week+6b+discussion

calendar

=week introduction= 
 * Yarroch: We have come full circle. Yes, back to inquiry! But now inquiry is seen by these researchers as a tool to build (construct) conceptual knowledge.

During the reading and discussion of the past several weeks, hopefully you made note of the phrases “conceptual change” and “conceptual change teaching” That is good since the first two research articles this week address issues of conceptual change teaching and include inquiry as a central component of that change.

The final article for this week is an advocacy report by Rosalind Driver. Professor Driver is one of the heavyweights in constructivist epistemology. However, this report questions past practice and takes a slightly different view of conceptual change teaching where science learning is seen as occurring in a social context with the teacher providing appropriate scaffolding. ||

 =This is the first thread proposed by Chris:=

The common theme for the three articles I've determined has to do with the specific approaches to learning science. Driver et al. advocate the constructivist approach. Carey et al. are constructivists who argue against the scientific method as passive learning and advocate a nature of science understanding as motivation and justification for such knowledge. Chin and Brown studied, "the nature of the student's learning approach...at a more fine-grain level involving analysis of their thinking processes, and cognitive and metacognitive strategies."

Chin and Brown elaborate at great length their comparison of deep and surface approaches to learning and understanding science. Though I appreciate their thorough description of individual differences in learning science, I can't help but to relate to all six students in their study to any classroom. In every classroom there are the couple that overachieve (deep), a few that kind of go with the flow (surface), and many that hang out at level 1 (surface).

As we emphasis science for all, is it possible to have an ENTIRE classroom of students that understand science from a deep approach? What techniques have been successful in our own classrooms?

In an educational ideal, all students would aspire for a deep understanding. And even though I have hesitation believing in such a overreaching outcome based on my past experiences with school dynamics and student diversity, I've obtained a new means of evaluating progression for students based on this week's readings. The broad categories (five from Chin and Brown and six form Casey et al.) with finer attributes for each allows for new types of rubrics and/or observation forms. By addressing specific conceptions of science, e.g. nature of a hypothesis, monitoring progress becomes specific in which future laboratory experiences can reflect.
 * my answer**

I "think" the answer should be yes. Yes, as teachers we should expect that every student taught should attain a deep understanding. What Chin and Brown have clearly established is that most students don't do this on their own, and that if we can recognize the various aspects of this learning behavior, then we can start to provide the scaffolding needed to enable more appropriate learning behaviors. This can't be done all at once. The "small steps" metaphor of Metz might be appropriate here.
 * bill's comment**

As we embark on the deep understanding of what science for all truly entails, the levels I begin to generate are 1. future scientists, 2. students with potential of a science based career, and 3. students with interests outside the science realm. And as I begin to label students, I find my expectations of science understanding having a surface of deep understanding. The outcomes begin to focus on the citizenry of science understanding. Knowing of deep understanding without having a deep understanding allows for a more broad expectation. For students to gain an appreciation of science, scaffolding needs to take into consideration the students that lie in the fringes. A democratic society needs citizens with the ability to understand science topics well enough to make judgments as well as encouraged to have opinions of science topics in politics. Scaffolding Chin's and Brown's deep understanding of science may inspire more students to seek science careers, which I applaud and believe all teachers should aspire. On the other hand, given the reality of a typical classroom, considering the "others" should also be a part of the discussion.
 * my comment**

I would love to say that it is possible to have an entire classroom of students understanding science at the deep level. It is always my goal as I begin the school year. Then, reality sets in. I average around 30 students per class. Within each class there are 2-3 special education students, 2-3 ESL (English language learners), and perhaps 1 or more that have a 504 plan (low students who don’t meet special ed. requirements), mixed in with the overachievers, the average Joe’s, and the group who are only at school for the social aspect. And somehow I am supposed to bring everyone to the deep understanding level. That is a tall order.
 * michele's comment**

What techniques have been successful? I use investigations to help students construct their own understanding and have them reflect on their learning through the use of journals. I ask them to apply what they know to real-world situations. Videos, short demonstrations, and small group discussion are also been utilized.

=This is the second discussion thread from Chris:=

The Carey et al. article and the Chin and Brown article explain very involved coding schemes in order to categorize students based on the complexity of student's thoughts and understanding of science. Carey et al. used this information to demonstrate improvements in student's conceptions. Chin and Brown believe their taxonomy will help teachers develop scaffold techniques to encourage student's deep thinking processing.

Given the amount of "labels" we create for students, at what point do labels supersede solutions for the classroom? Do labels help? Is there any relationship between the Carey et al. stages and Metz’s (week 5) phases of development? Do you employ lessons or activities in your classroom that stem from a constructivist epistemology?

Research in education requires us to create scales in which we'd like to measure progress. The "levels" Chin and Brown developed in their study for surface and deep understanding seemed to be reinforced by the "grades" of the students in their study. The performance of their students were used to advocate their levels. Though we need levels to scale our understanding of progress, students interpret these scales differently than researchers and educators. As more labels are being generated, self-fulfilled prophecies need to be considered. [In context, I worked at a middle school where the label of smart and dumb kids was so exaggerated the students perpetuated the labels to damaging psychological levels.]
 * my comment**

There is a relationship between the phases of development from Carey et al. and Metz in that each progress from simple thinking towards understanding science, to making connections for science activities, and finally reaching a mechanical understanding, recognizing the cumulative nature of science. The difference between the phases of development I interpreted come more from their experimental methods. I found the Metz experimental procedure to demostrate the development of understanding illustrating a progression.

I have not integrated a constructivist perspective for lessons and activities yet, though I believe in this approach and working towards this integration.

I tend take lightly, all coding schemes, scales, labels, etc. used by researchers. This is especially true of the Carey et al. and Chin and Brown work. These researchers are trying to describe a learning phenomena that has not been described before and they take special pains to be very descriptive by creating categories. What is important about these categories is that it helps the researchers answer their questions; and in turn, gives us a perspective on student learning that we might not of had before. In general, these categories convey the reality that learning specific types of science content is much more complex that previously believed.
 * bill's comment**

Given this newly established complexity there are two ways to go with instruction on that content. Embrace the complexity and find new ways to address the learning (scaffolding) to help achieve the desired result, or, back off. Backing off means that just maybe the content is not appropriate for learning (by these students) at this time in the curriculum and that something else needs to be substituted of a more appropriate nature.

Labeling can have a very negative impact on students. When a student is labeled as “a good student” or “a bad student” it can be destructive. The good student may be placed under a certain amount of pressure to maintain that level while the bad student will give up and not even try. To me, however, the labeling (or coding) done in the research studies is not the same thing. The coding seems to be specific to a particular project and are a way to explain the findings of the study. The responses given are grouped because they are similar.
 * michele's comment**

There is a relationship between the Carey et al. stages and Metz’s phases of development. They both show a progression from low levels to high levels. While they are not exactly the same, each level or phase is clearly described to show this progression.

One of the first summer workshops I attended was (again) at Purdue University. The workshop was called “Epicenter.” This is where I first heard about the constructivist view of learning. I use a number of activities and lessons in my classroom that are rooted in constructivism. I broke away from having students memorize long lists of vocabulary words and isolated facts. To learn about the interior of the earth, my students construct their own pie slice of the different layers and boundaries. When 24 slices are put together they create a scale model of the earth. This leads to discussion and reflection about what is inside the earth.

=This is the third and final discussion thread from Chris:=

Driver et al. conclusion stresses the important features of mediation, where an authority figure is essential in intervention and negotiation of student's adoption of scientific ways of knowing, "to provide the support and guidance for students to make sense of these for themselves."

Considering the dynamics of a typical classroom and Chin's and Brown's taxonomy of surface and deep thinking students, how feasible is the constructivist approach, emphasizing science for all? Do the ideas presented in Driver et al. run contrary to the inquiry movement we have been discussing throughout the course thus far?


 * my comment**

Scaffolding is the process for which mediation takes place. I mentioned labels as negative, but would like to elaborate these should not be the end all be all. Developing a taxonomy of student progress means that labels evolve. I do believe the constructivist approach, with emphasizing scaffolding, will advocate science for all with the best results. Even when I think of some of my worst students, I believe if they have the opportunity to experience their own 'eureka' moment, their development transforms from levels.

Regarding the perspectives from Driver et al. running contrary to the inquiry movement, I feel we are beginning to narrow down what inquiry can be. Inquiry, as it has been brought up in the past, has been general and misleading. Scaffolding, constructivist approach, conceptual change, etc., are providing us with more insight into inquiry, and not necessarily negating. Ultimately, the science for all perspective places a lot of responsibility on the educator. These perspectives are shining light onto approaches to science which are more specific than the broad term of inquiry. More or less I find Driver et al. promoting scaffolding when they discuss mediation. Another key point to address, "there are special challenges when the science view that the teacher is presenting is in conflict with learner's prior knowledge schemes." As with the Bishop and Anderson article, mediating has the potential to bring students into even more into inquiry, as they begin to understand the depth of knowing science. Last edited on: December 3, 2010 7:09 PM 

Science for all is a wonderful goal. Given the dynamics of a typical classroom, I’m not sure if it is entirely feasible. Educators do the best job they can to achieve this goal, but sometimes they are up against outside factors that cannot be controlled. In the inquiry movement, teachers are encouraged to move toward more learner self-direction. The outcome of inquiry learning is for students to construct their own meaning of science phenomena through discovery. Driver et al. suggests that scientific knowledge is learned as a “process of enculturation rather than discovery.” Through intervention, the teacher guides students using scaffolding to foster deep understanding. This is somewhat contrary to the description of inquiry that has been presented in the past few weeks.
 * michele's comment**