In my opinion, the reason social constructivism has proved to be so effective in the classroom is because it seems to be an easier and more interactive approach due to the fact that it appeals to a students’ interests. This provides them with encouragement and motivation to complete tasks. Therefore a subjective viewpoint is demonstrated as students can expand their existing knowledge and relate to content on an interactive level. Vygotsky proposes ‘the idea that children learn best the concepts that are in their zone of proximal development’ (Yilmaz, 2008). This ultimately results in further knowledge without the having to face the potentially overwhelming feeling of learning something completely new. I think students respond well to this because if they are able to take control of their own learning, in doing so, it may assist them in having a full understanding of the presented content.
Whilst working in groups within the physical classroom with interactions between student and teacher, social constructivism can be further enhanced through the use of technology and be extended to reach the wider community it presents. With the introduction of Web 2.0, students can develop and use their social skills to connect with others and ultimately own their previous knowledge. ‘Technology can also address the social dimension of learning by supporting not merely cooperation but also collaboration’ (Bose, 2010). Social interaction is produced as students can now create, modify, read, and access resources and information through the use of blogs, emails, wikis, social media sites, and many others.
‘Social constructivism extends constructivism by incorporating the role of other actors and culture in development’ (Howell, 2012). I agree as these web tools provide students with aspects such as an audience, discussions, feedback, and debates, because they can then improve other learning areas such as developed social, literacy and technology skills without students being aware of this. However I do not agree that social constructivism should be overused as these so called ‘skills’ may disrupt the development of their physical skills like writing with pens, not keyboards and using aural social skills in speaking, not messaging.
Vygotsky states that ‘On cooperative projects children are exposed to their peers’ thinking processes; this method not only makes the learning outcome available to all students, but also makes other students’ thinking processes available to all’ (Yilmaz, 2008). This is true as I think the Internet is an excellent way of bringing people together so they may learn together. However I argue that there are great limits and restrictions to certain aspects the Web poses. For example, reliability of resources, plagiarism, and although access to information may be beneficial in regards to building on others’ work and knowledge, this means there is an increased potential invasion of privacy ‘available to all’ (Yilmaz, 2008) these students.
(Doolittle, 2001)
One disadvantage of social constructivism that Rowe argues is that ‘constructivist approaches to teaching are neither initially nor subsequently in the best interests of those experiencing learning difficulties’ (Rowe, 2006). I have found this to be true as the theory may prove to be ineffective for students who struggle to grasp specific concepts and will require guidance and extra assistance and who lack the ability to socialize to a certain degree. These students cannot be left behind, so as a way to counteract this I suggest more extensive training of teachers should be incorporated into the educational system. As Rowe agrees, ‘teachers are the most valuable resource available to schools’ and it is vital that they are ‘equipped with skills that are effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs of ALL students’ (Rowe, 2006). Each student is individual, unique, with their own strengths and knowledge to offer. Students MUST be treated equally.
The role a teacher plays in incorporating social constructivism into the environment is very important as it will influence the way interaction and the process is performed, ‘With assistance, every child can do more than he can by himself--though only within the limits set by his development’ (Hirtle, 1996). It’s my view that it is essential for a teacher to carry out the theory correctly. In my eyes they can do this by creating a balance between both objective and constructive views whilst still incorporating both traditional and modern practices. These I believe must work together in order for students to not lose focus on their work, remain engaged and for them to receive the absolute most out of a lesson through social experiences.
Accessed from: http://blues.edublogs.org/files/2009/03/social-constructivism.gif (Machaalani, 2013)
References
Bose, S. (2010). Learning Collaboratively With Web 2.0 Technologies: Putting Into Action Social Constructivism. New Delhi: N/A. 1-15
Changelearning.
(2008, January 31st). Building Knowledge: Constructivism In Learning.
Retrieved May 25th, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00R3pOXzuk
Doolittle, P. E. (2001). The Need To Leverage Theory In The Development Of Guidlines For Using Technology In Social Studies Teacher Preparation: A Reply To Crocco And Mason et al. . CITE Journal Article , 1-4. Hirtle, J. S. (1996). Social Constructivism. English Journal, High School Edition , 1-2. Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies For Collaboration And Creativity. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 23-25
Machaalani, J. (2013, April 4th). Social-Constructivism. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from ICT For Teaching And Learning: jessicamachaalani.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/social-constructivism/
Rowe, K. (2006). Effective Teaching Practices For Students With And Without Learning Difficulties: Constructivism As A Legitimate Theory Of Learning AND Of Teaching? .
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its Theorectical Underpinnings, Variations, and Implications for Classroom Instruction. Educational Horizons , 161-172.
No comments:
Post a Comment