Probing for Students’ Understanding in Chemistry: Using Multiple Approaches (Part Three: Concept Cartoon & Concept Map)

1. Concept Cartoon

Concept cartoon could be used to probe students’ understanding through interactive pictures with limited words. According to Keogh and Naylor (1999), there are three elements on the concept cartoon: 1) visual images, 2) minimal written language, 3) present alternative concept or questions relating to one central topic, 4) applying scientific ideas within everyday situations. According to Keogh and Naylor (1996), motivate and engage students through concept cartoon is major advantage of applying concept cartoon in science classroom. Moreover, this approach stimulates and challenge students’ thinking on their alternative conceptions. Students will evaluate their conceptions through representation of different alternative conceptions in concept cartoon. As a result, they will not feel shy, fear or being judged because the character on the cartoon could be represent their conceptions. The other advantage is stimulating students with minimal prompting from the teachers to discover the acceptable scientific ideas. This is an example of cartoon in chemistry topic which can be applied through Power point presentation or using OHP.

concept-cartoon

Figure 2. Concept Cartoon on Chemistry

However, within the limitation of resources, teachers could use paper with cartoon on it. In this approach, teachers’ creativity is challenged to create the interesting cartoon and strategies to represent it. Moreover, teachers also need to be aware of misunderstanding could be happened when students only focus on the cartoons, not on the content itself. Therefore, integrate cartoon approach with questioning and discussion will help teacher to identify this problem.

2. Concept Map

Concept map is a tool to investigate organisation of learners’ cognitive structure which is developed by Novak and Gowin ( Regis, Albertazzi, & Roletto, 1996). According to White and Gunstone (1992), concept map is applied to investigate students’ thinking about the relationship between the concepts or ideas. Concept map can help students to find the relationship between the knowledge which lead to meaningful learning experiences rather than memorise the concepts (Pendley, Bretz, & Novak, 1994). Once students understand the concepts, they will find easy to create the concept map about the topic. Therefore, it helps the teacher to probe student’ understanding, especially for the big class size which takes time to evaluate students’ understanding through writing or essays. Table 3. bellow shows the procedures and the purpose of using concept map (White & Gunstone, 1992)

Table 3. Purposes, Procedures and Recommendations of Using Concept Map

Concept Maps Approach
Purposes	Procedures (an Example)	Recommendations for Teachers
· Exploring understanding within the limited aspects of the topic · Investigate students’ understanding by asking the explanation of their concept map · Probe students’ understanding on the relation between each concepts · Probe students’ understanding by asking them to choose the key concept · Identify students’ learning process through changes of their concept map · Promote the discussion	Teacher: · Create cards which consist of several terms on one topic (simple topic) · Arrange the cards which is shown the relationship · Create the links (using lines) · Ask student to create their own concept map	· Begin with simple topic · Create one in front of the class as an example · Encourage students to create all possible links · Give suggestion on students’ first concept map which is unlikely good · Emphasis to students there are no right or wrong concept maps

This an example of applying concept map in teaching and learning chemistry on the topic of chemical reactions for Secondary School in Indonesia.

concept-map1

Figure 3. Concept Map for Secondary Level in Indonesia

Probing for Students’ Understanding in Chemistry: Using Multiple Approaches (Part Two: Questioning & Interviews)

1. Questioning

Questioning approach is basic strategy to investigate students’ understanding which is widely used in the classroom practices. According to Oakes (1996) as cited in Carr (1998),” questioning can be used to extend pupils, maintain the pace of the lesson involve all pupils in the work and provide encouragement”. Questioning approach could stimulate the discussion in the classroom and clarify the students’ conceptions, attract students’ attention, and pose problems for solutions (Marsh, 2000). According to Selley (2000), questioning approach not only simply enhances the acceptable conceptions in students’ mind, but for encouraging students to really knows the reasons of concepts. However, even though it is acknowledgeable as useful approach to gain depth information of students’ understanding, but it need extensive skills such as not to judge students’ thinking by telling them they are wrong (Tytler, 2002b), waiting for the response, and respect of students’ thinking. Therefore, teachers need to design carefully their questioning techniques in classrooms so that students will express their understanding.

Furthermore, there are different types of questions that teachers can use in science classrooms (Carr, 1998) and each type is briefly described in table 1.

Table 1. Different Types of Questions

Type of questions	Description	Example
Open	Stimulate the discussion through asking students’ opinions	“What do you think might be happened in this reaction?
Probing	Guide students into specific information	“Could you give an example to show…?”
Reflective	clarify important points in the discussion	“Are you sure of that…”
Closed	check for student understanding	“How many mols are there in 80 gr of NaOH?
Hypothetical	encouraging students’ investigatory skills	“If the KMnO4 solution is added to the oxalic acid, what do you think will be happened?

According to Carr (1998), questions which prompting students’ involvement, questions, and answers could engage students within meaningful learning experience. This type of questions also could help students to reflect on their existing understanding. However, the research study shows that, teacher mostly used closed questions and less reinforcement for students (Carr, 1998) which is easier than other types of questions. As a result, it is important for teachers to be aware of the advantages of others types of questions, so this approach could optimally promotes students’ understanding.

2. Interview about Events and Instances

Interview is one approach which could help teachers to monitor the learning process in the learners’ mind and students’ understanding about concepts. According to Treagust (1988), students’ interview is usual approach to obtain information about students’ alternative conceptions. Teacher could find out the students’ thinking, clarify student responses and allow the depth probing by asking questions and interview (Bell, Osborne, & Tasker, 1985; Anderson, 2004). In addition, this strategy also could identify the students’ misconceptions. One example of using interview in the classroom is instances and events interview. The interview of the instances and events is “a conversation that an expert has with one student, focused by initial questions about situations represented in as series of line diagrams [which can be used to] probe children constructions of meanings of concepts” (White & Gunstone, 1992, p.1). According to Carr (1996), interview about instances uses the cards which consist of the pictures and small words which are familiar with the students’ world, such as the picture of people’s swimming to investigate students’ understanding on the concept of floating and sinking. According to Tytler (2002), students have difficulties to apply scientific concept within daily life or out of school context. Moreover, interview about events carry out the activities which can probe students’ understanding. For example, a vitamin C tablet is dissolved in water to investigate students’ understanding on the state of matter. This approach could be applied in teaching and learning chemistry which is shown by figure 1.

interview

Figure 1. The Cards and Activities for Interview about Instances and Events Approaches in Chemical Reactions

However, interview could lead to problems when students feel pressure to give the right answer. Therefore, there are several procedures need to be concerned for using this approach which is shown by the table 2.bellow (Carr, 1996):

Table 2. Several Procedures for Interviews

Steps	Descriptions
Getting Started	· Start with the neutral topic · Explain about the reasons to the interview · Give the positive encouragement (to get the students’ thinking not a test)
Nondirection of responses	· Positive respond for unexpected students’ answer · Respond by repeating students’ answer to clarify · Consider the semi-structured interview
Encouragement	· Don’t judge students’ answer · Value the responses (verbal and non-verbal)
Patience in Awaiting a Response	· Take time (silence) in order to get the valuable information from students
Cross-Referencing During the interview	· Prepared response to clarify students’ ideas
Recording and Interpreting the Information	· Use the tape recorder · Listen carefully to get the main ideas of students’ thinking · Consider the subjectivity on interpret the data

Therefore, in the classroom, teacher should have the skills to conduct the interview with their students in order to get the real information of their student’s knowledge. In addition, it is important to establish clearly what students think and listen carefully to their responses (Bell, Osborne, & Tasker, 1985). However, although the interview has the advantage to clarify students’ understanding and depth probing (Anderson, 2004), but it is unlikely to applied by the teacher in the classroom as it is time-consuming and require substantial skills (Treagust, 1988; Othman, 2006). As a result, teachers need to be creative to create the appropriate strategies to apply interview in the classroom.

Probing for Students’ Understanding in Chemistry: Using Multiple Approaches (Part One)

Introduction

Students’ understanding becomes the main concern for teaching and learning in science. The problems of learning achievement in science influence the researchers and practitioners to consider multiple approaches to investigate students’ understanding. In addition, according to Treagust and Chandrasegaran (2007), currently science curriculum concerns on the multiple aspects on students’ understanding of scientific concepts and phenomena. However, even though research studies on students’ understanding of science concept have been widely developed, but studies which focus on teaching strategies to promote students’ understanding need to be explored (Keogh and Naylor, 1999). Therefore, different approaches to probe students’ understanding have been exploring not only to solve the problem of learning achievement, but also to engage students into scientific concepts and meaningful learning experience.

Furthermore, implementations of different approaches of students’ understanding in chemistry need to be developed since many students consider chemistry as difficult subject and find difficulties to understand the chemistry concepts. However, majority teachers do not effectively diagnose students’ learning problems and to measure the effectiveness of their classroom instruction. In addition, most teachers also find difficulties both to explain science concepts and investigate students’ understanding (Treagust & Chandrasegaran, 2007; Tytler, 2002b, Mann & Treagust, 1998). Therefore, it is important for help the teachers to explore different approaches of probing students’ understanding. This paper provides the review of different approaches of probing students’ understanding, especially in chemistry subject. The approaches are:1) questioning, 2) interview about events and instances, 3) concept cartoon, 4) concept map, and 5) two tier diagnostic. These different approaches have the advantages and limitations. Therefore, teachers need to consider the appropriate approaches that could be applied in their classroom.

The Importance of Probing Students’ Understanding in Chemistry

Many students presume that chemistry is difficult subject which leads to the low achievement and motivation. According to Levy Nahum, et.al (2004), students find difficulties to understand chemical concepts which are abstract. Moreover, according to Pendley, Bretz, and Novak (1994), the common problems in learning chemistry is because students learn by rote, students don’t understand the concepts and it’s relations, and teachers fail to give instructions of key concepts. In addition, students have difficulties to integrate any new information with their cognitive structures since the existing knowledge is integrated and resistance with their experience. Therefore, multiple approaches should engage students within meaningful learning experience through their daily lived experiences.

Besides, it is also important for teachers to realise that learners could have different understanding to those be determined by teachers (Nakhleh, 1992; Tytler, 2002a). According to Lin, Lee, & Treagust, (2005), “science teachers should have understanding about their students’ learning progress and achievement to attain their expectations for student learning achievement”. In addition, probing students’ understanding could help teacher to apply appropriate strategies and promote learning and understanding (Talaquer, 2006). However, most research studies shown that teachers didn’t give much approach to probe students’ understanding which is supported by the existing assessment which is not demand students’ explanations (Treagust & Chandrasegaran, 2007). Therefore, it is important to provide the consciousness about the importance of probing students’ understanding.

However, there are critics on investigating students’ understanding such as time consuming and meaningless since the curriculum force teachers to focus on standardise assessment. According to Tytler (2002a), there are two problems on probing students’ understanding. First, it is difficult for teacher to deal with many ideas of each student. Second, it is extremely difficult to deal with the students’ alternative conceptions and change their ideas into scientific conceptions. Furthermore, students need different strategies for different aspects of their learning (Selley, 2000), because every students has different style of learning. According to Parkinson (2000), individual’s learning style is influenced by nature and nurture. As a result, it is important for teachers to choose appropriate strategies which are effective and efficient way to probe students’ understanding and hold students’ differentiations.

Multiple Approaches

There are multiple approaches to investigate students’ understanding which are discussed in this paper: 1) questioning, 2) interview about events and instances, 3) concept cartoon, 4) concept map, 5) two-tier diagnostic. Multiple approaches are provided to give opportunity for students to learn optimally within their learning style. In addition, even though each approach has their own characteristic, advantages and limitations, but it will be prevailing to be applied complementary in the classroom to probe students’ understanding, especially in chemistry subject.

My Reflections on Social Constructivism (Journal 3B)

1. In what way is your teaching already shaped by a social constructivist perspective? Is there anything more that you might now consider? Could the CLES be useful for monitoring your teaching?

2. What have you learned in this topic?

My simple understanding on social constructivism is engaging the students through collaborative work with their peers in the classroom. I never thought that there is the fundamental reason behind that which related to the socially constructed of scientific knowledge itself (others knowledge too). Moreover, even though I applied cooperative learning, but I was still intervention my students’ thinking to have one conceptual changes immediately. I think that I was impatient through the process, I forced my students to get the “correct” answer shortly, without gave them opportunities to do much effort. Just giving them “the food” rather than guide them “the way to get the food”. I think it similar as relativist view rather than constructivism itselfJ, even though I applied constructivism (may be pseudo constructivismJ).

In addition, I never think so complex the learning process, as Driver, et all points out, there is no simple rules of teaching. Therefore, I am getting realize my essentials’ role to be a mediator to introduce my students’ on the cultural tolls of learning process. Furthermore, I agree that it is difficult to learn without social process, because since individuals were born, they need social process to learn about something from the adult or community itself. Reflecting on my teaching, how can I push my students to be passive learners to receive “the transferring file” from my mind and ignore their daily activities to receive the knowledge (through social process, even since they were born).

Moreover, as well as the other topic, I learn much from this social constructivism. It is challenge my creativity to create the appropriate teaching strategy, especially on open and critical discourse. I realize that my students should know and apply their critical voice, especially on the value, culture, and myth in their life which sometimes constrains their thinking/decisions. It becomes powerful, if this dilemma could be engaged in the classroom and it also becomes challenges for teachers to represent it in the classroom, especially the using of language. According to Marsh (2000), teachers’ behaviour, especially the language will influence students’ values and behaviour. In my country, for example, the ethical issues in science such as euthanasia. Even though, it is still an ethical debate, but it is not allowed in the religion, as a result, there is no debate in term of these topics, because of the religion power. Therefore, students’ ability to weigh moral issues and make moral judgments is restrained in the classroom. It also constrains teachers’ thinking to apply this critical voice in the classroom which seems to be useless, because the answer will be back to your value, religion, and cultureJ.

Furthermore, since I learn learning environment instrument, I am interested to develop it as the tool on my research. It also one area which is not yet developed in my country and it might be convenient for my colleagues who prefer to develop research on post positive. Therefore CLES instrument could help me as one of tools to evaluate my teaching. The scale could be representing the learning environment that is created, but the integration methods also need to be applied. Not only answer the instrument, but also my own observation and interview with students (may be I need help to do that to consider my intervention on students’ opinion). Moreover, I am curious that can I involve my students on their learning (as Vaille did) ? I never do that, especially on the assessment. According to Linn & Miller (2005), assessment is an integrated process for determining the nature and extent of student learning and development through the active involvement on the students’ learning. I hope that I can apply the collaborative learning in my classroom which build the students’ confidence rather than destroy their self-esteem as learners (Stiggins, 2001).

In addition, I also feel curious when I read all the readings, because not only I want to have depth understanding of social constructivism itself, but also I found this unit gives opportunity for me to understand the philosophy of each type of constructivism. Especially, the reading by Driver, et all, which I found all the words are important for me (I almost highlight all the words, when I came back again to read, I became confuse because too many highlightJ). Moreover, the examples of applying the concepts within the science classroom give me the clear ideas how the process of enculturation is happened in the classroom.

This unit reminds me when I watched the news couple years ago on the topic “ Pluto is not planet. Throughout my learning process of scientific knowledge, I never doubt that the entire concept that I read in the science books or my teachers gave me is true. Then, I was shock when, the one third of astronomy expert decided that the Pluto is not a planet anymore. I became realize how powerful the scientific community decision to change the scientific knowledge which is acceptable or organized valid. At that time, I just thought that it is only my perceptions, but since I engage with this module, I comprehend on the concept that the scientific knowledge is constructed and validated through the social process within the scientific community. Even though, it involves the individuals’ construction, but the socially process is important to construct the scientific knowledge. However, I still think about the scientific community itself, if the knowledge considerable as a science, but not validated by scientific community, it means not scientific knowledge?. If herbal medicine or other things which is generated and validated from certain community (culture), is it still not scientific knowledge? Is it the one that problematic for Emilia and Cupane? (Inclusive, hybrid, etc.).

Furthermore, related to conceptual change, I realize that the existing of conceptual change is because it seems that the goal of science education is achieving the “one absolute truth” of scientific knowledge. This represent on my standardized assessment which is given wright and wrong answer. Therefore, I don’t feel strange if teachers’ and students’ focus on conceptual change itself. Furthermore one example of diagnosis students conception is two-tier diagnosis, I found this instrument is useful to explore students’ conceptions. I plan to create this test one, but with adding open-ended questions which give opportunity for students to bring their other ideas. Even though, may be the list of conceptions will influence their answer, but this instrument will help me as one of many ways to explore my students’ own ideas within “my big class”. However, it will be better if providing open options both on first tier and on second tier. According to Treagust & Chandrasegaran (2007), raw score on the test could underestimate students’ knowledge, for example students who looked on deeper meaning could give the answers which are categorized as wrong answer. Moreover, sometimes it becomes more tests taking skills rather than the extant knowledge. Again, I need to put my dialectical thinking, integral perspectiveJ, nothing is perfect, and everything is complementing each others. I closed my reflection by reflection, I learn many things, and again, I am worried all this valuable things will be volatile under the “standardized assessment”. Hope, it doesn’t discourage me and other teachers in my country and I believe there are many empowered teachers out thereJ.

REFERENCES

Linn, R.L., & Miller, M.D. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Stiggins, R.J. (2001). Introduction to the special section: Building a productive assessment future. National Association of Secondary Principals, 85(62), 2-4.

Treagust, D.F. & Chandrasegaran (2007). The Taiwan national science concept learning study in an international perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 391-403.

Social Constructivism (Journal 3A)

1. Driver et al. Article

This article is a theoretical account of the power of combining personal and social constructivist perspectives on knowing in the context of school science. A radical constructivist thread is woven into this perspective, highlighting the inherent (epistemic) uncertainty of scientific disciplinary knowledge.The authors are international scholars in the UK – Rosalind Driver received the Outstanding Scholar Award from the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (USA) which recognises the contribution of a life-time’s work – sadly she passed away several years ago.

1.1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge

“The objects of science are not the phenomena of nature but constructs that are advanced by the scientific community to interpret nature“. What do the authors mean? What view of scientific knowledge arises from the Social Constructivist perspective of Driver et al.? What is meant by a relativist view?

The scientific knowledge is recognized not only because of the symbolic of nature itself, but also further constructed and validated through social interaction or dialog process within the scientific community. There are some “core commitments” within the scientific community to produce the scientific knowledge which could be (now) different from the “reality” of nature itself (who knows?). Therefore, once the scientific knowledge is validated by scientific community, it becomes the “acceptable scientific” concepts. The problem is the individuals or learners are improbable to find these acceptable scientific concepts through their own observation in the natural world. Therefore, if their teacher failed to facilitate the process of introduce the students to this culture or social institution, students will find separated ideas between scientific concepts of nature with the nature itself. It becomes the basic idea of social constructivism to view the scientific knowledge as the result of scientific community’s activities through social process. This view has major implications in teaching and learning science on creating social activities in the classroom. The learning process should recognize that individuals construct their own meaning on scientific knowledge (basic of personal constructivism), but further validated and communicated through social process. It is important to shaping science teaching in term of helping the learners to making sense of the scientific knowledge on their individual level within this cultural process. It is different from empiricist view which organizes individual sense-making and force students to accept the scientific view without any personal sense on it. Therefore, teachers’ role is important to create the “bridge” between individuals’ construction and the community of scientific knowledge through creating the social cultural setting in the classroom.

On the other hand, the relativist position view that scientific knowledge is true reflection of the world. This view points out the absolute truth of the world, which is impossible to have different perspectives on it. The scientific knowledge is true the nature itself, there is no intervention of socially process within the community. As a result, there is only one way to acquire the knowledge through the observation the world itself. Therefore, the progress of scientific knowledge becomes problematic from this perspective when the knowledge is changed because of the result of social process within the scientific community. Then, social constructivist perspective purposes the other view related to this ontology of reality, which is the scientific knowledge is constrained by the world itself, but it further constructed by social process. However, even though this relativist views need to be evaluated, but it is still mostly applied in teaching science, such as my teachingL.

1.2 Learning as Enculturation

From the Social Constructivist perspective of Driver et al., why is the metaphor of learning as enculturation more beneficial than the metaphor of learning as discovery? The interventionist role of the teacher is important for enabling students to construct ’cultural tools’. What might they be?

The authors point out learning as enculturation engage the learners to involve within the ideas and practices of scientific community which provide the meaningful learning experiences on individual level. Scientific community later recognize as cultural or social institution which provides the process of internalization on it. Scientific knowledge is constructed when the individuals actively engage through social process, such as share the problems and task. As Piaget points out that social interaction could promote individuals’ cognitive development, such as through discussion. Moreover, the representation of scientific knowledge is communicated and validated within everyday culture which is difficult to be discovered by individual without the cultural process within this community. In addition, the authors declare that empiric studies of natural world will not expose scientific knowledge because is discursive in nature. Learning only or “pure” by individual process is almost impossible without social process which is recognize as learning as discovery. Therefore, learning as enculturation is more beneficial than learning as discovery.

Furthermore, teachers’ role is important to help students to make personal sense of the process of knowledge is constructed, generated, and validated within the community. It is more engaging the learners rather than to “organize individual sense-making about natural world.” The scientific knowledge as a product of scientific community culture needs to be introduced to learners. Moreover, well-designed learning experiences need to be developed to help students to recognize their personal sense. Classroom as the place to actively engage the students to understand and interpret the phenomena by themselves, then the social interactions with their peers could provide opportunity for them to reflect on their ideas. Teacher’s role is creating this physical environment to help students reflect on their ideas through this social process. This process will be meaningful for students and it could engage the students to modify their own ideas by themselves if they found it no longer appropriate. Teacher could create the learning environment which could encourage students to give their explanations or arguments on their ideas. Furthermore, the teacher as an “expert member” within the cultural institution need to provide “appropriate” culture tools such as “structuring tasks” which give opportunity for the learners as less experience members for internalize process and the take conscious control. Therefore, teachers’ intervention is essential to “provide appropriate evidence and make cultural tools and conventions of the science community”. As a result, it becomes challenges for the teachers not only to create the uncultured process within the classroom setting, but also face the conflict between the new ideas with the students’ prior knowledge.

1.3 Pluralism

What is meant by students having differing ‘conceptual profiles’ and what is problematic from this perspective about the notion of ‘conceptual change’?…this issue is relevant to the Socio-cultural perspective we explore in the next topic.

The authors provide the notion of conceptual profiles which provide opportunity for the learners to have plural conceptual schemes which appropriate for the specific social settings. Moreover, learning can be better if providing the parallel constructing within the specific context. Because individuals are unique, they could have different perspectives to make sense of the knowledge which doesn’t mean their perspectives are wrong. These different/plural perspectives could be appropriate within specific context. By respecting on the plurality of students’ conceptual profiles, students become more confident to express their own ideas. Through this process, students will found how valuable their thinking within the learning process in the classroom.

On the other hand, the conceptual change which is mostly applied in science teaching) didn’t allow students to have multiple conceptual since science itself is objective truth. Therefore, the conceptual change could be problematic if the individuals only allow having “one conceptual profile” to understand the concept, because their ideas could be appropriate for describe the nature phenomena within specific context. According to Posner group as cited in Taylor (1996), students should have dissatisfaction experience to their own ideas and fin the new ideas are intelligible, plausible, and fruitful. Moreover, school is not only simply to changing one conceptual into the acceptance one, but also to develop the conscious how the theories are developed. However, I think that both of conceptual profiles and conceptual change could be come together on the end of the process. I mean, conceptual profiles could be the “idiosyncratic” with conceptual change if the social setting is specific describing. For example, the concept of chemical reactions could be different from different students, they could see as arrangement of atoms, energy changing, or physical quantum which depend on the setting. But, it the context is specific provided, it could provide “idiosyncratic” conceptual (my assumption).

1.4 No Simple Rules for Teaching

In their summary, the authors’ state that “no simple rules for pedagogical practice emerge from a constructivist view of learning”. Why not? Nevertheless, from a Social Constructivist perspective, what is the important features of the classroom role of the teacher? This issue is relevant to Constructivism being regarded as a referent in the next topic.

Since the scientific knowledge is constructed, validated, and communicated trough social process within scientific community, relationship between learning and pedagogy becomes difficult. If the representations of scientific knowledge in the classroom are very different with the everyday representations, learners will find the difficulties within their learning process. Learning science in the classroom introduce students to the new culture and discourse. According to Taylor (1996), “teachers are expected to work collaboratively as agents of cultural change in forums beyond their classrooms. However, it is not simple ways process to involve students within this process, because it needs appropriate ways to making sense on the new ideas. Therefore, teachers’ role is essential to introduce these cultural tools to make personal sense of viewing the world. In addition, in the classroom, teacher’s role is not only to introduce the new ideas and guide them to making sense by themselves, but also to listen and diagnose the instructions which are appropriate. Therefore, teaching becomes the learning process for the teacher to develop this process in appropriate way (teachers also learn), because it needs much effort to mediate between students’ everyday life and scientific world itself. As a result, there are no simple rules for pedagogical practices.

2. Dawson & Taylor Article

This article was written with one of my doctoral students, Vaille Dawson, now Lecturer at Edith Cowan University. Vaille had experimented with using a social constructivist perspective to shape the discussion in her Year 9 science classroom during a topic on ethics in science. The study yielded both promising outcomes and a salutary warning for constructivist zealots.

2.1 Open and Critical Discourse. A critical constructivist perspective shaped Vaille’s innovative approach to teaching bioethical dilemmas in her science class. Critical constructivism is explored in the next topic, so for now please explain the concepts of ‘open discourse’ and ‘critical discourse’ in the context of Vaille’s teaching.

Open discourse provides opportunities for students using their language to describe their own ideas and have learning experience as co-participatory activity. It is part of critical constructivism and challenges the students to face the conflict between their prior knowledge and the topic which is given. The students learn to value others’ opinion and reflect on their own. On Vaille’s teaching open discourse is applied through dilemma topic on Bioethics which challenges students to express their personal value. The applying of open discourse on her teaching represents through two scales of CLES which are personal relevance and student negotiation. On the personal relevance, Vaille stimulates students’ thinking through the ethical issues, listens and accepts to their views. She engages the students through this critically thinking process by bringing the outside world into the classroom. On students’ negotiation, Vaille provides opportunities for students to reflect on their own views and develop their understanding through discussion and collaborative learning activities with their peers. In this point, it is important to educate the students to respect and tolerant with different opinions. In addition, critical discourse provides opportunity to the “uncomfortable zone” which tends to open the existing social reality or culture which sometimes constrains students’ thinking. This process also encourages students to be critical and aware of the powerful myth within their reality. Vaille points out this critical discourse provides opportunities for students to “deconstructing social and emotional barriers to learning” which could engage students to view science as applicable knowledge in the daily life.

2.2 The CLES. Vaille chose 3 of the 5 scales of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey to help her evaluate the implementation of her innovative teaching. The CLES was designed in accordance with a critical constructivist perspective (more on this in the next topic) to enable teacher-researchers to monitor the implementation of their constructivist inspired teaching approaches. It is available at the web site: http://surveylearning.moodle.com/ along with papers on its development and use (versions for maths and science are interchangeable…just replace the term ’science’ with ‘maths’). Please summarise the main characteristics of each of the five scales (Personal Relevance, Social Negotiation, etc).

There are five scales in CLES which are Personal Relevance Scale, Shared Control Scale, Critical Voice Scale, Student Negotiation Scale, and Uncertainty Scale.

Scale Name	Main Characteristics	Sample Item
Personal Relevance	· Relevancy between students’ learning and their world · The degree of activities which bring the outside world into classroom · Recognize and respect on students knowledge, values and experiences which they bring in the classroom · Students become recognize the useful of their social world beyond the classroom (meaningful learning experiences)	I learn about the world outside the school
Shared Control	· Recognizing students’ autonomous in their learning · Students’ participation in planning, conducting, and assessment of learning	I help teacher to plan what I’m going to learn
Critical Voice	· Students have opportunity to express their critical ideas (teacher as facilitator) · Legitimacy of students’ critical voice · Students enable to give the critical views on teaching and learning (such as teacher’s pedagogical plans, and methods) or “any impediments to their learning” · Students could deconstruct social and emotional barrier in learning such as become a passive learners	It’s Ok to ask teacher, “Why do we have to learn this?”
Student Negotiation	· Students engage on cooperative working, reflect on their own ideas, and develop understanding and value · Students not only reflect on viability of other students’ ideas, but also self-critically on their ideas · Involvement with other students in assessing viability of new ideas (working together to solve the problems) · Students also learn to respect and tolerance with other opinions	I ask other students to explain their ideas
Uncertainty	· Provisional status of scientific knowledge · The extent of uncertainty of knowledge which are represented and valued in the classroom · Teacher as facilitator for students to engage with uncertainty knowledge which could be a part of students’ experiences	I learn that the views of science have changed overtime

2.3 Resistance to Epistemic Transformation. Although many students in Vaille’s class embraced enthusiastically the innovative constructivist learning environment she was attempting to introduce, others resisted. What major factors were identified in this study as having contributed to students resisting the teachers invitation to engage profitably in open and critical discourse? Can you suggest other possible factors?

Vaille created the learning experiences which engage students through open and critical discourse. She designed the learning experiences which provide opportunities for classroom debate and discussion. This type of learning activities require students to be active participate, engage and responsible on their learning goals. It became challenging for the learners who want to move on from their “comfort zone” as passive learners. But, for the others it became problems, since they view learning as “transferring” process. The other reason is because it put pressure to students to give contribution and engage with the learning goals, some students felt uncomfortable on it. Therefore, it is also important for teachers (transformative teachers) who willing to apply the new strategies to realize that some students could be lack willingness to engage with the process. Moreover, her students realize the value of the activities, but they felt that it is lacking relation to their science learning. As a result, they seem unwilling to engage the learning. In addition, social constructivism requires students’ engagement through the collaborative learning. Therefore, it is important for them to understand their own leaning process, especially their own knowledge of the world which based on their experiences. Vallie also taught students to realize and respect on students’ different ideas which sometimes it is difficult to accept others ideas. People tend to be happy as the correct/superior one. I think for applying the constructivism, it is not only shifting paradigms for teachers but also for students from passive to active learners.

3. Confrey article

Jere Confrey (a female) is one of the leading mathematics educators in North America. She has written extensively about the use of a social constructivist perspectivefor shaping the teaching and learning of primary school mathematics.

3.1 What more did you learn about teaching from a Social Cvst perspective from this paper? (eg., teacher questioning, modelling).

A social constructivism perspective gives major implication on students’ role within their learning such as collaboration and negotiation. As a result, teachers’ instruction is important to promote students’ autonomy, reflection, construction, and negotiation. Teacher need to shift their paradigm from traditional to constructivist, form product to process oriented, from routines to reflections. I agree that the most basic skill that teacher need to develop is approach to unexpected respond from their students which have very unpredictable perspectives. It is also emphasized by Piaget that child may see the mathematics or scientific ideas with different way as result of different form of argument, materials, and experiences. It is not easy or simple way to replace this idea, teacher need to convince that “their ideas are not longer effective or the other ideas are more preferable”. Therefore, I realize teaching is not simple way of process changing conceptual.

Furthermore, this paper concern on the role of teachers’ instruction which is important to build the connection between students’ internal thinking process and the object outside. Therefore, teacher need to build models of students’ understanding (students’ construction) through varied ways. The instructions also need to be interactive and responsive to students’ conceptions, in this stage teachers need to prepare themselves to negotiate with students’ existing ideas (which could be acceptableJ). Then, it is important for giving opportunities for students to decide their own construction. In the instruction, teacher need to promote “ 1)the autonomy and commitment in the students, 2) development students’ reflective process, 3)construction case histories, 4) identification and negotiation solution with students, 5)retracing the solution paths, 6) adherence to the intent of material”.

On the promoting autonomy and commitment, it is important to questioning students’ answer which helps students to responsibility on their own learning. It will lead to students become good problem solvers. Furthermore, there are three categories of questions: problematic, action, and reflection. On this stage, students are challenged to encounter the situation, then solving the problems, and reflecting their solution. In addition on construction the case history, teacher try to view their own students’ performance through students’ view which can be taught as a case story. This process helps the students to challenge their own ideas and the teacher to create flexible approaches and multiple perspectives. Then on identification and negotiation of a tentative solution path provide the framework of students’ thinking to solve the problems. Teacher could work with the students to build this tentative solution path which could be through interview. Furthermore, reviewing the solution path provides opportunity to reflect on the problems and solution. All this approaches on the instruction show that the constructivist teacher has more opportunities to share the learning process with the students and more respect on students’ ideas.

3.2 What is the distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘powerful’ constructions? How might this distinction be useful?

The powerful construction engage students to identify and interpret the problems, then justify to their cognitive process. It involves students’ reflection on their construction which can lead to development of their understanding. Because of it involve students’ conscious of their thinking process and it will lead to the meaningful learning experience for them on the individual levels. On the other hand, the weak construction reflect on the learning as transferring process which depends on teachers’ input trough direct instruction. As a result students become passive learners who find difficulties to explain the reasons behind their ideas which become the problem in the learning process. However, this type of construction is common happened in the learning process which mostly influence by the teachers. Furthermore, this distinction will help teacher to decide the appropriate instruction to develop the powerful instruction. It emphasizes the importance of active views from the learners. The social constructivism view will help teacher to build this type of instruction, because students are engaging on developing their understanding through reflection and social process in classroom setting. As a result, students modify their conceptions because of their own conscious and constructive process.

REFERENCES

Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching, in Davis, Maher, and Noddings (Eds.). Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. JRME Monograph, Reston, Virginia, NCTM.

Dawson, V.M. & Taylor, P.C. (1990). Establishing open and critical discourses in the science classroom: Reflecting on initial difficulties. Research in Science Education, 28(3), 317-336.

Driver, et.al. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Taylor, P.C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(1,2), 151-173.

iGo Green Tip of the Day

Creating the Green Community

Get More Green iVillage Tips Here!

iGo Green Tip of the Day

Constructivism: A Paradigm Towards Improved Teaching

Constructivism: A Paradigm Towards Improved Teaching

By: Lerry Tan Cabalinan

Preliminary: A Retrospect of My Teaching Career

I was employed at Southern Christian College, located at the southern part of the Philippines in June 2001 as Executive Secretary to our Human Resource Development Officer. My functions were mostly administrative. It was in the second semester of that year that the school needed a part time mathematics teacher to teach basic mathematics subjects in the tertiary level. Our Human Resource Development Officer (HRDO) approached me to ask if I could teach those subjects knowing that I am a Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics graduate. I was hesitant to accept it because I did not have any background in the teaching profession. However, he insisted that I have to accept the teaching job because it would not only increase my salary but also it would help me grow personally. The second reason struck me most. Therefore, I accepted the teaching job.

Since then, I have been teaching basic mathematics subjects. As the days passed by, I found out that I have a passion for teaching and everyday it is growing. Every time I am in my class, I teach them the best I can embracing appropriate teaching strategies and methods for the optimization of the learning process. Such approaches were acquired in the seminar-workshops organized by our school and outside organizations such as the Australian funded program-the Basic Education Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM). In my classrooms, I engaged my students in so-called “technical interest”, as described by Habermas (Grundy, 1987). It is one of the fundamental human interests which influence how knowledge is constructed. My students were directed and lectured in a teaching-learning process that involves motivation, presentation of the subject matter, utilising quizzes and examinations as ways to evaluate their progress.

Despite my half a decade of teaching experience, it seemed that something was still lacking. I felt that I needed to do and explore more on teaching aspects especially related to student learning. From the start of my teaching career I already knew that teaching mathematics is a tough job. It is a challenge for a teacher to let students feel and like mathematics and make it as interesting as their other subjects. Students label mathematics as a dreaded disease. They feel that they have no freedom to express their own ideas or opinion in a mathematics classroom. Those are alternative conceptions that affect students’ learning. Another aspect that affects students’ learning is the language and culture (Tytler, 2002). In our country, even though English is our second language and our medium of instruction, still, students find it difficult to deal with the subject matter in a classroom and sometimes I ended up lecturing in our first language that is, Pilipino or Tagalog.

Reflecting on all those fundamental aspects that affect students’ learning, I realized that I don’t only need to explore teaching aspects and effective students’ learning but also for me to reform and change my practices and views from being a traditionalist teacher to a postmodern one. It is hard to accept but it is the reality, I viewed mathematics as a memorization of formulas and science as accumulation of facts (Treagust et al, 1996). We are not yet half way with our SMEC 611-Learning in Science and Mathematics unit endeavours at SMEC but my learning started to unfold “my being a teacher”. My horizon and views on students’ effective learning and mathematics and science subjects are beginning to broaden. The desire and eagerness to learn more about student learning, understanding, prior knowledge, and conceptions especially about science and mathematics, constructivist perspective on learning, probing understanding, and teaching approaches are growing significantly. I want to share everything I gained here at SMEC with my colleagues, especially in the Teacher Education Department.

Introduction

Education is very important to one’s life. It is an essential tool for everyone to be prepared for the future. It is about lifelong learning. Education exists to prepare children for their broader adult roles in the society and it provides knowledge, awareness, training, and skills needed by people in adult life. It is the teacher that helps learners in such preparations. As nurturers we need to change our views and improve our teaching practices for the better that is, embracing new and improved approaches so that our students will be equip with necessary learning and understanding to face the world. Whatever will be the future of our students reflects not only what the school is but the teachers and administrators also. We should bear in mind that the essence of successful instruction and good schools comes from the thoughts and actions of the teachers and school leaders (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 1998).

I am writing this paper as a “wake up call” not only for myself but also for my colleagues at Southern Christian College especially in the Teacher Education Department who are reluctant for change. I know to change is difficult and some people often resist it; however, as teachers at Southern Christian College we are committed to take initiatives to improve student learning and teacher performance. As teachers, we are expected to take on the role of being a lifelong learner to keep abreast of our field and maintain and further develop our expertise.

This paper is my means to encourage my colleagues that one way to change is to embrace a constructivist epistemology of teaching and learning, a view that acts as a powerful theoretical referent “to build a classroom that maximizes student learning” (Tobin & Tippins, 1993, p. 7 as cited in Treagust et al., 1996). Also, this paper provides my colleagues an understanding and knowledge why it is important to know what students know prior to commencing a new topic in science and mathematics and some ways in organising the teaching and learning process for improved learning.

Students’ Prior Knowledge: Teachers Should Know

There are a lot of challenges in teaching mathematics. One challenge is to know what the prior knowledge is of our students and how they acquire it before we commence a new topic. Our students bring with them an array of prior knowledge and conceptions of the world in coming in to our classes (Tytler, 2002), “they are not empty vessel”(p. 15). Gunstone (1995) emphasized that, “the ideas and beliefs which students holds about learning/teaching/appropriate roles are themselves personal constructions derived from previous experience”(p. 9). It is essential for teachers to be aware of and utilise the prior knowledge of students and have some insights into students’ understandings. Such understanding can be categorised as rote, observational, insightful, and formal (Buxton, 1978). Or it can be relational understanding-knowing what to do and why or instrumental understanding–rules without reasons (Skemp, 1976). But whatever kind or level of understanding our students’ have, it is still essential to establish clearly what the students’ think and should attend carefully to their responses. In this sense, teachers can use the information of students’ prior knowledge to create instruction which can avoid the misunderstanding of concept.

Looking for patterns of students’ prior knowledge and understanding is a constructivist approach to teaching. Teachers should be aware of thinking patterns that students typically use for them to anticipate and appreciate their students’ understanding (Dominick & Clark, 1996 as cited in Killen, 2003). Teachers should teach students appropriate thinking skills for them to think constructively rather analytically (De Bono, 1996 as cited in Killen, 2003) since constructive thinking focuses on depth of perception, organization of thinking, creativity, information, emotion, action, and interaction. This notion supports what Bodner (1986) said about constructivist model of knowledge that is “knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner” (p. 873). Points of constructivism had been mentioning above, so, we need to go further in this aspect for have a deeper understanding.

Aspects of Constructivism

Constructivism is a powerful contemporary paradigm of making sense of how students’ learn and based on the works of psychologists Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. It is a theory of about knowledge and learning which well developed in the recent years. Bryman (2001) asserts that in constructivism social phenomena and their meanings are not only produced through social interaction but are in a constant state of change or revision. In this perspective, learning constructs new presentations and models of reality as human meaning-making endeavours.

Constructivism is a post-structuralist psychological theory (Doll, 1993) that interprets learning as a recursive, interpretive and building process interrelating with the social and physical world. It also depicts how structures and deeper understanding emerges from a learner as she/he struggles to create meaning. The central organizing principle can be generalized across experiences.

Clements and Battista (1990) emphasized that constructivism is different from traditional instruction and a curricula view of teaching and learning that is based on the students submissively “absorbing” the content or subject matter introduced by others; e.g. authoritative adults, and that teaching is just a transmission of a set of established skills, ideas and concepts.

Furthermore, tenets of constructivism are introduced to further understand students’ learning and their understanding especially with relation to their previous knowledge before a new topic will be introduced. These tenets are also embraced by some proponents:

· Children create or invent knowledge (Clements & Battista 1990).

· Learning should not be regarded as an implanting process (Tytler, 2002).

· Children create new knowledge by reflecting on their mental and physical actions (Clements & Battista 1990).

· Learning is a construction of personal meaning (Tytler, 2002).

· No one true reality exists, only individual interpretations of the world (Clements & Battista 1990).

· Learning is a social process in which children grow into the intellectual life of those who surround them (Bruner, 1986 as cited in Clements & Battista, 1990).

· Learners have the final responsibility for their own learning (Tytler, 2002).

Since knowing what students’ prior knowledge is very much essential to constructive teaching – learning process, we also need to know and understand different constructivist views on learning for us to have a bigger picture of our students’ thinking and understanding in our classroom.

Constructivist Perspectives on Learning

Tytler (2002) introduced three perspectives. He named the first as the personal constructivist perspective. In this view, learning outcomes depend not only on the learners’ learning environment set but also on their knowledge as well. It involves construction of meanings. Learners construct meaning starting from the day they are born and through out their lives, since it is a continuous process.

The second view that Tytler (2002) discussed in his paper is the radical constructivist perspective. In this perspective, knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, and whatever knowledge we build up should be regarded of as having an adaptive function to help us face the world rather than as the discovery of underlying reality (Von Glaserfield, 1993, 1996 as cited in Tytler, 2002). It denies the possibilities that knowledge is directly transmitted between teacher and learner.

The third perspective is the social constructivism. Tytler (2002) stressed that “a social constructivist position focuses our attention on the social processes operating in the classroom by which a teacher promotes a discourse community. This discourse community occurs when students and the teacher ‘co-construct’ knowledge” (p. 19). Teachers need to function in a classroom as much the same way as the learners do.

Constructivist Approaches for Teaching: Way for Improved Learning

Exploration

Embracing constructivist approaches to organise teaching of one specific topic in mathematics is one way to improve students’ learning. Tytler (2002) referred these approaches as Constructivist/Conceptual Change (C/CC). In all the learning cycles and models Tytler mentioned, the more profound and interactive cycle introduced by Glasson (1993, as cited by Tytler, 2002) is what I considered more applicable in teaching mathematics. The emphasis of this cycle (Figure 1) is more on social constructivist views into the vitality of language in building conceptions, and the ensuing requirement for clarification and negotiation.

	Elaboration						Clarification

Figure 1. The Glasson’s Learning Cycle

In these cycle, students’ prior knowledge of the subject matter or content are challenged by the teachers by intentionally urging them to explore an event on which their predictions are based, even if such events are possibly not correct. After the exploration, a discussion follows for the students to reevaluate their prior knowledge. In this process for improved learning, students can incorporate exact copies of teacher’s understanding. For the part of the teacher, it explores his/her role in as to how his/her knowledge, understanding, experiences, and philosophy of mathematics support students’ improved learning.

Sample Lesson Plan in Mathematics Using Glasson’s Learning Cycle

Year Level : First Year Secondary Students Section : Heterogeneous Class No. of Students : 40 Prior knowledge required : Fundamental operation of numbers, Fractions, Decimals

Lesson 1: Topic Title: Percent § Teaching Strategy Applied: Glasson’s Learning Cycle To teach this lesson using Glasson’s Learning cycle: exploration, clarification and elaboration.

§ Exploration The teacher begins exploring students’ view about percent by engaging the students in the following activity: - Students will be divided into heterogeneous and cooperative learning groups of 5. - Each group will be given words such as fraction, decimal, and percent. - Students are required to define each word based on their prior knowledge. - After 10 minutes, one representative from each group will present to the class about their output.

§ Clarification After the presentation, the teacher will establish the concept about the topic. Then he/she will provide motivating experiences related to the topic. After which a discussion will follow for the students to reevaluate their ideas. Then the teacher will interpret and clarifies students’ views.

§ Elaboration To elaborate further students’ understanding of the topic, students are again divided into groups (same group in the first activity). They will imagine a restaurant as their setting. Each group will be given a set of menu-for their imaginative meal and paper bills (play money)-as their budget. Each member of the group will have an opportunity to order whatever they desire from the menu. Have the students calculate the bill for his or her imaginative meal: - find the cost of the meal, - the amount of a tip, (They can argue among themselves whether to give or not to give a tip and how much is considered a reasonable tip) - sales tax, and the - total cost. Another discussion will follow by: - Asking the students how they used and linked their previous knowledge with the new concept to answer the questions in the activity given. - Discussing with the students on the data and results. Let the class assign to each member of their group the task to share the result. Each member can choose what problem they would like to discuss and share results. - Asking the students how they interpreted the problem. Let them say step by step the procedures they use in finding the answer. Explanations should include the proper use of terms on the concepts of percent. - Asking the students to discuss the relationship between fractions and percents. - Asking the students what they learn today and how does it relate to their lives right now.

Conclusion

I had been teaching in traditional methods for years and I believe that applying in my classroom the learning cycle introduced by Glasson, it is one way to step forward to postmodern approach of teaching and learning. Even criticism to these approaches is noted, that it is better for the students not to challenge their prior knowledge but rather let science or mathematics ideas grow alongside such knowledge until their greater usefulness is evident, I am still affirmative that this cycle is much more applicable for improved learning.

As to aspect of improved teaching, I believe that I presented in this paper the fundamental aspects and theories of constructivism that my colleagues need to know, for them to acquire some insight into improving teaching. With the approaches discussed, one thing that my colleagues should consider is the prior knowledge or concepts our students have, because these are critical elements and should be taken as a starting point (Tylter, 2002).

I further believe that if the teachers’ knowledge and skills improve, the students will also improve. The college will be transformed into a learning community where it creatively adapts to the never-ending changes in education and society (Hardy, 2004). Successfully addressing teachers’ needs for new and improved teaching approaches can effect significant and long-term school change. As Wooden (1997: 143, as cited in Hiebert, Gallimore & Stigler, 2002) stressed:

“When you improve a little each day, eventually big things occur….Not tomorrow, not the next day, but eventually a big gain is made. Don’t look for the big, quick improvement. Seek the small improvement one day at a time. That’s the only way it happens – and when it happens, it lasts.”

References:

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.

Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Buxton, L. (1978). Four levels of understanding. Mathematics in Schools, 17(4), 36.

Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1990). Constructivist learning and teaching: Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1), 34-35.

Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (1998). Supervision and development: A development approach (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: The Falmer Press.

Gunstone, R. (1995). Constructivist learning and the teaching of science. In B. Hand & V. Prain(Eds.), Teaching and learning in science: The constructivist classroom. Marrickville, Australia: Harcourt Brace.

Hardy, I. (2004, November 26-December 2). Field/ing Learning. A paper presented at the AARE Conference, Melbourne. Retrieved 20/10/07, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/har04359.pdf.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. & Stigler, J.W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15. Retrieved 21/10/07, from the World Wide Web: www.psy.cmu.edu/edbag/Hiebert,Gallimore,Stigler2002.pdf

Killen, R. (2003). Effective teaching strategies: Lesson from research and practice. Australia: Social Science Press.

Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.

Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Overview: Research on students’ preinstructional conceptions – The driving force for improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 1-14). New York: Teachers College Press.

Tytler R. (2002). Teaching for understanding: Constructivist/conceptual change teaching approaches. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(4), 30-35.

Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research, & changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(3), 14-21.

The Combination of the Data Logger and the 3E Model as an Afford to Create Meaningful Learning

The full text with figures and tables could be uploaded on my files. Thanks for Siti who wants to share with me..

The Combination of the Data Logger and the 3E Model as an Afford to Create Meaningful Learning

By: Siti Shamsiah Binti San

Introduction

For the past four decades, “the research regarding students alternative conceptions were inspired by Ausubel (1969)” (as cited in Treagust et al., 1996, p. 1). Ausubel said, “The most important single factor influence learning is what the learning already knows. Ascertain this and teach…accordingly” (as cited in Treagust et al., 1996, p. 1). In addition, other researchers that exist before Ausuble also held ideas regarding the importance to elicit students’ idea as a starting point to introduce a new topic (Treagust et al., 1996).

Even though, there are lots of research that emphasis on the importance of using students’ prior knowledge to commence a new topic, teachers in many classrooms still teach the students in a traditional way. In the traditional classroom students receive the knowledge passively; and students may find the science conceptions are something that not related to their daily life experiences. This approach obviously denies students abilities to develop their own understanding and discourage students to engage with teaching and learning activities.

From my pervious experience as a student, I had experienced a traditional approach of teaching and learning especially in science classroom for a long time of period. This teaching approach was very dominant during my studies in secondary and tertiary levels. Usually science teachers or lecturers were delivered science concepts without considered the students prior knowledge as they embarked on new topic. They made an assumption that the students’ mind were liked an “empty vessel” and they responsibility were to fulfill the “empty vessel” with the science concepts.

Unfortunately, the same teaching approach also applies in science laboratory sessions. As a student, I had to perform the experiments which were, fully guided by the “recipe books” or so-called the laboratory manuals to prove the theories that I had learned during the science classes. Therefore, every times I performed the experiments I kept on asking myself why I had to do this experiment because I hardly to make connections between the concepts that I had learned in the science classroom with the activities that I performed in the laboratory. Furthermore, the process to perform the experiment is tedious especially to assemble the apparatus and to record the data. Sometime, I took more time to assemble the apparatus and record the data rather than analysis or interpret the data. Therefore, the existing of technology such as data logger is very helpful to make laboratory sessions more effective and convenience.

However, the existing of sophisticated tool to assist meaningful learning becomes useless if it is not use accordingly. From my past experience, the data logger is used to collect the data in a simple way but at the same time the students still have to follow the steps that stated in the laboratory manual to conduct the investigation. They do not have the opportunity do design their own investigation. Once again, the investigation is carried out to confirm the theories that had learned in science classroom. In my opinion, the usage of data logger will be meaningful if it is combines with appropriate teaching approach that consider students’ existing ideas about the science conceptions. Then, the students have the opportunity to develop their on understanding based on what they already know and give an opportunity to them to enhance their knowledge according to what they had learned through the lesson.

In this paper, I would like to discuss the advantages of using data logger to assist students during the laboratory session and the effectiveness of using constructivist learning model which is the 3E Model. The combination of these two elements perhaps can make the teachers to switch from a dull teaching approach to an interactive teaching approach.

The Introduction of a New Learning Approach

The 3E model for the Constructivist Learning

The 3E model is abbreviation of The Engaging, Empowering, and Enhancing Model. This model is combination of the three learning model which are The Generative learning Model developed by Cosgrove and Osborne (1985), The Interactive Learning Model by Biddulph (1990), and Japanese Science Activity Structure developed by Lin et al. (2000) (as cited in Tytler, 2002b).

This model consists of three major phases which are engaging, empowering, and enhancing that aiming to promote active learning in science classroom (Table 1: The Steps in the 3E Model).

Table 1: The Steps in the 3E Model

Phase	Description
Engage	· Teacher play a crucial role to engage the students by asking questions or by showing interesting pictures to gain background knowledge of the students about a topic. · Teacher does brainstorming of the idea with the students. · Students actively work within their group members to brainstorm the ideas or seek possible answers for the questions that have been asked.
Empower	· Students have the authority to clarify their own understanding. · Students have to work together in group to design their own investigation. · Teacher will provide all the materials that needed to run this activity. · Students do the discussion based on their finding. · Students have to answer the questions that provided by teacher. · In this phase teacher provide the surrounding that required the students to think critically.
Enhance	· Teacher raises questions that related to daily events and it is focuses to enhance student understanding. · Students find the answers by browsing the encyclopedia, internet and from other materials.

The first phase of the 3E Model is ‘Engaging Phase’. In this phase, teacher has to elicit students’ prior knowledge. The 3E Model implements the personal constructivist approach which learners construct understanding based on their prior knowledge (Tytler, 2002a, p. 16). Their prior ideas becoming the starting point to start the lesson. This phase shares the common characteristics with the other learning models which are focus on obtaining students’ prior knowledge before start the lesson. Moreover, teacher has to be creative to start the lesson with interesting and challenging activity so the teacher is able to engage students through out the whole lesson as the students realize this topic is closely related to their daily life experiences.

The second phase of this model is ‘Empowering phase’. Students would plan and conduct investigation to clarify their prior ideas. This phase has the similarities with the other three models. For instance, in the Japanese Science Activity Structures (Tytler, 2002b, p. 33), “students are helped to generate hypotheses or predictions, and to work towards planning methods to investigate possible explanations” in ‘Plan investigations activity’; in the Generative Learning Model (Tytler, 2002b), students do demonstrations or experiments to clarify their ideas in challenge phase; and students carry out investigation in students’ investigation phase through The Interactive Approach (Tytler, 2002b).

This model also generated from the social constructivist view. In this second phase, the teacher work together with the students to construct the students’ understanding (Tytler, 2002a). The teacher also provides all the materials and create classroom environment that can shift from individual student understanding to the way classroom environments support the effective learning (Tytler, 2002a).

The last phase of this model is ‘Enhancing Phase’. In this phase the students reflect their own learning by presenting their finding and draw conclusions based on their finding. The teacher also raises questions that focus on enhancing student understanding. On the other hand, the students can find the answer by browsing encyclopedia, internet and other reading materials. This activity is able to help the students to relate the concept that they have learned with daily life activities.

As a conclusion, the 3E Model focuses on students’ prior ideas to start a lesson to engage students with the lesson. Then the students have the authority to construct their own understanding by involved in active learning process. Afterwards, the students actively reflect their own learning process by making their own conclusion based on what they have learned. Besides, this model is really practical to be used by teachers to avoid traditional way of teaching. Besides, the 3E model is easy to apply in normal science classrooms as well as in laboratory sessions because the steps in this model are not complicated as opposedd to other learning model. Therefore, the opportunity to stay away from one way traffic of teaching and learning activity is widely opened, it is depends on the teachers to weave the existing learning model and the technology together in order to create meaningful learning among students.

The Computer Based Learning

Refer to existing education system in my country, the traditional teaching approach still dominated in most of the teaching and learning activity. This teacher-centered approach should not only be applied in normal science classrooms but also in laboratory sessions. According to “Hodson (1990) in his research paper has been described laboratory work as often being dull and teacher direct, and highlighted the fact that students often failed to relate the laboratory work to other aspect of their learning” (as cited in Hart et al., 2000, p. 656). Moreover, “Gustone and Champange (1990) argued that laboratory could successfully be used to promote conceptual change if small qualitative laboratory task is used” (as cited in Hart et al., 2000, p. 656). “Such tasks aid in students’ reconstructing their thinking as less time is spent on interacting with apparatus, instructions, recipe and more time spent on discussion and reflection” (Hart et al., 2000, p. 656). Therefore it is important for the teachers to create environment that allow the students to engage more on discussion and reflection during the laboratory work rather than spent more time to assemble the apparatus or to understand the tedious procedure. In order to reduce time to follow the rigid procedure of laboratory work, computer based learning can be introduced.

The computer based learning is one of the ways to engage the students with the teaching and learning activity. Through this approach, the students use ICT tools to collect the data. The usage of tools such as data logger, spreadsheet, databases can give advantages to the students to spent more time to engage in activities such as analyzing, synthesizing or exploring results of the experiment on the relevant concepts rather then spend more time to assemble the apparatus and materials to perform the activity (Hart et al., 2000).

Besides, according to Steed’s study (as cited in Rodrigues, Pearce, & Livett, 2001) the emerging of technology can help teachers to create interactive and interesting learning environment and the existing of computer based learning able to help students to carry out unfeasible and dangerous experiments such as examine the nuclear reaction. By using the technology, the students can observe the nuclear reaction through computer simulation. However technology is only a tool to assist teacher in teaching and learning activities but the technology alone can not takes over the lesson because technology is as an enabler. Therefore, in order to improve the laboratory work, new teaching approach that considers students’ pre-conceptions, the constructivism theory, and the usage of technology should be address seriously.

Data Logger as Enabler: In conjunction with the ICT era, “scientists are always looking for new ways in which to pursue and expand scientific boundaries and as a result are developing new technologies. These technologies are often adapted for the classroom. Data logger is a technology which scientists have developed and is gradually being used more and more in the classroom” (Data Logging, n.d).

“Data logging involves the use of sensors, attached to the computer, to gather information and store it electronically in the form of graphs and tables. A data logger is another name for an interface box. The interface box is a portable and self-contained device. It connects to the sensors and records and monitors the readings from the sensors. The interface box is then connected to the computer and the information is transferred to a piece of software on the computer. The information is then downloaded and normally displayed in a graphical format for analysis. There are two types of interface boxes or data loggers, USB data loggers and hand held data loggers” (Data Logging, n.d). (Figure 1: The schematic diagram of data logger layout).

In this experiment, data logger is used to ensure the students engage more on the analyzing and interpreting the data rather then focus on assembling the apparatus and recording the data. As opposed to traditional way to measure temperature, the students have to assemble the thermometer and monitor the changes of temperature regularly (Figure 2: Traditional way to investigate the fermentation process). Whereas, by using the data logger the students do not have to observe the change of temperature manually because all the data is transferred to the computer automatically. Besides, the students might get the data from the computer in different forms for examples bar graphs, tables, and line graph (Figure 3: The investigation of fermentation process by using data logger).

“Computers or other gadgets are highly attractive to students and they readily adapt to become effective users of various devices that many older individuals find particularly confronting. This interest of students in modern interactive devices, and their ability to absorb themselves in solving problems they find relevant” (Roberson, 2004). The usage of data loggers in science classroom can actively engage the students to embark on scientific investigation especially teenagers that eager to explore new things.

Justification of Using Data Logger: According to Rodrigues (2001) the usage of ICT tools able to reduce monotony of repetitive experiment. Besides that “the usage of ICT also is able to enhance learning among students because it removes distracters” (Rodrigues, 2001, p. 32). Of instance, in this experiment, the students can focus more on the implication of graphical data that appear on the computer screen rather than record that temperature change every 60 seconds. Rodrigues (2001) also suggests that a benefit of the data logger with respect to conventional classroom measurement activities lies in the measurement of quantities that normally warrant complex calculation.

The other benefit cooperate with the data logger in conducting scientific investigation is more then one sensor can be used simultaneously (e.g., pH and temperature sensors). For example if the students want to observe the temperature and the pH value after 15 seconds, they can get the information directly from the computer. Therefore, the students are able to monitor the pattern of pH and temperature changes, along with the experiment. Moreover, the data that students collect is more accurate compare to if they collect it manually.

To sum up, based on the previous studies it clearly shows that the usage of ICT in laboratory works able to engage and enhance students with higher – order thinking activities such as analyzing and interpreting the information.

The Example of Lesson Plan that cooperate Data Logger with the 3E Model

This is an example of activity that can be conducted by a teacher to engage students with a topic of anaerobic respiration. In this experiment there are two variables to be measure which are pH and temperature. In order to avoid conventional way to conduct this experiment, data logger is used ensure the students can give full attention on analyzing and interpreting the data.

This lesson plan is structured to give a clear view to the readers about the steps that involved in designing a lesson based on the 3E Model. First, teacher has to include details about the topic, number of students, duration of the lesson, and learning outcomes of this topic (Table 2: The Details about the Topic) as a guidance to the teacher to start this topic. Second, teacher also has to include the information about the apparatus and materials that needed to conduct the investigation. This is very important to ensure teacher provides appropriate materials to support the learning activity (Table 3: Teaching and Learning Resources (TLR)). Thirdly, the teacher writes the activities for each of the phases as guidance for the teacher to conduct the lesson and to ensure students actively involve in the investigation. Besides, the teacher plays an active role as co-researcher to assist the students in the investigation (Table 4: Teaching and learning Activity).

Conclusion

The fast growing technology in this decade has influences the direction of learning process especially in science laboratory classes. The technology that available such as the data logger, makes practical work becomes more efficient as students do not have to spend more time to set up the apparatus and recording the data. Moreover, they are able to focus on other activities such as analyzing the data rather then assembling the apparatus. As opposed to conventional way to conduct the scientific investigation, the students have to struggle to set up the apparatus and monitor the progress of the experiments manually.

Furthermore, the data logger can be combined together with constructivist learning model such as the 3E Model to retain students’ attention towards the lesson. This model considers students’ prior knowledge as a starting point to embark on new science concept; the authority to conduct the investigation in order to seek for the answers; and provides activities that can related their result from the experiment with daily experience also can promote meaningful learning among students. Besides, the usage of new technology to collect the data is able to make the lesson more interactive and convenience. Therefore, the combination of these two elements can boost students’ enthusiasm towards science subject.

After a long discussion regarding the usage of using data logger with the 3E Model to conduct scientific investigation, these three simple steps in this model can make teaching and learning activity becomes more meaningful, as students become active participants in this learning process. However, in this model, teacher still play a crucial role to “promote discourse community in which students and the teacher ‘co-construct’ knowledge” (Tytler, 2002a, p. 19). Therefore, it is teacher’s responsibility to create learning environment that can retain students’ interest towards the lesson.

Based on these strong explanations on the advantages of using data logger and the 3E Model in teaching and learning activity, it depends on the teacher to choose whether their what to continue to use lame teaching approach or change to teaching approach that give opportunity to the students to explore the existing technology without neglecting students’ existing ideas as a starting point to start a lesson. Finally, sophisticated tools that can assist learning process may become useless if it is not used wisely.

References

Data logging (n.d). Retrieved March 25, 2008, from

http://www.teachnet.ie/ooleary/whyusedl.htm#benefits.

Pre-lab for yeast respiration and fermentation [Image] (n.d). Retrieved March 27, 2008, from

departments.oxy.edu/tops/Yeast/yeastprepost.htm.

World of Chantilly [Image] (2004). Retrieved March 27, 2008, from

www.chantilly.com.

Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of the experiment? Or can student learning something from doing experiments? . Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37(7), 655-675.

Roberson, P. (2004). Using Data Loggers. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/school/curric/stage6/phys/stw2004/roberson.pdf

Rodrigues, S., Pearce, J., Livett, M. (2001). Using video analysis or data loggers during practical work in first year physics. Educational Studies, 27(1 ), 31-43.

Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Overview: Research on students’ perinstructional concpetions – The driving force for improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 1-14). New York (NY): Teacher College Press.

Tytler, R. (2002a). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions research,

and changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(3), 14-21.

Tytler, R. (2002b). Teaching for understanding: Constructivist/conceptual change teaching

approach. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(4), 30-35.

White, R. T. (1998). Research, theories of learning, principles of teaching and classroom

practice: Examples and issues. Studies in Science Education, 31, 55-70.

My Reflections on Radical Constructivism

Journal 2B

My Reflections on Radical Constructivism

(i) What was your learning experience during this topic? (counter-intuitive struggle or reinforcement?)

(ii) What connections did you make with the previous topic (Metaphorical Thinking)?

I write down these reflections by a half exciting and half worry. Exciting because, because I got different perspective of constructivism which I never found in other units. I describe my feeling such as finding the water in the desert, finding the gold in the rock, and finding the needle in the sand. A half worries because I think I am still “floating” in the wave of radical constructivism concept. Hope, within my learning journey I could “swim” but not “sink” into dept thinking of the radical constructivism. Since, I wrote down journals in this unit, I taught that the first journal is difficult because of the first start to understand the concept of constructivism. But, writing the journal two is most difficult experiences for me, not only “burning” my mind but also my heart. It is not only because of the difficult language but also the concept of radical constructivism itself. Moreover, since I learn about the constructivism in other units, I found that radical constructivism is used to criticize by many educators because of the concept of the truth which recognize the individual experiences to making own sense of their physical world. It seems radical constructivism ignore the existence of the world and impossible to be applied in the classroom, especially in science subject. Therefore, my learning experiences in this module give me opportunities to think critically (again) on “the real” concept of radical constructivism.

The most important experience in this unit is I am in the radical constructivism approach to understand the RC concept itself. This unit is designed to encourage my efforts to find the “my own viability” within my problems to understand the concept of RC. I can feel the motivation which is followed by changing my views on radical constructivism. I am happy (J ) that RC doesn’t deny the reality, ignore the conceptual knowledge, and disregard the social interactions. The problem is the way to find the reality and recognize the knowledge as “the absolute truth”. Even though, at the first time, I feel uncomfortable about the concept of the “truth” in the radical constructivism. Because to understand this concept, I found that I have to shift (again) my concepts on misconception, objectivity, observable, measurable, and the acceptable scientific concepts. As a science educator, I used to think that there are wrong and right concepts. It is because of the concept of objectivity and measurable which is most applied in my learning of science concepts. I never think that the “red” colour in my mind could be different colour in others mind. I never think that the knowledge becomes problematic process. The other interesting point that I found in this module is teachers’ beliefs, knowledge and personal experiences on the subject matter are important. I just realized that since I used to force my students to have the same beliefs and knowledge with me. Now, I recognize different levels of conceptions in my students’ mind because of the notion of cognitive itself.

In addition to reflection my pedagogical practices, I am still struggle to understand how to apply this concept of radical constructivism in my classroom, especially in logic subject such as mathematical concept in chemistry. Therefore, my journey is not yet finished, because I become more curious to explore more this concept within my pedagogical practices. My dillemas is still going on how can I struggle with the assessments which mostly consist of the cognitive measurement of students’ “right and wrong” answer. Therefore, I am really interested to explore more the idea of integral perspective by Taylor and Willison to face this reality, even though I realize it will be challenging for me. Moreover, related to the integral perspectives, I am still put my position on it which I find it will help me to dialog with different perspectives such as constructivist and “anti-constructivist”. I couldn’t my self on “anti-constructivist” approach of teaching as well as I also could not put myself only on “constructivist. In addition, the comments EvG on money doesn’t change the philosophy of education and education by giving the “right” answer is not worth. I found the first comment is happened in my country, which the government increased teachers’ salary for better the quality of education, but it seems that the money doesn’t solve that problem. On the second comment I put depth thinking (again) and reflecting on my teaching which I used to guide my students to the right answers. I also point out my struggle on dilemmas of difference perspectives by Paul Ernest note which “it is important that we are consistent and offer each other the same respect”.

Moreover, the metaphorical thinking guides individuals thinking and action within their live activities. I become more understand that how powerful the “metaphor’ to describe the concept, thinking, and philosophy behind certain perspective. Throughout the “construction” metaphor, students have their own freedom to their learning process, because every learner is unique which has own learning process. The metaphor of constructivism contributes the concepts of “making sense, constructing knowledge, and building ideas” which is shaped by the personal and social constructivism. By understanding the metaphor of the world, I recognize the value of my students’ own reality, their truth within the experiential world. Moreover, according Lakoff and Johnson (1980), even the objectivity and subjectivity itself are myths. There is no certainty in the knowledge, word couldn’t give the fixed meaning because of the language, and objectivity becomes uncertain because the different way to view the object and subjectivity can be dangerous which leading to “fly on the sky”. Therefore, metaphor becomes powerful to represent the concepts of knowledge. I would to write many things to describe how’s exciting I am to learn this concept, but rather than the readers, especially Peter is bored with my story, I closed my words with “ terima kasih” to give me this learning experiences. Even though, I still come along with the uncertainty that I have on the right track of understanding the concept of radical constructivism. But, I am happy that I have doubts, dissatisfactions, and snooping to walk trough my journey in this concept and it will be my start journey.

REFERENCES

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by: The Myths of objectivism and subjectivism. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Radical Constructivism

On the way to understand the real concept of Radical Constructivism

Modul 2. Radical Constructivism

A. Paul Ernest: “The One and The Many”

.1. Defining metaphors: Summarise the contrasting metaphors of the mind and metaphors of the world as we move from empiricism thru various forms of constructivism. A summary table would be helpful.

The author explain the idea of one and many in this paper which one means clarification of the concept of constructivism which is different from others. Many means different types of constructivism. However, the author face dilemma on the idea of constructivism is the only paradigms which survive which as almost many varieties of constructivism. Finally, the author bring the idea of “the one” as different positions which are common in the concept of constructivism and “the many” as analyzing differences between different positions of constructivism.This table is summarise of “many” different types of constructivism:

Forms of Constructivism	Metaphors of Mind	Metaphors of World
Traditional Empiricism	· Mind as empty bucket , mirror · The objects in mind is reflection of the reality Students receive the knowledge passively	· Absolute Newtonian physical space (moved and positioned) · The world is out there based on observations · Students’ misconceptions related to carelessness in application or differences with the reality
Information-Processing Theory	· Mind as computer · Processing, recalling, and memorizing information (interactive) · Process on human problem solving (active mental processing) · Students receive the knowledge through complex mechanical process	· Absolute Newtonian physical space populated by material objects · The world of things we experience are out there · True knowledge and certainty
Trivial Constructivism	· Mind as an ideal “soft” computer (brain) · Self-constructed of information · All individual knowledge is constructed	· Absolute Newtonian physical space · The knowledge are constructed to match with the world · Constructed truths can be recognized by the information from the world
Sociocultural Cognition	· Mind as game player and strategist · Involves rational rules, scripts, and procedures which extended from simply computer processing · It has goal, strategies, and deliberation	· Absolute Newtonian physical space involves human society · Apprenticeship, participation, and social activities · Social aspects in teaching and learning situation
Radical Constructivism	· Mind as an organism undergoing evolution · Cognitive evolution · Cognition is adaptive based on the experience, not discover of reality	· Experienceable, but not knowable · Recognize the existence of subjectivity on individual experience to interpret the world · Knowledge being constructed by dialogue between cognitive process and individual experiential world
Social Constructivism	· Person in conversation and person in meaningful interaction and dialogue · Social construction of meaning · Effects of social contexts within the construction of self, beliefs, and cognition	· Socially constructed world that creates the share reality of the underlying physical reality · The essential and constitutive nature of language and social interaction
Social Constructionism (both social and radical constructivism but less developed)	· Mind as dialogue or drama · Introjected social dimension · Individuals as actors · The mental is to be found in social performance and public display	· Social reality

Based on summary of this table, constructivism views could be divided into trivial constructivism and radical constructivism. Because I found radical constructivism has great differences with others constructivism, especially on the metaphor of the world in. It also helps me to understand that the different perceptions on different types of constructivism which is common divided into personal, social, and radical constructivism Tyter (2002). Personal constructivism focuses on the prior knowledge of individual which can be constructed by individual. Then, social constructivism focuses on individual construct the knowledge throughout the social process. Both of these types constructivism emphasize the “conceptual change”. On the other hand, radical constructivism focuses on the way students find the truth and the notion of truth itself (metaphor of the world) is different from other constructivism.

2. Concept of Epistemology: What is the difference between Cvst epistemology and other epistemologies? (Reading EvG’s 2 papers may help with this question, so perhaps come back to it later.)

There are two main views to understand the differences epistemology of constructivist and others which are psychological and philosophical.

Epistemology
Constructivism	Others
Based on Philosophical: · The theory of knowledge which concern on “the logical categories of knowledge and its justificational basis”. It involves both subjectivity of individual’s knowledge and conventional knowledge · Knowledge is stronger than beliefs · Context of justification · Requires self regulation, building conceptual structure through reflection and abstraction · Students’ experiential world is important · Active learning process · Meaningful learning experiences	Based on Psychological: · The theories of knowledge development which is constructed by individuals, theories, and general conditions of learning · Persons’ beliefs are stronger than their knowledge · Context of discovery · Knowledge as absolute true · Learning is stimulus and response · Passive learning process · Memorizing, rote learning

Constructivist is different from the traditional view of learning in sense of the view of knowledge, truth, objectivity, and reality. “The traditional view of knowledge is based on the common-sense belief that a real world exists regardless of whether we take interest in it or even notice it” (Bodner, 1986, p.874). The traditional knowledge implies that the knowledge is reality that will be replied in learners’ mind. As a result, teacher task is transferring the knowledge to the learners. Furthermore, traditional education view focused on “instructional goals such as recalling facts, generalization, defining concepts and performing procedures” (Almala, 2005, p.9). Therefore, this view ignores the difference of preexisting knowledge of individual. Moreover, one traditional epistemology such behaviorist concerns on the power of reinforcement. In this view, EvG points out than this learning theory focus on students’ performance rather than the reason behind the learners’ responds. Therefore, traditional view of learning focuses on students’ achievement.

On the other hand, constructivist “emphasize reasoning, critical thinking, social negotiation, self regulation and mindful reflection” (Almala, 2005, p.9). Constructivism focuses on the knowledge which is constructed in the learners’ mind (Bodner, 1986). It is an active process in which the learners actively construct knowledge as they try to comprehend their reality world. Because every student has different experiences, teacher has to be aware that knowledge is constructed differently in the learners’ mind. Through the teaching and learning process, learners will face the problems if their knowledge is not match with the “acceptable” concepts (which are recognized in personal and social constructivism). Therefore, constructivist view learning as the product of interaction between existing understanding and new knowledge (Parkinson, 2004). Furthermore, construcvism also recognized the influence of social context within the meaning making of knowledge. Therefore, it generates the concept of collaboration and discussion in classroom activities. Moreover according to EvG, the basic concept of constructivism is based on Piaget’s idea which embrace the knowledge should represent the real world as existing, separate, and independent of knower. This view brings the idea of learners have independences about their own reality. It doesn’t mean deny the reality, but there is no certainty in the reality. EvG points out that constructivism doesn’t ignore the conceptual knowledge, but teachers have to consider the nature of cognition which is adaptive. As a result, students could have different level of cognitive which influence by their effort to find the reality within their experiential world.

3. Pedagogical Implications: For Paul Ernest summarise the major pedagogical implications of Cvsm?

Paul Ernest point out several major implications of constructivism on pedagogical practices which concern on knowledge which is constructed by individual, the role of social context, the importance of individual experiences and subjectivity of knowledge. Through the personal constructivism which is recognized by many paradigms other than traditional empiricisms, teacher has to be aware that knowledge is constructed differently in the learners’ mind which is influenced by their interaction and experience with the environment. Teacher could explore the prior knowledge of students then use the information to guide students’ conceptions. Therefore, diagnostic skills become important in this stage. In addition, teachers can use the information of the students’ preexisting knowledge to create the instruction which can avoid the “misunderstanding” of concepts. Teacher should help students to construct their own meaning and knowledge through the active process such as metacognition on self regulation. As a result, learning process will be the meaningful experiences for the students.

Ernest move on to the radical and social constructivism provide main implications on pedagogical practices such as knowledge are subjective, even for the mathematics and other logic knowledge, the teaching strategies will be more reflexive rather than finding the truth. Moreover, the focus is not only learners’ cognition, but also on their beliefs and knowledge conceptions. As a result, teachers’ beliefs, conceptions, and personal understanding on subject matter become more important than teachers’ knowledge on subject matter and teaching strategies. Furthermore, different learners have different realities in their mind. Therefore, there is not fixed reality. Especially, in social constructivism, it emphasizes the idea of social context for meaning making such as discussion, collaboration, and negotiation.

B. Ernst von Glasersfeld: “A Cvst Approach to Teaching” & “Why Some Like it Radical”

4. Concept of Viability: In Cvst theory viability is the key alternative to the traditional criterion of objective truth (or ‘Truth’). Explain the concept of viability in terms of EvG’s two principles of RC, and differentiate Trivial Cvsm (the weak program) from Radical Cvsm (the strong program).
Please note that Cvsm deals with conceptual knowledge and thus is not a theory of knowing that necessarily applies to faith-based (revealed) knowledge whose truth has a moral and spiritual dimension. (Although RC is well recognised in Buddhism!)

Ernst provides two principles of radical constructivism within the concept of viability. First, knowledge is subjective based on the construction in individual mind through individual experience with the world. Therefore, it emphasizes the active process to build the knowledge. Second, the function of cognitive is adaptive, viability, and serves the experiential world, not discover the truth of reality.

Based on these two principles, trivial constructivism recognizes the principle of individuals construct their own knowledge which influence by their interaction with the world, but this constructivism emphasize the objectivity of knowledge which is contradict with the second principle. As a result, within this constructivism, learners have to change their own conceptions to match with the reality which recognized as the truth.

The concept of viability replaces the idea of finding the truth within the trivial constructivism. According to EvG, “viability-quite unlike truth”-is relative context of goals and purposes” which means it can be relative and specific problems solution regarding to the experiential world/subjective construction. “This kind of truth” can be never claimed for the knowledge (any piece of it) that human reason produces”. The individual experiences of the world become most important within the construction of knowledge. There are no forces for individual to accept the others truth of reality. As a result, individuals have their own degree of knowledge, because the truth becomes subjective.

5. Social Interaction: How does RC account for social interaction in the process of an individual building his/her conceptual understanding in the company of others?

In the paper, EvG recognizes the way to acquire knowledge is through the social interactions. EvG explains that Piaget’s work also explicitly points out the role of social interaction to build individuals knowledge. Even though, Piaget not focus on how the social interactions work on individual construction, but the idea of logical structures of child are developed through their world experiences, explicitly mentions the idea of social interaction. Because social interactions are part of individual environment, it will contribute the individual image of objects in reality.

Furthermore, related to learners’ construction of other objects, learners learn to predict other objects that they construct within their experiential world by interaction with others. Elaboration becomes important to contribute on the knowledge of other subjects, because individuals’ abstraction is constrained by the social interaction through collaboration, and communication with others. In addition, individuals should learn to explain their construction “others and society” based on their own experiential world. As a result, social interaction becomes important to construct individuals’ conceptions.

6. Cvsm & Pedagogy: For EvG, what are the main pedagogical implications of RC? And what types of teaching practice seem to be ‘anti-constructivist’? Recall that in the previous topic the Willison/Taylor paper argues for multiple epistemologies of teaching and learning. This is still a somewhat heretical idea for many RC advocates who wish for ‘pure’ Cvst teaching approaches. You might be interested to read my review of a recent book on RC (see Additional Readings).

The main pedagogical implications of radical constructivism concern on the concept of knowledge and truth. The notion of knowledge is adaptive, emphasizes the difference level of conceptual. The notion of the truth is replaced by the viability which recognizes the individual experiential world. In teaching, EvG points out that, giving the “right” answer which used to emphasize by trivial constructivism is not the solution. Learners should recognize problems as their own and have desire to solve by their own as their own goal. It will motivate the learners because they will satisfy with their effort or their viable way to achieve the goal. It becomes effective motivation because satisfaction is subjective and individual.

The radical constructivism encourages teachers to explore, listen, and interpret students’ thinking which to have the framework of students’ conceptual structure as “fallible enterprise”. Without this process, the process of conceptual change will be useless, because the concepts which recognize as “misconception” are quite viable for the students’ experiential world. Therefore, engaging students through their experience is important to change students’ thinking. Moreover, teachers should facilitate students to see the problems as their own and find their own solution. As students could see their solution is inadequate, they will change their thinking. In science teaching, EvG provides the idea for the teachers to teach the scientific theory through historical and practical context rather than the absolute truth.

On the other hand, “anti-constructivist’ applies the pedagogical practices under finding the truth and considers the learners as empty basket. Teaching is communication of the knowledge which leads to replication of knowledge into students’ minds. They assume that the learners receive the match knowledge that is transferred by the teacher. Moreover, the reinforcement become effective way to motivate the learners and could be standardized. Stimulus and response emphasizes in the learning process as similar as training process which performances are important. Therefore, anti-constructivist focuses on learners’ performance or achievement as the indicator of successful on the learning process.

In implication of these two different concepts, Willison and Taylor provide the idea of integral perspective on science teaching which consider the complementary of objectivist (anti-constructivist and constructivist). Personally, this concept helps me to dialog with these different approaches. Rather than, I focus on the competition between the anti constructivist and constructivist in teaching, it will be engaging the students if I could complement both of these views. As a result, constructivism is powerful to engage and empowerment the students, but rote learning is also useful to be applied in the classroom.

REFERENCES

Almala, A.. (2005). A constructivist conceptual framework for a quality e-learning environment. Distance Learning, 2(5), 9-13.

Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.

Ernest, P. (1995). The one and the many. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.459-486). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Parkinson, J. (2000). Improving secondary science teaching. London: Routledge Falmer.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher & N..Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist Views on Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 19-29). Reston, VA:NCTM.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. Steffe & J.Gale (Eds). (1995). Constructivism in education, (pp.3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: student conceptions research, & changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(3), 14-21.

Willison, J.W. & Taylor, P.C. (in press). Complementary epistemologies of science teaching: Towards an integral perspective. Draft chapter of Analogy and Metaphor in Science Education. The Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.