The Sweater Article

This was an interesting article because it was based on the experience of a teacher using constructivism for the first time. Therefore, it touched on a lot of the questions I've been having about this method of science instruction. The students in O'brien's classroom believed that sweaters kept them warm in the winter because the sweaters themselves emitted heat. After discovering this misconception, O'brien decided to have the students test their idea. It's important to have this "let's find out!" attitude in the science classroom because it shows students that science can help them understand real world problems. Experimentation also makes it easier for students to change their misconceptions. Simply reading or hearing the teacher talk about the science won't be strong enough. Afterwards, the result is often a subconscious split of scientific ideas at school and the real scientific ideas at home.

O'brien found out just how strongly her students were rooted in their conviction, because they stuck to their original idea even after three days of experimentation which seemed to prove them wrong. In her journal, she wondered (as I often have) how long students should be allowed to "construct" the knowledge on their own. (As a side note, I thought it was great that O'brien had her own science notebook which she wrote in at the same time as the children. This emphasized that it was an activity that was very real to life outside of schoolwork.) The article explains that in a constructivist classroom, the teacher should not be passive. Students at the elementary age will often revert back to earlier stages of development and not believe the evidence that is before their eyes. Therefore, teachers need to step in to introduce the true information.

I was sort of confused, however, on when this information should be presented. In one part of the article, there is a quote from Pasteur: "understanding favors the prepared mind." For that reason, I thought maybe it would be better to tell the students the correct information before they experiemented. However, later the article made it seem like the sweater lesson was a good example--that you should start with an experiment that contradicts students' misconceptions, then provide the correct information, and finally do another experiment to show that this information was correct. I think that this latter method is more effective because students are experiencing scientific inquiry that is more real.

I was really glad that the article pointed out the problem of time. Learning in a constructivist classroom creates a dilemma. On one hand, you can't cover as much material, but on the other hand, the students will truly understand the material you do cover. As we've discussed in class, oftentimes we learn the same things over and over every year but never truly understand the concepts. If students truly understand the topic the first time, perhaps we don't need to cover as much material in one schoolyear. However, it's still something that makes me hesitant about constructivism.