Constructivism and Tomorrow's Classroom

I am somewhat hesitant to hear educational theories. There is always something new that is (at least for the time being) perceived better and more modern. I recall in grad school studying the theories of Piaget, Vigotsky, Bloom, Gardner etc... While I sometimes think about their writings, I also understand that, as teachers, our customers are living, breathing children that have learning needs that change day by day (sometimes hour by hour) despite any underlying learning styles.

That pedagogical disclaimer now stated, I do agree with many constructivist ideas. In a PowerPoint presentation I viewed, it listed:

Complex and relevant learning environments
Social Negotiation
Multiple perspectives and multiple modes of learning
Ownership in Learning
Self-awareness of knowledge construction

Learning should always try to be relevant instead of totally abstract. In reading, we make connections to literature. In Math and Science, we might write about what we are thinking or relate concepts to real world situations. In Social Studies, we might role-play historical events or write from a historical point of view. Regardless of what method you elect to use, the goal is the same: relevance. "Ownership in Learning" is something that I personally seek to bring to my students. Watching a students invest himself or herself in their own learning is truly one of the greatest things that can be witnessed.

After reading all of that, you must be thinking "This must be the Poster Boy for Constructivism!" I wish it were that easy. I teach fourth grade, so I have many subjects that need to be covered. I have state standards, federal education laws, district curriculum and state assessments that all need to be satisfied in just a few hours each day. Add in instructional and non-instructional pull outs and specials and you can imagine how time is precious throughout the day. In a perfect world learning could be more exploratory, but in the real world it simply cannot. I strive to create a happy median. I offer more conventional, using some direct instruction along with guided practice, collaboration and student-centered learning to teach a new tool, resource or concept. I then use an approach that has more exploration or student constructed projects or techniques to reinforce concepts and provide extension activities. The pace at which we must move often dictates how we can teach despite our best efforts.
I enjoyed listening to Roger Shank talking about his book Engines for Education. It is very thought provoking to think about what drives our students to come to school, and how learning - the very core reason for education - is seldom mentioned. I think that learning is inherent to education, but it should be the reason to be there. The purpose of education should also be to expand one's learning horizons. School used to be depositing facts and concepts into student minds, but that only creates a culture of programmed idiots. Learning by doing is a great idea, as hands-on learning is exciting and fun. I don't dispute that.

Shank says that "Computers offer the possibility for revolutionary change." I agree, but as any good tool, we must explore its use. We must find its strengths and weaknessess, and we must develop it further to make it safer, faster and easier for the pedagogical "do-it-yourselfer." I suppose that's what I am wondering. Where do we find the time?

Whatever we do as educators and however we present curriculum to our students, it must 'make sense' today and be relevant to the world of tomorrow. That is the challenge we will face indefinitely.