The Constructivist Theory of teaching is based on the belief that learning occurs when learners are actively engaged in the process of meaning and knowledge construction. In Piaget’s research of the development of a child’s brain, he theorized that assimilation and accommodation require an active learner, not a passive one, because problem solving skills must be discovered, not taught. Researchers since Piaget have developed a Constructivist Theory of teaching and learning, stating that learning occurs when students can make meaning of the information. Although traditional teaching still works for certain subjects, science requires a more constructivist approach. Research shows that students who are actively engaged in their learning and can make meaning of the lesson being taught by relating it to their experiences, are going to take away more from their education.
Active Engagement
“Active engagement is essential to overcome student preconceptions” (Bransford et al., 2000). Even the youngest children come to school with preconceived ideas about how the world works (e.g. Piaget’s “schema”). One example of this is the “flat earth” concept of young children. They cannot imagine a spherical earth because they cannot see it; only when the child reaches the formal operational stage can he or she begin to think hypothetically or abstractly. Preconceived ideas occur because from infancy, a child’s brain is designed to focus on certain types of environmental stimuli such as language (phonetics, semantics), object movement and properties, and quantity. Piaget pointed this out when he “examined the child’s development of object permanence” (Kohler, 2008). At first, the infant believes that mother disappears when she covers her face in the game of peek-a-boo. After many trials, however, he or she learns that mother is only hiding, and she is still there all the time. “Engaging in multiple tries is a hallmark of constructivism” (Bransford et al., 2000)
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Constructivist Theory of Teaching and Learning".
“Engagement motivates students to be self-directed learners” (Banilower et al., 2010). Science instruction, that poses an everyday question, then scaffolds students into solving the problem on their own, is more likely to appeal to children than a formal didactic lecture, even if followed by a laboratory period to confirm experimentally what has already been taught formally. Stimulating curiosity about the world around them helps students examine their own ideas about the subject by bringing them to consciousness, a meta-cognitive skill (Bransford et al., 2010). “Active participation in a lesson that is inquiry-based is more likely to lead to expanded science learning than other methods” (Slavin et al., 2014). However, it is important for teachers to provide the materials needed to fully examine the question. If sufficient materials are not available so that each student cannot explore scientific principles individually, dividing into small groups or even presenting the lesson to the entire class can be “beneficial as long as the teacher lets the students lead as much as possible” (Plakitsi, 2013). Self-directed learning is a characteristic of constructivism.
“Engagement in learning also promotes the development of conceptual frameworks and deep knowledge” (Bransford et al., 2010). Memorizing a set of facts is not sufficient; it is necessary for students to relate facts to their prior knowledge in order to create both broad concepts and deep understanding. For example, a student might learn the difference between liquid water and solid water, and that rain is liquid while sleet is solid. These facts would not, however, allow the student to comprehend the relationship between rain and sleet, why one occurs when it’s cold and the other when it’s warm, or the concepts of liquid and solid in the context of other substances (Chaipichit, Jantharajit, & Chookhampaeng, 2015).
The teacher-led, student-passive style of instruction is not appropriate for science learning in the elementary grades because it does not help students gain a true understanding of science concepts. Without this understanding, children will not develop their problem-solving abilities, nor will they be able to apply what they have learned to other contexts. Active engagement is essential because it overcomes student preconceptions, motivates students to be self-directed learners, and promotes the development of conceptual frameworks and deep knowledge.
Natural Curiosity in Science.
Using a student’s natural curiosity is a natural place to start the constructivist learning process and create a dynamic learning environment for the subject of science. Young people ask lots of questions. Questions should be encouraged in teaching science. In fact, any science experiment begins with a question to be answered. Then, a hypothesis about the possible result, or answer. Next, a test is created to help answer the original question. As the test (or research) is being run, the student documents the data (or information) about what is happening each day. Finally, at the end of the test, the student decides if the hypothesis was correct or incorrect. Reflection on the experiment is the final analysis. What could be done differently? Would the results be the same? Would the results be the same?
The steps in creating a science project are basically a good framework for teaching science using constructivist theory. Allowing students to discover, with some facilitation from teacher, for themselves, the answers to questions in science will create meaningful knowledge that will be retained. This type of teaching also allows students to build upon what they already know.
Problems in Teacher Training.
One of the current problems in using constructivist theory in teaching K-8 grades science, is that of teachers’ training. Many current teachers use the methods they were, either, taught with in elementary school, or taught with in their teacher training courses. Much of this older education was teacher-led. To change this, teacher training courses need to reflect the constructivist theory, and current teachers need to attend workshops or classes that can help them re-learn how to better teach science, using constructivist theory.
According to Kroll (2004), the views of teacher candidates need to be developed within the framework of a teacher-training program that should take the constructivist viewpoint as its very foundation stone. This state of affairs needs to be supported by offering practice-based training in accordance with this understanding and also by supporting them in terms of provision of materials and resources (Bagci-Kilic, 2001). ( Sertel, Banu, 2015).
Teachers need to keep five principles in mind when planning for science instruction:
Pose a question that interests the students.
Use key concepts to construct lessons.
Talk with students to get their viewpoints on topic.
Adapt the curriculum per students’ viewpoints on topic.
Evaluate learning based on the context through which the lesson has been given and received. (Sertel, Banu, 2015).
This process allows the teacher to become a facilitator, helping lead the students to their
own discoveries, and their own building of knowledge within a constructivist learning environment. If the definition of constructivist theory is an approach to teaching that leads to knowledge formation for students based on their own discoveries, then this learning approach must be recognized as the best way to create an exciting learning environment within which students experience, search, ask questions, discover and form their own scientific knowledge. Constructivist theory considers a student’s prior knowledge and helps make sure of his or her participation in learning through discovery.
Teacher as Facilitator.
Teacher as guide, rather than specialist, is the format for approaching planning activities within the K-8 grade science classroom. As a facilitator, the teacher prepares the learning environment in such a way that students can work through activities and be attracted to the topic used for discovery. Media may be used as in telling stories, videos, jokes, stories, or simulations. The teacher may also let students have some ideas about what they are looking for in a project. Individual interests and needs are to be considered when planning these activities. (Sertel, Banu 2015).
“Constructivist philosophy does not dictate how one should teach; however, it does make it incumbent upon the teacher to deal with each learner as an individual, to value diversity of perspective, and to recognize that the learner’s behavior is a direct reflection of his / her life experiences”. (Lamanauskas, 2012).
Problem-solving.
Problem-solving is a tool to be used in constructivist teaching and learning. Discussion is a primary source of the learning process. Brain-storming ideas and debating ideas are important ways students can achieve success in understanding a new (to them) scientific concept. Problem-solving within a group centered activity requires discussion to help facilitate the learning process. In the constructivist classroom, the teacher could pose a purposeful problem, such as water pollution. Pre-activities could include brainstorming students’ ideas through a K W L chart. What do I Know? What do I Want to know? After the activity: What did I Learn? Students could work in groups to create small models of a water feature. The group could decide what kinds of pollution to put into the water, i.e. dirt, rocks, garbage, plastic. All the while, they are asking themselves questions: What will the water look like in a few days? How will this effect surrounding communities? Does this drain into a larger lake, river, or ocean? What might be long-term effects. Next stage would be the groups working on possible solutions to the problem. Research on websites, newspapers, field trips to water sites where pollution is being controlled are all ideas for this type of learning. Students could present their findings as teams like local reporters on the news or write up a newspaper article for their data collection.
Conclusion.
Teachers, using the constructivist approach to learning, will transform their classrooms from teacher centered learning to student centered learning. Starting with students’ prior knowledge, and creating activities that allow students to explore for themselves possible outcomes, is worth the extra effort for teachers. Constructivist learning allows students to build upon their foundational knowledge and add layers to their intellect that will have meaning for each one.
- Banilower, E., Cohen, K., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2010). Effective science instruction: What does research tell us? Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved on January 31, 2017 from http://www.centeroninstruction.org
- Bransford, J., & National Research Council, (U.S.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Accessed on February 2, 2017 from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com
- Chaipichit, D., Jantharajit, N., & Chookhampaeng, S. (2015). Development of Learning Management Model Based on Constructivist Theory and Reasoning Strategies for Enhancing the Critical Thinking of Secondary Students. Educational Research And Reviews, 10(16), 2324-2330. Accessed on February 2, 2017 from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com
- Kohler, R. (2008). Jean Piaget. London, [England]: Bloomsbury Academic. Accessed on February 5, 2017 from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com
- Lamanauskas, Vincentas. (2012). A Constructivist Approach to Integrated Science Education: Teaching Prospective Teachers to do Science. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, Volume 41, 5-9. Accessed on March 14, 2017 from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com
- Plakitsi, K. (2013). Activity Theory in Formal and Informal Science Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Accessed on February 5, 2017 from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com
- Sertel Altun, Banu Y?cel-Toy. (2015). The Methods of Teaching Course Based on Constructivist Learning Approach: An Action Research. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 248-271. Accessed on March 14, 2017 from http://files.eric.ed.gov
- Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Hanley, P., & Thurston, A. (2014). Experimental evaluations of elementary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis.�Journal of Research in Science Teaching,�51(7), 870-901.
