Learning: from speculation to science

Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R. (2000). Learning: from speculation to science, Chapter 1 in How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Summary & Key Ideas

• One of the hallmarks of the new science of learning is its emphasis on learning with understanding.
• Humans are viewed as goal-directed agents who actively seek information.
• New knowledge must be constructed from existing knowledge -- THEREFORE teachers need to pay attention to the incomplete understandings, the false beliefs, and the naive renditions of concepts that learners bring with them to a given subject
• A common misconception regarding “constructivist” theories of knowing (that existing knowledge is used to build new knowledge) is that teachers should never tell students anything directly but, instead, should always allow them to construct knowledge for themselves. After people have first grappled with issues on their own, “teaching by telling” can work extremely well.
• It is important to help people take control of their own learning. Since understanding is viewed as important, people must learn to recognize when they understand and when they need more information. What strategies might they use to assess whether they understand someone else’s meaning? What kinds of evidence do they need in order to believe particular claims? How can they build their own theories of phenomena and test them effectively? [metacognition]

Key Findings from Research on Learning and Learners

• Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.
• To develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
• A “metacognitive” approach to instruction can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them.

Implications for Teaching

• Teachers must draw out and work with the preexisting understandings that their students bring with them.
• Teachers must teach some subject matter in depth, providing many examples in which the same concept is at work and providing a firm foundation of factual knowledge
• The teaching of metacognitive skills should be integrated into the curriculum in a variety of subject areas.

Other interesting ideas

• Learning is influenced in fundamental ways by the context in which it takes place. A community-centered approach requires the development of norms for the classroom and school, as well as connections to the outside world, that support core learning values

Critique of PD programs for teachers. Professional development programs for teachers, for example, frequently:

• Are not learner centered. Rather than ask teachers where they need help, they are simply expected to attend prearranged workshops.
• Are not knowledge centered. Teachers may simply be introduced to a new technique (like cooperative learning) without being given the opportunity to understand why, when, where, and how it might be valuable to them. Especially important is the need to integrate the structure of activities with the content of the curriculum that is taught.
• Are not assessment centered. In order for teachers to change their practices, they need opportunities to try things out in their classrooms and then receive feedback. Most professional development opportunities do not provide such feedback. Moreover, they tend to focus on change in teaching practice as the goal, but they neglect to develop in teachers the capacity to judge successful transfer of the technique to the classroom or its effects on student achievement.
• Are not community centered. Many professional development opportunities are conducted in isolation. Opportunities for continued contact and support as teachers incorporate new ideas into their teaching are limited, yet the rapid spread of Internet access provides a ready means of maintaining such contact if appropriately designed tools and services are available.

Science as progressive discourse

Bereiter, C. (1994) Implications of postmodernism for science, or, Science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.

Summary:
+ Postmodemism's rejecting of the possibility of an objective stance has led some educators to begin treating scientific knowledge as merely a matter of elite consensus (Most scientists believe that ...).
+ Bereiter argues that objectivity is not an essential claim of science, but progress is.
+ Everything scientists do takes place within a framework that presupposes the advancement of knowledge as a historical fact and an attainable goal.
+ Progress is the foundation of all our scientific beliefs.
+ Scientific theories cannot be verified [to attain absolute certainty]; they can at most be falsified. Progress therefore arises from continual criticism and efforts to overcome criticisms by modifying or replacing theories.
+ Sometimes people with opposing views can engage in discourse that leads to a new understanding that everyone involved agrees is superior to their own previous understanding. This is the process of dialectic, in which thesis and antithesis give rise to a synthesis, which transcends the original contradictions.

What does it takes to make a discourse progressive?
1. A commitment to work toward common understanding satisfactory to all.
2. A commitment to frame questions and propositions in ways that allow evidence to be brought to bear on them.
3. A commitment to expand the body of collectively valid propositions.
4. A commitment to allow any belief to be subjected to criticism if it will advance the discourse.

Other Key Ideas:
If we regard the scientific method not as a set of rules of procedure or standards of judgment, but as a form of discourse involving certain strong commitments on the part of those who participate, then the issue of leaching the scientific method takes on quite a different aspect.

The question is not should students be taught to think in a scientific way but should they be expected to participate in a scientific kind of discourse?

We may think of science as a continuing discourse that went on before our time and that will continue after it.

Classroom discussions may be thought of as part of the larger ongoing discourse, not as preparation for it or as after-the-fact examination of the results of the larger discourse.

The role of textbooks and other authoritative expressions becomes less problematic if we accept the view of science as one gigantic discourse, which at any moment is represented by thousands of little discourses going on here and there, including those taking place in classrooms.

Bereiter supports a view of science education in which students are actually part of the scientific enterprise rather than onlookers or postulants.

Science is an unusually progressive kind of discourse and and science education is about finding ways to bring students into that discourse.

Cognition and learning

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, L. B (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: MacMillan.

This chapter by Greeno et al. gives a good overview of behaviorist, cognitive, socio-cultural perspectives on knowing, learning and transfer, and the nature of motivation and engagement.

It compares and contrasts the views and assertions of three main theoretical frameworks (behaviorist, cognitive, socio-cultural) on key thematic issues and questions about cognition and learning.

The chapter also discusses how these three theoretical perspectives play out in

• the design of learning environments
• formulating curricula
• constructing assessments

What is the relationship between these three perspectives? One possibility is that each theory accounts for different types of learning and knowing. Another is that these theories are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes they can support and interact with one another.

It is the view Greeno et al. that the role of theories of cognition and learning is not to prescribe a set of practices that should be followed, but rather to assist in clarifying alternative practices.

In the conclusion, they say, "Reforming practices requires the transformation of people's understanding of principles that are assumed - perhaps implicitly - in the practices, and that theoretically oriented research can assist in identifying these principles and suggest ways of accomplishing the transformations."

This reading led me to reflect about my own experience of learning how to play tennis. Initially, it was a lot of trial and error until I figured out how to hit the ball, serve, hot backhands, lob volley, etc. This seemed like behaviorist learning. When I started taking classes and getting private lessons, my tennis improved dramatically. In addition to playing more, it was helpful to be aware of some of the theories and concepts around things like top spring, transfer of momentum, strategy, etc. This more cognitive approach helped my game tremendously. But it still took a lot of drill and practice, development of "muscle memory." My tennis game also improved as I played with different people and joined a local tennis club. The socio-cultural aspect of tennis also supported my learning, and provided motivation to improve.

To me, the question is not which theory of cognition and learning is "correct" or "most true" but rather when do they apply and how. In addition, these theories may have great explanatory value - i.e., help us understand why educational practice worked (or did not work) with a particular set of learners in a certain context.