2011 EDLD 655 Watch 1, Day 2: Cognitivist/Constructivist
2011: Hear teachers and educational leaders discuss observations of learning theories at work. To post, just click on "Post a Comment" below and a screen will come up for typing.
I am back observing the 8th grade band class and an intrigued as a group of 5 students with mixed instruments and abilities are negotiating a project that requires them to take a short story they know, set it to music using a specific scale and repeated melodies or themes that are created specifically to illuminate the meaning of the story. Ultimately students perform their piece and also evaluate the performances of their fellow students.
As I listened, I heard students grappling with their task and talking about concepts they'd already learned in class and how to apply them to the current project. They made decisions about what notes to use and whether or not to maintain the same key or change it from instrument to instrument. I heard them defending their use of a specific melody and why that either added to the meaning of the story or not.
Students were engaged in higher order thinking and analytical skills and were forced to be accountable to others as they made meaning of the assignment. Even though they were in a group context, they were all working independently to create ideas, drawing on prior learning, and then had to use and alter these ideas as they decided on the best way to fulfill the goal of the project.
Question: As I watched this sort of learning I noticed that students had a chance to sort of cycle in and out of the conversation and focus. With more of a behaviorist approach, teachers can control the flow and use techniques to keep students on their toes. 1) Is this thinking sound and 2) Do you notice your best teachers using one learning theory more than another, or are they seamlessly blending?
Yesterday I observed a classroom serving students with developmental disabilities. I was able to see a surprising number of examples of the cognitive/constructivist approach. Examples included: A staff modeling reading to a student, a student independently working on reading on the computer on a lesson using scaffolding to build on prior knowledge, and cooperative learning going on with peer tutors and students.
In response to Wes's questions. Considering all students in this room had an IQ of less than 58 I expected to see the behaviorist approach being predominantly utilized. I was surprised at how much blending of the approaches was being utilized. Staff did a great job of modeling, coaching, and fading to help students learn.
On Friday, I attended a planning meeting for our equity and diversity team in Springfield. We are working on integrating a multicultural education into the high schools in Springfield through a student leadership group called Student Voice.
The adult allies met to outline our agenda and plan activities for the workshop next week. We outlined two activities that were rooted in the cognitivist/constructivist learning theories. 1) Having students build their own definitions of equity, diversity, and achievement gap 2) Asking students to develop projects/initiatives to implement in their schools to promote equity and diversity awareness in their schools.
I believe this illustrates constructivist behaviors because as educators we are promoting that the students use their prior knowledge and experiences to develop projects and working definitions for a multicultural education. We are not giving them the definitions or providing them with detailed instructions, instead we are facilitating the learning process in a way that ignites self-directed discovery of knowledge.
In response to Wes’ question, I lean towards the belief that the best teachers use all three learning theories in their classrooms. Our most successful teachers use all three approaches to connect activities with the most effective strategy. Hopefully, if they notice one theory/strategy is not working then the utilize tactics of a different variety. Our job as educators is to find theories that work best for students at an individual level, so we should be using more that one learning theory for a classroom on 30+ - there is no way that one strategy works for all.
I totally agree with Whitney's comment about Wes’ question - the best teachers use all three learning theories in their classrooms. Heck, they use anything they can to reach each of their students.
I observed a 4th grade class during a science lesson on geology. The teacher had conveniently provided the perfect example of construtivist learning: in small groups, the kids were examining real rocks in small groups, and using a set of written questions to determine what type of rock it was. Great lesson - the kids were making observations like, "This is igneous because it has lots of holes". Every student in that class was on task for the approx. 12 minutes that I observed.
As I think bbrands is suggesting, there is no one 'right way'. Part of the success of this lesson was the teacher's behavioral expectations. I don't think a 25+ class of 10 year olds would have had as full a constructivist learning experience if they didn't also have a behavior-based understanding of the activity's parameters.
To understand this observation, it's likely important to describe the context a bit. . . In January, our school does a 3-week mini-term of sorts that we call "J Term." For three weeks we suspend the regular schedule and all the freshmen and sophomores and a few of the upper classmen, take a day-long speciality class that in some way brings together the arts and academics (most of the junior and seniors are in day-long internships). Examples this J Term include: The Anatomy of Rock Climbing (kids rock climb part of the day then do biology), The History of Food & Manners, etc. . .
For this observation, I viewed "Paris of the 1900s-1920s; a revolution of music & art". In the morning, the class covered the art history of the period, featuring Cezan and other painters. In the afternoon, I returned to see the students actually doing still life paintings in the style of the period. What was particularly interesting was to see the students engaging with each other about the particular stylistic points with comments like "this is too 'real' looking; how do I make it look more like Cezan?"
I think Whitney makes a good point that most teachers are at least aware of different learning modalities for students and that good teachers use whatever teaching tools are at their disposal to engage students. However, I frequently question whether we break out our teaching tools because we like using them or because a student's learning requires it. We are, at times it seems to me, too willing to give up on a cognitivist approach of student discovery simply because students are frustrated with the process. After all, most kids have figured out that if they wait just long enough, a teacher will shift to a behaviorist mode and tell them the answer. All they have to do is wait to copy it down.
In the High school – beginning woodwork classes. The instructor had recently completed all of the instruction on proper safe use of the equipment in the lab. A design problem was presented with optional approaches students may use to solve the design problem. Students selected their groups, and entered the lab wearing appropriate personal safety protection. Groups were free to select material and choose their approach to the problem, some went left others to the right, the lab filled with chatter of students talking, discussing their next move with the hum of equipment filling every corner of the lab. The instructor positioned himself along one side of the room where it looked like he could keep the entire class in view as they became increasingly involved in their learning experience. As the end of the class drew near, it was time to clean up the lab, many students wanted to continue with one more step, to continue in this hands-on learning environment. At the end of the class was the only time the instructor had to give a clear, concise directive on what each student was to do, “turn OFF the saw!” I saw engaged students actively in pursuit of a solution to the problem presented. I saw students working together with the teacher staying to one side of the room facilitating discussions, posing questions to the small groups to determine their own course of action rather than providing answers for them.
Last week I went to a regular education 7th grade science class at a middle school. The teacher gave the class a project to work on in small groups of four. He asked them to read a short passage about marine life, cells, and pollution, and answer 2 questions that required the students to make inferences. Their next instruction was to preview the directions to the lab they would be starting the following day, and make a prediction, or hypothesis, as to what results might occur, and how they related to the article they just read. The students worked together (with lots of chatter) as the teacher circulated and listened to the groups.
I believe this was a clear example of the cognitive/constructivist theories of learning and knowledge, as the students were explicitly instructed to use their previous knowledge to form new ideas and knowledge, and to solve a problem. I think science may be a subject with multiple examples of the utilization of this theory of knowledge.
In this reflection and reading colleague's posts here, I wonder if some academic subjects or settings do lend themselves more to each of these theories. For example, in music, art, and science, are students engaged more in constructing new knowledge based on existing knowledge than they would be in PE, Reading or Math? I agree with others that teachers probably use all 3 modalities. However, does the subject or skill being taught influence which one gets used more?
In response to Micheal Fisher- I agree that teachers may be too quick to give up the cognitive/constructivist when students are stuggling or causing behavior issues. It may be that the teacher, in this case, has not done enough work upfront to adjust a project to allow for different student capabilities, or that the material is presented without enough work done on setting up a baseline for students to build upon prior knowledge. If this happens students may become frustrated or bored and soon cause issues that require behaviorial correction.
I observed two first grade classrooms, both of which were doing math at the moment. I saw great examples of the constructivist theory at work. In both classrooms, students were in groups, working on different inquiry-based problems. In one classroom, groups of students were at the computers, on the floor, and in a couple different table groups, all working on different problems and activities. In the other room, students were in groups, working on a variety of shape-based problems. In both settings, the math problems were open-ended and involved some exploration on the part of the student groups to come to the right answer. I believe this also demonstrated some sociocultural theory. This combination certainly had students engaged with one another and the subject matter! They were SO excited to tell me about what they were working on, which made me pleased as punch!
Regarding some earlier comments about what constitutes the best teaching, I just find it interesting that there can be such a range of approaches in one school. Decisions about instruction can be so subjective in some settings, it seems.
For day 2, an English class at a middle school was engaged in a constuctivist activity. The class had been learning poetry unit for the entire week. This task asked for higher thinking skills. For this day, in teams of two, they were to write a poem. Before letting them proceed, the teacher first reviewed previous knowledge by reading three poems by Frost Siverstein, and Seuss. He talked about the form of the three poems and the use on non-sensical words in Dr. Suess. He asked many quesions to the students to check for understanding. The students then went outside as a group and were told to use their five senses to experience the environment and write about in a poem form of their choice. They could used up to three non-sensical words with the criteria that others reading their poem could be able to relate those words to a real word, context was important. The lesson went well and the students were engaged. The teacher circulated to help with technical questions but promted students to come up their own answers by relating back to prior knowledge. This lesson engaged students in a way that tied together the entire week by giving them a creative task. The students were able to read each others poems and offer constructive and positive criticism. The students could rewrite with that feedback and while this was graded on a pass only basis, the students could rewrite, if needed, to enter into a poetry contest at their school.
I observed a 7th grade Science lesson. The teacher facilitated a note-taking activity that incorporated the Cognitive and Knowledge-Building Domains of Reading Apprenticeship. The students recorded quotes or ideas from the reading in one column and made observations, personal connections, and comments about the comprehension process in other columns. Students then shared their work with a partner and subsequently out to the larger group. The passage was about metabolism, and most students seemed to be fairly challenged. Students had to draw from personal connections in order to construct meaning from this passage. This lesson was powerful...
Question: To use a constructivist approach in a classroom, students must feel safe to share their knowledge and prior experiences. No one is ever wrong, as everything needs more exploration and then connection. What philosophical framework can teachers use to build this trust other than constructivist and why?
During my visit in a 4th grade math classroom, I was able to observe students engaged in a math lesson, using our newly adopted curriculum; Investigations. Investigations uses an inquiry-based approach to teach problem solving and thinking skills that focus on the mathematical process and understanding “why” rather than simply the algorithm. During my observation, students were working, in groups of four, to solve problems involving area. Each group was given graph paper with rectangles and squares drawn on the paper. Students were instructed to figure the areas of the shapes, individually, and then share solutions with their small group. Students were given leeway to use cubes, count squares, draw/color on the graph paper, etc. to solve the problem. Students were then able to talk to one another and share ideas. The group was further asked to, collectively, agree on the area of each shape. Student conversations involved sharing with one another how they solved the problems. For example, I heard words of agreement, like, “Me, too” and words of disagreement like, “Yea, but this is what I did…”. Some groups managed themselves and created a systematic way to share while others were more random. The teacher roamed, re-directed, guided, and facilitated discussions. Following small group time, the teacher asked volunteers to share thoughts, ideas, and reactions to the group’s thinking. I thought requiring the students to react to the work of the group (reflect) was powerful and created a forum for students to consider the thoughts of others and, potentially, broaden their own thinking.
I can relate to Michael's point that teachers (and/or students) may be quick to give up on the constructivist approach because it requires a great deal of classroom management, the willingness to trust that students can/will assume an active role in their own education, and a shift in what is seen as a more traditional approach to instruction; it's hard and takes a great deal of pre-planning. I know my teachers have struggled with what is a new approach to lesson delivery when implementing the new math curriculum in our district.
Today, I observed 5th grade Social Studies. I am very impressed with this teachers approach to teaching about colonization. Students are participating in a long term simulation that is teacher guided. The students are divided into colonies and given multiple assignments as a group. The group decides which student performs each task and the completed tasks earn wealth for their colony. The tasks include creating maps, making flags, developing colony goals, creating a motto, etc. The points are used to purchase the items they need to get to the new world. The simulation will continue and students will sail across the ocean and establish "functioning" colonies. Ultimately, the group will work together to experience and at the same time learn about colonization.
In response to the question Wes asked, I notice that our best teachers apply all the learning theories choosing the most effective approach for what they are teaching sometimes using multiple theories within the same lesson. Our best teachers are master guides and incredible at provoking thought!
I agree that Michael nailed it: how do teachers balance the deeper learning gained through constructivism with the constraints of time and curriculum demands. The standard answer is a Scalise-like approach of layered content, but what about the times when the gap is so great, its very difficult to overcome. What tells the teacher that its time to switch to another theory?
I observed a seventh grade math class. The students were doing independent work at their desks. I observed the teacher float around the room using constructivist style language and assisting the students . I noticed how he went to great lengths to not provide the steps and certainly not the answers. He used questions such as, "How do you know that ..." and "Check your labels, it is important to use the correct labels..." and "That part is right. That is how much is thrown away. What is the next step?" The teacher used questions to spur the student on to look closer at their own work and/or to ask themselves what should be the next step in finding a solution to the math problem.
This post is part of my reciprocal teaching assignment:
Most of the above observations portray constructivist learning as a positive experience for students that allow deeper meanings to really stick in their brains. There also seems to be a lot of consensus among the comments that a blend of the three approaches is really what works best. For those posting after this, I challenge you to use Kathleen's "contrary approach." After you describe your observation and why it was a constructivist approach, take on the role of someone who thinks this is the WRONG type of learning. State before your paragraph "Contrary approach" and we will know that these might not be your true feelings, but that you are trying to take on a perspective that will expand your learning.
Wes asked do I see teachers use one approach more than others or do I see a seamless mix? My 7/8th grade Humanities teachers uses constructivist approach a lot. All in all the teachers at my school of grades 5-8 seem to use the behvaorist approach when the safety of the student is paramont, that constructivist dialogue is used to understand why certain rules exist and then they use behavorist to quickly "enforce" the rules.
After stopping by multiple classrooms over a period of two days I finally found an example of constructivist learning. In a Spanish 1 class students were working in groups to design an ideal quincenera celebration. The teacher had them construct as a class elements from their own cultural "coming of age" celebrations (quinceneras or otherwise). From there they chose the elements they thought necessary to design an ideal quincenera. They were working on these to present in front of the class the next day. I heard a lot of arguing as students decided what was important to include.
Granted, this wasn't the best example of constructivist learning that I've ever seen and I'm concerned about the sheer number of classrooms engaged in behaviorist learning in our building. I believe that students can learn so much more when they are engaged in constructing their own meaning of material.
In response to Jeremy's request to take a contrarian approach, I would say that the reason I see so many examples of behaviorist learning is that the classroom management piece of a constructivist lesson can be more intimidating for a teacher who likes to be in control. I recognized this in my own teaching when I had my beginning leadership students working on school improvement projects. They were responsible for designing and implementing a project to improve the school. I had to remind myself multiple times to step back and let students learn things for themselves rather than jump in and solve their dilemmas. My classroom was often loud and chaotic, but I was always impressed at the work kids accomplished.
In response to Jeremy’s Challenge I give my “Contrary Approach:” Providing a classroom setting where cognitivist students are free to explore optional solutions to a problem, this type of learning does NOT easily lend itself to producing the common factory/mill worker where the routine is repetitious. Constructivist learned behavior appears to be beyond that which is needed for the entry level factory laborer.
I saw constructivist teaching today when I went into the first grade room and saw students in math working in groups. The teacher was working with a group on a problem where everyone was using manipulatives and talking with each other about what they were doing. There were two other groups of students in the room working on other tasks that were either for partners or for the whole group. Everyone in the groups had a "job" and they shared the jobs. They couldn't move on unless everyone could explain what they were doing and why.
In response to Jeremy... Contrary approach- I walked into a first grade classroom during math time and I couldn't believe what I saw or didn't see for that matter. The teacher was with a group of kids while the others were in groups all by themselves with NO adult attention or direction. Those kids weren't learning anything except what their classmates thought and sometimes they weren't even correct. I had to leave before 5 minutes was up because I couldn't take it anymore. :(
Today I observed Oregon men's basketball practice again (this time at the brand new Matthew Knight Arena). As a coach, I was looking for situations or circumstances in which players found their way or were successful in learning through an internal structure. An example of constructivist learning in the basketball environment was difficult for me to find...
One of our smaller players, a 5'6" guard, attempted to drive to the basket in a scrimmage setting. His shot was blocked and he fell hard to the ground. When another opportunity arose for the same player to drive to the hoop, he learned from the previous event and shot a jump shot from 10" from the basket. He constructed knowledge internally and adjusted his behavior without a prompt or coaching.
I thought Andy Bracco's comments about different class subjects lending themselves to different learning theories, was a good point. From a coaching perspective though, I feel like a blend of all three theories is the best way to get through to the players and assist in their learning.
While observing I got a chance to see the end part of a very constructivist project. A middle school teacher designed an all-day unit that had the students re-create a school garden area. Prior to that day, the students had assignments to find out about native plant species and roles within a group. On the day of the project, students were put into groups of 4-5 and assigned one area of the garden. They had 15 minutes to assign roles to each member (treasurer, president, etc.). Then they were given 30 minutes to go outside and decide what they would do with their portion of the garden. Next, a bus drove them to the local plant shop and they had $25 each to buy items. They then returned to the school and did the dirty work of digging, pulling, weeding, and planting. During the entire project, the teacher rotated around and checked in with each group, but gave very little direction. Rather, she asked them questions about their preferences and what they thought they should do. It was interesting to see the students who excelled in this type of environment - sometimes the ones who struggled the most in a more traditional, behaviorist/lecture-style setting.
In response to those who feel that a class can best be reached by using a combination of the learning theories: I agree. I also wonder if we could take this one step further and have students learn the basics about each theory (maybe even have them watch the videos that we watch for this assignment)? Kids could identify their best way of learning and teachers could be transparent before they start a lesson or unit and state which learning theory is most closely followed. Students could identify beforehand whether they might be challenged or feel comfortable during the assignment.
Learning a language as itself belongs already to cognitive learning. Part of it is learning new vocabulary.
Vocabulary knowledge can be described as a key to language acquisition. According to linguist David Wilkins who sunccinctly notes, “without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed.” (Chacón, Abello-Contesse, Torreblanca-López, 2010, p. 83) vocabulary is essential in learning a new language. Scott Thornbury, a Professor of English Language Studies, published among several other books “How to Teach Grammar” and afterwards in 2003 “How to Teach Vocabulary.” In this book Thornbury points out the importance of learning vocabulary and mentions miscellaneous examples how words can be memorized more effectively, e.g. with “Imaging” or by using “Mnemonics.” Thornbury describes mnemonic devices as “tricks” (p. 25) and mentions the keyword technique.
I have seen this way of learning at a class in Germany. The teacher was a specialist on the field of mnemonics and made it part of his teaching a foreign language. The following example shows how the keyword method would work for an American student who learns German.
der Alltag = ordinary weekday
Association: we ALL play TAG just on ordinary weekdays.
The example above shows how the keywords create a meaningful association to memorize it with a lasting impact.
The observation I took place used this method and because of several aspects such as knowledge, solving problems, reflecting etc. it illustrates cognitive learning.
I could easily observed cognitivist/constructivist learning style in language classroom. In English class in Korea, one of my co-workers used to teach English grammar in inductive way. Students read and analyze several sentences that has patterns. Then they are trying to figur out what grammar patterns are in those sentences and how the sentences interpret and when they can use those patterns. It takes longer time to teach and learn than deductive ways. But through this learning and teaching strategy, students can research and reflect their prior knowledge in order to solve the grammar patterns. This is a good example of cognitivist/constructivist.
* response to Whitney: I totally agree with the Whitney's last comment. Right!! As a teacher, we should not hesitate to apply a variety of learning / teaching theory and strategies based on our own contexts such as students' needs/goals and educational environments and so forth. We should keep learning, applying, sometimes abandoning and trying to do new and learning again!!"circulation" That's the reason I am here.
Thank you for sharing your great thought! Whitney :)
I like the example of the smaller athlete who adapts the knowledge he has to succeed making a point. According to behaviorism, reflecting is not part of it and finding a way to score in basketball is not a unconditioned response. The example shows that solving a problem is part of cognitive learning. Now the questions could be if the taller guy is able to use his cognitive skills to block the smaller one the next time ...
I observed a 2nd.3rd grade class do a constructivist lesson on simple machines. The teacher had a variety of materials (recycled, found objects, a couple of pulleys, and standard classroom supplies) and posed a question to the class: "What if you were very small and you had to lift my purse from the floor up to the table, without being able to lift t with your hands? How could you do that? Could you make a machine to do that?" They were instructed to go to their table teams to draw out their ideas, make a simple machine, and share with the class how it works.
The students (about 29) were very engaged as they sketched, negotiated designs, and went to work building and testing their machines. The classroom was very noisy of course, but the kids were happy and excited. The teacher circulated and commented on both process and product, but allowed them to follow their ideas. This went on for about 45 minutes. Some groups made a few machines.
At the end of class, they shared class wide the results. The teacher commented positively on the variety of results, but otherwise gave no praise. She gave the kids vocabulary for concepts, and ownership of their feelings about their results. Later, kids told me about their class and were able to describe how they made machines to do different things as well as some of what heir classmates made. They were still very excited later in the day. I could tell they learned several principles.
Whitney initiated conversation about teacher flexibility with respect to best reaching all learners. Cathy and others agreed. I think one of the hallmarks of a great teacher is their fluency with multiple strategies, and addressing the various modalities, learning styles, strengths, temperaments and developmental levels of their students. Well done, teaching is an art. Flexibility is key, even within a lesson and class.
I understand Michael's perspective that some teachers give up too easily on constructivist learning in response to student difficulties and I have witnessed students rebel against it. From my perspective this is due to prior discouragement and lack of efficacy in learning environments. They have reduced academic risk taking behaviors from being "wrong" so often. A teacher can empathize with the difficulty in initiating tasks/constructing meaning and scaffold the learning steps for them, but gently insist they continue with the learning step by step. Bring in the behavioral reinforcers of specific praise, encouragement and an awareness that they have more freedom intellectually and physically, and they will learn to appreciate the model.
I also believe that if students experienced constructivist learning from the start of school, they would enjoy it, be fabulous at it and never want to give it up. Developmentally, we learn in constructivist modes form infancy until school age, and when we get to school we often get in trouble for trying to engage in learning that way.
Today I attended a meeting with other teachers who are teaching the same kevel as me. We wanted to plan for the winter term and decide on quizzes, activities and other related materials. We were all using our experience in teaching the same level before to come up with appropriate tasks for students at this level. Although we were working as a team, we were free to select and develop materials which match our own specific class. I believe this is an example of constructivist learning since we were all actively using our past experience to construct a process.
In response to Wflinn’s question, I believe this thinking is completely sound. Teachers need to use different methods and strategies based on the situation. Sometimes a behaviorist technique is what the students will benefit the most and there are other times when they need to be set free and wander until they find their path based on their past experience (while being coached of course). I think that my best teachers blended all different learning theories to create a perfect class.
Today I was visiting a 5th grade science class where students were working with partners to determine how many drops of water will a penny hold. After every five drops of water, the students would record any observations they noticed. They continued until they could identify how many drops their penny held recording their observations. Students repeated the experiment to see if they could get their penny to more drops. Students were sharing how many drops their coin held sharing tips to increase the number of drops in a few cases.
Following 15 minutes of lab time, the teacher lead a discussion inviting students to share how many drops of water their penny held and observations. Using their observations she introduced the terms surface tension, cohesion and adhesion.
The constructivist theory has been a strategy used by many staff members over the years, especially in the area of science as our curriculum lends itself to this strategy. As we were looking at a new science adoption the staff commented students are engaged and seem to demonstrate greater understanding through a more hands-on cooperative learning experience. Therefore, the staff opted to continue using STC / Foss science kits. Interestingly, as our class sizes increase, what strategy do even the best teachers tend to use less of?
I was looking for instances of instructors asking students to explain their understanding of the problem/solution, using prior knowledge and experience.
I think this teaching theory is easiest to relate to architecture, because student projects are only valid if they can succinctly discuss their process of design and their understanding of the site, the culture, and the appropriate response. They often use precedent studies of buildings, materials, and spaces where they felt particularly inspired. They are trained to record, analyze, and discuss what they find. This type of teaching is the regular format of pin-ups, where students put their drawings on the wall and explain to peers and professors how they came to this approach. Everyone in the room is open to asking questions about the design, sometimes just to see how far the student has thought about the building and its effects at different scales.
In response to Andy, I definitely think the blend of art and science of architecture makes it very difficult for someone to explicitly state that a student is wrong. We are conditioned to be challenged, and sometimes we learn more about how to communicate our ideas than learning about the site or construction techniques…
In response to Michael’s comment about teachers being “too willing to give up on a cognitivist approach of student discovery simply because students are frustrated”… and Barbara’s comment about conducive “learning environments”: I think cognitivist learning happens when the teacher is able to see what motivates the student and uses what the student is already excited or curious about to relate subject matter. With this nugget to talk about and a safe, welcoming classroom setting that invites student input (Let’s talk about school design!!) I think we’d see more active, open learners.
This concept is one that I see quite often with the athletes that I work with. One thing that stood out to me was yesterday in our game we had a play in the game that could have resulted in a offensive foul but our player moved out of the way and gave up a layup. The player from the opposing team was moving toward the basket out of control it was a great opportunity to take a charge. The player noticing that he could have made a better play was able to draw a charge at a later point in the game.
In response to Tina, I feel language is a great example of how cognitivist/constructivist method are seen. Language is built on composition and patterns used to form sentences and statements. So for you to take note of how students can make mistakes in how they learn language was a great comparison. Language can be learned through your own mistakes as long as you have the understanding of how it need to improve.
When I think of cognitive learning, Yuri's example came up to my mind at the first place! This typical example which was given by Professor Surbramani at his comparative education class can be set up as the classical story to tell regarding the constructive learning theory. Besides, the study abroad experience served as an important step of constructive learning to me. Before came to another country, I limited the concept of culture as religion. However, after breaking into an totally new environment for a while, I came to realize that culture can be dissolved at every small aspect of life. I was too accustomed to neglect this fact. The new environment held as an stimulus to boost the discovery. This is also a constructive learning.
I agree though it's important to combine all the three learning theories in class, the management skills of the constructive way of teaching are demanding for teachers. Since business brought more profit-driven model to every part of the world, the education is also experiencing outcome-driven age. However the failure of the No Child Left Behind policy which advocated by the Bush administration approved that constructive way of learning should be caught more attention in the new education age.
I was observing the start of our beginning band class, and students were getting out music, assembling instruments, warming up, etc. As I happened to be sitting by the tuner, I observed a 7th grade student attempting to get her flute in tune before getting to her seat. She would play a note, frown at the machine because it was not indicating she was in tune, adjust the mouthpiece, then repeat the procedure. This cycle repeated itself about a half dozen times, with the student pulling out the mouth piece a bit, pushing it in, pulling it out, etc. As a line formed behind her, a fellow flute player suggested she warm up the mouth piece in her hand for a few moments. When that didn't work, the student double checked her fingering with with her fellow flute player, confirmed it was correct, but still wasn't playing the note in tune. She then adjusted the angle of the mouthpiece a bit, and finally got the indication from the tuner that she was good to go. There were some cheers and some 'Finally!' statement from the line behind her, as she walkedd to her seat with a huge grin. My guess is that she will get her flute in tune faster the next time!
In reponse to Jeremy's thought about teaching students these theories, I think it's a great idea, especially for secondary students. The more they know about how they best learn, the better. I also agree with others that feel the three theories are all used in our schools, and often overlap. As a Family & Consumer Life teacher, I had to teach clear expectations and consequences for foods lab behaviors, let students be creative and original in their food creations, and also teach cooperative learning skills so students could be successful in a group. Not utilizing all three theories in this case could have led to chaos.
I did both my watch two and my watch three on Friday. Separate classes. For my watch 2 I observed another leadership situation rather than a traditional classroom. This is a group of collegues registered for a year long course called "aspiring leaders"; Designed to develop leaders from within the institution. As this was not a traditional situation I was worried that I would struggle to find evidence of cognitivist theory as I was challenged in my watch 1 in a similar type of situation. I was pleasantly surprised. The theme was teaching college finance. After the basic lecture, there were activities (group activities) where participants were asked to try to balance the college budget, and given a set of guidlines to work under.
In responce to the blending of approaches idea, I still find it a challenge to decifer. If this is a group activity, is it cognitivist, or socioculture?
Also given that both my watch one and watch two were in professional development leadership environments, it makes me wonder. Despite how we have bought into various approaches over the years to educate youth, has our approach to educate adults and to desimnate information for professional development changed much? What is the approach used for all the conferences we attend. I dont believe I ever attended a conference or similar situation with clear evidence of behaviorist theory for example. Yet I have been in plenty of classrooms that have used this approach.
I stopped by the women’s lacrosse practice on Thursday to check up on the team and I observed some Cognitivist/ Constructivist behavior. The team first started off practice with doing some shooting drills, and one of the players on the team was getting really close to the goal before shooting. One of her coaches called her over and told her she needed to shoot from farther out because in a real game she would never be able to shoot from that close because the defense would clobber her. Even though this player was told from her coach, she still hadn’t gone through that learned experience. When the girls scrimmaged later on in practice, it was interesting to see this same player try and get really close to the goal before shooting, only to get double teamed by two defenders and turn over the ball to the other team. This was the constructivist behavior that was needed for this player to understand what her coach was trying to teach her earlier in the practice. Without this player experiencing the situation for herself she wasn’t able to strip herself of that habit.
I really appreciate the use of the cognitivist / constructivist approach with equity and diversity in the springfield high schools. The two activities that are going to be used in the Student Voice group are ones that will empower the students to create their own action. This is a great way of getting students involved while also teaching them about equity and diversity. From my experience I have also noticed that when it is student run, the students take more ownership in dedicating themselves to make the commitment. Good Job Whit!
Class had been in session 3 or 4 minutes when I arrived in the 7th grade Pre-Algebra class. A table entitled Atlantic City to Cape May was displayed on the smart board, and students were individually graphing the time and distance. In a few minutes, the teacher asked, "What story does this graph tell?" One student responded, and the teacher asked another question building on that answer to further discussion in the room. As a former math-phobe and an eternal story teller, I was intrigued! They were evaluating the graph and suggesting possible reasons for lag time in certain hours of the day. Each answer became a bit more creative, and everyone was engaged.
She displayed another graph and led students in a discussion of what they saw and how it may be interpreted. They offered ideas, and she added a possibility of her own. She discussed dependent and independent variables as related to this information and asked the class if they could see this info easier in a table or a graph, again adding her own opinion after hearing their answers.
Later in the period, students worked on a homework assignment related to the warm-up graph they had completed earlier. She walked around the room checking on their progress, answering questions and making suggestions. They were allowed to discuss their answers with a table partner. She directed students to hold up their fingers to show if they got 3, 2, or 1 for the answer, then asked a few of them to explain how they arrived at that number.
Throughout the class period, students were using data to determine processes and answers. They were asked to construct their own knowledge of the graphs beyond the numbers on a page, hypothesizing possible scenarios behind the data.
Andy Bracco asked if students are more engaged in constructing new knowledge based on existing knowledge in music, art, and science classes than they would be in PE, reading or math. I think that some subjects do lend themselves more to this process than others. However, according to what I observed in a 7th grade pre-algebra class, a constructivist approach can be used in math as well. My opinion is that it's good to mix it up a bit, similar to the way we should incorporate the different learning styles of students.
I observed an Algebra 1 class of a neighboring teacher. The teacher is hoping to reinforce the concept of multiplying, adding, and subtracting polynomials. The students were broken up into groups. The problem of the day was for the students to find the area of a sidewalk surrounding a garden. The students know the dimensions of the garden and the width of the sidewalk. The teacher began with a hands on activity. The desks were in an open square, mimicking the sidewalk. The open middle was playing the role of the garden. The students were given yardsticks and asked to find the area of the desks without measuring the lengths of the desks. One student in a group was adding and subtracting the feet and inches without concern for like terms. His group explained to him that you cannot do that. They group gave a great explanation involving the different sizes and an actual example, as well as a counter-example. The student grasped the concept extremely well. When the group moved to the garden problem with variables, the student who early struggled with like terms between inches and feet had an "aha" moment. The student said "Wait, so just like inches and feet are not like terms neither are variables and numbers. I get it."
I was observing a group of primary students during a break. One of the students began stacking blocks and counting to see how high he could go. Soon anther student joined him and started stacking blocks two at a time. Eventually students becamed involved with one group building on a base of 4. They were happily scampering about trying to collect more blocks so they could try new techniques. This clearly demonstrated cognitivist/constructivist behavior. Students were initiating their own experiments. They were adjusting and adapting as they percieved the results.
At first glance, teaching more depth in any subject would seem to be the obvious answer. However, we live in a culture of short clips, abbreviated communication, fast paced video games etc and I suspect our students won't hold still for too much depth unless we can deliver or facilitate the learning in an comparable engaging manner. Also, it is a pretty sophisticated world out there and students really need to have an amazing amount of information and skills to compete. Prioritizing is a challenge for teachers and students alike.
Watching a kindergarten teacher introduce a new math game to her class she used a document camera to project the gameboard on a screen and asked the students, "What do you notice?" Different responses noted the number and colors of trucks, that one had a bigger load than another, that the colored rectangles behind the trucks had different words on them, and that the spinner at the bottom had two halves with the same two words on them as the rectangles had. At that point the teacher thanked the students for their "awesome observations." She then invited one of the students to assist her in modeling how to play the game. Before they played a round, the teacher asked the rest of the students to predict who they thought might win.
Allowing the students to observe the gameboard and generate many observations and ideas about it engaged the students in exploring and thinking about possible ways in which the parts could be used in a game. Using another student to help her model the remaining steps helped everyone pull together what they had observed into a meaningful whole. These learners were actively engaged in using their prior knowledge and observations to wonder about how a game might be played. Then they predicted who might possibly win as they learned the rest of the rules from the interaction between the teacher and the selected student.
These constructivist strategies engaged the learners in working with each other's ideas to generate learning. They constructed together the elements of the game to make meaning and sense of the component parts, finishing by watching the actual game being played. Students as well as the teacher were in control of the learning as they thought more deeply about the component parts.
A great lesson uses the teaching strategy that best connects the learning to the child's prior understanding. Sometimes when the idea is just to present a lot of information, "a mile wide" is best. Other times when the idea is to observe a learning principle and to problem solve a situation, "an inch wide and a mile deep" is more appropriate.
Today I observed a high school English class that was using a practice SAT question as a warm up activity. Today's question was a vocabulary question about the word "charade". After reading the question and writing their answer, students then had to defend their answer with a partner. I observed several of these student conversations. In defending their answers students employed several previously learned strategies, including identifying the key term from the passage that they felt was closest to "charade", using other contextual clues, and process of elimination of the other possible answers. Several students changed their answers during these conversations based on the strategies presented by their partner. The teacher then facilitated a class discussion on the question in which students employed these strategies and arguments to the entire class. At no time were these previously learned strategies explicitly explained by the teacher. The students were independently using these to solve a new problem.
I was fortunate to be able to watch a Math Studio lesson in a second grade classroom. It was a great example of constructivist learning behaviors. The students were working on selecting and sequencing by creating a pattern that repeated or grew at least 3 times and had 2 variables. The students had prior knowledge of sequencing and pattern work but now had to do some problem solving using unifix cubes representing bunnies and eggs. The teacher visited with every child while they were building their patterns. She asked very open ended questions promoting discourse as well as some disequilibrium. At the end of the lesson she had different children show their work so the class could see and further discuss sequencing. Some had examples of appropriate patterns and some had non-examples, both of which were crucial in learning for the whole class.
Today I had the opportunity to observe a group of high school males as they brainstormed solutions to the various crimes included in the newspaper. All of the students started the “investigation” with the same facts (from the articles). They used their wildest imaginations and careful calculations to create elaborate plots and details for the various incidents. Since their factual knowledge of the scenarios was limited, there was great latitude left for creativity and supposition. Suspense seemed to build as we talked of future news articles that might provide more information.
I was intrigued by Gail’s recent post stating that the kindergarten teacher introduced a new math game to the students by asking them how each of the game pieces might be used. I thought that was particularly interesting, given that games are usually very goal focused and have rules and regulations for play. Asking the children to offer suggestions for use of the materials opens up the possibilities and increases engagement.
Several days ago I observed a 7th grade math class using previous knowledge to solve current problems and explain them to their peers. The students were given six problems to solve on an interactive white board. They then had to solve these problems. When completed they individually went to the white board and wrote an explanation of how they solved the problem (math equation and answer). When this was done, each student who had solved a problem explained their thinking to other students. Students were actively engaged in their learning.
I have to admit trying to find a true constructivist classroom was difficult. Teachers have told me that they feel pressured to get all standards and requirements completed and that a true constructivist teaching would not be thorough because of time constraints. What I wanted to see in my observations around the school was excitement and evaluative thinking like what might happen in a literature circle with students taking on different jobs and interpreting literature through personal experience, history, what is going on in the world, things they have read in other books or seen in movies. For instance…wouldn’t it be cogent to have students in fourth through sixth grade read Pearl Buck’s book The Big Wave about a fisherman’s son in Japan who watches his family and village swept away in a tsunami. Students would be pre-taught job descriptions for discussion leader, vocabulary leader, artist, questioner, or other kinds of jobs. They would then be able to get deep into the literature because of the real meaning from today’s news in their own lives.
I guess this is somewhat my response to, I believe, Jackie’s mile wide and inch deep or mile deep and inch wide learning. I feel that we have, because of high stakes testing, had to hammer basic skills and basic comprehension in math and reading. This has come at a loss to in-depth responses to history, literature, and math real life problem solving.
For the constructivist approach to work with children (elementary) it seems that students really have to have some good solid basics so that they are able to build upon, problem solve and develop in certain areas. I agree with Mary in that there is also a need for using engagement strategies to hold the interest of these children. My district has been providing professional development with regards to engagement strategies so we are able to focus on deeper learning.
To Jackie, I say mile deep. I think mile wide works best for those who have the ability to connect their learning to prior experience and teachings, somewhat automatically. That would not be me.
Earlier this week I had an opportunity to observe in an elementary resource room. This program is for students with mild to moderate disabilities who work on their individual IEP goals in a small group setting. In this lesson, the students were given a math word problem. These are often extremely difficult for students with learning disabilities to solve due to expressive/receptive communication delays or slow processing abilities. The students had a selection of manipulatives on the table, and in this lesson, the goal for the students was simply to identify which objects would help them solve the problem. The teacher asked leading questions, and then the students talked amongst themselves about how each manipulative could help answer a question they had. What they discovered, is that they needed a couple of different items (counters and a ruler.) This then led them into discussing how to use the items to actually solve the problem. Special education students often need more time to process what they are asked to do. Being given the time to do that, to talk with their peers, and to handle the items rather than work 'in their heads' or independently with paper and pencil.
Posted for Bob Nash: It seems that just as we are implementing more effective, research-based instructional strategies that require “mile deep” commitment (emphasis on student engagement, the importance of modeling, connecting with student”s prior knowledge, etc.), we are conversely being pulled a “mile wide” by the standards.
Regarding a mile wide or deep... I struggle with that as I think about students with disabilities, especially those who don't easily transfer their knowledge to different situations. I don't have the answer and see the benefits of both for those students. For myself, I'd rather go a mile deep as well - but I have the ability to make connections. Hmmmm...
In observing 3rd graders during Science I witnessed impressive Congnitive/Constructivist behaviors. The students were given a list of things to include in their solar system powerpoint presentation and they were working on them in the computer lab. They were grouped in partners and they were creating their powerpoints. They were to include the names of the planets and two facts that they found about each planet during their previous research sessions using the internet/suggested websites from the teacher. Students were discussing facts to use, problem solving to get the right pictures, and working together on format for their powerpoint. It was so fun to watch and hard to believe these were 8 & 9 year olds!
In repsonsr to Mary's post.... That is what I love about elementary, students are able to enjoy each other and have fun without all the social pressures that the older students have. I see the constructivist theory as the greatest opportunity for peer motivation & enthusiasm. After having taught middle school, I notice the little guys are more apt to take risks in front of each other.
At our school we have 4th and 5th grade students help with lunch service. They serve food, seat the kids, and wash dishes. Each week a new group comes in and they get trained on Monday then do their jobs for the week. Today I observed a girl who was serving the cold food begin to use more efficient ways to serve the food. She moved the bins for shredded cheese closer to where the plates are (I assume to avoid spills), she aligned the dressings so that the names were visible and she stacked the bananas in a pyramid (I am guessing to make them easier to doll out). She did all of this arranging with no prompt from any of the cafeteria workers or me. We will, however, start doing this as a regular practice from now on!
With NCLB it seems the rules we are currently given to play the education game by would suggest more of a behaviorist approach to learning and understanding standards which will be assessed yearly. I've always tried to to follow the mantra that if you do something well, the results should show. So if the constructivist approach is designed and implemented well, then the results should show. This would include the students being prepared and willing to participate in their own learning with the teacher as facilitator, observer and manager to assure students construct a plan and follow it to outcome. I think the fear in education is the constructivist idea needs consistent checks along the way to assure standards are addressed and knowledge is transferable to high stakes tests.
I observed a third grade math lesson on Thursday. The Cognitivist/Constructivist behaviors were apparent from both the students and the instructor. The class was highly engaged comparing/contrasting solutions to one math question in structured partnerships. Then the teacher had a few students come forward and explain their thinking to the entire group-and had students ask clarifying questions. Our entire school is working on the Studio Model of Math Instruction, which is the closest exemplar of the cognitivist/constructivist model of instruction that occurs regularly at our site. Our entire teaching/admin staff is working together to learn and study how to best plan, prepare, and implement the strategies and techniques necessary to provide the set up for this style of learning/instruction. The teacher I observed is our Studio Teacher, which means she works with a group of instructional peers and math coaches to be the example teacher at our site. Her lesson was the same as her grade level peers, she had talked to them prior about the mathematical goal of the lesson, pre-selected key questions to target during the lesson, selected and sequenced what she was going to bring forward for student partnerships to discuss, and had an exit task at the end to see what the students “got from” the lesson. I watch this teacher often, this is a normal habit of practice now~however, not all teachers are at the same level of implementation. It has taken time for the students to learn “structured talk” in defined partnerships to know what they are supposed to be working on. It has taken repeated practice of routines and expectations for the student dialogue to become genuine and beneficial. The third grade team has been working on embracing these new instructional strategies for three years. I love the product that comes from this format. It does take a lot of purposeful planning, reflection, coaching and acceptance on the part of teaching staff to work on continuing to examine their instructional practices and student outcomes.
In response to Stephanie....... I agree, this is easiest to implement with elementary students, because they often feel more willing to take risks. I also feel strongly that, if educators at every level establish solid learning strategies, structures and protocols around the cognitivist/constructivist model we can enable middle school and high school students to access this style of learning and be higher level thinkers and problem solvers.
We had a resident artist at school last week who taught all students in grades k-12 to play two songs on the fiddle. Two students of 57 had actually tried it before. While “watching” the interaction of the fiddle player with students of many levels I recognized that he was telling stories about the history and use of the fiddle, relating differences in a ‘fiddle’ and ‘violin’, and demonstrating the proper way to hold the bow, while assessing the ability levels of each group at the same time.
Each student learned to play at least 2 songs and participated in a concert, 90% chose to do a solo and 100% joined in the whole school finale. Students constructed their own skill and ability levels in 4 short days based on prior knowledge, but also based on the encouragement and confidence built into the fiddle residency program and the skill of the instructor to work within the abilities of each student. With his guidance and direction (modeling) the students developed a cooperative learning style through rehearing for the concert. In the finale story, fiddle sounds were made by the players included frogs croaking (youngest group), egrets screeching, rain falling and storms coming and going at appropriate times, with a high-five nod going all the way down the line from instructor to first graders when they got it together.
This process was clearly a constructivist model – the result is we have started a fiddle club and at least 10 students are in the process of fundraising to buy their own fiddles.
I had the same thoughts and frustration when I was looking for constructivism at my school. Blocks of time are already set for reading and math. Some classes are switching for these blocks even though we are an elementary school and, when that time comes to switch, you have to let your kids go. It is not like the days when you could let a great math discussion run over into another time period because you had the same kids all day. To be able to run a classroom with this method of teaching takes a lot of flexibility in time, routine, and required assessments.
My observations of an auto class where senior students are claerly engaged and applying higher oder, self-directed skill sets to solve problems is always a highlight of my week. These students demonstrate constructivist set of skills and have been in the program since the 9th grade and are highly motivated to apply the progression of cognitive knowledge they possess to the fixing of cars that come into the shop.
I am back observing the 8th grade band class and an intrigued as a group of 5 students with mixed instruments and abilities are negotiating a project that requires them to take a short story they know, set it to music using a specific scale and repeated melodies or themes that are created specifically to illuminate the meaning of the story. Ultimately students perform their piece and also evaluate the performances of their fellow students.
ReplyDeleteAs I listened, I heard students grappling with their task and talking about concepts they'd already learned in class and how to apply them to the current project. They made decisions about what notes to use and whether or not to maintain the same key or change it from instrument to instrument. I heard them defending their use of a specific melody and why that either added to the meaning of the story or not.
Students were engaged in higher order thinking and analytical skills and were forced to be accountable to others as they made meaning of the assignment. Even though they were in a group context, they were all working independently to create ideas, drawing on prior learning, and then had to use and alter these ideas as they decided on the best way to fulfill the goal of the project.
Question:
As I watched this sort of learning I noticed that students had a chance to sort of cycle in and out of the conversation and focus. With more of a behaviorist approach, teachers can control the flow and use techniques to keep students on their toes. 1) Is this thinking sound and 2) Do you notice your best teachers using one learning theory more than another, or are they seamlessly blending?
- Wes Flinn
Yesterday I observed a classroom serving students with developmental disabilities. I was able to see a surprising number of examples of the cognitive/constructivist approach. Examples included: A staff modeling reading to a student, a student independently working on reading on the computer on a lesson using scaffolding to build on prior knowledge, and cooperative learning going on with peer tutors and students.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Wes's questions. Considering all students in this room had an IQ of less than 58 I expected to see the behaviorist approach being predominantly utilized. I was surprised at how much blending of the approaches was being utilized. Staff did a great job of modeling, coaching, and fading to help students learn.
On Friday, I attended a planning meeting for our equity and diversity team in Springfield. We are working on integrating a multicultural education into the high schools in Springfield through a student leadership group called Student Voice.
ReplyDeleteThe adult allies met to outline our agenda and plan activities for the workshop next week. We outlined two activities that were rooted in the cognitivist/constructivist learning theories. 1) Having students build their own definitions of equity, diversity, and achievement gap 2) Asking students to develop projects/initiatives to implement in their schools to promote equity and diversity awareness in their schools.
I believe this illustrates constructivist behaviors because as educators we are promoting that the students use their prior knowledge and experiences to develop projects and working definitions for a multicultural education. We are not giving them the definitions or providing them with detailed instructions, instead we are facilitating the learning process in a way that ignites self-directed discovery of knowledge.
In response to Wes’ question, I lean towards the belief that the best teachers use all three learning theories in their classrooms. Our most successful teachers use all three approaches to connect activities with the most effective strategy. Hopefully, if they notice one theory/strategy is not working then the utilize tactics of a different variety. Our job as educators is to find theories that work best for students at an individual level, so we should be using more that one learning theory for a classroom on 30+ - there is no way that one strategy works for all.
I totally agree with Whitney's comment about Wes’ question - the best teachers use all three learning theories in their classrooms. Heck, they use anything they can to reach each of their students.
ReplyDeleteI observed a 4th grade class during a science lesson on geology. The teacher had conveniently provided the perfect example of construtivist learning: in small groups, the kids were examining real rocks in small groups, and using a set of written questions to determine what type of rock it was. Great lesson - the kids were making observations like, "This is igneous because it has lots of holes". Every student in that class was on task for the approx. 12 minutes that I observed.
ReplyDeleteAs I think bbrands is suggesting, there is no one 'right way'. Part of the success of this lesson was the teacher's behavioral expectations. I don't think a 25+ class of 10 year olds would have had as full a constructivist learning experience if they didn't also have a behavior-based understanding of the activity's parameters.
To understand this observation, it's likely important to describe the context a bit. . . In January, our school does a 3-week mini-term of sorts that we call "J Term." For three weeks we suspend the regular schedule and all the freshmen and sophomores and a few of the upper classmen, take a day-long speciality class that in some way brings together the arts and academics (most of the junior and seniors are in day-long internships). Examples this J Term include: The Anatomy of Rock Climbing (kids rock climb part of the day then do biology), The History of Food & Manners, etc. . .
ReplyDeleteFor this observation, I viewed "Paris of the 1900s-1920s; a revolution of music & art". In the morning, the class covered the art history of the period, featuring Cezan and other painters. In the afternoon, I returned to see the students actually doing still life paintings in the style of the period. What was particularly interesting was to see the students engaging with each other about the particular stylistic points with comments like "this is too 'real' looking; how do I make it look more like Cezan?"
I think Whitney makes a good point that most teachers are at least aware of different learning modalities for students and that good teachers use whatever teaching tools are at their disposal to engage students. However, I frequently question whether we break out our teaching tools because we like using them or because a student's learning requires it. We are, at times it seems to me, too willing to give up on a cognitivist approach of student discovery simply because students are frustrated with the process. After all, most kids have figured out that if they wait just long enough, a teacher will shift to a behaviorist mode and tell them the answer. All they have to do is wait to copy it down.
In the High school – beginning woodwork classes. The instructor had recently completed all of the instruction on proper safe use of the equipment in the lab. A design problem was presented with optional approaches students may use to solve the design problem. Students selected their groups, and entered the lab wearing appropriate personal safety protection. Groups were free to select material and choose their approach to the problem, some went left others to the right, the lab filled with chatter of students talking, discussing their next move with the hum of equipment filling every corner of the lab. The instructor positioned himself along one side of the room where it looked like he could keep the entire class in view as they became increasingly involved in their learning experience. As the end of the class drew near, it was time to clean up the lab, many students wanted to continue with one more step, to continue in this hands-on learning environment. At the end of the class was the only time the instructor had to give a clear, concise directive on what each student was to do, “turn OFF the saw!”
ReplyDeleteI saw engaged students actively in pursuit of a solution to the problem presented. I saw students working together with the teacher staying to one side of the room facilitating discussions, posing questions to the small groups to determine their own course of action rather than providing answers for them.
Last week I went to a regular education 7th grade science class at a middle school. The teacher gave the class a project to work on in small groups of four. He asked them to read a short passage about marine life, cells, and pollution, and answer 2 questions that required the students to make inferences. Their next instruction was to preview the directions to the lab they would be starting the following day, and make a prediction, or hypothesis, as to what results might occur, and how they related to the article they just read. The students worked together (with lots of chatter) as the teacher circulated and listened to the groups.
ReplyDeleteI believe this was a clear example of the cognitive/constructivist theories of learning and knowledge, as the students were explicitly instructed to use their previous knowledge to form new ideas and knowledge, and to solve a problem. I think science may be a subject with multiple examples of the utilization of this theory of knowledge.
In this reflection and reading colleague's posts here, I wonder if some academic subjects or settings do lend themselves more to each of these theories. For example, in music, art, and science, are students engaged more in constructing new knowledge based on existing knowledge than they would be in PE, Reading or Math? I agree with others that teachers probably use all 3 modalities. However, does the subject or skill being taught influence which one gets used more?
In response to Micheal Fisher- I agree that teachers may be too quick to give up the cognitive/constructivist when students are stuggling or causing behavior issues. It may be that the teacher, in this case, has not done enough work upfront to adjust a project to allow for different student capabilities, or that the material is presented without enough work done on setting up a baseline for students to build upon prior knowledge. If this happens students may become frustrated or bored and soon cause issues that require behaviorial correction.
ReplyDeleteI observed two first grade classrooms, both of which were doing math at the moment. I saw great examples of the constructivist theory at work. In both classrooms, students were in groups, working on different inquiry-based problems. In one classroom, groups of students were at the computers, on the floor, and in a couple different table groups, all working on different problems and activities. In the other room, students were in groups, working on a variety of shape-based problems. In both settings, the math problems were open-ended and involved some exploration on the part of the student groups to come to the right answer. I believe this also demonstrated some sociocultural theory. This combination certainly had students engaged with one another and the subject matter! They were SO excited to tell me about what they were working on, which made me pleased as punch!
ReplyDeleteRegarding some earlier comments about what constitutes the best teaching, I just find it interesting that there can be such a range of approaches in one school. Decisions about instruction can be so subjective in some settings, it seems.
For day 2, an English class at a middle school was engaged in a constuctivist activity. The class had been learning poetry unit for the entire week. This task asked for higher thinking skills.
ReplyDeleteFor this day, in teams of two, they were to write a poem. Before letting them proceed, the teacher first reviewed previous knowledge by reading three poems by Frost Siverstein, and Seuss. He talked about the form of the three poems and the use on non-sensical words in Dr. Suess. He asked many quesions to the students to check for understanding.
The students then went outside as a group and were told to use their five senses to experience the environment and write about in a poem form of their choice. They could used up to three non-sensical words with the criteria that others reading their poem could be able to relate those words to a real word, context was important. The lesson went well and the students were engaged. The teacher circulated to help with technical questions but promted students to come up their own answers by relating back to prior knowledge.
This lesson engaged students in a way that tied together the entire week by giving them a creative task. The students were able to read each others poems and offer constructive and positive criticism. The students could rewrite with that feedback and while this was graded on a pass only basis, the students could rewrite, if needed, to enter into a poetry contest at their school.
I observed a 7th grade Science lesson. The teacher facilitated a note-taking activity that incorporated the Cognitive and Knowledge-Building Domains of Reading Apprenticeship.
ReplyDeleteThe students recorded quotes or ideas from the reading in one column and made observations, personal connections, and comments about the comprehension process in other columns. Students then shared their work with a partner and subsequently out to the larger group.
The passage was about metabolism, and most students seemed to be fairly challenged. Students had to draw from personal connections in order to construct meaning from this passage. This lesson was powerful...
Question: To use a constructivist approach in a classroom, students must feel safe to share their knowledge and prior experiences. No one is ever wrong, as everything needs more exploration and then connection. What philosophical framework can teachers use to build this trust other than constructivist and why?
During my visit in a 4th grade math classroom, I was able to observe students engaged in a math lesson, using our newly adopted curriculum; Investigations. Investigations uses an inquiry-based approach to teach problem solving and thinking skills that focus on the mathematical process and understanding “why” rather than simply the algorithm. During my observation, students were working, in groups of four, to solve problems involving area. Each group was given graph paper with rectangles and squares drawn on the paper. Students were instructed to figure the areas of the shapes, individually, and then share solutions with their small group. Students were given leeway to use cubes, count squares, draw/color on the graph paper, etc. to solve the problem. Students were then able to talk to one another and share ideas. The group was further asked to, collectively, agree on the area of each shape. Student conversations involved sharing with one another how they solved the problems. For example, I heard words of agreement, like, “Me, too” and words of disagreement like, “Yea, but this is what I did…”. Some groups managed themselves and created a systematic way to share while others were more random. The teacher roamed, re-directed, guided, and facilitated discussions. Following small group time, the teacher asked volunteers to share thoughts, ideas, and reactions to the group’s thinking. I thought requiring the students to react to the work of the group (reflect) was powerful and created a forum for students to consider the thoughts of others and, potentially, broaden their own thinking.
ReplyDeleteI can relate to Michael's point that teachers (and/or students) may be quick to give up on the constructivist approach because it requires a great deal of classroom management, the willingness to trust that students can/will assume an active role in their own education, and a shift in what is seen as a more traditional approach to instruction; it's hard and takes a great deal of pre-planning. I know my teachers have struggled with what is a new approach to lesson delivery when implementing the new math curriculum in our district.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToday, I observed 5th grade Social Studies. I am very impressed with this teachers approach to teaching about colonization. Students are participating in a long term simulation that is teacher guided. The students are divided into colonies and given multiple assignments as a group. The group decides which student performs each task and the completed tasks earn wealth for their colony. The tasks include creating maps, making flags, developing colony goals, creating a motto, etc. The points are used to purchase the items they need to get to the new world. The simulation will continue and students will sail across the ocean and establish "functioning" colonies. Ultimately, the group will work together to experience and at the same time learn about colonization.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question Wes asked, I notice that our best teachers apply all the learning theories choosing the most effective approach for what they are teaching sometimes using multiple theories within the same lesson. Our best teachers are master guides and incredible at provoking thought!
I agree that Michael nailed it: how do teachers balance the deeper learning gained through constructivism with the constraints of time and curriculum demands. The standard answer is a Scalise-like approach of layered content, but what about the times when the gap is so great, its very difficult to overcome. What tells the teacher that its time to switch to another theory?
ReplyDeleteI observed a seventh grade math class. The students were doing independent work at their desks. I observed the teacher float around the room using constructivist style language and assisting the students . I noticed how he went to great lengths to not provide the steps and certainly not the answers. He used questions such as, "How do you know that ..." and "Check your labels, it is important to use the correct labels..." and "That part is right. That is how much is thrown away. What is the next step?"
ReplyDeleteThe teacher used questions to spur the student on to look closer at their own work and/or to ask themselves what should be the next step in finding a solution to the math problem.
This post is part of my reciprocal teaching assignment:
ReplyDeleteMost of the above observations portray constructivist learning as a positive experience for students that allow deeper meanings to really stick in their brains. There also seems to be a lot of consensus among the comments that a blend of the three approaches is really what works best. For those posting after this, I challenge you to use Kathleen's "contrary approach." After you describe your observation and why it was a constructivist approach, take on the role of someone who thinks this is the WRONG type of learning. State before your paragraph "Contrary approach" and we will know that these might not be your true feelings, but that you are trying to take on a perspective that will expand your learning.
Wes asked do I see teachers use one approach more than others or do I see a seamless mix? My 7/8th grade Humanities teachers uses constructivist approach a lot. All in all the teachers at my school of grades 5-8 seem to use the behvaorist approach when the safety of the student is paramont, that constructivist dialogue is used to understand why certain rules exist and then they use behavorist to quickly "enforce" the rules.
ReplyDeleteAfter stopping by multiple classrooms over a period of two days I finally found an example of constructivist learning. In a Spanish 1 class students were working in groups to design an ideal quincenera celebration. The teacher had them construct as a class elements from their own cultural "coming of age" celebrations (quinceneras or otherwise). From there they chose the elements they thought necessary to design an ideal quincenera. They were working on these to present in front of the class the next day. I heard a lot of arguing as students decided what was important to include.
ReplyDeleteGranted, this wasn't the best example of constructivist learning that I've ever seen and I'm concerned about the sheer number of classrooms engaged in behaviorist learning in our building. I believe that students can learn so much more when they are engaged in constructing their own meaning of material.
In response to Jeremy's request to take a contrarian approach, I would say that the reason I see so many examples of behaviorist learning is that the classroom management piece of a constructivist lesson can be more intimidating for a teacher who likes to be in control. I recognized this in my own teaching when I had my beginning leadership students working on school improvement projects. They were responsible for designing and implementing a project to improve the school. I had to remind myself multiple times to step back and let students learn things for themselves rather than jump in and solve their dilemmas. My classroom was often loud and chaotic, but I was always impressed at the work kids accomplished.
In response to Jeremy’s Challenge I give my “Contrary Approach:” Providing a classroom setting where cognitivist students are free to explore optional solutions to a problem, this type of learning does NOT easily lend itself to producing the common factory/mill worker where the routine is repetitious. Constructivist learned behavior appears to be beyond that which is needed for the entry level factory laborer.
ReplyDeleteI saw constructivist teaching today when I went into the first grade room and saw students in math working in groups.
ReplyDeleteThe teacher was working with a group on a problem where everyone was using manipulatives and talking with each other about what they were doing. There were two other groups of students in the room working on other tasks that were either for partners or for the whole group. Everyone in the groups had a "job" and they shared the jobs. They couldn't move on unless everyone could explain what they were doing and why.
In response to Jeremy...
ReplyDeleteContrary approach-
I walked into a first grade classroom during math time and I couldn't believe what I saw or didn't see for that matter. The teacher was with a group of kids while the others were in groups all by themselves with NO adult attention or direction. Those kids weren't learning anything except what their classmates thought and sometimes they weren't even correct. I had to leave before 5 minutes was up because I couldn't take it anymore. :(
Today I observed Oregon men's basketball practice again (this time at the brand new Matthew Knight Arena). As a coach, I was looking for situations or circumstances in which players found their way or were successful in learning through an internal structure. An example of constructivist learning in the basketball environment was difficult for me to find...
ReplyDeleteOne of our smaller players, a 5'6" guard, attempted to drive to the basket in a scrimmage setting. His shot was blocked and he fell hard to the ground. When another opportunity arose for the same player to drive to the hoop, he learned from the previous event and shot a jump shot from 10" from the basket. He constructed knowledge internally and adjusted his behavior without a prompt or coaching.
I thought Andy Bracco's comments about different class subjects lending themselves to different learning theories, was a good point. From a coaching perspective though, I feel like a blend of all three theories is the best way to get through to the players and assist in their learning.
While observing I got a chance to see the end part of a very constructivist project. A middle school teacher designed an all-day unit that had the students re-create a school garden area. Prior to that day, the students had assignments to find out about native plant species and roles within a group. On the day of the project, students were put into groups of 4-5 and assigned one area of the garden. They had 15 minutes to assign roles to each member (treasurer, president, etc.). Then they were given 30 minutes to go outside and decide what they would do with their portion of the garden. Next, a bus drove them to the local plant shop and they had $25 each to buy items. They then returned to the school and did the dirty work of digging, pulling, weeding, and planting. During the entire project, the teacher rotated around and checked in with each group, but gave very little direction. Rather, she asked them questions about their preferences and what they thought they should do. It was interesting to see the students who excelled in this type of environment - sometimes the ones who struggled the most in a more traditional, behaviorist/lecture-style setting.
ReplyDeleteIn response to those who feel that a class can best be reached by using a combination of the learning theories: I agree. I also wonder if we could take this one step further and have students learn the basics about each theory (maybe even have them watch the videos that we watch for this assignment)? Kids could identify their best way of learning and teachers could be transparent before they start a lesson or unit and state which learning theory is most closely followed. Students could identify beforehand whether they might be challenged or feel comfortable during the assignment.
Learning a language as itself belongs already to cognitive learning. Part of it is learning new vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteVocabulary knowledge can be described as a key to language acquisition. According to linguist David Wilkins who sunccinctly notes, “without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed.” (Chacón, Abello-Contesse, Torreblanca-López, 2010, p. 83) vocabulary is essential in learning a new language.
Scott Thornbury, a Professor of English Language Studies, published among several other books “How to Teach Grammar” and afterwards in 2003 “How to Teach Vocabulary.” In this book Thornbury points out the importance of learning vocabulary and mentions miscellaneous examples how words can be memorized more effectively, e.g. with “Imaging” or by using “Mnemonics.” Thornbury describes mnemonic devices as “tricks” (p. 25) and mentions the keyword technique.
I have seen this way of learning at a class in Germany. The teacher was a specialist on the field of mnemonics and made it part of his teaching a foreign language.
The following example shows how the keyword method would work for an American student who learns German.
der Alltag = ordinary weekday
Association: we ALL play TAG just on ordinary weekdays.
The example above shows how the keywords create a meaningful association to memorize it with a lasting impact.
The observation I took place used this method and because of several aspects such as knowledge, solving problems, reflecting etc. it illustrates cognitive learning.
I could easily observed cognitivist/constructivist learning style in language classroom. In English class in Korea, one of my co-workers used to teach English grammar in inductive way. Students read and analyze several sentences that has patterns. Then they are trying to figur out what grammar patterns are in those sentences and how the sentences interpret and when they can use those patterns. It takes longer time to teach and learn than deductive ways. But through this learning and teaching strategy, students can research and reflect their prior knowledge in order to solve the grammar patterns. This is a good example of cognitivist/constructivist.
ReplyDelete* response to Whitney: I totally agree with the Whitney's last comment. Right!! As a teacher, we should not hesitate to apply a variety of learning / teaching theory and strategies based on our own contexts such as students' needs/goals and educational environments and so forth. We should keep learning, applying, sometimes abandoning and trying to do new and learning again!!"circulation" That's the reason I am here.
Thank you for sharing your great thought! Whitney :)
Response to Jay Anderson.
ReplyDeleteI like the example of the smaller athlete who adapts the knowledge he has to succeed making a point.
According to behaviorism, reflecting is not part of it and finding a way to score in basketball is not a unconditioned response.
The example shows that solving a problem is part of cognitive learning.
Now the questions could be if the taller guy is able to use his cognitive skills to block the smaller one the next time ...
I observed a 2nd.3rd grade class do a constructivist lesson on simple machines. The teacher had a variety of materials (recycled, found objects, a couple of pulleys, and standard classroom supplies) and posed a question to the class: "What if you were very small and you had to lift my purse from the floor up to the table, without being able to lift t with your hands? How could you do that? Could you make a machine to do that?" They were instructed to go to their table teams to draw out their ideas, make a simple machine, and share with the class how it works.
ReplyDeleteThe students (about 29) were very engaged as they sketched, negotiated designs, and went to work building and testing their machines. The classroom was very noisy of course, but the kids were happy and excited. The teacher circulated and commented on both process and product, but allowed them to follow their ideas. This went on for about 45 minutes. Some groups made a few machines.
At the end of class, they shared class wide the results. The teacher commented positively on the variety of results, but otherwise gave no praise. She gave the kids vocabulary for concepts, and ownership of their feelings about their results. Later, kids told me about their class and were able to describe how they made machines to do different things as well as some of what heir classmates made. They were still very excited later in the day. I could tell they learned several principles.
Whitney initiated conversation about teacher flexibility with respect to best reaching all learners. Cathy and others agreed. I think one of the hallmarks of a great teacher is their fluency with multiple strategies, and addressing the various modalities, learning styles, strengths, temperaments and developmental levels of their students. Well done, teaching is an art. Flexibility is key, even within a lesson and class.
ReplyDeleteI understand Michael's perspective that some teachers give up too easily on constructivist learning in response to student difficulties and I have witnessed students rebel against it. From my perspective this is due to prior discouragement and lack of efficacy in learning environments. They have reduced academic risk taking behaviors from being "wrong" so often. A teacher can empathize with the difficulty in initiating tasks/constructing meaning and scaffold the learning steps for them, but gently insist they continue with the learning step by step. Bring in the behavioral reinforcers of specific praise, encouragement and an awareness that they have more freedom intellectually and physically, and they will learn to appreciate the model.
I also believe that if students experienced constructivist learning from the start of school, they would enjoy it, be fabulous at it and never want to give it up. Developmentally, we learn in constructivist modes form infancy until school age, and when we get to school we often get in trouble for trying to engage in learning that way.
Today I attended a meeting with other teachers who are teaching the same kevel as me. We wanted to plan for the winter term and decide on quizzes, activities and other related materials. We were all using our experience in teaching the same level before to come up with appropriate tasks for students at this level. Although we were working as a team, we were free to select and develop materials which match our own specific class. I believe this is an example of constructivist learning since we were all actively using our past experience to construct a process.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Wflinn’s question, I believe this thinking is completely sound. Teachers need to use different methods and strategies based on the situation. Sometimes a behaviorist technique is what the students will benefit the most and there are other times when they need to be set free and wander until they find their path based on their past experience (while being coached of course). I think that my best teachers blended all different learning theories to create a perfect class.
Today I was visiting a 5th grade science class where students were working with partners to determine how many drops of water will a penny hold. After every five drops of water, the students would record any observations they noticed. They continued until they could identify how many drops their penny held recording their observations. Students repeated the experiment to see if they could get their penny to more drops. Students were sharing how many drops their coin held sharing tips to increase the number of drops in a few cases.
ReplyDeleteFollowing 15 minutes of lab time, the teacher lead a discussion inviting students to share how many drops of water their penny held and observations. Using their observations she introduced the terms surface tension, cohesion and adhesion.
The constructivist theory has been a strategy used by many staff members over the years, especially in the area of science as our curriculum lends itself to this strategy. As we were looking at a new science adoption the staff commented students are engaged and seem to demonstrate greater understanding through a more hands-on cooperative learning experience. Therefore, the staff opted to continue using STC / Foss science kits. Interestingly, as our class sizes increase, what strategy do even the best teachers tend to use less of?
I was looking for instances of instructors asking students to explain their understanding of the problem/solution, using prior knowledge and experience.
ReplyDeleteI think this teaching theory is easiest to relate to architecture, because student projects are only valid if they can succinctly discuss their process of design and their understanding of the site, the culture, and the appropriate response. They often use precedent studies of buildings, materials, and spaces where they felt particularly inspired. They are trained to record, analyze, and discuss what they find. This type of teaching is the regular format of pin-ups, where students put their drawings on the wall and explain to peers and professors how they came to this approach. Everyone in the room is open to asking questions about the design, sometimes just to see how far the student has thought about the building and its effects at different scales.
In response to Andy, I definitely think the blend of art and science of architecture makes it very difficult for someone to explicitly state that a student is wrong. We are conditioned to be challenged, and sometimes we learn more about how to communicate our ideas than learning about the site or construction techniques…
In response to Michael’s comment about teachers being “too willing to give up on a cognitivist approach of student discovery simply because students are frustrated”… and Barbara’s comment about conducive “learning environments”: I think cognitivist learning happens when the teacher is able to see what motivates the student and uses what the student is already excited or curious about to relate subject matter. With this nugget to talk about and a safe, welcoming classroom setting that invites student input (Let’s talk about school design!!) I think we’d see more active, open learners.
This concept is one that I see quite often with the athletes that I work with. One thing that stood out to me was yesterday in our game we had a play in the game that could have resulted in a offensive foul but our player moved out of the way and gave up a layup. The player from the opposing team was moving toward the basket out of control it was a great opportunity to take a charge. The player noticing that he could have made a better play was able to draw a charge at a later point in the game.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tina, I feel language is a great example of how cognitivist/constructivist method are seen. Language is built on composition and patterns used to form sentences and statements. So for you to take note of how students can make mistakes in how they learn language was a great comparison. Language can be learned through your own mistakes as long as you have the understanding of how it need to improve.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of cognitive learning, Yuri's example came up to my mind at the first place! This typical example which was given by Professor Surbramani at his comparative education class can be set up as the classical story to tell regarding the constructive learning theory.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the study abroad experience served as an important step of constructive learning to me. Before came to another country, I limited the concept of culture as religion. However, after breaking into an totally new environment for a while, I came to realize that culture can be dissolved at every small aspect of life. I was too accustomed to neglect this fact. The new environment held as an stimulus to boost the discovery. This is also a constructive learning.
I agree though it's important to combine all the three learning theories in class, the management skills of the constructive way of teaching are demanding for teachers. Since business brought more profit-driven model to every part of the world, the education is also experiencing outcome-driven age. However the failure of the No Child Left Behind policy which advocated by the Bush administration approved that constructive way of learning should be caught more attention in the new education age.
I was observing the start of our beginning band class, and students were getting out music, assembling instruments, warming up, etc. As I happened to be sitting by the tuner, I observed a 7th grade student attempting to get her flute in tune before getting to her seat. She would play a note, frown at the machine because it was not indicating she was in tune, adjust the mouthpiece, then repeat the procedure. This cycle repeated itself about a half dozen times, with the student pulling out the mouth piece a bit, pushing it in, pulling it out, etc. As a line formed behind her, a fellow flute player suggested she warm up the mouth piece in her hand for a few moments. When that didn't work, the student double checked her fingering with with her fellow flute player, confirmed it was correct, but still wasn't playing the note in tune. She then adjusted the angle of the mouthpiece a bit, and finally got the indication from the tuner that she was good to go. There were some cheers and some 'Finally!' statement from the line behind her, as she walkedd to her seat with a huge grin. My guess is that she will get her flute in tune faster the next time!
ReplyDeleteIn reponse to Jeremy's thought about teaching students these theories, I think it's a great idea, especially for secondary students. The more they know about how they best learn, the better. I also agree with others that feel the three theories are all used in our schools, and often overlap. As a Family & Consumer Life teacher, I had to teach clear expectations and consequences for foods lab behaviors, let students be creative and original in their food creations, and also teach cooperative learning skills so students could be successful in a group. Not utilizing all three theories in this case could have led to chaos.
I did both my watch two and my watch three on Friday. Separate classes. For my watch 2 I observed another leadership situation rather than a traditional classroom. This is a group of collegues registered for a year long course called "aspiring leaders"; Designed to develop leaders from within the institution. As this was not a traditional situation I was worried that I would struggle to find evidence of cognitivist theory as I was challenged in my watch 1 in a similar type of situation. I was pleasantly surprised. The theme was teaching college finance. After the basic lecture, there were activities (group activities) where participants were asked to try to balance the college budget, and given a set of guidlines to work under.
ReplyDeleteIn responce to the blending of approaches idea, I still find it a challenge to decifer. If this is a group activity, is it cognitivist, or socioculture?
Also given that both my watch one and watch two were in professional development leadership environments, it makes me wonder. Despite how we have bought into various approaches over the years to educate youth, has our approach to educate adults and to desimnate information for professional development changed much? What is the approach used for all the conferences we attend. I dont believe I ever attended a conference or similar situation with clear evidence of behaviorist theory for example. Yet I have been in plenty of classrooms that have used this approach.
I stopped by the women’s lacrosse practice on Thursday to check up on the team and I observed some Cognitivist/ Constructivist behavior. The team first started off practice with doing some shooting drills, and one of the players on the team was getting really close to the goal before shooting. One of her coaches called her over and told her she needed to shoot from farther out because in a real game she would never be able to shoot from that close because the defense would clobber her. Even though this player was told from her coach, she still hadn’t gone through that learned experience. When the girls scrimmaged later on in practice, it was interesting to see this same player try and get really close to the goal before shooting, only to get double teamed by two defenders and turn over the ball to the other team. This was the constructivist behavior that was needed for this player to understand what her coach was trying to teach her earlier in the practice. Without this player experiencing the situation for herself she wasn’t able to strip herself of that habit.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Whitney Davis on Jan 9th:
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the use of the cognitivist / constructivist approach with equity and diversity in the springfield high schools. The two activities that are going to be used in the Student Voice group are ones that will empower the students to create their own action. This is a great way of getting students involved while also teaching them about equity and diversity. From my experience I have also noticed that when it is student run, the students take more ownership in dedicating themselves to make the commitment. Good Job Whit!
Class had been in session 3 or 4 minutes when I arrived in the 7th grade Pre-Algebra class. A table entitled Atlantic City to Cape May was displayed on the smart board, and students were individually graphing the time and distance. In a few minutes, the teacher asked, "What story does this graph tell?" One student responded, and the teacher asked another question building on that answer to further discussion in the room. As a former math-phobe and an eternal story teller, I was intrigued! They were evaluating the graph and suggesting possible reasons for lag time in certain hours of the day. Each answer became a bit more creative, and everyone was engaged.
ReplyDeleteShe displayed another graph and led students in a discussion of what they saw and how it may be interpreted. They offered ideas, and she added a possibility of her own. She discussed dependent and independent variables as related to this information and asked the class if they could see this info easier in a table or a graph, again adding her own opinion after hearing their answers.
Later in the period, students worked on a homework assignment related to the warm-up graph they had completed earlier. She walked around the room checking on their progress, answering questions and making suggestions. They were allowed to discuss their answers with a table partner. She directed students to hold up their fingers to show if they got 3, 2, or 1 for the answer, then asked a few of them to explain how they arrived at that number.
Throughout the class period, students were using data to determine processes and answers. They were asked to construct their own knowledge of the graphs beyond the numbers on a page, hypothesizing possible scenarios behind the data.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAndy Bracco asked if students are more engaged in constructing new knowledge based on existing knowledge in music, art, and science classes than they would be in PE, reading or math. I think that some subjects do lend themselves more to this process than others. However, according to what I observed in a 7th grade pre-algebra class, a constructivist approach can be used in math as well. My opinion is that it's good to mix it up a bit, similar to the way we should incorporate the different learning styles of students.
ReplyDeleteI observed an Algebra 1 class of a neighboring teacher. The teacher is hoping to reinforce the concept of multiplying, adding, and subtracting polynomials. The students were broken up into groups. The problem of the day was for the students to find the area of a sidewalk surrounding a garden. The students know the dimensions of the garden and the width of the sidewalk. The teacher began with a hands on activity. The desks were in an open square, mimicking the sidewalk. The open middle was playing the role of the garden. The students were given yardsticks and asked to find the area of the desks without measuring the lengths of the desks. One student in a group was adding and subtracting the feet and inches without concern for like terms. His group explained to him that you cannot do that. They group gave a great explanation involving the different sizes and an actual example, as well as a counter-example. The student grasped the concept extremely well. When the group moved to the garden problem with variables, the student who early struggled with like terms between inches and feet had an "aha" moment. The student said "Wait, so just like inches and feet are not like terms neither are variables and numbers. I get it."
ReplyDeleteA question to the group: Is it better to teach a class an inch wide and a mile deep or a mile wide and an inch deep?
ReplyDeleteI was observing a group of primary students during a break. One of the students began stacking blocks and counting to see how high he could go. Soon anther student joined him and started stacking blocks two at a time. Eventually students becamed involved with one group building on a base of 4. They were happily scampering about trying to collect more blocks so they could try new techniques. This clearly demonstrated cognitivist/constructivist behavior. Students were initiating their own experiments. They were adjusting and adapting as they percieved the results.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, teaching more depth in any subject would seem to be the obvious answer. However, we live in a culture of short clips, abbreviated communication, fast paced video games etc and I suspect our students won't hold still for too much depth unless we can deliver or facilitate the learning in an comparable engaging manner. Also, it is a pretty sophisticated world out there and students really need to have an amazing amount of information and skills to compete. Prioritizing is a challenge for teachers and students alike.
ReplyDeleteWatching a kindergarten teacher introduce a new math game to her class she used a document camera to project the gameboard on a screen and asked the students, "What do you notice?" Different responses noted the number and colors of trucks, that one had a bigger load than another, that the colored rectangles behind the trucks had different words on them, and that the spinner at the bottom had two halves with the same two words on them as the rectangles had. At that point the teacher thanked the students for their "awesome observations." She then invited one of the students to assist her in modeling how to play the game. Before they played a round, the teacher asked the rest of the students to predict who they thought might win.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the students to observe the gameboard and generate many observations and ideas about it engaged the students in exploring and thinking about possible ways in which the parts could be used in a game. Using another student to help her model the remaining steps helped everyone pull together what they had observed into a meaningful whole. These learners were actively engaged in using their prior knowledge and observations to wonder about how a game might be played. Then they predicted who might possibly win as they learned the rest of the rules from the interaction between the teacher and the selected student.
These constructivist strategies engaged the learners in working with each other's ideas to generate learning. They constructed together the elements of the game to make meaning and sense of the component parts, finishing by watching the actual game being played. Students as well as the teacher were in control of the learning as they thought more deeply about the component parts.
A great lesson uses the teaching strategy that best connects the learning to the child's prior understanding. Sometimes when the idea is just to present a lot of information, "a mile wide" is best. Other times when the idea is to observe a learning principle and to problem solve a situation, "an inch wide and a mile deep" is more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteToday I observed a high school English class that was using a practice SAT question as a warm up activity. Today's question was a vocabulary question about the word "charade". After reading the question and writing their answer, students then had to defend their answer with a partner. I observed several of these student conversations. In defending their answers students employed several previously learned strategies, including identifying the key term from the passage that they felt was closest to "charade", using other contextual clues, and process of elimination of the other possible answers. Several students changed their answers during these conversations based on the strategies presented by their partner. The teacher then facilitated a class discussion on the question in which students employed these strategies and arguments to the entire class. At no time were these previously learned strategies explicitly explained by the teacher. The students were independently using these to solve a new problem.
ReplyDeleteI was fortunate to be able to watch a Math Studio lesson in a second grade classroom. It was a great example of constructivist learning behaviors. The students were working on selecting and sequencing by creating a pattern that repeated or grew at least 3 times and had 2 variables. The students had prior knowledge of sequencing and pattern work but now had to do some problem solving using unifix cubes representing bunnies and eggs. The teacher visited with every child while they were building their patterns. She asked very open ended questions promoting discourse as well as some disequilibrium. At the end of the lesson she had different children show their work so the class could see and further discuss sequencing. Some had examples of appropriate patterns and some had non-examples, both of which were crucial in learning for the whole class.
ReplyDeleteToday I had the opportunity to observe a group of high school males as they brainstormed solutions to the various crimes included in the newspaper. All of the students started the “investigation” with the same facts (from the articles). They used their wildest imaginations and careful calculations to create elaborate plots and details for the various incidents. Since their factual knowledge of the scenarios was limited, there was great latitude left for creativity and supposition. Suspense seemed to build as we talked of future news articles that might provide more information.
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by Gail’s recent post stating that the kindergarten teacher introduced a new math game to the students by asking them how each of the game pieces might be used. I thought that was particularly interesting, given that games are usually very goal focused and have rules and regulations for play. Asking the children to offer suggestions for use of the materials opens up the possibilities and increases engagement.
This comment is from Carol Dowsett:
ReplyDeleteSeveral days ago I observed a 7th grade math class using previous knowledge to solve current problems and explain them to their peers. The students were given six problems to solve on an interactive white board. They then had to solve these problems. When completed they individually went to the white board and wrote an explanation of how they solved the problem (math equation and answer). When this was done, each student who had solved a problem explained their thinking to other students. Students were actively engaged in their learning.
I have to admit trying to find a true constructivist classroom was difficult. Teachers have told me that they feel pressured to get all standards and requirements completed and that a true constructivist teaching would not be thorough because of time constraints. What I wanted to see in my observations around the school was excitement and evaluative thinking like what might happen in a literature circle with students taking on different jobs and interpreting literature through personal experience, history, what is going on in the world, things they have read in other books or seen in movies. For instance…wouldn’t it be cogent to have students in fourth through sixth grade read Pearl Buck’s book The Big Wave about a fisherman’s son in Japan who watches his family and village swept away in a tsunami. Students would be pre-taught job descriptions for discussion leader, vocabulary leader, artist, questioner, or other kinds of jobs. They would then be able to get deep into the literature because of the real meaning from today’s news in their own lives.
I guess this is somewhat my response to, I believe, Jackie’s mile wide and inch deep or mile deep and inch wide learning. I feel that we have, because of high stakes testing, had to hammer basic skills and basic comprehension in math and reading. This has come at a loss to in-depth responses to history, literature, and math real life problem solving.
For the constructivist approach to work with children (elementary) it seems that students really have to have some good solid basics so that they are able to build upon, problem solve and develop in certain areas. I agree with Mary in that there is also a need for using engagement strategies to hold the interest of these children. My district has been providing professional development with regards to engagement strategies so we are able to focus on deeper learning.
ReplyDeleteTo Jackie, I say mile deep. I think mile wide works best for those who have the ability to connect their learning to prior experience and teachings, somewhat automatically. That would not be me.
ReplyDeleteEarlier this week I had an opportunity to observe in an elementary resource room. This program is for students with mild to moderate disabilities who work on their individual IEP goals in a small group setting.
ReplyDeleteIn this lesson, the students were given a math word problem. These are often extremely difficult for students with learning disabilities to solve due to expressive/receptive communication delays or slow processing abilities. The students had a selection of manipulatives on the table, and in this lesson, the goal for the students was simply to identify which objects would help them solve the problem. The teacher asked leading questions, and then the students talked amongst themselves about how each manipulative could help answer a question they had. What they discovered, is that they needed a couple of different items (counters and a ruler.) This then led them into discussing how to use the items to actually solve the problem.
Special education students often need more time to process what they are asked to do. Being given the time to do that, to talk with their peers, and to handle the items rather than work 'in their heads' or independently with paper and pencil.
Posted for Bob Nash:
ReplyDeleteIt seems that just as we are implementing more effective, research-based instructional strategies that require “mile deep” commitment (emphasis on student engagement, the importance of modeling, connecting with student”s prior knowledge, etc.), we are conversely being pulled a “mile wide” by the standards.
Regarding a mile wide or deep... I struggle with that as I think about students with disabilities, especially those who don't easily transfer their knowledge to different situations. I don't have the answer and see the benefits of both for those students. For myself, I'd rather go a mile deep as well - but I have the ability to make connections. Hmmmm...
ReplyDeleteIn observing 3rd graders during Science I witnessed impressive Congnitive/Constructivist behaviors. The students were given a list of things to include in their solar system powerpoint presentation and they were working on them in the computer lab. They were grouped in partners and they were creating their powerpoints. They were to include the names of the planets and two facts that they found about each planet during their previous research sessions using the internet/suggested websites from the teacher.
ReplyDeleteStudents were discussing facts to use, problem solving to get the right pictures, and working together on format for their powerpoint. It was so fun to watch and hard to believe these were 8 & 9 year olds!
In repsonsr to Mary's post....
ReplyDeleteThat is what I love about elementary, students are able to enjoy each other and have fun without all the social pressures that the older students have. I see the constructivist theory as the greatest opportunity for peer motivation & enthusiasm. After having taught middle school, I notice the little guys are more apt to take risks in front of each other.
Posted for Jen Healy:
ReplyDeleteAt our school we have 4th and 5th grade students help with lunch service. They serve food, seat the kids, and wash dishes. Each week a new group comes in and they get trained on Monday then do their jobs for the week. Today I observed a girl who was serving the cold food begin to use more efficient ways to serve the food. She moved the bins for shredded cheese closer to where the plates are (I assume to avoid spills), she aligned the dressings so that the names were visible and she stacked the bananas in a pyramid (I am guessing to make them easier to doll out). She did all of this arranging with no prompt from any of the cafeteria workers or me. We will, however, start doing this as a regular practice from now on!
With NCLB it seems the rules we are currently given to play the education game by would suggest more of a behaviorist approach to learning and understanding standards which will be assessed yearly. I've always tried to to follow the mantra that if you do something well, the results should show. So if the constructivist approach is designed and implemented well, then the results should show. This would include the students being prepared and willing to participate in their own learning with the teacher as facilitator, observer and manager to assure students construct a plan and follow it to outcome. I think the fear in education is the constructivist idea needs consistent checks along the way to assure standards are addressed and knowledge is transferable to high stakes tests.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI observed a third grade math lesson on Thursday. The Cognitivist/Constructivist behaviors were apparent from both the students and the instructor. The class was highly engaged comparing/contrasting solutions to one math question in structured partnerships. Then the teacher had a few students come forward and explain their thinking to the entire group-and had students ask clarifying questions. Our entire school is working on the Studio Model of Math Instruction, which is the closest exemplar of the cognitivist/constructivist model of instruction that occurs regularly at our site. Our entire teaching/admin staff is working together to learn and study how to best plan, prepare, and implement the strategies and techniques necessary to provide the set up for this style of learning/instruction. The teacher I observed is our Studio Teacher, which means she works with a group of instructional peers and math coaches to be the example teacher at our site. Her lesson was the same as her grade level peers, she had talked to them prior about the mathematical goal of the lesson, pre-selected key questions to target during the lesson, selected and sequenced what she was going to bring forward for student partnerships to discuss, and had an exit task at the end to see what the students “got from” the lesson. I watch this teacher often, this is a normal habit of practice now~however, not all teachers are at the same level of implementation. It has taken time for the students to learn “structured talk” in defined partnerships to know what they are supposed to be working on. It has taken repeated practice of routines and expectations for the student dialogue to become genuine and beneficial. The third grade team has been working on embracing these new instructional strategies for three years. I love the product that comes from this format. It does take a lot of purposeful planning, reflection, coaching and acceptance on the part of teaching staff to work on continuing to examine their instructional practices and student outcomes.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Stephanie.......
ReplyDeleteI agree, this is easiest to implement with elementary students, because they often feel more willing to take risks. I also feel strongly that, if educators at every level establish solid learning strategies, structures and protocols around the cognitivist/constructivist model we can enable middle school and high school students to access this style of learning and be higher level thinkers and problem solvers.
Posted for Debbie Gillespie:
ReplyDeleteWe had a resident artist at school last week who taught all students in grades k-12 to play two songs on the fiddle. Two students of 57 had actually tried it before. While “watching” the interaction of the fiddle player with students of many levels I recognized that he was telling stories about the history and use of the fiddle, relating differences in a ‘fiddle’ and ‘violin’, and demonstrating the proper way to hold the bow, while assessing the ability levels of each group at the same time.
Each student learned to play at least 2 songs and participated in a concert, 90% chose to do a solo and 100% joined in the whole school finale. Students constructed their own skill and ability levels in 4 short days based on prior knowledge, but also based on the encouragement and confidence built into the fiddle residency program and the skill of the instructor to work within the abilities of each student. With his guidance and direction (modeling) the students developed a cooperative learning style through rehearing for the concert. In the finale story, fiddle sounds were made by the players included frogs croaking (youngest group), egrets screeching, rain falling and storms coming and going at appropriate times, with a high-five nod going all the way down the line from instructor to first graders when they got it together.
This process was clearly a constructivist model – the result is we have started a fiddle club and at least 10 students are in the process of fundraising to buy their own fiddles.
Response to Carol from Jen Healy:
ReplyDeleteI had the same thoughts and frustration when I was looking for constructivism at my school. Blocks of time are already set for reading and math. Some classes are switching for these blocks even though we are an elementary school and, when that time comes to switch, you have to let your kids go. It is not like the days when you could let a great math discussion run over into another time period because you had the same kids all day. To be able to run a classroom with this method of teaching takes a lot of flexibility in time, routine, and required assessments.
My observations of an auto class where senior students are claerly engaged and applying higher oder, self-directed skill sets to solve problems is always a highlight of my week. These students demonstrate constructivist set of skills and have been in the program since the 9th grade and are highly motivated to apply the progression of cognitive knowledge they possess to the fixing of cars that come into the shop.
ReplyDeleteMatt