CEP 811 – MSU Graduate Course
Introduction
At the start of my CEP 811 course (Adapting Innovative Technologies to Education), I did not understand the educational theories of Piaget and Papert that were taught during the early part of the course. I was unable to (re)design my current teaching and learning space. I had no idea that failure was more of a catalyst to mastery than it was a measurement of a student’s knowledge. So, as I explored the integration of innovative technologies into education, I thought about how I would bridge all the new insights and experiences. In this blog, I will synthesize my knowledge and experiences by connecting with these major course concepts: Constructivism and Constructionism, Innovating Learning Spaces, and failure (as a catalyst to mastery).
Connecting with Constructivism and Constructionism
When I began unit 3, there was a quote that (according to the professor), explained the foundation of constructivism and constructionism. It was in the section, 3.2 Explore Learning. At that time, I don’t believe I fully digested it. However, as I look back on the course, I know that it was foundational to most everything I created and blogged about during the course. I reconciled my understanding by reviewing a recent evaluation at work. This evaluation referenced a few student outliers in my kindergarten class. These young learners are outliers because they do not fit nicely into our traditional classroom culture for teaching and learning. I articulated that my research has given me extended knowledge about our own convictions, as educators, on what it means to be knowledgeable. I was reminded of a prelude from an article in the reading list of my course:
Let me say, as a prelude, that the beliefs we held about children’s learning are deeply grounded in our own convictions on what it means to be knowledgeable, intelligent, experienced, and what it takes to become so. Whether implicit or explicitly stated, these convictions drive our attitudes and practices as educators, parents, teachers, and researchers. If we think, for example, that intelligence is innate and that talents are given, we are likely to focus our interventions at helping kids unfold their potentials— at the cost of not always giving a chance to those whom we think of as “untalented”. If we believe, on the other hand, that knowledge or intelligence are a mere reflection of a child’s surrounds, then we are likely to “pass on” our own solutions, rules, and values, to our youngsters. And we may do so at the cost of trivializing their ways of doing, thinking, and relating to the world. And if we believe, as Piaget and Papert do, that knowledge is actively constructed by the child in interaction with her world, then we are tempted to offer opportunities for kids to engage in hands-on explorations that fuel the constructive process. We may do so at the cost of letting them “rediscover the wheel” or drift away when shortcuts could be welcome. (Ackermann, E. 2001)
I was able to lead a discussion with my dean about my understanding of educational theories that helped me develop innovative learning spaces. These spaces reduce the amount of restrictive movement and add to the student-centered process of teaching and learning.
(Re)designing my teaching and learning space
Prior to this course, my teaching and learning space was basic and traditional. There were desks for the students that were arranged in the standard columns and rows. Young learners looked to the front of the class where my desk was central to their view. All the teaching supplies (i.e. pencils, paper, crayons, Chromebook, headphones, etc.) were located out of sight and out of reach. My learners had to rely on my leading them every step of the way. I didn’t know (at the time) that there was a student-centered view for teaching and learning spaces. I did know that I wanted to provide my little learners with more self-guided opportunities (within reason of course). By the end of this course, I had acquired enough knowledge to make the redesign a reality. I emerged with a new set-up for my classroom that allowed for the exploration of failure as a creative tool for learning.
Connecting with Failure (as a catalyst for mastery)
In another blog post of mine, I mention that “Failure is not a verdict on potential but a roadmap to improvement.” (Buckingham, 2023). This was a dynamic revelation for me, and I experienced an “ah-ha” moment once I finished the unit and looked back over my research. Prior to this course, my experience with failure was that reaching the established goals of an assignment, or any journey set up by someone else was paramount to understanding the lesson and how it benefits me. Additionally, when I began teaching, I thought as I was taught. It was interesting to experience the emotions that come with being on the other side of the desk (so to speak). I felt that it was unfair for me to judge students because they ended their assignment with a different learning outcome than was planned by the academic curriculum. Now, when my students’ learning doesn’t strictly align with the standards set up in the curriculum, I see where adjustments can be made and how they can add to their academic growth through additional iterations.
Conclusion
When I began this course, I thought about this moment and wondered if, by the time the class ended, I would have made captivating informational pieces (i.e. blog posts, videos, and responses). From Constructivism and Constructionism, to (re)designing my teaching and learning space, and finally, connecting with failure as a catalyst for mastery. I wondered how much information I would be able to incorporate into my daily routines as a kindergarten educator. I am reminded that most of everything I was taught during this class was and continues to be a significant part of the development of my teaching career.
A Synthesizing Creation (video)
The link below is my iteration of a previously created assignment from an MLIS graduate course on High-Tech Libraries and Censorship. I added sources and credits at the end. I added creative commons licensing attribute. I upgraded the music, and the information illustrates the three course concepts discussed in my blog.
Source(s)
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the Difference?. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1-11, doi:10.1.1.132.4253
Buckingham, A. (2023, November 12). Learning. Angelia Buckingham Retrieved from https://angeliabuckingham.com/learning/