Abstract
This paper looks at the distinctions between science classrooms and the robotics competition described in the article “Examining the mediation of power in a collaborative community: engaging in informal science as authentic practice” written by Anton Puvirajah, Geeta Verma and Horace Webb. Using the framework of “productive disciplinary engagement” and discussing each principle in turn, the article argues that in order to bring the advantages of informal learning environments into regular classrooms we especially need to address student interest through task design and to change curricular requirements to agree with changing educational values.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I was a member of the data-collecting team.
In Austria, we found that this creates tensions for high school teachers, who can no longer dazzle students with exciting experiments students have already encountered earlier. Even highly engaged teachers need to change their practices of encouraging students’ engagement, if older students are already more familiar with science.
References
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons (pp. 229–272). Cambridge: MIT Books.
Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 455–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Edelson, D. C. (1997). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 317–332). Dordecht, NL: Kluwer.
Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(5), 451–498.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
Engle, R. A., Nguyen, P. D., & Mendelson, A. (2011). The influence of framing on transfer: Initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instructional Science, 39, 603–628.
Gerhardt, U. (1971). Rollenanalyse als kritische Soziologie. Berlin: Luchterhand.
Heureka. (2010). Annual report. Helsiniki: Heureka.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This review essay is a critique of Puvirajah, A., Verma, G., & Webb, H. Examining the mediation of power in a collaborative community: Engaging in informal science as authentic practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9394-2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benke, G. Robotics competitions and science classrooms. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 7, 417–423 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9400-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9400-8