Monthly Archives: May 2017

Heather’s personal theories of what causes the change in seasons varied from the accepted scientific understanding. I’m not sure where her misconceptions stems from but it was clear to see that her beliefs were deep-rooted. Despite having been present in class and having access to learning material, her personal theory on the topic created a block to being able to fully adopt a new understanding.

What became clear to me during the video was the need for the Heather and her teacher to confront their own personal theories. It was interesting to hear the teacher comment, “You assume that they (students) know certain things.” Shapiro (1988), advocates that teachers should understand our own assumptions and consider what impact it may be having on the learning process. Equally important is students being encouraged to share beliefs. Having students unpacked their personal theories allows teachers insight into student thinking and an opportunity to explore ways to introduce new ideas and/or challenge misconceptions.

Conceptual challenges are not just related to what students are learning, but also from how teachers are teaching. In my own profession practice, I have encountered challenges with parents and students in the area of mathematics. I have been present during many interesting debates concerning student achievement in the area of mathematics. Parents and many teachers I know hold firm to the idea that success in mathematics is best achieved through the practice of drills as a way to enhance speed and accuracy. Shapiro (1988), identifies that this approach requires that students not delve into the complexity but rather accept what is being taught. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that student should explore different ways to solve math problems instead of using a single algorithm. Shapiro (1988), identifies that this type of approach factors into account the learners’ individual ideas, feeling about the learning.

In support of a more open and exploratory approach to math, a study conducted by Ng and Sinclair (2015), investigated grade 1/2 and 2/3 learning in a dynamic math environment. The learning environment emphasized quality communication as a basis for learning. Whole class dialogue exploring ideas and learning were central to the study. It also focused on the use of digital tools to aid in student understanding symmetry. The results documented a shift in student thinking toward a deeper understanding of symmetry. Although the results were based on only three lessons, the notion that dynamic environments for learning can be enhanced with quality dialogue and use of manipulatives is worth consideration.

References:

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120. Available in the course readings library.

Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. Zdm, 47(3), 421-434. doi:10.1007/s11858-014-0660-5

While viewing “A Private Universe,” I was struck by the teacher centred style of instruction that was presented in the video, and the passive participation of the students in their learning. Regarding student misconceptions, and the instructional approaches to science, some of the key takeaways from the video were:

• teacher assumptions of basic ideas, unaware of students private, personal theories (deeply ingrained)
• use of ineffective visuals and/or teacher explanations
• student confusion of diagrams and information from different sources
• a need for using varied materials and resources to appeal to different learning styles
• students struggle with blending of new concepts into original concepts as new concepts compete with preconceived ideas

I remember personally learning about science through similar instructional approaches to those seen in the video. According to these approaches, teachers generally have their own notions of how their students learn best, and they aim to build their instruction through these assumptions about their students’ prior knowledge and learning styles. As teachers aim to meet curricular outcomes and impart concepts and knowledge on to their students, the opportunities for students to engage with content in diverse and engaging ways becomes extremely limited.

Rather than viewing students as ‘blank slates’ or as ‘objects of teacher activity,’ educators need to arrive at a greater understanding of their students in terms of how learning activities affect their perceptions, knowledge, and beliefs (Shapiro 1988). There exists a need for clarifying student ideas about a particular scientific phenomena before they engage in classroom instructional experiences. According to Shapiro (1988), “we know that children’s pre-instructional ideas about natural phenomena can be very different from those which they are asked to accept in school.” From this, students need to develop the ability to interpret available evidence and make judgments about the rationality of arguments and concepts that may contradict their own previously held beliefs. Rather than the teacher being the dispenser of knowledge and information, the students take the lead in their own learning and are afforded the opportunity to engage with materials and generate ideas and questions without the teacher imposing their own personal limitations or restrictions as to how this experience should be carried out.

As presented by Fosnot (2005), constructivist approaches to learning allow students to learn best when they are provided with opportunities to actively construct ideas and relationships in their own minds based on experiences and experimenting, rather than being told what to do by an instructor. Students should be afforded the opportunity to engage in self-directed learning with the facilitation and feedback provided by the teacher and class peers to support students as they work towards attaining fundamental and relevant knowledge and skills.

Through providing lessons and experiences that offer authenticity and relevance, with opportunities for deeper collaboration and sharing of feedback, we can support students through leadership opportunities in the role of a creator or experimenter in their learning. According to Seymour Papert (1996), constructivist and constructionist theories support students in taking an active interest in understanding how they think about learning. Rather than passively accepting knowledge, students need to engage in conversations about strategies for learning and problem solving, which Papert described as a process of Learning about Learning (Papert, 1996). This fundamental approach to learning will allow students to access the skills and experience necessary to become full participants in 21^st century learning environments. Through these learning opportunities, our students will be able to enhance their ability to articulate personal understandings and perceptions, develop their knowledge and skill through authentic practices, and participate in collaborative learning environments.

References

Fosnot, C.T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. (2^nd Edition) Teachers College Press

Papert, S. (1996). The Connected Family: Bridging the Digital Generation Gap. Atlanta, Georgia: Longstreet Press.

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120.

While watching Heather in “A Private Universe,” I began thinking about how scientific knowledge develops and its parallels to learning.

In science, when studies disagree with our current knowledge base, there is a portion of time where scientists attempt to tweak their understanding or error analysis to help this new observation fit into the current theory. After many studies disagree with the current knowledge base there occurs a Paradigm Shift where scientists must abandon large portions of their preconceptions in favour of this new, more accurate idea. In much the same way, our learning follows a similar path where we are drawn to rationalize new information to fit our existing model. Fostnot (1994) recognizes this process “as the organization of experience with one’s own logical structures or understandings.”

It is apparent that by the end of the lesson that Heather had adjusted her paradigm to fit the new information that she gained during the lesson but remained unclear about some concepts around light coming from the sun. To make this shift complete, more instruction or investigation would be required to address such areas.

In my own experience in teaching biology, it is apparent that students have varied conceptualizations of Evolution and how it occurs. Frequently, as a result of the use of “evolution” as an idiom, students will believe that they acquire new skills and evolve to become a better person. As a result, it is a very important practice to directly address the misuse of the word. Some of the activities which I have found successful in breaking this preconception is to look at historical science around the topic. To start with the absurd ideas such as Lamarck who believed that traits you gain during your life can be passed on to offspring. I will ask the students what their parents are good at, and if they have the same skill. Lamarck would posit that if your mother and father were good at Math, then you must have acquired that skill as a result. I usually take this to absurd levels in order to break this misconception and begin the talk about what evolution and the passing of genes really means. Such as in the case of Heather, some students will still cling to the cognitive paradigm which they had before the lesson, and continue to believe that evolution is individual, short term, and a choice. As a result, each time I teach the course I try to evolve my teaching tactics to better encourage these paradigm shifts.

(Pun in last line intended)

References

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. Children’s ideas in science, 1-9.

Fosnot, Catherine. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, 2013 or 2005 version. Chapter 1: Introduction: Aspects of constructivism by Ernst von Glasersfeld or Chapter 2: Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning or Cobb, Paul. “Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development.” Educational researcher 23, no. 7 (1994): 13-20.

Thompson, F., Logue, S. (2006). An Exploration of Common Student Misconceptions in Science. International Education Journal. 7(4), 553-559.

My educational background suggests that many scientific concepts are taught only conceptually. Examples and hands-on application of knowledge acquired in courses were limited to available resources that were often inadequate and static – we did not have many opportunities to explore the concepts in real-life settings or play with these concepts in a virtual environment. This prevented us from understanding scientific concepts thoroughly. In most cases, the instructors usually stood in front of the class or showed videos as they taught the concepts. This was also well illustrated in the  “Heather’s challenges” course video.

From that video, I learned that students strongly hold onto their private scientific views. I see two reasons that contributed to the misconceptions of scientific concepts. The first one is that such misconceptions are often not challenged in schools during instruction, and therefore students continue to regard the misconceptions as true. The other reason is that students don’t have many opportunities to explore or examine concepts they learned in science classes. How can we overcome these problems?

We find some answers in scientific papers examining how the application of new technologies in the classroom can improve learning. So, “Does the medium change the Message?” The answer appears to be “Yes, and profoundly so” (Yazon, Mayer-Smith & Redfield, 2002). The WebCT content of the auto-tutorial genetics section was chunked, self-paced, and acquired collaboratively through peer interactions. These interactions were further enhanced via the instituted student help desk for individual and small group tutoring. The results of the study strongly indicate the course promoted independent learning and understanding as opposed to rote learning. In effect, the new method allowed students to experiment with the concepts through technology. It also provided valuable feedback, via the help desk, that challenged students’ privately held scientific views.

What else can technology do to address conceptual challenges? It turns out it can keep students more engaged with their learning through the process of gamification. This process improves flow and helps students form new conceptions faster and more accurately. According to Professors Dilip Soman or Nina Mažar from the Rotman School of Management, teachers can gamify learning content by following these five steps: understand the target audience and concepts, define learning objectives, structure the experience, identify learning resources, and apply gamification elements(Stephen, McRobbie & Tom, 2000).

So, if technology can facilitate and enhance learning, why isn’t it widely adopted? To a no small degree, it is because teachers’ conservative culture states that technology would make students lazy – pushing a button should not substitute understanding of the underlying scientific principles(Huang & Soman, 2013). These attitudes can and do change but progress is slow.

I believe that digital technologies – like interactive virtual simulations, videos, augmented reality, and gamified learning content – would help students experiment and understand scientific concepts more inquisitively, in simpler and more engaging ways.  

Yazon, J.M., Mayer-Smith, J.A. & Redfield, R.J. (2002). Does the medium change the message? The impact of a web-based genetics course on university students’ perspectives on learning and teaching. Computers & Education, 38(1), 267–285.

Stephen Norton, Campbell J. McRobbie & Tom J. Cooper (2000) Exploring

Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Reasons for Not Using Computers in Their Teaching, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33:1, 87-109, DOI: 10.1080/08886504.2000.10782302

Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of education. Research Report Series: Behavioural Economics in Action, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.