The LfU principles of learning resonate to me and constitute another apparatus to anchor instructions. I particularly like the description of the three-steps process of the LfU model, that is motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement. I used these to create focus points of interest to designing an activity in math.
To foster motivation, the LfU approaches in creating demand and eliciting curiosity are interesting. My strategy at this step is that the activity should build upon students’ existent knowledge, and be just challenging enough to help the students to develop new knowledge by building on those that has already been established. Making sure to stay in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as defined by Lev Vygotsky. The students will most likely remain motivated if the information in the activity is within their ZPD and represents the next logical step in their knowledge construction. Also, the activity should be constituted of authentic tasks that would create a natural demand of the knowledge to be used.
To foster knowledge construction, the LfU model that is observation through firsthand experience, and reception through communication with others once again resonates with Vygotsky’s approach of ZDP. My strategy here will be to design experience through which the students would collect relevant data for concept formation, identifying what they know, what they don’t and/or need to know. Also, open-ended discussions and research should guide the students in constructing and consolidating new knowledge. Open-ended because students have their unique experience to world. Some constructivist may argue that there could be no ultimate, shared reality (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) and only has best “description”. And the best description is developed through collaboration and communication (Vygotsky, 1978). So, the objectives of the activity should not be predetermined and contents bounded.
To foster knowledge refinement, the students should reflect upon the inquiry process that contributed to their knowledge construction. During the activity, the students should acquire new knowledge, interact with their peers and face with ideas, explanations and information that are inconsistent with, or contradict, their prior knowledge and beliefs. Designing an activity that would confront these inconsistencies and contradictions will challenge students’ current cognition and reorganize their knowledge structure.
I would like to design such activity for each learning objective I teach in mathematics, but I don’t think that this is realistic. This brings me to the open issue “Although horserace comparative evaluation of instructional approaches is difficult in education, it is important to engage in summary evaluation that can start to quantify the effectiveness of LfU activities at achieving content and process objectives in terms of the time and resources used.” (Edelson, 2000). When I compare the mathematical contents I need to cover in one academic year for each Grade level, I personally don’t think that it possible to cover all contents in classroom with the allocated time. Technology could potentially help to do so if the students work off of class time. I am thinking of the pedagogical approaches of flipped learning.
References:
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning‐for‐use: A framework for the design of technology‐supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Sparks, K. E., & Simonson, M. (1999). Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology [AECT](21st, Houston, Texas, February 10-14, 1999).
Hi Vivien,
I appreciate the fact that you brought up and consider the Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. It is so important that we find that fine line of how to challenge students to the right extent. If not given enough, they may become bored and uninterested, and if something is too challenging they may get frustrated and give up. Hense, losing motivation.
I agree with you very much and think that we have too many curriculum outcomes to authentically cover them all the way we would want to. My teaching team and I have had many discussions on how we can best teach our students Math and what outcomes we think are the most relevant to this age group meaning that we spend more time planning and focusing on certain outcomes than others. We make it a point to at least touch on each one but they are not all taught with the same emphasis.
What do you and your colleagues do when you feel overwhelmed with the content in our curriculum?
Cheers,
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
We usually manage to cover the whole curriculum of each age group. However, the time spent teaching each unit does not always stick to what was originally planned. Sometime, the students need more time to practice and understand a content. Also, an activity or project could take more time than what we thought when planning for the lesson. We used to adjust our planning accordingly, making sure that all fundamental prerequisites for the Grade level above are taught; and the fundamental mathematics contents specific to the age groups are appropriately taught in a timely manner. That said, when we are running out of time, we also don’t teach all content with the same emphasis, and priority is giving to fundamental mathematics and skills. Unfortunately, because of the time factor, we do not always teach contents through authentic tasks and/or using a concept based approach. Some contents are identified to be conceptually taught with integration of computers; others are not, and are taught with a content based approach to teaching. We will like to teach all content through concept based approach but we find the time short to complete the syllabus.
Vivien