how people learn and how people teach

8/12/2019 How People Learn and How People Teach

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/how-people-learn-and-how-people-teach 1/39

How People Learn and How People

Teach: Combining the Two in anIntegrated 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 viewof how we teach science to pre-serviceteachers. This paper discusses the conflict,and hopefully some resolutions, between

implementing constructivitic teachingmethodologies while attempting to integratephysical science and earth science contentinto a single course for pre-serviceelementary teachers within the NaturalScience Department at UH-Downtown.



Science education has been moving towardsan inquiry based constructivism since theearly 90’s, due to the goals and guidelinesof 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 callfor a shift in emphasis from “focusing onstudent acquisition of information tofocusing on student understanding and useof scientific knowledge, ideas, and inquiryprocesses” (NRC, 1996)



NSF Standards for Inquiry

Students should understand that in science:

► Investigations involve asking a question andcomparing 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 askeach other questions



Constructivist views of learning provide atheoretical framework to teachers in helpingstudents reconstruct their ownunderstanding through a process of

interacting with objects in the environmentand engaging in higher-level thinking andproblem solving (Driver, Asoko, Leach,

Mortimer, & Scott, 1994).



Constructivism provides the theoretical frameworkfor all forms of project-based learning (Grant,2002).

PBS pedagogy (Schneider, Krajcik, Marx, & Soloway,

2002) assumes that students constantly ask andrefine questions; design and conduct multipleinvestigations; gather, analyze, interpret, anddraw conclusions from data; and report findings.

. . . by extension, learning scientific process(literacy) extends beyond the classroom(Bransfield etal, 1999).



Scientists explore the physical world forreproducible patterns which they representby models and organize into theories

according to laws (Hestenes, 2004).



Constructivism posits that individuals buildtheir own knowledge and understanding byassimilating their prior knowledge with the

new experience with which they areconfronted (Richardson, 1997).



Individuals do not obtain knowledge byinternalizing it from the outside but byconstructing it from within, in interaction

with the environment (Kamii, Manning, &Manning, 1991; Perkins, 1992; Piaget,1969; Vygotsky, 1978)



Thus, constructivism is based on the premisethat, by reflecting on our experiences, weconstruct our own understanding of theworld we live in.

Learning is a process of modifying our mentalmodels to accommodate new experiences.



Research shows that students learn sciencebest by engaging in hands-on minds-onlessons through a inquiry based curriculum

(Abell and Bryan, 1997; Stepans, et. al.,1995: Metz, 1995; Glasson, 1989).



Inquiry is a fundamental component of

effective science teaching and learning(Lunetta, 1997; Roth, 1995).

Inquiry-based instruction allows students tomake connections between the classroomexperience and their personal lives.

Learning becomes relevant to students.



Without preparing teachers with this learningstrategy, the benefits of inquiry-basedscience does not trickle down to students

(Slater, et. al., 1996; Stepans, et. al., 1995;Michelsohn and Hawkins, 1994; Fullan andStiege, 1991; Doyle and Ponder, 1977).



Restructuring science content courses forteachers is the logical place for these skillsto be taught, since this is where teachers

learn to connect science content to theirown “special knowledge” (Marek et.al.,2003: Kelly, 2000; Shulman, 1986).



The ever-expanding knowledge base inscience, new technologies for teaching andlearning, high-stakes testing and increased

accountability have produced anoverburdened local curriculum in scienceand mathematics (NRC, 1996).



This has led, in many instances, to an

increase in the number of courses pre-service teachers must complete, or, anintegration of content across disciplines.

In particular, high stakes testing has beenwidely blamed for curricula that are “a mile

wide and an inch deep” (NRC, 1997).



Therefore, science education of pre-serviceteachers should utilize more appropriatemetacognitive psychology.



We have developed a new paradigm for teachingscience, a more metacognitive constructivism.

Our paradigm draws on the research into howlearning takes place as well as how it can best betaught.

It calls for a hierarchical metacognition whichcascades through ranks and generations, ratherthan just being passed on.

A more whole brain, whole body approach will alsolead to greater retention of content knowledge.



Our metacognitive approach to teachingscience requires knowledge of the history ofthe 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 inour evolutionary past. We use metaphor tomake sense of our world.

Integrated science provides metaphors byrelating knowledge from one field as

examples for lessons in another, such as theapplication of physics to earth science.



Three categories of metacognition:

► person variables – knowledge about howhuman beings learn and process information(also self-knowledge of personal strengthsand weaknesses)

► task variables – knowledge about natureof task and type of thinking skills needed tomeet it

► strategy variables – knowledge ofcognitive and metacognitive strategies.



Cognitive strategies are used to help an

individual achieve a particular goal.

Metacognitive strategies are used to ensurethat the goal has been reached.

Metacognitive experiences precede and follow(or both) a cognitive activity.



Simply providing knowledge withoutexperience or vice versa does not seem tobe sufficient for the development of

metacognitive control (Livingston, 1996).



The scientific process (historically and in aphilosophical perspective) is the ultimatemetacognitive strategy for problem solving.



Scientific MethodIs a Metacognitive Process

ConstructivismIs a Metacognitive

Process

Pedagogy Is aMetacognitive

Process



Teach the ContentPhilosophically

(for literacy)

Give theStudent

MetacognitiveControl

Teach the lessonConstructively



Normal and Reverse

Faults

The onlyDifference

Is Time

Conservation ofMomentum



Plate Tectonics

The onlyDifference

Is Scale

Buoyancy



ConvectionIn the

Earth’s Mantle

Heat TransferExperiments

In the Laboratory

Heat TransferIn the Atmosphere



Bowen’s Reaction Series

The RockCycle

Distillation



Discussion

►How can we best integrate metacognitivestrategies into integrated science lessons(teaching for literacy)?

►How can we best structure our curricula tointegrate the earth and physical sciences?

►What PBS curricula is there to meet these

needs?►What PBS curricula needs are there to be

developed?

how people learn and how people teach

Documents