TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

Final Paper

ELPS 811

A Constructivist Lesson Plan

Taylor Dietmeier

Kansas University
TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

Abstract

This paper is a complete lesson plan centered around a constructivist technology, namely

NetLogo. The lesson plan pulls on a variety of learning theories such as Piaget’s constructivism,

Vygotsky’s social constructivism, and Papert’s constructionism. The lesson takes students

beyond computer literacy and into a scientific experience using constructionist learning. The

goal is for students to use NetLogo to see and manipulate invisible situations within sex

education (HIV) in an effort to draw on conclusions related to women’s health, sexual behaviors,

and cultural traditions. By the end of the lesson, students should be able to design the interface

for a NetLogo simulation that demonstrates the correlations between a community’s FGM rate,

orphan numbers, infant mortality, child marriages, and more.

TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

Subject and Grade

The following lesson is created for secondary girls to be used at GLOW (Girls Leading

Our World) Camp in Migori County, Kenya, in the HIV and FGM lessons. Due to a lack of

basic computer literacy, this lesson is created for girls in grade 12 who have had access to

computers and have taken upper level math courses. GLOW Camp is a girls’ camp featuring life

skills and sex education topics that are not covered in the national curriculum or typical

classrooms.

Objective

By the end of the lesson, students should be able to draw their own NetLogo “Interface”

tab and create their own predictions using 1) Community population, 2) FGM rate for the given

population, and may choose any one or more of the following variables: a) Infant mortality, b)

Pregnancy complications, c) Orphan rate, d) Child marriages, or e) Student Choice.

In addition, students should deepen their understanding on the impacts of FGM in a

community by interpreting data, viewing the information from multiple perspectives and seeing

connections and correlations. This process is called constructivism, and it means that the content

is open to interpretation, perspectives, and further discovery. Knowledge – in constructivism – is

formed when the individual creates meaning from his or her own experiences (Ertmer, 2013).

The goal of the lesson is for students to experience the information regarding FGM (Female

Genital Mutilation) and create meaning around it.

Lesson Activity 1

As students enter the classroom, they are given a stamp on their hand in either red, green,

or blue, but they are instructed not to show their color to anyone. The class starts with an

introduction by the facilitator, and she invites students to meet and greet at least three different
TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

peers by shaking hands, introducing one’s self, and sharing a highlight of camp thus far. When

everyone has greeted at least three peers, the facilitator instructs everyone to have a seat, except

for the people who were marked as red. The instructor explains to the group that they have

undergone a human simulation. Shaking hands symbolizes sexual intercourse and each color

stamp represents a different HIV/AIDS Status. The red stamp symbolizes that the respective

person came into the classroom having already been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted

infection, specifically HIV or AIDS. The facilitator then explains that the green stamp means

that these students entered the room without an STI, specifically HIV or AIDS, and blue means

they have been tested for the disease. The facilitator then asks the group to look at the students

standing, who were stamped red. She instructs anyone who was sitting to take a stand if they

shook hands with anyone who is currently standing. Finally, if there are more remaining seated,

the students analyze together:

 If someone has sex with someone who has HIV or AIDS, are they guaranteed to contract

the virus? Why or why not?

 Are the students who are seated protected from HIV or AIDS?

 Are there any benefits for a blue stamped student?

 If someone who is seated shook hands with someone who is standing, does it guarantee

that they have HIV or AIDS? Why or why not?

Lesson Activity 2

After Lesson Activity 1, the facilitator shows students the NetLogo AIDS simulation on a

projector. The facilitator sets the initial-people slider to the number of students in the room (the

lowest the simulation goes is 50 people), and she explains how the average coupling-tendency

was high in the activity, since each student met with three other students. The commitment was
TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

low, since each person quickly moved on to another person. And since there wasn’t any

prevention or testing, those sliders should remain at zero. From there, the facilitator explains the

setup button and how it works.

The NetLogo AIDS simulation uses couples to represent two people engaged in sexual

relations. The turtles move about when they are not in a sexual relationship, but when they meet

a suitable partner, they stand next to one another to symbolize a sexual relationship. The red

turtles represent a person who is infected with HIV/AIDS. If the condom-use and test-frequency

are set to a low value, the group as a whole is practicing unsafe sexual habits. In such situations,

if a green turtle is coupled with a red turtle, the green turtle has a high chance of being infected

with HIV/AIDS.

After setting the sliders, giving an explanation, and pressing setup, the teacher asks the

students to pair and share with a neighbor, writing their predictions to the following questions:

 Is it possible for everyone to contract HIV/AIDS? If so, how many weeks would it take?

 How would a person’s sexual behavior change if they have been tested for HIV/AIDS?

 What would happen if condom-use was increased?

 What if there was a slider for oral contraceptives? Would it change the simulation

results? Why or why not?

When the students have finished their predictions, the facilitator then calls on different groups to

share their responses, if time allows. Finally, the group watches the simulation to check their

responses. The facilitator points out the graph and poses the following questions:

 What patterns do you see on the graph?

 Why might these patterns exist?

 What other observations can you make about this simulation?

TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

Lesson Activity 3

After sufficient group discussion, the students are then instructed to draw their own

interface using the information gained from the FGM Session. Their interface should include:

1. A setup and go button

2. FGM Slider (0%-100%)

3. Community population slider (10-300 people)

From there, students can choose one or more of any of the following as add additional sliders:

 Infant mortality rate (0-10)

 Child marriage rate (0-10)

 Orphan rate (0-10)

 Pregnancy complications (0-100%)

 Other

Lastly, the students must choose how they are going to demonstrate/simulate their chosen

information. Will they use a graph? Will they use little turtles with different colors to show

women who have undergone FGM?

When the interface drawing is complete, students must answer the following questions in

writing:

 Explain your choice in sliders.

 How do your variables affect one another? For example, if one variable or slider is high,

how does it influence the other variables? Write an explanation for each slider.

 Explain your visual choice. How will this help the viewer better understand the

community health impact of FGM?

TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

 Critique your simulation interface drawing. What is missing from this simulation?

What other sliders could be added and how would they change the results?

When students complete the interface drawing and responses, they post them around the room

for a gallery walk. One partner remains with the drawing and the other tours the room, asking

designers questions about their drawings. After five minutes, the partners switch roles. After

another five minutes, they reconvene to share new insights and discuss any changes they wish to

make before turning their Interface Drawing and Responses in to the facilitator.

Extensions

This lesson assumes students have not had experience with NetLogo or coding of any

sorts. If students have indeed been exposed to coding and/or NetLogo, then the facilitator should

consider showing the students the Code feature so students could discuss and accomplish the

following:

 What is a flaw in the NetLogo AIDS simulation?

 How could you fix that flaw? Do so in the code section.

 Create a code simulation (beyond the interface drawing) for a new simulation: NetLogo

FGM.

Assessment

To check for student understanding, the facilitator should be monitoring students

throughout the lesson, asking questions to evaluate reasoning, challenging reasoning that may

not be solid, and pushing students to consider different perspectives. The facilitator should be

circulating during pair shares, Interface development, and the gallery walk to make sure every

student is contributing in a thoughtful, scientific manner. Finally, the facilitator should collect
TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

the Interface Drawing and Responses to assess not only oral reasoning, but also written and

visual responses.

Rationale

NetLogo is a constructivist learning technology, and its use in the above lesson is quite

different from traditional methods for teaching sex education. Typically, instructional methods

in Kenya fall within the model of direct instruction, emphasizing facts, dates, and information.

Most days, a teacher walks into the classroom with a notebook and gives a lecture for sixty

minutes in English. For many students, English is their third or fourth language and is only starts

being used formally in instruction in secondary school. This approach leaves little space for

students to truly engage with the content, create hypotheses, and test theories.

Constructivist learning technologies, namely NetLogo, allow students to interact with the

information, visualizing data that was previously difficult to understand or see. In other words, it

brings to life abstract concepts and allows students to manipulate and engage with the

information in order to view the affects and connections between different pieces of information.

NetLogo is used in the lesson as an object-to-think-with, a phrased coined by Papert that helps

students further extend and deepen ideas and concepts, even when it might be outside a student’s

respective Child Development Stage (developed by Piaget).

The learning theory of Constructivism takes students beyond a position of receiving and

moves them into a powerful position of influence, manipulation, inquiry, and engagement.

Theories like Behaviorism and Cognitivism are great for the introductory stages of learning, in

an effort to teach basic information, build up a knowledge base, and create a context. In the

above lesson, students would have needed a class in which they received information regarding

HIV, FGM, and other sexual-related challenges in Kenya, as that prior knowledge is not
TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

discussed in the lesson. Constructivism, however, takes learning to a different level, adding

perspectives and the conceptual power to deal with complex and ill-structured problems. In the

lesson, constructivism through NetLogo allows students to consider the effects of sexual

behaviors on the spread of HIV, as well as FGM’s influence on a community’s health. As one

moves along the Behaviorist-Cognitivist-Constructivist continuum, the focus of instruction shifts

from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer of facts and routines to the active application

of ideas to problems. “The constructivist view is to show students how to construct knowledge,

to promote collaboration with others, to show the multiple perspectives that can be brought to

bear on a particular problem, and to arrive at self-chosen positions to which they can commit

themselves, while realizing the basis of other views with which they may disagree”

(Cunningham, 1991).

We know that students need to be engaged with the information in a concrete way in

order for learning to occur. NetLogo in the lesson above should engage the learner in a real-

world stimulation and requires the following to be fully effective: proper guidance/support,

social engagement, and scientific thinking.

First, the lesson above requires proper scaffolding and guidance to be effective.

Kirschner (2006) writes, “Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are

very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the

structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over

the past half-century and consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective

and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the

student learning process.” Without proper scaffolding, the above lesson would feel chaotic and

potentially put students on a path toward cognitive overload. If the students came into the
TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

classroom and were told to draw an interface for a NetLogo simulation, but had little to no

support throughout the task, many would become overwhelmingly frustrated. The goal is for

students to remain in their ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development), which is where most of the

learning takes place (McLeod, 2010). The best way to ensure significant learning in the ZPD is

to guide and support students.

Secondly, for NetLogo to be effective in the above lesson, students should engage with

the content like a scientist. “Rather than passively receiving an authority’s explanation of

science and mathematics concepts, students seek out and consider these concepts on their own.

Rather than carry out the directions for predetermined lab studies, students engage in new

investigations” (Wilensky, 2006). One major goal for the lesson is that students begin to

understand and absorb scientific thinking. In order for students to create an interface for

NetLogo, they need to make predictions and hypotheses about FGM’s influence on a

community’s health. With such activities, students should be pushed and challenged to reason

through problems, to test and create theories and hypotheses, and to think like a scientist.

Finally, an effective constructivist lesson should engage students socially. Researchers

know that social interactions greatly influence learning. According to Brennan and Resnick,

“Creativity and learning are deeply social practices,” and so using constructivist technologies can

significantly enrich learning by interactions with others (2012). Throughout the above lesson

plan, students are working with peers, answering questions, brainstorming ideas, and giving

responses. The last activity’s gallery walk utilizes Vygotsky’s Social Constructivism (1978), as

students interact with more knowledgeable peers, seeking insight and ideas. This social

interaction should significantly enhance their final product.

TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

If the above explanations are not enough for an educator to be convinced of using

constructivism learning technologies, consider the research that educators have discovered

regarding constructivist approaches compared to lecture-based instruction. Freeman and his

team (2014) discovered that active learning increases examination performance by just under

half a SD and that lecturing increases failure rates by 55%. They found that these increases in

achievement hold across all of the STEM disciplines and occur in all class sizes, course types,

and course levels. They also discovered that active learning is particularly beneficial in small

classes (Freeman, 2014).

TAYLOR DIETMEIER: FINAL PAPER

References

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the

development of computational thinking. Presented at annual American Educational

Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC.

Cunningham, D.J. (1991, May). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A

dialogue. Educational Technology, 13-17.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &

Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science,

engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology

through constructing and testing computational theories – an embodied modeling

approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction

does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discover, problem-based,

experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

McLeod, S. (2010). Zone of Proximal Development. Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.