This week I am thinking about constructivist/constructionist learning theories. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge stating that every person actively builds his or her own meaning, while constructionism is a theory of learning which explains that students learn best when they design something to share with others (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008). A person’s current beliefs and understandings are referred to as his schema. Our schema grows and changes as we have more life experiences. We put together what we experience with our schema to make meaning in our world either by fitting the new knowledge with our existing schema, or by altering our schema to fit the new understanding (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008). Either way, for these learning theories, the students are engaged in learning by creating an artifact.
In my studies this week, I explored an instructional strategy that embeds technology: “Generating and Testing Hypotheses.” “When students generate and test hypotheses, they are engaging in complex mental processes, applying content knowledge like facts and vocabulary, and enhancing their overall understanding of the content” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski, 2007, p. 202). For this strategy, students are presented with a problem or scenario, they make a prediction about what will happen or how something happened, then they test that prediction.
Computers are a great companion to this instructional strategy. They speed up the data gathering portion of the experiment or scenario and allow the learner to focus on the interpretation of the results (Pitler, et. al., 2007). Computers allow a learner to create a scenario or step into a situation to which he or she might not otherwise have access. In addition, artifacts that are created with technology are easily shared with others using the Internet. This allows for collaboration among groups of students, even when they are not at school. “Sharing and comparing data from other localities gives students enough information to generate and test hypotheses concerning the nation and other parts of the world” (Pitler, et. al., 2007).
“In constructionism, the focus is on getting kids to build stuff” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008). By using spreadsheet software, data collection tools such as the Internet, and web resources, we are providing students with the tools, information, and motivation they need to build an artifact. And, by doing this, they are adding to or changing their schemas, a sure sign that learning is taking place!
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories. Baltimore: Author.
Pitler H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hi Deb,
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to see why Constructivism is in vogue today. Active engagement in personally meaningful and authentic tasks are energetic motivators by their vary nature. And since building something has been defined by Constructivists as including art, skits, models and songs as well as writing in Word, Publisher and Power Point, they have covered the gamut of multiple intelligences as well. there is a lot to like about Constructionism.
Dennis
Dennis, you make a good point. There are so many choices available for building an artifact, that students should be able to easily find something of interest. Additionally, when it comes to learning, motivation is more than half of the battle. It seems that constructionism has much to offer both students and teachers.
DeleteHi, Deborah,
ReplyDelete"Getting kids to build stuff" really says it all. The students are much more engaged when they can be actively involved in their learning. It allows for multiple interactions with the information they are working on as well as make multiple connections. As Dennis said this learning theory is in vogue right now. Although there are times when I wonder how most administrators feel about this type of learning because classrooms have a difficult time allowing for authentic student led project based learning when they are so concerned about following curriculum.
Rhonda
Rhonda,
ReplyDeleteI think that, overall, administrators want to see project-based learning in the classroom. However, they do not want it to interfere with the state assessments. They are torn. They know that what is best for the students is often not what is reflected on the assessments. It is going to take change on all levels in order for a theory like constructionism to take root. At our school, we are switching over to the Common core curriculum next year. I think that will force us to take a hard look at problem- and project-based teaching.
The other issue with project and problem-based teaching came up earlier in the course (or maybe it was the last one?) in terms of collaboration. The way school is set up now, we still grade by individual work. Projects are often collaborative works, but when we keep so much focus on the individual, that can be really problematic for grading!
ReplyDeleteThis learning theory does really engage most students, but I see students that are teacher pleasers struggling because there is not one right answer. The type of learning is really different than the traditional teacher talks to students and students spit back the information. I think it is a much more meaningful way of learning, but it is also time consuming, so the people in charge of curriculum really need to decide if covering more material is the most important or if student understanding is more important, or even if teacher could have a little room in their day for both.
ReplyDelete