For this week’s blog, I will start with the Pintrich et al. paper (Pintrich et al. 1993). This paper was concerned with the of conceptual change with the added component of motivation. Other papers, like Brown et al., did not incorporate this aspect of learning (). The authors go through several different types of motivation and theories on conceptual change. One statement that I thought was particularly relevant was the idea that lab activities often act to confirm knowledge rather than allowing students to explore or learn through observations (p. 181). As an undergrad, I thought that this problem was particularly pronounced in chemistry labs. The labs never worked out the way they were supposed to so we would go through the motions and write up the lab as if it did work. The reason that we could do this was that we already knew what was supposed to happen because we had already studied the reaction. The authors spoke of this as a problem because it leads to a tendency to seek closure but I think it is also a motivational problem in other ways. The question that the students had, as did I, was what is the point of doing a lab if you know what is going to happen. This problem is similar to the motivational issue of learning something without a clear application (i.e. when am I ever going to use this?). I think that if a teacher is going to include labs in their teaching then it is crucial to avoid this problem.
The next paper by Brown et al. discussed an approach to applying the concept of situated cognition in a classroom setting (Brown et al. 1993). The rational for the approach that they developed leaned heavily on Vygotsky, particularly with respect to the zone of proximal development, as well as Lave (Lave & Wenger 1991). Their approach focuses on intentional learning and a concept that they term “distributed expertise” (p. 194). Distributed expertise in this case means that students are taught in groups in which each member of the group focuses on a certain aspect of the subject that they are learning. They then teach this aspect to the rest of the group, typically through a type of teaching called the “jigsaw method” (p. 194). The authors also used a group method called reciprocal teaching (p.194). In the method that the described the teacher acts as a facilitator of the student’s learning through exploration rather than the sole keeper of knowledge. This method resembles the Ambitious Science Teaching method but I would need to see it demonstrated to fully understand how it would work in a classroom setting (Windschitl et al. 2018). One thing that I did like about it was that it allows for the use of books and other resources as part of the discovery process (. This is the first time that the subject of books or written material has come up in our discussions of learning theory, to my memory, which I find odd. The other aspect of this paper that I found interesting is that the authors focus on the aim of teaching students to “learn how to learn” (p. 190). I have often spoken to people, older people, who state that the point of college or school in general is not to just teach people information but to teach students how to learn. They often say that that is the thing that is missing from the modern education system so I found it interesting that the authors of this paper reflect that opinion.
The last assigned paper, by Driver et al., also presented a method of classroom application based on teaching science while understanding that students do not come to the classroom as a blank slate (Driver et al. 1994). They have prior knowledge gained through their private life and cognitive strategies that have been developed in a similar manner. The methods of social, discovery based education make a point of exposing the students inherent thought processes or knowledge and showing the student how to think of new material through a scientific view rather than their previously held understanding. The authors approach is similar to the previous paper but different in that the methods are less specific. There are no mentions of jigsaw teaching or other specific teaching methodologies. The examples of conversations between students and teachers and conversations between students demonstrate their strategy but in a slightly vague way. There is also seems to be a certain amount of prior knowledge required in terms of common manners of thinking about particular subjects. The way that students think about the behavior of light, in the authors example, would not be something that I would have thought of without being previously told (p. 9).
References
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 188-228.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Vol. 521423740). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational research, 63(2), 167-199.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2018). Ambitious Science Teaching. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Zac, your discussion of the jigsaw method and how it allows students to teach each other reminded me of our discussions of peer-peer and near-peer learning from last week. Also, I totally relate to your anecdote about chemistry lab. I think the feeling of “we already know what’s going to happen why are we doing this?” is one that resonates through many high school and undergrad lab experiences. In the bio dept. at Penn State they are trying to combat this feeling by creating labs that are slightly more open ended, i. e., we don’t know the exact crossover frequency in the fungi after irradiating, or its up to you to determine what plasmid is present in your sample. In these labs, students have slightly more autonomy and feel more responsible for ensuring their aspect of the lab works and thus increases their motivation.
You bring up an interesting point from the Pintrich et al. paper (1993) regarding lab activities. I know from my own studies, lab activities are often thought of in a “bubble” context: they are useful for that class but I rarely ever think of their application in the real world or even if they have such an application. With this outlook, students are having more of a performance orientation, focusing on getting good grades and surface level processing, but not engaging in mastery orientation, where they focus on learning, understanding, and mastering the task which includes metacognitive processes. While this metacognitive processes and motivation are important aspects of learning, as you discuss, students may not engage with them directly in labs leading one to wonder: how can labs be changed to incorporate these aspects? Is relating a lab to a current event or proposing ways that the skills are used in the “real world” enough? How can teachers allow for students to have flexibility in assignments, increasing the possibility that such aspects are incorporated, when there are various safety cautions to consider?
In regards to the Brown et al. (1993) and Driver et al. (1994) papers, I also found their ideas regarding learning interesting. So far this semester the first few readings looked at science learning as an individual behavior while later readings focused more on learning between individuals. I found it interesting to see how Driver et. al (1994) combined these two theories together and stress the importance of prior knowledge, as you mention, in learning. This leads me to wonder though, how can teachers figure out what students already know coming into class and “adapt” their instruction accordingly? Is it important to also figure out what metacognitive strategies students already know/come in with in order to help them learn science?
I agree with your initial paragraph, particularly regarding the use of lab work in chemistry and other classes as a method of verifying hands on what we already know. Although it is not possible to create a lab every week that is discovery-based and leading to breakthroughs in the field of chemistry, perhaps the way labs are structured can better serve the purpose and student learning. Although I too had mostly cookie cutter labs with a right or wrong solution, pretty much the opposite of how we want to teach science, I do remember a lab that I did once that involved an unknown compound and completing a system of tests to rule out what the substance was/was not. I only recall this lab because it was far more interesting than the other labs we were doing in the semester, it was challenging, and we all had different substances, thus students came to different conclusions. I guess this is more discovery-based, but still involves the chemical procedures we wish students to learn as foundational. Redesigning undergrad labs should be a thing.