Constructivism and self-learning: Much yet to learn?
-
Upload
john-koetsier -
Category
Documents
-
view
107 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Constructivism and self-learning: Much yet to learn?
Much yet to learn?
Much yet to learn?
ETEC 530 Assignment 1: Constructivism and self-learning
Much yet to learn?
John Koetsier
University of British Columbia
March 13, 2010
1
Much yet to learn?
In general terms, the constructivism theory of learning states that learners
themselves formulate knowledge in relation to prior learning (Jonassen 1995).
It is a process in which people make sense of their environment (Merriam and
Caffarella, 1999). As is appropriate for a theory of learning that educators
attempt to apply in the classroom, advocates of constructivism speak and
write about how to create constructivism-friendly learning environments and
activities. In fact, Amazon.com is currently selling no fewer than 281 books
focusing on teaching in a constructivist manner and creating a constructivist
classroom1. Researchers have developed the core values of constructivism
(Matthews 1994), which (though they vary) generally focus on how learners
acquire, process, and internalize knowledge. Oddly, however, it sometimes
seems as though almost everything written about this theory of learning is
written from the perspective of teaching.
In this paper, I will explore the idea of constructivism2 in relation to self-
learning … specifically, in terms of just-in-time self-learning. As both a
consequence of the ever-changing knowledge economy and a beneficiary of
the global repository of generalized data known as the internet, knowledge
workers more than ever before are learning to learn on the job … learning
how at the same item as they are learning what … and then, using their new-
found knowledge to complete tasks, advance projects, and meet the
1 Amazon search conducted March 1, 2010. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aconstructivist+classroom&keywords=constructivist+classroom&ie=UTF8&qid=1267502196 2 Note: I am referring to constructivism as a theory of learning, not as a philosophy or epistemology. It is probably debatable whether the two can be separated … although I believe they can … but that is a topic for another paper.
2
Much yet to learn?
requirements of their positions. I would like to explore this concept in the
context of constructivism – and any potential relationship to students in K-12
education – and try to understand if indeed there is a lack of literature
focused on the learning rather than the teaching aspects of the theory.
A perfect example of the tension between constructivism as a theory of
learning and constructivism as a method of teaching can be found in Gordon
Mordechai’s otherwise excellent article (2009). In one section, Mordechai
states quite correctly that “because it is a theory of learning and not of
teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood.” And yet
we see a major contradiction in the very same paper, when Mordechai
elucidates the four essential features of constructivism as he sees them:
“eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance, application of new
knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning.” Note the implied
subject preceding the verb in these phrases. The subject here is most
certainly not the learner: who is eliciting? who is creating? who is applying?
who is stimulating reflection? It is in fact the teacher … and in positioning
constructivism in this manner Mordechai places the theory within the frame
of a learner-student relationship, not a self-learning relationship.3
My personal experience of constructivist self-learning in my current role as a
knowledge worker in a technology industry is largely ad hoc and just in time
… a project or business opportunity presents itself, and I need to quickly
3 Just as it is worth discussing whether constructivism as learning theory can be separated from constructivism as epistemology (see footnote one), it’s likely also worthwhile discussing the inherent tension in teaching from such a learner-centric philosophy. Again, a topic for another day!
3
Much yet to learn?
identify existing gaps in my knowledge, source and research ways to fill those
gaps, and in a very minimal amount of time acquire enough data (and
synthesize enough knowledge) to proceed with some degree of confidence.
Search tools such as Google and knowledge organization tools such as
Wikipedia, blogs, and other websites provide much of what is needed, for
most topics, to learn the basics, and often far more. This is a very natural and
organic process, even if it’s done with knowledge search, analysis, and
creation tools that were almost unimaginable a generation ago. After all,
humans have been approaching new situations and learning how to deal with
them in real-time for thousands of years. And humans have been seeking
knowledge from others in relation to new-to-them problems for a long time.
The technology is new, the methodologies are new, the breadth of scope of
inquiry is new, the heightened requirement for critical thinking and
discernment is new … but the process is very old indeed.
I am not alone in this methodology – educators and researchers in higher
education and adult learning employ similar methods with their students,
sometimes promoting new “web2.0” social tools that their students can use
themselves and on their own time (Higdon and Topaz, 2009). Science
educators in particular seem to have found related methods for both
stimulating awareness of knowledge gaps … and for filling them. Marrs and
Novak (2004) call it “in-time-teaching,” using the web for helping “determine
the level of understanding, prior knowledge, and misconceptions that
students bring to class.” Self-directed learning that students engage in before
or after class can then be used in the course of classroom teaching as fodder
4
Much yet to learn?
for the teacher’s understanding of student comprehension, ensuring that he
or she focuses on needed topics. And, in turn, the web can be used to fill the
gaps. This however is also an undergraduate level survey … not K-12. And, it
is primarily about the use of “self-directed” learning that is actually intended
to serve the purposes of a traditional class. So one can legitimately wonder
how truly self-directed this learning actually is.
Related studies include those on “authentic performance” (Leighton, McCabe,
2002) and “situated in context” (Williams 2008) learning. But again, these
just-in-time techniques seem most often used in higher education or adult
learning scenarios, where perhaps there is more room (and more need?) for
“off the agenda” forays into uncharted territory. It certainly is non-obvious
how traditional education can coexist with this inherently messy model –
particularly in North America with its emphasis on pre-determined outcomes
and objectives idealistically aimed toward high scores on standardized
achievement tests.
However, the value of self-learning, whether it’s just in time or not, is great at
all levels. Not only is it using (and further developing) the habits and skills of
life-long learning, it has the great inherent advantages of being both
differentiated (students who are learning on their own can tailor their
learning to match their preferred modalities) and aligned with real-world
needs or desires (students will focus their learning on topics they either must
learn for personal or professional reasons, or that they have significant
interest in). Both differentiation and alignment are known to increase student
5
Much yet to learn?
engagement and improve student achievement. That is, we’ve seen this to
be the case in instructional scenarios in the classroom (Murphy and Lebans,
2009), and there would appear to be no reason to assume that outside the
classroom they would not. Most people, after all, are more motivated to learn
when the topic is aligned to the achievement of their own personal goals.
This is corroborated by some academic research, such as an Italian study on
adult English language learners: Constructivism, Self-Directed Learning and
Case-Based Reasoners: A Winning Combination. The authors of this study
connected constructivism and self learning. In fact, they traced the pedagogy
of self-learning (if one can use such a phrase) to the self-directed learning
that developed in Great Britain in the 1970s, which had its own precursors in
Dewey and Montessori (Boylan, Micarelli, Pirrottina, Sciarrone, 2000). These
authors state that a combination of constructivism and self-learning explain
how people learn in the “real world,” and attempt to apply the lessons to
institutional learning, specifically to a computerized system designed to teach
(and/or let learners learn) the process and products of good English writing.
The authors admit that this is a risk, even “a new educational model.”
However, they believe that given what they call “the failure” of prescriptive
teaching, a mode of teaching that is less outwardly directed and more
inwardly fueled is appropriate.
This study does highlight some of the difficulties and challenges of self-
directed learning. Precisely because it is not externally aimed, self-learners
sift through a lot of resources to find the “right” information … which in some
6
Much yet to learn?
(many?) cases may not even be correct. Still, there is value in the very
processes of searching for relevant information, which brings all the stages of
critical thinking, reflection, synthesis, and analysis even before the final
artifact is completed, or even, sometimes, begun. And the steps fit with
Mordechai’s model of constructivism: prior knowledge is the seed on which
the learner bases his or her searching; cognitive dissonance is engendered by
the vast multiplicity of answers which the search elicits; application of
knowledge occurs as the learner starts to use the new data in the formation
or creation of some artifact; and reflection fits in when the learner takes a
step back and evaluates if all this recently discovered and constructed edifice
of information actually sticks together and holds water.
But the comparative paucity of models and pedagogy for creating conditions
within which self-learning occurs is fairly clear. All of which is not to state that
this “messy model” is a guaranteed solution for K-12 education, even if it
works for at least some (and possibly many) in higher education and adult
learning. But it would be worthwhile studying in greater depth and detail than
seems currently existent.
References
Boylan, P., Micarelli, A., Pirrottina V. , Sciarrone, F. (2000). Constructivism,
Self-Directed Learning and Case-Based Reasoners: A Winning
Combination. Downloaded February 24, 2010 from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.26.5929&rep=rep1&type=pdf
7
Much yet to learn?
Higdon, J, Topaz, C. (2009). Blogs and Wikis as Instructional Tools: A Social
Software Adaptation of Just-in-Time Teaching. College Teaching, v57
n2 p105-110.
Jonassen, David, et al. (1995). Constructivism and Computer-Mediated
Communication in Distance Education. The American Journal of
Distance Education. 9.2, 7-26.
Leighton, C., McCabe, C. (2002). Authentic Performance of Complex
Problem-Solving Tasks with an EPSS. Download from ERIC March 2010.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICSer
vlet?accno=ED477054
Marrs, K., Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time Teaching in Biology: Creating an
Active Learning Classroom Using the Internet. Cell Biology Education,
v3 n1 p49-61.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching. New York: Routledge, chapter 7.
Merriam, B., Caffarella, S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood. A Comprehensive
Guide. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.
Mordechai, G. (2009). Toward a Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism:
8
Much yet to learn?
Reflections on Lessons from Practice. Educational Studies: Journal of
the American Educational Studies Association, v45 n1 p39-58.
Murphy, J., Lebans, R. (2009). Leveraging New Technologies for Professional
Learning in Education: Digital Literacies as Culture Shift in Professional
Development. E-Learning, v6 n3 p275-280.
Williams, P. (2008). Assessing Context-Based Learning: Not Only Rigorous
but Also Relevant. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, v33
n4 p395-408
9