Constructivist teaching methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:10, 21 December 2007

Revision as of 02:58, 23 December 2007

Line 1:

'''Constructivist teaching''' techniques are based on the [[Constructivism (learning theory)]]. This theoretical framework relies on an the earlier framework of [[Cognitivism]] which holds that learning should build upon knowledge that a student already know [this is known as a [[schema (psychology)]]]. Constructivists suggest learning is more effective when a student is actively engaged in the construction of knowledge rather than passively receiving knowledge.<ref name="ssta">[http://www.ssta.sk.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm#What%20is%20Constructivism? Constructivist Teaching and Learning]</ref> "The constructivist description of learning is accurate, but the instructional consequences suggested by constructivists do not necessarily follow." (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006, p. 78).

==History==

Constructivist teaching methods are based on the constructivist [[learning theory]] developed by a variety of philosophers. Along with [[John Dewey]], [[Jean Piaget|Piaget]] researched [[childhood development]] and education. Their theories are now encompassed in those promoting with [[progressive |education]].

The constructivist learning theory says that children learn best when they construct a personal understanding based on experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.<ref name="thirteenorg">[http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub5.html Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning]</ref> Even though this is their "perspective", this claim is not well supported by the literature (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006).

==Constructivist teaching strategies==

Line 37:

==An example of a Lesson Taught with a Constructivist background==

A good example of a lesson being taught in a constructivist way, with the teacher mediating learning rather than directly teaching the class is shown by the example of [[http://www.worlddeer.org/Markwalker/candle.pdf Faraday's candle]. There are various forms of this lesson, but all are developed from the ChritsmasChristmas lectures Faraday gave on the the functioning of candles. In open construvtivistconstructivist lessons using these lectures as a basis, students are encoureagedencouraged to discover for themselves how candles work. They do this first by making simple observations, from which they later build ideas and hypotheses which they then go on to test. The teachers acts to encourage this learning. If succesfulsuccessful students can use this lesson to understand the components of combustion_ an important chemical topic.

==Arguments against constructivist teaching techniques==

A wide variety of authors from many fields have voiced the following arguments against constructivist based teaching instruction:

* Because constructivism in the classroom depends greatly on student [[motivation]] as well as on teacher training, it has been argued that this technique would not be successful in schools lacking these resources.{{fact|December 2007}}

* Another deterrent for this teaching method is that, due to the emphasis on group work, the ideas of the more active students may dominate the group’s conclusions.<ref name="thirteenorg"/>

Line 52:

Mayer (2004) suggested "The research in this brief review shows that the formula constructivism = hands-on activity is a formula for educational disaster." His argument is that [[active learning]] based instruction is often suggested by those subscribing to this philosophy. In developing this instruction these educators produce materials that require learning to be behaviorally active and not be "cognitively active." That is although they are engaged in activity, they may not be learning (Sweller, 1988). Finally Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) cite Mayer to conclude fifty years of empirical results do not support those who use this type of instruction.

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark have argued against constructivist teaching methods, while agreeing with the basic description of learning as active construction. "The constructivist description of learning is accurate, but the instructional consequences suggested by constructivists do not necessarily follow." (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006, p. 78).

==See also==