Constructivist Meta-practices: When Students Design Activities, Lead Others, and Assess Peers

Abstract

New educators may feel overwhelmed by the options available for engaging students through classroom participation. However, it may be helpful to recognize that participatory pedagogical systems often have constructivist roots. Adopting a constructivist perspective, our paper considers three meta-practices that encourage student participation: designing activities, leading others, and assessing peers. We explored the consequences of these meta-practices for important student outcomes, including content knowledge, engagement, self-efficacy, sense of community, and self-awareness. We found that different meta-practices were associated with different combinations of outcomes. This discovery demonstrates the benefit of studying metapractices so as to reveal the nuanced effects that may arise from pedagogical choices. In addition, an understanding of meta-practices can help leadership educators to be more discerning and intentional in their course designs.

Understanding Interactions in a Classroom-As-Organization Using Dynamic Network Analysis

“…Researchers have confirmed via empirical studies the link between student interaction, both within and outside the classroom context, and cognitive development (Bowman, 2010; Gellin, 2003). As Bright and colleagues (2016) noted, in a CAO, students get to lead and assess peers, two important constructivist meta-practices. In addition to facilitating cognitive development, collaboration in a CAO also helps students gain useful skills such as managing group dynamics and problem solving in organizational contexts (Barry, 1990; Cohen, 1976; Conklin, 2013; Dixon, 2011; Lynn, 2010; McDonald et al, 2011; McDonald & Spence, 2016).…”

Simplifying Instructional Methodology Through Meta-Practices

“…Bright and colleagues (2016) observe that most methodologies for increasing student participation share a constructivist orientation. Constructivism is an educational philosophy based on the assumption that learners must actively construct new knowledge, that there is no transmission of knowledge from expert to learner without the learner’s active participation (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott, & Mortimer, 1994; Perkins, 1999).…”

“…The constructivist’s goal is for learners to not only acquire content knowledge but also be able to apply that knowledge and be motivated for further learning (Candy, 1991). Bright and colleagues (2016) argue that the construWctivist orientation inherent in most methods for increasing student involvement gives those methods a shared perspective. This unifying perspective leads to instructional meta-practices: “a pedagogical element that is used across various teaching strategies or pedagogical systems” (Bright et al, 2016, p. 76).…”

“…Bright and colleagues (2016) argue that the construWctivist orientation inherent in most methods for increasing student involvement gives those methods a shared perspective. This unifying perspective leads to instructional meta-practices: “a pedagogical element that is used across various teaching strategies or pedagogical systems” (Bright et al, 2016, p. 76). In other words, the diverse teaching methodologies share common themes, and these commonalities offer a way to characterize and contrast different teaching methodologies.…”

The Shadow Side of Teaching Classroom as Organization

“…CAO is best described as an heutagogy: "the study of self-determined learning … an attempt to challenge some ideas about teaching and learning that still prevail in teacher centered learning" (Hase & Kenyon, 2000). Different models of CAO vary in the degree to which students are responsible for content delivery, classroom facilitation, and assessment of work (e.g., Balke, 1981;Bright et al, 2016;Cohen 1976;Cotton 1976;Goltz, 1992;Lawrence, 1992; McDonald, Spence & Sheehan 2011; Oddou, 1987;Romme, 2003;Sheehan, McDonald & Spence, 2009). Learning emerges from students engaging in Kolb's (1984) The alluring promise of CAO, it's "persona", is transformative learning (Mezirow, 1994) and student engagement.…”