Group post by Carly Germann, Chris Daniel, and Amanda Butz
These videos show two examples of a constructivist-based classroom. In the first video, we see how one might approach teaching elementary school students double column subtraction:
Constructivist Math Instruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cx5HDOCwqE&feature=youtu.be
It is important to note a few interesting differentiations between the classroom method presented in the above video compared to other instructional methods.
The teacher has encouraged the students to immediately indicate their answer if called on and also if they agree with the answer provided by the one student who the teacher selected to provide the answer.
Students are encouraged, even expected to discuss and/or defend this answer in an open forum format.
At no time does the teacher provide the correct answer, and remains an open conduit for any student to explain his or her explanation as to how her or she arrived at an answer.
In the second video (divided into three sections), the teacher purposefully refrains from describing to her students the instructional goal of sorting objects (by size, color and shape) so that they may construct their own meaning with regard to these concepts. Please note the following practices the teacher presented in this video:
Constructivist lessons on colors, sizes and shapes:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR9LqmT0k-U
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxKtqDLNG6Y&feature=related
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCOsDiemQM&feature=related
The teacher did not name the manipulables in these exercises. Rather, she merely called them objects.
The teacher created a yes/no chart by which she would list student suggestions as to the agreed upon activities with regard to the lesson.
As the students were in the process of sorting items into trays of "big" and "small" items, the teacher elicited the responses of students as to their thinking process as they categorized the objects.
Both of these videos exemplify some key constructivist concepts. Firstly, it is the teachers job to create experiences in which children should think for and spontaneously question and then correct themselves if it is necessary to do so. The process of arriving at an answer, comparing that to the answers of their peers and then re-evaluating the original answer according to constructivist views is tantamount to learning and possibly intellectual development.
Based on our discussion of constructivism and the videos we watched, we pose the following questions to the class:
With regard to the first mathematics video, the intractive process and "rules of order" for this class appeared to run seamlessly. However, we understand that they were practicing this method 6 months prior to taping. How might this really work in the classroom?
Relative to our nation's political landscape and the expectations of the citizenry with regard to learning, can constructivist methods harmonize with those based upon the practices of direct instruction and the standardized testing of which we all have become very accustomed?
With regard to the second video which depicted the students' construction of concepts related to colors, shapes and sizes, do you think actual learning is transpiring here? How might a teacher make this assessment? What if in the face of this more open model a student or group of students arrives at a construct which lies in disagreement of the intended learning outcome?
The mathematics video is an eye-opener. What is at play? First, it should be remembered that numbers, addition, and subtraction are artificial constructs, much as are words. Are these students actually discovering math? Certainly, they are demonstrating that there are a multitude of ways to reach the same conclusion. What happens, however, if all of the students agree on the wrong answer? The second factor at play in this microcosm is peer pressure. It is obvious that students who may reach a certain answer will be swayed by their peers to change to a more acceptable one.
ReplyDeleteDescriptions, such as in the second group of videos, are less absolute. They all deal with fascinating concepts, quickly present in child speech. I was recently contemplating a young child's use of numbers. She was counting her fingers. Then, I compared it to the video of the child counting coins. Numbers are so exclusive, yet we quickly sort the world into numbers. Certainly, the use and re-use of numbers and their versatility make them important words to acquire. The same is true with colors, although not to the same extent as numbers. Fortunately, these children have been granted the liberty to define and redefine these concepts continually in their mind. The simple awareness of this helps them(excuse the pun) think outside the box. This ties in to the second question presented in your discussion. In a society where originality is prized, why do we place such stock in standardized testing? Do we want original thinkers or standardized ones?
Ben, I love your last question. I've never liked the idea of standardized tests and could never put my finger on why... now I see it's because I hate the ideas of a "standardized thinker." Great observation.
ReplyDelete