Group items tagged

The problem solving process begins as soon as the problem solver generates enough information about the problem space to gain an understanding of the problem.

Representation in the problem-solving process refers to how the solver mentally represents the problem. The solver’s representation of the problem is directly related to his or her existing knowledge structure of the content of the problem.

Students have to increase their reflective practice to aid their metacognition and transfer of STEM concepts.

Different individuals have different conceptual knowledge and will make different associations to their knowledge. Exposure to the constraints and affordances of a particular context in which a problem exists will invariably influence the way in which the student represents a problem in a similar context.

Sanders (2009) admitted that it is difficult to prepare a teacher that is competent in all three bodies of knowledge, given the volume of content knowledge necessary to be an effective science, mathematics or technology educator.

This pedagogical approach is not without its challenges, as students may still compartmentalize their knowledge. Also, it is often difficult logistically and in terms of instructional timing for teachers across STEM discipline to collaborate effectively (Crismond, 2011; Kimbell & Stables, 2008).

Good and poor problem solvers differ in their recall of information from previously encountered problems and by extension their ability to transfer concepts to the target problem. This difference exists because poor problem solvers tend to remember surface similarities between problems, while good problem solvers remember underlying conceptual structures that make two problems similar although they have different surface features (Sutton, 2003).

Until student assessment methods are modified to reflect less dependency on standardized tests, engineering and technology educators will garner greater collaboration from math and science teachers when the latter can see that engineering and design-based curriculums does improve students’ ability to solve standardized test problems.

When the teacher dominates the learning, students take shallow approaches to learning.

1.  Teachers do learning tasks less. Assign to students some of the tasks of organizing the content, giving examples, summarizing discussions, solving problems, and drawing diagrams, charts, and graphs.            2.  Teachers do less telling; students do more discovering. Give a quiz on your syllabus and policies without going over it first. Let students discover information in assigned readings without presenting it first or summarizing it later.  3.  Teachers do more design work. Design activities and assignments that move students to new skill levels, motivate engagement in the course content by doing the work of practitioners in the discipline, and that develop self-awareness of their learning of the content. 4.   Faculty do more modeling. Demonstrate how a skilled learner (the teacher) continues to learn. Show them drafts of your articles, notes on your own reading in professional journals; talk aloud as you solve a problem, thereby revealing  and modeling your thinking process. 5.  Faculty do more to get students learning from and with each other. Create work for small groups to do in class. 6.  Faculty work to create climates for learning. Create a climate that promotes interaction, autonomy, and responsibility (more in chapter five). 7.  Faculty do more with feedback. In addition to assigning grades, use other means of providing frequent feedback (more in chapter six).

focuses on student responsibility for learning and how to promote it.

transforming passive students into autonomous learners

The more structured we make the environment, the more structure students need

The more motivation we provide, the less they find within themselves. The more responsibility for learning we try to assume, the less they accept on their own. The more control we exert, the more restive their response. We end up with students who have little commitment to and almost no respect for learning and who cannot function without structure and imposed control. (p. 98)

The more we decide for students, the more they expect us to decide.

eimer explains several strategies for creating a climate that produces self-regulated intrinsically motivated learners: 

The instructor should “make the content relevant, demonstrate its power to answer questions, and otherwise show its apparent intrigue.” Make the student responsible for learning decisions by relying on logical consequences of action and inaction, rather than punishment. For example, to deal with lateness, present important material or assignments early in the period that you do not repeat, rather than deduct attendance points for lateness. Do not summarize chapters if students have not read them. If they arrive unprepared, put the unread material on a test; give frequent tests. Be consistent in administering policies. If your syllabus says late homework is not accepted, never accept late homework despite the heart-wrenching excuse offered by the student. Involve students in a discussion of creating a climate that promotes learning. Have this discussion early in the semester. Weimer’s suggestion for starting the discussion is to have students complete sentence stems such as “In the best class I ever had, teachers . . .” “In the best class I ever had, students . . .” “I learn best when . . .” “I feel most confident as a learner when . . .” (p. 108) Obtain feedback on the classroom climate occasionally and revisit the discussion of policies and procedures. Employ practices that “encourage students to encounter themselves as learners” (p. 111). Explain the purposes and benefits of assignments and projects; tell students what problems they might run into in doing the assignments and suggest remedies. Help them with time management. With group projects, provide guidance in managing the project, handling group dynamics, and assigning individual responsibilities.

helps us deal with the fact that almost all students will resist their teacher’s learning-centered approaches. Most of the learner-centered strategies recommended in this book change what students have become accustomed to. Understanding the reasons will help teachers deal with the inevitable student resistance when they present learner-centered practices and policies that withdraw the support students have become dependent upon during their first twelve years of schooling. The good news is that most students see the benefits of learner-centered approaches and benefit from them.

, why do students resist it? Based on her research, Weimer lists four reasons: Learner-centered approaches are more work. When the teacher does not summarize the important points in the chapter, the students will have to read it for themselves. When the teacher asks small groups to produce five applications of a concept, rather than supply it in a handout, the students have to do more work. Learner-centered approaches are more threatening. Students who lack confidence in themselves as learners become filled with anxiety at the prospect of becoming responsible for decisions that might be wrong. Students who are not used to questions with no single, authority-approved right answer are fearful of being wrong. Learner-centered approaches involve losses. The strategies recommended in this book are designed to move students to higher stages of self-directedness and higher stages of intellectual development. Moving from one stage to another requires a loss of certainty and the comfort that certainty brings. Learner-centered approaches may be beyond students. Some students’ lack of self-confidence or intellectual immaturity may prevent their accepting responsibility for their own learning.

overcome student resistance to learner-centered approache

The communication is frequent and explicit The communication encourages and positively reinforces The communication solicits feedback from students The communication resists their resistance.

developmental approach to transforming passive dependent learners into self-confident autonomous learners. Learners become self-directed in stages, not in one sin

moment of transformatio