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

Lave takes one more step into social learning this week. Lave starts to answer some of the questions I had about cognitive apprenticeship. When thinking about what is knowing and what is learning, this quote helped me get started on my own analysis of Lave. “…[L]earning, thinking, and knowing are relations among people in activity in, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured world” (Lave 51).

This next part gets into the weeds a bit I think, but it makes sense to me.

Previously, we as a class had really only related knowing to the individual and could have compared it to other people’s level of knowing, but this train of thought implies that there is some kind of universal knowledge level that everyone tries to get to. Lave suggests that these things, learning, knowing, and thinking are only quantifiable when there is another member of that community to compare it to.

Lave views learning as, “becoming a full participant, a member” of a social community. I believe that Lave thinks that informal learning situations are just as relevant to a student as classroom or formal situations. Another stretch, but since learning and knowing come from social activities, any events where a student interacts with anything can be considered social. This implies that informal learning is just as valuable as a resource to students as formal opportunities.

My first reaction to this theory is that it is almost like if cognitive apprenticeship had a tall glass of Vygotsky. I have always liked the idea that learning is a social activity as well as apprenticeship on a basic level. With the introduction of peripheral participation, it better defines the learning phase before a student becomes a master or achieves “full participation” within that community. All the while, the overarching theme of “learning is doing” is still present.

With this reading I see the ideas about collective knowledge starting to come into play, even if they are not directly present. The emphasis on communities of practices and the critique on apprenticeship suggest there needs to be a broader knowledge base from which to learn from. Forming these ideas is another step in the shift away from learning being centered on abstractness and the individual into a practice that is context-based and is more social by nature. Reading this though, I find it very unclear how they define “legitimate” and what specific examples in science would constitute legitimacy- and am looking forward to discussing and seeing what we as a group can come up with. I want more clarity on what practices we can do to make our peripheral participation legitimate in our classroom practices.

I find the critique of schooling offered in Lave and Wegner’s work to be the most poignant and relevant so far in the course. Also I find this interesting as they state they do not want this to be a harsh critique of schooling, yet traditional schooling is predominant and so flawed in their eyes their disdain ends up creeping in anyway. They write: “the organization of schooling is predicated on claims that knowledge can be decontextualized, and yet schools themselves as social institutions and places of learning end up constituting very specific contexts” (Lave and Wegner 1991, P.40). Many have critiqued the traditional methods of teaching, but I feel he argues the points the best in this case, and it is the most focused in comparison to prevous works. They also critique testing, stating it has become “… a new parasitic practice, the goal of which is to increase the exchange value of learning independently of its use value” (Lave and Wegner 1991, P.112). These points feel very relevant 30 years later, and even as we evolve, shows that we have places still to go.

My main question after reading this is how do we form these “communities of practices” in school settings in meaningful ways? Lave and Wegner states on P.122 that “Situated learning activity has been transformed into legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice” (Lave and Wegner 1991). I have taken other classes that have talked about communities of practice and they are most effective when those forming them know that they must be authentic and integrated in scopes beyond normal classroom discourse. I think AST might help us move towards a community of practice (moreso than regular teaching anyway), but I am not sure if it gets us to where we as educators need to be taking our students with communities of practice. Lave and Wegner offer the following: “This means that the move of learners toward full participation in a community of practice does not take place in a static context. The practice itself is in motion (1991, P.116). So they indicate that these communities need to be dynamic, but further clarification is needed to properly define and evaluate the effectiveness of those communities.

Chinese teacher and philosopher Confucius said, “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”  I believe this quote, in some respects, is a simplistic way to think about the cognitive apprenticeship approach to learning discussed by Brown, Collins, and Duguid in the article Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.  Throughout the reading, I was aligned with their analogy of knowledge being a tool and the expert being the teacher who passes down the necessary skills to use the tool.  What I could not quite envision however, is how the expert or teacher does not only share knowledge about practices but puts the practices in context with the culture and community in which the tools will be applied.  “To learn to use tools as practitioners use them, a student, like an apprentice, must enter that community and its culture” (p. 33, Brown).  This is a form of socio-cultural learning.

Thinking about this in relation to a classroom comprised of students with knowledge and experiences specific to their communities and culture, my ability to pass down traditions and methods would be novice at best. Perhaps, I am thinking too concretely and literally in interpreting the application of situated cognition.  Further as was pointed out by Palinscar in the article Less Charted Waters, “The authors never provide a cogent explanation about what in a practitioner’s culture must be taught to students” (p. 6, Palinscar).  What if that culture conflicts with the knowledge and traditions the students bring with them to the classroom?

These questions, and my admission to worrying about being an “expert” in my trade of teaching physics, encouraged me to search for an understanding in NRC’s Chapter 3 of A Framework for K-12 Science Education.  I appreciated the outlined practices and in-depth explanation of the core practices provided as well as the two subsequent subsets of goals and progression.  It makes sense to me that the practices “stress that science in scientific inquiry requires coordination both of knowledge and skill simultaneously” (p. 42, NRC).  That being said, I can correlate this statement with the analogy used by Brown, Collins, and Duguid in their article.  I believe knowledge is the tools we give our students, and subsequently practice is the experiences and activities we create in our classrooms.

In this week’s reading, the authors offer an intriguing and lively perspective on “learning (as) an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (p. 31). For me, this conjured an image of concentric circles with a large circle representing learning positioned within a circle representing practice. This seems to be in contrast to thinking of learning as an umbrella, with practice, among other things (acquisition, behavior, etc.) underneath it. The authors described knowledge as “socially mediated and open ended,” (p. 51), a reference to their broader theory that knowledge exists solely as a result of communities of practice. Their theories of learning and knowledge come together through legitimate peripheral participation: being immersed in a community of practice AND participating in “productive” (p 110) activity… The use of this specific term took me back to the authentic activity discussed in cognitive apprenticeship. I wonder whether here, the term “productive” is equivalent to “authentic”? 

A thread of interest for me was the authors’ interpretation of both learning and knowledge as highly dynamic. They seem to assert that both the nature of learning and learning contexts are dynamic (“…changing locations and perspectives are part of actors’ learning trajectories, developing identities and forms of membership” (p. 36); “…the move of learners toward full participation in a community of practice does not take place in a static context. The practice itself is in motion.” (p 116)). They further go on to describe how understanding and experience are in constant interaction, in part to strengthen their denouncement of the categorization of learning as fully internal or external, let alone the use of those terms at all. Of course this made me think about how consistently we’ve begun using these terms in class to interpret past learning theories. It seems to me that, of the theories we’ve explored so far, legitimate peripheral participation stands to be the theory with the most thoroughly integrated (even inseverable?) composition of internal and external.

I found the characterization of newcomers and old-timers particularly interesting. These characterizations stand in contrast to the problematic master/apprentice verbiage that Scott warned us of, as well as the teacher/learner dichotomy. I enjoyed the authors expansion on the developmental cycle of “learners” in a community of practice, and the great number of transitionary roles that can exist between newcomer and old-timer. The authors provided the term “journey-folk” for this in-between stage at one point, which clicked with me, as I pondered examples of this stage including second-year camp counselors and school reading buddies. I think that empowering “journey-folk” holds great potential for increasing the inclusiveness of communities of practice, although I’m also cognizant of the authors’ discussion of the conflicts of power and the reproducing phenomenon of the developmental cycle of communities of practice.   

When reflecting on my classroom experiences, and after reading this week’s articles, I believe I can begin to understand the theories of conceptual change.  Particularly that of Posner, “We believe there are analogous patterns of conceptual change in learning.  Sometimes students use existing concepts to deal with new phenomena” (p. 212, Posner).  In my understanding of the two phases of conceptual change, I had to challenge my basic assumptions and reorganize or replace them to achieve a conceptual change called accommodation.  I now have an appreciation and understanding of my discomfort and anxiety in my quantum mechanics class.  What I did not realize then, is that these struggles were necessary in the assimilation of new information.  Even more so, these moments in my classroom experiences had a label, anomalies.

I resonate with another point Posner makes which is that as science teachers we must take advantage of those anomalies experienced by our students to prepare them for the accommodation.   We must also set up our classrooms to align with the idea that we are attempting in our instruction to “produce accommodation in students, rather than merely to help them make sense of new theories”.  (p. 225, Posner).   We are subsequently tasked then to structure our lessons, activities, experiments, demonstrations, and so forth in a way that will trigger cognitive conflicts in our students, which according to diSessa’s discussion can be used as a resource.  Further, he acknowledges that in former theory assumptions, we traditionally attempt to argue a student out of a “misconception” and reject them. He deduces that “instead of rejecting student conceptions, one can pick and choose the most productive student ideas and refine them to create normative concepts” (p. 266, diSessa).

So where does conceptual change fit into last week’s reading from A Framework for K-12 Science Education?  Perhaps the normative concepts are the knowledge and practices that all students should learn by the end of high school which is defined within the framework.  Our strategies then must encompass what we know about student misconceptions, anomalies, and defensive responses.  In essence then, we must “develop the kinds of strategies which teachers could include in their repertoire to deal with student errors and moves that interfere with accommodation” (p. 226, Posner).

I wanted to prepare a delicious chicken parmesan dish for a dinner guest not too long ago.  So I did some internet research, read reviews, found a recipe, bought the ingredients, and got my kitchen ready to cook.  I took the recipe and followed it step by step, exactly as written.  The end result was exactly as I intended, and my dinner guest and I got to enjoy a delicious dinner.

So what does this have to do with this week’s readings?  You see, the recipe was a step-by-step way for me to learn how to prepare and cook my chicken.  I could pass the recipe on to someone else, and if they follow the recipe step by step, then reasonably similar results should be yielded.   Hardly a scientific process, but what it has is a guide inclusive of what you need, what you do with it, and what you will get.  To learn to teach, however, and to be good at it, is not found in a recipe box.  The intuitive processes are not observable.  The classroom’s variables are ever changing, and the results vary by the unique individual past experiences, culture, and interactions of each student.

This brings me to the article The Sources of Science in Education in which Dewey says “the successes of such individuals [awakening the enthusiasm of his students for learning, inspiring them morally and by personal contact] tend to be born and die with them: beneficial consequences extend only to those pupils who have personal contact with such gifted teachers” (p.10, Dewey).   In reading this, I realized that I have no idea if I have the intuition to become a gifted teacher.  I can certainly describe from my experiences with the teachers that I liked and who inspired me to learn, but I am not so sure I could put my finger on exactly what it was about their teaching skills that made me feel this way about them.  Instead I would use words like: they cared, they tried to help me, they believed in me, and so forth.

Now on to Skinner’s article.  Through reading this text, I was able to identify an ingredient or two that would be included on the hypothetical learning to teach recipe card.  The first being the use of mechanical devices and aids in the classroom because “by making each successive step as small as possible, the frequency of the reinforcement can be raised to the maximum” (p. 95, Skinner).  His point being that if we mechanize our schools we would improve relations between students and teachers, because the role of the teacher would shift from being the right/wrong responder to more meaningful interactions.

The last reading was from A Framework for K-12 Science Education which outlined a framework and structure for teaching and learning science.  Chapter 2 describes the guiding principles and outlines the knowledge and practices that all students should learn by the end of high school.  The framework is integrated across three Dimensions and each is described.  The progression of practices spans all grades levels and includes “boundary statements” of which students are expected to know.  The standards and dimensions were easily understood.  For example, Dimension one lists asking question as a science practice.  I would think that it is here that a good teacher would use the discourse toolkit moves to guide them.

I started this writing with an analogy relating to a recipe card for cooking.   I am ending it with saying that this week’s reading have left me convinced that such a card does not exist in learning to how to be a good science teacher.   Instead, we have to take the things we read, the classroom experiences we have, and curriculums we are given as well as the advice we receive from our mentor to make our own recipe card that reflect our intuitions, relationships, culture, and knowledge.  “The source of education science are any portions of ascertained knowledge that enter into the heart, head and hands of educators, and which, by entering in, render the performance of the educational function more enlightened, more humane, more truly educational than it was before” (p. 76, Dewey).

I am trying to decide where this theory of learning fits among our spectrum of other theories.  To me, we have defined most theories in terms of internal vs. external (cognition vs. behavior), and individual vs social.  For me, it is easier to see this theory on the social end of the second spectrum, learning is defined as happening in a social setting for sure.  The other spectrum is tougher.  This theory certainly leans away from the internalization of learning, but I am wondering if this means it leans to the external side?  I suppose participation can be seen as external behavior, but I am not as convinced as I am of the anti-internal view with this theory.

I also think their discussion about schools is very important for us to talk about.  “The organization of schooling as an educational form is predicted on claims that knowledge can be decontextualized, and yet schools themselves as social institutions and as places of learning constitute very specific contexts” (p. 40). I think this quote (and their avoidance of really talking about schools in general) highlights an idea that they think schools are not good places to learn.  As someone who will be working in schools in the future, this is very important to me.  What is the impact of what they’re saying (or not saying)?  If they are saying that schools are bad places to learn, what should we do about it?

Finally, I am wondering if this theory is doing a good job of promoting equity in learning.  I think the problems with this theory are similar to the problems with cognitive apprenticeship.  With cognitive apprenticeship, bringing new members into a culture that is racist is certainly problematic because it can sustain those racist characteristics.  The culture of a discipline isn’t changing, the new members are changing to fit within the culture.  With legitimate peripheral participation, a new problem arises.  Here, the members within the discipline decide who is and can participate.  This is an issue if those senior members do not let people of color participate, for example.  The only silver lining between this theory of learning and cognitive apprenticeship is that once people are in the discipline participating, they have more of an opportunity to change the culture within the discipline.  I think the reason for this is that new members eventually become senior members, and can then decide whether or not to change the culture of that discipline.

Vygotsky presents an evolution in the idea of teaching- the idea that learning is a socioculural process that is internal and external to the learner. Before him, the theorists we have been exposed to have offered models of learning and knowing that are entirely student-centered. He criticized the “stimulus-response framework”, something emphasized with Skinner’s behavioralist thinking, as being a poor way to observe human behavior, and that a new system considering broader aspects of human observation was necessary to better understand learning and thinking (Vygotsky 1978, P.60). The idea of learning as a social process would go on to inspire the work of those who came after him- Posner and Brown- as they would broaden learning by including in the process of learning the idea of being situated (i.e., in a context). The precursor to these ideas is emphasized heavily in his writings, where on P.57 he states “The internalization of socially rooted and historically developed activities is the distingnishing feature of human psychology, the basis of the qualitative leap from animal to human psychology” (Vygotsky 1978). I find it interesting to think that while we see the idea of learning as a sociocultural process as pretty common, at the time it was really revolutionary. I wonder if schools back then were so intensively learner focused there was little consideration ot the social aspects of learning, or if it just flew under the radar? Did people really see learning as a highly individual task back then, in comparison to education today?

I still have some confusion on the signs and tools aspects of Vygotsky. They are clearer than they were upon first read but I still feel shaky on identifying in unique and new situations what elements qualify as which. Internal and external to me did not simply my confusion, as there are still so many internal and external elements to consider in each situation. It especially confuses me how the sign is not something given but is something that arises in meaning by the user. Vygotsky indicates this on P.45-46 when he clarifies “This means that sign-using activity in children is neither simply invented nor
passed down by adults; rather it arises from something that is originally
not a sign operation and becomes one only after a series of qualitative
transformations” (Vygotsky 1978). For example, with the classic tanker activity with AST, what would one classify as the sign and what would one classify as the tool? Can we even define these terms objectively, given the personal internal meaning Vygotsky believes learners take from external things? He alludes to this on P.50, mentioning “The content of the thinking act in the child when defining such concepts is determined not so much by the logical structure of the concept itself as by the child’s concrete recollections” (Vygotsky 1978). With that said, how do we clearly evaluate learning and thinking with Vygotsky? We briefly touched on it in class but I am not sure how we can tell who knows what (who is learning may be a little more clear).

For this theory to know means to change identity and to have knowledge skills, to become a full practitioner. This can be easily seen because “making a hat reasonably well is seen as evidence that an apprentice tailor is becoming a masterful practitioner”. Learning happens through “legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice”. The article intentionally does not get into the details of how learning should be organized in practice according to this theory but it is hard not to think about how this can be applied. There are aspects of what they say that remind me of Montessori schools. In a Montessori class, there is a big group of students (ideally more or less 30) of different ages. Students that are older act as the full practitioners (the teacher is a model too) and the young ones as newcomers. There are also relationships between newcomers. There are not tests or grades because the teacher observing students should be able to understand what they know and what they don’t know. The teacher gives lessons but also older children that mastered a lesson can teach it to a younger child. It happened to me that I had 3 sisters in my classroom and the oldest taught the youngest something in math before I did it. This creates an environment of motivation because young children desire to be like the oldest, they admire them, there is not competition like the paper says “newcomers’ desire to become full practitioners”. As time goes on, the oldest leave and young children become full practitioners. They acquire not only knowledge but also responsibility toward the young ones and independence.  It is not easy to guide a Montessori classroom so I understand all the difficulties involved in a model like this but I know that compared to conventional school I have seen very beautiful things happening there and also knowledge happening in a community. I had a student with down syndrome and there was a girl that considered herself her best friend that was the best student in the classroom. She gave lessons to the child with down syndrome and with other friends she created flesh cards for her. We care so much about knowledge but I am really worried about the competition and the envy to which we educate our students. Then when they are older we tell them to help each other after we grew them up in the opposite way. In Montessori I did not see that, I saw a lot of students helping each other. So my experience makes me think that there are real ways in which we can rethink our schools according to this model.