Muhammad Betz (mbetz@sosu.edu)
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:37:00 -0500
From: "Muhammad Betz" <mbetz@sosu.edu> Subject: Constructivist v. Traditional Learning Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:37:00 -0500
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respected Colleagues:
A few weeks ago Iadded my opinion to a discussion about constructivist
learning and social constructivism and inititated a basis for supporting
traditional or what has been called transmission instruction. I called for
a pedagogical model of Direct Instruction based on an Information Processing
model of learning. I later mused in private corespondence that there seemed
to me to be a general confusion between theories of learning and theories of
pedagogy. I think it would worth our time to claify that distinction.
Further I noticed in several responses to my antithetical position (as it
seemed then) of supporting Direct Instruction over social constructivism,
that most writers were referring to adult learners in non-traditional
settings when they voiced their preference for social constructivism. As a
teacher educator, who teaches traditional undergraduate and graduate courses
to preservice and inservice public school teachers, my perspective would
logically be different.
Our task in teacher education is to prepare students to teach in a public
school located somewhere in the United States, and specifically in my
situation, usually located in Oklahoma and Texas. However, I have also been
a training specialist in the corporate world where my student population
consisted of Fab workers and electrical engineers (with Ph.D.'s) ina
semi-conductor manufacturing consortium, called SEMATECH, which was a highly
visible U.S. entity still located in Austin, TX. In that environment, I
also preferred a Direct Instructional model for pedagogy and included some
constructivist activities that included discovery learning exercises.
Often when attempting to use constructivist techniques in both settings, I
have been asked such questions as, "Hey, who is teaching this class?" and
"Don't you know what you are doing?" and "What do we need you for?" My
point is constructivist techniques can call in to question the expertise of
instructors. Many students are not aware of constructivist principles and
precepts, and even when told about the advantages of constructivism are not
convinced of its efficacy or propriety.
As I indicated earlier, my chosen model of Direct Instruction based on
information processing learning theory (in a general sense) has six steps,
which are based on R. Gagne's Events of Instruction (see Gagne's book, The
Conditions of Learning: An Instructional Theory). The six steps, which are
adpatations of Gagne's original nine steps include: (1)Orientation of the
learner, (2)specifying the learning objective to the learner in a direct
sense, (3)guided practice or demonstration of the desired learning,
(4)independent practice of the desired learning, (5)evaluation of the
independent practice and possible reteaching, and (6)enhancing retention and
transfer of learning. As the reader can see, several of these steps allow
for the inclusion of constructivist activities, including steps 1,3,4, & 6.
But, in the main, the instruction is DRIVEN by the instructor, who is
responsible for the nature of the learning environment and for expertise in
area of learning.
It is my view that this type of pedagogy and resulting learning is pragmatic
on the one hand, yet progressive on the other, relative to the instructor's
creativity in selecting optimal learning activities for learners.
Best wishes,
Muhammad Betz, Ph.D.
Southeastern Oklahoma State Universitiy
mbetz@sosu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon 12 Apr 1999 - 09:16:22 MET DST