What is constructivism?
Constructivism is different from objectivism. Objectivist’s teaching techniques involve the idea that all knowledge comes from outside of the individual and that the teacher give all knowledge to the learner; however, a constructivist’s teaching methods involve the idea that all knowledge comes from within the learner, that learners must take information and create their own knowledge.
Von Glaserfeld (1984) has written
“… learners construct understanding. They do not simply mirror and reflect what they are told or what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find regularity and order in the events of the world even in the absence of full or complete information.”
In summary, constructivism posits the construction of knowledge whereas objectivism is concerned with the object of knowing. These two seemingly opposite instructional methods can have serious implications when designing instruction, and the choice of teaching method can have serious effects on students in the technology education classroom.
Learning is active
Information may be given to the learner, but learning is an active process wherein understanding comes from within. Woolfolk (1993) describes the constructivist viewpoint of learning as:
“… The key idea is that students actively construct their own knowledge: the mind of the student mediates input from the outside world to determine what the student will learn. Learning is active mental work, not passive reception of teaching.”
This whole idea of learning coming strictly from within the learner has been rather controversial in the educational field and was in my own mind. However, I have to wonder if I shouldn’t start to use some of these constructivist learning theories in my teaching of technology.
My experience while teaching software, coding, graphic design, and Apple technologies has shown me that learning technology is an active process. My students must not only obtain declarative knowledge of their new skills, but they must also develop a memory for action. Otherwise, my students would not be able to go back to work and design websites or print documents that are required by their supervisors. What I teach is very important to the future of my students’ careers. Therefore, I am quite concerned about how to teach my students effectively so that the knowledge I give them transfers to the workplace and to their volunteer work.
Problem solving
One method of constructivist learning is the use of problem solving. I have already found that presenting real-world problems and showing the steps to solve the problems can be a very effective method for transferring knowledge from the classroom to the workplace. Up to now, I have only attempted problem-solving with my more advanced classes. I have to wonder if I should redesign some of my curriculum for basic classes to include more problem-solving.
Tam (2000) states that good problems require the learner to stimulate exploration and reflection that are required for knowledge construction. I can envision the use of good, real-world problem solving as an extremely powerful tool in transferring knowledge to the workplace.
Collaboration
Learners often use prior knowledge to construct new knowledge, and learners can discuss their own understanding of the concept with others to create a shared understanding. Tam describes the use of student collaboration to improve the learning “within.” Students often combine effort and get much more out of the learning process because they have tested and refined their understanding through the ongoing process of discussing their understanding of a concept. Group or team learning is still a constructivist teaching method because it keeps the instructor acting as guide rather than lecturer. Teaching with teams can be a very effective teaching method.
The standard method of teaching technology involves each student working with their own computer while they work alone, despite being surrounded by other students working at individual computers. I often observe half of the students frequently looking at the computer screen of their neighbors; there seems to be some impromptu collaboration occurring. Most often, the students experience disruptions by low knowledge learners, which can often be irritating and unexpected. I will have to create small group components where collaboration is expected and welcome.
I may want to mix up some of my instructional strategies to include more than just me presenting information in fun and exciting ways. I will have to come out with some ways to use group learning; this may involve creating small groups to solve problems. This seems to be an ideal way to help transfer information to the real world.
Before now, I have been limited by the layout of our computer labs. Desks and computers cannot be moved to facilitate group learning. I think I may not be able to form groups bigger than 2 or 3 (at the most), yet I think using small groups would help some of the learning and transfer problems my students experience.
Instructor’s primary role in constructivist teaching
Constructivism supposes that the teacher should act as a guide instead of an expert; however, the amount of guidance should be based on learners needs. Low-knowledge learners should receive much more guidance than high-knowledge learners. This phenomenon is known as the expertise reversal effect (Kalyuga et. al, 2003).
I, therefore, believe that technology education curriculum should be flexible enough to reflect prior knowledge and current skill level of students. Because the technology education instructor must be flexible and willing to tweak the curriculum, the instructor must know the subject very, very well.
Make it Relevant!
Finally, make the concepts and information relevant to students’ needs! Goodness, if the concepts are not relevant to your learners’ needs, they will never remember or use the information again.
New instructional strategies for technology instructors
Tam (2000) proposes that rather than designing a fully controllable and reliable curriculum, we should allow collaboration, personal autonomy, generation of ideas, reflectivity, active engagement, and relevance (Lebow, 1993).
Lebow proposes five constructivist principles that should influence instructional design.
- Maintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effects of instructional practices by:
- Increasing emphasis on the affective domain of learning
- Making instruction personally relevant to the learner
- Helping learners develop skills, attitudes, and beliefs that support self-regulation of the learning process
- Balancing the tendency to control the learning situation with the desire to promote personal autonomy
- Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness
- Embed the reasons for learning in the activity itself.
- Support self-regulated learning by promoting skills and attitudes that enable the learner to assume increasing responsibility for the developmental restructuring process
- Strengthen the learner’s tendency to engage in intentional learning processes, especially by encouraging the strategic exploration of errors.
I can see real advantages to using these principles when designing and teaching my classes. What do you think? Teach or watch them learn?
What should you do: Constructivist or Objectivist Training?
Use the best ideas from both camps. Instruct, demonstrate, and model information and concepts then allow your students to actively participate in the technology skills you are teaching with individual projects, problem solving, and small group projects.
References
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for systems design: five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 4-16.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2).
One Comment
Nice summary of the readings and application of them to your computer lab situation. When you say, “My students must not only obtain declarative knowledge of their new skills, but they must also develop a memory for action”, I think this can be used as your overarching goal of what you want students to take away from your training session in a general sense, and this should be where you start with designing computer training. If this is what you want students to achieve, what are the specific objectives that you want then to achieve for a particular training? What learning activities can you incorporate to help them develop a memory for action? How will you assess if they are on their way to developing a memory of action? What skills do they need to develop a memory of action? Over the next 2 weeks we will work through a course design design process to try to think about these issues. I will post some exercises and readings for you. Having reviewed your postings from last week I also think the logical theoretical concepts to pursue next this week will be transference of knowledge or application of knowledge and how people learn.