Abstract
- Atwood, M. (1966.) This is a photograph of me. In J. Ramazani, R. Ellmann, & R. O’Clair (Eds.), The Norton anthology of poetry (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
- Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
- Brooks, M., & Brooks, J. G. (1999, November). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 18–24.
- Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Chomsky, N. (1987). The Chomsky reader (James Peck, Ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
- Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International.
- Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civil courage. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60–74). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
- Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Gardner, H., & Boix-Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines—and beyond. Teachers College Record, 96, 198–218.
- Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
- Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching for understanding. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 17(3), 8, 28–35.
- Perkins, D. (1999, November). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 6–11.
- Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
- Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
- Schwandt, T., & McCarty, L. (2000). Seductive illusions: Von Glasserfield and Gergen on epistemology and education. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 41–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Sontag, S. (1977). On photography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Stone-Wiske, M. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans., Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Volume 15
- Issue 1
- Publication Date: Fall 2003
Constructivism and Understanding: Implementing the Teaching for Understanding Framework
Ben Graffam
For teaching gifted and other high-ability learners, the idea that understanding is more significant than knowing is nearly a no-brainer. Teachers are continuously looking for ways to raise the intellectual bar through classroom challenges that push these learners to extend beyond the factual knowledge base that is often the measuring stick of standardized state exams. But, how do we implement such challenges in ways that raise both the bar and the interest level of the learners? The Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework addresses this issue, and this paper describes the introduction of TfU at an International Baccalaureate school in Florida. The framework engages the students, moving them into constructivist learning styles, while simultaneously leading the teacher into a clearer sense of how to assess student understanding. Blending thinking from both constructivist and understanding camps, this paper argues that such a pedagogy is far superior to simple methodologies and might be a great match for classes that mix gifted and high-ability learners.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.