Perhaps the best single concept that describes where we should be focusing our efforts, as educators, is constructivist learning. Gary Stager e-mailed me an announcement about an event being attached to NECC this year in San Antonio, the second annual (June 29) Constructivist Celebration. Here is some text from the web site.
The Constructivist Celebration is an opportunity for you to let your creativity run free with the world’s best open-ended software tools in a great setting; with enthusiastic colleagues who share your commitment to children, computing, creativity and constructivism. You might think of this stimulating event as a spa day for your mind and soul!
The day is kicked off the day with an inspirational keynote, “Creativity, Community and Computing,” followed by five hours of creativity on your own laptop using software provided by Consortium Members, Inspiration, LCSI and Tech4Learning.
The Constructivist Celebration is an incredibly affordable event for you and your colleagues. $30 (early-bird registration) gets you more than $500 worth of free software, a great lunch on the Riverwalk and the day’s activities.
I know that I already have one engagement for this day, but I’m going to try to make some of this, if possible…Gary?
Ok David, you just said something pretty hefty..
“Perhaps the best single concept that describes where we should be focusing our efforts, as educators, is constructivist learning.”
Please, please, please elaborate on what you mean here.
I need to know what you mean by constructivism and why you think it’s the “best single concept”.
Thanks in advance,
Chris Craft
Constructivism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)
The Twitter Version:
Learners (students and teachers) construct meaning from their experiences… the richer the better.
@Rodd: The Wikipedia article is actually not all that good, and is a far cry from a thorough definition of constructivism.
As for the twitter version, how do you differentiate right from wrong? How can someone construct a right meaning all the time?
: I think you are right, constructivism should be the way to go in today’s teaching. Educators should focus on teaching students how to create meaning and new knowledge using technology . However, my greatest fear is that not all educators see it this way, they may like the idea but the fact that they might not be technologically savvy would make them move away from teaching creativity using technology. At the moment I wish all school administrators could have professional development in terms of integrating the notion of constructivism into teaching and learning with technology. In most schools today, blogging , email etc at school are not allowed. My question is how can teachers advocate for change if the administrators know nothing about the advantages of creating meaning in class using open-ended software? For instance, an administrator who does not understand blogging cannot see how a teacher can use blogs in classroom as a tool to enhance literacy.
I do not think that it is possible for a person to differentiate right from wrong all the time–humans aren’t perfect; but perhaps there can be a foundation between the two. But as Rodd mentioned, people learn from their experiences. And while I agree that constructive criticism should be taught, I believe that corrections should be based on levels that are more realistic. (Isn’t right and wrong perceptions of reality anyway?)
I am an AP English student and one of the assignments that my teacher gave my class was to find an educational blog and put in our own 2 cents worth. If you wouldn’t mind, I would love it if you would check out my blog and add a little change to my knowledge bank. http://colormegray.wordpress.com/
Wow, this looks to be a GOOD thread shaping up!
@Chris Two books to look at: http://www.amazon.com/Search-Understanding-Case-Constructivist-Classrooms/dp/0871202115 and http://www.amazon.com/How-People-Learn-Experience-Expanded/dp/0309070368/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205374937&sr=1-1 – don’t know if they’re the best, but we’ve found them useful.
Very, very simplified, Constructivism – the learning theory – says that all humans construct their own understanding. That we come to any experience/new learning with some ideas about it – even if those ideas are very simplistic or completely “wrong”. When presented with something “new,” we have cognitive dissonance and have to either change our own understanding or reject the new information. So humans are not tabula rasa, and we just don’t absorb information, but that we have to actively construct it. From my reading the science is fairly strong on this, that this is our best current description of how humans learn. I’m sure some folks disagree, however.
Constructivism – the pedagogy, what it should look like in the classroom – is much more controversial.
Chris,
I like what the Constructivist Consortium says about constructivism:
The learner is at the center of the educational process and knowledge results from socially constructed experiences.
Here’s an article link at Education World that shows a teacher doing this very thing with his students. The students constructed their own learning experience when they decided to teach the host of Animal Planet how to speak Spanish. Taking a real problem in the global community, the students were “at the center of the educational process” as they created their “Spanish Scavenger Hunts” in order to not only help the host of the show and other students learn students, but to direct the path that their learning took.
I think it’s an excellent example of constructivism. You should check it out.
Oh wait! That teacher is you!
Bob