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

Within their review of conceptual change, Duit (2003) takes time to discuss the desire for countries to create a scientifically literate society. Within this debate Duit (2003) states that pressure was put on teachers to perform better and some scholars began to question educational research because much of the scholarly work being done at the time was taking place in labs, not classrooms, where there are many variables at play which cannot be conveniently controlled for. Conceptual change is the response to not only the need for an even more efficient way to help students become scientifically literate, but also a response of educational research to stay relevant in the process of improving teaching and learning in science classrooms.

Unlike Skinner (1954), where learning was defined as “performing” (p. 89) a behavior(s) that is continually reinforced by rewarding correct behavior, conceptual change acknowledges that students bring ideas with them and, “…learning is the result of the interaction between what the student is taught and his current ideas or conceptions” (Posner, Kenneth, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982, p. 211). This position is radically different from the ideas of Skinner (1954) because conceptual change deals with entities that cannot be seen by visible observation rather than easily identifiable behaviors associated with Skinner’s (1954) conception of learning.

Posner et al. (1982) outline two main types of conceptual change, assimilation and accommodation. While assimilation is relevant to the discussion, it is accommodation that will help meet the goal of creating an educational system that produces scientifically literate individuals efficiently. I say this not to be flippant about assimilation, but simply acquiring a new idea and integrating into an established set of concepts to deal with new phenomena is significantly more straightforward; accommodation is the process by which students replace and reorganize their initial set of concepts. In order to provide opportunities to cause accommodation, Posner et al. (1982) suggest four main criteria: students need to believe less radical changes won’t work, the new idea must be understood by the student, the new idea needs to be possible in the student’s view, and the idea must be useful to them. Each of these criteria are worth investigating in their own right and raise many questions about what teaching should look like in order to create situations to promote accommodation, however other scholars have suggested that there is more to creating an accommodation than the above factors (Duit, 2003; Tyson, Venville, Harrison, & Treagust, 1997)

Understanding there are a lot of factors that determine whether an accommodation occurs, there is no way to guarantee a student will reorganize their ideas. Additionally, given the complicated nature of an accommodation, how do we know when a “representation” (Posner et al., 1982, p. 216) meets a desired outcome or is in fact, an accommodation? There are two main ways to evaluate this: Duit (2003) states conceptual change, “…is not necessarily an exchange of conceptions for another but rather an increased use of the kind of conception that makes better sense to the student” (p. 677) or are we as educators striving to produce less “naïve” explanations of concepts by revising and changing ideas of students as suggested by the authors of Taking Science to School? While each of these positions may seem similar, they are different because of how the end result is evaluated. For example, if one believes conceptual change should be used to help students “make sense of new theories” (Posner et al., 1982), no matter what they state at the end of a course, as long as it is more aligned to a scientific explanation, that student can be deemed more scientifically literate. However, if one thinks students need to have their ideas revised and changed, this implies significant changes conceptually. Consequently, both would then be evaluated and assessed differently.

Beyond the assessment question however, there is a question of whether we should engage in science teaching with the goal of causing very intentional changes in students’ thinking. I say this not to belittle the importance of science, but to draw attention to one of the stated problems in producing accommodation; what practices should teachers engage in to create an environment and situations where students can in fact have the chance for accommodation over time? As stated by Posner et al. (1982), accommodations can be “strenuous and potentially threatening” (p. 223). Therefore, environments designed to produce conceptual changes should take this fact into consideration. Given students could encounter “cognitive conflict” (Posner et al., 1982, p. 224), are teachers prepared to facilitate students navigating this experience? Also, what kind of cognitive conflict do students experience? Knowing some of the conflicts that may arise are social/affective (Duit, 2003; Tyson et al, 1997), should teachers continue to push for an accommodation when these ideas may be the barrier to the change? Yes, students are capable of holding two ideas as true in varied context, but teachers need to be prepared to support them in navigating these instances. This is also true with discovering practices to help with a number of other factors influencing conceptual change.

Conceptual change, while having powerful explanatory implications, is a theory of learning. It is however, not necessarily a set of clearly laid out practices that promote efficient increases in scientific literacy. In fact, conceptual change may not be the theory that produces efficient schooling because if we are designing experiences for students to reorganize their thoughts in science, this process may be slow due to the multitude of conceptions a person holds. Additionally, what do we define as being “scientifically literate?” The Framework is a step in that direction, but as Posner et al. (1982) suggests, “…should this be an expectation for all students, or only for certain groups, such as science majors?” This is not to say that we should hold certain students to higher standards or not engage students in every standard outlined in the NGSS, but it is a question for deciding what the ultimate goals of science educators are. When is a students’ barriers to accommodation worthy of being left alone? Is it the job of science educators to teach science through multiple potential epistemologies (Ladson-Billings, 2000; Sánchez Tapia, Krajcik, & Reiser, 2018)? What practices allow science to be responsive to any and all barriers to accommodation? I think science education is the best it has ever been and Ambitious Science Teaching is definitely a gigantic step in continuing this trend because it involves models, metacognition, and leveraging students ideas (Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012), however there is still work to be done.

References:

Duit, R. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000076652

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. Denzin & L. Yvonna (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 257–277). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

Posner, G. J., Kenneth, S. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Sánchez Tapia, I., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2018). “We do not know what is the real story anymore ”: Curricular contextualization principles that support indigenous students in understanding natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 348–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21422

Skinner, B.F. (1954). The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching. In A.A.

Lumsdaine & Glasser (Eds.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: The Science of Learning (pp.99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<387::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-8

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027

 ‘Conceptual Change’

A tale by H. Smith

When I consider the readings (Skinner 1954; Dewey 1929) from the previous week, in comparison to the theory of conceptual change, there are many obvious differences. One that I find a key example of theoretical evolution is the importance placed on learners building upon or renovating prior understandings of concepts.  The conceptual change theory is grounded in not only revising learners concepts and developing ideas over time but also places importance on the relationship between concepts. This is demonstrated in the evidence ‘creating links is an important feature of conceptual change, otherwise, there is no difference between conceptual change and simple rote learning,’ (Tyson et. al 1997).  The issues of rote learning are addressed by considering the dynamic nature of relationships between the concepts and replicate a far more accurate description of how systems work. When I think about the siloed descriptions of photosynthesis that the class modeled last week I can see how the issues we identified are somewhat addressed in conceptual change theory.

Another point I considered important from the reading by Tyson et. al (1997) was the acknowledgment of conceptual change is inextricably linked to cognitive development and the age of the learner (Tyson et.al 1997, p. 395). The characteristics of the learner were not really mentioned in the previous week’s readings and demonstrate not only an evolution in learning theory but also our understanding of brain development and how this influences students.  Posner et.al (1982) discuss the central role in the identity of the learner in his or her ability to uptake or reject concepts based on their previous experiences. This sense makes using past experience is a completely individualized focus on learning and aligns with newer schools of educational thought around the role of a students culture in learning. Posner et.al (1982) describes an individual’s ability to uptake a new concept is very much influenced by their previous bank of knowledge and how this new theory compares with it.  I cannot help but think about a hermit crab with a shell searching for a new and improved version of its old one. Only if a new theory fits with that learner’s beliefs can he consider it a worthwhile investment to accommodate the new theory within his or her cognitive process: the crab takes the new shell on only if its better than the old.

This focus on the learner is also highlighted when Tyson et. al (1997) references Pintrich, Marx, and Boyle (1993) in saying that a learner’s beliefs about themselves as learners within the context of a specific classroom will have an impact on that student’s ability to progress through conceptual change in regards to the content. When I read this section, I think I understood correctly, that researchers were looking at how students from non-scientific reasoning standpoints can change their perspectives to somewhat ‘see’ from a scientific one. I interpreted this in two ways, initially, I considered this as a case of changing a student’s misconceptions on a scientific topic, but I also thought that this kind of seemed to be an indoctrination of ‘how can we make all of our students think about science the same way.’ The latter is somewhat concerning if we are to see conceptual change as a tool to align students into a certain way of thinking, does this not stifle creativity and thought processes that are crucial for diversity? I understand that there can be misunderstandings and misconceptions but for some ideas around phenomenon there is often no real clear cut right/wrong. For the students who come from culturally different backgrounds, whose culture ‘does’ science from a completely different perspective, are their ideas necessarily wrong? Or just different? Is there a difference between misconceptions and perhaps alternative ways of viewing a phenomenon?

A final parting thought that I found interesting about the readings was this transition seen in conceptual change and how a learner chooses or doesn’t, to adopt a new revision to their understanding of a phenomenon. Posner et.al (1982) describes new literature that offers an alternative to prior ideas around how to evoke conceptual change. Their paper ascribes value to concepts that can be applied to the real-world phenomenon to solve real-world problems. In granting a learner a new concept to solve a real problem, it is far more likely that this student will adapt and accommodate this knowledge in comparison to an abstract concept. This theory reminds me of the notion of cognitive apprenticeship and Problem Based Learning in the LS and how engaging students with issues of the real world make for a far more useful form of instruction than learning ‘algebra’ and ‘fractions.’ Some interesting points I found to connect what else I have read.

References

National Research Council. (2007). Science learning past and present. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, 11–25.

Posner, G. J., Kenneth, S. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81(4), 387–404.

“There is a strong tendency to identify teaching ability with the use of procedures that yield immediately successful results, success being measured by things in the classroom, correct recitations by pupils in assigned lessons, passing of examinations, promotion of pupils to a higher grade, etc” (Dewey, 1929, p. 15). This quote from Dewey’s 1929 book resonated with me as it is a topic within teaching that is discussed even to this day, almost 90 years after it was written. Today, there is an inclination to believe that teachers’ “worth” is measured by their students’ performance on assessments, tests, and quizzes at both the local and state level. Making sure that students do well on these assessments, where “successful results” are needed, is often a major focus of teaching. Yet it makes me wonder that just because students do well on an assessment, i.e. have successful results on it, does not indicate that they truly learned or understood the material. And just because students do well on an assessment does not mean that the specific teaching strategy that their teacher used is the sole way of teaching the material. Dewey brings this point to light this when he states that prospective teachers should not focus on “how to do things with the maximum prospect of success” (Dewey, 1929, p. 15) as much as being able to adapt material based on students’ needs, preferred learning methods, and previous knowledge. With that said, students can do well on assessments through a variety of different teaching strategies but ensuring that they do well on such assessments is a big part of teaching today.

The other area from Dewey’s 1929 book that I was interested in dealt with arm-chair science which brings up the idea of a “lack of vital connection between work practice and research work” (Dewey, 1929, p. 43). First hand experiences of teachers in the classroom, with their personal observations and understandings of science teaching, is vital when conducting research on science learning and teaching strategies that are effective in the classroom. The work practice experiences can not only provide researchers ideas that they may have otherwise not have thought of or considered but also determine how ideas and teaching strategies presented by them perform in the real world. Alone, field work practice and research work can provide strategies for teaching science but it is only when they are combined together, as Dewey (1929) emphasizes, that holistic suggestions can be created. When looking at this idea from a modern perspective, I feel that the connection between work practice and research work has been established through teachers conducting informal classroom research and being included in modern day research on the subject, but I am curious to see what others think about this topic.

In the second reading, Skinner (1954) brings up the idea of reinforcement in establishing students’ behaviors. Most of his research was done on pigeons, such as studying their behaviors and how reinforcement affected their behaviors, which he later applied to humans. As I was reading the article though, I felt that there was some disconnect and oversimplification between the findings on behaviors in pigeons and how they could be applied to human behaviors. For example, Skinner describes how machines can help to reinforce a behavior in the classroom, not unlike technological devices such as iPads and laptops today. One such device dealing with mathematics is described in the article where students who correctly answer a math question obtain a reinforcement, in this case being able to ring a bell. To me, this reinforcement reinforces selecting the correct answer to a problem but not the process the student went through to obtain the answer. Like the instant successful results from the Dewey (1929) reading mentioned above, I feel that the end behavior is being reformed (i.e. selecting the correct answer and obtaining successful results) more so than the means to that behavior.

From the last reading, I appreciated learning about the historical overview of science teaching (National Report Council, 2007). One of the parts of the report that stood out to me was when it stated that “many of today’s challenges in science education echo those of the past” (National Report Council, 2007, p. 20). I had not previously considered this, but after thinking about how a lot of work goes into trying to get people from all races, genders, and classes involved in and interested about science, and constantly having better scientifically trained individuals, I can see how the same issues have been around for decades. After reading this article, I also started to consider that the points discussed above from Dewey (1929) and Skinner (1954) also illustrate this idea that many of the challenges in science have been around for a long time. As seen in their articles, obtaining successful scores and learning how to reinforce student behaviors are still problems present today, 89 and 64 years, respectively, after each book was written.

References:

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Liverlight.

National Research Council. (2007). Science learning past and present. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, 11–25.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glasser (Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning: The science of learning (pp. 99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dewey (1929) discusses education as a science and its sources as well as how these sources should influence and improve teaching practices. Dewey suggests that psychology is more closely connected to how people learn, and social science is related to what they learn. However, these two fields should not be held as completely separate and distinct entities. Dewey warns that “When we make a sharp distinction between what is learned and how we learn it, and assign the determination of the process of learning to psychology and of subject-matter to social science, the inevitable outcome is that the reaction of what is studied and learned upon the development of the person learning, upon the tastes, interests, and habits that control his future mental attitudes and responses is overlooked” (Dewey, 1929, pg. 62). Dewey goes on to explain that learning cannot be separated from a person’s emotions and attitudes and how they feel into the future. He states “It [the separation of what/how of learning] then deals with a short segment of the learning process instead of with its continuities” (Dewey, 1929, pg 62). I wonder if this quote can be extended to include a person’s past experiences and attitudes in addition to their future when considering the process of learning. It seems to me that previous tastes, desires, and habits that were formed when past learning happened will have an effect on new learning. Additionally, Dewey notes that “…there will be a distinct difference between the teacher who merely puts into effect certain rules about opening windows, reducing temperature, etc., and the one who performed similar acts because of personal observation and understanding” (Dewey, 1929, pg. 39). I think this quote can be extended far past the idea of controlling room temperature and opening windows. The idea of adapting your student interactions and instruction based on observing and understanding students seems like a form of collecting and interpreting data to adjust teaching that is similar to forms of formative assessment used today.

Skinner (1954) discusses methods of learning through reinforcement and how this could be implemented with children in schools. While Skinner’s technological record player that gives immediate reinforcement seems slightly outlandish, I think we are currently using a form of this method in schools through the use of computers. Skinner suggests that “The glimpse of a column of figures, not to say an algebraic symbol or an integral sign, is likely to set off- not mathematical behavior– but a reaction of anxiety, guilt, or fear” (Skinner, 1954, pg. 92). Skinner states that mechanizing learning and making learning more efficient will help solve this problem. In my experience, modern computer learning programs that give instant feedback and are very efficient are met with the same negative reactions. This relates back to Dewey’s thoughts on learning, in that not only do people learn information, they are learning emotions, tastes, and desires at the same time. This brings up another interesting thought on reinforcements– Skinner mentions that teachers no longer have ability to use the birch rod (punishment) and instead learning should be centered around reinforcing behaviors. If a learner performs a behavior incorrectly and they are not reinforced, is this lack of reinforcement (usually a reward) a form of punishment in itself? How do learners react to this and does it affect their learning in the future?

The report from the National Research Council (2007) takes the reader through a history of teaching science in the U.S. The report mentions the push in the 1960’s to create curricula that exposes students to “authentic” science and was called  “science for scientists”. However, in the 1980’s when A Nation at Risk was published, the United States became focused on Standards Based Reform. The report says “Local education authorities also developed standards and curriculum that aligned with state and national standards, so that they would provide students with opportunities to learn content that would be tested on state assessments” (NRC, 2007, pg. 16). I wonder how much of the “authentic” science curricula was removed or revamped to accommodate standardized tests. Is it possible to test the kind of inquiry and creativity that are necessary for science on state and national tests? Dewey poses a similar question: “How far is education a matter of forming specific skills and acquiring special bodies of information which are capable of isolated treatment?” (Dewey, 1929, pg. 64).

Dewey, J. The Sources of a Science of Education (New York: H. Liveright, 1929). 20 Waples,“. The Graduate Library School at Chicago, 30.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Cambridge, Mass, USA, 99, 113.

National Research Council. (2007). Science learning past and present. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, pg. 11–25.

After examining the positions of Dewey (1929) and Skinner (1954), the divergent positions of both individuals is stark. On one hand, there is Dewey who believes, “Education is autonomous and should be free to determine its own ends… to go outside the educational function and to borrow objectives from an external source is to surrender the educational cause” (Dewey, 1954, p. 74), arguing for a pragmatic and democratic perspective on teaching and learning. Skinner (1954), on the other hand, believes new advancements in animal behavior and technology should be used to “reinforce” (p. 93) learning behaviors in classrooms. Both of these visions are polar opposites and present two competing views of learning and teaching that are at the core of many of the largest debates in science education today.

Historically, as demonstrated by the National Research Council’s (NRC), 2007 publication Taking Science to School, it is Skinner’s (1954) perspective that laid the foundation for how the United States would construct its nationalized education system. In the 1960s, the drive to produce scientists to assist in the Cold War effort drove natural scientists and psychologists to produce science curricula (NRC, 2007). Absent within these conversations were educators. Also, the curriculum designers were “driven by theories of teaching, and less so by theories of learning explicitly” (NRC, 2007). It can be assumed by the absence of educators designing these curricula, the theories about teaching driving the discussion were those proposed by Skinner (1954) because of his dismissal of teachers as capable of “efficiently” teaching skills to students (p. 92). Another indicator of this is seen in how the curricula were designed with the assumption that, “…given a cycle of instruction, student learning would unfold rather unproblematically” (NRC, 2007, p. 14), another proposition by Skinner’s (1954) argument that animal behavior techniques could quickly teach students. It should be noted that Skinner (1954) thought teaching was simply training a behavior rather than a complex sociocultural interaction.

According to the NRC (2007), the flaws in science education presented by A Nation at Risk led to national standards in science and the introduction of standardized assessments in science in the 1990s (p. 16). Again, Skinner’s (1954) perspective is noted as standardized tests would become a form of reinforcement for students and later teachers as teacher “enhancement” (NRC, 2007, p. 17) was to be part of the initiatives. However, in the 1990s some of Dewey’s ideas began to surface as teachers, students, and other actors were involved in the reforms; this broadened the voices within education, something analogous to Dewey’s (1924) recommendations when creating a science of education. This is most notable in the most recent reform effort with the creation of A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012).

Unlike previous reforms, the Framework has several perspectives that undergird it that draw upon Dewey’s ideas (although this is not stated explicitly.) For one, the goal of the Framework has shifted from preparing scientists to preparing a scientifically literate society, enabling anyone to engage in public discourse around scientific issues. This is a dramatic shift away from ideas about needing to impart strict skills to produce scientists into one that still wishes to produce scientists, but broadens who is able to contribute to that conversation. Part of this belief is to “inspire” students to enter science related fields, a belief Dewey (1924) shares about education and its role. Another divergence from previous reforms is the affordance of time. The writers of the Framework explicitly state that learning science takes time, rather than wanting an efficient way of teaching science. They also acknowledge these standards are, “…not intended to define course structure…” (NRC, 2012, p. 12). Lastly, and probably most significant, are the diverse array of voices included in the creation of the Framework. Rather than draw upon policy makers and individuals only in natural sciences and psychology, the creators of the Framework were from many backgrounds.

Going deeper into the Framework, the assumptions embedded within it diverge from previous conceptions of what it means to teach and learn science. Gone are the days of believing students, “… do not learn arithmetic quickly or well” (Skinner, 1954, p. 92) and that students learn science by constructing “sequences of schedules” to reinforce a behavior (skill). Instead, the Framework demands educators acknowledge that children are born investigators, we should focus on practices rather than skills and facts, and concepts should be connected to student experience (NRC, 2012). This shift indicates a small and significant departure from previously held ideals. Instead, it appears to be a slow transformation to better practice by examining the, “…influence of subtler and more obscure conditions which effect results, so that improvement is reasonable progressive” (Dewey, 1924, p. 29). In other words, teachers and scholars are working together to improve education by noticing more subtle things beyond behavior to improve how we think about teaching and learning science. This is especially notable because teacher’s thoughts are beginning to be valued within discussions about education at the highest levels and researchers and teachers are working together in this process, another recommendation by Dewey (1924) for creating an educational science.

Although the Framework (2012), is a significant first step in reimagining what teaching and learning science should look like, there are still some remnants of problematic conceptions of teaching and learning. For example, in Taking Science to School (2007) and the Framework (2012) issues of equity are raised. Specifically, the Framework suggests connecting student experiences to science, specifically, the authors highlight the connection between cultural storytelling and engagement in argumentation and inquiry (NRC, 2012). Dewey (1924), in highlighting how it would be inappropriate to simply integrate natural science findings into a classroom without considering the whole complex system is pointing towards thinking about equity because diverse students ARE a part of this complex system that must be considered. Unfortunately, none of these documents begin to point towards transforming WHAT science is, HOW it is done, and WHY science is used. These ideas are extremely important considering the atrocities and injustices that have been committed by science and in science as well as education in general.

Science is a field mostly constructed of and by white men. In Dewey’s (1924) discussion of an educational science his argument about scientific laws not becoming educational rules is fascinating because of his “rule” of only speaking about men. Interestingly, Skinner (1954) speaks of men in the science roles and consequently when he refers to teachers they are generically gendered as women. While this shift is indicative of how attitudes about teaching has shifted historically as well as who traditionally teaches, it is also indicative of the roots of both science and our own educational science. In Skinner’s eye’s, learning is something we can train into people. For Dewey (1924), learning and teaching is far more complex. I personally side with Dewey. However, both men have one thing in common, they do not see the total complexity within society. Yes, we can write this up to the era in which both men existed, however, within both NRC documents in question, much of the attendance to equity was not fully flushed out and were small sections in each document. For Taking Science to School (2007), it was cited that marginalized populations are still behind their white peers, and that, “…children from all backgrounds have the capacity to be successful in science and [research] begins to identify the cultural and linguistic resource that nonmainstream student bring to the science classroom” (NRC, 2007, p. 20). The idea that it is new to understand all students can achieve in science is shocking. The fact that it needs to be mentioned explicitly at all is bewildering, but the sentiment exists in both NRC documents. It is also confusing that we are only beginning to understand what marginalized students bring to the classroom rather than seeing them with a deficit orientation. Therefore, it is clear that while we have come a long way from thinking about learning as a behavior to be trained and are beginning to build an educational science that is just as complex and robust as the phenomena it investigates, we are still falling woefully short of these goals for equity (and a few studies referencing cultural practices that connect to science is not enough).

There are still steps to be made in order to create an educational science that works for all students, however the current progress is heartening. We as a society are slowly removing the vestiges of a problematic vision of what it means to teach and learn left to us by Skinner (1954) and those who promoted his ideas. This is most evident by the integration of ideas Skinner (1924) thought were a waste of time, “…educating for democracy, educating the whole child, educating for life, and so on” (p. 92), into the Framework (2012). These ideas align more with Dewey (1924). However, we must remember that simply aiming for goals that are not intersectional and idealistic do not generate the outcomes they espouse because in a society (and discipline) that centers white men and a Eurocentric culture, we must specifically begin to attend to issues of equity within our conceptions of what it means to teach and to learn.

References:

Dewey, J. (1929). The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liverlight.

Skinner, B.F. (1954). The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching. In A.A. Lumsdaine & Glasser (Eds.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: The Science of Learning (pp.99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children

National Research Council. (2007). Science learning past and present. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, 11–25.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

The approach I took towards this week’s readings was to analyse the goals established for science education through the ages in the NRC report (National Report Council ,2007) and then corroborate that with the vision for the future in The Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Report Council, 2012). The analyses for the articles by Skinner (1954) and Dewey (1929) considers them in their own merit and also seeks to look at how much of their ideas find their place in the modern context. 

The historical analysis in the report by the National Research Council (2007) is justified by a national mandate on science education programs across the country to improve the standards of their offerings, both because of growing pressure from nationalised legislations such as the No Child Left Behind Act and from the pressing need to produce a scientifically literate citizenry to have focused debates on issues such as the teaching of evolution and global warming. 

In going through the reforms of the curricula across the ages, the first realisation that is striking is the influence that national requirements play on the currently accepted learning theory. While learning sciences and science education, by virtue of being called a science, could be perceived as a field that would evaluate theories purely based on their merit and their proposed improvements to education, a deeper analysis reveals that the goals of education as decided at a national level and by educators plays a huge role in which theory is deemed most effective. In the 1960’s and 70’s for example, as the USA was waging a technological Cold War with the now defunct USSR and the nation required technologically adept engineers and scientific innovators, the curricula aimed to ‘help students learn to think and act like scientists’ which is a shift away from the functional, task-oriented view of education in Pre-War contexts where the impetus was on producing skilled workers. 

However, these myopic educational theories were soon replaced as the impact was minimal. It is my opinion that the lack of impact boils down to two factors. Firstly, in placing a focus on process skills, the important role of sociocultural context in determining how these processes were adapted locally was ignored. A second folly was to focus on theories of teaching rather than theories of learning. The latter could have provided some clarity on how students build scientific knowledge and a more sophisticated view of inquiry as a tool for learning, two problems identified by the report. This lack of an impact immediately lead to Standards Based Reforms in the 90’s which has had underwhelming effects on the quality of education.

In reconciling the standards based reform with Skinner’s theories on reinforcement, (Skinner, 1954) I ran into a bunch of issues. Skinner argues for the inclusion of regular assessment, but the standards framework comes nowhere close to the levels of reinforcement that are deemed necessary by him. There is also a problem with the delay between the action performed and the reinforcement delivered. Skinner argues that for a reinforcement to be effective, it has to be immediate and periodic assessments proposed by the standards movement can’t provide these reinforcements instantly. Finally, the kind of reinforcement device that Skinner proposes in a classroom, though useful for learning individual modules of information, has a huge flaw at the centre of it: it reinforces right answers but not right ways of thinking. For example when students learn division through solving problems, they come to think of division of whole numbers as an operation of ‘making smaller’. While this method of thinking works for whole numbers, when it comes to division by fractions, such as the problem of 4 divided by 1/4, the way of thinking can lead to erroneous results, with students often producing 1 as the answer, instead of 16. But, a Skinner-ian device would positively reinforce the way of thinking that lead to ‘making smaller’ because division of whole numbers is usually learnt first. This is indicative of a general disclaimer that should come with assessment based theories: There are multiple ways of thinking that can lead to the right answer and not all of them are necessarily ‘right’

In a broader vein, the problem with education in the country, and for the world more generally, has never been with assessment. In Asiatic countries that approach education from a standards-based perspective with a focus on regularised assessment, education often reduces to the drill and practice method of the 1920’s and 30’s because of a shift in student goals from actual learning to learning for assessments. This situation can only be improved by asking questions about how scientific communities work and how students learn, to build curriculum that can bridge the two theories. With this in mind, I turn now to the Framework for K-12 Science education (NRC, 2012)

The framework targets all students, not just ones who pursue a career in STEM later on while also providing the latter category with the necessary skills. Personally, I fail to see how both sets of learning goals can be met within a single framework. The needs for scientific literacy are quite distinct from a need for scientific proficiency. The framework seems to suggest the adoption of a spiralling curriculum with ideas repeated across grades in greater levels of abstraction, which are lead by inquiry from the students and I agree with this approach. It is also heartening to see that the framework finally puts an end to the multitude of ways in which the term inquiry is interpreted by teachers. 

I feel that the framework covers all the bases as far as scientific learning is concerned but the real challenge lies in implementation. The framework also seems to place a heavy burden on teachers, how now have to be trained in what inquiry based instruction should be like and how scientific communities work, facets that elementary school teachers, who typically don’t have a specialised technical background, may not be familiar with.

The views of the framework echo Dewey’s thinking in placing a higher emphasis on the methods of organising subject-matter (Dewey, 1929). Dewey argues that education, by virtue of the nature of the field, doesn’t allow the methods of gifted teachers to be incorporated into the world, the way that scientists do. In that sense, it would seem to suggest that educational theory become more scientific, which is what the NRC report (2012) seeks to do. In many ways, the works of scholars like Dewey informs the methodology used by the frameworks studied above. I also agree with Dewey when he talks about the difficulty in adopting learning science theories in the face of other approaches that promise immediate results. This also leads to an interesting question: How do the architects of the framework convince schools to adopt their policies in the face of alternative theories? What metrics can they use to convince schools to adopt what is a considerably trickier and more difficult system to implement?

Overall, the report incorporates ideas from both Dewey and Skinner. I am looking to see if I can find concrete examples of curricula that use the framework recommendations of the NRC. I’m also curious to see how prepared this makes students for further education in the sciences or in engineering as that seems to be one of the key aims of the NRC.

References:

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, Ny. Liveright.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. In A. A. Lumsdaine &              R. Glasser (Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning: The science of                    learning (pp. 99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Research Council. (2007). Science learning past and present. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, 11–25.

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

The two assignments this week, The Sources of Science Education by Dewey and The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching by Skinner, were both interesting in that they are examples of early thoughts on the application of scientific principles to the task of improving teaching. The Dewey article was an interesting argument in favor of the application of scientific principles to the practice of education. The most interesting point that he made for me was that “No conclusion of scientific research can be converted in an immediate rule of educational art” (Dewey, 1929, pg. 19). This tendency to take a new scientific fact and immediately make it an infallible part of education or a rule for how to live is dangerous in many instances. In a certain sense this what Skinner is doing in his article. He takes something as simple and basic as operant conditioning (of pigeons) and applies it to education, a field that is very complex and where the goal is considerably more nuanced than simple training. Being able to repeat a task, as trained animals do, does not mean that the animal has gained any understanding of what they are doing. The goal of education should be not only to teach rote learning of information but also understanding of the processes that elaborate on the basic material that students have memorized. The best way to achieve that goal is through progressive scientific approach to teaching and the improvement of teaching techniques.

References

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, Ny. Liveright.

Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. In A. A. Lumsdaine &              R. Glasser (Eds.), Teaching machines and programmed learning: The science of                    learning (pp. 99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children.

• Dewey, J. (1929). The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liverlight.

Dewey (1929) draws an important conclusion in describing teaching as an art, rather than a science. Most accurately, because there is no correct ‘recipe’ or one size fits all approach to effective teaching. When we consider western science on a surface level, it is easy to see how Dewey (1929) argues his point; the scientific process is typically repeatable, predictable and is used to explain how a phenomenon works through a reductionist approach to reasoning. Applying this science to an educational environment, by isolating variables, ultimately leads to a hot mess that fails to encapsulate the complex ecology of a classroom environment. Educational research should not adopt the same approach that science typically employs in areas of biology, physics, and mathematics. One reason outlined is that in educating the individual, it is not just the content that is learned or not, but a plethora of other skills that are inherently, and often subconsciously learned in the process. Dewey (1929) places authority with the teacher to be able to identify these factors within a classroom environment and adapt lessons best suit the individual learner. This is particularly relevant as the role of the educator is now recognized as being fundamentally important for the learning process of the student. Lectures that reduce learning to a one-way communication between the lecturer and student fail to engage many students,  the fault is not of the student being ‘unmotivated’ or ‘lazy’, but the teaching itself is ineffective. I see the discussion and implementation of hands-on, experiential learning in teacher education nowadays that has links to these methods suggested by Dewey.

• Skinner, B.F. (1954). The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching. In A.A.Lumsdaine & Glasser (Eds.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: The Science of Learning (pp.99-113): National Association for the Education of Young Children

Skinner (1954) identifies inadequacies within the classroom that have led to modern day issues that manifest themselves in society. He describes this by saying ‘the very subjects in which modern techniques are weakest are those in which failure is most conspicuous, and in the wake on an ever-growing incompetence come the anxieties, uncertainties, and aggressions which in turn present other problems to the school.’ (Skinner 1954. p 92). Importantly, he identifies that rote learning, particularly in arithmetic, science etc. does not create deep understanding in the student, or lead to the application of such knowledge to real life problems. This argument made me think of my experience studying the theory of cognitive apprenticeship that I consider acts to address this notion that students learn information in schools but cannot apply their knowledge out in real life.

Skinner (1954) describes reinforcement and the disconnect between a child in a classroom and a child at play. The naturally reinforcing mechanisms of nature, where children can control actions such as cutting scissors with paper, painting and creating are almost completely free from aversion. In contrast, the modern school cannot evoke this environment as the classroom generates emotional responses through aversion control (Skinner 1954).  Although I didn’t particularly like this reading, I think I can draw parallels between this idea of experiential learning being most effective that is discussed by Dewey and reflective in the NRC documents.

In regards to motivation, a particularly important point made by Skinner (1954) is that of caution regarding the use of competition as a reinforcement mechanism for children. Although one child might benefit from this mechanism, it will likely become aversive to another.  The use of competition as a form of motivation is particularly concerning as I consider that our modern-day classrooms, although not explicitly, rely on competition between pupils for motivation, to be the best in the class, to gain entrance into college, to outcompete fellow pupils in the future job market. Competition as a motivator is used throughout formal education and schools individuals to focus on ‘beating’ and excelling past others in the future, the workplace is an example. Like many forms of motivation, for those students who fail to ‘excel’ being beaten leads to a fast disengagement in whatever the class or learning situation might be. Skinner (1954) suggests that an alternative to these schooling environmental norms may be to reimagine effective control of human learning with instrumental aid and mechanical devices.

• National Research Council. (2007). Science learning past and present. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, 11–25. 
• National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

The article by the National Research Council (2007) identifies key time points in US science education history. In tracing the timeline, one thing I noticed was that in each wave of reform, ie. 60’s, 80-90’s and modern day, some features are still present in our discussions on what constitutes effective science education. An example of this can be seen in the hands-on experiential education example of the automotive mechanic education and deconstructing the car to understand the mechanisms behind the phenomenon. The use of experience in a contextual situation draws parallels with the learning sciences cognitive apprenticeship. This is supported by the report: ‘understanding casts serious doubt on the wisdom of teaching scientific reasoning in the absence of specific content’ (NRC 2007, p.19). Suggesting that taking a scientific theory out of the context of its application creates an environment where the student learns science in the school context, but cannot apply this to a real phenomenon. If I can remember an example from LDT583 last semester, when the example was given of a student learning fractions in a classroom but then could not figure out how to double a recipe when cooking at home, ie. ⅓ cup doubled.

In regards to science education evolution, the description of the 60’s agenda was driven by a political motive to find the brightest future scientists to continue the dominance of American innovation. I am not naive in understanding that education is still politically controlled, but I see a push now that is not so much focussed on the upper 5% of high achieving students, rather a move to create scientifically literate communities as this will drive economic growth from a population perspective. The No Child Left Behind policy is a manifestation of this, but is also an important example of how policy can often fail to achieve what it set out to do. As our understanding of how students prior knowledge and cultural backgrounds shape how they learn, I hope that the quest for scientific equity can become a driver to expand further what constitutes as science to include and give voice to students from all walks of life.

The NRC’s (2012) framework acts upon some of these points, particularly in its goal of structuring science education to draw upon students interests and prior experiences. Of note, is this idea that core ideas are being built upon over time which is a concept I believe has been previously neglected. This idea of linking concepts is something that I am reading about more and more as a graduate student and is seen in unit designs, content storylines and the ideas presented in AST.  This structured approach to science education design with its aims on basing learning around key themes rather than covering hundreds of topics with no real synergy can hopefully make science classes more meaningful than they have been in the past, and not lead to the typical disconnect between what is learned from week to week.