“STUDENT” AS A COMMONPLACE, I

 

[Currently, this blog is continuing its account of the liberated federalism model of governance and politics.[1]  As a reminder for readers, this blog posts twice a week – on Tuesdays and Fridays.]

Using William Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum development,[2] this blog has just completed reviewing the commonplace, subject matter, as it applies to the liberated federalism construct, and will commence with the commonplace, students.  This blog asks:  what is known about the nature of students in relation to the principles of liberated federalism? 

The postings that follow contain claims and evidence regarding the nature of the construct.  They share various conclusions that can be derived from the elements of the construct’s view and that support the implementation of its ideas and ideals insofar as the construct relates to students.  In turn, that will help establish it, liberated federalism, as the foundational basis for the teaching of American government and civics in secondary schools. 

Some of the issues to be addressed directly pertain to the individual interests of students; others will deal with long term interests that affect youths in general or the conditions of students within the wider society.  The upcoming review will address the following areas of concern:  student interests, student problems, and student educational requisites.  It will answer the following questions:

 

·       What personal student interests benefit from using the liberated federalist construct in the teaching of government and civics at the secondary level?

·       What social student interests benefit from using the liberated federalist construct?

·       What economic student interests benefit from using the liberated federalist construct?

·       What political student interests benefit from using the liberated federalist construct?

·       What pedagogic student interests benefit from using the liberated federalist construct?

 

What follows in the following postings is not an extensive inquiry into these issues (each can be the topic of extensive study), but a general review which sufficiently helps justify the adoption of the liberated federalist construct to guide civics content.

          Again, the liberated federalist model relies on the political theoretical school of thought generally known as federalism.  It is an approach to governance and politics that sees, as favorable, the establishment of polities through a process in which the affected people come together and formulate, under a sacred agreement – a compact – to establish a set of aims, a listing of values, usually in the form of rights both for individuals and groups, a structure for governance with chief processes identified, other points of agreement, provisions for cases in non-compliance, and the signatures of those agreeing to the compact.

          If the agreement calls on God to witness it, that compact is a covenant.  The word federalism is derived from the Latin word for covenant, that being foedus.[3]  Federalist ideas and ideals have been part of American history all the way back to the nation’s earliest colonial days – for example, the Mayflower Compact is a covenant.  This blog has in the past described and explained the role that federalism has played in the development of the United States.[4]

---

[1] For readers who wish to review those corresponding postings, they are guided to this blog’s posting, “From Natural Rights to Liberated Federalism” (June 2, 2023), at the URL, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/, where this series begins.

[2] William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “Federal Models of (Civil) Authority,” Journal of Church and State, 233-234.

[4] Two works that give readers a well-rounded overview of federalism are Daniel J. Elazar, American Federalism:  A View from the States (New York, NY:  Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1966) AND Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, AL:  The University of Alabama Press, 1987).

CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS OF THE LIBERATED FEDERALISM, II

 

Currently, this blog is continuing its account of the liberated federalism model of governance and politics.[1]  With this posting, the blog looks further into suggested instructional methods in civics that teachers can utilize as most amenable to this featured construct.  The previous posting identified the use of case studies and community service projects – in both strategies, one does not eliminate other methods, but simply states that the featured methods allow teachers to get at what liberated federalism deems to be important.

          That posting also identified the psychological school of thought that supports the efforts that liberated federalism pursues.  That would be constructivism as developed from the works of Jean Piaget and Lev S. Vygotsky and runs counter to those pedagogical views emanating from behavioral psychology.  This posting will share more of Piaget and Vygotsky’s ideas.

          The Piaget based model, as explained by Geoffrey Scheurman,[2] calls effective human learning as “cognitive constructivism.”  It is dependent on a developmental view.  Scheurman writes

 

[Piaget] believed that people develop universal forms or structures of knowledge (i.e., prelogical, concrete, or formal) that enable them to experience reality.  This view holds that while an autonomous “real” world may exist outside the learner, he or she has limited access to it.  The emphasis in learning is on how people assimilate new information into existing mental schemes, and how they restructure schemes entirely when information is too discrepant to be assimilated.[3]

 

Within the cognitive constructivism model, the teacher acts as a facilitator and challenges students’ views of reality by introducing disequilibrium with incongruent factual or theoretical material.

          The teacher further guides students through problem solving activities and reviews and monitors students’ reflective and interpretive thinking after they, the students, discover their researched findings.  Experience consists of actual physical and social encounters in which they deal with unexpected claims – either factual or opinionated claims – and reflect on them, according to Scheurman.

          As for Vygotsky’s strand of constructivism, Scheurman calls it “social constructivism.”  Scheurman explains:

 

Accepting Piaget’s view of how individuals build private understandings of reality through problem solving with others, Vygotsky further explained how social or cultural contexts contribute to a public understanding of objects and events.  In this view, reality is no longer objective, while knowledge is literally co-constructed by, and distributed among, individuals as they “interact with one another and with cultural artifacts, such as pictures, discourse, and gestures.”[4]

 

Within the social constructivism view, teachers take on a collaborative role.  That is, they participate with the students in “constructing” reality.

          By doing so, certain functions are met.  These functions are to bring to light students’ misconceptions, to hold open-ended discoveries and inquiries, and to lead teachers and students to real social resources and procedures.  A class of students, including the teacher, “creates” a reality by manufacturing a culturally based understanding, conducting open-ended inquiries, and reflecting on the mutually constructed meaning.

          Constructivism promises to be a viable methodology for teaching a communally based curriculum.  As Scheurman points out, it does not preclude other types of instruction as functional components in preparing students for meaningful constructivist lessons or reflective extensions to lessons that have had students construct conclusions to a set of inquiries.

          Already mentioned in the last posting, there are more behaviorally based lessons which can be employed to establish needed information.  Also, inquiry type lessons that can test claims or conclusions presented to students and are based on the behavioral science model, can be conducted.  In other words, a healthy mix of modes of learning and teaching can add various contributions toward viable civics instruction.

          Perhaps here, as this account completes the description of the commonplace, the subject matter, it is useful to provide a short review of what has been presented.  The account first reviewed the assumptions of the liberated federalism construct regarding individual decision-making.  The account then proposed a model of the liberated federalism model which is presented as the preferred foundation for the study of government and civics at the secondary level.

          Then, using Eugene Meehan’s criteria, the model was reviewed for its viability.  Last, this and the former posting looked at methodology as a contextual factor in implementing the liberated federalism model.  In that, the presentation was in line with focusing on the more interpretive approach of constructivism, i.e., it encourages more heuristic approaches – in which students derive their own conclusions.  In that, they avoid the claim that it promotes indoctrination.  Next, the blog will address the commonplace, the student.

---

[1] For readers who wish to review those corresponding postings and have not read them, they are guided to this blog’s posting, “From Natural Rights to Liberated Federalism” (June 2, 2023), at the URL, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/, where this series begins.

[2] Geoffrey Scheurman, “From Behaviorists to Constructivist Teaching,” Social Education, 62, 1 (1998), 6-9.

[3] Ibid., 8.

[4] Ibid., 8.