Overview:
This chapter was primarily about the constructivist view of learning and approaches to implementing this theory in the classroom. According to Slavin, "constructivist theory sees learners as constantly checking new information against old rules and then revising rules when they no longer work" (188).
The constructivist theory has its roots from Piaget and Vygotsky (188). It supports the student as an active learner and it's often referred to as "student-centered learning" (188). Top down processing is an important element of student centered learning. Students start with complex problems and then explore and investigate to discover and learn (190). Other important elements of the constructivist theory include peer interactions, discovery learning, self-regulated learning, and scaffolding.
Cooperative learning is also an essential method used in the constructivist theory of learning (192). Students can work together in small group and cooperative to solve complex problems and help one another learn. Problem solving skills and critical thinking skills are also important in student-centered learning.
Analysis:
The constructivist approach to learning is a theory and method based heavily on the theories of Piaget and Vigsotsky. Through their research they understood that learning is a process that is ever continuous (209). Though it is clear that the constructivist model for teaching is beneficial for students, research isn't definitive about the balance between direct instruction and indirect instruction when it comes to student achievement (198).
Regardless of the effectiveness of or balance of student centered learning, one certain thing is that problem solving and critical thinking skills are crucial for students to learn for the constructivist theory of learning to be beneficial for students. "Students cannot be said to have learned anything useful unless they have learned anything useful unless they have acquired the ability to use information and skills to solve problems" (204).
Reflection:
Though we all know as teachers that student-centered learning is an effective method of teaching, it's helpful to understand the theory, research, and neuroscience behind why it's effective. After reading this chapter from Slavin, it was helpful and affirming to me as see that the research is not as definitive as some scholars would lead you to believe. It was also helpful as Slavin stated there is no specific or defined division between the time of direct and indirect instruction (198).
While I admittedly observe much more transferable knowledge when I allow my students to solve complex problems from a top-down processing method, there is a discrepancy in the required assessments we have to give students. Sadly state and county assessments sometimes force us to teach from a bottom-up approach. Though I swore I would never "teach to the test" while I was in college, the reality is, sometimes you have to. Our curriculums and assessments don't align with a constructivist approach. Until we allow our students to assessed in different ways, potentially considering standards based grading rather than number grades, we are somewhat trapped trying to make sure we are teaching mastery of skills and not concepts.
I am a huge proponent of the constructivist theory but I find that I don't get to use it as often as I would like. I find that the critical thinking and problem solving skills students learn is invaluable and far more important that an S on a county unit math assessment. I always tell the parents in my class that problem solving and critical thinking skills are what will set their students apart when they grow up. Everyone has infinite knowledge at their fingertips due to technology. So they don't need to know more, they need to know how to innovate and solve problems. I will continue to strive to find ways to incorporate this theory more and more.
Comments
Post a Comment