Constructivism

3 Pages 862 Words

Critique of Minds-on Science and What’s the Matter

I read Minds-on Science by Janet Raloff. I was surprised and delighted by Sherry Drillings way of teaching science. My first thought was that I can’t imagine a bunch of second grade girls being happy about playing with mealworms. At the same time I was such a tomboy growing up, I would have loved it. I really liked how she encouraged children to come up with their own questions and come up with an experiment for the students to find the answers to their own questions. I’m not sure knowing a mealworms favorite color and whether or not it can make it through a maze or not will really help a child understand what insects are or what stages they pass through but I’m sure it was a great way to involve the student in what they were learning.
I also read What’s the Matter by Abell, Anderson, Ruth, and Sattler. I was much more impressed with the ideas in this article than I was Minds-on Science. I felt the ideas in this article were great for not only motivating student and getting them involved, I thing these students really learned the concepts being taught. The teachers in this article really sought out the students ideas before presenting their own ideas and discouraged the students from taking the ideas and answers from textbooks without thinking for themselves first. Students were encouraged to self-analysis, collection of real evidence to support ideas and reformulation of ideas in light of new knowledge.
Both of the articles focused on constructivist teachers. The teachers encouraged their students to bring their own experiences and a cognitive structure based on those experiences. The teachers asked open-ended questions that prodded the student’s preconceptions on the topic. The teachers did a great job presenting some information or data that did not fit with the students existing understanding of the concepts they were being taught. The teachers allowe...