| Theoretical Basis/ Objective | Approach | |
| Anchored instruction | Constructivist; scaffolded strategies;
Students benefit from repeated opportunities to engage in learning (Hobbs, p292) |
|
| SKI Wise | Scaffolded knowledge integration perspective; learning through inquiry; inquiry question must be sufficiently broad |
|
| LfU | Cognitive dissonance; creating a need for new knowledge | exploration, invention, and discovery (Edelson, p360)
|
| TGEM | Learning through inquiry |
|
Synthesis:
Trying to extract the difference between these theories of learning is a challenge for me. Working through them I was struck more by their similarities than by differences and much of it unfolds from the initial weeks where we looked at uncovering student conceptions related to maths and science work. As I worked through the modules I became increasingly aware of the importance of approaching instruction with a theory of learning and supporting it with research while remaining flexible in its implementation. My preference, working through the modules, is for the Learning for Use model, likely because it’s the model I currently use most often in the classroom in attempting to have students dive into maths and science work and then have them stop and wonder what works and why and then having them create questions for further investigation.
As a personal reflection this week I would like to add to the interview I did with a colleague to uncover ideas about technology integration in maths and science. This is a new teacher who I frequently chat with informally and she revealed that she thought her undergrad degree was largely useless in training her for actual in-class work and it got me thinking about teacher training being cyclical and scaffolded for professionals, too. I also personally remembering that my undergrad degree had inadequately prepared me but there must be a balance between theories of learning along with the practicalities of classroom work, in which a finely written day plan may go out the window because a child is in crisis that day. As a professional with approximately 15 years of experience under my belt I am no longer (most days) over whelmed by the day-to-day practicalities and now have the luxury of returning to masters studies and really studying and attempting to understand the learning theories that support our work. As I approach the end of my degree I am struck by how much more there is to learn. I wish I had infinite time and infinite tuition dollars!
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.
Hobbs, L., & Davis, R. (2013). Narrative pedagogies in science, mathematics and technology. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1289-1305.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Hi Tracy
I like the fact that your table is easy to read and you added the “Theoretical Basis/ Objective” to the table.
I also wonder about my teacher education year — I remember a lot of theory and busy work. It did not get me ready for the day to day ‘administration’ items that teachers need to look after. I believe every new teacher should have a mentor that they can talk to — just like what you have.
A good next step might be to continue with your personal reflections…which you can read over the summer holidays.
Christopher
Thank you, Christopher. The opportunity to reflect through weekly blogging and reflecting with peers is an essential step in consolidating understanding through these courses. Information definitely comes fast and furious and mixed together with teaching full-time and other life obligations it would be easy to just read and reflect. I do love that this program asks us to be reflective learners and to return to that learning as we move through the program.
Hey Tracy,
I really appreciate the straightforward nature of your table. It is the thorough, yet simple. The kind of table that could easily be presented to a colleague that didn’t participate in a TELE study, and have them understanding the basic differences and similarities in no time at all.
I can definitely connect with your comments about undergrad inadequately preparing teachers in certain areas. Not once in my entire undergrad did I make a unit plan. While they hammered the basics of the unit plan (granted, without a standardized format), we spent no time looking at the larger flow from start to finish. When I started teaching, I quickly realized that no one in my school made a ‘lesson plan’. They all created quality unit plans and taught off of that framework.
Definitely some huge gaps between the practical and theoretical at the university level. Fortunately us teacher have each other to help sort some of these things out.