Current news articles have seen debate over the need for an
emphasis on process versus knowledge learning in the classroom. I have decided to investigate both of these
arguments, in an effort to form an opinion and highlight what learning theory I
can draw on to increase the impact I have on the learning outcomes of my
students.
For Knowledge based
learning:
Article One:
Dr.Elizabeth Rata calls for a return to
prescribed knowledge learning in the national curriculum.
New Zealand
Herald, September 7th 2013.
Please click on hyper-link to view article:
Summary:
In this article the question is raised as to where the
direct learning of knowledge has gone from the curriculum? Rata points out that the New Zealand
Curriculum instead focuses on skills, competencies and values. Going so far as to liken our curriculum to a
“social experiment” in which we are choosing to “know less” (2013).
Rata claims that the purpose of schooling is to gain
academic knowledge, which apparently defines our level of intelligence. Also that teachers need to be experts of
subject content and how to teach it, as academic knowledge cannot be taught
through experiences. This knowledge
teaches children to think outside of their current experiential confines of
location, time and culture. It is this
thinking that informs moral judgments, through objective reasoned thought.
The current curriculum makes no differentiation between
cultural every day and academic knowledge.
Proposing that identifying knowledge as a process in this globalised world
is misguided. As successful adults
children will need to be able to use objectivity and reason when making
decisions, which will not be possible if they do not have this acquired
power. We cannot simply search for
knowledge on the World Wide Web; we have to have some idea what we are
searching for. In conclusion arguing
for a public discussion on what and if knowledge content should be covered in
the curriculum.
Delving Deeper:
In her award winning report which raises the same issues,
Rata (2012) questions New Zealand’s culturally responsive approach and the
Ministry’s belief that knowledge is constructed socially. Arguing social constructivist pedagogies
limit the development of critical thinking as they view knowledge as a process
of learning, not as the product of learning. Doxa should be limited as a
pedagogical tool to provide motivation and engagement, not the focus of the
curriculum. The current curriculum takes
a Relativist ideal in that knowledge is gained through language and the beliefs
of the people. Introducing an
interesting opinion that this ideal isolates conceptual knowledge as a “class
resource” (p.107).
According to her
report, children from well-educated parents, tend to achieve earlier and
greater academic success than those from under achieved families and
cultures. This power knowledge aids “the
ability to reason” (p.111) and so effects one’s potential to succeed. Limiting learning to experiences means those
that need it most cannot draw on power knowledge and as a result income
disparity in New Zealand is widening.
Acknowledging the importance of doxa in the constructivist pedagogy,
however stating that when thinking is grounded in cultural ways of being the
individual is unable to transcend into the higher levels of thinking and knowledge
required for an unknown future.
Key Terms defined:
Knowledge: Broken down into social knowledge which
produces a localized, subjective view of the world, and Academic (Scientific)
knowledge which can be analyzed and critiqued, so is objective and universal.
Doxa: Social
knowledge gained through experiences.
How does this fit
with Learning Theory?
Novak (2010) describes the Information Processing Theories
acquisition of knowledge, first through the sensory memory, to short term
memory and then linked to long term memory when there is an existing experience
or schema (Cognitive views) to accommodate this new knowledge. This serves as both help and hindrance to
knowledge acquisition. In accordance
with Rata (2013), Novak (2010) identifies that when there is no existing link
to the long term memory, new knowledge acquisition can be too much of a
challenge, meaningful links are not made and so will not be retained. A constructivist approach to this would then
see an expert other (teacher) scaffolding the child to the new knowledge, or
Zone of Proximal Development. This would
be the pedagogical approach that Rata (2012) refers to, but insists that the
knowledge required at certain levels should be stipulated in the
curriculum.
My interpretation of information processing.
So does knowledge = intelligence?
Behaviourist’s determine that knowledge acquisition is a
result of external stimuli. As children
develop their intelligence is conditioned by their parents and whanau, so this
determines what level they begin school with.
Does prescribing knowledge content for teachers to deliver as part of
the curriculum return us to this mindset?
A Cognitive approach measures intelligence as a function of
our internal brains only. The brains
ability to make interconnections and acquire language skills are the vehicle
for this knowledge acquisition. Furth
(1970) clarifies Piaget’s notion of intelligence as the accumulation of active
sensory and instinctive (reflex) functions which eventually present in adults
as operations. To develop into this operational stage of reason, children
assimilate new information in schema.
When new knowledge (like that perhaps of a content driven curriculum) is
presented the schema must be reorganised to accommodate this new
knowledge. Here lies the difference,
according to Piaget, of the ability to acquire knowledge, in our ability to
accommodate new knowledge or see assimilated knowledge in a new
perspective. In essence, Rata (2012) is
highlighting the need for all children to have a required level of content so
that knowledge can be assimilated and accommodated. However, the ability to accommodate this
knowledge will be effected by external conditions, such as cultural capital
that aids or hinders accommodation dependent on the match of content to
culture.
This Cognitive approach with prescribed knowledge content
neglects other forms of development.
Aldridge & Goldman (2002) suggest this learning theory is outdated,
written by someone who couldn’t comprehend the times in which we now live. The multi-cultural classrooms we now see may
not have heeded the same results. Piaget
was adamant all children from all cultures pass through his stages in the same
sequential order. This does not take
into account Bordieous (1979) ideal that school systems should match that of
the child to optimise success. Who would
determine what ‘academic knowledge’ should be prescribed in the curriculum and
how would this affect our diverse students?
And for those with learning challenges such as dyslexia or autism, how
would this impact on their educational success?
Rata (2012) maintains that by prescribing the knowledge
content in the curriculum the child has opportunities to develop autonomy from
their cultural confines, allowing objective and critical thinking to develop
intelligence, which she defines as the ability to reason. Pedagogy, she insures could then be
culturally responsive to draw on prior knowledge to engage and motivate
learners.
However, constructivists argue
that critical thinking skills develop through discussion and questioning of
others and of self, in reflective practices.
In this way, new perspectives can be co-constructed, yet are unique to
each individual. Reflection plays a
vital role in this meaning making, constructivist approach, and can be aided
through creative implementation of ICT into learning (Ng’ambi & Johnston, 2006).
Robinson (2011) discusses creativity as an intellectual
process in its own right that transforms imaginative ideas into reality. This intelligence is
not confined to the arts, however is developed when there is work of a highly
focused nature. So if we are to think of
creativity as a form of gifted intelligence, then perhaps we need to redefine
our definition of intelligence to include “the ability to formulate and express
our thoughts in coherent ways” (p.117).
This would allow for all forms of creativity to be respected, such as
dance and the art forms. If this is a
true definition of intelligence, then Cameron (1992) agrees with Rata (2012)
that through literature this knowledge can be tapped into. But how could this
level of intelligence be prescribed for in a curriculum without placing a ceiling on creativity?
Finally, if knowledge content is prescribed in the
curriculum, but aided by pedagogy, then how does this effect assessment? Gardner (2004) highlights how assessment
tools should align with the delivery, or pedagogy, of the learning. In this way overall teacher judgments play a
formative role in the assessment of National Standards, giving a holistic view
of the impact teachers have on the learning outcomes for students. Formative assessment places importance on the
process of understanding. According to
Rata (2012) knowledge is not a process, so does this mean this curriculum ideal
would see emphasis placed on summative assessment? What implication would this have on children
who learn at different rates and in different ways?
No comments:
Post a Comment