Tim Allison:  A Virtual Portfolio

First Encounters:  Constructivism

Metareflection:

Upon starting courses at the Faculty of Education, I was exposed to a concept which I had not previously encountered:  constructivism.  The idea of letting students construct their own knowledge was, at the same time, wonderful and terrifying.  I could see the potential value of such methods, but I could not see how it could be put into practice (as reflected by my original response to the article by Karen Gallas.  Having now developed a more thorough understanding of how this type of learning can be put into practice, and having observed it on my placement, I now feel more comfortable with the idea of putting it into practice in a classroom (see the 'Practicum Experience I' section of this portfolio), and feel that it is both an area in which I have grown a great deal in the past several months, and an area in which I still have much to learn.  However, I do look forward to the day when I can attempt to put such methods into practice in my own classroom, and when I can develop my skills in facilitating my students' learning just a little further.

Allowing children to direct their own learning, based on their curiosity, and within broad parameters set by the teacher, results in student learning.  Yager (p. 3), for example, suggests that science teachers "[use] student thinking, experiences, and interests to drive lessons...[use] open-ended questions...[encourage] students to suggest causes for events and situations...[encourage] students to test their own ideas...[and encourage] cooperative learning strategies," among other things, to improve our students' understanding of the science material.  Similarly, Millar and Driver (p. 56) state that "effective science teachers...promote active learning...by devising activities which involve students in such activities as observing...classifying, hypothesizing...inferring, experimenting, problem-solving...negotiating meanings, clarifying purposes, evaluating alternatives, [and] developing logical arguments."    Through such activities, our students may better be able to "comprehend the problem and each of the alternatives from a scientific and social perspective" (Volkmann, p. 105); thus achieving the "coherent scientific perspective" discussed by Gilbert, Osborne and Fensham (p. 630).

Over the course of the past six months, I have moved from viewing constructivism as a nice idea with little practical use in the classroom, to seeing it as an invaluable tool for learning, which I will undoubtedly use to some extent in my own classroom, when I reach that place.  And so, I approach my career as a science teacher "with inthusiasm [sic], promise, and excitement" (Yager, p. 3).

The concepts discussed in Gallas’ article seem, in general, to be fairly useful ones, at least to me.  The difficulty, however, lies in their application in the classroom as it would relate to course curriculum.

Reflecting on my own life, my personal interest in science developed at an early age from a natural fascination with the world around me, and from an exploration of that world.  While my scientific interests were, generally, underdeveloped (for the reasons discussed by Gallas) in school, my intense desire for learning about the things I observed around me was encouraged, along the lines of discussion, by my parents, and later, by friends with similar interests.  This is obviously similar to what Gallas discusses in her paper, where discussion of observations is encouraged among the children in her classroom.  Allowing children to explore science in this way is important, mainly because it allows them to investigate things that are of interest to them, personally; and I think that all of us have experienced that it is those things that are of greater interest to us personally that are easier for us to learn, than those things that are of lesser interest.  It is through the sort of liberal discussion that Gallas encourages, that children can discuss their own theories or opinions that they have based on what they observe.  By talking openly about these theories, they not only have the opportunity to express their own thoughts, but they have the opportunity to listen to the thoughts of others.  This allows for the free exploration of concepts or occurrences that are important to the children, themselves.  By participating in this sort of free exchange of ideas, children will be more able to develop their thoughts into theories or deductions based on what they have observed.

Of course, relating all of this to a course curriculum is a bit of an impediment to a teacher.  The easiest solution would perhaps be to find topics relating to the course curriculum in which the students hold an interest, and begin a discussion on that topic, allowing students to take the discussion wherever they like, with minimal instructor input.  In this way, curriculum guidelines might be satisfied at the same time as the students’ interest in the material is aroused.  Of course, if the differences between the interests of the students and the material of the course are irreconcilably different, then it may be very difficult to use the methods laid out in Gallas’ article.

Clearly, if the ideas that Gallas expresses in this article can be used effectively in the classroom, then, as she suggests (p. 16), “the very private musing of a child…may eventually be transformed through reflection, dialogue, and finally collaboration into a question, and, ultimately, a theory about the world.”  Ideally, that would be the objective of any science teacher in his or her class.