A CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING APPROACH
TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING (SRL) AND TO OPTIMIZE THE LEARNING
OF THE ENGLISH STRUCTURE
A Thesis
Presented to the Graduate Program in English
Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
(M.Hum)
in English Language Studies
ZÜxzÉÜ|âá câÇàÉ T}|
Student Number: 01.6322.009
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless
otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases, and sentences of the thesis
writer. The writer understands the full consequences including degree
cancellation if he takes somebody else’s ideas, phrases, or sentences
without a proper reference.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are so many people who have contributed to the writing of this. I
would like to thank all of them for their attention, supports, helps, and for everything given to me, so that I could finish my study.
First of all I would like to thank Dr. F.X. Mukarto, M.S., who has
willingly become my advisor. I would like to give my gratitude to him for his moral and spiritual support. Without his guidance, patience, spirit and
understanding, this thesis could not have been completed.
I would have never done anything without the patience and understanding of Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., the Head of the Graduate Program in English
Language Studies, in giving me the chance to complete my study. Therefore, I would like to give him my special gratitude.
My gratitude also goes to Dr. J. Bismoko, Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M.Pd., M.A., and Dr. Novita Dewi, M.S., M.A. I would like to thank them for their immense ideas and recommendation so that I could start and complete my thesis.
I would also give my great thanks to Mr. A. Hardi Prasetyo, S.Pd., M.A., the Head of EESP, Mr. P. Kuswandono, S.Pd., M.Ed., Dr. Retno Muljani, M.Pd.,
Mr. Y.B.Gunawan, M.A., Mr. Pius Nurwidasa, M.Ed., and Dr. A. Herujianto, who always gave me supports and offered me helps to complete my thesis.
Special thanks also go to all my colleagues, especially Ms. Made Frida
Yulia, S.Pd., M.Pd., Ms. Y. Veniranda, S.Pd., M.Hum., Mr. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd.,
M.Pd., Ms. C. Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., Ms. Henny Herawati, M.Hum., Ms. Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., and Ms. Eny Winarti, S.Pd. I will never forget the
encouragement, attention, cares, supports and helps they have given to me, so that I could finish my thesis.
Finally, my special love and thank go to my beloved wife, Benedecta Indah Nugraheni, who has given me the greatest love, spirit, attention, care, support and help to complete my study.
ABSTRACT
Punto Aji, Gregorius. 2007. A Constructivist Learning Approach to Improve the Students’ Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and to Optimize the Learning of the English Structure. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University.
This research had two major goals. First, it was intended to empower the EESP students to become self-regulated learners that were characterized by higher motivation, active engagement, and autonomy in learning. Second, this research aimed at making what the EESP students learn contribute more to their further study, and in broader scope, to their life. In conducting the research in order to achieve these two goals, as the researcher, I had three problems to solve:
1. What is the learning design that is based on the constructivist learning approach to learning the English structure by students of the EESP?
2. To what extent does the constructivist learning approach improve the students’ self-regulated learning?
3. To what extent does the constructivist learning approach optimize the students’ learning of the English structure?
I started with identifying the most common problems that happened in the implementation of English structure learning to students of EESP. Then on the next step I tried to identify what possible solutions to those problems, and came to a preliminary conclusion that constructivist learning would become one of the best alternatives to the problem solution. Finally I decided to develop a constructivist learning approach to English structure learning, implement it, and observe how it would work and what it could contribute to the learners for further learning. The research method that was adopted to solve the research problems was the qualitative-exploratory action research. In this action research, the program design that was based on the constructivist learning approach was implemented to two groups of learners using the purposeful participant selection method.
To answer the first problem, constructivist learning approach was adopted to alter the previous learning paradigm that positioned the learners as the passive receiver of knowledge in a traditional-mechanistic learning process into a new learning paradigm that positioned the learners as active constructors of knowledge in a more empowering learning process.
INTISARI PENELITIAN
Punto Aji, Gregorius. 2007. A Constructivist Learning Approach to Improve the Students’ Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) and to Optimize the Learning of the English Structure. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Penelitian ini mempunyai dua tujuan utama. Pertama, penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk meningkatkan kemandirian belajar mahasiswa PBI yang mempunyai ciri-ciri: memiliki motivasi tinggi, keterlibatan secara aktif dalam proses belajar, dan memiliki otonomi dalam belajar. Kedua, bertujuan untuk membuat apa yang dipelajari mahasiswa memberikan kontribusi bagi tahap-tahap belajar selanjutnya, dan bagi kehidupan mahasiswa lebih luas. Dalam melakukan penelitain ini dan untuk mencapai tujuan dari penelitan tersebut, peneliti mempunyai empat permasalahan, yaitu sebagai berikut:
1. Seperti apakah pendekatan konstruktivis dalam pembelajaran struktur bahasa Inggris oleh mahasiswa PBI?
2. Sejauh manakah pendekatan konstruktivis meningkatkan kemandirian belajar mahasiswa?
3. Sejauh manakah pendekatan konstruktivis mengoptimalkan pencapaian belajar mahasiswa dalam mempelajari struktur bahasa Inggris?
Penelitian diawali dengan mengidentifikasi permasalahan yang umum terjadi dalam penerapan pembelajaran struktur bahasa Inggris oleh mahasiswa PBI. Dalam tahap selanjutnya, peneliti mencoba mengidentifikasi apa yang dapat digunakan untuk menyeselaikan permasalahan tersebut, akhirnya sampailah pada kesimpulan bahwa pendekatan konstruktifis akan menjadi salah satu cara yang terbaik untuk mengatasi permasalahan tersebut. Akhirnya penelity memutuskan untuk mengembangkan pendekatan kunstruktivis untuk pembelajaran struktur bahasa Inggris , menerapkannya, dan meneliti bagaimana pendekatan ini bekerja dan melihat sumbangan apa yang diberikannya untuk tahap belajar mahasiswa selanjutnya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian tindakan yang bersifat eksporatit-kuantitatif. Dalam penelitian tindakan ini desain program pembelajaran yang didasarkan pada pendekatan kunstruktif akan diterapkan pada dua kelompok mahasiswa yang pengelompokankan berdasarkan pada purposeful participant selection method.
TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER PAGE APPROVAL PAGE
BOARD OF THESIS COMMITTEE STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
1. To the Researcher 2. To Students of EESP
3. To English Structure Teacher 4. For Further Studies
F. Definition of Terms
1. Constructivist Learning Approach 2. Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
3. English Structure and Learning the English Structure 4. English Education Study Program (EESP)
1 CHAPTER II : THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Literature 1. Model of Curriculum
a. The Content Model – Classical Humanism b. The Objective Model – Reconstructionism c. The Process Model - Progressivism 2. Streams of Learning Theory
a. Behaviorism b. Cognitivism c. Constructivism 3. Constructivist Learning
a. Background and Emergence of Constructivism b. Kinds of Constructivism
c. Constructivist’s Concepts in Learning 4. Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
a. Definition and Concept of Self-Regulated Learning b. SRL Cycle
5. Collaborative Learning Model (CLM)
a. Definition and Concept of Collaborative Learning b. Characteristics of CLM
c. Collaborative Learning (CLM) and Cooperative Learning (CL) 6. Portfolio: Definition and Purposes
7. Action Research
a. Definition and Concept of Action Research (AR) b. Types of AR
CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Method
B. Research Procedures
1. Step 1 - Planning: Developing a Learning Program 2. Step 2 - Implementing and Observing the Program
a. The Research Participants
b. Method of Selecting the Participants c. The Implementation Schedule 3. Step 3 - Evaluating the Program
a. Method of Data Processing and Analysis b. Research Instruments CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. Designing the Learning Program 1. Identifying the Underlying Problems
a. Problem of Learning Significance b. Problem of Learning Paradigm c. Problem of Learning Focus d. Problem of Learners’ Autonomy 2. The Proposed Learning Program Design
a. The Learning Goals
b. The Conceptual Foundation c. The Implementation Procedures B. The Learners’ Self Regulated Learning
1. Data Elicitation 2. Data Presentation
a. Learners’ Initial Perception of the Lecturer b. Previous Way of Acquiring Knowledge c. Previous Learning Methods
d. Learners’ Adaptation to the New Learning
e. Initiative and Readiness for the Next Learning Step f. Learners’ Efforts for Gaining Deeper Understanding g. Learners’ Engagement in the Learning Process h. Learners’ Ability to Reflect on Learning i. Learners’ Perception on the Learning Method 3. Research Finding
C. The Learners’ Knowledge Acquisition 1. Data Presentation
2. Research Finding D.Other Findings
104 105 CHAPTER V : RESEARCH LIMITATIONCONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENTADION
A. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS B. CONCLUSION
C. RECOMMENDATION
109 110 111
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
APPENDICES
A. Students’ Learning Sources B. Students' Portfolio
C. Students’ Questionnaires D. Progress Tests and Final Test E. Raw Data of Students' Opinions
116 117 138 140 147
LIST OF FIGURES
Page:
1. Figure 1: Zone of Proximal Development 28
2. Figure 2: Cycle of Self-Regulated Learning 44
LIST OF TABLE
Page:
Table 1: Comparison between traditional and constructivist learning 38
Table 2: Data Obtained from the Students’ Questionnaire 91
Table 3: The Result of Students’ Tests 103
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AR : Action Research CL : Cooperative Learning
CLM : Collaborative Learning Method EESP : English Education Study Program SRL : Self Regulated Learning
ZPD : Zone of Proximal Development
INTRODUCTION
A. Rationale
According to the data obtained from the EESP of Sanata Dharma
University, in Semester II of the Academic Year 2004-2005 there were 22
students (16.3%) who did not pass from Structure II. It ranked the second place
after Morphology in the same semester. According to teachers who teach English
Structure as a discrete subject to students of the English Education Study Program
(EESP), they often encounter many challenges. The most common problem that
the teachers cope with is that the students often perceive English Structure as a
difficult and boring subject. This often causes a bigger number of students who
fail from this subject than those who take the other subjects.
Some teachers shared that this subject, which is theoretical in nature,
does not often bear any significant contribution to their study. It happens, for
instance, when students of the last semester are unable to make good sentences,
either in speaking or in writing. Some teachers also complain about grammatical
mistakes that students often make when they compose their thesis and when they
defend their thesis before the board of examiners. These facts challenge the
teacher to make innovations in planning and implementing a better learning
program.
The first challenge, therefore, is to reform the teaching design and its
implementation so that it will make the boring subject become more interesting
for the students, more empowering, and more meaningful for their study. Many
attempts had actually been made by teachers to figure out this problem. One of
them is conducted by changing the learning paradigm from the mechanical to the
more meaningful or communicative language learning. There has been an attempt
to replace not only the methods and strategies but also the learning sources. The
textbooks that consist of mechanical drills have been abandoned and replaced by
the ones that provide more meaningful and contextualized exercises.
However, students still have the perception that English Structure is
difficult and boring. One of the reasons is that the teaching is still too
content-loaded. The duty to master multitude of English structures or sentence patterns has
still become burdensome to the students. Consequently in practice, learning falls
again into pattern memorization, short-term retention, and recalling activities,
although these have always been avoided by teachers in building the concept of
learning and developing the method and strategies.
I have concluded from some sharing with some English Structure
teachers that what commonly happens in Structure classes is a superficial
deductive learning process because of the very broad coverage of the learning
materials. In this process, teachers generally elaborate a set of numerous structural
patterns in classical instructions, and ask the students to learn (to recognize) those
patterns, and then to memorize them. Teachers then give exercises, probably in
intensive and extensive ways, so that they hope that their students will be able to
There has been an attempt made by some teachers to select exercises
which are more meaningful. However, this practice has not been followed by a
change in learning processes. The intended language structure internalization does
not take place successfully, because students have to acquire too many detailed
patterns. Instead, students will only have a short-term retention of what they have
studied until they need to recall it for the purpose of examinations. There has been
no more than just a little significant impact on their further learning, since the
learning has already stopped once the students’ grades are announced and the
course is over.
The second challenge that the teachers commonly encounter, therefore, is
the need to shift from the content-based to process-based learning, from broad
content knowledge to learning processes. It is very important to lead the learners
to deep comprehension of the subject matters, and finally it will bring about more
learning significance for the future. Instead of maintaining classical instructions
that tend to cover superficially a multitude of topics within each subject area,
recent learning development should promote more in depth, selective focus, and
emphasizing fewer topics.1 Teachers need to depart from their selection of
discrete materials to a more holistic approach to learning content development. It
suggests that teachers should select the learning content around primary or general
concept because learners are engaged more in learning when problems and ideas
are presented holistically rather than in separate, isolated parts. When concepts are
presented as a whole, learners seek to make meaning by breaking the whole into
1
parts that they can see and understand.In this process, learners try to construct the
understanding rather than having it done and ready to be given to them (Brooks,
1993).
The shift from developing the broad content of learning to focusing on
the students’ deep understanding also requires the teachers’ revolutionary decision
to shift from content-based to learner-centered instructional planning and
implementation. In learner-centered learning, students are considered as active
organisms who are able to construct meaning rather than become just passive
receivers of knowledge (Mergel, 1998). Therefore, the EESP students need to
engage more in active thinking processes. Instead of focusing on the broad
coverage of learning content, learner-centered learning should emphasize on
processes in which learners are required to find things themselves and to explore
what they have just found out in order to find other new things.
Consequently, a third challenge arises, i.e., to select content and activities
that essentially provide students’ critical thinking and deep understanding of what
they learn. Learning content should lead the students to the comprehensive
understanding of English structure, instead of the superficial knowledge of
considerable discrete patterns. Moreover, learning activities should lead students
not only to thoughtful manipulation of the learned patterns in various meaningful
sentences, but also to critical learning of the English structure in authentic texts
and utterances. The reason is that understanding the language structures within the
framework of understanding the whole meaning in authentic language usage will
bring more significance than what the ability to manipulate the learned patterns in
different sentences will do. The significance will eventually become obvious
when, later in further learning, the students deal with new authentic texts
consisting of difficult and complex grammatical patterns, and when they
encounter various tasks, either in spoken or written English.
Learner-centered learning also assumes that the instructional
development must be process-based. The goals of learning are not defined in
terms of particular ends, or products, but in terms of the processes and procedures
by which the individual develops understanding and awareness and creates
possibilities for future learning (Finney, in Richard and Renandya {Ed.}, 2002).
In relation with this, the forth challenge is how teachers need to depart
from dominant tutorial classroom activities to learning processes that empower
the students in order to improve their learning motivation and autonomy. The
ultimate goal is that the students will become self-regulated learners. So far in
common practices, the learning process have created an atmosphere in which the
EESP students perceive that learning only start after the teacher determines and
elaborates the knowledge they should learn. The students commonly come to class
without proper preparations. It eventually happens as a consequence of the old
learning paradigm in which learning is perceived as a process of transferring
knowledge from the more to the less knowledgeable people. In this atmosphere,
students are always positioned and conditioned to be passive and receptive
Unfortunately, this “learning culture” has taken place since the students
entered the formal schools when they were still a child. It is not an easy effort to
change something that has been taking place for a very long period of time, and
has been rooted deeply within each individual student. Even a new and
well-planned instructional program may not succeed because the students cannot
accept it, or they face difficulties to adapt to the new learning style. Therefore,
empowering the students in order to help them become self-regulated learners
requires serious and continuous efforts, as well as long patience, in engineering
and implementing the new concept of learning that is more innovative, motivating
and helpful to the students.
There are probably many more problems taking place in English
Structure learning, which have not been identified yet. However, the
aforementioned problems have challenged me as the researcher, as well as the
teacher, to think of a way to find an alternative of solution. I have identified and
come to a preliminary assumption that constructivist learning will become a
suitable alternative to solve those problems. Therefore, I assumed that I needed to
conduct an action research on it. In this action research, I plan to develop a
constructivist learning approach to English structure learning, implement it, and
observe how it will work out, and what it will contribute to learning and to the
learners.
This research is significant because, as I have observed from the existing
researches in constructivism, I notice that research in constructivist approach to
constructivism that investigated particular aspects of learning, such as observing
the collaborative aspect of learning, learners’ autonomy, problem solving
learning, and critical thinking enhancement. There was limited number of
researches that investigated the implementation of constructivist learning in
particular subject. Moreover, I have not yet found out a research investigating the
implementation of this approach in English structure learning. I assumed that
applying the constructivist approach to learning grammatical patterns would
change the learning paradigm from teacher-dominated and mechanistic learning to
learner-centered and autonomous learning. Since constructivist learning was a
brand new process for the EESP students, as both the researcher and lecturer.
B. Limitation of the Research Area
To limit the scope of study in order to be specific to conduct and to be
easier to find particular problems, this research covers the area of instructional
development and implementation. In a more specific area, it is intended to
develop a constructivist learning approach to teach English structure to students of
the English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
C. Research Problems
Planning the research, I have formulated the research problems into three
1. What is the learning design that is based on the constructivist learning
approach to learning the English structure by students of the EESP?
2. To what extent does the constructivist learning approach improve the
students’ self-regulated learning?
3. To what extent does the constructivist learning approach optimize the
students’ learning of the English structure?
Besides those three problems to solve, this research has exploratory
purpose in which it is open to other findings that will give considerable
contribution to further learning.
D. Research Objectives
This research starts from the immediate problems that the English
structure teachers commonly encounter in their teaching practices. This research is
an attempt to overcome those problems. Related to the research problems, this
research has three primary objectives, i.e.:
1. This research attempts to develop a learning program that is based on the
constructivist learning approach to learning the English structure by
students of the EESP.
2. This research tries to observe and find out to what extent the constructivist
learning approach will improve the students’ self-regulated learning.
3. This research also makes an attempt to find out to what extent the
constructivist learning approach will optimize the students’ learning of the
E. Research Benefits
Concerning the significance, this research is expected to give some
benefits to English structure learning, especially when it is still maintained to be a
discrete subject, which is separated from other language elements and skills.
Many people can draw the significances of this research. They can be identified,
as follows:
1. To The Researcher
As one of the faculty members of the EESP of Sanata Dharma
University, I will have a lot of benefits from the research working in the area of
instructional development. One of the benefits is that I will conduct intensive
study on developing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating the English
structure learning program, based on the constructivist learning concept and found
out valuable experience and insight from this research. Moreover, from this
research, I will acknowledge the strength and weaknesses of the constructivist
learning in general, and particularly in the English structure learning.
2. To Students of EESP
Students of EESP will have a lot of benefits from experiencing a new
learning paradigm that is, in nature, more challenging, motivating, and
empowering. They will experience the way to have a deeper understanding of
They will also experience the way of learning that would eventually give more
significance to their further learning, and in a broader scope, to their lives.
3. To English Structure Teachers
Teachers of English Structure in EESP will be provided with an example
of a revolutionary learning approach, which will become an alternative solution to
the problems they usually encounter in common teaching practices.
4. For Further Studies
The result of this research can be the starting point to carry out another
study in the same area of learning program design and implementation based on
the constructivist learning. Further similar researches are needed, because a
learning program needs to be evaluated, reprogrammed, and reconstructed as soon
as its direct outcome can be observed or measured. The findings of the previous
researches can be used for the basis of redesigning the existing instructional
program. Or else, further researches can also be new, distinctive, and challenging
efforts to what this research has found out. All of these need to be done for the
purpose of learning improvement since no single approach can overcome all
F. Definition of Terms
It was necessary to define some important terms related to the research
title in order to make them easier to understand, and to avoid biased meaning or
misinterpretations. Terms that I considered necessary to define are:
1. Constructivist Learning Approach
In this research, the term “constructivist learning approach” refers
to a concept of learning, like behaviorist learning and cognitivist learning,
upon which many current educational practices are based. A simpler term
“constructivism” is more frequently used in place of constructivist learning
approach, and they generally mean the same. There are many kinds of
constructivism, as many people attempt to interpret it differently, use it for
different purposes, and put different emphasis on it. However, the very
basic idea of constructivism is that knowledge is actively constructed by
learners instead of being transferred from other people, such as teachers
(Glasersfeld, 1990 in Dougiamas, 1998). A more elaborated discussion on
constructivism will be presented in Part B of this chapter, in Review of
Related Literature.
2. Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
In this research, the term “Self-Regulated Learning” (SRL) refers
to a learning process in which “learners take control of their learning”
(Heck, and Wild, 2000). Learning from various sources, I concluded that
constructivist learning. SRL becomes an integral part of constructivist
learning to improve learners’ autonomy in learning. This is related to what
I am concerned about in the third problem of this research, i.e., to what
extent the constructivist learning approach would improve the students’
self-regulated learning. A more elaborated discussion on SRL will be
presented in this chapter in Part B, in Review of Related Literature.
3. English Structure and Learning the English Structure
Language has several elements, one of which is its “structure”.
Therefore, in this research, English structure refers to one element of
English language. Meanwhile, the terms “learning the English structure”
refers to the discrete learning of English language in which structure
becomes one subject separated from the other elements and skills of the
language. It should be noted that there are two ways of learning a
particular language, i.e., the discrete learning and integrated learning. In
discrete language learning, every element and skill of the language is
learned separately, as an individual subject. Whereas, in integrated
language learning, all elements and skills of the language are learned
together in an integrated subject.
4. English Education Study Program (EESP)
English Education Study Program is an undergraduate program
many universities in Indonesia, EESP commonly belongs to the Faculty of
Teachers Training and Education. The graduates of EESP are the certified
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A. Review of Related Literature
1. Model of Curriculum
After I had determined the theoretical learning foundation, the second
phase that I, as both the researcher and the teacher, intended to do was
determining the model of curriculum. The model of curriculum would then
determine the model of learning. A model of curriculum usually starts from, and
explores a particular learning theory. A model of curriculum is important to give a
picture of how a particular learning concept or philosophy is elaborated into a
more practical and implementational plan. In practice, there is a variety of
curriculum model, as there is also variety of learning theories. Some models may
share similarities, and they fall into the same category, such as Content Model,
Objective Model, and Process Model.
In this research, the selected model of curriculum that mostly suits the
constructivist learning was the Process Model, or also known as Progressivist
Model of curriculum. However, very short and basic descriptions of two other
models that are quite commonly used in teaching practices would also be
presented in order to give pictures of different models, and compare one from the
others. Those two other models are the Content Model and the Objective Model.
The first is also known as Classical Humanism model, and the second as
Reconstructionism model. The following are the descriptions of those three
models.
a. The Content Model – Classical Humanism
The central focus of the curriculum in this model is thecontentof what is
to be learned by, or transmitted to the learner. In the Classical Humanist tradition,
the content is a valued cultural heritage, the understanding of which contributes to
the overall intellectual development of the learner. In addition, from the point of
view of epistemological objectivism, the content is knowledge that has been
identified and agreed to be universal, unchanging and absolute(Finney, in Richard
and Renandya {Ed.}, 2002).
b. The Objective Model – Reconstructionism
The starting point for this model is no longer the content, but the objectives of
learning. Learning is defined as a process of observable changes in behavior,
which could be measured. There are some characteristics of this model
(Finney, in Richard and Renandya {Ed.}, 2002), as follows.
1. Clarity of goals – The objectives of learning are clear to both the teacher
and the learners. This facilitates the selection of learning content and task.
2. Ease of evaluation – There are clearly specified objectives, so that the
success of learning can be easily and accurately evaluated to the extent that
3. Accountability – The model provides clear methods for need analysis,
learning purpose identification and “product” assessment.
c. The Process Model – Progressivism
This model focuses on theprocess of learning. The goals of learning are
not defined in terms of particular ends, or products, but in terms of the processes
and procedures by which the individual develops understanding and awareness
and creates possibilities for future learning (Finney, in Richard and Renandya
{Ed.}, 2002). Progressivism believes that education should not stop once a learner
walks out of the school. A progressivist school believes that education should be
continued outside the classroom. 1
Another purpose of education, as it is seen from the point of view of the
process, is to enable the individual learners to progress towards self-fulfillment. It
is concerned with the development of understanding, which is not just the passive
reception of knowledge or the acquisition of specific skills (Finney, in Richard
and Renandya {Ed.}, 2002). A progressivist school system is one in which
learning is a hand on, interactive, and meaningful experience for the learners.
Progressivists center the curriculum around the learners and their abilities,
because they believe that the best way to encourage learning is to teach things that
are relevant to the learners, things that matter specifically to them. By teaching
things that the learners truly care about and are affected by, the learners can enjoy
1
learning. In a progressivist environment, it is hoped that every individual learner
can find fun and relevance in something learned.2
In order to fit to the learners, progressivists must be flexible and creative
with lesson plans, for things in the classroom are rarely predictable. If something
is not reaching a learner clearly, a progressivist will try something new until the
learner does understand. A progressivist does not give up when a learner does not
learn in one way, but will find a way to help that learner learn. Another aspect of
learning that is important in a progressivist environment is social interaction.
Progressivists believe that things like field trips, group activities, and partner work
are important in the education. Not only can each of those make better learning
experience, but they can also improve on the social skill that will be important for
the rest of the learners’ lives. 3
2. Streams of Learning Theory
According to Brown (2000), an approach to language pedagogy is not
just a set of static principles. It is, in fact, a dynamic composite of energies within
a teacher, which unavoidably changes with continued experience in learning.
There are two reasons for this. First, an approach is dynamic and subject to some
modification as a result of one’s observation and experience. Secondly, research
in second language acquisition and pedagogy almost always yields findings that
2
Educational Philosophy Links. Educational Philosophy. http://www.saintmarys.edu/~elli0236/Philosophy.html 3
are subject to interpretation rather than giving conclusive evidence (Brown, in Richard and Renandya {Ed.}, 2002).
The interaction between one’s approach and classroom practice is the key
to dynamic teaching. The initial inspiration for such innovation fundamentally
comes from the approach level. Meanwhile, the feedback that teachers gather
from actual implementation then reshapes and modifies their overall
understanding of what learning and teaching are – which, in turn, may give rise to
a new insight and more innovative possibilities, and the cycle continues (Brown, in Richard and Renandya {Ed.}, 2002). As what has been previously mentioned
that the initial stage of language teaching practices basically starts with a learning
approach, this research will also start from such a learning concept, i.e.,
constructivism. In order to have a general outlook of what constructivist learning
looks like and how it differs from the other learning concepts, this section presents
three different streams of education psychology that are characterized by their
own distinctive concepts.
There are, in fact, many streams of education psychology, and each has
its own significance to educational practices. However, what are presented here
are the ones most widely explored in either common educational practices or
researches. The first stream presented below is quite different from the other two.
It is developed on the concepts of behavioral psychology. Meanwhile, in some
aspects, the other two share similarities as some theories in both streams are
developed on the same conceptual sources, i.e., social and developmental
a. Behaviorism
As the name signifies, behaviorism is based on observable changes in
behaviors. Behaviorism focuses on new behavioral patterns being repeated until
they become automatic. A criticism to this concept, however, claims that
behaviorism is unable to explain certain social behaviors. Individuals do not
imitate all behaviors that have been reinforced, or they may model new behavior
after their first initial observation without having been reinforced. That is why
some authors, like Bandura and Walters, departed from behaviorism to move to a
new theory, i.e., Social Learning and Personality Development. This theory leads
to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (Mergel, 1998).
b. Cognitivism
This stream is based on the thinking process behind the behavior.
Changes in behavior are observed, and used as indicator as to what is happening
inside the learner’s mind. Cognitive philosophy can be traced back to the ancient
Greeks Plato and Aristotle. (Mergel, 1998) One of the major proponents in the development of cognitivism is Jean Piaget, who develops the major aspects of
human cognitive structure development: sensor-motor, pre-operation, concrete
operation, conceptual reasoning (Phillips and Soltis, 1991).
c. Constructivism
The basic concept of constructivism is essentially built uponthe premise
experiences and schema. Learners are considered as active organisms seeking
meaning. Constructivism focuses on preparing the learner to problem solving in
ambiguous situations. In problem solving and insight, learning depended upon
something being done by the learner. Constructivists believe that learners
construct their own reality or at least interpret it based upon their perceptions of
experiences. An individual’s knowledge is a function of one’s prior experience,
mental structure, and beliefs that are used to interpret object and events. At one
extreme, Realistic Constructivism believes that cognition is the process by which
learners eventually construct mental structures that correspond to or match
external structures located in the environment. Meanwhile, at the other extreme,
Radical Constructivism claims that cognition serves to organize to learners’
experiential world rather than to discover ontological reality (Mergel, 1998, and
Phillips and Soltis, 1991).
Among the three streams discusses in this section, the constructivist
theories take on a variety of forms just like the behavioristic and cognitivistic.
However, the basic distinction is that, while the behaviorists view knowledge as
nothing more than passive, largely automatic responses to external factors in the
environment, and the cognitivists viewed knowledge as abstract symbolic
representations in the head of individuals, the constructivists view knowledge as a
constructed entity made by each and every learner through a learning process.
Therefore in the eyes of constructivists, knowledge can not be transmitted from
one person to the other, instead it will have to be constructed or reconstructed
3. Constructivist Learning
a. Background and Emergence of Constructivism
There are, at least, three major factors that have given much influence to
the emergence and development of constructivism. Those influences are presented
in the following discussion.
1). Postmodernists’ Influence
Objectivists believe that an object has an intrinsic meaning. Knowledge
is perceived as a reflection of a correspondence to reality. The objectivists
emphasize knowledge as being the awareness of objects that exist independent of
any subject. Knowledge is stable because the essential properties of objects are
knowable and relatively unchanging. The important metaphysical assumption of
objectivism is that the world is real and structured. The structure of reality, then,
can be modeled for the learner. Objectivism holds the assumption that the purpose
of the mind is to “mirror” the reality and its structure through thinking processes
that are analyzable and decomposable. The meaning that is produced by these
thinking processes is external to the understander, and it is determined by the
structure of the real world (Murphy, 1997).
In the meantime, postmodernism, as the term implies, is largely a
response as well as criticism to modernity that belongs to the objectivists. It
criticizes modernity that is characterized by a unique form of technical action and
that the people use shape their way of lives in modern societies where technique
has become definitely pervasive. In this situation, means and ends cannot be
separated. Heidegger (1977) claims that technology is relentlessly overtaking
people. “How people do” determines “who or what they are”. Technological
development transforms what it is to be human. People have become little more
than objects of technique, incorporated into the very mechanism they have created
(Feenberg, 2002).
Finally, postmodernism looked at the culmination of modernity in the
20th century. It was characterized by the results of forces such as nationalism,
totalitarianism, technocracy, consumerism, and modern warfare in efficacy and
improvements, but also in dehumanizing and mechanizing effects of human life.
Postmodernism, then, questions the objectivity of science and even the existence
of reality (Crowther, {Ed.}, 1997).
In contrast to the objectivists, postmodernists assumethat knowledge and
reality do not have an objective or absolute value. Postmodernists deal with a
dynamic, changing truth bounded by time, space, and perspective. While
modernity extensively creates inventions and technologies to improve human
lives, postmodernism takes a second looks and questions whether all inventions
and technologies really work for the improvement of human beings and bring
about happiness to the people (Wilson, 1997).
Postmodernists tend to reject the “idealized” view of truth inherited from
the ancients and replace it with the belief that “truth” is “what people agree on”.
dynamic diversities of life (Wilson, 1997). Therefore, in the history of
epistemology, the trend has been a move from a static, passive view of knowledge
towards a more adaptive and active view. Postmodernists argue that knowledge
and reality do not have an objective or absolute value. Instead, the individuals
interpret and construct a reality based on their experiences and interactions with
their environment. Postmodernists focus on the notion of viability. In addition to
it, concepts, models, theories, and so on are viable if they prove adequate in the
contexts in which they were created (Murphy, 1997).
To summarize, the essential features of postmodernists’ thinking (Brent
G. Wilson, 1997) are:
1. a commitment to plurality of perspectives, meanings, methods, and values,
2. a search for and appreciation of double meanings and alternative
interpretation,
3. a critiques or distrust of grand theories that include science, and myths in
religions, nations, cultures, and professions that serve to explain why things
are the way they are, and
4. an acknowledgement that there are multiple truths because there is a
plurality of perspectives and ways of knowing.
The roots of many constructivists’ beliefs about cognition are traceable to
postmodern philosophies, which depart from the rationalist, objectivist, and
technocratic beliefs of “modern” societies. Considering the relationship between
underlying philosophy about the world, and constructivism as a very general
theory of cognition suggesting how the mind works and how people know thinks.
The followings are the underlying philosophies of postmodernism (Brent
G. Wilson, 1997) upon which constructivism are grounded and established.
1. Postmodern philosophy emphasis is on contextual construction of meaning
and the validity of multiple perspectives.
2. Knowledge is constructed by people or group of people – Knowledge is
socially constructed.
3. Reality is a multiperspective-bearing entity – Knowledge is dynamic.
4. Truth is grounded in everyday life and social relations.
5. Life is a text. Thinking is an interpretive act, in which thinking and
perception are inseparable.
6. Fact and values are inseparable. Therefore, science and all other human
activities are value-laden.
In reality, however, not all constructivists’ thinking is merely derived
from postmodern philosophy. In educational psychology, many constructivists
also adopt the ideas of Piaget and Vygotsky, who are basically modern in their
thinking and orientation. Although Piaget and Vygotsky are more cognitivists,
both have given much influence on the development of socio-cultural
2). Piaget’s Influence
Jean Piaget, a Swiss scholar, is one of the most influential proponents of
socio-constructivist theory. Piaget is a genetic epistemologist concerned primarily
with cognitive development and the formation of knowledge. Socio-constructivist
theory is an extension of Piaget’s theory that focuses on reasons for cognitive
developments in individuals. According to Piaget, individuals’ cognitive
development abilities are another major factor in the process of constructing
understanding (Brooks, 1993).
Therefore, in applying the constructivist theory in education practices it
is crucial that teachers have some of the fundamental principles of cognitive
development theory. Piaget claims that the growth of knowledge is the result of
individual constructions made by the learner. Piaget perceives constructivism as a
way of explaining how people come to know about their world. Piaget perceives
the human mind as a dynamic set of cognitive structures that helps people make
sense of what they perceive (Brooks, 1993).
Concerning the process of meaning construction, Piaget postulates that
intelligence consists of two interrelated processes, i.e., organization and
adaptation. People organize their thoughts so that they make sense. This happens
when they try to separate the more important thoughts from the less important
ones as well as connect one idea to another. At the same time, people adapt their
thinking to include new ideas, as new experiences provide additional information.
This adaptation occurs in two ways, through assimilation and accommodation. In
already there, whereas in accommodation the intellectual organization has to
change somewhat to adjust to the new idea (Crowther {Ed.}, 1997).
In addition to Piaget concepts, the important cognitive mechanism within
the socio-constructivist is mechanism of the conflict-solution among learners. It is
an extension of Piagetian concept of conflict between individuals’ beliefs and
their actions in the world. The postulates (Dillenbourg and Schneider, 1995) are:
1. When disagreement occurs among peers, social factors prevent the peers to
ignore conflict and force them to find out a solution;
2. When the conflict is not verbalized in the interaction, they cannot predict
positive solutions; and
3. When the conflict is verbalized, they can generate the solution to the
conflict that will become the learning outcome.
Another contribution to the development of constructivism is his
premise that collaborative learning has a major role in constructive cognitive
development. His theory is consistent with the other popular learning theories in
emphasizing the important of collaboration. Piaget believes that interaction
between peers is equally shared. This contrasts adult-child or teacher-learner
interactions, where usually the former is in control and the latter characteristically
follows what the former professes, thus not following his/her own natural learning
3). Vygotsky’s Influence
Vygotsky has also given much influence in socio-cultural constructivism.
Vygotsky was also a developmental theorist and researcher who worked in the
1920s to early 1930s. His principal premise is that
“Human beings are products not only of biology, but also of their cultures. Intellectual functioning is the product of our social history, and language is the key mode by which we learn our cultures and through which we organize our verbal thinking and regulate our action.”
Children learn such higher functioning from interaction with the adults and their
peers around them (Tinzmann, et al., 1990).
There is a causal relationship between individual’s cognitive
development and social interaction. This premise is derived from Vygotsky’s
theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). ZPD is defined as
“….the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem solving under guidance and in collaboration with more capable peers”. (Vygotsky in Hogan and Pressley {Ed.}, 1997)
Learner’s actual development in
independent learning
Learner’s actual development in
collaborative learning
Zone of Proximal Development
Figure 1. Zone of Proximal Development
Within the social constructivist perspective, ZPD refers to the area, in
which an individual’s optimum learning can occur. In this theory, each internal
cognitive change is mapped onto a causal effect of a social interaction. ZPD
defines meta-conceptions that might evolve as learned concepts after a period of
social interactions. The inter-psychological processes are internalized during
social interactions (Vivekanandan, 1996).
b. Kinds of Constructivism
Authors, researchers, theorists, and even practitioners have articulated
constructivism differently by emphasizing different perspectives, components, or
purposes of interests. Therefore, there are various kinds of constructivism, some
1). Trivial/Personal Constructivism
It is the simplest idea of constructivism, as well as the root of all the
other shade of constructivism. The principle has been credited to Jean Piaget, and
can be summed up in “Knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, not
passively received from the environment.” (Glasersfeld, 1990 in Dougiamas,
1998)
2). Radical Constructivism
The emphasis of radial constructivism is still on the individual learner as
the creator. This type constructivism adds a second principle to trivial/personal
constructivism, i.e. “Coming to know is a process of dynamic adaptationtowards
viable interpretations of experience.”(Glasersfeld, 1990 in Dougiamas, 1998) In
addition, radical constructivism claims that cognition serves to organize to
learners’ experiential world rather than to discover ontological reality (Mergel,
1998, and Phillips and Soltis, 1991).
Radical constructivism does not deny an objective reality, but simply
states that there is no way of knowing what that reality might be. Mental
constructs that are constructed from the previous experiences help to impose order
on one’s flow of continuing experience. However, when they fail to work because
of external or internal constrains, and cause a problem, the constructs change in
order to accommodate the new experience. “Truth” in traditional epistemologies is
replaced by “viability”, bounded by social and physical constrains. Within
However, neither trivial nor radical constructivism looks closely at the extent to
which the human environment affects learning (Glasersfeld, 1990 in Dougiamas,
1998).
3). Social Constructivism
Social constructivism traces their idea back to Vygotsky, a pioneering
theorist in psychology who focussed on the roles that society played in the
development of an individual. Socio-constructivist theory advocates that
individuals master new approaches of learning through immediate interaction with
others. The social world of learner includes the people that directly affect that
person, including teachers, peers, administrators, and participants in all forms of
activities. This takes into account the social nature of both local processes in
collaborative learning and in the discussion of wider social collaboration in a
given subject.
Socio-constructivist theory has given an emphasis on interactions rather
than actions themselves. A given level of individual development allows
participation in certain social interactions which produce new individual states
which, in turn, make possible more sophisticated social interactions, and so on.
Teaching strategies using social constructivism as a referent include teaching in
contexts that might be personally meaningful to learners, negotiating
taken-as-shared meanings with learners, class discussion, small-group collaboration, and
valuing meaningful activity over correct answers. (Cobb, 1994 and Wood, 1995 in
4). Contextual/Cultural Constructivism
Contextual/cultural constructivism is defined as how individuals interpret
phenomena and internalize these interpretations in terms of their previous
experience and culture (Crowther, {Ed.}, 1997). This kind of constructivism goes
beyond the immediate social environment of a learning situation. There is a wider
context of cultural influences, including custom, religion, biology, tools and
language. They affect the way individuals think (Dougiamas, 1998). Higher
mental functions are culturally mediated. They involve not a direct action on the
world but an indirect one that takes a bit of material matter used previously and
incorporates it as an aspect of action. Insofar as that matter itself has been shaped
by prior human practice, current action incorporates the mental work that
produced the particular form of that matter (Cole and Wertsch, 1996 in
Dougiamas, 1998).
5). Critical Constructivism
Critical constructivism looks at constructivism within a social and cultural
environment, and then adds a critical dimension aimed at reforming these
environments in order to improve the success of constructivism applied as a
referent (Martin Dougiamas, 1998). Taylor (in Dougiamas, 1998) describes
critical constructivism as a social epistemology that addresses the socio-cultural
Critical constructivism adds a greater emphasis on the action for change of a
learning individual (Taylor, 1996 in Dougiamas, 1998).
c. Constructivist’s Concepts in Learning
As what has been illustrated in the previous section, constructivism
shows its various kinds. From the ones that have been previously discussed, the
first two focus merely on the individual process of meaning construction.
Meanwhile, still focusing on the internal process of meaning construction within
the individual, the other three also consider the external influences on this process.
Besides, the last type also adds to its concept the goal of constructivist movement,
which is the improvement of the social and cultural environment.
The purpose of discussing those types of constructivism is to present a
diversity of constructivist views, and to avoid blurred, ambiguous, or extremely
polarized interpretation of constructivist view that this research is adopting. This
research put aside the first two views, trivial/personal and radical constructivism,
which only stress on the meaning construction process. This research intended to
focus on the social constructivist’s idea that includes the social-interaction
influences on the meaning construction. Basically defined, social constructivism
is derived from the notion that all facts are socially constructed rather than being
deduced from evidence. As people experience something new, they internalize it
within the framework of their past experiences or knowledge constructs they have
about natural phenomena, and using that knowledge they actively make sense of
the word by constructing meaning (Crowther {Ed.}, 1997).
This research also broadened the idea by taking into account the cultural
constructivist influences, since this research also had a purpose to build a culture
of learning and step by step departing from the previous one. Moreover, this
research tried to adopt the purpose of critical constructivism to be the long-term
goal of this research, i.e., to improve the students’ style and culture of learning
that are characterized by high motivation, independence and autonomy.
In the constructivist perspective, knowledge is constructed by individuals
through their interactions with the environment. Numerous researchers, educators
and authors are actively engage in using constructivist principles to design and
implement new learning environments. Learners actively construct knowledge in
their attempt to make sense of their world, then learning will likely emphasize the
development of meaning and understanding (Elizabeth Murphy, 1997).
In addition to meaning construction, multiplicity is an overriding concept
for constructivism that has important implications for teaching and learning – a
tendency to privilege multiple truths, representations, perspectives and realities
(Murphy, 1997). In constructivism, knowledge is seen as relativistic (nothing is
absolute, but varies according to time and space) and fallibilist (nothing can be
taken for granted). There is an important distinction within the constructivist
school of learning. There are basically two constructivist orientations, i.e.,
cognitiveoriented and socially oriented constructivist theories.Cognitive oriented
learner as explaining the learning process. In this view knowledge is still very
much a symbolic, mental representation in the mind of the individual. However,
the socially oriented constructivist theories stress the collaborative efforts of a
group of learners, as sources of learning.4
Constructivism also takes a cognitive approach. Constructing
understanding of one’s world is an active, mind-engaging process. Meaning is
constructed by the cognitive apparatus instead of being simply transmitted. In
relation with cognition, constructivism does not see the mind as an empty vessel,
a tabula rasa to be filled, or a mirror reflecting reality. Therefore, constructivism
does not suggest learning as learners’ efforts to accumulate knowledge, as well as
teacher’s efforts to transmit it. Constructivism does not rely on a transmission,
classroom instruction approach, which is passive in nature, teacher-directed and
controlled. Instead, a constructivist framework challenges teachers to create
environments in which they and their learners are encouraged to think and explore
(Brooks, 1993).
In the area of cognitive process and development, scaffolding is
assistance in the ZPD. Scaffolding is defined as controlling the elements of the
task that are initially beyond the learners capabilities, i.e., permitting them to
concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within their range of
competence. Scaffolding characterizes the social interactions among learners and
teachers that precede internalization of the knowledge, skills and dispositions that
4
are deemed valuable and useful for the learners. Scaffolding requires
inter-subjectivity or a shared understanding of the task. The teacher is responsible for
leading the learners toward this understanding and helping them to develop their
own conception of the task. If the learners gradually gain control of the task, they
take over more of the responsibility (Hogan and Pressley {Ed.}, 1997).
Since the construction of meaning within the individual cognition is
central in the constructivist view, education is learner-centered, i.e., learners have
to construct knowledge themselves. Constructivist perspective views learners as
actively engage in making meaning. Learning with this approach looks for what
learners can analyze, investigate, collaborate, share, build and generate based on
what they already know, rather than what facts or skills they can parrot and
memorize (Dougiamas, 1998). Constructivist teaching practices helps learners to
internalize and reshape, or transform new information. Transformation occurs
through the creation of new understandings that results from the emergence of
new cognitive structures (Brooks, 1993).
In addition to the learner-centered orientation, constructivist learning
focuses on the process, instead of the product. Learning is a process of
constructing meaningful representations, of making sense of one’s experiential
world. In this process, learners’ errors are seen in a positive way and as a means
of gaining insight into how they are organizing their experiential world (Murphy,
1997).
Constructivism has profound implications for all aspect of learning: The way,
skill and activities emphasized, the role of the learner and the teacher, and how
goals are established. All of these are articulated differently in the
constructivist perspective. Within constructivism itself, author, researchers, and
theorists articulate differently the constructivist perspective by emphasizing
different components. However, there is a set of theoretical underpinnings
(Murphy, 1997) common to constructivism:
1. Knowledge as a whole is problematized, not just the learner’s subjective
knowledge, including mathematical knowledge and logic.
2. Methodological approaches are required to be much more circumspect and
reflexive because there is no “royal road” to truth or near truth.
3. Focus of concern is not only the learner’s cognition, but also beliefs, and
conceptions of knowledge.
4. Focus of concern with the teacher and in education is not just with the
teacher’s belief, conceptions, and personal theories about subject matter,
teaching, and learning.
5. The others have realities that are independent of ours, although we can
tentatively come to know the knowledge of others by interpreting their
language and actions through our own conceptual constructs. However, no
reality is fixed.
6. An awareness of social construction of knowledge suggests a pedagogical
emphasis on discussion, collaboration, negotiation, and shared meaning.
Constructivism has a more holistic view, rather than views things from
concept is an essential dimension of constructivist pedagogy. When designing a
curriculum, constructivist teachers organize information around conceptual
clusters of problems, questions, and discrepant situation because learners are most
engaged when problems and ideas are presented holistically rather than in
separate, isolated parts. When concepts are presented as wholes, learners seek to
make meaning by breaking the wholes into parts that they can see and understand.
Learners initiate this process to make sense of the information; they construct the
process and the understanding rather than having it done for them (Brooks, 1993).
From the point of view of how constructivist curriculum should be
implemented in education practices, the following is comparison between
traditional and constructivist learning.
Table 1
Comparison between traditional and constructivist learning (Brooks, 1993)
TRADITIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING
• Curriculum is presented PART to WHOLE, with the emphasis on BASIS SKILLS.
• Curriculum is presented WHOLE to PART, with the emphasis on BIG CONCEPTS.
• Strict adherence to FIXED CURRICULUM is highly valued.
• Pursuit of LEARNERS' QUESTIONS is highly valued
• Curricular activities rely heavily on TEXTBOOKS
• Curricular activities rely heavily on PRIMARY SOURCES OF DATA
and MANIPULATIVE MATERIALS.
• Learners are viewed as “BLANK SLADE” onto which information is etched by the teacher.
• Teachers generally behave in a
DIDACTIC manner, disseminating information to
learners.
• Teachers generally behave in an INTERACTIVE manner, mediating the environment for learners.
• Teachers SEEK THE CORRECT ANSWER to validate learner learning.
• Teachers SEEK THE LEARNERS’ POINT OF VIEWS in order to understand learners’ present conceptions for use in subsequent lessons.
• ASSESSMENT of learner learning is viewed as
SEPARATE FROM TEACHING and occurs almost
entirely THROUGH TESTING.
• ASSESSMENT of learner learning is INTERWOVEN WITH TEACHING and occurs through observations of learners AT WORK and through LEARNER EXHIBITIONS and PORTFOLIOS.
• Learners primarily WORK ALONE
• Learners primarily WORK IN GROUPS
Concerning the role and responsibility of the teacher and learners, both
the teacher and the learners are responsible for the learning to take place. The
teacher’s responsibility is to create educational environments that permit learners
to assume the responsibility that is rightfully and naturally theirs. Teacher do this
by encouraging self-initiated inquiry providing the materials and supplies
appropriate for the learning tasks, and sensitively mediating teacher-learner and
learner-learner interactions. However, the teacher cannot take sole responsibility
for the learners’ learning (Brooks, 1993).
The following is the characteristics of constructivist learning on which
education practices are based:
1. Multiple perspectives. Multiple perspectives and representations of
