Solar Oven Challenge: An EdTech-supported UDL Constructivist Lesson Plan
Not all lesson plans are alike. Similarly, maker- and project-based lessons are not inherently constructivist in nature. What’s more, constructivist learning solves a lot of problems inherent in teacher-directed instruction, but is not guaranteed to reach all learners. Finally, even the best constructivist teaching, lesson planning, and assessment can be greatly enhanced by educational technology.
The instructionist lesson
Let’s first look at the example of the popular pizza box solar oven lesson, such as the one available from Scientific American (Science Buddies, 2014). The broad strokes are as follows: Students are instructed on solar energy concepts and materials, then given ready-made kits and step-by-step instructions. After building and attempting to cook something using the sun’s heat, the teacher leads a class discussion about their results. The teacher concludes the lesson by administering a test to assess students on key concepts. The students were most likely engaged and probably got to eat smores, cooked, or not. But, what did they come to know through this lesson?
Constructivism
Pritchard (2014) asserts that knowledge requires true belief that is instrumentally valuable. One might question the value of being able to build a pizza box solar oven step-by-step — what use that ‘knowledge’ might be. According to constructivist theories (Fosnot, 2013), meaning cannot be transmitted. In this case, the students who have been instructed in the lesson above have not had the opportunity to gain much in the way of useful knowledge. If instead they had been engaged in their own authentic meaning making, had struggled with discrepancies between what they know (their mental models of the world) and new information, and had worked to incorporate (and verify with feedback) that new information into their own connected construct of existing concepts and facts, then the students would have truly learned. Constructionism (Papert, 1993) builds on these tenets of constructivism, positing that new ideas are more likely to be made if learners engage in the act of making (ideally personally relevant) physical artifacts, then reflecting and sharing them with others.
Let’s try the solar oven lesson again, this time informed by constructivism. These are the learning objectives: Students will understand 1) the concepts of energy, the sun, solar power, heat, cooking, and recycling, 2) that energy is required to cook food, and can be harnessed from the sun, 3) how solar ovens work, and 4) how invention and innovation are supported through collaboration and the engineering design process.
Solar oven challenge: A constructivist lesson plan
What is constructivist about this lesson? It contains all of the essential criteria of constructivist teaching as laid out by Baviskar, Hartle, & Whitney, (2009). To start with, authentic problems (#AuthenticProblems) ground the learner experience (how their food is cooked). Teachers elicit prior knowledge (#ElicitPriorKnowledge) through preliminary class discussions, set the stage for cognitive dissonance (#CognitiveDissonance) to occur through an engaging design challenge, have students apply knowledge with feedback (#ApplicationWithFeedback) through iterative design sketching and testing, and reflect (#Reflection) on and extend their learning. Teacher formative assessment and student self-assessment opportunities are inherent in constructivist approaches. This lesson plan offers a wealth of these opportunities.
It’s also important to note that multiple theories of constructivism are at play. Addressing constructivism as a pluralistic theory, Bächtold (2013) calls for an integrated approach when considering cognitive and social constructivism (Fosnot, 2013; Glassman, 1994). I think of these as the ‘yin and yang’ of constructivism. You will notice multiple instances of both individual and social constructivism in the lesson.
Here is the lesson again, this time with the constructivist components labeled.
Solar oven challenge: Constructivist components revealed
Learner variability
So far, so good. However, not all constructivist lesson plans are alike. One might successfully reach all learners, while another may not. Reid and Valle’s (2013) work on Disability Studies illustrates how barriers encountered by struggling learners are often resolved in constructivist classrooms. Yet, this is not guaranteed. What’s more, variability must be proactively addressed to ensure meaningful learning experiences for all learners. For example, a single individual may be deeply engaged by one topic, and not by another. Reid and Valle’s work shifts the culturally constructed notions of ‘disability’ and ‘impairments’ to that of ‘difference’, pointing out that human variation is ‘ordinary and pervasive’ (p. 151). (Note: It is unfortunate that #LD is often defined as ‘learning disabilities’ rather than ‘learning differences’, so I will refrain from using it here). Gardner (1989) beautifully explains learning differences through his Multiple Intelligences Theory. Universal Design for Learning (#UDL) backs up this notion through the neurosciences, which show that the way we learn is as unique as our fingerprints (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014).
The UDL Guidelines (CAST, 2018) comprise a framework for proactively designing curriculum and instruction that assumes learner variability and a strength-based mindset. The guidelines suggest that curriculum and instruction design should provide multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression, with the ultimate goal of fostering ‘expert learners who are purposeful & motivated, resourceful & knowledgeable, and strategic & goal-directed’. In the case of maker- and project-based lessons such as the solar oven challenge, opportunities mainly fall within the principles of engagement and action & expression. Engagement is stressed as an important first step in any learning experience, and one critical area here is to establish respectful classroom culture and norms from the outset. Jenkins (2006) describes participatory culture ‘as one with low barriers to expression and engagement, and strong support for creating and sharing’ (p. 5). Key to enabling participation is that students feel their contributions, in whatever form, are valued.
Let’s take another look at the lesson plan, this time with a lens on #UDL.
Solar oven challenge: A UDL constructivist lesson plan
Educational technology
No lesson plan would be complete without acknowledging the significant opportunities to enhance teaching and learning that are afforded by educational technology (#EdTech). Teachers are well set up for success when going into the classroom solid on pedagogy and content knowledge, but even more so if they are able to leverage technology in the course of their instruction. A confident and effective teacher, then, is typically strong in ‘technological pedagogical content knowledge’, or ‘TPACK’ (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Educational technology can support a range of instruction and learning needs, curricular skills, and the soft skills (e.g. collaboration, etc.) required of maker- and project-based classrooms and 21st Century learning.
In the diagram below, you can see how #EdTech enhancements bolster the teaching and learning experience across multiple dimensions by supporting learner exploration and research, social learning, multiple means of action and expression, and teacher support.
Solar oven challenge: An EdTech-supported UDL constructivist lesson plan
Conclusion
As you have seen, not all lesson plans are alike. Maker- and project-based lessons are not inherently constructivist in nature. Constructivist learning solves a lot of problems inherent in direct instruction but is not guaranteed to reach all learners. Even the best constructivist teaching and lesson planning can be greatly enhanced by educational technology. Most of the elements from my educational theory diagram (below) are explicitly factored into the final design of the Solar Oven Challenge lesson plan. I have updated the theory to underscore the importance and potential of educational technology in the classroom. Considering all of the elements, and their interplay, in lesson planning and instruction is no guarantee but can be an educator’s best chance for success.
My personal theory of education
: :
References
Bächtold, M. (2013). What Do Students ‘Construct’ According to Constructivism in Science Education? Research In Science Education, 43(6), 2477-2496.
Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550.
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from udlguidelines.cast.org
Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational researcher, 18(8), 4-10.
Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: the two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14, 186-214. Available online: http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.1008
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Mit Press.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 6070.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: BasicBooks. (Chapter: A word for learning, p. 82-105)
Pritchard, D. (2014). What is this thing called knowledge? (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Reid, D. K., & Valle, J. W. (2013). A constructivist perspective from the emerging field of disability studies. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice [Chapter 9], 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Science Buddies. (2014). Sunny Science: Build a Pizza Box Solar Oven. Scientific American. Retrieved August 18, 2018, from www.scientificamerican.com/article/sunny-science-build-a-pizza-box-solar-oven