Category Archives: Constructivism

Constructionism and Epistemology

Book Club, Collaboration, Constructivism, Written by: Angie Kalthoff, Written by: Judi Fusco

By Judi Fusco and Angie Kalthoff

Book Club Advert

In our book club, a question came up that is important. Where’s the epistemology in constructionism? Constructing something doesn’t seem like epistemology. Is it? If you’re not in the book club, that’s okay, keep reading as we’re talking about the question that was asked and not the book.

First, great question — we should really think about it! Before we answer that question, let’s make sure we’re all in agreement of what epistemology is. It’s a tough word. There are many papers that spend a long time struggling with how to define it. Since this is a blog and not a class discussion where we can write on a whiteboard (physical or virtual) and really go back and forth, here’s a simple definition with elements that we think are good for starting this discussion. (Feel free to let us know if you think something should be added to it.)

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, including how it is obtained, how it develops and changes, what it is, and how the knowledge is verified or justified

Whew, that’s a lot. It’s all about knowledge. What do you think?

The original question was about how does epistemology relate to constructionism? As constructionism starts with creating or building something, where’s the epistemology? In a creative act of building or making something, a person has to get the knowledge that is in their head into an artifact. Because of this, the creation of an artifact is an epistemological act. The creator demonstrates their understanding (knowledge) in the artifact. They also may be verifying it or justifying their knowledge. (Again, feel free to disagree or think with us here.)

For example, when making a Scratch Program, the creator may work for a long time on making sure that the size of a character (sprite) is correct, or that two characters have a certain size relationship between them, or that the program moves the character to the right place on the screen. The creator may plan before they create their artifact or act as a bricoleur.

bricoleur — a person figuring it out as they are doing it with “whatever” materials are there

Both approaches, planning and bricolage, are ways to create. Students approach Scratch programs in both of these ways. In both approaches, the creator may try and fail multiple times. There’s a lot to be learned when you try and fail. When you fail, but you want to succeed, you try something different. If you really like something you’ll keep trying and building up more knowledge about what works and what doesn’t. (Constructionism talks about the work being personally relevant, if it’s personally relevant, you probably like what you are doing and are invested in the act of improving it.) The process of trying and failing as you create is an epistemological act. If you try multiple times it continues to be an epistemological act. (We’ll discuss failing in a future post as it’s also a huge important topic!)

As your students begin to work through issues, think about how you can be supportive in this process of trying and failing. How can you create a culture that values failure in your classroom? When working with students who have questions about “the right answer,” one way is to help them to think in another way about the issue. At first, this is met with frustration from students. All they want to know, in that moment, is if their work is “right.”

Learning to work in this new way can be very challenging for both students and teachers. It’s hard not to give the “right answer.” If something is open-ended and doesn’t have one answer, for example when designing things, it can be easier to work in this new way because you can think through trade-offs with students. But it can still be hard not to point students in one direction when they are asking. It can also be hard to let students “fail.” Going back to the relationship with epistemology, students and teachers have a lot of experience in instructionist-style classrooms where teachers give the answer; moving to a constructionist style classroom takes time and practice. One of the things you have to learn to do is to hold back on giving the right answer. It can feel like you’re not doing your job, but you absolutely are. You will still guide, you will ask questions, but you won’t just tell them the answer.

After Creating the Artifact
After we have the object, another part of the process of constructionism occurs. People interact around the object. Last week, Judi wrote: A lot of people talk about constructionism as learning by doing, and it absolutely is, but while we create, we should also discuss, iterate, and learn (create new knowledge structures, or modify old ones in our heads). Setting up conditions so students can “make sense” and learn is so very important in constructionism.

To me (Judi), this part of constructionism is equally important as the creation part. It’s also an epistemological act. If you create, you will absolutely learn, but if you take time to hear what another person thinks about the object, what they think you got right and what you need to work on, that’s really magical. It can be really hard to get the conditions right where people will work together and give real, honest, informative feedback on something. This part of the process really requires that people trust each other, get into a shared intellectual space, and then think together.

How do we put constructionism into practice?
Reading more about constructionism gives me ideas about how to get this to happen in a classroom. Of course, there’s not just one thing I can point to say “this” is how you do it. It takes time to develop this in your classroom. The first time you try, it might not be so good. I always encourage people to start small, but with something meaningful and to keep reflecting on what is working or not. Don’t try and change your practice overnight. One important thing to remember as you try promote constructionist interactions and use this powerful learning method in your classroom, you need to trust your students and they need to trust you and their classmates. Constructionism came out of constructructivism; remember we are trying to get learners to construct their knowledge and understanding in the head and in the real world. Knowledge is complex, is constructed by the learner, and learning happens gradually. (One more thought about shared intellectual space, take a look at another recent blog post for more information about what that means; a shared mental space is so important in learning.)

More on Epistemology
Angie adds: I remember reading Mindstorms by Seymour Papert and first coming across the word epistemology. I was making notes and highlights and then I encountered the word epistemology. I dug deeper into this word and went online to see what else I could find. I hadn’t yet heard of this word and was trying to find meaning in the work I was doing as a Technology Integrationist. This was it! This was what I was trying to capture. Yes, I could see how technology, when used as a learning and creation tool, can really transform learning for students. But I was seeking the why. I knew there was more going on behind the scenes than just adding equipment. In fact, just adding technology doesn’t necessarily change the way learning occurs. The thought of epistemology, as a way that changes how we acquire knowledge, started me down the journey of computational thinking and coding in classrooms, as early as kindergarten. And here I am now, digging into as many things as I can find to help and share what is happening beyond using a tool.

Constructionism really is a way we can help students engage in meaning-making processes for themselves. The more we can help them do this, the more they learn. Epistemologically speaking, we’re not giving students “knowledge,” they are constructing it in in the world as objects to share with others and in their heads with the help of those artifacts, classmates, their teachers, parents, and others. We hope this helped with the question; we’d love to hear from you as discussion is so important in learning! As we listen to the book club entries, we’ll try to capture tips and suggestions and make another post about constructionism in the near future. If you have a question, or anything you think we should include or discuss, tweet #CIRCLEdu.

Constructionism (and Constructivism)

Book Club, Computational Thinking, Constructivism, Written by: Judi Fusco

by Judi Fusco

This post was written during our book club and discusses some concepts that were not covered in the book but are important as we think about constructionism.

We’re going to discuss constructionism and also think about constructivism; they are similar words and Papert’s constructionism grew out of Piaget’s constructivism. Note, we’ll talk more about Piaget’s constructivism (and Vygotsky’s social constructivism) in another post soon.

Our book club book, Coding as a Playground, discussed how Papert didn’t want to define constructionism rigidly. Marina Bers gives us some of the dimensions he discussed and some help thinking about it.

On page 21, she writes:

Seymour Papert refused to give a definition of constructionism. In 1991, he wrote, “It would be particularly oxymoronic to convey the idea of constructionism through a definition since, after all, constructionism boils down to demanding that everything be understood by being constructed” (Paper, 1991). Respecting his wish, in my past writings I have always avoided providing a definition; however, I have presented four basic principles of constructionism that have served childhood education well (Bers, 2008):

  • Learning by designing personally meaningful projects to share in the community;
  • Using concrete objects to build and explore the world;
  • Identifying powerful ideas from the domain of study;
  • Engaging in self-reflection as part of the learning process.

Bers goes on to discuss how constructionism is in line with ideas about how important “learning by doing” is for young learners. In another paper, Karen Brennan (2015) also discusses how important it is to let learners to design, personalize, share, and reflect during the constructionist process.You can see those ideas in the principles Bers discussed.

Karen Brennan also writes “Constructionism is grounded in the belief that the most effective learning experiences grow out of the active construction of all types of things, particularly things that are personally or socially meaningful (Bruckman, 2006; Papert. 1980), that are developed through interactions with others as audience, collaborators, and coaches (Papert, 1980; Rogoff, 1994), and that support thinking about one’s own thinking (Kolodner et al., 2003; Papert, 1980).”



Papert’s Paper Airplane: construction(ism) plus sharing the creation to discuss it with others, to think about what’s important and not important, and then working alone or with others to make the creation better.

I’m going to digress a little from thinking about elements of constructionism and give a little background on constructionism and constructivism. Papert was the father of constructionism and he worked with Jean Piaget, the genetic epistemologist who developed theories of constructivism to help us understand how young children acquire knowledge (background: genetic epistemologist, genetic = genesis or beginning; epistemology = study of knowledge). Bers tells us how constructionism is a play on and tribute to constructivism. Constructivism and constructionism are two terms that have caused much confusion in many folks. A few years back, my graduate students and I came up with a mnemonic to help them remember who developed the different ideas, and what constructionism and constructivism mean.

The mnemonic: Papert, his last name looks like “paper” with a t and you can construct a paper airplane because you like to make them, which makes it personally meaningful. Key here is you don’t constructivize them, you construct them.

When you’ve made your paper airplane you can show it and demonstrate how it flies to your friends and they can give you feedback on the design of the airplane. As you talk about it, you might discuss something that improves it, and then you can refine it. This whole process, making, discussing, and learning from it is constructionism. You learn because you make something, share it, discuss it, reflect on it, and continue to improve it. (You might have to use another sheet of paper for another paper airplane, though.)


This is in contrast to Piaget’s constructivism, which is all about what is happening in the mind: If you put an m (for mind) on top of a v (for constructivism) you can see how much we love constructivism.

Piaget’s constructivism is a theory about what happens in the mind as you actively create structures in the mind. Here’s the mnemonic: if you put an m (for mind) on top of a v (for constructivism) you can see how much we love constructivism. (Work with us here, it’s a mnemonic — also, there’s a v in love, too.)  (See picture.)

Piaget’s constructivism is all about what is happening in the mind, whereas constructionism discusses the process that brings learners together to think about something tangible and specific. Of course, when we have learners work together, create, and build, we also hope they add new things to their minds (constructivism); the two should absolutely go together. (And it gets fuzzy here! Where does constructionism end and constructivism begin?) A lot of people talk about constructionism as learning by doing, and it absolutely is, but while we create, we should also discuss, iterate, and learn (create new knowledge structures, or modify old ones in our heads). I constructed this blog post to help us have something to talk about. Please join me and discuss so we can learn more together.

The perfect place to discuss is in our Book Club on Coding as a Playground, talk to about this post or even better, we’d love for you to share your real life examples of constructionism in classrooms as you work with students to help them learn to code or to think computationally. I’d love to know how you think about these terms and how you get your learners to design, personalize, share, and reflect on important parts of the work they are doing for their learning in your classroom! Tweet #CIRCLEdu or come share in the Book Club!

Resources

If you’d like to know more about Constructivism and Constructionism see:

http://fablearn.stanford.edu/fellows/blog/science-teacher’s-take-constructivism-constructionism

http://fablearn.stanford.edu/fellows/blog/constructivist-science

http://fablearn.stanford.edu/fellows/blog/constructionism-learning-theory-and-model-maker-education

Reference: Brennan, K. (2015). Beyond Technocentrism. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3).

The Benefits and Obstacles of Constructivism

Constructivism, Mathematics, Science, Written by: Sarah Hampton

Picture

By Sarah Hampton

Sarah Hampton teaches middle school math and science at Sullins Academy in Southwest Virginia.  She has ten years of teaching experience in various disciplines and settings.

Over the last sixty years, thousands of articles have looked at whether or not constructivism works.  I wanted to understand the research, but it was overwhelming.  However, thanks to advances in technology and fancy statistics, researchers can analyze aggregate data on the subject.  After reading multiple articles and three meta-analyses (an analysis that aggregates data and allows you to look across many studies) specifically regarding science education and constructivism, two things became apparent.  First, it is extremely difficult to show an impact of instructional strategies on student learning outcomes!  Out of 1500 studies in one analysis, only six of the studies met the criteria that allow causal inferences to be made (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2009, p. 27).  Second, despite that difficulty, the evidence favors constructivism.  The conclusions from all three meta-analyses demonstrated statistically significant positive effects of constructivist practices on student learning.  So, if we know constructivism is good for our students, then why do we not see more of it in action?  To hit a little closer to home, if I know these are good practices, then why am I not doing more of them?  I think there are some legitimate obstacles.  Here are my top three:

Obstacle 1:  The time it takes to find or create relevant, quality tasks
The number of daily teaching requirements and professional demands apart from planning are enough to fill our workday!  Planning inquiry instruction is extremely time-consuming because you have to sort through all of the activities that aren’t that great or don’t apply to your subject or grade level. Half the time I end up creating my own from scratch, which is also a time drain. In contrast, planning for direct instruction is a snap. Decide what you want to cover and write down the topic in your lesson plans.  Done.  As a result, to save time, we often revert to direct instruction (otherwise we cut into our family time to plan).

Proposed Solution A:  Find a resource that produces quality learner-centered, constructivist materials and start there.  For math, I use http://www.mathalicious.com/ and https://illuminations.nctm.org/.  Both allow you to filter by topic and grade level, which saves additional time.  For science, I like http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/.  

Proposed Solution B:  Try to view the time spent on finding quality materials as a necessary startup cost.  If you like them, then you can recycle them year to year.  In addition, Berland, Baker, and Blikstein argued that constructivism can actually save time when fully implemented by enhancing “classroom dynamics that may streamline class preparation (e.g., peer teaching or peer feedback)” (Berland, Baker, & Blikstein, 2014).

Obstacle 2:  The instructional time it requires to implement meaningful tasks
I don’t know about you, but I start my year feeling behind!  There just doesn’t seem to be enough time for my students to deeply comprehend the required algebra or physical science concepts as dictated by state and national standards within the given time frame.  When we allow the pressure of the standards and test to dictate our instructional practices, we begin to look for the fastest possible way to disseminate information, and direct instruction is efficient—we just tell them what it is we want them to know.  However, efficient is only efficient if it is also genuinely effective.  

Proposed Solution:  Try to see beyond the standards and the test.  D.F. Halpern expressed concern about our preoccupation with these and said, “We only care about student performance in school because we believe that it predicts what students will remember and do when they are somewhere else at some other time.  Yet we often teach and test as though the underlying rationale for education were to improve student performance in school.  As a consequence, we rarely assess student learning in the context or at the time for which we are teaching” (Halpern & Hakel, 2003, p. 38).  

I am not a teacher because I want my students to pass a test.  I am a teacher because I want my students to excel in life.  Constructivist practices require students to think critically and creatively, innovatively problem solve, collaborate, and communicate—therefore preparing students for the test and beyond.  As Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007) argued, “This evidence suggests that these approaches can foster deep and meaningful learning as well as significant gains in student achievement on standardized tests” (p. 99).  I suspect the greatest benefits of constructivism are immeasurable and consequently undocumented and marginalized.  I would love to know the impact on long-term retention, higher order thinking, lifelong learning, and employer satisfaction.  

Obstacle 3:  The difficulty of meshing inquiry and explicit instruction
I want my students to do the work of the learning, so it doesn’t seem like inquiry if I’m leading the discussion. But sometimes whole group instruction makes the most sense for the instructional goal.

Proposed Solution:  Adjust your understanding: constructivism does not preclude explicit instruction.  You are probably engaged in more constructivism during whole group instruction than you think.  Simple strategies like accountable talk and purposeful questioning lead to minds-on learning even when students aren’t engaged in hands-on learning (Goldman, 2014).   Constructivism is often equated with minimally guided instruction, but they are not synonymous.  In fact, “most proponents of IL (inquiry learning, a type of constructivism) are in favor of structured guidance in an environment that affords choice, hands-on and minds-on experiences, and rich student collaborations” (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007, p. 104, emphasis added).  

The goal of constructivism is for our students to actively construct meaning for new information rather than passively accepting our word for it.  Since we can create opportunities for our students to do this in multiple ways, we should focus on the culture of constructivism rather than the day to day teaching methods we use to maintain that culture.

In conclusion, constructivism isn’t easy, but it is necessary to help students learn.  It’s worth finding a way to overcome the obstacles.  If you are interested in reading more about why, then please see below for a complete list of the works I cited and consulted.  Don’t forget to leave your own comments – I would love to hear your obstacles and solutions, too!

Citations and Further Reading 

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. & Tenenbaum H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?  Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.  
Available at: http://www.cideronline.org/podcasts/pdf/1.pdf

Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics:
Applications to constructionist research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2),
205-220.
Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41c0/0af6ce63b919530ea691d058e8725d33d901.pdf

Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2009).  Recent experimental studies of
inquiry-based teaching: a meta-analysis and review, European Association for
Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, Netherlands, August 25-29, 2009.
Available at: http://spot.colorado.edu/~furtake/Furtak_et_al_EARLI2009_Meta-Analysis.pdf

Goldman, P.  (2014, January 22). #2. What is Accountable Talk®?  Institute for Learning
Podcast.
Available at: http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/educator_resources/accountable_talk/podcasts/2

Halpern, D. F. & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and
beyond: teaching for long-term retention and transfer.  Change, July/August 2003,
36-41. Available at: http://www.chabotcollege.edu/planning/outcome-assessment/index.php

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007).  Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning:  a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006).  Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Available at:
http://www.sfu.ca/~jcnesbit/EDUC220/ThinkPaper/HmeloSilverDuncan2007.pdf

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.  Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.  
Available at: http://cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

Lang, Albert. (2010).  Executives Say the 21st Century Requires More Skilled Workers.  
Available at:
http://www.p21.org/news-events/press-releases/923-executives-say-the-21st-century-req
uires-more-skilled-workers

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J.  (2010).  Inquiry-based science instruction – what is it
and does it matter?  Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
Available at:
https://www.ntnu.no/wiki/download/attachments/8324914/JRST-Inquiry-based+science+instruction+-+what+is+it+and+does+it+matter-+Results+from+a+research+synthesis+years+1984+to+2002.pdf

Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007).  A meta-analysis of
national research:  Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science
in the United States.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.  
Available at: http://cudc.uqam.ca/publication/ref/12context.pdf

Shah, I. & Rahat, T. (2014). Effect of activity based teaching method in science.  International
Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences, 2(1), 39-41.  Retrieved from
http://www.isaet.org/images/extraimages/K314003.pdf

Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science
achievement.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101-109.
Available at: https://vista.gmu.edu/assets/docs/vista/JournalOfResearch.pdf

Windschitl, M. (1999).  The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture.  Phi
Delta Kappan, 80(10), 751-756.
Available at: http://www-tc.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/inst335/docs/inst335_windschitl.pdf?cc=tlredir

Active Learning Day, 2016

Constructivism, Mathematics, Science, STEM, Written by: Judi Fusco
By Judi Fusco 

Active Learning Day is Today, October 25!  What are you doing for it? What will active learning look like in your classroom? In active learning, students work on meaningful problems and activities to help them construct their learning. This includes inquiry activities, discussion and argumentation, making, solving problems, design, and questions.

Last month, we had the pleasure of helping organize the Active Learning in STEM Education Symposium, sponsored by NSF as part of the activities honoring the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching awardees. The keynote speaker, Bill Penuel, focused on “talk” — particularly “accountable talk” — as an important activity to support Active Learning. 

If you want to know more about accountable talk, take a look at the Talk Science Primer by TERC. There are many great tips for teachers of all subjects in there. For Math Classrooms, here’s a link discussing Creating Math Talk Communities. For general information about it see ASCD’s Procedures for Classroom Talk.  
​
In the Active Learning in STEM Education Symposium, one of the presenters, Joe Krajcik, discussed Interactions, a curriculum aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to make science an active endeavor in a classroom.  (Visit the Interactions project page and click on the curriculum tab to learn more.) Language and talk are essential in NGSS. You may want to check out the videos on the NSTA site where you can see what NGSS looks like in action. You can also see what NGSS looks like in a 4th grade Science Classroom; this video was shown in the Active Learning Day in STEM symposium by Okhee Lee as she discussed NGSS for all Students including English Learners.  

Other presentations at the symposium included Jennifer Knudsen on Bridging Professional Development and the idea of using Improv in a Math class, Eric Hamilton on collaborating with a cyber-ensemble of tools, Tamara Moore on using mathematical modeling to engage learners in meaningful problem solving skills, David Webb on AgentCubes as active learning, and Nichole Pinkard on Digital Youth Divas and making eCards to learn about circuitry.  (See links to the presentations of all the speakers on the site. ) 
Active Learning Day is officially today, but there’s no reason why you can’t do more in your classroom at any time.  Leave a comment and tell us about what active learning looks like in your classroom!

Practitioner POV of Constructivist Approaches

Constructivism, Mathematics, Written by: Pati Ruiz

Picture

By Pati Ruiz

Pati Ruiz is a doctoral student in Learning Technologies at Pepperdine University. She has worked as a teacher (Spanish and Computer Science), Director of Learning Technology, and is the incoming Dean of Studies at Convent of the Sacred Heart in New York City.

​
As a teacher studying the learning sciences in graduate school, I understood  constructivist practices in theory, but I often wondered what constructivism looked like in action. Taking a constructivist perspective, Windschitl (2002) describes learning as an act of both individual interpretation and negotiation with others, where knowledge is the collection of what is constructed individually and collectively. In classrooms, a constructivist or open approach should support learners in actively constructing their own knowledge, but what does that really look like? How much time does it take? What are the challenges?

I spoke with some teachers to learn more about how they support an open approach to learning in their classrooms. This post will focus on the strategies of a middle and high school math teacher I interviewed. Future posts will focus on the work of high school Spanish and English teachers.

Math Classroom Example: Christine Trying a New Curriculum
Christine DeHaven is in her fifth year teaching middle and high school math. In her Honors Algebra 1 class at Pacific Ridge School, she always taught in a very guided or instructivist approach. For example, if the topic was lines, she would first lecture about lines, then work out one example in front of the class, and then students would do some problems on their own in class. For homework, students would complete more problems that progressed in difficulty. The class would then move on to the next topic. Christine noticed that students were just memorizing steps instead of problem solving, so she decided she needed to change her teaching approach.

Christine had learned about a new curriculum that allowed the students to learn through conferences and visits to other schools, including The Bishop’s School, Deerfield Academy, and Phillips Exeter Academy (where the curriculum was developed). Christine and a colleague decided to swap their traditional direct-instruction approach for a problem-based approach. Christine had seen the new curriculum in action, and felt that it could work at her school, too. Still, she modified the curriculum slightly for her students. Sometimes the transition to a new approach needs to be done gently. Here is what Christine’s curriculum looks like now.

First, students are assigned 8-10 homework problems per night. The goal for students is that they attempt all of the problems before class. When they arrive to class the next day, students pick a problem to solve on the board. Multiple students may put up the same problem, and everyone contributes at least one problem. After all of the problems are on the board, groups of students go to the board to present one problem at a time. If there are multiple solutions to the same problem, Christine leads a discussion about which solution is more efficient. With this new method, Christine finds that her students have more ownership of what they are learning. They apply problem solving skills to the homework and construct their own understandings through their solutions and conversations about their solutions. When they present their work and discuss the various solutions, students gain a better understanding of the concepts because they have to make a case for or against a certain way of solving a problem. Christine also encourages students’ use of graphing as a method to solve the homework problems. Students use tools like the Desmos Graphing Calculator to see a visual representation of the problem. In this way, Christine guides students to look at problems in three different ways: numerically, algebraically, and visually.

Parent education and administrator support has played an important role in the ease of adopting her new curriculum. While Christine initially received some negative feedback about her approach from parents, she felt well supported by her school administrators who are able to point concerned parents towards research and articles about the success of this approach. Open house became an opportunity for Christine to educate concerned parents–she even encouraged them to work with their children to solve the daily homework problems. Christine still attempts to engage parents by encouraging them to follow along on the course website. Many do, and often share stories of working on problems with their children. While parents were initially skeptical, many now tell Christine how much they appreciate the new approach and they have fun helping their children with their math homework. In the beginning, Christine also got negative feedback from students. But – for the most part – they have come around now that they have more practice with the approach. Something else that has helped students adjust is that the homework problems they are solving are very realistic; students can relate to them. For example, one problem, which aims to help students understand how dangerous glancing at a phone is when driving, asks students to compute how far they would drive down the highway in the time it took them to read or respond to a text message. Many of Christine’s students are learning to drive or have friends who are, so problems like these are relevant and engaging to them. (Please don’t text and drive!)

Though challenging, Christine persisted in adopting the open curriculum because she felt that it was the best approach for her students. She thinks that students have a better understanding of the concepts they have covered. For example, they understand how to factor a polynomial and aren’t just guessing and checking. She reports they are able to prove why the square root of 2 is irrational. They also have a better sense of how a graph relates to algebra, and they persist in solving problems. When solving homework problems, students don’t always know the math theories or strategies they are using, but they are developing algorithms and figuring out problems as they go. These are essential skills for mathematics. Additionally, when students don’t solve a problem the first time, they are willing to try again and again. In this way, they are developing a growth mindset and starting to see the payoffs.

This approach has been more time consuming for Christine. It’s the first time she’s seen many of these problems on the homework, so she needs to solve them all in multiple ways before going to class. She needs to think like her students and try to anticipate the problems they’ll have and the misconceptions they might bring to a problem. This means she really needs to know the content she’s teaching. It’s more prep time before class, especially in the first year, but this way she knows how to guide discussions and ask the right questions. Christine uses her expertise to help students gain a deeper understanding and make connections to content they have seen before. She’s not lecturing as much anymore, but she remains the content area expert.

This idea leads to something that might be a struggle for some. It is described by Harland (2003) like this:
“When students arrived at a position where they could function well together and drive the enquiry forward, they seldom asked for help, and the teaching team no longer had their old roles and familiar student contact. Paradoxically, we felt some sense of loss at this stage and concluded that a lot of pleasure in teaching had gone…”

For Christine, though, she simply sees her role as a teacher changing. She is now more of a facilitator who ensures that students hit certain key points. She guides students in thinking more deeply by helping them ask questions instead of giving them answers. Her connection with students is now stronger, in her opinion. Preparing for class is more involved and time-consuming and her role in the classroom is smaller. But for Christine, that’s okay. What excites her about teaching is helping students discover the math that she loves, and she’s doing that.

If you’re interested in learning more about open approaches to Mathematics education, Christine recommended the Exeter Mathematics Institute and the Mathematics Visionary Project. We would love to hear what you think and the questions you might have for Christine or other teachers.

Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problem-based learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in higher education, 8(2), 263-272.

Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of educational research, 72(2), 131-175.

Perspective on learning from an administrator

Constructivism, School Administrators, Student-driven Learning, Written by: Judi Fusco
By Judi Fusco

Today, for something completely different, I include snippets from conversations with Katie Hong, an administrator in a large school district in a school-wide Title 1 middle school. Katie is also a doctoral student pursuing her Ed.D. in the Pepperdine EDLT program.  

One of the first things Katie told me was how Keith Sawyer got it right when he said, “Many teachers spend their entire careers mastering the skills required to manage an instructionist classroom, and they understandably have trouble envisioning a different kind of school” (Sawyer, 2014 p. 3). Teachers are told to implement Common Core Standards with student-driven learning, emphasizing collaboration, but they have not been equipped to implement or facilitate constructivist methods in their classroom. Another issue compounding the problem is administrators. Administrators often evaluate teachers based on the instructionist view. As they evaluate, they convey to the teacher how they want to see traditional classroom practices. When Katie was a young teacher, she did student-driven, collaborative lessons; she had one on Mesopotamia where the students were working together exploring the role of irrigation and how it impacted the growth of civilization. Her principal walked in to evaluate her and was a little miffed because the class wasn’t quiet. He told her he’d come back when she was “teaching,” as he couldn’t do an evaluation on her with her students so off-task.  

Administrators have huge power over teachers, and teachers often continue to focus on the traditional classroom practices because they want to please their administrator, receive an effective evaluation, and be viewed as an effective teacher by their colleagues. Administrators aren’t completely to blame. as there aren’t good evaluation instruments or tools to help them evaluate constructivist methods or classes doing cooperative learning. Also, many administrators lack sufficient knowledge about student-driven methods and collaboration.

As Katie and I have continued talking, she has made many observations that have stayed with me. She spoke about how an ideal teacher evaluation should involve much more time than it’s given. Often there’s only time for one classroom visit with a pre- and post- meeting, but it would be better to have visits on a continuous basis throughout the year. She told me that she, as an administrator, would like to observe teachers facilitating student-driven lessons, but teachers often don’t use student-driven lessons on days she’s evaluating them unless she specifically asks them to in their pre-meeting. She also wishes she could have tools to help her understand what is happening more quickly when she walks into a classroom where students are collaborating. When there are a lot of groups, it can be hard to understand and evaluate what is occurring. And the forms she has to use for evaluation often involve a lot of answering of questions that may not capture the most important details. For her own research, she’s interested in thinking about how to help administrators evaluate a constructivist classroom effectively. She said, “I want to see the interaction with the students and teacher and how the teacher facilitates–that would be my ideal observation. I learn so much more when I talk to the students. I want to see if they can synthesize material and apply it. I know the teacher knows the material. I don’t need to see them lecture. I want to observe what the students have learned and understand.”

Thanks for the important perspective, Katie. We’ll have more of your thoughts on student-driven learning in another post, soon. Administrators and teachers, what are your thoughts about teacher evaluations and student-driven learning? What do you need to be successful? If you teach teachers, do you talk with them about the topics covered in this blog post? Cyberlearning researchers, can we help Katie with some new tools for evaluation of student-driven collaboration?  

Sawyer, R.K. (2014) Introduction: The new science of learning. In: Sawyer R. K. (ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, New York: 1-18.

​

Learning Scientists and Classroom Practice

Constructivism, Mathematics, Written by: Judi Fusco
​By Judi Fusco

As I promised in the previous post, here’s a look at Tesha Sengupta-Irving and Noel Enyedy’s 2015 article. In this post, I want to take a closer look at one study that shows the kind of work learning scientists do in classrooms with teachers. 

Some teachers (and principals, parents, and others) question whether student-driven (open) pedagogies work for students; they worry if students are on their own, they might waste valuable instructional minutes, especially in math classes. However, by exploring data, discussing and debating, and constructing their own understanding, students in an student-driven, open instructional approach achieve the instructional goals of the course as well as students in a teacher-led (guided or instructivist) approach. In addition, and importantly, students seem to enjoy learning mathematics more when taught with an open or constructivist approach versus a guided approach. In their article, Sengupta-Irving and Enyedy (2015) discuss how important enjoyment is in learning, and why and how a student-driven instructional approach helps them learn.

In the study, students’ test performance was the same for both the teacher-led and student-driven approaches. So why don’t we just stick with teacher-led techniques? Why do we want to switch to more student-driven approaches? Sengupta-Irving and Enyedy, and many other learning scientists, don’t think it’s enough to create mathematically proficient students without helping them develop an interest (or even love) for the subject that the student-driven approach helps create. Learning without enjoyment seems like a lost opportunity that may prevent students from doing well in the future. The authors think if students learn and enjoy subjects, those students might want to go further in the subject and take more classes.  

Using Learning Science as the Foundation to Build Practical Classroom Practices
So what did the students in the student-driven condition do while learning? On their own, the students started with a discussion to explore the data, tried to understand the problem, and debated the approach or solution with peers. They also experimented and during their discussion “invented” an understanding, in this case, of statistics. They (hopefully) invent what the teacher would have told them during a lecture. While it may seem inefficient to let students invent, because, after all, we could just tell them what they need to know, but the discussion and inventing engages them, helps them enjoy the subject, and strengthens their learning.

After they have gained some understanding on their own in their discussion, the teacher has a discussion with the students and helps them learn formal terms. Exploring first contrasts to what students do in the the instructivist or guided condition where the teacher tells them the formal terms, a great deal of information about the problem, what the important concepts are, and the approaches they should take in solving the problem. In the guided condition, students are not given an opportunity to explore informally.

For a long time, learning scientists have known that “telling” students after they have the opportunity to explore and develop their own understanding is more effective than telling them before they have had that opportunity (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998). Sengupta-Irving and Enyedy employ this learning science principle and find that students do well and seem to enjoy the lesson more. 

One other issue that is sometimes discussed about student-driven approaches is whether students are off-task when on their own. It is true, student-driven classrooms are usually noisier than instructivist ones, but that’s because there is learning occurring—in my experience, I have found that learning is a slightly noisy phenomenon. The researchers looked at off-task behavior in the two instructional approaches in the study and there wasn’t a difference. They found more instances of off-task behavior in the teacher-led condition than in the student-driven condition and approximately the same number of minutes of off-task behaviors in the two conditions. I think it’s important to note that the teacher in this research reported that she was more comfortable with the teacher-led approach. Because of that, the teacher may not have used an open approach very often, and her students may not have been as familiar with an open approach–yet there was no extra off-task behavior. To alleviate concerns that student-driven approaches require more time to work, both instructional approaches used the same amount of time for the lesson.

I want to go back to the issue of enjoyment. If, after a lesson, students don’t want to think about it any more—because it’s boring, one of the terms the students in the teacher-led condition used to describe the lesson—then we probably have not done the best we can for the students. Sure, if we tell students about something, we’ve gotten through the lesson and are able to cross that topic off the list. But shouldn’t learning be something more than just an item on a checklist? What if learning was enjoyable and students left wanting more? Learn the same amount, in the same amount of time, with very little off-task behavior, and enjoy it = win-win-win-win. And, add the bonus that enjoyment can potentially help students in their future work and motivate them to continue their studies. I’d make time for that in my classroom.

I’d love to know what you think about the article and their findings. In future posts, we’ll talk about how to o student-driven approaches and hear from teachers who have some good tips. I’d also love to hear how you teach and what you’ve seen or experienced in your classroom. Below you can read more details of the study.

Sengupta-Irving, T., & Enyedy, N. (2015). Why engaging in mathematical practices may explain stronger outcomes in affect and engagement: Comparing student-driven with highly guided inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(4), 550-592, DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2014.928214.

Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and instruction, 16(4), 475-5223.

​

Details of the study
In the study, one 5th grade classroom teacher taught two sets of students the same mathematics topic, for the same amount of time, using two different approaches: open (student-driven; 27 students) and guided  (instructivist; 25 students). The teacher was more comfortable with the guided approach, but had learned how to facilitate the open method and taught one class of students that way. The data collected included written assessments of the student’s work (a test), a survey inquiring about the students’ affect during the lessons, and video of the 5 hours of class time devoted to the topic for each instructional approach. The researchers report three main findings based on the analysis of this data:

  1. Assessment data showed that when students were given the opportunity to explore and solve problems in an open way working with their peers, they performed just as well as students who were in the guided (instructivist) situation. 
  2. Survey responses indicated that students in the open condition enjoyed the lesson significantly more, compared to guided students. Also, students in the open condition did not express any negative affect statements, but guided students did. (“Bored” was one of the negative affect statements used by the guided students.)
  3. Video analysis showed that in the two conditions, the amount of time spent in interactions between teacher and students, and students working together, were very similar. For example, for both conditions, there was a little over 3 hours spent in whole class activity and about 2 hours spent in small group work; during the small group work, adults spent about 1.5 hours helping the students with the lesson or managing behavior. Off-task time was roughly equal in the two conditions: there were 18 off-task instances (involving approximately 11 minutes (out of 300 minutes) of adult intervention) for off-task behavior in the guided condition, and 14 off-task instances (involving approximately 13 minutes (out of 300) of adult intervention) in the open condition. 

Teachers, what do YOU need from technology?

Classroom Technology, Constructivism, Teachers & Researchers, Written by: Mary Patterson
By Mary Patterson
Technology is changing the way we teach and the way students learn.

When I started teaching in 1983, I had an Apple IIe and I used it to record grades, and for games like, Oregon Trail, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? and Math Blaster to stimulate curiosity and practice rote facts in a more engaging way. Thirty-two years later, I have a learning management system to track individual student progress and predict future success. We create graphs from spreadsheets, use interactive modeling or simulations, and connect with others around the world through skype, email and social media.

So, what’s next?

If we consider the constructionist and constructivist pedagogical ideas of Seymour Papert and Jean Piaget, how is all this technology helping students construct meaning? And more importantly, how can technology help us do it better?

Learning scientists are partnering with technology experts and teachers to answer these questions. Current trends in Cyberlearning include research on games and virtual worlds, data visualization tools, collaborative learning environments, intelligent tutors, augmented reality and immersive environments, embodied multimodal learning, learning analytics,
adaptive learning and more.

For instance, PIs: Karl Ola Ahlqvist, Andrew Heckler, Rajiv Ramnath of Ohio State University are exploring the idea of using online map games to generate critical thinking and impact learning about a far-away place in a tool they call, GeoGames.

The Center for Innovative Research in Cyberlearning provides a peek into the future with projects highlighted on their page http://circlcenter.org/projects/

What are YOU curious about? What learning questions do YOU need answered that would give you better insight into how students learn?  What technology do you WISH existed right now? 
Imagine turning your classroom into a planetary system or a town above an aquifer. Researchers, Thomas Moher, Tanya Berger-Wolf, Leilah Lyons, Joel Brown, Brian Reiser, from the University of Illinois at Chicago in a project titled,” Using Technologies to Engage Learners in the Scientific Practices of Investigating Rich Behavioral and Ecological Questions,”  use dynamic phenomena that are imagined to be “embedded” in the physical space of the classroom, made accessible through stationary or mobile “portals” (tablet and laptop computers, large displays, etc.) and provide continuous location-specific visualization of the phenomenon. Students collectively observe, manipulate, and chronicle the embedded phenomenon, and construct models to reflect their understandings.

In Massachusetts and Virginia, researchers, Charles Xie of the Concord Consortium and Jennifer Chiu from the University of Virginia are helping  students see science concepts in action in the real world, by developing mixed-reality technologies that augment hands-on laboratory activities with sensor-driven computer simulations in a project called, Mixed Reality Labs: Integrating Sensors and Simulations to Improve Learning.

As teachers, we are often the receivers of technology systems and learning theories.  Wouldn’t it be great to have a hand in the design of these things based on what we experience each day? Let’s start this conversation! 

Teachers, what do YOU need from technology and learning sciences?

PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS!

technology tidbit #2

Classroom Technology, Constructivism, Written by: Natalie Harr
By Natalie Harr

“Would you rather that your children learn to play the piano, or learn to play the stereo?”
                                                                       -Mitchel Resnick, Amy Bruckman, Fred Martin (1996)

(Blog Post #5)

Picture

In the article, Pianos Not Stereos: Creating Computational Construction Kits (1996), Mitchel Resnick and his colleagues from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Media Lab pose the question, 
“Would you rather that your children learn to play the piano, or learn to play the stereo?” Playing the stereo means choosing and listening to pre-recorded music. Playing the piano allows exploring and constructing sequences of sounds, rhythms, tempos, harmonies and styles of music. Stereo players are consumers; a piano player creates. 

One can think about educational technologies the same way. Resnick and his colleagues point out that there is a lot of “emphasis on the equivalent of stereos and CDs” in our educational technologies “and not enough emphasis on computational pianos” in what we make available to learners.

Picture

Video: Courtesy of PhET Sims
For Example…

PhET Interactive Simulations (see above) are widely used in classrooms today to help learners visually comprehend physical phenomena (e.g., forces of motion, gene expression, molecular shapes) that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Through the use of graphics and click-and-drag manipulation tools, PhET simulations are interactive enough to help students explore cause-and-effect relationships, connect them with underlying scientific concepts or real-world scenarios, and envision what cannot be easily observed in the real world. Resnick would say that PhET is a consumer technology; learners can choose a pre-created simulation to work with and manipulate it.

Just Think About It

PhET is a highly valuable tool for exploring “what happens when” scenarios and to help learners construct mental images of invisible phenomena. But just imagine if learners could build their own computer simulations — trying things out and making decisions on how to best model the complexities of the physical world — then running their simulation to see what happens. With that said, let’s check out the technology below…

Scratch Jr: A Technology Toolbox for Young Creators! 

PictureScratch Jr. Screenshot. Image Credit: Dev Tech Research Group


This new cyberlearning technology called Scratch Jr. supports young learners from ages 4-7 as producers of expressive media. 

Using a touchscreen device, children can create their own interactive stories and games   by dragging and connecting graphical programming blocks   to make characters and stories come to life.


And, it’s a FREE app for Android and i Pad tablets!

Resnick (cited at the beginning of this post) would say Scratch Jr. is a “creator” technology; children can playfully design, build, model, and test their own ideas using this digital toolbox. This kind of technology provides opportunities for deep, multidimensional learning that could not be made possible with a consumer technology. Educational technologies, such as Scratch Jr. -developed by Marina Bers and the DevTech Research Group– are designed with a constructionist approach to learning. In this approach, educational technologies are allowing learners to be creators. Stay tuned for more posts regarding Scratch Jr.

How Do They Come Up with These Technologies??!!
Constructionism is an approach to learning “by doing.” It builds from the renowned work of Jean Piaget and his theory of constructivism (notice the subtle difference in spelling). Piaget said that people generate knowledge and meaning (build schema) based on interactions between their experiences and their ideas. 

Seymour Papert, a protege of Piaget, took this theory several steps farther.  He has argued for a constructionist approach to learning; people actively engaged in designing things and making them work.  As a revolutionary thinker, he has envisioned the power of computers as a tool for learning, especially for children. 

  This video was made publicly available on YouTube by Seth Morabito.

Seymour Papert is the world’s foremost expert on how computers can foster learning. This  video demonstrates his remarkable insights into technology and learning decades ago — far before computers were feasible or affordable.  
 Constructionism: A Brief Timeline

I. The Beginning (1967-1980)

PictureImage Courtesy: Logo Foundation Website

     Logo: Learning by Programming

In 1967 Seymour Papert and his colleagues at the   Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed the first version of Logo; a groundbreaking computer programming environment to support mathematical learning. Since then, Logo has undergone several iterations and became widespread with the dawn of personal computers in the 1970’s. It has been used by young learners, novices, and experienced learners alike as a tool to develop simulations, games, and multimedia presentations. The most popular LOGO environment has featured a turtle icon, whose actions are controlled by the input of computer commands. In 1980, Papert published his highly influential book (especially in education) called Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas.

II. Logo Legacy continues  (1990’s)

PictureA Programmable Brick

For the past twenty years, Mitchel Resnick (a protege of Papert) has been developing a new generation of educational technologies that draw on the work ofSeymour Papert. In the article Pianos Not Stereos: Creating Computational Construction Kits (1996), Resnick and his colleagues describe three technologies they developed at the MIT Media Lab that draw on the constructionist approach to learning:

StarLogo was designed to help students “construct worlds in the computer” to explore the behaviors and patterns of decentralized systems (e.g., ant colonies, traffic congestion). 

MOOSE Crossing was an online community that provided students a way to collaboratively create and interact within virtual worlds. 

The programmable brick, a computerized and programmable Lego (e.g., reactions to sound, light, motion) block, now serves as the basis
for Lego robotic kits today.

III. educational technology (today)

Lego MindStorms (based on the programmable brick shown above) andScratch are two widely used educational technologies from Resnick’s MIT Media Lab that aim to support “learners as creators” in their own design activities. These technologies have been implemented into schools and other learning environments across the globe.
 Lego MindStorms
A YouTube video made publicly available by Camilla Bottke
Scratch
Video: Courtesy of Scratch Ed

IV. Educational Technology (of the future!)

In upcoming blogs posts, we will explore the “next generation” of learning technologies such as  KIWI, Eco- MOBILE, Scratch Jr., InquirySpace, etc., that all have foundations in this constructionist approach to learning.