UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
Constructivist Views of Learning
This entry was posted in Reading Reflections. Bookmark the permalink.
17 Responses to Constructivist Views of Learning
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
After reading the Weegar and Pacis article, I have a clearer understanding of the differences and connections between behaviourism and constructivism when looking at how children learn. I found that Weegar and Pacis really focused on outlining and defining the two theories and only briefly talked about how the theories connected to online learning. Weegar and Pacis’s description of the constructivist learning theory really resonated with me as a teacher and as a learner. When adopting the constructivist model to learning, Weegar and Pacis define the teacher as a guide, facilitator, and co-explorer who encourages learners to question, challenge, and formulate their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions (p. 7). I was first exposed to this model of teaching and learning during my teacher education training at UBC.
I completed my B.Ed. in the Problem Based Learning (PBL) Cohort and when I reflect back on that experience I can clearly see how my program was framed around a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. As a result, I believe that it shaped some of my particular views around how children learn. I remember how odd it was for my professors to pose realistic problems through case studies and have us, the students, figure out and solve them. For me, it was a huge adjustment because most of my education up to that point followed more of a behaviourist approach to teaching and learning. However, by the end of the program I was able to articulate with confidence my thinking and ideals around learning and teaching because I had constructed the knowledge myself through the guidance of my professors.
During my first couple years of teaching I naively tried to only teach through a constructivist model. As a result, I did not meet the diverse and complex needs of my students. Weegar and Pacis state that, “it is important to remember that there are ongoing shifts in the promotion of educational theories” (p. 17). As I begin my tenth year of teaching I am more aware that the reality of teaching requires a balanced approach between developmental theories.
After reading both Ertmer and Newby and Weegar and Paci’s sections on constructivism I can see the importance of creating and providing authentic experiences for students to make meaning and to construct their own knowledge. As I mentioned in my previous post, both the behaviourist and cognitivist approaches definitely are a part of my daily practice as a primary French immersion teacher, however I also can see how constructivism plays a role in my teaching. I really related to Ertmer and Newby’s statement that “situations actually co-produce knowledge (along with cognition) through activity” and the importance that “learning occur[s] in realistic settings and that the selected learning tasks be relevant to the students’ lived experiences” (p. 56). Weeger and Pacis talk about Knowle’s theory of andragogy and how it was developed for adult learners, however I think it also applies to young students as well. Outdoor education and other real-life experiences follow the basis of this theory: a) Adults need to know why they need to learn something, b) Adults need to learn experientially, c) Adults approach learning as problem-solving and d) Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value (p. 15). You could take out the word “adult” and replace it with “student” or “child” and these statements apply to a learner of any age. My students are much more attached to what we are learning about in the classroom if they understand why it is important. As well, they want to learn through real-life experiences and love problem-solving.
This week at my school we had a professional development day that focused on outdoor education and it really reminded me of what was being explained in the readings about real-life experiences as a way to construct knowledge. A colleague of mine facilitated the workshops and brought us down to a lake in Burnaby, which is walking distance from my school. We worked with guided inquiry questions about local eco-systems such as “would salmon return to the creeks around this lake to spawn?” that the facilitating teacher and her students had come up with when she had visited the lake previously. We participated in a variety of stations and small-group activities such as collecting water samples to test for clarity, colour, alkalinity, and levels of pH. As well, we made observations about food webs based off of the wildlife and plants we saw and we looked for possible connecting creeks around the lake for salmon to spawn. This workshop reminded me of the importance of experiential learning and real-life experiences in the students’ own community and environment. These activities create a context for knowledge construction where the emphasis is on the process rather than a specific outcome. There is a guiding inquiry question for the students and the teacher is there to help “effectively monitor, evaluate and update those constructions” (Ertmer & Newby p. 59) that the students are making through the activity in context and collaboration with their peers.
I am fortunate enough to teach in a place where these kinds of activities are possible, but not all schools have easy access to outdoor education. Weeger and Pacis talk about the importance of providing online learning environments and digital technologies that are not just a software that stores ideas but instead is “an interactive problem-based environment in which the student is empowered to take charge of his or her own learning” (p. 15). This is also an issue of access for schools and teachers as there are varying levels of technologies from district to district and school to school. It would be wonderful to be provide these environments on a daily basis, but it is not necessarily always the reality.
The two articles I read this week were comparisons of behaviourist, cognitivist and constructivist learning theories. Ertmer and Newby (2013) described the application of these theories to instructional design, while Weegar and Pacis (2012) reviewed their application in face-to-face and online learning.
Behavioural and cognitive theories are objectivistic; that is a defined, real world exists outside of the learner. Teachers who hew to these theories design instruction so that the world as it exists is imprinted onto the learner. This would be the view espoused by scholar academic and social efficiency curriculum theories.
Constructivism stems from rationalism, which takes the view that humans learn by recalling what already exists in the mind (Ertmer and Newby, p. 47) and connecting this with new ideas. Constructivists claim that everyone has their own version of reality. Instead of acquiring our understanding of the world, we create or construct it in our mind. Our perception of the world is created through authentic experiences, resulting in strong links between knowledge and context. Social reconstruction and learner centred would be corresponding curriculum theories. Instructional design from this perspective would focus on refining and facilitating this process. Learning must take place in realistic settings and connect to learners’ life experiences; Piaget suggested knowledge and understanding is gained by connecting relevant prior experiences with new ones (Weegar and Pacis, p. 7). Each new experience changes memory, which is in a state of constant change.
Papert took this one step further with his theory of constructionism, which is that learning more reliably happens when the learner is engaged in constructing something outside of their head, in a fashion that can be shared with others. (Martinez and Stager, 2013, p. 34). In other words, gaining knowledge and building understanding occurs when a learner is doing something that results in a product that others can see or experience. The process of creating causes the learner to engage in cognitive activity that reshapes previous understandings. Learning also takes place when engaging with others, which fits in with Vygotsky’s theory of learning as a social process.
While the current trend in learning is to promote the use of constructivist learning strategies, I believe that “the role of designers remains that of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each learning theory in order to optimally select and implement strategies that support student learning in a variety of contexts” (Ertmer and Newby, p. 69). As Weegar and Pacis pointed out, instructors choose to use a combination of behaviourist and constructivist approaches to fit a variety of student learning styles. With experience, I have learned what approaches are effective for the students I teach and the concepts and skills they need to acquire. I tend to use behaviouristic or cognitive strategies when introducing new knowledge, them move to constructivist strategies when I think my students have enough confidence and understanding to tackle more open-ended projects. I use my professional experience and judgment (which includes my understanding of learning theory) to test and assess the effectiveness of new strategies, whether they are digital or not.
After learning more about constructivism in this week’s readings I believe that the curriculum we are now following promotes a constructivist view of learning. Many of the strategies outlined by Weeger and Pacis as constructivist educational strategies, such as “cooperative learning, hands-on activities, discovery learning, differentiated instruction, technology, distributed practice, critical thinking, and manipulatives” align with the newly redesigned curriculum in BC (pg. 11). The BC curriculum documents written by the government state that the focus of the curriculum is on the “active engagement of the students”. Similarly, Weegar and Pacis state that “curriculum for the constructivist learning model is designed to actively engage the students in their learning” (pg. 12). Therefore, it is clear here that the government’s intention was to promote a constructivist view of learning.
Weegar and Pacis also lend their opinion on online learning and its’ effectiveness. As our curriculum begins to focus more on the students and allows them to work at their own pace, the existence of online courses has become more prevalent. Therefore, it will become increasingly important for online courses to be effective with engaging students and providing them with opportunities to be active participants in their learning. The idea of taking courses online does not appeal to me because you do not get the benefit of face-to-face conversations with peers and colleagues. When I was researching masters programs to apply for there was an online program that started before the DLC program. However, I chose not to apply because I wanted to make new friends and I wanted to have the opportunity to collaborate with people in my profession. I’m really happy with my choice as I’ve met a lot of amazing teachers in this program and lots of what I’ve learned has been through my conversations with them. However, I strongly believe that with the way the curriculum is moving there should be a focus on making online courses more participatory, in order for student’s to get the most out of their learning.
I enjoyed this week’s reading. Not only was it easy to read, but it presented useful links between behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. I find the interconnections between theories interesting, especially regarding behaviorism and constructivism. I also found the philosophical school of thought breakdown interesting, however, I was disappointed that existentialism was listed, but never mentioned in the following paragraph. I guess it doesn’t necessarily relate to the focus of the article, behaviorism and constructivism, however, I found it odd that it was omitted entirely. As i read the article, I reflected on my own practice, and found that I use a more blended approach, behaviorist and constructivist. In our school, I’m finding teachers struggling to see the need for behaviorist learning practices, and they seem to focus solely on constructivist. I see a huge flaw in that mindset, and I felt that this flaw was magnified when my school tried doing an “innovation week” and “innovation fair” a few years back.
The idea behind innovation fair was that all grades got a week off their classes to explore whatever topic they wanted, then they could present their final product or findings in a science fair style fair. There was some time beforehand for teachers to guide the students’ inquiry, and to help them through their innovation proposal, however, once innovation week arrived our school was in utter chaos. Although constructivist in approach, supporting PBL and inquiry, the students were missing the foundational knowledge to execute the projects they were proposing. Our wood, metal shops, and engineering labs were inundated with students wanting to come and make things, great things, with no idea of how to make plans, use tools, or execute shaping processes. In short, it was a gong show. On the innovation fair day you would be hard pressed to find any sort of meaningful prototype or artifact, however, there was no shortage of tri-fold posters and copied and pasted wikipedia information.
In my classes, I start the year with a more behaviourist approach, and I focus on safety and skills. I teach the shop students how to use the machines and hand tools, and how to shape their materials through various shaping processes. In the engineerings classes I teach the students how to use the software and prototyping machines. As the students get more and more comfortable with the software, machines and processes, I shift into a constructivist approach, and I allow the students the freedom to propose their own multi-modal projects, using any or many of the processes and materials they’ve learned to use. So far I’ve found this method to be extremely successful, and I feel that the Weegar and Pacis article supports the blending of the two theories.
Weegar and Pacis’(2012) article compares behaviourism and constructivism in both face to face and online learning environments. From their analysis of each theory’s history, it is easy to see how constructivism has its roots within behaviourism and is indicative of why it is often difficult to distinguish the two. I found myself looking back at my concept map quite often to differentiate between behaviourism and constructivism and then constructivism and cognitivism. They share many common elements yet have fundamental differences that are important for both teachers and leaners. In behaviourism, teachers are considered as dispensers “of information through direct instruction” whereas in constructivism they are considered as being “facilitators of learning.” In behaviourism, “given the right environmental influences, all learners acquire identical understanding and all students can learn,” whereas in constructivism “knowledge is constructed by the learner” and students develop their “own understanding through experience.”
Weegar and Pacis are often repetitive in their explanations and comparisons of behaviourism and constructivism and rarely make connections to online learning. On the other hand, Ertmer and Newby (2013) are much more clear and concise in their definitions and rationalizations. Since I have never taken an online class before, I am looking forward to the ones that we will have for this course. I am curious to see how much of the constructivist model of learning can be applied within an online learning environment.
As I am beginning to work with teachers across British Columbia, I am observing a big shift of teachers wanting to combine technology with project-based learning. Having to implement the new curriculum is definitely a motivating factor for teachers to modify their instructional strategies. As teachers are shifting towards behaviourism and constructivism models of teaching (whether they realize it or not), they are beginning to take a student-centered approach by giving their students the opportunity and responsibility of constructing their own knowledge.
After reading the articles this week, I feel I have a better understanding of the three theories of learning. Weegar and Pacis explain the differences and connections between behavioral and constructivist theory. Behaviorists disregard the mind and focus on objective observable behaviors. Teachers use positive and negative reinforcements and lesson objectives. Constructivists, using many cliché expressions, describe teachers needing to step of the stage and as a guide on the side, as well as students taking some responsibility for their learning. Connections between behavioral and constructivist theory included current learning techniques blending the two theories because they can be used in conjunction while using educational technology.
The article studies how learning is affected by changes in the environment and mentions online learning furthermore how one must facilitate and nurture in cyberspace. I found myself agreeing with this section from both the behaviorist and constructivist point of view. With todays new technologies, it is possible to still develop a relationship without face to face classrooms. Students and teachers can collaborate to create powerful learning experiences.
As I started the reading I had written two questions: (1) Is constructivism reflected in the new curriculum? (2) Is this the part reflected in the core competencies regarding critical thinking and creative thinking? It was great to see there was a connection with the reading and the redesigned BC curriculum, as Weegar and Pacis say “Curriculum for the constructivist learning model is designed to actively engage the students in their learning” (p. 12) and the new curriculum promotes active learning and inquiry based problem solving. I also found myself reflecting on the new curriculum and the growth of my practice. I see an overlap and evolution of all three theories in my teaching over the last thirteen years. I seem to have beliefs from various theorists and theories of learning, I don’t follow just one. “Undoubtedly, most educators would agree that neither learning theory is flawless in its perception of how student learn and how teachers should instruct” (p.16)
After reading this week’s article I find myself making connections between constructivism and the refreshed curriculum. In my current position as teacher consultant I work extensively with the refreshed curriculum. I believe constructivism heavily influenced the bringing about of the refreshed curriculum. Weegar and Pacis share that “constructivism is the philosophy, or belief, that learners create their own knowledge based on interactions with their environment including their interactions with other people”. The refreshed curriculum places an emphasis on cooperative learning by allowing students’ opportunities to communicate, explain, reason, and justify skills. Weegar and Pacis also share that “assuming the role as ‘guide on the side’ requires teachers to step off the stage, relinquish some of their power, and release the textbooks to allow their students to be actively engaged and take some responsibility of their own learning”. With the introduction of the refreshed curriculum there has been a shift in the role of the teacher to facilitator or ‘guide on the side’. I believe that this shift has been heavily influenced by the increasing use of technology in the classroom-learning environment. Teachers no longer need to be the carrier of all information or experts. The answers to questions are at the students’ fingertips, it is the role of the teacher to guide and facilitate in the journey, and provide opportunities and learning experiences for students to develop communication, reasoning, explaining, and justifying skills.
Weegar and Pacis suggest that “constructivism involves developing the student as a learner through cooperative learning, experimentation, and open-ended problems in which students learn on their own through active participation with concepts and principles”. A form of inquiry, called Problem-Based Learning (PBL), is a student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem. Weegar and Pacis quote Carbonell in their article by saying “the constructivist classroom teachers pose realistically complex and personally meaningful problems for students to solve. Students then work in cooperative groups to explore possible answers, develop a product, and present findings to a selected audience.” When the teacher is posing the problem it still feels to me like a top down model. Shelley Moore, a self-proclaimed inclusion geek, suggests developing vocabulary and questions surrounding a particular topic together as a class. From there the students can individually select a question of inquiry that they would like to explore. This method, in my experience, provides a more meaningful and personal experience, and engagement.
I do not have any experience with online learning. From my understanding online learning involves, but is not limited to, activities such as reading and answering questions online; certainly not constructivism. Students most likely memorize information in order to pass a test. I have heard that a lot of students take online learning courses because they are “easier” than the typical classroom based courses. Weegar and Pacis suggest that online learning is attempting to make shifts towards constructivist type learning. They suggest there is “a shift towards an interactive problem-based environment in which the student is empowered to take charge of his or her own learning”. While I believe this would and could be a positive shift, Weegar and Pacis do not provide any examples or suggestions as to what this might look like. I’m not sure true constructivism is possible in the online learning environment. For example, there is no opportunity for cooperative learning aside from the possible discussion that could take place in a blog like setting.
I most certainly agree with Weegar and Pacis when they say that education is a blend of both behaviourism and constructivism. With the introduction of the refreshed curriculum we are making shifts towards constructivism but behaviourism, in my experience, continues to play an important role in education.
This week, Weegar and Pacis compared behaviourism and constructivism in both face-to-face instruction and online learning settings. Although there was a lot of information on describing both types of learning, I find that most of it have already been mentioned in the Ertmer and Newby article. Also, despite the title of the article mentioned how behaviourism and constructivism are applied in face-to-face and online environment, there is a lack of substantial empirical evidence to support their arguments. For instance, Weegar and Pacis mentioned that “there are new technologies that are allowing for better synchronous communication” (p. 10). I wish they would provide some examples to support their claim. They also suggested that there are interactive problem-based environments for constructivist online learning, but again I wonder about what are some existing examples. To me, this article seems more like a mishmash of facts and references about the two learning theories rather than their applications.
Despite these shortcomings, I do agree with the authors that there is no black and white in terms of which learning theory is “better” and that there are “ongoing shifts in the promotion of educational theories” (p. 17). Depending on subject and content area, there are certain things that needs to be taught in a way that aligns with behaviourist view of learning and other things that are best learned when students construct their own knowledge. For example, I believe students need to be able to demonstrate their ability to compute basic math facts using behaviourist methods before introducing them to solving real-world problems that allow them to understand geometry. I guess that labels me as more of a behaviourist, according to Weegar and Pacis (p.14).
Nevertheless, I have a feeling that I am only one of many teachers who are in the same boat; that although they claim to be supporters of constructivism, they are sometimes behaviourists and sometimes constructivists. A question that I hear a lot from fellow constructivist colleagues is one that surrounds the assessment of learning. Since students construct knowledge for themselves differently, they find it difficult to assess students without resorting to a set of objectives or achievement indicators – that would be too behaviourist. For me, I believe the key is to get rid of grades. As a Montessori teacher, I am more of a constructivist than a behaviourist (although there are traces of behaviourism in the Montessori curriculum which I alluded to in my first reflection). Our program in Coquitlam piloted gradeless reporting two years ago and I am finding it really fits in with the constructivist way of learning. Students’ report cards no longer contain grades. Rather, comprehensive comments on what they learned, how they have improved, and areas that need support are given to parents. These comments are individualized and really focused on student growth. Not only that, a lot of these inputs come from students themselves through regular self-reflections of their work. They are then complemented with observation anecdotes that I have made. Although this seems like a lot more work for teachers who rely on basing their comments on a set of numerical values called marks, it really isn’t and is an effective way to assess learners in a constructivist environment.
While reading the article by Weegar and Pacis I reflected on my past teaching practices. I thought to myself “Am I a Constructivist or a Behaviourist?” In the beginning of my teaching career I thought about using rewards to encourage my class to be on task and learning, to be engaged, but at that time I did not use the key word engagement. I realized that the idea of using rewards, point systems, charts, etc. was not something that I believed in. I believed that by placing an emphasis on extrinsic rewards my students would not learn how to conduct themselves in the classroom. Instead I chose to focus on how I could better engage my students in their learning and by doing so the students would be naturally on task without needing extrinsic rewards. Without realizing it, I was taking a constructivist approach.
Constructivists “concentrate on showing students relevance and meaning in what they are learning.” (pg. 11). At the beginning of each year I would spend a significant amount of time getting to know my students. Carol Tomlinson believes we need to create an environment that actively supports students in the work of learning, persistently know where students are in relation to the destination all along the way, and adjust teaching to make sure each student arrives at the destination (Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom, 2010). If I am to be a “guide on the side” then I need to know my students in order to guide them and allow them to take some responsibility for their learning.
This is not to say that I have not used some of the concepts of the behaviourist theory in my teaching. I have given a lecture to my students on a topic. There are times when students just want to be taught the topic and do not want to delve into a topic using a constructivist or problem based learning approach. I would take this one step further and say that in my own learning I sometimes crave to be just lectured on a topic. I just want to shout “Just teach me! I don’t want to work in a cooperative group! I don’t want to experiment. I just want you, the teacher, to tell me how this works.” All teachers also use grades, privileges and prizes in our teaching, sometimes without realizing we are doing so. We also use individual tests and performances to assess students’ mastery of a topic. What is not clear in the article is how assessment would look within a constructivist approach. I would imagine assessment would be examining how students are able to problem solve, how students are able to guide their own learning, and by examining students critical thinking skills. We are fortunate to have these core competencies in the BC revised curriculum.
Weegar and Pacis try to weave throughout their article how online learning would fit into the constructivist and behaviourist approach. The authors provide some examples of what a constructivist online learning course would look like. They suggest using software design packages that use an interactive problem-based learning environment (pg.11) but they do not delve into to any real examples for the reader to evaluate their proposals.
Reading this article did help clarify the differences between the different theories that we have learned to date but has also shown how the theories can be similar as we have learned in the previous articles we have read.
During the process of completing my literature review, I spent quite a bit of time on constructivist theory and how it relates to my inquiry study for this program.
“The principle goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and women who are creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered.”(Piaget, 1926)
Piaget’s pivotal contributions to constructivist theory are vital to the development of cooperative learning (Slavin, 2005). Piaget’s theoretical research was based in developmental psychology. Cooperative learning approaches necessitate pedagogical methods that enable students to actively participate in their learning activities. As a result of cognitive development occurring at different rates within the stages set out by Piaget, the implication is that classroom activities should be designed to consider different stages of child development (Slavin, 2005). Further, learners should be allowed social learning experiences that mix different cognitive levels to bring about new understandings (Wood, Smith, & Grossniklaus, 2008). For example, in my Business Education 9 classroom, I assign groups based on ability level to ensure those that are just starting into the formal operational stage can benefit from working with more mature students, with a greater ability to understand abstract ideas (Piaget, 1926).
Social constructivist theory states that learners construct knowledge through their interactions with others (Vygotsky, 1978). This theory has significant bearing on cooperative learning approaches (Palmer, Peters, & Streetman, 2003). According to Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p.86). Vygotsky’s ZPD is learner centered by nature as well. Vygotsky’s theory asserts that verbalization of learning by students in a social context leads to summary, clarification, and expansion, which reinforces and confirms understandings (Bershon, 1992). This assertion directly affects the methods in which cooperative learning experiences are designed and undertaken in a classroom setting. As mentioned in my example above, the students in my class benefit from the interactions with their peers to construct their own understanding of the business environment.
Cooperative learning approaches are team learning methods that require students to work in small groups to promote peer interaction and cooperation to learn (Sharan, 1980). Cooperative learning can be understood of as a medium and classroom technology for interaction and communication, which promotes collaboration on academic tasks (Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1980). Putting students into groups in and of itself does not make a team. The methodology of cooperative learning groups is such that the social unit and complex dynamics within each team facilitates learning to occur (Sharan, 1980).
Bershon, L. (1992). Cooperative problem solving: A link to inner speech. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp. 36–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, G., Peters, R., & Streetman, R. (2003). Cooperative learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241–271. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170146
Slavin, R. E. (2005). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, K. C., Smith, H., & Grossniklaus, D. (2008). Piaget’s stages. Retrieved July 19, 2016, from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Piaget%27s_Stages
In reading the articles for this week, I appreciate that Weegar and Pacis delve into a epistemological comparison. It gives me a much greater understanding of the differences in the philosophies behind behaviorism and cognitivism. I particularly took interest in the discussion of heuristic instructional strategies and andragogy.
“Andragogy makes the following assumptions about the design of learning: (a) Adults need to know why they need to learn something; (b) Adults need to learn experientially; (c) Adults approach learning as problem-solving; and (d) Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value. ”
I wonder if these assumptions can be applied to senior secondary students as well as adults. I teach in an International Baccalaureate school. The rigorous study students participate in for extended essays (EEs), internal assessment (IAs) necessitate that students approach learning from an inquiry perspective and sometimes can be applied to solve a problem. Students then complete a capstone application project, Creativity, Activity, Service (CAS) in the area of study they chose for their EE and IA. I see the direct application of the idea of andragogy for these grade 11 and 12 students.
Learners actively construct their own knowledge based on their own experiences sums up this article for me. I feel a very strong connection to this text and I feel my teaching philosophy is very close to the constructivist theory. “Teachers, who use constructivist theory, concentrate on showing students relevance and meaningfulness in what they are learning. “ (Carbonell, 2004). I agree strongly with this quote especially being a second language teacher. To learn a second language efficiently, students must acquire oral language: speaking. Of course with a cognitivist theory, students can learn sentences through worksheets or memorization but this will not put them in a genuine, authentic context where they will use language sporadically. Constructivist activities such as working in groups, developing a product, using manipulative will allow the development of various modes of communication such as the interpretive, the interpersonal, and the presentational.
I feel that the revised curriculum will allow students to be put in situations where they can make connections with the various subjects taught in schools. “Kumar (2006) developed a constructivism oriented instructional framework to bridge the gap between theory and practice.” In a second language setting, connections to everyday life is essential in making the communication happen. Despite my thoughts on a constructivist approach, I do feel students need to learn some facts and theory through the cognitivist approach to be able to reach a certain level of understanding as French language isn’t exposed to them on their street or at home. I do feel that as an immersion teacher, I have to create specific learning situations for students to be able to understand new vocabulary words or to develop new literacy skills for them to have the tools to eventually construct their own knowledge. But yet, the constructivist approaches and support learning awareness language awareness and intercultural awareness.
I do feel that the revised curriculum opens the door to constructivists teachers ( And by constructivist, I mean teachers who integrates constructivist approach frequently in their teaching) but I feel it is still a taboo concept in the French Immersion world, where the importance of writing with a perfect grammar still predominates over the ability to speak. I do feel like the integration of online communication will help support the integration of oral language in a constructivist approach and as it is it something that will be more “visible” or “easy to access”, we may have more immersion/second-language on board with inquiry-based education.
In the end, I would love to be a good constructivist teacher. I believe in the power of choice and especially in the importance of happiness when learning. I do get out of my way to find a way to include inquiry in everything I do. But I don’t always succeed. I always tend to feel bad when I don’t because I don’t feel my teaching is meaningful. But I do hope that my attitude towards a more cognitivist activity will provide joy to my students. I think no matter what approach I use, and no matter what approach a teacher uses, when the teaching comes from the heart, it’s good teaching.
Weegar and Pacis do a good job making comparisons between behaviourist learning theory and constructivist learning theory. I found the article easy to read and it presented a clear definition of both behaviourism and constructivism. The role of the teacher played a defining separation in these two theories. In a behaviourist approach to teaching, the teacher is a “sage on the stage” actively dispensing information for students to absorb. Whereas the constructivist approach presents teacher as a “guide on the side” who facilitates learning. In fact, teacher in a constructivist approach is described as, “a guide, facilitator, and co-explorer who encourages learners to question, challenge, and formulate their own ideas, opinions, and conclusions” (pg. 7). Therefore not only are teachers no longer seen as the holder and distributor of information, but rather as a partner in learning – someone who doesn’t have all the answers but is willing to learn with the student and encourages students to actively construct knowledge based on their own experiences.
The constructivist approach to learning, “characterized by active engagement, inquiry, problem solving, and collaboration with others” (pg. 7) clearly resonates in the refreshed BC curriculum. Moving away from a behaviourist approach, the curriculum focuses on the development of skills, rather than the acquisition of specific content knowledge. The core competencies and curricular competencies are an example of this.
Weegar and Pacis indicate that there is considerable debate between whether we are practicing behaviourism or constructivism in our schools today. When I consider my teaching practice, I can definitely identify with both approaches to learning. I found Weegar and Pacis’ discussion around epistemology especially interesting in this regard. They define the “idealist” as a behaviourist method in which teachers primarily lecture. There are many times when I find myself lecturing to students or being the disseminator of information. While this is not the ideal that I would like to establish for my teaching practice, I also recognize that it is valuable and important at times. Consider a unit of inquiry, for instance. Often the first part of the unit is “front end loading” students with necessary information so that they can have some understanding of the subject matter to know how to ask meaningful inquiry questions. The idealist teacher also provides “hints or clues” about behaviours they desire. I see this as a direct correlation of classroom management. There are certain expectations that we expect students to follow at certain times. For instance, raising hand rather than calling out an answer, lining up and moving through the hallways quietly, how to sit/behave during an assemble, etc. I also see the idealist approach in schools with regards to the use of drill/practice tutorials. As a child, I experienced this through All the Right Type. It was exactly that repetitive drill practice with reward system – either moving onto the next level, or recognizing achievement for going faster. I still see this in schools today, particularly with my daughter’s grade 3 homework. She brings home math worksheets that are drill and skill. Does she really need to do 50+ questions to show that she understands how to add and subtract 3’s?
Where I especially disagree with the idealist approach is in the isolation of teaching subjects. The pragmatist approach supports an interdisciplinary look at curriculum, and is much more inline with my beliefs about teaching. Ultimately Weegar and Pacis indicate that a combination of the 2 learning theories will best meet the learning styles of all students and I agree.
As teachers in the 21st century, we recognize through our schooling and experience that there is no single theory that will help us teach so that all of our students can learn. There are instances in our classroom where we want the behaviorist response to a stimulus, but most of those instances are not what we would consider important cognitive processes. Most of those responses would be reserved for behaviour management situations. Management is important so that we are able to have the student engage in more cognitive processes, but we are not about to throw out all theories in favour of the use of one. Theorists have vested financial and professional interests in promoting their theories over others, “Skinner was known for making audacious statements in keeping with Watson’s tradition of being provocative and controversial to gain people’s attention” (WGHB, 1998). Teachers have no pressure to follow a particular theory, so we use what works for our students. I know from 30 years experience of teaching thousands of gymnasts, that a basic skill will be learned on the same bar by 100% of the gymnasts who are physically strong enough. They will all learn that same skill at a different rate as they all have a different understanding of the mechanics, different motivation for completing the skill, different fears about the skill, and different developmental readiness. Yes, I have seen Piaget’s developmental stages at work on a daily basis as I have worked with a wide variety of ages on the same skills. In order to have all of these athletes learn the skills I must take a constructivist view and ask the athletes about their understanding of the skill, and observe their behaviour in order to help them achieve mastery.
Did my gymnasts learn through observation (Piaget) of others doing the skills? Yes, to a degree. Did they learn through experimentation (Piaget)? Most definitely. Did they learn through interaction with knowledgeable members (coaches) of the culture (Vygotsky)? Yes, most assuredly, but I have also seen children learn complicated skills in spite of the coach, so it is not a 100% given that the knowledgeable members are always needed for each skill.
That being said, their environment, to some degree, affected all of the athletes, whether it be feedback from a coach or crashing on their face when they don’t perform the skill correctly. Also from the behaviourist standpoint, coaches tend to present skills in a hierarchical systemized manner that we refer to as progressions. These progressions create opportunities for the physical and mental development necessary to learn incredibly complicated movement patterns.
From an epistimilogical standpoint, I would use all methods from idealist at the very beginner levels to pragmatist for elite level athletes.
Weegar and Pacis conclude that even teachers incorporating online teaching technologies are using combinations of learning theories for their students.
Although this article did not shed much light on the details of online learning, it did conclude that, as teachers we use a combination of teaching styles so that students with varied backgrounds and experiences are able to learn to the best of their ability.
I liked reading this weeks article a comparison of two theories of learning—Behaviorism and constructivism as applied to face-to-face and online learning because I felt the two theories were clearly explained and compared in an informative way that was easy to read and understand. The major objective of Weegar, M.A., & Pacis, D. (2012) was to compare the behaviourist or teacher centred classroom to the constructivist, learner centred classroom.
They describe the constructivist approach, where the teacher doesn’t dictate or interpret. The teacher facilitates to make learning meaningful or relevant to students through opportunities for active learning, discovery, critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. Weegar and Pacis describe how behaviourism follows specific learning objectives, lecture style lessons provided by the teacher, students have a specific set of skills to learn and are rewarded for completing the learning activity or demonstrating a desired observable behaviour.
I connect to the theory of constructivism on a personal as well as professional level. If I look back on my learning experiences I didn’t always relate to the more behaviourist method of instruction when I was in elementary and high school. I think I have been mostly successful when placed in hands on learning situations, when collaborating, in a social setting. I remember learning about Vygotsky and Piaget’s theories as a student teacher, but once I began my practice I followed the learning resources and recommendations of colleagues, which meant offering rewards for a desired behaviour while following a mostly teacher directed program that had 2-3 approaches to meet the needs of all the students. I also taught at a traditional school that discouraged social and collaborative learning opportunities and encouraged the more idealist philosophy where the teacher directed learning and followed a lecture style. Parents also expressed how pleased they were to see worksheets, tests and to see rows and rows of textbooks on the shelves in the classroom.
As we learn about the new B.C. revised curriculum and 21st century learning, it feels like there is a strong recommendation to bring a more constructivist approach to teaching into the classroom. The new curriculum encourages problem solving, inquiry based learning, collaboration and critical thinking and move away from some of the more behaviouralist ideas. We are being asked move away from a more linear form or instruction where skills are taught in isolation to a more integrated approach where Big Ideas (i.e. Relationships or Changes in various subject areas) have more prominence than the traditional themes (i.e. Apples, Canada). A personalized approach is encouraged where lessons reject the various need and interests of the students. Learning should be its own motivator because we have created a learning environment where learning is its own reward, rather than extrinsic motivators being needed. One example is Mystery Skype where students connect to people all over the world and using various clues figure out where they are in the world. What a wonderful way to reinforce concepts in Physical Geography. I have watched students get super excited about the hearing the clues, problem solving and questions as they participate in Mystery Skype.
At my school, I see the constructivist approach in place in primary classrooms, some Science, Math and Fine Arts lessons. Gradually teachers at my school are learning about Makerpaces and Inquiry Based learning because these ideas are strongly encouraged in the new curriculum, but many colleagues are worried and feel unprepared to teach lessons that follow these new ideas. Some teachers and parents wonder if learning actually takes place? Or how we will show what the student learned if the approach to learning outcomes has changed so much. In my school we are gradually learning to document learning on the Fresh Grade reporting program.
The authors didn’t give enough information on how do we implement these ideas in an effective way so we can judge that actually learning is taking place and that this learning can be assessed? The Weegar and Pacis article describes how constructivists recommend that teachers become the “guide on the side” and relinquish some of the power to allow students to become engaged and responsible for their own learning. (Weegar & Pacis, 2012, p.11) I think this will eventually be possible, but until then teachers and students will need to be taught how to think and work within this changing mindset. Students need to be taught how to think critically, ask questions and construct a representation of their learning. I am uncertain if the constructivist approach will be suitable for all students since some students will require more direct guidance and scaffolding.
Making this shift in thinking, philosophy and practice will take time. Teachers are gradually learning how to use implement constructivist ideas into practice along with how to use new technology like apps and social media in the classroom. I agree with the authors in that teachers are “choosing to utilize a combination of these two learning styles in and effort to best meet the needs of the learning styles of all students” (Weegar & Pacis, 2012, p. 17)
I focused on the Weegar and Pacis article for this reflection. There were several ideas that really interested me in this article.
I found it interesting to reflect on how the importance of real-time feedback suggests a connection constructivism and behaviourism. If students are learning through receiving immediate feedback for decisions and actions, it seems not unlike learning through receiving an immediate reward or punishment for behaviours. I also saw an interesting connection to cognitivism. Weegar and Pacis note that learning is constructed by connecting new experience to existing knowledge. To me this sounds similar to the cognitivist approach of using existing knowledge to analyze and understand new knowledge. I enjoy seeing the connections between different learning theories, and I enjoy how that supports the idea that learning theories can never be understood or applied in isolation from one another (even if a dominant theory emerges).
On page 15, the authors talk about Knowles’ assumptions about adult learners. According to Knowles, adult learners need to understand the reasons they need to know something, adults need to learn through experience, adults learn through problem solving, and adults learn best when there is immediate and recognizable value to the learning content. Knowles also “emphasized that adults are self-directed and expect to take responsibility for decisions”. Reading this makes me wonder exactly how important that sense of personal responsibility is to the effectiveness of the constructivist approach.
Children certainly aren’t expected to take responsibility for their actions and decisions in the same way as adults. Children are aware of this; they know they won’t be held accountable for their decisions in the same ways as adults. If authentic experience is essential to the construction of knowledge, can any experience where students don’t actually feel accountable contribute to effective learning? To rephrase myself, what I mean is, I wonder how much the effectiveness of student learning is affected by the real sense of responsibility and accountability that students feel for their actions.
If a genuine sense of accountability is required to create authentic and effective learning situations, this becomes an important role for the teacher. I need to consider how much I can plan and create an environment where children feel there are real and meaningful consequences for their actions. This, however, can be challenging to do, due to limitations of classroom resources.
BC’s new curriculum appears to promote a learner-centred and constructivist approach to learning. By focusing on competencies and big ideas, it creates an open space for a diversity of outcomes, and for individual choices. Inquiry and problem solving approaches (which fit well into a constructivist approach) are promoted. However, classroom structures and resources have not changed significantly. The new philosophy espoused in the curriculum is not reflected in the classroom structure, where children are still grouped according to age, as opposed to learning stages, learning preparedness, or learning preferences. As well, high student to teacher ratios make it difficult for teachers to guide multiple students through unique and meaningful learning paths. To do so takes time and effort, which is not always available to teachers. Reading this article, I am reminded of the frustration I feel because I believe in a constructivist approach, but feel limited by what is possible within the structures of my classroom that I have no control over.