Experiencing Constructivism

In partial compliance for the requirements in

DT100x Instructional Design and Technology: Learning Theories

My first personal example— learning how to read with my grandmother-- was an example of of both Behaviorism. The ruler and praises were a symbol of reinforcement based on Skinner’s theory of Behaviorism. Meantime, how my grandmother designed her tutorial used the theory of constructivism through the scaffolding method. This was demonstrated when she increased the level of difficulty on the words that I need to read every after session. She taught me how each letter sounds. Once I know how to pronounce the letters and combine it with other letters to form a word, I was able to read on my own without her assistance.

The two (2) examples when I was in HS/College and at work, were more of an Constructivism and Adult Learning (Andragogy), although both examples represented independent exploration from the concept of Piaget (McLeod, 2014). I was able to discover the intricacies of organizing and strategic planning through own discovery which is constructivism in nature.

For a more comprehensive example I would like to share a scenario when I designed a basic supervisory course. It was a 2-day course which featured the concept of Planning, Leading, Organizing and Controlling (PLOC) with heavy weight on Planning and Controlling. Attendees of the course ranges from former truck drivers who were promoted to supervisory position, operational supervisors, and 2nd generation family members (sons/daughters) of the owners who were involved in the business of trucking.

On one of our sessions, a case study was given to each group to discuss and come up with a plausible plan. However, 2 out of 4 groups did not come up with a solution to the case study. We processed the activity and learned that they felt the case was too complicated and they lack the resources that was needed in the case study. During lunch break, I found out that some members of the group were from the 2nd generation family members who were also still young. Some commented that they would just assign the case study to one of their colleagues if it was an assignment. I have run the course 5 times, and that was the only time that a group did not come up with a solution. I initially thought that the reasons could be - (1) Most members of the group were young, and were not exposed yet to hauling business (prior knowledge); (2) Other members of the group had difficulty expressing their opinions, specially if their group mates had given up (social interaction was halted due to environment or culture differences due to their different backgrounds)

Although the trainees were participative and engaged during the 1st part of the workshop, dynamics changed when a real scenario/problem was given. When the members of the group (2nd Generation owners) felt that they do not need to perform the task then the activity holds no meaning for them. Meantime, the other 2 groups, who have somehow prior knowledge on dispatch and hauling services, find the activity meaningful. Social interactions while solving the case have also helped them exchange ideas and gather best practices in the industry.

The ZPD in this scenario was when the steps in planning was introduced. There were small activities on each step- (1) creating objectives (related to their work); (2) coming up with options (inductive thinking); (3) evaluating option (deductive thinking); (4) Choosing the best option (Decision making). Once each concept was introduced, the groups were given a case study where each group were asked to come up with a solution or plan of action.

Based from what happened, I made some changes on how the training was delivered. I was carefully conscious of the scaffolding approach. In my next run of the training, 2nd generation owners also attended the session. I have noted that members were more mature and conversant that encourages exchange of ideas.

Taking note of my previous experience, I considered learner's profile and how they will perceive the content and flow of the activities to ensure a well planned scaffolded resources (context, flow and amount of information given). Specific examples were given on each step. Together with my co-facilitator, we made rounds on each team, gave guidance to team members and stayed longer with groups who needed assistance the most. Detailed examples on how the concepts can be applied in there work were also provided. At the end of the session, participants were able to come up with their own plan. This time the result was different and I received good comments/feedback from the participants after the session.

I realized here (1) the importance of a well-designed scaffolded elements and resources — Content, flow, delivery and amount of information/resources will make a difference in maximizing learning.; (2) accommodation of new skills or knowledge only happens if the context and value of the information/skill was perceived clear or relevant; and (3) Self-discovery and guided instruction worked hand in hand to ensure learners was able to construct their own schema or connect what they already know to the new learnings.

References:

Cakir M. (2008). Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and their Implication for Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 3(4)L 193-206. Available at http://cepa.info/3848

McLeod, S.A. (2014). Lev Vygotsky. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html

#Constructivism #learningexperience