Traditional vs Constructivist Teaching Methods

Last week in class we discussed the material from chapter one of our textbook, Interweaving Curriculum and Classroom Assessment focusing on the ideas of a new story of curriculum, instruction and assessment. Something interesting that I learned from this chapter is that at the base of these three main components of the chapter is the base in which a teacher identifies themselves with, whether that be traditional teaching or constructivist teaching. Traditional teaching is a method that involves a teacher centred classroom environment, meaning that the  teacher plans the classroom in a way in which they establish themselves above the students in order to create control (Drake, Kolohon, & Reid, 2014). Constructivist teaching focuses more on the students. This type of teacher works interactively between themselves and the students in order to foster a classroom environment where the student not only respects the teacher but also allows for students to be the centre of education rather than the teachers authority (Drake et al., 2014). I know that in my personal experience I have had both types of teachers. Personally, traditional teachers, while they teach you important skills like obedience, listening and respect for an authority figure, they don’t always here the voices of the students. By the teacher placing the importance of their knowledge above the students, they undervalue the role of students as active agents within the classroom who are able to contribute to how the classroom operates. Constructivist teachers on the other hand, value the students opinions and understandings of not only their contribution to their school work but also to how the classroom operates which will allow for the best learning methods to occur (Drake et al., 2014). This is not to say that a constructivist teacher solely puts the onus of learning on the student but rather balances the role of the teacher and the student in the classroom allowing for an interactive relationship. Empowering students allows for them to not only want to actively learn but also actively participate in a classroom environment that they helped to establish. I’ve had constructivist teachers in the past and I would definitely agree that it allows for students to be able to engage more actively in classroom discussion and learning. The only downside of constructivist teaching is that sometimes teachers who are dealing with a classroom that is unresponsive, and is either not willing to actively engage in the classroom or are too disruptive enough to be able share a respecting relationship with the teacher. 

Personally, as a future teacher, I think I would identify with a constructivist base. Allowing for an interactive classroom environment not only allows for the students to learn from the teacher but also for the teacher to learn from the students. But I also think that giving students agency within their classroom and a firm grasp on influencing their own education allows for students to make informed decisions, further preparing them for the real world. While I think it’s important that traditional teachers teach their students respect and obedience for authority, I think the constructivist teacher gives students the opportunity to be informed democratic students who have faith in themselves to make their own decisions in the real world because of the practice they experienced in the classroom. This form of agency allows the students to feel empowered and confident in their informed decisions not only within the classroom but also within the real world context as well. 

Another topic that interested me from last week’s lecture was our up and coming assignment entitled “genius hour”. From the video that we watched that informed us on what exactly genius hour is, I think that it’s an absolutely outstanding idea! Being able to give students the opportunity and time to work on projects of their own interest, not only allows for students to become actively and positively engaged in their own learning material but also aligns with the constructivist method of teaching in which I had previously outlined. Therefore, genius hour not only provides myself as a student, the ability to engage in my own learning and pursue my own understandings of topics but further to see genius hour as an activity as a future activity that could be utilized in my classrooms in order to further promote my constructivist teaching method and student agency. 

Posted below is a youtube video that shows students opinions on genius hour and their reactions to this new approach at learning!

Also posted is an article entitle “Evolution of teaching in fast-changing world” that highlights the dichotomy between traditional and constructivist teaching methods. Expanding on these parallels the author, Nidhal Guessoum focuses on how many teachers revert back to their old methods of teaching because it is easy and what society perceives as affective. Interestingly however, the author also calls upon the need for teachers and students to be evaluative of different teaching methods and that teachers need to stay up to date with curriculum demands and furthermore, keep their students informed and actively involved.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/evolution-of-teaching-in-fast-changing-world-1.1385419 

Drake, S. M., Kolohon, M., & Reid, J. L. (2014). Interweaving Curriculum and Classroom Assessment: Engaging the 21st-Century Learner. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press. 

The Merging of Two Stories

Perspective. A word defined as "a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; point of view". Perspective allows for people to be able to conduct intellectual conversations with others and to uphold opinions on subjects further allowing us to make intelligent decisions on particular subjects. But to what extent does perspective hinder our ability to see the full picture? If we become too entrenched in our own perspective, do we become perspective-less to other perspectives?

Upon reflecting on the lecture this past week, we discussed the importance of story through education. Story being our past story as students in the highschool system, our present story as future teachers in university and our future story being teachers in the Ontario highschool system. As education continues to progress, Professor Drake stated that "we are the age group to be able to make substantial change in the education system" and that this change will happen through technology. But as students having grown up in an education system with very limited access to technology in the classroom, does this old story hinder our perspective on accepting the future story of enabling limitless technology in the classroom in order to further our student's ability to learn? Furthermore, the perspective of education policy makers, much older than myself, also grew up in a schooling system that did not have access to technology. Therefore, will their old story and their perspective of their own education influence their decisions and their policy making for the future and the future story of integrating technology into the classroom. This essentially questions when technology reformers and on the opposite side of the spectrum, conservative policy makers, will be able to work together in order to create a story that allows for technology to become a positive attribute that will allow for the learning capabilities of students to grow in the classroom environment. 

Currently being placed in the education system myself, I generally think that I am a technologically savvy person. I have a phone, I know how to “tweet”, instagram, Facebook, and now even blog! However, that being said, this past week of lecture frankly scared me. Learning about these students in elementary and high schools now using technology frequently in order to expand their learning capacities amazes me. Some concerns that I have on this subject are firstly, how am I as a future educator supposed to learn all of these technology methods for teaching students? Is this something that as undergraduate teachers we are going to be taught, or because it is a new field, will we be self-teaching ourselves? Also, if technology is forever changing, how are we supposed to keep up in order to full capitalize on using technology in the classroom. Another matter that scares me about technology is the fact that because my students are growing up in a classroom and education that is using technology from early primary grades that for the most part my future students are going to be way more technologically savvy then myself. Although I do believe that students have information and knowledge to be able to teach the teacher new perspectives, I think that it is up to the teacher to be able to have the final say at how the students should be taught and frankly I don’t want to seem outdated by all of this technology! (Seeing as I’m aiming to be a cool and fair teacher of course). Therefore, my ultimate thought with this is how will I be able to adopt my old story as growing up with limited technology into a new story that allows for myself to be technologically savvy in order to best teach my students a progressive and interactive education and further be able to shift my perspective to understanding how technology works in all parts of the classroom? While this shift in perspective sounds like an easy change, adapting new ideas and trying to forget the old might not be easy, but as a future teacher, and with education and technology forever changing, I’m up for the challenge! 

Make sure to check out this cool article from Huffington Post on integrating technology into the classroom! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darrell-west/five-ways-teachers-can-us_b_3228851.html