Carrie,+Doug,+and+Pat

Responses for 9/17/08 Questions:

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?

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)** || Facts || Forming Connections ||
 * **Situated Learning** || Less Emphasis || Enculturation (more emphasis) ||

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


 * Authentic activity is associated with the actual work done in certain disciplines. Typical school activity differs from authentic activity in the sense that it does not include the context in which the problem first arose. Another contrasting element between authentic activity and school activity is in the way experiments are done. In authentic activity the practitioner not only needs to perform the experiment but also needs to define the quantities that are to be measured. Typical science labs in schools ask students to work through activities to replicate or to confirm established results without asking the students to first think about exactly what it is that they are measuring and how those quantities are defined.**

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


 * Logistically, it does not work to have students ask their own questions about any subject they want. However, through a more guided inquiry style of learning, students could explore questions in a real world context. Need to inject small pieces of authentic activity into school activity. Cannot completely replace school activity, but keep it authentic enough to maintain student interest and present science as it is in the real world.**

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?

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?