The constructivist approach.<\/p>\n
As an alternative to the standards or \u201cBack to Basics\u201d approach, constructivist educators hold that learning should be child-centered, not teacher-led, with much curricula determined by students\u2019 activities and wishes, not teacher direction (e.g., Ravitch, 2000). Here too, some implementations of the constructivist approach may not be conducive for the maximal learning of boys. Specific concerns about constructivism for boys include the following.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Child-centered focus. The needs and interests of students are central, and academic expectations are related to their developmental levels, recognizing that children mature at different rates. Learning outcomes vary because the students
\n5\u201cconstruct\u201d their own learning based on their own perceptions and life experiences. However, some boys may be uncomfortable with the perceived \u201copenness\u201d and apparent lack of structure and \u201crules\u201d of this approach (Sommers, 2000).<\/p>\n
\u2022 Cooperation rather than competition. Constructivist classrooms often incorporate activities such as group projects, where students learn to work with others toward learning goals. These cooperative activities have two main aims: (a) to create opportunities for students to cross-pollinate their intellectual skills, and (b) to nurture the development of the democratic social skills that will ultimately serve them in future workplaces, as well as benefit society in general. However, small group activities may be easier for girls than boys (Sax, 2005). Boys may lack the sophisticated social skills often possessed by their girl classmates. Also, boys may prefer competition to cooperation in the classroom and on the playing field, and will often be more motivated to achieve when the opportunity to compete and\/or shine publicly is at stake (Sommers, 2000).<\/p>\n
\u2022 Literacy. In constructivist classrooms, the teaching of literacy typically draws heavily on \u201cwhole language\u201d methods, which seek to create opportunities for students to experience reading and writing in a holistic way rather than learning isolated skills out of context. Two issues here include (a) the written material that boys are asked to read, and (b) the sorts of responses that boys are asked to generate.
\nFor example, many boys prefer non-fiction to fiction. They are likely to respond to tales of adventure, suspense, history, science or science fiction, and stories with heroes. Unfortunately, there may be a shortage of early reading material aimed at boys\u2019 interests (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002).<\/p>\n
A second way boys may be disadvantaged in a whole language approach to literacy acquisition is in the ways they are asked to respond to the material. A popular way to teach literature and writing is to ask students to respond personally to characters or events. Boys tend not to respond well to these \u201cemotive\u201d lessons. They are more reticent than girls, and find it difficult to do assignments that ask them to explore their feelings. If they do not see an assignment as relevant (e.g., \u2018Imagine you are a sock in a dustbin.\u2019), they may simply not do it. (Sommers, 2000).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The constructivist approach. As an alternative to the standards or \u201cBack to Basics\u201d approach, constructivist educators hold that learning should be child-centered, not teacher-led, with much curricula determined by students\u2019 activities and wishes, not teacher direction (e.g., Ravitch, 2000). Here too, some implementations of the constructivist approach may not be conducive for the maximal learning […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pedgogy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":185,"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184\/revisions\/185"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.mvsd-ib.org\/ib\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}