Post Views:
1
This paper focuses on two high school students and their thoughts and feelings as they engaged in a topic of their choosing during a two-month summer action research program. Their high school astronomy teacher monitored their choice of topic and progress. The students engaged in authentic tasks and materials couched in problemoriented formats within meaningful learning contexts designed to foster thinking and learning. These students worked as a team, but pursued individual paths of inquiry using critical and imaginative thinking, and engaged in social and solitary contexts that involved them in writing, intervening, and reflecting on ideas gleaned from conversations and readings (electronic and conventional) with a university educator and an astronomer/educator during their self-directed case-based research. The process engaged students in formal skills such as written communication, literacy, logic, and calculation using an innovative electronic interactive network. Evaluations of timed writings, concept maps, notebook entries, and vee diagrams are presented and discussed. Students Creating Their Own Thinking-Learning Contexts How students create their own thinking-learning contexts when confronted with authentic problem-oriented tasks is an important issue that influences instruction and learning. Thinking-learning contexts are those mental models (conceptual frameworks) that students invoke when confronted with problem-oriented tasks that go beyond memorizing and compartmentalizing information (Alvarez, 1993). This paper details how self-directed case-based research and instruction together with collaborative interactions with teachers, students, scientists, and university educators using metacognitive tools (e.g., electronic journals, interactive concept maps, and interactive vee diagrams), and innovative technology promotes meaningful learning in ways that differ from conventional educational settings. Teachers, researchers, and students mutually define research problems. Students engage in “real-life” self-directed case research. Together, this collaboration informs practice for students, teachers, and researchers. Within this negotiated learning environment educational processes and outcomes are achieved that meet both local and national contexts for achieving meaningful learner-centered science, mathematics, and literacy goals (e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; International Reading Association, 1992; National Science and Technology Council, 1995; Science Council of Canada, 1984; Royal Society, 1985; NASA’s Education Program, 1999-2003). Theoretical Framework Gowin’s (1981) theory of educating, Ausubel’s (1963, 1968) cognitive theory of meaningful reception learning, an emphasis on teachers and students becoming “communities of thinkers” (Alvarez, 1996, 1997a,b,c), and an action research constructivist epistemology provide the philosophical and theoretical background upon which this investigation was designed and through which the results were interpreted. Gowin’s theory of educating focuses on the educative event and its related concepts and facts. This theory is helpful in classifying the relevant aspects of the educative event. In an educative event, teachers and learners share meanings and feelings so as to bring about a change in the human experience. This theory stresses the centrality of the learner’s experience in educating. In order for meaningful learning to occur in Ausubel’s theory three conditions need to be considered: (1) materials need to be concept rich, with clear relationships; (2) the learner needs to have relevant prior knowledge and experience with the concepts and propositions that are presented in the new materials; and, (3) learners need to have a meaningful learning set a disposition to link new concepts, propositions, and examples to prior knowledge and experience (see Novak, 1998). A community of thinkers is defined as an active group of students and teachers striving to learn more about a discipline by engaging in the processes of critical thinking (thinking about thinking in ways to bring about change in one’s experience) and imaginative thinking (exploring future possibilities with existing ideas, Alvarez, 1996, 1997b). The notion presented by this theoretical framework enables both students and practitioners to become better informed and knowledgeable about practices that enhance conceptual learning and meaningful understanding. To better understand how teachers, researchers, and students activate and build upon existing knowledge it is necessary to study the ways schema is activated and new knowledge is constructed. Schema (plural schemata) is a mental construction of an event, object, or an individual characteristic that can be fragmentary, inaccurate, or inconsistent. It is based upon a belief that can be applied to either physical systems or semantic meanings depicted in a text. When reading a text, the text can be seen as a series of acquisition statements within a given topic or subtopic. The notion of schema theory is that a person can comprehend a text when it is congruent with his or her belief system. Educators and researchers have suggested numerous instructional strategies to help students activate and use prior knowledge to aid comprehension. Yet, schema theory does not explain how readers modify and create new schema when presented with novel information in texts. Because texts are never completely explicit, the reader must rely on preexisting schemata to provide plausible interpretations. There is much evidence to suggest that good and poor readers do not always use schemata appropriately or are unaware of whether the information they are reading is consistent with their existing knowledge (e.g., Bartlett, 1932; Bransford, 1985). Also, there is evidence that students who do not spontaneously use schemata as they read will engage them if given explicit instructions prior to reading (e.g., Ausubel, 1960; Bransford, 1985). Action research is a paradigm that is grounded in the reality of classroom culture and under the control of teachers. Findings emanating from this type of research investigation inform teachers and guide their practice when formulating lessons and conducting future classroom research projects. Action research is defined as the acting on an event, object, problem, or an idea, by an individual or group directly involved in gathering and studying the information for themselves, and using the results for the purpose of addressing specific problems within a classroom, school, program, organization, or community (Alvarez, 1995). Action research is deliberate and results in ownership by the participants. The consequences affect participants personally. The action is the acting on an event, object, problem, or an idea for the purpose of monitoring and evaluating its course and outcomes. Research is a systematic deliberate critical inquiry of an event in order to enlighten one’s thinking, learning, and practice. This setting in motion of a strategy for the systematic study of an event that evolves from an idea or problem is the basis on which these investigations are predicated. In this project, the events that are studied take place in an educational setting and the study is conducted by student and teacher researchers in collaboration with university educators and scientists in the areas of earth and space science. This action research strategy is accomplished through a recursive cycle of (1) identifying an idea or problem area, (2) studying it by gathering data, and (3) reflecting on the data in order to make teaching and learning decisions grounded in evidence (see Appendix A Action Research Strategy, Alvarez, 1995). The focus of this action research inquiry centered on the research question: RQ1 “How do students create their own thinking-learning contexts using metacogntive tools and electronic communications when they are asked to select a topic of study of their own choosing? Within this realm of inquiry are included the effects of timed writings and their influence on schema activation and knowledge construction.
Related
INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT
- 1.Your Full name
- 2. Your Active Email Address
- 3. Your Phone Number
- 4. Amount Paid
- 5. Project Topic
- 6. Location you made payment from