Constructivism in practice

During Dr. Orey's presentation, constructivism was defined as "a theory of knowledge stating that each individual actively constructs his/her own meaning" while constructionism was explained as "a theory of learning that states people learn best when they build an external artifact of something they can share with others" (2009). While I agree with his statement that constructionism is more relevant to teachers in the classroom, I do also believe that it is vital for educators to be familiar with constructivism and how it can be applied. Inquiry learning is the first thing that comes to my mind when I read the above meaning of constructivism. Students who are engaged in order to discover a concept requires them to actively construct his/her own meaning. Constructionism, however, I think is not necessarily the answer one hundred percent of the time. Some students thrive more with dialogue and would prefer to talk out a solution rather than create an artifact. The truth of education is, though, that we must have some sort of proof that the students know the information. The easiest way to do this is to have the students create the artifacts themselves, but there may be other ways to achieve the same result. For students who prefer dialogue, the students could record themselves explaining a concept and thus have an audio file as their artifact. There are many ways to use technology to a student's advantage, and I think some educators try to make things too difficult and fancy, thus creating a sense of anxiety when students use technology in learning.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Bridging learning theory, instruction, and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Behaviorist learning theory

"Not all students realize the importance of believing in effort" (Pitler et al, 2007, p. 155). The authors of this book show the ways that a teacher can demonstrate expectations and collect and interpret data on students' effort. By the educator providing feedback on assignments/behaviors, the students are receiving a form of operant conditioning to either reinforce or redirect a student's effort.

I have my students draw diagrams of scientific concepts and I always tell them that I grade on effort. I know what a child's best work looks like and I grade accordingly to his/her effort on the assignment. For instance, a student who reproduces a diagram exactly will not get full credit if turning in a stick person. I am specific on ways that students could put forth more effort on the assignment and students are reinforced when doing well by getting a high grade on the assignment. I do not, however, find the need to graph and calculate the percentages of effort put forth by the students. It seems like a large waste of time that does not directly benefit the students.

The overall theme of this week's lesson can be summarized as teacher commentary. When it comes to homework and practice, "If homework is assigned, it should be commented upon" (Pitler et al, 2007, p. 187). This also can be considered as part of operant conditioning depending on the comments made by the teacher.

It seems like common sense to provide feedback for a child on every assignment; however, a trend that I see many times is no comment on a paper that received a perfect score. These students should be receiving positive reinforcement for their excellent work. It does take more time when grading papers, but I find that the students care more about assignments because they want to receive a positive note from me. Also, when writing commentary, it is important to be specific on what the child needs to improve or did well. For instance, a teacher could write "needs more effort" but the child does not know which aspect of the assignment needed more. Or instead of "good job" an educator should tell the student specifically what s/he did well.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.