Advancing the Cognitive Science of Instruction: Testing the Role of Pedagogical Sequences, Scaffolding, and Prior Knowledge

在NSF的EHR核心研究(ECR)计划的支持下，该项目寻求通过确定有效的教学方法来支持学生理解核心科学概念，从而服务于国家利益。这个项目将研究初级和高级本科生在生物科学方面的学习。科学教育工作者和政策制定者的目标是促进学生深刻的概念理解和解决课堂和现实世界中新问题的能力的发展。不幸的是，由于教学科学中的突出问题，即使是最有见识和勤奋的教师也很难选择支持稳健学习的教学方法。研究者们不知道显性指导应该在问题解决练习之前还是之后，或者问题解决练习应该是脚手架还是不脚手架。研究人员也不知道支架的最佳教学顺序和水平是否取决于学生的先验知识水平。最后，传统的评估可能无法全面反映不同教学方法对学生学习应用的影响，也就是所谓的迁移。这些未知数很重要，因为目前成千上万的学生离开科学时知识迟钝，没有准备好在随后的课程中使用科学概念和实践，关于医疗保健、公共卫生和环境的关键日常决策，最终是他们的职业。因此，回答这些未知数将为教育工作者、政策制定者和变革推动者提供即时指导，以创建准备让学生使用他们的知识的科学课堂。这项拟议的研究的目标是解决关于何时以及如何提供关于生物科学中具有挑战性的基本概念的指导和解决问题的机会的根本问题。认知科学和教育心理学的研究人员继续就如何设计最大限度地转移的教学进行辩论。这场辩论的核心是确定何时、如何以及为谁提供明确的指导和参与解决问题的机会。该项目试图通过一系列对照实验，将竞争教学方法的高保真实施与佐治亚大学(UGA)的本科生进行比较，以期在解决这些有争议的问题方面取得进展。具体地说，拟议的研究将确定不同的解决问题实践的教学顺序和水平(目标1)如何影响具有不同先前知识水平的学生对核心生物学概念的理解(目标2)。除了传统的迁移措施外，这项研究还将通过半结构化访谈收集定性数据，以检查不同的教学方法对知识迁移的意外影响(目标3)。这些发现将为关于教学如何影响认知加工和迁移的相互竞争的理论观点提供洞察。拟议中的项目将带来几个更广泛的影响。首先，该项目将促进改进教学、培训和学习。科学教育工作者经常被告知教学应该是“主动的”，但目前还不清楚哪种形式的主动教学最有效，对谁来说也是如此。这个项目将为教师提供明确的指导方针，指导他们在教授复杂的科学概念时，如何平衡明确的教学阶段和(脚手架或非脚手架的)解决问题的机会。它还将确定哪些教学顺序和水平的脚手架最适合具有不同背景知识的学生，例如选择入门和高级科学课程的学生。通过明确支持科学概念转移的具体方法，我们的发现将解决在参加科学课程的学生中如此普遍的惰性知识问题。督学将透过举办工作坊和纪律会议，协助向教育工作者宣传他们的研究结果。其次，该项目将通过与UGA的桃州路易斯·斯托克斯少数民族参与联盟(PSLSAMP)合作，让有色人种学生担任本科生研究助理，从而有助于扩大有色人种学生对科学的参与。第三，该项目的调查结果将通过在社交媒体上广泛传播，影响学术界以外的教育工作者和公众。该项目由EHR核心研究(ECR)计划资助，该计划支持推进STEM学习和学习环境的基础研究、扩大对STEM的参与以及STEM劳动力发展的工作。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

With support from NSF’s EHR Core Research (ECR) program, this project seeks to serve the national interest by identifying effective instructional methods to support student understanding of core science concepts. This project will study learning in the biological sciences among introductory and advanced undergraduates. Science educators and policy makers aim to facilitate students’ development of deep conceptual understanding and the ability to solve novel problems in the classroom and the real world. Unfortunately, even the most well- informed and diligent instructors struggle to choose pedagogies that support robust learning because of outstanding questions in instructional science. Researchers do not know whether explicit instruction should precede or follow problem solving practice, or whether problem solving practice should be scaffolded or unscaffolded. Researchers also do not know whether the optimal pedagogical sequence and level of scaffolding depends on students’ level of prior knowledge. Finally, conventional assessments likely fail to capture the full impact of different pedagogical approaches on students’ application of learning, also known as transfer. These unknowns are important because currently thousands of students leave science with inert knowledge, unprepared to use scientific concepts and practices in subsequent courses, critical day-to-day decisions about healthcare, public health, and the environment, and ultimately their professions. Thus, answering these unknowns will provide immediate guidance to educators, policy makers, and change agents to create science classrooms that prepare students to use their knowledge. The goal of the proposed research is to resolve fundamental questions concerning when and how to provide instruction and opportunities for problem solving about challenging fundamental concepts in the biological sciences.Researchers in cognitive science and educational psychology continue to debate how to design instruction that maximizes transfer. Central to this debate is determining when, how, and for whom to provide explicit instruction and opportunities to engage in problem solving. This project seeks to make progress in resolving these contentious issues through a series of controlled experiments that compare high-fidelity implementations of competing instructional approaches with undergraduates at the University of Georgia (UGA). Specifically, the proposed research will determine how different instructional sequences and levels of scaffolding for problem-solving practice (Objective 1) impact understanding of a core biology concept for students with different levels of prior knowledge (Objective 2). In addition to conventional measures of transfer, the research will involve collecting qualitative data via semi-structured interviews to examine unexpected ways in which different instructional approaches affect knowledge transfer (Objective 3). The findings will provide insight into competing theoretical perspectives concerning how instruction affects cognitive processing and transfer. The proposed project will bring about several broader impacts. First, the project will promote improved teaching, training, and learning. Science educators are often told instruction should be “active,” but it is not clear which forms of active instruction are most effective and for whom. This project will provide instructors with clear guidelines for how to balance phases of explicit instruction and opportunities for (scaffolded or unscaffolded) problem-solving practice when teaching complex science concepts. It will also determine which instructional sequences and levels of scaffolding are most appropriate for students with different levels of background knowledge, such as students taking introductory versus upper-level science courses. By pinpointing specific ways to support transfer of science concepts, our findings will address the inert knowledge problem that is so pervasive among students taking science courses. The PIs will facilitate the propagation of their findings to educators by offering workshops and disciplinary meetings. Second, this project will contribute to broadening the participation of students of color in science by working with UGA’s Peach State Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (PSLSAMP) to involve students of color as undergraduate research assistants. Third, the findings of this project will impact educators outside of academia and the public through broad dissemination of findings on social media. This project is funded by the EHR Core Research (ECR) program, which supports work that advances fundamental research on STEM learning and learning environments, broadening participation in STEM, and STEM workforce development.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.