Social and cognitive constructivism - Essay Example

Technology through social and cognitive constructivism The struggle among s in blend with growing learner expectations is speeding up internationally stressing several higher education institutions to get better access by means of eliminating time, place, and situational hurdles in ways that are cost efficient. Contemporary information technology mediated education is a choice that several institutions have started to look at as a way to eliminate these obstructions. In the past there was unwillingness in the higher education communities to approve or incorporate technologies because of, mainly, lack of ability to supply the quantity and quality of interpersonal communications that is considered vital to the facilitation of advanced order thoughts - such as that developed in small group debate, Socratic approach to teaching, shared/cooperative learning, brainstorming, debriefing, case studies, trouble based education, etc.. However, this situation has changed. The kind of communication which is well thought-out to be essential to several educationalists can be maintained by latest communication technologies. These technologies are as well considered to be cost effective and available to students who are experiencing time, place, or situational obstructions (Bates, 1995) even as sustaining the growth of higher order thoughts skills (Bullen, 1997). Because of these motives several institutions are incorporating communication and teaching technologies into their instructional curriculum. However, to know, how successful technology-incorporated learning behavior concerning advanced order thoughts skill will dependent upon the strategy taken to the design, delivery, choice, and operation of suitable and efficient technologies with a support arrangement to preserve and maintain the learning transactions (Pisel, 1995), (Schreiber, 1998). For this purpose educationalists must attain fresh perception in numerous diverse regions mainly of philosophical direction to education and learning. A person’s philosophical orientation will speak how educationalists will analysis teaching, learning, knowledge (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982), and the use of technology. Educationalists those who explain and eloquent in their rational situation concerning the use of technologies in the learning procedures make out what they are doing as they use technologies to facilitate the learning. Till now, the common rational course in instructional technology was instructivism (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Instructivists - often as well referred to as objectivism - dispute that using an educational methods design replica can be useful to instructional planners to methodically recognize the syllabus to be taught , decide how it will be taught, and assess the teaching to decide its effectiveness. Particularly, educationalists require to be cautious on to what is that is to be taught and what is that already know earlier to the learning transactions. Further they are gradually arranged starting lower order to higher order learning. The instructionist stresses the significance of using an educational methods design model where the education goals are obviously recognized and affirmed, and exist separately from the student (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). Education behaviors must be concentrated on the expertise to learn and present under the finest environments for learning. The student is appraised fairly with assessment tools that gauge the behaviors described in the stated objectives. The information from the assessment is used to modify the coaching so that it is useful with subsequent learners. After the systems design procedures give confidence educationalists to center on the requirements and aptitudes of the individual student ensuing in the progress of effective learning behavior (Kanuka, Anderson, 1999). The polarized outlook of instructivism is constructivism. The foremost thoughts behind constructivism education hypothesis are not most recent. It started with the insights of Socrates who asserted that there are fundamental circumstances for learning that are in the cognition of the person. However, it was Piagets hypothesis of brain growth that had the major control on the growth of recent positions. In particular, Piaget initially highlighted the processes of intangible transform as communications among existing cognitive arrangements and fresh awareness (Piaget, 1969; Wasdworth, 1978). History There are two main historical string of the constructivist outlook. 1. Cognitive constructivism, an individualistic perception. 2. Social-cultural constructivism Cognitive Constructivism The growth of human brain proceeds in the course of adaptation and organization according to Jean Piaget (1896-1980). Adaptation is a practice of incorporation and adjustment; external events are absorbed into belief from one stand point and, on the other, fresh and strange mental constitution are lodged into the mental setting. While Piaget recognizes awareness with action, he believes that psychological growth systematizes these methods in more multifaceted and incorporated ways to create the adult mind (Swan, 2005). Cognitive constructivism as well upholds that there is a factual world that one seeks to appreciate. As soon as one constructs information he is increasing more satisfactory understandings of what the reality must be. Thus, constructing knowledge is a developing process through which truth can be understood. Cognitive constructivists believe that there is an external truth that will constantly make every effort to appreciate (Kelly, 1955). Even though this outlook centers on the person, it does not refute the significance of social relations. But, it cooperates with the situations; let it be physical or social situations. Furthermore, it is during social situations that cognitive interruptions usually take place. Such as, during dialogue or exchange of thoughts with others one comes to know the discrepancies or meagerness of the understanding. However, in cognitive constructivism, the focal point continues on the individual progress of understanding, as if learning occurs in social settings (Kanuka, Anderson, 1999). Implications for Practice The fundamental supposition in cognitive constructivism is that inner conflicts bring about the construction of knowledge, disagreement or confusion is essential urge for education (Tobias, 1991). The cognitive trouble ensuing from the conflict and confusion will decide the organization and nature of what is learned. Alike Piagets hypothesis, instructional techniques in this vision intend to tackle the learner with conditions that make the innate discrepancies in the learners naive replica simple and challenge the learners also to construct better models or at least to consider the virtues of another models offered by the teacher (Perkins, 1991, p. 19). According to this statement, educationalists have to make available learning atmosphere that make the most of on discrepancies involving the learners present knowledge and the fresh understandings they come across. Education environments supposed to be intended to confront understandings and the responsibility of the educationalist must be one of catalyst. Accordingly, there are two essential instructional setting: educationalists know the learners naive model; and chances for genuine or replicated discourse in which discrepancies are exposed. While the focal point is on the learners accommodation of inconsistent thoughts, it is essential that the teacher act as a catalyst supplying learning opportunities that improve this procedure. Instructional techniques, for instance, case studies, discussions, individual and group debates, and team teaching using varied grouping are suitable instructional behavior that will initiate internal clashes, make easy the learners individual growth of understanding. It is accepted that communication with peers who have dissimilar aptitude levels and conditions are a major basis of difference that can encourage this procedure (Kanuka, Anderson, 1999). Social-cultural constructivism The social-cultural constructivism or socio-constructivist outlook, the major significance to constructivism, according to Vygotsky’s (1896-1934) originate from his hypothesis concerning language, thought, and their mediation by the social order. He takes hold of the anti-realist pose that the method of understanding is quite a disjunctive one concerning the agency of other people and interceded by society and traditions. He observes collective action to be formed in early days as the convergence of verbal communication and sensible activity takes place and involves the active use of social communication. Even though in adulthood social speech is getting internalized, it becomes thought, Vygotsky argues that it even protects its inherent cooperative nature (Kanselaar, 2002). There are two more knowledgeable scholars considered social constructivists, Jerome Bruner and John Dewey. One of the main subjects in the hypothetical structure of Bruner is that education is an active process where learners construct novel thoughts or perceptions based on their present knowledge. He observed that a person’s cognitive constitution gave importance and organization to such lively practice and let one to study. Bruner is considered as a social constructivist since the essential function he saw is the language and others live in this process. In the same way, (Dewey, 1938), even though he antedate the social constructivist progress, is at times well thought-out a social constructivist since he considered thought as the result of communication with the environment, since the significance he gave to active learning, and for the reason that of the vital role language and social contact plays in his philosophy of teaching and learning. Social constructivism reminds that learning is fundamentally a social activity that is constructed during communication, joint activity, and relations with others. It emphasizes the responsibility of social communications in sense creation; particularly maintain of more knowledgeable society in knowledge construction. Social constructivism, furthermore, promotes to think the crucial role of language as the medium of thought; therefore of knowing and learning, and the ways that knowledge and knowing are ethnically and historically resolute and realized (Swan, 2005). There is a significant part of Vygotsky’s work (Vygotsky, 1986) is crucial upon Piaget’s works in the field. Even though Vygotsky and Piaget contribute to some general ideas, there are major disagreements among them. On the subject of different stages of growth, Piaget believed that development leads education, whereas Vygotsky assumed the opposite. The origin of constructivism goes back to the hypothesis of Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey. However the supremacy of constructivism on education begins from the early eighties. Then constructivism turned out to be a retort in opposition to the objectivist epistemology of behaviorism and information processing assumption of learning. Behaviorism was substituted by the cognitive rebellion in psychology approximately in 1960. Cognitive hypothesis of learning stressed out the expansion processes in working memory, the significance of prior information and approaches. As per Duffy and Jonassen (1991; 1992) the potential of latest technologies to plan a constructivist education environment was discussed. Further, Salomon (1997; 1998) as well linked the use of new technologies to constructivist learning and in addition to the societal environment of learning. Disapproval of conventional education system, the thought of situated cognition and genuine learning tasks, the application of latest technologies to create new learning atmosphere and the thought of learning societies and information building population jointly lead to constructivism as a central hypothesis of schooling in the nineties (Kanselaar, 2002). Constructionism Seymour Papert (Papert, 1980) is a mathematician who studied with Piaget for five years and later entered in the emerging subject of computer science at MIT. Papert named the term constructionism to differentiate his specific constructivist focus (Papert, 1993) that adds particular significance to the function of constructions in the world as a support for those entered in the brain from cognitive constructivism, even though they are evidently linked. The reason for special interest on Papert and other constructionists is that they are particularly anxious with the kinds of constructions that are maintained by computing technologies. For instance Andy diSessa (diSessa, 2000) explains that Computers can be the technological base of a novel and radically improved literacy that will penetrate deeply and manage; analogous to what is currently practiced in coming to attain a mass, text-based learning. Constructionists sustain that computers have the exceptional facility to stand for conceptual ideas in real and soft forms. The Logo programming computer language and variations on it to learn these ideas in practice was developed by Papert and his colleagues. Their attempt has established ways in which computer based constructions can certainly create theoretical concepts easier to get to and more readily internalized as intellectual scheme. Constructivists consider that computer-based constructions are individually formed, therefore more willingly related to existing information (assimilation). They explains further that computer-based constructions may be used to question existing scheme and so lead to transform in information arrangements and the process of correcting a fault of misapprehension (accommodation). Therefore constructionism is vital since it put forward ways that computer-based construction behavior can be used to maintain analogous psychological constructions (Swan, 2005). Implications for Teaching As explained earlier, constructivism is an epistemological hypothesis and not an idea of teaching. However, in education, the epistemological thinking orders, or supposed to powerfully enlighten, the pedagogical visions. In fact, the significance of different descriptions of constructivism was seen in terms that they give confidence to think about learning. Specific conceptualizations of learning recommend subsequent strategies to teaching. Constructivism establishes meaning and meaning construct directly in the brain of persons, and not in teaching. This is a significant difference. For instance, it proposes that even though it may be feasible to regulate instruction, it is unlikely to regulate learning, an objective to which several online programs look for. Further it as well proposes that the anxiety must be centered more on the plan of learning environments, and little on instructional plan. While such difference may seems just semantic, it may be particularly significant in online learning, since it insist on to give up the usual focus on the delivery of teaching and the intend of instructional resources, and in its place approach course development in terms of making virtual spaces that promote and maintain active learning. In fact, constructivism recommends educators ought to be concerned with the intend of meticulous kinds of learning environments, such as, learning environments that are learner centered, knowledge-centered, assessment centered, and community-centered. Learner-Centered Learning Environments The learner-centered environments that are recognized according to constructivist philosophy explains that individuals get exceptional knowledge, skills, attitudes, and ideas to the learning practice, and that there are various methods to arrange experience and several diverse perceptions that can be gathered from any occurrence or idea. Learner-centered instruction therefore identify the significance of structuring on the conceptual and educational information that learners carry with them to the learning practice, of connecting education to learners experiences, and of accommodating and surveying several outlooks and different understandings. Online education creates several disputes to the progress of learner-centered environments, the important details that all communications within are essentially interceded during the online environment, and that most online courses ought to be made before learners join them. Simultaneously, the very uniqueness of the online learning that make disputes offer unique affordability to learner-centeredness. In fact, when Carol Twigg (Twigg, 2000) collected together a group of inventive virtual educationalists to converse paradigm changes in online learning, their general conclusion was that individualization, which they termed personalization, was the solution to modernization in distance learning. Therefore quality online learning must comprise early appraisals of learner’s knowledge and proficiency, individual study plans concerning collection of interactive learning resources, and integral, incessant appraisal with immediate feedback. Scholars have established online debate to be more reasonable and democratic (Harasim, 1990), (Eastmond, 1995) more thoughtful (Hiltz, 1994), (Poole, 2000), (Garrison, 2003) and in startling ways more personal (Walther, 1994), (Gunawardena, Zittle, 1997) than conventional classroom debates. Whereas several educationalists consider that asynchronous conversation is exclusively suitable to maintain learner-centered knowledge construction. More study in this aspect is obviously required. There is some proof that suggests that learners who are more inspired and have greater self-regulatory skills (Bures, et.al. 2002), (Davies, 2003) fare better in online courses. Lastly, there are evidences that contradictory online learners, in reality, want quite dissimilar things from online courses (Ehlers, 2004). If the learner centered online learning environments could be truly developed, there are obviously have a lot more to learn. Papert’s View on Contemporary Technology in Education System Papert cautions that this is the age of learning and aggressive aptitude is the capacity to learn. There is a revolution in technology that has concurrently brought about the demand for enhancements in learning in addition to providing the opportunity to mend learning environments. Latest technologies will improve learning through the construction of personal media competent of sustaining a broad range of academic techniques. However, according to Papert, this prediction for the potential of learning comes across one crucial hindrance that is ‘schools’. Schooling, as he thinks, continues to be mostly loyal to the educational philosophy of the later part of nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and follows a lonely way of knowing on everybody. The education system of tests, separation by age, teachers who construct submissive minds and stress on reading as the indispensable way to information are the most important characteristics of the education method today. Information is conveyed directly from teacher to student and is considered similar to money, to be deposited in a bank for the future. Schools follow favoritism and in fact obstruct learning by stressing proper knowledge and by following the epistemology of accuracy that compel on learners to be exactly correct and regards as knowledge poorer if it be short of exactness. Paperts thinking of education differentiates sharply with his portrayal of schools epistemology. Papert suggests that schools should support a more partial, qualitative, interrelated personal, tangible, insightful non official way of understanding. He illustrates the Cybernetics with its epistemology dealt with imprecision that regards as way of life to make the finest use of partial knowledge. Tinkering is the plan he suggests to explain a picture of improvisational education with independent behavior that look like a play and that reproduce the way children study in external settings. Constructionism is constructed on the theory that children will do their best by searching for themselves the precise information they require. Prearranged or informal learning can assist the most by ensuring that they are supported ethically, expressively, materially, and academically in their efforts. Hence, the objective is to educate in a method with regard to create the most learning for the minimum teaching. Paperts approach to learning and his constructionist strategy depend on the computer for realization. He presumes that the computer, and mostly, its future growth, will alter learners association with knowledge, generating a revolution analogous to that of the introduction of printing and writing. He consider computer as a Knowledge Machine which would let students an affluent searching of the universe. According to Papert a mammoth change is needed to move from the present epistemology approach to the age of learning. Conclusion The premises of educational restructuring are plentiful and Papert is not the first researcher to connect computer use with educational restructuring. Scholars those who are criticizing him and of the present educational system, as well are questioning the behaviorist/objectivist approach. However, Paperts outlook is unique and precious in his firmness on focusing on epistemology and on an assumption of learning as the opening point for educational reform. Accordingly, educational change, Papert method will in fact necessitate a revolt- a revolution in thinking pattern. Novel conceptions of learning to accommodate Paperts viewpoint will necessitate surrendering several power and to give definite form that insist on constructing into learning. Surrendering control may prove demanding, given that transform in education at the turn of the millennium comes into view to be driven extra by financial significance than by pedagogical concerns. Reconsidering the assumption of learning and of information may well be the most excellent way to change education. Sarcastically, the finest way is often the more strenuous. Restructuring has usually focused on changing the curriculum, approving other methods or new tools. However Paperts change looks away from this level and stresses primarily reconsidering the responsibility as educationalists, rethinking of the behavior, the belief concerning knowledge and learning, and further what is to be done. As per this, the revolt he demands for is a very personal one. It needs not so much that schools transform but that educationalists, teachers and parents, transform (Papert, 1993). References Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education. London: Routledge Bullen, M. (1997). A Case Study of Participation and Critical Thinking in a University-Level Course Delivered by Computer Conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Bures, E. M., Aundsen, C. & Abrami, P. C.( 2002). Motivation to learn via computer conferencing: exploring how task-specific motivation and CC expectations are related to student acceptance of learning via CC. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27, 3, 249-264. Darkenwald, G. & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. Cambridge: Harper & Row Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology?, (30) 10, 7-12 Dewey, J. Experience and Education New York: Macmillan, 1938. Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D.H. (Eds.) (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. A Conversation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. diSessa, A. A. (2000).Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Davies, R. S. (2003). Learner intent and online courses. Chicago: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Ehlers, U-D. (2004) Quality in e- learning from a learners perspective. European Journal of Open and Distance Learnin g. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Online_Master_COPs.html Eastmond, D. V. (1995). Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study through Computer Conferencing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: the role of reflectiveinquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education:, Practice and Direction. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 47-58. Gunawardena, C. & Zittle, F. (1997).Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26 Harasim, L. (1990). On-line Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger. Hiltz, S. R. (1994).The Virtual Classroom: Learning without Limits via Computer Networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, Kanuka, H. Anderson, T. (1999). Using Constructivism in Technology-Mediated Learning: Constructing Order out of the Chaos in the Literature ISSN: 1524-6345 Retrieved on 16 March 2009 from: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. (2 vols.). New York, NY: Norton Kanselaar, G. (2002) Constructivism and socio-constructivism Retrieved on 16 March 2009 from: http://edu.fss.uu.nl/medewerkers/gk/files/Constructivism-gk.pdf Pisel, K. (1995). An analysis of distance learning applications for joint training. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development. Summer, pp. 12-23 Piaget, J. (1969). The mechanisms of Perception. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul. Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational technology, (31) 10, 19-21 Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980. Papert, S. (1993) The Children’s Machine. New York: Basic Books. Poole, D. M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33 (2), 162-177 Papert, S. (1993). The Childrens Machine, Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer Retrieved on 16 March 2009 from: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/papert.html Reeves, T. C. & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the world wide web. In Badrul H. Khan (Eds.). Web-Based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Schreiber, D. A. (1998). How to Maximize Use of Technology and Institutionalize Distance Learning Efforts. 14 th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. August 5-7. Marriott, Madison West, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin System. Salomon, G. (1997) Novel Constructivist Learning Environments and Novel Technologies: Some Issues to Be Concerned With. Invited Key note Address presented at the EARLI meeting, Athens, August Salomon, G. (1998). Novel Constructivist Learning Environments and Novel Technologies: Some Issues to Be Concerned With. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, (1), 1, 3-12. Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds),Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 2002. Retrieved on 16 March 2009 from: http://www.kent.edu/rcet/publications/upload/constructivist%20theory.pdf Tobias, S. (1991). An electic examination of some issues in the constructivist-ISD controversy. Educational technology, (31) 10, 41-43. Twigg, C. (2000) Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference. The Pew Learning and Technology Program. http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono4.html Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Transl. and ed. A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Originally published in Russian in 1934.) Wadsworth, B. (1978). Piaget for the classroom teacher. New York, NY: Longman Walther, J. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21(4), 460-487. Read More