[MUSIC] In the last couple of modules, we looked at some assumptions underlying a traditional or transmissionist perspective on learning as well as some examples of students' ideas. In this module, I'd like to look at some examples of instruction or creating learning environments that focus on students' ideas that is creating learning environments from a constructivist perspective. And so before getting to some examples, I'd like to look back at some of the major ideas that we've looked at in the previous two modules. So thinking about transmissionism versus constructivism, a transmissionist's assumptions are as a teacher, I should focus on showing and telling that is focused on my actions so that I can get my ideas across clearly. And that students talking with each other distracts them from listening to me as the teacher. These assumptions are questioned by a constructivist perspective in saying that as a teacher, my focus should be on my students' ideas. I can't get my ideas across but I can help students express, critique, and modify their ideas. And finally that student interaction which is something that you want to avoid in the transmissionist perspective is central in processes of expressing, critiquing, and modifying ideas. Now a transmissionist perspective, if you remember, is based on what Mike already called the conduit metaphor, which again is supported by the English language that supports ideas such as, let me give you an idea of what I'm thinking about, similar to let me give you a taste of this drink. So in the same way that I can give you some liquid in a little glass, I can give you my ideas in my words or in my drawings. And so I can directly transfer my idea to you. And this is, of course, strongly questioned by a constructivist perspective, but it does apply in some contexts. For example, I talked about my learning to type or giving someone my phone number. I think these are examples where the person that I'm communicating with shares my conceptual structures about typing about what fingers are, what keys are, that sort of thing, about what a phone number is. And so I can fairly easily transmit that information and it's understood as intended. And then in typing for example, just practicing the behavioral skills of typing quickly and accurately. That's the whole story. But contrast that with areas that have a lot of conceptual depth such as chemistry or physics, biology, mathematics, social sciences. Pretty much most of the areas that we teach in schools, there's a lot of conceptual depth. And so this way of thinking about communication fails rather miserably. And so if you remember we talked about the two boys who were one boy was trying to help another boy construct a structure from blocks. And it failed because the boy on the right did not have the same pieces as the boy on the left, a metaphor for the teacher trying to communicate ideas for which the student does not have the same conceptual structure, the same ideas as the teacher. And so thinking about transmissionism versus constructivism, we see that the conduit metaphor represented on the left is best replaced by a more constructivist perspective on communication on the right. That the teacher formulates an idea in his or her mind, tries to transmit that to the student via media. But then the student construes that explanation in ways that can often be quite different than the formulated explanation of the teacher. And so coming from this perspective, a teacher would realize that what I tell you as the student you will not necessarily take on board. And so there needs to be a lot of interaction. Similarly, this perspective can be brought to bear in thinking about students interaction, that Student 1 talking to student to, again, they might not share similar ideas. And so Student 1 would formulate something to say, express that, and then Student 2 would have some kind of construal of what the first student said. Then the Student 2 might formulate something to say back. And this would go back and forth until the students begin to come to some sort of shared understanding if you will. So we see that this perspective of constructivism is very helpful. And it contrasts rather strongly with a conduit or transmissionist perspective on communication or interaction. And further, that this perspective on interaction applies both to teachers interacting with students, students interacting with each other in small groups, even teachers interacting with groups, large groups, and classroom discussions. This model, I think, helps to understand the difficulties that can arise when communicators do not share the same conceptual structure as they might if they're giving each other phone numbers. But if you're talking about something with more conceptual depth then it's more likely than not that they won't share the same conceptual structures. Now this raises some instructional issues of course. First, that in conceptually rich areas, students don't have the right conceptual pieces. And so transmitting ideas is not possible as we saw with the two boys trying to build the same structure. And then instead students need to express critique and modify their ideas as we saw with the more constructivist drawing of communication. And finally it's important to engage students in sensemaking activities, contexts that bring up conceptual issues, and interactive explorations and discussions about ideas. I'd like at this point to invite some of the experts that we have talked with previously to share some of their ideas about these sort of general ideas about sensemaking, students' ideas, etc. So we talked so far with Stella Vosniadou, Jim Minstrell, and Carol Smith. And I'd like to introduce one more expert, Mark Windschitl, who is a former middle school science teacher and is now a professor of science education at the University of Washington. And he talks about something that he calls ambitious science teaching, which is being involved with students from a very constructivist perspective and trying to help them express, critique, and modify their ideas. And so here is Mark Windschitl talking about what he calls ambitious science teaching. >> So ambitious science teaching, if you were to take a bumper sticker version of that it would probably be something like working on and with students' ideas over time. That's a simple phrase, but underlying that, are the kinds of teaching practices that are very different from what we know, what the status quo is currently, especially in the United States. >> So as Mark Windschitl said, it's important for students, for us to work on and with students' ideas over time. But I think it's also important as as Carol Smith discussed in the last module, it's also important to realize that sometimes students' ideas are even at a very basic level, very different from our idea as teachers. And to not take for granted that students understand some very basic things and that oftentimes involving students in discussions about this very basic ideas can be very, very productive. >> Once you recognize some of the starting ideas, I think teachers can see the need to ask some very basic questions of the class that they might have not asked because they thought they were just too trivial to ask. [LAUGH] So sometimes asking what might seem like trivial questions really opens up a wonderful discussion that allows students to articulate their views, to make arguments for their views, to have students offer counter arguments. It gets a discussion going and opens up a space that can be very, very productive. >> Additionally, after involving students in discussions of some very basic ideas, this can lead to discussions of more advanced ideas. >> I think that many times people are as I said, don't recognize the interest, the excitement that can come from debating what seem like very simple ideas. And yet they are very productive in teaching kids a lot about science and doing serious science and asking them to construct explanations for a limited set of phenomena. And then you can keep upping the ante. Well, here are some new phenomena. Can your model handle that? What happens if I mix alcohol and water? And how can the volume of the two be less but I'm asked the same? Now that's a real puzzle, given this decomposition model because you think they should just add, right? And so now that's something that would really motivate some other way or thermal expansion, right? A ball and ring, we take this ball, we haven't changed the material. Now it's expanded, but its mass hasn't changed, and these are all phenomena that can be used really productively. And of course, much later, all sorts of chemical phenomena that call for not just a particulate model of matter but a molecular like atoms and molecules. It's still stuff. >> So it's very important to involve students in sensemaking discussions about their ideas so that they can express, critique, and modify their ideas. But this is often very difficult for teachers who have not been trained to do these kinds of interactive discussions. Mark Windschitl discusses this point. >> Teachers do care deeply about their students' ideas, that's great. The challenges are that American science teachers engage kids in more activity per lesson than just about anybody in the world. And they do not connect that activity to any big science ideas. They will hear students' ideas, they appreciate that, but they don't know what to do with them. Questioning discourses by the teacher are really impoverished. They are just not as dynamic as they should be in American science classrooms. And so we need to shift all of those things to make learning more meaningful and dynamic in the classroom. >> So in conceptually rich areas, it's important to engage students in interactive discussions to express, critique, and modify their ideas. However, how can we do that? What can teachers do to create such sensemaking learning environments? The point that Mark Windschitl raises that oftentimes this is not something that as teachers we have been taught or trained to do. And so in the next lectures, I'd like to revisit some earlier conceptual questions, the Monty Hall problem and the hole in the paper question, that hopefully you had a chance to engage with on your own and hopefully in discussions with others in the class. And to think about and look at some of the interactions that I've had with my own students about that, about those questions. And also, then to look at examples of constructivist learning environments that others have created. And what are some implications of those constructivist learning environments? [MUSIC]
