EL MAPEO SOCIAL

The pedagogical approach that is used to create the learning environment has a significant impact on student learning. Global Connections was designed to be learner-centred and to involve

participatory, experiential approaches based on students’ interests and concerns. In this way, the young people participating in the program were envisaged as being able to construct their own knowledge about how they fit into the world as global citizens. Philosophically this design is aligned to postmodernism and an ontological position of relativism in that it acknowledges multiple ways of knowing and learning, grounded in social determinations of reality (Jarvis, 2001; Mayer, 2006; Duit et al. 2007). The ways that Global Connections’ pedagogies establish the learning environment and thereby set the conditions of knowledge generation fit within an epistemology of constructivism²². The wide variety of learning approaches²³ informed by constructivism all stem from psychological studies and learning theories that Piaget developed in the early 1900s. Piaget’s theories are based on the premise that students construct rather than absorb new ideas. Piaget believed that social

interaction was the power behind cognitive development and that interaction between children as peers was a more powerful stimulus to development than interaction between children and adults (Piaget, 1972; 1985). Under the broad umbrella of constructivism is social constructivism which is commonly identified with Vygotsky who was a contemporary of Piaget. Social constructivism positions social processes as the primary mechanism of learning. In Vygotsky’s view, children learn best from interacting with their surrounding culture. As learners work together on a variety of tasks,

21 The Oaktree Foundation is a development organisation that describes itself on its website as ‘dedicated to achieving incredible change for the world’s most marginalised, oppressed and disadvantaged...over 50 schools around Australia are currently participating in our innovative Schools 4 Schools program, which sees real relationships being created between Australian schools and schools in the developing world. Every week students passionate about social justice come together in their school, and are met by one of Oaktree’s trained mentors. The mentor facilitates a program of training, education and action....leaving students with everything they need to achieve really significant things for their partner school in either South Africa or Cambodia’ (Oaktree, 2011).

22 For a more detailed discussion of constructivism with reference to the way that it informs knowledge generation within the research processes associated with this project see section 5.4

23 A number of terms have been used for particular pedagogical strategies based on constructivism principles including Discovery Learning (Anthony, 1973), Inquiry Learning (Rutherford, 1964), Experiential Learning (Kolb & Fry cited in Kirschner et al, 2006) Problem- based Learning (Schmidt, 1998) and Social Constructivist Learning.

36

they develop strategies and teachers’ work should involve scaffolding the learning that children construct rather than instructing them what to do (Vygotsky, 1978). Social constructivism is the over-arching educational approach that most closely represents Global Connections pedagogy, but aspects of the program more specifically align with a critical social constructivism approach (see also 5.4.3 for elaboration of this approach). This refinement of social constructivism as a pedagogical approach fits with the socially critical purpose of education (introduced in section 2.3.2) and reflects the

transformative intent of the program – particularly the social action intentions of the second half of the program (see program description in section 1.5).

Constructivists of all kinds shifted the emphasis from ‘knowledge’ as a product to ‘knowing’ as a process (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002). Many writers and educators have developed and added to the extensive literature on constructivism learning since Piaget’s early work (Dewey, 1938/1997; Bruner, 1961; Glaserfeld, 1989; 1995; Steffe & Gale, 1995; Guba & Lincoln, 2005) and the philosophical reasoning and practical applications of constructivist teaching have been widely adopted by educators. Teachers as constructivists in classrooms encourage particular types of interaction with students including:

 Encouraging and accepting student autonomy and initiative.

 Using raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative, interactive, and physical materials.

 Allowing student responses to drive lessons, shift instructional strategies, and alter content.

 Inquiring about students' understanding of concepts before sharing their own understanding of those concepts.

 Encouraging students to engage in dialogue, both with the teacher and with one another.

 Encouraging student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions and encouraging students to ask questions of each other.

 Seeking elaboration of students' initial responses.

 Engaging students in authentic experiences that might engender contradictions to their initial hypotheses and then encourage discussion. (adapted from Brooks & Brooks,1999) The strategies represented in the list above support the philosophical intent of Global Connections which: begins with students’ own understanding and interests; engages students in primary sources;

builds the learning environment through authentic experiences; utilises collaborative work and social

37

interaction; provides scaffolding rather than instruction using facilitators rather than teachers. In these regards, Global Connections is supported by well established learning theory. This approach to learning is very similar to social inquiry models of learning that have been recognised as being an effective approach to social education²⁴ for a long time in the formal education system in Victoria.

The attributes listed above have strong resonance with the current principles²⁵ of learning and teaching (PoLT) that are a major focus of current departmental efforts to strengthen pedagogical practice (DEECD, 2011). Additionally, support for the approach was part of the original design of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VCAA, 2004). On the VELS website inquiry-based

(constructivist) approaches are supported in a number of instances including the potential they offer for integrating the different Domains and making connections in a meaningful context across

learning areas (VCAA, 2010b).

Although constructivism is widely supported in the literature and in practice, there are critics of the approach and particularly of ‘facilitator’ approaches replacing ‘instructor’ approaches to teaching (see for example Jenkins, 2000; Mayer, 2004; Handelsman et al. 2004; Kirschner et al., 2006).

However, while acknowledging that other learning theories and teaching practices compete with constructivism approaches, this section on pedagogy has been specifically developed to identify ways that Global Connections is consistent with existing education practice. In this regard, the program is compatible with constructivism/social constructivism pedagogical approaches.

However, there remains a strong tradition in secondary schools of education informed by a behaviourism epistemology and a modernist worldview characterised by didactic transmission of

‘factual’ segments of knowledge (Phillips, 2000). Behaviourism became the dominant theory of education and learning in the 1960s and placed the responsibility for learning squarely on the shoulders of teachers. It was widely considered that if teachers provided the right stimuli, good learning would result (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2000).

Behaviourist methods fit well with neoliberal influenced managerialism and behaviourism has been slow to move out of classrooms as a preferred teaching approach. Behaviourism is particularly evident within the discipline-based subjects that retain a strong emphasis on discrete units of knowledge suitable for marks-based assessment used to rank and order students with regard to future pathways of study (see section 2.3.4). Nevertheless, change processes are occurring and even within disciplines like science, which have a long tradition of dispensing ‘truth’ and ‘facts’,

24 See for example the social inquiry model of education developed by the Ministry of Education in Victoria in 1987 (Ministry of Education, 1987)

25 Six Principles of Learning are promoted as being foundational to good teaching and as creating conditions that promote student learning. The only principle that does not directly connect to the dot pointed attributes of constructivism above is a focus on assessment as part of learning and even then the elaboration of this principle advocates using assessment

‘constructively’ to construct learning as well as to determine what has been learnt (DEECD, 2011)

38

constructivism is actively promoted and is considered by some science education writers to represent pedagogical ‘best practice’ (see for example, Duit & Treagust 1998; Skamp, 2008).

However, this is not universally the case and Kirschner et al. (2006) present a strong case for

instructional approaches to science teaching and suggest that there is empirical evidence to support a conclusion that constructivism approaches are less effective at advancing scientific learning and

‘may even result in negative results with students ending up confused, with misconceptions, or with disorganised knowledge’ (Kirschner et al., 2006, p.84).

Contested or not, the learner-centred pedagogical approaches which underpin Global Connections are relatively common and many secondary schools²⁶ have at least some programs of study that actively promote facilitated, student-centred, inquiry-based learning of the type informed by a constructivism epistemology. Student-centred learning in these centres does not involve teachers abdicating their role but instead they play a role of facilitator rather than a dispenser of knowledge (Glaserfeld, 1995).

Within the recent discourse on constructivist pedagogy the Global Connections’ emphasis on

‘authentic’ participation that leads to positive social action has particular significance. The program is designed around the premise that authentic participatory activity is essential and also that

participation is enhanced by acknowledging the students’ concerns and interests (Wierenga et al., 2008). However, participation can take many forms and the level of engagement in participatory activity fits on a continuum that ranges from ‘bums on seats’ attendance to active political action (Wyn, 2008). Some writers have suggested that the starting point of students’ own concerns and interests rather than adult agenda is critical for moving students towards the more fully engaged end of the participation continuum (Aveling, 2001; Bessant, 2004; Doesburg, 2000; Taylor & Smith, 2000).

However, participatory activity, even when grounded in students’ interests, does not necessarily lead to the deep, reflective engagement and shifts of perspective that characterise transformative

educational experiences²⁷. In order to encourage a deeper and more enduring impact from socially-oriented learning, some writers suggest that a pedagogical approach enabling action on social issues is necessary. For example, there is a considerable body of literature about transformative pedagogy with regard to environmental education programs. Environmental education is inherently designed to be transformative in that it is predicated on the core principle that changed behaviour at all levels of society is required to appropriately respond to environmental challenges. Some writers and researchers in this field conclude that if changed behaviour is the goal of transformative education

26 For example, two of the schools involved in this research had Learning Centres that were dedicated to providing student-centred inquiry-based learning

27 See section 1.6.3 for a definition and section 2.3.3.2 for a discussion on transformative education.

39

programs, then it is necessary to engage students beyond providing them with knowledge or awareness ‘about’ social issues (Boulding, 1990; Hungerford & Volk, 1990; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Further to this, research indicates that extensive knowledge about issues on its own may work negatively to disempower young people if the feeling that the problem is ‘too big’ is created and becomes overwhelming (Hwang et al., 2000; Nagel, 2005). In a similar way, young people who are actively engaging in civic education programs that leave them feeling that they have little or no control over the process or outcomes can be counter-productive (Collin, 2008).

Global citizenship education, like environmental education represents a transformative rather than regenerative emphasis with regard to the way that students view their relationship with the world. In this regard, attempts over the last thirty years to implement action-oriented environmental

education might usefully inform considerations of ways to engage students in action oriented global citizenship education. Some environmental education writers suggest that only when action-oriented education ‘for’ the environment is included can programs be considered to be meeting

transformative intentions (Linke, 1980 cited in Gough, 1997; Huckle, 1993; Fien, 1993).

Stemming from the emphasis on action, pedagogical approaches have been developed which have as their primary focus the empowering of students to take positive action towards social change, for example ‘Action Competence’ (Jensen & Schnack, 2006). Action competence has its roots in health education and environmental education in Denmark, but its philosophy and processes are equally applicable to any education interested in critical examination of social issues leading to considered action towards change. Within this framework it is important to give students the opportunity to determine the nature of the desired change. Change that is predetermined does not represent

‘action’ as intended in a transformative approach (Courtenay-Hall and Rogers, 2002; Breiting and Morgensen, 1999).

Global Connections links strongly to this approach in that the action phase develops in parallel with the processes of communication between the young people in each country. The young people are encouraged to communicate about their issues with their peers in the partner country and thereby reciprocally develop understanding about appropriate action. In this way they are ‘Thinking globally and acting locally’, and come to realise that global issues are part of local concerns and local issues are part of global concerns (Wierenga et al., 2008).