Charles Helm-University of Minnesota
Tanetha Grosland-University of Minnesota
Geary Crofford-University of Oklahoma
Abstract
The Holmas Scholar Program, through its institutes, conferences,and other activities, supports the development of new scholars of color in education. Specifically, the Summer Institutes promote “Communities of Practice” among these individuals, not unlike the Cherokee concept of gadugi, in which members of a group work together to achieve a common goal, not just for the individuals’ benefit but also for the group, and society as a whole.
Introduction
My name is Geary Don Crofford. I am a Holmes Scholar and graduate student and assistant at the University of Oklahoma in the Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education. I am seeking a doctoral degree in Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum in Science Education. I taught 3-12th grade science and mathematics for almost 20 years and earned a master’s degree in biology before undertaking PhD work at the age of 41. My research interests include professional development for inquiry-based science instruction, National Board Certification, and American Indian education. I am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. The director of the education department of a large American Indian tribe in a midwestern state recently related to me an informal and unpublished study carried out by a former superintendent of a school within the tribal boundaries. The school is small, rural, and comprised of pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade levels, and is a dependent district with a student population that is almost 100% American Indian. Over several years, the superintendent surveyed fourth-graders with regard to what they wanted to be when they grew up. Their answers ranged across the spectrum of vocations, from teachers and professional athletes to firefighters and cowboys. When the students were asked the same question four years later as eighth-graders, their responses were mostly limited to one of two; chicken pullers at the nearby food processing facility or line workers at the pie and cake factory in the same town.
This revelation was startling and disconcerting to me, especially coupled with the fact that American Indian student college attendance rates are low and drop-out rates are high, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors (Demmert, 2001). The discovery propelled an investigation of the role of science education in addressing American Indian student college attendance and retention. In fact, American Indian students are the least represented group in STEM majors and careers, both in sheer numbers as well as proportionally (Demmert, 2001).
Adequate science education, including development of critical thinking skills, for students before entering higher education is a crucial foundation of America’s technological and intellectual strength, which arises from its talented workforce trained in STEM majors (Babco, 2003). A possible approach for addressing the documented educational deficit among American Indian students is exemplified by the Native Science Connections Research Project (NSCRP) at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. The NSCRP project attempts to integrate relevant cultural knowledge and language into an inquiry-based science curriculum, and has demonstrated some initial success (Gilbert, 2008).
My personal experience after attending a summer science institute at the state’s flagship institution was that my students (mostly American Indian) responded well to inquiry-based science instruction in the form of learning cycles. Inquiry-based science instruction refers to science instruction that is focused on critical thinking and problem solving while emphasizing the need to evaluate teacher strategies to ensure that they align with the learning styles of particular students (Tomlinson, 2004). Greater student enthusiasm for science occurred in my third through eighth-grade classes, along with increased student comprehension, especially during the concept development and expansion/application phases of the learning cycles. This was particularly true when relating a concept to something from the students’ real-world environment and interests, while emphasizing the organization of the concept amongst their prior knowledge and applying it in a different context. This led, in part, to the school adopting the Carolina Biological Company’s Science and Technology for Children (STC) program. Science instruction-and specifically more inquiry-based science instruction-began to occur at the school. The faculty was encouraged to modify and adapt the STC curriculum program kits to reflect more of a true learning cycle teaching approach. In addition, this school has received national awards and recognition, in particular for the superintendent’s “psychomotor”, activity-based teaching and learning approach for its American Indian students (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1995). It was this anecdotal success and progress in my own school and classroom that prompted me to apply to the doctoral program in science education at the university offering a program of study based on inquiry, and specifically learning cycle, science education. My desire to learn more and play a role in helping Cherokees and others progress through their schooling also eventually led to my participation in the Holmes Program.
Traditional Cherokee culture and society has developed and lived by some fascinating and seemingly prescient concepts over the centuries. For instance, although all Cherokees had equal rights, their society leaned toward being matriarchal. Women had extraordinary influence in politics and family life (Perdue, 1998). In fact, a Cherokee woman could divorce her husband by simply placing his clothes and other personal effects outside the front door. Cherokee society was matrilineal, with a child’s clan affiliation being determined by the maternal lineage, not the paternal. A child’s maternal uncles and aunts were expected to play a large role in his or her upbringing, education, and training. The Cherokee also did not recognize the concept of private property. Land, livestock, and other property effectively belonged to everyone in a Cherokee communal group. Another traditional Cherokee concept, for which there is no equivalent single word in the English language, is gadugi. Gadugi is a term which refers to individuals working together to benefit everyone in a community (Hall, 1991). Historically, the word meant working together towards a common goal which would benefit all of the Cherokee. This included working together to build a community council house or working together to bring in the harvest of corn and other crops. It also meant being sure that everyone was clothed, fed, and sheltered. In modern times, this word means community service for which an individual did not expect payment or services in return. The word gadugi was derived from the Cherokee word for bread, which is gadu. Gadugi means "putting together the bread" as was done when corn flour, wild onions, and beans were mixed to make traditional bean bread for community feasts, meetings, and other social events. Today, the emphasis on gadugi by the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma has been renewed and emphasized. The nation has encouraged gadugi in the communities and as a political platform ideal to encourage greater community awareness, reciprocity, and assistance among the Cherokee people. This was done to encourage the Cherokee people to develop and sustain the goal of self reliance and independent sovereignty (Cherokee.org, 2009).
I was reminded of gadugi when I participated in the Holmes Scholar Summer Institute in Las Vegas last summer. A group of us decided to present on “Communities of Practice” (CoP) at the Holmes Program Conference in Jacksonville, Florida in February. Our intention was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Holmes Program in bringing togther like-minded individuals in a supportive and and productive environment to benefit us all. The concept of CoP refers to the process of social learning that occurs and shared sociocultural practices that emerge and evolve when people who have common goals interact as they strive toward those goals. The idea is attributed to modern cognitive anthropologists, including Rogoff (1988) and Lave and Wenger (1999). However, it seems to me the Cherokee had effectively captured the essence of CoP as gadugi centuries ago.
What can we gain by participating in a CoP? Problem solving, developing new capabilities, delineating and standardizing best practices, enhancing efficiency, and increasing talent and avoiding mistakes are all general potential benefits of this paradigm. How did we as new and developing scholars of color establish a CoP or gadugi in the Holmes Summer Institute? First and foremost, we had strong and caring mentors and facilitators. We experienced interaction and support from peers with similar goals, problems, and issues. This communication continued after the Institute, both electronically and in person. These face to face interactions could be at meetings and conferences, or even on our own home or nearby campuses with other Holmes Scholars, Alumni, and board members. We gained new perspectives and ideas for our personal research and teaching by learning about the other Scholars’ activities and responsibilities. Most importantly, in my opinion, we developed self-confidence and efficacy in a supportive environment to help us understand and carry out our roles as teachers, students, and researchers. Being a Holmes Scholar helped me find a “Community of Practice” or gadugi that will only serve to benefit me, my peers, and society in general.
References
Babco, E. L. (2003). Trends in African American and Native American participation in STEM higher education. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.cpst.org/STEM.pdf
Cherokee Nation website
Demmert, W. G. (2001). Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
Gilbert, W. S. (2008). Native Science Connections Research Project. Partnerships for Indian
Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.
Hall, M. C. (1991). Gadugi: A Model of Service-Learning for Native American Communities. Phi Delta Kappan. eric.ed.gov
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999) Learning and pedagogy in communities of practice,
in J. Leach and B. Moon (eds) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman/
The Open University.
Perdue, Theda 1998: Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700–1835 (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press).
Roggof, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1988). Models of teaching and learning: Participation
in a community of learners. In The Handbook of Education and Human Development,
D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, Eds. Blackwell Publishers, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 388–414.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1995). Maryetta School: the center of a rural community and a case study of leadership and school improvement. Issues about Change, 5(1), 5-27.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-189.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
PIAGET’S INTELLIGENCE MODEL
Science should be taught as an inquiry-driven process, not as a static collection of facts to be memorized. It is also important to organize the concepts and terms that are learned in a way that reduces the world around the student to a logical system. The central purpose of American education is, or should be, helping the student develop the ability to think critically; that is, for the general populace to be able to gather and evaluate data, formulate an explanation and/or viewpoint and use appropriate terminology, and extend and apply it to their lives and prior learning. This correlates to Piaget’s Mental Functioning Model, which in turn is a component of his Theory of Intelligence, along with his Stages or Levels Model. This paper is a description and explanation of the graphic I have prepared to illustrate the overall Model of Intelligence as put forward by Piaget.
The attached graphic is intended to show the components and their relationships in Piaget’s model of intelligence. Mental functioning, content, and structures are represented as a flow chart or concept map, from top to bottom. Disequilibrium, as one of the four factors that drive development through the cognitive stages of development, is at the bottom, with the other three related factors. The four cognitive stages of development are shown progressing from right to left, with each stage encompassing the one(s) preceding it.
This leads to Piaget's model of mental functioning, or how we learn, and cultural differences notwithstanding, it applies to all humans. First is Piaget’s concept of assimilation as new information in the form of data and observations is acquired from the environment. Disequilibrium occurs as the new data is temporarily in conflict with one’s current mental structures. This conflict is reconciled as accommodation, or an understanding of the new mental function, occurs. Adaptation refers to the development of new mental structures, or schemes, as assimilation and accommodation take place. The organization of the new concept occurs as it is “filed” in our mental filing cabinet as one extends and applies it through various means and examines the new concept in different contexts. I must emphasize that research indicates this model accurately describes how we all think in all situations, cultural and societal influences notwithstanding.
Human intelligence is a concept that can be difficult to define, or defined in various ways. For our purposes the intelligence of an individual can be defined and graphically represented as consisting of four components:
• Quality of Thought (Stages) Model
• Mental Functioning
• Mental Structures
• Mental Content
The four stages of cognition or quality of thought are in order, sensorimotor, which is from birth to approximately 2.5 years old and is characterized by no object permanence, reflexive physical actions, no concept of space, time, self, or cause/effect, and no language development. This is followed by the preoperational stage from approximately 2 to 7 years of age in which children imitate, play, and talk but are also characterized by egocentrism and irreversibility. Also in this stage children recognize the permanence of objects, begin to conserve quantity, and conceptualize time, space, self, and cause/effect. Next is the concrete operational stage from 6 or 7 years of age to between 15 and 20 in which the child begins to use the mental operations of seriation, classification, correspondence, reversal, decentering, and inductive and deductive reasoning. Therefore, children in this stage can by the end of the stage conserve quantity, understand elementary geometry, and conduct practical play, imitation, and language. The final stage is called formal operational and in it hypothetico-deductive and abstract thought/language is finally realized. This stage is also characterized by combinatorial/propositional logic, understanding of relative space and time, reflective capacity, and recognition of the ideal self. Therefore, in this stage people can view the world from a perspective other than their own, formulate abstractions, and employ advanced logic. It is important to note that we do not move into one stage and leave the previous ones behind. Instead, elements of previous stages provide the underpinnings of subsequent stages, as represented in the attached diagram. The four factors associated with cognitive development, or movement through the stages, are:
• Maturation
• Physical and Logical-Mathematical Experiences
• Social Interaction and Transmission
• Disequilibrium
Maturation is the natural physiological process of growth and development that takes place as our bodies and in particular our nervous systems, advance and change throughout our lives. Physical and logical-mathematical experiences refer to the encounters we have with stimuli in our internal and external environments during our lifespan. Social interactions and transmissions are the shaping we undergo as we interact with other humans. Especially important here are the interactions with our families as children and our early schooling, as well as the culture(s) we are part of. Disequilibrium is discussed below.
It is changes in the mental structures and mental content that result from mental functioning as described by Piaget, as well as movement through the cognitive stages of development. In other words, mental structures are processes in the brain used to deal with incoming data, and differences in their nature and complexity distinguish one intellectual stage from another. Schemes are the basic unit of mental structures, and as new data is incorporated into existing structures assimilation occurs. Disequilibrium, or the mismatch between pre-existing mental structures and what has occurred, causes new schemes to develop, which is also known as accommodation. These new schemes or structures need to be properly aligned and placed among previous ones, and this is essentially organization. Mental content is how a child believes he or she sees the world, or how the child believes the world works. Put another way, mental content is how a person believes the world looks, and is a variant that cannot be separated from the structure and function components. In order to change content, the entire structure/function system must be turned back on and disequilibrium reestablished. It is important to recognize Piaget’s model of intelligence as a guiding descriptor for how we all respond and change mentally and physically throughout our lives, in all situations and at all ages.
In my experience, and in the literature, Piaget’s model of intelligence and its application in terms of learning cycles in the classroom hold up well. After teaching 3-12th grade science for 17 years, I realize many of my lessons were constructivist in nature, without me necessarily being cognizant of the terminology or original theories. Not having been grounded in a definite theory base as a science educator, I did however employ much exposition, particularly in my advanced high school classes. I essentially utilized what I refer to as a “shotgun” or “scattergun” approach to my teaching, believing that if I exposed the students to a concept in as many different ways as possible, the majority would, through some combination of teaching approaches and their own efforts, learn what they were supposed to. After my exposure to learning cycles in a summer workshop a few years ago, I was immediately a strong supporter and advocate of this teaching approach grounded in Piagetian theories, especially for younger students such as I was teaching at the time.
Despite this, I do occasionally have questions or concerns about constructivism, Piaget’s model, and learning cycles. For instance, initially it appeared to me that learning cycles simply reverse the “I” and the “V” in the traditional Inform, Verify, and Practice (IVP) teaching approach. This was hard for me to accept initially, and is still one of the most common complaints and/or criticisms I hear from students and other teachers, especially those that have yet to develop a comprehensive understanding of the theory base that supports the use of learning cycles in the classroom. Another point, as I described in my article summaries for this course, is that practitioners and researchers must be aware of cultural and social influences and factors concerning Piaget’s ideas and their applications. It can be problematic to try to assess the thinking process through language, for instance. Also, different cultures place varying values on different traits or characteristics in an individual. The population and sample sizes employed by Piaget might have been too small for universal applicability of his perceived results. For instance, many of his observations were based on his own children, presenting the problem of a very small n. In my opinion, Piaget seems to be guilty of sometimes just describing what was going as he observed, and often left it to others to try to explain and/or duplicate his results. Matthews (1997) stated that the reproducibility of Piaget’s work had more to do with the methods he employed than the actual cognitive stage of his subjects. I also believe that the stages of development are often presented as being sharply delineated, when in reality we are often in an overlapping or blended configuration as we develop, grow, mature, and experience the world. Modern neurobiological studies (Anderson, 2006) are supporting Piaget’s conclusions, which I find interesting. It would be interesting if Piaget had done more research on individuals beyond their teen years. Also, I have always been intrigued by the idea of a “super-formal” or “post-formal” stage, possibly exemplified by people like Einstein whose apparent mentally processes far exceed the majority of the population.
Bibliographic Note:
Rodger Bybee and Robert Sund, Piaget for Educators, (Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press, 1990).
Edmund Marek and Ann Cavallo, The Learning Cycle: Elementary School Science and Beyond, (Portsmouth NH, Heinemann, 1997).
National Science Education Standards from the National Academy of Sciences, 1995.
EDSC 5523 Class notes
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(10), 1037-1058.
Matthews, P.S.C. 1997. Problems with Piagetian Constructivism. Science &
Education. 6, 105-119.
The attached graphic is intended to show the components and their relationships in Piaget’s model of intelligence. Mental functioning, content, and structures are represented as a flow chart or concept map, from top to bottom. Disequilibrium, as one of the four factors that drive development through the cognitive stages of development, is at the bottom, with the other three related factors. The four cognitive stages of development are shown progressing from right to left, with each stage encompassing the one(s) preceding it.
This leads to Piaget's model of mental functioning, or how we learn, and cultural differences notwithstanding, it applies to all humans. First is Piaget’s concept of assimilation as new information in the form of data and observations is acquired from the environment. Disequilibrium occurs as the new data is temporarily in conflict with one’s current mental structures. This conflict is reconciled as accommodation, or an understanding of the new mental function, occurs. Adaptation refers to the development of new mental structures, or schemes, as assimilation and accommodation take place. The organization of the new concept occurs as it is “filed” in our mental filing cabinet as one extends and applies it through various means and examines the new concept in different contexts. I must emphasize that research indicates this model accurately describes how we all think in all situations, cultural and societal influences notwithstanding.
Human intelligence is a concept that can be difficult to define, or defined in various ways. For our purposes the intelligence of an individual can be defined and graphically represented as consisting of four components:
• Quality of Thought (Stages) Model
• Mental Functioning
• Mental Structures
• Mental Content
The four stages of cognition or quality of thought are in order, sensorimotor, which is from birth to approximately 2.5 years old and is characterized by no object permanence, reflexive physical actions, no concept of space, time, self, or cause/effect, and no language development. This is followed by the preoperational stage from approximately 2 to 7 years of age in which children imitate, play, and talk but are also characterized by egocentrism and irreversibility. Also in this stage children recognize the permanence of objects, begin to conserve quantity, and conceptualize time, space, self, and cause/effect. Next is the concrete operational stage from 6 or 7 years of age to between 15 and 20 in which the child begins to use the mental operations of seriation, classification, correspondence, reversal, decentering, and inductive and deductive reasoning. Therefore, children in this stage can by the end of the stage conserve quantity, understand elementary geometry, and conduct practical play, imitation, and language. The final stage is called formal operational and in it hypothetico-deductive and abstract thought/language is finally realized. This stage is also characterized by combinatorial/propositional logic, understanding of relative space and time, reflective capacity, and recognition of the ideal self. Therefore, in this stage people can view the world from a perspective other than their own, formulate abstractions, and employ advanced logic. It is important to note that we do not move into one stage and leave the previous ones behind. Instead, elements of previous stages provide the underpinnings of subsequent stages, as represented in the attached diagram. The four factors associated with cognitive development, or movement through the stages, are:
• Maturation
• Physical and Logical-Mathematical Experiences
• Social Interaction and Transmission
• Disequilibrium
Maturation is the natural physiological process of growth and development that takes place as our bodies and in particular our nervous systems, advance and change throughout our lives. Physical and logical-mathematical experiences refer to the encounters we have with stimuli in our internal and external environments during our lifespan. Social interactions and transmissions are the shaping we undergo as we interact with other humans. Especially important here are the interactions with our families as children and our early schooling, as well as the culture(s) we are part of. Disequilibrium is discussed below.
It is changes in the mental structures and mental content that result from mental functioning as described by Piaget, as well as movement through the cognitive stages of development. In other words, mental structures are processes in the brain used to deal with incoming data, and differences in their nature and complexity distinguish one intellectual stage from another. Schemes are the basic unit of mental structures, and as new data is incorporated into existing structures assimilation occurs. Disequilibrium, or the mismatch between pre-existing mental structures and what has occurred, causes new schemes to develop, which is also known as accommodation. These new schemes or structures need to be properly aligned and placed among previous ones, and this is essentially organization. Mental content is how a child believes he or she sees the world, or how the child believes the world works. Put another way, mental content is how a person believes the world looks, and is a variant that cannot be separated from the structure and function components. In order to change content, the entire structure/function system must be turned back on and disequilibrium reestablished. It is important to recognize Piaget’s model of intelligence as a guiding descriptor for how we all respond and change mentally and physically throughout our lives, in all situations and at all ages.
In my experience, and in the literature, Piaget’s model of intelligence and its application in terms of learning cycles in the classroom hold up well. After teaching 3-12th grade science for 17 years, I realize many of my lessons were constructivist in nature, without me necessarily being cognizant of the terminology or original theories. Not having been grounded in a definite theory base as a science educator, I did however employ much exposition, particularly in my advanced high school classes. I essentially utilized what I refer to as a “shotgun” or “scattergun” approach to my teaching, believing that if I exposed the students to a concept in as many different ways as possible, the majority would, through some combination of teaching approaches and their own efforts, learn what they were supposed to. After my exposure to learning cycles in a summer workshop a few years ago, I was immediately a strong supporter and advocate of this teaching approach grounded in Piagetian theories, especially for younger students such as I was teaching at the time.
Despite this, I do occasionally have questions or concerns about constructivism, Piaget’s model, and learning cycles. For instance, initially it appeared to me that learning cycles simply reverse the “I” and the “V” in the traditional Inform, Verify, and Practice (IVP) teaching approach. This was hard for me to accept initially, and is still one of the most common complaints and/or criticisms I hear from students and other teachers, especially those that have yet to develop a comprehensive understanding of the theory base that supports the use of learning cycles in the classroom. Another point, as I described in my article summaries for this course, is that practitioners and researchers must be aware of cultural and social influences and factors concerning Piaget’s ideas and their applications. It can be problematic to try to assess the thinking process through language, for instance. Also, different cultures place varying values on different traits or characteristics in an individual. The population and sample sizes employed by Piaget might have been too small for universal applicability of his perceived results. For instance, many of his observations were based on his own children, presenting the problem of a very small n. In my opinion, Piaget seems to be guilty of sometimes just describing what was going as he observed, and often left it to others to try to explain and/or duplicate his results. Matthews (1997) stated that the reproducibility of Piaget’s work had more to do with the methods he employed than the actual cognitive stage of his subjects. I also believe that the stages of development are often presented as being sharply delineated, when in reality we are often in an overlapping or blended configuration as we develop, grow, mature, and experience the world. Modern neurobiological studies (Anderson, 2006) are supporting Piaget’s conclusions, which I find interesting. It would be interesting if Piaget had done more research on individuals beyond their teen years. Also, I have always been intrigued by the idea of a “super-formal” or “post-formal” stage, possibly exemplified by people like Einstein whose apparent mentally processes far exceed the majority of the population.
Bibliographic Note:
Rodger Bybee and Robert Sund, Piaget for Educators, (Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press, 1990).
Edmund Marek and Ann Cavallo, The Learning Cycle: Elementary School Science and Beyond, (Portsmouth NH, Heinemann, 1997).
National Science Education Standards from the National Academy of Sciences, 1995.
EDSC 5523 Class notes
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(10), 1037-1058.
Matthews, P.S.C. 1997. Problems with Piagetian Constructivism. Science &
Education. 6, 105-119.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)