week+7b+discussion

calendar

=week introduction=


 * S**cience is all about determining the whys of the physical world. The whys of the mental sciences generally come from theories provided by psychology as it gropes with understanding the brain and how it functions to produce learning. Since the 1950s, psychology has put forth at least three theories of learning (four, if constructivism is considered a theory). Each has had some ability to explain learning, and from those explanations arose prescriptions on how to teach to optimize learning. But, these explanations were somewhat conflicting and not entirely satisfactory in that there was a lot that they could not explain.


 * S**cience does not stand still. Psychology, as a mental science, has not been exactly dormant either. In the past ten years a new theory of the brain and learning has emerged that holds promise in explaining many previously poorly explained brain and learning phenomena. In education, misconceptions, p-prims, personal propositions, and intuitive rules are all related and explainable under this theory (other theories, like constructivism, just permit description and cataloging). This new theory, Evolutionary Psychology, seems to be gaining broad acceptance (because it can explain), especially in Europe. Psychology textbooks are being rewritten even in the US and it won’t be long before educational psychology moves in this direction.


 * T**he basic premise of Evolutionary Psychology is that just as organisms have evolved, so have organs. The human brain, as an organ, has undergone immense change over the past 2 millions years. This change is evolutionary slow, so that the brain we now have is essentially a processing unit optimized for a hunter-gathering life style with the written language, the industrial revolution, and science being superimposed on that processing. Our intuitive rules are remnants of the processing that helped us survive as hunter-gathers, not modern students in Western style schools.


 * S**ee the linked two page excerpt from Pinker. [|Pinker.pdf] These are just two pages of some 600 in that book, but they are the two pages that show the relationship of the new theory to education. Much more has been written and the research driven by this theory is appearing in the journals and at conferences.


 * T**he Stavy and Tirosh (2000) book (you read two chapters for this week) lays down some of the educational foundation of this theory. A lot of research is reviewed across many students, classrooms, and cultures. The preponderance of the evidence points to a commonality of information processing responses that the authors claim are related and not content specific. They go on to argue that these responses evolve from a common source, intuitive rules.

We first saw the idea of intuitive rules as "p-prims" in the Palmer (1999) research. The idea was again repeated in Driver et al. (1994) as the idea of "common sense". The two chapters from the Stavy and Tirosh book How Students (Mis)Understand Science and Mathematics explain in detail some of the common misconceptions that students hold that lead them to make mistakes across many content areas. In the chapter, How Children and Adults Use the Intuitive Rule “More A- More B”, they describe a problem where students rely on “common sense” to make judgements. This “common sense” is clouded by irrelevant perceptual differences that lead students to erroneous conclusions. Stavy and Tirosh provided many examples of this phenomena from both math and science. They ended the chapter with the statement that “with age, instruction, schemes, rules and bodies of knowledge related to specific (my emphasis) tasks, the rule loses its power in favor of other, competing knowledge.

 a. We could no doubt provide personal or classroom examples of applying the intuitive rule more A more B. It is suggested on page 41 that even the highly educated in a specific topic can be messed up on this intuition response. Comment on the ages and grade levels of students you have observed in your classroom using More A - More B rationalizations and how you addressed them in your instruction. What positive experiences have you had in displacing intuitive rules?

 b. How does the Stavy and Tirosh ending statement compare with Palmer’s idea of addressing the underlying personal proposition? Stavy and Tirosh advocate instructing students in specific tasks to overcome the underlying misconception while Palmer states that you must address the underlying personal proposition to overcome multiple uses of the misconception across content areas. Are the two conclusions contradicting each other?

The More A - More B as an intuitive rule is one I've witnessed, but not necessarily in the comprehensive and uniforming concept. As a math instructor for all grades, the most common I've observed is with equivalent fractions. Currently my examples are adult ages. For years I've used pie graphs as comparisons with good to mediocre success. After reading the examples in the Stavy and Tirosh article, there are new perceptions on my part for improving analogies. As a junior and senior physics instructor, the most common More A - More B was the heaviest object will fall faster. This was addressed through experimentation. Reflecting back, my focus may have been too much on calculations, and I may have assumed the experiments were enough. I realize there is more to address.

We are instinctive by nature. "To regress to the intuitive rule," Stavy and Tirosh is more or less referring the same Idea as Palmer's personal proposition. On the other hand the idea from Driver et al. of common sense is more broad. Regarding the conclusions of Stavy and Tirosh conflicting with Palmer, their focus may be different, but I don't believe they contradict each other. Stavy and Tirosh, along with Driver et al., have a focus on the class as a whole. Palmer's focus is on the individual, trying to understand a student's own perception of science and math ideas. These ideas can be used in tandem. I feel these approaches would assist in a similar experiment as with Bishop and Anderson when learning about evolution. Once personal propositions are revealed, attempting recommendations from Stavy and Tirosh are more tools in our toolboxes. 

michele I experienced the intuitive rule More A – More B just today. One of my young ladies expressed the idea that to reduce fuel consumption, people should drive faster. When you drive faster, you get to your destination sooner and use less fuel. I’m not sure how to address that one, but I understand now what Stavy and Tirosh are talking about. To her, this makes sense. To help her overcome her misconception, I would probably use one of the teaching strategies discussed in chapter 5. My initial thought would be to use different representations. I could present two different cases. The first case would be similar to her misconception (More A – More B). The second would be a similar case, but this time it would show the correct answer. Another method I use that I’ve mentioned before are the probes found in “Uncovering Student Ideas” by Page Keely. I like them because they provide a window to student thinking and reasoning.

Palmer and Stavy and Tirosh are addressing the same problem in slightly different ways. Either way, it is important that students are given the opportunity to express their understandings (journals, discussion, etc.) so that the misconceptions are brought into view. It is essential that we address those misconceptions by using methods of teaching such as those mentioned in the Stavy and Tirosh book. It is interesting that I can now put a name to something that I see often when working with middle school students.




 * bill **
 * "interesting that I can now put a name to something that I see often "

Even more interesting, in my opinion, is that just 15 years ago we would have said "they just don't get it...". Then 10 years ago, we started to say "they might have some misconceptions...". And now we can start to say "the intuitive rule, xx, is quite prevalent in my classroom, and I can do this to start to correct it on this content...". And, all of this has happened using educational research techniques that the US Dept of Education (via NCLB) does not recognize as being useful or valid to pursue. ** 

michele You have just described the evolution of my science teaching career. 15 years ago at the beginning of my career, I knew there was something I was missing regarding why my students weren't getting the point of a lesson or lab. I just couldn't figure out what "it" was. That made way for the "misconception" phase of teaching, which allowed me to look for the clues or signs. Teaching got a little easier because I could plan my lessons to avoid or uncover misconceptions accordingly. I believe that I am about to embark on a new (perhaps final?) phase in my career - More A-More B. I believe a lightbulb just went on. 

me ..and as the value of psychology in education research becomes more prevalent, dusting off some of the developmental psychology theories has been very noticeable. As I've begun studying psychology, it is noted that neuroscience is the hard science quantifying the soft science of psychology, and this has only begun to occur with the fMRI usage in the 90's. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">

me Testing gas mileage will be hard to test in the classroom and I can't think of an alternative mechanism, though I have been trying for sometime now. Experimental design would have to include the same vehicle travelling between two gas stations at various speeds. Being one who tracks their own gas efficiency, I have personal proof I burn more gas driving faster, not to mention acceleration usage when I pass everyone. I do recall the speed limit changing from 75mph to 55mph across the United States after the 70's oil crisis. The documentation I was seeking online was to relate to this governmental decision to change the speed limit related to efficiency in gas consumption. ...the conflict discovery for your student will be to realize 55mph is a more efficient speed over time.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">In the second chapter exerpt, "Knowledge About Intuitive Rules: Educational Implications," Stavy and Tirosh discuss how we as teachers can be proactive in our approach (since we can predict to some degree what our students are going to think intuitively).

a. Based on this chapter, and your specific examples from the first discussion, how could you change your instruction in the classroom to address intuitive rules and perhaps prevent your students from using them to come to incorrect conclusions?

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">michele <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">The incomplete or incorrect understandings are difficult to overcome and replace because they make sense to the students. Telling or showing does little to change the misconception. Educators need to change their teaching so that there is an interaction between the student and the phenomenon that challenges their incorrect understanding. This can include having students explain their thinking and/or providing evidence for their explanation. I’m not sure that I can always prevent students from using the intuitive rule. Stavy and Tirosh state, “Although children cease to use the rule in certain instances at certain ages, they never stop using it altogether.” One way to address intuitive rules or prevent them is to understand what misconceptions are out there. I did a quick Google search and found multiple sites that address student’s misconceptions. Knowing this will allow me to prepare lessons and activities ahead of time. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">

me <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">The best way to address intuitive rules for myself will bes to identify what misconceptions specific students may have. As this becomes a more common practice, our own inventory of possible misconceptions grows, and possible ways of challenging those will also grow. Common misconceptions can be used to challenge a student response to encourage reflective thoughts. Stavy and Tirosh relate the challenging of student's external and irrelevant features to critical thinking. "Encouraging students to critically examine their own responses should, however, be done in a careful, delicate manner, without thereby discouraging basic thinking mechanisms." The careful and delicate manner becomes tactful lessons that can spark necessary reflection as students develop new "anchors" for which they relate to previous knowledge to new knowledge.