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

 Much yet to learn? 2

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-
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=12
67502196
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.
 Much yet to learn? 3

found knowledge to complete tasks, advance projects, and meet the

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

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!
 Much yet to learn? 4

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

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
 Much yet to learn? 5

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

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
 Much yet to learn? 6

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

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

 Much yet to learn? 7

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

(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
 Much yet to learn? 8

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

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/ERICS

ervlet?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.
 Much yet to learn? 9

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:

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