Saturday, June 20, 2015
Update
I am currently teaching science at Oaks Mission High School. I began there in August, and have been fortunate to be able to help establish chess and robotics programs. We hope to send teams to the AEROGAMES competition each year and eventually establish a STARBASE program and science and engineering fair as well. I am involved in the after-school and before-school program "Mission Possible", announce the football games, and continue to pursue National Board Certification. I have excellent coworkers and students and supportive parents and administrators. I enjoy the atmosphere of a small school and community.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Dissertation Defense
I successfully defended my dissertation on Monday February 28, 2011. I want to express my appreciation to my committee members, family and friends.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Holmes Scholars Summer Institute
Participated in another rewarding 4 days in Las Vegas. Thanks to everyone involved.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
AACTE Day on the Hill
I was fortunate enough to be included in this trip to Washington DC. I was able to see the education process from the top down and meet with various congressional staffers. I also met Jim Inhofe and Ron Paul.
http://www.aacte.org/index.php?/component/option,com_events/Itemid,28/agid,21/day,17/month,06/task,view_detail/year,2009/
http://www.aacte.org/index.php?/component/option,com_events/Itemid,28/agid,21/day,17/month,06/task,view_detail/year,2009/
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Holmes Scholars, Gadugi, and Communities of Practice
Charles Helm-University of Minnesota
Tanetha Grosland-University of Minnesota
Geary Crofford-University of Oklahoma
Abstract
The Holmas Scholar Program, through its institutes, conferences,and other activities, supports the development of new scholars of color in education. Specifically, the Summer Institutes promote “Communities of Practice” among these individuals, not unlike the Cherokee concept of gadugi, in which members of a group work together to achieve a common goal, not just for the individuals’ benefit but also for the group, and society as a whole.
Introduction
My name is Geary Don Crofford. I am a Holmes Scholar and graduate student and assistant at the University of Oklahoma in the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education. I am seeking a doctoral degree in Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum in Science Education. I taught 3-12th grade science and mathematics for almost 20 years and earned a master’s degree in biology before undertaking PhD work at the age of 41. My research interests include professional development for inquiry-based science instruction, National Board Certification, and American Indian education. I am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. The director of the education department of a large American Indian tribe in a midwestern state recently related to me an informal and unpublished study carried out by a former superintendent of a school within the tribal boundaries. The school is small, rural, and comprised of pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade levels, and is a dependent district with a student population that is almost 100% American Indian. Over several years, the superintendent surveyed fourth-graders with regard to what they wanted to be when they grew up. Their answers ranged across the spectrum of vocations, from teachers and professional athletes to firefighters and cowboys. When the students were asked the same question four years later as eighth-graders, their responses were mostly limited to one of two; chicken pullers at the nearby food processing facility or line workers at the pie and cake factory in the same town.
This revelation was startling and disconcerting to me, especially coupled with the fact that American Indian student college attendance rates are low and drop-out rates are high, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors (Demmert, 2001). The discovery propelled an investigation of the role of science education in addressing American Indian student college attendance and retention. In fact, American Indian students are the least represented group in STEM majors and careers, both in sheer numbers as well as proportionally (Demmert, 2001).
Adequate science education, including development of critical thinking skills, for students before entering higher education is a crucial foundation of America’s technological and intellectual strength, which arises from its talented workforce trained in STEM majors (Babco, 2003). A possible approach for addressing the documented educational deficit among American Indian students is exemplified by the Native Science Connections Research Project (NSCRP) at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. The NSCRP project attempts to integrate relevant cultural knowledge and language into an inquiry-based science curriculum, and has demonstrated some initial success (Gilbert, 2008).
My personal experience after attending a summer science institute at the state’s flagship institution was that my students (mostly American Indian) responded well to inquiry-based science instruction in the form of learning cycles. Inquiry-based science instruction refers to science instruction that is focused on critical thinking and problem solving while emphasizing the need to evaluate teacher strategies to ensure that they align with the learning styles of particular students (Tomlinson, 2004). Greater student enthusiasm for science occurred in my third through eighth-grade classes, along with increased student comprehension, especially during the concept development and expansion/application phases of the learning cycles. This was particularly true when relating a concept to something from the students’ real-world environment and interests, while emphasizing the organization of the concept amongst their prior knowledge and applying it in a different context. This led, in part, to the school adopting the Carolina Biological Company’s Science and Technology for Children (STC) program. Science instruction-and specifically more inquiry-based science instruction-began to occur at the school. The faculty was encouraged to modify and adapt the STC curriculum program kits to reflect more of a true learning cycle teaching approach. In addition, this school has received national awards and recognition, in particular for the superintendent’s “psychomotor”, activity-based teaching and learning approach for its American Indian students (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1995). It was this anecdotal success and progress in my own school and classroom that prompted me to apply to the doctoral program in science education at the university offering a program of study based on inquiry, and specifically learning cycle, science education. My desire to learn more and play a role in helping Cherokees and others progress through their schooling also eventually led to my participation in the Holmes Program.
Traditional Cherokee culture and society has developed and lived by some fascinating and seemingly prescient concepts over the centuries. For instance, although all Cherokees had equal rights, their society leaned toward being matriarchal. Women had extraordinary influence in politics and family life (Perdue, 1998). In fact, a Cherokee woman could divorce her husband by simply placing his clothes and other personal effects outside the front door. Cherokee society was matrilineal, with a child’s clan affiliation being determined by the maternal lineage, not the paternal. A child’s maternal uncles and aunts were expected to play a large role in his or her upbringing, education, and training. The Cherokee also did not recognize the concept of private property. Land, livestock, and other property effectively belonged to everyone in a Cherokee communal group. Another traditional Cherokee concept, for which there is no equivalent single word in the English language, is gadugi. Gadugi is a term which refers to individuals working together to benefit everyone in a community (Hall, 1991). Historically, the word meant working together towards a common goal which would benefit all of the Cherokee. This included working together to build a community council house or working together to bring in the harvest of corn and other crops. It also meant being sure that everyone was clothed, fed, and sheltered. In modern times, this word means community service for which an individual did not expect payment or services in return. The word gadugi was derived from the Cherokee word for bread, which is gadu. Gadugi means "putting together the bread" as was done when corn flour, wild onions, and beans were mixed to make traditional bean bread for community feasts, meetings, and other social events. Today, the emphasis on gadugi by the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma has been renewed and emphasized. The nation has encouraged gadugi in the communities and as a political platform ideal to encourage greater community awareness, reciprocity, and assistance among the Cherokee people. This was done to encourage the Cherokee people to develop and sustain the goal of self reliance and independent sovereignty (Cherokee.org, 2009).
I was reminded of gadugi when I participated in the Holmes Scholar Summer Institute in Las Vegas last summer. A group of us decided to present on “Communities of Practice” (CoP) at the Holmes Program Conference in Jacksonville, Florida in February. Our intention was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Holmes Program in bringing togther like-minded individuals in a supportive and and productive environment to benefit us all. The concept of CoP refers to the process of social learning that occurs and shared sociocultural practices that emerge and evolve when people who have common goals interact as they strive toward those goals. The idea is attributed to modern cognitive anthropologists, including Rogoff (1988) and Lave and Wenger (1999). However, it seems to me the Cherokee had effectively captured the essence of CoP as gadugi centuries ago.
What can we gain by participating in a CoP? Problem solving, developing new capabilities, delineating and standardizing best practices, enhancing efficiency, and increasing talent and avoiding mistakes are all general potential benefits of this paradigm. How did we as new and developing scholars of color establish a CoP or gadugi in the Holmes Summer Institute? First and foremost, we had strong and caring mentors and facilitators. We experienced interaction and support from peers with similar goals, problems, and issues. This communication continued after the Institute, both electronically and in person. These face to face interactions could be at meetings and conferences, or even on our own home or nearby campuses with other Holmes Scholars, Alumni, and board members. We gained new perspectives and ideas for our personal research and teaching by learning about the other Scholars’ activities and responsibilities. Most importantly, in my opinion, we developed self-confidence and efficacy in a supportive environment to help us understand and carry out our roles as teachers, students, and researchers. Being a Holmes Scholar helped me find a “Community of Practice” or gadugi that will only serve to benefit me, my peers, and society in general.
References
Babco, E. L. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM higher education. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.cpst.org/STEM.pdf
Cherokee Nation website
Demmert, W. G. (2001). Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Gilbert, W. S. (2008). Native Science Connections Research Project. Partnerships for Indian
Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
Hall, M. C. (1991). Gadugi: A Model of Service-Learning for Native American Communities. Phi Delta Kappan. eric.ed.gov
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999) Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice,
in J. Leach and B. Moon (eds) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman/
The Open University.
Perdue, Theda 1998: Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700–1835 (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press).
Roggof, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1988). Models of teaching and learning: Participation
in a community of learners. In The Handbook of Education and Human Development,
D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, Eds. Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 388–414.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1995). Maryetta School: the center of a rural community and a case study of leadership and school improvement. Issues about Change, 5(1), 5-27.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-189.
Tanetha Grosland-University of Minnesota
Geary Crofford-University of Oklahoma
Abstract
The Holmas Scholar Program, through its institutes, conferences,and other activities, supports the development of new scholars of color in education. Specifically, the Summer Institutes promote “Communities of Practice” among these individuals, not unlike the Cherokee concept of gadugi, in which members of a group work together to achieve a common goal, not just for the individuals’ benefit but also for the group, and society as a whole.
Introduction
My name is Geary Don Crofford. I am a Holmes Scholar and graduate student and assistant at the University of Oklahoma in the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education. I am seeking a doctoral degree in Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum in Science Education. I taught 3-12th grade science and mathematics for almost 20 years and earned a master’s degree in biology before undertaking PhD work at the age of 41. My research interests include professional development for inquiry-based science instruction, National Board Certification, and American Indian education. I am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. The director of the education department of a large American Indian tribe in a midwestern state recently related to me an informal and unpublished study carried out by a former superintendent of a school within the tribal boundaries. The school is small, rural, and comprised of pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade levels, and is a dependent district with a student population that is almost 100% American Indian. Over several years, the superintendent surveyed fourth-graders with regard to what they wanted to be when they grew up. Their answers ranged across the spectrum of vocations, from teachers and professional athletes to firefighters and cowboys. When the students were asked the same question four years later as eighth-graders, their responses were mostly limited to one of two; chicken pullers at the nearby food processing facility or line workers at the pie and cake factory in the same town.
This revelation was startling and disconcerting to me, especially coupled with the fact that American Indian student college attendance rates are low and drop-out rates are high, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors (Demmert, 2001). The discovery propelled an investigation of the role of science education in addressing American Indian student college attendance and retention. In fact, American Indian students are the least represented group in STEM majors and careers, both in sheer numbers as well as proportionally (Demmert, 2001).
Adequate science education, including development of critical thinking skills, for students before entering higher education is a crucial foundation of America’s technological and intellectual strength, which arises from its talented workforce trained in STEM majors (Babco, 2003). A possible approach for addressing the documented educational deficit among American Indian students is exemplified by the Native Science Connections Research Project (NSCRP) at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. The NSCRP project attempts to integrate relevant cultural knowledge and language into an inquiry-based science curriculum, and has demonstrated some initial success (Gilbert, 2008).
My personal experience after attending a summer science institute at the state’s flagship institution was that my students (mostly American Indian) responded well to inquiry-based science instruction in the form of learning cycles. Inquiry-based science instruction refers to science instruction that is focused on critical thinking and problem solving while emphasizing the need to evaluate teacher strategies to ensure that they align with the learning styles of particular students (Tomlinson, 2004). Greater student enthusiasm for science occurred in my third through eighth-grade classes, along with increased student comprehension, especially during the concept development and expansion/application phases of the learning cycles. This was particularly true when relating a concept to something from the students’ real-world environment and interests, while emphasizing the organization of the concept amongst their prior knowledge and applying it in a different context. This led, in part, to the school adopting the Carolina Biological Company’s Science and Technology for Children (STC) program. Science instruction-and specifically more inquiry-based science instruction-began to occur at the school. The faculty was encouraged to modify and adapt the STC curriculum program kits to reflect more of a true learning cycle teaching approach. In addition, this school has received national awards and recognition, in particular for the superintendent’s “psychomotor”, activity-based teaching and learning approach for its American Indian students (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1995). It was this anecdotal success and progress in my own school and classroom that prompted me to apply to the doctoral program in science education at the university offering a program of study based on inquiry, and specifically learning cycle, science education. My desire to learn more and play a role in helping Cherokees and others progress through their schooling also eventually led to my participation in the Holmes Program.
Traditional Cherokee culture and society has developed and lived by some fascinating and seemingly prescient concepts over the centuries. For instance, although all Cherokees had equal rights, their society leaned toward being matriarchal. Women had extraordinary influence in politics and family life (Perdue, 1998). In fact, a Cherokee woman could divorce her husband by simply placing his clothes and other personal effects outside the front door. Cherokee society was matrilineal, with a child’s clan affiliation being determined by the maternal lineage, not the paternal. A child’s maternal uncles and aunts were expected to play a large role in his or her upbringing, education, and training. The Cherokee also did not recognize the concept of private property. Land, livestock, and other property effectively belonged to everyone in a Cherokee communal group. Another traditional Cherokee concept, for which there is no equivalent single word in the English language, is gadugi. Gadugi is a term which refers to individuals working together to benefit everyone in a community (Hall, 1991). Historically, the word meant working together towards a common goal which would benefit all of the Cherokee. This included working together to build a community council house or working together to bring in the harvest of corn and other crops. It also meant being sure that everyone was clothed, fed, and sheltered. In modern times, this word means community service for which an individual did not expect payment or services in return. The word gadugi was derived from the Cherokee word for bread, which is gadu. Gadugi means "putting together the bread" as was done when corn flour, wild onions, and beans were mixed to make traditional bean bread for community feasts, meetings, and other social events. Today, the emphasis on gadugi by the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma has been renewed and emphasized. The nation has encouraged gadugi in the communities and as a political platform ideal to encourage greater community awareness, reciprocity, and assistance among the Cherokee people. This was done to encourage the Cherokee people to develop and sustain the goal of self reliance and independent sovereignty (Cherokee.org, 2009).
I was reminded of gadugi when I participated in the Holmes Scholar Summer Institute in Las Vegas last summer. A group of us decided to present on “Communities of Practice” (CoP) at the Holmes Program Conference in Jacksonville, Florida in February. Our intention was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Holmes Program in bringing togther like-minded individuals in a supportive and and productive environment to benefit us all. The concept of CoP refers to the process of social learning that occurs and shared sociocultural practices that emerge and evolve when people who have common goals interact as they strive toward those goals. The idea is attributed to modern cognitive anthropologists, including Rogoff (1988) and Lave and Wenger (1999). However, it seems to me the Cherokee had effectively captured the essence of CoP as gadugi centuries ago.
What can we gain by participating in a CoP? Problem solving, developing new capabilities, delineating and standardizing best practices, enhancing efficiency, and increasing talent and avoiding mistakes are all general potential benefits of this paradigm. How did we as new and developing scholars of color establish a CoP or gadugi in the Holmes Summer Institute? First and foremost, we had strong and caring mentors and facilitators. We experienced interaction and support from peers with similar goals, problems, and issues. This communication continued after the Institute, both electronically and in person. These face to face interactions could be at meetings and conferences, or even on our own home or nearby campuses with other Holmes Scholars, Alumni, and board members. We gained new perspectives and ideas for our personal research and teaching by learning about the other Scholars’ activities and responsibilities. Most importantly, in my opinion, we developed self-confidence and efficacy in a supportive environment to help us understand and carry out our roles as teachers, students, and researchers. Being a Holmes Scholar helped me find a “Community of Practice” or gadugi that will only serve to benefit me, my peers, and society in general.
References
Babco, E. L. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM higher education. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.cpst.org/STEM.pdf
Cherokee Nation website
Demmert, W. G. (2001). Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Gilbert, W. S. (2008). Native Science Connections Research Project. Partnerships for Indian
Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
Hall, M. C. (1991). Gadugi: A Model of Service-Learning for Native American Communities. Phi Delta Kappan. eric.ed.gov
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999) Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice,
in J. Leach and B. Moon (eds) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman/
The Open University.
Perdue, Theda 1998: Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700–1835 (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press).
Roggof, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1988). Models of teaching and learning: Participation
in a community of learners. In The Handbook of Education and Human Development,
D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, Eds. Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 388–414.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1995). Maryetta School: the center of a rural community and a case study of leadership and school improvement. Issues about Change, 5(1), 5-27.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-189.
PIAGET’S INTELLIGENCE MODEL
Science should be taught as an inquiry-driven process, not as a static collection of facts to be memorized. It is also important to organize the concepts and terms that are learned in a way that reduces the world around the student to a logical system. The central purpose of American education is, or should be, helping the student develop the ability to think critically; that is, for the general populace to be able to gather and evaluate data, formulate an explanation and/or viewpoint and use appropriate terminology, and extend and apply it to their lives and prior learning. This correlates to Piaget’s Mental Functioning Model, which in turn is a component of his Theory of Intelligence, along with his Stages or Levels Model. This paper is a description and explanation of the graphic I have prepared to illustrate the overall Model of Intelligence as put forward by Piaget.
The attached graphic is intended to show the components and their relationships in Piaget’s model of intelligence. Mental functioning, content, and structures are represented as a flow chart or concept map, from top to bottom. Disequilibrium, as one of the four factors that drive development through the cognitive stages of development, is at the bottom, with the other three related factors. The four cognitive stages of development are shown progressing from right to left, with each stage encompassing the one(s) preceding it.
This leads to Piaget's model of mental functioning, or how we learn, and cultural differences notwithstanding, it applies to all humans. First is Piaget’s concept of assimilation as new information in the form of data and observations is acquired from the environment. Disequilibrium occurs as the new data is temporarily in conflict with one’s current mental structures. This conflict is reconciled as accommodation, or an understanding of the new mental function, occurs. Adaptation refers to the development of new mental structures, or schemes, as assimilation and accommodation take place. The organization of the new concept occurs as it is “filed” in our mental filing cabinet as one extends and applies it through various means and examines the new concept in different contexts. I must emphasize that research indicates this model accurately describes how we all think in all situations, cultural and societal influences notwithstanding.
Human intelligence is a concept that can be difficult to define, or defined in various ways. For our purposes the intelligence of an individual can be defined and graphically represented as consisting of four components:
• Quality of Thought (Stages) Model
• Mental Functioning
• Mental Structures
• Mental Content
The four stages of cognition or quality of thought are in order, sensorimotor, which is from birth to approximately 2.5 years old and is characterized by no object permanence, reflexive physical actions, no concept of space, time, self, or cause/effect, and no language development. This is followed by the preoperational stage from approximately 2 to 7 years of age in which children imitate, play, and talk but are also characterized by egocentrism and irreversibility. Also in this stage children recognize the permanence of objects, begin to conserve quantity, and conceptualize time, space, self, and cause/effect. Next is the concrete operational stage from 6 or 7 years of age to between 15 and 20 in which the child begins to use the mental operations of seriation, classification, correspondence, reversal, decentering, and inductive and deductive reasoning. Therefore, children in this stage can by the end of the stage conserve quantity, understand elementary geometry, and conduct practical play, imitation, and language. The final stage is called formal operational and in it hypothetico-deductive and abstract thought/language is finally realized. This stage is also characterized by combinatorial/propositional logic, understanding of relative space and time, reflective capacity, and recognition of the ideal self. Therefore, in this stage people can view the world from a perspective other than their own, formulate abstractions, and employ advanced logic. It is important to note that we do not move into one stage and leave the previous ones behind. Instead, elements of previous stages provide the underpinnings of subsequent stages, as represented in the attached diagram. The four factors associated with cognitive development, or movement through the stages, are:
• Maturation
• Physical and Logical-Mathematical Experiences
• Social Interaction and Transmission
• Disequilibrium
Maturation is the natural physiological process of growth and development that takes place as our bodies and in particular our nervous systems, advance and change throughout our lives. Physical and logical-mathematical experiences refer to the encounters we have with stimuli in our internal and external environments during our lifespan. Social interactions and transmissions are the shaping we undergo as we interact with other humans. Especially important here are the interactions with our families as children and our early schooling, as well as the culture(s) we are part of. Disequilibrium is discussed below.
It is changes in the mental structures and mental content that result from mental functioning as described by Piaget, as well as movement through the cognitive stages of development. In other words, mental structures are processes in the brain used to deal with incoming data, and differences in their nature and complexity distinguish one intellectual stage from another. Schemes are the basic unit of mental structures, and as new data is incorporated into existing structures assimilation occurs. Disequilibrium, or the mismatch between pre-existing mental structures and what has occurred, causes new schemes to develop, which is also known as accommodation. These new schemes or structures need to be properly aligned and placed among previous ones, and this is essentially organization. Mental content is how a child believes he or she sees the world, or how the child believes the world works. Put another way, mental content is how a person believes the world looks, and is a variant that cannot be separated from the structure and function components. In order to change content, the entire structure/function system must be turned back on and disequilibrium reestablished. It is important to recognize Piaget’s model of intelligence as a guiding descriptor for how we all respond and change mentally and physically throughout our lives, in all situations and at all ages.
In my experience, and in the literature, Piaget’s model of intelligence and its application in terms of learning cycles in the classroom hold up well. After teaching 3-12th grade science for 17 years, I realize many of my lessons were constructivist in nature, without me necessarily being cognizant of the terminology or original theories. Not having been grounded in a definite theory base as a science educator, I did however employ much exposition, particularly in my advanced high school classes. I essentially utilized what I refer to as a “shotgun” or “scattergun” approach to my teaching, believing that if I exposed the students to a concept in as many different ways as possible, the majority would, through some combination of teaching approaches and their own efforts, learn what they were supposed to. After my exposure to learning cycles in a summer workshop a few years ago, I was immediately a strong supporter and advocate of this teaching approach grounded in Piagetian theories, especially for younger students such as I was teaching at the time.
Despite this, I do occasionally have questions or concerns about constructivism, Piaget’s model, and learning cycles. For instance, initially it appeared to me that learning cycles simply reverse the “I” and the “V” in the traditional Inform, Verify, and Practice (IVP) teaching approach. This was hard for me to accept initially, and is still one of the most common complaints and/or criticisms I hear from students and other teachers, especially those that have yet to develop a comprehensive understanding of the theory base that supports the use of learning cycles in the classroom. Another point, as I described in my article summaries for this course, is that practitioners and researchers must be aware of cultural and social influences and factors concerning Piaget’s ideas and their applications. It can be problematic to try to assess the thinking process through language, for instance. Also, different cultures place varying values on different traits or characteristics in an individual. The population and sample sizes employed by Piaget might have been too small for universal applicability of his perceived results. For instance, many of his observations were based on his own children, presenting the problem of a very small n. In my opinion, Piaget seems to be guilty of sometimes just describing what was going as he observed, and often left it to others to try to explain and/or duplicate his results. Matthews (1997) stated that the reproducibility of Piaget’s work had more to do with the methods he employed than the actual cognitive stage of his subjects. I also believe that the stages of development are often presented as being sharply delineated, when in reality we are often in an overlapping or blended configuration as we develop, grow, mature, and experience the world. Modern neurobiological studies (Anderson, 2006) are supporting Piaget’s conclusions, which I find interesting. It would be interesting if Piaget had done more research on individuals beyond their teen years. Also, I have always been intrigued by the idea of a “super-formal” or “post-formal” stage, possibly exemplified by people like Einstein whose apparent mentally processes far exceed the majority of the population.
Bibliographic Note:
Rodger Bybee and Robert Sund, Piaget for Educators, (Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press, 1990).
Edmund Marek and Ann Cavallo, The Learning Cycle: Elementary School Science and Beyond, (Portsmouth NH, Heinemann, 1997).
National Science Education Standards from the National Academy of Sciences, 1995.
EDSC 5523 Class notes
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(10), 1037-1058.
Matthews, P.S.C. 1997. Problems with Piagetian Constructivism. Science &
Education. 6, 105-119.
The attached graphic is intended to show the components and their relationships in Piaget’s model of intelligence. Mental functioning, content, and structures are represented as a flow chart or concept map, from top to bottom. Disequilibrium, as one of the four factors that drive development through the cognitive stages of development, is at the bottom, with the other three related factors. The four cognitive stages of development are shown progressing from right to left, with each stage encompassing the one(s) preceding it.
This leads to Piaget's model of mental functioning, or how we learn, and cultural differences notwithstanding, it applies to all humans. First is Piaget’s concept of assimilation as new information in the form of data and observations is acquired from the environment. Disequilibrium occurs as the new data is temporarily in conflict with one’s current mental structures. This conflict is reconciled as accommodation, or an understanding of the new mental function, occurs. Adaptation refers to the development of new mental structures, or schemes, as assimilation and accommodation take place. The organization of the new concept occurs as it is “filed” in our mental filing cabinet as one extends and applies it through various means and examines the new concept in different contexts. I must emphasize that research indicates this model accurately describes how we all think in all situations, cultural and societal influences notwithstanding.
Human intelligence is a concept that can be difficult to define, or defined in various ways. For our purposes the intelligence of an individual can be defined and graphically represented as consisting of four components:
• Quality of Thought (Stages) Model
• Mental Functioning
• Mental Structures
• Mental Content
The four stages of cognition or quality of thought are in order, sensorimotor, which is from birth to approximately 2.5 years old and is characterized by no object permanence, reflexive physical actions, no concept of space, time, self, or cause/effect, and no language development. This is followed by the preoperational stage from approximately 2 to 7 years of age in which children imitate, play, and talk but are also characterized by egocentrism and irreversibility. Also in this stage children recognize the permanence of objects, begin to conserve quantity, and conceptualize time, space, self, and cause/effect. Next is the concrete operational stage from 6 or 7 years of age to between 15 and 20 in which the child begins to use the mental operations of seriation, classification, correspondence, reversal, decentering, and inductive and deductive reasoning. Therefore, children in this stage can by the end of the stage conserve quantity, understand elementary geometry, and conduct practical play, imitation, and language. The final stage is called formal operational and in it hypothetico-deductive and abstract thought/language is finally realized. This stage is also characterized by combinatorial/propositional logic, understanding of relative space and time, reflective capacity, and recognition of the ideal self. Therefore, in this stage people can view the world from a perspective other than their own, formulate abstractions, and employ advanced logic. It is important to note that we do not move into one stage and leave the previous ones behind. Instead, elements of previous stages provide the underpinnings of subsequent stages, as represented in the attached diagram. The four factors associated with cognitive development, or movement through the stages, are:
• Maturation
• Physical and Logical-Mathematical Experiences
• Social Interaction and Transmission
• Disequilibrium
Maturation is the natural physiological process of growth and development that takes place as our bodies and in particular our nervous systems, advance and change throughout our lives. Physical and logical-mathematical experiences refer to the encounters we have with stimuli in our internal and external environments during our lifespan. Social interactions and transmissions are the shaping we undergo as we interact with other humans. Especially important here are the interactions with our families as children and our early schooling, as well as the culture(s) we are part of. Disequilibrium is discussed below.
It is changes in the mental structures and mental content that result from mental functioning as described by Piaget, as well as movement through the cognitive stages of development. In other words, mental structures are processes in the brain used to deal with incoming data, and differences in their nature and complexity distinguish one intellectual stage from another. Schemes are the basic unit of mental structures, and as new data is incorporated into existing structures assimilation occurs. Disequilibrium, or the mismatch between pre-existing mental structures and what has occurred, causes new schemes to develop, which is also known as accommodation. These new schemes or structures need to be properly aligned and placed among previous ones, and this is essentially organization. Mental content is how a child believes he or she sees the world, or how the child believes the world works. Put another way, mental content is how a person believes the world looks, and is a variant that cannot be separated from the structure and function components. In order to change content, the entire structure/function system must be turned back on and disequilibrium reestablished. It is important to recognize Piaget’s model of intelligence as a guiding descriptor for how we all respond and change mentally and physically throughout our lives, in all situations and at all ages.
In my experience, and in the literature, Piaget’s model of intelligence and its application in terms of learning cycles in the classroom hold up well. After teaching 3-12th grade science for 17 years, I realize many of my lessons were constructivist in nature, without me necessarily being cognizant of the terminology or original theories. Not having been grounded in a definite theory base as a science educator, I did however employ much exposition, particularly in my advanced high school classes. I essentially utilized what I refer to as a “shotgun” or “scattergun” approach to my teaching, believing that if I exposed the students to a concept in as many different ways as possible, the majority would, through some combination of teaching approaches and their own efforts, learn what they were supposed to. After my exposure to learning cycles in a summer workshop a few years ago, I was immediately a strong supporter and advocate of this teaching approach grounded in Piagetian theories, especially for younger students such as I was teaching at the time.
Despite this, I do occasionally have questions or concerns about constructivism, Piaget’s model, and learning cycles. For instance, initially it appeared to me that learning cycles simply reverse the “I” and the “V” in the traditional Inform, Verify, and Practice (IVP) teaching approach. This was hard for me to accept initially, and is still one of the most common complaints and/or criticisms I hear from students and other teachers, especially those that have yet to develop a comprehensive understanding of the theory base that supports the use of learning cycles in the classroom. Another point, as I described in my article summaries for this course, is that practitioners and researchers must be aware of cultural and social influences and factors concerning Piaget’s ideas and their applications. It can be problematic to try to assess the thinking process through language, for instance. Also, different cultures place varying values on different traits or characteristics in an individual. The population and sample sizes employed by Piaget might have been too small for universal applicability of his perceived results. For instance, many of his observations were based on his own children, presenting the problem of a very small n. In my opinion, Piaget seems to be guilty of sometimes just describing what was going as he observed, and often left it to others to try to explain and/or duplicate his results. Matthews (1997) stated that the reproducibility of Piaget’s work had more to do with the methods he employed than the actual cognitive stage of his subjects. I also believe that the stages of development are often presented as being sharply delineated, when in reality we are often in an overlapping or blended configuration as we develop, grow, mature, and experience the world. Modern neurobiological studies (Anderson, 2006) are supporting Piaget’s conclusions, which I find interesting. It would be interesting if Piaget had done more research on individuals beyond their teen years. Also, I have always been intrigued by the idea of a “super-formal” or “post-formal” stage, possibly exemplified by people like Einstein whose apparent mentally processes far exceed the majority of the population.
Bibliographic Note:
Rodger Bybee and Robert Sund, Piaget for Educators, (Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press, 1990).
Edmund Marek and Ann Cavallo, The Learning Cycle: Elementary School Science and Beyond, (Portsmouth NH, Heinemann, 1997).
National Science Education Standards from the National Academy of Sciences, 1995.
EDSC 5523 Class notes
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(10), 1037-1058.
Matthews, P.S.C. 1997. Problems with Piagetian Constructivism. Science &
Education. 6, 105-119.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Article Summaries for EDSC 5523
Geary Don Crofford- University of Oklahoma
Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education- ILAC/Science Education
EDSC 5523 The Science of Learning Theories-Dr. Ed Marek
Journal Article Summary&Critique-Spring 2009
Cohen, L.M. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students.
Teaching Exceptional Children. 27, 70-79.
It is possible that minority students, particularly those that speak a language other than English at home, may be unfairly omitted from gifted and talented (G &T) programs. The author of this article specifically addresses the definition of giftedness, the assessment of gifted students, and the development and implementation of gifted programs. I know from personal experience this is true for Cherokees from more “traditional” families. In this article Cohen discusses why this is so, and what may be done about it. Piaget is specifically referenced by the author in the following passage, “an alternative to using English language standardized tests is the assessment of LEP students in their native language. These tests measure a variety of skills: creative thinking skills such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration; intellectual development based on Piaget's theory of development (Piaget, 1954; Piaget & Inhelder, 1973); language proficiency; and nonverbal perceptual skills of cognitive development.” The author does not focus on any one particular minority group, and I was pleasantly surprised to find several references to American Indian education, including statements such as, “different learning styles may also contribute to the underrepresentation of gifted and talented minority language students. Native Americans are often caught between the schools' value of independence and the home and community value of interdependence. In school, students generally sit in rows and face the teacher, whereas in Native American culture, everyone would be seated in a circle and decisions would be made collectively.” There is tremendous pressure on American Indian young people to stay close to home and family, even at the expense of foregoing higher education. Cohen discusses reasons minority students are underrepresented in G & T programs, and proceeds to discuss several techniques for the identification and inclusion of students from these groups. The author then gives several examples of programs that are available and could be adapted for these students, including resource rooms, cultural enrichment programs, acceleration or honors programs, and mentoring. Cohen proposes broadening the concept of giftedness, expanding research on giftedness and minority language students, exploring various program models, increasing staff awareness, and implementation of new programs. I included this article because it not only fit the parameters of the assignment but it also enhanced my knowledge of issues relating to some of the areas I am interested in for my own research. I felt it was a well-structured and comprehensive overview of the issue, and included Piagetian theory in the idea that we all think and develop mentally in a similar manner, notwithstanding cultural differences. As educators we need to have a broader and far-reaching definition of what constitutes giftedness and be able to challenge all of our students appropriately to help them reach their potential. This is particularly true for those of us in science education given the lack of American Indian students in particular, and minority students in general, in science, technology, mathematics, medicine, and engineering majors and careers. There are many facets of the growing issues associated with multiculturalism that we as science educators must recognize and address, as this and the other articles I selected for this assignment do. This article was clear, concise, and supported with many and appropriate references.
Ensign, J., Hargrave, E. V., & Lasso, R. (Eds.). (2008). Indigenous Knowledge in the Modern
Science Curriculum Using a Critical Pedagogy of Place Approach. Conference Proceedings, Masters in Teaching Program 2006-2008: Teaching the Child in Front of You in a Changing World. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College.
To accomplish this assignment I sought to acquire a variety of papers from differing sources, including research articles, book chapters, and this entry from the proceedings of a conference. I attempted to find sources that not only explored the connections between Piagetian theories and multiculturalism, but that also expanded my awareness and understanding of issues relevant to my own research interests, and in particular my dissertation. This presentation on global sustainability and Indigenous Knowledge (IK) versus Western Modern Science (WMS) in science curricula was especially enlightening, especially in terms of critical pedagogy and place-based education, two topics I was somewhat deficient in. According to the author, critical pedagogy provides the methods and goals necessary for students to recognize institutional and ideological oppression and to act against them for social justice. Place-based education is connected to a series of other educational approaches, including outdoor education, experiential learning, environmental education, bioregional education, environment-integrating concept (EIC), service learning, issue based learning, constructivism, community-oriented learning, and even multicultural education. The constructivist aspect of place-based education means that exposition is de-emphasized and students are encouraged to interact with their environment and develop and organize the appropriate concepts, as in Piagetian theory. The author argues that utilization of these approaches necessitates recognition of the potential conflict for American Indian students between Western Modern Science (WMS) and Indigenous Knowledge (IK) or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). The notion of employing an approach that incorporates the Piagetian model of mental functioning supports the idea that learning cycles may be particularly effective for educating American Indian students. However, the author’s thesis is that science and ecological sustainability cannot be taught effectively without recognizing and incorporating all worldviews, and subjecting American Indian and other students to only WMS is tantamount to a continuation of repression of Native peoples and colonialism. Environmental sustainability and cultural oppression must be addressed collectively, for everyone’s benefit. I found it interesting how this presentation referenced many other sources and articles from this assignment as well as my prospectus, and Aikenhead’s concept of border crossings in science instruction were especially emphasized. Politically, this may be the most potentially controversial of all the references I utilized in this assignment. I felt it was an ambitious, far-reaching and thoughtful article, and it prompted much deeper consideration on my part of the inter-connectedness of the topics of multiculturalism, science education, and environmental issues. These are the kinds of issues that we as science educators must consider as we struggle with sustainability of the earth and changes in our student populations. Also emphasized in the presentation was the idea of community, as exemplified by indigenous peoples. I feel this links with the idea of social constructivism, as well as the concept of “community of practice” I am presenting on at the upcoming Holmes Scholars Conference in Florida. Holistic instruction as represented in IK, incorporation of multiple world views, and environmental education should be integral components of science education as we progress through the 21st century and our earth becomes smaller and smaller. Hargrave provided one of the rare and special articles that ties together seemingly disparate elements into a crucial juncture that truly informs, inspires, and forces one to think.
Aikenhead, G.S., & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive
explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 269-
287.
In this article, Aikenhead and Jegede are concerned with how all students, but in particular First Nations (American Indians in Canada) move between the culture of their everyday lives and the “foreign” culture of their science instruction in school. Aikenhead has coined the phrase cultural border crossings to describe these junctures. Jegede then describes and explains the cognitive conflicts that result from these transitions in terms of what he calls collateral learning. The authors proceed to link the two ideas expressed above, and then call for a new discussion of how results from science education studies done in a multicultural context should be re-evaluated. Studies such as this are particularly important in light of the idea of teaching science for all students in the most effective and culturally sensitive approaches possible. Like the other writings I have chosen to summarize and critique, this is an article that satisfies the requirements of this assignment and at the same time further enriches my perspectives concerning my own research interests. I am interested in how American Indian students perceive science and scientists, and what conflicts arise from the indigenous contexts from which they, and especially those from the more “traditional” families and clans, view science education. American Indians are grievously underrepresented in science, technology, medical, mathematics, and engineering majors and careers. The article addresses three types of collateral learning; parallel, dependent, and secured. Parallel collateral learning is typified by two or more schema that do not conflict with each other. Dependent collateral learning results in a well-mixed amalgam of differing schema, and is similar to the Piagetian accommodation-assimilation model of information processing. According to the authors, “Dependent collateral learning occurs when a student’s preconception or indigenous belief is (a) contrasted with a different conception encountered in the science classroom, (b) given a tentative status, and then either (c) altered by reconstructing the original schema under the influence of the newly encountered schema, or (d) rejected and replaced by a newly constructed schema. In other words, students modify or reject their original schema because it makes sense to do so.” The article also refers to the process as acculturation. It should be noted that acculturation and cognitive assimilation are not the same, but both should be considered when education has a multicultural basis. Secured collateral learning is at the opposite end of the cognitive spectrum, when students hold on to two apparently conflicting schema, because enough reason is found to retain both. Interestingly, the article also discusses “Fatima’s Rules” which were described as ways students have found to pass their science courses without truly understanding the concepts being covered, such as memorizing the headings and vocabulary terms in their texts. I find this interesting because it supports the idea that learning cycles grounded in Piagetian theories, social constructivism, and meaningful learning may be particularly effective for American Indian students because they avoid rote learning through exposition and bring about true assimilation and organization of new schema. In my opinion Aikenhead and Jegede go a long way in this article in addressing the ideas of concept development and teaching science effectively to all students. This is an important paper with far-reaching implications for science education in general, and cross-cultural science education in particular. Like my other choices for this assignment, it effectively and clearly expresses its ideas and has numerous and appropriate references. Dr. Aikenhead and his work have been crucial to the progress of my own research, including his development of the non-culturally biased Views on Science and Technology Instrument (VOSTS) which has been employed in numerous science education studies. I also felt I should include at least one article from the prominent Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and this choice of article was relevant on several levels.
Ogbu, J. (1988). Cultural diversity and human development. In D. Slaughter (Ed.),
New directions in child development: Vol 42. Black children and poverty: A developmental perspective (pp. 11–28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
I chose a book chapter on cultural diversity and human development that in part attempts to make a distinction between psychobiological or maturational outcomes of development that apply to all people and the cultural variations that may impact the expression of that development. The author states that while all humans may be physically capable of formal operational thinking, some cultures value it more than others. This distinction between psychobiological outcomes and cultural outcomes also extends to language, motivational, and social-emotional development, according to the author. This book chapter therefore provides another perspective on Piaget’s stages of development and mental functioning model and their relationship to multiculturalism. This reading stresses that the cognitive capabilities of an individual must be viewed through the prism of the culture of which they are part of. For instance, middle-class white Americans value upward mobility in terms of the individual and independence, whereas some lowland tribes in the Philippines only value the well-being of the group and interdependence, not unlike the Cherokee community-driven concept of gadugi. Some African groups such as the Kanuri, on the other hand, view success or “getting ahead” solely in terms of paired mentors and aspirants. These three societal and cultural variations by definition constitute unique outcomes, and all three cultural paradigms require a different set of skills and social interactions in different environments for what is perceived as “success” to be achieved. It is critical for any researcher attempting to determine the cognitive development of an individual to have a clear understanding of the cultural forces and mores that helped to shape and drive the person in question to their current state. These differences flow over into all aspects of life, including family, work, and schooling. An educational researcher must start from a thorough knowledge of the minority culture in order to ascertain what type of cultural diversity is involved; primary or secondary, availability and use of technology, languages, and so on. In human development studies, cultural outcomes need to be distinguished from psychobiological or maturational outcomes. Non-white minorities cannot be held to the same standards that white middle-class students are, but the situation is more complex than that. The author states “a further complication arises from a comparative analysis of the school adjustment and academic performance of minority groups whose cultural backgrounds are different from those of the White middle class. This analysis shows that the differences found are not due to mere differences in culture or in outcomes of development. The relationship between culture, development, and school performance seems to be more complex in that it involves historical, structural, and psychological or expressive factors not ordinarily considered by students of human development. Yet probing and understanding this complex relationship will lead to better interpretation of research findings, which, in turn, can form the basis for a better social policy.” This book chapter is important for me, as it reinforces the idea that it is essential to understand the population of students one is dealing with in science education research, if one’s results are to be meaningful, viable and applicable. This chapter was comprehensively referenced, thorough, and particularly appropriate for me in terms of my research and status as a Holmes Scholar. The main goal of the Holmes Program is to promote diversity in education, in particular at the level of students of color seeking doctoral degrees. I do not feel it is impossible for a non-Cherokee, for instance, to conduct research concerning a population of Cherokee students, but as Ogbu states, it requires much extra effort for the non-indigenous researcher to be able to attain results that take cultural diversity into consideration. Programs such as the Holmes Scholarships help to alleviate the lack of minority scholars and address the problem Ogbu illuminates here
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553–573.
This article was pertinent and timely for several reasons to me. Cultural validity of science assessments is an issue that directly relates to and is an important consideration in my own research. Also, the article has an interesting reference to the Piagetian conservation tasks that we have used in this course, and help provide the underpinnings of the theory base in our department. Specifically, it discusses how the tests of quantity conservation were administered to Wolof children in Senegal. When the children were asked “Why do you think the water was equal, or more or less?” during testing of the concrete operations stage, the children were silent. Responses were only elicited when the question was rephrased as “Why is the water equal, or more or less?” because to the children, the idea of explaining a statement was meaningless. Only the external event itself could be meaningfully explained. The point being that if cultural differences were not taken into account the children would have been perceived as being unable to explain the reasoning behind their quantitative judgments. This article addresses how culture and society shape the ways in which individuals construct knowledge and create meaning and what this means for science assessment. It proposes the concept of cultural validity as a form of validity that should be incorporated into assessment practices. The authors define cultural validity as the effectiveness with which science assessment addresses the sociocultural influences that shape student thinking and the ways in which students make sense of science items and respond to them. I have mixed feelings about implementing this concept in science education studies. I believe it is important to consider students’ cultural origins when it is relevant to the question being considered, or when it is impossible to obtain meaningful results without modification of the process, as in the example above. Some studies may require this consideration while others may not. Also, it is possible to evaluate student responses both in terms of their own culture as well as from a more general perspective. For instance, in my prospectus and proposed study I am interested in American Indian students’ attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions of science and scientists amongst themselves both now and in future. It also allows me to compare their responses to other groups that have been tested using the same instruments. Cultural validity becomes a more relevant concern for my study in the context of the results, not as much in the modification of existing instruments, because I am ultimately interested in why so few American Indians undertake and complete schooling in science and math programs as they are currently structured. The authors present a strong case in this article for researchers assuming responsibility for utilizing instruments that reflect cultural validity. The importance of recognizing and addressing this issue increases everyday as our society’s minority and migrant populations continue to increase, reflecting the diversity teachers face in their classrooms on a daily basis. The authors argue for more in-depth and comprehensive consideration of cultural diversity from a science education perspective, and not simply translation, providing assessment accommodations, or estimating cultural bias when conducting research. As some of my other articles discuss, the importance of how sociocultural factors influence how we construct knowledge and obtain meaning should never be underestimated or ignored. This was a lengthy and well-written article with extensive references. It has prompted me to reconsider some aspects of my own research and reevaluate the perspective from which I will view the results I obtain.
Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education- ILAC/Science Education
EDSC 5523 The Science of Learning Theories-Dr. Ed Marek
Journal Article Summary&Critique-Spring 2009
Cohen, L.M. (1994). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students.
Teaching Exceptional Children. 27, 70-79.
It is possible that minority students, particularly those that speak a language other than English at home, may be unfairly omitted from gifted and talented (G &T) programs. The author of this article specifically addresses the definition of giftedness, the assessment of gifted students, and the development and implementation of gifted programs. I know from personal experience this is true for Cherokees from more “traditional” families. In this article Cohen discusses why this is so, and what may be done about it. Piaget is specifically referenced by the author in the following passage, “an alternative to using English language standardized tests is the assessment of LEP students in their native language. These tests measure a variety of skills: creative thinking skills such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration; intellectual development based on Piaget's theory of development (Piaget, 1954; Piaget & Inhelder, 1973); language proficiency; and nonverbal perceptual skills of cognitive development.” The author does not focus on any one particular minority group, and I was pleasantly surprised to find several references to American Indian education, including statements such as, “different learning styles may also contribute to the underrepresentation of gifted and talented minority language students. Native Americans are often caught between the schools' value of independence and the home and community value of interdependence. In school, students generally sit in rows and face the teacher, whereas in Native American culture, everyone would be seated in a circle and decisions would be made collectively.” There is tremendous pressure on American Indian young people to stay close to home and family, even at the expense of foregoing higher education. Cohen discusses reasons minority students are underrepresented in G & T programs, and proceeds to discuss several techniques for the identification and inclusion of students from these groups. The author then gives several examples of programs that are available and could be adapted for these students, including resource rooms, cultural enrichment programs, acceleration or honors programs, and mentoring. Cohen proposes broadening the concept of giftedness, expanding research on giftedness and minority language students, exploring various program models, increasing staff awareness, and implementation of new programs. I included this article because it not only fit the parameters of the assignment but it also enhanced my knowledge of issues relating to some of the areas I am interested in for my own research. I felt it was a well-structured and comprehensive overview of the issue, and included Piagetian theory in the idea that we all think and develop mentally in a similar manner, notwithstanding cultural differences. As educators we need to have a broader and far-reaching definition of what constitutes giftedness and be able to challenge all of our students appropriately to help them reach their potential. This is particularly true for those of us in science education given the lack of American Indian students in particular, and minority students in general, in science, technology, mathematics, medicine, and engineering majors and careers. There are many facets of the growing issues associated with multiculturalism that we as science educators must recognize and address, as this and the other articles I selected for this assignment do. This article was clear, concise, and supported with many and appropriate references.
Ensign, J., Hargrave, E. V., & Lasso, R. (Eds.). (2008). Indigenous Knowledge in the Modern
Science Curriculum Using a Critical Pedagogy of Place Approach. Conference Proceedings, Masters in Teaching Program 2006-2008: Teaching the Child in Front of You in a Changing World. Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College.
To accomplish this assignment I sought to acquire a variety of papers from differing sources, including research articles, book chapters, and this entry from the proceedings of a conference. I attempted to find sources that not only explored the connections between Piagetian theories and multiculturalism, but that also expanded my awareness and understanding of issues relevant to my own research interests, and in particular my dissertation. This presentation on global sustainability and Indigenous Knowledge (IK) versus Western Modern Science (WMS) in science curricula was especially enlightening, especially in terms of critical pedagogy and place-based education, two topics I was somewhat deficient in. According to the author, critical pedagogy provides the methods and goals necessary for students to recognize institutional and ideological oppression and to act against them for social justice. Place-based education is connected to a series of other educational approaches, including outdoor education, experiential learning, environmental education, bioregional education, environment-integrating concept (EIC), service learning, issue based learning, constructivism, community-oriented learning, and even multicultural education. The constructivist aspect of place-based education means that exposition is de-emphasized and students are encouraged to interact with their environment and develop and organize the appropriate concepts, as in Piagetian theory. The author argues that utilization of these approaches necessitates recognition of the potential conflict for American Indian students between Western Modern Science (WMS) and Indigenous Knowledge (IK) or Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). The notion of employing an approach that incorporates the Piagetian model of mental functioning supports the idea that learning cycles may be particularly effective for educating American Indian students. However, the author’s thesis is that science and ecological sustainability cannot be taught effectively without recognizing and incorporating all worldviews, and subjecting American Indian and other students to only WMS is tantamount to a continuation of repression of Native peoples and colonialism. Environmental sustainability and cultural oppression must be addressed collectively, for everyone’s benefit. I found it interesting how this presentation referenced many other sources and articles from this assignment as well as my prospectus, and Aikenhead’s concept of border crossings in science instruction were especially emphasized. Politically, this may be the most potentially controversial of all the references I utilized in this assignment. I felt it was an ambitious, far-reaching and thoughtful article, and it prompted much deeper consideration on my part of the inter-connectedness of the topics of multiculturalism, science education, and environmental issues. These are the kinds of issues that we as science educators must consider as we struggle with sustainability of the earth and changes in our student populations. Also emphasized in the presentation was the idea of community, as exemplified by indigenous peoples. I feel this links with the idea of social constructivism, as well as the concept of “community of practice” I am presenting on at the upcoming Holmes Scholars Conference in Florida. Holistic instruction as represented in IK, incorporation of multiple world views, and environmental education should be integral components of science education as we progress through the 21st century and our earth becomes smaller and smaller. Hargrave provided one of the rare and special articles that ties together seemingly disparate elements into a crucial juncture that truly informs, inspires, and forces one to think.
Aikenhead, G.S., & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive
explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 269-
287.
In this article, Aikenhead and Jegede are concerned with how all students, but in particular First Nations (American Indians in Canada) move between the culture of their everyday lives and the “foreign” culture of their science instruction in school. Aikenhead has coined the phrase cultural border crossings to describe these junctures. Jegede then describes and explains the cognitive conflicts that result from these transitions in terms of what he calls collateral learning. The authors proceed to link the two ideas expressed above, and then call for a new discussion of how results from science education studies done in a multicultural context should be re-evaluated. Studies such as this are particularly important in light of the idea of teaching science for all students in the most effective and culturally sensitive approaches possible. Like the other writings I have chosen to summarize and critique, this is an article that satisfies the requirements of this assignment and at the same time further enriches my perspectives concerning my own research interests. I am interested in how American Indian students perceive science and scientists, and what conflicts arise from the indigenous contexts from which they, and especially those from the more “traditional” families and clans, view science education. American Indians are grievously underrepresented in science, technology, medical, mathematics, and engineering majors and careers. The article addresses three types of collateral learning; parallel, dependent, and secured. Parallel collateral learning is typified by two or more schema that do not conflict with each other. Dependent collateral learning results in a well-mixed amalgam of differing schema, and is similar to the Piagetian accommodation-assimilation model of information processing. According to the authors, “Dependent collateral learning occurs when a student’s preconception or indigenous belief is (a) contrasted with a different conception encountered in the science classroom, (b) given a tentative status, and then either (c) altered by reconstructing the original schema under the influence of the newly encountered schema, or (d) rejected and replaced by a newly constructed schema. In other words, students modify or reject their original schema because it makes sense to do so.” The article also refers to the process as acculturation. It should be noted that acculturation and cognitive assimilation are not the same, but both should be considered when education has a multicultural basis. Secured collateral learning is at the opposite end of the cognitive spectrum, when students hold on to two apparently conflicting schema, because enough reason is found to retain both. Interestingly, the article also discusses “Fatima’s Rules” which were described as ways students have found to pass their science courses without truly understanding the concepts being covered, such as memorizing the headings and vocabulary terms in their texts. I find this interesting because it supports the idea that learning cycles grounded in Piagetian theories, social constructivism, and meaningful learning may be particularly effective for American Indian students because they avoid rote learning through exposition and bring about true assimilation and organization of new schema. In my opinion Aikenhead and Jegede go a long way in this article in addressing the ideas of concept development and teaching science effectively to all students. This is an important paper with far-reaching implications for science education in general, and cross-cultural science education in particular. Like my other choices for this assignment, it effectively and clearly expresses its ideas and has numerous and appropriate references. Dr. Aikenhead and his work have been crucial to the progress of my own research, including his development of the non-culturally biased Views on Science and Technology Instrument (VOSTS) which has been employed in numerous science education studies. I also felt I should include at least one article from the prominent Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and this choice of article was relevant on several levels.
Ogbu, J. (1988). Cultural diversity and human development. In D. Slaughter (Ed.),
New directions in child development: Vol 42. Black children and poverty: A developmental perspective (pp. 11–28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
I chose a book chapter on cultural diversity and human development that in part attempts to make a distinction between psychobiological or maturational outcomes of development that apply to all people and the cultural variations that may impact the expression of that development. The author states that while all humans may be physically capable of formal operational thinking, some cultures value it more than others. This distinction between psychobiological outcomes and cultural outcomes also extends to language, motivational, and social-emotional development, according to the author. This book chapter therefore provides another perspective on Piaget’s stages of development and mental functioning model and their relationship to multiculturalism. This reading stresses that the cognitive capabilities of an individual must be viewed through the prism of the culture of which they are part of. For instance, middle-class white Americans value upward mobility in terms of the individual and independence, whereas some lowland tribes in the Philippines only value the well-being of the group and interdependence, not unlike the Cherokee community-driven concept of gadugi. Some African groups such as the Kanuri, on the other hand, view success or “getting ahead” solely in terms of paired mentors and aspirants. These three societal and cultural variations by definition constitute unique outcomes, and all three cultural paradigms require a different set of skills and social interactions in different environments for what is perceived as “success” to be achieved. It is critical for any researcher attempting to determine the cognitive development of an individual to have a clear understanding of the cultural forces and mores that helped to shape and drive the person in question to their current state. These differences flow over into all aspects of life, including family, work, and schooling. An educational researcher must start from a thorough knowledge of the minority culture in order to ascertain what type of cultural diversity is involved; primary or secondary, availability and use of technology, languages, and so on. In human development studies, cultural outcomes need to be distinguished from psychobiological or maturational outcomes. Non-white minorities cannot be held to the same standards that white middle-class students are, but the situation is more complex than that. The author states “a further complication arises from a comparative analysis of the school adjustment and academic performance of minority groups whose cultural backgrounds are different from those of the White middle class. This analysis shows that the differences found are not due to mere differences in culture or in outcomes of development. The relationship between culture, development, and school performance seems to be more complex in that it involves historical, structural, and psychological or expressive factors not ordinarily considered by students of human development. Yet probing and understanding this complex relationship will lead to better interpretation of research findings, which, in turn, can form the basis for a better social policy.” This book chapter is important for me, as it reinforces the idea that it is essential to understand the population of students one is dealing with in science education research, if one’s results are to be meaningful, viable and applicable. This chapter was comprehensively referenced, thorough, and particularly appropriate for me in terms of my research and status as a Holmes Scholar. The main goal of the Holmes Program is to promote diversity in education, in particular at the level of students of color seeking doctoral degrees. I do not feel it is impossible for a non-Cherokee, for instance, to conduct research concerning a population of Cherokee students, but as Ogbu states, it requires much extra effort for the non-indigenous researcher to be able to attain results that take cultural diversity into consideration. Programs such as the Holmes Scholarships help to alleviate the lack of minority scholars and address the problem Ogbu illuminates here
Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553–573.
This article was pertinent and timely for several reasons to me. Cultural validity of science assessments is an issue that directly relates to and is an important consideration in my own research. Also, the article has an interesting reference to the Piagetian conservation tasks that we have used in this course, and help provide the underpinnings of the theory base in our department. Specifically, it discusses how the tests of quantity conservation were administered to Wolof children in Senegal. When the children were asked “Why do you think the water was equal, or more or less?” during testing of the concrete operations stage, the children were silent. Responses were only elicited when the question was rephrased as “Why is the water equal, or more or less?” because to the children, the idea of explaining a statement was meaningless. Only the external event itself could be meaningfully explained. The point being that if cultural differences were not taken into account the children would have been perceived as being unable to explain the reasoning behind their quantitative judgments. This article addresses how culture and society shape the ways in which individuals construct knowledge and create meaning and what this means for science assessment. It proposes the concept of cultural validity as a form of validity that should be incorporated into assessment practices. The authors define cultural validity as the effectiveness with which science assessment addresses the sociocultural influences that shape student thinking and the ways in which students make sense of science items and respond to them. I have mixed feelings about implementing this concept in science education studies. I believe it is important to consider students’ cultural origins when it is relevant to the question being considered, or when it is impossible to obtain meaningful results without modification of the process, as in the example above. Some studies may require this consideration while others may not. Also, it is possible to evaluate student responses both in terms of their own culture as well as from a more general perspective. For instance, in my prospectus and proposed study I am interested in American Indian students’ attitudes, perceptions, and misconceptions of science and scientists amongst themselves both now and in future. It also allows me to compare their responses to other groups that have been tested using the same instruments. Cultural validity becomes a more relevant concern for my study in the context of the results, not as much in the modification of existing instruments, because I am ultimately interested in why so few American Indians undertake and complete schooling in science and math programs as they are currently structured. The authors present a strong case in this article for researchers assuming responsibility for utilizing instruments that reflect cultural validity. The importance of recognizing and addressing this issue increases everyday as our society’s minority and migrant populations continue to increase, reflecting the diversity teachers face in their classrooms on a daily basis. The authors argue for more in-depth and comprehensive consideration of cultural diversity from a science education perspective, and not simply translation, providing assessment accommodations, or estimating cultural bias when conducting research. As some of my other articles discuss, the importance of how sociocultural factors influence how we construct knowledge and obtain meaning should never be underestimated or ignored. This was a lengthy and well-written article with extensive references. It has prompted me to reconsider some aspects of my own research and reevaluate the perspective from which I will view the results I obtain.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Holmes Conference
http://conferences.dce.ufl.edu/holmes/
I had a great time in Jacksonville, learned a lot, and also presented.
I had a great time in Jacksonville, learned a lot, and also presented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)