The whole time I was reading about the examples of the different instruction types in chapter five I kept thinking, "I wish there were some examples of professors who demonstrate each of these methods," and tried to visualize in my head what each of the different styles looked like. So to answer the learning question, I guess that means I'm a visual learner, right?
I feel like the text inadvertently created a sort of hierarchy between the instruction styles. Behaviorist seemed the most "old school," while Constructivist reminded me of the professors who like to move the desks into circles at the beginning of class.
Personally, I feel like I fall into the Cognitivist camp--building knowledge off of experiences the students had, organizing the knowledge in manageable ways, while still maintaining control of the classroom.
While they all have their benefits, Constructivist felt like the "ideal" in a lot of ways. The terminology describing it is all very positive--authentic interactions, active communication...It sounds nice, right? A learner-focused environment stimulated by a group of people who love to actively learn.
BUT!
I have rarely had a good Constructivist learning experience as an undergraduate. And I think the reason has to do with one of my previous sentences--active learners. Critical dialogue.
I think in order for Constructivist learning to work, your students have to be engaged. The book states that the instructor "should provide the conditions that stimulate thinking" (52). But when I was an undergraduate student, the minute the professor started to move those desks around I internally groaned and thought, "Why am I paying $768,000 a year to listen to the one girl who likes to suck up to the professor talk, and everyone else shift uncomfortably?"
However!
Constructivist can work really well if you do have a group of super passionate people who are actively engaged in the material. I've experienced this in a handful of grad school courses. (I mean, if you're going to give up 2 nights a week while you're working full time to just sit quietly in the back of the room, go home.)
Do you think Constructivist can work for undergraduate, one-shot library courses? I would be interested to hear some thoughts. Most of the time, it feels like librarians are struggling to try and fit every database discovery tool into their 30 minute window. Does that scenario allow for Constructivist learning?
Bah, I keep forgetting to come finish the comment I started like a week ago...
ReplyDeleteIt seems like for most of our readings you have pulled out almost exactly what I was thinking but unable to actually articulate. Constructivist activities that involve group work can be really unpleasant if other students are not fully engaged in the learning. Perhaps there are better constructivist activities that involve more than just talking with groups to enhance engagement.
While I have found those activities more constructive (ha, pun) in grad school, I still tend to get annoyed by all of the group work we have for graded assignments. I think in-class workshops with groups are fine, but I still think most graded assignments should be individual work.
Hopefully we will get more ideas and more resources for creating constructivist activities in our one-shot library classes that can actually be effective throughout the semester.