Didn't they do some study that concluded reading not only improved literacy and comprehension, but helped students improve in most other subjects as well? I thought I remembered this from somewhere. You know anything about this, McP?

Actually that study demonstrated that reading is so effective that it retroactively raises test scores (so I think Broken Iris owes that reporter an apology)

My friend teaching in Lake County Florida has been "encouraged" not to give any homework at all because it's not fair to the kids from bad homes. Sounds like a solution to our problems.

If the homework isn't productive, wouldn't the solution be to make the homework productive, not get rid of it? Isn't there room for reading, writing, arithmetic, science, and social studies? I don't think kids should be ground into a pulp, but a couple hours a night is more than enough to enjoy yourself.

i think the point (of that other article) is that the reading would be homework. Much homework is busywork (although the drilling may be necessary and productive in a lot of subjects), and so of course you are right, making the homework more engaging would be helpful when it isn't.

And the Lake County thing, while probably not a good idea, does speak to what McP and I were arguing elsewhere, that you can't 'fix' education without fixing the larger social and economic context in which education happens.

I got sick last week, and it was the type of illness that keeps you from getting any damn sleep. So while I had plenty of time on my hands, my mental function was positively nill.

I tried to put this together as something that explains constructivism's most basic principles, rather than delving into the deep end.

What it is...

Spoiler: show

Constructivism is a learning theory that states that people create an internal concept of the world around them through experience-created constructs. More simply, it states that education should be based on the following premises:

1. That learning is a natural event. This seems obvious, but it has implications that are crucial in the next section.
2. Learning is an active event. It occurs through experience and engagement. This component has come to the forefront in recent decades thanks to the neurosciences. It’s also among the least utilized, thanks to coming to prominence after the beginning of “back to basics” political rhetoric.
3. Learning is both interpersonal and intrapersonal
4. The learner is equal parts observer, participant, and generative agent.
5. A learner who feels confident in their ability to learn is motivated to learn.
6. Learning is most effective when it is guided, but not controlled.

There is more to it than that, but I think the above represents a pretty good basic summary. There are various forms of constructivism, as well, but I am focusing on the central concept here.

What it means...

Spoiler: show

Because learning is a natural event…
…it has natural process. The brain is very definitively wired to learn. Effective learning systems are developed to make use of this process, not to suppress or ignore it.
…it is neither universal nor fixed. There are a variety of different learning modalities, with every individual favoring some over others. Further, much like the recent research that our heightened technology use is rewiring our brains in subtle ways, what constitutes “natural” for one generation is not necessarily the same as for previous generations.
…it frequently involves play. Play as learning event is incredibly natural and universal. The impact of fantasy or play scenarios on learners is evident well into adulthood.

Because learning is an active event…
…it is often a social event. This correlates to its status as both interpersonal and intrapersonal, as well. Practices like cognitive apprenticeship, group support, and peer tutoring are effective utilizations of this concept.
…it is often goal-based. As adults, we most often learn because we are trying to solve a problem…whether that problem is “I want to know how to change the oil in my car,” “I think space is interesting, and I want to learn more about it than I already know,” or “I want to prove stip wrong on the internet.” We identify interest and we explore. This is not so much a matter of goal setting as it is a matter of intrinsic motivation and self-focusing. Even on the smallest level (say, letting them pick a prompt to respond to from a list, or creating several activities and letting them select one), providing learners with choice vastly increases motivation.
…traditional constructs limit high ability learners. See more under “confidence” below.
…errors and mistakes are quintessential learning moments, while reflection and opinion-forming are key components to internalizing knowledge.

Because a learner plays multiple roles…
…multiple roles should be allowed them. The combination of these first three statements is also what produces the constructivist emphasis on emotional response. Learning is natural, as is self-expression. Learning is active, which means a person isn’t just in-taking information…they’re processing it and their reactions to it. A learner plays multiple roles, including generative agent, which means that when we learn we have a natural urge to produce and express as a result.

Because confidence in the ability to learn is a primary motivating agent…
…access to content should be based on previous evidence of learning. The traditional model significantly limits the ability to scaffold in this way. Research shows that motivation is at its highest immediately following success. The brain is most adaptive to new information and ideas when the learner recognizes that they have successfully understood and reacted to something prior. For high ability students this opportunity is often lost because, while they may grasp a concept faster than their peers, they are forced to turn this extremely valuable “peak intake” moment into wait time, until the teacher feels the class entire is ready to go on. For struggling learners, learning has often not yet occurred when the lesson or unit is ended, reducing their confidence in future attempts.

Because learning is most effective when guided (but not controlled)…
…the teacher’s role in a constructivist classroom is not as focal point or deliverer of knowledge, but as ‘cognitive coach,’ or ‘learning counselor.’
…content is applied differently in planning. Instead of being something that is to be “covered,” (which requires that someone do the “covering”), it is used to populate active learning events and problem-based scenarios. Both of these items make the constructivist classroom sound very viscous and undefined to the inexperienced, but it’s not. Ultimately, one of the key results of all these principles is that students have an increased level of responsibility in a constructivist classroom…but because of the nature of this responsibility, and the adherence to developing activities based on the philosophies above, off-task behaviors and defiant reactions are reduced or even eliminated.
…democratic components are incorporated into the classroom.

What the research says…

Spoiler: show

Constructivism remains the only learning theory thoroughly consistent with neuroscience research. It actually predates that field by quite some time, but was never really utilized by public education because it was (at that time) so hard to support with evidence. The rise of neuroscience research into learning began to change that only after heightened pressure on educative systems began to appear (along with “back to basics” cries, which were ironic because the basics were all we ever really got around to). These days, you can occasionally find its influence in US schools in minor activities or simple classroom experiments, but it is largely unincorporated into classrooms.

Research regarding the results of constructivist education is fairly sparse, because it is so poorly utilized. Individual components of the theory, or practices that have resulted from it, have appeared to some degree (in the form of student choice scenarios, reciprocal teaching activities, self-guided learning, etc), and each of these has consistently shown to produce better results than traditional forms when done correctly. However, they are nevertheless being attempted out of context, as foreign transplants into a largely behaviorist setting. Most research that can be said to support constructivist learning as an entire philosophy comes from neurosciences, psychology, and sociology. Generally, there has been a great hesitation to embrace it fully because it is so definitively removed from what we perceive as traditional learning (although some of its most basic premises could be said to apply in very reduced ways to apprenticeship learning).

So, in terms of evidence of success, I’m going to focus on Finland and, to a lesser extent Sweden…for several reasons. First, they are the only countries that have come close to fully adopting constructivist learning theory (Finland completely, Sweden regionally). Second, they are the only countries with scores at or better than our middle class students who don’t require an asterisk of some sort.*

Both countries underwent overhauls of their education system at some point during the last 30 years, and currently employ constructivism as the backbone of their current educational models. Both countries perform exceptionally well without reducing the testing population or “hiding” special education...in other words, they’re the only top performing nations that attempt to test everybody, the way we do. It should be noted that Finland, the frontrunner here, has also incorporated a lot of additional elements (which I’m not promoting here or claiming as part of/resulting from constructivism, just noting) to produce their trends:

- Almost no outside influence from private sources on education (includes a reduced central government influence and increased local control)
- Attainment of 99% completion rate among students (from well below 60% in the 70’s)
- Reduction of between-school achievement variance from nearly 50% in 1980 to less than 5% (ours hangs around 35%)
- Emphasis on a “thinking” curriculum (their broad-use term for constructivism)
- Reduced emphasis on testing
- Greater autonomy for and emphasis on teachers as professionals

* China beats us in Physics by a country mile, but Chinese students average 5 years of Physics education to our 1. China has no genuine special education program, and does not test said students. It also does no research into educative success in its rural areas.
* Japan only tests college bound students.
* Singapore is at or near human rights violation-level in regards to special needs education. They also do not test students in “apprentice schools,” which are for those individuals deemed incapable of competing in regular education programs.
* Germany, which has a famously tiered education system, only tests the students in the highest tier schools…so they should be doing a lot better than they are…
* etc.

what is the difference (is there?) between constructivist and montessori approaches? or is the later a version of the former?

Maria Montessori (yeah, I kinda thought that was made up the first time I heard it) is considered by some to be a part of the constructivist movement, thanks largely to quotes like the following:

"Scientific observation has established that education is not what the teacher gives; education is a natural process spontaneously carried out by the human individual, and is acquired not by listening to words but by experiences upon the environment."

In truth, while there is a lot of overlap, her principles were laid out for early education only and were at least partially based on her experiences with the mentally disabled.

Also, based on this picture, John Dewey probably played bass for more than one 1970's rock band...so I trust in him.

Spoiler: show

You taught middle school, right? How would this play out in terms of curricula?

And it sounds like the answer is yet, but is this model meant to apply to all levels (I'm including the adult students you'll have in colleges) or is it stronger with certain ages/stages?

We actually get zero pedagogical training beyond what we happen to pick up on ourselves.

I went to Montessori school until 4th grade, so this explains a lot.

That's a really elastic question. I could write out what MY classroom looked like, but that would really be just one example of. As such, it'd be pretty content and age group specific, and therefore incomplete. I'd be happy to do it, though, if having an example helps.



The principle and process are universal, but I'd imagine that it would play out differently for different age groups. For example, at the seventh grade level I employed a lot of role playing scenarios and fantasy events, and I had to try and structure them in such a way that students would be fairly guided towards an end while still maintaining the active exploration bent. These were students who were still a few years away from really developing their decision-making centers, so you try to nurture that growth without relying on it.

By late high school, I think the emphasis would be more on real world accomplishment. I always thought it would be interesting if universities, businesses, and communities worked with teachers to develop research projects, competitions, teamwork scenarios, and intern opportunities wherein students could not only earn credit towards graduation but would have the possibility of earning scholarship money, academic distinctions, employment histories, or even college credit. Teachers could act as sponsors or coaches, as well as ensuring that students pick the right combination of opportunities to achieve a rounded education. That's a lot more...out there...than talking just classroom application. It's an extreme structural change to the system. It would bring up all sorts of new questions and issues, and as a discussion point it also fails to detail just how individual activities would incorporate constructivist qualities. But maybe it illustrates the shift in application from middle to high school.

In higher learning? That's even trickier because, in a perfect world, at the high school level you are working to engage the students in problem solving and exploration to a "real world" degree. By the second year of college, you would then hope to have reached the point of exploring a chosen subject of desired expertise beyond mere "real world" or career-application scenarios. You'd want to be reaching a point where you can not only do a job or enter a field, but are capable of changing it....of contributing to its future in some way.

Now, none of us are under the impression that this is what's happening. Right now, we're pretty lucky as a nation if our students entering college are even ready for what I described as an ideal high school education. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to teach at the Uni level, and have all that cool shit to say, and have that audience. But why would they be ready, unless we start making them ready? And none of what is currently trending in education...longer days, reduction of the arts and recess...is going to make that happen. It's all either counterproductive or superfluous.



I believe that. We had two training days a year, but they were beyond useless. I shit you not, two years ago I sat through a two hour review/summary of why it was important to have students raise their hands before talking. Two fucking hours. On hand raising.

Do you expect your exployer to provide the time and money for this?

I think the teaching profession were be much more evolved if they were a professional association and not a union. Most people I know with a professional designation are required to maintian professional development hours annually. Everyone I know does it on their own time though most companies will reimburse you for the expense. I think a professional association would be much more proactive and efficient about stripping bad teachers of their teaching designation. CPA association is pretty brutal about it and that's a good thing for all except the cretins.

we are not paid to engage in professional research for the most part, unless we receive outside grants, etc (or sometimes have research budgets built in). That's probably the equivalent of the CPA thing.

In terms of pedagogical training, I do think they should be providing that sort of professional development. The increase in research effectiveness/publications enhances the prestige of the institution, but primarily enhances the prestige of the researcher. If my book has an impact in my field I get the primary glory and benefit. A small amount is reflected back to Dowling, but I'm the primary beneficiary.

If my teaching improves, the primary beneficiaries are the students, and I think it makes sense for any organization to provide time and money for the employees to get better at doing their job.

This is a bit more complicated since while I assume pretty much all people teaching below college consider themselves teachers first, everything else second, at the post secondary level the lion's share of us consider teaching the thing we have to do in order to fund our research. I had 7 years of training. The focus was entirely on content and the production of content. None of it involved learning how to teach. Whatever I got was voluntary stuff I sought out myself.

All evidence suggests that school districts who choose to invest their efforts in providing high quality professional development get better results than those that focus on "weeding" poor performing teachers out. However, as emphasis on high stakes testing has increased professional development has decreased.

Most districts have "teacher development days," but quite a few require teachers to provide evidence of ongoing development on their own time (which can be presented in the form of college credit hours, seminars, etc.).



I think that if you believe the key problem in education to be an influx of mediocre teaching, then...

A. You're running down a road that will never solve your problem, and
B. You ought to go back and start on page 10 of this thread.

the stuff from your classroom would be interesting enough, McP. It'll be helpful to see what you're talking about with some examples.

My take away from the two years I taught middle school was that this would be time better spent letting them do internships and hands on stuff, but that was just an impression, nothing fully thought through.

Damn, McP dropping knowledge. I had seen you reference the information about other countries' testing but never that specifically.

Alright, stip. Constructivist Approaches Toward Active Learning While Lost in the Swamp of Puberty. Twelve year-old edition.

I had five points to write about, but after the first three I feel like it's jibber-jabber enough. Apologies for the variance in the size of the pictures, as well. They aren't always the ones I would have chosen, but they're the only ones that I have left.

Also, I didn't edit this after writing it, so...fingers crossed, I guess. It is what it is.



Inclusion of Democratic Components

Spoiler: show

I incorporated democratic elements largely through two key components of my classroom. The first was the creation and maintenance of a student-run help desk. This was initially an attempt to emphasize peer tutoring as reading/writing resource, but it really grew to become one of the most defining elements of the classroom (and also the impetus for my first article). It’s something I’ve written about on the board before, so if you remember any of that you can probably skip this part.

The help desk (“Experts’ Corner”) had ownership of a large section of the room, along with the use of any and all cupboards in that area and my assigned filing cabinet. Their work space was the teacher desk assigned to that room (what do I need it for?), a binder that included rubrics and summaries of different activities and assignments, another binder with flowcharts illustrating how to best respond to different questions, and a computer containing the Expert Wiki, where they could expand some topics and provide resources for each other.

In terms of action, the role the ‘Experts’ played was in a permanent state of expansion. Every year I would think of something new that I wanted to try. But I was perennially surprised at not only how intense they could be about the job, but also how beneficial it could be to some of those students who were inclined towards acting out. The needs they addressed in the classroom aside from tutoring included minor clerical tasks (they handed out notebooks, or computers, and maintained the basic classroom supplies), identifying needs that others might have (non-formally…I never made this a part of the job, but they’d always do it…their tutor status just helped make them more cognizant of learning and of their peers), developing recommendations to me regarding lesson improvement, and advocating for others. They even ran the classroom when I was home sick…my sub notes were generally a summation of the day’s activities, followed by a generic explanation of the Experts’ Corner and a request to report any disrespect or off-task behaviors (of which there were none).

To match the intensely high expectations and efforts that came with all that, I frequently took steps to recognize and address the important part they played and the respect that they earned. Whether it be verbal recognition, free use of the restroom pass (in middle school, it’s quite the thing), or just structuring conversations so that I was talking to an equal. Kids took it seriously. Experts were always discussing changes to lessons or concerns that they had, giving me advice, or even volunteering themselves for other tasks. They worked hard, and their status imparted a sense of ownership of the room among other students as well. I had the same tables and chairs for nine years in a gang-heavy environment, and when I left there was no graffiti or evidence of mistreatment. Heck, it became a running joke to my coteacher that I frequently had to insist that kids go home at the end of the day as they tried to clean up the room a bit before catching the bus.

It really was prestigious, in its way. Any time I was asked about a student who had applied for NJHS, or for some high expectation after-school activity, if I could reply “(s)he was an Expert,” they got in. Twice, former students told me they put it on their first job applications and had to explain to the interviewer what exactly it was. They both got the jobs, for what little that’s worth.

Staffing was also a democratic act. I often tried to pair one strong reader/writer with one struggling student. If I could work it so at least one of the two spoke fluent Spanish (this was not a challenge), that was even better. But that said, there was a process to it all…and I was not the center of it. We changed Experts every quarter, and students who wanted to be considered filled out an application. That application had six sections, and they chose four to complete (so that, for example, if a student was struggling in other classes or was on bad terms with other teachers they could still make a case for themselves). A committee of volunteers then reviewed the applications and made three recommendations to me. I was bound by my word to choose two of those three…if I disagreed with them or had really wanted somebody else, too bad. They usually made great choices.

The other democratic component was simpler and requires less explanation (but was a lot of fucking work): choice. Aside from standardized tests, it was my policy to never create an activity or assessment that didn’t provide for choice in at least two ways. Choice of text, choice of subject, choice of response method, etc etc etc. Simple as that.

Problem and Exploration-Based Learning

Spoiler: show

At the middle school level, role-playing activities and game-like scenarios still go over very well. So, for example, when we worked on reading for context we did so by becoming a detective agency. The simulation was computer-based, with students being assigned “cases” that varied in difficulty. Generally, they would go around interviewing suspects and reading up on a crime that had occurred.








They had the option of working with a partner (more on that in a minute), and used a combination of an adviser built-in to the simulation (see above), ancillary materials (a research center for the “game” consisted of a collection of texts graphic aides detailing context clues-related strategies and systems), and conferences with the teacher. The could also “go back to school” to test out their theories or strategies in a classroom:



As often as possible, I tried to produce activities like the above for several reasons…one of which is that they promote the active pursuit of information. But I especially liked that they allowed for multiple attempts and immediate feedback. Assessment as task is a key element of the theory, so I try to avoid “teach now, test after” to the best of my ability. The way I put it in one of my articles was…

Quote:

A lot of teachers cringe from the multiple attempt scenario, and if one thinks of assessment as a series of test questions then I suppose that makes sense. But authentic assessment is an on-going series of opportunities for students to receive feedback and self-assess, self-adjusting their goals in the process (Wiggins, 1998). Nobody is lining up to get in Yo-Yo Ma’s face and declare, “You didn’t really learn the cello! You just had the chance to do multiple attempts. You’re a fake!” Why? Because we inherently know what the purpose of assessment really is: to provide support and feedback to students, and to determine what they have already achieved, so that they can move forward (Morgan and Reilly, 1999).

Development of Active Learning

Spoiler: show

As I mentioned earlier, I incorporated a lot of one-on-one time. A lot of the time this took the form of some kind of “cognitive counseling,” rather than content-specific discussion. This was a very different classroom from what students were used to, and there isn’t really anything in a traditional K-5 that prepares them for it. I needed to nurture them as active learners, as well as break down the apathy that molds over most people during the course of a public education.

Sometimes, this meant allowing things to go beyond or away from the assigned curriculum, which was a gamble. For example, each quarter I had a set of six novels to choose from (and 22 copies of each…don’t ask me how those teachers who chose one and had the entire class read it managed that with 130 students). One of the second quarter books was The Circuit, by Francisco Jimenez. A lot of Latino students picked it, and they loved the shit out of it. They started asking about the sequel. So I bought twenty used copies of it, and let them form a sort of reader’s circle around it. They had to write me a proposal for how they were going to schedule it, what learning goals they would achieve, etc., and we refined that a bit, but they ate it up. I got in some trouble for that one, but that’s management for you.

Part of active learning was also making sure both I and the student were hyper-aware of their current abilities. To that end, activities and other efforts were designed to branch. For example, a reading activity might be branched by the grade level or readability of the text like so:




After the initial level-setting was done, the refinement process could get a lot...messier...






Another part was allowing them a sense of control over how they approached a task. Learning is just as intrapersonal as anything, so I had a “group work request form” that they could fill out if they wanted to work with a partner. I could refuse them, of course, but always with feedback. Maybe they’d just done group work the time before, were working with one person too often, or I thought that the make-up of the group wasn’t conducive to the activity. Giving them my justification was essential to encouraging them to actively think about how and why they were pursuing partner work.

Finally, I tried to emphasize exploration of task, albeit on small levels:

wow.

You say you had a co-teacher. How was your day/school structured?

I taught 3 85 minute blocks (there was also a home room, and daily meetings with other teachers on my team). We saw students every other day...of 6 total blocks, 3 were co-taught. Those classes were intended for a 30-40% special education makeup, with a cap of about 21 students or so, but in reality they were typically 50% SPED and 27 or 28 in number. For the first four years, it was 42 minute class periods and we saw students every day. A lot of adjustment went into changing over to block scheduling, but I wouldn't say either time frame was detrimental to the approach.

On neuroscience: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2012/09/your-brain-pseudoscience

Evaluating neuroscience on Malcolm Gladwell and Jonah Lehrer is a hell of a lot like basing your opinion of conservative legislation and fiscal philosophy on Clint Eastwood and a chair.