroom teachers are involved in some of the process it seems the final say is given to the policy makers. Do they have a background in the classroom? I find it difficult for the policy makers to know what is best for students and the classroom without having taught.