Questions+09.17.08

Carrie, Doug, and Pat The Ph.Ders

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.

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?


 * || Knowledge || Learning ||
 * Conceptual Change (Cognitive) || possessed by an individual; knowledge is structural (issue of transfer) || Accomodation or Assimilation; changes in cognitive structure. ||
 * Situated Learning || knowledge is a product of activity; knowledge is a tool; is indexical; it is cultural || learn through authentic activity; knowledge as tool in use; cultural practices ||

What is authentic activity? How is it different (or not) from school activity?

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

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?

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 thouroughly. 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 thier 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 on k-12 are being enculturated into? Therefore, these kids are being encuturated into a school culture which differs from a graduate one. 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?