Constructivism and Computers by Dr Mohammed Abu Aish

Constructivism and Computers

Constructivism and Computers Mohammed Abu Aish December 2010

Constructivism and Computers

Constructivism Constructivism is a learning theory that has roots in Psychology, Philosophy and Cybernetics. Its main roots in modern psychology is linked to Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. (Glasersfeld, 1989). Many others have contributed to the Constructivism paradigms, among them are: John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Jerome Bruner and Ernest Von Glasersfeld. Initial concept of constructivism came from Piaget’s work with children and their cognitive development. Piaget thought development precedes learning and that children cognitive development develops in stages. In each stage, children see the world through mental “schemas”. Schemas are internal representations about the world. When children interact with the world, the new experiences they encounter either match their mental schemas or contradict them. Adaptation to the new information takes one of two forms: Assimilation or Accomodation. Assimilation happens when children incorporate the new experiences into already existing schemas without changing the schemas (when experiences match schemas, or when learners fail to change a misunderstanding; for example, they may ignore events, not notice them or misunderstand inputs). when individuals' experiences contradict their internal representations, they may change their perceptions of the experiences to fit their internal representations. Accommodation is the process of reframing one's mental representation of the external world to fit new experiences. (Block, 1982). The Re-discovery of Vygotsky’s (1978) work added another important perspective to the Piagatian (Individual, Trivial) Constructivism. Vygotsky had a similar

Constructivism and Computers

view about the importance of interaction in learning, but he viewed learning to precede development. He rejected the stages of children development and believed learning happens with the interaction of social and cultural tools in the society, the best example of a cultural tool is, language. Vygotsky’s work with Children and language stressed the importance of the culture and context in the learning process. Vygotsky’s work sat the ground for a new perspective in Constructivism thinking, Social Constructivism. Learning in this perspective is not simply an individual construct but a shared construct affected by the culture and context. Knowledge thus, is socially constructed and is different between different contexts. (Larochelle, Bednarz, Garrison, 1998). Scaffolding happens when teachers support their students move in the Zone of Proximal Development, which is defined by Vygotsky (1978) as: the distance between the actual developmental level, as determined by independent problem-solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. All forms of constructivism share common concepts: First: Cognition is not a passive acquisition delivered by the teacher and received by the student but rather an active construction by the learner. Second: The nature of Knowledge and cognition is different. Constructivism does not talk about an absolute truth that the learner is trying to find but rather talk about learners trying to make sense of the world from their new and past experiences. Cognition is adaptive and knowledge is a not independent of the learner, it is constructed from social and cultural context (social constructivism). (Glasersfeld, 1989).

Constructivism and Computers

Nature of the learner: The learner is an active seeker for knowledge rather than a passive recipient. Constructivists believe that learners are responsible for their own learning. Learning and instruction is more student-centered instead of the traditional teacher-centered model. Constructivists believe that individual differences between the students are the results of different interactions with socio-cultural tools rather than internal developmental differences, thus, with proper instruction and interactions, individuals can achieve the desired learning outcomes. From the Social Constructivism perspective, learners socially collaborate to co-construct meaning. They use available cultural tools to construct meaning in specific contexts. (Larochelle et al, 1998; Sheppard, 2000) Nature of the teacher: The teacher role becomes of a facilitator rather than a provider of knowledge. The teacher always pushes students to learn by giving them tasks that are “just” above their level of understanding to help them progress in the zone of proximal development rather than giving them very easy or very difficult tasks. During the learning of students, the teacher will support them indirectly till they reach a stage of independence (scaffolding). It is important that the teacher examines the pre-existing knowledge and preoccupations students bring to the learning environment. Students may have difficulties internalize a concept if it does not fit their pre-existing schemas, so, scaffolding needed to help those students accommodate the new knowledge to their pre-existing framework. Scaffolding may be more difficult for those students than students who would just assimilate the new experiences to their matching schemas. (Larochelle et al, 1998; Sheppard, 2000)

Constructivism and Computers

Nature of the learning process: Dynamic, Interactive where the teacher and the learner are part of the learning process. Learning and instruction is Student-centered where students are active seekers of knowledge and taking more responsibility for their own learning (students activities and projects are important elements of constructivist learning environments. (Larochelle et al, 1998; Sheppard, 2000). Nature of Knowledge: Looked at as a whole not as divided or compartmental. Knowledge is embedded in socio-cultural tools and group interactions in different Contexts (Social Constructivism). (Larochelle et al, 1998; Sheppard, 2000). Alternatives to Constructivism: Behaviorism viewed learning as the acquisition and strengthening of responses through positive and negative reinforcement. People learn by actively engaging in tasks. Teachers were viewed as responsible foe student learning. Learning happens when tasks are divided and mastered separately. Learning is assessed by measurable behaviors. (Wilson & Myers, 2000). Information- processing theory is an alternative way to think about cognition, Knowledge and learning. The information- processing theory focuses on the minds of the individuals. The analogy of the human mind as information - processing “machine” that forms mental models. Information move between working memory to long-term memory then retrieved from long-term memory when needed. (Wilson & Myers, 2000). Detailed discussion of those trends is beyond the scope of this paper.

Constructivism and Computers

Constructivism and Computer Science: The relationship between computers and education is well known. When it comes to how computers were used in education, two major trends become apparent: The Old Trend: The first trend is the way behaviorists and cognitive theorists and educators used computers in education. Those trends viewed knowledge and learning differently but they both used computers in a didactic way to build individual students’ (behaviors), in the case of behaviorism or (mental models and representations), in the case of the Information- Processing theorists and educators. (Urban-Lurain, 1996). The behaviorist view of knowledge as response strengthening affected computer science by developing Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) softwares that provided students with predetermined “frames” of information that, students could navigate through in an organized pathway. Students advance to the next frame based on their response to the previous one. (Urban-Lurain, 1996). The cognitive theorists used more advanced computer technology and programming to build more” intelligent” software. The Intelligent Tutors designed based on Anderson’s ACT theory were more sophisticated as it was programmed to support student form mental models and representations similar to those of “experts”. (UrbanLurain, 1996). It is interesting, though, to know that educators joined an already advanced field dominated by Artificial intelligence and computer science. It is surprising to know that many of the ITS and CAI were developed by the AI and Computer science fields without the input from educators. It was till Anderson’s Intelligent Tutor, that computer science

Constructivism and Computers

and cognitive theorists and educators were suffering from an unexplained divorce. (Urban-Lurain, 1996). The New Trend: The second trend in using computer in education was highly theory driven. Its pioneer, Seymour Papert, came from a Piagetian constuctivist school of thought. Seymour Papert was of one of the most famous links between computer science and constructivism philosophy. Papert, a mathematician and a computer scientist who worked with Jean Piaget in 1960 and was one of Piaget’s most brilliant students before Joining MIT in 1963 as a researcher. At MIT, he developed the LOGO programming language to teach Mathematics skills based on the theoretical principles of Piaget. Papert (1980) believed that certain computer programming activities can enable children to improve the quality of their reasoning, their capacity to monitor their own thinking, their ability to translate vague ideas into written expression, their understanding of mathematics and the mathematical linkages in particular physical domains, and their intellectual initiative (Papert, 1980). Initially, LOGO received a great deal of attention as it came with a new promising framework of the nature of knowledge and the ability to transfer but, with time, this enthusiasm started to disappear with multiple studies failing to show “evidence” of LOGO benefits. (Papert, 1987). Papert (1987) criticized what he called the (technocenteric) thinking about computers and their roles in schools. He rejected the “treatment” approach of looking into LOGO and cognition and, claimed that the research that criticized LOGO was based on strict quantitative measures that asked the wrong question: Consider for a moment some questions that are "obviously" absurd. Does wood produce

Constructivism and Computers

good houses? If I built a house out of wood and it fell down, would this show that wood does not produce good houses. Everyone realizes that it is carpenters who use wood, hammers and saws to produce houses and furniture, and the quality of the product depends on the quality of their work. But when it comes to computers and Logo, critics seem to move into abstractions and ask "Is the computer good for the cognitive development of the child?" and even "Does the computer produce thinking skills? (Papert, 1987).

Papert (1987) indicated the importance of talking about the new “culture” computers bring to schools, the culture of collaboration and experimentation. All of these measures were not part of the strict set of cognitive outcomes that earlier researchers focused on. Things changed since then, The wide spread of the constructivist approach in education in addition to the widespread use of the Internet has led to changes in the way teachers, students and communities think about computers and education. In a recent national US survey conducted to assess the relationship between teaching methods and computer use, Becker (2000) found that “constructivists’ Teachers used computers and let their students use the computers more than traditional teachers, he concluded: This [computer/constructivist] relationship is perhaps due to the fact that technology provides students with almost unlimited access to information that they need in order to do research and test their ideas. It facilitates communication, allowing students to present their beliefs and products to broader audiences and also exposes them to the opinions of a more diverse group of people in the real world beyond the classroom, school and local community - all conditions optimal for constructivist learning.” (Becker, 2000).

In the late 80s and early 90s, and after long years of computer criticism and

Constructivism and Computers

numerous questioning on its role in education, a new field of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) started to emerge. (Stahl, Koschmann & Suthers, 2006). CSCL approached computers from a social constructivist perspective. Three early projects—the ENFI Project at Gallaudet University, the CSILE project at the University of Toronto, that later became Knowledge Forum, and the Fifth Dimension Project at the University of California San Diego were the beginning of the filed of CSCL. (Stahl et al, 2006). Instead of thinking about the computer as another piece in the classroom, a new affordance of computers is now talked about, and that is, the ability of computers to enhance collaborative meaning making between groups of students working together. CSCL is not about posting comments on website or working alone on a computer program, it’s the collaboration between students that distinguish CSCL environments from other trends in using computers in education. (Stahl et al, 2006). Collaboration is defined as: a process by which individuals negotiate and share meanings relevant to the problem-solving task at hand. Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a shared conception of a problem. (Roschelle & Teasley’s, 1995) Constructivist approaches views learners as agents in the learning process; the role of the teacher is to help students become better agents in the learning process through scaffolding. This Teacher C Model (Student-Centered Learning with teacher supervision and scaffolding) as described by Scardemalia & Breiter (1999), became the framework on designing many computer programs like LOGO, Boxer and CSILE. Using computers in CSCL environments is not simply using the machine, but

Constructivism and Computers

rather, designing specific software that can bring students together to collaborate, ie, it is not necessary learning from the technology but learning with the technology CSCL can be in different forms and shapes; it can be used as an online distance education or in face-to-face instruction. The collaboration between students can happen as a synchronous or asynchronous process. (Stahl et al, 2006). CSCL research is expanding and will provide more data about this promising trend over the next years. Could we be interested in computers if we are not constructivists? I discussed this question briefly earlier in this paper with the discussion of the first trend in using computers in education, but I will add few points about the computer use in my field, Medicine; The medical field’s use of computers in education is still heavily affected by the traditional behaviorist model. Most of the medical (educational) software and applications are simply (Computer Aided Instruction). They consist of predetermined frames that , indivisual students use, and, cannot deviate from the predetermined path, they are not designed to facilitate discussion or enhance collaboration among students like CSCL environments. The usual use of these programs for medical students is either at home or in isolated corners in the hospital. Examples of these applications are: Just In Time tutorials, EBooks, Medical websites that contains didactic lectures and videos The introduction of Social media and Simulation in Medical education are promising new trends in using computers to enhance collaborative knowledge building among medical students. Few medical educators started using social media and discussion forums with

Constructivism and Computers

their students. Yet, majority of them still use these social media in a non-social way by using them as knowledge “banks” to upload their lectures and resource lists. Few educators are using social media to encourage collaboration among their students. An example of such use is Problem-Based learning approaches using wikispaces and blogs. Medical simulation is another rapidly advancing field. We use computer simulations to teach resuscitation skills to medical students. Students work in groups cooperating and collaborating to solve complex “real life-like scenarios, they face consequences for their decisions and there is variable degree of scaffolding based on the students level and experiences. I belief the trend of CSCL is expanding in medicine and will be the theme of medical education in the next few years.

Constructivism and Computers

12 References

Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right?. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (51), 1-31.

Block, J. (1982). Assimilation, Accommodation, and the Dynamics of Personality Development. Child Development, 53 (2), 281-296. Glasersfeld, E. V. (1989) Constructivism in Education . In: T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite, (ed.) International encyclopedia of education, Supplement (Vol. 1, PP. 162–163). Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press. Larochelle, M., Bednarz, N., Jim Garrison, J., (1998). Constructivism and education. New York : Cambridge University Press. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Papert, S. (1987). Computercriticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22-30 Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-197). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68. Sheppard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7), 4-14.

Constructivism and Computers

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Urban-Lurain, M. (1996) Intelligent Tutoring Systems: An Historic Review in the Context of the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Educational Psychology, Retrieved 05 Nov, 2010, from http://www.cse.msu.edu/rgroups/cse101/ITS/its.htm. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, B.G. & Myers, K.M., (2000) Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H Jonassen & S. M Land, (Eds.) Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp.57-88) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.