Let me start with my real connection to constructivism which centers around my education as a kid. I grew up in a very structured elementary school with your typical teachers. We had the angry old man science teacher (who knew everything). We had the 3rd grade teacher who had her clear favorites (nice sweet quite little girls). We had the 5th grade English teacher who gave us A+++++++ (yes 7 plusses). And then I had my gifted classroom. One day a week, I was pulled out of class with 10 other gifted children and we were placed in Mrs. Rodriguez' classroom. She had a love of frogs and puzzles. In her classroom we played. We played at games and government and math and reading and geography. We played at learning. We chose what we wanted to study and then dove in with fervor. It was my first experience with constructivism, and I'll tell you at 7, I was hooked.
She introduced me to the program that has guided my life since the age of 7, Odyssey of the Mind. If you've never heard of it... check it out! It is a student-centered program that literally forbids parents/adults/teachers from helping. As a kid, this was the gift of freedom. I learned how to be funny, write scripts, build props (even cars)! I met my best friends in the world and even my husband. As an adult I am constructivist by nature. I figure out everything from technology in my classroom (Google Apps for Education) to how to install a toilet in my home. Mrs. Rodriguez and Odyssey of the Mind gave me the ability to learn and the love of learning.
I stumbled across a TED talk this week by one of my favorite authors, John Green. In his talk, "The Paper Town Academy," he speaks about creating our own maps and how he also learned to love learning in a constructivist environment.
If that talk isn't convincing enough, listen to Adora Svitak, talk about the power of kids. As she states, "in many ways, our audacity to imagine helps push the boundaries of possibility."
Both John Green and Adora Svitak talk about the power of letting kids guide their own education.
As a teacher, I know more than most how challenging this is. With my students, I am constantly encouraging them to "Google" things that interest them or that they don't understand. I let them form their own "book clubs" and have student-directed discussion. But as a class, we are stuck in a curriculum and unfortunately have limited constructivist opportunities. This is probably one of my main questions as an educator, how can I put the learning back in my student's hands?
Marissa,
ReplyDeleteI love how you have been ending your blog postings with a question because it leaves me wondering even after I am done reading. The question this week and the one last week I feel that most educators wish they could answer.
I am absolutely amazed with your childhood experience in the gifted classroom. I think it is so wonderful that your teacher allowed you to learn through play and helped you to love learning. I agree with the constructivist approach to learning and feel that this approach leads to those memorable learning experiences for students. I wish I had an experience like that in elementary school!
The experiences you have shared from your childhood, as well as in the classroom as an educator have sparked a little more motivation in me towards my classroom practice. Overall ,I want my students to be more involved with technology and their learning. As I stated last week, I do incorporate various forms of technology on a regular basis; however I do not feel that I am all caught up with the 21st century skills. I am also under a strict curriculum requirement at my school. I want to create more of those memorable learning experiences for my students and I wish there was more freedom to do so. I want my students to experience their love for learning!
Thank you for your post, as it has given me the opportunity to reflect on my own classroom practice.
Hi, Marissa,
ReplyDeleteWhat a funny, engaging way to describe your elementary school experience. Like, Alexis, I wish I had more of them during my early years, or in high school for that matter. The grouchy science teacher especially struck a nerve.
I must say that I do favor a 'do-it-yourself' approach to learning because it encourages a highly independent mind and builds endurance for future investigative work. However, at times, I do prefer a more structured approach to learning. I do believe there is a time and a place for learning the canon of a given area of study in more traditional ways. There has to be some sort of rhyme and reason to the way we present information, I feel.
In addition, connectivism assumes curiosity. Curiosity is, in fact, its engine. But does every student step into a classroom with the sense of wonder needed to engage in this type of learning? Not always. Curiosity can be enhanced through repeated practice, but as the old saying goes 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.' Meaning that connectivism-based assignments have potential to become rote in their own right. If not properly supervised, or even balanced with more 'canonical' knowledge from which to begin an inquiry, a connectivist assignment could become a quest for information rather than a quest for knowledge, which could then defeat its purpose.
Overall, giving students more independence is solid practice. Not giving students enough opportunities to think and learn on their own is doing them a disservice. Connectivism has the added appeal of encouraging technology use, as you said, which is definitely a must in today's society. In all, these things must be encouraged.
Thanks for another good post.
Claudia Zequeira
Hi Marissa,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences about constructivism. I thought that your inclusion of additional resources and videos helped to illustrate your idea very well. The Commoncraft inspired video was great, I love their videos (and that style of video). I like a constructivist learning environment for myself as well. I am also a DIY type of person and I like to use my own creative resources to build on and research ideas and areas of interest. I think that this type of environment can be supported in many classrooms today since there are so many resources available and often times easily accessible. That’s not to say that all classrooms DO support this type of learning environment, but I think that technology and resources are making it an option for more classrooms at least with some lessons. As you mention, you try to support this learning environment as much as you can, and seems perhaps it’s not the lack of resources that hinders you at times but the curriculum instead.
It’s great that students have a better opportunity with resources today to take their interests and have more of a self direction on how to learn further about a subject. Not everyone in class has to find the same listing in the several available encyclopedias or the same few books in their school library, but students can independently drive their searches by accessing an enormous amount of data on the internet and even just additional books and resources available in libraries today.
It’s exciting that the constructivist learning environment may be able to branch further into classrooms while resources are becoming more available and expanding. Now the curriculmn just has to align better as well! The other step is providing knowledge to educators about this style of learning environment. I think this is where professional development being encouraged in educational systems plays a lead role, not only supporting professional development but also helping to bring educators to opportunities.
Thank you, I enjoyed your blog!
Kelly Grieneisen Tillotson
Claudia,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a time and place for constructivism. Otherwise, the teaching profession might become obsolete! Often you need to walk students through the learning process. My issue is that this is often the only type of learning that we engage in!
To address your other point of curiosity, I'll have to reference a lecture I once attended. The woman was an expert on constructivist learning and showed us two classrooms in an elementary school. One group was taught by a teacher who used constructivist learning in her room and the other was taught by a traditional teacher. Both sets students were given the same materials on the table with limited instructions. I was amazed to see what the first group was able to accomplish quickly and effectively. The other group was frustrated by the lack of directions and accomplished little. Both sets of students were the same level and yet one had a natural curiosity and ability to problem solve.
I think curiosity and problem solving can be taught and fostered. It is one of the critical elements that I think is missing in education.
Thanks Claudia for giving me the impetus to reflect on constructivism even more!