Constructivist Learning Theory, Teaching and Learning
In this blog post, I will be discussing the use of constructivism, constructivist-based instructional strategies and educational technology tools in my junior high school classroom. I will discuss this in the following steps. First, what is the relationship between constructivism, constructionist learning theories, my current instructional strategies, and the educational technology tools used in my classroom? Second, how are constructivist-based instructional strategy and educational technology tools used in my classroom and what International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for educators and students are addressed by doing so? Finally, how will constructivist-based instructional strategy and the educational technology tools in my classroom be used with the Genius Hour plan I previously proposed in my classroom? By addressing these questions, I hope to cover this discussion in complete depth.
Constructivist learning theories focus on the active role of students in constructing their own understanding and knowledge through experiences and interactions. In constructivism, students build knowledge through exploration and reflection. Constructionism extends this idea by having learners create tangible artifacts that represent their understanding. My current instructional strategies that align with these theories include my use of inquiry-based learning opportunities, the use of collaborative learning through centers and project-based learning summative tasks. These instructional strategies foster critical analysis, problem-solving skills and active engagement within the classroom (Kang et al., 2007). These instructional strategies work by encouraging students to take ownership of their learning, engage deeply with the content and apply their knowledge through real-world contexts instead of simply memorizing facts (Kang et al., 2007).
Educational technology tools are crucial in supporting my current instructional strategies by providing the platforms and means to facilitate exploration, collaboration and creation. Online cloud-based collaboration tools such as Google Workspace for Education allow my students to work collaboratively in real-time using an anywhere-anytime model of cloud-based access. Digital simulation and coding tools such as Tynker, Scratch or Minecraft Education offer immersive environments where students can experiment, reiterate and build on ideas that demonstrate their understanding. These tools illustrate the benefits of constructivist and constructionist approaches by making learning more interactive, accessible, and engaging for students (Kang et al., 2007).
In my classroom, I employ Project Based Learning (PBL) summative tasks to engage students in meaningful real-world tasks that align with constructivist principles. In the past students have completed PBL tasks such as designing and building an emergency water filter system, an automatic fish feeder for the library fish tank, and a solar-powered BBQ to create an alternative to charcoal and gas versions. Projects such as these, address ISTE standards for students such as Empowered Learner (1a) and Innovative Designer (4a) by encouraging students to take an active role in their learning and apply this knowledge in the creation of real-world solutions (ISTE, n.d.). As a teacher, this approach supports the ISTE standards by enabling me to act as a Facilitator (2a) by guiding the students through the learning process and utilizing appropriate educational technology resources to enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving skills ((ISTE, n.d.). By doing so, I aim to create an engaging classroom that prepares students for successful post-secondary opportunities.
I plan to employ the use of the Genius Hour (GH) framework in my classroom using constructivist-based instructional strategies to support students in taking ownership of their learning while exploring topics of personal interest to them. This will help them to build upon their existing knowledge and experiences and ultimately use this in their student group PBL based on common interests and shared experiences (Pitler & Kuhn, 2012). During GH, students will select a topic to explore based on personal interests and then deep dive into the topic using an inquiry-based framework that aligns well with constructivism. Once they present their findings, students will form student groups for a PBL summative task based on shared GH interests. During the PBL, students will determine a real-world problem and work towards a resolution using educational technology tools within the classroom. By doing so, students actively construct knowledge through exploration and hands-on activities that solve real-world issues (Pitler & Kuhn, 2012). For example, students in a PBL concerned with helping classroom teachers with math scores could use Tynker or Code.org to design and develop apps or games related to specific numeracy needs in the school. One year, we had a student group complete a PBL related to programming Google Sheets to tally and analyze running records for language arts teachers. In the past, students have also used TikerCAD and 3D printers to design, create and test prototypes of their proposed solutions. Collaboration tools such as Google Meet have been used to support collaboration with student teams as well as act as a means of reaching out to industry-assigned mentors to student groups in the past based on projects. By using such resources, students can create innovative artifacts that demonstrate their understanding and reflect their shared interests. This makes the learning process more engaging and meaningful by supporting knowledge construction, critical thinking and problem-solving in a collaborative environment.
In my classroom, tools such as Tynker for coding projects, TinkerCAD for 3D design and Meta Quest 2 for virtual reality experiences have resulted in strong student engagement and a better understanding of lesson topics. When students work on such projects using educational tools, they become actively involved in their learning process which tends to shift classrooms from teacher-dominated to student-centered environments (Pitler & Kuhn, 2012). This active hands-on approach contrasts with traditional learning activities where students are often passive learners in the learning process itself. The constructivist approach supports a greater sense of ownership which facilitates critical and analytical thinking as well as collaboration which makes students better invested in the overall learning process (Pitler & Kuhn, 2012).
References
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (n.d.). ISTE standards: For educators. Retrieved December 20, 2024, from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (n.d.). ISTE standards: For students. Retrieved December 20, 2024, from https://iste.org/standards/students
Kang, I., Choi, J.-I., & Chang, K. (2007). Constructivist Research in Educational Technology: A Retrospective View and Future Prospects. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), pages. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ811074.pdf
Orey, M. (2010). Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology. (pp. 35-287). The Global Text Project. https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. (2nd ed.). ASCD.
This is a comprehensive blog post on amalgamating constructivist and constructionist learning theories with pedagogical approaches and technology tools in a junior high school. Starting, it delineates the
ReplyDeletecentral premises of constructivism and constructionism, underlining the active role of students in constructing their knowledge through exploration and reflection. (Daodu et al., 2024) The theoretical frameworks are well differentiated, with constructivism focused on knowledge acquisition through experience and constructionism, further developing that idea by emphasizing the
importance of creating tangible artifacts to represent understanding. (Daodu et al., 2024)
The author links these theoretical frameworks to pedagogical techniques, including inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning centers, and project-based learning (PBL). These methodologies promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and active participation by motivating students to assume responsibility for their educational process and utilize their knowledge in practical, real-world situations. Illustrative examples, such as the design of an emergency water filter or the development of a solar-powered barbecue, exemplify the congruence of these approaches with constructivist principles.
One of the most apparent benefits of the post is its examination of how educational technology tools enhance these pedagogical approaches. Tools like Google Workspace encourage synchronous, cloud-enabled collaboration, while platforms like Tynker, Scratch, and Minecraft Education provide immersive environments for exploration and creativity.
The tools chosen fit constructivist and constructionist goals well, making the learning process more engaging and interactive. Technology integration is also connected to the standards of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), which focuses on promoting empowered learners and innovative designers in students and places the teacher in a facilitator's role. (ISTE, n.d.)
Another prominent point revealed in the post is that of Genius Hour (GH). With an inquiry-based structure, facilitating student exploration around subjects that are personally relevant to the learners again shows the strong commitment toward learner agency and ownership. In contrast with GH's independent investigation, a common interest-based and collaborative project-based learning task flows consistently from the theoretical perspective of constructivism. Examples of past projects, such as programming Google Sheets to help teachers or creating prototypes with Tinker CAD and 3D printers, demonstrate how this approach could get students excited about solving real-world problems.
Another strong point is the alignment with the ISTE standards; however, it would be good if the post could elaborate further on how the author supports professional growth and collaboration standards for educators. Showing how student outcomes are measured in constructivist-based activities would also help to solidify the discussion by showing the alignment of learning with educational goals.
This blog post provides a strong foundation for understanding the links between constructivist learning theories, instructional methods, and educational technology. With more advanced treatment of theoretical constructs, illustrating effects, and critical assessment of hurdles, it can be a valuable resource for educators looking to adopt similar approaches in their teaching contexts.
References
Daodu, M. A., Elegbede, C. B., Adedotun, O. K., & Department of Guidance and Counselling. (2024). Effectiveness of Constructivism Theory of Learning as 21st century method of Teaching. In Journal of Advanced Psychology (Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 1–11). https://www.carijournals.org
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (n.d.). ISTE standards: For educators. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (n.d.). ISTE standards: For students. https://iste.org/standards/students
Thank you for your response to my blog posting. I appreciate the insightful response and comments you have made. I am pleased that you agree with my association of applied constructivist theory, Project Based Learning (PBL) activities and the Genius Hour (GH) framework with building an engaged classroom dedicated to scaffolding student learning. I agree with your suggestion to add additional empirical data related to student outcome assessments in this constructivist approach. Your feedback was timely, insightful, and relevant to my application of this learning theory to both the PBL and GH frameworks within my classroom.
Delete