Blog #2

We just delved into Constructivism—for some of you, this seems intuitive. Still, my guess is that for most of you this was not typical of your K-12 (or even some higher-ed) experiences. What does Constructivism, as you understand it so far, mean to you? Reflect on your past as a student and how you hope to apply this concept (or not apply it, as the case may be) in your career as a teacher. 


As I think about what Constructivism means to me, several key words come to mind: interactive, engaging, modern, useful, activating. I have not really had many classes that use this method. I have had one class this year that has adapted some of its characteristic though. My biology class is taught a bit differently than I am used to. The professor assign readings, online homework, and a set of questions (called learning outcomes) to do before each class. In class, the professor spends his time going over the questions that we were assigned to do. He also has questions that appear on the screen, which the whole class answers with their hand-held response systems. He doesn't lecture very much, but instead lets our groups (which contain 4 to 6 members) discuss the questions we answered before class. Every class he has each group answer a group question that we answer as a group and turn in. This method is very beneficial, especially in a lecture hall. It engages every student and makes the huge lecture hall seem like a normal sized classroom with class participation. This method shares some characteristics of a constructivist approach. It is shaped more by the students preparation and effort in class, as opposed to a lecture with little class participation. It creates an atmosphere that is very conducive to learning, which is very hard to do in a lecture hall. This is just an example of Constructivism that I have witnessed, although there may be more to it.


Constructivism, according to my current understanding, is an engaging form of teaching that requires the students to engage their minds and activates prior knowledge, which is put to use in solving a problem or  in creating something. It deviates from the traditional method of lecture, where the student sits and listens, and where the teacher stand and talks. 


As a high school graduate and college student, I have seen a variety of teachers, but few used constructivism to teach. The majority of my teachers taught in the traditional way of lecture and listen, with a hope that the class would participate. I really think that the traditional method can be effective, but in certain cases and for certain people. There are some subjects or lessons that require a lecture format or are best communicated through the traditional method. Although, sometimes it can be quite boring and inneffective. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrbumvF-Oe4

I will be teaching high school students. I will be teaching science courses, mostly biology and earth sciences. I think that I should apply parts of the constructivism concept as best I can. I think that the students would learn far more than if they just sat and listened to me talk. I am not sure how well it would apply to high school students, or exactly how I would go about it, but I do think it would be beneficial. I would like to try out what my current biology teachers does and see if it benefits my future students as much as it benefits me now.