Constructivist Theory of Knowledge in the Curriculum

Constructivist conjecture of Knowledge in the Curriculum1. The Constructivist Theory of KnowledgeThis theory has emerged from psychological theories around human teaching and friendship acquisition. indoors this theory, the main preposition is that populate construct association and infer meaning to concepts by experience. It is a theory which is princip each(prenominal)y credited to jean Piaget, who used scientific data to prove that the theory was of some validity. In relation to education, constructivist theories have had a signifi arouset impact on pedagogy, even though constructivism is non a pedagogy in and of itself.Within constructivism, the idea is that people respond to cutting intimacy by versedising it and accommodating this knowledge into their existing internal schema, the personal constructs of meaning and understanding that are unique to them. This explains one of the blusher facets of constructivism as applied to knowledge acquisition, that learners le arn individually, and their knowledge is individually constructed and, arguably, unique to them. Therefore, discipline is derived from sensory input from which the learner constructs knowledge. This seems rather simplistic, exclusively runs counter to a number of previous theories, particularly the long-standing belief that knowledge is customary, because instead the learner essential engage with the world or their social context or environment in some way, in order to learn.In constructivism, theorists posit that learners learn as they learn, in that while they are attainment knew knowledge they are scholarship on m whatever levels, ab fall step to the fore more than just the facts they are acquiring1. For example, if the student is learning about contrasting materials, such as wood, plastic and metal, they are learning about the nature of these substances, besides similarly they are expanding their vocabulary, learning what these substances look and feel like, and, are al so processing examples of how these materials are used, and why. Applying this knowledge to their social world allows them to test their new understandings and to see what elements of their environment are constructed out of these unlike materials. The saying of meaning is a mental process which is enhanced by physical activities2, but cognitive exponentiation with learning is key. In constructivism, learners are central to the learning process, not the knowledge they are required to acquire. acquirement is both contextual and social, and so in primary science, for example, collaborative activities and experiments engage learners socially as intumesce as individually. Learners need time to learn, but they also need opportunities to review and revisit the new knowledge, as it becomes internalised and takes its place as a relieve oneselfing block for further learning.Primary science teaching appears to equip rattling well with this approach to understanding learning, because i t builds from initial concepts and exploratory activities into more multiplex activities. As time progresses, the plan is designed to revisit knowledge on several occasions, and to put that knowledge into practice. How far this kit and caboodle for primary science, however, may depend on a number of factors3. This does seem to be a very constructivist approach, and while it contrives well in primary science, this author wonders if there are other subjects which office not so easily suit constructivist explanations of learning. As a practical subject, science at all levels allows students to take more control of their learning experiences4 and to engage fully with new knowledge5. However, this theory also acknowledges that learning requires a degree of motivation, and this may be the biggest challenge to any educator6.2. Discuss the issue of cash advance in a childs learning in the context of a critique of the materials and properties strand of the bailiwick curriculum and the associated QCA schemes of work.The notion of progression builds upon issues of constructivism by starting what appears to be a cascade of learning through directed activities. The guidance for the materials and properties strand of the curriculum, particularly espoused in the QCA schemes of work, seem to start with an initial encounter with key concepts, such as the nature of materials, through focused activities7. For example, children in reception to Year 1 dexterity be asked to identify types of materials, such as glass, wood, metal, and discuss the ways in which these are used, such as, windows are usually made of glass, or doors are usually made of wood. This knowledge is then built on later on in their learning process by learning more in head about the properties of these different types of materials, through new information, and testing that information to learn about the properties under investigation. For example, learning about stretchiness would allow students to unde rstand both the concept and the kinds of materials which display this airscrew, whilst also acquiring the new knowledge of different terms and their application.So progression of learning requires the student to understand what a property is, and the kinds of words used to describe and to explore it. The learning process challenges the student to ask questions about different properties, and then, through these answers, to apply these concepts to other materials and their properties. Progression is thus based on the student engaging at all stages, and only once the student has grasped initial concepts base they move on to the testing of those concepts in more and more detail. However, the challenge of basing a curriculum and set schemes of work on this concept of modernized learning, in this case, is that all students do not learn at the same rates, and therefore the progression of the split may be limited to the speed of the slowest student rather than responding to individual learning. However, this approach also allows students to not only revisit knowledge but to simultaneously signpost their learning8, which may help build confidence, self-esteem and self-efficacy. The continuous programme of study that is the National Curriculum aims to ensure progression from primary to utility(prenominal) school, in particularly, is less marked and more straightforward, although this is not the case for many educators. However, in principle, within science, the curriculum allows students to acquire the unplumbed understandings necessary to advance to more complex science and scientific investigation.3. How does the re information of concepts of induction affect a teachers approach to progression and assessment of pupils understanding in Sc1?Concepts of evidence is a fundamental scientific principle in relation to the acquisition of any kind of real scientific knowledge and understanding. Every part of the progression from S1 requires that students can recognise and work with evidence acquired from practical activities9, such as information gathering, observation and recording of these observations, and experimentation10. Experimental and investigative work in this subject, at this level, requires students to engage in the following kinds of activities planning investigations deciding what to change, what to keep the same and what to measure deciding whether a fair semblance was made and using results to draw conclusions11. These require students to have internalised what constitutes evidence in scientific studies. However, in science, cognition and learning, and in particular, reasoning, is characteristically different than in other subjects, because this reasoning is carried out using evidence. nurture to work scientifically relates to a rage of concepts of evidence, which might include the purpose of observation, and how to carry out observation for specific reasons, recognising what constitutes a scientific question that can practical ly be investigated through trustworthy scientific processes, the need to carry out multiple measurements, and the need to develop through these new skills in carrying out measurement processes, and different ways of recording data and presenting findings. It also involves understanding different kinds of experiments and the kinds of results that can be gained from these. However, these kinds of concepts must be learned from engaging in practical activities, and in relation to progression from Sc1, understanding the principles of scientific activities must be demonstrated through carrying out the activities and working through these to execute specific goals. This runs somewhat counter to the notion of individual learning, however.However, it is not enough that students can carry out the activity required, because they need to be able to see beyond establishing facts and look for alternative explanations or interpretations to expatiate their evidence. Not only must they be able to frame their investigations in the right language, and bring the right kinds of questions12, they also need to be able to learn how to make robust measurements, with support and input. What this demonstrates is that it is not enough for students to learn superficially how to do an experiment, and how to record results. For students to progress, they need to be able to discuss observations and inference, questions and areas of investigation, and the different ways to produce evidence to explain relationships or causality. And the literature does show that even young children can develop these kinds of capabilities, if they are properly supported. Therefore, the modern approach to science education where knowledge acquisition appears to be fully constructivist, particularly in relation to testing of ideas and principles, appears well suited to students developing key scientific skills, which at the next stage of their education form the basis for deeper understanding and manipulation of more complex and challenging tests and variables. Yet it could also be argued that to teach almost by rote, by following the schemes of work set out by the QCA and DfES is also to stifle individuality in learning, because not all students leave behind grasp these concepts at the same time, or even in the same ways. experience is about universal laws and the testing of theories13, but in order to allow students to develop a true understanding of elementary principles14, perhaps it is time for educators themselves to reconsider what are their concepts of evidence for readiness to progress to the next level.ReferencesGibson, J. (1998). Any questions any answer? Primary Science Review, 51, 20-21.Gott, R. and Johnson, P. (1999) Science in schools times to pause for thought? School Science Review81(295) 21 -28Gunstone, R.F. and Mitchell, I.J. (2005) Metacognition and Conceptual Change Teaching Science for Understanding 133-163Hollins, W. Whitby, V. (1998). Progression in Primary S cience. majuscule Britain David Fulton Publishers.Johnson, P. and Gott, R. (1996) Constructivism and Evidence from Childrens Ideas. Science education 80(5) 561-577.Osborne, J. and Simon, S. (1996) Primary Science Past and Future Directions Studies in Science Education 26 99-147Paivi, T. (1999) Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university International Journal of Educational Research31 (5) 357-442.QCA/DfES (2008) http//www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/science/sci3c/sci3cq2?view=getAccesed 23-10-08Reinhartz, J. Beach, D. M. (1997). Teaching and instruction in the Elementary School Focus on Curriculum. New Jersey Prentice-Hall.Shepardson, D. P. (1997). Butterflies and beetles first graders ways of beholding and talking about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9) 876-889.So, W. M. W. Cheng, M. H. M. (2001). To facilitate the breeding of multiple intelligences among primary s tudents through science projects. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 2(1), Article 4. ready(prenominal) at http//www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v2_issue1/sow/. Accessed 23-10-08.Watts, M., Barber, B., Alsop, S. (1997). Childrens questions in the classroom, Primary Science Review, 49, 6-8.White, R. and Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London Falmer Press.1Footnotes1 Paivi, T. (1999)2 Shepardson, D. P. (1997).3 Gott, R. and Johnson, P. (1999)4 Gibson, J. (1998). p 20.5 White, R. and Gunstone, R. (1992).6 Reinhartz, J. Beach, D. M. (1997).7QCA/DfES (2008)8 Gunstone, R.F. and Mitchell, I.J. (2005)9 Hollins, W. Whitby, V. (1998)10 So, W. M. W. Cheng, M. H. M. (2001).11 QCA/DfES (ibid).12 Watts, M., Barber, B., Alsop, S. (1997).13 Osborne, J. and Simon, S. (1996)14 Johnson, P. and Gott, R. (1996)