Abstract
Interviewing is often thought of as a research tool, but by shifting focus, teachers can use “interviewing” to support two important classroom goals: clarifying student understanding, and in turn providing students with opportunities to organize more meaningful structures of understanding. We provide an operational definition for levels of understanding and a hierarchical framework (similar to Robbie Case’s developmental framework) for evaluating changes in student understanding during the interview process. From a very different perspective, the student’s insights are viewed from the brain’s central organizational principle; brains learn about patterns in the world in order to make reliable predictions about its environment. Thus, new insights are new patterns that students recognize and can test against reality within carefully constructed classroom activities or during the interview process. Pattern recognition and changes in neural activity offer an additional dimension for understanding the dynamic interaction between the teacher/interviewer and the student, which we also explore in detail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Even though this experience allowed Eve to encounter an interesting relationship, Mr. M decided to use C size batteries instead of D batteries in later lessons, which generates much less heat.
References
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barker, V. (1999). Students’ reasoning about chemical reactions: What changes occur during a context-based post-16 chemistry course. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645–665.
Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes. Review of Educational Research 53(4), 499–518.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Case, R. (Ed.). (1991). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Case, R. (1992). The role of the frontal lobes in the regulation of cognitive development. Special Issue: The role of frontal lobe maturation in cognitive and social development. Brain & Cognition, 20(1), 51–73.
Driver, R., Guesne E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Some features of children’s ideas and their implications for teaching. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 193–201). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477–531.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T.R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. Theoretical Models of Human Development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313–339). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fischer, K. W., Bullock D., Rotenberg, E. J., & Raya, P. (1993). The dynamics of competence: How context contributes directly to skill. In R. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 93–117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fischer, K. W., & Pipp, S. L. (1984). Process of cognitive development: Optimal level and skill acquisition. In R. J. Sternber (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 45–80). New York: Freeman.
Fischer, K. W., & Rose S. P. (1998). Growth cycles of brain and mind. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 56–60.
Hawkins, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2004). On intelligence. New York: Times Books.
Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Dell Publishing Co.
Hugh, H., & Novak, J. D. (1983). <proc>Proceedings of the international seminar on misconceptions in science and mathematics</proc>. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University ED, 242, 553.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Lightman, A., & Sadler, P. (1993). Teacher predictions versus actual student gains. The Physics Teacher, 31, 162–167.
Miller, J. D. (1992). The public understanding of science and technology in the United States, 1990. Washington, DC: Report to the National Science Foundation.
Mountcastle, V. B. (1998). Perceptual neuroscience: The cerebral cortex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nardi, B. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi(Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, A. (1988). Winnicott. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sadler, P. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 265–296.
Salomon, G., & Perkins D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.
Schneps, M. H., & Sadler P. M. (1988). Private universe. Santa Monica, CA: Pyramid Films.
Schwartz, M. S. (2000). Design challenges: A new path to understanding science concepts and skills. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Schwartz, M. S., & Fischer K. W. (2004). Building general knowledge and skill: Cognition and microdevelopment in science learning. In A. Demetriou & A. Raftopoulos(Eds.), Emergence and transformation in the mind: Modeling and measuring cognitive change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, M. S., & Sadler, P. S. (2007). Empowerment in science curriculum development: A microdevelopmental approach. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 987–1017.
Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Shipstone, D. (1985). Electricity in simple circuits. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 33–51). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Thatcher, R. C. (1994). Cyclic Cortical Re-Organization: Origins of Human Cognitive Development. In G. Dawson & K. Fischer (Eds.), Human behavior and the developing brain. New York: Guilford Press.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1998). Dynamic systems theory. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 563–634). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwartz, M.S., Fischer, K.W. (2010). Interviewing: An Insider’s Insight into Learning. In: Ferrari, M., Vuletic, L. (eds) The Developmental Relations among Mind, Brain and Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3666-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3666-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3665-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3666-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)