Search for: All records

Students often express Lamarckian ideas—that changes acquired during an organism’s lifetime can be inherited—when reasoning about natural selection. Researchers have described this reasoning as arising from incorrect and unproductive misconceptions. Using the theoretical tools of resource theory and data from interviews with college students, we argue that an alternative explanation for students’ apparent Lamarckian reasoning is that they are seeking to provide mechanisms that can account for trait change. Unlike canonical populationlevel mechanisms, organism-level mechanisms are grounded in plausible changes to organismal forms, physiologies, or behaviors. We found that organism-level mechanistic reasoning arose in interviews when students recognized a need for a mechanistic explanation and shifted into an epistemological framing of in-the-moment knowledge construction. Rather than interpret Lamarckian ideas as misconceptions, we argue that they can be viewed as evidence of students' generative epistemological resources for seeking and providing mechanisms. 

Teaching science inquiry practices, especially the more contemporary ones, such as computational thinking practices, requires designing newer learning environments and appropriate pedagogical scaffolds. Using such learning environments, when students construct knowledge about disciplinary ideas using inquiry practices, it is important that they make connections between the two. We call such connections epistemic connections, which are about constructing knowledge using science inquiry practices. In this paper, we discuss the design of a computational thinking integrated biology unit as an Emergent Systems Microworlds (ESM) based curriculum. Using Epistemic Network Analysis, we investigate how the design of unit support students’ learning through making epistemic connections. We also analyze the teacher’s pedagogical moves to scaffold making such connections. This work implies that to support students’ epistemic connections between science inquiry practices and disciplinary ideas, it is critical to design restructured learning environments like ESMs, aligned curricular activities and provide appropriate pedagogical scaffolds. 

Abstract This paper reports on the first iteration of the Computational Thinking Summer Institute, a month‐long programme in which high school teachers co‐designed computationally enhanced mathematics and science curricula with researchers. The co‐design process itself was a constructionist learning experience for teachers resulting in constructionist curricula to be used in their own classrooms. We present three case studies to illustrate different ways teachers and researchers divided the labour of co‐design and the implications of these different co‐design styles for teacher learning and classroom enactment. Specifically, some teachers programmed their own computational tools, while others helped to conceptualise them but left the construction to their co‐design partners. Results indicate that constructionist co‐design is a promising dual approach to curriculum and professional development but that sometimes these two goals are in tension. Most teachers gained considerable confidence and skills in computational thinking, but sometimes the pressure to finish curriculum development during the institute led teachers to leave construction of computational tools to their co‐design partners, limiting their own opportunities for computational learning. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic?Computational tools can support constructionist science and math learning by making powerful ideas tangible.Supporting teachers to learn computational thinking and to use constructionist pedagogies is challenging.What this paper adds?Constructionist co‐design is a promising approach to simultaneously support curriculum development and professional development, but there are tensions to navigate in trying to accomplish both goals simultaneously.Implications for practice and/or policyDesigners of professional development should consider constructionist co‐design as an approach but should be aware of potential tensions and prepare for them.