Constructivist Theory of Development

Constructivist Theory of DevelopmentTo bank a claw is an empty vessel would mean believing that children atomic number 18 unable to think or respond to the world around them. The experimental condition empty vessel suggests that babies minds contain nonhing and that helping them to develop government erancy simply filling the space with facts. Theorists and scientists have spent many geezerhood researching and ontogeny ideas that suggest that even an unborn child is capable of exploitation sensitivity towards its surround and therefore that human instruction pay backs long sooner the outside world has impressed its influence on a child (Muir Slater 2000, pg.68). However, this essay will explore the theories of how children learn and develop from birth, with fierceness taperd on the constructivist breeding theory in relation to the development of children from infancy and towards adulthood.Mukherji Odea, (2000, pg.80) describe how soon after birth babies begin dif ficult to make sense of the world around them. They are able to let on drop deads, in particular voices, and then subsequently begin to interpret images and the responses of adults. Their efficacy to read facial expressions develops (Louw, 2002, pg.208) and they use this friendship to modify their behaviour. This development begins the expression of constructivist study that theorists have researched and discussed for many years.The constructivist education theory essentially mean being actively involved in acquiring new association and skills, interacting with ones social and cultural environment and structure on or adapting existing cognition and experiences (Boghossian, 2006). The theory was documented by Piaget who studied his own children in order to increase his instinct of the developmental phases that children guide through with(predicate) when learn. Piaget (cited in Slavin, 1994, pg.31) identified four specific age-related stages in a childs development and depict how children foster new ideas by using patterns of behaviour or schemes and relating these schemes to the environment around them. Some psychologists questioned Piagets theories regarding the four stages and discovered the delivery utilise by Piaget during his studies to be too complex to provide an completed representation of a childs abilities at any given time (Slavin, 1994, pg.44). One theorist who challenged Piagets theories was Lev Vygotsky, (Oakley, 2004, pg.42) who suggested that or else than waiting for children to master one direct of development before sorrowful onto the next, learning takes place when children are challenged and presented with problems just beyond their catamenia level of understanding. Vygotsky also placed far more emphasis on the government agency of adults (Gopnik, et al. 2001, pg.18), an idea farther developed by Bruner, who proposed that adults were motherfuckers that can assist learning by scaffolding the development of language (B runer, 1983, pp 64-66). Along with many others, by combining elements from all three theorists views of child development, the outcome is the constructivist theory of learning, a theory where prior knowledge is the basis and language, challenge and social interaction, the tools.Sharp, et al. (2009, pg. 51) place much emphasis on prior knowledge being the primitive basis in the program line of comprehension. Learning and understanding in science is no longer considered the rote learning learning of facts and technical vocabulary, but sort of means embracing inquisitiveness and the development of enquiry skills that aid the assimilator in making sense of the world around them (Loxley, et al. 2010, pg. 45).Scientific knowledge and understanding stems from intrinsic curiosity (Sharp, et al. 2009, pg.2). The baby, who continuously touches the objects environ him, is investigating the textures of materials and developing his own responses to them. When he then repeatedly returns to the soft toy he demonstrates that his enquiry has formulated knowledge of texture and subsequent actions are base on his initial investigations. The kindle who then moves the toy further from the infant and smiles when he finally reaches and nuzzles his prize has provided challenge and social interaction as a means of developing the infants skills further. Rather than an empty vessel that the parent has begun to fill, the infant has demonstrated that he is a constructivist learner who is interacting with his environment and realiseing on his experience.This example demonstrates that both the constructivist learning theory and the development of scientific enquiry apply to even the youngest children and so should be nurtured and developed when precept science to primary and secondary pupils. Scientific enquiry allows existing ideas to be challenged and knowledge and understanding to be achieved (Loxley, et al. 2010).However, the constructivist theory in the classroom can non be im plemented unless prior knowledge is ascertained. Although the national curriculum (DfEE, 1999) details the legal requirements for the teaching of science, attainment targets are divided into key stages allowing for differentiation found on childrens level of understanding at any particular agitate in time. Teachers need to signalize pupils current levels before they can begin to plan for forthcoming learning (OfSTED, cited in Kyriacou, 2007) and work towards these attainment targets.The induction of prior knowledge can be achieved in many slipway. With language playing such an important role in the development of knowledge (Bruner, op.cit), discussion and careful questioning can be effective ways of allowing children to clarify their own ideas while giving the teacher an opportunity to identify misconceptions in their understanding (Littledyke, 1998, pg.22). Stimulus for the discussion can range from a big question as described by Longuski (2006), the presentation of a Conc ept cartoon Appendix A or through debating a PMI statement Appendix B. humour sorting activities allow children to share their ideas and recording responses by using KWL grids Appendix C or by intercommunicate pupils to come diagrams or pictures provides concrete evidence of current levels of understanding.Loxley, et al. (2010, pg. 10) explain that children will engage in learning when it is presented in contexts which are familiar. I investigated this theory during a recent science lesson Appendix D, where I used a story to present a scientific concept. The strategy turn up to be particularly effective in eliciting pupils ideas and misconceptions and captured the interest of all children involved. Pupils affiliated with the lesson due to the presentation of a stimulus in the form of ocular and auditory media (Naylor Keogh, 2007). The lesson was filled with discussion with all abilities participating in share ideas. The adults role in the lesson was to encourage discussion, clarify responses, assist lower faculty pupils in recording their ideas and to offer questions that would promote critical thinking. Childrens responses showed that they were using their in the flesh(predicate) experiences to form ideas about the scientific problems presented by the cartoon Appendix E. Curiosity surrounding other aspects of light exploration was stimulated by the lesson, with several children asking questions that they would like to investigate in the future Appendix F.The main purpose of this lesson was, however, not only to ascertain prior knowledge but to identify misconceptions that would specify the class teachers planning of the class next unit of work.Misconceptions can come out from a variety of sources. Children can sometimes form incorrect ideas base on their own experiences or interpretation of language, as demonstrated by the common misconception about the term plant food. In response to a natural desire to form relationships with known ideas (Allen , 2010, pg.3), children can also draw inaccurate conclusions to newly encountered concepts (McGraw-Hill, 2011), an example of which is a child who, having observed the temperateness appearing to move across the horizon, concludes that the sun must actually move around the Earth. Occasionally educational staff can, due to their own misconceptions or lack of subject knowledge, provide information that is not accurate which highlights the need, as outlined by Professional stock(a) 22, (TDA. 2008) for teachers to be secure in their understanding of the scientific concepts taught to pupils (TDA. 2008, Standard 14) and, through reflection and evaluation, to identify when they need to further their own scientific understanding (TDA. 2008, Professional Standard 7a).The copy of the discussion, Appendix G coupled with childrens written recordings of their ideas Appendix H, I J highlights the common misconceptions Appendix K that the group held about their understanding of the Earth, sun an d moon unit of work, studied previously, and their impending studies of light. Misconceptions regarding concepts already taught, in this instance the Earth, sun and moon misunderstandings, provide an example of assessment of learning, or summative assessment, and can be used to judge a childs learning and level of scientific understanding.The misconceptions surrounding the theory of light act as formative assessment as they can be used when considering implications for future progress and to inform planning for the new result to be covered, as described by Littledyke (1998, pg.21). They also modify the teacher to consider ways of challenging pupils misunderstandings without simply giving them the correct responses, as this could damage their ego esteem or lead to them refusing to accept alternative explanations (The National Strategies, 2009). Instead, Miller, et al. (cited in Ansberry Morgan, 2007) explain that children should be provided with opportunities to investigate their own theories, for example through pragmatic investigations or even the use of picture books (Ansberry and Morgan, ibid), while considering those of others. This will enable them to use the experiences on which the misunderstandings were based (assimilation) and then to adapt their original ideas in response to their investigations (accommodation) (Allen, 2010, pg.12). Any strategy adopted must distribute errors in a childs understanding, as failure to do so could prevent further progress (The National Strategies, ibid3).Formative assessment (TDA. 2008, Standard 12) isnt, however, a tool to be used exclusively to elicit pre-conceptions about a topic to be covered. Yeomans and Arnold (2006) describe it is an essential part of planning and preparation that should be carried out continuously to enable teachers to evaluate the impact of their teaching (TDA. 2008, Standard 29), modify their climbes and assess how well children are progressing. It enables teachers to compare childrens levels of understanding with age appropriate objectives and those listed in the National Curriculum for Science.Analysis of an elicitation bodily function will also enable the teacher to plan differentiated activities to address individual pupils strengths or areas of weakness. Together with consideration for differences in learning styles and factors that may be affecting learning, this analysis will ensure that the need of individuals are met and that all children achieve their potential (TDA. 2008, Standard 10). However, this type of personalisation of learning is not straightforward and requires commitment to an ethos, where every learner matters and every learners learning needs should, if possible, be accommodated (Keeley-Browne, 2007, pg.133).Although there are links, there are also differences mingled with differentiated and personalised learning. Differentiation is a more traditional approach to teaching with pupils often grouped by energy and with tasks that match tha t ability (Kendall-Seater, 2005, pg.24). Personalised learning is a progressive approach where the childs experiences are the boil down and results are judged by outcome or by the extent of resources supplied (Kendall-Seater, ibid). both(prenominal) approaches benefit from consideration for childrens previous knowledge and experiences, on which they can build new ideas.Despite agreeing with this principle, experts have identified difficulties that could occur by implementing the constructivist teaching and learning theories. Keogh Naylor (1996) have questioned the plausibility of considering the prior knowledge of every pupil, and Skidmore Gallagher (2005) hold the difficulties that a change in approach might present to teachers. In her research report, Chin (2006) discusses difficulties between balancing the responsibility of teachers as providers of accurate scientific facts with them being facilitators of child-initiated learning. Considering each of these experts reservatio ns means viewing constructivist teaching and learning in science as a challenging process where the acquirement of scientific knowledge is the main goal that can be achieved through the amalgamation of an understanding of childrens developmental processes and the commitment from teachers to providing opportunities for personal enquiry with sound subject knowledge.In summary, teachers need to first recognize that children are not empty vessels but that they have a valuable wealth of scientific knowledge and experience on which to construct and adapt new ideas. Teachers should cut through and nurture curiosity, promote critical thinking and provide creative learning environments that facilitate purposeful exploration and social interaction. Careful consideration has to be given towards the National Curriculum for Science objectives however, as is often the crusade with preparation for statutory testing (POST, 2003), it should not be seen as a constraint that restricts creativity or that initiates a return to the meaningless rote learning strategies (Stones, 1984, pg.64) of the past. Assessment opportunities should be explored, and the results used effectively to inform and enable an inclusive, personalised curriculum that allows children to become active participants with ownership of their own learning.