Constructivist Knowledge Diffusion

How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

The first question could be answered in two parts based on some of the readings for this week:

1) Teachers rely on constructed sets of knowledge as common understandings or starting points from which to teach students. Teachers put stock in common understandings that can explain the world around them, they rely on findings of the experts in their field, and have a starting place from which to instil curiousity and explain natural phenomena. Yoon et al. write, “… most formal educational experiences are designed for students to participate in belief mode where ideas are investigated and proved or disproved with evidence for or against” (Yoon et al., 2012).

However,

2) These ‘common understandings’ are created through dialogue, experimenting, exploration, and challenging different and opposing views. Driver et al. write that, “… it is important in science education to appreciate that scientific knowledge is both symbolic in nature and also socially negotiated. The object of science are not the phenomena of nature but constructs that are advanced by the scientific community to interpret nature […] Rather, they are constructs that have been invented and imposed on phenomena in attempts to interpret and explain them often results of considerable intellectual struggles” (Driver et al., 1994). So knowledge relevant to science and math is discussed, challenged, and proven with evidence that supports the common claim, however this is not necessarily how scientific knowledge is taught/designed in “formal educational experiences”.

In networked communities however, there are underlying factors that point to a need for collaborative learning. Falk and Storksdieck write about “free-choice learning experiences”, where “adult visitors have considerable choice and control over what they actually attend to and visitors enter with a wide diversity of prior interests, knowledge, and experiences” (Falk & Storksdieck, 2010), and Yoon et al. provide research that “suggest[s] that ability to theorize from the museum experience can be improved through the use of knowledge-building scaffolds such as response forms and the ability to work in groups” (Yoon et al., 2012). If learners are engaged (by free choice and control), sharing and growing confidence in curiousity, conversation, and discovery, this can lead to deeper learning through play and collaboration. The Exploratorium in San Francisco is one such example of a space created to host networked communities and collaborative instructional play. The Science Centre in Toronto is another example. Also, in looking through the Exploratorium’s online repertoire, I’m impressed by the wide range of available “Science Snacks” and “Explore Activities” for teachers who can’t get to the Exploratorium. I’m looking forward to sinking my teeth into this resource.

References:

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.

Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519-541.