First, let's talk about constructivism.
What is constructivism, you ask? According to Cherry D. Ward's article "Under Constructivism: On Becoming A Constructivist in View of the Standards" in Mathematics Teacher,
"Simply stated, constructivism is a belief that all knowledge is necessarily a product of our own cognitive acts."
Constructivism advocates for students to construct their ideas, not be directly instructed them. The reason this is advocated for is that it is believed students retain information better when they construct rather than when they are directly instructed information. I highly recommend reading her article and looking into constructivism, but today we're going to talk more about the practicality of it within the classroom.
So, what does this mean for the classroom? Can we assimilate constructivism into our classrooms?
Some people think constructivism is possible and practical in the classroom.
Thanks, Giorgio.
We will discuss this first. Students have been shown to retain material better when they learn it through constructivism. They are directly involved in the process of learning and constructing, adding meaning to what they are doing. If we, as teachers, want to teach for long-term understanding, this seems like it is the way to go.
In my time observing, most of class consisted of examples on the board. Unlike how many of my classrooms were run, students were directly involved in finding the answer. The teacher did not stand in front of the students, talking and writing everything they need to know on the board. The students clearly enjoyed class because they were involved and engaged. Special time was also taken out at one point for an activity to introduce the concept of reflections. Students worked with mirrors, reflecting points about a line. When discussing what they learned as the class, the students seemed to have a deep understanding for just having the concept introduced.This is a more direct example of constructivism.
On the other hand, some people do not think it is practical and do not like the idea.
There have only been a few days this semester in my education classes that time has not been brought up as an issue. With how much a teacher is expected to cover, it it becomes difficult to dedicate every day, most days, or even some days to discovery activities when sometimes it's more time efficient to instruct. Constructivism also does not necessarily ensure students will retain the material. In high school calculus, we derived the area of a circle. To this day, I mix up the equation. The constructive approach, although interesting, did not help me remember the material better. That poses the issue of whether or not the benefit will be worth the cost of time, considering the benefit is not certain.
Almost every single day in my observation was covering a new topic. Most of the time, multiple topics were covered on one day. Although the students enjoyed the constructive activities more, lecturing and instruction clearly covered more material.
Others are still unsure.
And that's okay.
In all, constructivism can be argued for and against. In my personal opinion, I feel as though constructivism is beneficial to the classroom and should be incorporated when time allows. Sometimes the best option is not always the most practical option in regards to time. I think constructivism offers meaning to a classroom that is often cast aside.
Leave a comment if you feel like sharing your thoughts. Either way, it is something to consider for future classrooms.
5Cs:+
ReplyDeleteIs the material taught if the teacher covers it, or if the students have learned it? How much covered material is not learned? If you focus on the students who are your challenge, which is best for them?