According to Johnson (2009), “Constructivism refers to educational practices that are student-focused, meaning-based, process-oriented, interactive, and responsive to student interest” (p.1). Teachers are facilitators and lessons are student centered in this method of teaching. Lessons are problem based or question oriented, and students are the leading force in uncovering the information needed to find the conclusion. Usually lessons are open-ended and allow students to branch off into other ideas and answer other questions after the specific lesson is finished. Many students find different paths to the same answer while others find more questions once the answer is derived. Garbet (2011) states, “Constructivism emphasizes the importance of the knowledge, beliefs and skills that an individual brings to the experience of learning” (p. 37).
When students engage in constructing their own meaning they become more vested in the learning. They are able to work collaboratively with classmates in this method of learning and interact with the material through a social outlet. According to Hyslop- Margison and Strobel (2008), Vygotsky’s theory of knowledge acquisition is often described as social constructivism” (p. 81). The amount of collaboration in this method lends itself to foundational learning in any class as the information is more personal students.
The model has been criticized by those who say that children from more elite backgrounds with more life experiences from which to construct meaning get more from the method. Many say that children from underprivileged backgrounds receive more from direct instruction. Another concern with collaborative work is that individualization is lacking. Many worry that the majority may rule and leave some of the quieter more introverted students to follow the lead of the more extroverted students.
When setting up the curriculum for a distance education course it is important to allow students to use their personal experiences to guide learning. In the distance learning environment one can work through open-ended assignments and relate material to their personal style of learning and background. Using constructivism in a distance learning setting allows students from various backgrounds to be included in assignments without bias from any other group. Constructivism is a way to include all students while actively engaging them.
References
Garbett, D. (2011). Constructivism deconstructed in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 36-49.
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2008). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72-86.
Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Strobel, J. (2008). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. Teacher Educator, 43(1), 72-86.
Johnson, G. (2009). Instructionism and constructivism: Reconciling two very good ideas. International Journal Of Special Education, 24(3), 90-98.
Cecelia,
ReplyDeleteI used to believe students from more affluent backgrounds were more successful with constructivist approaches; however, my early experience in middle school science proved me wrong! Early in my middle school career, I taught in a rural school district in South Carolina. Our principal believed in homogeneous grouping, so I had a group of students who tended to have excellent test scores, two groups with average test scores, and one group with below average scores.
I found the "top" group of students tended to be from more affluent families, yet they tended to have the most difficulty with applying inquiry skills and constructing knowledge. It reminded me of our high school science teacher ranting about a group of students that just wanted to be "spoon fed" the information. I was delighted to discover my "bottom" group excelled with inquiry activities and constructing knowledge! This was an eye-opening experience for me. My "light bulb" came on by seeing their "light bulbs."
I have often pondered why the difference. One thing I have considered is, possibly, the students from less affluent backgrounds had to learn skills for constructing knowledge, since they often took care of themselves and others. It seemed the more affluent students lived in an environment in which there was little need to construct knowledge.
I observed a major advantage of implementing constructivism; students had to learn and develop skills for teamwork. Over the course of the school year, I saw any students from all backgrounds learn to interact with others in positive ways. Sometimes, I purposely designed groups of "slackers" to force them to contribute. Those situations often helped my students prove themselves successful, to themselves and their peers.
Have you seen similar results with underprivileged students in your science classes? What are your thoughts about the misconceptions about underprivileged students and constructivism?
I too have seen those results personally. I did my student teaching in an Honors Biology class. My inquiry and problem based learning was always met with complaints from the more affluent students. I once had a student to tell me that I needed to stop the cute stuff and just make a power point of what they needed to know. I took the time to help her see that everything I did was researched based. While she understood the reasoning, she still did not like the work it took on her part. After this, I taught at a school that was full of students who lived in poverty. Those students met the challenges with a much better attitude and appreciated the fact that most of the time was spent out of seats at the lab stations or computer lab.
DeleteI agree that constructivism promotes teamwork and positive relationships. It really is a great way to create a community of learners in the classroom. Sure there are obstacles to overcome at times, but the pay off is well worth the hard work. Thanks for your insight!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCecilia,
ReplyDeleteI also chose to discuss constructivism as I believe that experience leads to engagement which in turn enhances learning. It has been said that "experience is always the starting point of an educational process; it is never the result" (Huang, 2002, p. 32). While there are many that criticize the constructivist approach, understanding a student's history, culture, past experiences, and prior knowledge are critical to designing and implementing instruction that encourages active engagement. In addition, allowing students the opportunity to put into practice new knowledge will assist in long-term memory and encourage true learning (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
Therefore, I propose that educators who follow the constructivist approach consider that experience should not disregard the importance of the educator's experiences and guidance, but rather take into consideration the purpose that learning will serve in the lives of their students. Instruction that is engaging and relevant to students will be more successful than instruction that is not (Clark & Mayer, 2011).
How do you think that the constructivist approach should be applied to learning? Do you feel that constructivism should be the sole approach or is it possible that a combination of approaches may be most beneficial?
--Jillian
References
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
It is my belief that the degree of constructivism used depends upon the level of prior knowledge a student possesses. I have found that my students who have learning disabilities sometimes need some direct instruction prior to engaging in an inquiry type lesson. Giving them some structure up front seems to enable them to more successfully complete the assignment. I have found that students who are seniors in high school need a question to get them started. I pose a question and they seem to have the tools needed to collaborate, research, and present information with very little guidance. I believe students should always be the ones doing the work, but the degree of constructing meaning usually varies from student to student depending upon the amount of experiences they can apply to the topic. Thanks for asking!
Delete