CONSTRUCTIVISM: Strengthening the bridge between the 21st century skills and the Science & Engineering practices

CONSTRUCTIVISM: Strengthening the bridge between the 21st century skills and the Science & Engineering practices 

 “Do not confine your children to your own learning for they were born in another time!”

The Hebrew proverb reminds us that our learners, or shall we say the millennials, have cognitive needs that are different from what their educators had when they were still learners themselves. Furthermore, the Flynn Effect provides the challenge for teachers to cope with the advancing level of intelligence of the new generation of learners. In the 21st century classroom, the teacher is no longer the lone authority on the subject matter but rather a co-learner and a facilitator of meaning making. Hence, there is no other more crucial educative moment for constructivism than the present time. 

Murphy (1997) defined constructivism as a paradigm where “knowledge is constructed by the individual through his interactions with his environment”. In this view, the learners do not passively receive information and practice rote learning but rather actively participate in the endeavor to “make sense of the world” through experiences that provide opportunities to develop meaning and understanding. In the most practical way of defining how a teacher would know if a learner understands, we can consider the six facets of understanding based on the Understanding by Design framework proposed by Wiggins and McTighe. A learner understands if he/she can explain, interpret, apply, perceive another perspective, do self-reflection, and express empathy. The BSCS (2004), through various NIH modules on science education, equates the constructivist approach into active learning which means that are involved “in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing”. The NIH modules are all designed for active, collaborative, and inquiry-based learning in biological science. In an active learning class, students are involved in more than listening. Teaching strategies place less emphasis on transmitting information and more on developing students’ skills. Students are involved in higher-order thinking such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Instructors encourage students to explore their own understandings, attitudes, and values through more opportunities for engaged activities such as reading, discussing, and writing. In addition, academic learning time is spent more on integrated and collaborative tasks.    

The 5E Instructional Model is one example of an instructional design or framework that  exemplifies constructivism as an approach the acknowledges the role of the student as an active agent who “constructs” meaning out of his or her interactions with events (Perkins, 1992). According to this view, rather than passively absorbing information, the student redefines, reorganizes, elaborates, and changes his or her initial understandings through interactions with phenomena, the environment, and other individuals. In other words, the student interprets objects and phenomena and then internalizes this interpretation in terms of previous experiences (NIH-BSCS, 2004). A constructivist view of learning recognizes that the development of ideas and the acquisition of lasting understandings take time and experiences (Saunders, 1992). The key components of the 5E model, so-called because it takes students through five phases of learning that are easily described using five words that begin with the letter “E”: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. The role of the teacher based on these 5Es are further explained in the table below. 

Source:  BSCS-NIH, 2004

In the constructivist approach, it can be deduced that the emphasis is not on how much content is covered but the quality of engagement and understanding that have transpired between the learners and the content. This view of meaning-making through previously constructed knowledge implies that: 

• Learners are intellectually generative individuals (with the capacity to pose questions, solve problems, and construct theories and knowledge) rather than empty vessels waiting to be filled. 
• Instruction should be based primarily on developing learners’ thinking. 
• The locus of intellectual authority resides in neither the teacher nor the resources, but in the discourse facilitated by both teachers and learners (Maclellan and Soden 2004).

Richardson (2003) categorized constructivism into (1) socio-logical, (2) psychological, and (3) radical. All three categories share the epistemological assumption that knowledge or meaning is not discovered but constructed by the human mind. According to Baxter-Magolda (1992), a contextual learner (a) believes that knowledge is uncertain, tentative, and subject to change and revision; (b) is comfortable judging how personal knowledge and skills might apply to a situation; and (c) connects concepts to applied settings. These qualities are in contrast to the absolute learner. Through practicing constructivist teaching methods, teachers can transform students from absolute learners to contextual learners. Furthermore, Vigotsky argued that children learn best the concepts that are in their zone of proximal development and on the context of the social nature of learning (Ylmaz, 2008). 

Fosnot (1996) has already explained that every educator needs to understand the educational theory or theories behind a given instructional framework to gain success in reform efforts Constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of teaching (Fosnot 1996; Richardson 2003) Constructivist teachers challenge students to justify and defend their positions so that they can change their conceptual frameworks (e.g., beliefs, assumptions, and conceptions). In the constructivist classroom, learning emphasizes the process, not the product. The teacher also recognizes the pivotal importance of discourse (Ylmaz, 2008). Needless to say, every teacher must understand constructivism as a theory of learning, a very abstract and challenging concept  most especially when it comes to translating it into the actual instructional practice. The science and engineering practices, one of the three salient attributes of the New Generation Science Standards (National Academy of Sciences, 2012), are anchored on constructivism.  

Source: NRC, 2012

As presented in the figure above, all the practices prioritize not on mastering concepts, facts, and processes; but rather, making sense of these concepts, facts, and processes into meaningful applications. However, for students who are English Language Learners (ELL), and most of the time, with a teacher who is an ELL himself/herself, language proficiency becomes an additional pre-requisite for a successful constructivist teaching practice. Therefore, it is also very important for a science teacher not only to understand the 5E Model, or any instructional design for that matter, but also it is important to have the competency to blend in vocabulary, syntax and discourse into the inquiry-based activities. The importance of language is further explained in the video. 

 

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z19luxxIE7M

 “How a teacher should be in 21st century?” This question, according to Patankar (2011) should be the prime consideration for the revitalization of teacher education programs. Countless researches already concluded that the key to any successful or significant improvement in student performance is the professional development of the teacher, both during the pre-service and during in-service. Teacher training institution should therefore align their programs to the current trends such as 21st century skills and the standards-based active learning approach (for example the incorporation of the science and engineering practices). The argument would again go back to the development of proper epistemological beliefs of the pre-service teachers and eventually the reinforcement during the actual practice of the profession. On the context of constructivism, particularly, in view of developing the 21st century skills, it is important that teachers would progress rather than regress due to the many “extra-curricular burdens” that goes especially with basic education.   

If in a constructivist classroom, students are given the opportunity to create their own meaning, make connections with the content based on their learning experiences, then teacher professional development program should also be based on this perspective. Pitsoe and Maila (2013) concluded that (1) Teachers’ beliefs are deemed important in professional development, (2) Teachers’ personal practical knowledge exerts a major influence on the way in which teachers respond to educational change, (3) Successful teacher professional development fits the context; and (4) That the top-down approach to teacher professional development is not compatible with the emerging paradigm. It is therefore logical that teachers’ beliefs and experiences should be the starting point of professional development. 

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0xa98cy-Rw 

In conclusion, how can a science teacher carry out a constructivist approach or translate the theory of constructivism into actual practice if he/she has not experienced it? How can a science teacher facilitate the science and engineering practices if he/she herself is still getting familiarized with scientific inquiry? How can a non-millennial engage the 21st century learner, if he/she still adhere to the ways of the past generations of educators who have never heard of active learning? The key to sealing the gap between the vision for the 21st century skills and the mission of engaging science learners in S&P practices can be done only if the teacher becomes an effective agent of constructivism. 

References:

BSCS and NIH. (2005). Doing Science: The Process of Scientific Inquiry. USA: National Institute of Health. 

National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Patankar, Pratibha Subhashchandra.(2011). Teacher Education: Need of Paradigm shift from Behaviorism to Constructivism. Indian Streams Research Journal. 2011, 1:11, p23-25. [EBSCO]

Pitsoe, V. J.; Maila, W. M. (2012). Towards Constructivist Teacher Professional Development. Journal of Social Sciences(15493652). 2012, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p318-324.

Ylmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its Theoretical Underpinnings, Variations, and Implications for Classroom Instruction. Educational Horizons, v86 n3 p161-172 Spr 2008. (EJ798521)

REFERENCES FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Great reads for enthusiastic science and math teachers of the 21st century!