Workshop 3: The Role of Constructivism in the Coming Decade

Workshop 3: The Role of Constructivism in the Coming Decade

Coordinator–Maria Groves

Elaborator –Selwa Alkadhi

Explorer – Li Fang Wang

Explorer – Yaniv Oded

Recorder – Robin McMullen

Some experts trace beginnings of Constructivist thought to classical antiquity and the Socratic method (Brooks, 2004)

The writings of philosopher Immanuel Kant (1997; 1998) and of developmental theorist Jean Piaget (1995) provide theoretical foundations for the Constructivist philosophy

A cornerstone of Constructivism is Vygotsky’s (1997) theory of the ‘zone of proximal development’

7/3/2008 National Association of Training Executives

3

Objectivism/Positivism

Transfer knowledge from outside to inside the learner

Arrange conditions to promote specific goals

Pre-design knowledge externally

Teacher directs; learner receives

Learner produces; teacher assesses

Constructivism/Relativism

Learner constructs own knowledge with guidance

Arrange conditions to promote construction of meaning

Construct knowledge internally

Teacher facilitates; learner controls

Learner constructs; assessment contextual


4

Views learning as a social, collaborative endeavor(Phillips, 2006)

Scaffolds learning by building on existing knowledge (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996)

Acknowledges learner as an independent agent (Phillips, 2006)

Focuses on learning process as well as outcomes (Reiser & Dempsy, 2007)

Adapts to learners, cultures, environments, resources (Brooks, 2004)


5

Encourages critical thinking (Brooks, 2004)

Sets the stage for development of higher order cognitive skills (Brooks, 2004), i.e., analysis, synthesis, evaluation

Builds collaboration skills (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996), e.g., communication, negotiation

Empowers learners by giving them ownership of their learning (Brooks, 2004)

7/3/2008 6National Association of Training Executives

Learners want and need active guidance

Positioning the teacher as ‘collaborator’ deprives learners of the benefits of the teacher’s superior training and experience

Collaborative learning may suffice for learners within one standard deviation of the mean; it does not well serve learners whose abilities fall in the two tails of the distribution

Faster learners have limited opportunity to acquire new knowledge; they’re too busy teaching classmates what they, themselves have already learned

Slower learners need help from a trained, professional teacher, not a colleague or a collaborator.


7

Does not facilitate learning what to learn

May be inadequate preparation for the real world, in which what one knows is more important than how one learned it

Psychomotor skills don’t fit the model; learners must not decide for themselves how to fly an airplane or do CPR

Taken to its postmodern conclusion, leaves the existence of objective reality open to question. Nevertheless, 2 + 2 = 4 in all cases; objective reality exists and learners need a certain set of knowledge to cope with it effectively.

Absence of objective assessment guarantees that Constructivism’s shortcomings cannot be empirically evaluated; the Constructivist classroom is a perpetual, undocumented experiment from which only anecdotal evidence can be gleaned


8

Enriching the environment to facilitate each individual learner’s personal construction of the knowledge that each chooses to acquire costs money and takes time; nor is it clear that such enrichment is even possible

Evolving and describing context takes time

Collaboration takes time

Experimentation takes time

Compensating for documented shortfall in basic skills (Brooks, 2004) costs money and time

Critical periods for acquiring basic skills may be missed, in which case those skills are never fully developed


Objectivism Constructivism Integration

Teacher is authority

Teacher and learner are colleagues

Teacher provides information, consciously engages learners

Objective standards

Contextual constructs

Objective standards, sensitive to context

Transfer knowledge

Build knowledge Build on transferred knowledge

Pre-design knowledge

Construct knowledge on the spot

Deepen knowledge via guided exploration

Teacher directs Learner controls Teacher presents content & facilitates learner synthesis

Learner produces

Learner constructs

Learner produces assessable evidence of mastery and construction


Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers Bridge to Constructivism. Clearing House, 75(3), 118.

Brooks, J. G., Matsuoka, B. M., & Doyle, A. (2004). Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Concept to Classroom: A Series of Workshops Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.13.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research of Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: McMillan Library Reference USA.

Kant, I. (Ed.). (1997). Critique of Practical Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. (Ed.). (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, D. (2006). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism. Philosophy of Education: An Anthology.

Piaget, J. (Ed.). (1995). Sociological Studies. New York: Routledge.

Prefume, Y. (2007). Constructivism in foreign language learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11(1), 5.

Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2007). Constructivism and Instructional Design: The Emergence of the Learning Sciences and Design Research. Columbus, OH: Pearson Education.

Vygotsky, L. S., Rieber, R. W., & Hall, M. J. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions. New York, NY, US: Plenum Press.


11

Documents

Workshop 3: The Role of Constructivism in the Coming Decade