After reading the powerpoint summary of In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms I am gathering a deeper understanding of the theory of constructivism and what it looks like in a classroom setting. I was validated in the sense that there are many things I find myself doing in a "constructivist way" and many things that, with some fine tweaking, I know I could easily implement in my classroom. Since reading a variety of articles on constructivism I am more intentional about these implementations.
It is also reassuring that constructivism very easily connects to the Backwards Design approach, Marzano's quality instructional strategies and parts of my Action Research project. The most obvious connection is that of using essential questions and big ideas to "hook students" and allow for them to make personal connections to the concepts. The baseball analogy provided was a helpful example: instead of teaching students to repeat the rules of baseball, they should understand why you can run past first base but not second, etc. Another connection I noticed was the idea that student responses are what drive the lessons and shift strategies the teacher should use.
I feel that both of these connections are areas that I can be more intentional about and will help me to continue on the path to becoming a more constructivist classroom.
It's so easy to assume kids know what we want but they often times don't unless we say it outright (several times, right!) Being intentional with essential questions has really helped guide my instruction and inform the kids of what we are trying to learn. You are taking it one step further by making sure kids understand why it's important to know and understand the essential questions. I will be more mindful of that as well in my classroom.
ReplyDelete