Constructivism vs. Constructionism

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.

Behaviorism...

This week’s resources were very interesting and enlightening as they are dealing with students and learning theories.  Before I begin this, I must say, I was somewhat up in the air about the behaviorism and its place in education.  After reading through the various weekly resources, I feel I have a better grasp on what exactly behaviorism in the classroom entails.

“Operate conditioning”, coined by B.F. Skinner, sits on two foundation concepts (Orey, 2001).  The first being reinforcement of desirable behavior while the second is punishment or discipline of undesirable behaviors (Orey, 2001).  Reinforcing is the more powerful of the two and an idea that all educators should implement if he or she is not doing already.  To put this a little more blunt, James Hartley clearly states in his key principles that “reinforcement is the cardinal motivator”. (Smith, 1999)  If reinforcement is so essential in education, why are more educators not tying motivation into course work?  That being said, I do think there is a time and place for everything; college students do not need nearly the same motivation and/or praise that a second grade student would, as college learners are more self motivated and self driven.  In my opinion, we need to keep in mind that some of the behaviorism fundamentals are built on ideas or concepts completely dependent upon the age of the subject. 

Another theory I want to touch upon is one by John B. Watson, he claims that the amount of time taken between learning an idea/action and reinforcing the action are in direct correlation to how successful the learner will be.  (Smith, 1999)  I find this to be as accurate as can be, a human can’t learn a new action and wait any significant length of time before reinforcing it.  There have been many studies produced about professional athletes “mastering” an action that are quite interesting.  I believe it takes approximately 10,000 hours of practice to “master” an athletic technique. What is funny about this is that these studies always show that the action needs to be practiced not only daily, but almost immediately after it has been acquired or the action will not take.  A more academic example would be a young learner working on his or her times tables.  The times tables are not something you can look at and just remember, it takes work…and many hours of that work if I remember correctly!  If the learner were taught those functions, then not shown again for a few months, there is absolutely zero chance the learner will be able to recall the times tables.  An action needs to be reinforced in a short time frame for it be successful.

James Hartley adds, in my opinion, an excellent concept to this learning theory.  He states “activity is important. Learning is better when the learner is active rather than passive”.  (Smith, 1999)  I can think of no better example of this than when a future educator is doing his or her student teaching.  I think someone would be hard pressed to find a teacher that does not feel he or she learned more in six months of student teaching than the entire three and a half years of undergrad work!  While student teaching, you are actually in the classroom “getting your hands dirty” so to speak, and teaching, educating, motivating, encouraging and everything else that fits the daily transcript of an educator’s career.  There is no question as to why this theory is so accurate; when given the chance to get active, the brain processes this information in a much more effective manner.  A seventh grade student that dissects a frog or worm will indefinitely recall that lesson and all the details involved much easier than a lecture, it is a simple equation: when a learner is being active and not “passive”, information is attained much more efficiently. 

It is hard to say whether or not behaviorism is the right or wrong way of educating the human race.  I can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that a combination of behaviorism and other forms, theories, methods of education in conjunction with the use of technology, will put the modern day educator on the right path.

Smith, K. (1999). The behaviourist orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved           from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page