Coming to Terms With Constructivism in the Classroom - Coursework Example

Coming To Terms With Constructivism in the Classroom 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. 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). Darren’s desire to move from a teacher-directed orientation to a more learner-centred approach to teaching has a lot of merit. Being a new teacher, he is filled with idealism and knows from his recent studies that a more learner-centred approach to learning is reaping more advantages and would want to try it out for his own class. Constructivist theory is gaining more attention, recognition and acceptance in many educational institutions. It is premised on the view that learners “construct” their own knowledge, and in effect, have better retention of what they have learned. “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) Constructivist theories are based on the theories of Jean Piaget and Lee Vygotsky. “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. 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. 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. Darren’s intentions to shift to more constructivist approaches are driven by his beliefs in the theories, his desire for more dynamism, interaction, productivity and of course, learning in his class. However, in practice, he did not follow the main principles of the theory. He painstakingly organized each step in the procedure he gave his students, from the time allocation down to the grouping that the students did not have a choice in the matter. In the practice of Constructivist Education, students need to direct their own learning however, teachers need to be vigilant in guiding their students’ learning paths. Teachers 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). Darren’s activities for his English class may have been considered constructivist, but the procedure on how to get to the activities may not. If Darren was willing to be a more constructivist teacher, he should have allowed his students to give suggestions on grouping and pacing and even ideas on the activities themselves. 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 teacher. 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. The nature of Constructivist learning is basically interactive. Hence, learning ensues in social interactions. Sometimes, the direction of learning is from the teacher to the learner, other times, the learner provides new learning to the teacher. This flow of learning vacillates as teacher and learner interact. Sometimes, learning happens in group interactions, where each member contributes his or her own learning. Such learning gets internalized when the learner is on his own, and does his own individual learning. Thus, much cooperation and communication is necessary in such interactions if construction of one’s own learning is to take place. Salomon & Perkins (1998) have thoroughly discussed the social aspects of learning, especially in conditions where collaboration is necessary. Each participant in the collaboration is expected to share his or her ideas and to cooperate with each other to achieve unity and facilitate the learning process. “An important dimension of learning to learn involves learning to learn in ways that participate in and capitalize on the social milieu. One simple aspect is learning when and how to ask questions or to ask for help. Another is learning how to enter into reciprocal learning relationships (“I’ll help you with this if you help me with that, or we will both help one another with this particularly difficult idea.”) Here, the individual learner’s learning system extends its capacity to deal with the critical conditions of learning by acquiring new ways to capitalize on the social surroundings.” (Salomon and Perkins, 1998, pp. 5-6) Salomon and Perkins (1998) further relate individual and social learning. The first relation, “Individual learning can be less or more socially mediated learning” confirm the thesis point that learning social interactions have a great effect on an individual’s learning. However, the value of individual reflection and “time-out” from social interactions should not be undermined, as it is at this time when the learner comes to depend on his own insights, and skills to be able to make his own decisions in the direction of his learning and development. The second relation, “Individuals can participate in the learning of a collective, sometimes with what is learned distributed throughout the collective more than in the mind of any one individual” explains that a whole social entity can benefit from the knowledge of an individual sharing his own learning. Thus, the significance of a good mentor that a social group can consult and learn from. That is where Darren comes in. The third relation, “Individual and social aspects of learning in both senses (Relations 1 and 2) can interact over time to strengthen one another in what might be called a “reciprocal spiral relationship” strengthen the belief that learning evolves through a variety of modes, and all modes benefit the learner. Does a Constructivist approach in Education encourage cooperation and communication in students? If the end product is supposed to be the work of more than one student, the process of communication and cooperation among students is essential to ensure its success. This is ideal in Darren’s class of adolescents who are at the stage when they feel a need to belong to a group and may find security and power in that group. Students working in groups achieve success when targets are set and time limits are given at each phase of the activity and that they are given enough time to share their own ideas and to explain these to one another. The teacher ideally intervenes, or at some point becomes a contributing member of the group modelling appropriate listening and collaborative behaviours (Williamson, 2006). Williamson (2006) concluded in her study with grouping students that individual work may spur pupils’ feelings of isolation, with no one to bounce ideas off. They feel more confident and motivated when working in a group and reporting back to the class due to the elevated confidence in the work they were part of producing as a group. They felt less frustrated when a problem seems unsolvable because in working as a group, they are more willing to spend time discussing with others alternatives to tackling problems. Darren’s plan of grouping may end with grouping students according to their ability levels. This may have many advantages. Many teachers may argue that it is a more effective way of teaching. Students who have had a period of absence for example can benefit from peer guidance in group situations: Where there is an opportunity for students to communicate, the teacher need not repeat instructions thus avoiding a continual line of pupils asking questions. It could also be suggested ability grouping makes better use of time. If students of similar ability were grouped together for example, it would be easier for a teacher to talk and give instructions directly to that group. Paying particular attention to time restrictions, it is worth noting that tasks would be “more efficient and less tedious” for students if they were working collaboratively with those of similar ability. In addition, working in similar ability groups enables the teacher to assess each groups needs more effectively and allows students on the same level to have “the opportunity to share ideas with each other” and support each other in their learning. Ability groups encourage collaborative learning because the students of equal status work together in small groups toward a common goal. It fosters much social interaction, which may be the key to understanding others better (Saleh, Lazonder & De Jong, 2005). As in most interactions, communication is essential as both parties get to have a better grasp of concepts talked about. The party receiving explanations gain more understanding while the party doing the explanation benefits from the “cognitive restructuring” involved in peer tutoring which may trigger the realization and repair of misconceptions and knowledge gaps (Webb & Palinscar, 1996). Knowledge becomes co-constructed by group members as they build on each other’s ideas and considering and discussing the significance of personal beliefs until mutual agreement is reached (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Slavin, 1995). This agrees with Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of 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 students 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. Although the notion of learning style is fairly new, it well recognised that students differ in their modes of perceiving, thinking, problem solving and decision making (Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007).  However, in group activities, they learn to adjust to each other’s learning style in order to come up with a compromise or agreement. On the other hand, it would also benefit students to be grouped with others who may have different backgrounds or ability levels from them. The high ability students help those of lower capabilities. Research on mixed ability groups carried out by Harlen (1999) has even shown that students who are of low ability groups tend to perform better and that more able students are not held back. 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 teacher-directed activities such as 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. At the same time, 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) Darren’s first attempt at conducting a more learner-centred activity may have been too “controlled” from his end. He needs to learn to share the reins of control on his students’ learning and eventually pass it on for them to steer. Letting them plan the activities with him and listening to their ideas give the students respect and a sense of ownership of their learning. Letting them also work in various groups enables them to deal with different kinds of people with different learning styles which they can imbibe much learning from. Grouping children not only supports their intellectual pursuits but also helps them manage their emotions and develop socialization skills. The effective teacher can discern which learning strategy would be most appropriate on a case-to-case basis. Imbedded in him are hidden agendas for making his students reach their optimum learning potentials and in effect, the development of a healthy self-esteem. Darren should be aware that he is just an instrument in assisting the students to gain knowledge, and not the source of knowledge himself. Darren should work towards being on hand to ignite the spark of interest and motivation of his 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-lentered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools in Electronic Collaborators. Retrieved on March 20, 2009 from: www.publicationshare.com/docs/Bon02.pdf Brewer, J.A. (2001) Introduction to early childhood education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Strategic users of peer learning in children’s education. In T. Berndt & G. Ladd, eds, Peer Relationships in Child Development, pp. 13–157. New York: Wiley. Doolittle, P. (2004) Constructivist philosophy, theory, and pedagogy: insights, insults, and insanity. International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on March 21, 2009 from: www.isetl.org/conference/accepted2.cfm?proposal_id=116 Harlen, W. (1999). Making sense of the research on ability grouping. Retrieved on March 22, 2009 from: http://www.scre.ac.uk/rie/ nl60/nl60harlen.html. 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. Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W. & De Jong, T. (2005) Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation, Instructional Science 33: 105–119 Salomon, G. & Perkins, D.N. (1998) Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education , Vol. 23, pp. 1-24 Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice. Boston: Allyn Bacon. Van Ryneveld, L., (n.d.) What is constructivism?, Retrieved on March 19, 2009 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. Williamson, V. (2006) Group And Individual Work, Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath.,March 2006 Webb, N.M. & Palinscar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee, eds, Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp. 841–873. NewYork: MacMillan ). Read More