2/23-Elizabeth-honing in on how to teach (Harlow)

I really liked the Harlow, et al article because it applied more directly to what I was concerned about with regards to teaching and where I was at in my life (i.e. college).   In her article, Harlow focused on a “knowledge in pieces,” approach to understand potential teachers’ views on teaching (1099).  According to diSessa (found in Harlow’s article), “knowledge in pieces” refers to the general ideas about phenomena that many people hold due to their interaction with the world around them.  Thus, an individual’s ideas can either be applied appropriately or inappropriately to explain and make sense of a specific scientific concept.  This is both in play with the student and teacher.  The example that Harlow, et al gave about “closer is stronger” and the misconceptions that come along with it when applied to summertime and the position of the sun was directly observed in my Science Literacies class last semester.  My fellow classmates and I partook in a student activity where we had to draw the earth and the position of the sun at different times of year and explain them to the class.  As revealed, some students did not fully understand that the sun is not closer to the earth in summertime, resulting in the temperature increasing, due to general ideas that when put into words mimicked “closer is stronger.”  Furthermore, we watched a video where 8^th graders tried to explain this phenomenon, and similar results were observed.  Harlow goes on to define “pedagogical resources,” which is the focus of her study, as the ideas about teaching within the knowledge of pieces and came to the conclusion that many potential teacher held four main resources, which can be applied inappropriately or appropriately: 1) the teacher’s role is to provide the right answer, 2) guiding students is less certain that telling them, 3) good model includes scientific terms, and 4) children are creative thinkers. 

            All the participants took the Physics for Teaching course, which after modification, contained PET, which used model-based instruction and included LAL.  These components made the class less of a content/knowledge based class and more of a discussion and learning about learning, which included actually completing some student activities, then watching videos of students doing the same thing, and reflecting of the process of learning science.

            This article tied to many previous article, especially The Framework, diSessa, and Schwarz which were directly referred to.  The tie to The Framework, was clearly evident in the article’s focus on model-based instruction, and the reference to the 8 core practices, especially numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.  While we did not read the article where diSessa defined “knowledge in pieces,” she did focus on the importance of communication and clarity in her novel, Changing Minds, which is critical for teachers (and students) to succeed in the classroom and for modeling to become “infrastructural.”  Finally, Schwarz was also mentioned in Harlow’s article regarding three practices that potential/new teachers must strive to do: 1) engage students in science, 2) organize instruction, 3) understand student ideas (1100).  This follows with what we previously read from Schwarz, who emphasized that successful modeling is an interactive process that involves constant revision, argumentation, and investigation (engagement).  Furthermore, he noted that modeling is a dynamic, ever-changing process where students constantly change their models as their own understanding develops and teachers are there to help guide them (understanding ideas).         

As previously discussed, the class that was studied greatly mimicked Science Literacies, where we partook in many of the same activities that students in the videos we watched after did too.  We saw similarities and differences in the way we approached scientific ideas and were able to more fully identify with student thinking, which is critical for student success.  This idea of LAL has also applied to the labs we do in Science Modeling.  It directly applies to Harlow’s words, “Teacher learners discuss their initial ideas about a particular physics concept, use computer-simulated and/or laboratory experiments to help them develop their understanding of this concept, and discuss their observations and interpretations within their small groups” (1103).  In our lab activities, we manipulate the computational models, slowly gaining evidence and building up our understanding of certain physics ideas.  Furthermore, when we did not understand something, such as the secret number or how to obtain certain colors, we discussed it amongst ourselves and furthermore manipulated the models to come to a greater understanding.   

Questions:

1)   Harlow mentioned the problem of a lack of actual opportunity or practice for potential teachers to teach.  Do you think the new opportunities where teachers have residency and engage in student teaching for a longer period of time is useful?

2)   What is a good way to organize instruction?  Should you focus more on student ideas or teacher ideas?  How much room for “flexibility,” I guess you could say, should you have?