CI 6112 Curriculum Development and Organisation A Constructivist Curriculum Model: Extract
What
Constructivist Theory And Brain Research May Offer
Abstract
During the 1990s, brain research exploded and educators
began to explore the implications of the research for teaching and learning
(Caine and Caine 1991). Even though much of the brain research was disease
oriented and does not apply directly to educators, we must pay attention to
the ideas and paths it suggests as we continue to consider successful ways to
facilitate learning. Constructivist theories, on the other hand, have a long
tradition in disciplines such as philosophy and psychology. Constructivism
has also strongly influenced education through recent paradigm shifts in
assessment (Alleman and Brophy 1998), and in language arts (Bruner 1986),
science (Yager 1991), and mathematics (Schifter 1996) curriculum and
teaching. It is only very recently however, that constructivism is appearing
in the social studies literature (Scheurman and Yell 1998). We believe that
there is unrealized potential for constructivist theory in social studies. While other core subjects have moved toward student-centered,
experiential, hands-on learning and constructivist learning strategies,
social studies has remained largely teacher centered (Hope 1996). Much of
social studies teaching and learning is geared to the simple transmission of
information through the use of a single textbook, the lecture method and
teacher controlled question and answer strategies. However, a more
student-centered, constructivist approach in social studies would incorporate
multiple and varied sources of information, increase emphasis on group
processes, and encourage student generated questions to guide inquiry. By
engaging with citizenship concepts in this way, children would learn to view
issues and problems from different angles and identify multiple perspectives,
as well as develop their own viewpoints. In essence, social studies knowledge
would be constructed when children were able to form their own
interpretations of evidence and submit them for review (Scheurman 1998). In
this way, the application of constructivist theory to social studies would
result in the development of deeper understandings of problems and procedures
in social studies and rigorously defensible beliefs about important issues in
the disciplines. In this article we contend that there is a significant relationship
between constructivist theory and brain research, with brain research
providing a basis for some of the theoretical underpinnings of
constructivism. In support of this contention, we review some of the key
ideas from constructivist theory and brain research and highlight insights
from each of the areas as they impact curriculum planning and design in
social studies. Insights From Constructivism For
Curriculum Development Constructivism is a theory about the nature of knowledge. While there
are different interpretations of constructivism, their common denominator
seems to be a belief that knowledge is created by people and influenced by
their values and culture (Phillips 1995). The cognitive view of constructivism, exemplified by Piaget, posits
that people develop universal forms or structures of knowledge that enable
them to experience reality. Knowledge is individually constructed and is
based on the knower's intellectual development as she experiences reality
during physical and social activity. In cognitive constructivism, the
teacher's role as facilitator is to pose problems that challenge children's
conceptions of reality. The social view of constructivism, exemplified by Vygotsky, posits
that knowledge is co-constructed through social and cultural contexts,
rendering reality non-objective. Knowledge socially constructed as reality is
created during physical and social activity. The teacher's role is to be a
collaborator who participates with the children in constructing reality by
engaging in open-ended inquiry that elicits and addresses student misconceptions. Curriculum development that proceeds from a constructivist
perspective would recognize the centrality of the following four tenets. The
first of these tenets is that the human mind has the ability to represent
through symbols. Language, as one of our major symbol systems, is recognized
as having a primary relationship to thinking and learning. Meaning is also
created and expressed through other symbol systems such as art, music, drama
and dance. The second major tenet is that constructivist theory focuses on
the individual as an active constructor of meaning rather than a passive
recipient of knowledge. Thirdly, learning is viewed as a complex process
involving the interaction of past experience, personal intentions, and new
experience. Finally, social context is recognized as a crucial element in the
meaning making process. Brooks and Brooks (1993) argue that there are
principles of constructivist pedagogy that also must be considered. These
include: posing problems of emerging relevance to learners; structuring
learning around primary concepts; seeking and valuing children's points of
view; adapting curriculum to address student suppositions; and assessing
children's learning in the context of teaching. Insights
from Brain Research for Curriculum Development Current views of the brain, based on advances in the area of
neuroscience, suggest that we think of the brain as a complex, whole, and
interconnected system (Edelman 1992). Since everything in the body, including
the brain, is connected to and affected by everything else, right-brain,
left-brain theories and triune brain theories are no longer considered to be
adequate explanations of how the brain functions. We now know a great deal
more about the connection between the brain and learning; it is these
connections that we believe can inform curriculum development. While brain
research is extensive and technical in nature and it is not our intention to
review it in this article, the three areas briefly touched upon below seem
particularly significant for learning. The brain innately seeks meaning through seeking patterns. The
patterns give context to information that may otherwise be discarded as
meaningless (Coward 1990). Freeman (1995) suggests that it is the making of
familiar connections (relevance) and the locating of conforming neural
networks (pattern making) that are critical to the formation of meaning. For
younger children, learning that is hands-on, experiential and relevant
enables patterns to develop. Relevance helps children to make personal
connections between what they already know and the work they do in class.
Relevance can be created through linking with prior learning and experiences,
and context and pattern making may result from the use of universal concepts
and core organizing principles (Jensen 1998). Experience has been found to affect the physical structure of the
brain, a phenomenon known as plasticity. The brain grows new connections with
environmental stimulation (Diamond 1988) and modifies itself structurally
depending on the amount and type of usage (Healy 1990). Each new stimulation
and experience rewires the brain. Enriched environments enable the brain to
grow more neural connections, thickening the cortex of the brain, while less
stimulating environments actually have a thinning effect on the cortex
(Diamond and Hopson 1998). Enriched environments provide challenge by
including reading and language, motor stimulation, a focus on the arts,
stimulating surroundings, and a wide variety of approaches to thinking and
problem solving. Exposing children to a variety of problem solving approaches
acknowledges the complexity of the brain. Children should be encouraged to
explore alternative thinking, multiple answers and creative insights. Because
experience structurally changes the brain, the more we learn, the more unique
our brains become. Neural pathways that help us to excel at thinking skills
are very specific and while a student may succeed at one type of thinking,
she may have difficulty with another. Emotions cannot be separated from learning, and in fact, may drive
learning. Emotions help us make better value-based decisions as all values
are emotional states. Emotions generate and drive the execution of our goals
and plans (Freeman 1995). Emotions drive attention, create meaning, and have
their own memory pathways (LeDoux 1994). Chemicals activated by emotions help
us recall things better thereby affecting long-term memory. When emotions are
engaged the brain learns fastest and easiest during the early school years. Implications of Constructivist Theory and Brain
Research for Curriculum Planning and Design in Social Studies Our views of children and how they learn
are embedded in social studies curriculum. The rapid advances in brain
research in recent years have provided some insights that cannot be ignored
when considering how children learn and what this means for future curriculum
planning and design. These insights are only beginning to be considered in the
educational community and have not been widely incorporated into social
studies curriculum planning and design (McKay 1995). As theory,
constructivist views have influenced theoretical traditions in social
studies, such as reflective inquiry (Barr, Barth and Shermis 1977), and do
have implications for teaching and learning in social studies. While the
reflective inquiry conceptualization of social studies is not new and does
indeed stem from a constructivist position, that tradition seems to be more of
a theoretical stance than a practical application in many social studies
curriculum documents and classrooms (McKay 1993). The recent brain research provides some
physiological basis for much of a constructivist view of knowledge and the
role of the knower in constructing that knowledge. We contend that tenets of
constructivist theory supported by brain research necessitate radical change
in the design and implementation of social studies curricula. Such curriculum
change would include at its core the recognition and celebration of multiple
realities and multiple ways to create, express and represent those realities.
Such curriculum change would recognize and celebrate the child as an active
constructor of his or her own meanings within a community of others who
provide a forum for the social negotiation of shared meanings. Such
curriculum change would reflect and celebrate the complexity of the meaning
making process and require complex learning environments that would enable
such meaning making. Taken together, constructivist
theory and brain research offer compelling support for renewed examination
of reflective inquiry as a powerful curriculum model for social studies.
Curriculum and instruction approaches utilized today that are called "inquiry" must
be closely examined to determine if they in fact do incorporate the constructivist
elements of the reflective inquiry approach as proposed in the classic model
of Barr, Barth and Shermis. Social studies from a reflective inquiry orientation
is grounded in the belief that people must interact with ideas and things in
order to make knowledge for themselves, thus the knower and the known are closely
intertwined. The reflective inquiry approach to social studies emphasizes students
investigating, inquiring and thinking for themselves. This approach is skill-based
citizenship education in which students are provided with experiences in order
to acquire competence in skills such as inquiry, communication, critical thinking
and decision making. From this perspective, students play a more active role
in learning about citizenship as they actually engage in the skills needed
for their future roles. The process of reflective inquiry begins with the interests
of the students, as problems that directly affect their lives within a specified
socio-political context are central. Students play an active role in
conducting the investigation into these problems with teachers acting as
facilitators. The outcome of the investigation is not known ahead. While, the reflective inquiry tradition of social studies is a
powerful model for citizenship education, we contend that it remains an
unfulfilled possibility in many social studies curriculum documents and
classrooms. We believe that constructivist theory, now supported by brain
research, offers social studies educators a renewed opportunity to make
inquiry teaching and learning in social studies a reality. References Alleman, Janet and
Jere Brophy. "Assessment in a Social Constructivist Classroom." Social
Education. 62, No. 1 (Jan 1998): 32-34. Barr, R.D., J.H.
Barth, and S.S. Shermis. 1977. Defining the Social Studies. Brooks. Jacqueline and
Martin G. Brooks. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The Case for
Constructivist Classrooms. Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual
Minds, Possible Worlds. Caine, Renata and
Geoffrey Caine. 1991. Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain.
Coward, Andrew. 1990. Pattern
Thinking. Diamond, Marion C.
1988. Enriching Heredity: The Impact of the Environment on the Anatomy of
the Brain. Diamond, Marion C. and
J. Hopson. 1998. Magic Trees of the Mind. Edelman, Gerald. 1992.
Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind . Freeman, W. 1995. Societies
of Brains. Healy, Jane. 1990. Endangered
Minds: Why Our Children Can't Think. Hope, Warren C.
"It's Time to Transform Social Studies Teaching." The Social
Studies. (July/August, 1996): 149-151. Jensen, Eric. 1998.Teaching
with the Brain in Mind. LeDoux, Joseph.
"Emotion, Memory, and the Brain." Scientific American. 270,
No. 6 (1994): 50-57. McKay, Roberta.
"Brain-based Learning: Support for an Inquiry Curriculum." Canadian
Social Studies. 29, No. 4 (Summer 1995):128-129. McKay, Roberta.
"Constructivism: Defining our Beliefs, Examining our Practices." Canadian
Social Studies. 27, No. 2 (Winter 1993): 47-48. Phillips, D. "The
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism." Educational
Researcher. 24, no. 7 (1995): 5-12. Scheurman, Geoffrey.
"From Behaviorist to Constructivist Teaching." Social Education.
62, No. 1 (Jan 1998): 6-9. Scheurman, Geoffrey
and M. Yell (Eds.). "Constructing Knowledge in Social Studies."
Theme Issue. Social Education. 62, No. 1 (Jan 1998). Schifter, Deborah.
"A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning
Mathematics." Phi Delta Kappan. (March 1996): 492-499. Yager, Robert.
"The Constructivist Learning Model: Towards Real Reform in Science
Education." The Science Teacher. 58, No. 6 (1991): 53-57. Roberta McKay and Susan Gibson are professors in the Department of
Elementary Education at the |
Source
http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css/Css_35_4/ARconstructionist_theory.htm,
accessed