Sometimes I think education is desperate for a catch all theory on how to reach all students. I believe that was what Shevelson (2012) was trying to warn against in his article. In education, the latest hot topic is learning progressions. While I can see the value in researching this subject, I agree with Shevelson that imposing one type of learning trajectory for empirical studies and data collection can be problematic. Although after reading Gunkel et al (2012), Gotwals and Songer (2013) and chapter 8 from Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (2007), learning progressions definitely seem worthy of further investigation and research within the field of education.
Gunkel et al. (2012) discusses learning progressions through their Environmental Literacy Project (ELP). This project is unique because it connects scientific issues to real problems, unlike K-12 curriculum where disconnected facts and processes are often taught (also addressed in TSS). The authors’ discuss how the ELP is divided into four strands. I was a little confused about these strands because the authors did not define or mention them much again. Did they mean the four research groups or levels? I am not sure if I missed something there. These strands (whatever or whoever there are) include three research groups working to develop learning progressions connecting three key aspects of socio-ecological systems. These aspects include: water, carbon, and biodiversity. The literature does not discuss how they were chosen, such as local, regional, or general interest concerns. I was wondering how and why they chose these key aspects. The fourth research group examines students’ decision making practices in citizenship roles. While I was reading about the goals, parameters, challenges, and limitations of this project, it was also helpful to read about alternative pathways. These acknowledge how students do not learn the same way and at the same pace. There are many environmental influences that need to be factored into learning…situative example perhaps!?
The authors’ focus on two core challenges found in environmental science literacy: defining what progresses in a learning progression, such as students Discourses (primary/force-dynamic reasoning and secondary/scientific reasoning), practices, and knowledge. I found the four levels of achievement and lower and upper anchors interesting as the authors connected examples for the stages and progression viewpoints.
The second challenge addressed defining pathways and linking them to instruction. This includes alternative pathway transitioning between the four Lower and Upper Anchors (four levels) on two different paths: Structure-First and Principles-First. Another question I had was why “Discourse” is capitalized? I have never seen it written that way. Also, while I understand the Principles-First pathway might be the most successful from the study, I believe having the knowledge from the Structure-First pathway helps the student to know the language in order to explain the process. I do not see how the two can be separate.
I chose Gotwals and Songer (2013) for my empirical studies article. Their study focuses on examining 6th grade students’ abilities to fuse core ecological ideas with evidence based explanations. They build their framework around linking core disciplinary ideas with practices and assessing fused knowledge in learning progressions. The common thread I found between these articles emphasizes teaching students to become scientifically literate citizens through scaffolding instruction and levels of learning progression. This study provides information on developing and evaluating resources to assess fused knowledge with the practice of explanation. For example, the article discusses designing assessment that measures learning progressions at multiple points. I feel this is important to help researchers pinpoint where problems in fused knowledge and learning occur, and also how educational instruction should change regarding the individual (TSS article too). Learning progressions should influence assessment rather than being arbitrary ways of gauging knowledge. I really enjoyed how they take the individual into account, stating that learners gather knowledge and progress in many ways. Scaffolding was also discussed both positively and negatively in developing evidence based explanations around core ideas. For example, scaffolding played a significant role helping students provide appropriate and sufficient evidence. However, in the students’ written responses scaffolding did not influence the difficult parameter of items or think aloud activity. Sometimes I assume scaffolding should be included in every aspect of education, so it was beneficial to read when it does not work.
I think the “strands” refer to water, carbon, etc. And I think Discourse was capitalized because they were using it as a learning perspective (although we don’t capitalize situative, so I’m not sure about that). As far as the two pathways, I think their point is that at the highest level they are not separate, which is why the diagram has them coming back together. You’re right that both are lacking something from the other at lower levels though. I would guess they preferred the principles-first pathway because it is fairly easy to learn names once you have the principles, although I don’t really see the point in withholding the names while teaching the principles. Also, based on the transcript, it didn’t seem like the principle’s first student actually knew the material as well as the researchers claimed.
-Ryan