paweek four per on constructivism vs behaviorism why i chose this one week four
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
College of St. Scholastica *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3033
Subject
Medicine
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by labnflorida
CONSTUCTIVISM THEORY
Week Four
STEPHANIA BYRD
COLLEGE OF SAINT SCHOLASTICA
1
Reading literacy is daunting when not a word on the Singapore highway signage forms a cognitive meaning or even more daunting when the desk instruction-wordage is ill-designed, so you have now attached the top to the bottom. Literacy is essential in structured society containing humans whose social and economic welfare must be considered. (Davidson, 2010, p. 1)
In my classroom, a more sterile environment free of distraction and conducive for learning, each player, both student and teacher, know exactly what the daily goals are for the new introductory-words. Moreover, socially and psychologically, parents have been assured that the daily tasks will not be daunting yet challenging and students know that the daily goal can easily be accomplished if effort is expended. Today, I am using the Constructivism Theory-approach which defines my teacher- profile
(personality traits and comfort level) and characteristics (style and mode) better. First, a brief overview of the Constructivism Theory.
Overview
Constructivism theory is a learning perspective emphasizing the active construction of knowledge of persons by doing. (Tracey and Morrow, 2017, p. 81) The theory allows the teacher
to design exercises, activities and assignments from very basic-rudimentary to higher-level-
thinking. This affords each student lesson involvement opportunities; thus, no one feels isolated
(participation) and everyone gains some level of accomplishment (victory, thus ensuring confidence). Students who feel self-worth by being a valuable contributor and winner are (1) receptive (less resistance or reluctance); (2) become better active listeners and (3) are void of disruptive-behavior challenges. In other words, the teacher engages to improve the student’s attention and increase internal desire to master/command the reading tasks. Reflecting on
2
constructivism, McLaughlin (2012) notes that “learning takes place when new information is integrated with what is already known.” The more reader knowledge and experiences render better connections to the reading topic. (p.433) Examples of classroom activities exemplifying the constructivism theory approach follow.
I deploy a myriad of activities, so each student might find their niche from day to day; the
teacher and students become facilitators for the classroom exercises based on the constructivism theory approach, that is, what is already known is built upon. The activities are assembled around a platform that allows for a social constructivist perspective. This allows for attention across text, reader, and context. The student is afforded support from many potential sources; “. .
., the potential result of participating in a social situation involving reading
and thinking about texts is that “each student can tap teacher and other classmates to assist them “construct not only an understanding of text ideas but also an understanding of what it means to read and think about
text.” (Kucan and Beck, 1997, Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/
docview/214115206?accountid=14872)
Classroom Constructivism Activities
Below is a sampling of a classroom activity which fosters learning in an active process of meaning, knowledge, exploration, creativity and not just passive activities or receivers of data from the teacher and text books. One challenge is to assure that the non-aggressive, shy and unassertive student becomes an active participant to reap the merits and benefits of constructivism activities. The activities represent “learning by helping students to evaluate and use what they already knew and to engage in extending or revising that understanding through collaborative problem solving”. (Kucan and Beck, 1997, p.285) Some activities are outlined:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
3
1.
Expert for a Day: Objectives
: Examine, dispute, analyze author’s words and word intention, collaboration, coordination, theme identification, evaluation and assessment of text (could sentences be re-arrange for better understanding and delivery: A student becomes the expert of the word, such as, farm. Other students contribute to the meanings, definitions, descriptive components, opposites/antonyms (words like city and urban). This activity allows each student to learn from each other they are allowed to debate the pro and con of each other’s contributions, so critical thinking skills are employed. I ask open-ended questions, so students explore beyond basic facts and can justify their statements, such as, are farms important, when plants and animals can be cultivated in a sterile environment? They constantly build on what it already known.
2.
The Mis-Match Game: Objectives
: Vocabulary; Writing development and skills; design and word architecture, creativity
: I work with each student with a set of words that are missed-matched, they must write a paragraph using the words. For instance: fish, build, grass, bulb. This allows the student to access what they already know and strengthen the focus of comprehension and writing; develop skills to analyze the world around them and apply what they know to the mis-match words; creates a plateau where all ideas can be considered, thus students feel safe even when thinking in the abstract; this
build confidence and enhances student creativity.
3.
Construction Captain Activity
: Objectives
: Vocabulary expansion, dictionary skills, comprehension at a deeper degree, engagement for critical thinking with self and others: Each lesson has a companion “Construction Captain” Activity”; each student is challenged to build words also known as compound words from our weekly lesson. A student constructs their own compound words; next students pair off into groups of three
4
or more to discuss their compound words—discuss means looking them up in the dictionary to find if they are
a word, their meaning, it’s usage as a pat of speech, such as both noun and adjective or verb only (parts of speech) so forth and so on. Finally, students construct a compound tree with the newly formed words bearing their name on the Construction Captain leaves of the Compound Tree. This exercise builds the art of brainstorming, cooperative work or team work, comprehension, working outside one’s comfort zone, but most importantly keeps individual-intellectual identity in place for each
student. In order for word construction to take place, the student must use recall to access the meaning of these words, once again building upon what is already known.
4.
Field Trip
: Objectives
: Observation skill development, visualization; Assess human connectivity to real world, creativity, engagement: writing; protection and sustainment of self-intellectual identity: Via a corporate grant, my class takes a monthly field trip based on the reading vocabulary words over the past 30 days; students write notes about their impressions of the people, the place and things; they record their personal experiences and observations in note form to later write a paragraph or two about the excursion; they are asked to discern how these words work and exist in the real world and make simple hypotheses. The field trip exercises are a constant layering or mixing of what is already familiar and known to the student with the new experiences found on the trip.
By now, you do realize that constructivism allows each student to become their own teacher, as they use what is already familiar and known to them to discover, be curious and creative about
what is unknown to them. When this occurs, learning has no bounds.
5
References
Davidson, K. (2010). The integration of cognitive and sociocultural theories of literacy development: Why? how? Alberta Journal of Educational Research
, 56(3), 246-256. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1545816224?accountid=14872
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction.
Review of Educational Research,
67
(3), 271-299. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/214115206?accountid=14872
McLaughlin, M. (2012). Comprehension: What every teacher needs to know. The Reading Teacher
, 66(7), 432-440. doi: :10.1002/TRTR.01064
Tracey, D. & Morrow, L. (2017). Lenses in reading: An introduction to theories and models.
New York, NY: The Guildford Press
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help