Human Cognition and Implications for the Constructivist Classroom

Posted on by drentsminger

In light of Brain Awareness Week (March 13-19), I thought I would write about the brain!

With the development and increased usage of the FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), I find myself reading more and more findings regarding human cognition and neuroscience. It has also become a major interest of mine. That being said, while analyzing study findings, I find myself in a state of excitement, discovery, and uncertainty. The more I learn about human cognition, the more I question current best practices, educational trends, teaching strategies and approaches, etc.

In the context of direct instructional guidance as it relates to human cognition, learning is defined as a change in long-term memory. Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006) posit:

The aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned. Any instructional recommendation that does not or cannot specify what has been changed in long-term memory, or that does not increase the efficiency with which relevant information is stored in or retrieved from long-term memory, is likely to be ineffective. (p. 77)

Based on my readings and knowledge regarding human cognition (which is admittedly limited), I find that these cognitive researchers often sound very definitive when talking about learning. However, for me, questions continually abound regarding their claims or evidence. For instance, can Kirschner et al. safely conclude that absolutely no learning has occurred if nothing has changed in long-term memory? Again, for me, that sounds very definitive.

Kirschner et al. further posit that controlled experiments almost always demonstrate that when students are dealing with novel information, they should be explicitly shown what to do and how to do it (sounds somewhat like lots of hand-holding). If they are not, students may experience an excessive cognitive load that is detrimental to learning.

As an avid and vocal proponent of project-based learning, I always get a little nervous while reading and analyzing cognitive studies that decry constructivism or constructivist teaching approaches. I’m not denying the results of these cognition studies or the plethora of literature reviews concerning human cognition that suggest that direct instructional approaches are more effective and more efficient.

However, with well-designed and well-planned project-based learning, students are provided with a real-world problem and (often) a pathway or guidelines to follow in order to solve the problem (therefore, possibly alleviating the “problem-solving search” that has been shown to deplete working memory). Well-designed PBL is highly structured and organized by skilled teachers. Students are guided through the journey as they endeavor to meet project deadlines, secure resources for their projects, practice and prepare for presentations in front of authentic audiences, and receive and reflect on critical feedback. When done well, and when students are truly engaged in these endeavors, though it may not be considered a “direct instructional approach” or “direct instructional guidance,” PBL can have profound learning impacts on students, right? I’ve seen it happen. Or, is what I’ve seen simply increased levels of engagement and excitement regarding learning activities? Is what I’ve seen simply students engaging in meaningless activities that look good, but will not transfer to long-term memory alterations? Cognitive studies often rock educational foundations. As such, these are turbulent times for me as I grapple with this information.

Human Cognition and the Case for Early Childhood Education.

Also, as we become more informed about human cognition, I can’t help but think about its implications for early childhood education. Based on what I’ve read and what researchers have found, a substantial amount of information stored in long-term memory is essential for continued and future successful learning. If this is the case, I don’t see why early-childhood education is not mandated (I’m sure most people will resort to the argument that there’s not enough funding for it). I live/work in Illinois. Students don’t have to go to school until they’re 6-7 years old (first grade). In underserved communities, it’s highly likely that if students are not attending school during those foundational years, they are not building experiences necessary to form and fill long-term memory. By the time some students come to us at 5 or 6 or 7 year olds, they may have missed a copious amount of opportunities to build their long-term memory.

 

What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear from you! Feel free to follow/share/leave a comment!

Transparency -> TRUST -> Social Capital -> the Community Allowing a Certain Degree of Risk-Taking

Posted on by drentsminger

I consider myself somewhat of an innovative risk-taker when it comes to education. I love working with/along side fellow educators who challenge the status quo and break free of the traditional mold. As I expand my horizons and continue working with educators from other districts and other states, I occasionally see overwhelming levels of trepidation from educators and school officials when it comes to making changes or “rocking the boat.” In addition, some of the pushback comes from the communities in which these districts are located (which could be the reason for the trepidation on the part of the educators and school officials). In certain districts, I’ve attended informational sessions for parents regarding potential changes being made, where these sessions have turned into full-blown debates. At times, these debates have gotten so heated the educational administration has had to end the meeting in order to “cool down” and reconvene at a later time.

Many people think that because they’ve gone to school or that their kids are in/have gone to school, they’re experts in the field (example: politicians who have no teaching or administrating experience in education crafting and implementing policies). I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the assertion (or similar sounding assertions) “Back in my day…”, “I went to school during the golden age of American education…”, or “This is the way we used to do it.” Unfortunately, there never really was a golden age of American Education. As Ravitch points out, there never was a time in American education when everyone succeeded in school. American students were never very good at taking standardized tests (like the Long-Term Trend NAEP) compared to other nations. I wish more communities and policy makers would understand this or at least be aware of it.

I see the formula in the title as a way of possibly encouraging the community and education officials to allow teachers and administrators a certain degree of risk-taking. As school representatives, we must be transparent concerning our intentions, and our intentions must be aligned with what’s best for students. Transparency helps build trust with the community (schools decide how they want to go about being transparent. Will it be through an active social media presence or through more traditional channels like a newsletter?) When the community is constantly informed/aware of the amazing things going on in school, this helps build trust. A simply Google search of “social capital” reveals, “social capital is the network of social connections that exist between people, and their shared values and norms of behavior, which enable and encourage mutually advantageous social cooperation.” Again, being transparent will help build trust which then helps lead to mutually beneficial social relationships and cooperation between the school and the community. Ideally, this synergy will help parents, community members, and other stakeholders understand that innovation and change aren’t bad. Both are hard and may not always work. However, as times changes, our schools must keep up.

In the end, the formula helps demonstrate the notion that we’re here doing this job to help kids. Trust us. We want what’s best for students. We may not always get it right (especially the first time). But, that doesn’t stop us from wanting what’s best for kids. Innovation failure will not deter me from wanting what’s best for kids.

It’s No Longer A Matter Of “If”, But “When”…

I think about challenging the status quo and innovative strides in education in the context of our current reality regarding technology and automation. I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist or a doom and gloom preacher. However, being as prescient as possible, many have predicted what awaits students when they leave school in the next decade and beyond, and I can’t stop thinking about it. Some of it is scary. The notion that robots will be taking over may be somewhat farfetched. Yet, the reality is, many of the occupations we know of today will change and some will be completely automated. That being said, major shifts in the education system may be needed to prepare students to work seriously with technology. We continually hear of the push concerning the preparation of students to succeed in the 21st century, but for many, school looks a lot like it did 10, 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years ago. We can’t sit around and deny that it will happen. It’s already happening. It may take longer than some futurists predict. But, it will happen. Innovative strides in education must occur. We must remain current. I’m not advocating for teachers, administrators, or schools to abandon things we know work. However, we may need to broaden our scope when considering the notion of preparing students to survive and thrive in a world that is rapidly changing and shows no signs of slowing down.

Thoughts?  Feel free to comment/share/and follow!

Idealistic vs. Realistic Expectations Regarding Standardized Testing

Posted on by drentsminger

I read an interesting blog post the other day regarding the controversial practice of using standardized test scores to determine school/teacher effectiveness and success. If you’ve read anything from Diane Ravitch, you’ve probably heard similar notions before. And, of course, whenever PISA results are released, people/schools/countries are clamoring to compare themselves. Also, for my school, PARCC testing begins next week.

I completely agree with Ravitch and other educators who suggest that there are faults within a system that puts too much emphasis on standardized measures and indicators for determining success. It’s impossible to glean all information simply from a school’s standardized test scores.

Idealistically, there’d be no standardized measures used to judge the effectiveness of teachers and schools. These tests don’t accurately demonstrate all that schools and students can do. There is so much more beyond test scores. We’ve all heard the stories about students who were bad test takers, but turn out to be successful later as lifelong learners. The success of these individuals is often attributed to skills/knowledge/abilities/etc. that can’t be measured (or aren’t measured easily). As Eisner said, “Not everything that matters can be measured, and not everything that is measured matters.” I remember reading that line and then discussing it in my doctoral coursework. It was empowering.

However, realistically, that’s not the current state of education in which we all serve. My superintendent requires deliverables. Our locally elected school board wants to see numbers, and good numbers at that (or at least numbers trending in the positive direction). When my superintendent feels the pressure to put up good numbers for the school board, he then requires the school principals to do what they must in order to achieve those numbers. The principals then work with their staff towards achieving and/or maintaining those numbers. Teachers then work with students and their parents to bring this goal to fruition. It’s like a top-down funnel that continually perpetuates the focus on standardized achievement scores.

Like many have said, this systematic change requires brave educators and change agents to step up/rise up against the system. We’ve seen some brave educators do such things, and often lose their employment as a result. We’ve seen parents and students “opt out” of standardized tests. For some parents, there were consequences for such actions. Realistically, we operate in a system that requires compliance regarding standardized achievement scores.

I’m not commenting on whether this is right or wrong. I’m just stating the truth. Yet, I do wonder what would happen if we took a different approach. Much of what I’ve read and researched proposes that the educators or parents/students within the system make the changes. I completely see the validity in that approach. I’m simply wondering if there is some way we can also educate our locally elected school board members (who serve the community) regarding the issues associated with high stakes, standardized measures of success? An approach like this may have been attempted before. If so, I’d like to learn more about it. But, what would this approach look like? Could students serve as the channels through which information regarding standardized achievement tests is shared with school board members? So many questions.

Of course, this type of adjustment on the part of the school board could have potential economic implications. These scores are used as indicators of how well a school is doing. Realtors use this information to determine if certain areas are “good” areas for homeowners. For many realtors, “the schools are good” is a major selling point. You don’t ever really hear them say, “this school is one of the most creative schools around,” or “this school’s approach to project-based learning is terrific!” Realtors aren’t educators, so it may be unrealistic to expect them to know these things. But, as the school board looks out for the best of the community, they want schools that perform well. At this point in time, performing well means obtaining high scores on standardized achievement tests. It’s a vicious cycle. Can it ever be broken or changed?

Welcome!

Posted on by drentsminger

Welcome!

What is the purpose of education? What approaches to teaching result in the most learning? What types of teacher evaluation systems truly benefit the teacher, and subsequently, the school community? What are the tried and true safety protocols that maximize the safety of the school community? What type of educational programming will ensure the inculcation of 21st century learning skills? Is there a classroom management system that best suits an entire school building or community? With a packed curricular schedule, what’s the best way to ensure social emotional learning is occurring in the classroom/school? These highly debatable questions can’t be tackled with one, clear, definitive answer. To me, that’s one of the reasons why it’s so important to talk about them.

I’m J.R. Entsminger. I serve as an educational administrator in Chicago Heights, Illinois. Before serving as an administrator, I was a junior high reading/Language Arts teacher.

Interests:

  • Current educational trends
  • STEM education
  • Cognitive neuroscience
  • Leadership
  • Writing
  • Reading (Graphic novels are my favorite!)
  • Researching
  • Music/The Arts
  • Remodeling/Updating my home
  • Social Media
  • Fitness
  • Food

I love talking and learning about education. Read my posts, comment if you have suggestions/answers/ideas, and let’s dialogue about how to best serve our most precious assets: children.