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

Here are some journals for you to look at for your article search for next week:

Science Education

Journal of Research on Science Teaching

International Journal of Science Education

Journal of Learning Sciences

Educational Researcher

American Educational Research Journal

This week we looked at seminal work in situated cognition. I want to remind you all these models of learning are not proposing possible alternatives for how schools can work (i.e. models of teaching), but describing how learning happens. That means that schools are already communities of practice and students are LPP in those communities. The question is what are the activities of those communities and what is their relationship to the communities of practice of the disciplines (in our case science)? So, think about what learning means not just in settings the theorist set up or describe, but in all places where learning happens and think about the application of their model there. The key is that learning theories should describe ALL learning, not just learning that happens in contexts where the teaching most looks like the “ideal” described by the theory. Think about how a lecture would be analyzed in terms of the different theories of learning, or a laboratory activity, or small group discussion. This can give you insight into how the theories of learning differ in terms of how they view learning, not just teaching.

What would happen if a student was not motivated and did not have the desire to become a full practitioner? I think it can be assumed that a student like this would not fully participate in the community of practice. [KeriAnn]

 

It took me a while to realize this didn’t mean make sure the students are always doing something in a learn-by-doing sense, but rather that the students will automatically be engaged in some situated practice, so you should make sure it’s the one you want them to be doing to achieve the goals of the lesson. [Ryan]

 

The reading says “A person’s intentions to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through the process of becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice” (p. 29).  How does engaged and meaningful learning differ from unengaged learning? [Aubree]

 

I found this section to be a little confusing since I’m a little unsure of what they mean by “general knowledge.” From a psychological perspective, we have general cognitive processes which are not situated, but placed in a situated context can help an individual learn. I guess they discuss general knowledge as more abstract representations, in which case I can sort of see that this type of knowledge does not exist in a “general” way, but in a situated context. [Cori]

 

One problem I have with learning from peers or within the community is the legitimacy of the information? While I know this can happen also with an apprentice-master relationship, I feel it may occur without realization more often within the peer-peer or peer-community learner group. [Kate]

 

Much of this week’s reading prompted me to look back at the criticism Palinscar (1989) launched at Brown, Collins & Dugid (1989). Palinscar’s statement that “knowledge cannot fairly be characterized a tool if it cannot be used” (Palinscar, 1989: 6) struck me as an reflection similar to “abstract representations are meaningless unless they can be made specific to the situation at hand” (Lave & Wegner, 1991: 33). [Julianne]

 

Is it reasonable to expect learning situated in the social context of the classroom with an emphasis on learning measured through assessment to equate to knowledge gained through legitimate peripheral participation in a social context of a community of practice that does not practice in school? [Julianne]

From Lave and Wenger (p. 96)

“When directive teaching in the form of prescriptions about proper practice generates one circumscribed form of participation (in school), preempting participation in ongoing practice as the legitimate source of learning opportunities, the goal of complying with the requirements specified by teaching engenders a practice different from that intended.”

Ryan’s comment:

And this one can be summed up as “Stop. You’re just making things worse.”

From Lave and Wenger (p.39)

Our theorizing about legitimate peripheral participation thus is not intended as abstraction, but as an attempt to explore its concrete relations. To think about a concept like legitimate peripheral participation in this way is to argue that its theoretical significance derives from the richness of its interconnections: in historical terms, though time and across cultures. It may convey better what we mean by a historically, culturally concrete “concept” to describe legitimate peripheral participation as an “analytical perspective.”

“…learners inevitably participate in communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community (p. 29).”

I am interested in learning more about the role of interest and motivation through this theory’s lens.  The reading says “A person’s intentions to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through the process of becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice” (p. 29).  How does engaged and meaningful learning differ from unengaged learning?  Can learning happen without active engagement?  Similarly,

“There is no activity that is not situated” (p. 33).  What makes some activities more valuable learning experiences?  How does partial participation affect learning?

I found it difficult to differentiate between situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship.  The two theories seem very similar.  As far as I could tell, the main difference is that situated cognition says learning is always a social practice whereas cognitive apprenticeship just says it can or should be.  I suppose they also included the issue of motivation, an important part that was missing from our other learning theories, but they mostly just said newcomers need to be motivated, without saying what to do if they aren’t.

This reading also seemed to be very negative toward teachers.  Two quotes in particular stood out to me as basically saying teachers are just wasting their time.

“We would predict that such an investigation [one using legitimate peripheral practice] would afford a better context for determining what students learn and what they do not, and what it comes to mean for them, than would a study of the curriculum or of instructional practices.”

This quote says to me that arguing about which teaching techniques to use is like deciding which bucket you should use to bail out the Titanic.

“When directive teaching in the form of prescriptions about proper practice generates one circumscribed form of participation (in school), preempting participation in ongoing practice as the legitimate source of learning opportunities, the goal of complying with the requirements specified by teaching engenders a practice different from that intended.”

And this one can be summed up as “Stop. You’re just making things worse.”

One of the few things I did like about this reading was the distinction between a learning curriculum and a teaching curriculum.  This reminded me of advice I have received to always think about what it is the students will be doing when planning a lesson.  It took me a while to realize this didn’t mean make sure the students are always doing something in a learn-by-doing sense, but rather that the students will automatically be engaged in some situated practice, so you should make sure it’s the one you want them to be doing to achieve the goals of the lesson.

This week’s readings were my favorite so far this semester. I enjoy reading about situated learning perspectives and authors’ interpretations of their theories. I feel being knowledgeable on the topic of situated learning theory is important in the field of education and in helping to understand the concept of learning. One of the reasons I enjoy theory classes or discussions relates to the exposure of multiple perspectives and their impact my own research and pedagogy.

Lave and Wenger (1991) discuss situated learning in the context of legitimate peripheral participation (LPP). LPP suggests the interactions of like-minded individuals and the processes and challenges of moving from apprenticeship to master within a group or community of learners. The reading identifies LPP as an analytical viewpoint on learning and a way to understanding the learning process. LPP also suggests the significance of connections between people, activities, and ways of knowing. I definitely agree with how a person’s culture, surroundings, and lived experiences are all factors in how they learn and the way they learn.

In the beginning of the book, Lave and Wenger describe LPP as a learning process and not to be confused with being a guide for educational practice or curriculum. They frame situated learning activities from a theoretical perspective (non-observational), and as a bridge between cognitive processes and social practices. The authors mainly discuss LPP in terms of the apprenticeship-master relationship and the relationships determined by peers, the social setting, and cultural influences surrounding the individual. Although they briefly discuss prior experience, I feel a more in-depth discussion would have been helpful to the reader. It seems a person’s prior experiences with any topic should be a major contributing factor of movement from partial to full participant within a group. Forming your own identity within a community also leads the learner to full practitioner rather than just an observer or partial practitioner. I am especially interested in the process Lave and Wenger discuss about newcomers becoming old-timers in the learner apprenticeship process.

Lave and Wenger acknowledge the importance of learning from a master, however, they emphasize learning from peers and within a like-minded community to be even more important. One problem I have with learning from peers or within the community is the legitimacy of the information? While I know this can happen also with an apprentice-master relationship, I feel it may occur without realization more often within the peer-peer or peer-community learner group.  

The duality of peripheral participation discussion interested me. I interpreted this concept to mean how your physical location, your position within the social world, and people in your immediate area influence your learning. The part I found particularly meaningful was how an individual can become empowered as they move toward more intense participation within the community, but also disempowered as they are not yet part of the larger whole. However, I wish they would have offered more insight on ways of diffusing disempowerment (if there are ways) and offering suggestions on ways to foster care while in transition from the peripheral to full participant. Another question: What occurs if the group is moving faster than the individual? Can they gain access to the group learning at their own pace?    

This week’s readings was interesting, particularly from a science education perspective. I have read some on embodied cognition and situated cognition from a cognitive psychological point of view, but not much from a science education point of view. The term “legitimate peripheral participation” (LPP) is a loaded term, but it basically centered around participation in communities of practitioners and that with mastery of knowledge/skill, the newcomers (apprentices?) move toward full participation in sociocultural practices of community. The authors make the point in saying that all activity is situated and that is the only way to learn. They try to explain that general knowledge really does not exist in a “general” sense because they argue that all knowledge is situated. I found this section to be a little confusing since I’m a little unsure of what they mean by “general knowledge.” From a psychological perspective, we have general cognitive processes which are not situated, but placed in a situated context can help an individual learn. I guess they discuss general knowledge as more abstract representations, in which case I can sort of see that this type of knowledge does not exist in a “general” way, but in a situated context.

One of the larger questions I have is how is cognitive apprenticeship much different than LPP? The authors do address this question (around page 38), but it still is unclear to me. Is it because LPP stresses more of a community of practices rather than a single “educator”?

I also thought it was interesting how they connected LPP back to Vygotsky’s notion of internalization and the emphasis on the social nature of learning. It is also interesting that the authors note that the effectiveness of circulation of information among peers suggests that engaging in practice may be a condition for the effectiveness of learning (p. 93).  In this sense, collaboration is key. In today’s sciences collaboration is vital. Different labs may specialization on the same phenomenon, but may differ on population, methodologies, technology used, etc. Thus, it is imperative that collaboration is stressed as a “must” in learning science. Technology was also discussed in this week’s reading and I particularly resonated with the idea that technology and its tools need to be transparent. What use is a technological tool if it cannot be understood?

While reading Lave and Wenger’s (1991) description of situated cognition, I was focusing on how this theory differs from the theories that we have previously read. However, my main focus was to look for the differences between situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship. In my response below, I will discuss the most significant differences that I found.

The first major difference that I found was the inclusion of the role of identity and motivation. Although motivation and identity could play a role in the other learning theories that we have previously read, this was the first time that motivation and identity were explicitly discussed. The viewpoint that identity and learning are inseparable is extremely eye opening. Although I have always thought that identity plays an important role in education, I never really thought that learning occurs as your identity transforms. In addition to including the role of identity in learning, Lave and Wenger (1991) include the role of motivation. Lave and Wenger (1991) specifically state that legitimate peripheral participation is motivated by “newcomers’ desires to become full practitioners”  (p. 122). I think that this is the one problem that I have with this particular theory. What would happen if a student was not motivated and did not have the desire to become a full practitioner? I think it can be assumed that a student like this would not fully participate in the community of practice. Therefore, I wonder if and how learning would occur in this situation. I think it would have been helpful if Lave and Wenger (1991) provided a description of how to motivate learners, especially school learners, to fully participate.

Although both Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) and Lave and Wenger (1991) emphasized the role of socialization in learning, there is a difference between the role of socialization in these two theories. In cognitive apprenticeship, the majority of socialization occurs between the expert (teacher) and learner (student); however in situated cognition, socialization occurs between everyone within a community of practice. Therefore, socialization can occur between expert and learner and/or between two learners. I think that this view is definitely an improvement and better aligns with my personal view of learning.

Another addition that situated cognition provided was the role of technology in learning. Lave and Wenger (1991) advocate the use of technology and state that it can help with the learning process; however, I felt that this description was limited because Lave and Wenger (1991) did not provide an explanation of how technology should be used to promote learning. What counts as using technology? For example, many classroom teachers show videos to their students using technology, but would this use of technology promote learning as Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest?

I think that one of the greatest benefits of this particular learning theory is its ability to be applied to both informal and formal learning settings. Because the ultimate goal is to move a learner from “newcomer to old-timer” by engaging in socialization in a community of practice, this can occur in any type of environment. However, I personally think that this particular theory fits best with informal learning settings because people are typically motivated when attending an informal learning environment and are more likely willing to fully participate in the community of practice.

This is the first attempt to describe the relationship between the authors we have read (directly or indirectly) up to now. Revisions will continue as we add to our reading in the weeks to come.