This week’s resources were again, very interesting an enlightening. Michael Orey lectures regarding constructivism and constructionism and the differences relating to the classroom. Orey gives two very good examples demonstrating the differences between these very closely sounding words and the reader, or viewer, in this case, can differentiate quite easily.
Constructivism, according to Orey, basically is that each person learns on his or her own by developing unique and personal meanings (Orey, 2001). The chair example provided made this understanding much easier for me to grasp this concept. It makes sense because we all have very unique and personal views regarding certain objects; an example I immediately thought of was the word dog. Think about all of the different ideas, thoughts, opinions, recollections, memories, etc., that this word conjures up. To you, “dog” may be a four legged animal that is scary, mean and vicious, but this is strictly due to how you and the word/idea of “dog”, developed over time. To me, “dog” is obviously a four legged animal, but something of an entire different nature than mean and scary, and that is due to my development when learning about what a “dog” was.
Constructionism is on the same playing field as the close sounding constructivism, but a different idea and concept, that in my opinion, are somewhat related. Constructionism is “a theory of learning that states people learn best when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others” (Orey, 2001). The example given here, was that of what “dog” means (a complete coincidence that I thought of “dog” for constructivism) using this theory. To be more specific, a little boy or girl associates everything he or she sees that has “four legs and is furry” as a dog…until he or she sees a cat! Seeing that the cat has four legs and is furry, he or she refers to it as a cat, where upon saying this; Dad quickly corrects the child and says, “no, it is a cat”. This is building upon an existing idea or “constructing” an idea in a larger idea or concept. Orey states the main idea behind the constructionism concept is “getting involved and building stuff”, and for this example, the child is building upon the idea of a four legged animal that is furry (Orey, 2001). I also agree with Orey about the use of powerpoint as a technology that demonstrates the idea of “building” in the classroom. Students are at the freedom of their minds to build whatever they can think up with this amazing program.
Even though I understand this concepts, it strikes that me they are extremely similar. The more I look into the meanings and concepts behind each, it seems to as if the two terms, constructivism and constructionism are almost the same, just different stages of the learning process. Looking at the two examples given, constructivism would be developing your own idea over time and constructionism is building upon an idea. If someone were to begin to gain an understanding of something or an idea, that would be constructivism, but over time, building upon that idea, concept, object, in whatever direction that thought or idea may go, isn’t that just building upon the original? That would be constructionism…correct? I do understand the difference between these two words, just thinking and posing questions!
Michael Orey states that “constructionism is more important for teachers (Orey, 2001). I think this is the case simply because in the classroom, teachers are constantly building upon previous ideas and concept. One subject that is purely constructionism is math- the entire life’s learning in regards to mathematics are based on the concept of building and using previous information to move onto the next form or step.
I did find this week to be very interesting to look over and review as it pertains directly to the classroom.
References:
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteFor me, I think of constructivism as gaining knowledge and building on learning. As for constructionism, I would focus on students able to utilize their learning and justify their learning by generating a piece of work. Initially, I was thinking there is no difference between these two learning theories neither. After much reading, I find it easier to differentiate it the above mentioned way. What is your take on this?
Ken,
ReplyDeleteI too thought the chair analogy did a good job of summing up the idea of individual learning. I was reading a Blog the other day that talked about teaching backwards. Meaning that students go home and watch the tutorials or lessons and then when they return to school they spend their time working collaboratively with others to create a product. I simply love that idea. Of course we are a ways off from making that a reality, but it just connected with me because it seemed a natural progression of using technology. Also the questions you posed about the difference between the two theories is thought provoking.