“Student Learning & Cognitivism/Constructivism”
The most exciting science class that I have observed thus far this summer took place on Tuesday of this week. The high school students had an opportunity to dissect a preserved sheep heart for the first time. Some students had done other dissections in their high school classes, some had not, but no one had dissected a heart before (including myself!). To begin the lesson, the teacher distributed work sheets that provided a brief review of the cardiovascular system, a detailed protocol for the dissection, and questions to answer. The students were expected to read through the introduction and answer the questions sequentially as they followed the protocol for dissection step-by-step.
I believe the process of learning a science lesson through an activity like dissection represents the Piagetian theory of discovery learning. The introductory material on the worksheet provided only minimal information about the heart, mostly vocabulary terms like “atrium”, “ventricle”, “valve”, “artery”, and “vein” as well as a two dimensional drawing of the heart labeling these parts. The teacher provided some guidance for the activity: walked around to each lab station, asked the students to point out certain structures of the heart before allowing them to continue the dissection. However, for the most part, the students were able to proceed with the activity themselves. I heard much discussion occurring among peers, particularly among the students within each lab group. Only when the students completely disagreed on a point did they call for the teacher for clarification.
While the students performed most of the lesson on their own or within their individual groups, I also witnessed learning occurring via scaffolding provided by the teacher. For example, I noted that the student I am observing had difficulty identifying each vessel visible on the outside of the heart (a step required before dissection could begin) and therefore asked the teacher many questions. Instead of simply pointing to and naming each vessel, the teacher would ask leading questions to help the student figure it out on his/her own. For example:
J (student): T, which is the aorta?
T (teacher): Well J, what does the aorta do?
J: Pumps blood.
T: Right. Where does it pump the blood from? And where does the blood go?
J: From the left ventricle to the rest of the body?
T: Good, yes. Since the aorta pumps to the rest of the body, it will be a very strong, muscular vessel. Now where is the left ventricle? [J points on the specimen] OK. Now use that information to trace the flow of blood from the ventricle to the vessel. Remember, the aorta will be a very muscular vessel. [J correctly identifies the aorta]
As I watched this lesson unfold, I realized that the teacher navigated each of the many student questions carefully. Sometimes, as in the example above, the teacher would use a scaffolding technique to help the student develop their own process for completing a task (i.e. identifying important components of a scientific specimen). Other times, the teacher would simply give the answer to the student. As educators, how do we know which approach or learning theory will work best for which student? How should we incorporate many different teaching styles into our lessons in order to reach each and every student?
I believe the process of learning a science lesson through an activity like dissection represents the Piagetian theory of discovery learning. The introductory material on the worksheet provided only minimal information about the heart, mostly vocabulary terms like “atrium”, “ventricle”, “valve”, “artery”, and “vein” as well as a two dimensional drawing of the heart labeling these parts. The teacher provided some guidance for the activity: walked around to each lab station, asked the students to point out certain structures of the heart before allowing them to continue the dissection. However, for the most part, the students were able to proceed with the activity themselves. I heard much discussion occurring among peers, particularly among the students within each lab group. Only when the students completely disagreed on a point did they call for the teacher for clarification.
While the students performed most of the lesson on their own or within their individual groups, I also witnessed learning occurring via scaffolding provided by the teacher. For example, I noted that the student I am observing had difficulty identifying each vessel visible on the outside of the heart (a step required before dissection could begin) and therefore asked the teacher many questions. Instead of simply pointing to and naming each vessel, the teacher would ask leading questions to help the student figure it out on his/her own. For example:
J (student): T, which is the aorta?
T (teacher): Well J, what does the aorta do?
J: Pumps blood.
T: Right. Where does it pump the blood from? And where does the blood go?
J: From the left ventricle to the rest of the body?
T: Good, yes. Since the aorta pumps to the rest of the body, it will be a very strong, muscular vessel. Now where is the left ventricle? [J points on the specimen] OK. Now use that information to trace the flow of blood from the ventricle to the vessel. Remember, the aorta will be a very muscular vessel. [J correctly identifies the aorta]
As I watched this lesson unfold, I realized that the teacher navigated each of the many student questions carefully. Sometimes, as in the example above, the teacher would use a scaffolding technique to help the student develop their own process for completing a task (i.e. identifying important components of a scientific specimen). Other times, the teacher would simply give the answer to the student. As educators, how do we know which approach or learning theory will work best for which student? How should we incorporate many different teaching styles into our lessons in order to reach each and every student?