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

In continuing my research into learning progressions, I find that I want to believe that they will make an impact in science and all education. That being said, in reading these articles (and others) and recalling some formal and informal conversations, I think that we are seeing a familiar phenomenon in education: rushing to implement a new concept or idea in the hopes that it will help our struggling school system. I will save that discussion for later.

I think the editorial article by Duncan (2009) on learning progressions was a great lead in to the other articles: it was clear and I was able to wrap my brain around what was said. The statement on page 607…”LPs hold the promise of transforming science education by providing better alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment” is an example of the pressure placed on implementing LPs without more research and development of them. I do think that LPs do offer a better approach to science instruction than our current “mile wide, inch deep” approach. As the article progresses, it mentions the development of LPs as well as the validation of them. I think the most helpful part of the article is the section of unresolved issues. Once again we are seeing many researchers bringing their own ideas to the LP table and each showing different “grain sizes” methods, assessments, and conclusions. Guess this hints of Dr. McDonald’s “messiness” of education. Nonetheless, the author seems optimistic about the use of LPs in science education.

A few questions regarding LPs in general: in looking at Wilson’s 2009 article (p. 720) and the construct map, I see that there is a skip from grades 5 to 8. My question regarding this is: are the progressions going to include every grade? What is the consequence of skipping grades in the LP? I am assuming this is due to the fact that a particular science is not taught every year. I did appreciate the use of illustrations in the article. These illustrated the various approaches to using construct maps in assembling a LP…more messiness?

In general, I support the idea of LPs and their use in education. I also support (like) the idea of using them for formative assessments, as well as the specific levels that may be used to assess a student’s understanding. I agree with Steedle and Shavelson’s (2009) last statement on page 714, “Thus, learning progression researchers must proceed with caution when attempting to report student understanding in the form of learning progression level diagnoses.” Much like other articles I have read regarding LPs, it seems that many researchers are warning the educational community about the danger of attempting to implement LPs before a significant body of research is developed on them. This mirrors the sentiments of Sikorski and Hammer’s (2010) article in which they warn of the fact that using LPs prematurely could potentially set back progress in LP research.

Oh, and everytime I see “LP” or “LPs” I think of the original use of those letters…long playing record! Guess I am showing my age.

The more I read about Learning Progressions (LPs), the less sure I am of their feasibility in education.  At the beginning of my LP indoctrination, which began with Wilson’s JRST article (2009) and Corcoran et. al’s publication Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform (2009), I was completely sold on the idea of Learning Progressions.  As stated in Corcoran’s report on page 15, “Learning progressions in science are empirically-grounded and testable hypotheses about how students’ understanding of, and ability to use, core scientific concepts and explanations and related scientific practices grow and become more sophisticated over time, with appropriate instruction (NRC, 2007). These hypotheses describe the pathways students are likely to follow to the mastery of core concepts. They are based on research about how students’ learning actually progresses–as opposed to selecting sequences of topics and learning experiences based only on logical analysis of current disciplinary knowledge and on personal experiences in teaching.”  Adding Wilson’s ideas regarding the assessment of learning progressions, it seemed like the answer to our curriculum and standards problem.  It just seemed to make sense.

However, because of this class, I am becoming much more discriminating in my evaluation of peoples’ ideas and articles.  As I was rereading Wilson’s article (2009), I had to smile at the statement “The idea of a learning progression is one that is undergoing swift development at the current time. However, it is really just the latest manifestation of a much older idea, that of regularity in the development of students as they learn a certain body of knowledge or professional practice.” pg. 716.  This is often the case of education in which the language changes but the concepts and ideas are largely the same.  As I reread Wilson’s article, I was struck by the theoretical aspect of his idea.  He seemed to focus more on the “big idea” of learning progressions and left the details for others to decipher.  At least he was attempting to bring in the idea of assessment and how best to accomplish this aspect with learning progressions, even though I’m not so sure he really provided a concrete answer.

Yet many researchers are trying to decipher the details.  According to Duncan and Hmelo-Silver’s editorial, the purpose of the special JRST issue  was to “explain the motivation for developing LPs, propose a consensual definition of LPs, describe the ways in which these constructs are being developed and validated, and finally, discuss some of the unresolved questions regarding this emerging scholarship.” pg. 606.  A question that kept coming to mind as I was reading these various articles surrounded their comments about the expectation that LPs needed to be empirically validated.  My question is this: Is there common agreement on how to empirically test these learning progressions?  According to Duncan and Hmelo-Silver, there were three general approaches.  However, it seemed others were validating in ways not suggested in this editorial.  And how does one completely validate an LP?  According to Steedle and Shevelson (2009), “it is not feasible to develop learning progressions that can adequately describe all student’s understandings of problems dealing with Explaining Constant Speed” (pg. 713).  So is this true of a large number of LPs?  If this is the case, then what are the implications for LPs?  Could the big movement turn out to be a wrong turn?  I guess only time will tell.

While learning progressions are not a panacea for all of educations ills, I think it biggest use can be as a tool for reflective teacher development.  It affords a way of looking at content holistically and as big ideas  instead of as section 2.3 of the textbook.  Looking at your teaching content differently could foster a sense of renewal in veteran teachers and give newer teachers a larger focus as they struggle with the day to day responsibilities.  Learning progressions could foster conversations among teachers of the same content across grade levels, adding coherence to the curriculum.  I think the most useful aspect is the stating an upper level of understanding.  This could lead teachers to reach a level, that perhaps they themselves have never thought about.  My own personal view is that many classes are not rigorous enough.  This does not mean that there is not enough work, but that the concepts are not sufficiently developed beyond vocabulary and rote problem solving- but I could go on and on about that.

I also like the idea of the learning progressions being empirically grounded – working with real students in real classrooms with real teachers- WOW!  I want to learn more about how some researchers look at the effects of specific teaching practices on the students’ movement through the progression whereas other explicitly ignore the teaching in order to establish a “baseline” progression. 

Learning progressions can be used with either cognitive or situative or hybrid models of learning.  Perhaps they lean towards a cognitive grounding since, in the case of the long term variety progressions, the students will need to “carry over” the concepts.  However, learning progressions themselves are socially constructed around agreed upon concepts.  So I have talked myself into a circle as usual when I try to delineate between the two models.

Would we (educators and educational researchers) eventually have a learning progression for all content taught in schools?  Obviously not, but emphasizing some the big concepts could lead to a greater overall understanding about the way that scientists view the world.  For example, I have working with global climate change with my environmental class.  I have many skeptics who are asking a lot of questions that show to me that they do not understand the conservation of mass, evolution and how science is done with peer review.  Perhaps teachers working from learning progressions on these topics would be able to aid the students to decrease the fragmentary and incoherent knowledge that students tend to have an increase their ability and their reliance on basic science “rules” like those I stated above. 

Also, there probably isn’t a single learning progression for every topic that applies to every student.  I do not picture them as strict guidelines.  In fact the literature cites that a single learning progression represents a possible pathway, not the pathway.  

Learning progressions are another way to look at curriculum – another tool that does not preclude the need for a coherent theory of learning, engaging teaching strategies, deep content knowledge, etc. 

Disessa highlighted the difference camps in conceptual change.  While we are struggling (albeit less and less) with the innate differences between the conceptual change (cognitive) and situative (socio-cultural) theories of learning, the theorists themselves are working out the details.  Just like when we read the “argument” between Greeno and Anderson, the detailed comparing of the divides within the conceptual change camp helped me to understand the entire theory a little bit better.  Part of it was a lack of buzz words like community of practice and discourse.  Part of was the very locus of the argument – what knowledge do people walk around within their heads – is it fragmented or is it coherent.  My own opinion leans more towards the fragmented case.  I find that students think the scientific world is much more complicated than it actually is.  Most view each problem as new and different rather than just a slight variation on everything else they have done.  They have one “theory” about a block sliding across a table and another about is sliding down an incline when according to physics, both are governed by forces causing changes in the motion.

Blumenfeld et al. has my second favorite was of describing learning and teaching.  My favorite was Dewey’s analogy of teaching as engineering.  On page 852, the discussion begins of how the various constructivist inspired programs noted that the design as a whole is evaluated and that the individual features within a program are not manipulated to see their individual effects because “the elements are not orthogonal and changing one element of the system affects all elements.”  Okay, I admit part of the appeal is the use of the more physics geek word of orthogonal that we use to explain how a bullet fired horizontally hits the ground in the same time as one merely dropped – mythbusters did this one.  As an educator in general, I recognize that the process is a complicated one (understatement of the century).  If people think the feedback mechanism of global warming are complicated, try teaching!  The writing of my paper, or rather the attempt to write it, has shown me how a philosophy of learning can shape my classroom behavior, choices and expectations of students.  Add to this the philosophy of the myriad of students, their parents and my administrators and we have a space that requires more independent dimensions that string theory!

Sorry for all the physics references.

As I was reading diSessa’s chapter in the book The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences entitled A History of Conceptual Change, I couldn’t help but be thinking about the theoretical framework looming in background, waiting to be written.  As I struggle with authors’ viewpoints regarding conceptual change vs situated learning vs behaviorism vs the next “new” idea, I couldn’t help but smile at diSessa’s comment on pages 268-269, stating “Kuhn’s incommensurability established an enduring thread in conceptual change work.  In contrast, the more sociological aspects of Kuhn’s views, such as the importance of the disciplinary matrix, were not imported into conceptual change work. This is ironic since, to Kuhn, sociology is absolutely central. Few conceptual change researchers comment on this core precept when adapting Kuhn to individual learning.  Those who do treat is as something one can take or leave.”  I guess I shouldn’t find it so fascinating to see people select only parts of a concept or idea they like and expand on this selected segment while ignoring the “rest of the story.” Do people become so ingrained in their ideas they can’t be open to other aspects?  Or is all about making their point?  They are right and others are wrong.  It makes for an interesting argument, but does it really help in working towards a consensus of how people learn?  As a side note, I do find it interesting we did not read Kuhn, considering by diSessa’s accounts, he was “immensely influential in conceptual change research”. pg. 277.   

It reminds me of Greeno’s evolution from a cognitive change advocate to one who sees the importance of the social environment in learning.  He was able to change his basic tenets and consider other possibilities.  Take his chapter, Learning in Activity, found in the same book, about a program of research in the learning sciences that he calls “situative”.  He states, “the situative perspective is a synthesis of the two major scientific approaches to understanding human behavior: cognitive science and interactional studies”, pg. 92.  He goes on to state that “participation in practice is a central part of what students learn.”  He is emphasizing the importance of both cognitive and social aspects in learning.  So yes, understanding how people learn is a very complex.  I guess if it were easy, we’ve have the key to unlocking everyone’s mind and would have solved all the issues plaguing mankind.  What are the implications in teaching for conceptual change?  

I think Hewson et. al. summed up the point of complexity I was making here when the stated, “Teaching for conceptual change requires a great deal of teachers. With respect to content, they need to know the content of the science curriculum, its associated pedagogical content knowledge, the range of ideas that their students are likely to hold about the content topic, an understanding of conceptual issues significant in the historical development of the topic, and the empirical underpinnings of the content. They also need to be well founded in philosophical issues related to the nature of scientific knowledge (e.g., its methods of inquiry and epistemological foundations). With respect to learning, teachers need to know about the conceptual change model of learning and the role and function of components of a learner’s conceptual ecology in assessing the status of ideas (e.g., anomalies, analogies, metaphysical beliefs, images of real world objects, exemplars of phenomena, epistemological commitments). With respect to instruction, teachers need to know a variety of pedagogical techniques. In addition to those in the typical repertoire of good teachers, there will be others related to and outlined in the discussion of the guidelines presented above. Implicit in all of these are the teacher’s conceptions of the nature of science, learning and teaching that support teaching for conceptual change.” pg. 215.  That indeed, is a lot “to knows”.

I found the behemoth of an article by Blumenfeld et al to be extremely helpful in summarizing much of what we have been exposed to in class throughout this semester. I found the structure of the article to be easy to read and very informative. Extremely useful was the fact that each description was also followed up by its limitations. I will highlight those areas that I found to be interesting and thought-provoking.

Transmission models that focused on the teacher was a method that believe was used when I was in the early stages of my education. In looking at Rosenshine and Furst’s (1973) model of explicit instruction (p. 821) I had flashbacks to my schooling. Looking at the dates listed in the paper, this would stand to reason! Also, it appears that this was a method of mine! Did it work? I hope so! Seemed to be that behaviorism was hiding in my instruction.

In reading the process-product section and achievement test scores, I was reminded of the Los Angeles Unified School District fiasco with teacher ratings. The authors mentioned the limitation of standardized tests as measure of learning (p. 823).

Transformation models took the focus from the teachers and placed in on the cognitive process that students use as they learn (p. 824). We see that constructivism, both individual and social, is brought up in this section. I especially found interest in this section, as I will be incorporating some constructivism in my theoretical framework. One particular sentence caught my attention: “If computers could be made to think like humans, particularly expert humans, then they could be used to support novices as they learned how to think like experts.” I found this interesting in that a computer would be classified as an “expert”, although I am not sure that computers will ever fully replace humans as teachers.

The article was a wealth of information and at the risk of writing a long summary of this long summary article, I will move on to the other articles that were assigned. While shorter, I did not seem to enjoy these as much as the larger summary article. The Hewson et al conceptual change article seemed to be an updated rehash of what we read earlier. I did find interest in the types of authority that were mentioned on page 213. The end of the article states that teaching for conceptual change requires a great deal of teachers (p. 215). I would argue that teaching (effectively) requires a great deal of teachers. diSessa’s article was interesting in that she incorporated the work of Kuhn. It was interesting in that she compared Kuhn’s idea of scientific revolution to the idea of conceptual change. I think this is an appropriate analogy. I found the Greeno article interesting, most specifically the concept of alignment (p. 87). It seems that I never considered the fact that there could be a breakdown of activity resulting from a “mis-alignment” of people and perhaps the system. I think I may need to give Greeno another read.

In summary (not sure why I am writing this blog in this form…could be too much coffee and not enough sleep…therefore, not my best blog) but I found the Blumenfeld article to be of most value for me, as it gave a nice chronological summary of some of the ideas that we have been reading about and discussing in class. I am sure it will prove helpful in the theoretical framework assignment.

Reading the debate between the Anderson camp (or one of the intellectual tribes, as Anderson stated in their rejoiner article, pg. 19) and the Greeno camp were quite interesting.  Looking at dates, I find it interesting to see the debate between them going on from May 1996 through their 1997 response/rejoiner in the Educational Journal, which was followed by their 2000 joint article, Perspectives on Learning, Thinking, and Activity.  I recalled a comment in Greeno’s paper referring to when he and Anderson worked together, which made me want to dig a bit deeper to find out more about their academic relationship.

Upon further investigation, Greeno and Anderson worked together back in the 80’s on a chapter titled:  Acquisition of problem solving skills for Anderson’s book Cognitive Skills and the Acquistion (1981), focusing on geometry.  However, this chapter did not appear to make it in the book.  At the time, Greeno was at the University of Pittsburgh and Anderson was at Carnegie Mellon.   They also had separate chapters in the 1989 book Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert A. Simon.  Greeno’s chapter was titled Situations, Mental Models, and Generative Knowledge and Anderson’s was The Analogical Origins of Errors in Problem Solving.  In the chapter by Greeno, he was questioning cognitive science and whether the science of cognition was fundamentally limited (pg. 285).   In wondering if a different framework was required, he suggested that “rather than thinking that knowledge is in the minds of individuals, we could alternatively think of knowledge as the potential for situated activity.” (pg. 286).  However, in 1997, Greeno et. al. published Cognition and learning in the Handbook of educational psychology.   However, without access to this book, I can only speculate what it might say based upon the title.  So…

What does this all mean?  I’m not quite sure.  Based upon Greeno’s early work in cognitive science and then his 1997 response article emphasising the importance of situated learning, it appears to me Greeno changed his theoretical framework.  I can’t help wonder if there is some resentment on Anderson’s behalf that his once cognitive science colleague jumped ship and became a situated learning advocate.  They once collaborated on papers and now are adversaries.  This adversarial viewpoint has benefited the educational community by emphasising the differences in each theory and making each group look at their work with a critical eye.  

Individual vs. socially constructed meaning…what I found most interesting is that by 2000, they jointly wrote the article entitled Perspectives on Learning, Thinking, and Activity which they state that both theories are important and both should be considered in educational research.  Wow…did they finally kiss and make up?  For me, this reminds me of Complex Systems Science….maybe we should come up with a name for the complicated issues surrounding learning theory….Complex Systems Epistemology…we need to look at all the various aspects of knowledge acquisition and show just how interrelated and at times unrelated, we are learning about teaching, learning, and knowledge.

Thedifferent debate styles of Anderson et. al. and Greeno are interesting and possibly indicative of their alignment with their theories. These papers are also great examples of science as a persuasive discipline.  THat comes to mind because I have been trying to get my students to approach a lab conclusion and/or test question as an exercise in persuasion.

Anderson’s papers are full of citations that support his claims. And he has multiple one for each point!  It seems that his MO is data overkill.  I think that he misinterpreted the situational side a bit in saying that all learning takes place within a large complex social group and that the knowledge is always taught in the whole rather than piecewise.  Greeno replies on page 9 that social means more than just in a group of people at a particular time – reading a book is a social practice.

Greeno’s paper has more abstract arguments, focussing on language.  His questions from the cognitive and situative perspectives were very carefully worded with value-laden words.  The situative questions had a greater use of “successful” and value, adept, whereas the cognitive questions were cold and terse with words like tasks, jobs, disadvantages. 

I was disappointed in the final joint paper.  It seems as if they said “We have argued enough in print.  We cannot agree so let’s just have a warm,fuzzy moment and rehash everything we both said, but with a positive spin.”   Personally, I think that they are arguing about 2 different apsects of the same phenomena.  Forgive the example, but it sounds like a Roe V. Wade debate I heard where one side was arguing about when life begins and the other was arguing about privacy rights so essentially they were not really debating the same topic!

These papers were definitely easier to read, so maybe we are making progress in understanding this stuff!  But then again, I am still struggling with the “there is no such thing as constructivist teaching” thing – but I am making progress on that!

While reading the four articles, I came across a term that I had previously never encountered:  “academic panacea” (Anderson, et al., 1996). While not a major portion of the argument from those in the cognitive camp, it does represent a critique on situated learning. This particular critique is aimed at the fact that cooperative learning is not the end all solution for improving educational practices.

There were 4 claims made by those supporting situated cognition and these claims were a focal point for an argument with those favoring the cognitive approach. One side, the situated (Greeno), was arguing the social perspective of education and the other side, the cognitive (Anderson, Reder, and Simon), was arguing the individual perspective. Both sides cited numerous research supporting why their claims were correct and the other side was wrong.

The back and forth arguments were somewhat entertaining and in the end, it appears that both sides decided to play nice and join together to form a “unified” version of learning that takes into account both sides of the argument. Always refreshing to see people “playing nice”. All kidding aside, I think the Anderson, et al. article written in 2000 is what most (and I will speak for most of us) have been thinking: that there has to be a combination of ideas; one theory holds true in one instance and another holds true in another. The authors from both camps agreed on the following: 1) individual and social perspectives on activity are both fundamentally important in education, 2) learning can be general, and abstractions can be efficacious, but they sometimes aren’t, 3) situated and cognitive approaches can cast light on different aspects of the educational process, and both should be pursued vigorously, and 4) educational innovations should be informed by the available scientific knowledge base and should be evaluated and analyzed with rigorous research methods; the advancement of education requires continued research efforts on a large scale.

I think that the combination of both leads to a better understanding of learning and should be used to plan education accordingly. As all four authors state on page 13 of Anderson, et al (2000) “As we progress toward this goal, let us use what we learn through this research-from all of the productive perspectives-to inform those who are responsible for forming policy concerning school instruction, so that our children will not be the victims of well-intentioned but ill-informed educational practices.”

Oh, I do like the other new term that I discovered: “situa-babel” (Anderson, et al, 1997, page 19).

Moving from conceptual change beginnings to cognitive apprenticeship, Vygotsky and situated cognition, these various readings seem to only expand on existing ideas/theories rather than on developing any new ones.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, and in fact can be rather comforting in the idea that maybe the foundations of epistemology have been discovered and it is now only a refinement of these foundational ideas.  But alas,  I fear this is not the case.  As I was reading these papers, I was struck by the struggles teachers face in the classroom.  If they try to incorporate the newest research findings in learning and begin implementing strategies in the classroom to address these theories, they only have a few years before a new “cutting edge” theory is developed and accepted as the next best way to address student learning.  For the learner, it must also be an interesting navigational process as they go through school.  However, I’m also reminded about how slow education is to change, which means students are 30 years behind in the benefits of current research.  OK, maybe a slight exaggeration, but the point is valid.  This is what makes educational research and learning theory so interesting.  How are these new ideas and twists on existing ideas instrumental in effective teaching and learning and with the complexities of the brain and human behavior, will we every come close to finding the answer?

So in the spirit of recycling previous ideas and giving them a new name, Brown’s article on Distributed Expertise in the Classroom reminded me of this, as was stated in the first sentence, “It is commonly agreed that we are currently witnessing a resurgence of interest in situated cognition, for want of a better name” (p. 188).  I did appreciate the argument where schools should be communities where students learn to learn and they aim to ” produce a breed of “intelligent novices”, students who. although they may not possess the background needed in a new field, know how to go about gaining that knowledge” (pg. 190).  This reminded me of my interactions with a high level manager at Tyco Electronics.  He stated that they strive to only hire PhD employees.  Their rational behind this hiring decision is the fact that technologies are quickly changing and he needs people who can take an idea which they may have little or no expertise in and be able to educate themselves about the science behind the concept and then develop effective research ideas.   This corresponds with Brown’s comment about teaching students how to go about gaining knowledge.  In Tyco’s case, this is exactly what he wants.  People who know how to learn.  So how do we help students learn how to learn?

According to Brown, it’s all about using distributed expertise in the classroom:  reciprocal teaching and the jigsaw method.  It’s focusing on the sociocultural theory of learning and the importance of communities of practice.  Driver has these same foundational ideas but adds another layer, which is the fact that students bring with them everyday, or “commonsense” ways of explaining science and that a student can navigate between these everyday conversations of science and the more restrictive conversations and understandings of scientific reasoning expected in the practice of science (pg. 11).  

Pintrich adds to the work on conceptual change by stating the impact of student motivation and how this motivation is essential in conceptual change.  Their piece challenges the idea that conceptual change can occur in “isolation” of motivation and how the different types of motivation will effect depth of learning.  This article brought to light issues, in my opinion, several issues:  gender equity and gifted education.   On page 173, they talk about “students may have many social goals in the classroom context besides learning – such as, making friends, finding a boyfriend or girlfriend, or impressing their peers – which can short circuit any in-depth intellectual engagement”.  Having taught middle school, this is very much an issue, which emphases why same gender science classes could help bridge the equity gap.  But this topic is another semester long course.  The other issues of gifted education rang true on page 180 and the concepts behind freezing and unfreezing cognition.  How can we take these ideas and develop strategies to support deeper learning, not only for gifted students but all students?  Has the world of high-stakes testing put our students and country at risk?