Constructivism Annotated Bibligraphy
Constructivism Group Annotated Bibliography 03/19/2013 EDU 202: Section 1001
\
Graffam, B. (2003). Constructivism and understanding: implementing the teaching for understanding framework. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(1), 13-19. Graffam (2003) explains his technique for implementing constructivism into secondary education. His goal was to create a curriculum to challenge students beyond what they do in every class. He wanted the students to start cognitive thinking and to fully understand what they are learning, rather than memorizing it for a test. By having the student’s complete weekly journals he was able to build upon their past experiences and show development in their understanding of the subject matter rather than simply giving tests. This article is written for aspiring teachers, showing them an advanced way to form your curriculum. Graffam (2003) designs what he calls the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework that breaks down into three distinct constructivist dimensions: The active process, the social process, and the creative process. Social interaction is what school is about, and embracing this and getting each students thoughts for everyone to compare and critique is crucial in constructivism. One thing I loved that he did was the way he introduced his beliefs in what he calls “The Rubric of Understanding.” This goes hand in hand with my beliefs of teaching that just because you can memorize a book, doesn’t mean that you actually understand the subject. Throughout the article you can see his practices being put to work with the students, and he explains in the article that this is his third year in the state of Florida implementing his TfU framework. In conclusion I think that his framework that he developed is inspiring. It not only challenges the teacher to create something that is out of the ordinary, it challenges the students beyond their comfort level. The success of the students relies on their
\
Graffam, B. (2003). Constructivism and understanding: implementing the teaching for understanding framework. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(1), 13-19. Graffam (2003) explains his technique for implementing constructivism into secondary education. His goal was to create a curriculum to challenge students beyond what they do in every class. He wanted the students to start cognitive thinking and to fully understand what they are learning, rather than memorizing it for a test. By having the student’s complete weekly journals he was able to build upon their past experiences and show development in their understanding of the subject matter rather than simply giving tests. This article is written for aspiring teachers, showing them an advanced way to form your curriculum. Graffam (2003) designs what he calls the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework that breaks down into three distinct constructivist dimensions: The active process, the social process, and the creative process. Social interaction is what school is about, and embracing this and getting each students thoughts for everyone to compare and critique is crucial in constructivism. One thing I loved that he did was the way he introduced his beliefs in what he calls “The Rubric of Understanding.” This goes hand in hand with my beliefs of teaching that just because you can memorize a book, doesn’t mean that you actually understand the subject. Throughout the article you can see his practices being put to work with the students, and he explains in the article that this is his third year in the state of Florida implementing his TfU framework. In conclusion I think that his framework that he developed is inspiring. It not only challenges the teacher to create something that is out of the ordinary, it challenges the students beyond their comfort level. The success of the students relies on their
Bibliography: Graffam, B. (2003). Constructivism and understanding: implementing the teaching for understanding framework. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(1), 13-19. Hackmann, D. G. (2004). Constructivism and block scheduling: making the connection. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 697-702. Harlow, S., Cummings, R., & Aberasturi, S. M. (2006). Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A rationale for constructivism. Educational Forum, (71)1, 41-8. American Secondary Education, 27(3), 31-35 McDaniel (1999) bases his article on the philosophical principles behind the idea of ‘constructivism’ Roelofs, E., & Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and authentic pedagogy: state of the art and recent developments in the Dutch national curriculum in secondary education Dollard, N., & Christensen, L. (1996). Constructive classroom management. Focus On Exceptional Children, 29(2), 1.