GRAY’S SPACE

I’ve just finished reading Roblyer (2006) “Learning theories as bases for integration”. Matthew mentioned in the lecture today how good the book is, so I thought I’d have a read.

I found the chapter a very pertinent and informative discussion on the pedagogies of direct instruction v constructivism. Roblyer gives an in depth analysis and outlines how we can combine the two approaches in our teaching.He says that:

Teachers will always use some directed instruction as the most efficient means of teaching students required skills; teachers will always need motivating, cooperative learning activities will ensure that students want to learn and that they can transfer what they learn with problems they encounter.(p46)

Proficient technology-oriented teachers must learn to combine directed instruction and constructivist approaches and select technology resources and integration methods that are best suited to their specific needs.(p 46)

I would have really liked to have seen this chapter at the beginning of the year. The chapter points out the validity of both pedagogies and the value of using them at specific points in the education cycle. Education courses should be underpinned with a foundation of proven direct teaching methods that successfully integrate constructivist approaches into the teaching/learning environment.

I can really see the point of using technology to do things that I can’t. i.e Play with shapes and manipulate functions and graphs -the list goes on.It’s up to me and you to be creative in how we shape the technology and teaching together

Foundations of Effective Technology Integration Models:Theory and Practice

I have just finished reading  Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2001) Conceptual models for school learning.

The chapter discusses authentic learning and ways of increasing and building authentic learning for students.

The chapter gives some interesting ideas for creating authentic learning opportunities for students. It becomes a matter of creating tasks that have real world value and meaning.There are a lot of good tips that we can use to incorporate into our lessons.However,I found the following quote very honest and a little suprising in a constructivist book.

While the basic ideas for constructivist activities have been studied for sometime in such fields as cognitive and developmental psychology, few actual classroom applications have been thoroughly evaluated using soIid research techniques (Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). There are some promising exceptions.(Cognition and Technology Group, 1992; Wenglinsky, 1998), but no body of research that would allow a valid conclusion.

Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2001). Conceptual models for school learning. In M. Grabe & C. Grabe (Eds). Integrating technology for meaningful learning 33rd Edtn. pp 56-76. Houghton MifflinPlace of Publication : Boston

I think we should start a new school of methodology called Instructive Constructivism/Constructionism

I was reading Tania’s posting on Constructionism in the real world and gave a tongue in cheek answer to her dilemma- read if you like!

However, there are a number of important issues raised?

• Will attempting to introduce constructivist approaches motivate a student to learn?
• If the subject matter is boring will constructivist techniques make it any less boring?
• What do you do when the student doesn’t care about understanding but just want’s to know how to do it?
• When do you combine both Direct Instruction and Constructionism ?

I thought it might be nice to open my first blog with a  few thoughts on Constructivist and Constructionist approaches as outlined in “Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism:What’s the difference?
Edith Ackermann “ paper and also link back into where we are heading with Assessment 2

Assessment 2 -Criteria see below

Your discussion will explore ways of using learning technologies (relevant to your chosen specific topic) to support meaningful learning (definition to be discussed in classes), with an emphasis on your 7-12 curriculum area(s). Your discussion must go ‘beyond’ exploring didactic, instructional uses and when possible, emphasise constructionist approaches (definition to be discussed). Also, you are encouraged to think about opportunities for plearning (definition to be discussed), both on a local and global level.

Here we go again ,being asked to emphasize teaching approaches that after half a century have no body of research to support their techniques. Constructivist has moved on to Constuctionist and of course no research anywhere in the literature comparing it to direct instructional methods and showing why it is conclusively better – but we are expected to champion it.

1. Minimally guided instructional constructivist approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. Sweller, John, Kirschner, Paul A. and Clark, Richard E. (2007) ‘Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries’, Educational Psychologist, 42:2, 115 – 121 .

2.On the other hand “Direct instructional guidance is defined as providing information that fully explains the concepts and procedures that students are required to learn as well as learning strategy support that is compatible with human cognitive architecture. Learning, in turn, is defined as a change in long-term memory.”

“We have not evolved to effortlessly acquire the biologically secondary knowledge such as the use of algebra or scientific theories that are characteristically taught in educational institutions. That information passes through working memory and so requires conscious effort. It must be explicitly taught; indeed we invented educational institutions in order to teach such knowledge,and the manner in which it is taught needs to take into account the characteristics of working memory, long-term memory and the relations between them.” (Sweller2007)

And now we have Constructionism

“Papert has been a huge proponent of bringing IT to classrooms, as in his early uses of the Logo language to teach mathematics to children. Constructionist learning involves students drawing their own conclusions through creative experimentation and the making of social objects. The constructionist teacher takes on a mediational role rather than adopting an instructionist position. Teaching “at” students is replaced by assisting them to understand—and help one another to understand—problems in a hands-on way.” Wikipedia

We let children draw their own conclusions . I like that. And then we spend the rest of the lesson correcting faulty conclusions and assumptions .

Most learners of all ages know how to construct knowledge when given adequate information and there is no evidence that presenting them with partial information enhances their ability to construct knowledge. Actually, quite the reverse seems most often to be true. Learners must construct a mental representation or schema irrespective of whether they are given complete or partial information. Complete information will result in a more accurate representation that is also more easily acquired. Constructivism is based therefore, on an observation that, although descriptively accurate, does not lead to a prescriptive instructional design theory or to effective pedagogical techniques(Clark&Estes, 1998, 1999; Estes&Clark, 1999 ; Kirschner , Martens ,& Strijbos, 2004).

Can we have a balance between both modes of instruction.(Direct and Constructivist)?

Here endeth the rant.

Paul