Defining Constructivist methods
I've mentioned MA, now I'll mention constructivist teaching methods for the non-teachers.
First, I'm no expert. These ideas are all new to me. I'm learning about them in a class I'm taking while pursuing a Masters in Library Science. This blog, actually, is part of the work of that class. Constructivism seems more a collection of priorities and principles than an organized approach or defined methodology.
Some links:
Tons about learning theories at http://tip.psychology.org/ , constructivist section at http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html
Minimalist listing of principles: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3const.htm
A paper with a rather colorful overview (hurts my eyes): http://www.prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html
The too-much-information entry: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/constructivism.html
Also, here's my grossly oversimplified take on some basic principles, a shortened version of a list in our textbook. (Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, second edition; Jonassen, David H, et. al.; 2003 Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; p.6-9) Following each description will be the buzzwords the book lists, sort of theoretical synonyms.
1. Good learning is active, meaning the student interacts with the environment and learns to manipulate objects and ideas. It is about adapting to the environment and adapting the environement. (Manipulative / Observant)
2. Good learning is constructive, meaning the student will make mental models to better understand what he or she is studying, will question, and will reflect on what they've learned and done. This grows out of active learning. (Articulative / Reflective)
3. Students should be seeking a specific goal in their learning (Intentional), such as solving a problem, troubleshooting, developing strategies, or applying an idea in a new situation. (Reflective / Regulatory)
4. When teachers present an idea or problem, it should be as realistic as possible (Authentic). The idea is to apply information in a way that is complex and "realistic", emphasizing "real-world" and problem-solving tasks. Teachers should resist the urge to simplify or dumb down a problem, and thereby limit understanding. This is the easiest for me to understand, though I think there are times to go complex right off, and other times to provide principle first and then go complex, depending on the nature of the information and the student. (Complex / Contextualized)
5. We should work together, collaborate, do group projects, or otherwise interact in our learning (Cooperative). What benifits are emphasized will depend on how the group is constructed and what the group members do to organize the work and interactions. (Collaborative / Conversational)
In future posts, I will try to cover some examples, give some criticisms, and elaborate when I can. Those of you who do martial arts, especially hands-on work like we do in kenpo, are probably already thinking of examples.
-- SGB
First, I'm no expert. These ideas are all new to me. I'm learning about them in a class I'm taking while pursuing a Masters in Library Science. This blog, actually, is part of the work of that class. Constructivism seems more a collection of priorities and principles than an organized approach or defined methodology.
Some links:
Tons about learning theories at http://tip.psychology.org/ , constructivist section at http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html
Minimalist listing of principles: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3const.htm
A paper with a rather colorful overview (hurts my eyes): http://www.prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html
The too-much-information entry: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/constructivism.html
Also, here's my grossly oversimplified take on some basic principles, a shortened version of a list in our textbook. (Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, second edition; Jonassen, David H, et. al.; 2003 Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; p.6-9) Following each description will be the buzzwords the book lists, sort of theoretical synonyms.
1. Good learning is active, meaning the student interacts with the environment and learns to manipulate objects and ideas. It is about adapting to the environment and adapting the environement. (Manipulative / Observant)
2. Good learning is constructive, meaning the student will make mental models to better understand what he or she is studying, will question, and will reflect on what they've learned and done. This grows out of active learning. (Articulative / Reflective)
3. Students should be seeking a specific goal in their learning (Intentional), such as solving a problem, troubleshooting, developing strategies, or applying an idea in a new situation. (Reflective / Regulatory)
4. When teachers present an idea or problem, it should be as realistic as possible (Authentic). The idea is to apply information in a way that is complex and "realistic", emphasizing "real-world" and problem-solving tasks. Teachers should resist the urge to simplify or dumb down a problem, and thereby limit understanding. This is the easiest for me to understand, though I think there are times to go complex right off, and other times to provide principle first and then go complex, depending on the nature of the information and the student. (Complex / Contextualized)
5. We should work together, collaborate, do group projects, or otherwise interact in our learning (Cooperative). What benifits are emphasized will depend on how the group is constructed and what the group members do to organize the work and interactions. (Collaborative / Conversational)
In future posts, I will try to cover some examples, give some criticisms, and elaborate when I can. Those of you who do martial arts, especially hands-on work like we do in kenpo, are probably already thinking of examples.
-- SGB
posted by Scott Bonner at 11:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home