Teori Kontruktif

Title: Constructivism in Theory and Practice: Toward a Better Understanding
Author : James. M. Applefield; Richard Huber; Mahnaz Moallem

ABSTRACT
Although constructivism is a concept that has been embraced my many teachers over the past 15 years, the meanings that are attached to this term are varied and often inadequately understood. Teachers need to have a sound understanding of what constructivism means to evaluate its promise and to use it knowledgeably and
effectively. This paper explicates some of the theoretical background of constructivism and then presents a detailed example in which a traditional classroom lesson and a constructivist version of the same lesson are described and analyzed. Also discussed are pervasive myths and important instructional issues of this widely advocated and increasingly popular philosophical framework for teaching across the entire K-12
curriculum.



INTRODUCTION
The term constructivism most probably is derived from Piaget’s reference to his views as “constructivist” (Gruber & Voneche, 1977), as well as from Bruner’s description of discovery learning as “constructionist” (1966). Other terms are also used to refer to constructivist views of learning, including: generative learning (Wittrock,1985; situated learning and authentic instruction (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), postmodern curricula (Hlynka, 1991); and educational semiotic (Cunningham, 1992). Even though constructivists cannot be adequately represented by a single voice or an entirely universal point of view, there is a conception of learner and learning that is unmistakable in its central tenets and in its divergence from an objectivist tradition of learning theory based on either behaviorism (associationistic models of learning) or cognitivism (the cognitive science of information processing representations of learning).

THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF HUMAN LEARNING
Constructivism is an epistemological view of knowledge acquisition emphasizing knowledge construction rather than knowledge transmission and the recording of information conveyed by others. The role of the learner is conceived as one of building and transforming knowledge. But what does it mean to construct knowledge? Within constructivism there are different notions of the nature of knowledge and the
knowledge construction process. Moshman (1982) has identified three types of constructivism: exogeneous constructivism, endogenous constructivism and dialectical constructivism.

In exogenous constructivism, as with the philosophy of realism, there is an external reality that is reconstructed as knowledge is formed. Thus one’s mental structures develop to reflect the organization of the world. The information processing conceptualizations of cognitive psychology emphasize the representation view of constructivism, calling attention to how we construct and elaborate schemata and
networks of information based on the external realities of the environments we experience.

Endogenous constructivism or cognitive constructivism (Cobb, 1994; Moshman, 1982) focuses on internal, individual constructions of knowledge. This perspective, which is derived from Piagetian theory (Piaget 1977, 1970), emphasizes individual knowledge construction stimulated by internal cognitive conflict as learners strive to resolve mental disequilibrium. Essentially, children as well as older learners must negotiate the meaning of experiences and phenomena that are discrepant from their existing schema. Students may be said to author their own knowledge, advancing their cognitive structures by revising and creating new understandings out of existing ones. This is accomplished through individual or socially mediated discovery-oriented learning activities.

A BRIEF LOOK AT A TYPICAL CLASSROOM LESSON
There are twenty-five students in Ms. Blake’s ninth grade science class, comprised of a heterogeneous mix of students who vary widely in their knowledge, intellectual abilities, competence for independent learning and basic skills of writing, reading, arithmetic spelling. The students are seated in neat rows in front of the blackboard and the teacher conducts the lesson while standing at the front of the classroom. After most whole class lessons, students either have short quizzes or individual worksheet assignments to firm up and assess what they were expected to learn from the lesson(s).

The classroom environment seems pleasant, for the room is clean and orderly with science posters prominently displayed, leaving no doubt that science is taught here. During class the students are not badly behaved, even though disruptions are certainly not uncommon. The less competent students often fail to pay attention during lessons; daydreaming and talking can be observed and occasionally distracting or even pestering other students during lessons. Ms. Blake uses various strategies to alter these unproductive and often-disruptive student behaviors, and she regularly asks for them to be quiet and to “listen up.”


EFFICIENCY OF LEARNING
Because teachers have limited instructional time, the manner in which time is used in the classroom will always be a concern for teachers. Teachers feel considerable pressure to complete the requirements of their assigned curriculum. Thus it is predictable that teachers and educators in general will raise questions about how to accomplish the most with the time that is allocated. However, answers to questions of efficiency are not easily answered. There is neither universal agreement concerning precisely what the outcomes of schooling should be, nor agreement about what methods yield efficient and lasting learning. And if one’s goal is to enhance the transfer of learning, the answers become even more varied.

Constructivists value asking big questions, giving students time to think, and providing opportunities to explore to find answers. While this way of teaching requires more time, by ensuring sufficient time, students gain a better grasp of complex ideas. Moreover, deliberate investigation by students tends to foster the disposition to pursue issues and phenomena more completely, even those that are more difficult. Many lament the fact that school curricula contain so much material that it is almost impossible to cover it all. But where is the learning in “coverage?” When the emphasis in school is placed too heavily on information and its recall, the inevitable result will be prodigious amounts of forgetting. Thus, the position of constructivist educators is not to worship efficiency, but instead to value the quality of the learning. They subscribe
to the principle that “more is less.” On the surface it may appear that efficiency is sacrificed, but the more important outcome for learners of all ages, it is argued, involves learning with depth.

This is certainly not to say that teachers should be unconcerned about how they manage their instructional time, for nothing could be further from the truth. One may badly squander precious learning time through the poor application of any instructional methodology. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for effective constructivist teaching that the conditions for learning be carefully structured, and that students’ learning
activities and learning be carefully monitored. Competent constructivist teaching demands not only full engagement by students, but also meaningful engagement and accountability by teachers. Where tension arises over efficiency of instruction, constructivists will accentuate the goal of achieving depth of learning rather than breath of learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). In the final analysis, what is of enduring significance is that learners acquire deeper levels of understanding, see their learning in a meaningful context, become increasingly competent (and yes, efficient) learners, and have the awareness and ability to apply their learning in non-school contexts.

MYTHS ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVISM
There are certain misconceptions and myths that have evolved concerning constructivist instructional practices. They stem primarily from misinterpretations of underlying principles of learning posited by constructivism. In this section, misconceptions and myths will be identified, analyzed and countered.
Constructivism posits that learners construct their own reality based upon their individual perceptions of prior experiences. Thus, each person’s knowledge is a function of his or her prior experiences, how they are perceived and how they are organized. Once organized into complex mental structures, we use our cognitive
frameworks to interpret objects, ideas, relationships, or phenomena (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, Jonassen, 1993: Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999). Thus, what a person knows is grounded in one’s unique perception of his or her physical and social experiences; and we use our varied mental capabilities to explain, predict, or make inferences about phenomena in the real world (Jonassen, 1991).

These assumptions about how learners learn give rise, in turn, to important practical questions about constructivism applied to teaching. Specifically, if learners must each construct a unique reality, one that resides in the mind of the learner, then:
a) How can teachers create a purposeful/focused learning environment?
b) How can teachers determine and ensure a common set of learning outcomes for students?
c) How can teachers plan a set of instructional events or conditions when there is such unpredictability about what learning will be acquired?



MYTH 1: THERE IS NO FOCUS FOR LEARNING, NO CLEAR GOAL IN
CONSTRUCTIVIST-BASED INSTRUCTION

MYTH 2: CONSTRUCTIVIST BASED INSTRUCTION IS NOT THOUGHTFULLY PLANNED; CAREFUL PREPARATION IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN IN TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

MYTH 3: THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF STRUCTURE FOR LEARNING IN A CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

MYTH 4: AS LONG AS LEARNERS ARE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION AND OTHER FORMS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION, LEARNING WILL TAKE PLACE


MYTH 5: SINCE TEACHERS ARE NOT PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN DELIVERING INSTRUCTION (LECTURING AND EXPLAINING), THEIR ROLE IN THE CLASSROOM IS LESS IMPORTANT

EFFICACY OF LEARNER “STRUGGLE” IN THE PROCESS OF LEARNING
Constructivists believe that meaningful learning or “purposeful knowledge” may be promoted by a learning environment that has three main features. First, one should use authentic problems, that is, tasks having the contextual feel of the real world. Secondly, the learning environment should represent the natural complexity of the real world and avoid oversimplification of the task and instruction. And thirdly, a constructivist learning environment should support collaborative knowledge construction through social negotiation (Jonassen, 1991). It is believed that such learning environments invite learners through interaction with others to engage in problem finding, problem solving and inquiry learning. Through the combination of complex, real-world problems and meaningful social interaction among learners and teacher, constructivists assert that learners are encouraged to discover or invent new rules or revise old rules and in the process come to a deeper understanding of underlying concepts and principles. The discovery process embedded in a constructivist learning environment also allows learners to reevaluate what they know, and to change their understanding based on what they have directly learned from their environment. Constructivists argue that the open-ended, problem-based, inquiry learning characteristics of constructivist learning environments require learners to struggle with the ill-structured, real-world problems in order to solve them.
One of the fundamental underlying principles of constructivism is the concept of “sociocognitive conflict.” This mechanism for learning, derived from the work of Piaget and his disciples, proposes that cognitive conflicts lead to higher levels of reasoning and learning (Webb & Palinscar, 1996). Cognitive conflict arises through the dynamics of social exchange when the learner realizes that there is a contradiction between his/her existing understanding and what he/she is experiencing. Constructivists claim that it is reasonable to believe that the best environment for creating such conflict is an environment in which problems are posed, questions are raised and alternative perspectives are presented. Problem-based environments also promote peer collaboration and exchange of ideas, which are the major sources of cognitive conflict (Piaget, 1976). Evidence shows that giving up one’s current understanding in order to reach a new perspective will be best attained by an exchange of ideas (Damon, 1984; Radziszewska & Rogoff, 1991).

From a motivational perspective, evidence shows that since problem-based, inquiry learning environments simulate real world situations, students’ natural curiosity is stimulated and learners find their learning experiences to be more interesting, more engaging and more relevant. Furthermore, problem-based environments make higher cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and resource management demands upon the
learner. These high level demands encourage learners to develop expertise in how to learn as well as in learning to construct useful knowledge (Perkins, 1991). A problem-based learning environment is much more likely to engage learners in the learning process through identification, formulation and restructuring of goals; planning; development and execution of plans; self-monitoring; and appropriate use of resource management strategies.

SUMMARY
Constructivism has been widely embraced by science teachers as well as teachers of mathematics. Since constructivist epistemology is entirely consistent with an inquiry approach, we see its principles manifested through investigative laboratory activities, cooperative learning and a variety of hands-on experiments combined with expert scaffolding. In addition to positive outcomes in science (Neale, Smith, & Johnson,
1990), similar successes have been reported in reading (Duffy & Roehler, 1986) and in writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987), as emergent literacy practices have become adopted increasingly in language arts instruction. However, much of the research continues to be descriptive rather than comparative, and the intended outcomes of constructivist instruction are often qualitatively different from traditional methodology.
However, Airasian and Walsh (1996) do caution that the representation of constructivist views of knowledge and learning in teaching pedagogy has not been sufficiently explicated. Under what conditions will specific constructivist approaches be most effective for enhancing student achievement? For which learners and for what learning outcomes will constructivist methodologies be most efficacious? More research is needed to answer these questions. And they also point out that students do construct meaning in a variety of ways.

Although constructivism is a theory about learning rather than a description of teaching, some important strides toward defining the relationship between theory and practice have been made. The following pedagogical recommendations, while general in nature, have been derived from fundamental constructivist principles of learning (Confrey, 1990; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996).

1. Learners should be encouraged to raise questions, generate hypotheses and test their validity.
2. Learners should be challenged by ideas and experiences that generate inner cognitive conflict or disequilibrium. Students’ errors should be viewed positively as opportunities for learners and teachers to explore conceptual understanding.
3. Students should be given time to engage in reflection through journal writing, drawing, modeling and discussion. Learning occurs through reflective abstraction.
4. The learning environment should provide ample opportunities for dialogue and the classroom should be seen as a “community of discourse engaged in activity, reflection, and conversation” (Fosnot, 1989).
5. In a community of learners, it is the students themselves who must communicate their ideas to others, defend and justify them.
6. Students should work with big ideas, central organizing principles that have the power to generalize across experiences and disciplines.

REFERENCES

• Airasian, P.W. & Walsh, M.E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan 6: 78, 444-449.
• Applebee, A.N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Bell, N., Grossen, M. & Perret-Clermont, A.N. (1985). Sociocognitive conflict and intellectual growth. In M.W. Berkowitz (Ed.), Peer conflict and psychological growth.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bereiter, C. & M. Scardamilia (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and problems of “inert” knowledge. In S. Chipman, J. Segal & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
• Bransford, J.D. & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11:717-726.
• Bransford, J.D. Sherwood, R.D., Vye, N. & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving: Research foundations. American Psychologist 41: 1078-1089.
• Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (1994). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher 23: 4-12.
• Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. & Campione, iC. (1995). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, A.L. &. Campione, J.C. (1990). Communties of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Human Development 21: 108-125.
• Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners.In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J. & Ronning, R.R (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruction, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Carpenter, T. & Fennema, E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research 17: 457-470.
• Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 13: 16-30.
• Cobb, P. (1994). Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher 23: 4.
• Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R.B. Davis, C.A.
  Maher & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematices (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, pp.107-122). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Cooper, P.A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology 33: 12-19. 
• Cunningham, D.J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an
  educational semiotic. Educational Psychology Review 4:165-194. 
• Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 5: 331-343. 
• Davydov, V.V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research and practice (S. Kerr, Trans.), Educational Researcher 24: 12-21. 
• Dooling, D.J. & Lachman, R. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of experimental psychology 88: 216-222. 
• Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learming for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 
• Duffy, G., Roehler, L. & Radcliff, G. (1986). How teachers’ instructional talk influences students’ understanding of lesson content. Elementary School Journal 87: 3-16. 
• Duffy, T.M. & D.H. Jonassen. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Elbaum Associates. 
• Forman, E.A. & Cazden, C.B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertch (Ed.), Culutre, communication, and cognitive: Vygotskian perspectives. NY: Cambridge University Press. 
• Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C.T. 
• Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. 
• Fuson, K.C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D.A. 
• Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan 
• Gruber, H.E. & Voneche, J.J. (1977). The essential Piaget.. New York: Basic Books. 
• Hlynka, D. (1991). Postmodern excursions into educational technology. Educational Technology 31: 27-30. 
• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J. & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of/earning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 
• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K. (1991). Active learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. 
• Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 
• Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development 39: 5-14. 
• Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L. & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
• Kaufman, D. (1996). Constructivist based experiential learning in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education 18: 40-50. 
• Kosulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context. Preface to L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
• Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 
• Lampert, R.M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction 3: 305-342. 
• Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate perip heral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 
• McCarthy, S. (1994). Authors, text and talk: The internalization of dialogue from social interaction during writing. Reading Research Quarterly 29: 201-231.
• Moll, L.C. & K.F. Whitmore. (1993). Vygotsky in classroom practice: Moving from individual transmission to social transaction. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick & C. Addison 
• Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning. Sociocultral dynamics in children ’s development. NY: Oxford University Press. 
• Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review 2:371-384. 
• Neale, D., Smith, D. & V. Johnson, V. (1990). Implementing conceptional change teaching in primary science. Elementary School Journal 91: 109-132. 
• Perkins, D.N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology 31: 19-21. 
• Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books. 
• Piaget, J. (1977). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
• Pressley, M., Harris, KR., & Marks, M.B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychology Review 4: 3-31. 
• Radziszewska, B. & Rogoff, B. (1991). Children’s guided participation in planning errands with skilled adult or peer partners. Developmental Psychology 24: 840-848. 
• Resnick, L.B. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In S. Liben (Ed.), Development and learning: Conflict or congruence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Appreticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 
• Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn & R.S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed, Vol. 2). New York: Wiley. 
• Sleeman, D. (1983). Assessing aspects of competence in basic algebra. In D. Sleeman & J.S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems. NY: Academic Press. 
• Sprague, J. (1993). Why teaching works: The transformative power of pedagogical communication. Communication Education 42: 349-366. 
• Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 
• Thompson, M., McLaughlin, C. & Smith, R. (1995). Merrill physical science.Westerville, OH: Glencoe. 
• von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition on constructivism: Why some like it radical. In RB. Davis, C.S. Maher & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematices (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph No. 4, pp. 19-30). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds. and Trans.).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Webb, N.M. & Palinscar, AS. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA. 
• Wittrock, W.C. (1985). The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Studies in Science Education 12: 59-87. 
• Woolfolk, A.E. (1998). Educational psychology, 7th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.