Constructivism and the Five E's
Constructivism. The philosophy about learning, that proposes learners need to build their own understanding of new ideas, has been labeled constructivism. Much has been researched and written by many eminent leaders in the fields of learning theory and cognition. Scholars such as Jean Piaget, Eleanor Duckworth, George Hein, and Howard Gardener have explored these ideas in-depth. The Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), a team whose Principal Investigator is Roger Bybee developed an instructional model for constructivism, called the "Five Es".
Briefly, this learning approach as it relates to science can be summarized as follows: Learning something new, or attempting to understand something familiar in greater depth, is not a linear process. In trying to make sense of things we use both our prior experience and the first-hand knowledge gained from new explorations. Initially, our curiosity about a science topic is stirred, as we are stimulated by some intriguing phenomena, such as a rainbow, we've noticed. We poke, probe, inquire about and explore this phenomena until it becomes less mysterious. As we begin to investigate new ideas we can put together bits and pieces of prior explorations that seem to fit our understanding of the phenomena under present investigation. In the case of the rainbow, for example, we may realize that there is an association between sunlight and water vapor. Piece by piece we build knowledge. Sometimes when the pieces don't fit together, we must break down old ideas and reconstruct them. (Following a rainbow to find a pot of gold doesn't work easily!) We extend our conceptual understanding through discussions and creative efforts. We validate our theories as we solve problems. In our rainbow example, we may realize that if we position ourselves properly, we can create a rainbow by spraying a water hose in sunlight. The clarity we've gained in understanding a concept gives us the ability to apply this understanding to new situations and new mysteries. It is a continuous and a very individual process. We bring to each learning experience our developmental level, our personal story and our personal style.
It is up to the teacher to facilitate the constructivistic learning process. The structure of the learning environment should promote opportunities and events that encourage and support the building of understanding.
We have used an adaptation of BSCS's model to introduce the pH factor. Our instructional model is called the "Seven Es". Investigations and activities are included under the headings of each E. They are presented to be taught either in sequence or independently, at the teacher's discretion. Each investigation is designed to stand on its own and be introduced when deemed appropriate.
A convenient format to view constructivism has been defined by Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS). In this models the process is explained by employing five "E"'s. They are: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate.
Engage. In the stage Engage, the students first encounter and identify the instructional task. Here they make connections between past and present learning experiences, lay the organizational ground work for the activities ahead and stimulate their involvement in the anticipation of these activities. Asking a question, defining a problem, showing a surprising event and acting out a problematic situation are all ways to engage the students and focus them on the instructional tasks. If we were to make an analogy to the world of marketing a product, at first we need to grab the customer's attention. We won't have their attention unless they have a need to buy the product. They may be unaware of a need, and in this case we are motivated to create a need.
Explore. In the Exploration stage the students have the opportunity to get directly involved with phenomena and materials. Involving themselves in these activities they develop a grounding of experience with the phenomenon. As they work together in teams, students build a base of common experience which assists them in the process of sharing and communicating. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and guiding the students' focus. The students' inquiry process drives the instruction during an exploration.
Explain. The third stage, Explain, is the point at which the learner begins to put the abstract experience through which she/he has gone /into a communicable form. Language provides motivation for sequencing events into a logical format. Communication occurs between peers, the facilitator, or within the learner himself. Working in groups, learners support each other's understanding as they articulate their observations, ideas, questions and hypotheses. Language provides a tool of communicable labels. These labels, applied to elements of abstract exploration, give the learner a means of sharing these explorations. Explanations from the facilitator can provide names that correspond to historical and standard language, for student findings and events. For example a child, through her exploration, may state they have noticed that a magnet has a tendency to "stick" to a certain metallic object. The facilitator, in her discussion with the child, might at this stage introduce terminology referring to "an attracting force". Introducing labels, after the child has had a direct experience, is far more meaningful than before that experience. The experiential base she has built offers the student an attachment place for the label. Common language enhances the sharing and communication between facilitator and students. The facilitator can determine levels of understanding and possible misconceptions. Created works such as writing, drawing, video, or tape recordings are communications that provide recorded evidence of the learner's development, progress and growth.
Elaborate. In stage four, Elaborate, the students expand on the concepts they have learned, make connections to other related concepts, and apply their understandings to the world around them. For example, while exploring light phenomena, a learner constructs an understanding of the path light travels through space. Examining a lamp post, she may notice that the shadow of the post changes its location as the day grows later. This observation can lead to further inquiry as to possible connections between the shadow's changing location and the changes in direction of the light source, the Sun. Applications to real world events, such as where to plant flowers so that they receive sunlight most of the day, or how to prop up a beach umbrella for shade from the Sun, are both extensions and applications of the concept that light travels in a straight path. These connections often lead to further inquiry and new understandings.
Evaluate. Evaluate, the fifth "E", is an on-going diagnostic process that allows the teacher to determine if the learner has attained understanding of concepts and knowledge. Evaluation and assessment can occur at all points along the continuum of the instructional process. Some of the tools that assist in this diagnostic process are: rubrics (quantified and prioritized outcome expectations) determined hand-in-hand with the lesson design, teacher observation structured by checklists, student interviews, portfolios designed with specific purposes, project and problem-based learning products, and embedded assessments. Concrete evidence of the learning proceed is most valuable in communications between students, teachers, parents and administrators. Displays of attainment and progress enhance understanding for all parties involved in the educational process, and can become jumping off points for further enrichment of the students' education. These evidences of learning serve to guide the teacher in further lesson planning and may signal the need for modification and change of direction. For example, if a teacher perceives clear evidence of misconception, then he/she can revisit the concept to enhance clearer understanding. If the students show profound interest in a branching direction of inquiry, the teacher can consider refocusing the investigation to take advantage of this high level of interest.
Viewing the evaluation process as a continuous one gives the constructivistic philosophy a kind of cyclical structure. The learning process is open-ended and open to change. There is an on going loop where questions lead to answers but more questions and instruction is driven by both predetermined lesson design and the inquiry process.
Briefly, this learning approach as it relates to science can be summarized as follows: Learning something new, or attempting to understand something familiar in greater depth, is not a linear process. In trying to make sense of things we use both our prior experience and the first-hand knowledge gained from new explorations. Initially, our curiosity about a science topic is stirred, as we are stimulated by some intriguing phenomena, such as a rainbow, we've noticed. We poke, probe, inquire about and explore this phenomena until it becomes less mysterious. As we begin to investigate new ideas we can put together bits and pieces of prior explorations that seem to fit our understanding of the phenomena under present investigation. In the case of the rainbow, for example, we may realize that there is an association between sunlight and water vapor. Piece by piece we build knowledge. Sometimes when the pieces don't fit together, we must break down old ideas and reconstruct them. (Following a rainbow to find a pot of gold doesn't work easily!) We extend our conceptual understanding through discussions and creative efforts. We validate our theories as we solve problems. In our rainbow example, we may realize that if we position ourselves properly, we can create a rainbow by spraying a water hose in sunlight. The clarity we've gained in understanding a concept gives us the ability to apply this understanding to new situations and new mysteries. It is a continuous and a very individual process. We bring to each learning experience our developmental level, our personal story and our personal style.
It is up to the teacher to facilitate the constructivistic learning process. The structure of the learning environment should promote opportunities and events that encourage and support the building of understanding.
We have used an adaptation of BSCS's model to introduce the pH factor. Our instructional model is called the "Seven Es". Investigations and activities are included under the headings of each E. They are presented to be taught either in sequence or independently, at the teacher's discretion. Each investigation is designed to stand on its own and be introduced when deemed appropriate.
A convenient format to view constructivism has been defined by Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS). In this models the process is explained by employing five "E"'s. They are: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate.
Engage. In the stage Engage, the students first encounter and identify the instructional task. Here they make connections between past and present learning experiences, lay the organizational ground work for the activities ahead and stimulate their involvement in the anticipation of these activities. Asking a question, defining a problem, showing a surprising event and acting out a problematic situation are all ways to engage the students and focus them on the instructional tasks. If we were to make an analogy to the world of marketing a product, at first we need to grab the customer's attention. We won't have their attention unless they have a need to buy the product. They may be unaware of a need, and in this case we are motivated to create a need.
Explore. In the Exploration stage the students have the opportunity to get directly involved with phenomena and materials. Involving themselves in these activities they develop a grounding of experience with the phenomenon. As they work together in teams, students build a base of common experience which assists them in the process of sharing and communicating. The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing materials and guiding the students' focus. The students' inquiry process drives the instruction during an exploration.
Explain. The third stage, Explain, is the point at which the learner begins to put the abstract experience through which she/he has gone /into a communicable form. Language provides motivation for sequencing events into a logical format. Communication occurs between peers, the facilitator, or within the learner himself. Working in groups, learners support each other's understanding as they articulate their observations, ideas, questions and hypotheses. Language provides a tool of communicable labels. These labels, applied to elements of abstract exploration, give the learner a means of sharing these explorations. Explanations from the facilitator can provide names that correspond to historical and standard language, for student findings and events. For example a child, through her exploration, may state they have noticed that a magnet has a tendency to "stick" to a certain metallic object. The facilitator, in her discussion with the child, might at this stage introduce terminology referring to "an attracting force". Introducing labels, after the child has had a direct experience, is far more meaningful than before that experience. The experiential base she has built offers the student an attachment place for the label. Common language enhances the sharing and communication between facilitator and students. The facilitator can determine levels of understanding and possible misconceptions. Created works such as writing, drawing, video, or tape recordings are communications that provide recorded evidence of the learner's development, progress and growth.
Elaborate. In stage four, Elaborate, the students expand on the concepts they have learned, make connections to other related concepts, and apply their understandings to the world around them. For example, while exploring light phenomena, a learner constructs an understanding of the path light travels through space. Examining a lamp post, she may notice that the shadow of the post changes its location as the day grows later. This observation can lead to further inquiry as to possible connections between the shadow's changing location and the changes in direction of the light source, the Sun. Applications to real world events, such as where to plant flowers so that they receive sunlight most of the day, or how to prop up a beach umbrella for shade from the Sun, are both extensions and applications of the concept that light travels in a straight path. These connections often lead to further inquiry and new understandings.
Evaluate. Evaluate, the fifth "E", is an on-going diagnostic process that allows the teacher to determine if the learner has attained understanding of concepts and knowledge. Evaluation and assessment can occur at all points along the continuum of the instructional process. Some of the tools that assist in this diagnostic process are: rubrics (quantified and prioritized outcome expectations) determined hand-in-hand with the lesson design, teacher observation structured by checklists, student interviews, portfolios designed with specific purposes, project and problem-based learning products, and embedded assessments. Concrete evidence of the learning proceed is most valuable in communications between students, teachers, parents and administrators. Displays of attainment and progress enhance understanding for all parties involved in the educational process, and can become jumping off points for further enrichment of the students' education. These evidences of learning serve to guide the teacher in further lesson planning and may signal the need for modification and change of direction. For example, if a teacher perceives clear evidence of misconception, then he/she can revisit the concept to enhance clearer understanding. If the students show profound interest in a branching direction of inquiry, the teacher can consider refocusing the investigation to take advantage of this high level of interest.
Viewing the evaluation process as a continuous one gives the constructivistic philosophy a kind of cyclical structure. The learning process is open-ended and open to change. There is an on going loop where questions lead to answers but more questions and instruction is driven by both predetermined lesson design and the inquiry process.
The Role of Constructivism in Teaching Science
|
The conventional way of teaching science has been through lecturing. The motivation behind this method was often the convenience that comes with it. In a lecture an instructor follows his notes or a book while the audience listens. Although questions are often expected, this rarely happens.
olpc uruguay
Learning by doing, not listening
This method usually is not very compatible with experimental sessions, where students are asked to prove something through an experiment, because they are not trained to question their learning, but only to follow directions. This detachment between lecturing and the experimental training is, in my opinion, a reason why often there is very little excitement from the students over the sciences.
A consequence of this one-way of transmitting knowledge (from the teacher to the students) induces a high level of dry memorization by the students. The reason behind it consists in the lack of development of quantitative and analytical skills that comes with the traditional lecturing. As side effects, sciences (and in particular the physical sciences) are perceived as cryptic, difficult and requires a student to be "very smart".
Inquiry-Based Learning
To overcome such limitations, the physical science education community over the years has suggested that the "inquiry-based" learning provides a much more effective way of teaching the sciences because more it follows more closely the scientific method. This is indeed the true way of teaching problem-solving skills.
In a typical inquiry-based session, the teacher proposes a set of problems for the students to analyze and discover. Such problems or questions are approached by the students through a continuous and systematic use of questioning by a mentor, usually the teacher.
olpc developer
Next OLPC scientist generation
The idea behind it is that in science there is nothing written in stone, and the scientific progress is dictated by the curiosity that arise in trying to find answers to questions. In inquiry-based learning the goal is to drift the students from passively listening to actively solve a problem by continuing questioning.
There are several side effects. Questioning a topic stimulates the creative nature of children and helps them to grow an independent personality. In addition, it helps mystifying the typical stereotypes about scientists, since they can easily identify with them. Finally, it helps developing a strong analytical sense in them, which is useful no matter what career they will later purse in life (from the sciences to economics, from engineering to programming).
Inquiry-based learning however is not easy to implement. Teachers have been traditionally not very receptive about this method, since it is more difficult to implement. (Think for example how easier is to prepare a lecture than instead to go and guide a group of students to solve a problem).
In addition, all the material available is usually better suited to the conventional lecturing. PowerPoint presentations are reaching out schools and universities but more often they consists on prepackaged lectures and do not fit in the inquiry based teaching.
There is a substantial amount of literature about inquiry-based learning, of which I suggest: Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards and the work of the pioneer in the field, Prof. Lillian McDermott. Examples of inquired based learning can be found in "Physics by Inquiry" by L. McDermott.
OLPC Constructivism Learning
While inquiry-based learning is a well established and proven but still growing method, one has to wonder if it fits into the constructivistic approach that OLPC originally envisioned for the XO. If I am not mistaken the idea behind this approach is to have the children to explore and "work their way" to enrich their education, by simply giving them a tool and expecting them to master it. It may seem that the constructivistic approach has a structure similar to the inquiry-based learning. However there is an important difference.
While the role of the teacher is assumed not important by the constructivism, it is instead crucial in inquiry-based learning. The teacher is the guide through the learning, through carefully thought questions. This role is the same as the role of parents in very small kids. In addition the guidance provides structure to the learning process, so priorities can be given to some topics according to relevance, chronological development, etc.
The current vision for the XO is to allow their students to develop their skills with the use of the machine not necessarily while at school. This is not, per se, a bad thing. However unguided, undisputed, unchallenged use of it won't make it effective. For example, Etoys is a great activity for a child to create useful content. However in the current implementation it is merely a tool. My question is: how is a child supposed to learn about scientific phenomenon with this tool, without guidance?
olpc chile
Next OLPC scientist generation
The way I see it, someone (a teacher, or a more carefully thought activity based on Etoys), should provide the students with a challenge followed by further questioning that act as a guidance towards solving that problem.
The activity would be a precious tool towards the realization of this goal, but taken by itself, it would not be sufficient. Instead, an activity designed with continuous guiding through questioning would not need necessarily the presence of a teacher.
In a way, the teacher would be "built-into" the activity itself. However, as I said earlier, I do not see that happening in the XO, which so far as it is is simply a collection of unstructured tools.
I hope that local committees will pick up what OLPC is not. Carefully designed curricula for the XO is now crucial, and it should not left in the cold. Involvement of inquiry-based learning experts should be as important as the development of the platform itself. Their goal does not seem very different with that of the OLPC project. For this reason, this project would greatly benefit from their expertise.
This post was submitted by Nicola Ferralis. Want to share your OLPC-related ideas? Then write a Guest Post for OLPC News too.
olpc uruguay
Learning by doing, not listening
This method usually is not very compatible with experimental sessions, where students are asked to prove something through an experiment, because they are not trained to question their learning, but only to follow directions. This detachment between lecturing and the experimental training is, in my opinion, a reason why often there is very little excitement from the students over the sciences.
A consequence of this one-way of transmitting knowledge (from the teacher to the students) induces a high level of dry memorization by the students. The reason behind it consists in the lack of development of quantitative and analytical skills that comes with the traditional lecturing. As side effects, sciences (and in particular the physical sciences) are perceived as cryptic, difficult and requires a student to be "very smart".
Inquiry-Based Learning
To overcome such limitations, the physical science education community over the years has suggested that the "inquiry-based" learning provides a much more effective way of teaching the sciences because more it follows more closely the scientific method. This is indeed the true way of teaching problem-solving skills.
In a typical inquiry-based session, the teacher proposes a set of problems for the students to analyze and discover. Such problems or questions are approached by the students through a continuous and systematic use of questioning by a mentor, usually the teacher.
olpc developer
Next OLPC scientist generation
The idea behind it is that in science there is nothing written in stone, and the scientific progress is dictated by the curiosity that arise in trying to find answers to questions. In inquiry-based learning the goal is to drift the students from passively listening to actively solve a problem by continuing questioning.
There are several side effects. Questioning a topic stimulates the creative nature of children and helps them to grow an independent personality. In addition, it helps mystifying the typical stereotypes about scientists, since they can easily identify with them. Finally, it helps developing a strong analytical sense in them, which is useful no matter what career they will later purse in life (from the sciences to economics, from engineering to programming).
Inquiry-based learning however is not easy to implement. Teachers have been traditionally not very receptive about this method, since it is more difficult to implement. (Think for example how easier is to prepare a lecture than instead to go and guide a group of students to solve a problem).
In addition, all the material available is usually better suited to the conventional lecturing. PowerPoint presentations are reaching out schools and universities but more often they consists on prepackaged lectures and do not fit in the inquiry based teaching.
There is a substantial amount of literature about inquiry-based learning, of which I suggest: Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards and the work of the pioneer in the field, Prof. Lillian McDermott. Examples of inquired based learning can be found in "Physics by Inquiry" by L. McDermott.
OLPC Constructivism Learning
While inquiry-based learning is a well established and proven but still growing method, one has to wonder if it fits into the constructivistic approach that OLPC originally envisioned for the XO. If I am not mistaken the idea behind this approach is to have the children to explore and "work their way" to enrich their education, by simply giving them a tool and expecting them to master it. It may seem that the constructivistic approach has a structure similar to the inquiry-based learning. However there is an important difference.
While the role of the teacher is assumed not important by the constructivism, it is instead crucial in inquiry-based learning. The teacher is the guide through the learning, through carefully thought questions. This role is the same as the role of parents in very small kids. In addition the guidance provides structure to the learning process, so priorities can be given to some topics according to relevance, chronological development, etc.
The current vision for the XO is to allow their students to develop their skills with the use of the machine not necessarily while at school. This is not, per se, a bad thing. However unguided, undisputed, unchallenged use of it won't make it effective. For example, Etoys is a great activity for a child to create useful content. However in the current implementation it is merely a tool. My question is: how is a child supposed to learn about scientific phenomenon with this tool, without guidance?
olpc chile
Next OLPC scientist generation
The way I see it, someone (a teacher, or a more carefully thought activity based on Etoys), should provide the students with a challenge followed by further questioning that act as a guidance towards solving that problem.
The activity would be a precious tool towards the realization of this goal, but taken by itself, it would not be sufficient. Instead, an activity designed with continuous guiding through questioning would not need necessarily the presence of a teacher.
In a way, the teacher would be "built-into" the activity itself. However, as I said earlier, I do not see that happening in the XO, which so far as it is is simply a collection of unstructured tools.
I hope that local committees will pick up what OLPC is not. Carefully designed curricula for the XO is now crucial, and it should not left in the cold. Involvement of inquiry-based learning experts should be as important as the development of the platform itself. Their goal does not seem very different with that of the OLPC project. For this reason, this project would greatly benefit from their expertise.
This post was submitted by Nicola Ferralis. Want to share your OLPC-related ideas? Then write a Guest Post for OLPC News too.
National testing distorts science teaching in primary schools
National testing distorts science teaching in primary schools
Primary school children working in a classroom
Two reports published as a pair today by the Wellcome Trust highlight widespread concern about the negative impact of national testing on young people’s enjoyment and understanding of science.
Each report looks over the past 60 years to pick out trends in primary science teaching and draw conclusions about the future. Published together, they are the first in a series of paired ‘Perspectives on Education’ commissioned by the Wellcome Trust to stimulate debate about the best way to teach science in schools. The publication comes in the midst of a series of reviews of primary education and testing, including the two year long review of primary education by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, due to publish its final report at the end of September, and the independent review of the primary curriculum in England being led by Sir Jim Rose.
Professor Wynne Harlen of the University of Bristol and author of one of the reports, says science learning definitely needs to begin in primary school: “There is a considerable body of research evidence that shows that, since children’s own ideas are often in conflict with scientific ones, if taken into the secondary school, they can inhibit effective learning. The conflict leads many to find science too hard, too confusing and too remote from their real experience.”
Although Prof. Harlen believes science should be a core subject, she considers the associated national testing has had a detrimental impact on learning and teaching: “Of course it is important to know what children have achieved, to report this to parents and other teachers and to keep records that enable proper evaluation. The negative impact derives not from the assessment process as such but as a consequence of the policy of using results to set targets and to judge teachers and schools solely on the basis of test results.”
The other report was authored by Professor Peter Tymms and colleagues at the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University. They took a more quantitative approach to the data but reached similar conclusions.
Prof. Tymms says new approaches to primary school science must be developed: “We suspect that the current national approach to science in primary schools is not impacting on children’s scientific thought and curiosity as much as is possible. Despite the pass rates in public examinations later in secondary school, research suggests few students acquire a proper understanding of the science curriculum.
“The purpose of science in primary school should be to foster a sense of curiosity and positive attitudes in the young child. It should also guide the child in solving problems to do with the physical, natural and human worlds. There is now a strong argument for reconsidering the approach to science in English primary schools, and for doing this in a systematic, evidence-based way.”
Clare Matterson, Director of Medicine, Society and History at the Wellcome Trust, says: “These reports both examine more than half a century of evidence on the teaching and learning of science in primary schools and both reach the same conclusion - science needs to be at the heart of primary education, but it is being let down by the current national accountability system.
“The Wellcome Trust commissioned this pair of perspectives from experienced and respected education researchers to raise debate about national testing in primary science, and to ensure that future policies can be based on facts. That is the only way we can reach a rational, successful and sustainable approach to science education.”
Image: Wellcome Images.
Contact
Michael Regnier
Media Officer
The Wellcome Trust
T 020 7611 7262
E m.regnier@wellcome.ac.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
