Write a close analysis of an experience you have had in the lab so far in this class, using constructivism, sociocultural learning theory, and/or constructionism as lenses for interpreting the experience. Positioning yourself as a learner, describe the context of the experience, potentially including the space, tools, people, and other resources you were working with. Also describe your first-hand experience, potentially including the memories, past experiences, skills, ideas, relationships, emotions, and identities that were involved.
Then, drawing on the readings and discussion in Week 3, analyze the experience with respect to who you were as a learner, the learning process that was involved, or the kinds of knowledge or other outcomes that resulted. (You can't do all of this; it is much better to zoom in.) Ideally, your reflection makes accurate and productive use of the readings, but also contains your own voice and point of view. For example, you might take issue with some of the theoretical claims or describe a phenomenon that builds on them.
We will work with these reflections in lecture during Week 4, in preparation for the 3C's essay, in which you will synthesize constructivism, constructionism, and critical pedagogy and begin to theorize ideas for your course final project.
This reflection should be posted to your lab journal by Monday, February 10. It should be approximately 500 words, thoughtful and specific but not necessarily formal. You should include quotations from this week's readings as part of your analysis. Multimedia is welcome but not required.
We will assess how your product is aligned with your decisions and observations along the way, i.e. how you justify changes (due to theoretical, material or practical restrictions, etc.), how you implement the ideas (not in terms of "genuity" of idea or quality of product, but in terms of alignment with ideas).
- ✓ + AND contains fresh, original interpretations of your experience that build on the readings.
- ✓ Meets all requirements. The reflection has a clear, specific description of the experience and the analysis uses the week's readings in a productive interpretation of the
- ✓ - Does not meet the requirements described above. Parts of the reflection may be vague; the analysis may not clearly draw on the readings.