History was never a favorite subject of mine, and honestly, it was one I struggled in the most. Learning about something I wasn’t alive for seemed boring to me. History classes were always just being lectured to until I got a good history teacher in high school. He made history fun and didn’t just lecture the whole time. We did projects and he made what we were learning about interesting. After reading “Garbage In, Garbage Out”, I don’t think the theories of expanding environments and constructivism are completely misguided. I feel that if you take some concepts of each, it could be a good theory of teaching. I like how the article related history to playing chess. Just like there is a lot of things to learn about chess before you can play
…show more content…
112). I am a person that learns best with hands on learning, and being able to experiment and figure things out on my own, so I agree with the constructivist view. However, there has to be some guide lines. If the students are in complete control, it could be chaotic and the children might not learn anything. Students still need to have teacher guidance. As they get older and move up in grade levels, I feel like students should be able to do more on their own. I like Vygotsky’s theory of scaffolding. The Tools of the Mind (2015) website states that “scaffolding helps us understand how aiming instruction within a child’s ZPD can promote the child’s learning and development” (2015). I think the teacher should give children the “temporary support” they need until they are “capable of doing a given task alone” (Leming, 2003, p. 118). If teachers have trouble giving children more control in the classroom, they can at least take children’s thoughts and opinions into account. If children are involved in their learning, I feel like they will be more interested in it then if they were just getting lectured by their teacher the whole time. I just think why not at least try if children learn best this way. The teacher is always nearby to offer help and assistance when and if needed. Keller (2001) came up with a definition for constructivism, and a part that stood out to me was that it “is a theory of learning that is developed from the principle of children’s thinking” (Keller, 2001). Teachers always ask children to think critically, so why not actually let
112). I am a person that learns best with hands on learning, and being able to experiment and figure things out on my own, so I agree with the constructivist view. However, there has to be some guide lines. If the students are in complete control, it could be chaotic and the children might not learn anything. Students still need to have teacher guidance. As they get older and move up in grade levels, I feel like students should be able to do more on their own. I like Vygotsky’s theory of scaffolding. The Tools of the Mind (2015) website states that “scaffolding helps us understand how aiming instruction within a child’s ZPD can promote the child’s learning and development” (2015). I think the teacher should give children the “temporary support” they need until they are “capable of doing a given task alone” (Leming, 2003, p. 118). If teachers have trouble giving children more control in the classroom, they can at least take children’s thoughts and opinions into account. If children are involved in their learning, I feel like they will be more interested in it then if they were just getting lectured by their teacher the whole time. I just think why not at least try if children learn best this way. The teacher is always nearby to offer help and assistance when and if needed. Keller (2001) came up with a definition for constructivism, and a part that stood out to me was that it “is a theory of learning that is developed from the principle of children’s thinking” (Keller, 2001). Teachers always ask children to think critically, so why not actually let