A Critical Evaluation of Constructivism; Flipped Teaching Strategy

In Plato’s allegory of the cave he illustrates the ideas of reality; using the story of three prisoners chained up in a cave, he describes the scene: their head and legs were strapped down so they could not move, they have been there since childhood and can only see what is on the wall before them. There is a roaring fire above and behind them; the guards, who keep the prisoners locked up, would pass objects in front of the fire causing shadows to be formed on the wall. The prisoners would form an idea of each object and believed the world was made up of these flat silhouettes. One of the prisoners escapes from his restraints and ventures out of the cave to discover the world; he was in awe of the world before him, displaying the real animals and objects, some he would recognise from the wall of shadows. He went back to the cave to tell others about this new discovery, believing that they would come out of the cave to see for themselves. Unfortunately, the others were angry at the escaped prisoner as they believed the shadows to be the only true reality; they punished him for ‘going against the grain’.  (Vlach, 2012)

What is being demonstrated with this allegory is the notion of there being the reality in which we know of and one that is yet to be discovered. The escaped prisoner represents a philosopher or someone who questions the truth; constructivism is a theory that uses Socratic ideology to challenge what we perceive as the truth. A philosophical term used to describe how we interpret the world around us and learn from it as a consequence; based on three assumptions:

·         Knowledge is constructed

·         Learning is active

·         Truth is unknowable  

Indicating that as individuals, we come to our own understanding of the immediate world around us and ‘construct’ our version of reality. Constructivists have considered the nature of reality to be a continuum which is either moderate or radical; moderate is describing the truth as discoverable and radical is displaying reality as inconsequential. Thus, there can be many forms of constructivism portraying multiple dimensions; individual and social constructivism are two areas that favour either side of the reality scale.  (Au, 2016) Individual constructivism is concerned with the solo perspective, understanding the subjects own truth on a particular object and coming to a more radical comprehension of reality; the truth is inconsequential, subject to the viewer. Social constructivism works on the grounds of the truth being form from a network of perspectives; a socially learnt knowledge of the immediate environment. Suggesting a more moderate version of reality, one based on the content of the cultural, political and social influences; truth is discoverable. Some theorists like Wertsch and Toma sit so far on the sociocultural view point that they would go as far to say that a higher level of mental process are derived from social interaction (Confrey, 1995).

There are many theorists who work within the constructivist framework, too many to mention them all, but here are some of the most influential figures: John Dewey was one of the first to demand a reform of how we teach within education, stating it should be enriched with experiences that would allow the learner to think for themselves; a more self-directed student. Jean Piaget, contested that leaning was not passive and needed to involve more ‘assimilation’ that reflects the relevant surroundings. Indicating the need to learn through play, encouraging individuality and guide learners to discover knowledge; not be force taught. Lev Vygotsky was not convinced that a constructivism approach was including all the variables, in particular, social influences; he introduced the idea of social constructivism. Even though he dismissed Piaget’s notion of cognitive development not being influenced by Social factors, his work would later be blended with Dewey and Piaget to create a broader spectrum within constructivism. Jerome Bruner developed this idea further by identifying that dialogue and reflection where essential for the learner to enhance their cognitive maps. He placed a greater emphasis on the role of the facilitator, indicating a need for Socratic questioning to guide the learner to their own perception and using the observations to feed back into the education system. (Open Educational Resources of UCD Teaching and Learning, University College Dublin , 2006)

In the field of teaching, the most predominant educational theory has been behaviourism, for over fifty years it was one of the only theories used within education. Constructivism came about almost as a reaction to this dominate theory, in hope to gain a more realistic picture of how we learn and interact with our surroundings; epistemology, there is no concrete actuality just the interpretation of it (Open Educational Resources of UCD Teaching and Learning, University College Dublin , 2006). The consensus of education in general, especially in the British culture, has mainly been associated with negative experiences, limited knowledge facilitators and rote learning. This way does not cater for the multiple mind sets or the ever changing, evolving environment and even the fast adapting nature of learning itself. Therefore, requiring the framework from constructivism and applying to the classroom seems essential if the education system wants to keep up with the rapidly changing learner (Glasersfeld, 1995). By using real, relevant experiences to bring problem solving and critical thinking to the classroom; allowing the learner to come to their own conception of the problem before them, taking more life skill and knowledge from the experience. 

Flipped teaching strategy has evolved over the past decade to be the leading method for active learning, recognised by Eric Mazur in his paper Peer Instruction, 1991 (Mazur Group, 1999); it incorporates many of the elements contained within the constructivist theory. In terms of blooms taxonomy all the lower level cognitive processes (the subject’s theory) are completed outside of class and the higher levels (problem solving, group work, application of theory) are done in class (Brame, 2016). This strategy allows for incorporating inquiry learning, critical thinking and social interaction, which in turn has blended the learning process, allowing students the opportunity to come to their own conclusions collaboratively or individually (Hmelo-Silver, et al., 2007).

It is a strategy that includes all other teaching methods; only the ‘chalk n talk’/the theory learning is completed at home, but case studies, games, demonstrations, ICT and others are used within the activity held in the lesson. It changes the role of the academic to a more fluid one, where they can go from facilitator to observer, open up the notion of using the session to feed back into the education system. There are obvious pitfalls as it requires a lot of preparation form the facilitator; this method of teaching will expect an element of change management for the academics and learners to understand the process. Kurt Lewin describes this process of change perfectly in his ‘Individual Change Process’ model: unfreeze ‘status-quo’, change it and refreeze the new way of working (Kritsonis, 2005); change is a natural process that will always be met with resistance before progression.

In terms of positive connotations for the learner; the flipped classroom strategy seems to help mould a more self-directed student and actively involve participants in the learning process. This does ask a lot for students to learn the theory at home, but if done successfully i.e. watch a video, go to links for credible websites, etc. would install this idea for autonomy and allow the students to revisit and take in information at their own pace. A strategy like this requires scaffolding to help the learner engage with the content and be able to recall it in their perspective; it is a blended learning process that includes all cognitive types making flipped teaching and constructivism the leading model for neurodiversity within the education system.

References

Au, K. H., 2016. Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Diverse Background. Journal of Literate Research, XXX(2), p. 297.

Borphy, J., 2002. Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constrains. 1st ed. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Brame, C. J., 2016. Flipping the Classroom. [Online]
Available at: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/
[Accessed 17 01 2016].

Confrey, J., 1995. How Compatible Are Radical Constructivism, Sociocultural Approaches and Social Constructivism . In: L. p. Steffe & J. Gale, eds. Constructivism In Education . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Inc, pp. 185-225.

Glasersfeld, E. V., 1995. A Constructivist Approach to Teaching. In: L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, eds. Constructivism in Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp. 3-15.

Glasersfeld, E. V., 1995. Radical Constructivism. 1st ed. London: The Falmer Press.

Glasersfeld, E. V., 1996. Aspects of Constructivism. In: C. T. Fosnot, ed. Constructivism. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 3-8.

Hilp, J. D., 2013. Youtube - introduction to constructivism. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_2Rwl0DnI4
[Accessed 10 01 2016].

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A., 2007. Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist , XLII(2), pp. 99-107.

Kritsonis, A., 2005. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. Comparison of Change Theories, VIII(1), pp. 1-7.

Mazur Group, 1999. Mazur Group. [Online]
Available at: http://mazur.harvard.edu/education/pi_manual.php
[Accessed 04 01 2016].

Nation Society for the Study of Education, 2000. Constructivism on Education. 1st ed. Chicago: Nation Society for the Study of Education.

Open Educational Resources of UCD Teaching and Learning, University College Dublin , 2006. Education Theory. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Constructivism_and_Social_Constructivism
[Accessed 13 01 2016].

Petty, G., 2014. Teaching Today. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Vaughan, M., 2014. Flipped the learning: An Investigation into the use of the Flipped Classroom Model in an Introductory Teaching Course. Education Research and Perspective, XLI(1), pp. 25-41.

Vlach, M., 2012. Plato's Cave Analogy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/philosophy-dictionary/157-platos-cave-analogy
[Accessed 16 01 06].

Bibliography

Au, K. H., 2016. Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Diverse Background. Journal of Literate Research, XXX(2), p. 297.

Borphy, J., 2002. Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constrains. 1st ed. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Brame, C. J., 2016. Flipping the Classroom. [Online]
Available at: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/
[Accessed 17 01 2016].

Confrey, J., 1995. How Compatible Are Radical Constructivism, Sociocultural Approaches and Social Constructivism . In: L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, eds. Constructivism In Education . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Inc, pp. 185-225.

Glasersfeld, E. V., 1995. A Constructivist Approach to Teaching. In: L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, eds. Constructivism in Education. New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp. 3-15.

Glasersfeld, E. V., 1995. Radical Constructivism. 1st ed. London: The Falmer Press.

Glasersfeld, E. V., 1996. Aspects of Constructivism. In: C. T. Fosnot, ed. Constructivism. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 3-8.

Hilp, J. D., 2013. Youtube - introduction to constructivism. [Online]
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_2Rwl0DnI4
[Accessed 10 01 2016].

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A., 2007. Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist , XLII(2), pp. 99-107.

Kritsonis, A., 2005. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. Comparison of Change Theories, VIII(1), pp. 1-7.

Mazur Group, 1999. Mazur Group. [Online]
Available at: http://mazur.harvard.edu/education/pi_manual.php
[Accessed 04 01 2016].

Nation Society for the Study of Education, 2000. Constructivism on Education. 1st ed. Chicago: Nation Society for the Study of Education.

Open Educational Resources of UCD Teaching and Learning, University College Dublin , 2006. Education Theory. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Constructivism_and_Social_Constructivism
[Accessed 13 01 2016].

Petty, G., 2014. Teaching Today. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Vaughan, M., 2014. Flipped the learning: An Investigation into the use of the Flipped Classroom Model in an Introductory Teaching Course. Education Research and Perspective, XLI(1), pp. 25-41.

Vlach, M., 2012. Plato's Cave Analogy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/philosophy-dictionary/157-platos-cave-analogy
[Accessed 16 01 06].