By Craig Perrier
January 15, 2014
The possibilities for shifting instruction in social studies through the C3 Framework are real. Perhaps the most significant shift is toward inquiry and the call for students to construct meaning about human experiences. Through inquiry students come to understand the notion of agency in human affairs. This realization, a core aspect of existential humanism, is often lost amidst the mechanism of formal education. Implementing the C3 Framework and the Inquiry Arc as a pedagogical model should help remove the marginalization of this humanist impulse.
But in my reading, the C3 Framework does much more. It provides teachers agency by offering a pathway for developing a personal educational philosophy. To make the most meaning of the Framework, teachers will need to reflect on their own educational philosophy. In essence, teachers, administrators, departments, and districts will have to engage in their own authentic inquiry about their profession and give meaning to their personal goals for social studies. To facilitate that reflection, and subsequent framing of inquiry in social studies education, I offer my personal reflection on the Framework and another set of 3 “C’s” to consider – Constructivism, Connectivism, and Cognitivism. These concepts offer a convenient alliteration to be sure, but more importantly they provide an intellectual pathway for sorting through the Framework’s Inquiry Arc. Here is what I’m thinking.
- Constructivism is a process of forming meaning. It is how people make sense of their experience and is clearly informing the pedagogical impulses of Inquiry Arc.
- Connectivism recognizes that in a networked world the way that information is created, distributed, processed, and evaluated plays a significant role in the learning process.
- Cognitivism enables humans to generate knowledge and meaning through sequential development of an individual’s mental abilities and conceptual development.
My argument is for a new pedagogy in social students that is informed by Constructivism, Connectivism, and Cognitivism.The C3 Framework supports such a pedagogy. It empowers teachers to use constructivist approaches to access connected learning materials in cognitively challenging ways.
I’ve read the C3 Framework, and made my meaning. As I reflected on what it meant to me I was reminded of Paul Ricoeur’s insight. “If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal.” In my interpretation of the C3 Framework, the ideas put forward suggest that we draw on humanist’s ideas and the educational concepts of Constructivism, Connectivism, and Cognitivism. How will you read the C3 Framework?