Constructivism - LDT EDCI 513


Published on

Published in: Education
1 Comment
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is another option for an Overview slides using transitions.
  • This is another option for an Overview slides using transitions.
  • Constructivism - LDT EDCI 513

    1. 1. CONSTRUCTIVISM LEARNING THEORY Sandra Kay Lee, Paul Miehl, Kristen Hayden Safdie
    2. 2. What is Constructivism?   Constructivism maintains that learning is an active, social process for which the learner should take primary responsibility.   “Constructivism sees learning as a process of constructing or making something. Constructivism says that people learn by making sense of the world- they make meaning out of what they encounter.” Reiser, 2012)   Constructivism also states that “where possible, reflection, assessment, and feedback should be embedded naturally within learning activities.” (Reiser, 2012)
    3. 3. What is Constructivism?   The teacher becomes more of a facilitator in constructivism and the learner assumes responsibility for learning through active learning. (Tausch, 2013) If you tell me, I will listen. If you show me, I will see. But if you let me experience, I will learn. — Lao-Tse 500 B.C
    4. 4. “For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.” — Aristotle Constructivism’s Major Scholars and Their Key Claims
    5. 5. “Dewey advocated the learning process of experiential learning through real life experience to construct and conditionalize knowledge, which is consistent with the Constructivists.” (Smith, 2012) John Dewey   John Dewey advocated a learning method in which the student learned through doing.
    6. 6. The Vanderbilt Group   The Cognitive & Technology Group at Vanderbilt, led by John Bransford, “pioneered the concept of “anchored instruction” by developing video disc lessons presenting a problem requiring a mathematical solution. (Reiser, 2012)
    7. 7. David Kolb and Roger Fry   Kolb and Fry maintained that the “learning cycle can begin at any point, and that it should really be approached as a continuous spiral. The primary aspects of this learning model supports the constructivist model by combining experiential learning through socialization, reflection, and testing in new experiences.” (Smith, 2001) The Kolb & Fry Model
    8. 8. Other Theories   “Alan Collins and John Seely Brown developed the “cognitive apprenticeship” model of instruction based on the master/ apprenticeship learning relationship.   “Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamelia developed the “intentional learning environments” model of collaborative problem solving.”   “John Dunlap and Scott Grabinger developed the REALs model using a prescriptive model for design.”   Howard Barrows developed the “problem-based learning (PBL) model to describe team-based inquiry and problem-solving processes.” (Reiser, 2012)
    9. 9. Applications of Constructivism in Learning and Teaching with Technologies
    10. 10. Impact of Constructivism   Using a constructivist paradigm, learning emphasizes the process and not the product. Technology is increasingly being touted as an optimal medium for the application of constructivist principles to learning. Numerous online environments and technology-based projects are showing that theory can effectively guide educational practice. (Murphy, 1997)   E-learning allows learners to be explorers and search out information, making connections and constructing knowledge. E- learning enables context-based, work-based learning with the learner at the center of the learning experience; students need to take responsibility for the learning. Online technologies easily allow students to record and reflect upon their learning. (Patil, 2011).   E-learning allows learners to acquire knowledge and pass it to others, apply it to personal as well as social problems. With E-learning the learners are empowered to acquire and disseminate the relevant knowledge. Constructivism focuses on learner's control of learning processes and it narrows the gap between the school world and real-life society. (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002).
    11. 11. Applications of Constructivism   Evidence suggests that constructivist teachers are more likely to use technology in their classrooms in general and integrate technology into their lessons more often than teachers who follow other philosophies of learning.   There is a positive correlation between teachers who have student-centered beliefs about instruction and how often they use technology as a way to enhance student learning.   This relationship between technology use and constructivist teaching practices suggests that constructivist- minded teachers advocate technology as a worthwhile learning tool in their student-centered classrooms (Judson, 2006).
    12. 12.   The task of the learner is seen as dynamic, and the computer makes available new learning opportunities. Teachers’ training from a constructivist perspective represents a basic strategy in reformation of curricular process of psycho-pedagogic training programs, with results foreseen having a greater professional impact than that of current practices. (Bunaiasu, Stefan, Strunga, & Popescu, 2012).   Technologies, primarily computers, help build knowledge bases, which will “engage the learners more and result in more meaningful and transferable knowledge … Learners function as designers using the technology as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others” (Nanjappa & Grant, 2003). Applications of Constructivism
    13. 13. Challenges of Application   Very often, e‐learning courses are set up following constructivist design principles. Often, these principles are difficult to implement because developers must be able to predict how students perceive the tasks and whether the tasks motivate the students.   The main questions are how students learn in e‐learning environments with “virtual” reality and authentic problems and how they perceive them.   Some studies indicate a gap between the two, for students experience much less authenticity than developers assume. (Martens, Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2007).
    14. 14. Merrill’s First Principles Reflected in Constructivism The problem solving and application emphases of constructivism will be demonstrated by constructivist models on the following slides.
    15. 15. Problem-Centered Corollaries:  Show Task  Task Level  Problem Progression “Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems.”
    16. 16. Problem-Centered Corollaries:  Show Task  Task Level  Problem Progression State objectives or show a worked example to engage learners.   Schank’s Goal-Based Scenarios exemplify this corollary by sending learners on a “mission” to achieve a pre-determined goal. According to Schank and his colleagues, “because the tasks’ goal is interesting to the student, the student will exert more effort in understanding the material needed to accomplish that goal” (Schank, 1993/1994).
    17. 17. Problem-Centered Corollaries:  Show Task  Task Level  Problem Progression Show tasks in context rather than just the operations or actions required.   The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt’s anchored instruction approach engages students are a problem or task level, ensuring that they are not simply “following the motions” to complete an exercise. In the Vanderbilt Group’s Jasper series, students helped Jasper Woodbury solve problems, searching for data and solving real-world problems (Hannafin, 1997).
    18. 18. Problem-Centered Corollaries:  Show Task  Task Level  Problem Progression Increase difficulty until the student can solve a complex problem.   Van Merriënboer’s Four Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) model advocates progressing students from simple to complex problems, leading to a whole-task practice. By providing information to students as needed to solve a problem, the 4C/ID model focuses learning on the problem rather than the information given (Reiser, 2012).
    19. 19. Application Phase Corollaries:  Practice Consistency  Diminishing Coaching  Varied Problems “Learning is promoted when learners are required to use their new knowledge or skill to solve problems.”
    20. 20. Application Phase Corollaries:  Practice Consistency  Diminishing Coaching  Varied Problems Practice should be relevant to instructional goals.   Cognitive apprenticeship, a theory devised by Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum, is a theory based on constructivism that “works to make thinking visible” (Collins, 1991). In his overview of constructivism, Brent Wilson warns that energy can be lost on inefficient activity. Using cognitive apprenticeship, students are placing their energy in observing and learning the cognitive skills used to solve problems. The directed nature of cognitive apprenticeship lowers the risk of instruction becoming inefficient.
    21. 21. Application Phase Withdraw support gradually until students are completing tasks on their own.   In 1999, David Jonassen introduced his model for designing constructivist learning environments (CLE). These environments placed an emphasis on scaffolding, or gradually removing instructor assistance until a student is performance a task on her own. According to Jonassen, “the most important role of the coach is to monitor, analyze, and regulate the learners’ development of important skills” (Jonassen, 1999). Corollaries:  Practice Consistency  Diminishing Coaching  Varied Problems
    22. 22. Application Phase Provide opportunities for students to solve varying problems.   Gardner’s multiple intelligences provides a theoretical foundation for the importance of providing students multiple, varied problems to solve. According to Gardner, “multiple representations is one component of effective teaching; the complementary component entails the provision of many opportunities for performance, which can reveal to the student and to others the extent to which the material has been mastered” (Gardner, 1999). Corollaries:  Practice Consistency  Diminishing Coaching  Varied Problems
    23. 23. Why is Constructivism the Best Framework?
    24. 24. Constructivism Enhances Knowledge “Education has three basic purposes: remembering knowledge, understanding knowledge, and applying knowledge and skills in actual contexts. These are the first three steps of lower-order skills in Bloom’s taxonomy.” — David N. Perkins, 1991
    25. 25. “Constructivism does not claim to have made earth-shaking inventions in the area of education; it merely claims to provide a solid conceptual basis for some of the things that, until now, inspired teachers had to do without theoretical foundation. From the Constructivist perspective, learning is not a stimulus-response phenomenon.” — Ernst von Glasersfeld, 1995 Constructivism is Practical
    26. 26.   Brent G. Wilson states that “because constructivism asserts that learning results from active engagement and meaningful activity, scientists have validated the effectiveness of constructivism as a learning theory.” They contend that constructivism allows for results in “higher order learning outcomes because it focus on problem solving and critical thinking.” This makes the learner, a thinker who can begin to synthesize the information to solve real-world problems.   “Constructivism becomes more than an academic thing and draws on the whole person and leads to more realistic representations of expertise.”   “Constructivist principles should lead to greater relevance to jobs and the outside world because they are presented with more complex problems and tasks during the instruction.” This allows the learner to gradually increase their expertise (Reiser, 2012). Constructivism is Holistic
    27. 27.   Constructivism incorporates common training approaches to promote learning:   Tell   Show   Do   Review   Constructivism motivating the learner through self- reflection, while the teacher becomes a guide.   Learning through self-discovery would seem to be most effective, because learning occurs through experience. The adage of “experience is the best teacher” applies! Constructivism is Inclusive
    28. 28.   The impact of constructivism has extended into national reform documents that are produced by professional education groups such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Research Council. (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002).   Studies show that students of problem-based learning are able to provide more accurate description of problems and their solutions than students in traditional learning environments (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Constructivism is Effective
    29. 29. References Bunaiasu, C., Stefan, M., Strunga, A. & Popescu, M. (2013). Impact Study Regarding Constructivist Curriculum’s Management of Teacher Training. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 78, 145-149. Bynum, W. F. and Porter, R. (2005) Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. Oxford University Press. 21:9. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers. 15(3), 6-11,38-46. Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp 69-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Land, S.M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 45(3), 101-117. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology Review. 16(3), 235-266. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    30. 30. References Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: language, discourse and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3). Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: is there a connection? Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, (14)3, 581-597. Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27. Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2007). New learning design in distance education: the impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1), 81-93. Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: from philosophy to practice. Technology Publications. Retrived from Nanjappa, A., & Grant, M. (2003). Constructing on constructivism: the role of technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 2(1). Retrieved from Patil, N. (2011). Constructive e-learning – A highway towards global knowledge economy. In The Third Asian Conference on Education: Learning and Teaching in a Globalised World (pp. 723-735). Osaka, Japan: The International Academic Forum.
    31. 31. References Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5) 18-23. Reiser, R.A. and Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Publishing. Ripple, R.E. and Rockcastle, V.N., (1964). Piaget Rediscovered: A Report on the Conference of Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Schank, R.C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993-1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences (3)4, 305-345. Smith, M. K. (2001). "David A. Kolb on experiential learning". The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved 2013-09-03. Tausch, R., (2013). On becoming an effective teacher: person-centered teaching, psychology, phiolosophy and dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. London: Routledge. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in Education, (pp.3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.