Live to learn.: What, How, and Why Perspectives in Education.

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

What, How, and Why Perspectives in Education.

With the emerging affordances of technology for education (Webb, 2005), what students are learning in schools is being increasingly debated (How they are being taught is a completely different argument). Debates tend to centre on the amount and type of content that should be included in a curriculum versus the ability of students to be able to apply that content. In psychology this can refer to declarative knowledge (the what) and procedural knowledge (the how). However, this argument can be more explicitly developed by including knowledge relating to 'the why'. From a research perspective, Dillon and Wals (2006) highlight three things researchers should consider, that are readily applicable to considering what students should know in schools. These three things refer to ontology (the what), epistemology (the how) and axiology (the why). All three considerations are important aspects of student understanding, but where the teaching focus should be is under debate. Traditionally, students have been taught mostly 'the what', but with the rapid expansion of knowledge on the internet it is argued as redundant to be teaching students isolated facts (Ng & Gunstone, 2003; Steve Wheeler). However, despite this argument, many teachers still favour a focus on declarative knowledge (Cronin-Jones, 1991; Gllyenpalm, Wickman, & Holmgren, 2010; Tobin & McRobbie, 1996)

Postman and Weingartner (1971) have a chapter in their thought-provoking book Teaching as a Subversive Activity 'What's worth knowing?'. They present the interesting scenario of what if all syllabi, curricula, and textbooks disappeared ("the most common material impeding innovation in the schools" (p.52)), what would you do?

Postman and Weingartner (1971) propose one idea of having a questions-based curriculum where importantly, the students place value in the questions being asked and these questions must help students learn concepts that will help them survive in the present and future world. The students are central in asking the questions, but do not necessarily have an exclusive input on deciding what questions are important. Hence, the teacher can still play an important role. An important point raised by such a scenario is including 'the why' of knowledge and more importantly, who is ultimately getting to decide it.

References:

-Cronin-Jones, L. (1991) 'Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235-250.

-Dillon, J. and Wals, A. (2006) 'On the dangers of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research', Environmental Education Research, 12(3/4), 549-558.-Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971) Teaching as a subversive activity, Harmondsworth: Pengiun.
-Tobin, K. and McRobbie, C. (1996) 'Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum', Science Education, 80, 223-241.
-Webb, M. (2005) 'Affordances of ICT in Science Learning: Implications for an Integrated Pedagogy', International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735.

-Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O. and Holmgren, S.-O. (2010) 'Teachers' language on scientific inquiry: Methods of teaching or methods of inquiry?' International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151-1172.

-Ng, W. and Gunstone, R. (2003) 'Science and computer-based technologies: attitudes of secondary science teachers', Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 243-264.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Publications

Follow me on ResearchGate for up-to-date information on new publications.

Donnelly, D.F., & Hume, A. (2015). Using collaborative technology to enhance pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 33(1), 61-87. doi:10.1080/02635143.2014.977782 [Link]

Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and characteristics of computer-based science inquiry learning environments for precollege students. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 572–608. doi:10.3102/0034654314546954 [Link]

Donnelly, D. F., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2014). “Just be quiet and listen to exactly what he’s saying”: Conceptualising power relations in inquiry oriented classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2029–2054. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.889867 [Link]

Donnelly, D. F., & Boniface, S. (2013). Consuming and creating: Early-adopting science teachers’ perceptions and use of a wiki to support professional development. Computers & Education, 68(1), 9-20. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.023 [Link]

Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2013). Enhancing the student experiment experience: Visible scientific inquiry through a virtual chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1571–1592. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1 [Link]

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O. and O'Reilly, J. (2011). A Framework for Teachers' Integration of ICT Into Their Classroom Practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469-1483. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu [Link]

Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J. and McGarr, O. (2011). Building blocks for PCK: A conceptual framework to support Shulman’s original construct. Proceedings of European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France, September 5-9. [Link]

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O. and O’Reilly, J. (2011). The promotion of scientific inquiry in Irish post-primary schools through the use of a virtual chemistry laboratory: Implications for teacher education. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 3638-3645), Chesapeake, VA: AACE. [Link]

Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J. and McGarr, O. (2010). A Practical Approach to the Promotion of Inquiry in Chemistry in Irish Post-Primary Schools: a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory. Proceedings of London International Conference on Education (LICE), London, 6-8 September. [Link]

Presentations

Vitale, J.M., Libby, G.F., Donnelly, D.F., McBride, E., & Linn, M.C. (2015). Comparing teacher use of logistic and conceptual indicators to guide online science inquiry. Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL, April 16-20.

Gobert, J.D., Sao Pedro, M.A., Linn, M.C., Donnelly, D.F., Buckley, B., & Ketelhut, D.J. (2015). Next generation learning and assessment environment for science inquiry practices. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting, San Jose, CA. February 12-16.

Linn, M., Gerard, L., Donnelly, D., Krajcik, J., & Lester, J. (2014). Navigating to NGSS success: Identifying a research agenda, DR K-12 PI Meeting, Washington DC, August 5-6.

Donnelly, D.F., & Hume, A. (2013) 'Pre-service teachers' perceptions of a wiki to support Content Representation (CoRe) design' in Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), Wellington, New Zealand, July 2-5.

Donnelly, D., Boniface, S. and Hume, A. (2012) 'Supporting New Zealand Teacher Professional Development Through CoRes and PaP-eRs On A Wiki' in International Conference on Chemistry Education (ICCE), Rome, Italy, July 15-20.

Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J. and McGarr, O. (2011) 'The Promotion of Scientific Inquiry in Teachers’ Practice through ICT: Affordances of a Virtual Chemistry Laboratory' in World Conference on Educational Technology Researches (WCETR), Nicosia, Cyprus, July 6-10.

Donnelly, D., O’Reilly, J. and McGarr, O. (2011) 'Facilitating scientific enquiry in Irish post-primary schools through the use of a virtual chemistry laboratory' in FACiLiTATE conference, Dublin, May 26-27.

Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J. and McGarr, O. (2009) 'A Virtual Chemistry Laboratory for Irish Post-Primary Schools' in Educational Studies Association of Ireland (ESAI) Conference, Kilkenny, April 23-24.