Connecting Theory & Practice: Argument of the Question
Although activating prior knowledge and incorporating individual interests into curriculum might appear as two separate methods, I believe that the two are intrinsically linked. While the main product of these methods is increased student engagement, incorporating these methods into curriculum leads to a host of byproducts as well. Student agency, choice, creativity, and activation of multiple intelligences are all interconnected along with student interest and prior knowledge. Melting together to form the foundation of a strong student-centered environment, students are encouraged to take risks, spend more time on their work, and to become advocates for their own learning. With engagement at the core of this student-centered environment, allowing for students to explore interests and to incorporate prior knowledge can lead to enhanced motivation and deeper degrees of understanding.
When I incorporated student interest and prior knowledge into my two-week curriculum, I noticed a strong correlation between the authenticity of the assessment and student engagement. In addition to engagement, I saw evidence of deeper degrees of understanding when students were able to exercise agency, utilize intelligences and explore interests through flexible, open- structured, assignments. In designing assessments, I saw a strong correlation between student engagement and exploration of interests. In her article, “But That’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,” Ladson-Billings discusses a teacher’s encouragement for her students to bring their culture into the classroom. She writes, “Culturally relevant teachers utilize students’ culture as a vehicle for learning. Patricia Hilliard’s love of poetry was shared with her students through their own love of rap music” (p. 161, 1995). By allowing students to bring in samples of lyrics of their favorite rap songs, not only was Hilliard able to connect with their culture but she was able to teach figurative meanings and poetic structure through their interests. “While the students were comfortable using their music, the teacher used it as a bridge to school learning. Their understanding of poetry far exceed what either the state department of education or the local school district required. Hilliard’s work is an example of how academic achievement and cultural competence can be merged” (Ladson-Billings, p. 161, 1995). Hilliard found an authentic way to connect to her students, which facilitated engagement through exploration of their interests.
In Hilliard’s classroom, Hilliard used her students’ prior knowledge of rap songs as a framework for identifying poetic structure. In How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school, Bransford, Brown and Cocking analyze learner-centered environments. They write, “Teachers who are learner centered recognize the importance of building on the conceptual and cultural knowledge that students bring with them to the classroom” (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, p. 134, 2000). It was this perspective that allowed Hilliard to build the bridge between home and school for her students. Just as Hilliard recognized her students’ foundation for understanding, in Doing History, Levstik and Barton discuss the importance that instruction must build on students’ prior knowledge. “To learn, people have to link new experiences to previous understanding: They have to restructure their mental schemas…learning is not passive: People have to compare what they encounter to what they already know” (Levstik & Barton, p. 15, 2011). Connecting content to students’ lived experiences allows them to create a class-to-self connection that acts as a framework for developing understanding. By activating this prior knowledge, a teacher can see not only what degree of understanding a student might bring to a content area but also the degree that the student might have to shift their understanding in order to make sense of new material.
Incorporating prior knowledge through activities such as K-W-L charts, discussions and writing prompts allows students to make connections between new material and previous understandings and experiences, facilitating student engagement. “When [students] can’t connect what they’re supposed to learn at school to their own schemas, their understanding is notoriously superficial” (Levstik & Barton, p. 15, 2011). Without helping students to build a bridge between their cultures, experiences, and understandings to new learning, teachers limit the degree of understanding that students can achieve. Discussing the danger that superficial understanding can have, Levstik and Barton write, “This kind of superficial learning occurs precisely because students have only memorized information or procedures, rather than actually modifying their understanding” (p. 15, 2011). These superficial methods do not reflect authentic assessments; rather, the lack of authenticity in rote procedures reflects a lack of engagement and shallow degree of understanding.
These superficial methods that Levstik and Barton warn against counter Tomlinson and McTighe’s ‘Six Facets of Understanding’, which “serve as indicators of how understanding is revealed” (p. 66, 2006). “When we call for application, we do not mean a mechanical response or mindless “‘plug-in’” of a memorized formula. Rather, we ask students to transfer—to use what they know in a new situation. We recommend that teachers set up realistic, authentic contexts for assessment; when students are able to apply their learning thoughtfully and flexibly, true understanding is demonstrated” (Tomlinson & McTighe, p. 67, 2006). I believe that incorporating prior knowledge and student interest leads to authentic assessments, which in turn, produce deeper degrees of understanding. Incorporating flexibility and individuality into assessment design creates an authentic context for engagement by allowing students to pursue what interests them specifically, and allows them to tailor their product so it becomes a reflection of their personal understanding of the material.
Similar to Tomlinson and McTighe’s discussion on creating authentic contexts for assessment, Levstik and Barton discuss their ideas on constructive assessment. “Assessment activities should also be authentic—they should be similar to the tasks people do in their communities, in businesses, or in scholarly disciplines. This often involves preparation for an audience beyond that of the teacher. When the teacher is the only audience for a task, students have little motivation to show what they know” (p. 19, 2011). Tasks become meaningful for students when they incorporate student interests, and when they promote student agency. A key word in Levstik and Barton’s argument is ‘preparation.’ When students must prepare their task for an audience, they seem to spend more time with it, and are more critical of their own work because they know it will be shared. By giving students the space to explore their interests through flexible task design, students exercise the agency required to produce something they are proud of, and something that is meaningful to them. I believe that incorporating student interest and prior knowledge into curriculum result in risk-taking, increased effort, and self-efficacy, with increased engagement at the core.
When I incorporated student interest and prior knowledge into my two-week curriculum, I noticed a strong correlation between the authenticity of the assessment and student engagement. In addition to engagement, I saw evidence of deeper degrees of understanding when students were able to exercise agency, utilize intelligences and explore interests through flexible, open- structured, assignments. In designing assessments, I saw a strong correlation between student engagement and exploration of interests. In her article, “But That’s Just Good Teaching! The Case for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,” Ladson-Billings discusses a teacher’s encouragement for her students to bring their culture into the classroom. She writes, “Culturally relevant teachers utilize students’ culture as a vehicle for learning. Patricia Hilliard’s love of poetry was shared with her students through their own love of rap music” (p. 161, 1995). By allowing students to bring in samples of lyrics of their favorite rap songs, not only was Hilliard able to connect with their culture but she was able to teach figurative meanings and poetic structure through their interests. “While the students were comfortable using their music, the teacher used it as a bridge to school learning. Their understanding of poetry far exceed what either the state department of education or the local school district required. Hilliard’s work is an example of how academic achievement and cultural competence can be merged” (Ladson-Billings, p. 161, 1995). Hilliard found an authentic way to connect to her students, which facilitated engagement through exploration of their interests.
In Hilliard’s classroom, Hilliard used her students’ prior knowledge of rap songs as a framework for identifying poetic structure. In How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience and school, Bransford, Brown and Cocking analyze learner-centered environments. They write, “Teachers who are learner centered recognize the importance of building on the conceptual and cultural knowledge that students bring with them to the classroom” (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, p. 134, 2000). It was this perspective that allowed Hilliard to build the bridge between home and school for her students. Just as Hilliard recognized her students’ foundation for understanding, in Doing History, Levstik and Barton discuss the importance that instruction must build on students’ prior knowledge. “To learn, people have to link new experiences to previous understanding: They have to restructure their mental schemas…learning is not passive: People have to compare what they encounter to what they already know” (Levstik & Barton, p. 15, 2011). Connecting content to students’ lived experiences allows them to create a class-to-self connection that acts as a framework for developing understanding. By activating this prior knowledge, a teacher can see not only what degree of understanding a student might bring to a content area but also the degree that the student might have to shift their understanding in order to make sense of new material.
Incorporating prior knowledge through activities such as K-W-L charts, discussions and writing prompts allows students to make connections between new material and previous understandings and experiences, facilitating student engagement. “When [students] can’t connect what they’re supposed to learn at school to their own schemas, their understanding is notoriously superficial” (Levstik & Barton, p. 15, 2011). Without helping students to build a bridge between their cultures, experiences, and understandings to new learning, teachers limit the degree of understanding that students can achieve. Discussing the danger that superficial understanding can have, Levstik and Barton write, “This kind of superficial learning occurs precisely because students have only memorized information or procedures, rather than actually modifying their understanding” (p. 15, 2011). These superficial methods do not reflect authentic assessments; rather, the lack of authenticity in rote procedures reflects a lack of engagement and shallow degree of understanding.
These superficial methods that Levstik and Barton warn against counter Tomlinson and McTighe’s ‘Six Facets of Understanding’, which “serve as indicators of how understanding is revealed” (p. 66, 2006). “When we call for application, we do not mean a mechanical response or mindless “‘plug-in’” of a memorized formula. Rather, we ask students to transfer—to use what they know in a new situation. We recommend that teachers set up realistic, authentic contexts for assessment; when students are able to apply their learning thoughtfully and flexibly, true understanding is demonstrated” (Tomlinson & McTighe, p. 67, 2006). I believe that incorporating prior knowledge and student interest leads to authentic assessments, which in turn, produce deeper degrees of understanding. Incorporating flexibility and individuality into assessment design creates an authentic context for engagement by allowing students to pursue what interests them specifically, and allows them to tailor their product so it becomes a reflection of their personal understanding of the material.
Similar to Tomlinson and McTighe’s discussion on creating authentic contexts for assessment, Levstik and Barton discuss their ideas on constructive assessment. “Assessment activities should also be authentic—they should be similar to the tasks people do in their communities, in businesses, or in scholarly disciplines. This often involves preparation for an audience beyond that of the teacher. When the teacher is the only audience for a task, students have little motivation to show what they know” (p. 19, 2011). Tasks become meaningful for students when they incorporate student interests, and when they promote student agency. A key word in Levstik and Barton’s argument is ‘preparation.’ When students must prepare their task for an audience, they seem to spend more time with it, and are more critical of their own work because they know it will be shared. By giving students the space to explore their interests through flexible task design, students exercise the agency required to produce something they are proud of, and something that is meaningful to them. I believe that incorporating student interest and prior knowledge into curriculum result in risk-taking, increased effort, and self-efficacy, with increased engagement at the core.