Situative and other sociocultural perspectives on learning construe knowing as fundamentally social Discourse to Enhance Formative Assessment and Practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and view participation in discourse, for example, as primary characterization of learning and knowing. In this sense, enhancing participation in discursive practices is learning and not simply something that supports learning. In this article, authors draw on Hickey, et. al.' sociocultural views of classroom discourse, which view social interaction as integral to meaning making and learning (e.g., Mercer, 2004; Wickman & Ostman, 2002; Wortham, 2005), but also consider the understanding and skills of individuals. Such scholars characterize the act of completing individual assessments as another form of participation in a trajectory of discursive practices that relate understanding in social situations to that which is “gathered” in more individualized contexts (often inevitable in formal education). Such learning is a trajectory of participation in discursive practices in which students must engage the text and inscriptions of assessments in meaningful ways. This practice necessarily draws upon other, less formal, discursive representations. Hickey,et.al (2005) considered this latter type in their analyses, which then refined across three stages with the goal of scaffolding students’ abilities to navigate more formal discursive representation such as those on achievement tests.
It is believed that the enactment of a curriculum is socially constituted and sustained by individuals within participatory contexts that shape students’ and teachers’ engagement (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, & Cain, 1998)....
... middle of paper ...
...actice supports learning of a ‘descriptive process’. It can be said that student and teacher engagement in collaborative activities support and constrain meaningful understanding, which are considered in terms of a trajectory of participation in and across conversations and multilevel assessments, as well as individual learning gains on formal classroom examinations and standards-oriented external tests. Analyses of complementary formulations of genre concepts—as social action—suggest that participation in social forms of scientific engagement supports both learning and subsequent performance in more formal contexts. The findings obtained in this study suggest design principles for integrating the formative functions of discursive feedback with the summative functions of traditional assessment, through participation in different forms of rhetoric based discourse(s).
Elwood, J. (2006). Formative assessment: possibilities, boundaries and limitations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 215-232, doi:10.1080/09695940600708653
Connected to this theme is the development of a shared, lived experience, where students and teacher are involved in an ongoing negotiation of curriculum. In the first 13 chapters, Paley’s central focus is to develop a learning community within the safety of the classroom. In the second half of her book, Paley illustrates how the combination of these two themes in turn offers an opportunity for what we call an opening up of the definition of curriculum. This review is an analysis of these three themes within the organizational framework of Paley’s book. The theme of children and teachers as co-creators of curriculum is established in the first chapter when Paley says, “Each year I wait to be reawakened by a Reeny … something to ponder deeply and expand upon extravagantly” (p.10). Reeny responds to this call by asserting herself early on as a curriculum leader in Paley’s classroom. Because children themselves are curriculum makers and leaders, curriculum cannot be imposed upon the learner. Ultimately, this opening up of the discussion of what curriculum means is established by Reeny in the last lines of the book when she announces: “But I’m thinking, why don’t you stay and we’ll talk about it. Don’t fly away. See we can keep talking about it, okay?” (p. 99). It is in Reeny’s utterance that we understand—the curriculum conversation must necessarily begin with students’
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/obl/files/The%20role%20of%20assessment%20in%20a%20learning%20culture.pdf
A prospective reader casually thumbing through the pages of Alan Cromer’s Connected Knowledge: Science, Philosophy, and Education, would probably expect the book to explore how science and the philosophy of science should inform educational practices and pedagogy. Indeed such an exploration takes place, but the reader might be surprised to find that it is in the form of a vehement crusade Cromer wages against constructivism with science and a scientific habit of mind as his sword and shield. In battle like style, Cromer starts on the defensive, trying to debunk the postmodernist interpretations of modern physics often used to declare science and thus all other academic pursuits “subjective.” After defending his own territory (Cromer is a physics professor at Northeastern University), Cromer goes on the offensive against those he deems largely responsible for constructivist thought--the “highly fragmented” sociological disciplines. First he sets out to demonstrate that by using a scientific habit of mind he can create a social theory of human behavior valid across a wide range of cultures and social contexts. In other words, even in the social sciences, everything is not relative. Then he aims to use the tools of psychologists, maze rats and intelligence testing, to discredit constructivism in favor of standardized education.
There are many theories surrounding education and what lies within our biological functions that can effect how we learn as human beings. Our book, Creating Literacy Instruction For All Students, by Thomas Gunning goes more in depth of these approaches and theories. Behaviorism is a theory that “stresses observable responses to stimuli”. This approach includes conditioning good behaviors and eliminating unwanted behaviors (Gunning, 4). Another major theory surrounding learning is cognitivism, which is “based on the proposition that mental processes exist and can be studied (Gunning, 4). Under this theory of congnitivism lies Piaget’s theory that each child develops through constructivism, in building their own understanding of the world and the realities within it. Similarly, Vygotsky stresses the importance of social constructivism in how social encounters can change cognitive development (Gunning, 5). The cognitive behavioral approach is to help the students realize their potential by showing them what they must to do be successful. This is important to help the students stretch beyond their conceived notions of failure they may have gained from previous academic issues (Gunning, 6). Under this cognitive behavioral approach lies both the top-down and bottom-top strategies. Finally, the reader response theory challenges the child to construct meaning from the written text. To engage and understand, ...
As indicated by studies from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, students fall short when it comes to critical thought and reasoning (Jasparro, 86). Because of the current classroom practices of rote memorization, “students are generally deeply habituated to passivity and low-level performance,” reports Linda Elder, executive director for the Center for Critical Thinking, who promotes the integration of critical thought into current curriculum. “Most [students] have no conception of what discursive reasoning is. Most have spen...
The article “Critical Literacy in the Classroom” (2005), was written by Ann S. Beck, an English teacher at Camosun College in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. This article explains that it is imperative for teachers to understand the concepts of critical literacy as well as to achieve a critical teaching approach. The author’s main focus was to address and define the importance of teaching critical literacy as an educational practice by approaching dialogue (social act), reflection (critical literacy), and textual critique in the classroom. In brief, these concepts are of main importance to be use in the classroom for students to become active participants in their own meaning-making experiences and to change the way we think about education.
Shepard, L. A. (2000) the role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher. 29 (7) 4-10.
In a social constructivist view on learning the brain is a complex, flexible, ever changing organism that reshapes itself in response to challenge (Abbott & Ryan, 2001). Constructivism view is that knowledge is obtained and understood through a student’s mental framework (Abbott & Ryan, 2001). Learning is not a passive process but it is a deliberate and progressive process that deepens meaning (Abbott & Ryan, 2001). The student does not only reply on a teachers lectures but also on their interactions with the environment around them (Abbott & Ryan, 2001). In this view it is important that the teacher sees the student as the centre of teaching endeavours, by assisting them to obtain information they can integrate into their already known knowledge. There are many ways that a teacher can assist their students, one example is Scaffolding. Scaffolding is where a teacher provides students with just enough help in order to complete the tasks themselves, then over time decreasing the amount of help so that a student can master this themselves.
Some scholars argue that teaching is an art while others categorize it as a science, regardless of the inclination, education is undeniable a part of the humanities because knowledge is closely attached to our human experience. Throughout this course, we have been studying philosophers like Dewey and Freire who recognized not only the importance of individual experience but also accepted society as a frame for education. Understanding that teaching and learning are social processes and identifying a duty to be agents for social justice, how can we, as future educators, build a community of learners and encourage a collective perspective? For philosophers Nel Noddings and Ann Margaret Sharp the answer was clear:
Although somewhat vague compared to summative assessment, several key features help frame formative assessment. First, formative assessment happens while learning is taking place as opposed to at the end of content delivery. Rather, this is considered “assessment for learning,” (Chappuis, J., Stiggins, Chappuis, S., & Arter, 2012, pg. 5). The format is formal or informal, but the outcome in its use is an in-progress check of what students know and what students do not know. Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, and Arter (2012) define formative assessment as, “Formal and informal processes teachers and students use to gather evidence for the purpose of improving learning,” (pg. 24). Second, this type of assessment is used to make instructional strategy adjustments. If student learning did not happen via one instructional method, the teacher must make the necessary accommodations to reteach the concept or skill. Next, it is not only used by teachers for feedback on instruction, but formative assessment is also used for providing timely, descriptive feedback to students and extends to allow for student self-assessment (Chappuis, J., Stiggins, Chappuis, S., & Arter, 2012; Popham, 2008). Formative assessment provides opportunity to provide specific feedback to students on where they are currently in their learning, and where they should be headed.
Curriculum is important being it’s the underlying factor that plays a role in determining ones growth, achievement and success. The majority of curriculum con...
Through assessment students and teachers are able to determine the level of mastery a student has achieved with standards taught. Both formative and summative assessment should be purposeful and targeted to gain the most accurate data to drive further instruction (Ainsworth, 2010). While this syllabus does a good job of identifying the need for both formal and informal assessments, the way in which this is communicated does not provide enough detail for understanding. Simply listing assessment types does not give any insight into how these assessments fit in the learning process of this course. While some of the assessments mentioned could be common assessments chosen by the school or district to gain insight into the effectiveness of instruction, the inclusion of authentic assessments is most beneficial to students and demonstrates learning in a context closer to that of a work environment (Rovai, 2004). Unfortunately, this particular course, according to this syllabus, relies heavily on quizzes and traditional tests and essays to form the bulk of assessment opportunities. While other activities, such as formative assessments, journaling and discussions are mentioned as possible avenues for scoring, they are given a very low percentage of the overall grade. This shows that they are not valued for their ability to show progression and mastery. If this is indeed the case, this puts the students as a
Vygotsky’s social constructivism theory (Kearns, 2010) advocates that students play an active participant role in their own learning and I firmly believe that children are not just empty vessels waiting to be filled with just my personal knowledge. Children’s diversity in learning can bring new perceptions to even a well-balanced curriculum; to this end my approach to curriculum planning is flexible and adaptable as children’s needs and abilities are constantly changing (Arthur et al.
Often time’s curriculum is thought of as a set of rules and standards given to teachers to follow. However, more goes into a curriculum than just what meets perceived. Teachers are not just the vehicles from which a curriculum flows but in a sense, they embody it. There are four main different avenues in which curriculum is constructed. It’s constructed through government agencies, publishers, school systems, and teachers. It can be defined as “content, a set of specific educational plans, a changing series of planned learning experiences, or as everything that learners experience in school” (Van Brummelen, 20). A curriculum is strongly built behind a worldview. “A worldview is a comprehensive framework of basic convictions about life. Worldviews