In order to design instruction for learners in today’s world,
educators must ask themselves what skills are needed to be contributing
members in the real world. Modern society is moving into an age where
workers need to be problem solvers, decision makers, and creative thinkers
(Tishman, Perkins, & Jay, 1995). The current educational system,
which is largely based on behaviorist principles, is in the business
of offering knowledge to students who may or may not acquire the knowledge.
The result is inert knowledge. While the acquisition of skills is a necessary
part of education, it is generally agreed that behaviorism doesn’t
lead to the acquisition of higher level thinking skills (Ertmer & Newby,
1999). The belief in constructivism that has developed over the last
several decades offers new understandings of how learners learn and subsequently,
suggests how designers can design within these new theories of learning.
More importantly, the use of strategies based on constructivist principles
promotes problem solving, decision making and creative thinking skills.
Designing learning opportunities based on constructivist beliefs may
be the way educators can prepare students for future employment.
Constructivism emerged on the heels of the learning theory debate that
occurred in the 1950’s between those who believed learning is related to behavioral
responses and those who believed that cognitive processes are involved. With
educational and instructional design systems solidly rooted in behaviorist
principles, which suited learning in an industrial world, it is not surprising
that the debate continues today. However, with the factory way of life along
with standardization and synchronization slowly disappearing, an understanding
and application of constructivist beliefs that prepare learners for the changes
that are occurring is necessary.
Learning that occurs according to constructivist principles results in
the types of knowledge needed in the modern work place. According to
constructivist
beliefs, the learner creates meaning from his or her own experience rather
than acquiring it (Ertmer & Newby, 1999). The process of knowledge construction
for an individual is related to prior experience, mental structures, and beliefs
about how experiences are interpreted (Jonassen, 1991). Culture therefore,
becomes very important. It is the culture that determines what is important
and therefore, learning is the result of changes in a learner’s relationship
to a culture rather than changes in behavior. Learning occurs when the knowledge
is embedded within the context in which it is used. Constructivist learning
environments recognize that as each individual learner creates meanings, multiple
perspectives arise. Negotiating through different perspectives, leads to flexible
and multifaceted thinking skills (Jonassen & Land, 2000). To learn in a
constructivist environment means learning to learn, to inquire, to evaluate,
to strategize, and to have self awareness. Self awareness is an important part
of the process as Duffy and Cunningham (1996, p. 182) state, “Human reflection
is the key to understanding and creating anew a world in which we coexist with
others.” Although constructivist beliefs lie in the notion that learner’s
are responsible for their reflections and constructions of meaning, an environment
needs to be created in order for learners to learn to make these construction.
While constructivist learning environments are learner centered, the
role of the educator is to design opportunities for these constructions
to be made.
For a designer of learning opportunities this means an emphasis on activities
that use the knowledge within the context of the culture. As research developed
in the study of constructivism, so did the pedagogical models based on constructivist
principles. Heeding Jonassen’s (1991, p.13) advice to “consider
the learning and the context prior to choosing a model” is wise in light
of the fact that many models now exist but have subtle differences which must
be considered in order for learning to occur. These models include situated
learning, problem-based learning, cognitive flexibility hypertext, communities
of practice, microworlds and cognitive apprenticeships, just to name a few.
An understanding of the learning strategies that are characteristic to each
can assist a designer in choosing the appropriate model for the learning situation.
What these models do have in common is use of an authentic problem and the
promotion of problem solving, decision making, and creative thinking, which
makes the use of these models not only educationally valuable but useful in
preparing the new work force.
For teaching in constructivist environments certain structures need to
be in place in order to facilitate the construction of meaning. Scaffolding,
collaboration,
coaching and authentic problems all support the growth of the learner (Duffy & Cunningham,
1996). These structures provide new roles for teachers and require knowledge
of constructive models and assessment techniques in order to insure that student
learning occurs.
A glance at today’s educational system, however, does not reveal a great
use of these models in the classroom. With its roots embedded in behaviorist
beliefs, the modern educational system finds constructivist ideas challenging.
It is possible that because assessment in a constructivist learning environment
calls for alternative methods that don’t mesh with the current system
of standardized testing and grade-level benchmarks, critics find it too difficult
to implement. The assessments in constructivist learning environments allow
for multiple perspectives whereas standardized testing only allows for one.
It may also be that evidence of learning in a constructivist environment is
not widely seen. In most cases schools do not offer learners the opportunity
to apply knowledge in different contexts and therefore the results of constructivists
learning opportunities aren’t seen. Designing and implementing a constructivist
learning environment takes time and until the current educational system allows
for this, teachers are left to use old practices which fit better into the
current educational structure.
The ideas of constructivism seem to be held by many but practiced by
few. Teacher training programs may teach constructivist principles
to be used in the classroom,
but a model must be present in order for these new teachers to construct their
own meanings and apply what they learned in their practice. The same is true
for continued teacher education through district sponsored staff development
programs. Too often the knowledge of an innovation is given to the teachers,
who passively acquire it in the same behaviorist fashion as students acquire
knowledge. How can we expect teachers to use constructivist principles in their
practice when they haven’t had the opportunity to construct their own
meanings about these beliefs? Believers in constructivism are not going to
change the entire educational system; however, these advocates must be creative
in finding ways to weave constructivist ideas into the existing system.
The answer may be found in the use of cognitive apprenticeship with teachers
for modeling constructivist ideas. Apprenticeships have been used throughout
history and are a familiar concept. After all, a current hit television program
is called Apprentice not Cognitive Flexibility Hypertexts. This is not to say
that cognitive flexibility hypertext has no place within the educational environment,
but in order to begin a process of integrating constructivist ideas into the
educational system, a model based on apprenticeship may be more accepted to
those without knowledge of constructivist models. The focus in cognitive apprenticeship
becomes the development of cognitive skills rather than job skills for which
apprenticeships are traditionally known. Support structures that are traditionally
found in job apprenticeships apply to cognitive apprenticeships as well. Modeling
strategies, coaching students through authentic activities, and empowering
students as independent learners are instructional strategy characteristics
of cognitive apprenticeships (Brown, Collin, & Duguid, 1989).
The prototype course, Teachers as Moderators, offered by the School Based
Technology Specialists is designed using the cognitive apprenticeship
model, and therefore
based on constructivist beliefs. This design allows the teachers to have a
model of a constructivist learning environment. It teaches teachers to use
the course management system Blackboard in a way not previously used in the
school system and upon completion of the course, teachers should have evidence
of learning to be effective moderators and an indication that constructivist
learning environments do result in learning.
Characteristics of the prototype which align with constructivist principles
include mentoring, modeling, coaching, scaffolding, exploring, articulating,
and reflecting all in situated in an authentic learning problem. In addition
to guiding the learners through the course, the mentor has the ability to provide
feedback and scaffolding through on-going discussion that is built into the
course. Learners explore the resources in the course and are able to construct
their own meanings. The discussion board forums allow for social negotiation
of concepts and the sharing of multiple perspectives among learners while the
email feature provides a means of sharing thoughts and reflections with mentors.
Reflection points throughout the course also align with the principles of constructivism.
In addition, the mentors work with learners to make connections to their practice
as a part of the reflection process. As Dennen (n.d., p.822) reports, “providing
students with help oriented toward making connections with material and conceptual
support rather than answers is a useful form of scaffolding.” Embedding
the learning in an authentic situation allows the learners to use their knowledge
in the context of the culture and provides them with a model for using Blackboard
discussion forums with their students to advance learning.
The application of this prototype in other domains is very feasible.
As a product of the course, teachers design a unit which integrates
Blackboard discussion
forums into a lesson for classroom use. By following the model presented
to them in the course, teachers can offer the same experience to
their students,
modeling for them appropriate uses of discussion forums and online communications.
In addition, other course content can be substituted into the model. Technology
staff development in the district is currently done in face to face meetings.
Offering the traditional technology competency training using the model presented
in the prototype allows teachers to attend flexible training sessions from
home. In addition, teachers will continue to learn in a constructivist learning
environment, possibly creating a habit of mind for teaching and learning
through cognitive apprenticeship. The future of using these types
of models in K-12
environments is uncertain (Dennen, n.d.), however, the prototype shows how
constructivist beliefs can be woven into educational environments without
disrupting the current climate.
References
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts,
strategies, and application. New Jersey: Pearson.
Dennen, V.P. (n.d.). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice:
Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional
strategies, Florida State University.
Duffy, T. & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: implications for
the design and delivery of instruction. Handbook of Research for Educational
Communications and Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster, Macmillan.
Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism:
Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need
a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development,
39, 5-14.
Jonassen, D. H. & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical Foundations of
Learning Environments. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom.
MA: Allen &Bacon.
|
