In his article about constructivism, Van Glaserfeld talks about "construct knowledge." He uses this term to identify knowledge as understanding gained by both experience and experiments. His word choice is very strategic, by using the term construct he portrays the imagery of each student actually building, or constructing, their own knowledge. The students' building blocks are there own experiences, suggesting that in order for a student to accurately learn a new concept, he/she needs to be actively involved in problem solving. This can be done, but is not limited to, the use of hands-on classroom activities. These types of activities are helpful because they force the child to prove their individual understanding by applying a concept to a new situation. Van Glaserfeld emphasizes that we are always learning, through every experience we have we are constructing our own knowledge and theories of how the world works. Our knowledge is never correct though because we don't know what is correct in a world that is always changing.
If i was a math teacher, I would incorporate constructivism into my teaching by having student-teach days twice a month. On this day I, as the teacher, would be in the hall with a desk for myself and a desk for one student. I would have a movie showing in the classroom and call out students individually. When each student came out into the hall to meet with me, I would give them a problem and answer from the material we had been learning in class and have them teach me how to arrive at that answer. I would repeat this process with each student. This follows the constructivist idea because I would be able to better see each students individual understanding and what each is personally taking from class lectures, and how to benefit them in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love your implication. It is a creative way to see what your students understand. The only question I have is what if you filter what the students tell you through your lens of understanding and you hear what you wanted to, when in reality they didn't say it that way. Regardless, this is a really good implication and I like that you found a way to observe/assess the knowlege your students constructed.
ReplyDeleteGood Job!
Haley Bly
Rachelle,
ReplyDeleteI really love your idea of having a student-teach day twice a month. You described it in such clear detail that I really feel like I could easily implement that idea too because of how detailed you were. I also really like your arguments for why it is useful from a constructivism perspective. My only concern is if twice a month is too often to not be teaching students material, and if the students would get bored of not working those days (except for during the 5 minutes they get to teach you). Other than that, I think it is a great idea! Thanks for your post!
Great ideas! You really applied the theory of construct knowledge to the classroom. I have a few of the same concerns as annalee did. Twice a month might be too often and the students might get bored. But I propose that you have the students teach each other one of those times. Then they're reinforcing material for themselves as well as getting feed back from peers. If the way a student explains to one of their friends doesn't make sense the friend will probably let them know just as well as you do as their teacher. Thanks for your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteIn the theory of constructivism, our knowledge can be correct. We just are never able to know that our knowledge is correct.
ReplyDeleteI thought your student teach days were a cool idea.
I really like your idea. I think that would be a great help to students that are stuggling with concepts or may have developed incorrect ideas. I also think that this would improve your skills as a teacher. Do you think you would have enough time to do that for each student? I think I could of used just a little bit more on how this relates to constructivism.
ReplyDelete