Running Head: LESSON CRITIQUE

Lesson Critique: A WebQuest Through the Lens of Constructivism, Piaget, and Neuroscience
Alana Giesbrecht
University of British Columbia

LESSON CRITIQUE

Lesson Critique: A WebQuest Through the Lens of Constructivism, Piaget, and Neuroscience
Introduction
Although the various educational theories contradict each other at times, each has valuable
perspectives to offer instructional design; just as a 3D sculpture cannot be fully appreciated from only
one angle, a learning opportunity may not be maximized through the application of a single theory. This
paper will demonstrate how a lesson plan can be improved through varied theoretical analysis.
The lesson plan to be examined is a WebQuest, designed by a pre-service teacher to exemplify
constructivist principles in blended learning. It can be viewed at
http://questgarden.com/101/84/2/100420165119/index.htm . The Grade 7 Social Studies lesson is
expected to take students seven days, working individually and in groups alternately, as they research
aspects of the colonial era and decide if it was an age of exploration or invasion. The lesson has many
strengths from a constructivist perspective, but can be improved even farther through the application of
Piagets learning theory and principles from neuroscience. The proposed improvements to the lesson, as
suggested throughout the following analysis, can be viewed at this link
http://etec512lessoncritique.weebly.com/
Constructivism
Constructivism holds that students build knowledge through learning activities, as opposed to
receiving knowledge in a passive transfer from educators (Von Glasersfeld, 2008). The educators role is
that of a facilitator, and students learning results from exploration and discovery, shared inquiry,
authentic tasks, and interaction between previous and current experiences (Alesandrini & Larson, 2002).
Because learning is individually constructed, its results are individual as well; outcomes will vary and
students should play an active role in their own assessment (Alesandrini & Larson, 2002).

LESSON CRITIQUE

From a constructivist perspective, there are many aspects of this lesson that are done well;
however, even some of those features can be improved upon. One strength is that the teacher is
instructed to connect students with the necessary vocabulary and information that they need to begin
the quest; this scaffolding is an important support. The tasks that students are asked to complete are
also an asset as they are a more authentic form of assessment than simply recalling facts would be.
Additionally, it is a benefit that this lesson is not teacher-centered, but instead allows students to learn
from their own exploration, discussions, and presentations to each other. In fact, the collaborative
groupings employed in this lesson allow students to experience the shared inquiry that is essential to
constructivist learning. Exploration is an area that can be improved with this lesson, though: links to
resources are provided to students, but many of them are broken, limiting students options. The broken
links should be removed and independent research should be encouraged. Also, since students learning
is an interaction between their past and present experiences, the lesson should consider students own
heritage and experiences with colonialism; all bias should be removed and space for students to
incorporate their prior knowledge should be added.
The assessment and final product of this lesson are the most problematic, from a constructivist
perspective. Niederhauser (2006) states that over-structured assessments prevent students from
engaging in higher-order thinking; part of the learning happens as students choose how to display their
new knowledge and then implement their own design. As such, this lessons highly structured final
product needs to be revamped, including more options for students. Also, constructivists believe that
learning is a process, so assessment done during the process should be formative, not summative
(Alesandrini & Larson, 2002). This quests grades rest on teacher evaluations of small products
completed mid-process rather than on the final product, so that too should change; students should
play an active and critical role in the assessment of their learning as displayed in their final product.

LESSON CRITIQUE

4
Piaget and the Theory of Cognitive Development

Constructivist theory allows for a fairly thorough approach to instructional design, but the
learning theory advanced by Jean Piaget addresses another crucial facet. Piaget posits that there are
four stages to cognitive development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal
operational (Docherty, 1977; Smith, Verge, Iles & Powell, 2014). Children in the sensorimotor stage learn
through play, using their senses and motor skills to experience the world around them. This stage lasts
from birth to around age two. In the preoperational stage, lasting from ages 2-7, childrens thinking is
characterized by egocentrism, a belief that their perspective of the world is the only one. The
preoperational stage is a period of language acquisition and rapid learning in most children, and children
become able to accept symbolism. However, some other features such as conservation and reversibility
are not grasped until the concrete operational stage, ages 7-12. Children in this age group can begin to
use more advanced cognitive functions but are still unable to move beyond egocentric thinking
(Docherty, 1977). It is not until children reach the final stage, formal operational, that they are capable
of abstract tasks or are able to reach logical conclusions without referring to material things or direct
experiences (Awwad, 2013, p.123). Interestingly, Piagets belief in young childrens need to learn from
direct experiences complements the constructivist belief in children learning through activities.
Piagets theory has direct implications for the WebQuest being examined, in one important way.
The educator who designed this lesson intends to use it with her seventh grade students, who would be
eleven or twelve years old. The task involved requires the students to read about the lives of historical
figures and then write journal entries from that persons perspective. However, most if not all of the
students would still be in the concrete operational stage and thus developmentally unprepared for a
task requiring that level of abstraction and empathy. As noted by both Awwad (2013) and Docherty
(1977), students at that age would not be able to make inferences about other peoples experiences,

LESSON CRITIQUE

without direct experience themselves. Consequently, according to Piagets theory this lesson would be
most effective if it were offered to students in the formal operational stage. The revised lesson is thus
adapted to the BC First Nations 12 curriculum.
Neuroscience
The field of neuroscience is large and complex, and while it offers many valuable insights to
learning it has often been oversimplified or misapplied by educators (Coch & Ansari, 2009). Accordingly,
this analysis will focus on the established neuroscientific concepts of differentiated instruction and
learning styles (Raghunath, Fong, Pauk, & Varga, 2014), as well as on neuroscience researchs
affirmation of educational design methods common to constructivism and cognitive development
theory (Sakiz, 2008).
Differentiated learning, a response to modify instruction in light of student differences, is an
idea that has sprung from the awareness that a one size fits all view of curriculum is a disservice to
students (Edyburn, 2004,p.60). Instead, lessons should have choices and supports built into them so that
students can grow from their current state. The original WebQuest under analysis states that the
intended learners range from gifted to ESL; this is the common condition for contemporary classrooms.
With such a diversity of students, it stands to reason that there should be diversity in instructional
design: students should be able to choose options that fit their current level of development. However,
there is no allowance for this in the original lesson design. Differentiation will be reflected in the
improved lesson by the addition of choice in assessment formats, as well as in the addition of clear
learning goals so that, regardless of the modifications to the instruction, students are achieving the
same end.
Learning styles are another area ignored in the original lesson. There are three basic learning
styles that encompass the multiple intelligences: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (Raghunath, Fong,

LESSON CRITIQUE

Pauk, & Varga, 2014). The original lesson caters to visual learners with its mix of text and image, and also
appeals to kinesthetic learners because of the required technological manipulation and creation of
products. However, auditory learners will only be stimulated during the discussion and presentation
phase; there is little to motivate them in the research phase of the quest. To ensure that all learning
styles are being acknowledged, auditory measures such as videos should be added to the research
phase.
Conclusion
The three theories incorporated in this lesson improvement (constructivism, cognitive
development, and neuroscience) have complementary recommendations such as an emphasis on
student activity and choice in displays of learning. They also have singular perspectives to offer, in terms
of age appropriateness and learning styles. Taken together, they allow educators to create robust
learning experiences that will be able to function at their highest possible level.

LESSON CRITIQUE

7
References

Alesandrini, K. & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers bridge to constructivism. The Clearing House, 75(3), 118121.
Awwad, A. (2013). Piagets theory of learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 4.9, 106-129.
Coch, D. & Ansari, D. (2009). Thinking about mechanisms is crucial to connecting neuroscience and
education. Cortex, 45(4), 546-547.
Docherty, E.M. (1977). Qualitative differences in concrete and formal operational tasks. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 2, 25-30.
Edyburn, D. (2004). Technology supports for differentiated instruction. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 19(2), 60-63.
Niederhauser, D.S., & Lindstrom, D.L. (2006). Addressing the NETS for students through constructivist
technology use in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 91-128.
OConnor, C., Yankov, L., & Goodfellow, M. (2014). Constructivism: ETEC 512 online learning conference.
Retrieved from https://connect.ubc.ca/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id
=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D
_46567_1%26url%3D
Raghunath, L., Fong, E., Pauk, A., & Varga, E. (2014). Mind and brain based education. In 512
Neurocognition. Retrieved from http://neurocognitionscienceandeducation.weebly.com/mbeand-educational-implications.html#/
Sakiz, G. (2008). An interview with Dale Schunk. Educational Psychology Review, 20. (485-491)
Smith, C., Verge, D., Iles, R., & Powell, T. (2014). Jean Piagets developmental theory. Retrieved from
http://etec512jpiaget.weebly.com/
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.