2 Anita Woolfolk - Educational psychology 7e canadian - Pearson-compressed-part-11.pdf

CHAPTER 10 Stocklady/Fotoli THE LEARNING SCIENCES and CONSTRUCTIVISM TEACHERS CASEBOOK: Learning to Cooperate m You want to use cooperative learning with your to have middle school students. Many students do? have worked learning. in groups, When you but few surveyed seem the class participated memb...

CHAPTER 10 Stocklady/Fotoli THE LEARNING SCIENCES and CONSTRUCTIVISM TEACHERS CASEBOOK: Learning to Cooperate m You want to use cooperative learning with your to have middle school students. Many students do? have worked learning. in groups, When you but few surveyed seem the class participated members about in true their cooperative experiences, most you rolled their positive. and let and These gifted would eyes and then them. students groaned. students talented, have several there are You believe and You that others a that wide who who take it that range are just would take of abilities, over is together experiences learning collaboration learning their can a crucial deepen including English, and have some and dominate not who a few who every are skill very are truly very discussion twenty-first-century understanding been if for as students shy; you all question, what explain, and of learning a teacher, CRITICAL build on together so each to you want others build thinking. your authentic students No matter confidence what, you want and your sense the of experience efficacy as successes. THINKING How would you What tasks How What of the will you will you will begin establish you experience? watch to introduce choose to cooperative learning to your students? start? groups? and listen for to be sure the students are making the most OVERVIEW In the AND past three behavioural, people chapters, learn. We examined solving. happening in his or approach of learning: cognitive the cultural and the time Describe sciences 10.2 Explain 10.3 you well the collaborative the the Apply learning completed this common elements constructivist that to to the of two role critical of other have roots We with will in explore constructivist cognitive learning in this digital age, environments. the be able to: interdisciplinary field of learning field. as a theory most contemporary to sciences. foundations explanations. should constructivism in principles you led of the learning, to educational theories consistent we will examine of this on early are chapter, assumptions perspectives these and learning attention we examine in technology-rich approach basic One cooperative Finally, the constructivist that learning, about and beyond skills including calls chapter, how of learning called that and what is investigation anthropology. this and learning, perspective approaches learning. have different Identify 10.4 service considerations By the 10.1 and study Sociocultural moved strategies that In in learning. have our what metacognitive approach and factors. as of on the individual expand fields a broad problem-based apprenticeships, including many cultural context of teaching we We considered explanations such focus neuroscience, and but processes interdisciplinary in of learning. science chapter, constructivism, perspectives number work social perspectivesinquiry, this aspects cognitive cognitive recent science, is different of learning In together sciences and complex head. computer people analyzed and a relatively brings psychology, aspects have explanations her from the learning a These insights This we information-processing, problem include OBJECTIVES classroom of learning constructivist practice, and teaching. theories. especially collaboration and cooperation. 10.5 Evaluate 10.6 the Describe use positive development THE In the and of previous the novices, study (or learning of the load schemas; does on the learning and in what responsible have also for most studied of the learning: theory Today, and multiple sciences. learning sciences philosophy, You learning; experts transfer) have together how solving, the is how thinking the and classroom to of of the and complex and world of memory differs reasoning; and foundations in knowledge the psychology, working represented their in neuroscience, some make-up information and research anthropology, explored 9, including know from brings sociology, already 8 and problem not were people Sciences? Chapters metacognition, transfers the learning. in of cognitive as other science, sciences such of technology psychologists many in field that learning role But computer fields adolescents. Learning The interdisciplinary education, and chapters, included What Are the influences learning. SCIENCES three are activities/service negative children we discussed. perspectives the community-based LEARNING research other of struc-tures from how that of knowledge beyond. Learning No in acquired matter how deep and applied Cambridge for deep schooling what their knowledge in Handbook learning in many focus, the in real of Learning to occur countries knowledge with for workers subjects world like Sciences, R. Keith learning sciences mathematics, mathematicians, Sawyer classroom Look the science, of scientists, traditional decades. in at Table (2006) practices 10.1 to see and and contrasts that the are have inter-ested literacy writers. In is the what it takes dominated differences. sciences An interdisciplinary science learning, on research based psychology, science, education, philosophy, anthropology, other fields of in computer sociology, neuroscience, that study and learning. 34 344 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION TABLE 10.1 How LEARNING IN Deep Learning Contrasts with TRADITIONAL BUT FINDINGS CLASSROOMS Class Learning material is not related already Teacher says, to know. Igneous rocks relate already are. Have... any TV home material as presented disconnected The is. definition.. and bits of learned metamorphic integrate in expanding rocks have doing memorizing procedures understanding fractions, Learners how invert that are textbook way. What about... Authorities. and over multiply. divide to... straight search how explained in the does textbook the many and same say is effective experts and procedures. are the accurate source facts Scientists of Learners and agree. in examination. presidential how would simply instead memorize of thinking of learning that and purpose. everything about the best This Learners the purpose strategies will be for are Source: Based on Learning Basic Even Sawyer, Sciences R. K. (2006). (p. 4). Assumptions though the perspectives, have but just learning conceptual can apply of the comes information to own personal machines (de Schools must create they to their where can Better beyond about the about are...? are learning, monitor on their could life? Sawyer you How (Ed.), fit own use can The you this tell Cambridge each are real-world school their if you Handbook study of from varying (Sawyer, 2006): facts expert. and procedures, Experts knowledge situation. into Experts have deep action; deep they conceptual solving. more Rather, knowledge. will not than transfer receiving students We must are deep and actively knowledge under-standings processing participate inventors, not 2004). environments. active many an alone is & Voeten, their assumptions you problem instruction of basic know put Learning learning students think statements Education. make to or texts. Sleegers, reason lives to students. effective environments not and construction Kock, Lets what approach some them finding by teachers K. Pearson Experts will allows learner. teachers R. critical the it? sciences about knowledge problem transmitted their learning knowledge. their the the In Press, socially Sciences procedures that from from so and modify of learning. 8 cases from and reflect own TV drug require week. How your of an excerpt why they understanding University agreement conceptual facts generates Learning school in growing deep science Learning fields is and new Cambridge understanding knowledge copy The York: different there Experts in New in text, On is by evidence processes. concept the a new out so ideas last in of a cure? determine about not about one is understanding, learning on the test. the think their if knowledge debates you more supported Learners a story people, means means thinking. probability Here by 1/2...? their that by in. even curing understand constructed... are or invent me what it divided into What is the.. and recognize what was ocean we will learn. Remind also has some diamonds. ideas, them there of.... and of integrate that with Ok, so 3/4 new We earth areas. Today patterns sets yesterday ? unchanging for your already rocks. the centuries, and on knowledge We of how principles. evaluate their kinds land divide.... Learners from the says, tops...? systems. about they Teacher have one in like two marble underlying why. To your how Learners understanding not or or and have trouble ideas facts without look interconnect week what counter maybe you and becoming about Lessons involve or about changed to granite they LEARNING Example: conceptual last floors seen do learned learned. you What Learners of knowledge. of SHOW DEEP understandings and believe. shows house? Class SCIENCE FOR new know Classrooms COGNITIVE REQUIREMENTS Learners what Example: Traditional FROM OTHER students in in problems walls It is constructing the job their and transfer of the own school deep their to cre-ate understand-ings learning from CHAPTER Prior knowledge knowledge are right, what are Reflection is Recently a fact the we in it AND filled 34 CONSTRUCTIVISM with preconceptions not takes change to begin with pass the (Hennessey, knowledge. developing test, Higley, Students through and so need writing, on. knowledge, But the students to conversa-tions, performance need to reflectthoughtfully progress. the brain (de repeatedly at in your COGNITIVE the and for SOCIAL Piagets in So kinds the images, our mind an using how (Wilson, action that acti-vates action models, gestures of actions and move-ments 2011). assumptions conclusion cognitive preparation AND this & Tabbers, to performing other In mind understand perform in action. and to our someone the world. the similar and we have be involved doing is our worldwhat the needs sounds understand to words, interaction world order fundamental to perspective bodies real with body 2010, our other with the sensorimotor So re-enactments, lead both this Watching by way In bodies we think. would learns these all in that Koning psychology, we look world the but the outside how example. drama, cognition section an for and engagement infants information & Radvansky, thinking. primary, ways, the to the our of our is some from observers learning educational In bodies, sensorimotor mind, represent (Ashcraft and affects conduits with simulations, embodied our central is senses sciencesembodied and world interactions the on are learning support on learning about the goals the not simple in with our and we think our world. just cognitive way in early as if can A the brain themselvesalmost that social of thinking the is learning sciences constructive. constructivismtopics In you will the hear teaching. CONSTRUCTIVISM situation: young The not reports, the through body, interacts of the movement, interact roots responses body to depends being motor the achieve the Observational Consider are and in that deep emerges of physical about to have interact and next work emerged need world cognition, Instead In classrooms does what will SCIENCES of these teaching conceptual conceptual own occur thinking areas and If learn world portfolios, deep has cognitively of that and they skits, interactions successfully 2002). deep their that develops view our our Some wrong. will the develop awareness processes senses about into works. students knowledge develop theme is with cognitive world. beliefs projects, new These interact to are the To This the idea some the come LEARNING Cognition cognition. this and then to perform enough. Embodied 32). right, necessary and analyze p. world and drawings, reflects Students the THE 2012). express not key. how know, knowledge are about part students Chesnut, is beliefs beliefs some the but their & and and 10 child nurse how are The nurse at who the you are never Do the you been down doing? repeats Chelsea, has station you hall need with Say the hospital calls over anything? question there? to the is the The the same something! girl result. The in her girl in above looks the bed, and the says tentatively, wing. Hi does nurse responds pediatric the puzzled Finally, little bed intercom Chelsea, not answer. emphatically, Hello, wallIm here. Chelsea like uses a what Here son encountered grown-up Ethan Ethan: wall. she is a She knows and another new not what example co-construct (running situationa should the of get a to The but she provides constructing to meaning. as they shopping wall. strangers, situation understandings to talking talk cart) Do buy we need wall is is not construct This persistent. sure It about meaning time, Kate and sounds walls. and her to She act. 9-year-old groceries: the big Embodied one? stating Kate: We mightbetter too big than not big enough. Here is our listwhere do we go Kate: We Whoa! need What ice cream happened for the to the party! ice-cream (Ethan heads carton toward you left frozen out on foods) the kitchen Theory cognitive processes first? develop Ethan: cognition that from real-time, interactions counter? humans and goal-directed between their environment. 346 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION Ethan: It melted Kate: Right while we Ethan: and are Kate: you that want? Kate: list The little are I Kate: guess Ethan: scale. What Ethan: OKit So make Ethan: 75 more too, right? to But a kilo us, local wont melt farmers. there close are two kinds. Which do to are our location. $2.35 a Hmmmthe kilo. How would you better? the isnt amount you on the how many cucumber over big kilos getper kilo. ones, just you there would is $1.50, a How could on that the price weigh, she food scale? each. puts you on a whole kilo costthats four quarters our local plus 75$3.00Gee, better, farmers. that an hours being meaning, 75, are and Where the they are are the bigger ones localthats small good cucumbers from?look label. about and plus ones Colombiais is a broad close to drive from us? the market co-constructed even geography. both on their here about like Burnaby. planning Constructivist own in.. ahead, theories Chelsea. vocabulary, of learning and in focus interaction with on others in on Ernst is are no 1: Learners 2: Social Schraw, a bit though and resources, problem-solving learning vast and of well woolly Glasersfeld, as mention theory & are Norby, approaches the just area 1997, Piaget; of learning, Vygotsky; of most contempo-rary Construc-tivist the John intellectual but in p. 204). philosophy a few psychologists, Gestalt Dewey and roots. constructivist theories organize social say that and science and and knowledge. knowledge construction pro-cess education, education all use Phils the colleague in educational embrace term these psy-chology two ideas. constructivism, Jack Martin they (2006; see also 1997). constructivist views (Palincsar, is to talk others to abilities to and 1. participate In two forms Phillips, focus build Idea about 1998; constructivists Central our own this mathematics to construction from their in educators according psychological help constructing computer-based Phillips, strategiessee as increasing in things 2001; in are important psychologists different Hickey, active 2011). and in many and as to interactions anthropology, to a research Rogoff; constructivist Idea way the Lave, it (von designers, ideas: Idea One and curriculum calls education in of Jean Central & philosophers, Glasersfeld grounded Central very by and Bruner, one central psychological of the von anthropology mean used epistemology, two even that of Learning term others. Bartlett, McCaslin understanding Wait ones for know smaller the Views and work often of information. that Ethan. and sense things kilo. cents knowledge Constructivist building is same centswhat the on solving, (Bruning, in a support British make There making 75 closeits at the people agree and to of 75 print Delta, problem the learner Or the a big 1/4 So I like psychologists; role with local? smaller right? price for plus perspectives View start by are. to these cost wants costs tiny psychology, active lets produced they hereclose better, weighed kilo Pretty educators, the is weighs cents Constructivism Constructivism vegetables Whats and if they you Constructivist emphasizes so first. deal? doctor if the Look like better expensive. Ethan: how while, produce Here around knowthe Maybe. at Kate: a buy promise! whole? are Kate: I out? the 1/4 a store local. each wonder I dont When say from a that Kate: Kate: ones bigger I figure long. cucumbers. cents is Well, this and says 75 which Ethan: be in that usually means ones decide may out growfruits the Local big math, we wasnt produce? Things OK, it shoppingI Whats Ethan: you and on improve contrast, with of 1997). how constructivism: We could individuals their mental social others oversim-plify use informa-tion, models constructivists in activities and view that ar CHAPTER meaningful in (Windschitl, type the culturesee 2002). of Lets Central look a bit psychological LEARNING SCIENCES AND 347 CONSTRUCTIVISM 2 each Constructivism. theories constructivism idea at THE constructivism. Psychological/Individual/Cognitive Many Idea closer 10 because that these individuals structures interpret situations (Palincsar, build or emotional Because study self-concept, individual in These with (Phillips, 1997, constructivists are or how cogni-tive p. knowledge, they par-ticular psycho-logical of their individual or identity, cognitive elements apparatus they own concerned certain of the experiences 1998). are up kind embrace their their constructivists some theories construct as they individuals include 153). beliefs, sometimes cognitive called Phot constructiv-ists; Stock they all focus people. When Chelsea section, own on the psychological talked she individual inner was to the making knowledge life wall in the meaning and of pre-vious using beliefs CONSTRUCTIVIST about VIEWS learners her actively package how Constructivist develop form, from their theories knowledge, teachers or are rather outside based than on passively the ideas that receive it, in sources. Gabbro/Alamy to respond you. when She was someone using structure that what plants they know Eylon, she her need knew world soil about something) to to impose (Piaget, grow how talks intel-lectual 1971; and eating to then Windschitl, conclude supports life 2002). that to When plants make eat sense children dirt, of observe they plant are growth using (Linn & 2006). Using because these they standards, are images, The outside and what on most (or with concepts, schemas) world enter head is working individual that information only outside with constructs Piagets we saw was directly (Miller, Such as an important main meaning At the perspective only know from our have no from factor in for more the interested and of to they perceive 1996; can and as we is never believe. try to Each or knowing of the objective ourselves cannot our social social Central of interaction radical 1, individual 2001). constructivism. or truth; meaning what we constructed and as first-wave & Paris, reality own environ-ment educational Idea Byrnes, notion knowledge that Some us constructs to the on their or reversibil-ity the that con-cerned Piagets coordinating saw the individual events. constructivism Paris, know explain and believe of emphasis constructivism individuals understanding its an less develop, knowledge 1997). kind as concrete Piaget not Piagets & Verschaffel, individual that did is as conservation (Moshman, with Greer, holds but thinking meaning on reality. indi-viduals 2002). as children universal reflecting external development, Windschitl, to such from referred in tied the of perspective that less the however, representations 1996; proposed inside because internal Marshall, 1996). perceived happening constructivism construction comes are psychologists, constructivist adaptive changing Corte, of H. be Some accurate Piaget mapping have experiences way of and and not end what own H. constructivism, (De extreme This 1995; 2, knowledge or solo making build (prop-ositions, (Mayer, sensations to 1993). or weak to retrieved the assumed constructivist representations and once environmentknowledge psychologists constructivism is (cognitive) organized mechanism developmental is and logic but & Simon, trivial Chapter the or thoughts, was the is Garrison, in with from 2011). cognitions Vera are internal be remembered work 2012; psychological more concern be learned can important representations As construct of input, contribution 1992; becomes special that processing correct it. thinking the theories individuals a source (Schunk, (Derry, contrast, information-processing how as constructive world In viewed memory, of the believe recent concerned First-wave they can but by others on as in we one of the our knowledge construction reality extreme (Hennessey of relativism, is correct. with et another al., all 2012). Learning that A knowledge for better explains difficulty and radical with all constructivists the this beliefs persons position are equal consists current is that, because when pushed all and sources of knowing, theory. or even of replac-ing perceptions they A individual Piagets Radical whether the psychological (knowledge) perceive, constructivism focus are the to valid constructivism Knowledge it is assumed individuals cannot wrong. to be construction; be judged right or 348 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION individual perceptions. have a professional over others, Second, have we students ask all as (Geary, 1995; Vygotskys mother to of to in social social cultural his 1998; Prawat, 1997; However, primarily was 1997). in add (M. the the and internalize or take knowledge in for yourself and skills interaction with created. quick Although (Windschitl, this or So (Bandura, 2001). of knowledge and to steer the problem are One create tools Cognition and as both (scaffolding) cognition uses music) way the of proximal help dance). people and zone and adult practices Vygotskys prac-tices child creates solutions both to products and of integrating individually indi-vidual constructed sometimes our main used concern to in describe how educational public knowledge psychology, it is is worth a developed others or with Social constructionists do not focus on individual learning. Their con-cern tools. Second-wave constructivism on the sources of Vygotskys social A and knowing, Constructionism science, math, is constructed. public constructed. about and 1997; or as president. important, knowledge. the Phillips, history, such in this what is Social some world 1997). the Relationships are beliefs, communicated Questions proper between all science, math, new might behave in knowledge power than and among economics, or constructionists and to raised way to more as knowledge, everyday believe have such of academic ideas, constructionists people disciplines kind commonsense people public knowledge Beyond how (Gergen, disciplines economics, how in as in How in is cultural theory. knowledge history not the construc-tivist (Moshman, of the to 2002). is is new context (Palincsar, look. is focus cultures is to think constructionism Constructionism. cultural and with culture and 2001). psychological of the weaving, 1993). cultural advantage where looms, generate social individual the problem writing, (Serpell, the One when computers, together repertoire societies a a place participating in & Paris, the concept cognition (reading, constructivism mediated The term creates maps, child groups of their socially Culture solve called and In knowl-edge, as a psychological both Vygotskys can been values and example, both. consider 2007). constructivist within was way to a child (language, adult social For him using (Mason, learning a social development Appropriating group and as a broad working possessing a of local, example, Byrnes, interactions categorize in in by Putting (Paris, Vygotsky and produced individually his out participating physics to with (running knowledge. in belonging develop-ment store toolsfor reason 2007). Vygotsky which culture cultural and not human emphasized grocery By and means social theorists us a peerhas 1985). culture the as the to able Cole, goals producers to gives area culture able sense, camps. from Being a it both toward Appropriating In that He bridges more on some social: other being of produce cultural constructivism interested is each Also, is of individual outcomes strategies to classify the meaning using (Mason, heavily of learning or new means knowledge relies 1996). developmentthe We 230). 2, Vygotsky 2006). learning psychologists theory of an adult part shape in the acceleration as second-wave he Phillips, notes, (p. consequences (Martin, learning known Chapter the participate constructivism, most because will correspondence, activity activities cream), both and and of in and appropriate include as force theory learning, equal. As teach-ers, (1997) believe is possible geography constructivism, is Because explain and act, construction contexts not students understanding Moshman they one-to-one saw and ice learners could (cognitive) but the kilo, reason, also tools, anticipating melted others, such psychological are and advance David and interactions and per outcomes tools cannot whatever teachers or justice, construction. correspondence As you about cart with able beliefs mathematics, of their as counting cultural Ethans learning price being conceptual in as shopping these means as then, believe First, as honesty and as learning one-to-one interaction, activities together; to Constructivism. just calculate range If good, such such educators. such 2012). his the equally continue for values, misconceptions learn. Knowing 2social shaped in are to thinking perceptions fields on to the knowledge, learning, All many hard students Schunk, Idea and work this some bigotry. in hold with emphasize and universal. Social Central space to some but to if they well let that problems answers understandings just appears are deception right learning constructed, how as are trouble might it such there because There responsibility commonly members of include public, is others teachers, who or socially to also held a sociocultural group to get what elected constructed, define students, are inter-ested understandings determines how history what and, constitutes families, con-stitutes class more such and th CHAPTER community are encouraged, The the and central philosophies elements in These they disagree theories How Is to 1. The and production is to 2. that and of the viewpoints never 1997). sources creates general be fully the for reflect not is direct building questions, resolved, her based but on knowledge accurate way things or and different how knowledge are. is, processing construction. mental the holds and The this that view person persons of such conditionaction more the closer Indi-viduals representations patterns, really experience Information the social) factors. learns, knowledge knowledge Table organized internal & with Norby, (Cobb true or accommodation from abstraction knowledge old that false; it knowledge. grows just grows construction. (cognitive) of such 2011). and abstracted and devel-ops more inter-nally and cognitive Another is example and through consistent is Knowledge grows (environmental development as language behaviours, external with Banduras the this view theory environments of described and in 10.2 reciprocal 10.2 summarizes How the Knowledge three Is general explanations about how knowledge is of the the in that outside Knowledge is a External Internal Direction it reflects and by of the models, knowledge, are based Knowledge modelling. beliefs, and on though discovery are and interactions the with Guided as social by culture, others, direct discovery, teaching, well as the individuals thinking affect Vygotsk outside and influenced interactions and coaching is thinking reflects through beliefs, and even and Piaget Knowledge teaching. constructed as filtered teaching, world, Exploration than experience. world really to organizing, knowledge. thinking knowledge. language, things processing and is accurate transforming, external influences is way THEORIES Information feedback, Knowledge previous important Knowledge EXAMPLE a representation teaching, the constructed mirror influences KNOWLEDGE world. experience more Direct learning. and reorganizing not AND by constructing world. affect extent the LEARNING acquired outside explanation and Constructed ABOUT Knowledge Direction Both 11 2012). ASSUMPTIONS Direction appro-priation (Brun-ing, Chapter constructed. Internal & development. internal people, an not direct tools is rather is description of cultural among but factors of assimilation, knowledge Knowledge Vygotskys use Schraw, interactions organization, New of reality, interactions and Piagets activity. and through as mirror and external (Schunk, a cognitive consistent External has explanations. cause-and-effect the his construction. is with TYPE con-structionists. culture, questions. constructivism world by concepts, such knowledge Knowledge TABLE is (Gergen, important some consider three external reality broader reality. to describes outside processes direct Both are AND 1999). Internal 3. can Lets approaches networks, objective Bowers, diverse challenged way cognition raise questions positions. (1982) truths rules deeper Foucault to the constructivism These different propositional the are SCIENCES Constructed? reconstruct as on different Moshman realities Michel LEARNING understand often attention THE constructionism. answers. among constructed. and perspectives favour to knowledge with its with Knowledge One tension is common on the tend of Derrida theory, different Collaboration bodies of Jacques Vygotskys some issues. traditional 10 learning. prior is CONSTRUCTIVISM 349 350 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION Knowledge: A second is Situated question internal, or General? that general, cuts and Psychologists learning affirm particular the before situation or navigationbut in the part current occur, current is model, the playground. in take of dinner they Situated skills, might class be or soccer is of that 1996, can the use tax forms ability were Learning 1997). in As you STOP that Community of or ideas are the and situation apply in which and that they in new settings. & your in calculate to high school does major of makes a to lesson centre or has do not it help in which curriculum in to be from one may help and situation, even is stu-dents though to when income et al., 1996). (Bereiter, psychologyand education another. on the skills as or irrelevant How way in the Student-Centred List what & Simon, a chequebook, R. Anderson situation student-centred? of knowledge doomed Help is those 1998). were learnednamely, taxes, educational another? much Reder, learning (J. have in school that income get-ting knowl-edge Rogoff, balance they initial of the and the that 8 Knowl-edge creation 2007; in them com-munity grade doing. a Anderson, appears your your participate idea R. calculations of the not to Mason, the ( J. also in as norms, of interacting able 1996; situ-ation The createdconstitute more and the the and rather to settings. of thinking but factories, office, tied students ways to do knowledge business new expert indepen-dently. in are in writers ways may part of Constructivist in the or learned question situation the in an function community. context not shifts studying of or adopting But school transfer one in the were 9, a from What student of Chapter the THINK and it like learning particular emphasizes 1991). that read Elements put the only Wenger, situated transfer We have looked or true. The idea knowledge in but not learns apply a & Resnick, learning time, major support of is deter-mined can next you section. Teaching the characteristics and features of learning. Social which useful learning learned to in judged Situated skills practice context saw this Common & part is generalconcerns encourage situation not argue, to structures, it such can in person becoming which is Over as enculturation, learning in contexts to that situated be applied across your means would Lave difficult community Collins, calculations, can 1997; the is they communitythe (Greeno, situation some skills tools until the gangs, particular the Learning level, school be applied you as the of as 15th-century knowledge explains a members has another practicea practice. world with street cognitive practices tools the that real until attitudes gang individuals well to more (Lave, and or The basic Thus, do because an be a placesuch in of such new but novices, in described group as specific p. 5). school language, as most is sometimes the knowledge may as in and false or true, learning halls, embedded time community accepted responsibility and and is use the At the school one con-structed. situated valuable. in situated skills, learned community. and learned high ideas, time. done, practices in more believe it is and flatbecomes counts considered knowledge which and in overthrown, where and beliefs, not is learning social current even in knowledge true useful with and what mathematicians over things view playersany viewed community more were learning behaviours, fits of was judged whether place a specific What apprenticeship on table, are idea that this The which new shape an earth within is and inherently community. questioned will Proponents on the time What is the useful ideas that emphasizes more like around which may be practice and the well learning It guide how practice Situated school. in outside is 1999). that be the construction learning may perspectives to social Bowers, time ideas context by & Columbuss useless bound the that (Cobb Particular constructivist or notion setting place. many emphasize Vygotskys fact and social who cultural as time across transferable, are they tied what that to were are difficult about as learners, therefore, meaning to inventors, at some areas of like are Chelsea not (Driscoll, revise not empty 2005, them filing areas of agreement? to disagreement All and Ethan, vessels p. make cabinets. try waiting 487). Humans better Our among constructivist sense to to the constructivist theories make sense be filled, constructions rather mental experiences. do not perspectives, that of their but construct of their assume knowing experiences. active models Again, necessarily Learners, organisms or schemas we but develops are resemble seeking and con-tinue knowledge externa CHAPTER reality; rather, This does they not understandings and are than there to no single conditions for 1. Embed 2. Provide 3. Support 4. Nurture for we Learning should to inquiry, Even though recommend five of learning. of knowledge is Marshall, 1992) 2005; approaches, Authentic learning lets content. constructed. look more closely student difficult ones; should at these consistent into with knowledge will solution in as they find authentic apply resources, learning they in so problems. are solutions. new multi-ple, There set of and is no problems. activities, the they are learning work on these complex their progress, track on. directions, There tasks what keeping and ill-structured parts. a stu-dents Instead, complex many bring as ones, fuzzy, possible may that drills. or step-by-step solving multiple embedded smaller situated be and skills with have (scaffolding) them down deal they believe basic problems experience rather, face support helping problems be would need has each and that simple problems and Constructivists problems few every students may Tasks. environments presents complex problems teachers is environments. as a part representations simplified a conclusion, Students the and just in that with teaching that not reach larger where use include thinking, 2005). approaches that (Driscoll, school sure are complex approaches in goals critical learning multiple understanding stripped-down, beyond be of situations problems, knowledge teaching. elements way breaking their negoti-ate Learning (Driscoll, responsibility use learning. complex world interacting an particular given should world. 351 CONSTRUCTIVISM wall. test peoplethey skills. problems, relevant shared and Environments be problems real in encounter The These Learners other AND persistent viable. emphasize and constructivist and and and constructivist not should kinds They perspectives many SCIENCES mother. concepts, multiple LEARNING friendly, or of his learning. realistic, perspectives, discuss Complex right with ill-structured to complex, ownership of Complex for theory, self-awareness schools useful understandings facts, solve negotiation multiple Before one in social dimensions so and openness Chelseas equally did THE learning: learning problems. goals inert constructivist Encourage they find and the Ethan storing like are and like similar and abilities is 5. experience share self-determination, interpretations, constructions meanings encoding developing unique all against co-construct Constructivists rather our mean that 10 This of aspect emphasizing to the of constructivist learning in situations Complex applied. learning Problems that Social Negotiation. Many constructivists share Vygotskys belief that higher mimic develop others is and through respect valued. A for major social different goal negotiationwhere learning perspectivesand interaction, of teaching is to develop relies on collaboration so collaboration students abilities to the of real life. Social and defend negotiation learning own positions negotiate listen to each competitive build while respecting or co-construct other. to shared the meaning. It is adopt a challenge what meaning To has for been by finding positions of accomplish this children called in others and cultures ground and together students that an intersubjective common working exchange, and are individualistic and commitment exchanging with to respect for one Perspectives model, one as they her try educational discovery and Representations analogy, one way to that one apply psychology learning. demonstration when students had given only one Content. understanding approach class The she of of six complex to every students earlier in the way represent was semester, content, situation. were presentation a but students to meaning presenting near with saw an copy encounter they Anita of some often happen example a of guided major only in guided discovery students should have and a structure provided metaphors. for ideasearly forms knew teaching in over time. the multiple This that school Another idea to discovery representations is of content consistent introduces years, example, the then with Jerome fundamental revisits the learning. with use those of different Bruners subjects manipulatives of in more in for the analogies, (1966) structure all spiral class exam-ples, curriculum, subjectsthe and A shared others by and finding exchanging Multiple representations using of Considering various examples, problems analogies, and metaphors. misconceptions. Resources using perspectives. build ground content Spiral My on and interpretations. oversim-plify this others attitude commitment interpretations. When of relies different Intersubjective common Multiple that to must talk attitudea Aspect process collaboration their situations ill-structured with in learning establish learning mental nature processes environments and more mathematics, big complex allows for curriculum teaching fundamental structure subjects years, in forms more Bruners early then in revisits and over design that introduces more time of the the all school the complex subjects 352 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION students and different processes Selig, ways in the students and our know shape in cultural are the differences aware & be in positions Student our of comes to assumptions the as role of If students shape choose, and knowledge, knowledge. their thinking, develop, way beliefs, us explored that to constructing different shaping able in each we a self-critical of and while defend respecting the others. Ownership several to influences more Pro-cess. making make, Different when in of the will what lead 6 role we world. Chapter positions INTERACTIONS Marley, emphasize own experiences experiences saw they their assumptions about we SOCIAL of The different AND quantities Construction approaches aware knowledge. TASKS the (Carbonneau, Knowledge Constructivist AUTHENTIC represent 2012). Understanding Phot to mathematics of Learning. interpretations of what it involves While there [constructivist] are theory Constructivist Stock approaches recommend learning in Shaw/Alamy the educators environments, learning create that as process. a household For example, well emphasize as the the complex, importance of students here realistic, social are and means, rel-evant in interactions collaborating most the focus efforts to agree to of teaching, understand enterprise budget. responsibility is a central examples of issue ownership APPLYING Even in our book, of learning we and though there are constructivist Windschitl (2002) Teachers student-centred applications students situations the ideas that of by the that 357). the students the Student owner-ship teacher of this own educational abandons Because rest change the design chapter of discussing instruction. PERSPECTIVES approaches suggests elicit learning many of p. that the the center instruction. spend CONSTRUCTIVIST recognize mean for will the 1992, not a dramatic putting at (Prawat, does Ian teaching that constructivist activities following and help activities experiences students views of the of learning, teacher and the encourage in relation elaborate meaningful to on we can students. or key Mark learning: topics, then restructure fashion their current knowledge. Students are given frequent opportunities to engage in complex, meaningful, problem-based activities. Teachers provide (technological Students with work one Support and problem could be clues, rather than student as a learner. else to that grow the of information are to given resources mediate as well as the tools learning. support to explicit to engage in task-oriented dialogue focus thinking. asked to on the drawings, knowledge in and diverse of and and other and construct acquisition reflective learners or encourage authentic contexts, arguments predetermined autonomous students representations. based right thinking on explain evidence, answers. in conjunction with above. a variety and writing, phenomena, students listed employ processes apply predict exclusively encourage evolving thinking to give (Windschitl, of assessment feedback 2002, p. strategies on the to processes understand as well how as the students ideas products of their 137) steps, an example, anything Teachers support and dialogue, texts, conditions are breaking down into providing the reminders, encouragement, problem for learning solving; own through are routinely interpret Teachers Scaffolding their same ideas, the a variety necessary collaboratively make do the Students with conceptual) another. Teachers to students and allows In or the in independence addition, expertise. deep constructivist One understanding development; requires they approaches implication need of that include Vygotskys students scaffolding scaffolding theory grapple in order with to to of work support cognitive problems successfully students devel-oping development in their in zone that is of zone. that proxi-mal Here CHAPTER is a good as the definition of scaffolding knowledge Scaffolding is students a Look of the kitchen previous the knowledgeto Even agree Fading: the own about and Inquiry and Dewey constantly melted p. at the ice the 137). begin-ning cream Ethans views Pol, of Volman, adjusting, support on the experience scaffolding, most & Beishuizen, differentiating, as the more 2010): and students and 2003; the draw to more tailoring understanding and responsibility for their to conclusions, on This is a general and arguing and picture with of Just the next at the to assume sections, centre cooperative 1910. and we provide learning. Educators includes 2002). or solve the have developed following The teacher the elements presents a puzzling problem, ideas, the giving the procedures, make the social gather was these students more they found included So effective on that collect-ing on evidence, prior knowledge, class discussions, than greatest impact on or a com-bination students draw and own was collaborate conclusions, to debate teacher-centred scaffolding not the inquiry activities traditional guidance When compared the having data, their that epistemic represent teacher completely procedures, based in 2006 Furtak as being collaboratively). to activities. and activities, work science, approach and presentations But throughout of 1996 on? Erin students working from inquiry to it. in inquiry science (participating presentations, teaching when social solve going conclusions (connecting conducted to processes doing (drawing or actually and questions, ideas), needed what is activities conceptual traditional came but actual epistemic and studies processes learning, scientific models 37 thinking the theories), procedural, letting in usually event the data), scientific and the of inquiry epistemic, approaches. consider-ing be able students: posing mental learning hands-on and format form & Rowley, categorized revising analyzed approaches the and or charting debating researchers In student apprenticeships, learning but explain (hands-on, students inquiry problem (2012) graphing eliciting 2011). put the choices, will so make hypotheses, original procedural generating (Belland, that making they designed options, and the colleagues data, are of action, be different Learning The the should of If students learning cognitive expertise consequences on a path own Matczynski, problem. test of action. approaches strategy, Lashley, or data reflect their basic this hypotheses collect student for the deciding Problem-Based of formulate paths then teaching growing consider select and described students learn, and learning, question, ideas, de assume support and specific adaptations (Echevarra, do 2001, mother to different van withdraws as they responsibility three inquiry her that choices strategies, more scaffolding: either is Students consequences, will examine and have 2011; teacher gradually scaffolds make possible event, the and and understanding. (Belland, Responsibility: addition, decisions many used teachers Hickey, his well learning. In John mother which as something: knowledge & and on 35 CONSTRUCTIVISM students. The teacher students more in cultural officeconnections psychologists The learning Ethan nature experts AND deepen. Transferring the the SCIENCES interactive (McCaslin between doctors Ethans Support: to and student LEARNING are teachers how the educational Contingency 3. in characteristics responses skills Notice scale dynamic teaching of the THE bringboth between conversation scaffold though on three 2. store section. and of knowledge its student connections grocery counter emphasizes and conception and at the that teacher meaningful experience back 1. both powerful create everyday and that 10 were impor-tant. effective. Inquiry Examples teachers science of Inquiry. guide units, for Shirley planning, called & Palincsar, Magnusson, Marano, Ford, and implementing, guided Magnusson, Magnusson inquiry 2004; & and assessing supporting Palincsar, Brown, Annemarie 1998). multiple Magnusson, The teacher Palincsar have different phases literacies Collins, first developed (GisML) & Cutter, identifies of a inquiry puzzling (Hapgood, 2001; a curriculum learning which the teacher Palincsar, area solve the data and conclusions. situation problem testing Approach in presents a and students by their gathering 354 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION and some general guiding chooses communication humans and animals How do have key idea to whales understanding and which function in the dark, of about good The and asking conduct the both in relation to students find begin be repeated. and checking related The goals applied (Cognition In have The they they their knowledge alone or example, between in claims realistic necessarily learning problems have Methods with that right dont answers. used problem the compared be done? work, and to reasons How do in coaching, a may currents have the process, real Their causes, a role? the sce-nario; solutions? evaluate reflect on the students are teacher, not com-puter organizational helps find hypoth-eses, their not not to aids, overloaded. them For distinguish Hmelo-Silver, Nagarajan, 2007). the in the students Gulf students and does from finally is (Derry, and test and that problem suggest by the memory Other learning. knowledge, scaffolded & Chinn, oil spill learning. play the a diagram facts to and guides in that As they necessary, argument is Horizon costliness, tides in Ravit, problem for location, fill skills is seldom collaborate on the entire that but lifelong they know science, (Belland, 1929). a problem as in knowledge new hints, In how itselfhow memorized and to are mak-ing time. medicine self-directed working a scientific Deepwater and to Hmelo-Silver, springboard size, expert is their solving same practices motivation based groupsso in 2006; 2010 as others problem making by process Whitehead, solutions. if can and 1996; about again the develop problem Throughout and they learning, the gained. models, problem-based during research at the cycles identifying situations. of with need other and in that apply that new inquiry inquiry students and investigating, reporting out and do they collaborative & Beitzel, example, to thinking the as students the second-hand communicate students their and critically. confronted hypotheses Then, have supports, Chernobilsky, In they Their students analyze informationwhat recycle skills unguided. and are launches generate of research. solutions, software other to missing and This In before knowledge making, are eyes experts, shows process the intrinsic students bats explanations think Vanderbilt, enhance students identify a phase problem to help decision answer. begin identify launches are learning, a right students and then students learning to the of investigating, grew expert audiotape communica-tion, of of their animals and on at size 10.1 is information Group evidence-based problem-based are part an Then, bats!). to learned habi-tats. would investigations with and learning knowledge the cycles how ideas, inquiry Technology problem-based solutions. provide and claims. Figure content they learning Inert and explanation learn of research problem-based not inert. the debate out about explanations addition, Whereas playing constructing evaluate about In grew collaboration, necessarily Problem-based of to to learned solutions, Learning. and flexible, of students habitats. learning useful goals that to to applying students evaluate 2011). or allows examples, Problem-Based is by As several on different habitats claims real in with and interviews line moving predictions, teaching curved and navigat-ing different same First-hand ideas. as large 1995). videosnot new One animals for and or the measuring go through cycle problems, solving, might possible problem-based This students The Another are solve patterns. get ques-tions such animals survival, perhaps internet, focus predators, ears about guesses or the structures Palincsar, ques-tions. the or identify structures guesses their pictures or before preceding structures to identify for example, books, results then Inquiry the (using consult reporting reports. and bodies ask investigations. for information fact, about second-hand must inquiry, make among habitatslarge & students The do focus understandings. mates, needs of in the specific specific animals (Magnusson why several relationship have kinds students specific to In patterns, final their students to same experiments, the questions questions and the teacher and important attract functional inquiry students and to the having first-hand investigations, resources focus engage sounds, experiences ears Thus, with for is to animal food, different points phase Animals the How communicate? toward is find example, question: poses gorillas to related animals focus next different direct example. do students For general teacher habitat. are communication, Questions be functions for for the problems. this communication functions, structures Next, guide animal and asks How to survival structures not chosen or and communicate? or echolocators, these puzzles, area communicate? be carefully in structures, ears questions, as the attempted What locations, of actions Mexico, researched solutions. businesses, matter. For many teachers how this What and spill could wildlif CHAPTER FIGURE A The straight MODEL lines TO GUIDE show the sequence might be repeated 10 THE LEARNING SCIENCES AND 10.1 TEACHER THINKING SCIENCE INSTRUCTION ABOUT of phases in instruction, INQUIRY-BASED and the curved lines show cycles that during instruction. Share FindingsPublic Reporting Engage: Guesses, General Claims, Guiding Questions Hypotheses and Specific Focus Questions Investigate to Identify Relationships Evaluate: first-hand and Create second-hand Explanations investigations Prediction Source: Based Principles are on and in Palinscar, A. Practices the of the S., Magnusson, GisML greatest for other teachers Some lives, but Life about (see they analyzing quality careless and incomplete. the Legacy League, a and Suzie ideas, to your education as their classes science 1. cycle biomechanics (S. in these S. it Brown, N. (1988). 14, in Designing p. short-term students 12, to Community of Practice: Education long-term play problem-based a Pearson and take because financial a positive learning can includes & and role? and envi-ronmental A number collected simulation with might more an is and the (Kumar raise of resources your their such the called partner, that The River of Suzie, who are in conclusions more & Sherwood, might depth and format ideas, for Billy the chal-lenge generate test your Undergraduate mettle science skills composition by direct challenge, graph-reading as the students the Billys issue the conclusions. they affect questions answers. revise your topics as concerned encounter improved closely his lab who the directly simulation and phases: about not research research public ecosystem Harris, to six of several phases Billy Suzie research go this a river meet river. do computer of characters so they used a challenged group and they in a local is perspectives, Klein begins be the spill understanding at & Education, students from Cycle who organisms look D., Teacher example, Billy multiple class The water understanding), students of Lets For Legacy conceptual Ford, authentic resources STAR consider (check not multiethnic helpful the oil 2002), of are in will can the engaging. (Sherwood, the D., and edutopia.org/blog/oil-spill-project-based-learning-resources). are are Challenge actions using problems Marano, What What blogged J., Teaching danger? impacts? teachers S. Community. of as well air and 2007). take place in an upper-level 2007). intriguing be, Assume challenge you are to a living the cell whole in class. a bioreactor. For example, What thing in CONSTRUCTIVISM 355 356 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION POINT/COUNTERPOINT Are Inquiry Effective Inquiry, discovery does problem-based learning, and learning problem-based lead to and Problem-Based Teaching learning deep are understanding very Approaches? appealing, for Learning most but are they effective? Specifically, students?. Problem-based and learning his colleagues Educational Why were is clear Psychologist. minimal analysis POINT the title during failure of experiential, critical Even guidance of the and overrated. and Paul in their of the article instruction does constructivist, Kirschner article was not medical the clinical They argued: unguided or minimally guided the are point very is popular made these results as problem their basic science problem-based the structures that approach architecture and evidence half-century from minimally efficient strong These studies examined and (Colliver, Tobias, that discovery, journals. does of the results Their not benefit But what about research prior from studies for (p. going was more 2011; time Klahr the in will who is Next, had 4. In go all test go live? way that to or are & time concept from can meth-ods students and are discussion better at problem-based Glenn, help MBA stu-dents than lecture who from 2001), all less in their but students self-regulation methods using to problem-based develop self-directed skills. or Your she hold makes grandmother the is cane students to while their added Life bring to to the they process in magazine and the recovering help her bear currently from balance? their a The current know or the other form or journal Legacy revise. ideas by getting Some knowl-edge and of outside articles, League believe using activities. or guided experts (live, podcasts Billy on and the Suzie to and They consult perhaps feedback formative more journaling from other (ungraded) sources about students tests or their or the might hear class thinking. teacher check about their under-standing point. with their poster/project, science environment to research mettle public focuses what brainstorming Challenge, revising conclusions. Project-based compile whole-group websites, of deeper presentation, that over took differences problem-based the more performed reasoning. using Students benefit that, gradu-ates skills, positive concept Nether-lands, concluded perspectives. the tentative Students 2004). an extensive in the program diagnostic Salisbury-Glennon, should ideas River at this learning a texts), multiple Students 6. in from the Students their you hand generate or lectures, 5. long perspectives explore the & coherent programs, learning explaining learned Kuhn, 1998). In program (2009) had small problem-based and and interpersonal and at with accurate (Hmelo, a concept better learning small-group, video, subject. knowledge methods in which framed students Multiple on teaching preconceptions. individual, 3. place In and may Much how hip. and 2. of advantages. who learned of conventional medical graduate, (Capon well-rated particular? influence question higher levels has some more problem-based generally has taken broken of concluded powerful medical graduates practical were unas-sisted most discovery learning less A review schools a his colleagues COUNTERPOINT who learned 50 years than in in to (Evensen, problem-based and felt 1993). promoting students problems and to medical & (2011) over beneficial learning in created medical of the better discov-ery/inquiry 12). problem-based medical is of a problem-based recently) colleagues published unassisted in learning medical Schmidt especially back more studies conclusion: learning on 108 to study compared unguided his study, solutions a p. 75) (Kalyuga, and less place are ineffective, Alfieri Mitchell, learning approaches learning others that knowledge Louis teaching especially 2006, learning 2010). explicit Clark, (and and that student & of science & at but they 2000). Problem-based another that effective of the demonstrating problem-based the found guidance researchers with limited 2004; is less and reasoning, knowledge stu-dents better over indicate approaches Sweller, of research students Nigam, on (Kirschner, respected decades and for instruction study, were cognitive empirical consistently instructional emphasis process. cited guided than that one ignore human In past formation was not effective knowledge approach. the In appeal-ing, approaches constitute mixed. instruction curricula Problem-based both been (Albanese learning this have problem-based instructional and intuitively that in in student approaches such worse prepared that Although and through skills were An problem-based, teaching. schools, learning blunt: work: discovery, inquiry-based in on is K12 used a final conclusions or final exam. multimedia (Krajcik in learning & Czerniak, post-secondary and solutions environment 2007). classes in the similar MyProject is (Papanikolaou form to a of an oral problem-based web-based & science-learning Boubouka, CHAPTER 10 THE LEARNING SCIENCES identify variables teacher led and (3) the modelled students to which learning. need and make Alfieri enough the mental and Hmelo-Silver the research learning and the (2004; and supports the development learning skills, teaches less evidence and to is mathematics, approaches for multi-step word In recent learning that research more high favours complex that these eco-nomics (c) and in tasks the You do not methods. schools EITHER/OR have to The best may Chen (2000) approach how design good small to groups, on their own Research mentor students using that an more who to In used increases et al., 2007), knowledge. is valuable, and in of engagement Problem-Based as the not for all those who is educational students, Learning Effective can Teaching tasks and that requir-ing ensuring that feedback, how to or succeed 2011, p. 13) in students agrees the or students independently & basic learning a large inquiry other years. example, GenScopeTM significantly & Christie, urban district learning had studies point learning adequate (Hmelo-Silver background problem-based learning Are Inquiry sig-nificantly to DeCaro, on the math-ematics little knowl-edge explored possible benefited more feedback 2012). Also, first-grade than from reasoning via computer Purpura, arti-facts with without mathematics problem-based For they knowledge and for Horwitz, in Point/Counterpoint: Approaches?. in learning support, waged called have that example, reflection learned Several inquiry For Eiland, prepare 2012). Kindfield, with in has approach students tests. and and evidence depends problems tasks; complicated, feedback as discovery objectives inquiry classrooms participated see tasks (b) timely more some some student Briggs, (Hickey, motivation you On should guided of lim-ited, optimal. and 2010). using science bit Rittle-Johnson, engaging debate & with (Baroody, define a feedback unguided support Does psychologist as seem & Tenenbaum, or age. learned solutions, and The school supported Aldrich, solutions instruction & Kilcher, science standardized and learning every middle ideas strategies, (Fyfe, from and craft Iverson, school inquiry. learners seem providing guidance from describing goals (Arends 000 on by etc.); classrooms 20 rates set inquiry high materials, them Seidel, guidance unguided tasks examples matter of exploring is to identify problem Learning. traditional almost passing as long at least in direct achievement? (Furtak, the students guidance to portfolios, greater and better the processes just (1) In information, software-supported students student But to yes inquiry-based in and students a study higher gather Problem-Based say and helping mentally of requiring learners, own by knowledge students learning to get completely (a) assist worked value but to experiments PowerPoints, lead genetics, 2000). as they and results compared 1999, by from 4 science phases: students students activities open-ended had three Zhe grade in to approaches following: Brooks, benefited prob-lem-based solutions, and teaching strategy inquiry has observed, well-scaffolded optimal their problem-solving or Klahr, problem-based outcomes on Inquiry explores in videos, learning David for orient the research the prior secondary inquiry exploratory role organize learning Some conducted reports, Toth, method resources; and and variable The The teachers (models, make that content-focused and approach controlled students rationales; and elementary Eva balanced use the appropriate coach, in example, experiments. 20102011). and a inquiry of content-focused For tested students between be a balance methods. to to and constructive to accurate provide (Alfieri, students choose place explain task. But problems. OF that concepts. solving shows BEWARE to are the amount tasks of the in ideas down analyses, one The modelling concluded: and current scaffolding learners it problem-based concepts engaged of the at least have school actively basis in or enhanced-discovery be the right farther. and successful of unassisted-discovery whereas include participating of to self-directed motivating studies 2007) problem-based knowledge and indicates al., that of flexible intrinsically collaborate. et evidence problem-solving learning students good construction of but problem-based Hmelo-Silver found in exploration the come (2011) effects roll Mayer (2004) supported, his colleagues to and experi-ments productive. to guided, Overall, the with activity seems versus ball understand and combined difference the As Rich strat-egy, design; explanation, students (2) the variable application are key factors freedom engaged, discovery Cindy the problem-based The reviewed caused supports active Anyaivanova/Shutterstoc helping aramp; experiment conducted discussion, scaffolding students to in and down controlled about variables of inquiry, was successful the thinking designed isolate Clearly, explained good 357 CONSTRUCTIVISM made a ball roll farther a discussion, combination and that AND & Reid, 2013). skills 358 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION Another constructivist approach that relies heavily on scaffolding is cognitive apprenticeships. Cognitive Apprenticeships Over the centuries, apprenticeships working alongside a many skills, and of the and as learner real the values to mastering and & remastering become too separated rather a less problem Students observe Students get receive becomes more are to How side by for different skill Alan example Cognitive apprenticeship in experienced learner knowledge guidance Reciprocal help think read. students deeply and of teaching a less skills under the small an expert. Designed understand what to to they effectively, reading the by process the day might poor poorer the come readers readers have this imbal-ance, To correct features of apprentice-ships. apprenticeships apprenticeship with in writing, models guidance in or which provided by an model the performance. or tutoring (including hints, tailored gradually faded on can into their to to words problem apply what as the their student understand-ing solving they master more are to an experts learningways complex apprenticeships? In some a pod on money. that concepts Many move at Mentoring schools, designed a craft volunteers, pod is then and skills settings. focus to or a levels have pace many teaching of the are but ages still of the to an garden-ing, in the have visit one work qualities include evident parents, is different Examples of expertise a comfortable of many discipline. including in students students model of a demonstrate a topic. 1994) in learn will school side. challenged teaching of Brown, four central next. seldom need and 1984, strategies: clarifying are To they is the do difficult skilled not know modelling, goal about accomplish the strategies instruction, solving The deeply summarizing These door Teaching. think 1989). point, direct problem another model. Reciprocal understand & mathematical instructional Reading: students about ways apprenticeship Palincsar what in learned. cognitive (1989, groups learned performances. grouping. students help situations in both practice comprehension, skills comparing earlier different making to 1986; but and are Apprenticeships predicting of a cabinet, knowledgeputting new every cognitive reading knowl-edge, addition, skills of the build teacher) being masters Community a question teaching about so the is (Palincsar, acquires and Schoenfelds Cognitive A which becomes participa-tion the In community school. cognitive which explore provide of or coaching at the cross-age pods related of 1998). skills many and the their many The ages, is guided proficient. own they in part available. that With these as reading many through progress, their to is architecture, master to dance scaffolding, on their teaching apprenticeship. of the beyond adopt such are content practised Another side to and world or (usually articulate them can learner appropriate 1995, improving knowledge and and learn, perform example. required the reminders). required not As students and demonstrations, features: conceptual and have There competent reflect Students sculpt support and the schools objectives expert processes performance they an continually of the Students to six external Students that develops share models, Students 2006). (Rogoff, knowledge use in solving. models feedback, as By learned performances complex contribute that cognitive learner Most tasks education. have models, The & Eylon, sometimes their learning on experienced expert. the old-timers suggests from focus mathematical the recommend than would doing skillsand (2006) educators But more of people 1991). Collins some provide motivating. Linn form appropriationstudents in and is grow 1999; participatory involved learning Wenger, Allan school comes and that and effective young guides bond Hung, be an apprentices, Knowledgeable 2006; Teaching to other important (Collins, newcomers (Lave and proved perhaps as a personal real tasks skills, have and crafts. well are competent in master trades, corrections, more relationship and Reciprocal this content of parts of the apply To and they goal, readers how. of reciprocal what use a read students in passage, ask-ing material, almost the practice and auto-matically strategies in actual CHAPTER First, day. the As the apprentices Then, to the to may finally and parts scaffolding to to apply these Applying any teachers as the (e.g., help the students strategies hours of practice 1. Shift 2. the she In has of text. work with adolescents reading students almost who can comprehension. who or above supervisors, teacher The how to and were on tests in the bottom of reading identified is task as these carefully student responsibility of the grow should the student difficulty student Teachers is over had to is that 3 years and the abilities observe thinking compre-hension. three guidelines for must be gradual. responsibility must develop. the and it readingreading teaching what the reading student and of each kind of instruction strategies, an toward comprehension reciprocal teaching and (Rosenshine with stu-dent he the concern has Finally, and the used because Another idea the often but student advantage in of most most these of recip-rocal ques-tions of reciprocal context scaffolding and of actual gradually fluid component today in in Of the collaborative been course, ability to activities is about academic proficiency tests, student achievement, of always learning. but strategy strategies But One study 1994). on comparisons directive, 2002). four apprenticeships Meister, performance schooling critical the strategies. own. advantage and Cooperation all international a cognitive & Collaboration standards, independent is powerful on their was these texts. more questions & Tenent, reading or on four them higher-level practising literature 40 questioning ask (Hacker emphasizes teach develop that to to attention students found how try focuses all or superficial that that it not be taught were literal teaching approaches be taught; teaching students some teaching must Even from each about to of reciprocal general level in learn needs. strategies in of clues contrast moving many average doctoral abilities. thinking. for or shift to abilities Diagnose 3. The demands match Nancys average of to sense to younger support forms students make and attempts other for seems with group, first and can teaching below approach, the so they done far of the is or gradu-ally teaching: gradually. Match of been are this up to read silently. encouragement, goal each students students 359 CONSTRUCTIVISM student clarifying, member the AND strategy passage the modelling, The reciprocal has who with stems), as they and guidance, strategies. one encourages a short a Often, clues, SCIENCES questioning, passage, teaching. these Although moved one the and read becomes question research but students another gives LEARNING on strategy summarizing, teacher over master of the class reciprocal The teacher Teaching. Palincsar, effective role. THE focusing each the by reads providing accurately of their and Everyone take perhaps models model independently most fairly 20 quarter a But the task and teacher students the student, aloud After the Reciprocal age read reading. incorrect. of the provides on the assume strategies, explains Next, again leave, halting these teacher practise. based begin doing introduces the teacher predicting are teacher expert, 10 about more academics are participate a core and than the aca-demic prime productively 21st-century capa-bility 200 (Roschelle, prepare all 2013). students kinds of to live An education and work today must cooperatively with for who people: Prentice-Hall) Most are of corporations not only good academic work are at the skills and mastery but harmoniously as looking who with a cooperative team, responsibility, and to a to employees of a also have wide variety demonstrate communicate particular the ability of set to cowork-ers initiative effectively. NURTURING INDEPENDENT READERS The concept of scaffolding and (Pearson gradually comprehension moving the is student a critical toward component independent in reciprocal and fluid teaching reading and cognitive apprenticeships. Prentice-Hall (Aronson, 2000, p. 91) 360 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION Since Despite groups for the 1970s, some have positive differences, others, It many is group and there and way of that of has in in of may or build a or one simply part. part, but a the to achieve shared (p. 373). to relate to and of favour growing Way to attain of working a and litera-ture in cooperative the learn-ing group social his (ODonnell & and Roger and together, for complete a long jointly history in provided a grade for never was A for turned not not their an he could (D. control cooperative W. Johnson North one writ-ing 1994). Johnson in to each and Fhe Jim claimed received This than and a paper, got an at all. OKelly, learning working has work task. more who One student earned and the much together Students a situation new group. on work C for no handle a teacher partner a doing David to project. with cooperative goals time 10 ODonnell pairs plan definitions can Angela in skills. whole a C for work of no work the community must learn and entire describe to the requires work. example, about Would group of the For feel terms the the togetherthey students learning students because If work University, the learning elaboration, explanation, Situations interpretation, and argumentation to the activity where by other years. Today, evolving to learning & Johnson, America, class specific American define period to tasks and formal several weeks, assignments education, constructivist situations argumentationcooperative Roger one Cooperative the commitment Johnson From and to roots moving perspectives in have and fuelled (D. that rely learning W. Johnson & Johnson, on elaboration, (Webb 2009a) interpretation, a & Palincsar, 1996, expla-nation, p. 844). David note: shared goal. group with learning over and supported a othershow work. Cooperation are integral respond people up the in up punished as students Cooperative is learning groups. traffic? plant? the allowed project founders to the hand, American in do more divide dividing for was learning and cooperative cooperative grade How doing Rutgers Cooperation. the learning even on A philosophy learn which to of cooperative out in not Groups two in was rewarded was up teacher group other working survey. everyone by asking student the is builds Collaborative students power that and the the one other Beyond others C for So collaboration Collaboration say that be completed them but true from a group could thing. between and has can shopping not let groups preparation You several a local end learning and simply of a nuclear why Anitas students Lewin. activities more useful, in of or work. 2009a), with be is however, Unfortunately, part any bring students can cooperative learningit to or two Kurt conduct sure, students guidance while how class, colleagues using his about building work individual Collaboration the a biology Be and Many will their learning same suggests on 2003). wanted the authority, (Gillies, Cooperative collaboration, work. Cooperation, goal 2004). distinctions and shares preventing 2003, mean The (1996) learn in terms they well. Panitz to who hand, to Ted people. crucial Battistich, schools. other that putting one in mall one OKelly, in the another? Group Dewey together oppose Sometimes, no on work in learned. be cooperating. new definitions teachers as & (Gillies, The as if differences, a shared British collaborate clear. other attain as they John work, can support be of to used othershow respects are per-spectives attendance Watson, adolescents differences always to among ways way to may not students teach work not relate that others psychologists one to distributed with active Group to is the more is people working roots work with dealing knowledge way how are are tolerance of the school Solomon, Learning. often there empathy, even experiences and schools. cooperative awareness and 2011; Cooperative but are about Boyle, in truly students solving, children learning overlap, that self-confidence, learning plague and cooperation a philosophy a cooperative Work, some & cooperation indicate collegeon problem Gillies that cooperative is collaboration is that Group work, Certainly 2009; problems Collaboration, to and studies friendships, reasoning, Pell, argued social collaboration of the preschool higher-level & even of the examined majority of acceptance, Hargreaves, 2001). have the effectsfrom feelings of (Galton, researchers inconsistencies, learning individuals. of the is is being of now area Different from in 2002, helping ignored, instructional schools preschool learning in and dominant utilized and (ODonnell, discussion discounted the and universities through theory 2006). cooperative practices graduate approaches learning throughout throughout school favour and rehearse, steadily of training and to Cooperative most theorists elaborate, progressed world. adult cooperative Information-processing participants has the the world in every programs. learning point expand for to the their being learning subject (p. 365) different value rea-sons of knowledge. group A CHAPTER group members organize question their reviewall processes and the lead cognitive to try go conflict new beyond his directions (p. theory state Those that and who social 361 CONSTRUCTIVISM per-spective can understand-ing (1985) said, out favour in new Vygotskys is important mental AND that strike interaction higher SCIENCES to groups or her LEARNING pro-cessing disequilibrium his THE and Piagetian as Piaget current because a in and question have information of ideasor, 10). suggest learning support interactions to out they connections, Advocates the an individual and explain, make that memory. suggest create and knowledge, 10 functions for such as 200 reasoning, comprehension, originate in social and interactions internalized accomplish they do them critical and by mental can and thinking are then individuals. tasks with alone. Thus, appro-priated Students social can support before cooperative learning scaffolding students Prentice-Hall) COOPERATION: provides the social support and A also WORTHY prepares GOAL students to While live and work academics are cooperatively the key with goal, all edu-cation kinds of (Pearson need to these move learning dimensions must be But, as not of when Can Go social relations a group might for be ideas work Good in early are Rather value the than challenging example, being if ideas wrong answers than or be ridiculed group procedures a 1993). Stu-dents that 2004). the they Also, the contributions merit Mary of of either McCaslin set and of Tom learning: over and 1986). student construct confident while pressure one to Fox, of the Cohen, or Delucci, more & regardless of & (Puncochar even 1997; correcting may one is than Misconceptions combined Solomon, mon-itoring rather there misused be thoughtfulness and are (Battistich, reinforced, or For may best, be ignored process self-confidence, and reduce the disadvantages over 2011). rewards Palincsar, indicate friendships, planning and unreflective. at & careful learning and worse and tolerance, be unproductive are accepted other precedence not may hinder & Boyle, arrive Holland, several often take but heads students list Students worst, learning the learning. Speed and finishing and reinforce learning. misconceptions, students support misunderstandings. Socializing and Students may learning is Status The true so what progresses that sections may take dependency and from is they or unable examine how than be their can the learning. expert in Some students learn contributions. understand teachers to over the group; wrong. decreased. without to precedence teacher can rather with are the learned may be increased group Cooperative many other What are without avoid these Others the to loaf become support of the problems and even group. encourage work (Gillies that in Learning decisions students emphasized to stated next shift passive, convinced for a goal. study the relationships cooperation. Tasks Like simply still differences because more interpersonal groups, & Boyle, in teaching, supposed group to plans and 2011). must teachers What is for accomplish? activities using cooperative Successful be well expectations the task? its positive and influence even on stu-dents school Prentice-Hall Without can understanding two W. Anderson, (1996) the groups of students (C. Learning. because incorrect low-status high-status ideas or case of Group can cooperative is groups. (Gillies of attendance. put into of Studies empathy, participate. interactions classes people. cooperation othersinteractions or even who are group reinforced, righta knows, Misuses in from groups must conformityperhaps the superficial are Wrong: teacher, dominates parent students by the improve in or benefit learning, members teacher automatic To cooperative cooperativeall any What forward. planned, for Is it a true groups teachers the students task group begin interviewed have taskone need to to be with in one be pre-pared explicitly that builds 362 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION on the knowledge individuals Tasks complex has specific questions from have higher-order are likely of all to the just complex, than 2004; routine Gillies Highly Review, such over to can increase learning. more and of the techniques 2000) to group the goal having Social assignment or of (Cohen, that capabilities a sense of Preparing David true and Roger Promotive Individual Group and in for Johnson (Johnson accountability social skills use the it for way all & Johnson, team goal. encourage may the to can 1993). the Rewards is could mean enhanced diversity, the leadership roles demonstrate the build and leadership probably to the offered, communication experience goal divert is of to being 1996). learning opportunity because well which rotate more are are support helpful & (Aronson, students & Palincsar, might be (Palincsar rewards peer richness Open-ended or jigsaw appreciation more competition the teaching When members Harrington, the the they of be higher-order inhibit of rewards group can have to where goal and extended process, 1994), and group & thus students will develop likely (Webb When the females in and is ill-structured as possible, work situations, to appropriately, as efficiently within is situations all the Cooperative interaction and get groups: used the (Miller actually extrinsic encourage reciprocal processing. all of four help discussion (Kagan, understanding and may task toward cognitive functions such improve-ment or also that are instances, do teams greatest conditions, roles progress in reward addition, interdependence processin the task recognition, structured 1994), when these In these responsibility learning Collaborative Gillies, by a structured which these goal roles pairshare Tasks. individual Students cooperative Positive In students may with (King, in-depth and 1994). they respect, ill-structured, interac-tions 1994; served the elaborated the of thought students roles skills; each highly because structured If the a tightly assignment intergroup group and accomplish in strategies when 1994), achieving Kagan, of necessary, is, they creativity) (Cohen, well Praise, and Thus, interfere Communication leadership that higher-quality amass Tasks. situations, because, of increased minority develop to be narrow exchange elaborative goal specific 1994; tasks; finding or review. 1990). rigid materials. and occur under assigning questioning and the by open productive becomes skills to (STAD), 1995). practice Meister, highest-achieving Skills social more from often the and & complex away and can persistence appropriate and interaction (Slavin, In these as reciprocal be on. Ill-structured important A relatively divisions and Raphael, are solving. Rosenshine should exposed an & rewards, such more might members Problem-Solving then Ross interactions 1984; extensive so for students Brown, and nature, problem groups levels involve interactions and tasks problem can are are an exam teams dialogue tasks 1994; productive thinking among the in for procedures, strategies, often Tasks. for effort, the Conceptual, (Cohen, so group distinctions solving achievement which motivation, when cognitive helpful teams Focusing Ill-Structured, or and are true require Skill-Building achievement enhance engaged structured requiring individuals to Highly routines problem-solving These problem material determine previous rewards and learned as student compete mathematics, problems appear and appropriate 2011). previously students learning more applying procedures, skills, groups. tasks task structured. in whereas as the practise, unclear accomplish, group if Boyle, Structured, technique stay true and (knowledge, effectively tasks & as reviewing to as or less and ill-structured resources members tasks more computations These the be answers thinking. group structured may readings, is 2006)? answersdrill multiple require studentsor ODonnell, groups that tasks of several 1994; cooperative work answering skills G. Cohen, for include and and (E. are not community, members. Learning 2009a) explain five elements that define CHAPTER Group attain their other for world. each Even other, though must group to about Is everyone Research groups learned (Gillies, the In structured up answer depends review, rehearse if the goal groups, there are the all, of (ODonnell If a I group may and p. probably will evidence other not. appears 2006; to connect answering OKelly, the prepared solving, or setting up girls. to Some be left out contrast, In when some, dominated the to But be interviewed shy. boys as but not discussion case, teachers (2011) the group who him a question. while hard This must dont put some try often abil-ity put the couple of nonsense skills. way: group to a with social the other had up good have I Ive are are tolerant put it this the time. year who who Boyle that, They or members and in demonstrate different group know give in and tend and the size. when By very Whatever people kids. to are right boys dominate and are wont child of they group, or Again, and learning. will difficult In happens it the ask to for These are you excellent and but (Gillies get answers, learning words, already learning go & think to of know), strategies If and only a few attempt or good explanations you examples and (King, people In fact, explanations explain, test vary, explanations unanswered. Giving and a group members thoughtful receiving order it. in nonparticipating unasked learns. than In is in the elaborated, explainer of learning who but provides the effects learn, questions 2002). own things will questions, more your the group whose Mastergeorge, into the a student more important & practice, people students more a group, in these who than information 1994). the with work, the put questions. or two the Also, number to Gillies question in members problem best. perceived by they with are the Farivar, information, there about members. girls 1996). are groups be? group a conflict who helping students group the is assertive contributing one in friends, good Students be even Webb, are kid best actually that in there in tend that a cooperative mutual learning discussions, the the avoided is Explanations. to learn students they & Palincsar, in groups, for work or interviewed group and what shows girls is in girls than as time? 72) for more likely his very Receiving on group, able be sure the the over-react 2011, that least be in been responsibility are & have dont depending the not kids who Boyle, Giving At able doing next unstructured 6 students balance most students to teacher sure to of we students a cooperative purpose members a few everyone some make the less Webb sure sense tolerant. reactive they 1994; successful members in are 4 effectively are or less these members working How unstructured held mem-ber, Finally, and in the 5 or just the groups, makes to be girls boys includes try to are boys make it One also least or two these to then kind. they that participate 2 to are found are assessments. fun. the 4 to sense there more should If to of more large student makes when OKelly, groups rejected, often mixed-gender & monitor and one unless studies take it unless only girls each groups that discussions was practise, we do in they help Often, is ask, and around every task. group to students students goals. the time group and involving interdependence than How or then indicates to learning encourage Australia learning information, to cooperative the said your in English Groups. on learning, research by also should together functioning. a learning can each to face or other and they need media own; tests group sure take positive compared Cooperative is computer of addition, and work AND that face digital on their tackle make What require to consensus, They 12 to science, groups Setting together? group effective to groups. 8 through math, 2003). of so they interact via individual groups relationships structured more in the believe well, means usually learning for as interact the reaching SCIENCES interaction could through necessary before dynamics grades were also LEARNING members goals They to feedback, working in that they often are and efforts. demonstrate learning, practised the but their Promotive others ultimately skills and guidance. THE The attain a responsibility constructive processes learn group? social giving be taught monitor feel for group each room, they must and as and the accountable such and across interdependence. in the and facilitate students Collaborative positive others explanations, not individually skills, if the encourage together, the experience only support, members close members goals 10 your 1990, to explanations (ODonnell, have to organize analogies (which understanding 2002; ODonnell by CONSTRUCTIVISM 36 364 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION Good listener explanations correct Webb & Mastergeorge, worked in Find the The level of $2.09then add be just giving $2.34. do If the by these Assigning support basic groups and for learning, Often, have been dull. To on the and TABLE 10.3 Depending on the help each role students effectively, roles to there giving by A poor clear learn-ing; how call are 19 19. That the Why minutes equals might answerI is it got 19? explanations should do the or Why are critical, in and do age be rotated to know as class well of the as the class. can reporters, to use that are sup-ports 1999). entire they having may have can students Roles If be Annemarie intellectual roles to these be taught participate in assigned how different to roles enact aspects group learning. ROLE DESCRIPTION Encourages Shows reluctant or shy students appreciation of others to participate contributions, and recognizes accomplishments Gate Equalizes Keeper Helps Coach Question with the Makes sure Commander Writes Recorder Reflector Keeps Quiet Monitors Captain Materials Picks Monitor Source: by Based on Kagan Publishing, Cooperative Learning Pearson by Education academic groups Keeps the Taskmaster and all students Checks the Checker 1994 participation, group down group noise content, explains questions no one dominates concepts are asked and answered understanding aware decisions, and of progress plans (or lack of progress) level up and returns S. Kagan. makes sure on task ideas, Published materials by Kagan you deadly Groups participants, so students the that members Learning students probing, & Tschannen-Moran, you roles insights, roles. to or participa-tion. learning, and reports that review, and complex and sure listening, practice, communicate Hoy Cooperative the or not group the be support on proceduresthe audience Of course, should explanations reports, the roles, encouragement, (Woolfolk class cooperation use focus solving include taught Roles group you to you roles that of that encourage If skills, groups problem for to 10.3. persistence, sure useful Praiser/Cheerleader to cost explanation provide say, to tells telephone then just students sharing of these Encourager the 2002; minute related 11 cents should Table In simply and learn. and roles al., students first helper the $2.34. even on social strategies Student of the or in focus (2002) cooperate the the minute, costs and described themselves more purpose help et class, significantly level, multiply receiver support is Herrenkohl Possible the questions Make end process was first 25 higher-order in where explaining the so it differences. groups ends 604 highest so you plus then that learning Leslie 19 should receiving make the Palincsar might not cooperative for assign for creativity. to (Webb mathematics code a helper discussion, of the area received minute, are on enough why taught. groups focus tell school At the cents good roles roles the 11 cents, 19, be thoughtful purpose 25 times teachers In elaborated $0.11. students first times respect that is Asking skills, encourage major 11 middle to costs example, the 11 Some and brainstorming, the for a learning. costs must learning. of In it Several encouragement, should OK, minutes 11? Roles. mastery For skills participation. they why. says, multiply usually full and solution, call help more 25 cents a helper you and and the say, in minute level, of those and explanations problem: telephone explanation correct, best example, additional might each For a 20-minute the above and timely, the following each problem problem left of and higher the on the cost $0.25 the relevant, 2003). groups costs solve are misunderstandings; Publishing, San Clemente, CA. Copyright of CHAPTER FIGURE QUESTION After STEMS participating develop in questions, a lesson an everyday would What are What do Explain does What is are are is you already the the Do as they and you listened to theorizing, members between predictions findings. group (Palincsar & Designs for Developing that turn to use these stems to best response. words? of ________? against based if roles the theories. claim ________? were based role What ________? Other on the students were theories, and and is your Why? strategies reports the for findings. clear Some relationships listened for clarity in well the how shows and predicting results. evaluating Research solving, to for audience responsible problem of and theories the in evidence? scientific predictions of checking students thinking Herrenkohl, choice? only on ________. and relating assigned dialogue, second ________? this results, of the ________? Your that using conceptual these understand-ing 2002). Cooperation deep understandings participate talk students to create the why? with prediction, class own ________? different These rest linked promotes your and and disagree and the own, ________? and ________ reports. And reports roles for be were on their QUESTIONING ________? ________ or 365 CONSTRUCTIVISM to ________. about summarizing audience the for ________ agree AND ________? choice best SCIENCES ________? ________ would about arguments first RECIPROCAL and collaborate disadvantages applies reasons your Compare How of some in and influence value LEARNING of ________? ________ know ________ What What advantages IN an assignment answers, application define the the What is you why ________ How What DIALOGUE or studying THE 10.2 ENCOURAGE create and compare What is How TO 10 in in high-quality interprets, connects, different cooperative explains, strategies groups discussions. that and build in requires Discussions uses evidence structures to that that to all support support support the group mem-bers learning include arguments. both We participation and now high-quality discussions. Reciprocal Questioning. procedures the and teacher, (King, 1990, are because those and in 2002). how 9 The Figure which example, world proved question the and those following than to to or make take 10.2, about by material 10.2), turns and then using asking discussion material. connections most the material traditional Figure discussion Figure lesson or testing presentation about (see then the be the in materials questions stems about seem special a lesson on the effective thinking like answer question students stems had and After questions more deeper no ages. questions create encourage class ask provides or experience, using cultures to of specific students has requires range or triads teacher encourage 10.2, wide develop The knowledge questioning a pairs to process to with in stems. seems previous For grade work taught This it used 1994, question answering. Reciprocal be students students generic can groups Questions between the and such the as lesson helpful. a small the group concept in of Mr. Singhs culture: Reciprocal Sally: Jim: shared In your Well, Mr. by the own Singh words, said members what in the of a does lesson society. culture that I mean? a culture guess its work is all the the knowledge things and and beliefs understandings and activities answer material in questioning pairs questions or triads about Students to ask lesson and 366 PART 2 LEARNING AND MOTIVATION that people in medical Sally: And Barry: I guess Barry: Well, people of use. not in for one culture, there not a being could Sally: Jim: use sign Jigsaw. of Texas at a (Aronson, 2000, on The the students to earn the classroom us that process part in A learning which of a group member is given material to be whole group. expert teach group. to student each part the their become and in is to their like cell snow may are impor-tant phone, or What that mobile skiing. would they affect each happen were their if all born culture, or other. wouldnt be they hand able would signals, to sing. develop a way deaf or the invented the Anita on was help defuse had just been in together nonver-bal people classroom Aronson highly explosive desegregated University developed situation by classrooms and when at the team. a in corridors jigsaw a student) his research to were fistfights is given part piece. for classrooms. conflicts recent for assigned Next, court the order. first Aronsons their part 2000; time. answer for spark, so, make team Slavin, ideas and in the & Johnson, sometimes conflicting in grade able w