Must transformation be conscious? | W2 Q2 | Discussion

I can name at least one example of research reflecting all three strands considered by Bransford et al. (2006). Growth mindset interventions in mathematics connect research on brain growth, how ability grouping can affect the way students see themselves, and the role of mistakes in learning (Boaler, 2013). These areas map reasonably well onto ideas discussed in Bransford et al.’s strands: brain plasticity in strand 1, identity development in strand 2, and adaptive expertise in strand 3. Mindset work also connects to an area Bransford et al. highlighted as an opportunity for advancing an interdisciplinary theory: the role of affect in learning.

Is this example evidence of the transformation Bransford et al. (2006) predicted? I am not convinced. Although Boaler (2013) explicitly references neuroscience research, she does not explicitly mention identity research or adaptive expertise. I made those connections on my own. That does not necessarily mean that there was no influence; indeed, I would expect a lot of ideas in the academic community to influence each other implicitly rather than explicitly.

The lack of explicit influence, though, leaves me wondering what Bransford et al.’s (2006) “coherent conversation” (p. 21) would look like. They say, “We do not mean that the research strands will merge into one grand theory…, but we do believe that these strands can inform one another …” (p. 28). What is evidence of the strands informing one another? Does implicit influence reflect transformation? My current answer is no. Can someone convince me otherwise?

Boaler, J. (2013, March). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. In Forum (Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 143-152). Symposium Journals.