| Images of connected features: |
| | | Heat flow model |  |
| | | Examples of Inquiry |  |
| | | Meshing Perceptual and Conceptual Ideas in eSTEP |  |
| | | Work Reviewer |  |
| | | Idea Manager |  |
| | | Comparison of similar visualizations |  |
| | | Hands-on examples of molecular visualization content |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
| This principle calls for designing instruction that encourages students to build on their ideas as they develop more and more powerful and useful pragmatic scientific principles, rather than isolate new information from existing knowledge. Students’ epistemological ideas about science dictate their techniques for developing understanding of science and suggest additional aspects of the learner that need consideration in instructional design (Bell & Linn, 2002). By illustrating the wrong paths, shaky assumptions, and inadequate interpretations that have contributed to science historically we help students expand their understanding of cultural influences on science and make a broader set of science ideas accessible. |
|
Theoretical background:
|
|
Designers often make science inaccessible by selecting abstract, expert examples rather than choosing examples consistent with student understanding. Texts and lectures written by natural scientists typically employ the models they find illuminating rather than ideas that resonate with the experiences of students. When students encounter such abstract or incomprehensible models they often revert to a memorization approach to learning and isolate the new ideas rather than connect them to existing ideas (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
Students’ epistemological ideas about science dictate their techniques for developing understanding of science and suggest additional aspects of the learner that need consideration in instructional design (Bell & Linn, 2002). By illustrating the wrong paths, shaky assumptions, and inadequate interpretations that have contributed to science historically we help students expand their understanding of cultural influences on science and make a broader set of science ideas accessible.
Piaget's (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958/1972) clinical interviewing method illustrates ways that instruction can stimulate reinterpretation of ideas. In these interviews, students were often asked to connect their views to those of their peers. For example, a teacher might say, “a child told me that if you had a really small rock, it might float. What do you think?” This may force the learner to generate an explanation that shows why their ideas will hold up under new circumstances or in different settings. They may also reveal dimensions of the situation that the learner had neglected. In the rock example, the question asks about the mass of the rock rather than the density. A small stone has small volume and small mass so students find it difficult to think about its density. Contrasting rocks with popcorn can cause density to become salient, helping the learner to defend a position and sort out ideas.
Researchers from many traditions call on designers to create more accessible examples including “benchmark lessons” (Minstrell, 2000), "bridging analogies" (Clement, 1993) or “anchored instruction” (CTGV, 1997). Likewise, diSessa (2000) describes the critical role that those intuitive ideas play in how students make sense of science. With technology, in fact, ideas that were once considered far beyond students’ ken are now feasible to teach in middle school (e.g., Newtonian physics—see White, 1993) or high school (e.g., thermodynamics—see Staudt & Horwitz, 2001).
Researchers including Bruner (1979), Kintsch (1998), Linn (in press), and Stigler and Heibert (1999) all argue that designing problems at the right level of complexity such that they both encourage students to generate alternative solutions and help students distinguish among those solutions have advantages for lifelong learning. Examples can both promote and discourage knowledge integration.
Psychological research illustrates the difficulties that result from poorly designed examples. Research on the Luchins Water Jar problem, for example, shows that students can learn procedures and fail to re-analyze their appropriateness—in this set of problems, students continue to engage in a multi-step process even when a single-step process could succeed. Schoenfeld (1987) extended this finding to mathematics instruction, showing that students often apply procedures rather than an inquiry process. Reif and Larkin (1991) demonstrated that students often learn to manipulate formulas without insight. These examples or problems discourage knowledge integration.
|
|
|
| Tips (Challenges, Limitations, Tradeoffs, Pitfalls): |
| Challenge - Building on students' ideas requires identifying those ideas. Doing this in class might be time-consuming. Additionally, the variability of ideas that students might hold for a certain scientific concept requires a more complex design.
Pitfall - Designers often make science inaccessible by selecting abstract, expert examples rather than choosing examples consistent with student understanding. When students encounter such abstract or incomprehensible models they often revert to a memorization approach to learning and isolate the new ideas rather than connect them to existing ideas (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
|
| References (Off-line): |
| Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. |
| References (Online): |
| http://www.internetscienceeducation.org/chapter13.html |
|
History
|
This Principle does not have versions history.
|
|
|
Login
