BuchananWWSept15

Comparing the Theoretical Perspectives of Schofield, Eurich-Fulcer, & Britt (1994) and Triona & Klahr (2003)

The world outside the laboratory is complex and layered. Education researchers depend on coherent perspectives to guide their reasoning and methodology. A specific researcher typically favors a empiricist, rationalist, or situative perspective, as described by Greeno, Collins, and Resnick (1996). Schofield, Eurich-Fulcer, and Britt demonstrate a situative perspective in their study of "Teachers, computer tutors, and teaching: The artificially intelligent tutor as an agent for classroom change." (1994) Triona and Klahr demonstrate a cognitive perspective in their "Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments." (2003) Both teams of researchers demonstrate some of Greeno et al.'s pluralist thinking as well, especially in their use of empirical methodology.

Schofield et al. demonstrate an situative perspective in their study. They are interested in the effects of the GPTutor intervention on teacher and student affect (e.g. students' embarrassment when they make mistakes), students' agency in their learning community (e.g. how they get help), and general classroom climate (e.g. fostering a productive climate). These are situative lines of inquiry. Schofield et al. are intrigued by the possible "profound impact" of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) "on classroom social processes." The geometry curriculum has content-specific cognitive goals (e.g. mastering key theorems), but they devote little attention to performance outcomes. Rather, they are fascinated by the paradox of students' affection for a live teacher and their preference for CAI. This paradox may indicate a socio-historic change in education, making it well-suited for situative inquiry.

Schofield et al. also demonstrate some empirical methodology, including control and comparison classes. The "artificially intelligent" GPTutor software illustrates some empirical design, including its dynamic responsiveness to student input. Schofield et al. also demonstrate empiricism by their expectation of higher levels of "time on task" and other observable outcomes. However, they don't try to control the myriad of variables in the long-term, embedded use of GPTutor. They use established best practices in their quantitative methods, but more orthodox empiricists might design the software itself to capture objective measures of student time on task and other data.

Triona and Klahr also use empirical methodology as a means to an end. In their study, the focus is a cognitive objective: mastery and transfer of the concept of the "control of variables strategy (CVS)" in science. They demonstrate empiricism by trying to manipulate a single variable: the use of physical or virtual manipulatives in a lesson on CVS. Their cognitive perspective is apparent in their tight focus on individual students and their grasp of the concept. They measure effectiveness by performance: constructing and explaining good CVS experiments. While an orthodox empiricist might be satisfied with successful performance or transfer, Triona and Klahr also probe the students' internal confidence and "domain knowledge." This reflects Triona and Klahr's cognitive perspective, as does their focus on individual learning and performing. It's also a highly situative approach, since mastery of CVS is demonstrated by designing real experiments (albeit simple ones). An even more situative approach might have the students work together, as a real scientists often do.

These two teams of researchers demonstrate distinctly different perspectives. Schofield et al. are very situative in their inquiry of class-wide culture and cultural change, while Triona and Klahr are tightly focused on the cognitive changes in individual students. Both teams demonstrate some of the pluralist thinking that Greeno et al. encourage. Both studies illustrate the complexity of real classrooms and interventions, where such pluralist approaches may be especially advantageous.

References

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Prentice Hall International.

Schofield, J. W., Eurich-Fulcer, R., & Britt, C. L. (1994). Teachers, computer tutors, and teaching: The artificially intelligent tutor as an agent for classroom change. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 579-607.

Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-173.