As an elementary student, roughly 30 years ago, my first taste of failure came in the form of spelling tests. I failed every single spelling test in elementary. Ironically, I now teach English in a K-12 public school. At the time, I saw the practical application of spelling well, but the whole process felt like memorization. At the same time, I could recite from memory the code to the final boss in the Nintendo classic “Punch Out!” (007-373-5963). That had value, that was a product of my effort, and it was the key to a task that had to be completed. It was a failure, but the only penalty was reloading and trying again, and I was getting better! All of my skills led to this moment. Remembering the code felt like an accomplishment from my hard work, remembering the spelling words just seemed annoying.
In middle school, I gained a new found love of words. In my age-old, “Sage on the Stage” style English and history classes, I learned to love stories. This led to me reading and that led to success with reading and writing. Math on the other hand, in my young opinion, lacked creativity. I didn’t care to reach the solution, because I didn’t see the value that the solution had. It was a puzzle, I hated puzzles (Unless they were puzzles to be solved by an Italian plumber by way of Japan). Like the spelling words, it just seemed like an annoying task. Despite that, I loved going to school, listening to stories, chatting with friends, and then struggling in silence in math class. I occasionally even took “sick days” to avoid math altogether (Ironically, I am now married to a math teacher).
High school saw success through the math classes providing context. Each new concept was introduced by explaining the real world application. We dabbled with the concepts through “Math Labs” that would use physical objects, such as LEGO or other building blocks to work through geometry. Little did I know that this was illustrating the power of constructionist learning. By allowing us to “play with” math and apply the concepts to the world outside of the class, having us share our ideas and work in groups, and ultimately present both our successes and failures, I was able to make meaning of something that had been pure anathema to me for years.
Constructionism is built around ideas of “learning around making rather than overall cognitive potentials” (Ackermann, 200, p. 4). It considers, not just the experiences that students have, but also the context they bring, the context and contemporary ramifications of the assignment, and how it connects with the others around it.
The stumbles of previous math classes that left me feeling stupid were rewarded here. My peers recognized my shortcomings and provided input that helped us move the conversation forward together, and this was in 1999. Here we are roughly 20 years later, and we are still making an effort to move public education forward in a more inclusive, understanding, and contemporary way. Similarly, Bransford et. al, in How People Learn, published in 2000, discusses the importance of the context of the lesson and those that the students bring to class, and we are still working to show students that they have agency in the learning process.
As an educator, it is my responsibility to march towards constructionism. Our department has been making these moves by giving students choice in the books they read, incorporating diverse perspectives, allowing choice in final products that analyze the material including, podcasts, videos, presentation, and writing, but we have a long way to go. While we are often told by our boss that we are free to try new things and fail, we still have several who are worried about yearly evaluations, merit pay, and observations that come once a year and are unscheduled. Shifts toward constructionist teaching will require a cultural change that respects the professionalism of educators. From there, putting the building blocks in our hands, giving us the time to collaborate, and work towards solutions together and with the help of our students could see us all overcome our deficiencies like I did 20+ years ago.
References:
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1-11, doi:10.1.1.132.4253 Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368. McGregor, D. (2021) How to Fail Forward [Infographic]. https://create.piktochart.com/output/56655551-how-to-fail-forward
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
David McGregorI am an English teacher and cat lover from Genesee County, Michigan who is eager to learn new things. Archives
August 2022
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. |