After viewing the videos above and using research, respond to the follow:
Compare and contrast the traditional and constructivist teaching methods. Which one works best for you and your students? Why?
Also respond to two of your colleagues' comments.
Traditional Vs Constructivist Approach to Teaching
ReplyDeleteTraditional is as simple as you can get. The teacher will come to the class with highly structured curricula and activity plans, sometimes referred to as "scope and sequence." And will act as the source of knowledge and as the person who determines which information is important. There is certainly creativity and flexibility in how he/she runs the class, but the topics and projects are determines and graded based on what a teacher, administrator or school board have decided what children should learn. Basically it limits the interaction between the lecturer and the learners as seen in the video. While on the other hand constructivists approach are driven by students. Educators act more as coaches, guides, and facilitators who help students ask and answer things they really care about. Even though the constructivist approach may not seem as organized or well developed as the traditional approach. This approach requires even more planning, preparation, and responsiveness from the teacher. The constructivist approach gives kids an opportunity to learn with more freedom while reinforcing basic skills. It allows collaboration, production, interaction and stimulates learning to a higher level rather than having the teacher stand in front of the class and lecture notes all day. Since I haven’t taught as yet, I believe the constructivist approach would be a method I would use. Mainly because the children will probably learn more because it helps build interest in learning by awakening their confidence, interest, and self-esteem and as well helps kids who have trouble in school due to difficulty in lectures and memorization.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Kenny, I believe that you have the idea of what the constructivism approach is all about, but correct me if I am wrong. I believe that traditional method of teaching and the constructivist method are based on mono and multigrade teaching. As a teacher ,I think this is when we move away from the traditional teaching of mono grade to multigrade teaching .I think this is a new step where assimilation takes place and this is where the constructivist approach comes in. The key to the constructivist approach is to gain good educational leadership and With-it-ness that will help you to multitask and make sound classroom decisions.
DeleteHey Kenny, I am of the firm belief that children live what they learn and if we approach teaching with the mind set that they are born with a clean slate, then it is up to up to instill independence through schema, cooperation, and creativity. As technology progress, so must we adapt and allow our students to discover the world of knowledge through guidance. So I agree with what you said about both theories, mostly so the constructivist approach.
DeleteAfter reading you information on the constructivist and traditional approach, I cant continue that you well inform. I agree with what you points are. See that you completely understand the approach, I will be clear to your classroom will have some form of these mention. The students will be able to express their feeling.
DeleteTotally agree with you Kenny. The constructivist approach allows learning to be more engaging and allows students to become actively involved in the process of learning. Although majority of us have been taught in the system of traditional teaching, we must allows ourselves to adapt to the changing times. Our students are now growing up in a world of technology and so it is somewhat hard to keep their interest throughout the day. With the constructivist approach, we are able to engage our students in activities that will activate their prior knowledge and allow them to make connections with new material being taught. This will further allow them to see learning as something meaningful.
Delete100% concur with you Kenny. In many traditional classrooms teachers appear as the “BOSS” and often times do not allow children to voice their thoughts and opinion, because in their minds I the teacher am the only one who knows this information. This cause many students to close off any information being taught by said teacher. The constructivist approach opens the door for students to be confident enough to share the knowledge that they have, so in turn are more comfortable in their setting and so learning is more stimulating and productive. They know that sharing is welcomed as we all learn from each other.
Deletehi agree with what you are saying Kenny, the new world that we are now living in it is full of technology which the children do enjoys.. As a teacher i had observe that my students are more interested in me showing videos or even using a power point to teach. As teachers we should do what it takes and what the students enjoy to capture their attention and also to have them rertain the infromation.
DeleteThe traditional and constructivist teaching approach.
ReplyDeleteThe constructivist perspective toward teaching is unlike traditional views. Under the traditional views, the teacher simply talks and teaches the children. She/he provides all necessary materials to teach the children. I notice that the teacher will give them new information and the students simply come up with examples. This is not a good teaching approach as it does not give the students the chance to think critically and solve problems on their own and enhance their skills on building up on new ideas. I believe that the traditional teaching approach tends to be more of a teacher centred approach. Unlike the constructivist approach, it is more a student centred approach. Teachers who perform this way are said to be good facilitators and at the same time will have a better chance of having a successful classroom. He/she will help the children to excel, build on their knowledge and also encourage the children to always want to learn and participate in class. I am not fun of the traditional teaching approach because it poses a barrier between the teacher and the students. But I definitely welcome the constructivist approach as it gives the students motivation towards learning and at the same time help the students who are suffering with behavioral problem. The situation will decrease and help you as the teacher to perform your lesson well.
HI Catherine, I think you were very in tune with the different views of the traditional and the constructivist teaching methods. I disagree with you on one thing, and that is because I believe the constructivist method has nothing to do with behavioral problems. This problem arises when teachers are unable to multitask and make sound decision in the classroom, for example not being able to enhance his/ her work that is given to the class that will keep them occupied at all times.
DeleteHey Catherine,
DeleteYou seem to be have a clear picture of both approach, but as I mention to Kenny, if we as teachers allow students to expand their horizon of independence, there will be less time for chaos in the classroom, and maximum positive results will occur, because the students will be responsible for how much input they get in order to achieve maximum output. This will allow them to build their self esteem as well. And therefore, the constructivist approach seem to be the "In' thing for teachers of this era.
I totally agree with you Shirlet when it comes to allowing our students to become more independent and become more engaged in their learning. I believe our ultimate goal as teachers is to develop multiple skills so as to allow them to become independent and successful citizens. We want them to be able to think critically and be able to have a say in what is happening around them as oppose to sitting back and not questioning anything. Meaningful learning is so beneficial and I strongly believe that this approach is much more effective than just feeding our children with information and expect them to just give us back that same information.
DeleteYes Shirlet and Janine totally agree, I think we need to hear more from our students. If they are active participants in the decisions being made to shape their lives I believe that they would be more receptive to information being taught at schools. This constructivist approach allows this to happen because we will learn exactly what our students strengths and weaknesses are, since they will not be afraid to share their understandings and also voicing what confuses them.
DeleteHey Cath,pertaining to the traditional teaching whereas it is more of a teacher centre approach-does not allow much indicator to the teacher if all information provided is retain in the students learning process. And if little is acquire or understood, then how can the teacher work upon the full capacity in having the children grasp the concept that is to be delivered across-curious. So then, I do agree with the aspect of constructive teaching to be place within the classroom. It provides a more critical thinking base and allow students to express themselves that indicates if the students is understanding what teacher is trying to bring across.
DeleteThe traditional vs constructivist teaching methods
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video I find that in the traditional teaching method which is the old system of teaching, the children usually work alone, they are viewed as a "blank slate" In the traditional teaching method strict adherence is given to a fixed curriculum and curricular activities rely heavily on text books of data and manipulative materials.Where as in a constructivist method the students usually works in groups where the teacher acts as the facilitator, as children is viewed as thinkers with emerging theories about the world, the curriculum is presented as a whole to part with emphasis on the big concept. Using the constructivist teaching method , assessment of student learning is interwoven with teaching and occurs through teacher observation of student at work and through exhibitions and portfolios.Using the constructivist approach will work best for me and my students because it will allows for me as the teacher to be able to multitask, and it will also helps the children through assimilation, where they will incorporate the new experience into an already existing framework without changing that framework.
Hi Miss Messam I totally agree with you on the fact that a constructivist classroom will help any teacher to multitask. The approach is good as it serves as a boost to learning when children share their experiences with each other and for those who already had an idea it simply helps them to develop on their knowledge.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShirlet Halliday September 10, 2014
ReplyDeleteTraditional Teaching vs Constructive Approach to Learning
As a student being reared and motivated by the traditional approach in my primary school years, it really seemed to have been the world of openness to learning, but that was due to the fact that technology and new learning innovations were not of utmost importance, Teachers had used the multigrade system and it had worked for them at that time. That was the conventional approach which had a lot to do with memorization and whole class assessment strategies. We were rarely allowed to act on our own intelligence, because everything was already set before us.
However, with the paradigm shift from the traditional to more student centered level, we as teachers have to be in tune with the new approach of consrtuctivism, whereby we allow the students to become master in their own right. Guided discovery methods through questioning, and hands on activities will enable students to appreciate new challenges placed before them and use their critical thinking skiils to solve problematic equations. Schema is a very important tool that will help teachers to get a clear picture of what level each student is at. Traditional teaching has its place, but constructivism in the classroom is infinite.
Hi Ms. Holiday, I think you raised a very good point with technology changing. There is no doubt that all of the new technologies, led by the Internet, are shaping the way we think in ways obvious and subtle, deliberate and unintentional, and advantageous and detrimental. The reality is that with this new technological frontier in its infancy and developments emerging at a rapid pace it is inevitable that children will have encounters with technology, so why not teach them to use it constructively. Students can develop valuable research skills at a young age.
DeleteI must agree with Ms Haliday when she mention that teaching and educating our children has taken a new paradigm shift to a new of age of technology and student centred methods. We as teachers must embrace this new shift and use it to our advantage. We must be up to date and creative as to how to keep our students interest. We have come along way from chalk and talk to where of students are given the opportunity make assumptions and the chance to prove or rethink them. we must be innovative to keep our students attention and having them coming back for more. Traditional way of teaching has left the building.
DeleteIts good to know that Ms Haliday recognizes that technology is a big influence in our education system. We have a lot to compete with these new technology everyday and if we don't make that shift from traditional to the more student centered level, us teachers will be extinct in a matter of years. I completely support the idea of student centered learning.
DeleteTraditional teaching vs. constructivist teaching
ReplyDeleteTraditional teaching is the old teaching method, traditional teaching is based on the belief that learning occurs as learning are, and the material been thought will only be last for a moment/ period of time. This is mainly a self working area while constructivist teaching is more of a group activity, and the best way to teach students, the reason I Say so is simply because with constructivist leaning always build upon knowledge that already know.
Hi Shantel, I do agree with your opinion that with the constructivist approach learners always build upon knowledge that they already know but this approach goes beyond the students building from their previous knowledge it also involves observation , personal experiences and predictions. From this the students gather information and they make corrections to their previous knowledge to confirm new knowledge.
DeleteHi, as Stacey have mention about the constructivit approach, it is true it do goes more than just building on prior knowledge. to add also to what Stacey mention, when it comes to the constructivist classroom teaching method,it allows the student to think critically, sharing and learning through each other experiences. having class discussions and hands on activities help builds the child learning skills. and it is assure that the students will learn. so its not just building on their prior knowledge.
DeleteYour notion is in alignment with Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning which originates from pervious knowledge. The concept from general to specific is of utmost important in the teaching profession or in any profession. Thus I strongly understand where you are coming from.
DeleteTraditional Vs Constructivist Approach to Teaching
ReplyDeleteThe two approaches are very different.
The traditional approach, also call teacher-center, is when the teacher standing front of the classroom and provide all learning information.
However in constructivist approach, student centered, learning poses a question to the students, who then work together in small groups to discover one or more solutions.
it would be idea for teacher today to have a balance of both approach. Not only having complete control of the classroom, but also having the student to freely express and develop their own thoughts.
Hi Nicole, I totally agree with you that both approaches would be needed to balance teaching today. However, I believe that their should be more of the constructivist approach so we can hear more of the children then our duty should be to help clear them of any misconception they may have. I really think we need to hear more of the children. We can learn a lot from them.
DeleteHi Nicole,
DeleteI agree with your comment, the traditional approach is teacher-centered, cause the teacher stand and gives all the information. There is no student interaction. Eventhough the teacher provides correct information, the message was not deliver to meet students need of learning. children need to be involve in your lesson so that they can have a better understanding on the topic. They can share their experiences and relate to things that are happening around them. I also agree that constructivist class room allows the children to work more together, especially in groups where they can express their opinion and taughts.
Traditional Approach Vs. Constructivist Approach
ReplyDeleteThe traditional approach to learning basically involves the teacher standing in front of the class and at the students. There is little to no input from students as well as no collaborative experience within the classroom. The constructivist approach on the other hand, is the opposite of this approach. Constructivism allows learning in the classroom to be interactive, collaborative and most importantly student-centered.
It is evident that the use of the constructivist approach in the classroom will result in higher performance rate. I say this because this approach enables the use of student’s prior knowledge to basically activate learning of new material. Ausubel’s theory states that learning should be meaningful so as to ensure that content stays in the cognitive structure. If students are able to make connections between prior knowledge and new content, a greater understanding is achieved.
This approach also involves the use of collaborative activities which Vygotsky further emphasized in is theory. With this, students are exposed to working with others and as a result they learn from their own peers. The teacher is no longer the only source of information.
For these stated reasons, I believe the constructivist approach is what works best for me and my students. I want to not only relay information to my students but to also activate their critical thinking skills. I want them to be able to become independent and be able to make proper judgments and question things around them. Active learning helps students become more aware of their skills and abilities and as an effect makes learning meaningful and fun for them. Constructivism in the classroom opens a new avenue for positive behavior and positive outlook to the whole educational system as it makes students feel as though they too are knowledgeable and are able to contribute to their own learning.
Traditional and constructivism approaches were developed by renounced psychologists and are applied in schools system. Traditional teaching is teacher centered and students are passive learners. The teacher disseminates information which often leads to rote memorization instead of meaningful learning. In contrast, constructivism is more student centered where discovery learning and meaningful learning can takes place. Students are active in activities such as group research, discussion, and experiments. Hence, students gain the skills of inquiry, predicting, problem solving and drawing conclusions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, both approaches work for me and has its place in the classroom. Sometimes, I prefer being told information instead of having to do research because it may be too time consuming. However, when constructing my own knowledge I find it more satisfying and the content retains longer. I trust that doing my own research provides sufficient information to add details in my cognitive structure. In my classroom I will approach Ausubel’s learning theory of subsumption in education with an emphasis on meaningful learning based on previous knowledge (Ausubel, 1968). I know there will be a time for traditional teaching in the classroom. Thus, I will create a balance between student and teacher centered activities.
Hi Pearline ...
DeleteI agree with what you mention above in your comment. The traditional classroom is more teacher centered and students are passive learner. Because after watching the video, it shows how the teacher was the one doing all the talking and the students were looking clueless.The teacher had no idea that the students were not interested in his topic. I also agree that the constructivist class room is more student centered. children are able to express themselves and to be more involve with things aroundthem.
And I agree with you one creating a balance between student and teacher centered classroom because the Teacher is still the leader that gives the child the guide to his or her learing.
I do agree with opinion on the implementation of both approaches because in order for learning to transpire there must be a balance classroom. This would include the teacher and students having a role and engaging actively in the classroom. It does occur that sometimes teachers prefer to teach and have the students take the information and work with it while in some cases they prefer the active participation of the students. In any case using both approaches within the classroom is a very good implementation.
DeleteAlma & Pearline: yes the constructivist teaching is more an effective approach, it promotes and stimulates learning base whereby it provides different means of and how to get across concept that are to be covered and most likely students interaction whereby the express themselves..Pertaining to the video whereas the students are most likely bored and inattentive-gives a sense in my view that the teacher interest lies more in issuing across what he is to covered for the day and not what the students should grasp.
DeleteI do agree with you Mrs. Ritchie that both approach have their own place and time within the classroom. An effective and dedicated teacher will find which method works best and strike a balance between both as you have so rightly mentioned
DeleteI want to emphasizes that research fosters thinking things out deeply, strategizing and recognizing the complexities of ideas, extending thought in new, unanticipated ways. It values meaning over speed and efficiency. The teacher, having to just relay information might enhance dependability on being way too informative. The act of not researching also gives room for less critical thinking both in and outside of the classroom.
DeleteThe Traditional VS The Constructivist teaching methods
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the videos provided, and also doing my research on the two methods of teaching. As a pre-service teacher, I see myself using the constructivist approach to teaching. According to Paget’s constructivist theory it is important for the teacher, instead of telling, the teacher must begin asking. Instead of answering questions that only align with their curriculum; the teacher must make it so that the student comes to the conclusions on their own instead of being told. Also, some children learn better by visual means, others will learn better with auditory means, and still others are going to learn better with a hands-on approach. So, having the students involved in the lesson will challenge the student by making them effective critical thinkers. “Critical thinking is essential if we are to get to the root of our problems and develop reasonable solutions. After all, the quality of everything we do is determined by the quality of our thinking” (The Critical Thinking Community). This is exactly what the constructivist method does. The Traditional teaching method on the other hand, the student listens to the teacher lecturing and in a classroom; it is inevitable that there are going to be several children with differing learning styles and academic strengths and weaknesses. This will leave some students not learning and possibly becoming delinquents.
Yes, I have accepted that each child has different learning style but they also have different learning abilities. This include slow learners and fast learner. Piaget theory focuses on discovery learning, which I see is a disadvantage for slow learners. Hence, Lev Vygotsky focused on social constructivism which encourages collaboration among students. Also the Zone of proximal development pinpoints need for those of greater knowledge to guide students (Vygotsky, 1978).
DeleteTraditional VS Constructivist Teaching
ReplyDeleteTraditional teaching incooperate less students’ interaction in the learning process and more teacher centre-talk and chalk method; which is or considered a simple and straight forward format of teaching. Through this through approach, teacher’s evaluation of learning is narrow whereas entails only few methods such as quizzes, test, assign work (practice), project or research are used to conduct or view students’ knowledge/information retain. To add, students will most likely be bored, inattentive-lacking interest and may be mischievous when doing chalk and talk lesson.
On the other hand, relating to the constructivist-enable students to learn through the process of educational activities (hands on activities): games, trips, group work, peer assistance, presentation that promote and stimulates learning base-different means of and how to get across the concept. These strategies, allow students to retain information and elaborate on the skills and abilities adequately. Thus, the teacher will possess a better chance of meeting the students’ educational needs through effective planning and application of strategies that cater to the students multiple intelligences and learning style which challenge their critical thinking. Moreover, allows teacher to enhance the communication with his/her students, thus, having a healthy teacher-student relationship and greater student success.
As a young future educator, I aspire to exhibit the constructivist teaching style-to facilitate the learning possess within the environment. As a note, not every child is academically incline and I different in their own unique way, thus, this approach will be effective to meet each learning style: visual, logical, inter/intrapersonal and natural intelligences. Allowing those who are academically incline, to better express themselves through various medium constructed by the teacher. This concept will assist to get across the information, they need to possess and develop their abilities.
Moreover, I believe students skill, moral, right and behaviour in a well mannerly way will be encounter or achieve to sustain a success in education.
Ms Janine
DeleteI agree with your "no child should be left behind attitude." The constructivist style of teaching implies just that. Using this approach a teacher is able to find creative ways to engage all students despite and according to their learning level to be apart of their own learning. Using this approach as a teacher, shows the attitude of the student comes first and that learning should be all about them.
After viewing the three videos, it gave me a better understanding and poin to view for the different types of teaching that occurs in the class room. I can relate to both experiences one being a child and now presently being the teacher.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, most teachers would demonstrates a traditional class room enviroment. where by the teaching was the one doing all the talking and interaction.
The traditional Class room, focus more on the teacher, and how well the teacher presents his or her material to the class. It allow the teacher to do all the work such as the research, the creativity and the preparation. A teacher should do all this inorder to know his or her material, but the problem is how they deliever the material. after observing the traditional class room example, it made me realize that the teacher is the one doing all the talking and answering his own question. it simply shows that children are not involve in this settting. By doing such delievery, children will not be interactive, they will show no interest in subject matter, their opinion will not be heard. This class room setting is not child center. It focus on a talk and chalk interaction. whereby in society today students need to be more involve with things around them.
The Constructivist class room setting, shows the teacher being well prepared as well by know her students previous knowledge, as well as the subject topic that they need to cover. This setting is more child centered because it allows the children to be more involve with their inputs of opinon and ideas. It allows them to work in groups and to figure out situations on their own. children shows more interest, they remember informations given, they discuss things on their own, they do research and become more familiar with things around them that are happening within the society.
I like the Constructivist class room. I believe that one works best for me because i am a active person and I have fun when children give their ideas, they experience and especially when they work in groups. i also notice that it give them a great chance to remember important events that occured and it help them to relate to things around them.
Hi Ms Alma,
DeleteI so agree with you, the traditional classroom focus more on the teacher and not the student. and yes i also believe that children need to be involve in their learning enviroment in order for them to remember information given to them. I like when you mention they discuss things on their own after researching. That way, it help them to hold the information and it gives them a better understanding in their subject matter indeed.
Hi Alma
DeleteI do agree that the traditional method of teaching is teacher centered and the constructivist approach is student centered. This method also shows that the teacher is fully prepared to deliver lesson. Students do like when they are involved and takes every opportunity when it lends itself. as well it is true that they are able to relate to things in their environment.
Hats off and I genuflect to the information you blogged on here. I especially agreed with more interaction strategies . It helps in collaboration, extending to individual and group conversations between adults and children. Also, this expands the child’s oral language skills and facilitate the development of critical thinking.
DeleteHi Ms Mary and Shaine I really agree with your statement of traditional teaching in the classroom is a spoon feeding section ,were by the students will only remember the material for a short period of time , the teacher should help the student after ,the students go out and find his/her information being it to the classroom ,teacher the class about his/her research ,then the teacher gave correction where need, do gave all the material ,let the student work for what they want and they will remember for a longer time, if they fail to prepare they will prepare to fail.
DeleteThe Traditional Approach to Teaching centers the teacher delivering the content to the students and the students having to memorize what was given to them as knowledge and acting upon that information. This approach does not allow the active participation of the students. The Traditional Approach also lacks the student’s creative and critical skills. On the other hand, the Constructivist Approach to teaching developed by John Dewey centers the student’s participation in innovative activities. The students learn by doing and by experience. This approach allows students to not only observe but from observing they engage hands on.
ReplyDeleteThe Constructivist approach to learning is an active and constructive way for students to participate and learn. The Constructivist Approach also brings about different teaching approaches such as behaviorism. This approach involves the learners constructing their own knowledge based from their own personal experience and predictions of the environment. Through the constructivist approach the students build their own knowledge based on their experience and predictions and they communicate their knowledge. From this the students can create new knowledge while correcting their previous knowledge and then confirm present knowledge. In my personal opinion the constructivist approach to teaching is the most effective because it allows students to build knowledge through observing, participating and confirming. This approach encourages students to think critical and creative and from this they build new knowledge while correcting their previous knowledge.
Hi, i agree with you simply because if teachers just delivers the content to the students, to my acknowledgement the students just memorizes the content for a short while. after the child forgets, which means the child did not learn the concepts or content being taught for that day. which it shouldn't be that way, as teacher we are to use more of a constructivist classroom teaching rather than traditional classroom.
DeleteStacey Bowen I strongly agree with what you say by the students will memorize, and memorizing is to learning because it is only for a time span, that’s the reason, why I don’t believe in the traditional teaching, because information will stay with you for a short time before the end of the semester most thought will be forgotten.
DeleteConstructivist teaching is based on the belief that learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction as opposed to passively receiving information, as in a traditional classroom setting. Learners are the makers of meaning and knowledge. Constructivist teaching fosters critical thinking, and creates motivated and independent learners. This theoretical framework holds that learning always builds upon knowledge that a student already knows. Learning is more effective when a student is actively engaged in the learning process rather than attempting to receive knowledge passively. I believe that the constructivist approach would work best for my students and I because students need to be actively involved in their learning to reach new understandings. This approach can be used to create learners who are autonomous, inquisitive thinkers who question, investigate, and reason, which will lead to them becoming independent individuals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the Constructivism approach works best because children are actively involved in the lesson with the teacher. Children love fun activities rather that teacher dictating to them at all times. When children are involved in learning they retain information easily and feel that they are knowledgeable contributing to their learning.
DeleteTraditional teaching vs. constructivist teaching
ReplyDeleteWhen it we talk about Constructivist classroom, as shown in video one, we are simply saying it is child centered. This focuses on the knowledge that is being constructed rather than it to be reproduction. This knowledge is being constructed through experiences. Also it drive the learning process, here the teacher is more of a facilitator. Traditional classroom, here we see that the teacher is more of a dictator. Giving the students all the information, which 99% of the time not effective. When the teacher just stands in front of the classroom and teach, the interest or focus of the students aren’t at a high percentage. The students losses their focus very easily therefore, they don’t learn. Whereas in a constructivist classroom, the students learns through hands on activities. They share their prior knowledge with their peers through discussion. Also, it allows them to think critically.
You are right Nazzera, who likes someone dictating to them? How will you be effective, it is true that that loose focus easily in the method. Peer discussion is better because some students learn better from their classmates. Out with the traditional!! We can do a petition, :)
DeleteMs. Alarcon, I do agree with your comment. As teachers it is important to allow students to think critically. This can only be done in a contructivist classroom where students are challenged to speak openly, to use their prior knowledge, to use their manipulative’s and to use their experiences. When we get students to do all these things students reach their highest level of critical thinking; hence teachers are then seen as the facilitators to students learning.
DeleteCouldn't have said it any better Nazzerra, students focus is easily lost and if we continue to teach this traditional way, our students results in PSE, BJAT, etc will be horrible. We as teachers must take it upon our self and shift away from the traditional approach inorder to instill critical thinking and learn from one another, studies shown that students do learn alot from one another. Lets strive to shift away from this traditional approach!
DeleteHi Nazzerra,
DeleteI totally agree that knowledge is being constructed through experiences. when a child engage in activities and group work, it provides them to actually receive the content first. This idea help break us from the lock-step approach to teaching that comes from behaviorism. learning is an active process that helps students relate the new content to that which they already know.
When it comes to Traditional Vs Constructivist Approach to Teaching it is something that all teachers across the level should learn. It is very meaningful and helpful in this modern day, as we all know the modern teaching will consist of chalk and talk which was not conductive to learning for students as much as constructivist approach. Where technology is involve it is very much help and meaningful whereby the children will be able to brain storm and use their previous knowledge, this will allow the students to be confident in their self. As a teacher I use the constructivist approach, where I allow the students to do discovery learning with a few prompts most of them are able to guess what the topic would be. I also include a lot of videos and also power point presentation. Student center activities also helps teachers to stay away from the modern teaching. All teachers should use the constructivist approach to enhace good learning.
ReplyDeleteMs Georgia you are right , these are the modern days. The days of technology are now and it's great that you incorporate the constructivist method. Am sure your students have a lot of fun and their knowledge enhances. Keep up the good work Ms. Cadle.
DeleteI do agree that we live in a modern society where learning should be meaningful. Where gone are the days when teachers used chalk and talk as the only means of teaching children. I also believe that using technology helps and enhances learning; however, it is important that we understand how and when to use technology in our classrooms, as videos and power-point presentations only replaces the teacher as being the only means learning. I am glad to know that you use the constructivist approach in providing student-centered activities to your children and I do believe that your children are having lots of fun.
DeleteGranted these are modern days and the use of technology is on the rise but I think that sometimes teachers use technology as a crotch. The over use of technology in my opinion is crippling the minds of both teachers and students because they no longer want to use their brain they simply allow computers and internet to think for them. While I believe that we do need to incorporate technology in teaching and learning we must be careful that we do not allow it to stop our natural innovation and creativity.
DeleteTraditional vs Constructivist
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the video it is evident that there are significant differences between the the traditional and constructivist teaching methods in knowledge, students, and learning. It's important, however, to bear in mind that constructivists acknowledge that students are constructing knowledge in traditional classrooms, too. It's really a matter of the emphasis being on the student, not on the instructor. On the contrary, students play an active role in carrying out experiments and reaching their own conclusions in the traditional classroom. Teachers assist the students in developing new insights and connecting them with previous knowledge, but leave the discovery and discussion to the student groups. The traditional n, however possess teacher-centered lessons that can be nonproductive, less student participation and the support is different. In concluding, the traditional is not better because a teacher talking on and on is so boring as a authority role. Constructivist focusses on the learning is built on what the students know where the teacher make it interactive, fun and hand-on causing it to be student-centered. It is obvious that the one I use and love is the constructivist, gone are the days of the traditional and boring method. Learning is fun!!!
Hi Ms. Alice
DeleteI do agree with your comment. Linking your opinion to the power point that Mr. Tucker went through with us a week ago on Meaningful Social Studies in states that “Powerful social studies is meaningful, integrative, value based, challenging and active (National Council for Social Studies, 1994).”
Hey Ms. Alice
DeleteI am on the same train you are on, out with the old and in with the new and more effective. Learning is fun and the students should be a part of that experience, apart of everything that will make their learning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the videos and having completed a few research on both approaches to learning it is clearly evident that students enjoy and are active participants in the contructivist learning approach.
ReplyDeleteIn the constructivist approach students build and create their own knowledge based on their prior knowledge. In the first video it was evident that students were in control of their learning. Teachers were seen as facilitators guiding students in their own discovery. In a contructivist classroom students are able to manipulate, predict, investigate, imagine and invent as we could have elicited from the video. While in a traditional classroom, students are observed sitting, listening and may be responding to what they may have memorized from previous experiences. In this type of approach students are seen bored and are not challenged in any way. Students use rote memorization instead of learning using the collaborative approach. I do believe that both approach are important; however, it is evident that as teachers we should use the constructivist approach as our students will be more enthuse to be in our classroom, as they will have more opportunities to be actively involved.
I use to say that nothing was wrong with traditional teaching because when I was younger my teachers I believed used the traditional method and I believed that i didn't turn out too bad. After viewing these videos I realized that I can't based my way of teaching on what occurred "back in the days." Times have changed drastically since then and as with time change several other thing have changed also. As a teacher now , with my own experiences and research , i have grown to notice that the traditional method of teaching is not enough to keep up with those time change.
ReplyDeleteTraditional teaching is teacher centered. Its all about the teacher, what teacher says, the information he/she gives and their insights. What about the student? Learning doesn't and shouldn't only entail what teacher says and thinks but the students engagement, what they are thinking and how they apply what they have learnt. Traditional teaching tends to "spoon-feed" the information to students and lessens the room for critical thinking. For information that requires recall or memorization may be delivered in the traditional method, simply given to the student by the teacher, however still that information is not limited to be delivered in that method of teaching. Meaningful Learning is what all teachers today should aim for. As Constructivist theorists explained in their research, learning should revolve around the students. Teacher should find innovative ways to bring across concepts to students based on their capabilities. Lessons should be student-centered. Teachers should be effective guides that fosters higher level thinking in students having them using what they know to understand the new material they learn and using such gained knowledge to make decision on their own even as a child. Having the students actively engaged in their own learning helps with other areas such as classroom management. If students are always on task and not simply just sitting down while the teacher writes on a chalkboard, then their minds are active in useful thinking and not idle activities.
Meaningful Learning, as mentioned, before should be the aim for all teachers. As a young educator it is my aim to allow meaningful learning to take place in my classroom. I have and will continue to find the best ways possible to have not only my lessons but my entire classroom and teaching environment Student Centered.
Hi Ms Mary
DeleteI like what you mention in your comment that the teacher in traditional classroom spoon -feed the students. I agree because all they do talk and give out information. And I like what you mention, learning should revolve around the student and i believe teachers should find ways to bring across their lesson to make it interesting and exciting to capture the needs of their student base on their different capabilites.
After watching the video, I can simply say that there is a difference between the traditional and Constructivist class room.
ReplyDeleteThe Traditional classroom V.S the Constructivist classroom
From the looks of it, the Traditional class room is more teacher centered. whereby the teacher is the one doing all the talking and engaging in their own lesson. There is no room for students interaction. Students are not involve, the teacher objects does not matches with the needs of the student. In other words, the teacher doesn't know his or her student. The traditional class room focus more on the teacher knowing the material and just simply giving it back without any means of creativity for the students interest. this class room setting lacks motivation. children therefore has no interest in given topic.
The Constructivist class room focus more on the students. Students interact with each other in this setting. They engage in activites that helps them to remeber things discuss within the classroom like important events etc. This setting reflects on the Constructivist theory on getting to know the students previous knowledge and experiences.
Both Classroom setting allows the teacher to know his or her material before they deliver their lesson and objects to reach their children need of learning. The difference is one being the dictator and the other being a guide leader.
I believe the Constructivist class room setting will work best for me. I am not a teacher as yet, but i can definately see my self allow my time to get to know my students and build a teacher center class room enviroment. It is better to have children involve in their learning. That way they can relate things to their liking.
Your findings are definitely on point. The traditional way is much too teacher centered and limits students interaction. Its good that you can notice the difference and use it when you enter the classroom to ensure meaningful learning takes class in your classroom.
DeleteTraditional vs Constructivist.
ReplyDeleteTraditional teaching methods is when the teacher directs the learn. All the information is given out in bulk by the teacher. this create boredom and lack of interest. The constructivist say that the teacher's role it to assist in the leaning process than be a key member.students should be eager to learn and be able to build a bridge to see where it connects in their lives. Traditional way of teaching outs our students to sleep and hence the students lack of interest in their study and drops out. when students become bored in the classroom especially when they have to sit down and listen to the person talk for so long often creates kids to do mischief and hence classroom behaviours is at an all time low. When a child is eager to learn and tries his best to understand the load of work is less. as a teacher now the constructivist theory is very appealing to use because at times when students manipulate and try to develop a way to do solve there own issues it tends to stick with them longer and easier.
I agree that traditional teaching bored students and creates lack of interest. students should be motivated using creative activities to enhance learning. the activities should be so student centered and capture to attention for students to want to learn.
DeleteI also concur the traditional way of teaching contributes to behavioral problems. this allows children to behave in a mischievous manner because the teaching is not interesting and does not capture students attention. The constructivist theory is more appealing and student centered. this allows students to become a part of the lesson and motivates them to want to attend school
I agree we learn best by doing but I don't think that we as teachers should completely eliminate the use of traditional teaching and only use constructivist method because students can learn in both ways. Generations have learned throughout the years with the traditional method and they are the ones imparting knowledge to us now. Yes, the constructivist method may engage students in learning more in this century. Information and more effective and efficient ways of things are being researched and brought the table everyday so today for the constructivist method and tomorrow for something new or we may go back to the old. Who knows?
DeleteSorry I meant to say we should not completely eliminate the use of traditional teaching
DeleteA traditional versus a constructivist classroom determines what the child will leave with at the end of the day from the classroom. The traditional way of teaching had little to no student interaction. All information was given to them and this only promoted a memorization of concepts rather than actually learning the concepts taught. This method of teaching as seen in the video cause students to become bore and disinterested in the lesson. This method of teaching is known as the traditional teaching or the “chalk and talk”. On the other hand, with a constructivist classroom it is organized and the teacher as well is organized with prepared materials to deliver lesson to students. The students are engaged in and out of the classroom and are involved every step of the way. They are allowed to give their input as the teaching is not giving information but merely acting as a facilitator of the lessons being taught. This method allows students to do self-discovery hence allowing them to be more productive and interactive. Overall, constructivist teaching stimulates learning. Both methods promote learning at different levels. I have been using the constructivist method of learning and dind’t realize that that was the name for it. This method works best for my students as it keeps them engaged and eager to learn. You can see the question on their faces of “what’s next?” When students know that they are the focal point of the classroom they behave accordingly to obtain the most out of every lesson. As well this methods students occupied that they is little room for misbehaviour
ReplyDeleteGood response. I especially like your point that both methods facilitate learning which brings across the point that learning takes place under both, but the difference is the type of learning that happens. You yourself discovered that you've been using the constructivist method and weren't aware... which leads me to believe that your classroom is a fun place.
DeleteConstructivist teaching fosters critical thinking, creates motivated students and independent learners. We all know that the Constructivist teaching is based on that fact learning occurs when students are actively involved in class room teaching. When students are actively participating in the class room they retain the information quicker and are fully attentive because the lesson is don’t in a way to keep students interest. Constructivists suggest that learning is more effective when a student is actively engaged in the learning process rather than attempting to receive knowledge passively like the traditional teaching, which is consider to be less active and boring for students. With the traditional teaching the teacher is the controller of learning. The traditional teacher views that it is the teacher that causes learning to occur and students master knowledge through drill and practice. For me I would say that the constructivist teaching works best for me especially with the fact that I am a student who is easily distracted. Am not in the class room as yet to say which one work for my students but from watching and observing other teachers lesson, keeping students active when teaching a lesson is the best way because in this way there would be less time for students mind to stray and all students will want to participate.
ReplyDeleteYou have made some very good points. I do agree that the constructivist approach will be a good motivator for students. I also agree that it will keep the interest of our students. Personally I believe that ll teachers should give the constructivist approach a try.
DeleteTraditional way of teaching is described as “chalk and talk”. It does not allow students to be actively involved in the lesson. This type of teaching is not child friendly and does not posses a child friendly atmosphere. A teacher in a traditional way of teaching, dominate the entire lesson and fails to allow students to think critically. The lessons are teacher friendly and are concerned with the teacher being the controller of the learning environment. The teachers in this teaching approach play the role of an instructor that makes all decisions .They consider students as having ‘knowledge holes’( Novak,1998).Traditional teachers believes that they are the ones that causes teaching to occur.
ReplyDeleteConstructivist teaching allows students to learn through child centered activities. This allows students to think critically. Teachers plan the lessons to focus on blooms taxonomy that includes: cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills. Students are allowed to: make observations, formulates predictions and analyze information. Teachers act as a facilitator and encourage students to think critically.
I believe that the constructivist approach works better for me because it enhances learning. This type of teaching is student centered and enables students to become actively involved in the lessons. As a result students are excited to come to school and learn. This forms as a motivation for children to lean. The activities are also fun for the students to manipulate and connect to real life situations. I believe that by connecting the lessons to real life situations will be more meaningful to students.
Traditional Teaching Methods consists of three main types of methods used in the the traditional education. It consists of lectures and direct instruction, seat work and listening and observation. In the lectures and direct instruction the lesson bases on teacher guidance at all times. The students should listen to the teacher at all times. In the seat work approach the tests are used to grade the students performance using work from textbooks and resources. Listening and Observation approach is whereby the teacher talks to the students about the topic and expect them to learn everything without doing practical. Constructivist teaching is based on children learning that builds upon knowledge that a student already knows. Learning is more effective when a student is actively engaged in the learning process rather than attempting to receive knowledge passively. Most of these methods rely on some form of guided discovery where the teacher avoids most direct instruction and attempts to lead the student through questions and activities to discover, discuss, appreciate and verbalize the new knowledge. Constructivist teaching approach works best for my students and I because using this approach students are actively involved, the activities are interactive and student-centered and the teacher facilitates a process of learning in which students are encouraged to be responsible.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! Im believe that the concepts was well explained and express. Now was need to be done, is the applying of the idea with in the classroom today.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy comparison of the two leads me to understand that while both methods are used to deliver information to students they vary in their execution and methods. The traditional teaching method is what our parents' parents used. Its outdated to some extent. Its basically where teachers come with information and present to students, what we would call 'chalk and talk'. This method has its perks but with technology and all its advances it is not as effective as it used to be. The constructivist method is more on a hands on method. It engages students, motivates them to learn and helps them to discover learning on their own. It involves the teacher but her input is limited. This method would prove to be more effective on today's students especially in the technological era we live in. Use of videos, music, discovery method and exploration would yield better results than the 'chalk and talk' ' this is how you do it' way.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the constructivist method. It motivates students to actually want to learn. Students like to discover things and it makes them understand what is being taught, especially when the discovery and learning is left up to them.
I must agree with this post because as teachers we need to move with time . What worked in the past will not necessarily work for us in these modern times. We are teaching children of a different generation and so must try new approaches to teaching to see what works best for our students.
DeleteThe traditional view asserts that their is a unified and absolute set of truths that can be discovered and taught. Constructivism, by contrast, holds that their is no unified or absolute truth. Rather truth is a matter of personal perspectives and is therefore relative in every thought conceived.
ReplyDeleteAlso, constructivist asserts that knowledge is "situated" has led to changes in traditional classroom instruction. Knowledge remains inert in the mind but virtually unusable. Although students may recall isolated facts upon demand, they cannot put information in context unrehearsed beyond the class walls.
In addition, I personally allude to the act of constructivism within my teaching premises. Having a verse background in theological credo, I definitely perceived that the constructivist approach is more relevant and valuable. Whereas, human perception and experience, then, must be compared with and evaluated in terms of objective facts that describe the structure of individuality. Regurgitation of info within my psyche has no weight to that of children using their worldly experiences.
Traditional Versus Constructivist Teaching
ReplyDeleteMany teachers believe that traditional teaching is out dated and obsolete and that constructivism is the right way to go. Personally, I am of the opinion that teachers need to use both teaching styles in the classroom to better equip students into becoming more successful individuals. Traditional teaching is more teacher centered because the teacher simply provides information for students and simply expect students to regurgitate the same information in formal testing. The limitation of this method of teaching is that it cripples and stifles student’s ability to think critically, solve problems and offer minimal opportunities for investigation. However, this method of teaching can still be effective for some topics like teaching sight words.
On the other hand the constructivist approach in the classroom allows for more student centered lessons. In this approach the teacher acts as a facilitator to the students rather than a dictator. Students are given the opportunity to find themselves through the different strategies used to teach. Students are allowed to query, investigate and discover knowledge on their own. Since the aim of this method is to build on students previous knowledge are able to develop preconceptions, clear up misconceptions and enhance their conceptual understanding of topics through the process of assimilation and accommodation. Students can meaningfully go through the E's of the learning cycle which include exploration, explanation, evaluation and expansion.
While the constructivist approach to teaching is ideal teachers need to use it effectively and within guidelines. The constructivist method help to foster adults that are seek answers rather than accept everything without question.
The traditional vs. the constructivist classroom:
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the videos and doing my own research I am now a firm believer that the constructivist classroom is the better way to go. The traditional classroom setting as it relates to Social Studies is mostly chalk and talk. It entails a lot of recall information on the part of the students. In the traditional classroom setting we find many children only knowing information for the moment and as soon as they are tested they can no longer tell u that information. Meaning that the information was not really learnt or understood. This is a major problem when they move into another class as that teacher feels as if he or she has to start from the beginning with students simply because they do not remember what was taught in the previous class.
In a complete contrast the constructivist approach teaches us that we should let children take charge of their learning. Research also shows that with the use of the constructivist approach children tend to never or hardly ever forget what was taught simply because it is as if they are teaching themselves and because they are a huge part of the learning process.
I am very happy because I can get to this blog
ReplyDeleteHonestly, this is one of the blogspot that I think is very inspiring for me, maybe for others too
I hope, you always always write articles on other interesting articles that I can read
Cara Menyembuhkan Tetanus Cara Menyembuhkan Kaligata Cara Menyembuhkan Lutut Bengkak Secara Alami Obat Bisul Ada Di Apotik Cara Mengatasi Keputihan yang Tidak Normal, Berbau & Terasa Gatal Obat Prurigo yang Ampuh Obat Diabetes Herbal yang Aman Bagi Ibu Hamil Obat Infeksi Jamur Di Kemaluan Cara Menyembuhkan ISK Cara Menghilangkan Bruntusan Di Wajah Secara Alami