How to Promote Meaningful Learning - Term Paper Example

Challenges of Applying Constructivism in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Introduction Constructivist principles have greatly influenced general education theory and mathematic and science teaching in recent years, but have remained relatively unfamiliar in the field of Teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL) (Kaufman & Grennon Brooks, 1996). Although the word "constructivism" has not been associated directly with TESOL, a lot of recommended instructions illustrate the idea of constructivist teaching (Mayer, 2008). Research has shown that non-native students may learn English language more easily through an active learning approach where students take responsibility for their own learning and the teacher serves as a resource person or coach. Students also have a more positive feeling toward school and are more successful when they construct their own meaning during writing and reading assignments (Cheng, 1995; Ormrod, 2008; Dell'Olio & Donk, 2007). Students tend to be successful when they are actively and personally involved. Activities such as language experience approaches, writing-as ­a process, and basic whole-language experiences are among the most valuable for students who are learning English (Sousa, 2006; DuCharme, Earl, & Poplin, 1989). Although constructivism might provide a model of knowing and learning that has important implications for classroom practices, it does not translate neatly into a set of pedagogical practices (Blyth, 1997). The implementation of the constructivist approach is still worth discussion and clarification. This paper will highlight challenges associated with implementing constructivism in teaching English to speakers of other languages. Barriers to Constructivist Implementation Much writing has been done about theories of constructivism and the connection to superior learning results; however, there is no "consolidated" discussion of the foundations, results, and practical issues of constructivism (Morrow & Schickedanz, 2006; Marlowe & Page, 1998, p. x). According to Marlowe and Page (1998), even when teachers recognise the value of and want to use constructivist approaches in their classrooms, their efforts often produce less than what they expected. There have been attempts to make constructivism operational so that classroom teachers can more rapidly apply constructivist theory to practice. The problem is that the application of constructivism in classrooms is "neither widespread nor systematic" (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 447). Constructivist propositions can seem fairly simple but hundreds of observations of and questions from pre-service and in­ service teachers over the past 10 years show that they are not (Marlowe & Page, 1998). Teachers and administrators who already work with constructivist reform initiatives need guidelines to help with the implementation (Mayer, 2008). Moreover, development of a constructivist view of learning as a basis for instruction implies fundamental changes for most classroom teachers. Such a shift in beliefs about learning and learners has the potential to cause a redesign of classroom learning activities (Kaufman & Grennon Brooks, 1996), a redefinition of the roles of the teacher and the students (Prawat, 1990, 1992), a modification of the social climate, and the nature of classroom interaction (Brophy, 1998). Due to these much required changes in teachers as well as the classroom practices, traditional teacher-centred classrooms that do not encourage students' active involvement in the learning process have been far more prevalent than constructivist classrooms (Cuban, 1990; Ramirez, 1991). The following section will, therefore, identify and discuss some common difficulties in implementing instruction based on constructivism. Teachers as Change Agents According to Simon (1989), the teachers who averaged more than 10 years of experience may express feeling like novice teachers because the constructivist mode of instruction was such a departure from what they had been doing before. Prawat (1992) identifies four important aspects of current thinking that may get in the way of teachers adopting a constructivist approach to teaching and learning: (a) the tendency to think of both child and content as relatively fixed entities, (b) the tendency to equate activity with learning, (c) making a distinction between comprehension and application, learning and problem solving, and (d) viewing the curriculum as a fixed agenda. If change is to be meaningful and more than superficial, teachers need to change their set of assumptions from their traditional worldview to a constructivist one. Other teacher-related factors affecting constructivist implementation include teacher education and teachers' educational experiences. It is unrealistic to expect teachers to initiate constructivist settings if their prior educational experiences, including teacher education programs, do not include constructivist-based experiences. Teaching behaviour is frequently molded by prior educational experiences (Johnson, 1992; Richardson, 1990). Constructivist processes are more likely to emerge in schools if teacher education programs engage their teacher candidates in constructivist practices that include interdisciplinary exploration, collaborative endeavors, and university and school-based fieldwork opportunities (Kaufman, 1996). There is also a need to articulate clearly constructivist principles for pre-and inservice programs for teacher education. Without a concrete theoretical base, these teachers might not have the environment to persist activities consistent with constructivist teaching (Lenski, Wham, & Griffey, 1998). This was shown to be true in a study done with preservice teachers constructing their curriculum and instructional practices base on a constructivist theory (Jadallah, 1996). The results showed that the preservice teachers had learned terminology and definitions, but did not develop an in-depth understanding of the learning principles that underlined specific concepts. Moreover, the research data suggest that a preservice teacher's limited or erroneous understanding of a teaching idea affects the development and implementation of his or her lessons (Jadallah, 1996). Therefore, if teachers are to implement constructivism successfully, it is essential that they have a thorough understanding of its principles and practices. The other difficulty related to in-service programs is they are too short to provide long-term support (Dharmadasa, 2000). Teachers need more time, training, and on-going support to shift their classrooms to a constructivist approach. Dharmadasa (2000) suggests that pre- and in-service programs need to be designed to encourage teachers to change their perspectives to embrace constructivist methods of teaching. In conclusion, teacher education and support need to be "on-going and developmental rather than piecemeal" (Brindley & Hood, in Carless, 1999, p. 375). Students' Resistance to Change A constructivist approach places greater demands on students as well. For too long, students have been socialised with certain expectations about schooling and success. Unfortunately, students are accustomed to more teacher control and direction, an emphasis on correct answers, not expressing their thought processes, extensive practices of skills, and other similar conventional classroom events (Zahorik, 1995). In a study on constructivism in a science classroom, Duit (1995) found that students were often unwilling to "follow a long discussion of the relative value of both their view and the scientific view… Instead they want to know what is the right-the correct view" (p. 279). Many students are reluctant to voice opinions that may be considered incorrect. This is especially true with English as a second language (ESL) students. According to Brown (1993), many ESL students may be resistant to independent production of language, preferring to remain passive during class. Student resistance to cooperative learning is due to a lack of training of students, a lack of understanding of basic of cooperative learning principles by administrators, and a lack of cooperative techniques on the part of teachers (Lee, 1999). Lee further proclaims that students often interpret the teacher reticence as "negligence" or "laziness" when poorly trained teachers attempt to use cooperative learning methods (p. 75). Zahorik (1995) recommends that teachers incrementally substitute constructivist practices for traditional practices. Then, students may begin to assume their new role. Authentic tasks, valuing of students' ideas, building on their current levels of understanding, and respecting their judgments can encourage students to join in the process of constructing knowledge. Breadth versus Depth In constructivist teaching, it is the students' careful interpretation and deep understanding of the content and processes that are of concern. Constructing knowledge by fitting new content into existing structures or by adjusting existing structures usually cannot be done so quickly, nor can it be easily contained within arbitrary boundaries (Zahorik, 1995). As Bruner (1960) advised many years ago, the constructivist teacher needs' to search his or her content area for the most powerful, generative ideas and to make them the main objects of attention to achieve content coverage. These ideas will then subsume a myriad of facts, which will result in a degree of content coverage (Zahorik, 1995). Teacher's Fluency in Second Language Ideally, second language teachers, in addition to knowing what to teach and how to teach it, should be native or native-like speakers of both languages (Hammerly, 1991). This is seldom the case. If the oral proficiency is a major goal for foreign language learners, it then presupposes oral proficiency on the part of the teacher. If the teacher is unable to converse in the language she is teaching, instruction tends to remain traditional with emphasis on grammar, translation, vocabulary memorisation, and written exercises (Schrade, 1992). According to Schrade (1992), foreign language teachers are often products themselves of traditional training and lacking in exposure to native speakers, thereby remaining unable to speak the language much less teach their students to speak. Unfortunately, the literature does not provide adequate information on the degree to which teachers are trained and informed about teaching for oral proficiency or the levels of oral proficiency modern language teachers have attained (Connor, 1995). An even more pressing issue, however, is how to help practicing foreign language teachers maintain their fluency and cultural knowledge. In their article entitled, "On Being and Becoming a Foreign Language Teacher," Hammadou and Bernhardt (1987) considered why foreign language teachers are often faced with problems that teachers in other subject areas do not encounter. A critical issue is that it is much more difficult for second language teachers to maintain and improve their skills and knowledge in their subject area. They point out that language is not a tactual product but rather a process of communication that can be lost if not used on a regular basis. Whereas teachers in other fields need simply read journals and books or attend conferences in order to keep current, second language teachers need interaction with people, preferably native speakers of the language they teach, in order to maintain their language skills and their knowledge of current culture. Some suggestions arise in order to help foreign language teachers maintain and improve their language, pedagogical skills and cultural knowledge. One way that has proved effective is providing in-service training that places emphasis on oral skills. For example, Schrade (1992) describes an institute in oral proficiency and teaching effectiveness for practicing secondary Spanish and French teachers. The language classes of the institute took place daily, four hours per day for four weeks. Native speaker tutors are used who have been trained to teach the language orally and to serve as experts. The spoken language classes provide the teacher participants with a great deal of formal and informal contact with native speakers outside the classroom and in simulated situations within the classroom. The encounter with the spoken language in other settings enables teachers to maintain and increase speaking proficiency by eliciting both language information and cultural information from native speakers. Results of pre- and post institute oral proficiency interviews and evaluations showed positive changes for all participants. In addition to working with native speakers, teachers work with other teachers, enabling them to maintain and improve their language skills. A project developed at Indiana University of Pennsylvania was designed to meet the needs of secondary school foreign language teachers in proficiency maintenance and improvement (Phillips, 1988). During the project, teachers talked with each other about topics geared to strengthening their target-language proficiency. The project emphasised positive interactions teachers experienced as they strove to improve their own fluency, as they learned to conduct interviews, and as they experimented with adapting materials and developing teaching strategies to promote proficiency. It should be noted here that maintaining and improving proficiency for foreign language teachers is an ongoing process. Teachers can participate in formal and informal programs to enhance their proficiency including study and travel abroad programs and institutes and summer seminars. Finally, as Lam (1994) states, teachers need to know what exactly constitutes fluency in order to specify the aims of language teaching and develop oral skills of students more effectively. Time Pressure Closely related to the above discussion, many studies have shown that time is an extremely important consideration in implementing constructivist education (Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Bufkin & Bryde, 1996; Dharmadasa, 2000). Initially, teachers found that allowing students to construct understanding required more time than telling and showing to cover the same amount of material. Case studies of two student teachers done by Cook and DeHart (1996) showed that student teachers felt constrained by the time limits of a 50 minute class period, which resulted in having to cut activities for the units. Similar results have been presented in another case studies of six elementary teachers who tried implementing a constructivist curriculum. Dharmadasa (2000) found that constructivist environments need flexible class time schedules compared to particular time periods in structured classrooms. Simon (1989) concludes that at times, the time pressure is institutionalised or corning from parents. At other times, it is self-imposed by teachers. Cultural Factors Carless (1999) argues that any innovation needs to be "culturally appropriate" for the user-system into which it is being introduced (p. 376); otherwise the innovation will not become an effective functioning part of the system in which it is implanted. Holliday used the term "tissue rejection" to describe that phenomenon (in Carless, 1999, p. 376). Carless (1999) explains further that appropriateness includes both the macro-culture of the society and the micro-culture of the school. At the macro level, societies have expectations about the role of schooling, the nature of learning, and appropriate roles for teachers and learners. At the micro level, schools have particular practices that have routines that become entrenched and resistant to change. Furthermore, cross-cultural research has found that individualised learning may conflict with preferred modes of operation in collectivist societies where group cohesiveness is valued (Carless, 1999). This has proved true with a case study done in Thailand. Hallinger and Kantamara (2000) in their study identified four cultural perspectives that have an impact on change in Thai school: (a) the high power distance-where decisions should be made by those in positions of authority; (b) the collectivist facet-the context for change occurs in the group more than in individuals; (c) the high level of uncertainty avoidance-strongly socialised to conform to group norms, traditions, rules, and regulations; and (d) the feminine dimension-place a high value on social relationship, to seek harmony and to avoid conflict. In recent years, in Teaching English as a Second Language, particular attention has focused on the cultural appropriateness of communicative approaches in non-Western cultures (Ellis, 1996; Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996). As Ellis (1996) points out, the Western notion of teacher as facilitator tends to conflict with traditional views of the teacher as authority figure, model, and knowledge-giver. A study done by Terdal (1996) investigated the adjustments made in classroom behaviour and teaching techniques by western-trained English as a second language (ESL) teachers in Japanese universities. The teachers in the study found that cultural and educational barriers made language teaching that focused on learners difficult in Japan. Japanese students are generally quiet, passive, and obedient. They learn by watching and listening to their teachers, not by questioning (Nozaki, 1993). Results from interviews and observations indicated that the teachers made a variety of adaptations in the area of materials, classroom management, techniques, and evaluation with the results that the classrooms were not highly communicative. Most classrooms were teacher-centred and little interaction occurred between the teacher and students (Terdal, 1996). Working within the constraints of the culture and the educational system is a challenge for western-trained teachers and teacher-trainers that should be met with both understanding and creativity. To meet the challenges, teachers will need to be professionals-leaders and agents for change, responsible for their own continuing professional development (Guntermann, 1992). Particularly in the area of teaching English as a second language, teachers are not only accountable for developing their cultural understanding in diverse learners but also for developing and maintaining their language proficiency. Other Considerations In addition to teachers and students, other related factors include time and cultural factors as discussed above. However, there are still some challenges and obstacles that may occur with a change in teaching and implementing constructivist teaching. A number of studies on teachers' implementation of constructivist teaching and learning identify some of the potential problems: class size and number of students (Brown, 1993; Dhamadasa, 2000), use of traditional textbooks (Marlowe & Page, 1998), evaluation and grading (Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Zahorik, 1995), lack of appropriate curriculum materials (Cook & DeHart, 1996; Dhamadasa, 2000), and classroom management (Bufkin & Bryde, 1996). These obstacles can impede the success and rate of progress in implementation efforts. Bufkin and Bryde (1996) suggest that the change from a traditional approach to a more constructivist approach should be viewed as a process. As with any change, there are challenges. Converting a course one step at a time may be most effective for both the teachers and the students. Moreover, an important aspect of changing to a more constructivist approach is the use of peer support (Bufkin & Bryde, 1996; Cook & DeHart, 1996; Kaufman & Grennon Brooks, 1996; Marlowe & Page, 1998). A study done by Jadallah (1996) indicated that pre-service teachers who demonstrated in-depth conceptual understanding spent more time with their peers and cooperating teachers discussing and reflecting on the ideas from their readings and classroom experiences. This is confirmed by Tumposky (1989) who uses the term "community" to refer to the development of jointly constructed productive connections for sharing and overcoming problems among teachers. (p. 7) The role of a school principal plays an important part in terms of managing resources for change. Genuine change is easier to effect when the principal takes a proactive leadership role in actively encouraging and supporting teachers in the implementation (O'Donoghue & Dimmock, 1997). In achieving constructivist implementation, principals can help teachers overcome barriers in terms of money, time, ideas, materials, assistance, and training. Moreover, teachers need support and understanding from parents as well (Marlowe & Page, 1998). Conclusion Research on barriers to implementation has emphasised the importance of support and understanding from principals, administration, and teacher-colleagues. In conclusion, working collaboratively with principals and other teachers who believe that students have the ability and need to construct their own knowledge can lead to a smooth transition and success in providing an environment that promotes meaningful learning. References Airasian, P., & Walsh, M. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 444-49. Blyth, C. (1997). A constructivist approach to grammar: Teaching teachers to teach aspect. The Modern Language Journal, 81,50-66. Brophy, J. (1998). Classroom management as socializing students into clearly articulated roles. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 33(1), 1-4. Brown, R. (1993). Developing professionalism in second language education, Paper presented at the annual international conference on Teacher Education in Second Language Teaching, Hong Kong. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 170) Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage. Bufkin, L., & Bryde, S. (1996). lmplementing a constructivist approach in higher education with early childhood educators. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 17(2),58-65. Carless, D. (1999). Factors affecting classroom implementation: Task-based curriculum renewal in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Reform, 8(4),374­381. Cheng, L. L. (1995). Integrating language and learning Jor inclusion: An Asian-Pacific focus. San Diego, CA: Singular. Connor, L. B. (1995). What Illinois teachers do in the classroom: New research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 250) Cook, P., & DeHart, P. (1996). Making connections: Helping teachers to implement an integrated approach to curriculum within their school communities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 003) Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher. 19(1),3­13. Dell'Olio, J. M. , & Donk, T. (2007). Models of teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dharmadasa, L (2000). Teachers' perspectives on constructivist teaching and learning. Paper presented at the annual conference and exhibition of the Association for Children Education International (April 17-20), Baltimore, MD. DuCharme, C., Earl, J., & Poplin, M. (1989). The author model: The constructivist view of the writing process. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12,237-242. Duit, R. (1995). The constructivist view: A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 271-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? English Language Teaching Journal, 50(3),213-218. Guntermann, G. (1992). Developing tomorrow's teachers of world language. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 880) Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2000). Educational change in Thailand: Opening a window onto leadership as a cultural process. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 189-205. Hammadou, J., & Bernhardt, E. (1987). On being and becoming a foreign language teacher. Theory Into Practice, 26(4),302-306. Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Jadallah, E. (1996). Reflective theory and practice: A constructivist process for curriculum and instructional decisions. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 73- 85. Johnson. K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 24,83-108. Kaufman, D. (1996). Constructivist-based experiential learning in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 40-50. Kaufman, D., & Grennon Brooks, J. (1996). Interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher education: A constructivist approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 231-251. Kramsch, K., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. English Language Teaching Journal, 50(3), 199-212. Lam, W. (1994). Investigating the oral fluency of 15 EFL teachers: A quantitative approach revisited. Paper presented at the International Language in Education Conference, Hong Kong. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED 389 168) Lee, J. (1999). Effectiveness of computer-based instructional simulation: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 71-85. Lenski, S., Wham, M., & Griffey, D. (1998). Literacy orientation survey: A survey to clarify teachers' beliefs and practices. Reading Research & Instruction, 37(3), 217-236. Marlowe 8., & Page, M. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Morrow, L. M., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2006). The relationships between sociodramatic play and literacy development. In D. K. Dickenson, ed. & S. B. Neuman(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research: Volume 2. New York: Guilford Press. Nozaki, K. (1993). The Japanese student and the foreign teacher. In P. Wadden (Ed.). A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities (pp. 27-33). New York: Oxford University Press. O'Donoghue, T., & Dimmock, C. (1997). The principal's contribution to school restructuring initiatives aimed at improving teaching and learning. Educational Management and Administration, 25(1), 35-49. Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Phillips.J. K., & Glisan, E. W. (1988). Teachers working with teachers: Becoming proficient with proficiency. Becoming proficient with proficiency. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336 940) Prawat, R. (1992). Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100, 354-95. Ramirez, D. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit Bilingual Education programs. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre. Schrade, A. (1992). Improving oral skills for in-service teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 822) Simon, M. (1989). The impact of intensive classroom follow up in a constructivist mathematics teacher education program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American· Educational Research association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 313 351) Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the brain learns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Terdal, M. (1996). Communicative English language teaching in Japanese universities: Teacher adaptations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Japan Association of Language Teachers (November), Japan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 822) Tumposky, N. (1989). Teacher education: Considerations for a knowledge base framework. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 511) Zahorik, J. (1995). Constructivist teaching, Fastback 390. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 367) . Read More