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” Tytler, Russell 2016, 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”, Cultural studies of science education, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1007/s11422-016-9777-x. Attached Files Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads Title 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” Author(s) Tytler, Russell Journal name Cultural studies of science education Start page 1 End page 7 Total pages 7 Publisher Springer Place of publication Amsterdam, The Netherlands Publication date 2016-10-12 ISSN 1871-1502 1871-1510 Keyword(s) Student learning progression School-community links Student reasoning and learning in science Science literacy Multi-modal representations Summary 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. Notes Online first Language eng DOI 10.1007/s11422-016-9777-x Field of Research 130212 Science, Technology and Engineering Curriculum and Pedagogy Socio Economic Objective 930102 Learner and Learning Processes HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal ERA Research output type C Journal article Grant ID CSIRO Scientists and Mathematicians in Schools Evaluation Copyright notice ©2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30089795 Document type: Journal Article Collection: School of Education Related Links Link Description Connect to Elements publication management system Go to link with your DU access privileges   Connect to published version Go to link with your DU access privileges     Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved. Versions Version Filter Type Wed, 30 Nov 2016, 14:40:35 EST Thu, 01 Dec 2016, 04:03:35 EST Thu, 01 Dec 2016, 07:23:58 EST Mon, 09 Jan 2017, 16:31:39 EST Mon, 30 Jan 2017, 07:32:36 EST Fri, 24 Feb 2017, 05:05:36 EST Fri, 03 Mar 2017, 11:39:05 EST Fri, 03 Mar 2017, 11:41:08 EST Mon, 06 Mar 2017, 08:50:03 EST Fri, 21 Apr 2017, 13:47:50 EST Filtered Full Citation counts:   Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science Cited 0 times in Scopus Search Google Scholar Access Statistics: 12 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics Created: Mon, 09 Jan 2017, 16:31:39 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.