PSY 1200 Lecture : Chapter 16
28 May 2023
School
Department
Course
Professor
1 Schools
We discuss many aspects of schools throughout this book, but especially in the
chapters on cognitive processes and development. These chapters cover topics
such as the applications of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories to education,
strategies for encouraging children’s critical thinking in schools, applications of
Gardner’s and Sternberg’s theories of intelligence to education, and bilingual
education. Among the topics related to schools that we explore in this chapter are
contemporary approaches to student learning, education for individuals at
different developmental levels, educating children with disabilities, and the
impact of socioeconomic status and ethnicity in schools.
developmental connection
Cognitive Theory
Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories can be applied to children’s
education. Connect to “Cognitive Developmental Approaches.”
CONTEMPORARY
APPROACHES TO
STUDENT LEARNING
AND ASSESSMENT
Because there are so many approaches to education, controversy swirls
about the best way to teach children (Morrison, 2020; Powell, 2019).
There also is considerable interest in finding the best way to hold schools
and teachers accountable for whether children are learning (Brookhart &
Nitko, 2019; McMillan, 2018).
Is this classroom more likely constructivist or direct instruction? Explain.
Elizabeth Crews
Constructivist and Direct Instruction
Approaches
The constructivist approach is learner centered, and it emphasizes the
importance of individuals actively constructing their knowledge and
understanding with guidance from the teacher. In the constructivist
view, teachers should not attempt to simply pour information into
children’s minds. Rather, children should be encouraged to explore their
world, discover knowledge, reflect, and think critically, with careful
monitoring and meaningful guidance from the teacher (Bredekamp,
2020; Burden & Byrd, 2019). Constructivists believe that for too long in
American education children have been required to sit still, be passive
learners, and rotely memorize irrelevant as well as relevant information
(Johnson & others, 2018; Brookhart & Nitko, 2019). Today,
constructivism may include an emphasis on collaboration—children
working with each other in their efforts to know and understand (Joyce,
Weil, & Calhoun, 2018; Parkay, 2020).
By contrast, the direct instruction approach is structured and teacher
centered. It is characterized by teacher direction and control, high
teacher expectations for students’ progress, maximum time spent by
students on academic tasks, and efforts by the teacher to keep negative
affect to a minimum. An important goal in the direct instruction
approach is maximizing student learning time (Burden & Byrd, 2020;
Van de Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2019).
Advocates of the constructivist approach argue that the direct instruction
approach turns children into passive learners and does not adequately
challenge them to think in critical and creative ways (Sadker &
Zittleman, 2018). The direct instruction enthusiasts say that the
constructivist approaches do not give enough attention to the content of
a discipline, such as history or science. They also believe that the
constructivist approaches are too relativistic and vague.Page 549
Some experts in educational psychology believe that many effective
teachers use both a constructivist and a direct instruction approach
rather than using either approach exclusively (Parkay, 2020). Further,
some circumstances may require a constructivist approach, others a
direction instruction approach. For example, experts increasingly
recommend an explicit, intellectually engaging direct instruction
approach when teaching students with a reading or a writing disability
(Temple & others, 2018).
The whole art of teaching is the
art of awakening the natural
curiosity of young minds.
—Anatole France
French Novelist, 20th Century
Accountability
Since the 1990s, the U.S. public and governments at every level have
demanded increased accountability from schools. One result has been
the spread of state-mandated tests to measure just what students have or
have not learned (Brookhart & Nitko, 2019; McMillan, 2018). Many
states have identified objectives for students in their state and created
tests to measure whether students are meeting those objectives. This
