Before
entering the MCE program, I had no previous experience with science
education literature. Through my participation in the two
education courses Edu536 and Edu636, I
have progressively grown to have a
stronger understanding of the constructivist nature of learning,
specifically the importance of addressing learner preconceptions.
I present 1 piece
of baseline evidence from Edu536 and 1
piece of later evidence from Edu636. In comparing my
baseline and
later evidence, I use a
conceptual framework that shows:
- STRONGER UNDERSTANDING OF CONSTRUCTIVISM
& THE ROLE OF PRECONCEPTIONS: My increase in
understanding of constructivism can best be seen
by comparing the progression in my treatment of the constructivist
framework in my research proposal for Edu536 (baseline evidence)
and in selected articles from my
annotated
bibliography for Edu636 (later
evidence). Specifically, I grew to better understand
the role learners' pre-existing
knowledge plays in the process of concept invention. As a
result of a better understanding of constructivism, I also modified my
instruction (See
Reflection 8)
and my assessment practices (See Reflection 9).
CONSTRUCTIVISM is the theory of learning that states
that learners continuously reconstruct knowledge networks by comparing
and contrasting previously learned information with newly encountered
information. In other words, sense is made of new knowledge by
interacting with and processing this information in light of prior
knowledge. When newly learned information is integrated into the
framework with previously learned information, meaningful learning has
occurred. To correct naive conceptions, previously held ideas
must be explicitly evoked and tested in the context of the new
information.
`
Baseline Evidence:
The constructivist framework
in my research proposal for Edu536
MAY 2008
|
This baseline evidence represents what I understood
of constructivist learning theory from my first exposure to it in
Edu536. I reference 3 articles (Johnstone, 1993; Spencer, 1999;
and More, 2007), but I did not yet fully grasp the role of
preconceptions in determining how students learn. I understood
that students constructed their own understanding, and I knew that new
information had to fit into "old" information, but I did not fully
appreciate the necessity of
evoking and addressing preconceptions in the concept invention process.
References:
Johnstone,
A. H. (1983). Chemical
Education Research: Facts, Findings, and Consequences. Journal
of Chemical Education, 60(11), 968-971.
Spencer,
J. N. (1999). New
Directions in Teaching Chemistry: A Philosophical and Pedagogical Basis. Journal
of Chemical Education, 76(4), 566-569.
More, M.B. (2007).
Terra Firma:
“Physics First” for Teaching Chemistry to Pre-Service Elementary School
Teachers. Journal
of Chemical Education,
84(4),
622-625.
|
Later Evidence:
Selected articles from
my annotated bibliography for Edu636
MAR 2009
|
Roth, W-M. (2006).
Ch 1: Aporias
of perception in science. Learning Science: A Singular Plural
Perspective. Rotterdam:
Sense Publications, 27-66.
In this chapter of his book, Roth examines the
usefulness of science demonstrations in the classroom. Roth
examines the differing perspectives that instructors and students have
regarding the phenomena these demonstrations seek to illuminate.
In most cases, demonstrations alone were useless in creating an
understanding of phenomena when unpaired with proper context and guided
inquiry. Instead, demonstrations could even foster incorrect
notions or merely detract from the conceptual understanding they were
seeking to reinforce. Since the perception of events and the causality
assigned to them is dependent upon current understandings and exposure,
Roth highlights the need to explore the phenomenon, seek explanations
from students, and to re-iterate the process. This article was disturbing and eye-opening
to me because I realized that while demonstrations (or any colorful or
engaging pratice) are exciting and fun, they are useless when devoid of
pedagogical practices that foster inquiry and the correction of
wrongful understandings. It reinforced the absolute necessity of
building exploration, inquiry, assessment, and repetition into
activities.
Johnstone, A.H.
(1997). Chemistry teaching--Science or alchemy? Journal
of Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268.
Alexander Johnstone
(recipient of the 2009 ACS Award for Achievement in Research for the
Teaching and Learning of Chemistry) succinctly re-presents an information
processing model taken
from
education, psychology, and artificial intelligence theories that fits
within the constructivist framework of learning. Information is
learned only after it has been strained through a perceptive filter
into short-term memory where it is interpreted and processed by
interaction
with prior information retrieved from long-term memory. Only
after
the new information is placed in context with previous information is
it placed in long-term memory (i.e. learned) for future retrieval and
application. Because the amount of short-term memory available is
a constant, to increase the
efficiency of recall and storage, students
must
increase their ability to organize or "chunk" many separate pieces of
information
into a more manageable number of coherent, related groups of
information. A
student's preconceptions and lack of
experience combined with an abundance of new, seemingly unrelated
information can overload his ability to achieve meaningful, long-term
learning. In light of this model, Johnston suggests that
instructors abide by ten
commandments of instruction. This
article has been
particularly important in giving me a foundational model for
understanding how students learn and, in particular, how they process
new information in the context of previously learned information.
Nakhleh, M.B.(1992). Why some
students don't learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3),
191-196.
Nakhleh identifies student misconceptions
across age groups (high school to undergraduate level) with the kinetic
and particulate nature of matter
(KPNR) and its implications to several other concepts in
chemistry: phase changes, equilibrium, reactions, equations. Examples
and
illustrations of
student misconceptions are given. This
article is of particular interest to me because it highlights the
difficulty with getting students to understand the submicroscopic
nature of chemistry. In light of the previous articles
that
showed how concrete real-life experience is often the easiest way to
create coherent and meaningful learning, it is no wonder that students
have difficulty understanding an aspect of chemistry that cannot be
seen, but only imagined or experienced on the macroscopic level! At the same time, because KPNR
is such a cornerstone of chemistry,
whatever means necessary must be taken to increase student
understanding, whether that involves the use of manipulatives or
repetitive connection with and interpretation of macroscopic phenomena
in terms of KPNR.
|
In
contrast, the later evidence shows that I have thought deeply about the
constructivist nature of learning and the obstacles that students face
in constructing accurate conceptual understandings. The three
articles are of particular interest and importance to me because
together, they helped catalyze an awareness of the need to specifically
assess and address student misconceptions. Through class
discussions and the creation of the annotated bibliography in Edu636, I
began to think about how all the articles I had been reading fit
together.
After having read Roth's 2006 chapter on the "aporias of perception"
after a professional development on demonstrations, I realized that
even excellent (in my eyes), entertaining, and well-thought out
instructional practices could fail if they did not adequately address
students' pre-existing ideas. The "aporias of perception" that
Roth mentions occur when students learn or reinforce ideas that are
quite different from the ones the teacher intended to teach and thought
were successfully taught. I was shocked by the idea that if I did
not not adequately acknowledge the misconceptions or naive conceptual
understandings that students bring with them into the classroom, my
lesson would be completely would be completely useless in promoting
learning objectives.
The epiphany brought about by reading Roth's chapter was reinforced by
articles I had already read by Nakhleh (1992) and Johnstone
(1997). I decided to re-read and re-evaluate the articles written
by Johnstone (1997) and Nakhleh (1992). I realized that Johnstone
had been stressing the importance of addressing previously learned
information, but I had not fully understood what he had meant at that
time because I had thought that if a lesson were planned well it would
naturally address student preconceptions, whereas I now know that
pre-assessment and formative assessments have to be deliberately built
into one's lesson plan.
|
July 1, 2009
|
<--
PREVIOUS REFLECTION
NEXT
REFLECTION -->