EDUC 6711--Walden University--Week 4 Application--Constructivism in Practice

There were several learning strategies provided by the resources this week which I found informative and valuable.  Many of these strategies meshed well with the constructivist learning philosophy.  This philosophy relies upon the indication that we all have our own unique base of knowledge which is created by on our own unique experiences (Laureate, 2011).  Therefore, the strategies presented this week were centered on the idea of having the learner construct an artifact, product, or design.  Accordingly, the learner would also be constructing knowledge; making assimilations, accommodations, and/or modifying their overall schema during this process.  Therefore, the learner is actively engaged in the learning process and responsible for a great deal of his or her own learning. 

Ultimately, this approach to learning seems extremely beneficial for a variety of learners.  There are many areas of intelligence or preferences which can be met when an educator decides to use this philosophy.  In fact the constructionism learning theory which is directly linked to this philosophy recognizes the importance of allowing learners to have immediate hands-on experiences with content.  These experiences are needed in order for the learner to thoroughly understand and make use of new knowledge.  In fact, this approach learning can provide a learner the opportunity to learn from to visual cues, social interactions, audio representation, and even self-inquiry.

Learning by design and project based learning are the first strategies that I will highlight in regards to their correlation with the constructivist learning philosophy.  Although these two strategies seem very similar, they are not exact replicas.  The main difference seems to be the end result.  During the learning by design strategy the learner is left with an actual artifact, but during the project base learning strategy the leaner may be left with a product, project, or simply an experience.  Furthermore, project based learning seems to encourage a sustained amount of cooperation over an extended amount of time (Orey, 2001). 

However, both of the strategies encourage constructionism as they allow the leaner to interact with the content, confront any misconceptions, and construct new meaningful knowledge.    Furthermore, the learners are provided with reflection time, which allows them to reactivate new knowledge and hopefully increase the retention rate for this learning (Orey, 2001).  Finally, both strategies seem to increase motivation as they are related to student interests and have the potential to create meaningful experiences.

Next, I evaluated the use of problem based learning in which leaners actively resolve complex problems in realistic situations (Orey, 2001).  It is extremely important that the student takes ownership of the problem.  In other words, if you provide the learner with a problem which is completely irrelevant to their life, then the actual learning will probably not be as powerful.  Finally, the student is allowed to find a solution and create evidence which supports their finding.  The nice thing about this is that the student is able to take any avenue as long as the can support their finding.  In other words, there is more than one answer. 

In fact, the problem based learning theory fits well with the idea of student generating and testing their own hypotheses.  In other words, creating a hypothesis does not have to be solely for science experiments (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007); it can actually be linked into any part of the curriculum given the correct framework.  For example, students can actively find solutions to a variety of topics in a variety of contents, including math, social studies, health, and even current events.  Accordingly, problem based learning is structured around the construction of data to resolve or make sense out of a meaningful investigation.

Ultimately, I believe the most important aspect of constructionism to remember is that learner is to actively construct knowledge in their mind.  This is not intended to be a passive process in which the knowledge is simply transmitted from teacher to student (Orey, 2001).  Instead, the student receives knowledge by physically creating their own artifact.  This artifact and the process can then be reflected upon by the learner at a later date.  In my mind, this part of the process seems to provide the most meaningful portion of the learning.  Not only is the learner actively constructing their own knowledge during the creation process, but they are also left with a physical creation or experience which can be used to reflect upon and activate the new learning at a later date.

The following is a link to a video which provides an example of the differences between a traditional classroom and a constructivist classroom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEsGHVdVkMw&feature=related.  While this video is a little extreme I still believe it did a good job of emphasizing the redundancy and ineffective strategies which can be common in many traditional classrooms.   Please enjoy, I know I did!      

Resources

Contructivist vs. Traditional Classroom [Video podcast].  (2011).  Retrieved from the YouTube website:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEsGHVdVkMw&feature=related

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program seven: Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page

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