Overall, I enjoyed the readings this week. This is partly because I find modern writing easier to read and understand, but also because it was easy for me to see direct connections from the articles to a classroom.
Chen and Techawitthayachinda (2021) seems to fall mostly into the sociocultural camp of theoretical frameworks. For them, sensemaking is a sociocultural process used to help resolve uncertainty through discussion driven by student questions and teacher/student interactions. They even cite Vygotsky. However, the model they describe (activate existing knowledge, introduce new information, identify gaps between existing knowledge and new information, and use a sociocultural sensemaking process to integrate the old and new into a “coherent system”) is a cognitive, conceptual change model. In fact, the authors cite Posner’s influence on their work. Their map of their model is very similar to the maps we produced for conceptual change. For me, the most interesting part of this paper was the assertion that “use of students’ epistemic uncertainty promotes deep learning in the science classroom”—a sentiment with which I agree. I’m left wondering how the authors would know a consensus of understanding was achieved (how would they measure consensus, how would they measure understanding); what tools and metrics might they use.
Lowell et al. (2021) also look at the process of sensemaking. They define sensemaking as “a dynamic process of building or revising an explanation in order to ‘figure something out’” that is achieved through classroom discourse and teacher/talk moves, which is very similar to the definition given by Chen and Techawitthayachinda. I think Lowell et al. rely even more than Chen and Techawitthayachinda on sociocultural theory as a foundation for their paper. Lowell et al. sees three types of discourse as the way that understanding of new information (an event or phenomenon) is achieved. The talk pattern they name, propose-probe-clarify-restate (PPCR), is used to “honor the ideas students bring to a discussion and to restate them to ensure they are accepted into a public record.” This process assigns social capital to students’ ideas, perhaps especially to ideas voiced by students who are typically unheard. I would like to know more about how Lowell et al. believe sensemaking occurs within an individual as based on the group process they describe. I wonder if, at the individual level, they would see sensemaking as an issue of cognitive, conceptual change, similar to Chen and Techawitthayachinda.
The final paper, Odden (2021), seems to fit more with a cognitive theoretical framework than either of the other two papers. Odden even notes that one of the frameworks they consider, Knowledge, in Pieces, is an “individual, cognitivistic” framework. Odden talks about the transition from “novice to expert” science student, but doesn’t seem to mean it in the same context as legitimate peripheral participation. For Odden, learning doesn’t have to occur in a social context at all; rather, they suggest that old ideas and information can be blended together to create understanding of new topics—akin to conceptual change.
“The talk pattern they name, propose-probe-clarify-restate (PPCR), is used to “honor the ideas students bring to a discussion and to restate them to ensure they are accepted into a public record.”
I thought it was interesting that Lowel put such emphasis on this pattern in particular when it seems that it would be exactly this pattern that would give rise to the over-use of “surfacing & clarifying ideas” move by the teacher that they mentioned during the consensus phase.
“Odden talks about the transition from “novice to expert” science student, but doesn’t seem to mean it in the same context as legitimate peripheral participation. ”
I also found it interesting that they mention this novice to expert movement without even a mention of the LPP. Makes me wonder which model in particular they were building this from.
Great points! I, too, thought it would be interesting to see how instruction in a classroom occurs for Odden (since Odden doesn’t seem to recognize the social context of learning) and how Lowell et al conceptualize the learning happening in individuals during the discussions. I think it would also be interesting to see how Lowell et al would determine if a standard has been met by individual students. I can clearly see how they would determine that on a group level.