As I read through the chapters in the text, I realized that much of chapters 2 and 3 are a review of what I learned in college - both undergrad and graduate work. Honestly though, after teaching as long as I have, I don't think much about why I do things a certain way. After reading, I realized that I am somewhat a combination of a behaviorist and a constructivist, but the behaviorist is for my classroom management, and the constructivist is for actual instruction. I say this because I frequently use the behavioral, "I love the way Susie has cleaned off her desk and is ready for the lab. Thank you, Susie." And since everyone else wants the same praise, they quickly do the same thing. However, when I teach, I am constantly trying to connect what the kids already know or have experience with to what they are learning. Since I teach life science, it's not a big stretch.
I did find it interesting that all three philosophies, behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism say that the role of the learner must be that of active participant (p.49, 50, 51). What that tells me is that no matter what your philosophy, students must have an active role in their learning, or they will not retain the information. I also finally learned what it means when my speech pathologist tells me that I have two students with executive dysfunction. I was embarrassed to admit I had no idea what she was talking about - I had never heard of this dissability before. Now I understand that it is the inability to use higher order thinking skills as described on p. 32.
I do have a hard time with postmodernism. It seems way too PC for me. Especially the, "no single, object truth exists." I understand that there are many open-ended questions, and that by posing them to our students, we make them think. I guess my problem is in equating "truth" with "the right answer" (p. 19).
One thing I came away with from the Merrill article (other than a headache from all the definitions) was a new awareness of something I leave out in demonstrations. On p.5, Merrill points out that a presentation/demonstration should follow specific steps, one of them being to (3) Show the consequence of each step. I know that when I demonstrate and subsequently teach how to use a microscope, I leave this out. I should be explaining to kids what is happening as they turn the coarse adjustment knob, for example. This is something I want to stay aware of throughout the rest of the year in an attempt to improve my demonstration skills.
I guess overall, I am beginning to see instructional design as an intricate dance. There are so many possible steps and missteps, but the designer has to know the dancers before anything can be choreographed. Then, a careful balance must be created between the dancers skills and the steps, or the recital will be a disaster for both the dancers and the choreographer. Hmmm...I think I've been taking my daughter to too many ballet classes...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you're the second person to blog about their classroom as behaviorist oriented for classroom management, and constructivist for instruction. Interesting distinction - and the two blend moment to moment - an eclectic approach. The "no single, objective truth" thing is definitely a challenge, still is to me as well. I wonder if we can think about it in broader terms - so, there may be "one right answer" to the problem 2 X 2 = 4. But to each particular student, the meaning or truth that they assign to this (the place in their lives?) depends on their lived experience and the lenses through which they view the world. Just some idle philosophizing. :)
ReplyDelete