Blog Post Forum 3 (Module 4)

Constructivism and the Breaking Ranks Framework

Paul S. Roche
Liberty University EDUC 638 D01

Constructivism and constructivist pedagogy need to be clarified according to

Krahenbuhls, (2016) article, Student-centered Education and Constructivism: Challenges,
Concerns, and Clarity for Teachers. He cautioned educators to practice the constructivist theory
appropriately. Gleaning from Clark and Mayers description of sage on the stage to guide on the
side as the mantra of todays educational environment, (Clark and Mayer, 2008), Krahenbuhl
argues that this fear of any learning without activity should not be the pressure placed on todays
educator. Cautioning that the guidance learners need is more than just promoting an intrinsic
search for truth without objectivity. Todays constructivist teacher is tempted to allow only the
construction of knowledge (the search for truth) to occur from within the student by way of her
negotiation and interpretation of meaning of her environment apart from guidance. There can be
an area of confusion with the cross between true constructivism and student-centered learning
without the guidance of an expert or seasoned instructor. Someone should be scaffolding
appropriately so as not allow for misguided conclusions. To construct meaning without any
agreement to what truth is goes against what even the most radical constructivist education
circles believe and accept that there is a general consensus as to what truth is, Krahenbuhl,
(2016 pp.101). There is a general fear of the boogey man according to the author amongst
educators oppressed with policies that enforce a misguided meaning of constructivism, that
boogeyman being one who might come across in his teaching methods as objective. There is an
element of objectivity in content, then, that must be implemented in to education.

So lets take a look at the components of constructivism; learner and her environment.
What about the cognitive science that says short term memory has only a limited capacity for
retention and that the longer a misguided concept is held as truth in ones brain, the harder it is to
change, Krahenbuhl, (2016). So the argument here is that the learner will only learn what truth
means to the environment and not beyond. This is almost contradictory to a global learning view.
I have discussed in earlier blogs Garrisons (2011) model of a Community of Inquiry
(CoI). In this view, the components of cognitive, social, and teacher presence, all equally
important in the e-learning experience, allow for an appropriate use of constructivist theory at
work. Yet, it puts a tremendous responsibility for the teacher to offer his presence as a teacher.
According to Dewey (1952), the teacher is the one in the transaction with the student to help
make meaning of his environment, (Garrison, 2011).
Bringing the ideas of constructivism to its relation to the Breaking Ranks framework
according to the Executive summary of Breaking Ranks: The comprehensive Framework for
school, (2016, n.d.) I see the framework here as a model of Garrisons (2011) CoI, yet with the
cautions regarding constructivism mentioned earlier. With bringing in updates to a school or a
school district, the leadership, according to the Breaking Ranks framework, will be assessing and
incorporating the stakeholders of the school community or environment according to strengths.
Handling the agenda tactfully is a sign of the objectivity mentioned earlier. Having a good leader
may or may not foster an upgrade of lets say technology to the district. In Breaking Ranks, The
Promise of Success: The Process Defined chapter two, (Breaking Ranks, n.d.) the model is
similar to the idea of having some objectivity as discussed earlier. In the Breaking Ranks
methods this is evident within the three major components within the framework; a shared
vision, promoted by collaborative leadership, and supported by professional development.

The need to foster a culture of change is the motivational method of Breaking Ranks. Yet,
it is not just looking at the method but its substance. The highest priority is to improve student
learning. Each step along the way is a step toward that goal. But it is in a collaborative shared
responsibility amongst all stakeholders acknowledging the shared responsibility of achievement
of this goal.
In this whole method it is easy to see the importance of the objectivity of a proven
method to use in fostering the changes needed for a school or district, the importance of utilizing
the strengths of the environment, and the goal being to improve student learning according to
best practices. I would use this model in practice as a school leader yet keeping the precautions
of Krahenbuhl, (2016).
Other strategies I had gleaned from the Breaking Ranks model which I found important
are; self-assessment and transparency (I would add to have the stakeholders also do a selfassessment), and establishing the framework to the group at the beginning of group sessions. I
would also make it a priority in relating Breaking Ranks methods to the nature of how we want
our students to learn i.e., be the example.

References
Garrison, D., (2003). E- Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Krahenbuhl, K.S., (2016) Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns,

and clarity for teachers, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 89(3), 97-105, DOI:10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311, Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtch20
Executive Summary (2016) Breaking Ranks: The comprehensive Framework for school
improvement, 2016 National Association of Secondary School Principals
https://www.nassp.org/