ETEC 530
Constructivist Strategies for E-Learning
This course provides opportunities and challenges to develop, design and incorporate constructivist learning techniques. I will examine my understanding of knowledge, truth, pedagogical practice and constructivist theory.
UNIT ONE RESPONSE:
Initial map. Constuctivist Conditions – What are constructivist teaching learning conditions
UNIT TWO RESPONSE:
Constructivism – complimentary complications
In analyzing and synthesizing the readings and concepts about constructivism through my personal and professional lenses, I find myself constructing complimentary yet complicating notions of the various tenets and ‘faces’ of constructivism. My professional work in teaching teachers how to teach is grounded in constructivist pedagogy, epistemology and ontology. My understanding of each has been radically altered through the process of examining my prior knowledge, comparing new information to a known set and focus, and creating a written response (constructionism) to share with others.
The long history of debate about ontology and epistemology, from the roots of Socrates and Aristotle, was not new to me, but clarified my sense that this debate was not started with Piaget or Vygotsky, nor will it end current discussions or debates about how best to teach (or teach teachers how to teach). I examined the idealistic ontological statement “thought has as its aim not the reproduction of a given reality, but the construction of a future reality”(Durkheim 1972, p. 251 in Matthews 1994, p.142) through the lens of teaching new teachers about teaching. The debate about teaching the way you were taught compares to teaching the way you hope to teach – the aim of my thoughts (and actions) is not to create reproductions of current teaching realities, but constructing learning environments for new teachers that will support their construction of their own future realities.
I found myself critically examining the constructivist teaching practices and the steps laid out from Driver and Oldham (Matthews 1994, p. 143) from my own experiences with MET courses as well as my own teaching with EDUC courses. The process of movement through the stages of orientation, elicitation, clarification (and exchange), application and review (or metacognition) has been evident in each MET course offering and modules within each course. These stages, applied to my own course design, would compliment the content and process of constructing a learning environment less dependent on ‘lecture’ and more reflective of constructivist pedagogical tenets, e.g. students learn from each other, learners actively engaged in making meaning, students learn by doing.
In critically examining radical constructivism, I found the notion of ‘dynamic adaptation’ to be one that fit into my teaching/learning context. New teachers come with prior knowledge of teaching based on how they were taught. They dynamically adapt their own ‘teaching presence’ through a process of constructing understanding from readings, dialogue, actions, and reflections. The radical constructivist view that communication “need not involve identically shared meanings” but that it is sufficient to have “compatible meanings” (Dougiamas, 1998) complimented my personal sense of teachers who come to understand each other’s perspectives through dialogue but need not agree or share the exact same meaning.
Complimentary complications occurred when I examined which face of constructivism reflected my own current teaching practice, pedagogical beliefs, or understandings. I found myself juxtaposing constructivism with critical constructivism, as outlined by Dougamais and complicated this view with Miller’s statement that “children’s thoughts are private, but their concepts are public” since without a public standard “knowledge is reduced to belief”. (Miller, p. 159) As a result of this ‘lens’, I constructed a vision of a learning environment for teacher education based on public dialogues, creations, or entities within a community of teacher/learners achieving mutual understanding through shared, compatible meaning. Their public presence, both physical and digital, is constructed and validated from personal and social “knowledgeable tellings” (Dougamais, 1998) as showcased in their electronic teaching portfolios. My conclusion is that constructivism is not so much a ‘grand unifying theory’ as it is a useful referent for dialogue about teaching, learning, education and personal knowledge.
References
Dougiamas, M. (1998). A journey into constructivism. Retrieved from http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html#intro
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching. New York: Routledge, chapter 7
Matthews, M.R. (2000). Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education. In D.C. Phillips (ed.), National Society for the Study of Education, 99th Yearbook, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-192. Retrieved from http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/matthews.html
UNIT THREE RESPONSE:
After reading through the articles this week, I reflect on how appropriate and timely this investigation is for me. I am working on the challenge of trying to embed the use of concept mapping into the course design for classroom management. My reflection on the question “What conditions have to be in place for learners to create new meanings or adapt to old ones?” applies to the colleagues and students. The conditions for creating new meanings (about c-maps) are:
- context needs to be examined and clarified (activation of prior knowledge)
- application needs to be explicit
- trial and error needs to be explored
- conversation needs to be focused and ongoing (social construction)
- models need to be presented
- comparing/contrasting needs to be embedded
- In trying to bring concept mapping practice into the course design, we (the instructors) need to examine the context of our students, our own prior knowledge, and our understandings about classroom management (content). Our context and how c-maps can be applied needs to be examined and clarified.
- The application of c-maps needs to ‘fit’ into the context (class constraints in terms of time, size, etc) and into the content (criteria; what we teach and how we teach it). We (instructors) also need to understand why we need to apply this tool so it becomes meaningful in our teaching.
- Trial and error helps bring our common understandings and disconnections to light. By trying to apply concept maps into the context of the course design, the issues, opportunities, challenges are worked out. These other instructors have little prior knowledge or experience in constructing c-maps so they need to ‘play’ with the concept and tools of c-mapping to make them fit.
- The conversations help each of us bring new meaning to our own understandings about c-maps and about classroom management connecting theory to practice (even after most of us have been in classrooms for 25+ years) so we can extend these conversations to those our students will have. Without these ongoing conversations, my ‘meaning making’ would not occur, because it is hard work!
- I have been the ‘model’ for constructing c-maps, based on my experience (from MET courses) – these models have become the topic of conversations linking concepts of how, why, when, where, who, what c-mapping is all about – walking others through the process of getting the software, installing it, trying to create one, etc. This process will become the model for our students in the fall – following the ‘I do it. We do it. You do it together. You do it alone.’ model of instruction that we explicitly incorporate into our classrooms for any topic.
- Comparing and contrasting c-maps provides each of us with a better understanding of our own concepts/connections and understanding each other’s ideas and notions about classroom management. We can then clarify our own thinking by ‘bouncing ideas’ off other’s ideas. As instructors, we need to do this individually so we can turn around and teach it to other, but we also need to do this in collaboratively so our understanding is clarified before we teach it to others.
UNIT FOUR RESPONSES:
Case Based Learning:Case Based Learning CMap
References / Links
Case Based Learing – http://www.labset.ulg.ac.be/projets/hp/pgHOME.htm
Case Based Learning – Edutech Wiki – http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Case-based_learning
- learner readiness and scaffolding
- balance between structure and autonomy
- relationship and sense of community
- monitoring
- relevance
- time
Each of these elements will enhance and support my work to ‘set the stage’ for group work – cooperative and collaborative – and provide a guiding checklist to review when integrating group work into learning.
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. International review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 10(3)
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/675/1271
UNIT FIVE RESPONSE:
I am struggling with the notion of assessment in constructivist teaching and learning spaces. Although the set criteria were helpful in collecting the diverse criteria (7 broad categories, 4-5 qualities in each), when examining all the multiple constructivist components from the various readings, I am struggling with ‘how do I evaluate and assess learning? The question asking for behaviours, actions, activities as they applied to principles of constructivism still has me examining learning tasks.
The set criteria (Beers & Wilson, BCIT 2002) provided a framework for comparing and contrasting all the elements from Lefoe (1998), Bonk & Cunningham (1998) and the websites provided. It was a tool from which to compare and contrast. Reading and rereading the BCIT report provided insights for me and prompted me to return to the set criteria to review my responses. The set criteria were relevant for each station in Unit 4, but responding to some of the individual elements was challenging since they did not clearly connect to that specific criteria. The framework/set criteria will prove a useful tool for my own course design, one which is flexible yet supportive.
One area I found missing in the set criteria was in the area of cognitive apprenticeship. I am resistant to the notion of ‘training’ and tend to think in terms of learning opportunities for all, including those involved in the creation, delivery, and support of learning environments. Since this is best done in ‘communities of practice’ I would rephrase or elaborate on the first criteria in this category to include the concept of learning in community to acquire the necessary skills to complete complex tasks within the learning space.
Another area not included in the evaluation criteria was the formal assessment of collaboration. Taking ownership of an individual’s collaborative efforts in learning communities is essential in constructivist environments, yet learners will not make it important unless there is some ‘mark’ or achievable outcome for the collaborative work done. This can certainly be varied, depending on the age, group, content, instructor, but it needs to be embedded into the evaluation criteria.
This notion reminded me of an article I had read previously about promoting, creating and assessing value in communities and networks. Wegner, Traynor & DeLaat’s framework looks at how to assess and measure the work of networks and communities. (found here: http://wenger-trayner.com/documents/Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf ) They outline the notion of value in actions, being dependant on audience and perspective. Measuring the narratives in community is an important connection for my struggles with how to assess and evaluate constructivist learning. Wenger, Trayner & DeLaat outline cycles reflecting value of community/networks in terms of activities, interactions, knowledge capital (human, social, tangible, reputational, learning), change in practice, performance improvement, and in redefining success. The authors outline a series of questions to examine the actions, behaviours and activities in order to measure each of these elements. I’m trying to connect these concepts to the constructivist principles outlined in the set criteria, but it is challenging my thinking in my own course design. Audience and perspective is an important element to assessing value of personal and community learning.
References
Bonk, C.J. & Cunningham, D.J. (1998). Chapter 2: Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum. Retrieved from http://www.publicationshare.com/docs/Bon02.pdf
Constructivist Education Retrieved from http://constructivist-education.blogspot.ca/2006/04/learning-principles-in-constructivism.html
Design of Constructivist Learning Environments (CLEs) Retrieved from http://www.accesswave.ca/~hgunn/special/papers/hypertxt/cle.html
Learning Resources Unit @ BCIT (2003). Constructivist e-learning methodologies: A module development guide. Pan-Canadian Health Informatics Collaboratory.
Lefoe, G. (1998). Creating constructivist learning environments on the web: The challenge in higher education. ASCILITE98 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wollongong98/asc98-pdf/lefoe00162.pdf