Social Reconstructivism – The implications and philosophy for education in Jamaica
Social reconstructivism emphasizes education for social transformation and reflects a theory of human development that situates the individual within a socio-cultural context. Individual development derives from social interactions within which cultural meanings are shared by the group and eventually internalized by individual. According to Richardson 1997, individuals construct knowledge in transaction with the environment, and in the process both the individual and the environment are changed. The subject of study is dialectical relationship between the individual and the social and cultural environment. Schools are the socio-cultural settings where teaching and learning take place and where cultural tools, such as reading, writing, mathematics, and certain modes of discourse are utilized. This approach stated Martin 1994; and O’Loughlin, 1995, assumes that theory and practice do not develop in a vacuum; they are shaped by dominant cultural assumptions. Formal knowledge, which is the subject of instruction, and the manner of its presentation are influenced by the historical and cultural environment that generated them. Myers, 1996 maintains that to accomplish the goals of social transformation and reconstruction, the context of education must be deconstructed, and the cultural assumptions, power relationships, and historical influences that tightened it must be exposed, critiqued, and, when necessary, altered.
While it may inform and influence practice, constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching; and translating theory to practice is both difficult and imprecise. Programs influenced by social Reconstructionist tradition attempt to help teacher education students deconstruct their own prior knowledge and attitudes, comprehend how these understandings evolved, explore the effects they have on actions and behaviour, and consider alternate conceptions and premise that may be more serviceable in teaching. Critical analysis and structured reflection on formal course knowledge and everyday practical experience are incorporated. Richardson, 1997 identified two factors that appear to affect the approach teachers and teacher educators take in forming constructivist settings – (a) extent to which the social is acknowledged as a critical factor in learning and individual cognitive development and (b) the specific content, subject matter, or discipline.
The overarching challenge constructivism presents to teachers and teacher educators is the formidable task of translating a learning theory into a theory of teaching, which in turn raises questions about what teachers need to know and be able to do. For teacher educators, among other tasks, this involves balancing the need to acknowledge the different discipline – specific requirements of teaching with the need to model constructivist methods in teacher education courses. Richardson (1997) also notes the limits of a perspective on teaching that values students’ understandings at the expense of “right” answers. Students’ knowledge becomes idiosyncratic; as different students may arrive at different understandings or interpretations of a concept, all of which are not equally appropriate.
Several authors cite the importance of teacher educators’ modelling constructivist approaches that engage students in interdisciplinary exploration, collaborative activity, and field-based opportunities for experiential learning, reflection, and self-examination. To derive culturally relevant and socially just pedagogy and practice from constructivist epistemologies, Martin (1994) and Vadeboncoeur (1997) urge teacher educators to deconstruct and scrutinize cultural assumptions that underlie various interpretations of constructivism to expose how social beliefs have influenced the development of theory and practices. Without such scrutiny, societal inequities and historical forms of oppression may be perpetuated in supposedly constructivist classrooms, and the very constraints on individual development constructivists seek to remove or ameliorate will be reinforced.
The social cognition learning model asserts that culture is the prime determinant of individual development. Humans are the only species to have created culture, and every human child develops in the context of a culture. Therefore, a child’s learning development is affected in ways large and small by the culture - including the culture of family environment - in which he or she is enmeshed. The implication of this belief for education in Jamaica is farfetched as our authoritarian system of learning does not facilitate an environment in which students are actively involved in their development. Our current education system dates back to the Industrial Revolution. At the time, our country needed to prepare its agricultural workers for factory jobs. So we built a school system that catered to the mass production mentality. This education system was efficient and measurable, and it churned out students who were ready to face the demands of our nation’s new economy.
In today’s age of instant information, the Industrial Revolution is a distant memory. So why is it that we still educate our students as if preparing them for a life of machine and assembly line work? Teaching by note and following rigid academic agendas does not cut it anymore. Today’s children need to learn the skills that will help them in today’s job market and today’s society.
Culture makes two sorts of contributions to a child’s intellectual development. Firstly, through culture children acquire much of the content of their thinking, that is, their knowledge; and secondly, the environment which provides a child the processes or means of their thinking, which according to Vygotsky is the tools of intellectual adaptation. Cognitive development results from a dialectical process whereby a child learns through problem-solving experiences shared with someone else, usually a parent or teacher but sometimes a sibling or peer. Marxist theory, states that the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations. Vygotsky would agree that we develop as humans through the ways we interact with those around us. His view of human nature fits with Marxist ideology. Human beings can only be understood within the context the time period and the part of the world in which they live. Human nature cannot be understood as never-changing and universal, but as always depending on its specific social and historical formation.
While it may inform and influence practice, constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching; and translating theory to practice is both difficult and imprecise. Programs influenced by social Reconstructionist tradition attempt to help teacher education students deconstruct their own prior knowledge and attitudes, comprehend how these understandings evolved, explore the effects they have on actions and behaviour, and consider alternate conceptions and premise that may be more serviceable in teaching. Critical analysis and structured reflection on formal course knowledge and everyday practical experience are incorporated. Richardson, 1997 identified two factors that appear to affect the approach teachers and teacher educators take in forming constructivist settings – (a) extent to which the social is acknowledged as a critical factor in learning and individual cognitive development and (b) the specific content, subject matter, or discipline.
The overarching challenge constructivism presents to teachers and teacher educators is the formidable task of translating a learning theory into a theory of teaching, which in turn raises questions about what teachers need to know and be able to do. For teacher educators, among other tasks, this involves balancing the need to acknowledge the different discipline – specific requirements of teaching with the need to model constructivist methods in teacher education courses. Richardson (1997) also notes the limits of a perspective on teaching that values students’ understandings at the expense of “right” answers. Students’ knowledge becomes idiosyncratic; as different students may arrive at different understandings or interpretations of a concept, all of which are not equally appropriate.
Several authors cite the importance of teacher educators’ modelling constructivist approaches that engage students in interdisciplinary exploration, collaborative activity, and field-based opportunities for experiential learning, reflection, and self-examination. To derive culturally relevant and socially just pedagogy and practice from constructivist epistemologies, Martin (1994) and Vadeboncoeur (1997) urge teacher educators to deconstruct and scrutinize cultural assumptions that underlie various interpretations of constructivism to expose how social beliefs have influenced the development of theory and practices. Without such scrutiny, societal inequities and historical forms of oppression may be perpetuated in supposedly constructivist classrooms, and the very constraints on individual development constructivists seek to remove or ameliorate will be reinforced.
The social cognition learning model asserts that culture is the prime determinant of individual development. Humans are the only species to have created culture, and every human child develops in the context of a culture. Therefore, a child’s learning development is affected in ways large and small by the culture - including the culture of family environment - in which he or she is enmeshed. The implication of this belief for education in Jamaica is farfetched as our authoritarian system of learning does not facilitate an environment in which students are actively involved in their development. Our current education system dates back to the Industrial Revolution. At the time, our country needed to prepare its agricultural workers for factory jobs. So we built a school system that catered to the mass production mentality. This education system was efficient and measurable, and it churned out students who were ready to face the demands of our nation’s new economy.
In today’s age of instant information, the Industrial Revolution is a distant memory. So why is it that we still educate our students as if preparing them for a life of machine and assembly line work? Teaching by note and following rigid academic agendas does not cut it anymore. Today’s children need to learn the skills that will help them in today’s job market and today’s society.
Culture makes two sorts of contributions to a child’s intellectual development. Firstly, through culture children acquire much of the content of their thinking, that is, their knowledge; and secondly, the environment which provides a child the processes or means of their thinking, which according to Vygotsky is the tools of intellectual adaptation. Cognitive development results from a dialectical process whereby a child learns through problem-solving experiences shared with someone else, usually a parent or teacher but sometimes a sibling or peer. Marxist theory, states that the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations. Vygotsky would agree that we develop as humans through the ways we interact with those around us. His view of human nature fits with Marxist ideology. Human beings can only be understood within the context the time period and the part of the world in which they live. Human nature cannot be understood as never-changing and universal, but as always depending on its specific social and historical formation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete