{"id":317,"date":"2012-05-16T04:40:28","date_gmt":"2012-05-16T12:40:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/hdew\/?page_id=317"},"modified":"2012-07-12T08:08:10","modified_gmt":"2012-07-12T16:08:10","slug":"etec-530","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/hdew\/etec-530\/","title":{"rendered":"ETEC 530"},"content":{"rendered":"

Constructivist Strategies for E-Learning<\/h3>\n

This course provides opportunities and challenges to develop, design and incorporate constructivist learning techniques. I will examine my understanding of knowledge, truth, pedagogical practice and constructivist theory.<\/p>\n

UNIT ONE RESPONSE:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Initial map.\u00a0Constuctivist Conditions – What are constructivist teaching learning conditions<\/a><\/p>\n

In creating this, I started with a simple statement and went at it from a ‘who, what, where, when, why, how’ viewpoint.\u00a0I am sure this will change as I get deeper into the readings and we get deeper into dialogue.<\/div>\n
I enjoyed the application of using mind mapping software when completing 512 so much that I have taken a look at other concept mapping tools.\u00a0Here’s two links that may interest others….<\/div>\n
http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_concept-_and_mind-mapping_software<\/a><\/div>\n
http:\/\/www.mind-mapping.org\/<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Initial response to<\/div>\n
Since this task was framed within a scientific context, I began with the hypothesis that I would fall within the mid range on all the scales. I based this on my knowledge of myself, my teaching practice and the responses by others to this task.\u00a0When I tabulated the results, I discovered strong differences in scores (relativism 10, contextual 19, process 23, realism 11).<\/p>\n
\n
\u2022 What do the overall scores in each cluster reveal about your view of knowledge?<\/strong><\/div>\n
The overall scores reveal that my view of knowledge is that it is socially constructed, contextual, and varies from culture to culture. It is observable and process dependent. This is very true to how I teach, in methodologies I apply to lessons and work I do with educators. Since my career has included several contexts, I adapt my teaching styles and techniques to the others within the social setting. I tend to find elements<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u2022 What do they reveal about your belief system that you did not know before?<\/strong><\/div>\n
This questionnaire revealed that my belief includes that theories are valid statements independent of the person stating them. This surprised me since I always looked to the person to understand the theory. I look for understanding within the words and stories made by people in order to clarify their statements and thoughts.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u2022 What do the profiles reveal about how you perceive knowledge and truth?\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
This profile revealed that my knowledge is framed within my context, my experiences, my process of learning. I see learners as being context and experience driven with the process being key to the learning, not the products they produce. It is through making the process visible, evidence based and self-evaluative that changes the individual’s experience of learning.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u2022 How is knowledge acquired? What is truth?\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n
This survey highlighted the importance I place on the processes of learning. Knowledge is acquired through the purpose of the task, steps taken, as much as the culminating product. Truth lies within context – \u00a0my truth is not your truth. The process of observation and interrogation will reveal common elements of truth that can be socially agree upon since truth is relative not absolute.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As applied to my teaching and learning, this has revealed and validated some assumptions in my hypothesis about myself, yet clarified and challenged others. Interesting research results.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Interesting Link provided:\u00a0http:\/\/evolvingmind.info\/blog\/four-types-of-truth\/<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

UNIT TWO RESPONSE:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Constructivism \u2013 complimentary complications<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In analyzing and synthesizing the readings and concepts about constructivism through my personal and professional lenses, I find myself constructing complimentary yet complicating notions of the various tenets and \u2018faces\u2019 of constructivism. My professional work in teaching teachers how to teach is grounded in constructivist pedagogy, epistemology and ontology. My understanding of each has been radically altered through the process of examining my prior knowledge, comparing new information to a known set and focus, and creating a written response (constructionism) to share with others.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The long history of debate about ontology and epistemology, from the roots of Socrates and Aristotle, was not new to me, but clarified my sense that this debate was not started with Piaget or Vygotsky, nor will it end current discussions or debates about how best to teach (or teach teachers how to teach). I examined the idealistic ontological statement\u00a0\u201cthought has as its aim not the reproduction of a given reality, but the construction of a future reality\u201d<\/em>(Durkheim 1972, p. 251 in Matthews 1994, p.142) through the lens of teaching new teachers about teaching. The debate about teaching the way you were taught compares to teaching the way you hope to teach \u2013 the aim of my thoughts (and actions) is not to create reproductions of current teaching realities, but constructing learning environments for new teachers that will support their construction of their own future realities.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I found myself critically examining the constructivist teaching practices and the steps laid out from Driver and Oldham (Matthews 1994, p. 143) from my own experiences with MET courses as well as my own teaching with EDUC courses. The process of movement through the stages of orientation, elicitation, clarification (and exchange), application and review (or metacognition) has been evident in each MET course offering and modules within each course. These stages, applied to my own course design, would compliment the content and process of constructing a learning environment less dependent on \u2018lecture\u2019 and more reflective of constructivist pedagogical tenets, e.g. students learn from each other, learners actively engaged in making meaning, students learn by doing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In critically examining radical constructivism, I found the notion of \u2018dynamic adaptation\u2019 to be one that fit into my teaching\/learning context. New teachers come with prior knowledge of teaching based on how they were taught. They dynamically adapt their own \u2018teaching presence\u2019 through a process of constructing understanding from readings, dialogue, actions, and reflections. The radical constructivist view that communication \u201cneed not involve identically shared meanings\u201d but that it is sufficient to have \u201ccompatible meanings\u201d (Dougiamas, 1998) complimented my personal sense of teachers who come to understand each other\u2019s perspectives through dialogue but need not agree or share the exact same meaning.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Complimentary complications occurred when I examined which face of constructivism reflected my own current teaching practice, pedagogical beliefs, or understandings. I found myself juxtaposing constructivism with critical constructivism, as outlined by Dougamais and complicated this view with Miller\u2019s statement that \u201cchildren\u2019s thoughts are private, but their concepts are public\u201d since without a public standard \u201cknowledge is reduced to belief\u201d. (Miller, p. 159) As a result of this \u2018lens\u2019, I constructed a vision of a learning environment for teacher education based on public dialogues, creations, or entities within a community of teacher\/learners achieving mutual understanding through shared, compatible meaning. Their public presence, both physical and digital, is constructed and validated from personal and social \u201cknowledgeable tellings\u201d (Dougamais, 1998) as showcased in their electronic teaching portfolios. My conclusion is that constructivism is not so much a \u2018grand unifying theory\u2019 as it is a useful referent for dialogue about teaching, learning, education and personal knowledge.<\/p>\n

References<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Dougiamas, M. (1998).\u00a0\u00a0A journey into constructivism. Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/dougiamas.com\/writing\/constructivism.html#intro<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Matthews, M. R. (1994).\u00a0Science teaching<\/em>. New York: Routledge, chapter 7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Matthews, M.R. (2000). Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education.\u00a0 In D.C. Phillips (ed.),\u00a0National Society for the Study of Education, 99th Yearbook<\/em>, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-192. Retrieved from\u00a0http:\/\/wwwcsi.unian.it\/educa\/inglese\/matthews.html<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Response to other’s post:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Your comment had me going back to look at Dougiamas’ discussion on social learning. From your description of the biology lesson, I think you have embedded the notion of social constructivism in several ways, maybe without even knowing it’s there.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
1. Dougiamas stated “the social world of a learner includes the people that directly affect that person” – teacher, pair\/share, groups of three are all evident in your lesson. An extension may be with a larger ‘audience’ for their work such as others in the school (another grade or staff), parents or ‘outside world’ opportunities eg. comparing living\/ non living items with another class in another country.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
2. Social constructivism focuses on the “role that society played in the development of an individual”. Dougiamas outlines Cobb’s notion that the mind and collective minds ‘mutually adapt to each other’s actions’. That element is evident in the lesson you outlined as well. The collective mind of your classroom adapted to the individual thoughts of living\/non-living characteristics. The individual minds of those who ‘didn’t get it’ were adapted by the group-think at the end of the activity. You’ve got the link outlined by Dougiamas to individual and social learning being a ‘reciprocal spiral relationship’.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
3. Finally, Dougiamas stated that social constructivism includes “teaching in contexts that might be personally meaningful to students” and “valuing meaningful activity over correct answers”. Alas, you did not give them a test or checklist to make them give you the right answers…. you made them go out together and find the living and non-living items in triads.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So… your biology lesson is evidently social constructivism.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I agree that it is a challenge to engage the ‘non-social’ or ‘anti-social’ learner in the classroom. It is necessary to differentiate the learning for those children. Without setting them up for self-ostracization, keep in mind the key elements of DI around flexible grouping (and including an audience for student work that is meaningful for them), and involving them in selection and choice of grouping options. (see this link:\u00a0http:\/\/differentiationcentral.com\/whatisdi.html<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

UNIT THREE RESPONSE:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

After reading through the articles this week, I reflect on how appropriate and timely this investigation is for me.\u00a0I am working on the challenge of trying to embed the use of concept mapping into the course design for classroom management.\u00a0My reflection on the question “What conditions have to be in place for learners to create new meanings or adapt to old ones?” applies to the colleagues and students.\u00a0The conditions for creating new meanings (about c-maps) are:<\/p>\n

\n
\n