Transcript How People Learn and How People Teach: Combining the Two

How People Learn and How People
Teach: Combining the Two in an
Integrated Pre-service Science
Content Course
Dr. Brad Hoge and Dr. Scott Slough
University of Houston – Downtown
Constructivism informs our view of how
people learn, which in turn informs our view
of how we teach science to pre-service
teachers. This paper discusses the conflict,
and hopefully some resolutions, between
implementing constructivitic teaching
methodologies while attempting to integrate
physical science and earth science content
into a single course for pre-service
elementary teachers within the Natural
Science Department at UH-Downtown.
Science education has been moving towards
an inquiry based constructivism since the
early 90’s, due to the goals and guidelines
of The National Science Teachers
Association (1992), The American
Association for the Advancement of Science
(1993), and the National Research Council
(1996).
The National Science Education Standards call
for a shift in emphasis from “focusing on
student acquisition of information to
focusing on student understanding and use
of scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiry
processes” (NRC, 1996)
NSF Standards for Inquiry
Students should understand that in science:
► Investigations involve asking a question and
comparing the answer to what is known
► Explanations emphasize evidence
► Explanations have logically consistent arguments
► Investigations are repeatable by others
► Scientists make their results public, review and ask
each other questions
Constructivist views of learning provide a
theoretical framework to teachers in helping
students reconstruct their own
understanding through a process of
interacting with objects in the environment
and engaging in higher-level thinking and
problem solving (Driver, Asoko, Leach,
Mortimer, & Scott, 1994).
Constructivism provides the theoretical framework
for all forms of project-based learning (Grant,
2002).
PBS pedagogy (Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway,
2002) assumes that students constantly ask and
refine questions; design and conduct multiple
investigations; gather, analyze, interpret, and draw
conclusions from data; and report findings.
. . . by extension, learning scientific process
(literacy) extends beyond the classroom
(Bransfield etal, 1999).
Scientists explore the physical world for
reproducible patterns which they represent
by models and organize into theories
according to laws (Hestenes, 2004).
Constructivism posits that individuals build
their own knowledge and understanding by
assimilating their prior knowledge with the
new experience with which they are
confronted (Richardson, 1997).
Individuals do not obtain knowledge by
internalizing it from the outside but by
constructing it from within, in interaction
with the environment (Kamii, Manning, &
Manning, 1991; Perkins, 1992; Piaget,
1969; Vygotsky, 1978)
Thus, constructivism is based on the premise
that, by reflecting on our experiences, we
construct our own understanding of the
world we live in.
Learning is a process of modifying our mental
models to accommodate new experiences.
Research shows that students learn science
best by engaging in hands-on minds-on
lessons through a inquiry based curriculum
(Abell and Bryan, 1997; Stepans, et. al.,
1995: Metz, 1995; Glasson, 1989).
What is often overlooked, is how important it
is to incorporate this constructivist strategy
into pre-service teacher education (Bodzin
and Cates, 2003; Kelly, 2000).
Inquiry is a fundamental component of
effective science teaching and learning
(Lunetta, 1997; Roth, 1995).
Inquiry-based instruction allows students to
make connections between the classroom
experience and their personal lives.
Learning becomes relevant to students.
Without preparing teachers with this learning
strategy, the benefits of inquiry-based
science does not trickle down to students
(Slater, et. al., 1996; Stepans, et. al., 1995;
Michelsohn and Hawkins, 1994; Fullan and
Stiege, 1991; Doyle and Ponder, 1977).
Restructuring science content courses for
teachers is the logical place for these skills
to be taught, since this is where teachers
learn to connect science content to their
own “special knowledge” (Marek et.al.,
2003: Kelly, 2000; Shulman, 1986).
The ever-expanding knowledge base in
science, new technologies for teaching and
learning, high-stakes testing and increased
accountability have produced an
overburdened local curriculum in science
and mathematics (NRC, 1996).
This has led, in many instances, to an
increase in the number of courses preservice teachers must complete, or, an
integration of content across disciplines.
In particular, high stakes testing has been
widely blamed for curricula that are “a mile
wide and an inch deep” (NRC, 1997).
Therefore, science education of pre-service
teachers should utilize more appropriate
metacognitive psychology.
We teach our content courses for pre-service
teachers through hands-on research-based
projects within a constructivist ideology, as
a model of how we would like them to teach
in their own classrooms.
This teaching method already puts a lot of
pressure on content coverage, how then can
we double the load and increase learning?
We have developed a new paradigm for teaching
science, a more metacognitive constructivism.
Our paradigm draws on the research into how
learning takes place as well as how it can best be
taught.
It calls for a hierarchical metacognition which
cascades through ranks and generations, rather
than just being passed on.
A more whole brain, whole body approach will also
lead to greater retention of content knowledge.
Our metacognitive approach to teaching
science requires knowledge of the history of
the science, current science knowledge and
practice, and theories of explanation.
E.O. Wilson stated, the benefits of metaphor
over analogy in teaching science is rooted in
our evolutionary past. We use metaphor to
make sense of our world.
Integrated science provides metaphors by
relating knowledge from one field as
examples for lessons in another, such as the
application of physics to earth science.
Three categories of metacognition:
►
person variables – knowledge about how
human beings learn and process information
(also self-knowledge of personal strengths
and weaknesses)
►
task variables – knowledge about nature
of task and type of thinking skills needed to
meet it
►
strategy variables – knowledge of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Cognitive strategies are used to help an
individual achieve a particular goal.
Metacognitive strategies are used to ensure
that the goal has been reached.
Metacognitive experiences precede and follow
(or both) a cognitive activity.
Simply providing knowledge without
experience or vice versa does not seem to
be sufficient for the development of
metacognitive control (Livingston, 1996).
The scientific process (historically and in a
philosophical perspective) is the ultimate
metacognitive strategy for problem solving.
Scientific Method
Is a Metacognitive Process
Pedagogy Is a
Metacognitive
Process
Constructivism
Is a Metacognitive
Process
Teach the lesson
Constructively
Teach the Content
Philosophically
(for literacy)
Give the
Student
Metacognitive
Control
Conservation of
Momentum
Normal and Reverse
Faults
The only
Difference
Is Time
Buoyancy
Plate Tectonics
The only
Difference
Is Scale
Heat Transfer
Experiments
In the Laboratory
Heat Transfer
In the Atmosphere
Convection
In the
Earth’s Mantle
Distillation
Bowen’s Reaction
Series
The Rock
Cycle
Careful observation means being
prepared (making predictions)
Discussion
► How
can we best integrate metacognitive
strategies into integrated science lessons
(teaching for literacy)?
► How can we best structure our curricula to
integrate the earth and physical sciences?
► What PBS curricula is there to meet these
needs?
► What PBS curricula needs are there to be
developed?