Constructing Knowledge Through Experience-A Teaching Method

Constructivism is a concept that entails all learning as a building process that creates knowledge through mental processes derived from the social and communicative process. When students are reflective they are able to learn from their experience and apply new information to these concepts. A paper by Abdulla Al Mahmud moves into the concept of learning through a constructivist perspective by fostering knowledge building through experience to create better student learning (2013). 

In a constructionists perspective all learning comes from experiencing the world and reflecting on those experiences.  The concept was mention by John Dewey in his 1910 book How We Think, “Only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem at hand, seeking and finding his own solution [not in isolation but in correspondence with the teacher and other pupils] does one learn.” People live within a social environment and use their experiences and the knowledge of others to learn.

To understand a person you must understand what they know and how they know it. Jean Piaget (1985) believed that knowledge is the result of accurate internalization of information and reconstructing that information into cognitive meaning. People must take in information, reflect on it, and build better models of the world to engage in the process of learning. Teachers must find ways of relaying information to fit within existing student models.

Social constructivism occurs when people learn from each other to create sociably acceptable models of understanding. They use language and their social networks to construct the meaning of their environment. Most individuals experience and negotiate that experience with others to create an understanding that is shared among a group of individuals. That does not mean that the experience or its socially constructed definition is accurate but only that it is shared.

The best learning occurs when reflection is part of the process. Critical thinking requires reflection of past and current situations to develop stronger ways of viewing the world. This can take the effective of reflection-in-action or reflection-on-action. Both methods offer some advantages to the development of knowledge.

Reflection-in-action occurs during a situation when an individual adjusts and moves to events as they occur.  “The competent practitioner learns to think on his/her feet and is able to improvise as

s/he takes in new information and/or encounters the unexpected .”(Pickett, 1996,p. 1). They use past knowledge and current information to build stronger models as the events unfold.

Reflection-on-action occurs when a person looks back at past performance or situations and learns new knowledge. Students may take case scenarios and match then to their models to expand those understandings. They may review and reflect on their actions to determine if these actions were successful or unsuccessful. Reflection creates opportunities to do things better in the future.

Eight factors can be derived from constructionist pedagogy (Brooks & Brooks, 1993):

1. Learning should take place in real-world situations.

2. Learning should involve social negotiation.

3. Content and skills should be relevant to the student

4. Content and skills should fit within the student’s previous knowledge

5. Assessments should be formative

6. Students should be self-regulatory, self-mediated, and self-aware

7. Teachers are guides

8. Teachers should encourage multiple perspectives and representations of issues.

The author leaves the reader with three concepts learned in his analysis. Each of these concepts can be applied within the constructionist learning method. Students should come with Open-mindedness, Sincerity, and Responsibility. Open-mindedness analyzes multiple perspectives and possibilities. Sincerity allows for self-reflection on themselves, their work, and structures. Responsibility will lead to greater concerns of seeking out the truth in order to solve problems and extract information to create new learning for others.

Al Mahmud, A. (2013). Constructivism and reflectivism as the logical counterparts in TESOL: learning theory versus teaching methodology. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching & Learning of English, 24 (2).

Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pickett, A. (1996). Reflective teaching practices and academic skills instruction. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/1506/mod02/pickett.html

Webinar: Supplemental Instruction: Improving Student Engagement, Performance And Course Completion

Tuesday, April 8, 3:00-4:30 (EST)
online webinar

Overview
Engaging students in active learning programs outside of the classroom is a proven strategy for increasing learning. Supplemental Instruction (SI) is an academic assistance program that utilizes peer-led team learning in study sessions. This method provides students with the opportunity to review course concepts and develop effective learning strategies. Data from institutions around the country, and in several other countries, show that SI is effective in improving student grades in historically difficult courses. Data also shows its success in increasing the number of students who complete the course with a grade of C or higher.

This webinar will present the salient features of Supplemental Instruction (SI), the cognitive science principles upon which the program is built, the steps necessary for setting up an SI program, and the materials available from the International SI Office.

Key Concepts
- Describe Supplemental Instruction (SI) and explain why it is effective
- Compare and contrast tutoring with SI sessions
- Implement a successful SI program
- Recruit faculty and SI leaders to participate in the program
- Discuss ways to sell the program to administrators
- Anticipate and address challenges associated with implementing SI (such as maintaining good attendance and acquiring sustained funding for the program)
- Recommend appropriate courses to include in an SI program

Web address: http://www.innovativeeducators.org/product_p/2131.htm

The Balance between Research and Teaching

Faculty have many responsibilities that include teaching, volunteer work, and research. A paper by Dan Worrell (2009), talks about the differences between teaching and research in universities. He indicates that research universities have an advantage in the market but may not be focused on the more important aspects of teaching. The focus is based primarily in the way schools are ranked by outside organizations but this may not be the best use of professor's time. 

According to the authors, U.S. News and World Report, BusinessWeek, and the Wall Street Journal often rank schools based upon their research capabilities. This creates emphasis to engage professors in research to move their rankings upward. These rankings naturally have influence on student choice and other financial benefits. 

As professors engage more in research they have reduced teaching loads and higher levels of autonomy. Their research activities are often rewarded within universities with higher salaries and greater prestige. The more times a university is published the higher its overall ranking in the public. When research is significant the research reaps additional benefits but does cost students.

There are two issues that should be considered.  These issues include teaching as an important track to faculty development and research that is considered most important to society. Teaching should be the primary goal of the university with research being an augmentation to that teaching to further the body of knowledge in a particular subject area. 

The author further moves on to discuss the concept that a considerable percentage of research is not focused on what matters to society. Some of research should lean toward societal problems and the potential solutions to those problems. Research should be practical and applied in nature to help the greatest amount of people. 

There is a balance to be played between research and teaching. It would seem that all teachers should be engaged in some level of research but should not forget the primary goal of widening student’s perspectives. This is likely the most difficult aspect of managing a university through the varying political and economic pressures they face. Teaching and scholarship go together but should do so at appropriate levels. Teaching tracks should be rewarded as an important alternative to research.

Worrell, D. (2009). Assessing business scholarship: the difficulties in moving beyond the rigor-relevance paradigm trap. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (1).

Evaluation of Teacher Efficacy

by Dr. Michael S. Miller

Bandura (1997) presented self-efficacy as a mechanism of behavioral change and self-regulation in his social cognitive theory. Defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3), Bandura (1997) proposed that efficacy beliefs were powerful predictors of behavior because they were ultimately self-referent in nature and directed toward specific tasks.

The predictive power of efficacy has generally been borne out in research, especially when efficacy beliefs are measured concerning specific tasks.  It is necessary, therefore, to find the optimal level of specificity of the measure, which is in correspondence with the task and the area under evaluation.  In the same vein, Burgoyne (2010) summarizes some properties implied in measuring self-efficacy, which refers to certain tasks or activities.  They are linked to certain areas of operation and are dependent on the context in which the task is given.  It is dependent on both a criterion referring to oneself and compared to performance of others.  A person in the teaching profession is no exception.

Bandura’s teacher self-efficacy scale. Bandura developed his own teacher efficacy scale, which is a 30-item instrument with seven subscales: efficacy to influence decision making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate. Each item is measured on a 9-point scale anchored by the following: “nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great deal” (Bandura, 2001).

Teachers’ sense of efficacy scale (TSES). TSES, previously called the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, was developed in a seminar on self-efficacy in teaching and learning at the Ohio State University. The participants of the seminar searched for an instrument, which includes the types of tasks representative of frequent teaching activities. Taking the Bandura teacher efficacy scale as a base, they developed and added new items. They decided to use a 9-point scale as in the Bandura scale. The resulting instrument was investigated in different studies by Tschannen-Moran and her colleagues.

The initial study of the instrument with 52 items was administered to a sample of 224 participants (both pre-service and in-service teachers). Thirty-two of the items were selected as a result of principal-axis factoring with varimax rotation (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). In the second study, the 32-item version of TSES was investigated with a sample of 70 pre-service and 147 in-service teachers. Tschannen- Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) used principal axis factor extraction again. The rule of an Eigen value greater than one yielded an eight-factor solution, while the scree test suggested a possible two- or three-factor solution. After examining both two- and three- factor solutions, the authors decided to go with the three-factor solution, which better represents the tasks of teaching.  Later, the instrument was reduced to 18 items by removing redundant items and items with low factor loadings. The factor analysis with varimax rotation produced three factors accounting for 51% of the variance. These factors were called as efficacy for student engagement (eight items with an alpha reliability of .82), efficacy for instructional strategies (seven items with an alpha reliability of .81), and efficacy for classroom management (three items with an alpha reliability of .72). A further analysis, using collapsing samples from study 1 and study 2, generated one strong factor with factor loadings ranging from .74 to .84. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) argued that TSES could be used for assessment of either three domains of efficacy or one generalized efficacy factor.

Bond and Fox (2001) evaluated an 18-item instrument while expressing their concerns about a third factor with only three items. They collected data from 183 in- service teachers, and subjected the data to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).  The CFA approach is different from Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) approach, which used exploratory factor analysis. Their findings supported the factorial validity of TSES but for only “efficacy for student engagement” and “efficacy for instructional strategies” factors. Roberts and Henson (2001) argued that the items of third factor should be removed from the instrument for its further use. In addition, they rejected the one- dimensional model suggested by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).

On the other hand, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) argued that classroom management is a crucial factor for teaching and disagree with the elimination of this factor. They developed new items concerning classroom management by taking Emmer’s teacher efficacy for classroom management scale into consideration. The resultant instrument included 36 items. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) employed principal-axis factoring with varimax rotation with a sample of 410 pre-service and in-service teachers. A four-factor solution was suggested by using eigenvalues greater than one, whereas three factors were suggested by the scree test. The three-factor solution was consistent with the findings of study 2. Later and as a final step, Tschannen- Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) selected items with higher loadings and developed 12- and 24-item instruments. Analyses of both forms indicated that the TSES, either long or short version, could be accepted as a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the teacher efficacy construct. Both versions supported the three factor model with high subscale reliabilities (ranging from .87 to .91 for the longer version and .81 to .86 for the shorter version).

An integrated model of teacher’s sense of efficacy.  Based on their review of research on teacher efficacy, Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) proposed a theoretical model, which attempts to present a comprehensive picture of teacher efficacy by considering the history of advances in teacher efficacy research and suggesting new sources of information.

The primary factor affecting teacher efficacy is believed to be the interpretation of four sources of information proposed by Bandura (1997): verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, physiological arousal, and mastery experience. However, as consistent with our previous knowledge, efficacy perceptions are accepted as task and context-specific; i.e., teachers show varying levels of sense of efficacy in particular situations or for teaching different subjects. Accordingly, this model considers not only the perceived competence to perform specific behaviors but also the teaching task and its context (concepts are related but not the same as previously identified teacher efficacy dimensions, personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy, respectively). Read Other Section

Dr. Michael Miller is a professor specializing in learning strategies for success for online students, organizational behavior, and educational leadership. Michael has a Bachelor of Science in Education, Master of Science in Instructional Design and Development, an Educational Specialist in Educational Leadership (K-12), and a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership (Higher Education). His background includes elementary school teaching and administration, mentoring/training new teachers, curriculum development, online course design, and higher education administration. Currently, Michael is conducting research related to teacher preparation, online collaborative learning tools and processes, and effective online teaching practices through student engagement, stimulating intellectual development, and building rapport.  Dr. Miller can be reached at michaelsm47@gmail.com

References

Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Revised). Retrieved from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/banduraguide.html

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burgoyne, J. (2010). Towards the learning company. Management Education & Development, 20(1), 1-8.

Roberts, J. K., & Henson, R. K. (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of a new measure of teacher efficacy: Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.