Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 1

Running Head: Constructivist Teaching - Reaching At-Risk Learners

Yvonne Dawydiak For Samson Madera Nashon ETEC 530 AS1 March 6, 2011

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 2 Having limited resources outside the classroom (or lacking such resources altogether), the only opportunity that some students have to become literate to learn to read or compute is in the classroom. ~Sheila Arens (Barley et al., 2002) Introduction A Constructivist teaching approach supports the internalization of student learning and is effective in promoting engagement and cognition (Im & Hannafin; Herman, 1995). At the same time, however, a one-size fits all approach to learning does not exist (Harris & Graham, 1994). This paper examines the benefits and pitfalls of a constructivist approach to teaching and learning with economically disadvantaged (or at risk) elementary school students1. It looks at the implementation of methods that promote active engagement in one classroom with an inner city profile2 reviewing the effects of this implementation on the teaching and learning environment. Background The importance of reaching out to at risk students has become clear to me over the past twenty years. During this time, I have worked at two inner city designated schools and have also encountered at risk students within the general population of schools with more diverse socioeconomic make-ups. Within each of these environments, I have found at-risk students present a variety of profiles, have varied needs but also have something in common: lack of control in their lives. At-risk students tend to have a strong external locus of control (Bowers, 1990; Dicintio & Gee, 1999) and as a result attribute success or failure to luck rather than personal effort and

For the purposes of this paper, at-risk students will be defined as students from economically and socially disadvantaged homes identified as at-risk through school-based team referrals and counseling services 2 The classroom is my own at a large, triple-track school in a mixed urban area within the largest school district in British Columbia.

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 3 achievement. Empowering students with control over their learning is an effective approach to reaching at-risk learners (Dicintio & Gee, 1999; Rogers in Herman, 1995). Since constructivist teaching affords opportunities for choice, challenge and social engagement (Turner & Meyer in Dicintio & Gee, 1999) it can orient students to an internal locus of control (Paynes in Bowers, 1990; Dicintio & Gee, 1999). A further hindrance to at-risk learners is a tendency for teachers to have lower expectations of their abilities (Panofsky, 2003). Heightened teacher expectations may help at-risk students develop a greater sense of control over their own lives by providing students with a sense of self-efficacy and, therefore, allow them to approach challenging material (Blumenfeld et al, 1994; Dicintio & Gee, 1999; Schwartz, 1987). Looking at the at-risk learner from a socio-cultural perspective illuminates the importance of the mediator within the learning equation. The teacher-mediator must provide a safe and secure learning environment (Schwartz, 1987) that, at the same time, motivates students (Brophy, 1987). An environment that is non-competitive in nature helps to reduce anxiety and promotes success. The teacher-mediator must also understand and address her own socio-cultural bias (Schwartz, 1987; Panofsky, 2003). Panofsky (2003) looked at the early school experiences of low-income learners and found that teachers tend to favour students whose habitus (or lasting dispositions) is similar to her own social field and that as a result, increasing disaffection from classroom activity was found among students in lower groups (Rist in Panofsky, 2003 p. 419). This disaffection took the form of acting out, resistance to work or apathy. Panofsky concludes that the habitus developed through this early schooling can lead to school as a lived experience of failure and rejections for some, of success and affirmation for others (p. 419)

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 4

Critical theorists see education as perpetuating the dominance of the rich, white, male. According to Richardson, (1989) controlled teaching perpetuates social class differences and leads to the maintenance of the status quo. At-risk students do not understand what is expected due to their non-middle class backgrounds and so do not understand the power relationships of the middle-class context of school. A failure to teach these students can keep them outside of the culture of power (Delpit in Harris & Graham, 1994 p.244) Like Harris and Graham, (1994) I believe that no one approach can solve the problems of society or of each individual child. A balanced, integrated approach to teaching is needed to address the needs of my students. While I may use a problem to motivate students and help them construct their own learning around a topic such as the water cycle, I might also work with a small group of students in the class to explicitly model, discuss and describe the process of evaporation, thus affording them the critical background knowledge to begin their own explorations. Knowledge Construction at Work According to Posner, Strike, Hewson and Gertzog (1982) students need to believe that a new concept is valid or plausible and is likely to meet their needs by being clear, understandable, generalizable and more useful than a previously understood concept. Further, an appropriate orientation to the concept and the elicitation of prior knowledge alongside the provision of opportunities to restructure ideas are essential elements of knowledge construction (Barley et al, 2002). Like Papert (1993) I am convinced that the best learning takes place when the learner takes charge (p. 214) and endeavour to take the role of facilitator in most aspects of my

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 5 teaching. In my classroom, particularly with science and technology topics, I embrace and implement constructivist methods. The table in Appendix 1 illustrates examples of units of study where I have taken a constructivist approach. Individual strategies are noted along with scaffolding and modifications to meet the needs of the learners in my classroom. I have included a column entitled Prior Knowledge and Barriers to help illustrate the factors that must be clearly thought out and potentially overcome so that effective learning can take place. In each of the examples given in Appendix 1, a constructivist approach to instruction consisting of the teacher as facilitator of authentic learning situations involving collaboration and active engagement is taken. Technology is also utilized frequently, integrated into classroom practice and accessible to students as needed. Such use has been shown to increase the engagement of at-risk students; improving grades, attendance and attitudes (Muir-Herzig, 2004). While none of these meets the explicit demands of Problem-based or Project-based learning (Blumenfeld, Krajcik, Marx & Soloway, 1994; Thomas, 2000), each uses aspects of these models scaffolded appropriately to meet the needs of the learners. Further, in each example, some explicit teaching occurs either in a whole group format or individual remediation. In every example, opportunities for reflection, collaboration and choice are found (Im & Hannafin). This balanced approach considers what should be taught explicitly rather than whether to teach explicitly (McIntyre in Barley et al., 2002 p.28). Further, in planning these activities as motivational opportunities, care and thought must be given to ensure that they support rather than undermine learning (Lepper & Cordova, 1992). Other considerations include the prerequisite knowledge needed for the concept, the life experiences and prior knowledge of the students and the specific mandated curricular objectives.

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 6 While I believe in constructivism, I am not blinded by my belief in the philosophy to the needs of my students (Shanahan in Harris & Graham, 1994 p.241). I recognize individual needs and differences and my role in supporting them and also understand and comply with curriculum mandates. When Knowledge Construction Doesnt Work While I believe that enrichment over remediation is the key to supporting at-risk students, it is my experience that some remedial teaching through direct instruction of key concepts and skills is effective if student buy-in is sought and the remediation is does not detract from other learning opportunities. A study conducted by Barbara Foorman (As cited by Arens in Barley et al, 2002) found that direct instruction supported a more rapid increase in reading skills than indirect instruction. Since young children need to develop a reading vocabulary and decoding skills in order to be successful readers these skills are fundamental. Another approach to remediation is peer tutoring. While this requires a great deal of support, training and development, it has been seen to improve achievement in low-achieving students in reading, math and spelling (Barley et al, 2002). I have used peer tutoring to good effect within a multi-age classroom and between buddy classes. While a great deal of preparation, frequent modeling and intervention is needed both tutor and tutee appear to benefit from the arrangement. A quote from a first grade student that illustrates the benefit of this approach: A visitor commented, Youre a great reader. You must have a very good teacher. The child replied, My teacher didnt teach me to read, my big buddy did! The benefit to the big buddy, a remedial reading student, is implicit in this statement.

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 7 Conclusion If we wish to embrace constructivist theory in the classroom, the system within which we work needs to be revised. Richardson (1989) found that students who have more stability the same teacher for extended periods of time outperform those with a more fragmented day or year. While the ideal teaching situation might afford the freedom to facilitate the acquisition of critical concepts and processes by following the individual interests and cognitive processes of the students (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyer & Miller, 2003) the reality is constrained by prescribed curriculum, set timelines and daily interruptions. A further benefit of teaching a group of students for more than one year is increased flexibility with curriculum delivery. I have been able, under this system, to cover content over two or more years and, in this way, meet the individual needs of my students with greater flexibility. A frequently named barrier to constructivist teaching is time. This approach helps to alleviate the pressure of having a single year to cover content and allows further integration and a deeper exploration of concepts. One pitfall of this approach is the transient nature of inner city or at-risk student populations. The potential deficit in specific content, I believe, is mitigated by the profound engagement and desire to learn they attain and, hopefully, transfer to their next school. Maintaining a safe and secure classroom environment while at the same time having high expectations is no simple task. It is tempting to excuse poor attention when a child has likely not had a complete breakfast or a good nights sleep or is quietly suffering from an emotionally draining experience at home. The skilled teacher needs to find adaptations and remediations to ensure success for all learners. Rather than be constrained by one teaching approach, an overarching philosophy of teaching and a great deal of flexibility and underlying theoretical understanding is of more benefit to her students.

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 8

Appendix 1 Table of Constructivist Learning Activities. Unit Subject Area3 Science Strategies Prior knowledge & barriers Students have all grown bean seeds in a whole class activity with a previous teacher. Adaptations Students are not instructed specifically how to grow the seeds, but classroom reading and discussion provide information needed to determine what plants need at various stages. A story pattern as well as use of sensory language is explicitly modeled and taught prior to (and during) students engaging in their own story writing; T. provides a story map illustrating the pattern (e.g. circle story pattern). Students may create own characters, setting and plot but must follow the

Tomatosphere: Problemstudents are Project k-12 challenged to Partner work grow some with peer tomato seeds support and and hypothesize input which set of seeds came from space based on their data collection and observation. Writing Language Whole Workshop: Arts language Students write instruction with an audience Individual in mind (a class work with of children one peer support or two years as needed younger than CSCL themselves). (computer supported collaborative learning)4

Young children do not necessarily have the prerequisite skill or knowledge to write an engaging, coherent story. Their stories tend to wander and consist of basic sentence structure, telling language vs. sensory or showing language.

While a subject area column indicates the core subject involved, each unit is an integrated one addressing content and skills in a variety of subject areas.
4

The writing process can be demanding and engender dread in some students (Harris & Graham, 1994 p.241). The computer identifies potential problems such as grammatical errors and misspellings by turning auto correct off, students are cued to potential problems and encouraged to reread, use a dictionary, consult with a peer etc. to improve their writing. This then allows the teaching conference to become more about content, form and style and less about conventions. Further, it affords students greater ease than paper and pencil copying and recopying of drafts.

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 9 given map Multiplication or repeated addition: students are challenged to discover the age of the salmon in our classroom in ATUs (accumulated thermal units). Making Words Spelling: Students are given a series of letters (all of which together make one big word) to physically manipulate and make sense of in order to 'make words. They experiment with letter-sounds, phonemes and meaning Structures Challenge: In groups of 4 or 5, students are asked to design and build a structure that is free-standing, fits their entire group and uses only the materials provided (one wooden dowel), newspaper and tape) Math Students understand that ATUs are a function of the daily temperature of the habitat being added up over time. Students do not understand the concept of multiplication beyond having seen the X symbol and equations Language Knowledge While students readily Arts construction share their through understandings with Collaborative each other, the activity group and is still somewhat shared teacher led as I select meaning the specifically targeted phonemes and lead mini-lessons Problem based learning Mixed ability groups Group brainstorm and discussion about what tools might help solve the problem (i.e. a calendar, a calculator, place value manipulatives, counters etc.). Reflection, sharing Teacher led minilessons to highlight specific phonemes and to model the effective building of words

Science

Problembased learning Collaborative problem solving

Students have all read Terrific triangle introducing them to some basic engineering including the strength of the triangle as a form in building.

In the past, I have not provided instruction in how to use the dowel to create newspaper rods for building, which has caused some groups to stall or become frustrated. This year, I modeled this process and found that groups demonstrated less anxiety and were able to focus more on the criteria of the

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 10 challenge and good building design. References Barley, Z., Lauer, P., Arens, S., Apthorp, H., Englert, H., Snow, D., Akiba, M., (2002). Helping at-risk students meet standards: A synthesis of evidence-based classroom practices. Washington: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from www.mcrel.org/PDF/Synthesis/5022RR_RSHelpingAtRisk.pdf Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: A collaborative model for helping teachers learn project based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94, 539-551. Bowers, B. C. (1990). Meeting the needs of At-Risk students. Research Roundup, 7 (7). Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. ERIC No. ED323665 Brewer, J. H., & Daane, C.J. (2002). Translating constructivist theory into practice in primarygrade mathematics. Education, 123, 416-421.Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_2_123/ai_n28970327/?tag=content;col1 Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45, 4048. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=61295027-0c3e-45a6-b2a59a4dafa9b106%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ %3d%3d#db=aph&AN=8524292

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 11 Dicintio, M. J. and Gee, S. (1999), Control is the key: Unlocking the motivation of at-risk students. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 231237. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)15206807(199905)36:3<231::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2Harris, K., Graham, S., (1994) Constructivism: principles, paradigms and integration. Journal of Special Education, 28(3) 233. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=69b56868-9d00-4540-9592b8bc68bbe64a%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ %3d%3d#db=aph&AN=9411301824 Herman, W. (1995). Humanistic influences on a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. California: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (ERIC No. ED393814). Im, J., & Hannafin, M. Situated cognition and learning environments: roles, structures, and implications for design. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/stafe/pellerin/staf15/situacogn.htm Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyer, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lepper, M.R., & Cordova, D.I. (1992). A Desire to be taught: Instructional consequences of intrinsic motivation. Motivation & Emotion, 16(3), 187-208. Muir-Herzig, R., (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education 42(2), 111-131. doi:10.1016/SO360-1315(03)00067-8 Papert, S., (1993). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. NewYork: Basic Books.

Constructivist Teaching Reaching At-Risk Learners 12 Posner, G.J, Strike, K.A, Hewson, P. W & Gertzog, W.A (1982). Accomodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education. 66(2), 211-227. Panofsky, C. (2003). The relations of learning and student social class: toward re-socializing sociocultural learning theory. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyer and S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 411 - 430) Richardson, V. (1989) School children at risk. Pennsylvania: Falmer Press (ERIC No. ED306343). Schwartz, W. (1987). Teaching science and math to at-risk students. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education (ERIC No. ED289948) Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-based Learning. Autodesk foundation.