DeLisi et al. (2021) say their research is shaped by constructivist and sociocultural frameworks because they believe that “science learning is a social process”. They suggest that active thinking, authentic science investigation, and engaging in evidence based argument are predictors of student learning and interest in science. In some ways, this is similar to the AST approach. The authors also suggest a relationship between using these teaching and learning practices and student understanding of science and engineering practices. The first part of the study, in which they survey student understanding of SEPs, is a cognitive approach because it focuses on understanding of individual students. In the second part of the study, the researchers collected qualitative data that was coded by the researchers. One element of sociocultural theory that the researchers explored was “correlations in high levels of support and enactment of SEPs, including opportunities for students to engage in critiquing practices such as communicating and evaluating findings”. They indicate that the social aspects of critiquing practices may help students understand SEPs and that this knowledge is “more transferrable”. The case studies show that some schools are using elements of socio cultural learning theory when students are working on, and especially when they are presenting, their work but that’s more an element of the schools’ atmosphere than a foundation of the research study. Overall, the DeLisi et al paper seems to be a mix of cognitive and sociocultural theories.
In Huang (2020), the research is also based on surveys which Scott said is almost always an indication of a cognitive approach. In this study, Huang looks at changes in individual learning over time and notes that factors like prior knowledge have an impact on student learning as outlined in the cognitive change approach. Although the study takes a cognitive approach, it investigates the impact of socioculturally based learning (teamwork) on student learning. I thought it was interesting that Huang suggests using inquiry-based classes to narrow achievement gaps early on in college. I think it’s important to remember that the label “inquiry-based” is applied to a wide array of instructional practices that may or may not be valuable.
Isaacson et al. (2016) demonstrates that accessibility in hands-on labs can impact the self esteem and long term plans of students with BLV. Again, the study employs a survey to reach its conclusions, and because of the focus on individual experience, it seems to fall in the cognitive camp.
“I think it’s important to remember that the label ‘inquiry-based’ is applied to a wide array of instructional practices that may or may not be valuable.”
I completely agree with this statement. One of the aspects of teaching that I found particularly challenging was finding methods of inquiry that were effective for students. Another thing that you brought up that I, too, was thinking about, was the role of the survey in learning theory research. Since the survey is a cognitive approach, I was wondering what approaches would be most appropriate for studying situated learning.