schmitty2407
New member
Constructivism
Life is characterized by unpredictable situations and limitless possibilities both vast and widespread, so ultimately students should be able to apply what they learn in school to any circumstances, whether it be life in general or specifically, their workplace. Traditionally the transmissive approach to teaching and learning involving the transfer of information from teacher to student and commonly referred to as the ‘empty vessel’ approach, has been the dominant approach to student learning (Dawson, 1998). In recent years science educators have employed a model termed constructivism to help understand and facilitate student learning. Indeed this model of teaching is helpful but by no means is it ideal. In order to make an informed judgement concerning the what method of teaching to adopt in the future one must first understand the notion of constructivism, the role of the teacher in a contructivist classroom and misconceptions about this learning approach.
What is Constructivisim?
Fraser and Walberg (1995) state that constructivism considers knowledge of the world outside as human construction, although a reality outside the individual is not denied it is claimed that all we know about reality is our own tentative construction. Trowbridge (1996) relates this general view of constructivism to teaching by adding that constructivism is a model of teaching in which students construct knowledge by interpreting new experiences in the context of prior knowledge, experiences, episodes and images. Thus, as suggested by Kelly (1995),a constructivist approach to learning does not view learning as the transfer of knowledge to the learner, but rather an active construction of knowledge by the learner. For these reasons it can be concluded that constructivism encompasses ‘the learner’ who constructs his or her knowledge on the basis of knowledge already held.
Predominantly it is the Ausubelian theory, suggested by David Ausbel, that provides the theoretical basis for constructivism (Throwbridge,1996). In essence the Ausubelian theory encompasses that a students prior knowledge is an important factor in determining active learning in a given situation (Throwbridge,1996).
Poole (1995) mentions that many forms of constructivism have been suggested and adopted by both educators and philosophers, however radical constructivism (Glaserfield, 1993) and social constructivism (Solomon, 1987) seem to be the two dominant forms of constructivism in concern to teaching. Radical constructivism unlike the transmissive approach to teaching described by Dawson (1998), is not simply the transfer of knowledge through passive means of the senses and communication i.e. "talk and chalk", it is characterised by the active construction or building by the individual. Knowledge itself, does not exist as a independent entity from a individual and it is the social interactions between learners that strongly influences the construction of knowledge by an individual (Glasersfeld, 1995). Perhaps most predominantly, radical constructivism views the role of cognition as to make sense or meaning of their world rather then purely relying on discovery.
On the other hand Gergen (1995), Staver(1998) and particularly Vygotsky (1978) discuss social constructivism. As opposed to radical constructivism, social constructivism is primarily concerned with the use of language as a medium in the building of meaning. Social constructivists view social interchange as the primary means by which knowledge is constructed. They also see social interdependence as the mechanism humans utilise to obtain meaning, and that these meanings are dependent upon the context of the social interdependence.
Philips (1995) argues that any defensible epistemology, such as constructivism, must acknowledge that nature exerts considerable constraint over our knowledge-constructing activities, thus allowing us to both detect and reject our own personal misconceptions concerning it. This point of view, as demonstrated by Philips (1995), allows the operation of our knowledge constructing communities, and in turn grants the inclusion and the empowerment of long-silenced voices. Also a social constituent to the construction of knowledge, the process of constructing meaning, is always erabedded in a particular social setting of which the individual is a part (Poole,1995).
Chin-chung Tsai (1998) in his article, Science Learning and Constructivism, highlights the fact that there is no clear distinction between our observations and involved theory and for this reason our theory usually precedes what we perceive. Does this indeed suggest that self directed learning is beneficial to students or that the influence of students’ current conceptions on their observations of experiments, demonstrations and the comprehension involved in the analysis of both science texts and lesson material, in turn may confuse and mislead students in relation to both new and prior knowledge?
Classroom Implications
If a teacher asks a question and a student attempts to understand it, the understanding they develop is from their perspective and on the basis of the conceptions they hold. Thus if these conceptions are different to that of the teachers, which is commonly the case, the students make sense and answer the question in a different way to the teacher. As a consequence of this process the answer given is interpreted by the teacher from their own point of view. Hence an endless circle of misunderstanding between teachers and students occurs in such communication situations. i.e. neither the teacher or student can be sure if they understand each other.
As demonstrated previously, what a teacher suggests is a wrong answer in many incidents can actually be the students construction on the basis of their own conceptions. Therefore, as constructivism suggests, teachers must be aware that students tend to argue from a vantage point that is different from the teachers (Fraser and Walberg, 1995).
A constructivist teacher believes that students themselves must be active participants in asserabling knowledge into a structured form and not receiving it ready made (Dawson, 1998). Ideally students are both encouraged and required to generate new ideas, identify what is to be explained and suggest hypotheses and tests to achieve this, to criticise results and search for alternatives.
Disputable Nature of Constructivism Approaches
Attractive as it may be, constructivist theory becomes problematic when this approach is adopted with the wrong intentions. Fraser and Walberg (1995) argue that a constructivist view can facilitate understanding of science content in a much more appropriate way then traditional approaches whereas Dawson (1998) states that the key to constructivism is the mental engagement of students and that laboratory and field work, the ways of the old, are only of benefit if they are approached with the intention to engage students mental processes. In theory constructivism seems an ideal method to adopt when the issue of learning is considered, however Cobb (1988) highlights a valid observation that deep-rooted problems begin to arise when attempts are made to apply a constructivist approach in relation to instruction.
Zevenbergen (1996) discusses the practicality of a constructivist approach to teaching. The question that Zevenbergen (1996) raises is , how can a teacher realistically implement a pedagogy that values individualistic learning when there are thirty students in the classroom and behavior management is an issue? Dawson (1998) suggests that in the case where a teacher is able to cater for thirty individual learners the successful achievement of learning outcomes is then dependent on the students motivation. Realistically, one can not expect every student in a classroom to have a burning passion to learn, not to mention that generally a classroom consists of many individuals with a broad range of ability. Thus if motivation is completely based on intrinsic interest, a teacher is then expected to present a wide range of material at just the right level for each individual.
Finally the most prominent and relevant problem that arises with the discussion of constructivism is the attainment of social obligations and the implementation of curriculum that contains institutionalised knowledge (Zevenbergen, 1996). Basically the problem arises with the tension between the encouragement of students to build on their current knowledge and the initiation of these students into the society. Institutional constraints force teachers to make choices in regarRAB to activities and consequently influence the type of learning that will occur. This pressure can result in a ‘constructivist’ teacher that expects students to construct an institutionalised solution rather then a facilitator that fosters’ student understanding as the result of students own construction.
Successful Implementation
Driver(1988) describes construction as a process in which students usually become aware of their own and others perceptions. During reconstruction students ideas can be clarified, challenged and exchanged through discussions with teachers or other students. The teacher can promote conceptual conflict through the use of disconfirming experiment or demonstration to further challenge students perceptions. It has been demonstrated that this learning theory is supported by many, but problems arise with the implementation by educators. Therefore I believe, as a pre-service teacher, that the method I would adopt in a classroom would involve the a mixture of both the transmissive and constructivist approach.
To be solely a constructivist teacher would mean that one would have to contend with the problems highlighted earlier and additional problems, not so obvious such as time constraints and the fact that students may be unable to see the differences between their view and the new view. Also some students, mainly younger ones would prefer to know the right answer and than play around with ideas. On the other hand, the adoption of a solely transmissive approach would sacrifice many valuable learning experiences from students and not allow them to even attempt to learn via construction. To solve this problem a corabination of these two learning styles could be adopted.
The problems highlighted previously involving constructivism include this approach in relation to instruction, motivation of students, social obligations and time constraints. During my professional development I wish to adopt a method that is a corabination of both transmission and construction so that these problems may be addressed. To do this I must make a conscious effort to stress active learning rater then rote learning, emphasis the importance of the social milieu within which learning takes place and make informed judgements about student understanding and their current conceptual schemes. As a result, my classroom will encompasses a corabination of active self directed learning in a teacher directed environment, and a teacher who does not exist purely as a constructivist entity and is aware that the adoption of this method may sometimes actually disadvantage their students.
References
Chin-Chung Tsai (1998) Science Learning and Constructivism; national Chiao Tung University; James Nicholas Publications.
Cobb, P. (1988) The tension between Theories of Learning and Instruction in Mathematics Education; Education Psychologist; vol 23
Dawson,C.(1998) Science Teaching in the Secondary School; Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Ltd; Melbourne; Australia
Driver, R. (1988) Theory into practice II: A constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development; Falmer Press, London.
Fraser, B. and Walberg,H. (1995) Improving Science Education; University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois
Gergan, K. (1995) Social construction and the Educational Process : Constructivism in Education; Hillsdale, NJ; Lawerence Earlbaum Associates.
Glasersfeld, E. (1995) Radical Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning ; Washington, DC; Falmer Press.
Kelly, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, vol 1; Norton;New York
Phillips, D.(1995) The good, the Bad and the Ugly: The many Faces of Constructivism; Educational Researcher, Vol 24, No. 7 0
Poole, M (1995) Beliefs and Values in Science Education; Open University Press; Great Britain.
Starver, J. (1998) Constructivism : Sound Theory For Explicating the Practice of Science Teaching; National Association for science teaching (NARST); San Diego, CA.
Trowbridge, L. (1996) Teaching Secondary School Science: strategies for developing scientific literacy; Prestige Hall, USA.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society : The development of higher psychological processes; Harvard University Press; Carabridge MA.
Zevenbergen (1996) Constructivism in the Classroom; Dekin University; Open University Press.
Life is characterized by unpredictable situations and limitless possibilities both vast and widespread, so ultimately students should be able to apply what they learn in school to any circumstances, whether it be life in general or specifically, their workplace. Traditionally the transmissive approach to teaching and learning involving the transfer of information from teacher to student and commonly referred to as the ‘empty vessel’ approach, has been the dominant approach to student learning (Dawson, 1998). In recent years science educators have employed a model termed constructivism to help understand and facilitate student learning. Indeed this model of teaching is helpful but by no means is it ideal. In order to make an informed judgement concerning the what method of teaching to adopt in the future one must first understand the notion of constructivism, the role of the teacher in a contructivist classroom and misconceptions about this learning approach.
What is Constructivisim?
Fraser and Walberg (1995) state that constructivism considers knowledge of the world outside as human construction, although a reality outside the individual is not denied it is claimed that all we know about reality is our own tentative construction. Trowbridge (1996) relates this general view of constructivism to teaching by adding that constructivism is a model of teaching in which students construct knowledge by interpreting new experiences in the context of prior knowledge, experiences, episodes and images. Thus, as suggested by Kelly (1995),a constructivist approach to learning does not view learning as the transfer of knowledge to the learner, but rather an active construction of knowledge by the learner. For these reasons it can be concluded that constructivism encompasses ‘the learner’ who constructs his or her knowledge on the basis of knowledge already held.
Predominantly it is the Ausubelian theory, suggested by David Ausbel, that provides the theoretical basis for constructivism (Throwbridge,1996). In essence the Ausubelian theory encompasses that a students prior knowledge is an important factor in determining active learning in a given situation (Throwbridge,1996).
Poole (1995) mentions that many forms of constructivism have been suggested and adopted by both educators and philosophers, however radical constructivism (Glaserfield, 1993) and social constructivism (Solomon, 1987) seem to be the two dominant forms of constructivism in concern to teaching. Radical constructivism unlike the transmissive approach to teaching described by Dawson (1998), is not simply the transfer of knowledge through passive means of the senses and communication i.e. "talk and chalk", it is characterised by the active construction or building by the individual. Knowledge itself, does not exist as a independent entity from a individual and it is the social interactions between learners that strongly influences the construction of knowledge by an individual (Glasersfeld, 1995). Perhaps most predominantly, radical constructivism views the role of cognition as to make sense or meaning of their world rather then purely relying on discovery.
On the other hand Gergen (1995), Staver(1998) and particularly Vygotsky (1978) discuss social constructivism. As opposed to radical constructivism, social constructivism is primarily concerned with the use of language as a medium in the building of meaning. Social constructivists view social interchange as the primary means by which knowledge is constructed. They also see social interdependence as the mechanism humans utilise to obtain meaning, and that these meanings are dependent upon the context of the social interdependence.
Philips (1995) argues that any defensible epistemology, such as constructivism, must acknowledge that nature exerts considerable constraint over our knowledge-constructing activities, thus allowing us to both detect and reject our own personal misconceptions concerning it. This point of view, as demonstrated by Philips (1995), allows the operation of our knowledge constructing communities, and in turn grants the inclusion and the empowerment of long-silenced voices. Also a social constituent to the construction of knowledge, the process of constructing meaning, is always erabedded in a particular social setting of which the individual is a part (Poole,1995).
Chin-chung Tsai (1998) in his article, Science Learning and Constructivism, highlights the fact that there is no clear distinction between our observations and involved theory and for this reason our theory usually precedes what we perceive. Does this indeed suggest that self directed learning is beneficial to students or that the influence of students’ current conceptions on their observations of experiments, demonstrations and the comprehension involved in the analysis of both science texts and lesson material, in turn may confuse and mislead students in relation to both new and prior knowledge?
Classroom Implications
If a teacher asks a question and a student attempts to understand it, the understanding they develop is from their perspective and on the basis of the conceptions they hold. Thus if these conceptions are different to that of the teachers, which is commonly the case, the students make sense and answer the question in a different way to the teacher. As a consequence of this process the answer given is interpreted by the teacher from their own point of view. Hence an endless circle of misunderstanding between teachers and students occurs in such communication situations. i.e. neither the teacher or student can be sure if they understand each other.
As demonstrated previously, what a teacher suggests is a wrong answer in many incidents can actually be the students construction on the basis of their own conceptions. Therefore, as constructivism suggests, teachers must be aware that students tend to argue from a vantage point that is different from the teachers (Fraser and Walberg, 1995).
A constructivist teacher believes that students themselves must be active participants in asserabling knowledge into a structured form and not receiving it ready made (Dawson, 1998). Ideally students are both encouraged and required to generate new ideas, identify what is to be explained and suggest hypotheses and tests to achieve this, to criticise results and search for alternatives.
Disputable Nature of Constructivism Approaches
Attractive as it may be, constructivist theory becomes problematic when this approach is adopted with the wrong intentions. Fraser and Walberg (1995) argue that a constructivist view can facilitate understanding of science content in a much more appropriate way then traditional approaches whereas Dawson (1998) states that the key to constructivism is the mental engagement of students and that laboratory and field work, the ways of the old, are only of benefit if they are approached with the intention to engage students mental processes. In theory constructivism seems an ideal method to adopt when the issue of learning is considered, however Cobb (1988) highlights a valid observation that deep-rooted problems begin to arise when attempts are made to apply a constructivist approach in relation to instruction.
Zevenbergen (1996) discusses the practicality of a constructivist approach to teaching. The question that Zevenbergen (1996) raises is , how can a teacher realistically implement a pedagogy that values individualistic learning when there are thirty students in the classroom and behavior management is an issue? Dawson (1998) suggests that in the case where a teacher is able to cater for thirty individual learners the successful achievement of learning outcomes is then dependent on the students motivation. Realistically, one can not expect every student in a classroom to have a burning passion to learn, not to mention that generally a classroom consists of many individuals with a broad range of ability. Thus if motivation is completely based on intrinsic interest, a teacher is then expected to present a wide range of material at just the right level for each individual.
Finally the most prominent and relevant problem that arises with the discussion of constructivism is the attainment of social obligations and the implementation of curriculum that contains institutionalised knowledge (Zevenbergen, 1996). Basically the problem arises with the tension between the encouragement of students to build on their current knowledge and the initiation of these students into the society. Institutional constraints force teachers to make choices in regarRAB to activities and consequently influence the type of learning that will occur. This pressure can result in a ‘constructivist’ teacher that expects students to construct an institutionalised solution rather then a facilitator that fosters’ student understanding as the result of students own construction.
Successful Implementation
Driver(1988) describes construction as a process in which students usually become aware of their own and others perceptions. During reconstruction students ideas can be clarified, challenged and exchanged through discussions with teachers or other students. The teacher can promote conceptual conflict through the use of disconfirming experiment or demonstration to further challenge students perceptions. It has been demonstrated that this learning theory is supported by many, but problems arise with the implementation by educators. Therefore I believe, as a pre-service teacher, that the method I would adopt in a classroom would involve the a mixture of both the transmissive and constructivist approach.
To be solely a constructivist teacher would mean that one would have to contend with the problems highlighted earlier and additional problems, not so obvious such as time constraints and the fact that students may be unable to see the differences between their view and the new view. Also some students, mainly younger ones would prefer to know the right answer and than play around with ideas. On the other hand, the adoption of a solely transmissive approach would sacrifice many valuable learning experiences from students and not allow them to even attempt to learn via construction. To solve this problem a corabination of these two learning styles could be adopted.
The problems highlighted previously involving constructivism include this approach in relation to instruction, motivation of students, social obligations and time constraints. During my professional development I wish to adopt a method that is a corabination of both transmission and construction so that these problems may be addressed. To do this I must make a conscious effort to stress active learning rater then rote learning, emphasis the importance of the social milieu within which learning takes place and make informed judgements about student understanding and their current conceptual schemes. As a result, my classroom will encompasses a corabination of active self directed learning in a teacher directed environment, and a teacher who does not exist purely as a constructivist entity and is aware that the adoption of this method may sometimes actually disadvantage their students.
References
Chin-Chung Tsai (1998) Science Learning and Constructivism; national Chiao Tung University; James Nicholas Publications.
Cobb, P. (1988) The tension between Theories of Learning and Instruction in Mathematics Education; Education Psychologist; vol 23
Dawson,C.(1998) Science Teaching in the Secondary School; Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Ltd; Melbourne; Australia
Driver, R. (1988) Theory into practice II: A constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development; Falmer Press, London.
Fraser, B. and Walberg,H. (1995) Improving Science Education; University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois
Gergan, K. (1995) Social construction and the Educational Process : Constructivism in Education; Hillsdale, NJ; Lawerence Earlbaum Associates.
Glasersfeld, E. (1995) Radical Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning ; Washington, DC; Falmer Press.
Kelly, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, vol 1; Norton;New York
Phillips, D.(1995) The good, the Bad and the Ugly: The many Faces of Constructivism; Educational Researcher, Vol 24, No. 7 0
Poole, M (1995) Beliefs and Values in Science Education; Open University Press; Great Britain.
Starver, J. (1998) Constructivism : Sound Theory For Explicating the Practice of Science Teaching; National Association for science teaching (NARST); San Diego, CA.
Trowbridge, L. (1996) Teaching Secondary School Science: strategies for developing scientific literacy; Prestige Hall, USA.
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society : The development of higher psychological processes; Harvard University Press; Carabridge MA.
Zevenbergen (1996) Constructivism in the Classroom; Dekin University; Open University Press.