Improving Teaching and Learning Essay

As all barbarianrens experiences and development ar individual, all(prenominal) child will collapse their receive unique jump point from where to continue their knowledge of a melodic theme from. Ausubel (1968) puts forward the enkindle thought that we should design our article of faith to start from where the pupil is. However, as Littledyke & antiophthalmic factor Huxton (1998) suggest, it is al approximately impossible to take into account every individual childs educational starting point. I tried to establish a common starting point by getting the whole split up to brainstorm what they knew ab protrude metal.This would provide me with a vague idea of the acquaintance each child held and enable me to successfully plan suitable fact-finding activities. This matches Piagets (1926) nonion of cognitive match. The need to pitch the learning experience at the right level, for each child. The teacher leads a discussion on a topic to draw piece out a mental image of id eas from this the teacher may be able to judge which children are most or least knowledgeable. However there may be several(prenominal) children within the class about the teacher knows very little raze after the brainstorming seance. (Littledyke & ampere 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 subject. genius of the determinations 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 perceive 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 discover that the children were interested in this subject. The investigation would be carried out in a constructivist manner, with the children working individual ly. From this I could see that Rodney had had no past experience with magnets and and so 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 arbitrate level, had missed Rodneys (and no doubt others) starting point of subject knowledge leading him to create his own incorrect idea. I hope this evidence contradicts a constructivist way of teaching as without positively intervening, call into question and explaining to Rodney that the magnet was made of metal, much problems may occupy arise in the form of further misconceptions or being unable to carry out following work effectively.Instead it matches Littledykes & Huxtons (1998) suggestion that matching every childs starting point is extremely challenging and if not done accurately, as shown from the evidence, can cause problems for the child. This brings to light that maybe a different teaching style needs to be adopted. Maybe I should have used the transmission approach of teaching at the rootage of the lesson and clarified vital pieces of testifyation so that non of the children would have had misconceptions and the investigation would have succeed to the best of its ability.This however would have been uninteresting for the children. In use a constructivist method of teaching, allowing the child to work independently building on old ideas to construct new ones, there is always a attempt 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 perspective of con ventional science they place it in their own ratiocinative perspective.For example, after the investigation, I sat with each ability group and asked them to inform me of their findings. Through discussion and questioning within the group, I challenged ideas, aiding children to have doorway 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 intend that constructivism is an effective way in enabling children to build on or amend active ideas as it allows the child to undertaking hands on activities and actually appreciate a theory in action.This in turn could either deepen understanding or change misconceptions they may have emerged throughout 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(prenominal) be recalled inst antaneously when re-visiting and building on a similar topic, subsequently on in the curriculum. Due to all the disadvantages mentioned earlier in my assignment, it is lucid that constructivism cannot stand-alone.It is acceptable to use constructivist methods but they must be used in conjunction with other teaching methods also mentioned earlier. This, as teachers, is down to our professional person judgement to decide when and where they should be used. The right teaching style should hold back 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 Teaching and Learning in the Core Curriculum. London Falmer.ATKINSON & FLEER (1995) wisdom with Reason. Hodder & Staughton.COLLINS EDUCATIONA L (1995) Nuffield Primary Science, materials teachers guide. LondonDe BOO, M (2000) Science 3-6 Laying the foundations in the Early Years. ASE Hatfield.DFEE, (2000) The National Curriculum enchiridion for Primary Teachers in England. London DFEE & QCA.FARROW, S. (2000) The Really Useful Science Book. LondonFalmer.