IP&T 301 Week 7

I strongly support the constructivist theory because it emphasizes learning from concrete interactions with the physical world. I learn most from hands-on, personal experience. When I read or listen to a lecture, I can memorize it and remember it for the test, and then forget it completely. For example, I took two years of Spanish in high school. Most of the classes were memorizing vocabulary and completing worksheets, and by mid-June, I had forgotten all but maybe four phrases in Spanish. When I took two semesters of Spanish at BYU, we spent the majority of our class time listening to and speaking Spanish. I probably learned more in two months at BYU then I did in two years during high school. By the end of those two semesters I could actually have a basic conversation with a native Spanish speakers.
Another reason I support the constructivist theory is because I believe we are born with the ability to actively construct knowledge about the world. I have observed young children, even babies, exploring their environment through touching, observing, and playing. In the Bohlin book, it describes the role of play as a natural, instinctive way of learning. Children play without anyone teaching them how. They play, they explore, they observe because they want to make meaning—they want to learn.
I also definitely support the idea of equilibrium and disequilibrium. I am highly motivated to learn when something doesn't make sense to me. For example, in my math class, our teacher often begins class with a challenging problem, one that stretches our thinking and beliefs about mathematics. While there are times that I get frustrated, for the most part I am excited and determined to figure out the solution. I want it to make sense to me, and I can't just let it rest until I do. There are many times when I'll come across something in my reading and it challenges what I've always believed to be true. Then I have to go look it up on the internet or have someone explain it to me before I can think about anything else. At least for me, I need to have everything clear in my mind in order to be happy and content. If there is something that doesn't make sense, I will learn more about it until it does, or if it still doesn't make sense, I will just avoid it and assume that it is untrue or that I will understand it later after my knowledge has developed further.
One question I wondered about is that our book does not address retention of learning knowledge. I feel that although I do learn things more thoroughly when I construct the knowledge for myself and I remember it better, I still forget it unless I continue constructing and building on that knowledge. With my previous example, while learned a great deal of Spanish in those two semesters, I stopped taking classes and had very little opportunity to practice what I had learned. I now feel like I lost most of the skills I gained. I am sure that the constructivist theory stresses the importance of continually building on and reviewing knowledge in order for it to be remembered. I do wonder, though, if knowledge is easier to re-learn if it was first learned through actively constructing rather than simply absorbing something from a textbook or lecture.