|
Breadth Component
SBSF 8210: Theories of Human Development
 Introduction:
The purpose of the Breadth component is to examine the nature of constructivist learning theories, as these learning theories influence today’s instructional technologies. In this component, we will compare and contrast three constructivist learning theorists: 1) Jerome Bruner, 2) David Jonassen, and 3) Ernst Von Glasersfeld.
Bruner asserts that learners use three systems of representation to structure their understanding of the world. These are enactive, iconic, and symbolic representation (Driscoll, p. 229). In addition, he also points out that learning involves thinking (Driscoll, p. 227). The role of learners is to “devise strategies for searching and finding out what the regularities and relationships are” (Driscoll, p. 234). Through the process of searching and finding out the regularities and relationships, learners “discover” by “rearranging or transforming evidence in such a way that one is enabled to go beyond the evidence so assembled to additional new insights” (Bruner, 1961, p. 22). The implications for instruction are to provide students with problem solving activities that support collaborating activities where students can interact and negotiate meaning.
David H. Jonassen is a well-known constructivist theorist and also a leader in the field of instructional technology. He has numerous publications on text design, task analysis, instructional design, computer-based learning, hypermedia, constructivist learning environments, cognitive tools, and technology in learning. His idea of using computers as Mindtools is a model for “how to integrate technology with the learning process in order to engage learners more mindfully and meaningfully” (Jonassen, 2000). According to Jonassen, Mindtools is an ‘intellectual toolkit’ to engage the learner and foster critical and higher-order learning. His current research focuses on designing constructivist learning environments, cognitive tools for learning, knowledge representation, problem solving, computer-supported collaborative argumentation, cognitive task analysis, and individual differences and learning.
Ernst von Glasersfeld is a renowned philosopher, constructivist, and cybernetician. He developed the model of Radical Constructivism. According to Glasersfeld, there are two main principles of Radical Constructivism. First, “knowledge is not passively received but actively built up by the cognizing subject”; and second, “the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality” (Glasersfeld, 1989). He argues that constructivism deals with questions of knowledge—“what knowledge is and where it comes from,” and constructivism holds that “we can know only what our minds construct” (Glasersfeld, 1991).
The constructivist learning theories of Bruner, Jonassen, and Glasersfeld will help us understand the assumptions about constructivist learning and provide a foundation for creating context to effectively integrate instructional technologies with the application of constructivism to teaching and learning. It will also help to apply new pedagogical ideas and principles proposed by constructivism in the classroom.
Objectives:
For the breadth component of KAM II, we will
- Discuss constructivism as viewed by Bruner, Glasersfeld, and Jonassen.
- Identify and analyze three constructivist theories that impact teaching.
- Assess the implication of evolving technologies in constructivist learning practices.
- Compare and contrast the relationship between instructional technologies and pedagogical ideas and principles proposed by constructivism.
References:
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner J., (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York, NY: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Glasersfeld E. (1981). An introduction to radical constructivism. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://srri.nsm.umass.edu/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/082.html
Glasersfeld E. (1983). Learning as constructive activity. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://srri.nsm.umass.edu/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/pdf/vonGlasersfeld_080.pdf
Glasersfeld E. (1987). The construction of knowledge: Conflict to Conceptual Semantics. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.
Glasersfeld E. (1989). Constructivism in education. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/
Glasersfeld E. (1991). Questions and answers about radical constructivism . Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/papers/148.pdf
Glasersfeld E. (1992). Aspects of radical constructivism and its educational recommendations. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://srri.nsm.umass.edu/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/195.html
Glasersfeld E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington DC. The Falmer Press.
Glasersfeld E. (2001). Scheme theory as a key to the learning paradox . Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://srri.nsm.umass.edu/vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/pdf/vonGlasersfeld_258.pdf
Glasersfeld E. (2003). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from http://www.oikos.org/constructivism.htm
Jonassen, D. (1990). Hypertext/Hypermedia in education. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Jonassen, D. (2005). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Demonstration:
In a scholarly paper of about 30 pages, we will compare and contrast the theories of Bruner, Jonassen, and Glasersfeld. In doing so, we will analyze three constructivist theories that impact teaching. Next, we will evaluate those theories as they relate to the use of evolving technologies, specifically by comparing and contrasting the relationship between instructional technologies and the principles proposed by constructivism.
[Back to Top]
Depth Component
SBSF 8220: Current Research in Human Development
Objectives:
For the depth component of KAM II, we will
- Discuss the relationship of the technologies used in the ESL classroom and the constructivist learning theory of Jonassen, Glasersfeld, and Bruner.
- Identify technologies that foster collaborate learning.
- Investigate and evaluate current technologies that promote problem-solving skills in the ESL classroom.
Discuss the issues and implications in integrating technology in instruction.
References:
Adkins-Bowling, T., Brown, S., & Mitchell, T.L. (2001). The utilization of instructional technology and cooperative learning to effectively enhance the academic success of students with English-as-a-second-language. Orlando, FL: Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of Kappa Delta Pi. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458208)
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning and Technology. 5(1), 202-232.
Bernd, R. & Markus, R., (2001). Technology-enhanced language learning: Construction of knowledge and template-based learning in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(3/4), 219-233.
Bitchener, J. (2004). The relationship between the negotiation of meaning and language learning: A longitudinal study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 81-95.
Cheung, L. S., (2006). A constructivist approach to designing computer supported concept mapping environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(2), 153-164.
Chuang H. H. & Marcia Harmon, R. (2005). Use of digital video technology in an elementary school foreign language methods course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 869-880.
Harless, W. G., Zier, M.A., & Duncan, R.C. (2005) Virtual dialogues with native speakers: The evaluative Multimedia Method. CALICO Journal, 16(3), pp. 313-317.
Lee, R. (2006). Effective learning outcomes of ESL elementary and secondary school students utilizing educational technology infused with constructivist pedagogy. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 87-93.
McDonough, S.K. (2001). Way beyond drill and practice: Foreign language lab activities in support of constructivist learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(1), 75-80.
Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers’ technology use on instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409-424.
Rodriguez, D., & Pelaez, G. (2002). Reaching TESOL teachers through technology.... Washington, DC: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (ED). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472699)
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39-56.
Serdyukov, P. & Stvan, L.S. (2001). ESL/EFL web sites: What do users need and what can they expect to find there? UT. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456818)
Southard, S., Bates, C., & Tesdell, L. (2003, November). Confessions of a technophobe and a technophile: The changing perspective of technology in ESL. Technical Communication, 50(4), 658-659.
Zha, S., Kelly, P., Park, M.K., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006, Spring). An investigation of communicative competence of ESL students using electronic discussion boards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 349-367.
Demonstration:
In a scholarly paper of about 30 pages, plus an annotated bibliography of 15 current journal articles, we will evaluate current articles relating to the use of technology as a tool that fosters problem solving and collaborative learning. Then, we will summarize and compare the themes from the research studies, relating them to the theories of Jonassen and Bruner.
[Back to Top]
Application Component
SBSF 8230: Professional Practice & Human Development:
Constructivist Intermediate ESL Unit Design
Objectives:
For the application component of KAM II, we will
- Design a unit lesson for an intermediate ESL class, integrating technologies that enhance problem solving and collaborative learning.
- Synthesize the most effective ways to integrate technology in an ESL class.
- Conduct a seminar to inform and explain to CAIS faculty about technology as a means to support and maximize students’ learning in an ESL class.
- Analyze the impact of constructivist learning theories in relationship to emerging technologies.
Demonstration:
In a scholarly paper of about 10 pages, plus a unit lesson for an intermediate ESL class, we will demonstrate a link between the theories and current research that were investigated in both the Breadth and Depth portions of this KAM to the project that will be conducted in the Application portion. First, we will design a unit lesson for an intermediate ESL class, integrating technologies that enhance problem solving and collaborative learning. Next, we will conduct a seminar to present the unit lesson and explain to CAIS faculty about using technology as a tool to support and maximize students’ learning in an ESL class. Finally, in the application essay, we will describe the constructivist learning theories of Jonassen, Glasersfeld, and Bruner in relationship to current technologies that promote problem solving and collaborative learning in ESL classrooms with the unit lesson design for an intermediate ESL class.
[Back to Top]
|
Constructivist Group Assignments:
Group C › Learning Agreement