FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W342572011> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W342572011 startingPage "348" @default.
• W342572011 abstract "RECENTLY I recalled an incident from some 20 years ago when a fellow middle school science teacher nearly put my eye out. This wasn't an angry encounter. Rather, a group of us had come together in a classroom after school to discuss an article in a professional journal that advocated cooperative learning for students. We had barely begun the conversation when someone made the mistake of mentioning kids constructing their own knowledge. Immediately I heard a shuffling sound and turned my head just in time to avoid being hit by an enflamed colleague swinging a meterstick back and forth with both hands, like a fireman at a three-story blaze, shouting, And then--look out! We'll just have to hose off all their crazy ideas and teach them real science! This bit of excitement turned out to be just a taste of the controversies to come as our science department engaged in passionate discussions during the school year over issues like student-centered teaching and inquiry learning--discussions that were typically disappointing and often divisive. I wondered, Whenever we consider changing the status quo in classrooms, what is it about the way we to one another that makes discourse so unproductive? In the years since, I have listened intently during dozens of school board sessions, textbook-adoption meetings, and science department retreats where participants have used closely held beliefs, values, and images to stake out positions on issues of instruction and curriculum. What I have found in these conversations is that, despite a number of shared goals for student learning that participants bring to the table and despite the shared understanding that there are as many ways to teach as there are teachers, the dialogue about science education quickly and inevitably reaches a stalemate in a contest between two irreconcilable scripts. For lack of more colorful terms I will refer to them as talk and reform talk. It is this rhetorical bottleneck that I want to explore here, using a recent experience with such a conversation as an illustration. First, however, some background is necessary. Roughly speaking, traditional focuses on student acquisition of scientific facts, concepts, principles, and skills. It argues that the classroom works most efficiently when teachers give clear explanations of scientific ideas and guide students through carefully controlled laboratory experiences. Reform talk, on the other hand, emphasizes that teachers must challenge and build upon students' existing ideas, as well as offer authoritative explanations of scientific phenomena. Reform further argues that students are often capable of making sense of scientific ideas on their own or in concert with other students and that learners can best understand the processes of science by conducting their own investigations. At this point, I have probably insulted readers who consider themselves reformers or traditionalists and left the rest wondering where I get off inventing simple-minded caricatures of such complex positions. Please bear in mind, however, that I am not referring to actual teaching practices. I am referring instead to two streams of that get activated when people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds come together to discuss the possibility of departing from business as usual in their school's science classrooms. Of course, when people discuss such issues (e.g., how standards will be implemented in their school or whether to use curriculum kits), they feel as compelled to belittle the views of those different from themselves as they do to explain why their visions of teaching should dictate new directions (or preserve the old). Traditional talk, then, often casts classrooms as experimental, child-indulgent free-for-alls, while voices criticize traditionalist approaches as rigid, authoritarian, and outmoded. What is remarkable about these conversations, apart from the predictability with which participants play out such scripts, is the historical regularity of similar arguments. …" @default.
• W342572011 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W342572011 creator A5078996800 @default.
• W342572011 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W342572011 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W342572011 title "Why We Can't Talk to One Another about Science Education Reform: Even Though Science Teachers and Other Stakeholders All Want Students to Be Instructed in the Most Effective Way Possible, Discussions about What That Way Might Be Are Seldom Productive. the Problem, as Mr. Windschitl Sees It, Is That the Participants Automatically Revert to the Scripts of Two Warring Factions. He Suggests a Way to Move the Conversation Forward" @default.
• W342572011 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W342572011 type Work @default.
• W342572011 sameAs 342572011 @default.
• W342572011 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W342572011 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W342572011 hasAuthorship W342572011A5078996800 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C2777179996 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C44877443 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W342572011 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C144024400 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C145420912 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C15744967 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C17744445 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C19417346 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C199539241 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C2777179996 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C2777200299 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C44877443 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C46312422 @default.
• W342572011 hasConceptScore W342572011C47177190 @default.
• W342572011 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W342572011 hasLocation W3425720111 @default.
• W342572011 hasOpenAccess W342572011 @default.
• W342572011 hasPrimaryLocation W3425720111 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W101111143 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W108973143 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W154062195 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W1590638521 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W165128139 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2002766673 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2011564734 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2020378366 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2065864450 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2085705426 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2085892402 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W218919127 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W259634545 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2605619970 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W260646408 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2759755193 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W343711799 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W85501501 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W92534694 @default.
• W342572011 hasRelatedWork W2619921092 @default.
• W342572011 hasVolume "87" @default.
• W342572011 isParatext "false" @default.
• W342572011 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W342572011 magId "342572011" @default.
• W342572011 workType "article" @default.