Focusing on the student or learner in developing
a curriculum seems obvious enough. This
blog has been focusing on students with emphasis on such concerns as students’
social and political interests. This
posting turns to their pedagogic interests.
And in that area, this blog has argued and presented evidence that
currently the natural rights perspective, with its emphasis on individualism,[1]
has dominated the curricular outlook that civics education has followed.
Consequently,
any attempt to change that state of affairs, to shift to what this account
promotes, a liberated federalism view, would most likely be considered by
students as counterintuitive. Therefore,
students would need to be cognitively aware of the shift and mature enough to
deal with any content that would ensue from the application of such a change.
Here,
there are promising findings. Reflecting
to a degree Jean Piaget’s claims from an earlier time,[2]
more recent accounts place 12- to 18-year-olds being able “to think
systematically about all logical relationships within a problem…” which is an
ability acquired over time.[3] Therefore, the basic cognitive maturity to
handle a curriculum shift to a more communal orientation, as called for by the
liberated federalism approach, should be in place with the vast number of
adolescents.
And with even younger or
challenged learners, not to mention on-pace students, there is good benefit in
using narratives – which liberated federalism encourages – to facilitate
informational instruction.[4] Situational or case study approach such as
historical study, to government or civics, would employ story type materials to
initiate content, and serve as stimuli for class work.
The story element of such
a method encourages students to relate the content of the lesson to their own
conditions – this blog developed the claim in its review of the parochial/traditional
federalism construct. And this blogger,
elsewhere, has written of the importance of using relevant content in
curricular materials, particularly when dealing with low achieving students.[5]
That material should be
relevant in terms of the social issues it deals with and the level of power the
student realistically enjoys. In any
case, relevancy is enhanced by stories that are relatable to students’
conditions in their current lives. And
this calls on educators to look more analytically at students’ thinking
patterns – substantively and procedurally.
Then there is the use of schemata
in conceptualizing the cognitive requisites for retaining information.
A
schema, or scheme, is an abstract concept proposed by [Jean] Piaget to refer to
our, well, abstract concepts. Schemas (or schemata) are units of understanding
that can be hierarchically categorized as well as webbed into complex
relationships with one another.
For
example, think of a house. You probably get an immediate mental image of
something out of a kid's storybook: four windows, front door, suburban setting,
chimney. However, if I were to amend the object's name slightly, your scheme
would shift to a more refined version. How about: Shotgun house? One door,
maybe no front windows, low income setting. Mansion? Multiple windows, side
entrance for the help, sweeping front drive.[6]
With such a use, curricular material developers
and teachers are cautioned to present materials that are characterized by some
level of generality. One can take from
these theorists the notion that material or content presentations should be
sensitive to that level of abstraction being used. The use of situational or case study
materials allows teachers and developers of materials to gauge this factor to a
viable degree.
Furthermore,
the constructivist approach offers a framework by which to effectively present
this situational material and enhance student pedagogic interest. Story telling naturally lends to communal
settings – stories don’t happen, for the most part, in isolated places. The approach situates teachers in the
collaborator role in that they are to help students construct knowledge through
settings of social interactions and reflective debates and discussions.[7]
The
constructivism view proposes a strategy of socialization that insists that
steps be taken, when necessary, to establish and maintain order, but that
encourages a shift toward the participatory end of the adult-centered to child-centered
continuum (see previous posting). And
these sentiments can extend to other factors of teaching, for example class
rules and discipline which are more apt to be internalized and extend
leadership roles beyond teachers to students.
Through
this view and its implementation, students not only learn teacher devised
lessons, even if inspired by the liberated federalism model, but can also experience
its messaging within the confines of the classroom. In that, students’ long-term interests are
truly served. And that completes this
blog’s efforts to answer the earlier identified questions associated with the
commonplace – the student. This account
will proceed to the next commonplace – the teacher.[8]
[1] For example, see Jean M. Twenge, Generations: The Real Differences between Gen Z,
Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s
Future (New York, NY: Atria Books,
2023). It should be noted that
individualism is not all bad. It has its
positive elements, but here the concern is with excessive individualism at the
expense of communal interests.
[2] Jean Piaget, The Child’s Conception of Time (London,
England: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1969).
[3] “Cognitive Development,” Cincinnati Children’s Health
Library (April, 2023), accessed October 4, 2023, URL: https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/c/cognitive#:~:text=During%20adolescence%20(between%2012%20and,logical%20operations%20happens%20over%20time.
[4] For example, Carys Shannon, “Why Storytelling is
Important,” International House Trust (2023), accessed October 4, 2023, URL: https://ihworld.com/ih-journal/issues/issue-43/why-storytelling-is-important/.
[5] Robert Gutierrez, “Teaching Secondary Social Studies
to Low and Moderate Achievers: A Modest
Proposal,” The Social Studies (July/August, 1995), 149-154.
[6] “Schema Theory,” Center for Teaching Excellence (n.d.),
accessed October 4, 2023, URL: https://www.etsu.edu/teaching/resources/more_resources/schema.php#:~:text=A%20schema%2C%20or%20scheme%2C%20is,example%2C%20think%20of%20a%20house AND E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Josephy F. Kett, James Trefil,
Cultural Literacy: What Every
American Needs to Know (New York, NY:
Vintage, 1988).
[7] Vera Idaresit Akpan, Udodirim Angela Igwe, Ikechukwu
Blessing Ijeoma Mpamah, and Charity Onyinyechi Okoro, “Social
Constructivism: Implications of Teaching
and Learning,” British Journal of Education, 8, 8 (September 2020), 49-56.
[8]
William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986). The commonplaces can be defined as follows:
·
The subject matter refers to the academic
content presented in the curriculum.
·
Learners (students) are defined as those
individuals attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education
entailed in a particular curriculum.
·
The teacher is the professional instructor
authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom
setting.
·
Milieu refers to the general cultural setting
and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.
No comments:
Post a Comment