|
The core tenet of constructivism is that people 'will make their own sense
of the ideas and theories with which they are presented in ways that are
personal to them … [and that] ... each individual constructs his or her
own reality' (Williams and Burden, 1997: 2).
By and large, constructivism rests on the notion that we operate with
mental representations of the world which form our knowledge, and which
change as we learn. This view indicates that all learning involves
relearning, reorganisation in one's prior representations of the world: 'there
is no intellectual growth without some reconstruction, some reworking'
(Dewey, 1991: 64).
As with most things, constructivism isn't new. In Piaget's work, mental
representation or construction is the means by which we internalise
knowledge and perceive the world. That explains why Piaget called upon
teachers to treat children as active participants in learning, not just
empty vessels to be filled with the teacher's knowledge. Vygotsky also
believed that students were not mere passive recipients of knowledge but
active subjects who learn best in their "zone of proximal development" -
where they can, with appropriate guidance and through socially mediated
interaction, learn more than they would on their own. Piaget and Vygotsky
differ in the extent to which each emphasizes social context. The former
stresses the importance of individual cognitive development as a
relatively solitary act. For him, biological timetables and stages of
development are primary while social interaction only triggers development
at the right moment in time. In opposition, Vygotsky maintains that social
interaction is basic in cognitive development and rejects the notion of
predetermined stages.
Alongside Piaget and Vygotsky, John Dewey posits that learning is an
active process whereby opportunities are created for experiential learning.
Since for Dewey learning comes through experience, learners should be
gathering and analyzing data and demonstrating their knowledge in a
tangible way. Recent research seems to validate the concept that people
use past knowledge and experience to help provide a structure for new
ideas, and that people interpret new information based on their previous
knowledge and experience. In other words, we create meaning for ourselves,
we don't incorporate it wholesale from others.
While giving Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey their due, we have to say that it
is only in the last part of the 20th century that constructivism emerges
as a prevailing paradigm which makes a strong case for the view that all
human beings construct their own version of reality, and therefore
multiple contrasting ways of knowing and describing are equally legitimate.
In terms of learning cycle, a constructivist view has a direct bearing on
the Interact project in that it entails (a) filtering new information
according to expectations and existing knowledge of the world; (b)
constructing the meaning of the input; and (c) matching this meaning with
prior internal representations relevant to the input.
These stages are replicated in the Interact simulations where learners
actively construct and test their own representations of the world and
then fit them into a personal framework. In general, new inputs and
experiences may affect learners’ construction of the world in two
different ways. If they interpret the input to fit with their existing
knowledge, then they are engaged in assimilation. If they revise their
knowledge to take the input into account, then they are involved in
accommodation. Therefore, change occurs as they accommodate new
information, as confirmed or challenged by their interactions with other
people.
What needs emphasizing time and again is the dynamic nature of the
interplay between learners and their peers on one hand and their tutors
and others with whom they interact, on the other. It becomes self-evident,
then, that the interpersonal context in which a learner operates takes on
great significance, and therefore, the interaction between learners and
others becomes the focus of observation and explanation.
In the frame of Interact, before the simulations, each learner has
distinctive, complex conceptual schemata relating to ways of acquiring new
content. Although significant individual differences in these conceptual
schemata are to be expected, large areas of commonality may also exist
through the embedding of these schemata within the ideologies of specific
contents. The conceptual schemata show a high degree of stability, but
gradual change can and has actually occurred through the acquisition of
new constructs and principles from instruction and experience.
Based on observation and reflection on the sequence of Interact
simulations, a number of conclusions emerged:
-
a constructivist
approach recognises the personal differences between learners;
-
learning resides in
the conceptual development which triggers behaviour change, not only in
the behaviour itself;
-
learners can learn by
developing their perceptions in addition to skill training;
-
feedback should focus
on the thinking and the perceptions of the learners, as well as their
actions;
-
models need to be used
for exemplification and analysis, and not merely for imitation.
The simulations served to strengthen our conviction that tutors have to
work from the personal theories which each learner brings along. In a
systemic approach, this in its turn justifies space in the curriculum to
develop self-awareness and also to explore each learner’s interpretations
of input and their own learning experiences.
Equally significant for the overall Interact experience, a constructivist
view confirms that the tutors’ perceptions and beliefs are progressively
reinforced by teaching experience, becoming increasingly central to their
view of themselves as they become more and more confident in meeting role
demands. More often than not, this is reflected in the ability of learners
to assimilate training inputs to conform to their prior beliefs. In some
cases, learners will unwittingly misinterpret the new ideas and translate
them to conform to their existing routines, at the same time believing
they are doing exactly what the tutor calls for. Unlike other approaches,
constructivism would not view learners as 'misinterpreting' inputs, but as
assimilating them, fitting them into their existing personal theories and
prior experience.
This tendency to assimilate inputs indicates the need to uncover learners'
implicit theories and beliefs in order to make them available for
conscious review: 'While tacit knowledge may be characteristic of many
things that teachers do, our obligation as educators must be to make the
tacit explicit' (Shulman, 1988: 33), a statement which aptly summarizes
the rationale of Interact in terms of tutors’ goals.
In retrospect, one thing is certain: constructivism provides a helpful
framework to understand personal change. It explains why 'each individual.
... learns different things in very different ways even when provided with
what seem to be very similar learning experiences' (Williams and Burden,
1997: 2). It also highlights the need for tutors to 'start where learners
are' before any attempt to bring about personal change.
The constructivist position has far-reaching implications for education
insofar as it shifts the focus away from "teaching" and toward "learning".
If education is to do with the facilitation of change and learning,
learning how to learn is more important than being taught something from
the superior vantage point of someone who unilaterally decides what shall
be taught. For that to happen, facilitators must first be real and
genuine, discarding masks of superiority and omniscience. Moreover, they
need to have genuine trust and acceptance, and prize the other person as a
worthy, valuable individual. In other words, they need to provide the
nurturing context for learners to construct their meanings in interaction
with others.
Without exception, every one of these aspects was clearly visible in the
Interact simulations where the contexts for interaction were carefully
designed with a view to creating the optimal environments and tasks for
input and interaction, thus stimulating learners to create their own
behaviour in a socially constructed process. Other equally important
constructivist principles, such as reflection, negotiated meaning,
facilitation, and trust, were all constitutive elements in the process.
To put it in a nutshell, the constructivist backbone of Interact was
obvious in that learners discussed things of interest to them, each person
was in control to the extent he or she wanted to be, the affective filter
was down, meaning derived from within, and scaffolding clearly took place
within the zone of proximal development that encompassed the Interact
community of practice. On top of that, when learners eventually put their
projects on a platform for people around the world to see, they did
something that goes beyond training and becomes real life.
References
Williams,M. and Burden,R. Psychology for Language Teachers. A Social
Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.
Dewey,J. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. In John Dewey: The Latter Works,
1925-1953, vol. 12. J. A. Boydston (ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.1991.
Shulman, Lee S. Fostering a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 1998
Louise McBee Lecture at the University of Georgia. Vol. 43, No. 2 Spring
2006.
|
