Roots of Constructivist Education Traced to Piagetian Theories - Coursework Example

Roots of Constructivist Education Traced to Piagetian Theories Introduction Education today has evolved over the years. It has undergone so many changes in the hands of free-thinking educators concerned with the evolution of learning. The numerous educational theories and approaches to best encourage learning and retention may confuse educators today as to which one to follow. The old system of “spoonfeeding” information to learners and the expectation that they will gain much learning from it has long been criticized by giants in the field of Education and Psychology. Although schools at present may have similar goals of optimizing students’ learning and maximizing their potentials, these institutions of learning may have differing philosophies, approaches and educational strategies in fulfilling these goals. Traditional teacher-focused models wherein knowledge is transmitted from teacher to learner are being overshadowed by alternative models which uphold learner-centered ones. These models emphasize guiding and supporting learners as they “construct” their own understanding of the culture and communities of which they are a part (Brown et al, 1993; Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989; Cobb, 1944; Collins, 1990; Duffy and Cunningham, 1996; Pea, 1993). Educators now realize the need to anchor student learning in real-world or authentic contexts which are more meaningful, relevant and purposeful for learners (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). One notable contributor to the enormous leap of education from traditional, behaviorist philosophy is Jean Piaget, a prominent Swiss psychologist. His forward-thinking disposition is responsible for conceptualizing much of what modern educators believe in. This paper will discuss his theories and contributions to the evolution of education. It aims to make readers appreciate how Piaget has been influential in explaining the cognitive development of children at a time when it was still a great mystery. His theories have been useful in designing a more appropriate curriculum to serve the needs of children at their particular developmental stage. Piaget’s Theories on Cognitive Development Piaget has been instrumental in eliciting interest in the phenomenon of how children think. He emphasized the use of questioning that lead children to think philosophically and designed tasks that call upon high-level cognition; problem solving, reasoning, and understanding of complex concepts (Siegler & Ellis, 1996). Educators have hailed Piaget’s theories on education. Kamii and DeVries (1977), two distinguished educators themselves have become disciples of Piagetian thinking and agreed with his ideas that education must be based on the long-term objective of developing the whole child, with emphasis on intellectual and moral autonomy. Emphasis on cognitive development comes from Piaget himself as he states: “The principal goal of education is to create [people] who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done – people] who are creative, inventive, and discoverers. The second goal of education is to form minds which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are offered. The great danger today is of slogans, collective opinions, ready-mad trends of thought. We have to be able to resist individually, to criticize, to distinguish between what is proven and what is not. So we need pupils who are active, who learn early to find out by themselves, partly by their own spontaneous activity, and partly through material we set up for them; who learn early to tell what is verifiable and what is simply the first idea to come to them” (Piaget, 1964, p. 5) This statement may encapsulate how Piaget values the child’s own thinking and how educators should help him develop into an independent, critical thinkers who can decide for themselves and not be dependent on what is dictated to them. His “assimilation-accommodation” model of cognitive growth explains the child’s active involvement in his thinking processes. The child’s cognitive structure dictates both what it accommodates (notices in the environment) and what is accommodated to is assimilated (interpreted or given meaning). This model helps one understand that “cognitive development is a gradual, step-by-step process of structural acquisition and change, with each new mental structure growing out of its predecessor through the continuous operation of assimilation and accommodation” (Flaveli, 1996, p. 200) Piaget believed that intelligence develops from action. He “believed that children create knowledge through interactions with the environment. Children are not passive receivers of knowledge; rather, they actively work at organizing their experience into more and more complex mental structures.” (Brewer, 2001, p.6). For him, learning takes place after development. He insists that children need to use all their cognitive functions. His theories were designed to form minds which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are offered. Such beliefs reflect his respect for children’s thinking. In his deep study of how children think, Piaget came up with the Stages of Cognitive Development. He believed that intellectual development is influenced by both maturation and experience. “Cognitive development is indicated by a growing ability to plan, to employ strategies for remembering and to seek solutions to problems” (Brewer, 2001, p.26). Piaget describes that cognitive development of children progress in stages. The initial stage is the Sensorimotor Stage of babies and toddlers. This period is characterized by interactions with the environment based on the child’s reception of sensory input and muscular reactions. The task of this period is to develop the concept of object permanence, the idea that objects exist even when they cannot be seen or heard. (Brewer, 2001). The Preoperational Period (two to seven years) marks the time when a child becomes able to represent objects and knowledge through imitation, symbolic play, drawing, mental images and spoken language. Lack of conservation skills is also characteristic of this stage. “Conservation is defined as the knowledge that the number, mass, area, length, weight, and volume of objects are not changed by physically rearranging the objects.” (Brewer, 2001) The ages of seven to eleven or twelve years falls under the Concrete Operational Period. Children at this age begin to think more operationally. Piaget and Inhelder (1969) described the operational thinker as one who employs “identity or reversibility by inversion or reciprocity” (p.99) in solving problems. They have moved on from being egocentric and consider that others may come to conclusions that differ from theirs. Piaget also exhibited an interest in the area of children’s play as a tool in learning. He categorized levels of play as functional, symbolic and games with rules (May, 2007). Consistent with his theories in cognitive development, the levels of play follow the pattern from concrete thinking to abstract thinking (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Functional or practice play involves the use of materials or toys. Then they move on to symbolic play wherein the materials may be imagined to be something else other than what it stands for or how it is normally used. Games with rules is play according to rules they may have made up themselves, or generally agreed on when playing the game (Brewer, 2001). Bruce (1991) refined Piaget’s play levels as exploratory, representational and free-flow play. She describes free-flow play as the child being immersed in his ideas, thoughts, feelings and relationships during the play session, and it is in this state of play that he comes up with creativity. Piaget has also been responsible for a theory explaining language development (1959). He, together with theorists Jerome Bruner (1983) and Lev Vygotsky (1962), believe that children learn language fast because the human brain looks for patterns and order in language the same way it looks for patterns and order in the environment. This explains how children are reliant on the rules of language which are never taught to them but which they abstract from examples they observe adults use in their language. Piaget has worked extensively with Lev Vygotsky, another key figure in the development of educational theories. Both Piaget and Vygotsky (1978) were proponents of a learning approach called Constructivism. This approach premises on the belief that learners “construct” their own learning, and in effect, have better retention of it. “In the Constructivist theory the emphasis is placed on the learner or the student rather than the teacher or the instructor.  It is the learner who interacts with objects and events and thereby gains an understanding of the features held by such objects or events.  The learner, therefore, constructs his/her own conceptualizations and solutions to problems.  Learner autonomy and initiative is accepted and encouraged.” (Van Ryneveld, n.d., n.p.). Vygotsky (1978) believed that learning happens before development can occur and that children’s intellectual development is influenced more by social context than by individual experiences. He proposed that adults help promote children’s cognitive development by transmitting to them the meanings that their culture assigns to certain things and aiding them in tasks that are yet challenging to them. His theory places a great deal of emphasis on effective social interaction. Children value input from their environment and from others. Piaget did not place much importance on the input of others, as for him, children develop from within, as they pass through different cognitive stages. Taken together, both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories are known as Constructivist Teaching Practices and Principles where Piaget’s emphasize Cognitive constructivism and Vygotsky’s emphasize Social Constructivism. The integration of the ideas of Piaget and Vygotsky has proven to be an effective fusion. Application in the classroom is definitely manifested by active learners. Application of Constructivist Theories of Piaget & Vygotsky Cognitive Constructivist Theories (Piaget’s) put much premium on knowledge from experiences and Social Constructivist theories (Vygotsky’s) point to the importance of teacher explanations, support and demonstrations. In the classroom, a child should be encouraged to explore and discover things on his own, as this develops ownership in his discoveries. The child derives much fulfillment in this, and hence, his self-learning is motivated. On the other hand, the information he gleans from the people around him (teachers and classmates) is likewise valuable as he is able to see perspectives other than his own. Piagetian Cognitive Constructivists value the individual’s questioning with open ended-questions and Vygotskian Social Constructivists encourage multiple viewpoints in understanding a problem. An individual, when confronted with a lot of questions tend to set off his critical thinking processes in trying to understand a concept. He may be left on his own to think in a manner that is descriptive of the cognitive stage he is in at the moment. On the other hand, Vygotskian principles value brainstorming with other minds, indulging in discourse and intertwining of different viewpoints to understand a phenomenon. Piagetian Cognitive Constructivists promote individual discoveries and Vygotskian Social Constructivists encourage students’ collaboration in learning and social interaction. As mentioned earlier, an individual’s learning discoveries makes him fulfilled and all the more motivated to discover more on his own. However, the collaborative learning of a group of students likewise gives the same fulfillment, as the learner would feel that he has contributed to the learning of others, and vice versa. This encourages social interactions. On top of cognitive development, there is social development as well. Piagetian Cognitive Constructivists identify and foster skills needed to manage learning, and acknowledge collaborative learning as supportive in the increase of individual metacognitive skill. Vygotskian Social Constructivists create an atmosphere of joint responsibility for learning. (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). With both groups of constructivists, there is respect and acknowledgement of the value of each other’s beliefs. Although the discussion seems to point out that Cognitive constructivists believe learners can learn on their own depending on their maturation and experience, it does not deny the fact that much learning may also be derived from interactions with others. Social constructivists hold all learners in a group accountable for all the decisions in planning, strategizing, etc. in coming up with solutions to a problem they all work on together. It takes into consideration the experiential background of each learner that he inevitably brings to the collaborative learning experience. In the foregoing, it can be understood that Piaget’s theories complement with Vygotsky’s and the fusion of both results in an effective learning approach. Teachers come up with several strategies in capturing their students’ attention, and courses are offered in helping educators become more efficient in imparting knowledge and skills to their pupils. No longer do they limit their teaching strategies to boring lectures, dizzying written and oral examinations and students’ delivery of memorized answers to expected questions. Teaching aids have likewise expanded from using flashcards, blackboard demonstrations and textbooks to more concrete materials like actual 3-dimensional objects, dioramas and multimedia materials. Activities are likewise evolving to be more learner-centered, as teachers are coming to terms that their students have a hand in directing their own learning. This is not to say that teachers are slowly losing their hold on the learning of their students. In fact, they are important figures in stimulating and encouraging their students’ pursuit of knowledge. Piagetian Cognitive Constructivists give the students more power in the acquisition of learning. Using prior knowledge, they are encouraged to invent their own solutions and try out their own ideas and hypotheses with the able support of their teachers. This way, they can indulge in concrete experiences that focus on their interests. The process of searching for information, analysing data and reaching conclusions is considered more important than learning facts. On the other hand, Vygotskian Social Constructivists believe that teachers in the Constructivist tradition should be ready for more challenging roles as mentors and facilitators of learning. No longer are they “dispensers of knowledge” and their students their “blank slates” to write on. “Supplying students with answers is not the goal in a constructivist program; in fact, unanswered questions are important in terms of continued interest and continued learning.” (Brewer, 2001, p.59) Teachers are life-long learners themselves and should accept the challenge of furthering their knowledge if not a step ahead of their students, then at least, in step with them. David Wescombe-Down (n.d.), an educator, believes that implementing constructivist approaches is actually more challenging for teachers than just continuing on with traditional methods of spoonfeeding information to students. He says, “If we take the constructivist classroom route, we make harder work for ourselves compared to the easier transmission model route. Our students are required to provide rigorous intellectual commitment and perseverance, and teachers must continually connect student’s previous and current knowledge to the emerging curriculum. The relevance of curriculum to student interests therefore cannot be planned, because the learners’ interests and experience cannot be assumed nor completely evaluated in advance.” (n.p) In the practice of Constructivist Education, teachers need to be vigilant in guiding their students’ learning paths. They need to create opportunities for their students to exercise the construction of their own learning. “Specifically, teachers must be careful not to fall into the trap of labeling specific pedagogical strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, direct instruction, multimedia, computer mediated communications) as constructivist or non-constructivist. It is easy to think of ways in which direct, didactic techniques of instruction may be combined with an overall constructivist view (Howe and Berv 2000) . Thus, instructional strategies are neither inherently constructivist nor non-constructivist and indeed the same strategy may be used in ways that are congruent or non-congruent with a constructivist approach. (Doolittle, 2004). This gives the students more power in the acquisition of learning. Using prior knowledge, they are encouraged to invent their own solutions and try out their own ideas and hypotheses with the able support of their teachers. This way, they can indulge in concrete experiences that focus on their interests. The process of searching for information, analysing data and reaching conclusions is considered more important than learning facts. Schools with progressive approaches are usually rooted in Constructivist philosophy. Such schools adhere to developmentally-appropriate practices (DAP) prescribed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Implementation of DAP are usually based on Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development (NAEYC, 1997). Should a program delivered to learners be off the developmental characteristics described by Piagetian theory, then it is not considered developmentally-appropriate, hence, unacceptable. That is why when planning a curriculum, the developmental characteristics of the learners are primarily considered. For example, in teaching math skills to preschool-aged children who belong to the Pre-Operational stage of cognitive development, it should be remembered that lack of conservation skills is characteristic of this stage. “Conservation is defined as the knowledge that the number, mass, area, length, weight, and volume of objects are not changed by physically rearranging the objects.” (Brewer, 2001, p.318). That is why it is important to give concrete materials to young children when teaching a math concept since that is how they understand things better. They need to be able to see things concretely first before they can be translated to abstract thinking. Mathematics is a hierarchical discipline where concepts build on previous concepts and more often than not, need full understanding before proceeding to the next, more complicated concept. (Ruthven, 1987). Constructivist curriculum helps promote thinking, problem-solving and decision-making in children making them flexible and creative thinkers (Cromwell, 2000). Constructivist programs do not adhere to totally teacher-directed strategies, as most behaviorist schools do. This way, when children create their own learning through hands-on experiences, they retain concepts better and are more motivated to gain and develop skills. Schweinhart & Weikart (1999) presented studies that evidenced the long-term benefits of child-initiated learning in early childhood programs, as such activities help them develop social responsibility and interpersonal skills as they grow up. Morrison (2009) claims that Piaget believed that children need to be actively involved in their learning, so opportunities to be physically and mentally engaged in learning activities is necessary for mental development. What is natural to children in this case is play. Piaget advocates children’s play and believe much learning may be gained from it. A child learns best when he finds enjoyment in what he is doing, thus learning should be fun. PLAY is the world of children. Learning through play has value and is an effective method of teaching. Through play, a child develops his mental functions as he learns varied concepts, and at the same time he develops body coordination, he learns how to handle emotions, acquires social skills and values as he interacts with other children. Play offers many benefits It engages the mind to actively imagine various scenarios for fun or for problem-solving. Babies and toddlers play in order to get to know their world – how things work, how people react, etc. They get to explore and discover things that otherwise they will not learn about if they do not actively engage in play. This free exploration is considered Heuristic play by Holland (2003) and encourages it without adult intervention. Adults provide simple materials and allow the child’s imagination to take off. “The child learns from observing directly what these objects will ‘do’ or ‘not do’, in sharp contrast to much of the ‘educational’ equipment which has a result predetermined by the design which has been devised by the adult maker (Holland, 2003, p. 142). Not only will heuristic play stimulate a child’s thinking, but it also develops his creativity as he will see in his mind endless possibilities in imaginatively transforming ordinary objects into various things with various functions. During play, “children demonstrate improved verbal communications, high levels of social and interaction skills, creative use of play materials, imaginative and divergent thinking skills and problem-solving capabilities” (Wood, 2004, p. 21) Macintyre (2003) discusses the value of play in all the developmental areas of children. Children love games that stimulate thinking. Such cognitive benefits extend to their real lives as they make decisions, compare and contrast things, use their imaginations and thinking critically and creatively. Constructivist education has much respect for play and values it as part of its developmentally-appropriate curriculum. This is one aspect which learners definitely approve of and willingly engage in. Conclusion The field of Education has much to be thankful for and that includes Jean Piaget. He has come up with complex theories that he was able to dissect for educators to understand and apply to their learners. His theories have great implications in curriculum design and understanding how children learn best. His work with Vygotsky in formulating the foundations of constructivism is now benefitting thousands of classrooms all over the world. It has been successful in gaining respect for children’s learning. Chaille (2008) argues that constructivism believes that children are constructing knowledge on their own and the learning environment considers and respects that. “In a constructivist classroom, children understand that they are building their own theories and constructing their own knowledge through interaction with knowledgeable adults and other children.” (Chaille, 2008, p. 5) This has much value in helping children use their minds well. Piaget was someone who thought ahead of his time and present-day educators and learners are enjoying the fruits of his labor. His theories have opened a variety of alternatives in educational strategies. The effective teacher can discern which learning strategy would be most appropriate on a case-to-case basis. Imbedded in her are hidden agendas for making her students reach their optimum learning potentials and in effect, the development of a healthy self-esteem. She is aware that she is just an instrument in assisting the students to gain knowledge, and not the source of knowledge herself. She is on hand to ignite the spark of interest and motivation of her students. It is now up to the students themselves to turn that spark into a burning flame that would keep them fired up for more learning. References Bonk, C.J. & Cunningham, D.J. (1998) Searching for Learner-Centered, Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tool in Electronic Collaborators. Retrieved on November 28, 2010 from: www.publicationshare.com/docs/Bon02.pdf Brewer, J.A. (2001) Introduction to Early Childhood Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). “Distributed expertise in the classroom.” In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41 Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play in Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Bruner, J. (1983) Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: W.W. Norton. Chaille C.(2008), Big Ideas: A Framework for constructivist Curriculum, in Constructivism across the Curriculum in Early Childhood Classrooms, Pearson Education, Sydney Cobb, P. (1994). Where is mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development, Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20. Collins, A. (1990). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cromwell, E.S. 2000, Nurturing Readiness in Early Childhood Education: A Whole-Child Curriculum for Ages 2-5, 2nd edn, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA Doolittle, P. (2004) Constructivist Philosophy, Theory, and Pedagogy: Insights, Insults, and Insanity. International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on November 29, 2010 from: www.isetl.org/conference/accepted2.cfm?proposal_id=116 Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communicationsand technology. New York: Scholastic. Flaveli, J.H., (1996) Piaget’s Legacy, Psychological Science, Vol. 7, No. 4 Holland, R.(2003) ‘‘‘What’s it all about?’’–how introducing heuristic play has affected provision for the under-threes in one day nursery ’in Devereux,J. and Miller,L.(eds) Working with Children in the Early Years, London, David Fulton in association with The Open University Howe, K., & Berv, J. (2000). Constructing constructivism: Epistemological and pedagogical. In. D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 19-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kamii, C. & DeVries, R. (1977) Piaget for Early Education, The Preschool in Action: Exploring Early Childhood Programs, 2nd ed., edited by M. C. Day and R. K. Parker, 365 – 420. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Macintyre, C. (2003) Studying play from a developmental perspective ’in Devereux,J. and Miller,L.(eds) Working with Children in the Early Years, London, David Fulton in association with The Open University May, P. (2007) "Play and creativity", Nurse, Angela D., The new early years professional : dilemmas and debates, 95-110, David Fulton Morrison, G., S., (2009). Early Childhood Education Today (11th edtion). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. National Association for the Education of Young Children (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8: a position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington D.C.: NAEYC Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J. (1959) The Language and Thought of the Child, 3rd ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1964) Development and Learning, Piaget Rediscovered, edited by R. Ripple and V. Rockcastle, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969) The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books Ruthven, K. (1987). Ability stereotyping in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(3), 243–253. Schweinhart, L.J. & Weikart, D.P. (1999), Why curriculum matters in early childhood education, in Annual Editions: Early Childhood Education, ed.K. Menke Paciorek & J. Huth Munro, Dushkin, Guilford, Conn Siegler, R.S. & Ellis, S. (1996) Piaget on Childhood, Psychological Science, Vol. 7, No. 4 Van Ryneveld, L., (n.d.) What is constructivism?, Retrieved on November 29, 2010 from http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/lindavr/lindapg1.htm Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wescombe-Down, D. (n.d.), Constructivism, mainstream teaching and scientific knowledge from the classroom perspective. Retrieved on November 28, 2010 from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/11788/science1/constructivism/MSMSASTA05.doc Wood, E. (2004) Developing a pedagogy of play in Anning, A., Cullen, J. and Fleer, M. (eds) Early Childhood Education, London, Sage Publications. Read More