Week_01_Knowledge-Centered

=Readings and Facilitators:=

Chapter 3: Learning and Transfer - Facilitator: Weinbrecht

=What does a knowledge-centered learning environment look like?=

Instruction in a knowledge-centered classroom is geared towards students’ understanding and mastery. Knowledge-centered classrooms do not require mere memorization by the pupils; students are assessed on understanding, not merely factual memorization. Within a knowledge-centered classroom metacognitive strategies are utilized to improve the depth of knowledge students attain from the course. Bransford et al. (2000) state that students should be able to take what they have learned in one class and apply it to other areas of their life. Bransford et al. (2000) state that they are several factors affecting a student’s ability to transfer their knowledge: “the amount and kind of initial learning,” student motivation, and opportunities for students to use knowledge (p.77). In addition, in a knowledge-centered classroom educators need to provide students with frequent opportunities to “gain insight into their learning and their understanding” (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 78). In order to accomplish this, educators need to be providing students with an abundance of feedback in order for students to “monitor their learning and actively evaluate their strategies and their current level of understanding” (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 78). Furthermore, the learning environment must address students existing conceptual models of understandings (Bransford et al., 2000). According to Taber (2000), students can hold stable conceptual understandings regarding a concept at the same time. The progression of learning must allow for students to develop, evaluate, and synthesize existing with new models. If an instructor does not allow this to happen, student understandings become “fragmented, inconsistent, and task-specific” (Taber, 2000 p. 400). In order for researchers and instructors to understand the complexity of student knowledge, a longitudinal approach must be taken were student have the opportunity to discuss and elaborate on their understandings (Taber, 2000). If this does not occur, we might be under the assumption that a learners conceptual structures have developed or changed when in actuality competing structures might exist. Considering this idea, assessments must change to reflect the conceptual development of our students. A shift from summative to formative assessments must occur. In addition, the needs of the various learners in the room need to be addressed. Bringham, Scruggs, and Mastropieri (2011) in “Science Education and Students with Learning Disabilities” determine in order to promote knowledge retention in students with learning disabilities educators need to utilize optimal educational strategies. The first strategy suggested by Bringham et al. (2011) is the use of mnemonic tools. The second was the use of graphic organizers, to help students with learning disabilities organize and comprehend the text. The final suggestion by Bringham et al. (2011) was the use of differentiated curriculum enhancements. These enhancements could be activities, laboratories, and games that allow students to master the content area. Bringham et al. (2011) found that these strategies helped students with learning disabilities and students without learning disabilities.

=Chapter 3: Learning and Transfer=

How does the concept of “transfer” relate to instruction and non-school environments regarding learning?
According to Bransford et al. (2000), "transfer from school to everyday environments is the ultimate purpose of school-based learning" (p. 78). If students cannot take what they have learned at school and apply it to a real life situation then what good does that piece of knowledge do them? Teachers need to present knowledge to their students using multiple contexts and help them see the connections between what they are learning in the classroom and what is happening at home or in their community. Teachers with an eye toward designing knowledge-centered learning environments choose problems "that develop a broader understanding of settings in which the concepts" are applicable (Groth, 2010). If students see how what they are learning applies to them, they will be more motivated to learn it and more motivation often results in more time spent on the content, which, in turn, results in greater understanding and transfer. Teachers must also be aware that "all learning involves transfer from previous experiences" (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 68), and try to identify students' background knowledge and misconceptions so they can build on that existing knowledge and correct any misconceptions that may prevent their students from truly grasping the content being taught. Bransford et al. (2000) suggest teachers should purposefully design learning opportunities for students to engage with content and apply content to multiple problems in the classroom, including opportunities to struggle with contrasting cases (p. 60). The authors note that learning for understanding and transfer takes a significant amount of time and encourage instruction of fewer topics over the course of a school year with emphasis on deep understanding.

An example of this process is described by Rivet and Krajcik (2008) in research study addressing contextualization of knowledge. In this study the researchers use project based instruction as a way to have students take a topic from their everyday life, wearing a helmet to ride a bicycle, and relate it to middle school physics. Students take their preconceptions about their helmet and relate them to scientific facts and ideas. Learners study velocity, impulse, and force. The project takes the form of a egg-and-cart experiment. Urban school children were able to contextualize knowledge from their bike helmet question and make connections to scientific concepts to come to a conclusion. Researchers collected data from a pre/post test, a concept map, and other class artifacts to assess improvement. This study suggests that contextualizing features when actively used by students may result in more (science) learning.

Along the same lines as the Rivet and Krajcik article mentioned above, Kanter (2010) identified ways to develop performance problem-based science curricula (pPBSc) to ensure students gained meaningful understanding of science content. Kanter also evaluated the effectiveness of a particular pPBSc, //I, Bio//, at promoting meaningful science understanding. The //I, Bio// curriculum required students to identify where the energy in food comes from, determine the amount of energy contained in various foods, determine the amount of energy required for daily activities, and create a school lunch plan to balance the energy requirements of the students and the amount of energy in the food they consumed at school. Kanter (2010) found that when pPBSc’s are designed in a way that students recognize the need to learn the background information in order to apply it to the culminating performance task, they will be more invested in learning. Kanter reported significant gains in content knowledge for students who completed the //I, Bio// pPBSc as assessed by pre/post test questions written at three different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Results from this study suggest that students who are able to make meaningful connections between the content they are learning in class and real life problems that are relevant to themselves, will develop more a meaningful understanding of the content.

Gegenfurtner's (20011) study on transfer examined transfer as a variable in a motivation-transfer relationship. Types of instuction, such as knowledge-centered learning, played a part in determining if a trainee, student, individual, etc. was motivated to take the knowledge they aquired and apply it to situations in the classroom, on the job, etc. This research is specific to the importance of generating new professional development trainings and educational literature on motivation-transfer relationships.

How does the following quote relate to state established curriculum? In addition, how does it effect the structure of your classroom and what is to be taught considering the chapter’s topics?
"In all domains of learning, the development of expertise occurs with major investments of time." ***Please remember that we are not posting as individuals, rather as a collective whole. Names have been deleted from each individual post. Let’s work together to make this follow as if this was one answer.** (L. Weinbrecht). ** *I went ahead and tried to rework what was already written. Contributors, please go back and check to make sure that your message is still clear and I have not changed what you intended to write. (L. Weinbrecht). **

Because of the curriculum demands that we face as public educators, we must be willing to devote time and energy into our lesson plans in order to help our students reach mastery of various concepts. The author states that learners are often faced with tasks that do not have apparent meaning or logic which results in understanding difficulties (Bransford et al., 2000 p.58). Teachers cannot be afraid to "step out of the box" and find methods and activities that are meaningful to their students. Yes, this takes time, but the payoff is well worth it. We must make learning meaningful in order to promote full understanding.

From experience within an Oklahoma classroom, it seems that this quote is not very well understood by our existing state curriculum. It seems through graduate coursework at Oklahoma State, instructor stressed the importance of allowing students the ability to make mistakes or learn the problem by focusing on the answer. This is accomplished by allowing ample time to work through all possible outlets of a given problem set, and weed a student down to the correct answer and a deep understanding of a topic. Accomplishing this task would require teachers to only touch on a few subject matters very intensely, instead of trying to lightly touch a wide variety of topics. This idea is related to the following idiom, "inch deep mile wide". Our state curriculum does not allow us to teach any in depth topic with a major investment of time, and cuts the teacher off from expanding on greater understanding.

This same problem occurs within the university setting. In a college remedial mathematics classroom filled with 50 or so students with varying preexisting knowledge, self-motivation and work ethic, coupled with mandatory curriculum and time constraints, the challenge to educate **//all//** students becomes an issue. This is especially true to the point where they are deemed experts. This is because “learning cannot be rushed; the complex cognitive activity of information integration requires time” (Bransford et al., 2000 p.58). A s the authors suggest, create a learning environment that lets student’s wrestle with fundamental concepts of a topic first, followed by exploring the connections to their previous knowledge, before they are lastly, lectured regarding newer content. The authors suggests that students who are afforded “time for telling” incidentally learn more and have a higher ability to transfer learning, than those not afforded this time. Purposeful and frequent practice is assigned over the material, which allows for both teacher and and student the ability to monitor and reflect on their learning, and provide relevant feedback. Challenging-enough exercises that are often “useful” to the students (subsequent math classes, applicable to other content areas or real-life scenarios) are given. If these exercises are too easy they may be deemed boring by the students, and if too hard, they may give up; either case motivation may wane. Also included in this discussion is "classroom talk". Transfer is enhanced by giving students ample opportunities and time to discuss their thinking, misconceptions or variations to a problem with in small groups or as a whole-class. “Helping learners choose, adapt and invent tools for solving problems is one way to facilitate transfer while also encouraging flexibility” (Bransford et al., 2000 p.78).

According to Ketterlin-Geller, et al. (2008) for knowledge based instruction demonstrates the use of time to assist remedial math students. Low performing students were separated into two different remedial programs. One program was a district-purchased program with a prescribed set of curriculum that focused on the basics of mathematics. The other program was a teacher-created program that enhanced the currently taught math lessons. Both programs were extensions of the school day. Both met 4 days a week for 35-40 min per day for 16-20 weeks, depending on the program requirements. Both types of programs were promising intervention programs. Neither program would not have been successful without the extended day. As for which program was most successful would depend on the students, teachers, and school to make it a success.

As Stephanie’s article (see above) suggests, without ample or extended time, programs will not be successful!

.

**Chapter 4: How Children Learn (Bobo)** ==Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donovan, and Pellegrino (Eds) (2000) in “How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School - Expanded Edition” posits that the study of young children as learners has two advantages. The first one being that it brings into focus the strengths and weaknesses of child learners. Secondly, research into child learners helps one understand what “well-established learning patterns and expertise” will produce (p.79). With this said, what information did you glean from this chapter that will help you construct lessons in the future that are optimal for student understanding?==

The authors present interesting arguments for how children learn from infancy into early childhood education, however as a secondary educator I did see helpful information that I can use when constructing lessons. Using clustering as an organizational method in the classroom is highly important. Clustering is defined as "organizing disparate pieces of information into meaningful units" (p.96). Organizing or grouping information into categories is shown to help children and adults improve their memory. I also think metacognition is a technique that can be used at any age to help students and adults reflect on their performance (p.97). A very important thing to keep in mind for secondary students is motivation. Often times students that haven't been successful in the past are not a motivated, or may think about learning differently (p.102). It is important to keep these attitudes in mind when dealing with individual students. It is also helpful to use strategies in the classroom that will help these students feel successful, such as working on reading and writing (literacy) through your content.

The authors discussed the continuum between entity and incremental theories of the mind. Entity theory described students who believed their intelligence was fixed and tended to have performance goal orientation. Students that exhibit ed performance goal orientation required positive feedback on their performance and completed tasks to either gain praise or may avoid tasks because they do not want to fail or be judged negatively. Teachers that are aware of students’ tendency towards this end of the continuum can provide support, encouragement and positive feedback, while working to help students feel there will not be negative judgment for unsuccessfully completing a task. Incremental theory resides at the opposite end of the continuum and included students who exhibit learning goal orientation. Students that align with learning goal orientation believe intelligence is determined by ones effort and will, and is therefore not fixed. These students will seek challenges and tend to persist through difficulties. Teachers can provide support to students that align on the incremental theory end of the continuum by monitoring students learning and providing challenges that are neither too easy nor too difficult (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 101).

The authors bring to light the role of culture and how it affects the development of communication. Children in different cultures participate in adult conversations to varying degrees (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 109). Some cultures encourage students to participate in direct conversations and activities with adults, whereas some cultures restrict participation to eavesdropping only. This can potentially impact classrooms, especially if students come from a cultural background that does not encourage direct communication with adults. These students may be hesitant to communicate with a teacher in control of the classroom. In this instance, teachers should allow more group work and whole-class discussions. Another area of communication that culture impacts is questioning. In some cultures, questions serve a different purpose and do not reflect the "known-answer" type of questions that are frequent to the main-stream classroom (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 110). Students that come from a cultural background where this type of questioning is common are placed at an advantage over those students that do not have the same background. Teachers need to be aware of and utilize various questioning techniques in their classrooms so as to encourage all students to participate in discussions.

==After reading this chapter, I was really left with the question “What is learning?” I know we answered this in class, but I would really like to hear what more individuals have to say on this topic. Therefore, what is learning? How do you view it in relation to the information you obtained from this chapter and what were your preconceptions before reading the selections for the week?==

Learning is a process. This process is based on the construction of knowledge in meaningful ways. This is done by leaners being able to evaluate their own existing knowledge when presented with new information. According to Bransford et al. (2000), "people construct new knowledge and understandings based on what they already know and believe," (p. 10). If learning does not occur first establishing what is already known, students will not effectively establish connections between previous and new. The new information will not be retained or transferred to new contexts (Bransford et al., 2000). It should also be considered that students will go through a transitional phase between previous and new conceptual understandings (Taber, 2000). This transitional phase must be respected in the learning process. In addition, student learning must be assessed through a method that shows progression of understanding. Taber (2000) used a longitudinal interview approach to fully understand the conceptual structures that students used.

Another interesting take on learning and understanding is presented by Ford and Wargo (2011). Understanding is an important aspect of learning. When considering understanding, the authors state that understanding is not a one way transmission, or monologic, but that understanding is multidirectional, more like a dialogue. By using a dialogic approach to learning, students' understanding of complex concepts was increased. When thinking about learning and understanding, we know both can be supported through dialogic framing but its important to think of understanding itself as a dialogue.

Children are first exposed to learning within “privilege domains” (Bransford et al., 2000 p. 81). These domains become the foundation to which knowledge is constructed and learning occurs. Based in the research conducted through young children methodologies, it is established that the following are privileged domains; physical concepts, biological causality, early number concepts, and attention to language (Bransford et al., 2000). Learning is the ability to locate knowledge by utilizing information to fill in the blanks, and applying new information to further the develop oneself.

When working with middle to high school level students, it is important that teachers address existing knowledge. This is due to the misconceptions that students might hold from outside attribution of cause relating to the world. If students are allowed to evaluate (metacognitivly) their own thinking and establish connections to new knowledge, the ability to transfer knowledge to new experiences is enhanced. By integrating real-world applications into the learning environment, students are given the opportunity to "transfer from school to everyday environments" which establishes "the ultimate purpose of school-based learning" (Bransford et al., 2000 p. 78). The two domains described previously can also be described as life-world knowledge (real-world application) and symbolic universes of knowledge (abstraction) (Taber, 2000).

Anecdotal Addition: Logan- Though my classroom is a unique environment, learning has been clearly defined for my students. I work in a virtual lab, a location where students come for credit recovery and work though the day with the instructor as a resource instead of a giver of information. In my classroom we highlight that your given knowledge can be utilized to develop a stronger understanding of topics that are previously under or misunderstood.

==After reading Chapter 4 in “How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School - Expanded Edition” do you have any plans to change how you engage the learners in your classroom? Do have any new understanding on children as learners you would like to share with others?==

The chapter seemed to focus primarily on infants and young children. As a middle school teacher it was difficult for me to be able to glean something that would be directly applicable. However, I do have a 17month old daughter. This chapter was very eye opening in the capabilities that my daughter is already capable of. One thing in the chapter that stood out to me is that childrens learning is very self directed and purposeful. I am no researcher but I agree that even though many things my daughter does can seem random but there seems to be a definite methodology she follows to figure something out.

=Expertise in Mathematics Instruction: Subject Matter Knowledge - Facilitators: Fry/Kruczek=

One thought is that preservice teachers need to be challenged with more Problem Centered Learning tasks in their college methods courses. They need instructors/professors who have experience with these types of problems so that the preservice teachers can model appropriate questioning techniques and basically become used to the fact there are many different ways to look at math problems and that one method is not better than another. Each individual learner is allowed to make the choice as to which method works best for him/her. Preservice teachers need to feel comfortable with their own mathematical abilities to be comfortable with encountering problems in which there are many ways to solve and those types of problems that may not have a solution. Then those new teachers can provide valuable experiences to the students of tomorrow in which the students will need to rely on their own problem solving and decision making skills once in the real world. (These are my personal thoughts based on my personal experiences.)
 * **Many math teachers feel that if you can "do" math problems correctly--if you can get the right answers--then you can teach these topics. This assumption holds that remembering and doing are the critical components of mathematical understanding. What can be done to encourage new teachers to not fall in to this mindset? **
 * **The authors profess that to have expertise as a teacher, one must have (a) lesson structure knowledge and (b) subject matter knowledge. Teaching skills and strategies fall under the first, while the second "consists of domain-specific information necessary for the content presentation." The authors add that this "second aspect is considered the knowledge component of expertise." Is one aspect more important than the other when it comes to educating our children? Share your thoughts on the importance of each aspect and/or how they relate to knowledge-centered learning. **

Leinhardt and Smith’s (1985) study Expertise in Mathematics Instruction: Subject Matter Knoweldge, examined behavioral differences during classroom instruction between expert and novice elementary mathematics educators with varying levels of subject matter knowledge and lesson structure knowledge. The study propounds “as teachers increase their conceptual knowledge and become more fluid in connecting their knowledge to lesson presentations, their students’ mathematical competence should also improve” (Leinhardt and Smith, 1985, p. 269-70). A strong foundational knowledge of subject matter will prepare educators to examine mathematical problems from multiple perspectives and equip educators to present multiple algorithm and heuristics to support different learning needs of their students. Leinhardt and Smith’s (1985) employed a card sorting methodology to determine teacher’s level of subject matter knowledge of fractions. Their findings illustrated that expert teachers with a high level of subject matter knowledge were able to identify patterns in problems and sorted the cards with greater detail and understanding than novice teachers with moderate or low subject matter knowledge. The findings suggested a deep understanding of fractions led to an ease of integration of multiple representations of fractions into classroom instruction. The study exemplified knowledge-center learning through emphasis on subject matter knowledge and understanding as well as ability to transfer knowledge to a new context. Teachers with high-level subject matter knowledge more readily transferred their knowledge to their classroom instruction of fractions. Their study also demonstrated teachers with moderate to low-level subject matter expertise knew the algorithms for fractions, however they had difficulty transferring the constructs to new problems, i.e. identifying equalities and the symmetry of multiplication and division. The amount and kind of initial learning here is hypothesized to affect transfer. So students not only develop preconceptions that are incorrect on their own, but sometimes these arise from teachers or other adults.

In a study regarding the teaching of conditional probability and independence to middle school students, Groth (2010), affirms many of Leinhardt & Smith's ideas noted above. While students often struggle with this particular content area, this may be attributable to the fact that "teachers are least prepared to teach statistics and probability" (p. 32), for m any teachers themselves have not had courses addressing this content during their coursework in college. This study looked at three sevent-grade teachers looking to improve on their teaching of probabilty and independence. Data amassed for this study came from the following: (1) a four-column lesson synopsis from each teacher, which includes (a) the procedural steps required to complete the lesson, (b) the principal learning activities, (c) predictive student difficulties and (d) comments on the teaching; (2) worksheets, handouts and Power Points that go along with the lesson; (3) copies of emails between teachers and researchers; (4) video’s of the lessons; (5) and field notes regarding teacher reflections of the strength and weaknesses of the taught lessons. The author has determined that it is imperative that teacehrs develop common content knowledge (CCK) and specialized content knowedge (SCK), so they can become expert teachers in this field. The author states that teachers with CCK can compute accurately, make correct mathematical statements and solve problems in that subject area, while SCK "is a type of subject matter knowledge that allows teachers to provide understandable explanations, appraise students' methods for solving problems, and construct and evaluate multiple representaions for concepts" (p. 49).

Another study regarding the educational program associated with the International Heliophysical Year conducted by Scherrer et al., (2008), provided evidence that increasing the subject matter knowledge of teachers through a professional development program, equipped teachers to use authentic scientific data collection and analysis to increase student learning with understanding in a knowledge-centered learning environment. This study exemplified the need for teachers to have a high level of subject matter knowledge and the ability to transfer their knowledge into classroom instruction. Scherrer et al.’s (2008) study also found that students who were given hands-on exposure to authentic scientific data collection and analysis learned about the challenges in collecting scientific data and furthered their understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge and science as a human endeavor. The authors explained that the knowledge-centered learning environment had provided students with ample time to explorer content in multiple situations and to struggle with conflicting interpretations. These teaching strategies equipped students with the mastery understanding to transfer learning to new situations.

One study focused on the ability of a college level learning network to provide and maintain high quality online teaching and learning that also supports student satisfaction (Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003). Students were asked to rate their instructors, classmates, and the overall online courses in three different areas: instructional design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. Results showed that students who rated their instructor high in the areas of instructional design and organization and direct instruction also reported high levels of satisfaction and learning. These results imply that there is a strong relationship between how a course is designed and organized and how much a student is satisfied with the learning they are obtaining. These results illustrate that students also value an instructor's ability to effectively design and implement a course.


 * **The researchers in this article used Semantic nets as a means to assess the teachers (subjects/participants) declarative knowledge. The authors state "declarative knowledge consists primarily of the known facts in a particular domain." The nets created by the authors depict the participants core knowledge of fractions as well as the teachers explicit information discussed during the lesson presentation. These nets are somewhat confounding to me. Do any of you use these, and if so, was it an easy transition to incorporate them in your planning? If you do not use them, any other comments are welcome as well.**

The authors proclaim that many teaches have not been exposed to semantic nets, thus never using them in planning courses. Semanitc nets are graphical organizing tools which use different shaped boxes and lines to reperesent various types of information. They display the pattern of a lesson, concepts and the thinking done by the teacher, including identifiying all prerequisite knowledge and considering all aspects of each lesson. These nets can be used to plan in advance, but equally important, they can be used to reflect on teaching practices and content taught, at the end of lesson. This tool affords teachers a way to quickly organize lessons with the intent of focusing learning, and deepening student knowledge, rather than merely skimming the surface inorder to satisfy End of Instruction Exam objectives for example. A similar tool used is a concept map. Teachers and students together can create a map of the concepts learned along with lines repesenting connections between concepts. These help students organize their thinking and enable them to have the main ideas all on one sheet of paper.
 * **What else must pre-service teachers and teachers with low to moderate-level subject matter expertise do, to become effective teachers in a knowldege-centered learning environment? More problem-centered learning tasks were mentioned above, as well as planning using semantic nets. Please comment on what Leinhardt & Smith say, or additional ideas or comments from the other readings are also welcome.**

One suggestion made by Leinhardt and Smith is that teachers need to increase their conceptual knowledge and their ability to connect this knowledge to their lesson planning (p. 269-270). Groth (2010) agrees when he states that "enhanced common and specialized knowledge may help teachers" establish productive learning environments. With repsect to knowledge-centered learning environments specifically, the Groth suggests teachers develop the ability to (1) state mathematical problems correctly for this is a "cornerstone of knowledge centered learning environments"; (2) use proper terminology and language at all times in order to help students "work towards using words and phrases in accord with the convention of the discipline under study" (p.42); and (3) represent the connections that exist bewtween concepts. All three are necessary, and must cultivated. To aid in this development, support and training needs to be provided to teachers, with the focus being on lesson development and presentation. Leinhardt and Smith also mention using teachers' manuals to expand on the conceptual information and providing examples of classroom applications that go further than the most obvious connections.

Teachers, according to Misquitta, can focus on three interventions to improve student performance: graduated sequence, direct instruction,and strategy instruction(p.116). Graduated sequence involves the use of manipulatives and concrete objects to aid in instruction. Direct instruction uses step-by-step instructional strategies for different problem types and then provides opportunities for guided and independent practice. And finally, strategy instrucion allows the use of cue cards or mnuemonic devices in order to develop problem solving.

=Reasoning About Data in Middle School Science - Facilitator: Tracy Thompson=


 * How is this particular article related to Knowledge Centered Learning?**

Vellom and Anderson’s (1999) study related to knowledge-centered learning environments by providing an example of science instruction that empowers students in their own learning while minimizing the authority of the teacher. Allowing the students an opportunity to collectively debate their findings provided an opportunity for students to gain knowledge about how scientific communities develop scientific knowledge. The authors stated “as a result of their struggle to reach consensus the students owned their knowledge of stacks; they treated it as personal knowledge that they understood with a confidence that was lacking for many other ideas” (p. 194). Knowledge centered learning advances knowledge with understanding and the ability to place knowledge into a conceptual framework that will allow students to transfer knowledge to other settings. The authors recognized the limitation of their study to provide evidence that students would be able to transfer their knowledge to different settings, however students may have gained a foundation for understanding scientific standards and constructs (p. 195).

Additionally,t<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">he four goals of this study were for students to reach consensus about possible and impossible scenarios, developing arguments, appreciating scientific knowledge, and establishing social norms for collective inquiry. I think the third goal is the one that specifically resonates “knowledge-centered learning.” The fact that students need to appreciate scientific knowledge speaks volumes about the authors’ beliefs about the value of specific knowledge in science. Most people will first tell you that science is about facts, which is true, but science is also a process, and student understanding of the process of science is reflected by the other goals. However, I really feel like that third goal is incredibly valuable to the study. When analyzing the results of the study, the authors’ explained that “the students owned their knowledge of possible and impossible stacks in ways that they did not seem to own knowledge that they had acquired in more traditional ways,” further showing the focus on knowledge-centered learning.


 * What was the goal of the instructor of having students separate "data" from "noise"? Does this portion of the activity match a knowledge centered learning environment, why or why not?**

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The purpose of separating data from noise mirrors a process carried out by scientists. After collecting data, scientists must filter through many, many piles of information and decide which is valuable and trustworthy (data) and which is not. I think that allowing students to sort through the data and the noise themselves, their confidence in their abilities to do science would be increased. Also, by completing such tasks, students would become better able to distinguish trustworthy scientific information. I think this process does mirror knowledge-centered learning in that this specific goal focuses students on a task of identifying useable, valid knowledge. What in this mass of information can we use? What can we not use? It is very much centered around the development of knowledge and increasing student capabilities of discerning that knowledge from the noise. However, because this task is student directed, I think it also would fit very well into a learner-centered environment, but I don’t think classroom practices need to fit into discrete categories as “knowledge-centered,” “learner-centered,” “assessment-centered,” or “community-centered.” Because this task serves the purpose of enabling students to independently identify which information is good, to be used as data, and which is unreliable, or noise, that it is a knowledge-centered activity.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">I agree with your statement that the activity was "centered around the development of knowledge..." I also thought that the practice of discerning between data and noise was an excellent activity to develop knowledge. However, after reading the article again the word "community " kept jumping out at me, along with "groups". Even though the article focuses on student knowledge, I felt that it may have fit better under "community-centered."


 * According to the Committee on How People Learn, "Knowledge that is taught in only a single context is less likely to support flexible transfer than knowledge that is taught in multiple contexts" (p. 78). How does this statement affect your reflection on the Vellom and Anderson article?**

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">After first reading that statement, it seemed to make sense, given the fact that the Vellom and Anderson study approached mass, volume, and density in a very non-traditional way, which seems to me, to be another context to teach the topic. But, when I re-read the authors’ conclusions it didn’t seem overly convincing that the approaches in this study were successful across the board. Specifically, “While students who were already successful in school tended to appropriate the discourse and practices of the community as their own, we saw less evidence of this kind of appropriation from students already marginalized.” It seems intuitive that the greater variety used to present students with a given topic, the more successful they will be, but I don’t think that is always the case for all students. Students who are already successful in school will usually continue to succeed despite what the teacher does but there are also groups of students who may not always benefit from multiple contexts.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The statement from HPL can be confirmed by the case study in the Vellom & Anderson article. It was encouraging that within a rich problem space and through a discovery-based learning task, students took ownership of their knowledge of possible and impossible stacks (more so than from a traditional lecture), through their ability to "discover the truth on their own." <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">An understanding of density through the process of inquiry is shown to be effective in Vellom and Anderson’s (1999) study. In this case the teacher guides students through their conceptual change, spending a large amount of time on the task. The teacher brings out and corrects preconceptions about the properties of matter. Bransford, Brown, Cocking, Donovan, and Pellegrino (2000) state that teachers can help students transfer ideas between school and real life by having students work together, use tools, and use contextualized reasoning (p.73-74).

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">However, there was "little evidence that they generalized from this experience...this d <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">id not lead them to inquire more deeply about the nature of scientific knowledge" (p. 195). As Bransford et al (2000) profess, student engagement in a task is important, but it does not by itself, ensure "that students will acquire the kinds of knowledge that will support new learning" (p. 24). Students not only develop preconceptions about content, but also social structure and order. Vellom and Anderson’s (1999) study shows that students that were use to normal classroom procedures had a difficult time collaborating like the professional scientific community.

=Remedial and References=

Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers, Center for Studies on Behavior Development, & National Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: History,Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved May 20, 2012, from []

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R., Donovan, M.S., Pellegrino, J.W. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School - Expanded Edition. Retrieved May 30, 2012, from []

Bringham, F.J., Scruggs, T.E., and Mastropieri, M.A. (2011). Science education and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disablities Research & Practice, 26(4), 223-232.

Ford, B., & Wargo, B. (2011) Dialogic Framing of Scientific Content for Conceptual and Epistemic Understanding. Science Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/sce.20482

Gegenfurtner, A. (2011). Motivation and transfer in professional training: A meta-analysis of the moderating effects of knowledge type, instruction, and assessment conditions. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 153-168. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.04.001

Groth, R.E. (2010). Teachers' constuction of learning environments for conditional probability and independence. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(1), 32-55.

Kanter, D.E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525-551.doi: 10.1002/sce.20381

Ketterlin-Geller, L., Chard, D., Fien, H. (2008). Makingconnectionsin mathematics: Conceptual mathematics for low-performing students. Remedial and special education, 29(1), 33-45.

Leinhardt, G. & Smith, D.A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247-271.

Misquitta, R. (2011). A Review of the Literature: Fraction Instruction for Struggling Learners in Mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 109-119.
Rivet, A.E., & Krajcik, J.S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79-100.

Scherrer, D., Cohen, M., Hoeksema, T., Inan, U., Mitchell, R., & Scherrer, P. (2008). Distributing space weather monitoring instruments and educational material worldwide for IHY 2007: The AWESOME and SID project. Advances in Space Research, 42(2008), 1777-1785.

Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of "teaching presence" in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds). //Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction// (279-312). Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Taber, K.S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 399-417.

Vellom, R. P. and Anderson, C. W. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (2), 179-199.