Essential Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles
International Journal of Science Education, Volume 31, Issue 4 March 2009 , pages 541 - 550
Sandhya N. Baviskar; R. Todd Hartle; Tiffany Whitney
Constructivism is an important theory of learning that is used to guide the development of new teaching methods, particularly in science education. However, because it is a theory of learning and not of teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood. Here we describe the four essential features of constructivism: eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance, application of new knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning. We then use the criteria we developed to evaluate five representative published articles that claim to describe and test constructivist teaching methods. Of these five articles, we demonstrate that three do not adhere to the constructivist criteria, whereas two provide strong examples of how constructivism can be employed as a teaching method. We suggest that application of the four essential criteria will be a useful tool for all professional educators who plan to implement or evaluate constructivist teaching methods.
This article was previously posted when published online.
Showing posts with label constructivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constructivism. Show all posts
2009-04-19
2008-01-02
Davis - Mathematical Thinking and Learning 2007
Real-World Contexts, Multiple Representations, Student-Invented Terminology, and Y-Intercept
Mathematical Thinking and Learning
2007, Vol. 9, No. 4, Pages 387-418
Jon D. Davis
Department of Mathematics, Western Michigan University
One classroom using two units from a Standards-based curriculum was the focus of a study designed to examine the effects of real-world contexts, delays in the introduction of formal mathematics terminology, and multiple function representations on student understanding. Students developed their own terminology for y-intercept, which was tightly connected to the meaningfulness and implicit/explicit temporality of the contexts that students investigated as part of their classroom activities. This terminology held great promise for promoting the concept of y-intercept within a multiple representation environment. However, the teacher's interpretation of different activities and his assumptions about the transparency of different representations, as well as students' past experiences left the student-generated terminology and the concept of y-intercept disconnected from one another. This resulted in student-generated terminology that had limited applicability, a fragile understanding of y-intercept within different representations, and for some students, interference between their invented terminology and the concept of y-intercept itself.
doi:10.1080/10986060701533839
Mathematical Thinking and Learning
2007, Vol. 9, No. 4, Pages 387-418
Jon D. Davis
Department of Mathematics, Western Michigan University
One classroom using two units from a Standards-based curriculum was the focus of a study designed to examine the effects of real-world contexts, delays in the introduction of formal mathematics terminology, and multiple function representations on student understanding. Students developed their own terminology for y-intercept, which was tightly connected to the meaningfulness and implicit/explicit temporality of the contexts that students investigated as part of their classroom activities. This terminology held great promise for promoting the concept of y-intercept within a multiple representation environment. However, the teacher's interpretation of different activities and his assumptions about the transparency of different representations, as well as students' past experiences left the student-generated terminology and the concept of y-intercept disconnected from one another. This resulted in student-generated terminology that had limited applicability, a fragile understanding of y-intercept within different representations, and for some students, interference between their invented terminology and the concept of y-intercept itself.
doi:10.1080/10986060701533839
2007-12-18
Baviskar Hartle Whitney - IJSE 2007
Essential Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles
International Journal of Science Education
Sandhya N. Baviskar; R. Todd Hartle; Tiffany Whitney
Idaho State University, USA
First Published on: 18 December 2007
Constructivism is an important theory of learning that is used to guide the development of new teaching methods, particularly in science education. However, because it is a theory of learning and not of teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood. Here we describe the four essential features of constructivism: eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance, application of new knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning. We then use the criteria we developed to evaluate five representative published articles that claim to describe and test constructivist teaching methods. Of these five articles, we demonstrate that three do not adhere to the constructivist criteria, whereas two provide strong examples of how constructivism can be employed as a teaching method. We suggest that application of the four essential criteria will be a useful tool for all professional educators who plan to implement or evaluate constructivist teaching methods.
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701731121
International Journal of Science Education
Sandhya N. Baviskar; R. Todd Hartle; Tiffany Whitney
Idaho State University, USA
First Published on: 18 December 2007
Constructivism is an important theory of learning that is used to guide the development of new teaching methods, particularly in science education. However, because it is a theory of learning and not of teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood. Here we describe the four essential features of constructivism: eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance, application of new knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning. We then use the criteria we developed to evaluate five representative published articles that claim to describe and test constructivist teaching methods. Of these five articles, we demonstrate that three do not adhere to the constructivist criteria, whereas two provide strong examples of how constructivism can be employed as a teaching method. We suggest that application of the four essential criteria will be a useful tool for all professional educators who plan to implement or evaluate constructivist teaching methods.
DOI: 10.1080/09500690701731121
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)