In Russ & Sherin’s article,
“Using Interviews to Explore Student Ideas in Science,” they discuss the use of
interviews to gain information about student’s ideas and prior knowledge about
a specific topic, what students truly understand and what they find
difficult. Sherin and Russ discuss three
ways for carrying out these interview: contextualize the concept being discussed
by making to relevant to the student’s life, probing the student’s response through
generic or specific questions. and
providing new ways of thinking about concepts, either by questioning the
student about similar situations or guiding the student to reach other
information. Finally, Russ and Sherin
emphasize that teachers must be well prepared in both content knowledge and for
the interview itself, preparing questions and anticipating student responses.
Greeno and Hall focus on the
various types of representation within and outside the classroom. The researchers deem this “practicing” of
representation, involving construction and interpretation, to be an active
collaboration between peers. This form of learning goes beyond the typical
classroom assignments where students are given specific forms of representation
as “ends” that they are required to complete.
Instead, Greeno and Hall emphasize that various representations of
information must not be taught as ends but instead be used as means to an end to
help foster understanding and communication among peers and teachers. Additionally, they state that these
representations can and should be constructed to cater towards the specific
topic/subject. Finally, they claim that
students must fully interpret these physical notations in order for them to create
meaning and become representations.
In his article, Ginburg discusses
general guidelines for creating successful interviews, where the student is
viewed as an active and autonomous “constructor of knowledge” by the
interviewer (117). Ginsburg emphasizes
the importance of fostering this “clinical sensitivity” within the interviews
through the development of trust between participants, where the child feels
safe and secure to share his/her mental processes with the interviewer (129). He further defines this definition, stating
that Ginsburg, throughout his article, continually shows how the aspects of
these interviews come in contrast to the current standardized testing methods:
while the interviews focus and cater towards the individual and their methods
of understanding, standardized testing focuses on evaluation and knowing the
correct answer, regardless of if the student actually understands it.
Themes:
·
students AND TEACHERS are active agents within
the learning process, constantly constructing and interpreting information
obtained through various means and representations.
·
Interviews are critical and successful ways for
teachers to grasp student’s prior knowledge and understanding about concepts
and ideas.
·
Specificity and contextualization is critical
for student success.
·
Create a comfortable and safe environment for
students
One thing that stood out to me in
these readings was when Ginsburg stated that the interviewer must be actively
engaged in the process. While this seems
like common sense, stating it explicitly seemed to hit home for me. We often have discussed how students must be
active agents, but oftentimes neglect the teacher. However, as we have read about interviewing
students and have discussed modeling, teachers must also be learning, building
upon and revising their own concepts as they participate in the teaching
process. In a sense, the label of “teacher”
disappears and they become partners in the learning process, not completely
separate from the actions of a student.
Russ and Sherin also incorporate this active nature through their
emphasis on probing students and their understanding. The author stated that simply saying that ice
in water floats because it is less dense is not enough to determine that a
student actually knows what he/she is talking about. This directly related to the case study we
watched, where the student in the green shirt stated that the farther you stretch
the lizard, the farther it will go and the teacher took that explanation as
complete understanding between the concept of kinetic and potential energy. The teacher should have asked questions like Can you expand upon this relationship? How
is stretching the lizard related to kinetic and or potential energy? When does the lizard have potential and/or kinetic
energy?
While I do deem interviews to be
critical for teachers to gain a sense of where students are coming from, researchers
did state that these conversations do occur outside the teaching block, raising
slight practical questions. As Ginsburg
stated, teachers are often pressed for time to complete the curriculum material
within the class. When placed outside the classroom instruction
time, how available are the students and how often/how long are these
interviews? There are limited
availabilities within the school day (lunch, study hall), so is it fair to take
away time from the student? Russ and
Sherin talked about group interviews, however how practical would this be if
students have all different schedules?
I think you brought up a great point connecting the article to the video case regarding the importance of explanation. When I first watched the case study video when a student said something like, “the more potential energy it has, the more kinetic energy it has”, I thought that made sense. I could see the connection between the more stretched the lizard is, the more potential energy it has and when the lizard is then flung, the potential energy is turned into kinetic energy. So more potential energy would mean more kinetic energy when flung. However, after we discussed this I realized how crazy it would be to just assume the student made that connection. There could be a completely different understanding by the student of what he or she meant, without asking for a more detailed explanation or probing the response with more questions; I couldn’t possible gauge the students true level of understanding. I think you also bring up good points about some of the challenges to the interview process of students, especially with limited availability of students outside of class and differences in schedules. However, Russ and Sherin offer another option, “You may choose to do this during students’ lunch or free period, or before and after school. You may also be able to interview some students during class while others are working on an independent activity” (Pg. 22). I suppose conducting a casual interview during class can be just as effective. A teacher can even take the time they would use do a different less engaging assessment (like a scantron pre-test) and instead use that time to conduct the interviews during class. The information from the interviews could make all the difference in an effective lesson plan for the unit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the theme you brought up on how teachers are also a highly active piece in science education. In other courses, we have been reading different philosophies of how present a teacher should be in the classroom and student learning. The authors we read this week are saying that teachers can be active in the classroom. We can help students more in the classroom by interviewing them, creating a more comfortable atmosphere in the classroom, and helping them understand their own thinking and construction of ideas. This also brings up the idea of scaffolding, and how much is to much or too little when creating a modeling or argumentation lesson. How much should a teacher help a student as he or she thinks and constructs?
ReplyDelete