Learning and Instruction in Pre‐College Physical Science

SEP 01, 1991

Traditional teaching practices only poorly reflect what is known about the learning process. To improve science education, teachers and scientists must take note of the implications of cognitive science.

DOI: 10.1063/1.881275

Jose P. Mestre

Two main instructional practices are found in American education: One is prevalent, while the other is emerging. We have all experienced the prevalent practice, which results from the so‐called transmission model of instruction. In this model, students are exposed to content through lectures, presentations and readings, and are expected to absorb the transmitted knowledge in ready‐to‐use form. Although it is not a model of learning per se, the transmission model does make a pivotal assumption about learning, namely that the message the student receives is the message the teacher intended. Within this model, students’ difficulties in grasping a concept are interpreted as indications that the presentation was not clear or forceful enough to be understood (that is, the signal being transmitted was either weak or garbled). Thus many users of the transmission model believe that if they make the presentation more lucid or persistent—for example, by transmitting at a slower speed or in a louder voice—students will eventually understand. Too often we are inclined to believe that by speaking in shorter words and sentences we can teach the big ideas in relativity to ninthgraders; this is simply not the case if the students’ intellectual development is not at a level where they can appreciate the subtleties of difficult concepts.

References

1. L. Resnick, Education and Learning to Think, Natl. Acad. P., Washington, D.C. (1987).
2. E. Von Glasersfeld, Synthese 80, 121 (1989).https://doi.org/SYNTAE
3. L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).https://doi.org/AJPIAS
4. J. Mestre, J. Touger, Phys. Teach. 27, 447 (1989).https://doi.org/PHTEAH
5. J. Mestre, J. Lochhead, Academic Preparation in Science, College Board, New York (1990).
6. R. Driver, E. Guesne, A. Tiberghien, Children’s Ideas in Science, Open University P., Philadelphia (1985).
F. M. Goldberg, L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 55, 108 (1987).https://doi.org/AJPIAS
7. I. Halloun, D. Hestenes, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985); https://doi.org/AJPIAS
I. Halloun, D. Hestenes, 55, 455 (1987).
J. Clement, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).https://doi.org/AJPIAS
8. C. W. Anderson, in Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas, B. F. Jones, A. S. Palincsar, D. S. Ogle, E. G. Carr, eds., Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va. (1987), p. 73.
9. C. W. Anderson, K. J. Roth, in Advances in Research on Teaching, vol. 1, J. Brophy, ed., JAI P., Greenwich, Conn. (1989), p. 265.
10. D. C. Smith, D. C. Neale, Teaching & Teacher Ed. 5, 1 (1989).
11. J. Clement, in Informal Reasoning and Education, J. Voss, D. Perkins, J. Siegel, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (in press).
M. L. Rosenquist, L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 55, 407 (1987). https://doi.org/AJPIAS
J. Idar, U. Ganiel, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 22, 127 (1985).https://doi.org/JRSTAR
12. J. A. Minstrell, in Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research, L. B. Resnick, L. E. Klopfer, eds., Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va. (1989), p. 129.
13. A. Van Heuvelen, Am. J. Phys. (in press).
14. A. B. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching, Wiley, New York (1990).
15. L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 58, 734 (1990).https://doi.org/AJPIAS
16. G. Posner, K. Strike, P. Hewson, W. Gertzog, Sci. Ed. 66, 211 (1982).https://doi.org/SEDUAV
17. R. Glaser, in Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics, D. Halpern, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (in press).
J. H. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, H. A. Simon, Science 208, 1335 (1980). https://doi.org/SCIEAS
B. S. Eylon, F. Reif, Cognition and Instruction 1, 5 (1985).
18. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, R. Glaser, Cognitive Sci. 5, 121 (1981). https://doi.org/COGSD5
P. T. Hardiman, R. Dufresne, J. Mestre, Memory & Cognition 17, 627 (1989).https://doi.org/MYCGAO
19. J. Mestre, R. Dufresne, W. Gerace, P. Hardiman, J. Touger, in Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics, D. Halpern, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (in press).
20. F. Reif, J. I. Heller, Cognition and Instruction 1, 177 (1984).
21. T. Berg, W. Brouwer, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 3 (1991).https://doi.org/JRSTAR
22. E. L. Pizzini, D. P. Shepardson, S. K. Abell, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 111 (1991).https://doi.org/JRSTAR

More about the Authors

Jose P. Mestre. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.