3o Years of English Language Teaching - Past, Present, and Your Future Paul Kawachi...

3o Years of English Language Teaching

- Past, Present, and Your Future

Paul Kawachi

[email protected]

CCRTVU Wuhan, 16 May 2009

1979 ~ 2009 :

- behaviourism- cognitivism- cognitive constructivism- social constructivism

- radical constructivism- constructionism- social constructionism

overview

behaviourism :

Teacher-centredTeacher gives stimulusStudent response is assessedTeacher adapts stimulus, and re-tests

There are two types ; -- intrinsic- extrinsic

cognitivism :

Teacher-sequenced inputs,

Response process (not product) is assessedConnections between parts – rather than whole

Teacher asks students to identify similarities or differences

cognitive constructivism :

Students are pre-tested to be put into streams

Teacher says the connections to be madebetween new information input and past prior knowledge

Open-ended questions to large classes or multiple-choice to individuals

social constructivism :

Pre-task awareness-raising, check there is adequate knowledgeor teacher as moderator –so then cooperative

Groups discuss concepts, ideas, not facts

Parts must be understood only in terms of the whole

radical constructivism :

Student-centredEach builds up own unique map of the world

Student’s mind changes to fit with experience

The outside world imposes constraintsbut mind acts within these constraints

Assess by problem-solving

constructionism :

Learning alone independently

Knowledge is in the ethereal interactionsnot constructivist in the world andnot cognitivist in the individual mind

Learning occurs through interacting with own imaginative projectionS

social constructionism :

Student learns through reflecting on own interactions with others

not from own experience, and not from other ideas

Diversity helps by enriching interactivity

Context-based ( not teacher- not student-based )

low

…

pr

ior

know

ledg

e …

hi

gh

low … task complexity … high

- - - b e h a v i o u r i s m - - -

- - -

- - - c o g n i t i v

i s m - - -

- - - - - -

c o g n i t i v i s m - -

- - - -

c o n s t r u c t i v i s m - - -

An online community of students studying together is often recommended. Why ?

First, let’s talk about the goals of education

and then we can see the role for social interactions online

Over all published reports, we can findthere are 5 Domains of Learning :

These 5 Domains or areas are :

- Cognitive knowledge and skills- Affective interest and love- Metacognitive satisfaction- Environment social aspects- Management coping with massive info

Following from Bloom’s Taxonomy,there are now 5 goals of education covering each of the 5 Domains :

- Cognitive- Affective- Metacognitive- Environment- Management

Let’s look at each of these, in turn . . .

- Cognitive knowledge and skills

This teaching and learning objective

involves increasing the student’s competence and proficiency

- Affective interest and love


involves initiating and developing the motivations to learn

- Metacognitive satisfaction


involves reflecting and self-awareness of achievements

- Environmental social aspects


involves building awareness, deploying a responsive team-spirit and fostering a learning community

- Management coping with massive info


involves the massive amounts of data now available ; determining the utility, the validities and the reliabilities of information, mastering necessary literacies including search,designing own learning, and designing research

From these, you can see why some teachershave looked at student satisfaction, or at building an online social community

- Cognitive knowledge and skills- Affective interest and love- Metacognitive satisfaction- Environment social aspects- Management coping with massive info

From these, you can see why some teachershave looked at student satisfaction, or at building an online social community

However, we should not think thatshort-term social interactions and satisfactioncan replace the need to acquire knowledge and critical thinking skillsfor lifelong learning

Now let’s look at Learning Models :

Then we can see how a frameworkor scaffold can be used in practiceto reason which kinds interactions

- cooperative or collaborative -

are needed, and timing for each kind

Dewey 1933 model :

1 imaginative suggestion of problem or solution

2 framing of perplexity and of the difficulty of the problem

3 use one suggestion after another to guide observation

4 Mental elaboration of an idea or supposition

5 testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action

Brookfield 1987 model :

1 a triggering event

2 an appraisal of the situation

3 an exploration to explain anomalies or discrepancies

4 developing alternative perspectives

5 Integration of alternatives in ways of thinking or living

Anderson 2007 model :

1 triggering event, recognizing problem or puzzlement

2 exploration, information exchange, brainstorming

3 integration, synthesis

4 resolution, apply, test, defend

Other models :

- Laurillard 1995 Conversation Model

- Grabinger & Dunlap 1995 Intentional Learning Model

- Dopper & Dijkman 1997 Action Learning Model

- Kearsley & Schneiderman 1998 Engagement Model

- Sfard 1998 Participation-Orientation Model

- Kawachi 2003 Transactional Distance Model

only Kawachi identifies and distinguishes cooperative and collaborative

What is the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning ?

What is the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning ?

Cooperative involves recycling old knowledge

Collaborative involves creating new knowledge

There are four distinct ways of learning

Learning-Alone Learning-in-a-Group

INDEPENDENT

Freedom

over content andmethod of learning

INDIVIDUAL

No Freedom

over content ormethod of learning

orpre-negotiated

freedom

INTERPERSONAL

COOPERATIVE COLLABORATIVE

CONNECTEDLEARNING

Group with a‘ knower ’

Group withno ‘ knower ’

1

23

4

56

Affirm

Elicit

Opinion

Requestunderstanding

Counter-opinion Confirm

collaborative interactions in practice

Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi 2003

This Model recognizes that learningstarts from what someone already knows through cooperative sharing,

and proceeds through collaborative reflectionabout new not-yet-learnt information

Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi 2003

1 elicit needs, sharing, brainstorming

2 rationalizing, theorizing, justifying

3 consider all possible alternatives, disjunctive thinking

4 test out new way, experiential, publish

decreasing

Transactional

Distance

1 S- D-

2 S+ D-

3 S+ D+

4 S- D+

Cooperative sharing old

Collaborative creative

Collaborative disjunctive

Cooperative experiential

Here we use the letters S and D to refer to :

S Structure : the educative structure imposed by the teacher, textbook or institution

D Dialogue : the educative guiding conversation ( not idle or social chat )

decreasing

Transactional

Distance

1 S- D-

2 S+ D-

3 S+ D+

4 S- D+





Stage 1 Cooperative

Stage 2Collaborative

Stage 4Cooperative


Stage 1

is characterized by cooperative sharing of prior old knowledge and prior experience,eliciting views, brainstorming and divergent thinking to gather various differentframes of context

Stage 2

is characterized by collaborative creation and discovery of new theory rationalizing and underlying prior knowledge, developing metaphors, horizontal and lateral thinking

Stage 3

is characterized by collaborative testing out of hypotheses to co-discover some new potential knowledge, problem solving, vertical and disjunctive thinking

Stage 4

is characterized by cooperative presenting new ideain real-life, experiential,personal meaning-making,social-constructivist,dissemination, reflecting, judging, publishing

decreasing

Transactional

Distance

1 S- D-

2 S+ D-

3 S+ D+

4 S- D+





Now the main points in thisTransactional Distance Model :

are that initially the student chats, ( not educatively, so here D- and without teaching tasks S- )to share own background, to reduce anxiety,and to become comfortable and able then to engage S+ reasoning


then the student explains to othersand must engage S+ reasoning

At this Stage 2, social interactions may be fun or desirable but is no longer needed


then the teacher engages ( D+ )and raises alternatives to be explored ( S+ ),

and finally the student tries out a new ideain her own context ( S- )with teaching guidance and assessment ( D+ )

This Transactional Distance Model

succeeds through bringing the student from not knowing ( greatest Transactional Distance )

to knowing something ( zero Transactional Distance )

Learning Transaction =requires 4 interactions

1 student’s prior knowledge and need are identified

2 the text or teacher gives an amount of information

3 the student outputs an own construction

4 the teacher or society confirms the meaning

Three encounters / passes are needed to ‘learn’

decreasing

Transactional

Distance

1 S- D-

2 S+ D-

3 S+ D+

4 S- D+





Four Categories in Transactional Distance Theory

less

Transactional

Distance

1 S- D-

2 S+ D-

3 S+ D+

4 S- D+

added

Structure

added

Dialogue

Now we have the scaffold or frameworkconsisting of the four distinct Stageson which to put theessential kinds of interactions

that we need to bring about learning, through reducing the Transactional Distance

Difficulties are reported in achieving Stage 3

Renner 1976 found only 81% of final-year law students in 2 law schools reached Stage 3

Piaget 1977 acknowledged many people never reached Formal Operations level Stage 3 even in adulthood

McKinnon 1976 found only 50% of college students at 7 colleges could reach Stage 3

Gunawardena 1997 and 2001 found in graduate students and teachersthat the Stage 3 “collaboration simply did not happen”

Meyer 2003 found only 29% of graduate students reached Stage 3and Anderson 2007 only 13% of two graduate courses

How do other theories such as constructivismfit with this Transactional Distance Model ?

Most theories each have their own special practice

Behaviorism, and objectivism each suitsthe cooperative Stage 1 plus Stage 4 While cognitive constructivism suits Stage 2and social constructivism suits Stage 3

Overall, constructionism suits the whole Modelinvolving all four stages in sequence

Let’s open up these points a little . . .

Stage 1 T input : behaviourismStage 4 T-moderated output : behaviourism Stage 1 + Stage 4 : behaviourismStage 2 Ss told connections : cognitivismStage 3 Ss discuss connections : constructivism

T or S knows : cooperativeso we lack collaborative – critical thinking skills so adopt constructionism

in constructionism . . .

Learning is wholly within the student’s mindthrough interactions ( as in Conversation Model )

diversity helps to achieve collaborative Stage 3so adopt Transactional Distance Model

Stage 1 Cooperative


Stage 4Cooperative


The Transactional Distance Model is perfectly suited to early school education

The initial stage involves cooperative sharing . . .This can be from the student herself ( best ) or from other students ( suits large classes )or any source ( teacher, textbook or internet )

Younger children might prefer doing some activitiesto generate own ideas to share with others

1 Each student first expresses her own ideas or own findings or experience

2 The teacher then asks students to express why they feel or think like they do

3 and then raises other new alternatives using a textbook or the internet

4 for the students to take away and try out themselves

The Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi underpinned by the widely accepted

- Conversation Theory : Holmberg 1983 , Grogono 1993, Laurillard 2002

- Transactional Distance Theory : Peters 1973, Moore 1993

- Constructionism Theory : Papert 1991, Gergen 2001

Conversation Theory : Mitchell & Grogono 1993

- postulates that learning occurs through guiding transactions between a desirable target concept map model of knowledge and a student’s externalized model of prior understanding.

- Such transactions include asking the student to articulate and make explicit own elaborations

Conversation Model : learning transactions include

appropriation - whereby the teacher or a good student picks up points from weaker students and shows how they can fit into a larger picture, to model greater understanding for the weaker students to then see

elaboration - whereby conflicts, slight differences or diverging views are verbalized, and so lead to learning

justification - whereby thought processes and strategic knowledge initially implicit are made explicit through verbalization to help both the enquirer and the justifier to learn

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.

Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. Distance education : International perspectives, (pp. 114-122). London : Croom Helm.

Gergen K.J., & Wortham, S. (2001). Social construction and pedagogical practice. In K.J. Gergen (Ed.), Social construction in context, (pp. 115-136). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching : A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London : RoutledgeFalmer.

Mitchell, P.D., & Grogono, P.D. (1993). Modelling techniques for tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 20 (1), 55-61.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed), Theoretical principles of distance education, (pp. 22-38). London : Routledge.

These plus my own Kawachi 1999 – 2009 published works available from me by email

1979 ~ 2009 :

- behaviourism for teacher-based, and skills- cognitivism for sequential teaching- cognitive constructivism within inside - social constructivism from outside

- radical constructivism for student-centred- constructionism for e-learning- social constructionism for modern distance education

summary

2009 ~ 2039 :

- Student-created content shared in learner’s own languages- Continuous scaffolds for task, group size, mode, media- Externalise examinations away from universities- Share courses, increase diversity

vision

Teachers accept a model depending on :

- own early school experience- loyalties during own teacher-training- support from professional networks

hopefully we have all of these !

reflection

You can download these slides freely from

http://www.open-ed.net/overview.ppt

or by email from me at

[email protected]

3o Years of English Language Teaching - Past, Present, and Your Future Paul Kawachi...

Documents

Transcript of 3o Years of English Language Teaching - Past, Present, and Your Future Paul Kawachi...