2012 EDLD 655 Watch 1, Day 2: Cognitivist/Constructivist
2012: 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 observed constructivist learning when I was most not looking for it. I recruited some students to help clean up around the school yesterday. As they were working on some garbage out front, someone asked if they could clean up all the dead plant in the flower beds. What started out as a clean up project ended up as a discovery project on the life cycle of perennials and annuals. Here is my question: Does this work better in some "subjects" than others? How can we best guide learning in those subjects not naturally given to it?
When I was a classroom teacher ( now a principal) I used the Storyline approach to teaching and learning. This method is based on the Constructivist Theory. I found it perfect for my social studies and science content with easy integration for writing and reading. Students of ALL ages loved the approach and my students always scored very well on standardized tests. When I run into students, it is the Storyline units and related activities they remember and want to talk about. I found it magical.
In response to your question "Does this work better in some "subjects" than others?" I would have to comment that it seems clear that even in areas where memorization and routine skill-building have a clear role (basic language vocabulary, math facts, music) to play, educators seek ways to help students construct meaning at a deeper level by using the skills in a real context. Students may know the separate words and phrases in a language, but only learn them in a meaningful, useable way if they are allowed the experiences to try them out over and over in different combinations and settings in order to construct meaning about how those words function in a real-life context. Here I'm a little murky on where the dividing line might be between constructivist and sociocultural when it comes to language learning. I can understand why some would see these as nested rather than separate theories since they seem to be happening simultaneously so often.
In response to the question, I would say that it depends. For example in Elementary math classes it is really important that kids know their facts. The way they are taught is generally Empiricist - drill and kill. They need their facts in order to be quick when doing multiple step problems. Yet kids need to be able to problem solve and have a deep understanding of math and I don't think you can get that with just drill.
Tenneal Wetherell I agree I see it in my own children in several ways. First with math facts. I drill them at home and they do carnine facts at school but when I help with math worksheets that include integrated facts with problem solving it is much more difficult for them. Spelling is another example, my eight year old is a great speller but when he is asked to dictate a sentence at the end it is much more difficult. We need a mix of all styles to help our students be successful. A teachers understanding of blooms and matching the level with expectation and their teaching will help to make sure that students get the right thing at the right time.
The problem with having the students construct their own meaning for everything is that it is so time consuming. There definitely isn't enough time to cover the standards that are expected if everything is taught using constructivist methods.
I observed Montessori charter school here in Eugene for this theory. I have to admit that I was totally surprised by the atmosphere in the school. There is not so called a "set curriculum" in the school, students have their own empty piece of schedule which they can fill in themselves. They can find what they are interested in and work on it. Create a project for example. Teachers' role is coach ,scaffolding and observing.Also, provide as many aids as they can for students to work on their projects. Students seen really used to the daily routine.
I would like to see this in action. I tried this approach once while teaching at an alternative high school. During one class period I let students choose a project that interested them and they set their schedule and decided what materials they needed. Some students really excelled but others found themselves lost and either did not pass the class or barely completed anything. The end results for the students who embraced this activity were amazing. Two surveyed their peers to identify some community issues and then put together an evening for parents and community to come and hear some speakers and gather resources regarding these issues. Others put together fundraisers for world causes. They all had to write, research, organize and prioritize tasks, and develop a final project.
I found myself exhausted not only at the end of the class period but also at the end of the day. It was hard to be a guide for so many different things going on at one time.
When I was teaching fifth grade (I believe my third year), decided to take an approach similar to this. On the first day of school, I asked the students to brainstorm all the topics that they found intriguing and interesting. We then represented all of these subjects with pictures and words. I vividly remember sitting in front of a blank bulletin board in my classroom and creating a giant web that encompassed the all the topics they had raised into a plan for our learning for the year. If they had an interest in robots, we incorporated that into the physical science standards. If they loved animals, I planned literature units that had animals as main characters. It was an enormous amount of work on my part, but my students were so engaged, it was worth it. They could look to that bulletin board throughout the year to see how their interests and inquires were providing the base for our learning. I can't imagine having the energy to do that now! :)
My class has been introduced to multiplication in the past week and as usual I am amazed at the discrepancy in my room for fast learners and those that need more exposure or struggle.
One of my kiddos who usually "get things" right away had a mistake in an answer when we were doing a whole group review. This was the perfect time to let the kids converse.
The problem was this: We were playing a game called loops and groups. Roll a die, the number rolled is the # of loops drawn. Roll again and the second number is the # of tallies per loop. The student rolled a 3 and a 3, drew the correct problem, but wrote the multiplication problem that 3x3=12. I asked him to explain his thinking and he said you just "count it all up". So then I asked the class if they agreed with what was said and what they saw. When there were other answers I just told kids to start talking or ask questions and they got a pretty animated conversation going. When all was said and done, the student who had the misconception said "Oh, I get it now. It's like cookies on a plate. I was counting the loops as part of the number to get the answer. But you don't count the loops. That would be like counting the plates if you wanted to know how many cookies you had!"
Without my input and by further dialogue with peers (and some examples) the student was able to make the needed shift in his thinking to understand how finding the total of the grouping worked.
I found the same basic constructivist concepts to be apparent in the university course that I sat in on. It seemed to me, as an outsider to the class, that when the students were given more time to engage with each other they were able to problem solve and understand the material the best. This is at least what I observed in just this one sit in.
I also observed this in an undergraduate class at the UO. The instructor did a very nice job of guiding the lesson in a why that the students could build upon their prior knowledge while also scaffolding to more complex information within the students' zone of proximal development. By adding activities to contextualize the learning and engage in problem-solving strategies also kept the student's engaged and seemed to help them make connections to the concepts being taught.
I too often "guide" those I teaching to "learn" or reach conclusions I want them too. However, I wonder if a cognitive purist would accept this? Would "students" end up where we wanted them if we did not guide their direction? Are there those who would not arrive at any conclusion...?
I think Dave raises very interesting questions, and I believe these questions can intersect with socioeconomic issues. Students at many elite private schools, such as Caitlin Gabel in Portland, get a very constructivist, emergent curriculum approach. There are folks that suppose that students from these privileged backgrounds, where as students from poorer neighborhoods may be more likely to receive a "back-to-basics" or empiricist approach. This is clearly a generalization, but a wondering that I have is that if the advantages of early literacy and a print-rich environment help some students thrive in the constructivist approach, or if there are some latent low expectations that may make educator afraid to trust the constructivist approach with students from more challenging backgrounds?
I observed a first grade teacher who uses the Daily Five classroom structure. During my observation I noticed that she taught a mini lesson and then prior to sending students to their next activity, she checked in with each students asking them specifically which reading strategy they would work on and who they would work with- a partner or alone. She then went throughout the classroom coaching students 1:1, providing instruction as needed. Students persisted in their learning and were on task for the 20 minutes set aside for the activity.
I too observed a series of questioning strategies in a writing course today. Instructing students through questioning is quite an art and critical for helping students develop higher order thinking and self reflection skills.
I observed a political science class here at the university where the professor's teaching style was based almost wholly on constructivist theory. Instead of leading the class the professor directed the conversation based on the readings that the students had done. I found that because the students in this course were so engaged in the material as well as class participation that they were the ones who steered the discussion of the whole course while the professor chose not to lecture. I think this demonstrated the "learn it for yourself" attitude that constructivist theory promotes.
One of my favourite university classes is a cognitive science class where the professor always asks a couple questions before introducing a new concept. The questions are not necessarily directed related to the concepts but trying to answer the them help students to link previous knowledge to the new concepts.
My undergraduate education was at a small liberal arts college that was heavily constructivist. Every class I took resembled what Reham describes: I was expected to come to class prepared to discuss the massive amount of reading we were assigned in order to make meaning from it as a group. For the most part, I really appreciate this education as it taught me _how_ to learn. Occasionally, however, I wish my professors had spent more time guiding us through the information to add their own expertise to the conversation.
I attended Western Oregon University for my undergraduate degree in History and I found myself continually taking the same professor each term, despite the fact that his classes were incredibly tough. His style of teaching was to essentially let the students control the content. We would have 7 or 8 books each term, with a reading assigned from each book every week. We would then sign up to be responsible for one particular reading and then we were responsible for "teaching" this reading to the class. The professor facilitated the discussion but really left it up to the students to find their own connections between the readings. Despite the massive amounts of reading and writing for this class I continued to take these classes because I felt that I learned the most from them. By letting the students control their own learning and being in charge of the information this clearly represents a constructivist approach (something I did not know at the time!).
I witnessed the Constructivist school of thought while watching my boyfriend coach basketball over the weekend. [Disclaimer: I truly know nothing about basketball. I assume the following description will resemble what an alien would write if they came to earth and watched a baskeball practice.]
The team had played very poorly in a game the week before. They had been defeated by a team that they should have beaten and coach was very upset. Coach showed the boys a video of the game and asked them to have a discussion about the game and how they could improve. The boys became very involved in watching the video, sometimes replaying a portion several times or slowing down sections. After watching and discussing as a group, the boys decided that they weren't passing the ball enough and that they needed to play "smarter". This reflects Constructivism because coach wanted the boys to come to this understanding on their own by watching themselves play, rather than through a "sage on the stage" style of coaching.
I too have witnessed this through reviewing video tape with water polo players right before state. It can be an incredible tool and learning opportunity. They are always able to draw their own conclusions on how to improve and what they can do better as a team which is very powerful.
As a teacher in the field, court or where ever (a coach), you strive for the players to get it and teach others from following your lead. This is no different than in the classroom. The players take what you are teaching them in the drill and practice and they instruct and lead others independently that may be struggling.
In the online culture learning course we offer, the students are asked to teach fellow students about a specific city or a tradition. Students learn more thoroughly when they know they need to articulate to someone else later. They find various formats that might suit the learning habits of other students.
In the class I observed, students are asked to write down what they think about the course and turn in. At the end of the semester, they will be asked to write down the same thing again and compare with their initial answer to see the change in thoughts or any improvements in understanding the subject area. This could be particularly useful for class that has an overarching topic but is consisted of several smaller modules.
Students in a language class were asking a presenter from Spain questions in the language about his country and culture. Through a bit of trial and error, students were able to see which questions made sense to the presenter and which questions needed to be modified. His feedback (comprehension vs. confusion) provided them the testing ground they needed to try out their ideas about what worked well to communicate in the language. I think the process, along with the listening, solidified some of their emerging understanding about the language. It was evident that there was quite a bit of other learning theory (Sociocultural) at play as students helped each other with phrasing or tuned into the speaker's and their peers' examples.
Recently the peer-work or peer-review is getting popular in the language class. Some researchers in second language teaching field believe that peer-work will improve learners' learning. In the video mentioned about the role of the instructor and how can the instructor help is also the key in cognitive learning
I observed constructivist learning in a math class. All the kids were using fraction circles to compare like fractions. The teacher was roaming the room helping when needed and the students were helping each other. The teacher had modeled what the kids needed to do and they had a worksheet that went with the activity, but they were pretty self directed in how they would learn what like fractions were.
I also often see constructivist learning in our math classes. One of the best examples is the process of quiz corrections. After receiving a returned quiz, students return to their previous learning and work in conjunction with one another to discover their error(s) and make corrections. This process helps math 'stick' for many students. Witnessing the success constructivism, it makes me wonder why we still have so many sages on stages.
At least in my district, it is so interesting to me that we have moved to a more constructivist curriculum in math with lots of problem solving and math talk. On the other hand, in reading, we are expecting teachers to be very explicit with lots of phonics (templates) and direct instruction programs for ALL students.
Isn't it also interesting, based on the comments above, that several years ago the state abolished the math "problem solving" portion of state tests. ( I believe one of the reasons was cost as it took much more time/resources to score vs. multiple choice math tests that we all do now)
Regarding Sarah's comment--Is it that the math and reading curricula actually lack an effective combination of constructivist and more explicit instruction, or do some schools and/or teachers just choose to under or overemphasize various aspects?
Today during admin council constructivist learning occurred during an activity designed to flesh out the Common Core roll out. We were asked to participate in a gallery walk, defining the various terms relevant to the roll out (e.g. gap analysis, toolkit, etc.). Through this process, we created a deep understanding of scope of the roll out and the discrepancies in understanding we needed to address in our own group.
It has become commonplace this year at our administrative meetings to use constructivist theory to plan the meeting. We have used modeling and student engagement strategies that are a part of our facilitation techniques and development of the agenda. The meetings are about the participant learning and wrestling with the information. We see some attempts to expand into a plc environment were the group think creates a more profound result.
Today I participated in a meeting with a person who is responsible for a particular recruitment event in our office. I was to help her brainstorm possible changes to the agenda and program for this year. We utilized a cognitivist/constructivist strategy which involved evaluating past experience and outside feedback from the program, identifying areas that needed to be altered as a result, and using both personal experience and feedback from multiple sources to create a new agenda that attempts to better meet the needs of all participants and guests. One piece I noted is that we actually integrated elements of a different event for which I am responsible; together, we drew from past experiences and applied them in a way that would address the areas of concern identified last year. I believe this is constructivist because, out of that process, we created both a new program agenda, but also new shared knowledge about how best to proceed with this particular event.
What a cool example, Kelly. It is really interesting to me how this approach to planning an event created more investment in the outcome, instead of being a "top-down" approach where the supervisor outlines what needs to be done and passes off that assignment to a subordinate. In this scenario, you were sharing what you already knew about how to make this event successful, and thinking of new approaches. This is an interesting intersection of the Learning Organizations class' focus on knowledge management and this course. You are building on prior knowledge, sharing information, and very likely increasing personal investment in the event from all parties.
This morning I observed a very constructivist lesson in a 4/5 grade writing/reading group. The teacher gave minimal instructions to the students. They quickly reviewed the main characteristics of a newspaper article, were put in groups of three, give a newspaper article that included a photo in Chinese. The students were to work in groups and write an article based on what they believed that the Chinese article may have be about. They were allowed to be creative as possible and brainstorm and write the ideas together. This was a constructivist activity as the students had a lot of control over the learning as they much of the learning came from the prior knowledge they had of newspaper articles and of China. They also had to work together and learn from each other.
This sounds like a wonderful lesson and I would have liked to have observed it. I am wondering how many times students have worked through this type of process because I have always found it difficult for students after a certain age to freely do this without more guidance.
I am a mentor through the ASPIRE program at Thurston High School and I observed one of the other mentors work with a student. This student knew very little about college, scholarships, financial aid etc. and she also didn't have the slightest inclination of what she wanted to do in her future. I saw the mentor use a constructivist approach with the student by asking simple questions that prompted the student to provide answers that even she seemed surprised by. Instead of telling her what she should do and what college she should go to, the mentor allowed the student to take control of the conversation and discover the different avenues for post-secondary education on her own. She seemed to respond well to this approach as she had expressed early in the conversation that her parents have been pushing her to go to a particular college and get a specific degree that she did not seem enthusiastic about. By the end of the session the student was upbeat and excited about her possibilities after high school and set an appointment to come back the following week to discuss the steps she had taken to research some possible areas of interest. This particular mentor has been working with ASPIRE for several years now and I was very impressed with the way he handled this situation because the student was very closed off at the beginning of the session and he managed to completely change her attitude by simply allowing her to take control of the knowledge and information she needed.
Today I observed a wonderful example of cognitivist/constructivist learning behaviors. I was in the AVID (Advancement Via Individualized Determination) classroom while they were doing tutorial. This is a process where one adult volunteer facilitates a tutor group of 5-6 students. The students present a question that is troubling them in one of the core academic classes. The students take turns presenting and being group members. The group members are encouraged to ask question to help the presenter get to a point of understanding. The whole idea is not necessarily to find the right answer but to figure out how to ask the right questions. Students are taught the process which really is all about learning about learning. This is an example because students are given an internal structure but they individually construct and adjust as needed to fit their academic needs.
I think that "teaching the process" is the sticking point for many teachers and in many classrooms. While teachers are aware that there are others ways (perhaps better) to provide instruction, the work and time that has to go into preparing kids for constructivist types of activities is daunting and too easily avoided. Without the necessary student "training" these types of activities often fall flat or fail to achieve the desired outcomes, giving teachers a convenient excuse to avoid them in the future.
I agree. I'm excited that our new CCSS are more than just a new set of standards. Without the correct implementation the new standards will not produce the expected change.
As I look at the Common Core there is certainly work being done to ramp up students into higher levels of Blooms. These higher order thinking skills is what our students need in order to achieve at unprecedented levels.
Today, I saw an example of modeling and scaffolding being used in our science classroom. The teacher was using a series of discrepant events to create a common understanding for the students in her classroom. The kids performed several short experiments all related to pressure and discussed with their learning group and related the results of the experiment to their prior experience and knowledge. The students used a protocol to refine their understanding and then make predictions about larger systems of pressure and design a measurement system. The protocol provided a way for the kids to discuss their knowledge and probe other group members understanding.
In my observations at the high school level, I struggled to find what I felt were true examples of a cognitive/constructivist approach in the classroom. I finally came across a Digital Media class where kids were creating Flash Animation videos that incorporated previously learned concepts and were open-ended in terms of the final product. While each student has his/her own product, they were working cooperatively (in an undefined sense) to share examples and ideas and they worked their way through problems encountered. The teacher monitored progress and answered questions as needed. Because this course included first and second year students, several were working on simple products, while more advanced students were going above and beyond. More experienced students were also acting as sounding boards for newer students and lending their expertise when needed. There had obviously been a great deal of prior instruction and the teacher was able to allow the students to move in the directions that they wanted to with little correction.
I think it is interesting that at the high school level, we would find the least amount of constructivist approach. You would assume that older students would more naturally have the skill to problem solve, deconstruct, and reconstruct a topic and therefore better understand what we want them to learn, yet some teachers still lean toward the stand and deliver method to ensure they cover the standards. I too work in a high school and believe this to be one of the largest hurdles when working with staff.
In our district, we have been tackling the issue of the "stand and deliver method" at the high school level. We call it "preach to teach." During a professional development day, we asked the teachers to anonymously submit the reasons why they thought "a teacher" might choose to spend a majority of his/her time teaching in front of the class. The answers we received all stated since the teachers were experts in their subject areas, they knew what works and what does not. This avoided problems with "unclear concepts" in textbooks and "boring assignments." We had a long conversation as an admin team on how to go about changing some teachers beliefs on what was boring for them. Geoff Wetherell
My example is from something I observed in physical education class this week. It was the first day that students were being introduced to pickleball. The teacher started by talking about the serve. Rather than go over the mechanics of the serve he sent them to a court to immediately start practicing. The only instructions were to think about recently completed activities of volleyball and badminton and to translate some of those principles into a successful pickleball serve. After a few minutes of trial and error practice the class reviewed common fundamentals that translated to the pickleball serve such as balance, follow through, eye on the ball, etc.... I thought this was a good example of a constructivist theory at work as it allowed student to draw on applicable prior knowledge and attempt to utilize it in a different context.
Yesterday and today I observed a lesson that included some constructivist learning. The teacher opened the lesson showing a short 15 minute video. The video was supposed to set up the setting for a story the student were about to read. The teacher did not tell the students that the video had anything to do with the next story. The hope was that they would make the connection all on their own and it would help them understand the second story.
What I saw and heard were students working together discussing issues, setting, plot and the problems involved in the story they read. What was great was that at least one student in every group made the connection and then they all started to use the video to help them solve the issues they were discussing about the second story? I don't think it would have been as effective if the teacher would have made the connections for them. It was the ah-ha moment that got them excited and engaged.
I observed a 4/5 blend participating in a writer’s workshop activity. The topic was historical fiction with an open-ended storyline using characters developed from their family tree. The teacher had the students sorted into various groups with different objectives including collaborative editing, online researching, independent writing, teacher conferencing, etc. Following a quick check with one of the groups by the teacher, a student was encouraged to switch groups based on their individual need within the writing process. In other words, the teacher was not bound to groupings based on equal numbers, group designation within the weekly rotation, etc. I observed a coaching approach to student instruction during the individual conferences. Students were encouraged to share particular parts of their outline and were coached through a series of questions to think deeper or to shift thinking if necessary thus supporting a constructivist approach to learning. The teacher reinforced the writing skills during the conferences within the context of the student’s individual work.
Our school has been closed for the last three days due to inclement weather but I do have a fairly recent example of Constructivist learning. Our first grade team creates a “Living History Museum” every year. The students research their character, create a presentation based upon their research, create a costume, and create a storyboard with historical information. Yes, the team provides a lot of scaffolding for the students but they are responsible for choosing the information which is the most relevant to them. This is a very open ended assignment which is both engaging and meaningful for the students – it is something they will remember forever.
Day 2: The Constructivist behavior pattern was interesting. As a strength coach, I delegate the specific exercises, lifts, sets, and repetitions. I do not, however, delegate the specific weights each athlete is to use. My day 2 observations actually provided more disappointment for me than originally anticipated regarding the frequent questions that numerous athletes asked regarding how much weight they should or should not use for a specific exercise. I believe more of my athletes than anticipated do not have as strong a grasp on their specific training goals as I had previously believed.
I had the pleasure of observing a 3/4 classroom that was engaged in a science lesson. When I came into the room, the students were in collaborative groups sorting different types of rock. I didn't see instructions initially, but instead saw them discussing, picking up the rocks, and writing things in their journals. The rocks were numbered, and students were grouping them in different ways.
The group I sat with was having a great deal of disagreement about which rocks were big and which were small - I asked them what type of criteria they were using to decide this. One boy commented that the rocks were pretty similar in size, so they were looking for those that were thinner, rather than smaller in diameter.
The teacher then asked for the students attention, and instead of providing answers, she asked the students to share out their lists and the other student in the class would sort according to those numbers. It was up to the other students to figure out HOW the rocks had been classified based on the numbers they were provided with - was it by color? weight? texture? I really enjoyed the teachers ability to guide students through this process and the respect that was given to divergent thinking.
I did the third watch on Wednesday, which is my day to stay home with my eight month old son. I had to laugh because he appears to be going through a constructivist phase in terms of his immediate environment. The most pressing question in his mind is, "Does this thing make noise?" Towards that end, he is performing a series of experiments. No matter what item he finds, he will shake it or bang it against something else to decide if it is a "noisy" item or not. He is building new knowledge all the time about the properties of his toys. If something is soft and doesn't make any noise, he sets it down and goes in search of something else. The experiment really is with everything and at all times-- we went swimming and he continued to do this with the floating toys that they have in the kiddie pool.
One of the greatest pleasures in life is to see our children experience the world for the first time. Over break, I watched old video clips of my children growing up and learning life's lesson through play, experimentation and sometimes pain. Learning at its finest.
I work at a magnet school whose central instructional methodology is built upon the constructivist model. I observed a Storyline lesson where students were pioneers on the Oregon Trail and were building scaled models of the wagon they’d need to travel the harsh roads and inhospitable weather. They were discussing the size of the wagon wheels, the amount of space they’d need, what belongings they’d bring with them, how they would stay protected from the elements and what food provisions they need to survive. It was clear that they were engaged in a collaborative, hands-on activity that required creative thinking, a reliance upon past knowledge and experiences in order to devise a packing list and build a wagon able to sustain them on their journey. These types of lessons occur every day and at every grade level at our school and is what Storyline is all about.
I observed a cooking lesson in a special education classroom. The teacher had a visual/written recipe prepared and told the students it was time for cooking. The teacher stood back and allowed the group of four students at their individual levels to work together to complete the task. When necessary the teacher modeled the tasks. When a mistake was being made she asked questions to stimulate problem solving, higher order thinking and cooperative learning. The students used their past experiences and lessons to perform this task and referenced things that they had learned at home cooking.It was fun to watch students whom are often taught with a direct instruction methodology utilize other types of approaches to learning.
I witnessed an example of constructivist learning in a second grade classroom. I observed the end of a reading lesson and the beginning of a writing exercise. The reading selection was about a girl's three choices for a pet. She listed her choices by number in a list. Under each possible pet she wrote one word to descriptions of the positive traits of the particular animal. After the students had finished reading the selection, the teacher asked the students to identify the main ideas in the story. After receiving answers from students with varying academic skills, it was clear they all comprehended this story about choosing a pet. Next, the class transitioned into a writing exercise. The teacher asked them to write about their favorite animal and the reasons they liked that animal. That was it. She gave no other instructions and the students diligently got to work. As I looked over their shoulders, I noticed a majority of the students making a list in the same manner of the story they had read minutes earlier. I know we work on basic graphic organizers, but the students were given no reminders to use one. I talked to the teacher later about what I observed and she laughed. We have been working on the use of formative assessments this year and the teachers are going to present an example of one they used and what it taught them next week. She was checking the students to see if they could apply what they have learned while reading to their writing. She has been emphasizing the connection between the two throughout the year. Geoff Wetherell
My school is working a lot with Service Learning activities. On Thursday I saw an examples of this, that would fit into the constructionist frame work. This was a group of students that had just completed the building of a shed for Habitat for Humanity.
Our students, by using prior knowledge and through communicating with the classroom teacher designed a shed that would be placed next to a house that Habitat had just completed. The students then took the design and came with a list of materials needed, and work with me (as the building principal) to purchase all of the products. They then went on to build the shed.
Our students, in this project, had guided their own learning to accomplish something quite incredible. While this could have been done in a traditional manner, it would not have had the same power that allowing the students to be leaders in this project.
I love the idea of providing groups of students with opportunities to synthesize past learning while growing new understanding in real life experiences. This marriage of education and problem solving links education to everyday life. I believe today's students are thirsty for this kind of educational constructivist approach.
While I was assisting one of our 9th grade teams in the delivery of a Student of the Week award, I stumbled upon a great lesson that I believe represents the constructivist learning theory.
The young lady who was the winner happened to be in her Small Gas Engines course. As we entered, students were broken up into about 10 groups of three. They all had a small engine on the table and were working to reassemble the engines. Once the engine was assembled they were to try and start it. If it didn't start, they had to work to figure out what the issue was.
The teacher was moving throughout the room to answer questions as needed, but tended to respond with a question to probe students to use their problem solving skills. He never once came over and said, here is the issue, fix it. He encouraged the students to keep referring back to what they had learned to solve the problem.
I observed a third grade class that is studying Native Americans. This particular group started the unit by brainstorming all the things they knew about Native Americans, and then formulating questions about what they wanted to find out. The teacher put them in various groups and then, with the resources provided, they went to work on answering some of the questions. This unit will span a few weeks and will continue to follow this process of discovery. I believe this works when the teacher is prepared and can facilitate the questions in order to provide the desired outcomes.
I observed an undergraduate class in child development at the UO and where it appeared that a cognitivist/constructivist approach was being used. I was looking for an example of "guided learning" where the instructor was connecting prior knowledge to knew learning. I observed this in the undergraduate class which was exemplified by how the instructor lectured (slower rate, use of concrete examples), responded to student responses by expanding upon answer answers, connecting a student's prior knowledge from personal and academic experience with the content of course, and integrating activities that contextualized the learning of the new material and the relationship it may have with prior knowledge and how it will be applied to new knowledge that will be introduced.
After a brief instruction of expectation by the teacher the students move various rooms in the choir room to rehearse. In these rooms I watch students teaching one another while working in these sectionals during Men’s Choir. Each section went into a room to work on their part while the teacher monitors progress from room to room. In each section the student work collaboratively to find the rhythm and tone desired. The teacher had demonstrated over time the and specifically what the desired outcome for the students. During their time in their sections the students were self directed, giving each other feedback so as the teacher came to them they could demonstrate their learning.
Lesa Haley While visiting different classrooms I had the opportunity to observe a class lesson that was using the cognitivist/constructivist approach. When I entered the room students were all busy testing their robots. Each group has to design a robot that will compete against other robots to do specific tasks in the least amount of time. Their are specific criteria but it was interesting how different the robots looked and performed. They have all term to build their robot and then will compete against other schools. I believe this is a great example because the students are learning from each other and continue to refine their robots after testing them each day.
Always seems like the science-engineering-industrial arts combinations lend themselves to this constructionist approach. I have seen my high school social studies teacher put together great hands on lessons that allow students to apply the learning from the classroom with outdoor projects. I once had a student from Italy that took my physics class. I made the students design a marble course and attempt to determine velocity and approximate acceleration in a crude manner. When I questioned her about the difference between an education in Italy and the US, she indicated that the work was harder in Italy, but much more fun and creative in the US. I still value that comment from what was an excellent exchange student.
Wow! Short work week—holiday, snow day, and I went to the coast for a golf trip last week in the midst of torrential rains and 70-80 mph winds. The winds on one day were actually quite similar to the storm in the movie Caddyshack. The weather gave me a great experience at constructing my own learning. During one particularly interesting round of golf I had to deliberately not apply most of the skills I’ve spent years practicing. I couldn’t take a normal stance, rarely took a normal swing, and generally didn’t put the ball any higher than 10 feet in the air. I spent 18 holes inventing unusual shot after unusual shot (e.g., “putting” from 200 yards with fairway woods, hitting putts away from the hole in hopes that the wind would blow the ball back to the hole, etc.), and continuously using things I’d learned on previous holes to help me invent new shots.
I experienced a cognitivist/constructivist approach in the studio model of a 9th grade Integrated Math I class. The instructor provided a mini-lesson, private think time, a turn and talk, and an opportunity for an individual student to share out steps on how to correctly solve the math problem. The teacher revisited each step, reinforcing student learning visually on the board. This active engagement provided several opportunities for student learning. This class is a supported/inclusion class. Students that are on and below grade level are working together to develop a clearer understanding for solving for a variable. It was lovely to see all students actively engaged in a problem solving.
In an Algebra 1 class at a high school, I observed some very interesting teaching and learning interactions through the constructivist lens. Students' desks were arranged in groups of 4, and the teacher gave each group one complex word problem for them to solve. Students had access to a number of resources, including algebraic tile manipulatives and calculators, and retrieved these resources as necessary. The teacher circulated throughout the room, asking process oriented questions of the group such as "What makes you think that? Where is your evidence for your conclusions?" Students were conversing with each other throughout the period, though the depth of the discussion seemed to depend on the student. After about 20 minutes of group work time, each group reported out about their conclusions and their processes. All students were engaged and "on-task." My wonderings focused on the depth of learning for each student, as some students really appeared to carry more of the problem-solving load than other, who may have taken on other roles, such as gathering the resources.
Our district is participating in a grant that requires the use of Value Added Modeling (VAM) to provide incentive payouts to some teachers based on student performance. VAM is a relatively new occurrence in education and most educators have very limited experience with it. A major undertaking the district has is to make sure staff are educated regarding what VAM is and how it is related to teaching practices and student achievement. There appear to be a variety of sociocultural factors influencing staff learning that can make it difficult to convey what VAM is. VAM has nothing to do with meeting state standards, but after years of focus on getting students to meet standards it is difficult for some to unlearn that way of thinking. Even though all schools have access to the same ‘training’ materials, the group interaction, dialogue, questions, and prior conceptions of staff members that occur at each school’s staff meetings appear to make it difficult to convey a singular clear message that everyone understands.
I observed two classes where constructivist learning was occurring. First, I observed an elementary science class using a common inquiry activity where students count drops of water on a coin. The students were introduced to the concept of a hypothesis as well as collecting data. In the second experience a math class was working on producing stick figures of polyhedra. Both activities were designed to provide an experience tied to the learning objectives.
I love it when teachers really teach science in a constructivist manner. To me the real test is how they handle students realizations and findings, do they focus on the process of individual constructions of knowledge or do they steer the group to one true answer a specific "proven" scientific theory. I hope these two teachers you were able to see did the former.
I tutor a young girl in math and reading who usually needs a lot of support to grasp basic processes that most kids pick up quickly. The usual approach involves modeling, explicit instructions supported practice and then independence. On Monday though, we were working on her math homework (basic geometry) which involved measuring and drawing shapes. We used the ruler of course to measure, but I also modeled how to use it as a straight edge. She didn't really understand what I explaining and since it wasn't relevant to the homework we moved on. Next she needed to draw lines of symmetry. After I explained what that was, she went ahead and drew some lines free handed. She got frustrated with the results, but paused saw the ruler, and used it to draw a line. To me the realization of a constructivist moment came when she was surprisingly thrilled by the result saying enthusiastically, "WOW that's REALLY straight!" Ding!
I observed constructivist learning when I was most not looking for it. I recruited some students to help clean up around the school yesterday. As they were working on some garbage out front, someone asked if they could clean up all the dead plant in the flower beds. What started out as a clean up project ended up as a discovery project on the life cycle of perennials and annuals. Here is my question: Does this work better in some "subjects" than others? How can we best guide learning in those subjects not naturally given to it?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a classroom teacher ( now a principal) I used the Storyline approach to teaching and learning. This method is based on the Constructivist Theory. I found it perfect for my social studies and science content with easy integration for writing and reading. Students of ALL ages loved the approach and my students always scored very well on standardized tests. When I run into students, it is the Storyline units and related activities they remember and want to talk about. I found it magical.
DeleteIn response to your question "Does this work better in some "subjects" than others?" I would have to comment that it seems clear that even in areas where memorization and routine skill-building have a clear role (basic language vocabulary, math facts, music) to play, educators seek ways to help students construct meaning at a deeper level by using the skills in a real context.
DeleteStudents may know the separate words and phrases in a language, but only learn them in a meaningful, useable way if they are allowed the experiences to try them out over and over in different combinations and settings in order to construct meaning about how those words function in a real-life context. Here I'm a little murky on where the dividing line might be between constructivist and sociocultural when it comes to language learning. I can understand why some would see these as nested rather than separate theories since they seem to be happening simultaneously so often.
In response to the question, I would say that it depends. For example in Elementary math classes it is really important that kids know their facts. The way they are taught is generally Empiricist - drill and kill. They need their facts in order to be quick when doing multiple step problems. Yet kids need to be able to problem solve and have a deep understanding of math and I don't think you can get that with just drill.
DeleteTenneal Wetherell
DeleteI agree I see it in my own children in several ways. First with math facts. I drill them at home and they do carnine facts at school but when I help with math worksheets that include integrated facts with problem solving it is much more difficult for them. Spelling is another example, my eight year old is a great speller but when he is asked to dictate a sentence at the end it is much more difficult. We need a mix of all styles to help our students be successful. A teachers understanding of blooms and matching the level with expectation and their teaching will help to make sure that students get the right thing at the right time.
The problem with having the students construct their own meaning for everything is that it is so time consuming. There definitely isn't enough time to cover the standards that are expected if everything is taught using constructivist methods.
DeleteI observed Montessori charter school here in Eugene for this theory. I have to admit that I was totally surprised by the atmosphere in the school. There is not so called a "set curriculum" in the school, students have their own empty piece of schedule which they can fill in themselves. They can find what they are interested in and work on it. Create a project for example. Teachers' role is coach ,scaffolding and observing.Also, provide as many aids as they can for students to work on their projects. Students seen really used to the daily routine.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see this in action. I tried this approach once while teaching at an alternative high school. During one class period I let students choose a project that interested them and they set their schedule and decided what materials they needed. Some students really excelled but others found themselves lost and either did not pass the class or barely completed anything.
DeleteThe end results for the students who embraced this activity were amazing. Two surveyed their peers to identify some community issues and then put together an evening for parents and community to come and hear some speakers and gather resources regarding these issues. Others put together fundraisers for world causes. They all had to write, research, organize and prioritize tasks, and develop a final project.
I found myself exhausted not only at the end of the class period but also at the end of the day. It was hard to be a guide for so many different things going on at one time.
When I was teaching fifth grade (I believe my third year), decided to take an approach similar to this. On the first day of school, I asked the students to brainstorm all the topics that they found intriguing and interesting. We then represented all of these subjects with pictures and words. I vividly remember sitting in front of a blank bulletin board in my classroom and creating a giant web that encompassed the all the topics they had raised into a plan for our learning for the year. If they had an interest in robots, we incorporated that into the physical science standards. If they loved animals, I planned literature units that had animals as main characters. It was an enormous amount of work on my part, but my students were so engaged, it was worth it. They could look to that bulletin board throughout the year to see how their interests and inquires were providing the base for our learning.
DeleteI can't imagine having the energy to do that now! :)
My class has been introduced to multiplication in the past week and as usual I am amazed at the discrepancy in my room for fast learners and those that need more exposure or struggle.
ReplyDeleteOne of my kiddos who usually "get things" right away had a mistake in an answer when we were doing a whole group review. This was the perfect time to let the kids converse.
The problem was this:
We were playing a game called loops and groups. Roll a die, the number rolled is the # of loops drawn. Roll again and the second number is the # of tallies per loop. The student rolled a 3 and a 3, drew the correct problem, but wrote the multiplication problem that 3x3=12. I asked him to explain his thinking and he said you just "count it all up". So then I asked the class if they agreed with what was said and what they saw. When there were other answers I just told kids to start talking or ask questions and they got a pretty animated conversation going. When all was said and done, the student who had the misconception said "Oh, I get it now. It's like cookies on a plate. I was counting the loops as part of the number to get the answer. But you don't count the loops. That would be like counting the plates if you wanted to know how many cookies you had!"
Without my input and by further dialogue with peers (and some examples) the student was able to make the needed shift in his thinking to understand how finding the total of the grouping worked.
I found the same basic constructivist concepts to be apparent in the university course that I sat in on. It seemed to me, as an outsider to the class, that when the students were given more time to engage with each other they were able to problem solve and understand the material the best. This is at least what I observed in just this one sit in.
DeleteI also observed this in an undergraduate class at the UO. The instructor did a very nice job of guiding the lesson in a why that the students could build upon their prior knowledge while also scaffolding to more complex information within the students' zone of proximal development. By adding activities to contextualize the learning and engage in problem-solving strategies also kept the student's engaged and seemed to help them make connections to the concepts being taught.
DeleteI too often "guide" those I teaching to "learn" or reach conclusions I want them too. However, I wonder if a cognitive purist would accept this? Would "students" end up where we wanted them if we did not guide their direction? Are there those who would not arrive at any conclusion...?
DeleteI think Dave raises very interesting questions, and I believe these questions can intersect with socioeconomic issues. Students at many elite private schools, such as Caitlin Gabel in Portland, get a very constructivist, emergent curriculum approach. There are folks that suppose that students from these privileged backgrounds, where as students from poorer neighborhoods may be more likely to receive a "back-to-basics" or empiricist approach. This is clearly a generalization, but a wondering that I have is that if the advantages of early literacy and a print-rich environment help some students thrive in the constructivist approach, or if there are some latent low expectations that may make educator afraid to trust the constructivist approach with students from more challenging backgrounds?
DeleteI observed a first grade teacher who uses the Daily Five classroom structure. During my observation I noticed that she taught a mini lesson and then prior to sending students to their next activity, she checked in with each students asking them specifically which reading strategy they would work on and who they would work with- a partner or alone. She then went throughout the classroom coaching students 1:1, providing instruction as needed. Students persisted in their learning and were on task for the 20 minutes set aside for the activity.
ReplyDeleteI too observed a series of questioning strategies in a writing course today. Instructing students through questioning is quite an art and critical for helping students develop higher order thinking and self reflection skills.
DeleteI observed a political science class here at the university where the professor's teaching style was based almost wholly on constructivist theory. Instead of leading the class the professor directed the conversation based on the readings that the students had done. I found that because the students in this course were so engaged in the material as well as class participation that they were the ones who steered the discussion of the whole course while the professor chose not to lecture. I think this demonstrated the "learn it for yourself" attitude that constructivist theory promotes.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favourite university classes is a cognitive science class where the professor always asks a couple questions before introducing a new concept. The questions are not necessarily directed related to the concepts but trying to answer the them help students to link previous knowledge to the new concepts.
DeleteMy undergraduate education was at a small liberal arts college that was heavily constructivist. Every class I took resembled what Reham describes: I was expected to come to class prepared to discuss the massive amount of reading we were assigned in order to make meaning from it as a group. For the most part, I really appreciate this education as it taught me _how_ to learn. Occasionally, however, I wish my professors had spent more time guiding us through the information to add their own expertise to the conversation.
DeleteI attended Western Oregon University for my undergraduate degree in History and I found myself continually taking the same professor each term, despite the fact that his classes were incredibly tough. His style of teaching was to essentially let the students control the content. We would have 7 or 8 books each term, with a reading assigned from each book every week. We would then sign up to be responsible for one particular reading and then we were responsible for "teaching" this reading to the class. The professor facilitated the discussion but really left it up to the students to find their own connections between the readings. Despite the massive amounts of reading and writing for this class I continued to take these classes because I felt that I learned the most from them. By letting the students control their own learning and being in charge of the information this clearly represents a constructivist approach (something I did not know at the time!).
DeleteI witnessed the Constructivist school of thought while watching my boyfriend coach basketball over the weekend. [Disclaimer: I truly know nothing about basketball. I assume the following description will resemble what an alien would write if they came to earth and watched a baskeball practice.]
ReplyDeleteThe team had played very poorly in a game the week before. They had been defeated by a team that they should have beaten and coach was very upset. Coach showed the boys a video of the game and asked them to have a discussion about the game and how they could improve. The boys became very involved in watching the video, sometimes replaying a portion several times or slowing down sections. After watching and discussing as a group, the boys decided that they weren't passing the ball enough and that they needed to play "smarter". This reflects Constructivism because coach wanted the boys to come to this understanding on their own by watching themselves play, rather than through a "sage on the stage" style of coaching.
Lesa Haley
DeleteI too have witnessed this through reviewing video tape with water polo players right before state. It can be an incredible tool and learning opportunity. They are always able to draw their own conclusions on how to improve and what they can do better as a team which is very powerful.
As a teacher in the field, court or where ever (a coach), you strive for the players to get it and teach others from following your lead. This is no different than in the classroom. The players take what you are teaching them in the drill and practice and they instruct and lead others independently that may be struggling.
DeleteIn the online culture learning course we offer, the students are asked to teach fellow students about a specific city or a tradition. Students learn more thoroughly when they know they need to articulate to someone else later. They find various formats that might suit the learning habits of other students.
ReplyDeleteIn the class I observed, students are asked to write down what they think about the course and turn in. At the end of the semester, they will be asked to write down the same thing again and compare with their initial answer to see the change in thoughts or any improvements in understanding the subject area. This could be particularly useful for class that has an overarching topic but is consisted of several smaller modules.
DeleteStudents in a language class were asking a presenter from Spain questions in the language about his country and culture. Through a bit of trial and error, students were able to see which questions made sense to the presenter and which questions needed to be modified. His feedback (comprehension vs. confusion) provided them the testing ground they needed to try out their ideas about what worked well to communicate in the language. I think the process, along with the listening, solidified some of their emerging understanding about the language.
ReplyDeleteIt was evident that there was quite a bit of other learning theory (Sociocultural) at play as students helped each other with phrasing or tuned into the speaker's and their peers' examples.
Recently the peer-work or peer-review is getting popular in the language class. Some researchers in second language teaching field believe that peer-work will improve learners' learning. In the video mentioned about the role of the instructor and how can the instructor help is also the key in cognitive learning
DeleteI observed constructivist learning in a math class. All the kids were using fraction circles to compare like fractions. The teacher was roaming the room helping when needed and the students were helping each other. The teacher had modeled what the kids needed to do and they had a worksheet that went with the activity, but they were pretty self directed in how they would learn what like fractions were.
ReplyDeleteI also often see constructivist learning in our math classes. One of the best examples is the process of quiz corrections. After receiving a returned quiz, students return to their previous learning and work in conjunction with one another to discover their error(s) and make corrections. This process helps math 'stick' for many students. Witnessing the success constructivism, it makes me wonder why we still have so many sages on stages.
DeleteAt least in my district, it is so interesting to me that we have moved to a more constructivist curriculum in math with lots of problem solving and math talk. On the other hand, in reading, we are expecting teachers to be very explicit with lots of phonics (templates) and direct instruction programs for ALL students.
DeleteIsn't it also interesting, based on the comments above, that several years ago the state abolished the math "problem solving" portion of state tests. ( I believe one of the reasons was cost as it took much more time/resources to score vs. multiple choice math tests that we all do now)
DeleteRegarding Sarah's comment--Is it that the math and reading curricula actually lack an effective combination of constructivist and more explicit instruction, or do some schools and/or teachers just choose to under or overemphasize various aspects?
DeleteToday during admin council constructivist learning occurred during an activity designed to flesh out the Common Core roll out. We were asked to participate in a gallery walk, defining the various terms relevant to the roll out (e.g. gap analysis, toolkit, etc.). Through this process, we created a deep understanding of scope of the roll out and the discrepancies in understanding we needed to address in our own group.
ReplyDeleteIt has become commonplace this year at our administrative meetings to use constructivist theory to plan the meeting. We have used modeling and student engagement strategies that are a part of our facilitation techniques and development of the agenda. The meetings are about the participant learning and wrestling with the information. We see some attempts to expand into a plc environment were the group think creates a more profound result.
DeleteToday I participated in a meeting with a person who is responsible for a particular recruitment event in our office. I was to help her brainstorm possible changes to the agenda and program for this year. We utilized a cognitivist/constructivist strategy which involved evaluating past experience and outside feedback from the program, identifying areas that needed to be altered as a result, and using both personal experience and feedback from multiple sources to create a new agenda that attempts to better meet the needs of all participants and guests. One piece I noted is that we actually integrated elements of a different event for which I am responsible; together, we drew from past experiences and applied them in a way that would address the areas of concern identified last year. I believe this is constructivist because, out of that process, we created both a new program agenda, but also new shared knowledge about how best to proceed with this particular event.
ReplyDeleteWhat a cool example, Kelly. It is really interesting to me how this approach to planning an event created more investment in the outcome, instead of being a "top-down" approach where the supervisor outlines what needs to be done and passes off that assignment to a subordinate. In this scenario, you were sharing what you already knew about how to make this event successful, and thinking of new approaches. This is an interesting intersection of the Learning Organizations class' focus on knowledge management and this course. You are building on prior knowledge, sharing information, and very likely increasing personal investment in the event from all parties.
DeleteThis morning I observed a very constructivist lesson in a 4/5 grade writing/reading group. The teacher gave minimal instructions to the students. They quickly reviewed the main characteristics of a newspaper article, were put in groups of three, give a newspaper article that included a photo in Chinese. The students were to work in groups and write an article based on what they believed that the Chinese article may have be about. They were allowed to be creative as possible and brainstorm and write the ideas together. This was a constructivist activity as the students had a lot of control over the learning as they much of the learning came from the prior knowledge they had of newspaper articles and of China. They also had to work together and learn from each other.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a wonderful lesson and I would have liked to have observed it. I am wondering how many times students have worked through this type of process because I have always found it difficult for students after a certain age to freely do this without more guidance.
DeleteI am a mentor through the ASPIRE program at Thurston High School and I observed one of the other mentors work with a student. This student knew very little about college, scholarships, financial aid etc. and she also didn't have the slightest inclination of what she wanted to do in her future. I saw the mentor use a constructivist approach with the student by asking simple questions that prompted the student to provide answers that even she seemed surprised by. Instead of telling her what she should do and what college she should go to, the mentor allowed the student to take control of the conversation and discover the different avenues for post-secondary education on her own. She seemed to respond well to this approach as she had expressed early in the conversation that her parents have been pushing her to go to a particular college and get a specific degree that she did not seem enthusiastic about. By the end of the session the student was upbeat and excited about her possibilities after high school and set an appointment to come back the following week to discuss the steps she had taken to research some possible areas of interest. This particular mentor has been working with ASPIRE for several years now and I was very impressed with the way he handled this situation because the student was very closed off at the beginning of the session and he managed to completely change her attitude by simply allowing her to take control of the knowledge and information she needed.
ReplyDeleteToday I observed a wonderful example of cognitivist/constructivist learning behaviors. I was in the AVID (Advancement Via Individualized Determination) classroom while they were doing tutorial. This is a process where one adult volunteer facilitates a tutor group of 5-6 students. The students present a question that is troubling them in one of the core academic classes. The students take turns presenting and being group members. The group members are encouraged to ask question to help the presenter get to a point of understanding. The whole idea is not necessarily to find the right answer but to figure out how to ask the right questions. Students are taught the process which really is all about learning about learning. This is an example because students are given an internal structure but they individually construct and adjust as needed to fit their academic needs.
ReplyDelete-Lizette
I think that "teaching the process" is the sticking point for many teachers and in many classrooms. While teachers are aware that there are others ways (perhaps better) to provide instruction, the work and time that has to go into preparing kids for constructivist types of activities is daunting and too easily avoided. Without the necessary student "training" these types of activities often fall flat or fail to achieve the desired outcomes, giving teachers a convenient excuse to avoid them in the future.
DeleteI agree. I'm excited that our new CCSS are more than just a new set of standards. Without the correct implementation the new standards will not produce the expected change.
DeleteAs I look at the Common Core there is certainly work being done to ramp up students into higher levels of Blooms. These higher order thinking skills is what our students need in order to achieve at unprecedented levels.
DeleteToday, I saw an example of modeling and scaffolding being used in our science classroom. The teacher was using a series of discrepant events to create a common understanding for the students in her classroom. The kids performed several short experiments all related to pressure and discussed with their learning group and related the results of the experiment to their prior experience and knowledge. The students used a protocol to refine their understanding and then make predictions about larger systems of pressure and design a measurement system. The protocol provided a way for the kids to discuss their knowledge and probe other group members understanding.
ReplyDeleteIn my observations at the high school level, I struggled to find what I felt were true examples of a cognitive/constructivist approach in the classroom. I finally came across a Digital Media class where kids were creating Flash Animation videos that incorporated previously learned concepts and were open-ended in terms of the final product. While each student has his/her own product, they were working cooperatively (in an undefined sense) to share examples and ideas and they worked their way through problems encountered. The teacher monitored progress and answered questions as needed. Because this course included first and second year students, several were working on simple products, while more advanced students were going above and beyond. More experienced students were also acting as sounding boards for newer students and lending their expertise when needed. There had obviously been a great deal of prior instruction and the teacher was able to allow the students to move in the directions that they wanted to with little correction.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that at the high school level, we would find the least amount of constructivist approach. You would assume that older students would more naturally have the skill to problem solve, deconstruct, and reconstruct a topic and therefore better understand what we want them to learn, yet some teachers still lean toward the stand and deliver method to ensure they cover the standards. I too work in a high school and believe this to be one of the largest hurdles when working with staff.
DeleteIn our district, we have been tackling the issue of the "stand and deliver method" at the high school level. We call it "preach to teach." During a professional development day, we asked the teachers to anonymously submit the reasons why they thought "a teacher" might choose to spend a majority of his/her time teaching in front of the class. The answers we received all stated since the teachers were experts in their subject areas, they knew what works and what does not. This avoided problems with "unclear concepts" in textbooks and "boring assignments."
DeleteWe had a long conversation as an admin team on how to go about changing some teachers beliefs on what was boring for them.
Geoff Wetherell
My example is from something I observed in physical education class this week. It was the first day that students were being introduced to pickleball. The teacher started by talking about the serve. Rather than go over the mechanics of the serve he sent them to a court to immediately start practicing. The only instructions were to think about recently completed activities of volleyball and badminton and to translate some of those principles into a successful pickleball serve. After a few minutes of trial and error practice the class reviewed common fundamentals that translated to the pickleball serve such as balance, follow through, eye on the ball, etc.... I thought this was a good example of a constructivist theory at work as it allowed student to draw on applicable prior knowledge and attempt to utilize it in a different context.
ReplyDeleteYesterday and today I observed a lesson that included some constructivist learning. The teacher opened the lesson showing a short 15 minute video. The video was supposed to set up the setting for a story the student were about to read. The teacher did not tell the students that the video had anything to do with the next story. The hope was that they would make the connection all on their own and it would help them understand the second story.
ReplyDeleteWhat I saw and heard were students working together discussing issues, setting, plot and the problems involved in the story they read. What was great was that at least one student in every group made the connection and then they all started to use the video to help them solve the issues they were discussing about the second story? I don't think it would have been as effective if the teacher would have made the connections for them. It was the ah-ha moment that got them excited and engaged.
I observed a 4/5 blend participating in a writer’s workshop activity. The topic was historical fiction with an open-ended storyline using characters developed from their family tree. The teacher had the students sorted into various groups with different objectives including collaborative editing, online researching, independent writing, teacher conferencing, etc. Following a quick check with one of the groups by the teacher, a student was encouraged to switch groups based on their individual need within the writing process. In other words, the teacher was not bound to groupings based on equal numbers, group designation within the weekly rotation, etc. I observed a coaching approach to student instruction during the individual conferences. Students were encouraged to share particular parts of their outline and were coached through a series of questions to think deeper or to shift thinking if necessary thus supporting a constructivist approach to learning. The teacher reinforced the writing skills during the conferences within the context of the student’s individual work.
ReplyDeleteOur school has been closed for the last three days due to inclement weather but I do have a fairly recent example of Constructivist learning. Our first grade team creates a “Living History Museum” every year. The students research their character, create a presentation based upon their research, create a costume, and create a storyboard with historical information. Yes, the team provides a lot of scaffolding for the students but they are responsible for choosing the information which is the most relevant to them. This is a very open ended assignment which is both engaging and meaningful for the students – it is something they will remember forever.
ReplyDeleteFrom Cliff Lohrey:
ReplyDeleteDay 2:
The Constructivist behavior pattern was interesting. As a strength coach, I delegate the specific exercises, lifts, sets, and repetitions. I do not, however, delegate the specific weights each athlete is to use. My day 2 observations actually provided more disappointment for me than originally anticipated regarding the frequent questions that numerous athletes asked regarding how much weight they should or should not use for a specific exercise. I believe more of my athletes than anticipated do not have as strong a grasp on their specific training goals as I had previously believed.
I had the pleasure of observing a 3/4 classroom that was engaged in a science lesson. When I came into the room, the students were in collaborative groups sorting different types of rock. I didn't see instructions initially, but instead saw them discussing, picking up the rocks, and writing things in their journals. The rocks were numbered, and students were grouping them in different ways.
ReplyDeleteThe group I sat with was having a great deal of disagreement about which rocks were big and which were small - I asked them what type of criteria they were using to decide this. One boy commented that the rocks were pretty similar in size, so they were looking for those that were thinner, rather than smaller in diameter.
The teacher then asked for the students attention, and instead of providing answers, she asked the students to share out their lists and the other student in the class would sort according to those numbers. It was up to the other students to figure out HOW the rocks had been classified based on the numbers they were provided with - was it by color? weight? texture? I really enjoyed the teachers ability to guide students through this process and the respect that was given to divergent thinking.
I did the third watch on Wednesday, which is my day to stay home with my eight month old son. I had to laugh because he appears to be going through a constructivist phase in terms of his immediate environment. The most pressing question in his mind is, "Does this thing make noise?" Towards that end, he is performing a series of experiments. No matter what item he finds, he will shake it or bang it against something else to decide if it is a "noisy" item or not. He is building new knowledge all the time about the properties of his toys. If something is soft and doesn't make any noise, he sets it down and goes in search of something else. The experiment really is with everything and at all times-- we went swimming and he continued to do this with the floating toys that they have in the kiddie pool.
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest pleasures in life is to see our children experience the world for the first time. Over break, I watched old video clips of my children growing up and learning life's lesson through play, experimentation and sometimes pain. Learning at its finest.
DeleteI work at a magnet school whose central instructional methodology is built upon the constructivist model. I observed a Storyline lesson where students were pioneers on the Oregon Trail and were building scaled models of the wagon they’d need to travel the harsh roads and inhospitable weather. They were discussing the size of the wagon wheels, the amount of space they’d need, what belongings they’d bring with them, how they would stay protected from the elements and what food provisions they need to survive. It was clear that they were engaged in a collaborative, hands-on activity that required creative thinking, a reliance upon past knowledge and experiences in order to devise a packing list and build a wagon able to sustain them on their journey. These types of lessons occur every day and at every grade level at our school and is what Storyline is all about.
ReplyDeleteI observed a cooking lesson in a special education classroom. The teacher had a visual/written recipe prepared and told the students it was time for cooking. The teacher stood back and allowed the group of four students at their individual levels to work together to complete the task. When necessary the teacher modeled the tasks. When a mistake was being made she asked questions to stimulate problem solving, higher order thinking and cooperative learning. The students used their past experiences and lessons to perform this task and referenced things that they had learned at home cooking.It was fun to watch students whom are often taught with a direct instruction methodology utilize other types of approaches to learning.
ReplyDeleteOops. Anonymous was Tenneal above.
DeleteI witnessed an example of constructivist learning in a second grade classroom. I observed the end of a reading lesson and the beginning of a writing exercise. The reading selection was about a girl's three choices for a pet. She listed her choices by number in a list. Under each possible pet she wrote one word to descriptions of the positive traits of the particular animal. After the students had finished reading the selection, the teacher asked the students to identify the main ideas in the story. After receiving answers from students with varying academic skills, it was clear they all comprehended this story about choosing a pet.
ReplyDeleteNext, the class transitioned into a writing exercise. The teacher asked them to write about their favorite animal and the reasons they liked that animal. That was it. She gave no other instructions and the students diligently got to work. As I looked over their shoulders, I noticed a majority of the students making a list in the same manner of the story they had read minutes earlier.
I know we work on basic graphic organizers, but the students were given no reminders to use one.
I talked to the teacher later about what I observed and she laughed. We have been working on the use of formative assessments this year and the teachers are going to present an example of one they used and what it taught them next week. She was checking the students to see if they could apply what they have learned while reading to their writing. She has been emphasizing the connection between the two throughout the year.
Geoff Wetherell
My school is working a lot with Service Learning activities. On Thursday I saw an examples of this, that would fit into the constructionist frame work. This was a group of students that had just completed the building of a shed for Habitat for Humanity.
ReplyDeleteOur students, by using prior knowledge and through communicating with the classroom teacher designed a shed that would be placed next to a house that Habitat had just completed. The students then took the design and came with a list of materials needed, and work with me (as the building principal) to purchase all of the products. They then went on to build the shed.
Our students, in this project, had guided their own learning to accomplish something quite incredible. While this could have been done in a traditional manner, it would not have had the same power that allowing the students to be leaders in this project.
I love the idea of providing groups of students with opportunities to synthesize past learning while growing new understanding in real life experiences. This marriage of education and problem solving links education to everyday life. I believe today's students are thirsty for this kind of educational constructivist approach.
DeleteWhile I was assisting one of our 9th grade teams in the delivery of a Student of the Week award, I stumbled upon a great lesson that I believe represents the constructivist learning theory.
ReplyDeleteThe young lady who was the winner happened to be in her Small Gas Engines course. As we entered, students were broken up into about 10 groups of three. They all had a small engine on the table and were working to reassemble the engines. Once the engine was assembled they were to try and start it. If it didn't start, they had to work to figure out what the issue was.
The teacher was moving throughout the room to answer questions as needed, but tended to respond with a question to probe students to use their problem solving skills. He never once came over and said, here is the issue, fix it. He encouraged the students to keep referring back to what they had learned to solve the problem.
I observed a third grade class that is studying Native Americans. This particular group started the unit by brainstorming all the things they knew about Native Americans, and then formulating questions about what they wanted to find out. The teacher put them in various groups and then, with the resources provided, they went to work on answering some of the questions. This unit will span a few weeks and will continue to follow this process of discovery. I believe this works when the teacher is prepared and can facilitate the questions in order to provide the desired outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI observed an undergraduate class in child development at the UO and where it appeared that a cognitivist/constructivist approach was being used. I was looking for an example of "guided learning" where the instructor was connecting prior knowledge to knew learning. I observed this in the undergraduate class which was exemplified by how the instructor lectured (slower rate, use of concrete examples), responded to student responses by expanding upon answer answers, connecting a student's prior knowledge from personal and academic experience with the content of course, and integrating activities that contextualized the learning of the new material and the relationship it may have with prior knowledge and how it will be applied to new knowledge that will be introduced.
ReplyDeleteAfter a brief instruction of expectation by the teacher the students move various rooms in the choir room to rehearse. In these rooms I watch students teaching one another while working in these sectionals during Men’s Choir. Each section went into a room to work on their part while the teacher monitors progress from room to room. In each section the student work collaboratively to find the rhythm and tone desired. The teacher had demonstrated over time the and specifically what the desired outcome for the students. During their time in their sections the students were self directed, giving each other feedback so as the teacher came to them they could demonstrate their learning.
ReplyDeleteLesa Haley
ReplyDeleteWhile visiting different classrooms I had the opportunity to observe a class lesson that was using the cognitivist/constructivist approach. When I entered the room students were all busy testing their robots. Each group has to design a robot that will compete against other robots to do specific tasks in the least amount of time. Their are specific criteria but it was interesting how different the robots looked and performed. They have all term to build their robot and then will compete against other schools. I believe this is a great example because the students are learning from each other and continue to refine their robots after testing them each day.
Always seems like the science-engineering-industrial arts combinations lend themselves to this constructionist approach. I have seen my high school social studies teacher put together great hands on lessons that allow students to apply the learning from the classroom with outdoor projects. I once had a student from Italy that took my physics class. I made the students design a marble course and attempt to determine velocity and approximate acceleration in a crude manner. When I questioned her about the difference between an education in Italy and the US, she indicated that the work was harder in Italy, but much more fun and creative in the US. I still value that comment from what was an excellent exchange student.
DeleteWow! Short work week—holiday, snow day, and I went to the coast for a golf trip last week in the midst of torrential rains and 70-80 mph winds. The winds on one day were actually quite similar to the storm in the movie Caddyshack. The weather gave me a great experience at constructing my own learning. During one particularly interesting round of golf I had to deliberately not apply most of the skills I’ve spent years practicing. I couldn’t take a normal stance, rarely took a normal swing, and generally didn’t put the ball any higher than 10 feet in the air. I spent 18 holes inventing unusual shot after unusual shot (e.g., “putting” from 200 yards with fairway woods, hitting putts away from the hole in hopes that the wind would blow the ball back to the hole, etc.), and continuously using things I’d learned on previous holes to help me invent new shots.
ReplyDeleteI experienced a cognitivist/constructivist approach in the studio model of a 9th grade Integrated Math I class. The instructor provided a mini-lesson, private think time, a turn and talk, and an opportunity for an individual student to share out steps on how to correctly solve the math problem. The teacher revisited each step, reinforcing student learning visually on the board. This active engagement provided several opportunities for student learning. This class is a supported/inclusion class. Students that are on and below grade level are working together to develop a clearer understanding for solving for a variable. It was lovely to see all students actively engaged in a problem solving.
ReplyDeleteIn an Algebra 1 class at a high school, I observed some very interesting teaching and learning interactions through the constructivist lens. Students' desks were arranged in groups of 4, and the teacher gave each group one complex word problem for them to solve. Students had access to a number of resources, including algebraic tile manipulatives and calculators, and retrieved these resources as necessary. The teacher circulated throughout the room, asking process oriented questions of the group such as "What makes you think that? Where is your evidence for your conclusions?" Students were conversing with each other throughout the period, though the depth of the discussion seemed to depend on the student. After about 20 minutes of group work time, each group reported out about their conclusions and their processes. All students were engaged and "on-task." My wonderings focused on the depth of learning for each student, as some students really appeared to carry more of the problem-solving load than other, who may have taken on other roles, such as gathering the resources.
ReplyDeleteOur district is participating in a grant that requires the use of Value Added Modeling (VAM) to provide incentive payouts to some teachers based on student performance. VAM is a relatively new occurrence in education and most educators have very limited experience with it. A major undertaking the district has is to make sure staff are educated regarding what VAM is and how it is related to teaching practices and student achievement. There appear to be a variety of sociocultural factors influencing staff learning that can make it difficult to convey what VAM is. VAM has nothing to do with meeting state standards, but after years of focus on getting students to meet standards it is difficult for some to unlearn that way of thinking. Even though all schools have access to the same ‘training’ materials, the group interaction, dialogue, questions, and prior conceptions of staff members that occur at each school’s staff meetings appear to make it difficult to convey a singular clear message that everyone understands.
ReplyDeleteoops. this was supposed to post in day 3. For some reason when I went through the publishing process this reverted to day 2.
ReplyDeleteI observed two classes where constructivist learning was occurring. First, I observed an elementary science class using a common inquiry activity where students count drops of water on a coin. The students were introduced to the concept of a hypothesis as well as collecting data. In the second experience a math class was working on producing stick figures of polyhedra. Both activities were designed to provide an experience tied to the learning objectives.
ReplyDeleteI love it when teachers really teach science in a constructivist manner. To me the real test is how they handle students realizations and findings, do they focus on the process of individual constructions of knowledge or do they steer the group to one true answer a specific "proven" scientific theory. I hope these two teachers you were able to see did the former.
DeleteI tutor a young girl in math and reading who usually needs a lot of support to grasp basic processes that most kids pick up quickly. The usual approach involves modeling, explicit instructions supported practice and then independence. On Monday though, we were working on her math homework (basic geometry) which involved measuring and drawing shapes. We used the ruler of course to measure, but I also modeled how to use it as a straight edge. She didn't really understand what I explaining and since it wasn't relevant to the homework we moved on. Next she needed to draw lines of symmetry. After I explained what that was, she went ahead and drew some lines free handed. She got frustrated with the results, but paused saw the ruler, and used it to draw a line. To me the realization of a constructivist moment came when she was surprisingly thrilled by the result saying enthusiastically, "WOW that's REALLY straight!" Ding!
ReplyDelete