Teaching And Learning Of Constructivist - Research Paper Example

 Teaching And Learning Of Constructivist This is an age of learner centered education. Now learner is at the helm of affairs. Theoretical output in the field of education places learner at the top. Learner focused education is a paradigm shift from the traditional behaviorist model. Constructivism is the philosophical support for this new paradigm. The philosophy of constructivism entails that learning is search for meaning and learners are actively involved in the process of meaning and knowledge construction rather than passively receiving information. David Jonassen et al(1995). define constructivism as the individual student forming knowledge herself, and not "relying on what someone else says is true".For the actual practice this theoretical framework needed an innovative and all-pervasive tool that could help contribute in achieving all the potential outcomes of constructivist thought. Web 2.0 is such a tool as can be a good contributory agent in a constructivist classroom. Constructivism sprang from the work of Piaget (1977) and Kelly (1991). Twomey Fosnot (1989) highlights four principles of constructivism: learning, in an important way, depends on what we already know; new ideas occur as we adapt and change our old ideas; learning involves inventing ideas rather than mechanically accumulating facts; meaningful learning occurs through rethinking old ideas and coming to new conclusions about new ideas which conflict with our old ideas.( Gray ,1997) Toffler( 1980) views that the current school system with its factory like organization and inflexible boxes of space and time, is a vestige of Second Wave industrial society and is quickly becoming out dated by the Third Wave technological world .This view quite aptly suggests the coming of a new educational system .The technology complements this new system . Key Features of Constructivist systems are: cooperative learning settings student-centered classrooms problem solving inquiry-based After Piaget and Vogtosky , many thinkers in 20th Century made significant contributions to this philosophy and found it quite harmonious with the changing time and looked for certain models that ensured its practical application in day to day classroom activities. John D. Bransford's research has put forth the idea of constructivism from theory into practice. Ernst von Glasersfeld, developed a model of radical constructivism, which claims that since all experiences are subjective, knowledge -- and the interpretation of that knowledge -- is also subjective, and it is the individual who constructs knowledge. Jacqueline Brooks and Martin G. Brooks have considerable experience in creating constructivist educational settings and conducting research on those settings. There are varying conceptions of constructivism, depending on whether the emphasis is on individual cognitive processes or the social co-construction of knowledge.( Le Cornu & Peters,2005 ) Constructivism suggests change in all fields of education. It calls for a specific curriculum that meets the needs of the learner and strengthens his inquisitive nature and helps him formulate new information on the basis of his prior knowledge. The teaching strategies further aim at consolidating learner’s potentials and build up skills of critical thinking, analyzing and interpreting. The traditional method of assessment has a little place in constructivist school system as the focus now is not the product rather the process of learning. Students and Teachers are Interactive in a Constructivist Classroom Organization and Management of a Constructivist Classroom is Democratic. Power and Control in the Constructivist Classroom are shared. Constructivist philosophy was in search of a powerful tool that could supplement its nature. The use of Web 2.0 tools is an outgrowth of the constructivist nature of the classroom. A classroom does not become a “Web 2.0 class” by simply doing a Web 2.0 activity such as blogging, using a wiki, social bookmarking, podcasting, or media sharing.  True Web 2.0 begins within the daily pedagogy of the classroom.( Tuttle ,2008) Benefits of constructivism Constructivism has proved quite beneficial at the higher levels of education where students enjoy democratic environment. The scope of critical thinking is quite high at the higher levels where inquisition and openness are the most approved characteristics. 1: The perceived benefits to a constructivist learning environment include holistic learning opportunities, the enhancement of collaborative/cooperative skills and time and appreciation for metacognitive reflection (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, 1996; Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). 2: The new approach reflects change in focus of instruction from the transmission curriculum to a transactional curriculum .This approach gives students an ample chance to take part in the process of syllabus design. 3: In a constructivist classroom, the teacher creates active and motivated learners. 4: Constructivist Classroom ensures democratic environment (diffusion of authority in Web 2.0) 5: Constructivist principles bring about high degree of involvement in the learners .The principles also give the learners an opportunity to immerse them in the environment and extend it with their own imagination and contribution. 6: The structure of Constructivist Class room finds learners immersed in experiences within which they may engage in meaning-making inquiry, action, imagination, invention, interaction, hypothesizing and personal reflection.(Gray, 1997) The challenges of constructivist philosophy Though constructivist philosophy is popular in many areas of the world and its application at different levels of education has proved the efficacy of this approach, yet the approach presents…many challenges and dilemmas for teachers as they are involved in ‘learning new knowledge, questions and practices, and, at the same time, unlearning some long-held ideas, beliefs and practices…’ (Le Cornu & Peters quoted from Cochran-Smith, 2003, p. 9). The authors conducted a research in South Africa to find out the difference that constructivist approach was making in the learning process and also they came to know about the challenges faced by this approach in actual practices. The following questions came to fore for the researchers. • How can the teacher achieve appropriate balance between knowledge construction and the development of learning objectives ? • How can teachers keep track of what individuals are learning? • How much choice should students have? • What support do teachers need to sustain the high level of energy and enthusiasm needed to develop class room culture with a constructivist orientation?( Le Cornu & Peters,1993 ) Web tools used in constructivist classroom The constructive objectives of sharing of knowledge find its material shape in the form of Web 2.0: an extension of web technology to achieve the ends of facilitated communication ,collaboration and interpolation. The blogs , wikis , podcasting, folksonomies,youtube,social networking sites are the places which have led to the development of web-based communities. The constructivist teachers find these tools quite handy in their classroom. The Web tools are the instruments of change in educational system (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). All these web tools provide opportunities to the user to contribute to the content of the web and they have ample opportunities to share their knowledge and information with other users through blogs and youtube, the democratic nature of the web 2.0 seems to be an accessory of the constructivist ideology. There is strong intellectual support for the use of web 2.0 in classrooms. Alvin Toffler’s prophetic comments for a third wave are harbinger of a new era in educational practice. The constructivist teacher by giving the students an opportunity to discuss and contribute creates an atmosphere of democratic learning (shared intelligence in Web 2.). Similarly , while teaching fiction in language learning classroom the teacher doesn’t impose his opinion on the students rather he encourages research and each student discovers his own perspective of the story and characters. The students can bring together these diverse perspectives to form a big picture. In this way the students will take their research as an integrated whole (network effect in web 2.0). Web 2.0 technologies may not directly increase the exam grades of students, these can definitely give the student a greater sense of ownership over the materials they study, and go a long way to meet the personalized learning targets. (Wits,2007) Web 2.0 has following features: 1 Individual production and User Generated Content 2 Harness the power of the crowd 3 Data on an epic scale 4 Architecture of Participation 5 Openness ( Anderson,2007) Hendron(2008) suggests that once established, a wiki is easier for teachers to use than a blog. weblogs, wikis, podcasts, and computer conferencing. Implications of web 2.0 Research shows that teachers typically lack knowledge about how to integrate technologies into the routine task of teaching (NCES, 2000), and that the Internet is not well integrated into their classes (NCES, 2006).  Web 2.0 in certain cases ( i.e My Space) cater to the specialized tasted which may sometime prove a hurdle in the way of collective learning in an informally formal constructivist classroom. Web 2.0 gives everyone to share his ideas and opinions. This bulk of ideas sometimes may get too crowded where everyone is speaking and nobody is heard Or is it, as some fear, a case of when everyone can speak, no-one can be heard, in which an uncontrolled mish-mash of conversations reduces the Web to mush.( Anderson,2007). Web 2.0 technologies do not reflect true picture of communities as the social interaction does not take place in it real sense. It is a virtual community which has no knowledge of the persons they are sharing and discussing with. According to Maddrell (2008): The presentation of instructional content is largely facilitated through multiple links to content not designed and developed by the instructional designer. This content presentation strategy can overload the learner with too much loosely connected information. Also, it can be difficult for a novice learner to synthesize conflicting perspectives. There may be serious questions about the authentication and privacy of information in the use of web technologies. Another problem is that the students may stick to the knowledge generated through their specific communities which may be counter to the established ideas. Instructional Designs for Constructivist Classrooms Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities.( Berger&Kam, 1996).Some experts prefer the term of study support environment to instructional design model. As constructivism is research oriented and research supporting paradigm , so it supports many models that encourage issue-based, question-based learning. The well known constructivist models are Cognitive apprenticeship, Action research, Activity theory,Adergogy, Generative learning and Interpretation construction design model. One of the widely popular Design Model in constructivist tradition is ICON . John B. Black and Robert O. McClintock put forth this model to bring about changes in traditional learning practices. Interpretation Construction (ICON) Design Model Key Features of the model as suggested by John B. Black and Robert O. McClintock are as follows: 1. Observation: Students make observations of authentic artifacts anchored in authentic situations 2. Interpretation Construction: Students construct interpretations of observations and construct arguments for the validity of their interpretations 3.Contextualization: Students access background and contextual materials of various sorts to aid interpretation and argumentation 4.Cognitive Apprenticeship: Students serve as apprentices to teachers to master observation, interpretation and contextualization 5. Collaboration: Students collaborate in observation, interpretation and contextualization 6. Multiple Interpretations: Students gain cognitive flexibility by being exposed to multiple interpretations 7. Multiple Manifestations: Students gain transferability by seeing multiple manifestations of the same interpretations Technology and constructivism in Elementary classroom Elementary pedagogy is rather a complex paradigm. Decision making in the field is not easy. The policy makers make their policies after a great deal of thinking and keep in mind psychological repercussion of their policies on little minds. An elementary Classroom is a bit noisy, colorful, and hectic and learner dominated. The children love to be involved in activities, always insist on being heard and always try to participate in the class (though there may be some exceptions).A constructivist teacher have to be quite careful in the manipulation of web tools in this class. Technology in the elementary classroom sells itself. Walk into a classroom where students are interacting to solve a challenge and you will instantly find yourself in a new world. The energy in the room is contagious as students collaborate,design, and learn by experimentation and physical involvement. ( Lentz & Boe,2004) The complexity of some tools may demand a kind of specific training on the part of teacher or the expert may resort to some choiced tools. The teacher also ensures that the students can easily handle and manage these tools. Some sophisticated tools may seem to be beyond the approach of the elementary learners. The constructivist would encourage students to employ blogs and wikis in their lessons. Other constructivist theories involve cognitive and developmental psychologists to determine the effectiveness of students applying what they learn. Audrey Gray(1997) gives a picture of a constructivist classroom: In the classroom itself, an abundance of student work was displayed throughout the room. Posted on all available bulletin board space was an uncommon and diverse array of written and visual student productions, sometimes several revised drafts of a written creation being exhibited to demonstrate the process involved in the product.(Gray,1997). The students of elementary class have tremendous potential to exhibit in learning. The authors (Lentz&Boe,2004) were surprised when their student an 11-year-old girl created pneumatic monkeys that swing from a vine in our rain forest ecosystem model. Conclusion The essay reviewed the constructivist philosophy and its complementary technology that has become popular in the modern pedagogy. The constructivist tools are futuristic and flexible and learners can manage them easily . Web 2.0 strengthens the constructivist classroom by providing it the most efficient tools to address cognitive needs of analyzing, interpretation and inquiry. This third wave is still undergoing a change which may bring about more possibilities and more accomplishments in the field of education. This metacognitive philosophy is an instrument of change in the hands of an efficient teacher. Works Cited 1: Anderson P. (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Retrieved on 11th April 2009 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf 2: Black J. B. & McClintock R. O.(1995) An Interpretation Construction Approach to Constructivist Design published in Constructivist learning environments. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Educational Technology Publications. 3: Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development. 4: Gray, A. (1997).Constructivist Teaching and Learning.SSTA research center resport.Retrieved on 13th April, 2009 from http://saskschoolboards.ca/research/instruction/97-07.htm 5: Hendron, J.(2008). RSS for educators : blogs, newsfeeds, podcasts, and wikis in the Classroom .Washington, DC : International Society for Technology in Education. 6: Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., Haag, B. (1995) “Constructivism and Computer-Mediated Communication in Distance Education”. The Amercian Journal of Distance Education Vol.9. No.2. Retrieved on 13th April 2009 from http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub4.html 7: Le Cornu, R. & Peters, J. (2005) Managing the challenges and dilemmas of ‘Constructivism in Practice’, Refereed paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education conference, Nov. 28-Dec. 2, 2004, Melbourne. 8: Lentz ,K. & Boe, N. (2004). Implementing Technology in Elementary Schools retrieved on 15th April,2009 from www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/LinkedFiles/Articles/TAC%20pdf/2004- 05Volume9/T&Cdec04.vol9.2.pdf 9: Maddrell,J.(2008).Lesson Analysis.Retrieved on 13th April, 2009 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/3728784/Lesson-Analysis 10: Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, International Society for Technology in Education. 11: Toffler, A.(1980). The Third Wave.New york,Morrow. 12:Tuttle,G.H.Dr.(2008) Constructivism and Web 2.0 .Retrieved on 14th April,2009 from http://www.hotchalk.com/mydesk/index.php/hotchalk- blog-by-dr-harry-grover-tuttle-on-teaching/372--constructivism-and- web-20 13: Twomey Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. 14: Wits,J. (2007). The Educational Value of Web 2.0 Technologies in a Social Constructivist and Situative Learning Theory .Retrieved on 11th April,2009 fromwww.jonwitts.co.uk/elearning/web2/web_2_essay.pdf Read More