The lesson I created for Social Justice 12, a course which aligns itself easily to constructivist epistemology.In creating the criterion evaluation rubric for my lesson, I wanted to keep it simple and integrate the common elements of Constructivist Instruction Model (CIM), the Predict-Observe-Explain Model (POE) and the Conceptual Change Model (CCM) as well as what I believe to be the basic tenets of constructivism.As a result, the rubric roughly mimics the constructivist process of learning.

For the most part, I created the lesson in tandem with the rubric, enabling me to be continually cognizant of the constructivist goals outlined by the rubric criteria I had set. Specifically the process helped me to keep the lesson focussed on the learner as one of my main objectives was to create a lesson in which students will realize the lesson objectives through their own active learning.  What follows is a personal assessment of my lesson using the criterion evaluation rubric I created.

This lesson actively engages students in the learning process.

Constructivism requires that learning be an active process. In order to engage students in their own learning, there must be a motivating factor or sense of purpose; this is explained as the ‘orientation’ stage in the Driver & Oldham CIM explained in Matthews (1994). Posner et al. (1982) also contend that there must be a motivating factor for students to accommodate new information. In the case of CCM, however, the motivation is very specifically dissatisfaction with existing cognitive structures (Posner et al., 1982).In this lesson, learners are active agents throughout the lesson. The topic of discrimination is engaging as students are likely to view it as both personally and socially relevant and authentic.

This lesson allows students to use existing cognitive structures to make predictions about new concepts and build new knowledge.

All three models, CIM, POE and CCM align with the constructivist premise that learners rely on existing cognitive structures when confronted with new knowledge (Matthews, 1994; Posner et al., 1982; White &Gunstone, 1992). In Step 1 of the lesson, students are asked to activate their prior knowledge by constructing a personal definition of discrimination before they are confronted with definitions from outside sources.

This lesson is designed to perturb the learner with an ill-structured problem or new information creating cognitive dissonance.

For a learner to actively seek to accommodate new knowledge, a cognitive conflict must be established between their existing knowledge and the new knowledge with which they are confronted (Posner et al., 1982). In Step 2 of the lesson, students are likely to encounter different definitions of discrimination from their own when they view their peers’ definitions in the “Discrimination Wiki” and the legal definition from the BC Human Rights Commission linked within the lesson.

This lesson provides opportunity for the learner to resolve cognitive conflicts by restructuring ideas, accommodating new information and/or forming new cognitive structures.

The process of integrating new information with existing cognitive structures is essential to the constructivist paradigm of learning.Driver & Oldhamas outlined in Matthews (1994) explain this process in CIM as ‘Restructuring of Ideas’;  Posner et al. (1982) in their explanation of CCM call it ‘accommodation’; and White &Gunstone (1992) describe it as reconciling discrepancies. To accommodate this aspect I provided two explicit opportunities for students to work through their cognitive conflicts. First, students were given the option to revise their personal definitions of discrimination following exposure to alternative definitions. Second, after the lesson, students are to reflect on their current understanding and self-assess as to whether or not they achieved the objectives of the lesson.

This lesson provides opportunity for learners to clarify and share their knowledge with peers and/or the teacher (possibly resulting in further cognitive conflicts).

Social constructivists assert that learning is a social activity; I agree. As a result, there are several opportunities for students to share their knowledge with peers and the teacher throughout the lesson. In Step 2 of the lesson, students are asked to compare their understanding of the concept of discrimination with their peers’ definitions; students are also given the option of providing feedback to their peers. In Step 3, students participate in a discussion forum where they read and respond to the ideas of others. The teacher could also offer feedback through these activities.

This lesson allows for multiple approaches and responses.

There is not only one way of knowing. This lesson and its objectives allow for multiple approaches and responses to the learning activities.  For example, in Step 3 students can demonstrate their application of knowledge by posting and analysing a video, an article or a personal story.

This lesson provides opportunity for the learner to apply and reinforce new knowledge.

CIM, POE and CCM all advocate for students to have opportunity to apply and test new knowledge. Students are given this opportunity in Step 3 where students are asked to find or create an example of discrimination and analyse it in reference to new knowledge, the legal definition of discrimination.

The lesson provides appropriate resources to scaffold learners if needed, including access to peers and teacher for feedback.

While constructivism states that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own learning, they do not do so in isolation. It is the role of the teacher and the learning community to provide support and guidance for individual learners. In this lesson, technology affords both the teacher and peers opportunities to provide feedback. The wiki activity and the forum activity both allow students and teachers to interact and provide feedback to facilitate individual and group learning.

This lesson supports metacognition by encouraging learners to self-assess and reflect on their learning experience.

Through the process of constructing knowledge, individuals not only learn new information, but more importantly, they gain a deeper understanding of how they learn. Metacognition is promoted throughout this lesson, but is most directly supported in Step 4, where students are asked to specifically reflect on how their understanding of the lesson’s concepts have changed from the beginning of the lesson to the end.

Conclusion

The process of creating the rubric, the lesson and this reflection was in itself a constructivist journey. The creation of the rubric and the lesson were authentic tasks designed to test my application of constructivist theories, especially the instructional models of CIM, POE and CCM. This reflection encourages metacognition, for while I have been writing it, I have been making connections between my lesson and my rubric criterion as well as other aspects of constructivism I have learned throughout my experience in this course.

Overall, this assignment introduced me to a very effective process of creating constructivist lesson plans. Just as students should be aware of assignment criteria to keep them focussed and on task, it is equally important for teachers to remain cognizant of their objectives when creating lessons. Consequently, this activity is one which I will likely continue with in my professional practice in the future.

References:

Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching. New York: Routledge, chapter 7.

Posner, G.J, Strike, K.A, Hewson, P. W &Gertzog, W.A (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a                theory of conceptual change. Science Education. 66(2), 211-227.

White, R. &Gunstone, R. F. (1992).Probing Understanding. London: The Falmer Press, chapter 3.