Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Constructivism in the Mathematics classroom Abstract In order for effective learning to take place, it is important for teachers to understand

appropriate educational theories and learn how to apply these to their classroom practice. Traditional drill and practice approaches to mathematics teaching are criticised for assuming that students are passive learners, limited to receiving, storing and retrieving information (Kiong & Yong, 2004). According to the Mathematical Sciences Education Board (1989), Students retain best the mathematics that they learn by processes of internal construction and experience. This essay will explore the rationale behind a constructivist approach to mathematics instruction and the ways in which constructivism can be practically applied in the classroom environment. Introduction Constructivism encompasses a group of learning theories, centred on the belief that learning occurs when students build connections between their existing knowledge and new information. Konold & Johnsson (1991, cited in Ernest, 1994) view learning as an individuals ability to alter their understanding of mathematical concepts in response to new or conflicting information. Lerman (1983, cited in Kiong & Yong, 2004) describes a student who answers that a fraction between and is 2/3, because 2 is a whole number between 1 and 3, and 3 is a whole number between 2 and 4. When asked to find a fraction between and 1/3 the student is unable to apply the same logic and therefore has to construct new mathematical understanding. Constructivist educators recognise that students are not blank slates, but that each brings with them a wealth of knowledge, understandings and personal experiences. The philosophy encompasses four key characteristics: (1) meaningful learning through rich experiences which create connections between concepts and applications of mathematics, (2) learning environments which offer opportunities for creative thinking and critical reasoning, allowing students to test out new and different hypotheses; (3) student led learning and (4) social interaction (Chiu & Whitebread, 2011). In contrast to the well structured questions of the traditional approach, a constructivist mathematics classroom generally favours ill-structured problems, which have multiple correct answers. These are often real world or contextualised problems, like mathematics projects, construction problems or questions which require an explanation of the solution to a problem (Chiu & Whitebread, 2011).

Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

The term constructivism incorporates both cognitive constructivism; how people learn - their ability, aptitude and learning style, and social constructivism; how learners develop understanding - through social encounters, focused on student centred learning with the teacher as a facilitator (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2011). Powell & Kalina (2010) suggest that teachers must be aware of distinct differences between cognitive and social constructivism. Both methods should be understood and utilised in order for teachers to operate a successful constructivist classrooms. Cognitive constructivism Cognitive constructivism, based on Piagets theory of cognitive development, requires classroom situations which promote individual learning, focused on gaining knowledge as an internal, personal process, through which each student constructs their own ideas and understandings. Piaget theorised that people cannot immediately understand and use new information; they must internalise and process it to construct meaning (Piaget, 1953, cited in Powell & Kalina, 2010). Central is the concept of schema, which, in mathematics education, refers to the network of mathematical and related knowledge that is built around a core concept (Mayer, 1992, cited in Chinnappan, 2003). Recent research suggests that the way students access and apply their existing knowledge to new situations relies upon how well the knowledge is organised. Chinnappan (2003) therefore asserts that teaching must support the construction of well-connected mathematical knowledge. Piaget proposed four developmental stages; Sensorimotor (age zero to two), preoperational (two to seven), concrete operational (seven to eleven) and formal operations (eleven to adulthood). As the learner enters the final stage, they will begin to reason abstractly; develop hypothetical-deductive reasoning, contrary-to-fact reasoning and have an increasing ability to deal with a variety of challenges (Robbins & Strangeways, 2011). Students learn through inferences, expectations and making connections, learning how to plan and strategise and build on their prior knowledge. Piaget has been criticised for using a limited and unrepresentative sample for his research, as well as for his assertion that all children will automatically progress to the next developmental stage regardless of environmental or external factors. Children may not all reach developmental stages at the same or prescribed age; some children may possess many abilities at a younger age and others may never reach formal operations. It is important for teachers to recognise that individuals gain mathematical understanding at different speeds. By observing and inquiring, a teacher can discern which students have grasped complex concepts and which need further assistance (Powell & Kalina, 2010).

Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

Social constructivism Social constructivism centres on the belief that meaning is created through social interaction between students and their peers and teachers. Much research (Bauersfield, 1988; Yackel et al, 1990, cited in Ernest, 1994) has focused on the social interaction involved in childrens construction of mathematical knowledge. Gupta (2008) argues that humans are social creatures and it is logical to conclude that using the social dimensions of learning, interacting and communicating, boosts meta-cognition, memory retention, motivation and understanding, through having to justify and explain our knowledge of concepts to others. Vidakovick and Martin (2004, cited in Gupta, 2008) assert that in externalising our understanding, students complete their internalisation, solidifying the learning process. These theories have led to the creation of a number of teaching strategies to support students classroom learning in mathematics. These include but are not limited to schema priming, schema broadening, scaffolding, group work and communities of practice leading to peer communication. Schema priming and schema broadening Piaget (1953, cited in Powell & Kalina, 2010) coined the term assimilation to describe the process by which students adjust their understanding to incorporate new knowledge into existing schemas. In order to support this process in the classroom, teachers can use schema priming, through asking formative questions, to prepare the brain for work using a particular schema. For students to increase the salience (prominence or accessibility) of their schemas, strategies like using visual representation or line diagrams of mathematical processes, help to clearly organise information and increase conceptual understanding. Schema-broadening uses similar problem types to widen students understanding of a theory or connections between theories, such as in trigonometry; perhaps combining work on triangles with a project involving area, circumference and volume. Scaffolding Scaffolding is based on Vygotskys concept of the zone of proximal development - the gap between students existing knowledge and their learning goal. Greenfield (1984, cited in Kiong & Yong, 2004) describes scaffolding as having five characteristics; providing support, functioning as a tool, extending the workers range, helping achieve a task not possible unaided and providing support strategically, as and where its needed.

Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

Scaffolding occurs when students are engaged in an activity which combines their existing skills, building them to the next level to complete more complex tasks. Initially, the teacher guides areas of the task which are beyond the students current abilities, allowing the student to focus on those aspects which are within his level of competence. Social interaction; dialogue, questioning techniques, body language, gestures or cues, active listening and encouraging remarks; is central to the scaffolding process. Lessons generally adopt a four part structure, in which students begin with whole class discussion and explanation, before attempting group work; followed by reporting back, whereby students explain their reasoning and then a conclusion or summing up. This approach emphasises students problem solving abilities, higher order thinking, self lead learning and communication skills (Kiong & Yong, 2004). An example of a scaffolded task could be creating a word problem based on the written calculation 7 5 = 1 2/5. The teacher can explain the fraction 7/5 by linking it to students prior knowledge of division (7 5) or use scaffolding questions related to students understandings of everyday life, such as; There are seven cakes but five people wish to share them; how can we deal with it? May we draw seven cakes first and see how we can deal with it fairly? (Chiu & Whitebread, 2011). Group work, communities of practice and peer communication Group work and communities of practice are strategies of both cognitive and social constructivist teaching, offering opportunities for students to develop further understanding through peer communication. Discussion supports both cognitive constructivism; with opportunities for conflict allowing restructuring of ideas and schemas, and social constructivism; through students presenting and defining their understandings to others. Social strategies in which learning evolves through students participation as a learning community will encourage those with learning and language difficulties to become equal partners in the group activities (Smith, 1999). Through group work, mathematical skill can become valued by the class, increasing students motivation to learn and participate. Poor achievement in mathematics can be linked to the social stigma of excelling in a subject considered to be particularly hard or nerdy. Nelson (1996, cited in Gupta, 2008) observed that while students from middle class backgrounds formed collaborative groups, underprivileged children believed that only weak students worked together and struggled on alone. Nelson believed that combining active learning, discussion and peer collaboration benefited all students but helped the lowest social classes the most.

Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

Criticisms of the constructivist approach It is generally agreed that teachers have a selection of strategies and teaching methods and that constructivism should be part of that repertoire rather than the exclusive underlying principle (Burbules, 2000; Ball & Bass, 2000, cited in Gupta, 2008). Although constructivism helps to create a discovery learning environment and supports authentic learning, in order to develop skills and build neural networks, a great deal of repetition and practice is required. Matthews (2000, cited in Gupta, 2008) believes that Language, especially scientific and mathematical language needs to be mastered and, at the end of the day, transmitted, declaring that students should be taught definitions rather than just creating their own. It is debated whether constructivist theory is interfering with logical teaching methods which explain agreed facts and information. Burbules (2000, cited in Gupta, 2008) recommends that teachers focus on understanding the learning pathways by which students constructions of knowledge occur in order to support the understanding of commonly shared beliefs. Mathematics relies on a number of specific symbols and principles which influence and guide mathematical thinking, these may be better understood through explicit teaching than discovery learning (Schiemann & Carraher, 2002, cited in Gupta, 2008). A frequent misunderstanding of constructivist pedagogy is that teachers never deliver information to their students directly, but must only provide opportunities for them to construct understanding themselves. Constructivism merely suggests that knowledge is created through the learners existing understanding, so even transmission style teaching provides active opportunities for the construction of new knowledge (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2011). Conclusion Constructivist teaching involves an active learning approach, real world problem solving or investigations and opportunities for students to reflect and discuss what they are doing and why. The teacher guides the students and encourages them to question themselves and their strategies, so they are effectively learning how to learn independently (Concept to Classroom, 2004). Both cognitive and social approaches should be included to help students to develop their own independent learning styles. Teaching strategies include schema priming and broadening, scaffolded tasks, group work, communities of practice and peer collaboration. Each offers opportunities for students to cement their understanding through communicating their ideas to their peers, which also allows teachers to reflect on the teaching process and use questioning to determine student understanding.
Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

Although there are criticisms of the constructivist approach, educators often use more than one teaching strategy and constructivism should be used in conjunction with traditional and other methods to offer a rounded learning experience.

Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

REFERENCES:
Chinnappan, M. (2003). Schema construction among pre-service teachers and the use of IT in mathematics teaching: A case study. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development. (Vol. 5) pp 32-44 Chiu, M. & Whitebread, D. (2011). Taiwanese teachers implementation of a new constructivist mathematics curriculum: How cognitive and affective issues are addressed. International Journal of Educational Development. (Vol 32) pp196-206 Concept to Classroom (2004). Constructivism. Retrieved 13 December, 2011, from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html Ernest, P. (1994). Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematics education. Studies in mathematics education series: 4. Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis Inc. Bristol, USA Gupta, A. (2008). Constructivism and peer collaboration in elementary mathematics education: The connection to epistemology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. (Vol. 4) pp 381-386 Kiong, L. & Yong, H. (2004). Scaffolding: A teaching strategy for mathematics. University of Technology, Malaysia. Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2011). Constructivism. Retrieved 21 December, 2011, from http://www.learning-theories.com/constructivism.html Mathematical Sciences Education Board (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Mathematical Sciences Education Board. Retrieved 22 December, 2011, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1199 Powell, K. & Kalina, C. (2010). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Journal of Education. Vol. 130 Robbins, D. & Strangeways, A. (2011). ETL301 Middle Schooling Pedagogies: Weekly Modules, Learning Theories - Cognitive Theory, Charles Darwin University, Australia Smith, M. (1999). The cognitive orientation to learning. The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved 18th August, 2011, www.infed.org/biblio/learning-cognitive

Humphries__Joanna_ETL203 _ 2011-SS_Assignment 1

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi