The readings for this week surprised me. I was expecting them to link to the previous learning theories that we have discussed in class, which they did, but they also started to bring in ideas that we have not previously mentioned so far such as technology and policy makers determining learning standards. Having a foundation on conceptual change and cognitive apprenticeship definitely helped with the readings this week, and I have included a few interesting points that I found from each of the readings below in addition to some areas that I had difficulty with and questions on.
The first reading, a chapter written by Songer and Kali (2014), discusses how science education and the learning sciences are intertwined by focusing on four areas of educational scholarship that have influenced both science education and the learning sciences. I found their section on fostering blended science knowledge very interesting as it stresses the importance of transitioning from “lectures and cookbook labs to interactive, guided instructional activities and pedagogies that build on prior instruction” (p.. 573). This part of the article, I felt, directly relates to the teaching that I have observed during my pre-student teaching. From talking to classmates, my mentor teacher, and looking back at my own middle school science class experiences, we remember science class consisting of being lectured to, completing in-class worksheets and activities, and doing labs where we were told exactly what and when do/add something (i.e. almost like a robot). However, when I went to my pre-student teaching classroom that uses the ambitious science teaching framework, I saw a very different science classroom. The teacher would ask students about their prior knowledge, question how students’ prior knowledge influenced their proposed ideas and hypothesis, and have students create their own lab to test an idea rather than being given step-by-step lab instructions. Teaching in this way illustrates the idea that Songer and Kali (2014) argue for above, but also allows students to develop deeper conceptual understanding of the material being taught. Rather than being treated as “robots”, students in this environment participate in higher-order thinking activities by collecting their own data, analyzing their data through graphing, and adding the knowledge learned from a lab to their current model explaining how a phenomenon occurs, allowing for what they term as “blended science knowledge.” Another section of the chapter written by Songer and Kali (2014) that I found interesting was when they discuss how technology can play a role in supporting complex thinking in science. Having a personal interest in technology integration within the science classroom, I saw that technology (such as computer programs, web activities, and videos) was not used as much as it could have in my student teaching experiences to foster this blended science knowledge. Students solely used Chromebooks to write in online journals, input their data into online forums, and complete online assessments. I feel that using technology in this way did not really foster blended science knowledge, but I am curious see if others think this also. Or how can technology can be used to do foster this knowledge?
On the lines of discussing technology, the third reading by Collins and Kapur (2014) mentioned that technology can aid in cognitive apprenticeship as seen through it encouraging students to reflect on their performances and that it can scaffold situated learning through computer-based environments (important themes they argue in cognitive apprenticeship research). More broadly though, I appreciated that Collins and Kapur spent time distinguishing between traditional and cognitive apprenticeship. When initially reading about cognitive apprenticeship in the Brown, Collins, and Duigid (1989) article, I kept thinking about cognitive apprenticeship in terms of a the traditional apprenticeship, i.e. a physical process where a mentor teaches an individual the skills he/she needs to complete a task, rather than providing learners techniques and knowledge that they can apply to various settings. I was confused, though, on one area of the paper where Collins and Kapur (2014) classify situated learning as a theme in cognitive apprenticeship research. From the “Filling in the Gaps” readings two weeks back, we (tried) to differentiate between these two learning theories. I came out of that class somewhat understanding that cognitive apprenticeship focuses more on the thinking/individual cognitive aspect of learning where a social component does occur and situated learning focuses more on the norms and practices of a community or the bigger behaviors in a community. From this reading by Collins and Kapur (2014), I was further confused on differentiating between the two theories because it seems like they combine the two together with cognitive apprenticeship extending situated learning to more diverse and complex settings. Did anyone else find this? Or if not, can you help me to differentiate between the two?
Lastly, the chapter by diSessa (2014) was more of a historical writing on conceptual change than a theory paper. This reading was the most difficult out of the three for me, but I was able to gather from reading it that even within the cognitivist perspective, there is debate about the theory of conceptual change with not one model being fully agreed upon. I agree with diSessa’s discussion on prior knowledge and how we, as future educators, should not just have students state their current knowledge and then have them disregard it but “convince[ing] them to accept the scientifically correct conceptualization” (p. 89). I was extremely confused on the part of the chapter that focused on the Kuhn (coherence) and Toulmin (fragmentation) debate and hope that through the class discussion this week, I can get a better understanding on this. If anyone can help me out with this section, that would be greatly appreciated!
Works Cited
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 109–127). Cambridge University Press.
DiSessa, A. A. (2014). A History of Conceptual Change Research. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 88–108). Cambridge University Press.
Songer, N. B., & Kali, Y. (2014). Science Education and the Learning Sciences as Coevolving Species. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 697–722). Cambridge University Press.
Chloe, I think that cognitive apprenticeship is at the roots of the situative theory and that your differentiation between the two from “Filling in the Gaps” makes sense. I think that this article tried to expand out cognitive apprenticeship to a more practical viewpoint– i. e. how can this theory be expanded into a “real-life” classroom. That was my take– but maybe others have different ideas! I think the point that you gathered about contention within the cognitivist camp is important– we’ve been dealing a lot with arguing between camps but I’m sure there’s a great deal of debate about the finer points of each individual theory.
I agree with your reference to diSessa and the issue of ‘dealing with ‘ students prior ideas. I am often caught between acknowledging that students may need to renegotiate their misconceptions and prior understanding of a scientific phenomenon by replacing or accommodating the new knowledge. But, I am also concerned that if we only think about learning in this way, we perhaps lose a lot of students who have prior experiences, cultural, religious and other ways of explaining and seeing the world. Students are able to renegotiate understandings at vastly different capacities based on how different their external lives differ from the scientific norms of the classroom. I wonder how we can improve learning through improving this ‘border crossing’ between identities so to speak.