Jacquelene : In my view the difference between the traditional and constructivist teaching methods is that: the traditional way of teaching is very boring. In the video the students looked bored and there is no interaction between the teacher or students. he teacher comes across as boring and the students are easily distracted.The constructivist way of teaching is very interesting. It makes the students want to interact and answer questions. It is a fun way of getting the information across. The teachers gains the students attention, and since the teacher makes the class interesting the students are eager to learn more. I am not a teacher but if i did teach, i would use the constructivist way of teaching so that my students would be more interested in the material being taught to them. Also because as a teacher you will feel that you are making pregress with your students.
After comparing and contrasting the traditional and constructivist methods, I believe that the constructivist works best with my students because this method allows students to work in collaborative group, the instructor serves just as the facilitator. The constructivist method of teaching is mostly student centered. The knowledge is constructed on the student prior knowledge, and their own cultural knowledge. This method is extremely Productive interactive and stimulating for the learners. This method is well known to Promotes autonomy and choices to each and every student in the class. Most importantly the Students learn to interact with their peers.
Jacqueline I totally agree with you! The traditional method of teaching is very boring. I have had many teachers in my days as a primary school student who were extremely boring! ; Causing me an irreversible damage in math and science. Mathematic and science were the most boring classes I ever had; because they were always taught in the traditional way. I had always believed that I was not good at either of these subject ; until one day I was fortunate to meet a teacher who used the constructivist method and allowed me to finally enjoy both subjects and got me to get rid of my fears!
I agree with Jacqueline the constructivist classroom allows for more interaction but hey there are some times where discussion is good and I am sure not all teachers are as boring as Mr. Rooney in Ferris Bueller’s day off one of all time fav’s.
The traditional classroom pales in comparison to the constructivist classroom. The constructivist classroom is more interactive and students are able to interact and learn through discovery. I can see where these principles could work in other subject areas like math or science. However, one of the major challenges teachers are faced with in the classroom is the availability of resources and activities to make learning more fun for the students while doing social studies. How can you apply the same principles when dealing with history that has a lot of facts and dates? Researching is one area that some students have great difficulty in as they are limited to the resources they have while others may find a lot of information but never bother to read it. Many children seem uninterested in what is being taught.
I believe the Constructivist method of teaching is better that than the traditional way cause in the video you can see the students looking bored and uninteresting cause there is no interaction between the teacher and student. But using the Constructivist method you can see the interaction between the student and teacher. This allows students to be more productive, have prior knowledge of the topic. The teacher is more a facilitator. It allows students to discover new information and let them work in groups. The classroom becomes more fun and interesting than being bored. As a teacher, I would use the Constructivist Method cause it more fun, interesting and there is interaction between students and teacher. This allows me to communicate well with my students. My classroom won’t be bored and uninteresting.
I agree with Jacqueline that the Constructivist method allows for more student and teacher interaction. The classroom is more fun and not boring. It allows information to get across to student easily. It makes students want to learn more and answer questions. Meanwhile the traditional method is not fun and there is no interaction between students and teacher. The teacher comes across as boring and students are easily distracted.
Constructivism is a theory of knowledge that argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas. According to the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to the role of facilitators and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995). Where a teacher gives a lecture that covers the subject matter; the students play a passive role. A facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content; the students play an active role. A traditional teacher tells, a constructivist teacher asks; a traditional teacher lectures from the front, a constructivist supports from the back; a traditional teacher gives answers according to a set curriculum; a constructivist provides guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions. These differences were obvious in the videos. In the education system today, teachers do their best to create child centered classrooms that focus on the constructivist approach to learning. This allows for hands on experience that fosters learning and thinking skills. In my opinion both the traditional and constructivist methods can be used effectively in teaching. The subject area and topic that I am teaching play a role in determining which method I use – or if I will use them simultaneously. Both can be very engaging if used properly and I believe that most teachers have mastered the art of intertwining constructivism into traditional teaching styles.
I agree with Dorita, but I believe that this is one of the areas where constructivism can be effective. When putting my children into groups, I take into consideration their academic levels and the resources available to them. I always try to ensure that at least one person who has internet at home is in each group. I also try to have a section in my class where research material for a particular topic will be available. Using jigsaws and other similar techniques ensure that all members in a group read the required information and become familiar with it in order to either present to the class or share with peers. However, as Dorita said, it is a challenge by itself where Social Studies is concerned to create an interest in the students to learn and appreciate what happened in the past.
In the traditional classroom in the example displayed that the teacher was boring, some students were doing their own thing – chewing gum, sleeping and gazing. While on the other hand, in the constructivist classroom the teacher is having creative activity. The students seem to enjoy their selves and are learning more. Having a constructivist classroom work more effective because students learn to share, discuss, and engage in activities that will help them to remember more the details that the teacher is trying to teach (concept). Nevertheless, the old fashion way (traditional) must stop because children are not the same, they learn differently. Furthermore, as teachers we need to be constructivist in our classroom.
I agree with Dorita that the constructivist classroom is more interactive and learn through discovery. Research is a great problem with students that doesn’t have access and those who have doesn’t take advantage of it. Nevertheless, we have students that live in poor areas that can’t afford to go to an internet café. Even at times we teachers don’t have money to use the internet café. Furthermore, it’s for the students benefit to have a constructivist class.
Nicole said... The traditional teaching method involves the teacher talking a lot and just giving information. This method then diminish students involvement which depicts the lesson more as teacher based rather than student friendly. Back in the past, the traditional way of teaching seemed to work well but today in society where technology is ever changing this method may not be the best one. Students or young people of today are more into glamour and what they would call “hypeness.” Now, by applying the constructivist method where more involvement is required will somewhat draw their interest and keep them occupied or on task. By using this method, students will be more in control of their learning and will be able to discover things on their own rather than just receiving a pile of information that may not mean much sense to them. Also, the constructivist approach is like a guided approach in learning, and I believe that whatever they learn they’ll be able to remember better and apply them using this approach. The constructivist approach works best for me in my classroom because it involves a lot of interactive activities. It creates less room for boredom and allows my students who are not really academically competent to utilize their skills and talents such as drawing and acting. And as for the students who are more academically competent, they can also benefit by helping classmates and becoming the table captain or leader of group activities. Furthermore, this approach also helps the passive students to start becoming more vocal in class and come out of their comfort zone while the already vocal students or verbally intelligent students are strengthen more in this area. Also, students become more independent and the interest is there which leads to intrinsic motivation.
I agree with Teresa that the constructivist approach is indeed more fun and interesting rather than boring like the traditional approach. It is indeed a better way of teaching because it is more student friendly and allows the students to learn to work together with classmates. From the video it clearly shows how bored the students were in the classroom from the traditional way of teaching. It shows students blowing gum, having head on the desk, staring in space and looking quite bored, tired and frustrated with the teacher. While on the other hand, using the constructivist approach, the students indeed seem more happy and excited to be working and learning. And yes, I will agree that we as teachers need to be constructivist in our class because in that is what our students are exposed to and they will learn best only when given the opportunity to be themselves and use their talents and skills.
After reading Nichole's blog, I agree and can relate many of the things she mentioned. When grouping students, we have to take many things into consideration. We group students so they can help each other. We should try our best also not to intimidate students. Students who are less academically competent can play an important role in their group. As Nicole mentioned, they can help with graphics and organizing, while the more academic ones can be leaders and assist others. I have noticed that when I place my students in groups I get more from them. They feel less intimidated when talking to their peers than when talking to the teacher.
I believe in what Dorita said: Constructivist teaching is very effective and we can also use traditional teaching in some of the subjects as well. eventhough young teachers really want to use costructivist teaching method in the classroom, there is always lack of resources and materials teachers and students can use. As an effective teacher, we need to know what kind of teaching is necessary in the classroom at certain times. Students will learn once the subject is interesting. It also depends on how the teacher teaches the information to the students. As young teachers, we should always be willing to face the challenges and see how it will help us in the teaching profession.
In previous years the ideal way of teaching was the traditional way of teaching. But we are now realizing that there are better and new ways in which we can be of utmost effective and efficient to our teacher. The traditional way of teaching, we know works well for some students, but for others it is very ineffective. As seen in the videos teaching in the traditional way can be very bore some for students. It is clear that the focus is on the teacher and not the students. It appears that the teacher is more focus on covering the material rather than ensuring that the students are e learning. In the video we see that the teacher isn’t even trying to get the students involved, he prefers to just give the students the answer. On the other hand the teacher of a constructivist approach is more focus on being the facilitator rather than being a lecturer. We can clearly see that the students were actively learning, being productive and interactive in their learning. The constructivist approach to teaching stimulates students learning, it makes the students want to learn. Through this approach the children get to build on their knowledge and also get to be team players. For me the constructivist approach works best. I can relate to those students that are stuck in those classrooms where the teacher is traditional. You can get bored and have no interest in learning. You are only there because you have to be there. Also I have seen where students get more out a lesson in which they are actively taking part. I am not saying that we should completely throw away the traditional way of teaching, but that we should combine the two. Time will show that some the things that were done under the traditional method appear to have been working.
I too conquer with Dorita that resources are not readily available to teachers, hindering teachers in the things they would want to undertake in their classrooms. But, as teachers we can’t let that be a deterrent and we still want to do our best.
Clearly, we can see that the era for traditional teaching methods is waning. Using traditional teaching methods within the classroom, allows the structure and the ambience of the classroom setting to be totally teacher-centered. With this method the teacher becomes the omniscient character, knowing all things. Certainly, this approach doesn’t facilitate students’ experiences. One has to understand that wisdom or pragmatism cannot be taught; these things have to be experienced by the learner. Conspicuously, two main features of traditional teaching methods are boredom and a chronic case of depression. This approach for this new generation is very torturing. Traditional teaching methods have to be replaced by constructivist methods. This approach is quite the opposite of traditional teaching methods. The constructivist approach allows the classroom setting to be totally student-centered. With this approach students learn from the personal experiences through trial and error. The essence of the constructivist approach is that it allows students to take control of their own learning. With this approach it translate out to be a more active and participatory classroom.
Clearly, we can see that the era for traditional teaching methods is waning. Using traditional teaching methods within the classroom, allows the structure and the ambience of the classroom setting to be totally teacher-centered. With this method the teacher becomes the omniscient character, knowing all things. Certainly, this approach doesn’t facilitate students’ experiences. One has to understand that wisdom or pragmatism cannot be taught; these things have to be experienced by the learner. Conspicuously, two main features of traditional teaching methods are boredom and a chronic case of depression. This approach for this new generation is very torturing. Traditional teaching methods have to be replaced by constructivist methods. This approach is quite the opposite of traditional teaching methods. The constructivist approach allows the classroom setting to be totally student-centered. With this approach students learn from the personal experiences through trial and error. The essence of the constructivist approach is that it allows students to take control of their own learning. With this approach it translate out to be a more active and participatory classroom.
I strongly agree with Ms. Dorita. The constructivist approach is a more interactive and engaged method for teaching behavioral instructions. The constructivist approach to teaching forces interaction through cooperative learning and alternative forms of assessment. This form of differentiating teaching allows students to take ownership of their learning using practical experiences. As student’s mental and logical capacity develop so too are their experiences adjusted to suit their situation or circumstances. Again I strongly agree with Ms. Dorita when she says that resources to teach in this method are limited.
Traditional Classroom vs. Constructivist Classroom
In the traditional classroom the following is done:
1. The teacher adheres and values to a fixed curriculum. 2. Activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks. 3. Teacher stands in front class and disseminates information. 4. Teacher seeks right answer to validate learning. 5. Assessment for learning done though testing. 6. Children work alone. 7. Teachers in a regular classroom act as the boss. 8. There is minimal student participation in lesson. 9. Classroom tends to be quiet and boring. 10. Teacher assumes that all children have similar levels of knowledge in the subject and learn similarly.
While in a constructivist classroom:
1. Student questions are highly valued. 2. Activities rely heavily on primary sources of data and manipulate materials 3. Children viewed as thinkers with emerging theories about the world. 4. Teacher acts in an interactive manner mediating the environment for children (facilitator). 5. Assessment is done as teaching occurs through observation of children work, exhibitions and portfolios. 6. Children work in collaborative groups 7. More student centered. 8. Knowledge is centered on student's prior knowledge. 9. The classroom is more productive, interactive and stimulating for learners.
The benefits of such a practice are:
Children enjoy learning more when they are actively involved. Children retain what they've learned instead of memorization because constructivism concentrates on learning how to think and understand. Gives children ownership of what they learn since learning is based on children question and explorations. Activities stimulates and engages children. Children in the in the class learn to question things and to apply their natural curiosity to the world.
As a teacher in a special ed. institution, it is imperative that I use this method of teaching in order for children to grasp the concept. One method that I love is through playing games. This helps to build strategy, cooperation and keeps children involved in the lesson. Other methods I use are research projects where children research a topic and can present their findings. Some research is done through the use of technology. Field trips which allow the concepts discussed in the class in a real world context. Since we are studying Maya civilization, we will be taking a trip to the Museum of Belize and to a Maya ruin. After the trips, the children are to answer questions. I prefer this method of teaching because it captivates my student's interest though sometimes I slip into the tradtional way of teaching when ideas are hard to come by.
In comparison to Traditional and Constructivist Teaching methods within the classroom. I've observe that the Traditional Classroom is more teacher centered. Just plain talking, students gets monotonous. Students does not get the opportunity to explore and experience new ideas. Whereas within the Constructivist Teaching method students get to research, discover, be interactive, integration with other subjects, socialize, be responsible, make choices, do peer evaluation, presentations and group work. This method promotes autonomy. The Constructivist Teaching method works best for me because it enhance students to achieve hands on experiences. It promotes learning to the slow and fast learners, for each students learn differently.
Just like Julia, I too agree with Dorita. Resources are indeed hard to come by sometimes but not all activities would need that much resource. In a constructivist classroom, the children can role play, do oral presentations, have discussions and debates, write poems, write journals or even perform a concert. Other activities include having them construct posters, cartoons, models, charts, maps and graphs. I know these can easily be done with Math, English, Science, etc…
Just like her, I too am having difficultly planning activities for social studies. Yes, I have them do research on the internet and at the library and do presentations based on their findings. I also have them play games based on T.V. games such as jeopardy based on the topic being studied. I have a field trip planned to Lamanai and the museum of Belize but what else? I am totally at a loss.
In years back then the most practiced style of teaching was basically the traditional way of teaching; which is the chalk and talk. Since we are living in the modern days we now realized that there are more creative and enthusiastic ways of capturing our students’ attention. Ways in which we as educators will be more effective and progressive in our lessons that we plan. The traditional way of the teaching environment back then was definitely working for some students, but others may have fallen through the cracks because of frustration or maybe because of the lack of hands- on materials. I’ve observed in these educative video clippings that teachings in the traditional way were very boredom for many of the past students. In those times the teacher primarily focused on the material to be covered instead of teaching for learning. In the video the classroom was a teacher centered class, he just wanted to be the dominant speaker. To him the students’ opinion doesn’t really count. Everything for him is just me, me. While on the other hand the child centered classroom teacher which follows the constructivist approach is more focused. In that essence the teacher was there as a guide and facilitates learning. It was obvious that the students were learning, interacting and being productive students. The constructivist approach to teaching helps in the learning process and allows the students to be interested. Through this approach the students were able to activate their prior knowledge and learn to work in groups to produce a good piece of work. I want to be a very efficient and effective teacher so that is the main reason why I prefer the constructivist approach. It helps your students know that they are important and that you are teaching for them to learn. I could make statements about those students who are trapped in the traditional classroom settings. They tend to get very bored, loose focus and sometimes drop out a school. I have observed when the students play a key part of the lesson they retain the information longer. We don’t have to abolish the traditional way of teaching but we can intertwine or join them. There will be better results and we won’t be that frustrated at times and hence frustrating our students as well.
Ms. Jacqueline I totally agree with your comment. The traditional way of teaching is indeed very boring. I could relate to your past experience because I had a few teachers who were boring. I honestly believe that was the case because they didn’t want to break out of the old ways. Even though they were boring as you stated I still motivated myself to learn. I didn’t like math either and now I’m trying very hard to cope with it. I believe that those core subjects like Math should be interesting for real, but since it was taught in the traditional way it was boring. However, I still learned. As a motivated student I was blessed with an excellent teacher in Std 3 and from then I started to like Math and Science even English. I still find my self getting frustrated at times with Math but I’m getting there. Thanks to God!
We were brought up in a traditional method of teaching. Most of us learnt through the chalk and talk method and at that time it was effective and no one complained. Times have changed and our students come with different learning styles and as teachers we need to cater to these styles. In the traditional classroom the students seem lost; most of them had blank expressions on their faces. You could tell that learning was not taking place, when students are bored and unmotivated they become problematic. Traditional teaching is teacher centered. The constructivist method is child centered; the teacher acts mainly as a facilitator and uses the child’s prior knowledge to bring about learning. Students are stimulated to learn through interaction and peer learning. As a preschool teacher I use the constructivist method because children learn mainly through play. Building on my students prior knowledge makes them feel like they have a role to play in their own learning. The constructivist method caters for all learning styles and it is one of the best method of teaching.
Primilee said:I have never had the experience of teaching as yet, but in my opinion our society these days are divided in to two different way of thinking on the education. Some believe that modern methods are better than the traditional method of teaching but yet these two methods are both a successful way. In my opinion, every method in teaching is the same for they deliver the same message to the students. Therefore there are pros and cons to it as well in these ways of teaching. The pros for traditional methods are that teaches shouldered too much of responsibilities for teaching in the classroom to make sure everything they thought were understood by the student. Thus it was a good method, where there was efficient communication between teacher and students. There was also the typical way and a controllable class where the teacher would teach on the blackboard, explained, asks students to copy and made sure students paid attention and listen. Besides that, the traditional way in disciplining students in school and teaching them was an effective way in building a good characteristic student where students were afraid of their teacher and respect them. Talking about the pros there are cons to traditional method way where students were to afraid to ask their teacher questions. Students get board of the same way of teaching method done by the teacher which is on the blackboard and listening to the teacher talk while they sit down in class and heat up their chairs. Besides that, disciplining the students with scolding is not a sufficient way for students get traumatizes in school. On the other hand, the pros of modern method in teaching help a lot where there is a centered classroom which is created by the teacher and accepted by the students. In modern method students are aware of their learning process through the computers. with the help of computers teachers prepare their work in their drive(s) and present it to the class through slides show which is an easier way. And students can do their studying and their work all in the computer without depending on their teacher in schools. As for the cons of the modern method of teaching students become too independent where they think they don’t need guidance from anybody because they think they can accomplish anything by themselves. With the use of computers in school children gets distracted with online games and websites to browse on besides their studies which will cause them distraction. . Besides that saving all data’s in the drive(s) can be a problem when there is a virus which can also cause the students and teacher to get to comfortable and depend too much on technology and forget other better tools in teaching. Thus students also begin to be too comfortable with their teacher as their friend in school and forget their responsibilities and respect over the teacher.
Primilee Said:Lastly, I feel that the teaching methods should be balance because it both brings good intentions in educating a person for the better future of everyone. Thus it sends out the same message even in different way but yet it is useful.
After viewing the videos, the constructivist classroom is where students get involved and engaged in the learning process. They interact, discover things on their own, and are allow to work together in small groups. Where as for the traditional teaching method is what we know as 'the chalk and talk'. This type of teaching method bored students,let them have no interest in the lesson and permit students to work alone. Traditional teaching method is teacher-centered and the constructivist is a student-centered method. The constructivist teaching method works best for me and my students. It enables my students to get involve, manipulate and interact. It works for me as a teacher because I get great results from my students using this approach in my classroom.
Yes Jacqueline, I agree with you. The constructivist teaching method is much more fun, increase students interest and its interactive learning. Where as the traditional teaching method is boring and teachers need to get out of that teaching habit. It might work for some students, but I strongly believe that the constructivist is the more effective method of teaching.
Wendy I was not able to see the videos but from what I have gathered from the other comments shared, is that in traditional teaching the teacher is the one with all the information to share while the children sits and listen and looked bored, where as in the constructivist teaching the students are allowed to participate more in their learning whether it is doing group work or discussions, presentation etc.
Traditional method of teaching has been used for many years with teaching assuming that all student learn at the same level while constructivist method of teach allow the student to be in control of their learning. I believe that constructivist method of teaching would work for students may class. We know for a fact that all student are not at the same level so by using the constructivist method of teaching or student centered learning we can bridge the gap between student who are at different levels. Most students learn the beat from each other by placing student in small groups and allowing them to discover answer on their own will help student who are at a lower level develop confidence to learn.
In the traditional teaching method students have minimal time to voice their ideas, views or concerns, and for the most part the children are expected to listen, keep quiet and learn. The teacher has strict adherence to a fixed curriculum, textbooks and workbooks. Teacher assumes directive, authoritative role. Assessment is done by testing correct or wrong answers from a worksheet or exercise blank. Knowledge is inert and students work individually. In a constructivist teaching method the teacher is a facilitator of knowledge that works as a team member with students and coaches them through discovering ways. The instructor is in pursuit of student questions and interests. Manipulative materials are used in lessons. Learning is done in an interactive way or builds on what students already know. The teacher interacts and negotiates with students. Assessment is done by students’ works, observations, point of views or tests. Knowledge is dynamic and changes with experiences. Students work in groups. In a traditional classroom the students learn for the moment and for an immediate grade. Many times they are bored and uninterested through the process. Goals are not always fulfilled to all the different types of learners. Contrary to the constructivist classroom, there is a shift: emphasis from teaching to learning. Students develop processes, skills and attitudes, considers students’ learning styles focusing on knowledge construction, not reproduction. Learners are engaged in authentic tasks to gain meaningful, and problem –based thinking. Children reflect on prior and new knowledge and extend them beyond content presented to them. Thus making them better critical thinkers. The constructivist method works better for me and my students. I believe in team work. A student should be an active learner through discovery, he/she should be a knowledge seeker, knowledge creator, reflective learner, active learner, responsible learner and be able to mediate their own learning. I do not like to be in the same place all the time, so I want the same for my students: I expect them to move around interacting in a constructivist classroom.
I agree with Dorita that the constructivist classroom is more fun for the students. However, teachers are very often met with limited resources and availability of information. As a teacher I find myself in that position very often.
The traditional teacher in the video could very well be an extreme for example in order to ensure that the traditional method is being considered not very effective. I have seen and heard traditional teachers who are able to gain and keep the interest of the class and have proven to be very efficient teachers. Nonetheless, in comparing the two it is obvious according to the videos the constructivist is much more effective seeing there is more student participation, evidently more interest is shown, student/question also contributes and promote more student input and interaction. It is noted for the traditionalist, question are being asked and left unanswered and teaching proceeds. The student shows little interest, are very preoccupied and obviously little learning is taking place. I do believe however that much of learning is dependent on the quality of the teacher himself whether traditionalist or constructivist. I am certain that they are much more effective tradition list than the example seen and that they are constructivist who themselves are not very well organize and are not able to provide questions or other activities that will keep the interest of the students.
I agree with jacquelene point of view that traditional method of teaching is boring and the students lose interest in what is been thought. Some student even fall asleep in class or misbehave while the constructivist method of teaching make the child want to interact and answer questions and makes the child eager to learn. By using this method of teaching there will be less behavioral problems and more learning in the class room.
Traditional teaching is very common, which is the teacher getting in front of the class and talk and talk and that’s it. Where as the constructivist teaching allows room for effective group work and is more than just talk. Students’ prior knowledge plays a big roll in the constructivist teaching method. Most people can be effective using the traditional teaching method, but maybe a mixture of them both would be good too. The constructivist teaching is student centered and can be very effective, but I find myself using more the traditional teaching method in my classroom. I use the constructivist method sometimes but I get more done using the traditional. I make the lessons interesting and incorporate the two to make progress. I do not know about all students but my class is mainly made of boys. I have five girls and sixteen boys and its hard to get them settle to work together all the time. Maybe if I practice the constructivist teaching method more then they would get use to the idea and learn to cooperate.
I agree with you Lisa, both constructivist and the traditional teaching methods can be used in our classroom but it depends on the subject area and the topic. This is because some teachers, like you said, have mastered the art of intertwining constructivism into traditional teaching style. However, if it is not done properly then it becomes uninteresting, boring and monotonous, which may result in students misbehaving, lost of interest, absence from classes, etc.
In the traditional video, the teacher was trying to get feedback from the students but he didn’t give the student the energy to even participate in the lesson while, in the constructivist video, the student were eager to begin and excited to explain themselves. I believe that the constructivist approach is much more effective and is the one that I use, most of the time with my class, not only because it works but they are learning, and interacting with each other, as well as, they learn how to respect each others’ ideas and options. They also learn how to listen when someone is taking and if there is a student that does not participate in the discussion because the probably don’t know how to explain themselves or is shy and to ask the teacher then they can clarify different things by listening to the other students. The constructivist approach is also more effective because the interaction gives them opportunity to become more relaxed and open for conversation/discussion. According to Jean Piaget, “A child constructs understanding through many channels: reading, listening, exploring and experiencing his or her environment”. Which means that if a teacher uses the traditional teaching approach only, the teacher will loose the students some where down the line, whereas, if they use both the constructivist and traditional approach the students can interact plus have an effective traditional class discussion.
Comparing teaching in the traditional way comparing it to the constructivist approach can be done by mere observation. Traditional teaching as the name implies has to do with the regular chalk and talk methods of teaching. Teachers tend to give information to students assuming that they know the limit a child is expected to learn and allow them that amount. The lesson is teacher centered. The constructivist way of teaching is a process by which students construct their own knowledge. Students are taught using various strategies that will help them to retain the information learnt. Students are given all information and they break down the information. The constructivist way of teaching is more child centered.
After viewing these videos, it can be clearly seen that the traditional and constructivist way of teaching is very different in many ways. The traditional way of teaching comprises of the "chalk and talk routine" while the constructivist way of teaching uses a more informative and interactive approach to learning. Most teachers use the traditional way of teaching instead of using discovery learning whereby children uncover the information for themselves. The constructivist approach, however, promotes a setting which allows children to become more motivated and interested in learning, which is the key agenda for all teachers! In my opinion, I would undoubtedly state that the constructivist approach works best for my students because this approach develops a far more inner drive from my students to learn a particular topic or study. I find that my students grasp the concept more effectively by using collaborative groups and discovery learning. Thus, I believe in using the constructivist approach in teaching rather than the traditional approach.
I fully agree with Sharema's viewpoint in stating that the traditional approach to teaching is more teacher centered. Instead of promoting teacher centered lessons, we need to have children construct their own knowledge. By having more student centered lessons, children will be more interactive and motivated in learning the concept being taught and it will foster positive development for the child. Therefore, the constructivist approach is a more effective way in teaching!
I must start by saying that the videos were constantly freezing and the audio was poor nonetheless I proceeded to view what I could. Clearly the constructivist method is the way of delivering a concept to students. This is a new era of video games I pod and other technologies our students are exposed to a lot of modern technology and as teachers we need to be in tune with their interests. The constructivist approach works for me because it is very engaging, hands on and students will better retain what they have experienced. The constructivist approach allows peer teaching and socialization while learning. This approach makes learning fun and motivating. Students in the constructivist videos were elated and had an interest in engaging in the various activities. Their previous knowledge helped them in building and acquiring new information. On the other hand the tradition way of teaching can discourage students from learning. They will become bored and may develop a negative attitude towards school. Also if students are not motivated they may become disruptive in class. I agree with Sharema’s view, the constructivist approach is more children centered and friendly. We need to motivate our children and keep them motivated.
In these days, the student population is diverse and there is much need to change the traditional method of teaching. The search for new and a more effective method is ongoing. Methods of teaching include the traditional or teacher-centered method and the contructivist or student-centered methods. The traditional method was used where curricular activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks. Also, students are viewed as blankslates unto which information is etched by the teacher. As years went by, in the changing societies, teachers are seeking to change their teaching method to student centered where jn persuit of student, questions is highly valued and curriculier activities rely heavily on primary sources of data and manipulative materials. Also, students are viewed as thinkers. Teachers are interactive and mediate the environment for the students
Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages for the teachers and students. The teacher centered method assumes that all students have similar levels of knowledge in the subject being taught and learn at the same pace. The student centered approach allow students to work together in small groups. Students guided by teacher interact with other students. Student learn from student. Through active participation of students in the classroom, he or she construct his or her own knowledge.
The constructivist method is becoming more widely used by teachers but i must say that traditional teaching has worked best for me. I believe in seeking the correct answer to validate student learning. At times, I used the constructivst method to encourage student enteraction.
After viewing the videos, it is clear to see and understand the differences between the traditional and constructivist teaching methods. In the traditional classrooms students are class as blank slates and all the information is given to them. It is what is mainly referred as a "talk and chalk" approach. Teachers generally behave in an instructive manner, disseminating information to students. In the traditional classroom students primarily work alone. On the other hand, in the constructivist classroom students are required to think. Teachers generally behave in an interactive manner, mediating the environment for students. Students are given a chance to give their point of view and to interact with each other in the classroom. Students primarily work in groups.
The constructivist method of teaching works best for me and my students. Getting students involve in the lesson helps the teacher in knowing if the student is learning or understanding the lesson and it also helps in assessing. Using this approach also helps the students learn better, for the fact that most of my students learn by doing. Children are more motivated when putting them in groups and having them doing various and stimulating activities. When a teacher talks a lot, students tend to get bored and distracted by something else in the classroom. Some of them even go to sleep. I try my best to motivate my students.
I agree with Sharema’s view, the constructivist approach is more children centered and friendly. We need to motivate our children and keep them motivated. The traditional way is basically chalk and talk and children are placed to learn within a certain limit. Children are given the information and teachers take it that the students are learning.
Pefectly right Michelle, I have read Sherema's view also and construtivist approach is the better method for teaching. The traditional chalk and talk only cater to the visual and audio learner; whislht the constructivist cater for all three type of learners, audio, visual and tactile.
Mr. Tucker this is Nora's Blog that she has been trying to post. Each time she tries using her account it does not go through so i am sending it through mine. thanks, miss D
NORA CHO On the other hand, traditional teaching is where the teacher gives the information to the students. The teacher believes that it is his job to give them the information. Most of the time teacher gives notes and assess them with a written test. Based on the video I viewed, students seems to be boring, sleepy, lost, and don’t have the interest to ask the teacher anything. The teacher himself seems to be lost on the topic. He didn’t even call on the students to give answer and continues to teach his lesson. The teacher fails to reach to all his students in the classroom. The students never had the opportunity to share what they know and learn from their peers.
NORA CHO I strongly say that in order to be a well balanced teacher, I think both of it is effective in the classroom. We should know exactly how we want to teach our lesson and when to use the different teaching. As a new teacher I am going to use constructivist teaching in my classroom. I want students to learn willingly and don’t have to force them to learn.
Students having control over their thinking is an important matter in a constructivist classroom. The lack of opportunity for students to ask their own questions is a very real concern today in many of our Belizean classroom, and so exploring ways of getting students to ask questions, rather than the teacher asking all the questions, may make a significant contribution to making students independent In a constructivist classroom. environment is democratic and , the activites are interactive and student centered when compared to the traditional class room . Students are empowered by a teacher who operates as a facilitator in a constructivist classroom.In a traditional classroom, barriesr between student and teacher exists. In a constructivist classroom, by contrast, the teacher and the student share responsibility and decision making and demonstrate mutual respect. The democratic and interactive process of a constructivist classroom allows students to be active and autonomous learners. I find that using constructivist strategies, in my classroom i am are more effective when teaching and i am able to promote communication and create flexibility so that the needs of all my students can be met. The learning relationship in a constructivist classroom is mutually beneficial to both students and teachers.
Jacquelene : In my view the difference between the traditional and constructivist teaching methods is that: the traditional way of teaching is very boring. In the video the students looked bored and there is no interaction between the teacher or students. he teacher comes across as boring and the students are easily distracted.The constructivist way of teaching is very interesting. It makes the students want to interact and answer questions. It is a fun way of getting the information across. The teachers gains the students attention, and since the teacher makes the class interesting the students are eager to learn more. I am not a teacher but if i did teach, i would use the constructivist way of teaching so that my students would be more interested in the material being taught to them. Also because as a teacher you will feel that you are making pregress with your students.
ReplyDeleteAfter comparing and contrasting the traditional and constructivist methods, I believe that the constructivist works best with my students because this method allows students to work in collaborative group, the instructor serves just as the facilitator. The constructivist method of teaching is mostly student centered. The knowledge is constructed on the student prior knowledge, and their own cultural knowledge. This method is extremely Productive interactive and stimulating for the learners. This method is well known to Promotes autonomy and choices to each and every student in the class. Most importantly the Students learn to interact with their peers.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline I totally agree with you! The traditional method of teaching is very boring. I have had many teachers in my days as a primary school student who were extremely boring! ; Causing me an irreversible damage in math and science. Mathematic and science were the most boring classes I ever had; because they were always taught in the traditional way. I had always believed that I was not good at either of these subject ; until one day I was fortunate to meet a teacher who used the constructivist method and allowed me to finally enjoy both subjects and got me to get rid of my fears!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jacqueline the constructivist classroom allows for more interaction but hey there are some times where discussion is good and I am sure not all teachers are as boring as Mr. Rooney in Ferris Bueller’s day off one of all time fav’s.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional classroom pales in comparison to the constructivist classroom. The constructivist classroom is more interactive and students are able to interact and learn through discovery. I can see where these principles could work in other subject areas like math or science. However, one of the major challenges teachers are faced with in the classroom is the availability of resources and activities to make learning more fun for the students while doing social studies. How can you apply the same principles when dealing with history that has a lot of facts and dates? Researching is one area that some students have great difficulty in as they are limited to the resources they have while others may find a lot of information but never bother to read it. Many children seem uninterested in what is being taught.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Constructivist method of teaching is better that than the traditional way cause in the video you can see the students looking bored and uninteresting cause there is no interaction between the teacher and student. But using the Constructivist method you can see the interaction between the student and teacher. This allows students to be more productive, have prior knowledge of the topic. The teacher is more a facilitator. It allows students to discover new information and let them work in groups. The classroom becomes more fun and interesting than being bored. As a teacher, I would use the Constructivist Method cause it more fun, interesting and there is interaction between students and teacher. This allows me to communicate well with my students. My classroom won’t be bored and uninteresting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jacqueline that the Constructivist method allows for more student and teacher interaction. The classroom is more fun and not boring. It allows information to get across to student easily. It makes students want to learn more and answer questions. Meanwhile the traditional method is not fun and there is no interaction between students and teacher. The teacher comes across as boring and students are easily distracted.
ReplyDeleteConstructivism is a theory of knowledge that argues that humans generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas. According to the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to the role of facilitators and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995). Where a teacher gives a lecture that covers the subject matter; the students play a passive role. A facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content; the students play an active role. A traditional teacher tells, a constructivist teacher asks; a traditional teacher lectures from the front, a constructivist supports from the back; a traditional teacher gives answers according to a set curriculum; a constructivist provides guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions. These differences were obvious in the videos.
ReplyDeleteIn the education system today, teachers do their best to create child centered classrooms that focus on the constructivist approach to learning. This allows for hands on experience that fosters learning and thinking skills.
In my opinion both the traditional and constructivist methods can be used effectively in teaching. The subject area and topic that I am teaching play a role in determining which method I use – or if I will use them simultaneously. Both can be very engaging if used properly and I believe that most teachers have mastered the art of intertwining constructivism into traditional teaching styles.
I agree with Dorita, but I believe that this is one of the areas where constructivism can be effective. When putting my children into groups, I take into consideration their academic levels and the resources available to them. I always try to ensure that at least one person who has internet at home is in each group. I also try to have a section in my class where research material for a particular topic will be available. Using jigsaws and other similar techniques ensure that all members in a group read the required information and become familiar with it in order to either present to the class or share with peers. However, as Dorita said, it is a challenge by itself where Social Studies is concerned to create an interest in the students to learn and appreciate what happened in the past.
ReplyDeleteIn the traditional classroom in the example displayed that the teacher was boring, some students were doing their own thing – chewing gum, sleeping and gazing. While on the other hand, in the constructivist classroom the teacher is having creative activity. The students seem to enjoy their selves and are learning more. Having a constructivist classroom work more effective because students learn to share, discuss, and engage in activities that will help them to remember more the details that the teacher is trying to teach (concept). Nevertheless, the old fashion way (traditional) must stop because children are not the same, they learn differently. Furthermore, as teachers we need to be constructivist in our classroom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dorita that the constructivist classroom is more interactive and learn through discovery. Research is a great problem with students that doesn’t have access and those who have doesn’t take advantage of it. Nevertheless, we have students that live in poor areas that can’t afford to go to an internet café. Even at times we teachers don’t have money to use the internet café. Furthermore, it’s for the students benefit to have a constructivist class.
ReplyDeleteNicole said...
ReplyDeleteThe traditional teaching method involves the teacher talking a lot and just giving information. This method then diminish students involvement which depicts the lesson more as teacher based rather than student friendly. Back in the past, the traditional way of teaching seemed to work well but today in society where technology is ever changing this method may not be the best one. Students or young people of today are more into glamour and what they would call “hypeness.” Now, by applying the constructivist method where more involvement is required will somewhat draw their interest and keep them occupied or on task. By using this method, students will be more in control of their learning and will be able to discover things on their own rather than just receiving a pile of information that may not mean much sense to them. Also, the constructivist approach is like a guided approach in learning, and I believe that whatever they learn they’ll be able to remember better and apply them using this approach.
The constructivist approach works best for me in my classroom because it involves a lot of interactive activities. It creates less room for boredom and allows my students who are not really academically competent to utilize their skills and talents such as drawing and acting. And as for the students who are more academically competent, they can also benefit by helping classmates and becoming the table captain or leader of group activities. Furthermore, this approach also helps the passive students to start becoming more vocal in class and come out of their comfort zone while the already vocal students or verbally intelligent students are strengthen more in this area. Also, students become more independent and the interest is there which leads to intrinsic motivation.
I agree with Teresa that the constructivist approach is indeed more fun and interesting rather than boring like the traditional approach. It is indeed a better way of teaching because it is more student friendly and allows the students to learn to work together with classmates. From the video it clearly shows how bored the students were in the classroom from the traditional way of teaching. It shows students blowing gum, having head on the desk, staring in space and looking quite bored, tired and frustrated with the teacher. While on the other hand, using the constructivist approach, the students indeed seem more happy and excited to be working and learning. And yes, I will agree that we as teachers need to be constructivist in our class because in that is what our students are exposed to and they will learn best only when given the opportunity to be themselves and use their talents and skills.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Nichole's blog, I agree and can relate many of the things she mentioned. When grouping students, we have to take many things into consideration. We group students so they can help each other. We should try our best also not to intimidate students. Students who are less academically competent can play an important role in their group. As Nicole mentioned, they can help with graphics and organizing, while the more academic ones can be leaders and assist others. I have noticed that when I place my students in groups I get more from them. They feel less intimidated when talking to their peers than when talking to the teacher.
ReplyDeleteI believe in what Dorita said: Constructivist teaching is very effective and we can also use traditional teaching in some of the subjects as well. eventhough young teachers really want to use costructivist teaching method in the classroom, there is always lack of resources and materials teachers and students can use. As an effective teacher, we need to know what kind of teaching is necessary in the classroom at certain times. Students will learn once the subject is interesting. It also depends on how the teacher teaches the information to the students. As young teachers, we should always be willing to face the challenges and see how it will help us in the teaching profession.
ReplyDeleteIn previous years the ideal way of teaching was the traditional way of teaching. But we are now realizing that there are better and new ways in which we can be of utmost effective and efficient to our teacher.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional way of teaching, we know works well for some students, but for others it is very ineffective. As seen in the videos teaching in the traditional way can be very bore some for students. It is clear that the focus is on the teacher and not the students. It appears that the teacher is more focus on covering the material rather than ensuring that the students are e learning. In the video we see that the teacher isn’t even trying to get the students involved, he prefers to just give the students the answer.
On the other hand the teacher of a constructivist approach is more focus on being the facilitator rather than being a lecturer. We can clearly see that the students were actively learning, being productive and interactive in their learning. The constructivist approach to teaching stimulates students learning, it makes the students want to learn. Through this approach the children get to build on their knowledge and also get to be team players.
For me the constructivist approach works best. I can relate to those students that are stuck in those classrooms where the teacher is traditional. You can get bored and have no interest in learning. You are only there because you have to be there. Also I have seen where students get more out a lesson in which they are actively taking part. I am not saying that we should completely throw away the traditional way of teaching, but that we should combine the two. Time will show that some the things that were done under the traditional method appear to have been working.
I too conquer with Dorita that resources are not readily available to teachers, hindering teachers in the things they would want to undertake in their classrooms. But, as teachers we can’t let that be a deterrent and we still want to do our best.
ReplyDeleteClearly, we can see that the era for traditional teaching methods is waning. Using traditional teaching methods within the classroom, allows the structure and the ambience of the classroom setting to be totally teacher-centered. With this method the teacher becomes the omniscient character, knowing all things. Certainly, this approach doesn’t facilitate students’ experiences. One has to understand that wisdom or pragmatism cannot be taught; these things have to be experienced by the learner. Conspicuously, two main features of traditional teaching methods are boredom and a chronic case of depression. This approach for this new generation is very torturing. Traditional teaching methods have to be replaced by constructivist methods. This approach is quite the opposite of traditional teaching methods. The constructivist approach allows the classroom setting to be totally student-centered. With this approach students learn from the personal experiences through trial and error. The essence of the constructivist approach is that it allows students to take control of their own learning. With this approach it translate out to be a more active and participatory classroom.
ReplyDeleteClearly, we can see that the era for traditional teaching methods is waning. Using traditional teaching methods within the classroom, allows the structure and the ambience of the classroom setting to be totally teacher-centered. With this method the teacher becomes the omniscient character, knowing all things. Certainly, this approach doesn’t facilitate students’ experiences. One has to understand that wisdom or pragmatism cannot be taught; these things have to be experienced by the learner. Conspicuously, two main features of traditional teaching methods are boredom and a chronic case of depression. This approach for this new generation is very torturing. Traditional teaching methods have to be replaced by constructivist methods. This approach is quite the opposite of traditional teaching methods. The constructivist approach allows the classroom setting to be totally student-centered. With this approach students learn from the personal experiences through trial and error. The essence of the constructivist approach is that it allows students to take control of their own learning. With this approach it translate out to be a more active and participatory classroom.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Ms. Dorita. The constructivist approach is a more interactive and engaged method for teaching behavioral instructions. The constructivist approach to teaching forces interaction through cooperative learning and alternative forms of assessment. This form of differentiating teaching allows students to take ownership of their learning using practical experiences. As student’s mental and logical capacity develop so too are their experiences adjusted to suit their situation or circumstances. Again I strongly agree with Ms. Dorita when she says that resources to teach in this method are limited.
ReplyDeleteTraditional Classroom vs. Constructivist Classroom
ReplyDeleteIn the traditional classroom the following is done:
1. The teacher adheres and values to a fixed curriculum.
2. Activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks.
3. Teacher stands in front class and disseminates information.
4. Teacher seeks right answer to validate learning.
5. Assessment for learning done though testing.
6. Children work alone.
7. Teachers in a regular classroom act as the boss.
8. There is minimal student participation in lesson.
9. Classroom tends to be quiet and boring.
10. Teacher assumes that all children have similar levels of knowledge in the subject and learn similarly.
While in a constructivist classroom:
1. Student questions are highly valued.
2. Activities rely heavily on primary sources of data and manipulate materials
3. Children viewed as thinkers with emerging theories about the world.
4. Teacher acts in an interactive manner mediating the environment for children (facilitator).
5. Assessment is done as teaching occurs through observation of children work, exhibitions and portfolios.
6. Children work in collaborative groups
7. More student centered.
8. Knowledge is centered on student's prior knowledge.
9. The classroom is more productive, interactive and stimulating for learners.
The benefits of such a practice are:
Children enjoy learning more when they are actively involved.
Children retain what they've learned instead of memorization because constructivism concentrates on learning how to think and understand.
Gives children ownership of what they learn since learning is based on children question and explorations.
Activities stimulates and engages children. Children in the in the class learn to question things and to apply their natural curiosity to the world.
As a teacher in a special ed. institution, it is imperative that I use this method of teaching in order for children to grasp the concept. One method that I love is through playing games. This helps to build strategy, cooperation and keeps children involved in the lesson. Other methods I use are research projects where children research a topic and can present their findings. Some research is done through the use of technology. Field trips which allow the concepts discussed in the class in a real world context. Since we are studying Maya civilization, we will be taking a trip to the Museum of Belize and to a Maya ruin. After the trips, the children are to answer questions. I prefer this method of teaching because it captivates my student's interest though sometimes I slip into the tradtional way of teaching when ideas are hard to come by.
In comparison to Traditional and Constructivist Teaching methods within the classroom. I've observe that the Traditional Classroom is more teacher centered. Just plain talking, students gets monotonous. Students does not get the opportunity to explore and experience new ideas. Whereas within the Constructivist Teaching method students get to research, discover, be interactive, integration with other subjects, socialize, be responsible, make choices, do peer evaluation, presentations and group work. This method promotes autonomy.
ReplyDeleteThe Constructivist Teaching method works best for me because it enhance students to achieve hands on experiences. It promotes learning to the slow and fast learners, for each students learn differently.
Just like Julia, I too agree with Dorita. Resources are indeed hard to come by sometimes but not all activities would need that much resource. In a constructivist classroom, the children can role play, do oral presentations, have discussions and debates, write poems, write journals or even perform a concert. Other activities include having them construct posters, cartoons, models, charts, maps and graphs. I know these can easily be done with Math, English, Science, etc…
ReplyDeleteJust like her, I too am having difficultly planning activities for social studies. Yes, I have them do research on the internet and at the library and do presentations based on their findings. I also have them play games based on T.V. games such as jeopardy based on the topic being studied. I have a field trip planned to Lamanai and the museum of Belize but what else? I am totally at a loss.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn years back then the most practiced style of teaching was basically the traditional way of teaching; which is the chalk and talk. Since we are living in the modern days we now realized that there are more creative and enthusiastic ways of capturing our students’ attention. Ways in which we as educators will be more effective and progressive in our lessons that we plan.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional way of the teaching environment back then was definitely working for some students, but others may have fallen through the cracks because of frustration or maybe because of the lack of hands- on materials. I’ve observed in these educative video clippings that teachings in the traditional way were very boredom for many of the past students. In those times the teacher primarily focused on the material to be covered instead of teaching for learning. In the video the classroom was a teacher centered class, he just wanted to be the dominant speaker. To him the students’ opinion doesn’t really count. Everything for him is just me, me.
While on the other hand the child centered classroom teacher which follows the constructivist approach is more focused. In that essence the teacher was there as a guide and facilitates learning. It was obvious that the students were learning, interacting and being productive students. The constructivist approach to teaching helps in the learning process and allows the students to be interested. Through this approach the students were able to activate their prior knowledge and learn to work in groups to produce a good piece of work.
I want to be a very efficient and effective teacher so that is the main reason why I prefer the constructivist approach. It helps your students know that they are important and that you are teaching for them to learn. I could make statements about those students who are trapped in the traditional classroom settings. They tend to get very bored, loose focus and sometimes drop out a school. I have observed when the students play a key part of the lesson they retain the information longer. We don’t have to abolish the traditional way of teaching but we can intertwine or join them. There will be better results and we won’t be that frustrated at times and hence frustrating our students as well.
Ms. Jacqueline I totally agree with your comment. The traditional way of teaching is indeed very boring. I could relate to your past experience because I had a few teachers who were boring. I honestly believe that was the case because they didn’t want to break out of the old ways. Even though they were boring as you stated I still motivated myself to learn. I didn’t like math either and now I’m trying very hard to cope with it. I believe that those core subjects like Math should be interesting for real, but since it was taught in the traditional way it was boring. However, I still learned. As a motivated student I was blessed with an excellent teacher in Std 3 and from then I started to like Math and Science even English. I still find my self getting frustrated at times with Math but I’m getting there. Thanks to God!
ReplyDeleteWe were brought up in a traditional method of teaching. Most of us learnt through the chalk and talk method and at that time it was effective and no one complained. Times have changed and our students come with different learning styles and as teachers we need to cater to these styles. In the traditional classroom the students seem lost; most of them had blank expressions on their faces. You could tell that learning was not taking place, when students are bored and unmotivated they become problematic. Traditional teaching is teacher centered. The constructivist method is child centered; the teacher acts mainly as a facilitator and uses the child’s prior knowledge to bring about learning. Students are stimulated to learn through interaction and peer learning.
ReplyDeleteAs a preschool teacher I use the constructivist method because children learn mainly through play. Building on my students prior knowledge makes them feel like they have a role to play in their own learning. The constructivist method caters for all learning styles and it is one of the best method of teaching.
Primilee said:I have never had the experience of teaching as yet, but in my opinion our society these days are divided in to two different way of thinking on the education. Some believe that modern methods are better than the traditional method of teaching but yet these two methods are both a successful way. In my opinion, every method in teaching is the same for they deliver the same message to the students. Therefore there are pros and cons to it as well in these ways of teaching.
ReplyDeleteThe pros for traditional methods are that teaches shouldered too much of responsibilities for teaching in the classroom to make sure everything they thought were understood by the student. Thus it was a good method, where there was efficient communication between teacher and students. There was also the typical way and a controllable class where the teacher would teach on the blackboard, explained, asks students to copy and made sure students paid attention and listen. Besides that, the traditional way in disciplining students in school and teaching them was an effective way in building a good characteristic student where students were afraid of their teacher and respect them. Talking about the pros there are cons to traditional method way where students were to afraid to ask their teacher questions. Students get board of the same way of teaching method done by the teacher which is on the blackboard and listening to the teacher talk while they sit down in class and heat up their chairs. Besides that, disciplining the students with scolding is not a sufficient way for students get traumatizes in school.
On the other hand, the pros of modern method in teaching help a lot where there is a centered classroom which is created by the teacher and accepted by the students. In modern method students are aware of their learning process through the computers. with the help of computers teachers prepare their work in their drive(s) and present it to the class through slides show which is an easier way. And students can do their studying and their work all in the computer without depending on their teacher in schools.
As for the cons of the modern method of teaching students become too independent where they think they don’t need guidance from anybody because they think they can accomplish anything by themselves. With the use of computers in school children gets distracted with online games and websites to browse on besides their studies which will cause them distraction. . Besides that saving all data’s in the drive(s) can be a problem when there is a virus which can also cause the students and teacher to get to comfortable and depend too much on technology and forget other better tools in teaching. Thus students also begin to be too comfortable with their teacher as their friend in school and forget their responsibilities and respect over the teacher.
Primilee Said:Lastly, I feel that the teaching methods should be balance because it both brings good intentions in educating a person for the better future of everyone. Thus it sends out the same message even in different way but yet it is useful.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the videos, the constructivist classroom is where students get involved and engaged in the learning process. They interact, discover things on their own, and are allow to work together in small groups. Where as for the traditional teaching method is what we know as 'the chalk and talk'. This type of teaching method bored students,let them have no interest in the lesson and permit students to work alone. Traditional teaching method is teacher-centered and the constructivist is a student-centered method. The constructivist teaching method works best for me and my students. It enables my students to get involve, manipulate and interact. It works for me as a teacher because I get great results from my students using this approach in my classroom.
ReplyDeleteYes Jacqueline, I agree with you. The constructivist teaching method is much more fun, increase students interest and its interactive learning. Where as the traditional teaching method is boring and teachers need to get out of that teaching habit. It might work for some students, but I strongly believe that the constructivist is the more effective method of teaching.
ReplyDeleteWendy I was not able to see the videos but from what I have gathered from the other comments shared, is that in traditional teaching the teacher is the one with all the information to share while the children sits and listen and looked bored, where as in the constructivist teaching the students are allowed to participate more in their learning whether it is doing group work or discussions, presentation etc.
ReplyDeleteTraditional method of teaching has been used for many years with teaching assuming that all student learn at the same level while constructivist method of teach allow the student to be in control of their learning. I believe that constructivist method of teaching would work for students may class. We know for a fact that all student are not at the same level so by using the constructivist method of teaching or student centered learning we can bridge the gap between student who are at different levels. Most students learn the beat from each other by placing student in small groups and allowing them to discover answer on their own will help student who are at a lower level develop confidence to learn.
ReplyDeleteIn the traditional teaching method students have minimal time to voice their ideas, views or concerns, and for the most part the children are expected to listen, keep quiet and learn. The teacher has strict adherence to a fixed curriculum, textbooks and workbooks. Teacher assumes directive, authoritative role. Assessment is done by testing correct or wrong answers from a worksheet or exercise blank. Knowledge is inert and students work individually.
ReplyDeleteIn a constructivist teaching method the teacher is a facilitator of knowledge that works as a team member with students and coaches them through discovering ways. The instructor is in pursuit of student questions and interests. Manipulative materials are used in lessons. Learning is done in an interactive way or builds on what students already know. The teacher interacts and negotiates with students. Assessment is done by students’ works, observations, point of views or tests. Knowledge is dynamic and changes with experiences. Students work in groups.
In a traditional classroom the students learn for the moment and for an immediate grade. Many times they are bored and uninterested through the process. Goals are not always fulfilled to all the different types of learners. Contrary to the constructivist classroom, there is a shift: emphasis from teaching to learning. Students develop processes, skills and attitudes, considers students’ learning styles focusing on knowledge construction, not reproduction. Learners are engaged in authentic tasks to gain meaningful, and problem –based thinking. Children reflect on prior and new knowledge and extend them beyond content presented to them. Thus making them better critical thinkers.
The constructivist method works better for me and my students. I believe in team work. A student should be an active learner through discovery, he/she should be a knowledge seeker, knowledge creator, reflective learner, active learner, responsible learner and be able to mediate their own learning. I do not like to be in the same place all the time, so I want the same for my students: I expect them to move around interacting in a constructivist classroom.
I agree with Dorita that the constructivist classroom is more fun for the students. However, teachers are very often met with limited resources and availability of information. As a teacher I find myself in that position very often.
ReplyDeleteThe traditional teacher in the video could very well be an extreme for example in order to ensure that the traditional method is being considered not very effective. I have seen and heard traditional teachers who are able to gain and keep the interest of the class and have proven to be very efficient teachers. Nonetheless, in comparing the two it is obvious according to the videos the constructivist is much more effective seeing there is more student participation, evidently more interest is shown, student/question also contributes and promote more student input and interaction. It is noted for the traditionalist, question are being asked and left unanswered and teaching proceeds. The student shows little interest, are very preoccupied and obviously little learning is taking place. I do believe however that much of learning is dependent on the quality of the teacher himself whether traditionalist or constructivist. I am certain that they are much more effective tradition list than the example seen and that they are constructivist who themselves are not very well organize and are not able to provide questions or other activities that will keep the interest of the students.
ReplyDeleteI agree with jacquelene point of view that traditional method of teaching is boring and the students lose interest in what is been thought. Some student even fall asleep in class or misbehave while the constructivist method of teaching make the child want to interact and answer questions and makes the child eager to learn. By using this method of teaching there will be less behavioral problems and more learning in the class room.
ReplyDeleteTraditional teaching is very common, which is the teacher getting in front of the class and talk and talk and that’s it. Where as the constructivist teaching allows room for effective group work and is more than just talk. Students’ prior knowledge plays a big roll in the constructivist teaching method. Most people can be effective using the traditional teaching method, but maybe a mixture of them both would be good too. The constructivist teaching is student centered and can be very effective, but I find myself using more the traditional teaching method in my classroom. I use the constructivist method sometimes but I get more done using the traditional. I make the lessons interesting and incorporate the two to make progress. I do not know about all students but my class is mainly made of boys. I have five girls and sixteen boys and its hard to get them settle to work together all the time. Maybe if I practice the constructivist teaching method more then they would get use to the idea and learn to cooperate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Lisa, both constructivist and the traditional teaching methods can be used in our classroom but it depends on the subject area and the topic. This is because some teachers, like you said, have mastered the art of intertwining constructivism into traditional teaching style. However, if it is not done properly then it becomes uninteresting, boring and monotonous, which may result in students misbehaving, lost of interest, absence from classes, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn the traditional video, the teacher was trying to get feedback from the students but he didn’t give the student the energy to even participate in the lesson while, in the constructivist video, the student were eager to begin and excited to explain themselves. I believe that the constructivist approach is much more effective and is the one that I use, most of the time with my class, not only because it works but they are learning, and interacting with each other, as well as, they learn how to respect each others’ ideas and options. They also learn how to listen when someone is taking and if there is a student that does not participate in the discussion because the probably don’t know how to explain themselves or is shy and to ask the teacher then they can clarify different things by listening to the other students. The constructivist approach is also more effective because the interaction gives them opportunity to become more relaxed and open for conversation/discussion. According to Jean Piaget, “A child constructs understanding through many channels: reading, listening, exploring and experiencing his or her environment”. Which means that if a teacher uses the traditional teaching approach only, the teacher will loose the students some where down the line, whereas, if they use both the constructivist and traditional approach the students can interact plus have an effective traditional class discussion.
ReplyDeleteComparing teaching in the traditional way comparing it to the constructivist approach can be done by mere observation. Traditional teaching as the name implies has to do with the regular chalk and talk methods of teaching. Teachers tend to give information to students assuming that they know the limit a child is expected to learn and allow them that amount. The lesson is teacher centered.
ReplyDeleteThe constructivist way of teaching is a process by which students construct their own knowledge. Students are taught using various strategies that will help them to retain the information learnt. Students are given all information and they break down the information. The constructivist way of teaching is more child centered.
After viewing these videos, it can be clearly seen that the traditional and constructivist way of teaching is very different in many ways. The traditional way of teaching comprises of the "chalk and talk routine" while the constructivist way of teaching uses a more informative and interactive approach to learning. Most teachers use the traditional way of teaching instead of using discovery learning whereby children uncover the information for themselves. The constructivist approach, however, promotes a setting which allows children to become more motivated and interested in learning, which is the key agenda for all teachers!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I would undoubtedly state that the constructivist approach works best for my students because this approach develops a far more inner drive from my students to learn a particular topic or study. I find that my students grasp the concept more effectively by using collaborative groups and discovery learning. Thus, I believe in using the constructivist approach in teaching rather than the traditional approach.
I fully agree with Sharema's viewpoint in stating that the traditional approach to teaching is more teacher centered. Instead of promoting teacher centered lessons, we need to have children construct their own knowledge. By having more student centered lessons, children will be more interactive and motivated in learning the concept being taught and it will foster positive development for the child. Therefore, the constructivist approach is a more effective way in teaching!
ReplyDeleteI must start by saying that the videos were constantly freezing and the audio was poor nonetheless I proceeded to view what I could. Clearly the constructivist method is the way of delivering a concept to students. This is a new era of video games I pod and other technologies our students are exposed to a lot of modern technology and as teachers we need to be in tune with their interests. The constructivist approach works for me because it is very engaging, hands on and students will better retain what they have experienced. The constructivist approach allows peer teaching and socialization while learning. This approach makes learning fun and motivating. Students in the constructivist videos were elated and had an interest in engaging in the various activities. Their previous knowledge helped them in building and acquiring new information. On the other hand the tradition way of teaching can discourage students from learning. They will become bored and may develop a negative attitude towards school. Also if students are not motivated they may become disruptive in class. I agree with Sharema’s view, the constructivist approach is more children centered and friendly. We need to motivate our children and keep them motivated.
ReplyDeleteIn these days, the student population is diverse and there is much need to change the traditional method of teaching. The search for new and a more effective method is ongoing. Methods of teaching include the traditional or teacher-centered method and the contructivist or student-centered methods. The traditional method was used where curricular activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks. Also, students are viewed as blankslates unto which information is etched by the teacher. As years went by, in the changing societies, teachers are seeking to change their teaching method to student centered where jn persuit of student, questions is highly valued and curriculier activities rely heavily on primary sources of data and manipulative materials. Also, students are viewed as thinkers. Teachers are interactive and mediate the environment for the students
ReplyDeleteEach of these methods has advantages and disadvantages for the teachers and students. The teacher centered method assumes that all students have similar levels of knowledge in the subject being taught and learn at the same pace. The student centered approach allow students to work together in small groups. Students guided by teacher interact with other students. Student learn from student. Through active participation of students in the classroom, he or she construct his or her own knowledge.
The constructivist method is becoming more widely used by teachers but i must say that traditional teaching has worked best for me. I believe in seeking the correct answer to validate student learning. At times, I used the constructivst method to encourage student enteraction.
After viewing the videos, it is clear to see and understand the differences between the traditional and constructivist teaching methods. In the traditional classrooms students are class as blank slates and all the information is given to them. It is what is mainly referred as a "talk and chalk" approach. Teachers generally behave in an instructive manner, disseminating information to students. In the traditional classroom students primarily work alone.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in the constructivist classroom students are required to think. Teachers generally behave in an interactive manner, mediating the environment for students. Students are given a chance to give their point of view and to interact with each other in the classroom. Students primarily work in groups.
The constructivist method of teaching works best for me and my students. Getting students involve in the lesson helps the teacher in knowing if the student is learning or understanding the lesson and it also helps in assessing. Using this approach also helps the students learn better, for the fact that most of my students learn by doing. Children are more motivated when putting them in groups and having them doing various and stimulating activities. When a teacher talks a lot, students tend to get bored and distracted by something else in the classroom. Some of them even go to sleep. I try my best to motivate my students.
I agree with Sharema’s view, the constructivist approach is more children centered and friendly. We need to motivate our children and keep them motivated. The traditional way is basically chalk and talk and children are placed to learn within a certain limit. Children are given the information and teachers take it that the students are learning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePefectly right Michelle, I have read Sherema's view also and construtivist approach is the better method for teaching. The traditional chalk and talk only cater to the visual and audio learner; whislht the constructivist cater for all three type of learners, audio, visual and tactile.
ReplyDeleteMr. Tucker this is Nora's Blog that she has been trying to post. Each time she tries using her account it does not go through so i am sending it through mine. thanks, miss D
ReplyDeleteNORA CHO
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, traditional teaching is where the teacher gives the information to the students. The teacher believes that it is his job to give them the information. Most of the time teacher gives notes and assess them with a written test. Based on the video I viewed, students seems to be boring, sleepy, lost, and don’t have the interest to ask the teacher anything. The teacher himself seems to be lost on the topic. He didn’t even call on the students to give answer and continues to teach his lesson. The teacher fails to reach to all his students in the classroom. The students never had the opportunity to share what they know and learn from their peers.
NORA CHO
ReplyDeleteI strongly say that in order to be a well balanced teacher, I think both of it is effective in the classroom. We should know exactly how we want to teach our lesson and when to use the different teaching. As a new teacher I am going to use constructivist teaching in my classroom. I want students to learn willingly and don’t have to force them to learn.
Students having control over their thinking is an important matter in a constructivist classroom. The lack of opportunity for students to ask their own questions is a very real concern today in many of our Belizean classroom, and so exploring ways of getting students to ask questions, rather than the teacher asking all the questions, may make a significant contribution to making students independent In a constructivist classroom. environment is democratic and , the activites are interactive and student centered when compared to the traditional class room . Students are empowered by a teacher who operates as a facilitator in a constructivist classroom.In a traditional classroom, barriesr between student and teacher exists. In a constructivist classroom, by contrast, the teacher and the student share responsibility and decision making and demonstrate mutual respect. The democratic and interactive process of a constructivist classroom allows students to be active and autonomous learners. I find that using constructivist strategies, in my classroom i am are more effective when teaching and i am able to promote communication and create flexibility so that the needs of all my students can be met. The learning relationship in a constructivist classroom is mutually beneficial to both students and teachers.
ReplyDelete