Journal (total articles published in 2013a) | Articles using misconception (“nondisapproving” articles/total articles) | Articles using other terms |
---|---|---|
LSE (59) | 23/24 | Alternative conception (4) |
Commonsense conception (2) | ||
Naïve conception (1) | ||
Preconception (4) | ||
Cognition and Instruction (16) | 3/3 | None |
Journal of the Learning Sciences (17) | 4/4 | Commonsense science knowledge (1) |
Naïve conception (1) | ||
Prior conception (1) | ||
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (49) | 11/13 | Commonsense idea (1) |
Naïve conception (1) | ||
Preconception (5) | ||
Science Education (36) | 10/11 | Naïve conception (1) |
Article | Example of constructivist language | Example of language suggesting confrontation |
---|---|---|
Andrews et al., 2011 | “Constructivist theory argues that individuals construct new understanding based on what they already know and believe.… We can expect students to retain serious misconceptions if instruction is not specifically designed to elicit and address the prior knowledge students bring to class” (p. 400). | Instructors were scored for “explaining to students why misconceptions were incorrect” and “making a substantial effort toward correcting misconceptions” (p. 399). “Misconceptions must be confronted before students can learn natural selection” (p. 399). “Instructors need to elicit misconceptions, create situations that challenge misconceptions.” (p. 403). |
Baumler et al., 2012 | “The last pair [of students]''s response invoked introns, an informative answer, in that it revealed a misconception grounded in a basic understanding of the Central Dogma” (p. 89; acknowledges students’ useful prior knowledge). | No relevant text found |
Cox-Paulson et al., 2012 | No relevant text found | This paper barely mentions misconceptions, but cites sources (Phillips et al., 2008 ; Robertson and Phillips, 2008 ) that refer to “exposing,” “uncovering,” and “correcting” misconceptions. |
Crowther, 2012 | “Prewritten songs may explain concepts in new ways that clash with students’ mental models and force revision of those models” (p. 28; emphasis added). | “Songs can be particularly useful for countering … conceptual misunderstandings.… Prewritten songs may explain concepts in new ways that clash with students’ mental models and force revision of those models” (p. 28). |
Kalinowski et al., 2010 | “Several different instructional approaches for helping students to change misconceptions … agree that instructors must take students’ prior knowledge into account and help students integrate new knowledge with their existing knowledge” (p. 88). | “One strategy for correcting misconceptions is to challenge them directly by ‘creating cognitive conflict,’ presenting students with new ideas that conflict with their pre-existing ideas about a phenomenon… In addition, study of multiple examples increases the chance of students identifying and overcoming persistent misconceptions” (p. 89). |
A leader who gives trust earns trust.His profile is low, his words measured.His work done well, all proclaim,“Look what we’ve accomplished!”—Lao Tsu, Tao Te ChingProblem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) are at least as old as apprenticeship among craftsmen. One can envision the student of metals at the smelting furnace, the student of herbal remedies at the plant collector''s side, or the student of navigation beside the helm. In recent years, however, PBL and CBL have emerged as powerful teaching tools in reforming science education. Most notably, these approaches exhibit key features advocated by educational researchers. First, both are fundamentally student-centered, acknowledging the importance of actively engaging students in their own learning. As the responsibility for learning shifts toward students, the role of the instructor also shifts, from the conventional authority who dispenses final-form knowledge to an expert guide, who motivates and facilitates the process of learning, while promoting the individual development of learning skills. The efforts of an ideal teacher may well be hidden. As Lao Tsu suggested centuries ago, educational achievement is measured by what a learner learns more than by what the teacher teaches.Second, in orienting more toward student perspectives and motivations, CBL and PBL tend to focus on concrete, specific occasions—cases or problems—wherein the target knowledge is relevant. Contextualizing the learning contributes both to student motivation and to the making of meaning (construed by many educators as central to functional memory and effective learning). The cases and problems are not merely supplemental illustrations or peripheral sidebars, but function centrally as the very occasion for learning. This style of learning resonates with views of cognitive scientists that our minds reason effectively through analogy and models, as much as through the interpretation and application of general, abstract principles.A third feature, and perhaps the most transformative, is the potential of PBL and CBL to contribute to the development of thinking skills and an understanding of the nature of science, beyond the conventional conceptual content. As students work on cases or problems, they typically exercise and hone skills in research, analysis, interpretation, and creative thinking. In addition to benefiting from practice, students may also reflect explicitly on their experience and thereby deepen their understanding of scientific practices. But such lessons do not emerge automatically. The instructor must make deliberate choices and design activities mindfully to support this aim.In these three ways, PBL and CBL have proven valuable in many settings and hold promise more widely. An instructor first venturing into the realm of CBL and PBL, however, may easily be overwhelmed by the variety of approaches and the occasional contradictions among them. The literature is vast and includes sometimes conflicting claims about appropriate or ideal methods. This paper aims to introduce some of the key dimensions and to invite reflection about the respective values and deficits of various alternatives. It hopes to inform pedagogical choices about learning objectives and foster corresponding clarity in classroom practice. It also hopes, indirectly, to promote clarity on values and learning outcomes among current practitioners and in educational research and to provide perspective on the discord among advocates of specific approaches.1The first two sections below introduce CBL and PBL, respectively, as instructional strategies reflecting certain values. (A teacher might well adopt both simultaneously.) Beyond these basics, there are many dimensions or distinctions to consider, addressed in successive sections (and summarized in 2 In addition, PBL gained recognition largely from applications in professional education—medical, business, and law schools (Butler et al., 2005 ). These instructional contexts tend to emphasize training. Contemporary science education, by contrast, tends to highlight student-based inquiry and understanding of scientific practices (National Research Council, 2012 ). The original approaches, as models, may need adapting. Most notably, the difference in context, between learning how to apply knowledge and learning how knowledge is generated, can be critical, as described below. The principles surveyed here can help guide the teacher in crafting an appropriate instructional design to accommodate specific contexts and values.
• Occasion for engaging content: Contextualized (case based) or decontextualized? |
---|
• Mode of engaging student: Problem based or authority based? |
• Instructional focus: Content, skills, and/or nature of science? |
• Epistemic process: Apply knowledge or generate new knowledge? |
• Setting: Historical case or contemporary case? |
• Epistemic process: Open-ended or close-ended? |
• Authenticity: Real case or constructed case? |
• Clarity of problem: Well defined, ill defined, or unspecified? |
• Social epistemic dimension: Collaborative or individual? |
• Complexity of social epistemics: Single perspective or multiple perspectives? |
• Scope: Narrow or broad? |
• Level of student autonomy: Narrow or broad? |
Despite persistent class and race inequalities in educational attainment and achievement in the U.S., hegemonic cultural ideologies and urban education politics and policies continue to proceed from an insistence that education is the great equalizer. These ideologies do not take into account the ways that normative school culture and pedagogical praxes take for granted middle-class, white-supremacist cultural assumptions that privilege student populations whose social locations already probabilize high rates of achievement and attainment. Vast research published in The Urban Review and elsewhere has demonstrated the importance and efficacy of culturally sustaining pedagogy for improving outcomes for economically marginalized students of color (Allen in Urban Rev 47(1):209–231, 2015; Delpit in Harv Educ Rev 56(4):379–386, 1995; Farinde-Wu et al. in Urban Rev 49(2):279–299, 2017; Gay in culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice, Teachers College Press, New York, 2010; Graves in Berkeley Rev Educ 5(1):5–32, 2014; Jemal in Urban Rev 49(4):602–626, 2017; Ladson-Billings in Crossing over to Canaan: the journey of new teachers in classrooms, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2001, The dreamkeepers: successful teachers of African American children, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 2009; Lee in Culture, literacy and learning: taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind, Teachers College Press, New York, 2006; Marciano in Urban Rev 49(1):169–187, 2016; Nieto in Language, culture, and teaching: critical perspectives, Routledge, New York, 2010; Paris in Educ Res 41(3):93–97, 2012; Paris and Alim in Culturally sustaining pedagogies: teaching and learning for justice in a changing world, Teachers College Press, New York, 2017; Wiggan and Watson in Urban Rev 48(5):766–798, 2016; Yosso in Race Ethn Edu, 8(1):69–91, 2005). This article uses rich ethnographic data from a transfer school in Brooklyn, New York that serves financially insecure youth of color who are “over-age and under-credited.” These data and my analysis showcase the expertise and indigenous knowledges of teachers who practice cultural relevance and critical racial awareness in order to engage, retain, graduate and prepare students who are historically and presently marked for failure by an education system that has always been more adept at reproducing social inequality than disrupting it (Borck in Qual Inq 20(10):1–8, 2016).
相似文献A long-asked question in children’s literature studies is how the child reads the very same book we (adults) have read. In 1984, Peter Hunt argued for a “childist criticism” proposing that young readers’ multiple individual responses to literature should inform adults’ critical practice. In this article, I propose that affect theory and new materialist epistemologies could reorient our critical practice in and with children’s literature. Using the concept of childist criticism (Hunt 1984, 1991) and Maggie MacLure’s (2013) notion of the “wonder of data,” I follow different encounters between children (and researchers) and the book La madre y la muerte/La partida (Laiseca et al., 2016). This book tells a macabre story about a mother that cannot bear to have her child taken away by Death. By following the book’s agency (García-González & Deszcz-Tryhubczak, 2020) in the research assemblage of different projects, I propose possible affective methodological orientations to post-representational research for children’s literature criticism.
相似文献Just as we need to know more about how children are transformed into pupils, so must we know more about how young persons (usually college students) are transformed into teachers
(Wax & Wax, 1971, pp. 10‐11)