Beyond Empirical Adequacy: Learning Progressions as Models and Their Value for Teachers

Autor/inn/en	Alonzo, Alicia C.; Elby, Andrew
Titel	Beyond Empirical Adequacy: Learning Progressions as Models and Their Value for Teachers
Quelle	In: Cognition and Instruction, 37 (2019) 1, S.1-37 (37 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0737-0008
DOI	10.1080/07370008.2018.1539735
Schlagwörter	Science Teachers; Physics; Models; Learning Processes; Teacher Attitudes; Thinking Skills; Cognitive Processes; Instructional Materials; Hypothesis Testing; Knowledge Level; Educational Research; Data Collection; Formative Evaluation; Pedagogical Content Knowledge; Student Evaluation; High Schools; Secondary School Teachers + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Science; Teacher; Teachers; Science teacher; Wissenschaft; Lehrer; Lehrerin; Lehrende; Physik; Analogiemodell; Learning process; Lernprozess; Lehrerverhalten; Denkfähigkeit; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Lehrmaterial; Lehrmittel; Unterrichtsmedien; Hypothesenprüfung; Hypothesentest; Wissensbasis; Bildungsforschung; Pädagogische Forschung; Data capture; Datensammlung; Pädagogische Kompetenz; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; High school; Oberschule
Abstract	As scientific models of student thinking, learning progressions (LPs) have been evaluated in terms of one important, but limited, criterion: fit to empirical data. We argue that LPs are not empirically adequate, largely because they rely on problematic assumptions of theory-like coherence in students' thinking. Through an empirical investigation of physics teachers' interactions with an LP-based score report, we investigate 2 other criteria of good models: utility and generativity. When interacting with LP-based materials, teachers often adopted finer-grained perspectives (in contrast to the levels-based perspective of the LP itself) and used these finer-grained perspectives to formulate more specific, actionable instructional ideas than when they reasoned in terms of LP levels. However, although teachers did not use the LP-based materials in ways envisioned by LP researchers, the teachers' interactions with the score reports embodied how philosophers envision the fruitful use of good models of dynamic, complex systems. In particular, teachers took a skeptical, inquiring stance toward the LP, using it as an oversimplified starting place for generating and testing hypotheses about student thinking and using concepts from the model in ways that moved beyond the knowledge available in the LP. Thus, despite--and perhaps even because of--their empirical inadequacy, LPs have the potential to serve teachers as productive models in ways not envisioned by LP researchers: as tools for knowledge generation. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01