#constructivist learning

Is Informal Learning the Way Forward?

Informal learning should no longer be regarded as an inferior form of learning whose main purpose is to act as the precursor of formal learning; it needs to be seen as fundamental, necessary and valuable in its own right, at times directly relevant to employment and at other times not relevant at all.

(Coffield 2000, p8)

Given the ease of access to publicly available information and knowledge via…

The goal of this series of posts about knowledge working and knowledge workers is to communicate an understanding of the demographic that most organizational learning and development efforts target: the knowledge workers (KWs) themselves. Last time, I explored “think work” as a component of “knowledge work,” and how “habits of emphasis” can lower the efficacy of KW problem-solving. Today, I’ll…

Returning again to a topic I looked at recently, here’s some insights to thinking like a knowledge worker I discovered while undertaking my research on the subject. “I’m a Doctor, not a blog…” The concepts explored here are investigated in much more depth in a paper called How to Think like a  Knowledge Worker by William P. Sheridan. I’d love to go into the level of detail that the author does,…

Eggen and Kauchak (1999) suggest that constructivism is a view of learning and development that emphasises the active role of the learner in making sense of the world.  They go on to suggest that the influence of constructivism in teaching and learning has increased. The shift toward literature-based approaches to reading for example and process approaches to writing are both grounded in constructivism.  

The progressive education movement led by Jean Piaget and John Dewey eventually moulded into constructivism theory. Piaget concluded that people learn through the mental building of logical structures throughout life. Dewey believed that children learn through engagement and not from listening to instruction. Vygotsky was another important contributor to theories of constructivism.  

My summary of the support for Constructivist Teaching Techniques - 

* Engagement - Students enjoy the learning process if they are engaged in the activity rather than listening to the instruction.  

* Learning skills for life - Proponents argue that children carry on this learning style throughout life.  

*  Greater use of Higher order thinking.  

*  Sense of ownership - The child feels like they are in control of their learning.  

My summary of the arguments against Constructivist Teaching Techniques - 

*  Lack of teacher accountability - Opponents believe the teacher may not take responsibility for poor learning in the classroom, believing it is in a fact the child's responsibility.  

*  Leaning on others - Opponents believe students in a group setting my lean on group thinking and go with the majority rather than their own ideas.   

*  Demographics - Opponents believe students from poorer demographics may not possess the same self-motivation and hands-on learning styles compared to students from wealthier families.  

When it all boils down.......

I believe that, like anything, we need to maintain balance.  While I fully support and engage in teaching students via a constructivist environment, firm guidelines need to be set around that environment.  

Allowing too much 'doing' and especially free-choice can, at times, mean that children lack direction in their learning. 

I can refer to the specific example of my own daughter's pre-school education.  My daughter attends to schools for 2 days a week each.  Both follow constructivist teaching techniques.  However, it is plainly obvious that the maximum learning benefit to my daughter is coming from the pre-school which places guidelines around the constructivist learning.  

We need to meet the students where they are at and this can begin using a constructivist approach.  However the teacher needs to firmly, rather than loosely, guide the students in the 21st century classroom.   

Allowing students to only learn via osmosis has the potential to be even less effective than traditional teaching.  Learning needs to be GUIDED by the teacher.  

Where does technology fit in?  

In short - everywhere.  Discovery based learning and technology go hand in hand together - providing the teacher guides the students along a pathway.  

References - 

I've mentioned before that I follow a certain line of teaching in my classroom called Inquiry Based Learning. In reality I use a mix of teaching pedagogy, as do all teachers I know, but they all share the common theme of making the learning child centered.

Inquiry Based learning is a type of learning that stems from the students questions that are connected to what is being taught. Think of it like this:

For every class I write a lesson plan that outlines what we are going to do that day and when we are going to do it. Since this is such a long class the lesson plan is actually a few lesson plans and a schedule. Each day has a similar structure - lunch, class time, work time, break time, class time, and work time. Each lesson plan has a main goal - imagery, coloring techniques, different kinds of animation, etc. Each class also has a limited amount of time - a little less than 2 hrs. (Not including lunch). There is no way I could get through everything I plan for each class, nor do I ever go into class expecting to. There are two reasons for this - one is that as a teacher having too much to do in a day is much better than finding yourself without anything to do. The other is that I know the day is going to fluctuate depending on the kids needs, wants, and questions.

I could, and many teachers do, walk into the class with a detailed outline of every moment of the class and expect the kids to follow that. And there are points were I expect the kids to follow certain lessons, or to hold off working for 10 minutes so we can talk about what concept art or frames per seconds means. But I find it much more beneficial to all of us if I let them be a part of what happens in the class. Any parent who has a child in this class can attest to the fact that things are run in a very "democratic way" and any child in the class can tell you that we vote on nearly everything. This is because, in this environment, it is important that the kids feel that their input is just as important as mine. So each day I'll ask if they want to work, or if they want to learn about animation. And if break is planned for 1:25 but at 1:23 they are all quiet and concentrated and into their work, I'll shift break, in the same way I would shift it up to 1:15 if they were active and clearly needed to get out. 

But inquiry based learning goes beyond a democratic class. I spend a lot of 1-on-1 time with the kids, talking about their projects, their plans, and what they want to do. And if what they want to do is spend the time I set aside for concept art focusing on how to draw a foot at a certain angle for a certain pose, then that is what they will get to do. Or if they want to rush through their flipbook project because it is less interesting to them than some of the work in their sketchbooks, than so be it. This class is based around what the kids want to explore, and I am only there to guide them. Yes, there are certain requirements and certain areas being taught, but that is to help them focus in their questions. After all, while I would love to spend time exploring with kids why it is that snow doesn't always collect on the ground, but an art class is not the place for that.  So instead we can shift our focus to our production, or learning about animation, or going over a quick guide to drawing a face, rather than just what it says in the lesson plan.

Inquiry based learning is very similar to constructivist based learning, another pedagogy that I work to incorporate into all of my lessons. According to the book Elementary Science Methods: A Constructivist Approach "the premise of constructivist learning is that children discover new concepts for themselves and internalize these concepts by constructing valid connections to prior information." In other words, kids will learn when they can connect new concepts to old concepts.

I have used the term prior knowledge before without bothering to define it, as it sort of defines itself, but for clarity purposes I will state it here. Prior Knowledge is knowledge that kids (and adults) already have on a subject. It is knowledge that has been internalized, and can be called on again to help them learn new things. 

So for example, if kids are learning about the water cycle, they will likely already have prior knowledge that the sun heats up water and forms some droplets, they just may not know that the vocab word of "condensation" or that it goes one step farther and "evaporates" the water. But through experimentation where they get to see this happen, and through a teacher giving them vocab words like evaporation, they will make the appropriate connection with the knowledge they had before, and internalize these concepts. This is a lot more affective than having them read about evaporation and then testing them on the vocab. 

In an art class kids have a lot of prior knowledge. They have been drawing for ages, and they likely know a lot about how to make marks on a paper. So I don't teach kids how to draw or even how to draw well, I teach them what they think will help them, and what I think they can connect to. Blending with colored pencils, for example, or using different sized pens to make the right line thickness. And if there is something that they will benefit from doing themselves - like learning that you need to do pen, then watercolors - I will let them experiment and make those connections for themselves. And, if it's something almost entirely new, like animation, I will work with them through discussion after discussion, to help them draw their own conclusions and learn the vocab words like "plot" and "style" in their own time.

Essentially, it is important to me that the class feels less structured and less strict than a typical general curriculum classroom. Of course I have a lot going for me - no standards, no testing, fewer kids, longer classes, etc. - than most teachers get in their everyday classroom. But seeing what works and what doesn't in this small class will give me a lot of prior knowledge for my general curriculum classroom teaching. Also, by flowing with the kids, I learn more about their learning; what they do and do not understand, what they can and cannot abstract, and what they are and are not yet ready for. Which, in turn, helps me distinguish what is the result of developmental level, and what is the result of the individual.

Sources:

For more information of Inquiry learning: Follow This Link

And for more information about Constructivist Learning: Follow this link