This study sought to address two connections that are fundamental to studies of science teaching and learning in classroom settings. The first one is the connection between classroom instruction and student learning outcomes, and the second one is the relationship between theoretical choice and analytical results. In this study, two theoretical perspectives were employed in parallel to examine a sequence of nine lessons on the topic of “Matter” in a Year 7 science classroom. These two theoretical perspectives are: Distributed Cognition (Hutchins, 1995) and Variation Theory (Marton and Tsui, 2004). The results of each analysis were compared and contrasted in an attempt to identify their similarities and differences in describing and explaining the classroom practice documented.The analyses from both theoretical lenses pointed to several issues underlying student difficulties identified in this classroom, including the problematic macroscopic-microscopic relationship, the lack of attention to “substance”, and the taken-for-granted temperature conditions. However, the two theoretical perspectives differed in their capacity to accommodate learning at different levels, to address the connection between instruction and learning, and to identify and advocate the likely benefits of particular instructional approaches. Distributed Cognition unfolded the connection between teaching and learning by a careful examination of social interactions and the utilization of artefacts in these interactions. It speculated learning occurring in different types of social configurations and interactions found in a science classroom (e.g. collaborative activities). From the perspective of Distributed Cognition, the inappropriate employment or coordination of resources was the key factor contributing to the limited success in establishing shared understanding among the participants in the classroom. Variation Theory explicitly modelled the connection between instruction and learning through the idea of patterns of variation, and it provided some general principles to evaluate the teaching of a specific topic. From the perspective of Variation Theory, it was the lack of appropriate variation in the key attributes of the object of learning that contributed to the limited success in developing student capability to make differentiations between critical and uncritical aspects of a scientific concept. But current applications of Variation Theory do not include learning occurring in the private domain of the classroom (e.g. student-student interaction) and are silent on the role of collaborative activity (e.g. group work) in learning.The juxtaposition of the parallel analyses showed that the two theories are complementary and mutually informing in their explanations of the documented classroom practice. But their assumptions about what constitutes learning and what contributes to that learning differed from each other. This study suggested that we should focus our attention on the identification of the contingencies of compatibilities in our efforts to combine or synthesize elements of different theories. In this study, the local combination of the results generated from the parallel analyses contributed to a more complete understanding of science learning as it occurred in the classroom.The findings of this study should inform science teaching, curriculum development, and instructional design of science classrooms. It also generated implications for research into science classrooms and suggested the need for the science education community to examine the role of theory and the relationship between theoretical choice and analytical results obtained through the employment of a particular theory.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/282408 |
| Date | January 2010 |
| Creators | Xu, Li Hua |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | Restricted Access: Abstract and Citation Only |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds