Book contents
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Acknowledgement of Country
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction Understanding the learner to inform educators’ implementation of pedagogical approaches to transform learning
- Part 1 Pedagogies for all
- Part 2 Engaging pedagogies: making the curriculum come alive for all learners
- Part 3 Empowering pedagogies: 21st-century skill development and 22nd-century futures thinking
- 15 Understanding the world through transdisciplinary inquiry
- 16 Citizenship education: a relational approach
- 17 Flipping constructivist pedagogies to enable the equal intensity of depth and breadth in learning
- Index
- References
17 - Flipping constructivist pedagogies to enable the equal intensity of depth and breadth in learning
from Part 3 - Empowering pedagogies: 21st-century skill development and 22nd-century futures thinking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2024
By
Book contents
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Acknowledgement of Country
- Teaching to Transform Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction Understanding the learner to inform educators’ implementation of pedagogical approaches to transform learning
- Part 1 Pedagogies for all
- Part 2 Engaging pedagogies: making the curriculum come alive for all learners
- Part 3 Empowering pedagogies: 21st-century skill development and 22nd-century futures thinking
- 15 Understanding the world through transdisciplinary inquiry
- 16 Citizenship education: a relational approach
- 17 Flipping constructivist pedagogies to enable the equal intensity of depth and breadth in learning
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, we will inquire into a common definition of constructivism that acknowledges cognition (learning) not as a passive process of receiving information, but as an active process of making meaning, a mental construction that reframes our existing understandings from our different experiences (Olusegun, 2015). In addition, we will explore the historical roots of constructivism to identify common themes in these models through examining insights from key theorists, its strengths and possible limitations. Furthermore we will present a rationale for a ‘flipped PBL’ constructivist pedagogy that provides learners with discourse through authentic problems that enable situational and ongoing cognitive motivation by way of mastery of key concepts and the application of conceptual knowledge to a range of contexts. The uniqueness of this pedagogical approach employs flipped learning experiences to build expertise, depth of learning and problem-solving across a range of contexts to ensure breadth of application. To gain a deeper understanding of this approach, we will also look at some examples of its application in a primary and secondary context and examine the implications for its use.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Teaching to Transform LearningPedagogies for Inclusive, Responsive and Socially Just Education, pp. 272 - 287Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Recommended further reading
Hattie, J. & Zierer, K. (2017). 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning. Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, M. (2019). Developing Expert Learners: A Roadmap for Growing Confident and Competent Students. SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Alwis, W.A.M. & O’Grady, G. (2002). One day-one problem at Republic Polytechnic. Paper presented at the 4th Asia-Pacific conference on PBL. December 2002, Hatyai, Thailand.Google Scholar
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2022). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdfGoogle Scholar
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Clark, R. & Harrelson, G.L. (2002). Designing instruction that supports cognitive learning processes. Journal of Athletic Training, 37(4 Suppl.), S152–S159.Google ScholarPubMed
Fogarty, R. (1999). Architects of the intellect. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 76–8. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED430683Google Scholar
Fosnot, C.T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (2nd ed.). Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
Hays, G. (2019). Developing a new measure for conceptual knowledge: The concept retrieval technique. Erasmus University. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/116394Google Scholar
Hendry, A., Hays, G., Challinor, K. & Lynch, D. (2017). Undertaking educational research following the introduction, implementation, evolution, and hybridization of constructivist instructional models in an Australian PBL High School. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures (A. Rosin, trans). The Viking Press.Google Scholar
Popkewitz, T.S. (1998). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the social administration of the individual: Constructivist pedagogy as systems of ideas in historical spaces. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 535–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Project Zero. (2010). Research Projects: Visible Thinking. Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://pz.harvard.edu/projects/visible-thinkingGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, H.G., Van der Molen, H.T., Te Winkel, W.W.R. & Wijnen, W.H.F.W. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based, learning does work: a meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D.H. (2012). Learning Theories an Educational Perspective (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Schwandt, T.A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructionism. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (pp. 292–331). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Slavin, R.E. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Slavin, R.E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tawfik, A.A. & Lilly, C. (2015). Using a flipped classroom approach to support problem-based learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(3), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, 86(3), 161–72.Google Scholar