Based on this week’s discussion on theories of knowledge and reading “The Nature of Knowledge and the Implications for Teaching by Bates and Bates (2019), I had to do a quick reflection on my secondary school experience as a science student. I recall having a teacher (Mr. A), whose teaching approach made me dislike physics as a subject. Mr A was always objective about his teaching and presented physics as a body of knowledge consisting of facts, formulas, terminology, principles, and theories to be learned. As a result, physics was very boring to me in grade 10 because Mr A would only read out notes without engaging students in hands-on practical, unlike our chemistry teacher. However, in grade 11, a new and fantastic teacher (Mr B) arrived. He engaged us in practical experiments and project activities related to the concepts we learned in class. He often demonstrated activities, encouraged us to make observations and predictions, and then facilitated further discussions or notes on the concepts. We even went on school trips to see how what we learned in class applied to the real world and visited communities to understand how science is embedded in indigenous practices.  Mr B’s teaching style which is aligned with the constructivit approach transformed my perception of physics and inspired me to study physics education at the university. Just like some students, I have always had the misconception that…………

r/meme from reddit.com

based on the experience with Mr. A, who had always been objective in his teaching and sometimes transmissive in his lesson presentation. However, my experience with Mr. B changed this belief and became the inspiration for my own approach as a teacher.

So, if I am to relate Mr B’s approach to this week’s class discussion, I could see elements of constructivism theory in his teaching style, which has also been the foundation of my teaching philosophy.

Mr. B’s approach can be likened to the constructivist theory that posits “learning as an essential social process, requiring communication between learner, teacher, and others” (Bates & Bates, 2019). The theory focuses on students’ active engagement in learning, where teachers build students understanding through thoughtful reflection and analysis. I believe in this Chinese proverb from the Froebel Journal (1967) that says, “What I hear, I forget; what I see, I remember; and what I do, I understand. My interpretation of this expression is that children already have some foundational knowledge of whatever they are being taught based on their surroundings, however, they tend to learn better when they are actively engaged in the teaching process, using experiences from their immediate surroundings to explore concepts taught in the classroom (i.e., learn by doing). However, over the course of my teaching career, I have realised that children are unique in their individual being and tend to learn differently. Hence, the type of approach I use in my class will depend on the topic explored. Nevertheless, I see that the “asking question” component of inquiry learning, which is aligned with the constructivist approach, is a fundamental component of my practice, and it can be adapted to any teaching style.

In the medium article on Skinner’s teaching machine by Abhishek Solanki (2019), the author indicated that the teaching machine is based on Skinner’s belief that “changes in human behavior are a response to external events that occur in the environment”. According to Abishek, Skinner’s teaching machine operated on the principles of operant conditioning (using reward and punishment to modify the development of behaviors) and programmed learning (allowing students to learn step-by-step, ensuring they grasp each concept before moving on to the next), designed to enhance the educational experience by providing individualized instruction (adaptive learning). As a school teacher and a teacher educator, assessment also plays an important role in determining my students learning. I have always found myself using multiple choice questions and fill-in-the blank questions to explore students understanding of what was taught and using their responses to provide feedback.  But, I sometimes feel this does not test the true understanding of students because it is either true or false, right or wrong. These methods do not assess in-depth knowledge and application of concepts taught. However, I have also tried incorporating problem-solving tasks that challenge students thinking and ability to apply concepts taught in practical activities. These activities sometimes require students to research ideas and do presentation in class or sometimes perform experiments in group with little guidance.  I think this approach mirrors the constructivist theory.