I thought that the two empirical readings selected for this week’s reading fit very well together. Although one predominantly followed the cognitive perspective while the other followed the situative perspective, there was definitely evidence of overlap in both of these studies. This also seemed to fit with the overarching theme of the week.
I felt that Sawyer’s (2006) introductory chapter about the Learning Sciences was the most persuasive of all the theoretical works that we have read so far. However, this may be because I agreed with many of the points that were made. Although Sawyer only briefly described how theorists view learning from the Learning Sciences perspective, I felt that this perspective aligns with my view of learning. However, because the descriptions were so brief, I found myself wanting to know more! For example, Sawyer describes the learning environment as playing a key role in student learning. However, the description that is provided does not give any insight into what a learning environment should look like from the Learning Sciences perspective. Should this learning environment focus on the layout of the classroom, the discourse of the classroom, etc.? This “wanting to know more” feeling is one of the reasons why I immediately signed-up for the Learning Sciences class that is being offered in the spring. Although I thought the course would be interesting, I was hesitant to take another theory-based course, especially a course that is focused around a theory that I had no knowledge of. After this introductory chapter, I am extremely excited for the course because I wonder if I fall into the Learning Sciences perspective. There is one specific line within this chapter that makes me feel like I am most aligned with the Learning Science perspective: “situativity means that knowledge is not just a static mental structure inside the learner’s head; instead, knowing is a process that involves the person, the tools and other people in the environment, and the activities in which the knowledge is being applied” (Sawyer, 2006, p. 5). I think the reason why I am so drawn to this is due to the combining of the cognitive and situative perspectives. To me, this does not seem like it would be a potato head!
Although both of the empirical articles were focused on the use of argumentation, the implementation of the argumentation was different in both of the studies. In the Cross, Taasoobshirazi, Henricks, and Hickey (2008) article, the students were evaluated based on the quality of argumentation that they used to justify their responses to questions on an assessment that was previously completed. The researchers used Toulmin’s framework as a staring point for evaluating the quality of the students’ argumentation, but found that additional categories were needed. Because of this, the researchers added in categories that identified whether a claim/warrant was prompted. Although I found this to be interesting, I think that the researchers put too much emphasis on this. The researchers stated that students who prompt other students for claims/warrants are engaging in high-quality argumentation; however, I think that it is possible for a student to prompt other students for claims/warrants because he/she does not feel comfortable engaging in argumentation. Therefore, I feel that the focus should be on how the prompting is used. The researchers used the quality of argumentation that the students’ engaged in when justifying their answers as a way of determining whether or not their ability to engage in argumentation could be an indicator of performance on the assessments. I found this to be a bit confusing; I think it would have made more sense for the researchers to look at the argumentation the students were engaging in prior to completing the assessment. I think that it is possible that these students did not fully participate in the argumentation because they already completed the assessment and that this activity would not help them to improve their score, even if their understanding of the content improved.
The Beeth and Hewson (1999) article was extremely interesting because it described the teaching pedagogy that Sister Gertrude used with her students. However, from this information I think that it is possible to identify Sister Gertrude’s theoretical framework. The statement that I found to be most useful for doing this was: “A central feature of the learning in Sister Gertrude’s classroom is that consensus about ideas is achieved, not on the basis of who contributed an idea, but on explicit epistemological criteria” (Beeth & Hewson, 1999, p. 756). Although Sister Gertrude put a great emphasis on having her students use the “status language” presented by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982), she also places an emphasis on group negotiation of scientific ideas. Therefore, I believe that Sister Gertrude follows a theoretical perspective that includes both cognitive and situative perspectives.
KeriAnn,
Great question about the learning environment from a learning sciences perspective. I didn’t think about this in great detail while reading, but I think it is an important question. I think the prompting of claims/warrants is an interesting concept. I am a little confused as to when it happened, but it could be interesting to talk about. And when thinking about Sister Gertrude’s perspective, it seems to me as well that she takes both the cognitive and situative perspectives. I really found the anecdotes given in the article were great illustrations of both perspectives.
Cori
Hi KeriAnn,
I agree with you about the persuasiveness of Sawyer’s introductory chapter. For one thing, the chapter was clearly written. For another, Sawyer was able to define many of terms we have seen used in other papers, e.g., “situativity” (Sawyer, 2006: 5), “authentic practices” (p. 5), “constructivism” (pp. 5-6, 11). I found myself thinking I would like to read this book. I also appreciated his recognition that learning takes place in and out of the classroom, e.g., “outside of formal schooling, almost all learning occurs in a complex social environment, and learning is hard to understand if one thinks of it as a mental process occurring within the head of an isolated learner” (Sawyer, 2006: 9).
I felt this week’s articles, although each had different primary focuses (cognitive vs situative) did acknowledge learning, knowledge gains, conceptual change, etc. came about through a combination of cognitive and situative activities. Where the articles differed was which type of learning theory the researchers brought to the forefront of their study. Sister Gertrude’s classroom activities struck me as situative while her learning goals (Beeth & Hewson, 1999: 744)—goals she expected each individual student to work toward—emphasized the cognitive nature of learning. The goals also stressed individual ownership of learning, meaning making, knowledge building, reflection, and articulation. Working toward goal fulfillment required the students to “demonstrate their ability to apply these learning goals during discussion with one another in the classroom community” (p.744). I feel Sister Gertrude really understood the social aspects of learning (and the scientific community) but was acutely aware of the fact that individuals have ideas, those ideas guide a person’s thinking, and “it is the individual student who needs to develop a metalevel awareness of their thoughts” (p. 746). I would love to hear what her former students have to say about their time in Sister’s classroom. It sounds like it was a very empowering place to be.