Constructivist learning is based on the prior knowledge of the learner. I would have to say that as a future teacher I agree with the constructivist view. The traditional view of learning is based on the information transferred from the teacher or a book to the student. In science it is necessary to focus on constructing the students knowledge, by questioning and allowing the students to utilize inquiry learning.
I must agree with the book that most of our curriculum is based on memory and recall. I would have to say that the reason why the teachers push the students to memorize is because of the testing the students have to go through. Our teachers are under more pressure than ever. It seems that the curriculum wants our students to memorize information in order to pass a test, if the students do not pass the tests; the school is put on probation, “talk about pressure”.
This is not the first time I read about Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. In certain aspects I agree with the four stages of Jean Piaget. The only thing I do think about the theory is that it may need to be modified depending on the cognitive level of the student. What happens to the theory if the child is 11 years old, but their cognitive level is at the preoperational stage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Piaget helps us realize that there is a readiness factor when it comes to learning. Whereas he studied this in detail, we also know this from common sense. For example, you make a very common sensical statement when you suggest that children develop at their own pace. This makes teaching a challenge, to be sure. But this is precisely what makes the inquiry approach so useful. As students explore the same inquiry question, teachers can attend to these individual differences. Sometimes just a slight adjusstment in an activity--"Can you find another way to solve the problem?"--is all you need to do to make sure each child is challenged.
ReplyDelete