Class+Discussion+9-17

How do we balance the tentative nature of science with the possibility of epistemic doubt? How is this connected to BCD's argument about a culture of science in schools?

What about the structure of 552? Is there an implicit model of learning? What is your evidence for this model? It is modeled on progressive discourse; the answers are not correct or incorrect, instead there is a social consenses.
 * **Student oriented. Constructing your own knowledge.**

TSS talks about culture of the classroom in a different sense (atmosphere that promotes learning). How does this parallel or not BCD's cultural notions of learning?

How is knowledge defined in the situated perspective (as represented by BCD)? What about learning?

Conceptual Change:
 * **Knowledge - Factoids, resides in the head, bits of information**
 * **Learning - Linking of the factoids and creating concepts. Can change through assimilation and accomodation**

Situated Learning:
 * **Knowledge - Tools, product of community, practice. Knowledge is never permanent, constantly changing depending on your environment**
 * **Learning - Cognitive apprenticeship is a helper to help influence the learning, built on activity culture and concepts. No assimilation or accommodation. Behavioral.**

What is authentic activity? How is it different (or not) from school activity?
 * Depends on the culture. The differences between pharmaceutical scientists and academic scientists. Activities you do in school represent authentic activities but they are not authentic activities. The science culture is like a big bubble and like a venn diagram, sometimes sub-disciplines can overlap. With that overlap you wont' be able to do authentic activities in all activities. How can you include more overlap in more subject areas? Can't really do authentic activities because you don't have the base as other disciplines have. Unless you're familiar with the culture it's really hard to read a paper. You have to come in with more vocabulary in science than format. A teacher in the high school doesn't have the knowledge of a Ph.D. particle physicist so is it realistic to be able to teach them how? And how in depth do you go? Why are they a sub-culture, they've had the experiences you can't get in school. I don't think you could really simulate a research lab. You can simulate the process, is that authentic? What about doing on a field trip, is that an authentic activity? You're not collecting to the depth of a scientist would, a kid spends only 45 minutes on it and they're done. If you're not part of that culture can you make an authentic activity?**

How can school activity be connected to real world activity (either JPF activity or disciplinary activity)?

How big is a culture? Is science a culture? Is biology? Is organismal biology? Is zoology, herpetology, the group of scientists that studies amazon treefrogs? What about a school district, a school, the science department, a set of classes taught by the same teacher, a single class?
 * What defines a culture? Any number of people can make it up but there has to be a specific language for them to communicate. But is that a necessity? If you look at a school specifically I'd say two different classes, or levels, I would say those are two different cultures. When you talk to your peers you talk differently than you do to your parents, that's jargen. Certain norms. Sub-cultures within cultures. Can belong to multiple cultures.**

Have to separate the classroom activities from the theory of learning/teaching. Activities (like phenomenon) can be explained by multiple theories, like theories in science. So, for example, hands-on experiences in classrooms have a value both in cognitive and situative theories (explanations), but why they have value depends on the theory (perspective/lens) you take on the activity.

Can you separate the learning of content from the learning of culture? Is this true in both cognitive and situative models?

Is an apprenticeship model appropriate at some levels (e.g. graduate work) and not at others (K-12)? What does this say about learning and teaching as a stable model across contexts?
 * In an apprenticeship model one would learn the subject model thoroughly. Theoretically, it would work on all levels given appropriate age level subject matter. There is a major difference between the amount of time graduate students spend working on their projects and the time k-12 kids spend in the classroom. This leads to different levels of socialization; usually much fewer graduate students work on a specific subject. This leads to two questions, are K-12 kids being enculturated into a different culture and what culture are kids in k-12 are being enculturated into? Moreover, how different is their school culture from that of graduate students? There is also a question of motivation on the the part of K-12 students? Graduate students are willing to pursue and study a single subject, whereas in K-12 kids are faced with multiple subjects. The new question becomes how would one combine multiple scientific cultures into one in the classroom and expect the same level of depthness of subject matter?**

Do what degree are all these discussions about learning theory just the same conversation over and over again with new words? There are references to history, in particular Dewey, so is there a new idea here?