|
|
|
Teaching for Understanding: A Critical and Analytical Investigation Cynthia Brogan Augusta State University
Teaching for Understanding: A Critical and Analytical Investigation Many teachers are painfully aware that their classrooms encourage students to learn content information in isolation long enough to pass the test. Students are unable to make connections between subject matter topics and cannot relate their learning to their lives and futures. Many teachers are aware of the futile nature of their teaching pedagogy but feel unable to change the situation; factors from all areas contribute to those feelings. Perkins (1994) states that "the institutions teachers work in and the tests they prepare their students for often offer little support for teaching for understanding (p. 24). Educational theory changes constantly. Teachers often feel ambivalent towards new theories because they are afraid that next year their new practices will be obsolete. Teachers know that the transmission model of teaching is safe; teachers themselves were taught in that manner and the public accepts lecture-oriented teaching. If educational change will occur, it will be because teachers are aware of the need to produce students with the skills needed in tomorrow’s workforce. When teachers look toward this crucial goal, the focus of learning changes. "Students garner knowledge and skill in schools so they can put them to work in professional and lay roles that require appreciation, understanding and judgement" (Perkins, 1994, p. 21). Furthermore, teachers are responsible for creating life-long learners who have the skills necessary for "further learning and more effective functioning in their lives" (Perkins, 1993, p. 28). Teaching for understanding is an educational practice that has gained popularity because it teaches students how to think. "Teaching for understanding aims to enhance the success of students at tasks variously described as problem solving, critical analysis, higher-order thinking, or flexible understanding of academic subject matter" (Cohen, et.al., 1993, p. 1). Teaching for understanding moves beyond the basic memorization of facts because "Knowledge and skill in themselves do not guarantee understanding" (Perkins, 1993, p. 29). Teaching for understanding is characterized by both the teacher and learner as inquirers searching for a deep understanding of key concepts. It encourages active student learning and teachers who practice teaching for understanding are often described as guides, coaches, facilitators, and master practitioners. They must have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter because "Teachers must be absolutely secure in their knowledge of a subject if they are to be able to probe what students know and are learning about a subject" (Bradley, 1990, p. 1). They must make informed judgement calls about curriculum and strategies and must be master classroom managers. Teachers should make decisions about strategies based on expected outcomes: "Some learning objectives – learning new vocabulary in a language class or learning the sequence of key events in a history class, for example – might be best achieved through drill and practice or lectures" (Cohen, et.al., 1993, p. 4). Perkins (1993) outlines six priorities for teachers who teach for understanding. (p. 30-32). The first priority set by Perkins is to make learning long-term and thinking-centered. Teachers must realize that they will not meet some standard requirements they are asked to accomplish. Georgia science QCC’s and ITBS objectives both focus on discrete details that do not encourage understanding of the complex intricacies of scientific relationships. A teacher practicing teaching for understanding would not accomplish all the objectives outlined for him/her in these documents. On the other hand, the national standards in science focus on a few important concepts that students must understand to construct knowledge about scientific concepts. The second priority set by Perkins is to provide for rich ongoing assessment. Old paper and pencil assessments will no longer accurately assess student’s understanding of content related concepts. Assessments should be "analytic reflection of classroom life and their connection to students’ learning" (Cohen et. al., 1993, p. 4). Often, due to their inherent ability to demonstrate student understanding, projects and product-based assessments are utilized. Ongoing assessment occurs throughout the learning process; all members of the classroom are involved through peer and self-evaluations. The third priority set by Perkins is that learning should be supported by powerful representations. Students need experience with actual concepts, not discrete bits of information. One learning goal for eighth grade science is for students to understand the effects of humans on their environment. Traditionally, students read about the effects of human pollution on streams in a textbook and take a test where they list the causes and effects. If asked to explain how boating affects streams, it is likely that students would only be able to present a simplistic answer. In teaching for understanding, students would attempt to construct a deep knowledge about the interaction between humans and streams. Students would need first-hand experiences with streams to construct knowledge about this scientific concept. This topic may take four weeks with several on-site stream experiences including time for talk and investigation interspersed with research. The fourth priority Perkins sets is to pay heed to developmental factors. Teaching for understanding should take into consideration a child’s development but should not be limited by it. Perkins disagrees with Piaget’s developmental theories: "Again and again, studies have shown that, under supportive conditions, children can understand much more than was thought much more earlier than was thought" (Perkins, 1993, p. 30). Students should be pushed to think with increasing complexity, but teachers should be able to accurately assess the students’ level of ability. The fifth priority set by Perkins is to induct students into the discipline. Students must guide their own thinking. To do so, students must understand how the content area discipline works. In science, students must understand theories and laws, experiments and interactions. Students must understand the importance of replication and explanation. "School science programs should develop scientifically literate individuals who understand how science, technology, and society influence one another and who are able to use this knowledge in everyday decision making to help solve the problems of society" (Ogens, 1995, p. 2). The sixth priority set by Perkins is to teach for transfer. This priority is fundamental to teaching for understanding. Students must apply their learning to other areas of their lives for teaching for understanding to be successful. Students must be able to synthesize information from all content areas to formulate a deeper understanding of the world in which they live. Practitioners of teaching for understanding must make teaching a priority in
their lives. It takes more time to become an expert in a content field. It
takes more time to prepare for class and explorations in learning. It takes
time to balance standardized objectives with learning objectives. Practitioners
of teaching for understanding must have courage. Teachers must be ready to take
chances, to fail, and to be open to student guided learning. Teachers must
stand behind the concept that they are teaching in the manner that will best
encourage student learning. References Bradley, A. (1990). M.S.U. Education School is on a Mission: ‘Teaching for Understanding.’ Education Week on the Web. Retrieved September 1999 from database Education Week on the World Wide Web: http://www.edweek.org/ew/1990/10080031.h10 Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., and Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching
for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ogens, E. M., and Koker, M. (1995). Teaching for Understanding: An Issue-Oriented Science Approach. Clearing House, 68(6), 343-345. Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for Understanding. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 17(3), 8, 28-35. Retrieved September 11, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.exploratorium.org/ifi/resources/workshops/teachingforunderstanding.html Perkins, D. (1994). Do Students Understand Understanding? Education Digest, 59(5), 21-26. Retrieved September 11, 1999 from database (Searchaurus) on the World Wide Web: http://sas.epnet.com/sas/search_primary.asp?db=middle+search+plus Catchall
phrases such as active learning, hands-on learning, inquiry learning, and
cooperative learning would undoubtedly be used in the discussion of how a
teacher best helps his/her students learn. These phrases, however, do not get
at the heart of quality learning. They gloss over the need for deep student
understanding and focus on superficial activities. Teaching for understanding
is compatible with deeper (and sometimes harder) teaching styles.
Constructivism is the learning theory most closely aligned with teaching for
understanding. The greatest portion of this paper will examine the relationship
between constructivism and teaching for understanding. Problem-based learning
is a teaching method often employed by constructivists that is compatible with
teaching for understanding. Constructivism and teaching for understanding have
their roots in Vygotsy’s Sociocultural theory, which is based largely on
students’ construction of knowledge. Collaborative learning is offered in
contrast to cooperative learning. Finally, the connection between multiple
intelligence theory and teaching for understanding will be discussed. Teaching based on constructivist principles has its foundations in the theory that each person learns differently and constructs his/her meanings out of their personal experiences. Constructivist theory is concerned with creating the larger picture for the learner so that the learner can process small bits of information in the larger scheme of things. The primary goal of a classroom based on constructivist principles is to give students a true, real understanding of the key elements to be covered. "While it is true that, as learners, we all take in some information passively, the constructivist perspective suggests that even this information must be mentally acted upon in order to have meaning for the learner" (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, p. 27). Constructivism and teaching for understanding believe in students having a voice in curricular focus. Both believe that it is more important to understand a topic deeply rather than cover many topics generally; topics should be linked together in a ‘unit’ in both approaches. Learning for transfer is essential in both approaches. Basic to both is the concept that a teacher acts as guide and facilitator rather than lecturer; both require that practitioners make a judgement call about appropriate strategies and methods. Authentic assessment is important: "Authentic assessment, like learning, occurs most naturally and lastingly when it is in a meaningful context and when it relates to authentic concerns and problems faced by students" (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, p. 27). Constructivist principles assert that "the only tools available to a knower are the senses. It is only through seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting that an individual interacts with the environment" ( Lorsbach, 1997, p. 2). The relationship between constructivism and teaching for understanding could best be described as practical application of the theoretical. Constructivism lends educators the theoretical background for learning, but it is not always practical in a classroom setting: "Constructivism is not an instructional approach; it is a theory about how learners come to know" (Airasian, 1997, p. 62). Additionally, constructivism is viewed as too radical for the classroom. Teaching for understanding, which purports the same philosophy and ideals as constructivism, is more easily understood and implemented by educators. In teaching for understanding, a practitioner may choose to pursue problem-based learning. Students are given a real-world problem in which they need to formulate the best solution for the desired outcome. Basic facts and concepts are addressed in order to find the best solution to the problem. Teachers serve as guides; they offer some basic information and then direct students to appropriate resources for more. Students are expected to research the problem, learn about the basic features, and then apply this knowledge to the construction of a solution. Student constructed solutions are judged on preset criteria for their ability to provide supportive evidence, present a strong argument, and provide the most feasible solution to the problem. Both constructivism and teaching for understanding stem from the work of Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory offers strong support for teaching for understanding. "Social experience shapes the ways of thinking and interpreting the world …. The group is therefore vital to the learning process for all initiates who learn higher forms of mental activity" (Jaramillo, 1996, p. 136). Vygotsky envisions the teacher as a guide where students are learning by doing. Meaning can only be formed from experience. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development also correlates with teaching for understanding because of the belief that students knowledge can be lead further than their current developmental stage. Prior knowledge is important in forming understanding in both Vygotsky’s theories and teaching for understanding. Collaborative learning is foundational to teaching for understanding. Students and the teacher are on a mission to construct knowledge about content. Collaborative learning is widely different from cooperative learning. In cooperative learning, students work together to find the right answer and the teacher monitors the groups to be sure they stay on task. Cross (1998) states that: Collaborative
learning is a more radical departure [from cooperative learning]. It involves
students working together in small groups to develop their own answer – not
necessarily a known answer – through interaction and reaching consensus.
Monitoring the groups or correcting ‘wrong’ impressions is not the role of the
teacher since the teacher is not considered the authority on what the answer
should be. The teacher would be interacting along with students to arrive at a
consensus. (p. 3). Multiple Intelligence is a theory of knowing that is peripherally related to teaching for understanding. Currently, Multiple Intelligence is used as a ‘cute’ method for extension activities and not as a complete approach to knowing. If we are to teach for understanding, practitioners must accept and encourage multiple ways of knowing. Howard Gardner (1997) states that "Only when educators clearly state and agree upon these larger goals – to teach for understanding, to prepare individuals for the world beyond school, to develop each person’s potential fully, and to make sure that students master core knowledge" (p. 20). Practitioners of teaching for understanding will craft multiple ways for students to interact with the subject matter content.
References Airasian, P. W., and Walsh, M. E. (1997). Cautions for Classroom Constructivists. Education Digest, 62(8), 62-68. Brooks, J. G., and Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cross, K. P. (1998). What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? Paper presented at the American Association for Higher Education National Conference. Retrieved September 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aahe.org/nche/cross_lecture.htm Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple Intelligences as a Partner in School Improvement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-21. Jaramillo, J.A. (1996). Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and Contributions to the Development of Constructivist Curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-140. Lorsbach, A. and Tobin, K. (1997). Constructivism as a Referent for Science Teaching. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.exploratorium.org/IFI/resources/research/constructivism.html
Although standards-based curriculum and instruction is reflective of teaching for understanding, the standards themselves are more reflective of TFU. Limiting the discussion of educational standards to its relationship to curriculum and instruction blocks the exploration of the rich connections standards have to TFU. A curriculum is "the way content is organized and presented in the classroom" (National Academy Press 1996). Standards address not only what is taught but who should teach it, how they should be trained, how they teach it, and how the entire process should be organized. Standards do not support a singular curriculum; rather, they support the use of curricula appropriate to various purposes. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) "calls for less emphasis on facts and information and more emphasis on understanding concepts, for less emphasis on covering many topics and more emphasis on understanding fewer basic concepts" (Howe, 1998, p. 3). The NSES outline standards in six areas: science teaching, professional development for teachers, assessment, science content, education programs, and education systems. The first four are especially relevant to TFU. The collaborators who prepared the standards state that "Students cannot achieve high levels of performance without access to skilled professional teachers, adequate classroom time, a rich array of teaching materials, accommodating work spaces, and the resources of the communities surrounding their schools (p. 1). This echoes the description by McLaughlin and Talbert of TFU: "Teacher’s central responsibility is to create worthwhile activities and select materials to engage student’s intellect and stimulate them to move beyond acquisition of facts to sense making in a subject area" (Cohen, et.al, p. 2). The first area of the National Science Education Standards focuses on the teaching of science. The standards collaborators state that "teachers must have theoretical and practical knowledge and abilities about science, learning, and science teaching" (p. 28). In TFU, teachers must be subject matter and learning theory experts; teachers must also have multiple methods of teaching in their repertoire. In both TFU and the NSES standards, teachers are expected to understand scientific concepts deeply, use effective methods for students to learn, and to expect the students to construct knowledge for themselves. The second standard in the NSES focuses on professional development for teachers. "Becoming an effective science teacher is a continuous process that stretches from preservice experiences in undergraduate years to the end of a professional career" (p. 56). Teachers become life-long learners who are excited about learning in their content area and learning in general. Professional development would move from a focus on "technical training for specific skills to opportunities for intellectual professional growth" (p. 57). In an ideal TFU situation, teachers would be in a professional development school where they would collaborate with other professionals: "to connect with a larger community of practitioners and scholars, and to engage in the kinds of ongoing conversations… may be critical to knowledge growth in teaching" (Cohen, 1993, p. 155). The third standard that the NSES focuses on is assessment. In both the NSES and TFU, assessment is an ongoing tool used to measure student misconceptions, gauge student progress, and to guide further exploration. The method of assessment should be matched to both the learning process and the reason for acquiring the knowledge. Science content, the fourth standard of NSES, focuses on a limited number of content standards that all students need to know. The broad standards are ideal for TFU. The students can explore each standard without strict time constraints because there is a short list of relationships and concepts that students should understand. In "The Emperor’s New Education Standards," Popham asserts that "there is really no difference between instructional objectives and content standards" (p. 23). While his writing style is persuasive, his position is in conflict with the present NSES standards. He purports that standards continue to fail to be descriptive enough, continue to have overwhelming numbers, and do not have adequate assessments. The NSES content standards for eighth grade contain fifteen standards; fifteen standards are far from overwhelming. The NSES middle school standards are described in detail for teachers who need more guidance in an additional thirty-page chapter. The further guidance is not constrictive; rather, it suggests subordinate concepts that students should understand. The NSES standards have a separate standard strand devoted to appropriate assessments. The foundation of TFU is that students are actively involved in constructing their learning. The NSES "rest on the premise that science is an active process. Learning science is something that students do, not something that is done to them" (p. 1). Students must delve into complex problems to explore content and construct their own understandings. The discussion of standards begins to become muddled when teachers focus on state and local standards. While the national standards are broad and focus on conceptual learning, the state and local standards can become bogged down in particular details. Teachers practicing TFU must also meet these standards required of them. Windschitl (1999) speaks of this discrepancy when he addresses the challenges that constructivist teachers must overcome: "The final and perhaps most politically sensitive issue confronting teachers is that the diversity of understandings emerging from constructivist instruction does not always seem compatible with state and local standards" (p. 754). The concept of national standards is based on the theory that they are relevant to all Americans. Teaching for Understanding is based on the theory that all students should be able to learn through TFU. Presently, the state of Georgia focuses on state and local standards; national standards are thrown in as an afterthought. Teaching for Understanding is practiced by relatively few teachers. Teachers see both national standards and TFU as beneficial to their students, but many choose not to pursue them. But, what if these two concepts were practiced nationally? Would they continue to exist in their present form? Would the general public understand their premises and foundational practices enough to conserve their integrity? Apple (1993) states that curriculum "is always a part of a selective tradition, someone’s selection, some group’s vision of legitimate knowledge" (p. 222). If national standards and TFU became part of daily practice, would politicians preserve the integrity of the two? Or, would they use them as guidelines "essential to ‘raise standards’ and to hold schools accountable for their student’s achievement or lack of it" (Apple, 1993, p. 224). Apple goes so far as to say: "The national curriculum is a mechanism for the political control of knowledge" (1993, p. 232). While his statement seems exaggerated, his message should be a consideration for teachers. In teaching for understanding, students work on higher-order thinking to attain an understanding of concepts and relationships within a content area. National standards provide teachers with a starting place for these concepts and relationships. "Every teacher deserves a clear, manageable, grade-by-grade set of standards and learning benchmarks that make sense and allow a reasonable measure of autonomy" (Schmoker and Marzano, 1999, p. 5). Teaching for understanding and the National Science Education Standards mesh together naturally to achieve a positive learning environment for students. References Apple, M. W. (1993). The Politics of Official Knowledge: Does a National Curriculum Make Sense? Teachers College Record 95(2), p. 222 – 241. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/enc2327/2327.htm Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., and Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching
for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Howe, A. C. (1998). Turning Activities into Inquiry Lessons. Science Activities 34(4), p. 3. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Popham, W. J. (1997). The Emperor’s New Education Standards. Education Digest 63(4), p. 23. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://sas.epnet.com/sas/ Schmoker, M., and Marzano, R. J. (1999). Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education. Educational Leadership 56(6). Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/pubs/el/mar99/extschmoker.html Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan 80(10), p. 751 – 755. Curriculum design provides a framework through which student learning must occur. The design of curriculum will directly affect the outcome of student learning: "An individual’s level of skill and understanding depends pervasively on contextual support for high-level functioning" (Fischer 1998, p. 60). If student learning occurs through rote memorization, the outcome of that learning will be little more than a listing of facts. However, if the goal is to learn and think for understanding, the outcome should be the ability to transfer information into real-life issues. Teaching for understanding is promoted through the following curriculum design frameworks: constructivism, integrated curriculum, problem-based learning, the multiple menu model, and inquiry-based learning. Constructivist curriculum is organized around clusters of problems, questions, and discrepant events because "students are most engaged when problems and ideas are presented holistically rather than in separate, isolated parts" (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, p. 46). Constructivist curriculum presents a problem or event to students that focuses on a big idea from the content area. Students then investigate and discuss information to help them make sense of the topic. The students find the smaller parts and details themselves on their quest for understanding: "When concepts are presented as wholes… the students seek to make meaning by breaking the wholes into parts that they can see and understand" (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, p. 46). The active construction of knowledge through generative questions that constructivism seeks is fundamental to TFU. Integrated curriculum occurs within the subject area or throughout all the subject areas. In subject-area integrated curriculum, the content is not separated according to discipline or grade level. For example, middle grade science would not be separated into physical, life, and earth science. The three would be integrated into scientific learning and investigation. The focus is on providing "engaging experiences in which students encounter essential content in multiple and meaningful contexts in response to their own inquiry" (Eggebrecht, et. al., 1996, p. 1). Content is not separated through conceptual themes; rather, it is separated through a problem or project. Like subject-area integrated curriculum, TFU attempts to ask questions that would allow for deep student exploration. Both integrated curriculum and TFU provide for on-going assessment in multiple formats. Additionally, they both expect the teacher to serve as a co-inquirer: "We have chosen a path of integration as a means of creating a learner-centered institution, where both adults and children pursue useful knowledge" (Eggebrecht, et. al., 1996, p. 5). Through-subject integrated curriculum "begins with the idea that the sources of curriculum ought to be the problems, issues, and concerns posed by life itself" (Beane, 1995, p. 616). Curriculum is framed through issues related to student life or concerns and issues in the real world. Themes, such as living in the future, are identified. Then learning goals and activities that would lead to student understanding are identified: "Once the central theme and related activities are identified, an array of pertinent knowledge and skill is called forth naturally without attempting to retain subject-area boundaries" (Beane, 1993, p. 25). The school schedule would revolve around those goals and activities, and not around a certain subject area class period. This through-subject integration is reflective of TFU because students are constructing knowledge relevant to their lives; it is more sweeping than TFU because it attempts to integrate all school learning into a singular organizing problem or project. TFU teachers recognize that there are limits to its use and try to use it appropriately; through-subject integrated curriculum appears to apply a single curriculum framework to all the learning that occurs within a school. Problem-solving is used in one form or another in almost every curriculum framework. Students are asked to solve a real-world problem at some time each year in most classrooms. However, this problem-solving is often over-simplified and teacher-assisted. True problem-solving brings real problems into the classroom, and problems are presented in context to make learning authentic. Problems are often interdisciplinary and encourage collaboration and inquiry. Problem-solving requires "students demonstrate their learning by presenting a product and making a public presentation" (Seifert and Simmons, 1997, p. 92). Teachers have the roles of "collaborators, mentors, and coaches to create environments that promote meaningful learning among students" (Seifert and Simmons, 1997, p. 90). Problem-solving is one method that teachers can use to achieve TFU. Students who are working on a complex problem for weeks, constructing knowledge and preparing a product, are certainly learning for understanding. The multiple menu model developed by Renzulli (1997) is meant to give teachers direction in forming a coherent curriculum. It focuses on "balancing authentic content and process, involving students as firsthand inquirers and exploring the structure and interconnectedness of knowledge" (p. 52). While its intent matches the intent of TFU, the true goal of TFU gets lost through the use of a menu. Like the TFU framework offered by the Collaborative Curriculum Design Team at Harvard, there is a list of 6 questions or sections that teachers answer. The intent of both models is good; however, they mislead teachers into the belief that if they fill in all the blanks they will be teaching for understanding. Teachers must recognize that student construction of knowledge will lead classroom activities; the curricular plan cannot be laid out neatly before the unit begins. Inquiry based curriculum is viewed as both a method to establish curriculum and a method of presenting curriculum. Monson (1993) speaks of using the curriculum inquiry model to help teachers establish school curriculum. Teachers focus on what should be learned (sometimes referred to as outcomes) to make curricular decisions. The focus in on "using the model to encourage teachers to ask the ‘right’ questions" (p. 20). Like the curriculum inquiry model, TFU focuses on teachers constructing questions deliberately to lead to student exploration of the topic. Chiappetta (1997) states that teaching through inquiry "stresses active student learning and the importance of understanding" (p. 23). Chiappetta could have been speaking of TFU when he wrote "There is nothing like a good question to get students thinking critically about where they live" (p. 24). When done correctly, inquiry-based learning is an asset to teachers practicing TFU. All of the curriculum frameworks discussed above focus on complex questions and problems that students work on for days or weeks to construct understanding. Each framework has differences; however, these differences are important because teachers may need to apply each one at different times. There is not one best curriculum design for TFU. The curriculum design must only support a student’s search for knowledge, where the construction of understanding must be performed by the learner himself / herself.
References Beane, J. A. (1993). In Search of a Middle School Curriculum. Education Digest, 59(2), p. 24 – 28. Beane, J. A., (1995). Curriculum Integration and the Disciplines of Knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan 76(8), 616-622. Brooks, J. G., and Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chiappetta, E. L. (1997). Inquiry-Based Science. Science Teacher 64(7), p. 22 – 26. Eggebrecht, R. D., and others. (1996). Reconnecting the Sciences. Educational Leadership 53(8). Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/pubs/el/may96/eggebret.html Fischer, K. W., and Rose, S. P. (1998). Growth Cycles of Brain and Mind. Educational Leadership 56(3), p. 56 – 60. Monson, M. P., and Monson, R. J. (1993). Who Creates Curriculum? New Roles for Teachers. Educational Leadership 51(2), p. 19 – 21. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/enc2400/2400htm Renzulli, J. S. (1997). The Multiple Menu Model: A Successful Marriage for Integrating Content and Process. NASSP Bulletin 81(587), p. 51 – 58. Seifert, E. H., and Simmons, D. (1997). Learning Centered Schools Using a Problem-Based Approach. NASSP Bulletin, 81(587), p. 90 – 97.
When hands-on activities are completed in classrooms, they are often not tied directly to student learning. If a connection between the activity and the learning is made, the teacher usually states the connection at the end of the period as students are walking out the door. Activities are "simply inserted as special activities into the regular school day, then it remains business as usual for the students" (Windschitl, 1999, p. 752). Activities are viewed as discrete occurrences that have no clear relationship to the learning that students are working to accomplish. Activities are often used in classrooms as "an end in itself rather than a means to an end" (Rutherford, 1993, as quoted by Ogens and Koker, 1995, p. 343). Activities are often used because they are fun or because the school curriculum mandates a certain number to be performed: "Hands-on activities … are often selected because they are easy to do or fun rather than for their usefulness in developing conceptual understanding or higher-level thinking" (Ogens and Koker, 1995, p. 343). Teachers and students enjoy completing the activity, and class is not considered boring or dull. These inserted activities, however, serve no true educational purpose because they do not serve to extend student understanding. When the shift in curricular focus turns from the content to the student, teachers often confuse the use of activities with the practice of teaching for understanding. Instruction is improved when teachers believe that "students learn best by doing" (Schifter, 1996, p. 496). However, teachers miss the point if they believe that doing is understanding. When teachers lead activities, they often tell the students what to do in a set of prescribed steps. Schifter (1996) describes a teacher who moved from direct instruction to activity based instruction: "She never encouraged the children to explore for themselves; they used these [math manipulative] materials in just the ways she prescribed, in the ways that made sense to her" (p. 496). This point is crucial to teaching for understanding. Students must use activities in the ways that make sense to them. It will take longer for students to make sense of the materials, and students will make mistakes. But, if teachers want students to achieve true understanding, students must be given the time and opportunity to explore. The National Science Education Standards state that "Hands-on activities, while essential, are not enough. Students must have ‘minds-on’ experiences as well" (National Research Council, 1996, p. 2). Howe (1998) states: "We have also learned that the discoveries children make as they interact with materials may be interesting and important, but that those random discoveries do not constitute the kind of science program that leads to scientific literacy" (p. 3). Whatever the process, students must be engaged in thought before they are engaged with their hands. In teaching for understanding, activities are used to help students gain knowledge. Students in search of understanding will need experiences with concrete materials. Sometimes students will search out materials to test their ideas; sometimes teachers will suggest concrete experiences to help students achieve a cognitive breakthrough. In either case, activities are used to further student understanding, not discrete events reserved to certain days or certain points in the curriculum. Westbrook and Rogers (1996) found evidence to "suggest a link between the student’s involvement in developing laboratory activities and subsequent understandings…. Telling students what to think isn’t conceptually productive" (p. 268). Students cannot truly understand a concept from teacher description; students must use concrete experiences themselves to tailor understanding. There are many suggestions in the educational literature to help teachers take activities and turn them into teaching for understanding experiences for students. Howe (1998) suggests that science teachers start with an activity. Then, teachers should explore the mental processes that are necessary to understand the activity. Teachers should then craft a question that will encourage students to think; students should be allowed ownership of further questions. Students may or may not lead themselves to the hands-on activity. If the activity is essential to student learning, the teacher may need to redirect students to thinking that would lead to the activity. Another method of ensuring that students are "minds-on" during activities is to use real-world problems. Students are presented with a problem that could occur or is occurring in the world. Students are given the mission to find the best solution. Activities are used throughout the process to test the possible solutions. The final solutions are presented in some form to an audience. The problem presented to students is complex; students must work diligently to seek information. "Real-world problems, by their nature, are messy – involving uncertainty, complexity, and nuanced judgment" (Gordon, 1998, p. 391). The activities that students are involved in are connected to themselves, to the learning, and to the search for a solution. Activity-based instruction is more effective than direct instruction in keeping student interest because students are engaged in the learning process. But, activities are not sufficient to elicit student understanding. Activities should be completed when they are needed to increase student understanding. Students must first be engaged with their minds. References Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing Real-World Problems with Real-World Results. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), p. 390 – 393. Howe, A. C. (1998). Turning Activities into Inquiry Lessons. Science Activities 34(4), p. 3. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academy Press. Ogens, E. M., and Koker, M. (1995). Teaching for Understanding: An Issue-Oriented Science Approach. Clearing House, 68(6), p. 343 – 345. Schifter, D. (1996). A Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), p. 492 – 499. Westbrook, S. L., and Rogers, L. N., (1996). Doing is Believing: Do Laboratory Experiences Promote Conceptual Change? School Science and Mathematics, 96(5), p. 263 – 271. Windschitl, M. (1999). The Challenges of Sustaining a Constructivist Classroom Culture. Phi Delta Kappan 80(10), p. 751 – 755. Instructional time is of particular concern to teachers practicing teaching for understanding as there never seems to be enough of it. Three issues related to time are especially relevant in the discussion of teaching for understanding: the amount of time in a class each day, the way time is allotted in the curriculum, and the struggle to allow students time to come to their own understandings. In most schools, students "encounter the same number of pieces of unconnected curriculum each day, with little opportunity for in-depth study" (Canady and Rettig, 1995, p. 4). Classes traditionally last for 50-60 minutes each day. The traditional school schedule is not conducive to teaching for understanding. "When students are engaged in problem solving and are allowed to help guide their own learning, teachers quickly find that this approach outgrows the 50-minute class period" (Windschitl, 1999, p. 753). One alternative schools can explore is block scheduling. Block scheduling is much more conducive to teaching for understanding. Canady and Rettig (1995) describe several methods of block scheduling. In the most common method, students attend four blocks a day, where each block lasts about 90 minutes. The major benefit to block scheduling, they state, is that "some students need more time to learn than others" (p. 5). In block scheduling, students would have enough time at one sitting with one group of students to begin to construct understanding. Teachers practicing teaching for understanding cannot achieve as much coverage of the curriculum as can a teacher practicing direct instruction. Direct instruction does not call for much student talk. Classrooms are often dominated by teacher talk. This approach fits well with most school curriculums because curriculums are often overloaded with content to be covered. "Most curriculums simply pack too much information into too little time – at a significant cost to the learner" (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, p. 39). Since time must be devoted to student talk and exploration in a teaching for understanding classroom, TFU teachers cannot cover the material in the time allotted to them; they must be willing "to slow down the curricular clock" (Cohen, 1993, p. 96). Teachers must choose the concepts that are central to student understanding to cover during a school year. Teachers practicing teaching for understanding will have to defend their reasons why they did not cover the entire curriculum since their direct instruction cohorts are usually able to cover the entire curriculum. Teaching for understanding will be successful when teachers are aware of, but not guided by, the clock. Students must have time to create their own understanding. A teacher can explain a concept to students in ten minutes, while it may take students three days to construct the same understanding. But, the students who constructed their own knowledge will be much more apt to remember and apply their knowledge. Students must be allowed the time to make mistakes and to work through misunderstandings. "Teaching for understanding – no matter the shape or form it takes – means that students and teachers need more time together: time to make mistakes, time to go off on tangents, time to let ideas bubble and stew" (Cohen, 1993, p. 96). Brooks and Brooks (1993) talk about the importance of refraining from providing students the right answer. There are many reasons why teachers are inclined to provide the right answer to students, one of the more salient reasons being time: "The curriculum must be covered, and teachers’ theories and ideas typically bring closure to discussions and move the class on to the next topic" (p. 108). Brooks and Brooks (1993) stress, though, that it is necessary to give students time to make mistakes so that they can realize their own mistakes and correct themselves. The self-correcting, with time, will become more commonplace for students. Students need to be afforded wait time before answering a question. The time after a question is posed and before a student is called on to give an answer can be frightening for teachers. But, teachers recognize the importance of wait time for student understanding. If students are not given time to formulate ideas, "there’s no point in mentally engaging in teacher-posed questions because the questions will have been answered before they have had the opportunity to develop hypotheses" (Brooks and Brooks, 1993, p. 115). Teachers must learn to give students as long as needed to come to understandings after hearing a question. In considering wait time, teachers should identify the purpose of the question. If it is to elicit a yes or no response, wait time is not as important as it would be if students were expected to construct a complex answer. If a question is worth asking, it should be worth the time that it takes students to formulate deeper answers. Teachers practicing TFU have to decide that understanding is more important than coverage. Teachers have to give students the time they need to construct meaning in their own way. When this is done, students should be able to demonstrate a truer understanding of the concepts and be able to retain the knowledge they have constructed. Teachers must have administrative support if they slow down the curricular clock; administrators, therefore, must also see the need for teaching for understanding.
References Brooks, J. G., and Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Canady, R. L., and Rettig, M. D. (1995). The Power of Innovative Scheduling. Educational Leadership, 53(3), p. 4 – 10. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascd.org/pubs/el/canady.html Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., and Talbert, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching
for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Windschitl, M. (1999). The Challenges of Sustaining a Constructivist Classroom Culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10), p. 751 – 755. |
