Reflection #1- Constructivism

Is there a continuing influence of constructivism in the field of education? Do you know of any educators who you would consider not to be constructivists? If so, please explain and give examples. If not, tell us what you think this means.

I believe that there is a growing influence of constructivism in the field of education. In a constructivist environment, students are the center of the learning and the teacher serves as the guide to help them construct new schema and ideas as well as build on their previous ideas. Students participate in discussions and activities to help them form new concepts or a better understanding of previous concepts they were taught through assimilation and accommodation (Byrnes, 2008).

From my own experience, I think that the influence of constructivism in schools is increasing.  Each year at my current school, the administration wants to see more learning become student-directed. For example, according to my administration, teachers are not supposed to be at the front of the room simply lecturing for each subject. The administrators want to see students engaged in discourse and discussions where they come to conclusions themselves rather than the teacher giving them all the answers. Students should be engaging in social interactions with other students to build upon their previous knowledge and help them form new connections. I remember after one of my observations last year, my principal told me that I shouldn’t have to do all of the work when I am teaching a lesson. He wanted to see the students actively participating in learning and guiding the discussion.

In constructivism, teachers serve as guides to help students build up their schema. In this environment, teachers would want to help students build upon their existing knowledge. However, constructivists also believe that not every student needs the same activities because the students have different schema and needs. For a teacher to be a constructivist, he or she would be providing differentiation in their classrooms. From my own experience, school districts and administrators want to see a whole group activity where students are introduced to a new concept with their classmates, followed by time for students to be engaged in learning with students on similar instructional levels. This is achieved through small groups or guided groups in math and reading. 

I think that literacy centers and math centers have become increasingly prominent in schools, which also coincides with constructivism. The students are given opportunities to practice skills and apply them in different ways. Another aspect I have seen become more prevalent is students engaging in reflection and explaining their answers. For example, all of my students have to write in a reading response journal once a week about what they are reading. However, they have to write about more than just what they read. Students are encouraged to reflect on their reading, which may involve how it made them feel or connections they made with the text.  I have also seen more assessments given to students that require them to explain how they arrived at their answer. 

I think that the second question is a difficult one to answer. When I first answered the discussion question at the beginning of the week about what a non-constructivist would look like, I found myself identifying many details about what the teacher would be doing. However, after reading what Luke wrote about separating the value judgments from the aspects of constructivism and non-constructivism, I started to see the constructivist theory in a different light. I believe it is important to consider what the student does in both environments, rather than focusing on the teacher. If we begin evaluating the different viewpoints then we focus on the details of each environment, not what any individual teacher is doing. 

After taking part in the class discussion about constructivism this week, I think that it is more important to look at the actual classroom environments rather than a specific individual. At my previous school, I definitely saw classrooms that did not demonstrate tenants of the constructivist viewpoint. In these classrooms students were not the center of the learning environment. The teacher directed learning and students sat in their own seat all day long doing worksheets. The students did not talk or engage in discussions and even stayed in during P.E. or other specials if they were not grasping a concept. If one were to examine the teacher in these environments, those teachers had usually been teaching for awhile and believed in a more traditional way of teaching which did not include students coming to conclusions through guidance. 

I think the most important thing to take away from the dynamic of a constructivist versus non-constructivist environment is how those strategies and techniques are impacting the students and whether the teacher is doing everything he or she can to help students succeed. As an educator, I have seen differing viewpoints come and go. Districts implement a new strategy that is supposed to have a significant impact on the educational system; within a year or so, it may be gone. However, I believe it is important as an educator to continually evaluate your teaching methods to make sure the students are learning and making gains. Educators need to pay attention to the changing needs of the students from class to class, adjusting strategies if necessary. After all, children are unique individuals.  

Byrnes, J. P. (2008). Cognitive Development and Learning In Instructional Contexts, (Third
      Edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.