The Learning
Cycle:
A Comparison of Models of Strategies for
Conceptual Reconstruction: A Review of the Literature
Several pedagogical frameworks have been devised that center on conceptual reconstruction. These frameworks or models for the planning of science lessons are designed to provide a template for science teaching. Frameworks have been suggested by Barnes (1976), Driver (1986b), Karplus (1977), Erickson (1979), Nussbaum and Novic (1981), Renner (1982) and Rowell and Dawson (1983) and others. A review of some of the pedagogical frameworks that have been proposed over the past few years follows.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Renner.
Renner (1982) described the most common practice of science teachers is
to attempt to pass on to their pupils a mastery over content as the content is
envisaged by the teacher. The
theory of learning underlying this approach is, first, that the material to be
taught can be given to the learner as information; second, that it should then
be verified by the learner through observation; and finally, that the
information should be applied in some way to "settle it in". The first stage, informing or telling,
is usually attempted through the teacher's opening statements or as the
introduction to a so–called "experiment".
This subsequent activity is not an experiment in the investigatory sense,
however, but merely a verification or demonstration since both pupils and the
teacher already know the expected outcome.
The final stage, in this typical science sequence––application of
knowledge––usually involves answering questions and solving quantitative or
mathematical problems from a textbook in preparation for a test of some
kind.
Renner's analogy for this entire process is that of a guided tour where
the guide, the teacher, points out all the sights to be observed and the learner
is discouraged from taking any detour that, in the guide's view, is not
productive.
If we accept that each of us must develop the understandings we have
about a concept for ourselves, then Renner suggests an alternative teaching
model as more appropriate.
1) His initial concern is with pupils
gaining experience and this becomes the first stage of his teaching model. Learners are provided with suitable
experiences in order to create for themselves what is to be
learned.
2) In the second stage, the learner is
introduced to some appropriately–specific terminology in relation to the
phenomenon being investigated. The
teacher uses this to assist the learner to interpret what has been
found.
3) In the third stage, the new ideas of
the learner are meshed with existing knowledge in order to expand both that
knowledge and the newly acquired idea.
Additional experiences to help this elaboration process are an essential
part of this stage. These
experiences would have some of the attributes of experiments because the
outcomes would not be known even though the pupils know the concept that is the
subject of investigation.
In summary, Renner's view is that much conventional science teaching is
simply a training process that involves telling, confirming and practicing. Its limitations are obvious. From the generative learning point of
view, it omits the vital activities that involve originating experiences,
interpretation and elaboration.
Karplus.
Some other models that have been proposed also reflect a similar
viewpoint to Renner's in that they demonstrate a real concern for the cognitive
development of the learner. One
such model was proposed by Karplus (1977) and he, like Renner, has been somewhat
influenced by the Piagetian theories of development. Karplus argues that science
learning should be a process of self–regulation in which the learner forms new
reasoning patterns. These will result from reflection, after the pupil interacts
with phenomena and with the ideas of others. Karplus also proposes a three–phase
learning cycle.
1) The first phase is one of exploration
in which pupils learn through their own actions and reactions with minimal
guidance, while the teacher anticipates few specific accomplishments. The
learners are expected to raise questions that they cannot answer with their
present ideas or reasoning patterns.
2) In the second phase of the Karplus
model, the concept is introduced and explained. Here the teacher is more active,
and learning is achieved by explanation.
3) Finally, in the application phase, the
concept is applied to new situations and its range of applicability is
extended. Learning is achieved by
repetition and practice so that new ideas and ways of thinking have time to
stabilize.
An interesting analysis of the use of this particular learning cycle with
a science topic is provided by Smith and Lott (1983).
Driver.
An idea or framework will not be rejected until there is something
adequate and reliable to replace it with.
Pupils can be given experiences which conflict with their expectations,
but these experiences do not of themselves help the pupils to reconstruct an
alternative view of the system.
Driver (1986b) proposes a sequence of instruction
involving;
1) Evidence or data should be presented
so that the pupil has an opportunity to discover the new framework as an
interpretive framework, constructed in the mind, and therefore has to be
invented.
2) Many times students are left with an
incomplete construction or none at all.
The teacher must also present the new ideas as
inventions.
3) The pupils are then encouraged to see
the value and power of the ideas by applying them in a range of activities. This will take the greatest amount of
time; otherwise will cause students to memorize the new
ideas.
Nussbaum and Novick.
A similar three–stage model has been suggested by Nussbaum and Novick
(1981). They sought to explain what
happens as learners change their conceptions during instruction. Their strategy, in common with all of
the models summarized here, is based on the principle that "science concept
learning involves cognitive accommodation to an initially–held alternative
framework". Or, as we would prefer
to put it, the teaching task is to ascertain individual student's conceptions
about science topics and to modify these towards the current scientific
view.
1) To bring about cognitive
accommodation, Nussbaum and Novick suggest that the first step is to expose the
alternative framework.
They note Ausubel's warning that "preconceptions
are amazingly tenacious and resistant to extinction" (Ausubel, 1968), and accept
that such preconceptions often interfere with the teacher's learning
outcomes. Thus, Nussbaum and Novick
propose that the first step in facilitating accommodation should be to ensure
that every student is aware of his/her own preconceptions. To them, this is most easily achieved if
some event can be devised which requires learners to make explicit their
existing ideas in order to interpret it.
Pupils are encouraged to describe their own views verbally and
pictorially, and the teacher assists them to state these ideas clearly, in order
to recognize what they can and cannot explain. Pupils are encouraged to debate the
various views represented by all of their fellow learners, in order to better
understand the features of each view.
2) Assuming that learner dissatisfaction
with their existing ideas results from such activities, and the teacher provides
additional experiences that will lead to further dissatisfaction, the conceptual
conflict is likely to result.
Nussbaum and Novick imply that this conflict must be sufficient to induce
students to recognize that their existing views require
modification.
3) Accommodation develops from pupils
searching for a solution to their conflicting ideas. Thus, in the Nussbaum and
Novick model, concept learning is achieved by exposing alternative frameworks,
creating conceptual conflict, and encouraging cognitive
accommodation.
Erickson.
Erickson (1979) makes a parallel set of proposals.
1) The first stage of his model is the
provision of a set of experiential maneuvers, which allow the learners to become
familiar with a wide range of phenomena, so that they might expose a set of
intuitive ideas or beliefs. In this
stage, the activities are considered in sufficient depth to allow the learners
to clarify their ideas and to develop confidence so that they may begin to make
predictions.
2) The second stage contains anomaly
maneuvers, involving the creation of situations that lead to unexpected
outcomes. An element of uncertainty
is introduced; the learner needs to restructure his/her
views.
3) The third stage is a set of
restructuring maneuvers to assist the learners in accommodating unexpected
outcomes. Restructuring, in
Ericksen's strategy, could be achieved by, for example, group discussions and
teacher intervention.
Barnes. Barnes (1976) also contends that learners
need to take a prominent part in the formulation of their own knowledge. To reduce the teacher's perceived
control over knowledge, Barnes believes that students should work primarily in
small groups. In practical terms he
proposes the following sequence:
1) A focusing stage, in which the
teacher, with the students, prepares the ground by presenting preliminary
knowledge (which, we assume, includes "alternative frameworks" and "student's
science"). When the attention of
the class is fully focused on the topic, the teacher moves on to
an
2) Exploratory stage, involving much
discussion and other activities, including experimentation. Then in the
3) Reorganizing stage, the teacher
re–focuses attention and tells the groups how they will be reporting back, and
how long they have to prepare for it.
Finally, in the
4) Public stage, the groups of learners
present their findings to one another, and this leads to further
discussion
Rowell and Dawson.
A further model has been suggested by Rowell and Dawson (1983). This more explicitly focuses on the
confrontation between student's science and scientists' science. They suggest the following
sequence:
1) Through questioning, the teacher
establishes the ideas that children bring to the problem situation. Conscious awareness of these ideas is of
value to both the teacher and the children.
2) These ideas are accepted by the
teacher as possible solutions.
3) Students are asked to retain their
ideas, and the teacher states that he or she is going to put forward another
possibility that the children will help in evaluating
later.
4) The "new" idea is taught by linking it
to a basic idea already held.
5) Once the new idea is available to
students then the old ideas are recalled for comparison, with each other and
with reality.
Rowell and Dawson believe that students
are less threatened by this approach than some others, since both "old" and
"new" ideas are the pupils' own in the sense that all are pooled knowledge. Assuming that old theories are rarely
defeated by contrary evidence but only by better theories, they argue that the
children with several ideas available to them are in the best possible situation
to accept the scientist's one when it is tested against the
others.
The Generative Learning Model
(GLM). The GLM model
proposed by Osbourne and Wittrock (1983) and summarized by Kyle and colleagues
(1989) has four steps that closely parallel the Center's proposed model of
learning and teaching:
1. In the preliminary step, before
beginning any formalized instruction, teachers assess students' ideas and
conceptual explanations.
2. In the focus step, the instructor
provides experiences related to the particular concept that motivates the
students to explore their level of conceptual
understanding.
3. Next, the teacher helps students
exchange points of view and challenges students to compare and contrast their
ideas and support their viewpoints with evidence (the challenge stage);
and
4. In the application stage, students use
their newly refined conceptual understandings in familiar
contexts.
The Riverina-Murray Model.
The Riverina-Murray Institute of Higher Education (Boylan, 1988) presents
a five-stage model of learning and teaching and learners must pass through as
they develop a new level of conceptual understanding. The stages are:
1.
The teacher identifies the learner's naive ideas about a selected
concept.
2.
Based on that information, the teacher selects events, situations and
activities for the learner to explore.
3. The exploratory phase provides a
practical base upon which the learner begins to develop a new
understanding. The learner is
encouraged to make the concept explicit and also is introduced to new language
and symbols.
4.
The learner organizes the new idea and establishes links with relevant
prior knowledge; a new mental scheme emerges; and
5.
She learner practices and applies the new idea in novel situations to
consolidate the newly developed understanding.
The Hewson-Hewson Model. The Hewsons, after reviewing studies on
science learning, summarize "key points in instructional strategies which help
students overcome their naive, inappropriate conceptions" (Hewson and Hewson,
1988:607). Teachers
must:
1. Diagnose students' thoughts on the
topic at hand.
2. Provide an opportunity for students to
clarify their own thoughts.
3. Directly contrast students' views and
the desired view through teacher presentation or class
discussion.
4. Immediately provide an opportunity for
students to use the desired view to explain a phenomenon: and
5. Provide an immediate opportunity for
students to apply their newly acquired understanding in novel
situations.
The Lawson-Abraham Model.
Anton Lawson (1988), Michael Abraham (1989), and colleagues (Lawson,
Abraham, and Renner, 1989; Renner, 1986) long have advocated a three-step
learning cycle. This is based on a
three-step cycle first proposed by Atkin and Karplus (1962). They later used it
in the innovative elementary science program, the Science Curriculum Improvement
Study (SCIS).
1. Derived from Jean Piaget's
developmental theory, the learning cycle approach first uses a laboratory
experiment to expose students to the concept to be developed. Abraham calls this the exploration or
gathering data phase.
2. Next, the students and/or teacher
derive the concept from the data, usually a classroom discussion (the conceptual
invention phase).
3. The final phase, expansion, gives the
student the opportunity to explore the usefulness and application of the
developing concept.
Lawson (1988) and others prefer to call the second phase "term or concept
introduction" because they recognize that, while teachers can give students new
terminology, ultimately the student must actively invent or generate the
concept. Lawson has recently
proposed that there are three kinds of learning cycles, descriptive,
empirical-deductive and hypothetical deductive. The sequence of learning-teaching events
is essentially the same in each.
Driver-Oldham Model.
Driver and Oldham (1986) describe a constructivist teaching sequence used
in the Children's Learning-in-Science Project. They suggest that it be viewed as a
flexible outline because the demands of different conceptual areas and the time
available for learning and teaching will vary.
1. In the orientation phase, students are
motivated to learn the topic. In
the elicitation phase, students make their ideas explicit through discussions,
creation of posters, or writing.
2. In the restructuring phase, teacher
and students clarify and exchange views through discussion; promote conceptual
conflict through demonstrations; exchange ideas; and evaluate alternative
ideas.
3. In the application phase, students use
their new ideas in familiar and novel settings.
4. The review phase allows students to
reflect on how their ideas have changed.
5. The model incorporates several aspects
of technological problem solving and decision-making notable evaluation of
alternative ideas and reflection at the end of the learning
sequence.
_____________________________________________________________________________
These frameworks are similar in that they center on a strategy that
involves experience, interpretation, and
elaboration. See Table 1. They all fit under the general name of
the learning cycle (Karplus, 1979).
The learning cycle is designed to adapt instruction to help
students:
1) Become aware of their prior
knowledge,
2) Foster cooperative learning and a safe
positive learning environment
3) Compare new alternatives to their
prior knowledge,
4) Connect it to what they already know,
5) Construct their own “new” knowledge,
and
6) Apply the new knowledge in ways that
are different from the situation in which it was learned.
The learning cycle has been effectively
used with students at all levels to accomplish these purposes. This learning cycle approach helps
students apply knowledge gained in the classroom to new areas or to new
situations, because students:
1) Are more aware of their own reasoning,
2) Can recognize shortcomings of their
conceptions as a result of being encouraged to try them out,
3) Can apply procedures successful in
other areas,
4) Can search more effectively for new
patterns, and
5) Can apply what they learn more often
in new settings.
Instruction must strengthen these
tendencies in all students and discourage unquestioning acceptance of poorly
understood concepts, theories, and thinking skills.
The learning cycle involves students in a sequence of activities
beginning with exploration of an idea or skill, leading to a more guided
explanation invention of the idea or skill, and culminating in expansion of the
idea or skill through additional practice and trials in new settings. This sequence represents a single lesson
on one concept lasting one to several instructional periods. Because of what occurs in each phase,
the three parts of the learning cycle are called: exploration (experience), invention
(interpretation), and expansion (elaboration). A teacher has a large number of choices
in deciding how to provide instruction for students. The selection of pedagogical methods to
use in teaching (e.g. lecture, inquiry, a hands-on approach, film, cooperative
learning, etc.) should be determined by the
1) Type of idea(s) or skill(s) to be
taught,
2) Developmental level and specific
learning needs of the student,
3) Part of the learning cycle the teacher
is involved with,
4) Form and content of student’s prior
knowledge and the number and kind of instructional activities needed to create
conceptual restructuring, and
5) type of knowledge representation
required for the idea to be understood (Sunal, D. 1992 & Sunal and Sunal,
1990, 1991, 1994).
Table 1
CHANGING STUDENT IDEAS
Varieties of Learning Cycle Frameworks
|
Phase |
Renner |
Karplus |
Driver |
Nussbaum &
Novak |
|
1 |
Experiences |
Exploration |
Discovery |
Exposing
alternative frameworks |
|
2 |
Interpretation |
Explanation |
Presentation |
Creating conceptual conflict |
|
3 |
Exploration |
Application |
Application |
Encouraging cognitive accommodation |
|
|
Erickson |
Barnes |
Rowell & Dawson |
Osbourne & Whittroch |
|
1 |
Experiential maneuvers |
Focusing |
Establish initial ideas |
Assess student ideas |
|
2 |
Anomaly maneuvers |
Exploration |
Introduce
new ideas |
Exchange
points of view |
|
3 |
Restructuring
maneuvers |
Reorganizing |
Comparison
of ideas |
Use
ideas |
|
4 |
|
Public |
|
|
|
|
Riverina and
Murray |
Hewson and
Hewson |
Lawson and
Abraham |
Driver and Oldham |
|
1 |
Identify
naïve ideas. Select events. |
Diagnose |
Exploration |
Orientation
and motivation |
|
2 |
Exploratory
activities |
Opportunity
to clarify and contrast |
Conceptual
invention |
Elicitation
of ideas |
|
3 |
Organize
ideas and establish links |
Practice
new idea |
|
Restructuring
ideas through exchange |
|
4 |
Practice
and apply new idea |
Apply
idea |
Expansion |
Application
and review |