Constructivism

Over the years, my understanding of teaching and learning has been profoundly shaped by foundational learning theories—behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist—that continue to inform both my classroom practice and my qualitative research. Behaviorism, with its emphasis on observable outcomes and reinforcement, helped me recognize the structured habits my students brought into the classroom. Cognitivism offered insight into how learners process, store, and retrieve information—critical in understanding why some students resist or struggle with new classroom methods. Most significantly, constructivism has provided a pedagogical home for my belief that meaningful learning happens when students actively engage with content, challenge assumptions, and co-construct knowledge. These frameworks not only guide my instructional decisions but also shape the way I listen to and interpret the complex, evolving narratives of my learners as research participants. The following three reflections trace my journey from theory to practice, with schema theory serving as a conceptual bridge between cognitive insight and constructivist transformation.

Starting to understand how we construct knowledge

This 2012 reflective blog post explores two contrasting perspectives on teaching and inquiry drawn from Harste & Leland and Sagor. I wrote this at the beginning of my studies in literacy, culture, and language education, and try to thoughtfully engage with Harste & Leland’s view that inquiry is not only a right but a responsibility, highlighting how this attitude has shaped my lifelong reflective practice despite growing up in an environment that discouraged questioning. They also critique Sagor’s characterization of teaching as a "blue-collar profession," acknowledging the industrial roots of mass education but emphasizing the complexity, creativity, and professional skills required in modern teaching. The post further responds to a peer’s reflections on challenges within standardized education systems like NCLB, stressing the importance of learner-centered approaches and the need for transitional support, especially for adult learners adapting to technological literacy. Overall, the blog underscores the dynamic, collaborative, and reflective nature of teaching as a profession, while challenging simplistic or industrialized views of education.

Comparing paradigms

This 2009 reflective blog entry explores the limitations of traditional educational paradigms by engaging with theories of motivation and learning from Steven Reiss, Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, and Malcolm Gladwell. It contrasts objectivist and constructivist views on achievement, critiques the institutional model of schooling, and advocates for experiential, digitally literate, and ethically grounded approaches to education. Drawing on thinkers like Henry Jenkins, Andrew Weil, and Michael Wesch, the post weaves personal anecdotes with scholarly insight to question our assumptions about success, curiosity, and influence in the information age.

Schema Theory and My Constructivist Classroom

Originally written in 2008 while pursuing a Master's in Instructional Technology at Indiana University, this reflective essay draws from schema theory—particularly Marcy Driscoll’s synthesis of Rumelhart’s work—to examine the challenges of implementing a constructivist EFL classroom in a Confucian-influenced Korean university setting. Based on my experiences teaching Interpersonal and Job Skills courses at Chonnam National University, the post explores how learners' pre-existing educational schemas often conflict with interactive, student-centered approaches. Through detailed classroom examples and personal insights, it unpacks strategies for helping students reshape their expectations and behaviors, offering thoughtful recommendations for applying schema theory in cross-cultural, second-language learning environments.