For activity 5 we were asked to reflect upon the Ertmer & Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002) readings and investigate how they apply to our work. After selecting a theoretical position we were asked to explain why we felt it resonated with us and describe how it applies to our work.
I found this task challenging as I think it is hard to completely align with only one theoretical position. I believe it is not only human nature to have various thought processes that include many theoretical positions, but it makes for a better and more well rounded teacher (and learner). Ertmer & Newby (2013) describe in detail behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism from an instructional design perspective and as I read through the author’s descriptions of each, I found myself thinking that I could relate my teaching to behaviourism and constructivism. Merrill (2002) describes several instructional theories and again I found myself connecting to Jonassen’s Constructivist Learning Environments and Schanks Learning by Doing (pp. 55-56).
In behaviourism I can relate to doing an assessment of a learner before starting a task, making sure that they master each step before moving on to the next, and providing constant feedback to ensure that their performance improves (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 49). This sequence is very similar to how I teach a lesson in our carpentry lab. First I would do an assessment of the learners safety and skills on the tools, then provide detailed step by step instructions of the task ensuring that they check in with me at each critical point, all the while providing feedback to ensure that they maximize their potential.
Learning by doing is an important part in any trades training. Learners are constantly encountering new situations in carpentry as no two jobs are exactly the same. As such, we teach them to draw on past lessons (cases) that resemble the new one and apply their existing knowledge to the new lesson (Merrill, 2002, pp. 56-57).
Ok, time to stop dithering…if I had to pick a camp I would place myself in the area of constructivism as I believe that creating meaning in your learning is essential to one’s growth. In my classroom, the best learning experiences are when I can equate the content to a real life situation that the students have experienced. Having others share how their previous life experiences relate to the content also helps the students to interpret ideas and apply them to their own experiences (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 55) creating a deep learning environment. I constantly set up assignments that maximize the student’s opportunity to experience learning (often physically rather than only mentally) and provide them with time to reflect on that learning. For example, rather than lecturing to them about concrete columns, I put them into teams and have them do a scavenger hunt around the college searching for four different types of columns (and have them take pictures with their phones or iPads). Upon return to the class they make a quick presentation describing the characteristics and functions of the columns and share it with the class. Before finishing the lesson we have a group discussion on the subject as a whole. This type of lesson could easily be taken from on-ground to blended or online format.
Although I find myself favouring constructivism, I can honestly say that I can find elements of my teaching in most, if not all, of the theories in these readings.
References
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Hi Steve. My brother is a secondary school teacher in downtown Toronto and reading your blog post sounded just like the day-to-day of his job. By applying meaning to the lessons, he gives the students a better sense of purpose and ownership of the lesson and the engagement level dramatically increases. Such a far cry from when I was a high school student many moons ago and we were subjected to lessons of “do as I say” or “this is how its always been done” and real life applications were rarely implemented. Great post! Cheers man.
Hi Gavin,
I too went through high school with many of my teachers employing the ‘do as I say’ method. I’m glad your brother is using an effective teaching method and I hope that more teachers are doing this these days.
I think your last sentence was my favorite, regarding a little of every style in each of your teachings. I think without all the terms and language we’ve developed around this subject, most teachers have naturally built courses that cover some or all of these ideas. I always wondered my shop didn’t teach me to use tools in a more pragmatic fashion, like teach me how to use a drill by making me install drywall anchors and put up a simple shelf. I could have saved a lot of broken glass in my early life if I’d known, but I’ve definitely never made another dado joint since my botched end table project in grade 10!
Haha…you’re speaking my language!
For sure having students perform real world tasks is very effective in any field.
Hi Steve,
I think it is immpossibe to completely ignore the theories that predate constructivist learning theory. But as a secondary school teacher I am happy to report that in my general experience, constructivist teaching theory does dominate, especially at the primary level. Where there is still a disconnect however, is in the training and thinking required to teach in this method. Teachers are concerned with idle time, since direct instruction is a lot less of a a feature. Classroom management is also an issue if kids don’t buy into the learning without being lectured at, they are more disruptive because they are disengaged. This is not to say there weren’t similar challenges in behaviouralist, or cognitive theory based teaching, but management strategies were mush different. I think for teachers, it is easier to revert to chalk and talk content dumping, because they feel more useful, but I can’t ge over the glazed looks on student faces when I do this. I think a truly engaged and functioning constructivist classroom is something to behold!
Hi Marshall.
I agree with you, faculty need better training in constructivist teaching practices. I do think more faculty would employ these strategies if they felt more comfortable with it.
Steve