A Lot of Varied Theories of How People Learn - Case Study Example

The Constructivist Theory of Learning Philosophers, educators and psychologists have come up with a lot of varied theories of how people learn. Such theories are the foundations of school philosophies which are reflected in the educational approaches they offer. Education today has undergone various transformations from days of old. Schools at present may have similar goals of optimizing students’ learning and maximizing their potentials but may have differing philosophies, approaches and educational strategies in fulfilling these goals. “Predictably, the traditional teacher-centered model in which knowledge is “transmitted” from teacher to learner is rapidly being replaced by alternative models of instruction (e.g., learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural ideas) in which the emphasis is on guiding and supporting students as they learn to construct their understanding of the culture and communities of which they are a part (A. L. Brown et al., 1993; J. S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Cobb, 1994b; Collins, 1990; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Pea, 1993). In the process of shifting our attention to the constructive activity of the learner, we recognize the need to anchor learning in real-world or authentic contexts that make learning meaningful and purposeful. “ (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998, p.27) Constructivist theory is gaining more attention, recognition and acceptance in many educational institutions. It 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.). As early as the sixteenth century, there were already individuals advocating for more experience-based learning. John Comenius (1592-1670), known as the “Father of Modern Education” recommended a holistic, integrated, hands-on curriculum and was the first to use pictures in textbooks. This introduction to an innovative approach, at that time, has caught on with other educators. In the seventeenth century, Jean-Jacques Rosseau ( 1712-1778) began to focus on the learner’s nature instead of the subject matter to be learned. He theorized that learning by discovery is much more effective than being merely “spoon-fed” information. He also empowered the learner by advising that the more a learner is able to control the environment, the more effective the education. Rosseau believed that education should conform to the child’s nature, and explained that people develop through various stages. Different forms of educational strategies should be adjusted to be appropriate to each developmental stage. Among others, these prominent men in the history of Education have vast influence on constructivist theory. However, the men who were honored to be credited for its foundation are Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. The theories of Piaget and Vygotsky were based on their predecessors’. “Piaget 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). He insists that children need to use all their cognitive functions. These 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. Piaget came up with the Stages of Cognitive Development because 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) Like Rosseau before him, 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. Vygotsky (1978) believed that children’s intellectual development is influenced more by social context than by individual experiences. His theory places a great deal of emphasis on effective social interaction. Interactions are likely to go through a process called intersubjectivity. This is when two people are engaged in a task and begin from different understandings but with interaction, comes to an agreed, shared understanding. This is usually manifested when children initially debate opposite arguments but upon more understanding of the concept because of listening to each other’s opinions, will both end up seeing the concept in one direction. Vygotsky came up with the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). He defined the ZPD as the distance between a child’s independent problem-solving level and that obtained under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Wertsch, 1985). Wells (1997) cautioned us, however, that a ZPD is formed not just within an individual learner, but in the interaction between the learner, coparticipants, and available tools during involvement in a common activity. ZPDs, therefore, depend on the quality of the total interactive context as well as individual learner capabilities. (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). An example is a child reading at his own developmental level. His mother knowingly introduces a slightly more difficult reading activity to him in the expectation that her son will be able to do it, even if he finds it difficult at first. “Such cognitive apprenticeships are, of course, inherently reliant on a mentor or guide who effectively uses “scaffolded instruction.” (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998 p.40). As the term implies, scaffolds are temporary supports in the process of learning which are gradually taken away when the student is already capable of learning without them. The task would not have been completed without the help of scaffolds. “For example, an adult helping a child learn to cut may hold the scissors with his hand over the child’s hand and help the child move them, pointing out what happens when they are moved in a certain way. As the child becomes more skilled, the adult offers less help and more challenging cutting tasks.” (Brewer, 2001, p.27) “Examples of this support might include prompts, hints, comments, explanations, questions, counterexamples, and suggestions. A learning scaffold may be embedded in an explicit request to include additional information or a more general question or comment intended to spur new idea linkages or course connections. Of course, these learning aids are faded and removed as the learner assumes control over the activity. Through such assistance, the learner (or a team of learners) solves a problem, generates solutions, and gains insights that would ordinarily rest beyond his or her independent abilities. (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998, p. 40-41) 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. Cognitive Constructivist Theories put much premium on knowledge from experiences and Social Constructivist theories point to the importance of teacher explanations, support and demonstrations. Cognitive Constructivists value the individual’s questioning with open ended-questions and Social Constructivists encourage multiple viewpoints in understanding a problem. Cognitive Constructivists promote individual discoveries and Social Constructivists encourage students’ collaboration in learning and social interaction. Cognitive Constructivists identify and foster skills needed to manage learning, and acknowledge collaborative learning as supportive in the increase of individual metacognitive skill. Social Constructivists create an atmosphere of joint responsibility for learning. (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). In the foregoing, it can be understood that Piaget’s theories complement with Vygotsky’s. 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. David Wescombe-Down, an educator, wrote in his article, ‘Constructivism, mainstream teaching and scientific knowledge from the classroom perspective’, “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.d., 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. On the other hand, 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. 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 Tools” in Electronic Collaborators. Retrieved on April 15, 2007 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. Cobb, P. (1994a). Constructivism and learning. In T. Husen & N Postlethaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Cobb, P. (1994b). “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. Doolittle, P. (2004) “Constructivist Philosophy, Theory, and Pedagogy: Insights, Insults, and Insanity.” International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on April 15, 2007 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. 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. McInerney, D.M. & McInerney, V. (2006). (4th Ed.). Educational psychology: Constructing learning. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Pea, R. D. (1993b). “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. & Inhelder, B. (1969) The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books Van Ryneveld, L., (n.d.) “What is constructivism?”, Retrieved on April 15, 2007 from http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/lindavr/lindapg1.htm Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wells, G. (1997). “The zone of proximal development and its implications for learning and teaching.” Retrieved on April 15, 2007 from http://www.iose.utoronto.ca/~gwells/zpd.discussion.txt Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wescombe-Down, D. (n.d.), “Constructivism, mainstream teaching and scientific knowledge from the classroom perspective.” Retrieved on April 15, 2007 from http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/11788/science1/constructivism/MSMSASTA05.doc Read More