Replacing old ideas with new...

I don’t know about the Wisconsin folks, but in the first weeks (well, months) of our science methods class here at Drake, several of us students were experiencing what Professor Kruse referred to as cognitive dissonance.  We were used to science education in general as what most of us had experienced in school; very procedural, individual, “black and white.”  Basically, going against much of what has been identified as the nature of science.  Several of us, including myself, were at first reluctant to part ways with our ideas of how science should be taught.  I guess for me, after a few class meetings I was ready to embrace what Professor Kruse was teaching us, mostly because I knew there was a better way…probably due to a lack of satisfaction from the majority of my own education, past career, etc.

In my last post, I talked about my frustrations with questioning during a math practicum.  Approaching education in a much different light than my own education has been difficult.  I guess what I have thought about were those 1^st-grade students that I was teaching, and the cognitive dissonance that they were experiencing during my lesson.  It’s a two-way street; acquiring and delivering information. I was only teaching those students for 30-minutes, so no wonder they thought I was “weird.”  They may have been uncomfortable for that short amount of time, but after the following recess, snapped back to their “old” ways just in time for the teacher to lecture about pilgrims and the steps to make a “hand turkey.”  Maybe this teacher isn’t privy to more inquiry-based teaching, or maybe she’s also just reluctant to accept teaching in research-based effective methods supported by learning theories.  Certainly, there is ease in complacency.

I recently read an article about constructivist teaching, which incorporates cognitive dissonance as part of its “criteria.” I should note that as a future teacher, constructivist learning theory is only one of the learning theories that are important to consider…However, I liked this information, in particular:

Constructivism is a theory of learning and not a theory of curriculum design

(Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Richardson, 2003). Therefore, when a lesson is said to

be constructivist, it does not necessarily follow a specific formula. Instead a

constructivist lesson is one that is designed and implemented in a way that creates

the greatest opportunities for students to learn, regardless of the techniques used.

Implementation of the theory is the crux of constructivism…If students are presented with new knowledge in a way that assumes they should acquire this knowledge independent of their

prior knowledge, the lesson is deterministic and cannot be considered constructivist…

As I conclude my blog posts on effective methods for teaching science, I am reminded that every teacher brings certain nuances to their method of teaching, but effective teaching is grounded in research; learning theories.  There is not a universal, best way to approach the delivery of content (a “style”), which is what I was determined to uncover at the beginning of this semester.  Rather, I should be mindful of that knowledge and determined in its implementation.  

Baviskar, S. (et. al.) (2009).  Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist teaching method articles.  International Journal of Science Education: 541-550.