The outline of my claims:
FIRST CHUNK: describing transfer as intercontextuality
1 - We have two classes teaching optics - a traditional physics class and a weird Scientific Inquiry class. They show very different responses to a survey on transfer of ideas about optics, see?
2 - Let's unpack one student's rich response from the SI class (the Walgreens story) and think about how this might count as transfer using Barnett & Ceci's coding...3 - Turns out that transfer from one context to another might not be as productive a way of defining this, but instead we should call it intercontextuality: she invokes the context of our class in an out-of-class context. (This is consistent with ideas about transfer from Wagner, Greeno, Wilensky, Goldstone, Hammer, Engle, etc.)
SECOND CHUNK: a coding scheme of IC and seeing IC in class
4 - So here's my claim: "transfer" to out of class contexts is promoted by rich moments of scientifically consequential intercontextuality IN class. I'll use the coding scheme from transfer (6 different contexts) to see if we see those contexts showing up IN class.
5 - First let me flesh out this coding scheme of intercontextuality using brief examples from class.
|
Intercontextuality domains: What non-classroom context is invoked in the development of scientific ideas?
|
|||
|
brief description
|
example
|
||
|
Not IC
|
Weakly IC
|
Richly IC
|
|
|
Knowledge domain: Ideas from another knowledge domain are positioned as relevant in class. |
Data generated in class is used as evidence for a model of color mixing. |
Knowledge from art class (another academic context) is used used to dispute our model for color mixing. |
Knowledge from bartending (a non-academic context) is used to justify a three-color model for colors. |
|
Physical context: Physical objects and spaces (present or not) that are not typically part of class are positioned as relevant. |
A lens and laser are provided as lab equipment and used to measure the index of refraction of glass. |
A dry erase marker, intended for the whiteboard, is used to color half of a lens to trace where light rays go. |
A student uses a jell-o cup to view the path of laser light before and after a lens. |
|
Temporal context: Prior ideas are held accountable to current and future knowledge. |
A model of reflection is established and built on over time, but not challenged or modified. |
An established model of reflection is challenged in class the next day when a student disputes that objects don’t “glow.” Our model is modified but not discarded. |
An model of reflection students had established - “secondary rays” - is refuted and discarded in light of the “koosh model” of reflection. *cite* |
|
Functional context: Ideas and objects used to explain/inform/perform X are now used to explain/inform/perform Y. |
Students are asked to use luxmeters to measure the amount of reflection from a mylar surface provided for this purpose. |
Unable to find a flashlight, a student uses her smartphone light to project a shadow as part of a lab. |
A hot playground slide is mentioned to justify the idea that light is absorbed by mirror-like surfaces. |
|
Social context: Relationships, identities and roles not usually relevant are invoked and relevant to developing scientific ideas. |
Students refer to ideas from the teacher, the book and other students in class. |
Student mentions she showed this experiment to her daughter, who had the same ideas and questions that we did. |
Student mentions his wife’s ideas in class, and notes he does not understand this until he can explain it to her. |
|
Modality: Multimodal: an idea is expressed using multiple modes. |
Students sit quietly and use written text to learn about and communicate ideas about reflection. |
Students use and interpret variety of written representations to describe reflection: graphs, diagrams, and text. |
Diffuse reflection is drawn as a “shattered” ray, demon-strated with a mirror and flashlight, compared to a cartoon, and sung about. |
And with that done, let's use this scheme to examine some longer class episodes...
6 - *lack of methodological rigor warning??* I pull fascinating vignettes from the class and describe how they are richly intercontextual using this coding scheme. I summarize: the high-transfer class shows rich moments of IC in these contextual domains identified by B&C.
THIRD CHUNK: teaching for transfer - disruption and devolution
7 - here I begin by returning to the traditional physics lab (the one with limited transfer happening) - describing the activity and noting that this activity is driven by an implicit contract: “the set of reciprocal obligations and sanctions which each partner in the didactic situation imposes, or believes to impose, explicitly or implicitly, on others, and those which are imposed upon him/her, or s/he believes which are imposed on him/her.”
8 - [METHODOLOGY ALERT!] I simply claim this as the teacher's side of the contract (I'd love to find someone else who has claimed this b/c I don't want to do the qualitative research to back up this point):
- the teacher provides only correct scientific knowledge;
- the teacher engages students in producing only correct scientific knowledge;
- the teacher assesses whether or not students have “acquired” that knowledge.
and I show in detail how this is at play in the (Pasco-structured) lab that students perform, and that this limits opportunities for bringing other contexts to bear.
9 - to change this contract, I propose what Ma calls "disruption" and what Brousseau calls "devolution" (this brings this work into contact with work on hybridity and third space):
- disruption: disruptions to typical classroom mathematics in order to provide opportunities for students to recruit a variety of funds of knowledge and other resources for problem solving
- devolution: “the activity of the teacher in attempting to induce the student to take on responsibility for a Situation.” (the term is literally “an act by which the king, by divine right, gave up power in order to confer it on a Chamber.”)
10 - So what are the ways in which this course offers disruptions and devolution? (AGAIN: NO METHODOLOGY. I JUST SAY IT!):
- Disruption/devolution via the absence of traditional text-based resources.
- Disruption/devolution via the lack of traditional lab equipment.
- Disruption/devolution via student authoring of questions.
- Disruption/devolution via student authorship, assessment and iteration of scientific models.
11 - For each of those, I unpack how these are both a disruption and a devolution: how do these structures change the traditional structure (disruption) in ways that give students authority/power over the content (devolution)? - And see how students recruit other contexts because of it? These are four long sections.
FOURTH CHUNK: implications
I haven't fleshed this out yet, but the general ideas I want to bring in are ideas that are related to my claims:
- Engle, PDE, Framing.
- distinguishing "scientifically consequential" from other examples of hybridity- connected to PDE and Ma's paper
- Responsive teaching.
- Chief Justice Roberts ("When physics is taught in such a way that students do not introduce other contexts in class, as is often the case, then the “unique perspectives” the Chief Justice asks about are not leveraged. But when this happens - when classes are taught in such a way that there are no “benefits to diversity” - this is a statement of pedagogy and not a statement about the importance of diversity when constructing and vetting scientific ideas.")
- epistemic framing and implicit contracts as related ideas.
- Brousseau's work.
