27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Epigenetic Didactics: Students’ Interpretation and Reasoning with Visual Representations at Different Levels of Biological Organization.
Annika Thyberg1, Konrad Schönborn2, Niklas Gericke1
1Karlstad University, Sweden; 2Linköping University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Thyberg, Annika
In genetics education, epigenetics is an important emerging concept. When communicating biology, external representations help students understand epigenetic phenomena since these representations depict essential visual features and symbolism. This study explores how students interact and reason with different visualizations that communicate epigenetic phenomena presented at different levels of biological organization and modes of representation. The aim of the study is to investigate how different modes of visual representations depicted at different organizational levels mediate students' meaning making of epigenetic concepts. To identify students’ interpretation of the visualizations, the CRM model was used as an analytical tool. In an exploratory approach, thirteen students interpreted and discussed six visualizations representing different levels of biological organization at various degrees of abstraction for about 20 minutes as part of semi-structured focus group interviews. The results show that influence of the representation mode and depicted biological organization level is important in students’ meaning-making of epigenetic visualizations. Previous research has shown that students’ interpretation ability of abstract science concepts is supported by the use of different representations. This study concludes that supporting this ability in an epigenetics education context is dependent on the use of different representation modes communicated at various levels of biological organization.
Keywords: Visual learning, CRM model, levels of biological organization
Modern genetics is difficult for students to understand. The nature of biological entities are embedded in multiple hierarchical (macro, micro and sub micro) levels of organization (Marbach-Ad & Stavy, 2000). To make meaning of and understand biological phenomena requires interpretation of all these levels (Tsui & Treagust, 2013, Knippels & Waarlo, 2018). The macroscopic (organismal) level can be defined as visible objects, i.e. biological characteristics that are visible to the naked eye, the microscopic (cellular) level as objects visible under a light microscope, and the sub microscopic (biochemical) level as molecular objects that cannot be observed directly such as DNA and proteins (Marbach-Ad & Stavy, 2000). Learning with visualizations can improve students’ conceptual understanding of biological phenomenon by promoting representational competence. In particular, the ability of students to decode and interpret visualizations represented at the sub micro level is heavily influenced by the diversity of visual information and symbolism inherent in different visual representations (e.g., Ainsworth, 2006).
Epigenetics explains how environmental factors at the macro level can influence gene activity at the micro and sub micro levels. It follows that students need to reason between and across different organizational levels to understand epigenetics. This makes for a compelling didactic case in investigating students’ meaning making when interpreting multiple visual representations. This study explores how different modes of representation communicated by visualizations across and between organizational levels mediate students' meaning making and reasoning about epigenetic concepts. Various factors influence students’ interpretation of scientific visual representations. For instance, Schönborn and Anderson (2009) have shown that factors include the external visual features and graphical markings making up a representation (Mode (M) factor), the reasoning skills necessary to make meaning of a representation (Reasoning (R) factor), and the learner’s prior knowledge of the concepts that the learner “brings” to the representation (Conceptual (C) factor). A student’s ability to successfully interpret and learn from a visual representation through engagement of all three factors (i.e. C-R-M). This study uses the CRM model as an analytical tool to guide identification of students’ interpretation and reasoning with epigenetic visualizations at different levels of biological organization.
The posed research question were: How does the mode and reasoning with the concept of epigenetic visualizations influence students’ interpretation of epigenetic phenomena presented on different levels of organization? How does the mode and level of biological organization influence students’ meaning making of epigenetic concepts?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe visual representations used in the study were depicted at different levels of biological organization (macro, micro and sub micro) and in different modes of abstraction (realistic, semi pictorial and abstract) (e.g., Schönborn & Anderson, 2009). Video observations were adopted to explore students’ interpretation and meaning making of the epigenetic visualizations in focus group activities while they discussed the visualizations in a Swedish school context. Five groups with two to four participants in each group (a total of thirteen students) in grade 9 (aged 15-16 years old) interpreted the six visualizations.
The students were first introduced to epigenetics with a video clip that conveyed chemical switches that interact with DNA to regulate gene function. The video clip communicated that the environment interacts with genes inducing changes in appearance that accumulate over time, and that these differences can develop differently between identical twins, for example.
Following viewing the clip, students were briefly introduced to the six visualizations. In an exploratory approach, the students interpreted and discussed the visualizations for approximately 20 minutes.With the students structured in focus groups, the first author conducted semi-structured interviews.
Interview questions were focused on probing represented epigenetic concepts and the students were encouraged to point at, and explicitly indicate the visual features that they referred to. Moreover, follow-up questions were formulated to further understand how the students interpret and make meaning of the epigenetic visualizations.
The analytical process was qualitative and thematic (e.g. Braun & Clark, 2006) with the aim to discern how factors of the CRM model influenced student reasoning and meaning making with the visual representations (Schönborn & Anderson, 2009).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAnalysis of students’ interpretation of organizational level revealed that without engaging direct reasoning with the mode (M), i.e. when students reason without referring to any visual representation, they tend to reason about epigenetic concepts (R-C) at the macro level. However, analysis of discussions, students often engaged with visualizations when they represented the sub micro level. Reasoning related to the micro level was not frequently yielded in either of these scenarios. We therefore suggest that visualizations presented at the sub micro level are important for inducing and scaffolding students’ reasoning and interpretation of communicated conceptual knowledge of epigenetics.
When representing mode and organizational level simultaneously, we know that semi pictorial and symbolic modes often dominate visual representations at the sub-micro level. This is because of how molecular mechanical processes such as epigenetics are usually visually communicated. Therefore, it is expected that students’ conceptual discussions in genetics would be induced by visualizations because molecular explanations often serve as the basis for conceptual understanding in genetics (Marbach-Ad & Stavy, 2000). Nevertheless, including macro level visualizations in teaching and learning is also of high importance in students’ reasoning. Our study shows that when students turn away from interpreting visualizations in attempting to make meaning of epigenetics concepts, they tend to do so while discussing phenomena at the macro level.
Consequently, it seems as if the macro level, and the accompanying realistic representation mode, are important dimensions for students meaning making of epigenetics conceptual content. In this way our study supports Ainsworth’s (2006) and Tsui and Treagust’s (2013) assertions that students’ interpretation of abstract phenomena is supported by using multiple representations. Our study contributes the novel finding to biology didactics that this ability might also be scaffolded in an epigenetic education context when including visual representations communicated in several modes and levels of biological organization.
ReferencesAinsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Qualitative Research in Psychology Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Knippels, M. C. P. J. & Waarlo, A.J (2018). Development, Uptake and Wider Applicability of the Yo-yo Strategy in Biology Education Research : A Reappraisal. Education sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030129
Marbach-Ad, G., &Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655718
Schonborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2009). A model of factors determining students’ ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193–232
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Introduction to multiple representations: Their importance in biology and biological education. In: Treagust, D., Tsui, CY. (eds) Multiple Representations in Biological Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, vol 7: 3-38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
What Are we Missing in Didactics as the Active Process of Teaching?
Andrea Fernández-Sánchez, Ana Sánchez
University of A Coruña, Spain
Presenting Author: Fernández-Sánchez, Andrea;
Sánchez, Ana
Students’ increasing unwillingness to take part in science and technology-related careers has been underscored in the science education community (Ulriksen, Madsen y Holmegaard, 2015) because it may weaken the STEM-related workforce (Subotnik et al. 2009). However, our view is not aligning with the improvement of STEM areas to reproduce cognitive capitalism and to contribute to the reinforcement of the future workforce who with their knowledge, skills, and expertise assist the financial marketplace (Torres, 2017), but a matter of social and curricular justice.
Recent studies have reported that declining interest and negative attitudes towards school science occur during the lower-secondary school years (Gibson & Chase, 2002; Murphy & Beggs, 2003) and it is attributed, among other factors, to the overloaded, outdated and not very relevant curricula, difficult and boring contents, and the gap between the science taught and the current techno-science of everyday life (Vázquez & Manassero, 2005; Murphy & Beggs, 2003; Gilbert, Bulte &Pilot, 2011). In the Spanish context, the content-based teaching approach in science education, the presentation of knowledge as dogmas proved through a stereotyped method (Rivero et al. 2017), and the lack of attention paid to scientific procedures in science education, and its relation with society has impeded students to get closer and familiarised with the scientific activity (Vázquez, Acevedo y Manassero, 2005).
Rocard et al. (2007) cite the teaching approach (instruction) as the cause of declining interest and negative attitudes towards S&T. Tolstrup, Moller and Ulriksen (2014) believe that teaching strategies play a key role in the development of positive attitudes, as do Aguilera and Perales (2017), who highlight the importance of using active T-L strategies in science education such as inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, context-based learning, and model-based learning. All these strategies, rooted in the theory of constructivism, are more likely to foster the relationship between curiosity, interest, and learning (Palmer, 2005 in Aguilera y Perales, 2017) and thus develop a positive attitude towards it. In this sense, Vazquez and Manassero (2009) point out that science education must not only inspire students' enjoyment of learning, but also promote activities with technological devices, machines, and tools to develop and promote interest in science and technology.
Therefore, in this communication we analyze – with a gender perspective - an interdisciplinary, context-based, and collaborative educational practice carried out in the 4th year of secondary education – Year 11, students aged 15-16– rooted in ICT and technology subjects – and its impact on students’ interests in technology.
The main objectives of this study are:
- To analyze the foundations of an interdisciplinary, context-based, and collaborative educational practice.
- To determine the impact of active teaching-learning approaches on students’ interest in technology.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo carry out this study, we conducted an instrumental case study in an educational centre in Galicia - Spain - that uses active T-L methods in technology-based subjects -ICT and Technology. This communication aims to shed light on how active teaching-learning methods arouse students' interest in learning, especially in school science. To this end, the perceptions of teachers and students - 20 students (5 girls and 15 boys) in Year 11 taking ICT and technology - were collected using qualitative methods such as participant observation, focus groups and group interviews, which allowed us to get closer to the reality in the classroom and to capture and understand the perspectives of students and teachers.
This annual educational project, the "Maker School", consists of the development of a "company" in which students must carry out entrepreneurial activities - such as accounting, website development, marketing and sales - product design and production using 3D printers, in order to market these products and donate the profits to a solidarity project or non-governmental organisation chosen by the school community - teachers and students. The uniqueness of the "Marker School Project" lies in its contribution to the school curriculum. Through this project, pupils acquire the content and competences foreseen in the secondary school grade 4 curriculum for ICT and technology subjects.
The "Maker School" project is based on the philosophy of "learning by doing" and is built around "committees" - max. 5 students per committee - due to the teacher/student ratio. In these committees, students rotate every 2 months and pursue specific roles in order to achieve all the curricula contents and competences. Students rotate on these committees every 2 months and take on specific roles to achieve all curriculum content and competencies. The committees are specific to each subject - ICT and Technology - to meet the needs of each and the curriculum content. The ICT subject committees are: Web Design, Sales, Marketing, Broadcasting and Video, while in Technology: 3D Printer Maintenance, 3D Software, I+D+I, Automation Technology and Robotics. Students democratically elect a committee at the beginning of the school year and then move to another of their choice. To keep up with committee work, students are required to create and update a portfolio of developed assignments during their time on the committee. This portfolio serves both as a guide for the new committee members and as an assessment tool for the teacher.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAll students, both male and female, agree that this project is based on independent learning, "In all committees you have to look for solutions, you learn to solve problems, I think that is the most useful thing for my future" (GD1-MH-1). This teaching/learning approach occurs in problem solving, decision making, and organizing tasks (OBS1- TEC -4B, 4A, OBS2- TEC -4B). Students believe that this project puts students at the center of the teaching and learning process because it respects their time, learning style, and idiosyncrasies. In this sense, students also believe that the strongest quality of the Maker School Project is the collaborative learning approach rather than the project-based one. Students have shown that they prefer collaborative learning because it not only helps them achieve curriculum standards but also develop skills such as active listening, making agreements, and commitment to their learning-if a committee does not do its part, the project will not be successful -. Students feel that some of the "committees" in this project are related and useful to their current and future daily lives. For boys, the most useful committees are the maintenance of 3D printers and 3D software, while girls see the most useful committee as the maintenance of 3D printers because it helps them understand how machines work, contrary to what the literature shows that girls usually flee from tasks related to tools and machines (Jozefowicz et al., 1993).
However, this project does not increase female students' interest in technology to the extent expected. The lack of decision-making power and the fact that they are not able to bring significant changes to the project (currently the project is fixed and organized, which means that they can only determine the topic of the project and the benefits recipient) have a deterrent effect on the female students.
ReferencesAguilera Morales, David., and Perales-Palacios, Francisco Javier. (2017). ¿Qué implicaciones educativas sugieren los estudios empíricos sobre actitud hacia la ciencia? Enseñanza de las ciencias, núm. extraordinario, 3901-3905.
Gibson, Helen L. y Chase, Christopher. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program in middle school students’ attitudes towards science. Science Education, 86 (5), 693-705.
Gilbert, John K., Bulte, Astrid M.W. y Pilot, Albert. (2011). Concept Development and Transfer in Context-Based Science Education. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (6), 817-837.
Jozefowicz, Debra M., Barber, Bonnie L., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S. (28 of march of 1993). Adolescent work-related values and beliefs: Gender differences and relation to occupational aspirations. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Murphy, Colette y Beggs, Jim. (2003). Children perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84 (308), 109-116.
Rivero García, Ana., Martín del Pozo, Rosa., Solís Ramírez, Emilio., and Porlán Ariza, Rafael. (2017). Didáctica de las ciencias experimentales en educación primaria. Madrid: Síntesis.
Subotnik, R. et al. (2009). Identifying and Developing Talent in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An Agenda for Research, Policy, and Practice. In Shavinina, Larisa V. (eds), International Handbook on Giftedness (pp. 1313-1326). Springer.
Tolstrup Holmegaard, Henriette., Møller Madsen, Lene., and Ulriksen, Lars. (2014) To Choose or Not to Choose Science: Constructions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education programme. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (2), 186-215.
Torres Santomé, Jurjo. (2017). Políticas educativas y construcción de personalidades neoliberales y neocolionalistas. Morata.
Ulriksen, Lars., Madsen, Lene Moller. and Holmegaard, Henriette Tolstrup. (2015). Why Do Students in STEM Higher Education Programmes Drop/Opt Out? – Explanations Offered from Research. In Ellen Karoline Henriksen, Justin Dillon y Jim Ryder (eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp.203-218). Springer.
Vázquez Alonso, Ángel., Acevedo Díaza, José Antonio., and Manassero Mas, María Antonia. (2005). Más allá de la enseñanza de las ciencias para científicos: hacia una educación científica humanista. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 4 (2).
Vázquez Alonso, Ángel., and Manassero Mas, María Antonia. (2005). La ciencia escolar vista por los estudiantes. Bordón, 57 (5), 125-143.
Vázquez Alonso, Ángel., and Manassero Mas, María Antonia. (2009). La vocación científica y tecnológica: predictores actitudinales significativos. Eureka, 6 (2), 213-23
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
How is Variation Theory Used in Teachers’ Collegial Discussions Concerning Teaching in a Subject Didactic Group in Physical Education?
Marlene Sjöberg
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Sjöberg, Marlene
In this paper, we analyze how variation theory is used in teachers’ collegial discussion concerning physical education. Teaching is supposed to be researched-informed, but teachers experience discrepancy between educational research and their everyday practice (Cain, 2017). Ertsas and Irgens (2021) argue for the importance of viewing theory and practice as interwoven instead of hierarchical. The use of theory and theoretical concepts is challenging for teachers, and Cain (2017) call for more studies of how teachers “receive, understand and use educational research” (s.622).
Even if use of theory is demanding for teachers, theoretical concepts which appear meaningful in planning, enactment and evaluation of teaching, has a potential to become theoretical tools in teachers’ learning communities, TLC. TLC with a focus on teaching and student learning is valuable for the development of teacher competence (Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer & Kyndt, 2017). Ertsas and Irgens (2017) emphasize a need of shifting focus from teachers’ knowledge about theory to the process of professional theorizing, which implies the operationalization of theoretical concepts in interplay with teaching practice. In the theorizing process, they argue, the theory is of different degrees (Ertsas & Irgens, 2017). The first degree of theory, T1, is implicit and viewed in teachers’ actions in the classroom. The second degree of theory, T2, is explicit, viewed in the teachers’ arguments and assumptions for teaching. The third degree of theory, T3, contribute to teachers’ reflections and analysis of accomplished teaching. The professional theorizing process is illustrated as different phases, where the three different degrees of theory interplays (ibid).
The professional theorizing process is an essential part of collegial development in schools (Ertsas & Irgens, 2021), especially when authentic questions and teaching experiences function as the point of departure (Darling-Hammond et.al., 2005). Teachers’ collegial discussions is phrased as inter-thinking by Littleton and Mercer (2013). The professional collegial discussions are characterized by inquiring, questioning, and problematizing suggestions and reflections concerning teaching (Kintz, Lane, Gotwals & Cisterna, 2015; Nelson, Slavit, Perkins & Hathorn, 2008; Popp & Goldman, 2016).
In the present study, variation theory (Marton, 2015) is used in the teachers’ collegial discussions. According to variation theory, the learner (the student) always learns something, which is conceptualized as the object of learning (Marton, 2015). The object of learning is described in terms of critical aspects to be discerned by the learner. To learn, it is necessary to experience variation in relation to what has to be discerned. The teaching design focus on how to offer possibilities for the learner to experience the necessary variation in the aspect. This implies a need of an initial investigation of how the specific group of students experience the object of learning.
Variation theory is used in the school development models learning studies (Lo, 2014) and Subject Didactics Groups, SDG, (Mårtensson & Hansson, 2018; Hansson, 2021). These models, thereby, include professional theorizing in line with Ertsas and Irgens (2021). In SDG’s teachers and a researcher collaboratively plan, teach and evaluate teaching guided by variation theory. Teachers’ learning from participation in learning studies (Kullberg, Mårtensson & Runesson, 2016; Mårtensson, 2015) and Subject Didactic Groups (Hansson, 2021) shows that teachers develop their teaching and become more specific regarding what the students are supposed to learn. Teachers in learning studies use the term critical aspect in the conversation whereas other variation theory concepts are more demanding (Mårtensson, 2015; Hansson, 2021). Most studies of SDG´s focusing on mathematics teaching (Hansson, 2021). There is a lack of studies concerning other school subjects. Our research question is: How is variation theory used in teachers’ conversation in an SDG in physical education?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is conducted within the scope of an implementation of SDGs in a municipality in Sweden. In total, seven physical education teachers from three different compulsory schools teaching year 1-9 constituted the SDG in the study. The teachers participated in continuing meetings for one year, facilitated by a teacher in the group. The facilitating teacher followed a local education program in parallel with the meetings. All teachers in the group had participated in a lecture on variation theory. The learning goals in focus for the discussion concerned, first, the ability to develop and accomplish complex movements in ball sports passing or PE appliance, and second, to develop knowledge about planning a warm-up in PE. Due to the ongoing pandemic, some of the meetings were cancelled or not documented. The data in the study consists of six meetings, each approximately 60 minutes and audio recorded.
The analysis of the empirical data was carried out in following way. The audio recorded meetings were transcribed verbatim and repeatedly red. Sequences in the transcripts including variation theory concepts, such as object of learning and critical aspects were selected for deepen analysis. Thereby, the analytical approach has similarities with directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The followed analysis focused on: how variation theory concepts were expressed and used; how aspects of variation theory appeared in the discussion regarding teaching and learning in physical education; what the teachers assume as critical aspects (of the learning object); changes in teachers’ conceptualization of the concept critical aspects; what teachers’ attend to as salient student knowledge; how the teachers express the meaning of desired student knowledge. The questions were inspired of earlier studies of SDG’s (i.e., Mårtensson, 2015; Hansson, 2021).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn the SDG, the variation theory concepts are displayed in different ways in the conversations concerning teaching physical education. The findings show four phases, number 0-3, in changed function in how the variation theory concept critical aspects is used in the conversation of teaching and student learning.
In phase 0, the signification of the variation theory concept critical aspect is taken for granted. The concept is used with an everyday meaning, as “critical” in a general sense regarding the teaching situation, instead of in compliance with variation theory. In phase 1, the signification of critical aspect is negotiated through the teachers’ reflections upon accomplished teaching. For example, the negotiation about how to understand the concept, ended in teachers’ awareness of how critical aspects (of an object of learning) differ between different groups of students. In phase 2, the negotiation of the signification of critical aspects continues in parallel with discussions of planning in physical education. This implies teachers’ discussion both with focus on the PE content in terms of critical aspects and about the meaning of the concept critical aspect(s). In phase 3, the significance of the concept is taken for granted, and critical aspects is used as a tool in their collegial discussion of planning, analyzing and developing teaching physical education. Phase 3 indicates using the variation theory concept as a part of a professional language for teaching, and in line with the intentions of variation theory. The preliminary findings are discussed in terms of professional theorizing process in Ertsas and Irgens (2017).
ReferencesCain, T. (2017). Denial, opposition, rejection or dissent: why do teachers contest research evidence?. Research Papers in Education, 32(5), 611-625.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do, 1, 390-441.
Ertsas, T. I., & Irgens, E. J. (2017). Professional theorizing. Teachers and teaching, 23(3), 332-351.
Ertsas, T. I., & Irgens, E. J. (2021). Developing organizational knowledge in schools: The role of theory and theorizing in collective capacity building. Journal of educational change, 1-24.
Hansson, H. (2021). Variationsteorin i praktiken: Vad en lärandeteori kan bidra med till lärares undervisning (Licentiate thesis). Jönköping: School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Kintz, T., Lane, J., Gotwals, A., & Cisterna, D. (2015). Professional development at the local level: Necessary and sufficient conditions for critical colleagueship. Teaching and teacher education, 51, 121-136.
Kullberg, A., Mårtensson, P., & Runesson, U. (2016) What is to be Learned? Teachers’ Collective Inquiry into the Object of Learning, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(3), 309-322.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge.
Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching. Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences 323. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Mårtensson, P. (2015). Att få syn på avgörande skillnader: Lärares kunskap om lärandeobjektet (Learning to see distinctions: Teachers' gaining knowledge of the object of learning). Doctoral dissertation. Jönköping: School of Education and Communication, Jönköping University.
Mårtensson, P., & Hansson, H. (2018). Challenging teachers’ ideas about what students need to learn: Teachers’ collaborative work in subject didactic groups. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 7(2), 98-110.
Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York: Routledge.
Nelson, T. H., Slavit, D., Perkins, M., & Hathorn, T. (2008). A culture of collaborative inquiry: Learning to develop and support professional learning communities. Teachers college record, 110(6), 1269-1303.
Popp, J. S., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). Knowledge building in teacher professional learning communities: Focus of meeting matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 347-359.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and teacher education, 61, 47–59.
|
