Abstract
This article discusses a case for a different, socio-cultural way of looking at learning progressions as treated in the next generation science standards (NGSS) as described by Ralph Cordova and Phyllis Balcerzak’s paper “Co-constructing cultural landscapes for disciplinary learning in and out of school: the next generation science standards and learning progressions in action”. The paper is interesting for a number of reasons, and in this response I will identify different aspects of the paper and link the points made to my own research, and that of colleagues, as complementary perspectives. First, the way that the science curriculum is conceived as an expanding experience that moves from the classroom into the community, across subjects, and across time, links to theoretical positions on disciplinary literacies and notions of learning as apprenticeship into the discursive tools, or ‘habits of mind’ as the authors put it, that underpin disciplinary practice. Second, the formulation of progression through widening communities of practice is a strong feature of the paper, and shows how children take on the role of scientists through this expanding exposure. I will link this approach to some of our own work with school—community science partnerships, drawing on the construct of boundary crossing to tease out relations between school science and professional practice. Third, the demonstration of the expansion of the children’s view of what scientists do is well documented in the paper, illustrated by Figure 13 for instance. However I will, in this response, try to draw out and respond to what the paper is saying about the nature of progression; what the progression consists of, over what temporal or spatial dimensions it progresses, and how it can productively frame curriculum processes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.
Gooding, D. (2005). Visualization, inference and explanation in the sciences. Studies in Multidisciplinarity, 2, 1–25. doi:10.1016/S1571-0831(04)80029-7.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice. International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association: Newark, DE.
Moje, E. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy learning. Review of Research in Education, 31, 1–44.
Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (Eds.) Science and philosophy and reviews (Volumes VII and VIII). Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.626462.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Symington, D., & Tytler, R. (2011). Schools and teachers supporting student open investigations. Teaching science, 57(1), 8–12.
Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Prain, V., & Hubber, P. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Science, 55(4), 21–27.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to learn in science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Tytler, R., Symington, D., & Cripps Clark, J. (2016). Community-school collaborations in science: Towards improved outcomes through better understanding of boundary issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9711-9.
Tytler, R., Symington, D., & Smith, C. (2011). A curriculum innovation framework for science, technology and mathematics education. Research in Science Education, 41, 19–38. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9144-y.
Tytler, R., Symington, D., Williams, G., White, P., Campbell, C., Chittleborough, G., et al. (2015). Building productive partnerships for STEM education: Evaluating the model and outcomes of the Scientists and Mathematicians in Schools program. Melbourne: Deakin University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Lead Editor: Jesse Bazzul.
This review essay addresses issues raised in Ralph Cordova’s and Phyllis Balcerzak’s paper entitled: Co-constructing cultural landscapes for disciplinary learning in and out of school: the next generation science standards and learning progressions in action. doi:10.1007/s11422-015-9678-4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tytler, R. Learning progressions from a sociocultural perspective: response to “co-constructing cultural landscapes for disciplinary learning in and out of school: the next generation science standards and learning progressions in action”. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 13, 599–605 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9777-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9777-x