02
Mar 10

Social constructivism working for grads

Knowledge construction is a topic that exemplifies the potential conflicts between new information – the transmission of which is the goal of the education system – and existing, strongly believed existing worldviews and schemas. The challenge of the educator is to utilize the tools of social constructivism, community learning and scaffolding theory constructivism to invite the assets of individual constructivism, while introducing new schemas based on cultivated global knowledge to expand students’ worldview.

Working in groups at the graduate level constitutes social constructivism, where group members rely on the insight and feedback of each member to deconstruct and evaluate common goals, design task analysis strategy, comprehend learning objectives, and execute deliverables. Group projects at this level are complex and demand alignment of many components for quality deliverables, and members rely on each other to divide and conquer the components, and to ultimately reunite them as a cohesive product. Individual members tasked with assimilating the entire project independently within the tight timeframe of a graduate course module is overwhelmed and denied the opportunity to fully benefit from the instruction. When each member gains a cursory understanding of the whole project, and a deeper understanding of select components, they can piece together their understanding and effectively execute the project’s objectives.

Creating a community of learners benefits instruction through capitalizing on collective talents, where students’ strengths are realized, and used to meet the needs of other students’ weaknesses. In classrooms where all students have the potential to lead an area or piece of instruction, students are more likely to consider themselves as stakeholders in their education and engage the instruction as an active participant, which has the direct effect of igniting learning. Peer collaboration and peer support are techniques that are integral to efficacy and achievement. The community atmosphere in the classroom reflects a healthy society, with mutual respect and understanding through dialog and teamwork. Diversity in students’ interests and rates of progress are expected and respected, because it is the diversity that builds a strong collective, without the systemic limitations and weakness of homogenous group think and behavior. A diversity that is organic and authentic (not mandated) weaves a stronger educational fabric and benefits all members of the learning team.

Scaffolding theory constructivism intuits the potential conflict between students pre-existing worldview and the introduction of new material, but serves to not alienate the students’ identity, working with the diamonds in the rough, to smooth the edges and polish to a sparkling shine. Rote and regurgitated curriculum layers on new information like a coat of paint, but the wall is still formidable concrete. To build citizens, educated on widely accepted truths that may counter previously held beliefs, the whys and hows and predictions of results must be explored to dig into the content and guide students to a new truth based on personal experience, not a reading or a lecture. Identifying students inconsistencies between their worldview and the new information prior to instruction allows for a self-analysis of their conceptions, and serves to build on kernels of truth within their currently held beliefs, giving them the respect they deserve for their current perspective, but modifying their perceptions to accept the new information.

No comments
11
Feb 10

Building a culture at school

school culture

Their school culture is an addendum to their home culture. They are not inherently mutually exclusive.

The question is how educators in the K-12 environment reconcile the need to assimilate their students – to enable them to compete and prosper in their society – while incorporating and developing their cultural differences. Instructional designers create standards to create equity between all learners, and empower them with the skills and knowledge to build the future they desire, as well as the society strong for all. But, the standards are merely a benchmark and not the goal. The opportunity to develop a student-centered curriculum arises when we attempt to reconcile standards with group differences.

The key is to make the content relevant to the student, and to accomplish that task, the student must have an active role in the design of their own curriculum. Instead of a canned set of essay prompts, educators are using open-ended prompts that allow the student to enter the essay in ways that is relevant to them. Instead of raw mathematics, students are engaged in math theory and application through building a business model that allows the student to design a model that is relevant to their worldview. The assimilation occurs when different students, designing from different perspectives share their ideas and findings, and collaborate to find common ground. Standard competencies are developed as a consequence of students’ encouragement to explore themselves, their world and share their understanding with each other. The synthetic disconnect between learning and application no longer alienates students into apathy and dropping-out. This process of a higher understanding begins with the students’ needs (standards) and is driven by the students’ input (diversity).

Democracy is a powerful tool to grow strong citizens and facilitate their differences. When many different ethnic and cultural groups are tasked with collaboration at school, voting, consensus, and minority opinion are concepts that allow them to succeed as a group. Through discourse comes understanding, of the content, of each other, of how a society functions. Their misconceptions of the gravity of their differences fade and their individual cultures give way to a new synthesis – their school culture. Their school culture is an addendum to their home culture. They are not inherently mutually exclusive.

Gender differences are primarily environmental. Although boys get a growth shot-in-the-arm when testosterone seemingly floods their system, their physical strength flourishes more from exercise then genetics. Many gender differences are exasperated through the socialization of boys and girls. When children are expected to behave differently, they generally comply, eliciting different intelligences for different behaviors, developing some more than others as a response to expected behavior. Educators can have a greater efficacy when they understand their students’ abilities, but they may reinforce gender sterotypes through expectations and modeling that do not speak to the students’ potential.

No comments
25
Jan 10

Assets of individual differences

together we can

Like a viable economy must utilize all available resources to produce a diverse portfolio of goods and services, a strong society is formed by a network of different intelligences.  The idiot savant contributes much to their society through their individual genius.  A society where our individual geniuses are allowed to blossom, instead of defused through a systematic mediocratization through standards testing and forced assimilation, generates the synergy of our individual differences that would find solutions to the great questions.

Spearman’s concept of g fails to respect the complexity of the human brain, and the persona it creates.  All humans have a genius, and although there may be a general level of cognitive proficiency, wrapped within the general is the exceptional – skill, intelligence or insight.  The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities concedes to two distinct intelligences, fluid (hereditary) and crystallized (environmental), that work in unison to orchestrate a single intelligence.  Gardner’s multiple intelligences allows for different abilities that are relatively independent of each other, which perceives the human as creatively specialized and gifted in their own way.  An understanding of individual intelligences affords instruction that encompasses different learning styles.

Classification may be useful to address special education needs, but to extract students with special needs out of the general population of their peers is to unweave the fabric of their society.  Inclusion has shown benefit in the student with special needs, as well as the classroom community.  For the student in ESE, inclusion offers a more positive sense of self than if branded and isolated, better social skills, which in turn allow for more appropriate classroom (societal) behavior, and an increased academic achievement than in a self-contained classroom.  The classroom community benefits from diversity – the understanding and acceptance of differences, the varied perspectives, and individual talents – that constructs a rich learning environment and ultimately healthy society.

For students with cognitive or physical disabilities, social or behavioral problems, inclusion is essential to their growth into productive members of society.  Cognitive disabilities can be addressed individually, and to a varying degree depending on the students’ abilities, components of the students’ education can be mainstreamed for benefit of their social maturation.  Physical disabilities offer the classroom community the opportunity to grow as a team, working together to facilitate all members’ growth.  And in the case of hearing or sight impairment, inclusion offers the opportunity for creative instruction techniques to accommodate the student with special needs, and potentially engage different learning styles.  Isolating students with social or behavioral problems compresses their problem, guaranteeing failure in completion of their education, adjusting to social situations, and realizing their potential as members of society.

We need to understand the problem to obtain the solution.  But, the solution is not isolation.  Inclusion, when safe for the classroom community and the student with special needs, benefits one, and all, building the diversity required for a societal fabric strong enough to support all members.

No comments
18
Jan 10

Socially constructed child development

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development sees the child as an active, motivated learner constructing knowledge from their experiences. Constructivism animates cognitive theory, telling the story of young builders, analyzing their environment and constructing understanding, actively seeking new pathways and truths. Brain as builder is mirrored in brain development. Neuron dendrites fire an electrical charge down the axom to the terminal buttons seeking to cross, or build new synapses and release neuro-transmitters. The brain itself builds new pathways to understanding, weaving a network of truth stimulated by environmental influence.

A child ages through the sensorimotor stage with child focused on the here and now, growing past the immediate to just out of sight in the preoperational stage, increasing complexity in the concrete operations stage engaging adult-like logic, sprouting wings in the formal operations stage to soar in search of the great mystery. The brain follows this process, constructing complex synaptic webs fortified with Myelin insulation.

Piaget’s developmental continuum guides age-appropriate instruction. Although the stages better describe what children can think and not necessarily what children do think, they offer a starting point to address the learner where they are, to take them where they can be. Applying abstract allusions into a math example in a first-grade lesson plan misses learning objectives because the children are unable to assimilate or accommodate the information.

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development issues a sociocultural perspective, defining the resources that children use to build. Children receive cues on how to interpret and respond to the world constantly through informal conversations and formal schooling. These physical and cognitive tools consciously and unconsciously pass from generation to generation for a more productive and efficient day-to-day. This transfer uses language to guide thought, and eventually thought and language are very interdependent. The child then uses self-talk and inner speech to auto-construct knowledge, internalizing processes they use in social contexts and begin to use them independently. Social learning motivates performance of more challenging tasks, promoting maximum cognitive growth. When someone more advanced then the learner assists them, more challenging learning goals can be achieved. This assistance may happen with instruction or in simple play with others in their social community.

Using a sociocultural perspective in the classroom is to use one of the strongest universals in human nature and pass skills and tools through scaffolding, cooperation and collaboration, as well as develop instruction by demonstration peer-to-peer. This method grows a stronger learning community and the opportunity for students to learn by teaching other students. A diversity of learner accommodation that suggests inclusion allows for a rich economy of skill levels potentially working in concert to achieve the learning goals by all students.

Linguistic development is constructed as a child develops. Semantics grow into syntax. Syntax specializes into pragmatics. Finally, syntax thinks about itself and the child possesses metalinguistic awareness. Listening comprehension is an essential component to the child’s development. Listening grows vocabulary and syntax. Meanings are qualified within contexts and trough infliction and accent. Oral communication skills allow the learner to express themselves and interact with their learning community to test their syntax and understanding. This process matures when the continual deposit of new words and meanings are fed through the communication loop, and students develop a metalinguistic awareness that advances their linguistic development beyond simple communication to nuance and abstract meaning.

Linguistic development is accelerated when juxtaposed to the assimilation of a new language. Immersion and bilingual education allow the learner to compare their native language with a new paradigm, learning both with a better understanding of semantics and pragmatics.

No comments
07
Jan 10

Review: Born Digital, Understanding the first generation of digital natives

Born Digital

Born Digital: comprehensive, progressive, insightful

Although there are no ground breaking epiphanies in this book, I truly appreciated the measured response to digital ubiquity and the effect it has on a generation who knows nothing less.

Born Digital is a comprehensive view of what we can expect, an educated guess of the impacts of the first generation of digital natives. Walking through the jagged landscape of digital identities and dossiers, over the quicksand of safety and privacy to the questions of creators, innovators and pirates, overload, aggressors and learners – without the reactionary premature autopsies of generational attrition.

The authors, John Palfrey of Harvard and Urs Gasser of U of St. Gallen accept the future that is now realized, and design a discourse to engage the whole community of the digi natives, their parents and teachers, and law makers to build the skill set to protect our youth growing up digital, empowered with knowledge and best practices, instead of preaching abstinence and prohibition, fear tactics and taboos that are sure to push them farther out into the Ethernet and harm’s way.

Born Digital is comprehensive, insightful, and illuminates the reader to the environment, paradigm and nuances of what it is to be a Digital Native.

1 comment
← Older Entries