Evolving Toward Constructivism

The problem with instructivist teaching practices

Picking up where my last post left off, why would an instructivist model for teaching and learning not be successful in an online environment? Why would an instruction method that has been used successfully for hundreds of years for apprenticeship education suddenly be ineffective when communicating through an electronic medium? Although a fully instructivist lecture delivered online may be boring (Lehmann & Chamberlain, 2009, p.22), it is not entirely as though instructivism is ineffectual online, but that a didactic learning experience is unsuitable for fostering higher order thinking skills. In writing about traditional teaching practices, called “School 1.0” strategies, Pennsylvania Department of Education (as cited in Sprenger & Peck, 2010) echoes Lehmann and Chamberlin (2009) and notes that instructivist teaching practices are best suited for providing foundational knowledge and skills, such as memorizing information.

While reciting facts and duplicating mathematical functions may be enough to succeed on a singular subject test or quiz, being productive and valuable in the real world requires that students today become adept problem solvers in the future. In fact, the World Economic Forum (2016) projects that future workers must posses advanced cognitive and physical abilities, content and processing skills, and a number of cross-functional skills including communication, self-directed learning, and complex problem solving (p.21). These skills will not develop under a strict adherence to an instructivist education model.

Evolving to Constructivism

As mentioned in my previous blog, evaluations typical of the instructivist model are inherently part of the apprenticeship experience. Quizzes, Tests, and Examination are the only evaluations the trade curriculum will allow. However, if apprentices are to develop the higher-order thinking and problem-solving abilities, then classroom instruction techniques will have to evolve as well. Enter constructivism.

It is important to note, that the constructivist epistemology embodies a range of diverse approaches (Anderson & Dron, 2014, p.43), but what it offers in an apprenticeship classroom is a student-lead, rather than a teacher-directed, experience. This pseudo reversal of roles is especially important in an online context where the teacher and students are further removed from one another. As opposed to the humdrum and boring experience of an online lecture, constructivist classes showcases four characteristics that directly address the skills needed for the future workforce: 1) authentic problems, which is meaningful and engaging for the learner; 2) unique dialogue between student and their class and the instructor, which provides opportunities for enhancing communication skills and emotional intelligence; 3) problem solving and hands-on solution development that develops resilience and inquiry skills; 4) open ended learning, which provides the occasion for analysis, testing, and reflection for improvements (Anderson & Dron, 2014; Lehmann & Chamberlin, 2009).

Constructivist Examples

It is not my intention for this blog post to do a deep dive into what distinctions live that between the various perspectives on constructivism, Piaget vs. Vygotsky, for instance. Instead I wish to briefly explore a practical example of how a constructivist approach to an apprenticeship task could improve on the current instructivist approach, within the guidelines set by the curriculum.

In the third, and final, level of Ontario’s Tool and Die apprenticeship, apprentices are required to build a fully functioning piercing, drawing, and blanking die as a practical application test. This evaluation is designed to assess an apprentice’s ability to machine/fabricate various metal components to specified requirements and tolerances, along with other expectations. Currently, all apprentices in the same class produce the same die. Progression through the project is lead by the instructor as they explain the various functions of the components the apprentices produce. In the end, students who are successful at their theory testing and complete the die project receive their Certificate of Apprenticeship and are eligible to challenge the interprovincial Certificate of Qualification exam to become a licenced Tool and Die Maker.

This method of instruction is favoured by instructors, in my opinion, because they can standardize and control the timing of content delivery, thus ensuring that all apprentices get a fair chance at completing their projects in the allotted time frame. Fair enough. However, this instructivist approach does reduce what could be an exceedingly rich experience for the apprentices into lower order thinking skills by allowing them to mirror the techniques shown to them, or discussed by, their instructor.

If the apprentices were able to design their own dies and components, a constructivist approach would emerge. Each student would discover similar, but unique, problems to resolve, and would be further motivated to have their designs tested as opposed to drawings designed for them. Instead of a lecture on the various die components to be made, students would engage is more meaningful dialogue with their instructor, asking and answering their own questions. Their design and manufacturing challenges would be authentic and open ended, allowing space for higher order analysis, revision, and testing to occur. This simple change has the potential elevate a basic project into a unique and meaningful capstone at the end of an apprentice’s journey.

An interesting Success Story

Is this sort of evolution from instructivist to constructivist models possible in technology teaching? It is. Clemson’s (2006) case study involving a Computer Aided Design (CAD) design class revealed that when student design teams were exposed to unique authentic learning opportunities, measuring and CAD sketching architecture for the Historic American Building Survey (HABS), course learning objectives were still met and authentically assessed with more than double the students enrolled in previous class offerings. The students improved on their CAD skills and “became more engaged and more responsible for their own learning” (p.21).

Of course, it is unrealistic to expect that there is no discourse in a predominantly instructivist classroom, just like it is unreasonable to say that there will be no foundational lecture in constructivist teaching practice. However, there are many benefits to evolving toward more constructivist teaching and learning strategies, and online learning provides the environment and the occasion for that evolution to take place.

Sources

Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2014). Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media. Athabasca

University Press.

Clemons, S. (2006). Constructivism pedagogy drives redevelopment of CAD course: a case

study: rather than feeding information to the student through direct instruction, the

teacher is maintaining the role of facilitator in the learning process. (Computer-Aided

Design). The Technology Teacher, 65(5), 19–21.

Lehmann, K., & Chamberlin, L. (2009). Making the move to elearning: Putting your course

online. R&L Education.

Sprenger, K., & Peck, K. (2010). Perceptions of change in teaching styles during a one-to-

one laptop initiative [ProQuest Dissertations Publishing].

http://search.proquest.com/docview/854047842/

World Economic Forum. (2016, January). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and

workforce strategy or the fourth industrial revolution. In Global challenge insight report.

Geneva: World Economic Forum.