Constructivism has three basic priciples: (1) Knowledge is constructed by the learner; (2) Cognitive development can occur only after certain genetically controlled neurological changes occur; (3) Teacher’ role is to guide and scaffold student learning.
The major difference between cognitivism and constructivism is that cognitivism is teacher-centered, emphasizing teachers’ roles, while constructivism is student-centered, emphasizing students’ roles.
In my previous blog entry, I cited examples of cognitivist teaching strategies. This blog entry presents an example of the contructivist teaching approach, posted by a student in the previous class.
The teaching experience I would like to describe comes from my chemistry class. The concept I was addressing with the class was Boyle's Law, which states that "the volume of a given amount of gas is inversely proportional to the pressure at a constant temperature". The class starts with all the students at the demonstration table looking at a balloon in a pressure chamber. As a student pumps a handle with a tube leading to the chamber, they all observed the balloon getting larger. My question to the group was why. It normally did not take long for the students to associate what was happening with the concept of Boyle's Law, even if they could not recall the name. As a group, we all came to the conclusion that when you increase the pressure on a volume of gas, the volume of gas should get smaller, or decrease.
Now the problem: As the student pump the handle to the pressure chamber, the gauge indicated the pressure was increasing. According to Boyle's Law, by increasing pressure on a volume of gas, the volume of gas should decrease or get smaller. However, as the pressure gauge showed the pressure increasing, the balloon in the pressure chamber was also increasing. THE STUDENTS JOB WAS TO DETERMINE WHY.
I then had them to work in groups to determine their answer using their prior knowledge and each group reported their explanation.
This approach used some of Dewey's, Piaget's and Bruners ideas by using things commonly understood and familiar to the students, relating it to everyday things and allowing students to discovery or determine an explanation based on their prior experiences and knowledge.
Once the explanations were presented, I came back and did more directed instruction to make sure all the students understood the concept and how it is applied. The pros in doing this was all students have had some experience with balloons and there behavior and as a result could all add something to the group discussion. It also allow those who may have had a better grasp of the Law to share that understanding with others and by doing so increase the understanding in them. I could not see any real disadvantages to this approach.
Although I did not use a computer, I could have allowed the students to go to the computer and use computer stimulations of Boyle's Law.
Finally, as with most things, determining when a certain approach would be most effective is the job of the teacher. As a professional, the main task should be preparing yourself to take advantage of whatever method based on the need and situation of the child.
The major difference between cognitivism and constructivism is that cognitivism is teacher-centered, emphasizing teachers’ roles, while constructivism is student-centered, emphasizing students’ roles.
In my previous blog entry, I cited examples of cognitivist teaching strategies. This blog entry presents an example of the contructivist teaching approach, posted by a student in the previous class.
The teaching experience I would like to describe comes from my chemistry class. The concept I was addressing with the class was Boyle's Law, which states that "the volume of a given amount of gas is inversely proportional to the pressure at a constant temperature". The class starts with all the students at the demonstration table looking at a balloon in a pressure chamber. As a student pumps a handle with a tube leading to the chamber, they all observed the balloon getting larger. My question to the group was why. It normally did not take long for the students to associate what was happening with the concept of Boyle's Law, even if they could not recall the name. As a group, we all came to the conclusion that when you increase the pressure on a volume of gas, the volume of gas should get smaller, or decrease.
Now the problem: As the student pump the handle to the pressure chamber, the gauge indicated the pressure was increasing. According to Boyle's Law, by increasing pressure on a volume of gas, the volume of gas should decrease or get smaller. However, as the pressure gauge showed the pressure increasing, the balloon in the pressure chamber was also increasing. THE STUDENTS JOB WAS TO DETERMINE WHY.
I then had them to work in groups to determine their answer using their prior knowledge and each group reported their explanation.
This approach used some of Dewey's, Piaget's and Bruners ideas by using things commonly understood and familiar to the students, relating it to everyday things and allowing students to discovery or determine an explanation based on their prior experiences and knowledge.
Once the explanations were presented, I came back and did more directed instruction to make sure all the students understood the concept and how it is applied. The pros in doing this was all students have had some experience with balloons and there behavior and as a result could all add something to the group discussion. It also allow those who may have had a better grasp of the Law to share that understanding with others and by doing so increase the understanding in them. I could not see any real disadvantages to this approach.
Although I did not use a computer, I could have allowed the students to go to the computer and use computer stimulations of Boyle's Law.
Finally, as with most things, determining when a certain approach would be most effective is the job of the teacher. As a professional, the main task should be preparing yourself to take advantage of whatever method based on the need and situation of the child.
No comments:
Post a Comment