At some point, education became less about the process and more about the results. Numbers, statistics, rankings, etc. became the measurement by which schools and students were assessed. No considerations were given about the qualitative aspects of the student experience, merely the quantitative. A focus that brings back the tangible and meaningful work to the classroom is constructionism and constructivism.
To differentiate between these two concepts, constructivism is the theory that individuals create knowledge on their own with each experience they have. In contrast, constructionism is the ideology that students need to construct tangible, physical, or shareable artifacts in order to absorb valuable knowledge (Laureate Education, 2015). In a sense, it is a mental construction versus physical construction. As it relates to the classroom and providing real-world experiences, I see the immense value a constructionist approach can have. As anyone who has ever learned a new skill or methodology knows, it is the practice and application process that solidifies this new knowledge to stick. More importantly, it makes the skill or task engaging and a higher likelihood that the new knowledge will stick.
In the scholarly article I found this week, researchers showed that constructivist classrooms are more effective than traditional classes, as demonstrated by appropriate constructivist measurements (Rosen & Soloman, 2007). A constructive and constructionist approach to education requires a classroom environment that fosters the creative and growing process. A classroom that engages learners in learning, encourages question-asking, confronts concepts and misconceptions, and extracts essential concepts and skills from examples and experiences will provide the atmosphere necessary to implement these theories (Orey, 2010). On a student-skill level focus, constructivist classroom atmospheres foster critical thinking, flexibility, and creativity, as outlined in the popular resource I found (Machado, 2011).
A constructionist approach to the classroom pairs perfectly with technology. Tech resources allow students to create and build via resources like PowerPoint, website builders, video production, and many others facilitate shareable creations between students and the world beyond the classroom (Laureate education, 2015). A vital aspect of these tech resources is that they pose a problem, both in addressing the given task they are being used for as well as technical and formatting issues that may arise. This puts students into a disequilibrium state, which is essential for their growth and acquisition of new knowledge. The essence of constructivism is that students accommodate or assimilate new knowledge to their existing knowledge. Students do this in pursuit of maintaining equilibrium or balance within the brain where knowledge and meaning make sense (Laureate Education, 2015). By placing students in a state of disequilibrium, their minds must work harder to make sense of the new information they are being exposed to, thus contributing to piste educational growth. Technology allows for this place of growth by providing the creative mechanism for the task assigned and the technical knowledge and skills necessary to utilize the given tech/digital resource.
A great way to get students into the constructionist mode is through problem (or project)-based learning. As Pitler et al. (2012, p. 144) states, “Problem-based inquiry is an effort to challenge students to address real-world problems and resolve realistic dilemmas. Such problems create opportunities for meaningful activities that engage students in problem-solving and higher-ordered thinking in authentic settings”. This instructional process engages students in a manner that can not be replicated with direct instruction and puts the skills/knowledge being taught into a real-world applicative. As an educator proceeds with a problem-based learning plan, it would be helpful to pose the problem to students before they begin any learning processes, so that they can keep the initial problem in mind as they move forward with focus and intentionality. Problem-based learning paired with technology is a dream team combination for constructionism in the classroom. It provides the key components of disequilibrium and tangible creations throughout the process from which students will grow.
For example, a teacher could pose the problem of an environmental incident that happened in the local community. Students would initially begin with a brainstorming session of potential solutions, refraining back to background knowledge and hypothesis that could help. Students could then move forward in the design process by constructing plans, designs, or experiments that would allow them to solve the problem. The final step would be allowing students to implement their ideas and conclude the findings. Students are using higher-level thinking skills that put them into a state of disequilibrium during the entire process, with the problem-based question guiding their actions. A myriad of academic topics can be tied into a project/problem-based learning lesson (obviously and subtly) with language arts, math, science, and history, to name a few (Laureate Education, 2016).
I am eager to incorporate more problem-based learning in my classroom this upcoming school year. In the past, I have used it for scientific seed-growing/data collection and devising physical structures inspired by famous storybook dwellings. Moving forward, I believe that I could stretch projects longer into a given unit, while still adhering to all state standards that must be covered. By incorporating problem/project-based learning, I would be adhering to ISTE Educator standards 5 & 6, as I would be designing meaningful and interactive real-world scenarios via technology, and facilitating student use as they explore and solve the problem/project (ISTE, 2016a). Students would meet the requirements of ISTE Student standards 5 & 6 as computational thinkers and creative communicators. Students would be problem-solving and collecting data and expressing their findings through digital and tech formats.
Problem /project-based learning directly relates to my hour of Code (HoC) lesson. Students will be creating and constructing gameplay via coding, and then writing about the experience with an emphasis on incorporating verbs and adjectives. Students will have the chance to build their knowledge and experience as the coding process puts them into a state of disequilibration. This experience will be the inspiration for their writing, which is the state standard I am tying their task to.
To make the classroom environment as transferable to the real-world as possible, a constructionist approach is crucial. Having students indulge in a task that engages and excites makes learning more relevant for students. This approach helps students get comfortable with a disequilibrium state and even enjoy the process of solving the unknown. These tangible and shareable outcomes/creations can be given to an audience beyond the classroom, which motivates the use of best practices and quality effort. The constructionism approach to education is valuable in preparing our students for 21st-century college and career modalities.
References
ISTE Standards for Educators | ISTE. (2016a). https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
ISTE Standards for Students | ISTE. (2016b). https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
Laureate Education (Producer). (2015). Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Constructivism in practice [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Machado, J. (2011). A Constructivist Classroom is a 21st-Century Classroom. Tech4Learning. https://web.tech4learning.com/a-constructivist-classroom-is-a-21st-century-classroom
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2010). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The Differential Learning Achievements of Constructivist Technology-Intensive Learning Environments as Compared with Traditional Ones: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2190/r8m4-7762-282u-554j
No comments:
Post a Comment