Constructivism is knowledge "constructed" through our own experiences. We do not "acquire" knowledge, because it is not something that is simply given. Through experience, we form our own representation of the world by using our senses to interpret. As we experience, we continue to modify our view of the world. Knowledge is viable as long as our experiences continue to fit out observation.
As a teacher,I would require my students to do more that retrieve facts, they must be able to apply what they have learned to other situations. Being able to apply "knowledge" (or what they think they know) to other situations will show whether they have really learned something or not.They need to be able to do more than just retrieve a solution to a problem, they need to know the process by which they get that solution. This expectation can be used in mathematics as a result of constructivism, because it has to do with generating something new; like forming new knowledge. Answers are not just simply memorized; they are constructed. More specifically this is called operative knowledge, which is part of constructivism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked how concisely and precisely you explained how knowledge is constructed rather than acquired. It was simple and very understandable. And in your second paragraph I don't know if you consciously applied how Skemp described knowledge to build of previous understanding or not, but I felt that you went further than Glaserfeld did by expliaing that a student can learn easier next time by building upon their constructed knowledge. Though I didn't see any specific example of how you'd teach this so, the question still stands, how would you teach your students this way?
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job describing what von Glasersfeld meant by "constructing knowledge"! You seem to have a clear understanding of constructivism.
ReplyDeleteI thought your understanding of construcivism was very concise, and very accurate. I really enjoyed your blog entry. Although, I do feel that more could have been said about the way you would accomplish what you want to accomplish, as described in the second paragraph. It needed more specific teaching methods so that we could see "how" you would help students to be able to understand the process of getting to a solution. Thanks for your wonderful insights!
ReplyDeleteI see your implication is clear. You want students to be able to know processes on how they can get a solution.and that the author explains how it relates to constructivism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author, I think Students should know processes and not just how to get an answer but why. The only thing I would fix is to explain a method for the implication, how will you teach children processes? Although it may be hard to know what you would do because each case is different.