"While
teachers often shy away from theory, the point I am making becomes a
lot clearer if you examine it in the context of theory>pedagogy.
In short, the recent marriage between cognitivist and constructivist
theory has given rise to a rich pedagogy (the science and art of teaching
and learning) which represents research based support for concrete strategies
for turning the rhetoric of "teaching for meaning" into the
describable, measurable reality of "learning for meaning".
Gwen
Gawith,
Recent article under the heading "Learning for Meaning"
in the journal "Good Teacher"
[Term 4 2004 http://www.ed-media.co.nz/]
This marriage between
cognitive and constructivist education theory has appeared to materialise
out of nowhere over the past 10-20 years flying in "beneath the
radar". In this marriage (cogno-constructivist or if you like constructo-cognitivist),
the two partners both bring strong theoretical as well as practical
based research to the union and in the process provide a powerful overarching
philosophical base that could underpin the emerging second paradigm.
1.
Cognitivism:
Research in neuropsychological
brain mapping has come along in leaps and bounds in the last five to
10 years as new technologies such as fRMI:
[Cognitive Neuroscience: Implications for Education http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/staffinfo/CWSE_26_1_02lores.pdf!]
Teaching students
"thinking skills" has become a feature of 21st education practices
however most teachers have taken the atomistic approach to thinking
skills, teaching the use of individual thinking skills tools rather
than the overarching thinking process. See http://www.teachers.work.co.nz/archive_May_2002.htm
and www.i-learnt.com/Thinking_What_is_2.html
2.
Constructivism:
Constructivist theory
came to the table in the 70's and 80s but was dogged by attitudes of
senior educators that as a concept it was a soft option, applied to
justify teachers who could not control student behaviour and where students
ran the classroom in the absence of any structure. Recent refinements
and a more disciplined set of parameters surrounding "constructivist
theory" have led to a renaissance of "constructivism"
but many misunderstandings of the concept still survive.
In an excellent
article by Martin Brooks and Jacqueline Grennon-Brooks the two authors
identify five central tenets of constructivism [Grennon and Brooks,
1993) Go here
for the whole article
"The search for understanding
motivates students to learn. When students want to know more about an
idea, a topic, or an entire discipline, they put more cognitive energy
into classroom investigations and discussions and study more on their
own. We have identified five central tenets of constructivism"
-
First, constructivist
teachers seek and value students' points of view. Knowing what students
think about concepts helps teachers formulate classroom lessons
and differentiate instruction on the basis of students' needs and
interests.
-
Second, constructivist
teachers structure lessons to challenge students' suppositions.
All students, whether they are 6 or 16 or 60, come to the classroom
with life experiences that shape their views about how their worlds
work. When educators permit students to construct knowledge that
challenges their current suppositions, learning occurs. Only through
asking students what they think they know and why they think they
know it are we and they able to confront their suppositions.
-
Third, constructivist
teachers recognize that students must attach relevance to the curriculum.
As students see relevance in their daily activities, their interest
in learning grows.
-
Fourth, constructivist
teachers structure lessons around big ideas, not small bits of information.
Exposing students to wholes first helps them determine the relevant
parts as they refine their understandings of the wholes.
-
Finally, constructivist
teachers assess student learning in the context of daily classroom
investigations, not as separate events. Students demonstrate their
knowledge every day in a variety of ways. Defining understanding
as only that which is capable of being measured by paper-and-pencil
assessments administered under strict security perpetuates false
and counterproductive myths about academia, intelligence, creativity,
accountability, and knowledge."
This philosophical
merge must
be accompanied by good questioning within a framework of inquiry learning.
