I am a secondary school teacher. Facilitating learning is what I am paid to do. All of the various theories advocated by these two articles affect me in some regard. In the 21st century, the sheer volume of consumable content is constantly expanding at an exponential rate. As such, constructivist learning theory, whose goal of instruction is not to ensure the knowledge of facts, but rather that learners can elaborate on and interpret information, is the most effective in navigating 21st century learning contexts (Ertmer, Newby and Merrill, 2013). The complex problems of the 21st century will not be solved by behaviourist thinkers who try to isolate a problem from its context and adjust stimuli until they achieve a desired result since it is “generally agreed that behavioral principles cannot adequately explain the acquisition of higher level skills or those that require a greater depth of processing” (Ertmer, Newby and Merrill, 2013 p.49). As the volume of content expands, and the technology revolution perennially provides new means of consuming said content, constructivist learners are well positioned to be able to synthesise the media they are inundated with, and through
a process of social negotiation (which likewise is increasingly influenced by technology, especially social media) derive meaning and apply it to real world contexts.
For example: students looking at the causes of World War I may identify the cause of the war as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the pre-existing alliances, an arms race and nationalistic fervour. A cognitivist learner would have information chunked and presented in manageable amounts, a move up the cognitive hierarchical pyramid in delivering content will trigger particular responses, but according to (Ertmer, Newby and Merrill, 2013), the learner must believe that the knowledge is useful in a given situation before he or she will activate it. So, a cognitive learner studying the causes of World War I, may come to understand the root causes on a higher level, they may not be as successful in applying the knowledge learned to other contexts if they do not find the knowledge to be particularly useful. The authors go on to state that constructivist theory focusses on the process of acquiring knowledge, rather than the understanding and interpreting content and would utilise practical teaching methods to apply these skills. (2013). It is no accident then that recent curriculum redesign in Canada has a strong emphasis on constructivist learning theory. In the New BC Curriculum, in the process of being rolled out across the province and around the world in offshore schools, subject curricula are guided by three or four “big ideas”, and the chief instructional guidelines are based on the development of skills, rather than content knowledge. Content knowledge still features, but the focus is more on teaching adolescent learners how to construct meaning from the content on their own through the application of various skills and processes (BC Ministry of Education, 2017). Returning to the World War I example, a constructivist learner would be able through applying various historical thinking skills, and core competencies would be better able to parallels in the start of the Great War, and more modern conflicts since the curriculum is focussed on teaching them skills to interpret content and socially construct meaning their own way.
Many learning theories feature: activation of prior experience, demonstration of skills, application of skills, and the integration of these skills into real-world activities. In addition, learning is most effective and meaningful when it has real world problem solving consequence. The higher the level of realism, the more constructive the learning (Merrill, 2002). In my own experience as a secondary class educator, I can attest to the effectiveness of concrete real world learning activities that are hands on, and skills focussed. Students tune out and stress out about content driven multiple choice tests, but thrive in a real time debate of a significant social issue. These learners thrive when they are able to show their learning in creative ways that have meaning to them. According to Merrill (2013), both the acquisition and portrayal of information is conveyed in a manner where the knowledge of learning is able to be shown. Constructivist learning promotes this in the processes of both teacher and learner, in that the teacher uses concrete examples tailored to specific learners, and learners demonstrate their knowledge with similarly concrete representations of their learning often involving choices in medium that are not as readily affordable within the scope of cognitive or behavioural learning theory.
References
BC Ministry of Education. (2017). BC’s redesigned Curriculum: An orientation Guide. Retrieved from: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/Curriculum_Brochure.pdf
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. Retrieved from: https://doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
Hi Marshall. Thanks for the post – I found your WWI example helpful and robust. Although all of my experience in facilitating learning is with adult learners, I see many of the same patterns of engagement that you describe here with your students. Which grades do you work with? I imagine there’s a difference in higher grades than lower, but that it also depends on the individual learner. One question – how do you ensure that you start at the correct level when working with so many unique learners?
Hi Karen, thanks for the comment! I work primarily with upper secondary, at least I am right now throughout my career I have also taught junior high as well. I think at lower grades there is a difference for sure as student’s do need to formulate a knowledge base to begin with, but there are ways to do that with constructivist methods. In new Zealand my eldest daughter did all sorts of exploratory learning, but her questions were then grounded with some traditional teaching drills, and no in Colombia she is being drilled daily in a very in came from 1940 style. However, I think she did find some success in applying skills she learned in one activity to another, but I think the teacher really needs to know what s/he is doing for this to be effective at a younger level. At the high school level, done correctly the creative responses illicited by some students is pretty astounding. As for assessing levels, we have previous reports to go off of, and then I would generally start with a basic writing task or activity that is accessible to multiple levels e.g. responding to a hypothetical situation, or picture prompt. From there I can make professional judgements on the ability of the student based on what they say, or more specifically how they say and what sort of depth there is. Moving forward, I would focus on skill develoment that would help a given student improve whatever skill was deemed to be lacking.
Hey Marshall,
Like you, I feel all of these theories affect me and my teaching in some way. I like your take on Constructivism as the best theory to navigate all of the advances that 21st-century learning brings us.
Could you share some concrete, real-world learning activities and strategies that you use in your classroom?
Steve
Hi Steve, thanks for the comment! Some of my strategies I discuss in response to Karen’s comment, but as to a concrete example, again using WWI as an example, I am about to have my students debate the causes. After having given some primary content regarding the MAIN causes of the war I divided the students into teams of four where they were then asked to go and put themselves into the shoes of whatever country I assigned them. I asked them to first of all meet as a group and based on their knowledge so far and express their views as a citizen of that country at the time and explain their understanding relating to the to which their country was to blame for the start of the war. If there gaps, I first had the other groups try to explain what they thought. I then filled in whatever base knowledge was necessary. They went to work researching and coming up with arguments for and against each of the six major players, and then presented their debate, which is the fun part. Once the debate is over, I have them reflect on how the debate went. What did they feel went well for their group? What other groups performed well, and why? Some positions are easier than others. The students who get Germany always complain, but I emphasise it is not about proving ight or wrong, it is about supporting your views with critical thought and discussion. This will be my first time trying this woth ESL students in a foreign country that has little connection ot the war itself, so that should be interesting.
Great exercise.
I’m sure the students will enjoy that immensely…I’ve got to figure out how to bring a debate with that level of critical thinking into my carpentry class….
Hi Marhsall,
Wonderful post – thank you.
I posted a similar comment on George’s post (https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0007/reflection-on-my-theoretical-and-pedagogical-stance/) but I am going to repeat it here because there’s a tension that I am wondering about. You write: “Facilitating learning is what I am paid to do.” In my comment to George’s post (under moderation currently), I wrote: “I am wondering about the constraints that teachers face and what happens when those constraints conflict with one’s theoretical stance. Some theoretical approaches might be more suited than others in some situations, but to what degree are the standardized tests [that George mentions] guiding teachers’ instructional practices? What happens when ‘teaching to the test’ leads to higher outcomes on the test, but one’s theoretical stance is compromised? Is that the nature of teachers’ work these days?”
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Hi George,
That’s a good question, and I have much to say stemming from frustrations I am currently facing in my new job. So to begin: In my secondary teaching experience that involves Alberta, BC, and New Zealand curriculum, the curriculum is at odds with assessment practice (this is for a variety of reasons that I won’t go into great detail here, but have to do primarily with cost, time, and results). Teaching to the test, especially in Alberta and NZ is still very much a concern, despite both entities officially discouraging the practice. In Alberta (where the bulk of my experience lies) funding is allotted according to how many successful students you have in any given course, and schools are rated in part on their performance on the standardised tests, which in my opinion (save for the written portions) are not the best reflection of a student’s learning. Especially not when you consider that they are high pressure, timed, high value assessments. The curricula themselves are well designed for constructivist learning, especially BC and NZ, but assessment practice defeats this with its do or die assessment practice. Although NZ is at least on the right track in that they do not have MC testing, and the assessments, aside from being timed, are generally a good reflection of student learning of a particular objective.
At present I am at an offshore BC school in Colombia, and BC is in the midst of a major curriculum overhaul. In my context (I hope this is not the case in mainland BC) I am under pressure to have marks in the system by a certain date, this despite the fact that learning is still ongoing. As a result, I am forced to post formative grades as summative, and often these grades are either greatly inflated because it is only measuring one or two skills, or deflated because the students do not know enough yet. So you ask, what happens? I register my complaint that “this defies best practice and what the curriculum prescribes”, my immediate boss (in this case the BC principal) acknowledges that I am correct, but ultimately we have to cow tow to the real managers of the school. This may seem an anomaly because I am in a unique context, but last year in Alberta I was under similar pressure. Give the students examples of the test, drill them on what will be on the test, and try to cover the skills and processes as best you can around it, but ultimately, assess the content. So, here we are reporting on what are essentially behavioural theory objectives amid a curriculum set up to foster critical thinking in line with constructivist learning theory.
Students today are under high pressure to perform well on tests because that is what universities are looking for. Students are increasingly afraid to think for themselves, which I think is something worth studying. I am sure there are some significant sociological factors contributing to this, and likely high anxiety rates over-medicated youth, and social media are factors, but this is me wildly speculating. Schools and teachers too, are under high pressure to deliver results. Never underestimate the power of an irate parent/community. However, in isolated activities, and with skilled well planned teachers at the helm, deeper critical thinking that is driven and assessed by curriculum can reign supreme. Inhibiting this though, are pressures of time, resistance to embrace ever shifting pedagogy once it has been mandated, and lack of PD time, and finally: fear from teachers to try something new that may or may not deliver the intended result, when all of the above pressures are at stake. Sorry if that sounded ranty, but I hope it drives at your questions, and thanks for the comment!
Hi Marshall,
Love the discussion in your blog and the enthusiasm that you are replying and engaging your audience. I have a lot of thoughts of what you have written and as I finish up this activity to post and think about my context, in an American/IB international setting — I feel that your discussions are as if we are having coffee in the same place! The principles of learning stated by Merill, just as you have connected them to BC’s new curriculum, are those that are relevant in Common Core and IB. An interesting correlation is especially looking at skills and attributes to 21st-century learning.
Thank you for the thoughts, and I appreciate the discussion. I will continue to my post with the thoughts of yours in my head.
Hi Bobbi, thanks for the comment! Getting an IB certificate (in place of hard to find IB experience in rural AB/New Zealand/Colombia) is what lead me to this program in the first place. I am really trying to dive headlong into these theories as I am now much more aware of their foundational role in the IB program. I would be curious to know if you are facing the same frustrations I am facing in a school that is light years away from being able to implement a BC curriculum as it was intended, let alone something as all encompassing as IB.