Resume Artikel Landasan Pedagogik Student-Centred Learning and Disciplinary Enculturation: An Exploration Through Physics

Resume Artikel Landasan Pedagogik
Student-Centred Learning and Disciplinary Enculturation: An

Exploration Through Physics
Disusun untuk memenuhi salah satu tugas Ujian Akhir Semester
mata kuliah Landasan Pedagogik
yang diampu oleh Dr. Ocih Setiasih, M.Pd.
OLEH
AZURA
NIM.1806335
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN FISIKA

SEKOLAH PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS PENDIDIKAN INDONESIA
BANDUNG
2018
i
KATA PENGANTAR
Puji syukur kehadirat Tuhan Yang Maha Esa Penulis ucapkan, karena berkat
rahmatnya Penulis dapat menyelesaikan resume artikel landasan pedagogik dengan
judul “Student-Centred Learning And Disciplinary Enculturation: An
Exploration Through Physics”. Laporan ini disusun untuk memenuhi salah satu
tugas Ujian Akhir Semester mata kuliah landasan pedagogic.
Penulis mengucapkan terimakasih atas kerjasama dan bantuan dari
berbagai pihak yang pada akhirnya resume artikel landasan pedagogik ini dapat
terselesaikan. Untuk itu dengan segala hormat dan kerendahan hati penulis
mengucapkan terima kasih yang sebesar-besarnya kepada:
1. Kedua orang tua penulis yang selalu memberi doa yang tak terputus,
dukungan moral dan materi yang tak terhitung dan tak terganti oleh
apapun.
2. Dr. Ocih Setiasih, M. Pd selaku Dosen Pengampu mata kulian Landasan
Pedagogik
3. Teman-teman Fisika angkatan 2018 yang telah banyak membantu penulis
dalam penyelesaian laporan ini.
Penulis menyadari bahwa laporan ini masih jauh dari sempurna, oleh
karena itu penulis mengharapkan konstribusi berupa saran dan kritik yang
membangun demi kesempurnaan laporan ini. Penulis berharap semoga laporan ini
dapat bermanfaat bagi pembaca, khususnya bagi penulis.
Bandung, Desember 2018
Penulis
ii
DAFTAR ISI
Kata Pengantar ........................................................................................... ii

Daftar Isi.................................................................................................... iii
BAB I PENDAHULUAN ......................................................................... 1

A. Identitas Artikel Yang Dilaporkan ....................................................... 1
B. Pertanyaan Yang Diajukan Mahasiswa ................................................. 1
C. Esensi isi Artikel yang Dilaporkan ...................................................... 1
BAB II DESKRIPSI ISI ARTIKEL ........................................................... 3

A. Pembelajaran yang Berpusat pada Siswa (Student-centred learning) .... 3
B. Metode pedagogik Pembelajaran Yang Berpusat Pada Siswa Dalam Pengajaran
Fisika Bagi Enkulturasi Siswa .............................................................. 4
C. Enkulturasi Melalui Magang Kognitif Dan Partisipasi Dalam Praktik ... 7
BAB III PEMBAHASAN ......................................................................... 10

Referensi ................................................................................................... 15
iii
BAB I
PENDAHULUAN
A. Identitas Artikel Yang Dilaporkan

Artikel yang dikaji berjudul “Student-centred learning and disciplinary
enculturation: an exploration through physics” dengan arti “Pembelajaran yang
berpusat pada siswa dan enkulturasi disiplin: eksplorasi melalui fisika” dari
jurnal Educational Studies berada di Quartil 2 (Q2) ditahun 2017 dan terindex
scopus. Penulis artikel ini bernama Cristina Sina dari Centre for Research in
Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Matosinhos, Portugal. Artikel ini di Publish
online pada tanggal 16 Feb 2015.
B. Pertanyaan Yang Diajukan Mahasiswa

Pertanyaan yang berkaitan dengan artikel yaitu;
1. Bagaimana konsep dasar Pembelajaran yang Berpusat pada Siswa (Student-
centred learning)?
2. Bagaimana metode pedagogik pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa
dalam pengajaran fisika dapat bermanfaat bagi enkulturasi siswa ke dalam
disiplin dan menjadi profesi fisikawan?
3. Bagaimana enkulturasi disiplin siswa melalui konsep magang kognitif dan
partisipasi dalam praktik?
C. Esensi Isi Artikel Yang Dilaporkan

Artikel ini berpendapat bahwa metode pembelajaran yang berpusat pada
siswa dalam pengajaran fisika dapat bermanfaat bagi enkulturasi siswa ke dalam
disiplin dan menjadi profesi fisikawan. Kegiatan kelas yang didorong oleh siswa,
pembelajaran kolaboratif dan pemecahan masalah, atau integrasi dalam kelompok
/ proyek penelitian memungkinkan siswa untuk terlibat dalam praktik yang mirip
dengan yang ada bagian dari rutinitas ilmuwan profesional. Melalui metode
interaktif dan partisipatif yang mengingatkan pada pemagangan kognitif, siswa
mengembangkan berbagai kemampuan yang diperlukan dalam karier fisikawan:
kapasitas penjelasan, argumentasi, dan pembelaan klaim; alasan analitis; kapasitas
1
untuk secara kritis meninjau literatur; kemampuan untuk membedakan jalur
penelitian yang layak dikejar; kemampuan menulis; dan keterampilan interpersonal.
Ini memberi mereka rasa pertama tentang bagaimana rasanya menjadi seorang
fisikawan dan memudahkan transisi mereka ke karir fisika profesional.
Pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa dielu-elukan sebagai perubahan
paradigma menuju pedagogi yang ditransformasikan, peningkatan pilihan siswa,
jalur pembelajaran yang fleksibel dan keterlibatan siswa dalam desain kurikulum.
Menggemakan literatur ilmiah, beberapa karakteristik yang dikaitkan dengan
pendekatan yang berpusat pada siswa adalah sebagai berikut: konstruksi makna
peserta didik sendiri melalui pembelajaran proaktif dan refleksi, fokus instruktur
pada pemahaman yang mendalam daripada transfer pengetahuan atau menafsirkan
peserta didik sebagai individu dengan pengalaman spesifik (Sursock dan Smidt
2010, 31–32). Namun, pembelajaran yang berfokus pada siswa juga telah
diinvestasikan dengan tujuan utilitarian, karena dianggap meningkatkan
kemampuan kerja dan fleksibilitas siswa di pasar tenaga kerja yang tidak stabil.
2
BAB II
DESKRIPSI ISI ARTIKEL
A. Pembelajaran yang Berpusat pada Siswa (Student-centred learning)

Pendekatan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa menjadi nyata dalam
metode pedagogik yang berfokus pada apa yang siswa lakukan / pelajari
daripada apa yang guru lakukan / cakup. Metode tersebut mendorong
pembelajaran mandiri dan interaksi dengan / di antara siswa untuk membahas
masalah; membayangkan perubahan konseptual daripada akuisisi pengetahuan;
mempertanyakan ide-ide siswa; atau memprovokasi debat dengan menyikapi
masalah-masalah yang sudah dianggap biasa. Dalam melakukan hal itu, ini
mendorong pendekatan pembelajaran yang mendalam (Marton dan Säljö 1976),
menyiratkan bahwa siswa mencari gambaran yang lebih besar, untuk
pemahaman menyeluruh tentang apa yang mereka pelajari, mengaitkan
pembelajaran dengan pengetahuan dan pengalaman sebelumnya, mencari
prinsip, menghubungkan bukti dengan kesimpulan, periksa argumen secara
kritis dan terbuka untuk tantangan intelektual.
Pembelajaran siswa dalam pendidikan sains Literatur penelitian
menunjukkan bahwa pembelajaran sains sebagian besar didominasi oleh
penguasaan konsep disiplin dasar, prinsip dan alat. Model transmisi
pengetahuan tampaknya masih menjadi arus utama dalam pengajaran fisika
(DeHaan 2005; Thacker 2003). Reformasi pendidikan sains, oleh karena itu,
telah mendesak peningkatan kesempatan bagi siswa untuk berdebat dan
mengalami aspek-aspek yang berkaitan dengan konten dan alam disiplin
melalui pembelajaran aktif dan penyelesaian masalah dunia nyata (DeHaan
2005; DfES dan QCA 2004; QAA 2008; Taylor, Gilmer, dan Tobin 2002;
Tobias 1992).
Pembelajaran siswa independent. Keterlibatan dalam pembelajaran siswa
independen adalah kegiatan lain yang berpusat pada siswa. Siswa diharapkan
untuk melakukan studi mandiri, untuk bekerja dengan cara mereka sendiri
melalui masalah dan untuk menciptakan pengetahuan dan pemahaman mereka
sendiri tentang masalah tersebut. Seorang siswa Denmark menyatakan:
3
“Saya sudah belajar untuk bekerja sendiri (...) Saya kira sangat penting untuk dapat
memahami hal-hal dalam fisika, untuk mendapatkan jawaban Anda tentang
bagaimana melakukannya, untuk mencoba hal-hal sendiri”.
Belajar mandiri melibatkan kegiatan seperti membaca, melakukan tinjauan
literatur atau menulis laporan. Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh dosen bahasa Portugis,
siswa didorong untuk berkomitmen pada kegiatan dan proses yang merupakan
bagian tak terpisahkan dari rutinitas fisikawan profesional: ulasan mutakhir,
identifikasi kesenjangan pengetahuan dan potensi jalan penelitian, pertukaran
dengan anggota komunitas disiplin:
“... pergilah dan pelajari artikel-artikel ini, dan cari subjek ini, dan cobalah untuk
melihat apa yang telah dilakukan, apa yang harus dilakukan, apa yang orang tidak
pahami dan apa yang perlu dipahami dan bagaimana Anda dapat meningkatkan
pengetahuan Anda tentang ini dan itu. Dan kembali dan berdiskusi dengan saya,
dan mungkin saya akan memiliki beberapa ide, sesuatu untuk Anda lakukan,
beberapa aktivitas. Kami mengharapkan interaksi “(Dosen bahasa Portugis)
B. Metode pedagogik Pembelajaran Yang Berpusat Pada Siswa Dalam

Pengajaran Fisika Bagi Enkulturasi Siswa
1. Konstruktivisme
Konstruktivisme pedagogik mulai memengaruhi pendidikan sains pada
akhir abad kedua puluh (Matthews 1997), yang mendukung pengalaman
aktif siswa dengan dunia fisik. Itu muncul sebagai reaksi terhadap
pengajaran sains tradisional, positivis di alam, yang menekankan
pengetahuan siswa tentang konsep-konsep disiplin, disajikan sebagai
obyektif dan universal. Lattuca dan Stark (1994) mengemukakan bahwa
pedagogi di tingkat sarjana menganut asumsi pengetahuan sebagai netral,
dibangun secara sistematis dan objektif. Namun, konstruktivisme sosial
dalam sejarah dan filsafat ilmu menganggap ilmu sebagai ditentukan secara
sosial. Artinya, konten intelektualnya ditentukan bukan hanya secara alami
hukum; tetapi para ilmuwan juga meangun ilmu pengetahuan di
laboratorium (Collins dan Pinch 1993; Fine 1996; Latour 1987; Pickering
1984). Selain itu, akun linear yang disajikan dalam materi yang diterbitkan
4
mengaburkan "kontingensi dan kekacauan pekerjaan empiris" dan
menyembunyikan fakta bahwa akun para ilmuwan adalah "rekonstruksi
daripada catatan" (Gooding 1990, 5). Demikian juga, praktik pedagogik
didasarkan pada asumsi luas, bidang pengetahuan yang teratur yang harus
diserap oleh siswa secara metodis (Smart dan Ethington 1995) memberikan
kesan yang salah tentang disiplin: ketertiban tersebut menyembunyikan
proses penciptaan pengetahuan yang kacau dan menunjukkan pertumbuhan
yang rapi dan sistematis. daripada pergeseran paradigma dan revolusi
(Galison dan Stump 1996; Kuhn 1962). Gambar-gambar sains positivis
dalam pengajaran dengan demikian bertentangan dengan sifat praktik
saintifik yang kurang positivis.
Sebaliknya, konstruktivisme pedagogik mengklaim bahwa konstruksi
makna terjadi selama interaksi siswa dengan lingkungan dan satu sama lain.
Ini mengusulkan metode bagi siswa untuk membangun pengetahuan dan
pemahaman, secara individu dan dalam interaksi dengan instruktur dan
teman sebaya. Dalam fisika, saran tentang metode pedagogis alternatif yang
menggugah konstruktivisme berlimpah dalam literatur. Allen, Duch, dan
Groh (1996) mengusulkan pembelajaran berbasis masalah sebagai
"alternatif yang kuat" untuk kuliah pasif. Hake (2002) menganjurkan
penggunaan strategi "keterlibatan interaktif", mengklaim mereka lebih
efektif daripada metode pasif tradisional untuk meningkatkan pemahaman
siswa tentang konsep sulit. Syh-Jong (2007) menguraikan teori yang
membumi untuk konstruksi pengetahuan siswa, termasuk strategi berbicara
dan menulis, untuk memfasilitasi pemahaman konsep sains. Leach dan Scott
(2002) mengusulkan urutan pengajaran berdasarkan pada perspektif
pembelajaran konstruktivis sosial, terdiri dari yang berikut: pementasan
kisah ilmiah; mendukung internalisasi siswa; dan menyerahkan tanggung
jawab kepada siswa.
2. The practice turn (latihan berubah)
Praktek berubah, meskipun lebih fokus, cocok dalam model
konstruktivis. Ini menganjurkan keterlibatan siswa dengan kegiatan yang
dipraktikkan para ilmuwan dalam disiplin yang biasanya dilakukan,
5
daripada hanya belajar tentang pengetahuan yang dihasilkan melalui
kegiatan ilmiah tersebut. Duschl dan Osborne (2002) menggambarkan
giliran latihan sebagai berikut:
“Tidak sampai praktik pedagogis dan kurikulum memulai proses
transformasi dan membangun peluang bagi siswa untuk terlibat dalam
inkuiri yang memodelkan praktik otentik, melacak data hingga bukti, dan
bukti hingga penjelasan, kita dapat mengharapkan transformasi dalam sifat
ruang kelas sains.” (Duschl dan Osborne 2002, 64)
Ford dan Forman (2006) berpendapat bahwa pengajaran tetap
dibingkai oleh strategi yang mendorong akuisisi konsep kognitif atau
keterampilan perilaku karena pendekatan ini membuat pengorganisasian
pengajaran dan penilaian di sekitar tujuan pembelajaran tersebut lebih
mudah. "Putaran praktik" menantang pendekatan ini dengan mengejar
tujuan pembelajaran "sosiokultural". Pembelajaran sains terjadi melalui
partisipasi dalam penyelidikan dan praktik ilmiah (Lehrer dan Schauble
2007), menjadi proses yang berpusat pada siswa. Ford dan Forman (2006)
menyoroti, bagaimanapun, kesulitan mengukur prestasi siswa dalam
pendekatan semacam itu - rintangan potensial untuk metode berbasis praktik
seperti yang didokumentasikan oleh Airey dan Linder (2009), Berland dan
Reiser (2009) atau Duschl dan Osborne (2002). Ford dan Forman (2006)
menggambarkan praktik dalam sains sebagai membangun pengetahuan dan
memutuskan apa yang dianggap sebagai pengetahuan (terhadap apa yang
tidak). Ini menyiratkan otoritas. Oleh karena itu, mereka menyarankan
bahwa siswa harus terlibat dengan "praktik yang mendasari otoritas untuk
memutuskan apa yang dianggap sebagai pengetahuan ... jika partisipasi
mereka harus otentik dan mereka harus belajar secara fundamental tentang
apa praktik itu" (Ford dan Forman 2006, 3). Bagi Ford dan Forman, praktik
pada dasarnya adalah "interaksi" dua peran yang menangkap aspek kunci
sains - Pembuat klaim dan Cognisi klaim - yang dimainkan semua ilmuwan
pada waktu yang berbeda. Keterlibatan disipliner yang autentik datang
ketika siswa memainkan peran ini. Pendekatan pedagogik seperti itu
mencerminkan dimensi komunitas dari praktik ilmiah: “Konstruktor
6
melontarkan argumen dan Critter secara terbuka mengidentifikasi kesalahan
dalam argumen tersebut, di mana presenter kembali ke pekerjaan produksi
dan upaya untuk menghilangkan kesalahan (...) melalui peran ini, ilmu
pengetahuan menghasilkan banyak akun penjelasan alam yang dapat
diandalkan” (Ford dan Forman 2006, 13).
C. Enkulturasi Melalui Magang Kognitif Dan Partisipasi Dalam Praktik

Contoh-contoh seperti membiasakan siswa dengan cara kerja disiplin,
koheren, bermakna dan bertujuan" untuk anggotanya akan diklasifikasikan oleh
Brown, Collins, dan Duguid (1989) sebagai "kegiatan otentik". Mereka
menyukai belajar melalui "magang kognitif": siswa diasimilasi ke dalam
budaya disiplin melalui kegiatan dan interaksi yang biasa ditemui dalam
magang kerajinan. Metafora yang diusulkan dari "pengetahuan sebagai alat"
memiliki magang kognitif yang memungkinkan siswa untuk memperoleh dan
menggunakan alat kognitif dalam kegiatan otentik. Aktivitas menjadi pusat
pembelajaran, seperti halnya budaya yang mengontekstualisasikannya. Belajar
menjadi tergantung pada konteks dan terletak pada konteks, bertentangan
dengan praktik arus utama yang menganggap pengetahuan sebagai "individu
dan terstruktur" dan konsep "abstrak, relatif tetap dan tidak terpengaruh oleh
aktivitas melalui mana mereka diperoleh dan digunakan" (Brown, Collins, dan
Duguid 1989, 37).
Collins, Brown, dan Holum (1991) menekankan perlunya membuat
nyata keterampilan kognitif yang digunakan para ahli. Mereka mengklaim
bahwa sementara dalam magang peserta didik melihat proses kerja, dalam
praktik pendidikan formal "terlalu sedikit perhatian diberikan pada alasan dan
strategi yang digunakan para ahli ketika mereka memperoleh pengetahuan atau
membuatnya bekerja untuk menyelesaikan tugas-tugas kompleks atau
kehidupan nyata" (Collins, Brown, dan Holum 1991, 6). Mereka menyarankan
bahwa pemagangan kognitif mengharuskan guru untuk mengidentifikasi dan
mengeksternalkan proses kognitif mereka sendiri dan membuatnya terlihat oleh
siswa, menempatkan tugas-tugas abstrak dalam konteks otentik dan
menggunakan berbagai situasi sambil mengartikulasikan aspek umum untuk
7
memungkinkan transfer pembelajaran. Oleh karena itu, siswa akan memahami
tujuan pembelajaran mereka dan penerapan pengetahuan daripada menerima
pengetahuan secara pasif. Demikian pula, Middendorf dan Pace (2004)
mengusulkan metode yang mereka sebut "Decoding the Disciplines" untuk
membantu guru mengembangkan strategi untuk memperkenalkan siswa pada
budaya berpikir dalam disiplin khusus. Mereka mengklaim bahwa cara berpikir
disiplin khusus yang eksplisit jarang disajikan kepada siswa, yang biasanya
tidak memiliki kesempatan untuk berlatih dan menerima umpan balik tentang
keterampilan kognitif, atau memiliki penilaian sistematis atas perintah mereka
atas cara berpikir penting disiplin ilmu. Mengajar siswa untuk berpikir dan
bekerja dalam budaya disiplin menyiratkan bahwa instruktur "membedah
pemikiran bawaan mereka sendiri" dan secara eksplisit merekonstruksi
keterampilan yang bagi mereka telah menjadi otomatis dan alami,
"menunjukkan kepada siswa langkah-langkah dan keterampilan intelektual
yang datang secara alami untuk ahli, meminta siswa mempraktikkan tugas dan
mengukur kemampuan upaya mereka” (Middendorf dan Pace 2004, 5).
Tersirat dalam magang kognitif adalah bahwa pembelajaran terjadi
dalam komunitas praktik di mana siswa melatih keterampilan yang diperlukan
oleh kegiatan otentik. Siswa bertindak sebagai peserta perangkat yang sah (Lave
dan Wenger 1991). Belajar menjadi proses partisipatif, dan prestasi melampaui
kognitif dan konseptual, untuk mencakup kapasitas untuk melakukan kegiatan
yang penting bagi masyarakat di mana pelajar dimasukkan, yaitu kegiatan
otentik. Melalui apa yang disebut Lave dan Wenger sebagai "partisipasi
periferal yang sah", siswa tampil di perusahaan para ahli, awalnya dengan
tanggung jawab terbatas, tetapi dengan meningkatnya akses ke peran pakar.
Collins, Brown, dan Holum (1991) berpendapat bahwa partisipasi dalam
komunitas praktik menghasilkan rasa kepemilikan, yang ditandai dengan
investasi pribadi dan saling ketergantungan.
Demikian pula, Airey dan Linder (2009) mengemukakan bahwa cara
termudah untuk mempelajari sains adalah dengan melakukan sains bersama
dengan para ilmuwan. Bagi mereka, pembelajaran sains analog dengan belajar
bahasa asing, paling mudah dicapai dengan bepergian ke negara di mana bahasa
8
itu digunakan, menghabiskan waktu di sana dan berinteraksi dengan penutur
asli (Airey dan Linder 2009, 40-41). Melalui konsep mereka "wacana
disipliner" yang terdiri dari representasi, alat, dan kegiatan disiplin, pada
gilirannya terdiri dari mode seperti bahasa lisan dan tulisan, matematika,
gerakan, gambar (gambar, grafik dan diagram), alat (yaitu alat eksperimental),
dan kegiatan (yaitu cara kerja atau rutinitas analitis). Airey dan Linder
mengklaim bahwa siswa perlu memperoleh fasih dalam "konstelasi kritis" mode
wacana, melalui partisipasi, untuk mendapatkan pengalaman holistik dari cara-
cara disiplin ilmu untuk mengetahui dan dengan demikian menjadi lancar dalam
wacana disipliner. Namun, seperti Collins, Brown, dan Holum (1991) dan
Middendorf dan Pace (2004) berpendapat, Airey dan Linder menunjukkan
bahwa wacana disipliner sering diterima begitu saja dalam pengajaran dan
bahwa pengetahuan dosen sebagai pengguna lancar kurang dieksploitasi di
universitas ilmu. Mereka berpendapat bahwa "paparan sederhana untuk wacana
disipliner tidak cukup bagi siswa untuk mengalami cara-cara disipliner untuk
mengetahui" (Airey dan Linder 2009, 41). Sebaliknya, Airey dan Linder (2009)
berpendapat bahwa siswa harus mempraktikkan wacana sains dalam
lingkungan yang mendukung. Dosen harus membimbing siswa, secara aktif
melibatkan mereka dalam upaya mereka untuk membuat makna dari wacana
tersebut dan cara-cara disiplin untuk mengetahui sendiri.
9
BAB III
PEMBAHASAN
Materi empiris yang disajikan pada artikel ini menunjukkan bahwa praktik-
praktik yang diidentifikasi dalam literatur sebagai pembelajaran “berpusat pada
siswa” pada umumnya juga merupakan kendaraan enkulturasi siswa ke dalam fisika
baik sebagai suatu disiplin ilmu maupun sebagai profesi masa depan. Pembelajaran
yang berpusat pada siswa dan enkulturasi. Penulis menemukan bahwa praktik
khusus yang beresonansi dengan prinsip-prinsip pembelajaran yang berpusat pada
siswa yang dijumpai berkontribusi pada enkulturasi menjadi fisikawan. Seperti
yang disarankan oleh uraian di bawah ini, praktik yang dibahas berfokus pada
kegiatan siswa (bukan guru), merangsang pembelajaran mandiri, membuka
interaksi dan debat, dan mengarahkan siswa untuk membangun pengetahuan
mereka sendiri dan perspektif individu - karakteristik yang diidentifikasi dalam
literatur sebagai siswa- terpusat dan menganjurkan, dalam reformasi pengajaran
sains, dengan konstruktivisme dan pergantian praktik.
Kemudian, bagian-bagian berikut memeriksa pada gilirannya empat
kategori yang diidentifikasi dari praktik yang berpusat pada siswa: kegiatan kelas
yang digerakkan oleh siswa; belajar mandiri; integrasi siswa dalam kelompok
penelitian selama tesis dan seterusnya; penilaian berbasis penelitian / proyek
mencerminkan kepedulian instruktur dengan penalaran kritis siswa dan pemahaman
holistik.
Metode pengajaran dan pembelajaran yang melibatkan keterlibatan dengan
kegiatan otentik (pembelajaran kolaboratif, mengembangkan pemahaman dengan
membaca makalah, partisipasi dalam proyek penelitian, dll) dan yang
memungkinkan siswa untuk menjadi mahir dalam "wacana disiplin" (Airey dan
Linder 2009) biasanya menyiratkan bahwa siswa secara aktif "melakukan" sesuatu,
daripada mengasimilasi kebijaksanaan yang diterima. Konsekuensinya, mereka
juga berada di bawah payung apa yang telah ditetapkan oleh literatur pedagogik
sebagai “berpusat pada siswa”. Metode-metode ini, yang mensimulasikan kegiatan
otentik, melibatkan keterlibatan dengan "praktik biasa" dari suatu disiplin ilmu
10
(Brown, Collins, dan Duguid 1989). Siswa belajar dengan melakukan kegiatan yang
relevan dengan budaya disiplin, sehingga menjadi pusat proses pembelajaran.
Terlepas dari latar belakang budaya atau kelembagaan, hubungan antara
pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa dan enkulturasi disiplin telah muncul di
seluruh papan. Karier profesional fisikawan, sebagai ilmuwan di bidang akademis
atau industri, umumnya akan menuntut penciptaan pengetahuan, dan karenanya
penelitian. Dapat diperdebatkan, gelar master, sering kali merupakan prasyarat
untuk gelar doktoral, sudah mengembangkan dan menguji keterampilan penelitian
siswa melalui presentasi tesis. Dalam fisika, karena itu mereka dapat bertindak
sebagai inisiasi ke karir fisikawan. Namun, seperti yang telah ditunjukkan oleh
artikel ini, berbagai pendekatan yang berpusat pada siswa di luar lingkup tesis
dapat, dalam komponen yang diajarkan dari gelar master, memenuhi efek yang
sama dari inisiasi ke cara kerja dan berpikir disipliner. Baik pembelajaran
kolaboratif dan aktivitas kelas yang digerakkan siswa mengembangkan
keterampilan argumentatif dan presentasi. Studi independen mengembangkan
keterampilan membaca dan kritis. Partisipasi dalam proyek penelitian
mengembangkan keterampilan interpersonal yang penting dalam disiplin di mana
upaya tim adalah norma.
Brown, Collins, dan Duguid (1989) mengecam pelanggaran antara "budaya
sekolah" dan "budaya disiplin". Meskipun aktivitas kelas, menurut mereka,
dikaitkan dengan budaya disiplin, pada kenyataannya: Banyak kegiatan yang siswa
lakukan bukanlah kegiatan praktisi dan tidak masuk akal atau didukung oleh budaya
yang menjadi tempat mereka dikaitkan. Aktivitas hibrid ini, selanjutnya, membatasi
akses siswa ke strukturisasi dan isyarat pendukung penting yang muncul dari
konteks. Apa yang siswa lakukan cenderung merupakan aktivitas yang buruk.
(Brown, Collins, dan Duguid 1989, 34).
Metode yang berpusat pada siswa seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh artikel ini,
membantu mengasimilasi siswa ke dalam praktik disiplin dan budaya dalam fisika,
memiliki potensi untuk menjembatani budaya sekolah dan budaya disiplin ilmu.
Selain itu, dengan mensosialisasikan siswa ke cara berpikir dan bekerja ilmuwan
profesional, pendekatan semacam itu mungkin memiliki manfaat tambahan untuk
mempersiapkan siswa untuk transisi ke dunia kerja. Mengingat meningkatnya
11
perhatian reformasi baru-baru ini di Eropa, dan seterusnya, tempat kerja siswa
(manifestasi dari keprihatinan baru dengan respon pendidikan tinggi terhadap
masyarakat dan ekonomi), metode yang berpusat pada siswa seperti yang diamati
di sini - selaras dengan prinsip konstruktivisme, partisipasi dalam praktik, atau
magang kognitif - muncul sebagai cara yang mungkin untuk menanggapi keasyikan
ini, di samping memastikan bahwa siswa terlibat dalam pembelajaran yang
berharga dan bermakna.
Berbagai frase telah diciptakan untuk menggambarkan suatu pergeseran
penting pada misi dan tujuan pendidikan. Barr dan Tagg (1995) menyatakan bahwa
perubahan sebagai suatu perpindahan dari suatu Paradigma Pengajaran di mana
sekolah dan perguruan tinggi disampaikan untuk mengalihkan pengetahuan dari
guru kepada siswa dengan suatu Paradigm Pengajaran di mana sekolah dan
perguruan tinggi menghasilkan pembelajaran melalui penemuan siswa menemukan
dan mengkonstruksikan pengetahuan. Huba dan Freed (2000) menggunakan frase
pembelajaran yang berpusat pada penilaian untuk menekankan transisi pada fokus
pengajaran dan penilaian dari pengajaran ke pembelajaran. Deskripsi pengajaran
yang berpusat pada siswa berikut ini memberikan titik awal lain bagi percakapan
tentang pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa (student-centered learning, SCL):
Pengajaran yang berpusat pada siswa adalah suatu pendekatan pengajaran di mana
siswa mempengaruhi isi, kegiatan, bahan, dan kecepatan dari pembelajaran. Model
pembelajaran ini menempatkan siswa di tengah dari proses pembelajaran.
Instruktur (guru) memberikan kesempatan kepada siswa untuk belajar mandiri dan
belajar dari sesama siswa dan melatih keterampilan yang mereka butuhkan untuk
melakukan sesuatu secara efektif. Pendekatan SCL meliputi teknik-teknik seperti
mengganti pengalaman pembelajaran aktif untuk kuliah, menetapkan permasalahan
terbuka dan permasalahan yang membutuhkan pemikiran kritis atau kreatif yang
tidak dapat dipecahkan dengan contoh teks, yang melibatkan siswa dalam bermain
peran dan simulasi, dan menggunakan kecepatan sendiri dan/atau pembelajaran
kooperatif (berbasis tim). SCL yang diimplementasikan secara benar dapat
mengarah pada peningkatan motivasi belajar, retensi pengetahuan yang lebih besar,
pemahaman mendalam, dan perilaku lebih positif ke arah subyek yang diajarkan
(Collins & O'Brien, 2003). Pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa dapat juga
12
dilihat dari perspektif suatu laporan yang berpengaruh dari Dewan Riset Nasional
(1999) yang mensintesiskan penelitian pada pembelajaran dan merekomenasikan
pengorganisasian lingkungan pembelajaran pada empat fokus: 1) berpusat pada
pengetahuan, 2) berpusat pada siswa, 3) berpusat pada penilaian, dan 4) berpusat
pada masyarakat. Pendekatan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada pengetahuan
tumbuh dari penelitian para pemula dan ahli yang mengungkapkan bahwa para ahli
mengorganisirkan pengetahuan mereka sangat berbeda dari pemula. Jadi
pembelajaran yang berpusat pada pengetahuan menekankan pada siswa untuk
mengembangkan pengetahuan mereka untuk memfasilitasi pengalihan
pembelajaran ke suatu konteks baru dan penerapan pembelajaran pada tantangan
terbuka seperti pemecahan masalah, berpikir kritis, dan perancangan. Pada suatu
lingkungan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa, McCombs dan Whistler (1997)
menyatakan bahwa siswa diperlakukan sebagai pencipta bersama dalam proses
pembelajaran, sebagai individu dengan ide dan isu yang pantas menjadi perhatian.
Lingkungan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa mengakui bahwa pengetahuan
siswa sebelumnya sangat mempengaruhi pembelajaran di masa mendatang, dan
dengan demikian, harus mencoba untuk membangunkan pengetahuan siswa
sebelumnya. Lingkungan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada penilaian memberikan
kesempatan untuk umpan balik dan perbaikan sepanjang proses pembelajaran yang
mengarah pada evaluasi dan penilaian pada akhir proses pembelajaran. Penilaian
untuk umpan balik dan perbaikan disebut sebagai penilaian formatif, sedangkan
penilaian untuk evaluasi dan penilaian konklusif disebut sebagai penilaian sumatif.
Nicol dan Macfarlane-Dick (2006) menunjukkan bahwa penilaian formatif dapat
mempromosikan pengembangan kapasitas dan sikap yang digunakan dalam
pembelajaran sepanjang hayat. Lingkungan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada
penilaian juga menekankan keselarasan antara tujuan pembelajaran dengan apa
yang dinilai (National Research Council, 1999). Akhirnya, lingkungan
pembelajaran yang berpusat pada masyarakat mengakui bahwa individu siswa
mengambil banyak isyarat dan wawasan di sekitar mereka, sehingga lingkungan
pembelajaran yang berpusat pada masyarakat memfasilitasi interaksi antara siswa
yang dipromosikan dengan pembelajaran berkelanjutan. Untuk tujuan esai ini,
lingkungan pembelajaran yang berpusat pada siswa didorong ke suatu tingkatan
13
untuk secara bersamaan dalam pembelajaran yang berpusat pada pengetahuan, yang
berpusat pada siswa, yang berpusat pada penilaian, dan yang berpusat pada
masyarakat.
14
Referensi
Airey, J., and C. Linder. 2009. “A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University

Science Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes.”
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (1): 27–49.
Allen, D. E., B. J. Duch, and S. E. Groh. 1996. “The Power of Problem-based
Learning in Teaching Introductory Science Courses.” New Directions for
Teaching and Learning 68: 43–52.
Becher, T., and P. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual
Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Berland, L. K., and B. J. Reiser. 2009. “Making Sense of Argumentation and
Explanation.” Science Education 93 (1): 26–55.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Culture
of Learning.” Educational Researcher 18: 32–42.
Collins, H. M., and T. J. Pinch. 1993. The Golem: What Everyone Should Know
About Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A., J. S. Brown, and A. Holum. 1991. “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making
Thinking Visible.” American Educator 15 (3): 6–11.
Crosier, D., L. Purser, and H. Smidt. 2007. Trends V: Universities Shaping the
European Higher Education Area. Brussels: European Universities
Association.
DeHaan, R. L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science
Education.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 14 (2): 253–269.
DfES and QCA. 2004. The National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
Duschl, R. A., and J. Osborne. 2002. “Supporting and Promoting Argumentation
Discourse in Science Education.” Studies in Science Education 38 (1): 39–
72.
Fine, A. 1996. “Science Made Up: Constructivist Sociology of Scientific
Knowledge.” In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power,
edited by P. Galison and D. J. Stump, 231–254. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
15
Florence, M. K., and L. D. Yore. 2004. “Learning to Write Like a Scientist:
Coauthoring as an Enculturation Task.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 41 (6): 637–668.
Ford, M. J., and E. A. Forman. 2006. “Chapter 1: Redefining Disciplinary Learning
in Classroom Contexts.” Review of Research in Education 30 (1): 1–32.
Galison, P., and D. J. Stump. 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts
and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gooding, D. 1990. Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in
Scientific Observation and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hake, R. 2002. “Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort.” Conservation
Ecology 5 (2).
Hermanowicz, J. C. 2006. “What Does It Take to Be Successful?” Science,
Technology and Human Values 31 (2): 135–152.
Hunter, A.-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. 2007. “Becoming a Scientist: The
Role of Undergraduate Research in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and
Professional Development.” Science Education 91 (1): 36–74.
Koprowski, J. L. 1997. “Sharpening the Craft of Scientific Writing.” Journal of
College Science Teaching 27 (2): 133–135.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Lattuca, L. R., and J. S. Stark. 1994. “Will Disciplinary Perspectives Impede
Curricular Reform?” The Journal of Higher Education 65 (4): 401–426.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J., and P. Scott. 2002. “Designing and Evaluating Science Teaching
Sequences: An Approach Drawing upon the Concept of Learning Demand
and a Social Constructivist Perspective on Learning.” Studies in Science
Education 38 (1): 115–142.
16
Lehrer, R., and L. Schauble. 2007. “Scientific Thinking and Science Literacy.” In
Handbook of Child Psychology, edited by R. M. Lerner and W. E. Damon,
153–196. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Mabrouk, P. A. 2009. “Survey Study Investigating the Significance of Conference
Participation to Undergraduate Research Students.” Journal of Chemical
Education 86 (11): 1335–1340.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-outcome
and Process.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.
Matthews, M. 1997. “Introductory Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism
in Science Education.” Science & Education 6 (1 –2): 5–14.
Middendorf, J., and D. Pace. 2004. “Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping
Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking.” New Directions for Teaching
and Learning 98: 1–12.
Pickering, A. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle
Physics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 1999. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The
Experience in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University
Press.
Prosser, M., K. Trigwell, and P. Taylor. 1994. “A Phenomenographic Study of
Academics’ Conceptions of Science Learning and Teaching.” Learning and
Instruction 4: 217–231.
QAA. 2008. Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics. Gloucester: Quality Assurance
Agency.
Seymour, E., A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni. 2004. “Establishing
the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates in the Sciences:
First Findings from a Three-year Study.” Science Education 88 (4): 493–534.
Sin, C. 2012a. “Academic Understandings of and Responses to Bologna: A Three-
country Perspective.” European Journal of Education 47 (3): 392–404.
Sin, C. 2012b. “Loose Policy and Local Adaptation: A Comparative Study of
Master Degrees in the Context of the Bologna Process.” PhD diss., Lancaster
University.
17
Smart, J. C., and C. A. Ethington. 1995. “Disciplinary and Institutional Differences
in Undergraduate Education Goals.” In Disciplinary Differences in Teaching
and Learning: Implications for Practice, edited by N. Hativa and M.
Marincovich, 49–58. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sursock, A., and H. Smidt. 2010. Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European
Higher Education. Brussels: European Universities Association.
Sweeney, S. 2010. Bologna Process. Responding to the Post-2010 Challenge. York:
Higher Education Academy.
Syh-Jong, J. 2007. “A Study of Students’ Construction of Science Knowledge: Talk
and Writing in a Collaborative Group.” Educational Research 49 (1): 65–81.
Taylor, P., P. J. Gilmer, and K. G. Tobin. 2002. Transforming Undergraduate
Science Teaching: Social Constructivist Perspectives. New York: P. Lang.
Thacker, B. A. 2003. “Recent Advances in Classroom Physics.” Reports on
Progress in Physics 66 (10): 1833–1864.
Tobias, S. 1992. Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and
Most Don’t. Tucson: Research Corporation.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. “Relations between Teachers’
Approaches to Teaching and Students’ Approaches to Learning.” Higher
Education 37 (1): 57–70.
Vries, E., K. Lund, and M. Baker. 2002. “Computer-mediated Epistemic Dialogue:
Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific
Notions.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 11 (1): 63–103.
18
This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]
On: 13 March 2015, At: 17:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20
Student-centred learning and

disciplinary enculturation: an
exploration through physics
a
Cristina Sin
a
Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES),
Matosinhos, Portugal
Published online: 16 Feb 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Cristina Sin (2015): Student-centred learning and disciplinary enculturation: an
exploration through physics, Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2015.1007925
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1007925
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 17:50 13 March 2015
Educational Studies, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1007925
Student-centred learning and disciplinary enculturation: an

exploration through physics
Cristina Sin*
Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Matosinhos, Portugal

(Received 23 December 2013; final version received 5 January 2015)
This study argues that student-centred methods in the teaching of physics can be
beneficial for students’ enculturation into the discipline and into a physicist’s
profession. Interviews conducted with academics and students from six master
degrees in physics in three different European countries suggest that student-dri-
ven classroom activities, collaborative learning and problem-solving, or integra-
tion in research groups/projects enable students to engage in practices similar to
those which are part of professional scientists’ routine. Through interactive, par-
ticipative methods reminiscent of cognitive apprenticeship, students develop a
range of abilities necessary in a physicist’s career: capacity of explanation, argu-
mentation and defence of claims; analytical reasoning; capacity to critically
review literature; ability to discern research paths worth pursuing; writing skills;
and interpersonal skills. These give them a first taste of what it is like to be a
physicist and ease their transition into a professional physics career.
Keywords: student-centred learning; disciplinary enculturation; professional
induction; physics; science education; pedagogic reform
Introduction
Students’ construction of their own knowledge and the development of complex indi-
vidual perspectives on phenomena have been identified as features of student-centred
learning (Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor 1994; Trigwell,
Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999). According to Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994),
whilst teacher-focused approaches aim at transmitting information to students or at
their acquisition of the concepts of a discipline, student-focused approaches aim at
students developing or changing their conceptions. Student-centred approaches
become manifest in pedagogic methods focused on what the student does/learns
rather than what the teacher does/covers. Such methods encourage self-directed learn-
ing and interaction with/amongst students to discuss problems; envisage conceptual
change rather than knowledge acquisition; question students’ ideas; or provoke
debate by addressing issues taken for granted. In so doing, these encourage deep
learning approaches (Marton and Säljö 1976), implying that students look for the
bigger picture, for a holistic understanding of what they study, relate learning to pre-
vious knowledge and experience, seek out principles, link evidence to conclusions,
examine arguments critically and are open to intellectual challenges.
*Email: csin@cipes.up.pt
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 C. Sin
Brought onto the European higher education policy agenda by the Bologna
Process reforms, student-centred learning was hailed as a paradigm shift towards
transformed pedagogy, increased student choice, flexible learning routes and student
involvement in curriculum design. Echoing scholarly literature, some of the charac-
teristics attributed to student-centred approaches were as follows: learners’ own
meaning construction through proactive learning and reflection, instructors’ focus on
deep understanding rather than knowledge transfer or construing learners as individ-
uals with specific experiences (Sursock and Smidt 2010, 31–32). However, student-
centred learning has also been invested with utilitarian purposes, as it is deemed to
increase students’ employability and flexibility in volatile labour markets.
Against this backdrop, the study explores the benefits of student-centred learning
for students’ enculturation into the discipline of physics and into a physicist’s pro-
fession, as revealed by an analysis of pedagogic practices in master’s degrees across

different national and institutional contexts. The study begins by discussing teaching
and learning in science focusing on those reforms evocative of student-centred learn-
ing. Second, it analyses disciplinary enculturation through the concepts of cognitive
apprenticeship and participation in practice. Third, the evidence base and the meth-
odology are addressed. Next, the insights gained from students and instructors’
accounts of their pedagogic practices and experiences reveal a relationship between
student-centred learning and enculturation into the physicist’s profession. Finally,
the study concludes with some implications for linking pedagogic practice with dis-
ciplinary culture and, in so doing, easing professional transition.
Student learning in science education

Research literature suggests that science learning is largely dominated by mastery of
basic disciplinary concepts, principles and tools. The knowledge transmission model
is apparently still mainstream in physics teaching (DeHaan 2005; Thacker 2003).
Science education reforms have, therefore, pressed for increased opportunities for
students to debate and experience aspects related to disciplinary content and nature
through active learning and real-world problem-solving (DeHaan 2005; DfES and
QCA 2004; QAA 2008; Taylor, Gilmer, and Tobin 2002; Tobias 1992). For
instance, the UK Department for Education and Skills included scientific enquiry in
the national science curriculum together with practical enquiry and communication
skills (DfES and QCA 2004), aspects also evident in the Quality Assurance
Agency’s subject benchmark for physics (QAA 2008).
Constructivism
Containing features akin to student-centred learning, constructivism and the “prac-
tice turn” figure largely in science education reforms. Pedagogic constructivism
began to influence science education in the late twentieth century (Matthews 1997),
favouring students’ active experience with the physical world. It emerged in reaction
to traditional science teaching, positivist in nature, which emphasised students’
knowledge of disciplinary concepts, presented as objective and universal. Lattuca
and Stark (1994) suggested that pedagogy at undergraduate level embraced assump-
tions of knowledge as neutral, systematically-built and objective. However, social
constructivism in the history and philosophy of science regarded science as socially
determined. That is, its intellectual content was determined not merely by natural
Educational Studies 3
laws; but scientists, too, constructed science in the laboratory (Collins and Pinch
1993; Fine 1996; Latour 1987; Pickering 1984). Additionally, linear accounts pre-
sented in published material obscured “the contingencies and messiness of empirical
work” and concealed the fact that scientists’ accounts were “reconstructions rather
than records” (Gooding 1990, 5). Likewise, pedagogic practices grounded on the
assumption of a vast, orderly knowledge area which students must assimilate
methodically (Smart and Ethington 1995) impart a false impression of the discipline:
such orderliness conceals the muddled process of knowledge creation and suggests a
neat, systematic growth rather than paradigm shifts and revolutions (Galison and
Stump 1996; Kuhn 1962). Images of positivist science in teaching thus contradict
the less positivist nature of scientific practice.
Pedagogic constructivism, in contrast, claims that meaning construction takes
place during students’ interaction with the environment and one another. It proposes
methods for students to construct knowledge and understanding, individually and in
interaction with instructors and peers. In physics, suggestions of alternative peda-
gogical methods evocative of constructivism abound in the literature. Allen, Duch,
and Groh (1996) proposed problem-based learning as a “powerful alternative” to
passive lectures. Hake (2002) advocated the use of “interactive engagement” strate-
gies, claiming them to be more effective than traditional passive methods to enhance
students’ understanding of difficult concepts. Syh-Jong (2007) outlined a grounded
theory for students’ construction of knowledge, including talk and writing strategies,
to facilitate understanding science concepts. Leach and Scott (2002) proposed teach-
ing sequences based on a social constructivist perspective of learning, comprising
the following: staging the scientific story; supporting student internalisation; and
handing-over responsibility to students.
The practice turn

The practice turn, although more focused, fits within the constructivist model. It
advocates students’ engagement with the activities which practising scientists in a
discipline typically undertake, rather than merely learning about the knowledge pro-
duced through such scientific activities. Duschl and Osborne (2002) portrayed the
practice turn as follows:
Not until pedagogical practices and curricula begin a process of transformation and
establishing opportunities for students to engage in enquiry that models authentic prac-
tice, tracking data to evidence, and evidence to explanations can we expect a transfor-
mation in the nature of science classrooms. (Duschl and Osborne 2002, 64)
Ford and Forman (2006) argued that teaching remained framed by strategies which
encouraged the acquisition of either cognitive concepts or behavioural skills because
this approach made organising teaching and assessment around such learning objec-
tives easier. The “practice turn” challenges this approach by pursuing “sociocultural”
learning objectives. The learning of science occurs through participation in scientific
enquiry and practice (Lehrer and Schauble 2007), becoming a student-centred pro-
cess. Ford and Forman (2006) highlighted, however, the difficulty of gauging stu-
dent achievement within such an approach – a potential hurdle to practice-based
methods as those documented by Airey and Linder (2009), Berland and Reiser
(2009) or Duschl and Osborne (2002).
4 C. Sin
In arguing that student participation in scientific enquiry should be grounded in

practices fundamental to a discipline, Ford and Forman (2006) described practice in
science as both building knowledge and deciding what counts as knowledge (against
what does not). These imply authority. Therefore, they suggested that students
should engage with “practices that ground authority for deciding what counts as
knowledge … if their participation is to be authentic and they are to learn fundamen-
tally what practice is about” (Ford and Forman 2006, 3). For Ford and Forman,
practice essentially is the “interplay” of two roles which capture the key aspects of
science – Constructor of claims and Critiquer of claims – that all scientists play at
different times. Authentic disciplinary engagement comes when students play out
these roles. Such a pedagogic approach reflects the community dimension of scien-
tific practice: “the Constructor floats arguments and the Critiquers publicly identify
errors in those arguments, at which point the presenter returns to production work
and attempts to remove errors (…) through these Roles science produces consider-
ably reliable explanatory accounts of nature” (Ford and Forman 2006, 13).
The literature mentions various activities which enable students to participate in
scientific enquiry and to practise scientist roles: practical involvement in research
projects alongside staff (Hunter, Laursen, and Seymour 2007; Seymour et al. 2004),
learning the language of explanation and argumentation of science (Berland and
Reiser 2009; Duschl and Osborne 2002; de Vries, Lund, and Baker 2002) develop-
ing writing expertise through co-authorship and peer-review exercises (Florence and
Yore 2004; Koprowski 1997), or conference participation (Mabrouk 2009).
Enculturation through cognitive apprenticeship and participation in practice

Such examples of familiarising students with disciplinary ways of working – “the
ordinary practices of a culture”, “coherent, meaningful and purposeful” for its mem-
bers – would be classified by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) as “authentic
activities”. They favour learning through “cognitive apprenticeship”: students are
assimilated into a disciplinary culture through activities and interaction habitually
encountered in craft apprenticeship. The proposed metaphor of “knowledge as tool”
has cognitive apprenticeship enabling students to acquire and use cognitive tools in
authentic activities. Activity becomes central to learning, as does the culture which
contextualises it. Learning becomes context-dependent and context-situated, contrary
to mainstream practices which assume knowledge as “individual and self-structured”
and concepts “abstract, relatively fixed and unaffected by the activity through which
they are acquired and used” (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989, 37).
Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) emphasised the need to make visible the cog-
nitive skills experts employed. They claimed that whilst in craft apprenticeship
learners saw the work process, in formal educational practice “too little attention is
paid to the reasoning and strategies that experts employ when they acquire knowl-
edge or put it to work to solve complex or real-life tasks” (Collins, Brown, and
Holum 1991, 6). They suggested that cognitive apprenticeship required teachers to
identify and externalise their own cognitive processes and make them visible to stu-
dents, situate abstract tasks in authentic contexts and employ diverse situations
whilst articulating the common aspects to allow transfer of learning. Hence, students
would understand the purposes of their learning and the application of knowledge
rather than passively receive knowledge. Similarly, Middendorf and Pace (2004)
proposed a method they call “Decoding the Disciplines” to help teachers develop
strategies for introducing students to the culture of thinking in a specific discipline.

They claimed that explicit disciplinary-specific ways of thinking were rarely pre-
sented to students, who usually lacked opportunities to practise and receive feedback
on cognitive skills, or have systematic assessment of their command over a disci-
pline’s essential ways of thinking. Teaching students to think and work within the
culture of a discipline implied that instructors “dissect their own innate thinking”
and explicitly reconstruct the skills which for them have become automatic and nat-
ural, “demonstrating to students the steps and the intellectual skill that come natu-
rally to the expert, having the students practice the task and gauge the proficiency of
their attempts” (Middendorf and Pace 2004, 5).
Implicit in cognitive apprenticeship is that learning happens in a community of
practice where students exercise the skills required by authentic activities. Students
act as legitimate peripheral participants (Lave and Wenger 1991). Learning becomes
a participative process, and achievement extends beyond the cognitive and the con-
ceptual, to include capacity to perform activities central to the community in which
the learner is inserted, that is authentic activities. Through what Lave and Wenger
called “legitimate peripheral participation”, students perform in the company of
experts, initially with limited responsibility, but with increasing access to expert
roles. Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) argued that participation in a community
of practice generated a sense of ownership, characterised by personal investment
and mutual dependency.
Similarly, Airey and Linder (2009) suggested that the easiest way to learn sci-
ence was by doing science together with scientists. To them, science learning was
analogous to learning a foreign language, most easily achieved by travelling to a
country where the language is spoken, spending time there and interacting with
native speakers (Airey and Linder 2009, 40–41). Through their concept of “disci-
plinary discourse” – consisting of a discipline’s representations, tools and activities,
in turn made up of modes such as spoken and written language, mathematics, ges-
ture, images (pictures, graphs and diagrams), tools (i.e. experimental apparatus), and
activities (i.e. ways of working or analytical routines) – Airey and Linder claimed
that students needed to acquire fluency in a “critical constellation” of discourse
modes, through participation, in order to gain a holistic experience of disciplinary
ways of knowing and thus become fluent in disciplinary discourse. However, just as
Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) and Middendorf and Pace (2004) argued, Airey
and Linder pointed out that disciplinary discourse was often taken for granted in
teaching and that the lecturers’ knowledge as fluent users was underexploited in uni-
versity science. They argued that “simple exposure to disciplinary discourse was not
enough for students to experience disciplinary ways of knowing” (Airey and Linder
2009, 41). Instead, Airey and Linder (2009) argued that students should practise the
discourse of science in a supporting environment. The lecturer should guide stu-
dents, actively engaging them in their efforts to make meaning of such discourse
and of disciplinary ways of knowing for themselves.
A leitmotif across these different perspectives on enculturation, whether
expressed through cognitive apprenticeship, legitimate peripheral participation or
practising disciplinary discourses, is a focus on students’ participation in a
discipline’s authentic practices, inside a community of experts and peers, as a means
to make meaning for themselves and to grasp the rationale and purposes of the
knowledge they acquire. In this, social collaborative learning appears central.
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) advocated conversation and cooperation through
6 C. Sin
such techniques as collective problem-solving, multiple role-playing or development

of understanding not through authoritative declarations, but rather through practices
grounded in active student participation. This echoes the ideals of the “practice turn”
or constructivism in science education.
Research design
This study is part of a larger research project which examined the implementation of
masters degrees in physics – in the context of the Bologna Process reforms – at the
level of learning and teaching in three European countries: England, Denmark and
Portugal (Sin 2012b). It was during data analysis that the link between student-
centred methods and enculturation emerged.
Two criteria guided the choice of countries: first, their perceived level of engage-
ment with the Bologna Process; second, their predominant pedagogic approach,
teacher- or student-centred. England is perceived to have adopted a “stand-offish”
attitude towards the Bologna Process (Sweeney 2010). Denmark and Portugal have
fully embraced Bologna at the national level and reformed their higher education
system over the past decade. Student-centred learning has emerged as a feature
mainly of British and Scandinavian education. A 2007 report on trends observed
following the implementation of Bologna noted a
considerable divergence in Europe regarding teaching approaches and the degree to
which student-centred learning can be said to define the everyday life at universities,
with a clear northern/north-western European dominance in student-centred learning
environments and some scepticism in other parts of Europe. (Crosier, Purser, and Smidt
2007, 48)
In each country, two physics M.Sc. programmes were chosen. physics was chosen as
a high paradigm discipline, commanding high consensus over core knowledge and
methodologies, a key dimension in facilitating cross-country analysis of different
teaching and learning modes. Similarly, the programmes chosen were generic M.Sc.
degrees rather than specialised (Medical physics, Nanoscience etc., for instance, were
not included). The six programmes were located in firmly established, research-inten-
sive institutions and departments. However, they were in different stages of develop-
ment. The Portuguese physics M.Sc.’s had been in place for some three years at the
time of this research, reorganised to meet Bologna recommendations further to new
legislation introduced in 2006. The new two-year M.Sc.’s, following a three-year first
degree, were a compromise between the old five-year undergraduate degree and the
old research-heavy master. Arguably, the analysed Portuguese degrees have yet to
reach developmental maturity. In Denmark, structural changes were only marginally
required to implement post-Bologna master’s degrees. Bologna appears to have rein-
forced attention to both content and pedagogic methods by underlining the impor-
tance of learning outcomes. In England, the taught component of both M.Sc.
degrees, although recent as stand-alone programmes, built out from the final year of
the integrated master’s degrees in physics which both institutions offered.
Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews with 26 academics and 23 students (an average of four
per degree) were undertaken between 2009 and 2010. The programme directors
were asked to invite research participants from academic staff and from students
near to completing their master’s degree. In England, staff on both programmes were
experienced academics, senior lecturer or higher, save one in each programme, who
held a junior appointment (research fellow or recently appointed lecturer). In both
Danish programmes, interviewees were all experienced academics with many years
teaching practice, some with management responsibilities for teaching boards or
committees. Both Portuguese degrees saw senior academics with long teaching
experience comprising about half those interviewed, with the remainder holding
more junior positions.
Interviews lasted around an hour and explored participants’ views on teaching
and learning, their pedagogic practices and experiences in the master’s degree. All
interviews were conducted by the same researcher (the author) in English, except
one. The interviewer also spoke Danish and Portuguese, so if respondents felt
uncomfortable expressing themselves in English they could choose to speak their

own language. This happened in the case of one Portuguese student. All the other
respondents chose to speak English, but for specific expressions or terminology, they
sometimes reverted to their own native language. The possibility to switch language
when needed helped respondents to overcome any obstacles related to English profi-
ciency levels in communicating their experiences and opinions. The same questions
were posed to teachers and students alike. They were asked to describe how a typi-
cal class unfolded, the teaching activities common to the master, expectations
regarding student learning, the most common learning activities students engaged
with, and the degree of student–teacher interaction. After full transcription, inter-
views were imported into the qualitative analysis software MaxQDA to facilitate the
organisation and systematic analysis of the data. They were then analysed following
a grounded-theory technique in a two-step process adapted from Strauss and
Corbin’s method (1990): open coding and selective coding. Open coding entailed
breaking down the data to generate overarching categories. Throughout the coding
process, categories were continuously verified, validated or rejected against new
data, based on criteria of consistency. Subsequently, selective coding yielded final
categories which were integrated into an overarching framework. By constant cross-
checking of codes and relationships against interviews, the raw data yielded a final
framework, as called for by grounded theory. Disciplinary enculturation emerged as
a category during the coding process and displayed associations with a range of
practices reminiscent of student-centred learning: student-driven classroom activities;
independent learning; participation in scientific enquiry during the thesis and
beyond; assessment of students’ critical reasoning and holistic understanding.
The empirical material presented in the next section suggests that practices iden-
tified in the literature as “student-centred” are generally also vehicles of student
enculturation into physics both as a discipline and as a future profession.
Student-centred learning and enculturation: findings and discussion

This research found that specific practices which resonate with the principles of stu-
dent-centred learning – encountered across all six degrees – contributed to encultura-
tion into physics. As the accounts below suggest, the practices discussed focus on
student (not teacher) activities, stimulate self-directed learning, open up interaction
and debate, and lead students to construct their own knowledge and individual
perspectives – characteristics identified in the literature as student-centred and
advocated, in science teaching reforms, by constructivism and the practice turn.
8 C. Sin
The next section presents an overview of student and staff references to student-
centred practices and associations to enculturation, outlining some general trends.
Yet, the caveat remains that the research was essentially qualitative in nature and the
sample rather small to yield reliable quantitative information. Then, the following
sections examine in turn the four identified categories of student-centred practices:
student-driven classroom activities; independent learning; students’ integration in
research groups during the thesis and beyond; research/project-based assessment
reflecting instructors’ concern with students’ critical reasoning and holistic under-
standing. The interview excerpts identify the respondent as a student or an academic
and their national system, as a way of showing that the link between student-centred
learning and enculturation permeates across the analysed institutional and national
contexts, reinforcing thereby the study’s contention.
Student-centred practices and enculturation associations

Table 1 presents the number of references to student-centred practices by groups of
respondents. The most common student-centred practices are found in the categories
“classroom activities” and “independent student learning”. In contrast, research or
project-based assessment – which could enhance students’ familiarisation with
knowledge creation processes or typical scientific practices – seems rather underex-
ploited considering the variety of possible assessment options (literature reviews,
small research reports, presentation of research papers, etc.). Although integration in
research groups was usually mentioned in relation to the thesis, in some instances,
students joined these groups independent of the thesis, either out of own interest or
to perform research tasks at the invitation of staff. For this reason, integration was
Table 1. Frequency of references to student-centred practices by type and groups of

respondents.
Research- Integration in
Classroom Independent based research
Institution/Actor activities learning assessment groups Thesis Total
DK1 Academics 10 3 5 4 4 26
Students 13 15 5 4 5 42
DK2 Academics 17 8 4 1 3 33
Students 15 5 4 1 3 28
EN1 Academics 14 12 3 3 2 34
Students 9 9 4 2 4 28
EN2 Academics 16 10 4 0 4 34
Students 13 4 0 4 6 27
PT1 Academics 19 17 10 2 2 50
Students 13 8 3 3 6 33
PT2 Academics 9 18 7 1 4 39
Students 7 14 3 1 2 27
Total 155 123 52 26 45 401

assigned a separate sub-code and appeared separately in the code system. Nonethe-
less, since in most cases, it seemed to coincide with the thesis work, integration in
research groups and the thesis are discussed together further down.
Generally, academics tended to refer more to student-centred practices than
students, although the differences are generally rather small. However, the larger
discrepancy between staff and student perceptions of the extent of student-centred
practices in the two Portuguese institutions is worth noting: academics mentioned
student-centred methods much more than students themselves. The possible explana-
tion might lie in the timing of the interviews, in the years following the legislation
which aligned Portuguese degrees to the framework proposed by the Bologna
Process. In Portugal, the Bologna Process was both promoted and interpreted as an
opportunity to overhaul pedagogy and assign more responsibility to students for
their learning (Sin 2012a). As one Portuguese lecturer said,

The professors are becoming more and more aware of different possible ways of teach-
ing, giving more importance to the work the students can do by themselves and giving
them skills they can learn by themselves …. The students are not aware of the impor-
tance of being active, and I think they just expect the professors to tell them everything
they need, and they are too passive.
This statement brings forward an idea that was repeatedly mentioned by other
Portuguese lecturers: the desire to shift pedagogic emphasis from teaching to learn-
ing and students’ unpreparedness for this paradigm shift. Thus, the numerous refer-
ences to student-centred practices might reflect teaching staff’s heightened
awareness and preoccupation with change in pedagogic approaches and practices.
The fact that they are not matched by student perceptions might indicate that stu-
dents’ learning behaviour has not yet caught up with staff expectations. In the other
two countries, where student-centred practices were more embedded, one would
expect academics to place less explicit emphasis on this dimension and the data
reflected this assumption. A remarkable finding was the discrepancy, in the opposite
direction, between staff and student perceptions in one Danish institution (DK1),
especially in the case of independent learning. This could suggest high levels of
pro-activity and independence in study habits amongst the interviewed Danish
students in this institution (Table 1).
The associations between enculturation and student-centred practices were estab-
lished by searching the instances when the codes or sub-codes for enculturation
appeared in the same paragraph as codes or sub-codes for student-centred practice
(Table 2). A methodological remark is necessary here. Sometimes, the same practice
was coded under two (or more) categories (e.g. assessment by a report was coded as
research-based assessment and as independent learning, since the work conducted to
prepare the report involved self-directed study). The segment coded with more than
one student-centred practice intersected with one code for enculturation. This
resulted in associations being registered in two (or more) columns, despite a single
enculturation code. This explains why the total number of associations in the sec-
ond-last column is, in some instances, higher than the total number of enculturation
codes in the last column (e.g. staff in DK2, EN2 and PT1).
The total number of associations (205) will therefore be slightly higher than the
number of the enculturation codes which effectively intersected with subject-centred
learning codes. Even taking this into account, one could argue that a large majority
of the total enculturation codes (225) still came in association with student-centred
10
C. Sin
Table 2. Frequency of occurrences of codes for student-centred practices and codes for enculturation in the same paragraph.
Enculturation in some paragraph as
Classroom Independent Research-based Integration in research Total Enculturation
Institution/Actor activities learning assessment groups Thesis assoc. codes Total
DK1 Academics 3 1 1 2 5 12 20
Students 9 10 2 8 5 34 46
DK2 Academics 6 4 1 1 7 19 15
Students 4 0 1 1 2 8 9
EN1 Academics 9 8 0 3 2 22 31
Students 0 2 0 1 3 6 10
EN2 Academics 8 4 0 0 6 18 16
Students 6 0 0 3 6 15 18
PT1 Academics 9 8 6 3 2 28 25
Students 3 4 0 3 8 18 18
PT2 Academics 0 10 0 1 4 15 17
Students 0 4 1 1 2 8 11
Total 58 56 12 27 52 205 225

learning. This suggests that the respondents in this study perceived a relationship
between student-centred practices and enculturation. The theoretical insights from
the literature on student-centred learning and enculturation suggest that this is not
coincidental. Teaching and learning methods which involve engagement with
authentic activities (collaborative learning, developing understanding by reading
papers, participation in research projects, etc.) and which allow students to become
proficient in “disciplinary discourse” (Airey and Linder 2009) usually imply that stu-
dents are actively “doing” something, rather than assimilating received wisdom.
Consequently, they also come under the umbrella of what pedagogic literature has
designated as “student-centred”. These methods, simulating authentic activities,
involve engagement with the “ordinary practices” of a discipline (Brown, Collins,
and Duguid 1989). Students learn by exercising activities which are relevant to a
disciplinary culture, thus becoming central to the learning process.

Not all enculturation codes came in association with subject-centred learning.
Enculturation was sometimes related to the master’s degree being perceived as a
springboard to a physics career, or the first step which marked the future profession
of the student as a physicist. According to one English lecturer, successful master
students “can demonstrate that they have the expertise to go on to a research career”,
and a key goal of the physics master’s course was to “prepare students to go into a
physics research lab, into a PhD programme and be successful and to be useful
immediately to a research group”. By extension, the purpose of the master’s degree
as a launching platform for a future physics career, revolving around research, has
implications for the teaching and learning activities on the master’s. It might not be
coincidental that the lowest number of associations between student-centred prac-
tices and enculturation was observed in DK2. Amongst the six institutions, DK2 had
a different route into a PhD. Students enrolled onto the PhD after only one year in
the master programme, but lasting 4 rather than 3 years. Therefore, the students who
were interested in the 2-year master’s degree were not generally aiming to pursue a
research career, but rather a teaching career in a secondary school, or a more techni-
cal career in industry. This might explain why in this case enculturation intersected
less than in other institutions with pedagogic practices.
Teaching staff were more likely than students to see associations between stu-
dent-centred practices and enculturation, especially in the case of classroom activi-
ties and independent learning activities. As suggested above, they were likely to
deliberately make pedagogic choices which aimed to introduce students to the scien-
tific practices of physics. As a way of example, one Portuguese lecturer declared:
I have a plan for a master degree subject in which I stated that I would like one third
of the practical problem sessions to be dedicated to the students presenting. A journal
club, presenting a seminar on the subject. That also occurs with some frequency, stu-
dents who are involved in some project work. Are you studying that? You got a good
result? Let’s talk about this next Friday. So that’s again another activity that often
occurs with students and the environment is friendly, and it’s their first initiation, in a
non-hostile environment in a sense, to the kind of pressure that they are going to feel
in their later careers.
Students, in contrast, displayed less awareness of the link between student-centred
pedagogic methods and enculturation. Again, the exception came from the Danish
students in DK1. They seemed to be much more aware that the activities they
engaged with equipped them with skills for a future career in physics. Again, this
might be related to a different level of maturity and clearer expectations regarding
12 C. Sin
their professional evolution. The master was a semi-professional phase, where “you
kind of feel the first effects of being in a working, collegial relationship with fac-
ulty”, according to one student. He also took advantage of the possibility of trading
a course for a project and described the result as follows:
This is the first time I’ve been involved in a project like this, which is a significant dif-
ference from taking a course. When you’re doing a project like this people other than
yourself expect you to do a good job, and expect your results, and you have to sit
down and discuss with them. You have to develop all these skills.
The following sections address in turn each category of student-centred methods in
an attempt to highlight the relationship between these and disciplinary enculturation.
Student-driven classroom activities

Classroom methods organised around student-driven activities were mentioned by
instructors and students alike. These included student presentations/posters/lectures
followed by discussion:
… through the master course you have to give a lecture about half an hour on the
research you’re carrying out. You have to present a poster and then you answer ques-
tions. (English student)
I always encourage students to write an essay (…) and to give an oral presentation
before the class (…) where they show what they’ve done and where they discuss with
me and with the class their work. And most of these are based on research papers, I
encourage them to go a bit beyond the syllabus into some topic that can be seen as a
present research topic, so that they can start to understand what they want to do or not
want to do. (Portuguese lecturer)
… they are a class of maybe 15 students, and they have each to give this colloquium
on a project which they have encountered themselves, maybe looking up in a scientific
journal, but they also have to listen to the other students and take part in the discussion
and the criticism of the topic. (Danish lecturer)
These activities place students in the roles of Constructor and Critiquer of claims,
which Ford and Forman (2006) portrayed as examples of authentic disciplinary
engagement. Whilst presenting, students advance claims. They practise the skills of
argumentation and defence before their peers. The student audience acts as Critiquers
in the subsequent discussion. Such practice places students at the heart of pedagogic
activity, whilst allowing them to assimilate the different roles professional scientists
play as creators, defenders or reviewers in the production of scientific knowledge.
This arguably represents engagement in authentic activities (Brown, Collins, and
Duguid 1989) – especially since the above quotes also mention effective research
topics or projects – offering a window towards genuine disciplinary practices.
Other student-driven activities revealed by the interviews – considered student-
centred since the onus was on students to reach solutions and construct understand-
ings – were collective problem-solving, collaborative learning and peer feedback:
Then we do the problem-solving, the students go to the blackboard and present the
problem to the other students, then the professor will help out if there’s anything wrong
or adds to the problem-solving part if there’s details to be added. There’s a very nice
dialogue between the students and the professor. (Danish student)
In recent years students do work in groups, they exchange ideas and try to tackle the
problem talking with each other and exchanging views. (Portuguese lecturer)
In preparing for the exam I have for several courses worked together with other people
about how we do this presentation and present it to each other before the exam, and
giving critique on how they can improve and how I can improve myself. Some of the
calculation exercises have also been a joint venture with other people. (Danish student)
Such practices resonate with what Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) described
as “exploiting cooperation”, on the grounds that collaborative learning and inter-
action were indispensable in cognitive apprenticeship. Group problem-solving,
Collins et al. argued, gives students the opportunity to experience the range of
collaborative problem-solving encountered in real-world science, as well as the
need for group consensus in opting for a solution, which demands both discus-
sion and argument. Similar to Ford and Forman’s argument, students play out dif-
ferent roles, experiencing a range of activities experts undertake. Such roles are,
according to Collins et al., as follows: moderator or executive, generator of alter-

native lines of enquiry and critic of such alternatives. “Differentiation and exter-
nalisation” of the roles involved in group problem-solving and collaborative
learning, it may be argued, imitate real-life practice and as such represent a
further vehicle for enculturating students into disciplinary practices. Accordingly,
the instructor’s intervention (see first quote above) may also be regarded as a
means of externalising cognitive processes (Collins, Brown, and Holum 1991;
Middendorf and Pace 2004), whereby experts make explicit to learners disciplin-
ary ways of thinking.
Independent student learning

Involvement in independent student learning was another student-centred activity
the interviews revealed. Students were expected to undertake autonomous study, to
work their way through problems independently and to create their own knowledge
and understanding of the issues. A Danish student stated:
I’ve been learning to work on my own (…) I guess it’s pretty important to be able to
understand things in physics, to get your answers to how to do it, to try things out by
yourself.
Self-driven learning engaged such activities as reading, conducting literature reviews
or writing reports. As a Portuguese lecturer pointed out, students were encouraged to
commit to activities and processes which are part and parcel of a professional physi-
cist’s routine: state-of-the-art reviews, identification of knowledge gaps and potential
avenues of research, exchange with members of the disciplinary community:
… go and study these articles, and search on this subject, and try to see what was
done, what has to be done, what people don’t understand and what needs to be under-
stood and how you can improve your knowledge on such and such subject. And come
back and discuss with me, and maybe I will have some idea, something for you to do,
some activity. We expect interaction. (Portuguese lecturer)
Participation in such “authentic activities” of scientific enquiry, whilst allowing stu-
dents to develop their own conceptions of phenomena, also advances disciplinary
socialisation as they practise different modes of disciplinary discourse (Airey and
Linder 2009) under lecturers’ guidance. According to the same interlocutor, students
learn the skill of writing through interaction with supervisors, a form of cognitive
apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989).
14 C. Sin
Integration into a research group during (and beyond) the thesis

This integration provided another example of cognitive apprenticeship. Group mem-
bership gave students insights into the social dimension of scientific practice. Ford
and Forman (2006) asserted that learning within a community, by participating in
scientific enquiry, fulfilled sociocultural objectives in terms of student achievement.
Students learn how to behave in that community, be part of it, communicate and
interact with its members. In a student’s words:
One thing I found crucial is making friends with all the postgrads and having them to
help you, because your supervisor isn’t there the entire time, so I guess the interper-
sonal skills are quite key for getting your project finished. (English student)
Sociocultural learning, through group membership, also casts students as legitimate
peripheral participants (Lave and Wenger 1991) learning from their instructors. The
quotes below set out some of the benefits of being a member of a “community of
practice”, benefits of which students and academics were clearly aware. These ran-
ged from general insights into the culture and practice of professional physicists
where research holds central place (Hermanowicz 2006), through to interpersonal
skills essential in a discipline where knowledge creation is a team effort (Becher and
Trowler 2001). Also, recognised were cognitive, critical and argumentation skills
and, finally, increased autonomy and self-confidence: in a Danish student’s words
“to get your hands on reality, work on your own” – a dynamic that reflects increased
access of peripheral participants’ to expert roles (Lave and Wenger 1991). Learning
appeared to be implicit, deriving from participation, observation of experts and
“doing science” alongside scientists:
In research everything is done in groups and working in a group is a very important
skill. So we try to teach them that during the master thesis where they all are connected
to research groups. But it’s not formalised in any way. And also being able to discuss
science, your particular field, is very important, not to be afraid, to show your own
stability and ask good questions. (Danish lecturer)
… in some way we’re going to know better the professors and know how life works in
physics and we get more motivated that that’s what we’re going to do. (Portuguese
student)
… to come back a little bit to this thesis work, because that’s where students start to
feel like fully-fledged physicists, and I think it’s important that they end up being able
to act a bit like researchers, posing problems and being able to attack them. (Danish
lecturer)
Research/project-based assessment
Assessment conducted through research- or project-based evaluations (rather than
examinations) featured to some degree in interviews. A British lecturer noted the
shift towards essay and coursework assessment, as “less strict (…) more towards the
independent researcher-type assessment”. Such methods sought to promote students’
critical reasoning and analytical thinking, a view endorsed by a Portuguese lecturer
who claimed that in assessing a student paper, he gave particular weight to whether
the student “was able to really grasp the literature that he wrote, was he able to write
a consistent story with good references and did he master the subject?” In effect,
assessment here tests for “deep learning” as opposed to “surface learning” (Marton
and Säljö 1976). Concern with fostering students’ holistic understanding, individual
sense-making and capacity to relate formal knowledge to real-life phenomena –
reminiscent of constructivism – was echoed by a Danish colleague:
The main aim is to get them thinking on their own (…) I’m trying to make them inte-
grate the knowledge they had before with the formalism that we are using in the
course. Because if they cannot use the formalism, if they cannot take the mathematics,
if they cannot put that to work in practical applications in actual situations, then they
haven’t learnt anything. (Danish lecturer)
Equally interesting, project- or research-based assessment was appreciated by
students as preparation for a future research career and as initiation to disciplinary
practice:
It was not based on exams like the standard procedure, so we had to do more work by
ourselves. We had to do some research at home, we had to present, so I think it is
important to prepare a student for a research career. It’s better than the exams.
(Portuguese student)
Such approaches aim to place students at the heart of the pedagogic process through
methods identified as student-centred (Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Prosser, Trigwell,
and Taylor 1994; Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999). However, these tech-
niques also have a second-order effect: that of inducting students to the cultural,
social and cognitive dimensions of the discipline. Students’ participation in scientific
practice and enquiry, as the “practice turn” suggests, is both student-centred, and, to
boot, facilitates socialisation into physics. Student-centred pedagogic methods such
as those mentioned by interviewees develop a range of abilities needed by profes-
sional physicists. Presentation and discussion sharpen students’ capacities for argu-
mentation and explanation, as well as defending critical standpoints and giving
feedback. In short, they learn, play out and acquire the roles of Constructor and
Critiquer of claims (Ford and Forman 2006). Collaborative work (i.e. collective
problem-solving) meets the same purpose. Students practise the roles normally per-
formed by scientists and learn their patterns of interaction. Individual study prepares
them for the tasks of reviewing knowledge, making sense of it, reading literature
critically, developing a wider understanding and being alert to issues and topics
worth pursuing further – essential in the physicist’s metier. By paper, essay or
report-writing, students develop writing skills – essential in scientific knowledge dis-
semination. Assessment based on such activities encourages students’ pursuit of
learning objectives beyond the merely conceptual. They incorporate the skills of pre-
sentation, argumentation, information search and retrieval, writing, analytical and
critical reasoning. Engagement with practical research projects alongside experi-
enced academics is, in effect, both cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, and
Duguid 1989) and legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger 1991). Fur-
thermore, students are familiarised with the sociocultural rules, norms and codes of
their disciplinary community. In short, the student-centred activities examined here
are opportunities for students to practise the disciplinary discourse of physics and
become fluent in a variety of its modes (Airey and Linder 2009). Developing abili-
ties such as argumentation, critical thinking or writing skills through authentic activ-
ities appears all the more evident in physics where teaching has tended to be based
on the assumption of linear, sequential accumulation of knowledge. The contextuali-
sation of such practices in a community of peers and experts – reminiscent of the
“situated” nature of learning and the relevance of activity and context-dependency
16 C. Sin
outlined by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) – eases students’ progress along the
path towards becoming future physicists.
Conclusion
This study has illustrated how student-centred approaches in the teaching of physics
– resonant with constructivism and the practice turn – facilitate students’ encultura-
tion into the discipline. The analysis of the pedagogic methods came from six
physics M.Sc. degrees in six institutions from three European countries. Independent
of cultural or institutional background, the relationship between student-centred
learning and disciplinary enculturation has emerged across the board.
A physicist’s professional career, as a scientist in academia or industry, will gen-
erally demand knowledge creation, hence research. Arguably, master’s degrees, often
pre-requisites for a doctoral degree, already develop and test students’ research skills
through the presentation of a thesis. In physics, they can therefore act as an initiation
to the career of physicist. Yet, as this study has shown, a variety of student-centred
approaches outside the scope of the thesis can, in the taught components of a mas-
ter’s degree, fulfil the same effect of initiation to disciplinary ways of working and
thinking. Both collaborative learning and student-driven classroom activities develop
argumentative and presentational skills. Independent study develops reading and
critical skills. Participation in research projects develops essential interpersonal skills
in a discipline where team endeavours are the norm.
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) denounced the breach between the “culture
of schools” and the “cultures of the disciplines”. Although classroom activity, they
argued, is attributed to the culture of disciplines, in fact:
Many of the activities students undertake are simply not the activities of practitioners
and would not make sense or be endorsed by the cultures to which they are attributed.
This hybrid activity, furthermore, limits students’ access to the important structuring
and supporting cues that arise from the context. What students do tends to be ersatz
activity. (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989, 34).
Student-centred methods which, as this study has shown, help assimilate students
into disciplinary practice and culture in physics, have the potential to bridge the cul-
ture of schools and the culture of disciplines. Moreover, by socialising students into
the ways of thinking and working of the professional scientist, such approaches may
well have the added benefit of preparing students for the transition to the world of
work. Given the increased attention recent reforms in Europe, and beyond, place on
student employability (a manifestation of new concerns with higher education’s
responsiveness to society and the economy), student-centred methods as the ones
observed here – resonant with the principles of constructivism, participation in
practice, or cognitive apprenticeship – emerge as a possible way of responding to
this preoccupation, in addition to ensuring that students engage in valuable and
meaningful learning.
Notes on contributor
Cristina Sin is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Research in Higher Education
Policies in Portugal. Her interest areas include higher education policy implementation, the
Bologna Process, teaching and learning and quality assurance/enhancement. She is primarily
interested in the influence of recent European higher education policy and reforms on
academic practice and on teaching and learning. In the past, she worked as a research associ-
ate at Lancaster University (UK) in the Centre for the Study of Education and Training and,
prior to that, at the Higher Education Academy in the UK, in educational projects for the
improvement of learning and teaching. She has published articles on the implementation of
the Bologna Process and on the implementation and evaluation of policies of quality assur-
ance/enhancement, generally investigating the effects on higher education teaching and learn-
ing and curriculum. She completed her PhD in Educational Research at Lancaster University
(UK) analysing the implementation of master degrees in different national settings in the
context of the Bologna Process.
References
Airey, J., and C. Linder. 2009. “A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University Science
Learning: Achieving Fluency in a Critical Constellation of Modes.” Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 46 (1): 27–49.

Allen, D. E., B. J. Duch, and S. E. Groh. 1996. “The Power of Problem-based Learning in
Teaching Introductory Science Courses.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 68:
43–52.
Becher, T., and P. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and
the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Berland, L. K., and B. J. Reiser. 2009. “Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation.”
Science Education 93 (1): 26–55.
Brown, J. S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning.” Educational Researcher 18: 32–42.
Collins, H. M., and T. J. Pinch. 1993. The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About
Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A., J. S. Brown, and A. Holum. 1991. “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking
Visible.” American Educator 15 (3): 6–11.
Crosier, D., L. Purser, and H. Smidt. 2007. Trends V: Universities Shaping the European
Higher Education Area. Brussels: European Universities Association.
DeHaan, R. L. 2005. “The Impending Revolution in Undergraduate Science Education.”
Journal of Science Education and Technology 14 (2): 253–269.
DfES and QCA. 2004. The National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
Duschl, R. A., and J. Osborne. 2002. “Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse
in Science Education.” Studies in Science Education 38 (1): 39–72.
Fine, A. 1996. “Science Made Up: Constructivist Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” In
The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power, edited by P. Galison and D. J.
Stump, 231–254. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Florence, M. K., and L. D. Yore. 2004. “Learning to Write Like a Scientist: Coauthoring as
an Enculturation Task.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (6): 637–668.
Ford, M. J., and E. A. Forman. 2006. “Chapter 1: Redefining Disciplinary Learning in Class-
room Contexts.” Review of Research in Education 30 (1): 1–32.
Galison, P., and D. J. Stump. 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and
Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gooding, D. 1990. Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific
Observation and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hake, R. 2002. “Lessons from the Physics Education Reform Effort.” Conservation Ecology
5 (2).
Hermanowicz, J. C. 2006. “What Does It Take to Be Successful?” Science, Technology and
Human Values 31 (2): 135–152.
Hunter, A.-B., S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour. 2007. “Becoming a Scientist: The Role of
Undergraduate Research in Students’ Cognitive, Personal, and Professional Develop-
ment.” Science Education 91 (1): 36–74.
Koprowski, J. L. 1997. “Sharpening the Craft of Scientific Writing.” Journal of College
Science Teaching 27 (2): 133–135.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
18 C. Sin
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Lattuca, L. R., and J. S. Stark. 1994. “Will Disciplinary Perspectives Impede Curricular
Reform?” The Journal of Higher Education 65 (4): 401–426.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J., and P. Scott. 2002. “Designing and Evaluating Science Teaching Sequences: An
Approach Drawing upon the Concept of Learning Demand and a Social Constructivist
Perspective on Learning.” Studies in Science Education 38 (1): 115–142.
Lehrer, R., and L. Schauble. 2007. “Scientific Thinking and Science Literacy.” In Handbook
of Child Psychology, edited by R. M. Lerner and W. E. Damon, 153–196. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Mabrouk, P. A. 2009. “Survey Study Investigating the Significance of Conference Participa-
tion to Undergraduate Research Students.” Journal of Chemical Education 86 (11):
1335–1340.
Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-outcome and
Process.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.
Matthews, M. 1997. “Introductory Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism in Science
Education.” Science & Education 6 (1–2): 5–14.
Middendorf, J., and D. Pace. 2004. “Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping Students
Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 98: 1–12.
Pickering, A. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 1999. Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience
in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
Prosser, M., K. Trigwell, and P. Taylor. 1994. “A Phenomenographic Study of Academics’
Conceptions of Science Learning and Teaching.” Learning and Instruction 4: 217–231.
QAA. 2008. Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency.
Seymour, E., A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and T. DeAntoni. 2004. “Establishing the Benefits
of Research Experiences for Undergraduates in the Sciences: First Findings from a
Three-year Study.” Science Education 88 (4): 493–534.
Sin, C. 2012a. “Academic Understandings of and Responses to Bologna: A Three-country
Perspective.” European Journal of Education 47 (3): 392–404.
Sin, C. 2012b. “Loose Policy and Local Adaptation: A Comparative Study of Master Degrees
in the Context of the Bologna Process.” PhD diss., Lancaster University.
Smart, J. C., and C. A. Ethington. 1995. “Disciplinary and Institutional Differences in Under-
graduate Education Goals.” In Disciplinary Differences in Teaching and Learning: Impli-
cations for Practice, edited by N. Hativa and M. Marincovich, 49–58. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sursock, A., and H. Smidt. 2010. Trends 2010: A Decade of Change in European Higher
Education. Brussels: European Universities Association.
Sweeney, S. 2010. Bologna Process. Responding to the Post-2010 Challenge. York: Higher
Education Academy.
Syh-Jong, J. 2007. “A Study of Students’ Construction of Science Knowledge: Talk and
Writing in a Collaborative Group.” Educational Research 49 (1): 65–81.
Taylor, P., P. J. Gilmer, and K. G. Tobin. 2002. Transforming Undergraduate Science Teach-
ing: Social Constructivist Perspectives. New York: P. Lang.
Thacker, B. A. 2003. “Recent Advances in Classroom Physics.” Reports on Progress in
Physics 66 (10): 1833–1864.
Tobias, S. 1992. Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most
Don’t. Tucson: Research Corporation.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. “Relations between Teachers’ Approaches
to Teaching and Students’ Approaches to Learning.” Higher Education 37 (1): 57–70.
de Vries, E., K. Lund, and M. Baker. 2002. “Computer-mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Expla-
nation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions.” Journal of
the Learning Sciences 11 (1): 63–103.

Resume Artikel Landasan Pedagogik Student-Centred Learning and Disciplinary Enculturation: An Exploration Through Physics

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Resume Artikel Landasan Pedagogik Student-Centred Learning and Disciplinary Enculturation: An Exploration Through Physics

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Resume Artikel Landasan Pedagogik

Student-Centred Learning and Disciplinary Enculturation: An

PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN FISIKA

Bandung, Desember 2018

Kata Pengantar ........................................................................................... ii

BAB I PENDAHULUAN ......................................................................... 1

BAB II DESKRIPSI ISI ARTIKEL ........................................................... 3

BAB III PEMBAHASAN ......................................................................... 10

A. Identitas Artikel Yang Dilaporkan

B. Pertanyaan Yang Diajukan Mahasiswa

C. Esensi Isi Artikel Yang Dilaporkan

A. Pembelajaran yang Berpusat pada Siswa (Student-centred learning)

B. Metode pedagogik Pembelajaran Yang Berpusat Pada Siswa Dalam

C. Enkulturasi Melalui Magang Kognitif Dan Partisipasi Dalam Praktik

Airey, J., and C. Linder. 2009. “A Disciplinary Discourse Perspective on University

Student-centred learning and

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1007925

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Student-centred learning and disciplinary enculturation: an

Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Matosinhos, Portugal

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

fession, as revealed by an analysis of pedagogic practices in master’s degrees across

Student learning in science education

The practice turn

In arguing that student participation in scientiﬁc enquiry should be grounded in

Enculturation through cognitive apprenticeship and participation in practice

strategies for introducing students to the culture of thinking in a speciﬁc discipline.

such techniques as collective problem-solving, multiple role-playing or development

Data collection and analysis

uncomfortable expressing themselves in English they could choose to speak their

Student-centred learning and enculturation: ﬁndings and discussion

Student-centred practices and enculturation associations

Table 1. Frequency of references to student-centred practices by type and groups of

Total 155 123 52 26 45 401

their learning (Sin 2012a). As one Portuguese lecturer said,

Total 58 56 12 27 52 205 225

disciplinary culture, thus becoming central to the learning process.

Student-driven classroom activities

according to Collins et al., as follows: moderator or executive, generator of alter-

Independent student learning

Integration into a research group during (and beyond) the thesis

in Science Teaching 46 (1): 27–49.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai