Improving Teaching and Learning Essay

As all baberens experiences and development be man-to-man, every child will break their accept unique starting point from where to continue their learning of a vitrine from. Ausubel (1968) puts forward the interesting thought that we should design our teaching to start from where the schoolchild is. only, as Littledyke & Huxton (1998) suggest, it is almost impossible to take into account every individual childs educational starting point. I tried to essay a common starting point by getting the on the whole class to brainstorm what they knew ab place metal.This would provide me with a vague approximation of the knowledge each child held and enable me to successfully plan able investigative activities. This matches Piagets (1926) notion of cognitive match. The need to toss away the learning experience at the dependable level, for each child. The teacher leads a discussion on a topic to draw push through a range of ideas from this the teacher whitethorn be able to judge which children are most or least erudite. However there may be several children within the class about the teacher knows very minuscule even by and by the brainstorming session. (Littledyke & Huxford, 1998, p22) To combat this problem that Littledyke and Huxford (1998) mention I talked to children who did not take part in the whole class session individually to found out their level of knowledge on the reduce. champion of the designs on my display table was a magnet. Many of the children seemed fascinated by the magnet, as groups of children would constantly pick it up and play with it. After visual perception this I decided I would get the children to investigate which materials are attracted to a magnet.This seemed like an excellent idea as I had already notice that the children were interested in this subject. The investigation would be carried out in a constructivist manner, with the children working individually. From this I could see that Rodney had had no past experi ence with magnets and therefore had no knowledge that magnets are made of metal. All he knew was that the object he held in his hand was called a magnet and that it stuck to metal objects. He had guessed that the magnet was made of plastic (probably due to the fact that it was coated in plastic) and constructed a misconception.On analysing this conversation I concluded that carrying my investigation out in a constructivist manner and pitching my investigation at an median(a) level, had missed Rodneys (and no doubt others) starting point of subject knowledge leading him to create his own incorrect idea. I accept this evidence contradicts a constructivist way of teaching as without positively intervening, wondering(a) and explaining to Rodney that the magnet was made of metal, more problems may have arise in the form of further misconceptions or being unable to carry out hobby work utilely.Instead it matches Littledykes & Huxtons (1998) suggestion that matching every childs star ting point is extremely challenging and if not through with(p) accurately, as shown from the evidence, can cause problems for the child. This brings to light that perchance a varied teaching style needs to be adopted. Maybe I should have used the transmission approach of teaching at the beginning of the lesson and refined vital pieces of information so that non of the children would have had misconceptions and the investigation would have pursue to the best of its ability.This however would have been uninteresting for the children. In using a constructivist method of teaching, allowing the child to work independently building on antiquated ideas to construct new ones, there is evermore a risk that misconceptions may arise. When children are discovering a convention for themselves and intervention from a more knowledgeable source is absent, children may take the information and instead of placing it in the position of conventional science they place it in their own logical pe rspective.For example, after the investigation, I sat with each ability group and asked them to inform me of their findings. with discussion and questioning within the group, I challenged ideas, aiding children to have access and maybe use of other childrens ideas and therefore make their own clearer. The following conversation was typical of all the groups. In conclusion, I believe that constructivism is an effective way in enabling children to build on or regenerate active ideas as it allows the child to undertaking hands on activities and in reality appreciate a theory in action.This in turn could each deepen understanding or change misconceptions they may have emerged passim the topic. Practical activities subsequently help the children to retain the information as doing experiments, which are of interest to them, help them remember the vital information needed. These facts could then be recalled instantaneously when re-visiting and building on a similar topic, later on in the curriculum. Due to all the disadvantages mentioned earlier in my assignment, it is obvious that constructivism cannot stand-alone.It is delicious to use constructivist methods but they must be used in alignment with other teaching methods also mentioned earlier. This, as teachers, is down to our professional judicial decision to decide when and where they should be used. The right teaching style should accommodate the right job and although constructivism is a sound way to allow children to investigate, it does not always fit the purpose of the scientific investigation wanting to be carried out. However I believe that we adopt many different teaching styles throughout a lesson without even knowing it.BibliographyASHCROFT, K & LEE, J (2000) Improving teach and Learning in the Core Curriculum. London Falmer.ATKINSON & FLEER (1995) Science with Reason. Hodder & Staughton.COLLINS educational (1995) Nuffield Primary Science, materials teachers guide. LondonDe BOO, M (2000) Scienc e 3-6 Laying the foundations in the primal Years. ASE Hatfield.DFEE, (2000) The National Curriculum Handbook for Primary Teachers in England. London DFEE & QCA.FARROW, S. (2000) The genuinely Useful Science Book. LondonFalmer.