The teacher educators of higher education have been practicing the pedagogy in the classes with the pedagogical consciousness. In this context, this paper attempts to meet the following objectives: to explore the state of naïve cognitive consensus in classroom; to elicit the teacher educators' perspective on the naïve cognitive consensus of the classroom: to analyze the naïve cognitive consensus.
In the ancient era, religious leader, philosopher, Guru, Rishi et cetera used to give wisdom or knowledge to their followers, shisyas or disciples gathering them in certain public places. When formal school systems came into existence, classroom concepts emerged as the closed learning group in the formal schools. The public school systems which were state supported, secular free schools for all children are the historical features of the formal education. Classes of schools and universities are intentionally and formally formed with purpose of learning.
The purposes of school and university education were to fulfill the goals of the nation which had neglected the needs and aspirations of individuals. The pedagogical paradigms institutionalized and practiced across the years can be broadly categorized into four orientations; such as philosophical orientation, psychological orientation, socio-cultural orientation and techno-cultural orientation. In other words, it can be classified into teacher centered, student centered, group interaction, group learning or non-centered teaching and e-teaching or e-instruction.
In the context of Nepal, formal classroom pedagogical practice initiated in 1853 A.D. in Thapathali Darbar, later Darbar School. In 1956 A. D., College of Education was established to produce and train school teachers. This effort enforced to develop and practice pedagogical theories in the classroom. At present, the teacher education programs run under various universities are responsible to produce teachers for the schools of Nepal. In this context, classroom pedagogical discourse is the heart of present teacher education and the educators.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Objectives
3. Methodology
4. Meaning of naïve consensus
5. Societal bases of cognitive consensus in class
6. Curriculum expected cognitive structure
7. Consensus beyond the conscious teaching
8. Consensus orientation in the innovative pedagogical approaches
9. Conclusion
10. Implication to Nepali classroom
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the existence and implications of "naïve cognitive consensus" within higher education classrooms, exploring how both societal factors and curriculum structures shape student cognition, often beyond the conscious intent of the instructor.
- Exploration of implicit cognitive consensus in classroom settings
- Impact of curriculum and societal discourse on student cognitive structures
- Analysis of innovative pedagogical approaches (collaborative and cooperative learning)
- The role of teacher agency in managing cognitive conflicts
- Application of consensus-based pedagogy in the context of Nepalese higher education
Excerpt from the Book
Meaning of naïve consensus
Terminologically, according to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘naïve’ means ‘natural and unaffected’, ‘of rejecting sophisticated artistic techniques’ and consensual is the adjective form of consensus which means ‘general agreement’ as mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary. Hence, the paper has attempted to penetrate the informal, natural and implicit state of classroom cognition in the higher education. Cognitive consensual process of class room teaching activates the whole students of the class in the process of building of collective knowledge and group belongingness.
Consensual approach to cognitive process in classroom supports conscious classroom community (Sartor & Brown, 2004). Sartor and Brown (2004) have identified various specific skills in the consensual classroom. The skills are, “1) speaking one’s truth clearly, directly, honestly; 2) listening for understanding with empathy; 3) holding an awareness of the whole; 4) giving and receiving feedback; 5) identifying and changing unconscious behaviors; 6) making and keeping agreements; 7) confronting broken agreements, and 8) acting spontaneously” (Sartor & Brown, 2004, p. 35). Trimbur(1989) claims the significance of class room consensus as, “consensus can be a powerful instrument for students to generate differences, to identify the systems of authority that organize these differences, and to transform the relations of power that determine who may speak and what counts as a meaningful statement”(p.603). Cognitive consensus process is the consequence of argumentative, dialogical and meaning making process occurring the classroom.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides a historical overview of classroom development and the shift in pedagogical paradigms over time.
Objectives: Defines the research goals, focusing on exploring and analyzing the state of naïve cognitive consensus in classrooms.
Methodology: Details the qualitative, auto-ethnographic research design used to collect data from teacher educators and students.
Meaning of naïve consensus: Defines the terminology and discusses how consensual processes contribute to collective knowledge building.
Societal bases of cognitive consensus in class: Examines how students non-consciously acquire societal knowledge and values that manifest in classroom discussions.
Curriculum expected cognitive structure: Analyzes how formal curriculum and specialized content serve as powerful factors in framing students' cognitive structures.
Consensus beyond the conscious teaching: Reports on the author’s attempt to actively shift pedagogical strategies and observe the resulting impact on student conceptual structures.
Consensus orientation in the innovative pedagogical approaches: Evaluates how collaborative and cooperative learning foster collective understanding rather than competition.
Conclusion: Summarizes that cognitive consensus is a dynamic, temporal phenomenon influenced by curriculum and social phenomena.
Implication to Nepali classroom: Discusses how diverse cognitive structures in Nepalese classrooms can be leveraged to create shared understanding through collaborative participation.
Keywords
cognitive consensus, cognitive structure, classroom pedagogy, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, social cognition, teacher education, educational philosophy, inter-subjectivity, curriculum, knowledge construction, situated cognition, group learning, pedagogical discourse, consensus building
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper explores "naïve cognitive consensus," an implicit state of shared understanding among students that occurs in classrooms, often overlooked by traditional pedagogical theories.
Which thematic areas does the work cover?
The study covers pedagogical paradigms, curriculum design, social constructivism, the role of collaborative learning, and the impact of teacher strategy on student cognitive development.
What is the primary research objective?
The primary objective is to explore the current state of naïve cognitive consensus in the classroom, elicit the perspectives of teacher educators on this phenomenon, and provide a critical analysis of its mechanism.
What methodology does the author employ?
The research uses a qualitative design, specifically an auto-ethnographic method, incorporating data from self-observation, student conceptual tests, and interviews with teacher educators.
What is addressed in the main body of the paper?
The main body discusses the societal foundations of consensus, the influence of standardized curricula on student cognitive frames, and the practical application of collaborative and cooperative learning methods.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include cognitive consensus, social cognition, collaborative learning, classroom pedagogy, and cognitive co-construction.
How does the curriculum influence the students' cognitive structure according to the author?
The author argues that a hierarchically structured curriculum acts as a powerful formal force that homogenizes the cognitive conceptual frame of students exposed to it.
What is the significance of the "therapeutic pedagogy" mentioned in the text?
It is suggested as a necessary approach to manage intra-cognitive conflicts when students' personal aims or cognitive structures diverge from the expectations of the curriculum.
How does the author view the role of collaborative learning in this context?
Collaborative learning is seen as an innovative tool to shift classrooms from teacher-centered lecture models to interdependent, learner-centered environments that foster shared meaning.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Lecturer Karna Bahadur Chongbang (Autor:in), 2017, Pedagogical Praxis in Classrooms. Cognitive Consensual Process in Class Room Activities, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/376779
