THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to draw on international and local assessment practice in science at tertiary level, in order to devise a system of assessment that would address the needs of the EFL and ESL students and complement the present systems of assessment to suit the South African climate. To do this, I had to position my research within a theoretical framework and make explicit its position within the body of literature. The first section of this chapter opens with a discussion of the epistemological framework which underpins the study and is

followed by a discussion on the situated nature of assessments which focuses on the construction of knowledge within a community of practice. The second section discusses issues related to assessment. This section on assessment briefly discusses Outcome-Based Education in South Africa before examining the position of English as a language of power, by focusing on developments in the fields of 'critical learning' and 'multiliteracies'. I then discuss the role of language in assessment by examining the relationship between proficiency and academic achievement, and strategies employed to assist LEP learners, before moving on to a discussion on assessment in Science.

A discussion on the prevalent assessment practices in Science exposes the merits and de- merits of current practice before moving on to the section on assessments in the South African context. This is followed by a discussion on the incorporation of an oral component into assessment. An interrogation of the merits and de-merits of using oral assessments concludes the chapter.

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

Constructivism

Until recently, the accepted model for instruction was based on the hidden assumption that knowledge can be transferred intact from the mind of the teacher to the mind of

CHAPTER TWO

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to draw on international and local assessment practice in science at tertiary level, in order to devise a system of assessment that would address the needs of the EFL and ESL students and complement the present systems of assessment to suit the South African climate. To do this,I had to position my research within a theoretical framework and make explicit its position wIthin the body of literature. The first section of this chapter opens with a discussion of the epistemolog.ical framework which underpins the study and is followed by a discussion on the situated nature of assessments which focuses on the construction of knowledge within a community of practice. The second section discusses issues related to assessment. This section on assessment briefly discusses Outcome-Based Education in South Africa before examining the position of English as a language of power, by focusing on developments in the fields of 'critical learning' and 'multiliteracies'.

r

then discuss the role of language in assessment by examining the relationship between proficiency and academic achievement, and strategies employed to assist LEP learners, before moving on to a discussion on assessment in Science.

A discussion on the prevalent assessment practices in Science exposes the merits and de- merits of current practice before moving on to the section on assessments in the South African context. This is followed by a discussion on the incorporation of an oral component into assessment. An interrogation oftbe merits and de-merits ofusing oral assessments concludes the chapter.

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

Constru ctivism

Until recently, the accepted model for instruction was based on the hidden assumption that knowledge can be transferred intact from the mind of the teacher to the mind of

the learner... Unfortunately, all too many of us who teach for a living, have uncovered evidence for the following hypothesis: teaching and learning are not synonymous. We can teach, and teach well, without having the students learn ...

Knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner (Bodner 1986: 873).

Killen (2000: 14) agrees that "teaching is only teaching if learners learn". He defines teaching as "the process of helping students to understand information and to transform it into their own personal knowledge" where teachers become "facilitators of knowledge" (2000: 10).

Objectivism proposes that knowledge is "transferred" (Caprio 1994: 211) from "an authority to a passive learner" (Roth 1994: 198). In contrast, constructivism advocates that before coming to your class students have a multitude of unique experiences and a wealth of prior knowledge about a range of subjects. "Individual students bring with them personal beliefs and knowledge about how the world works" (Colburn 2000: 2) into the classroom (see also Bauersfeld 1998; Desaultes 1998; Glynn et al. 1990, 1991; Matthews 2004; Null 2004; Pepin 1998; Tobin 1998, 1990b, 1990c; Tobin and Gallagher 1987; Tobin and Tippins 1993).

Caprio (1994: 210) adds that students "have been dealing with the natural world with their own laws of motion, concepts of evolution, and atomic theories. Some of the paradigms are invalid, some are just fine as they exist, and others are incomplete". It is the task of the teacher or facilitator to assist the student to build on this knowledge. Caprio (1994: 210-211) emphasizes that "if the new material is to become a part of the student's view, then the learner must construct the knowledge on the existing framework. Thus the name:

Constructivism".

Students must not be regarded as 'empty vessels' or being without any knowledge.

Constructivist learning theory involves trying to help students change their beliefs to be more in line with those held by the scientific community (Colburn 2000: 2) which does not mean that students must be indoctrinated into understanding science "more or less the same as their instructor's" (Caprio 1994: 211). The role of the teacher in the constructivist classroom according to von Glasersfeld (1987: 16) is not to dispense 'truth' but rather to help and guide the student in the conceptual organization of certain areas of experience (see also von Glasersfeld 1989, 1993, 1998). Gorodetsky et al. (1997: 423) add that assessment should focus on the "learner's qualities rather than on the transmittance of disciplinary knowledge".

the learner. .. Unfortunately, all too many of us who teach for a living, have uncovered evidence for the following hypothesis: teaching and learning are not synonymous. We can teach, and teach well, without having the students learn ...

Knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner (Bodner 1986: 873).

Killen (2000: 14) agrees that "teaching is only teaching if learners learn". He defines teaching as ''the process of helping students to understand in fonnation and to transform it into their own personal knowledge" where teachers become "facilitators of knowledge" (2000: 10).

Objectivism proposes that knowledge is "transferred" (Caprio 1994: 211) from "an authority to a passive learner" (Roth 1994: 198).10contrast, constructivism advocates that before coming to your class students have a multitude ofuniqueexperiences and a wealth of prior knowledge about a range of subjects. "Individual students bring with them personal beliefs and knowledge about how the world works" (Colbum 2000: 2) into the classroom(see also Bauersfeld 1998; Desaultes 1998; Glynn et al. 1990, 1991; Matthews 2004; Null 2004; Pepin

1998; Tobin 1998, 1990b, 1990c; Tobin and GaIlagher 1987; Tobin and Tippins 1993).

Caprio (1994: 2\ 0) adds that students "have been dealing with the natural world with their own laws of motion, concepts of evolution, and atomic theories. Some of the paradigms are invalid, some are just fine asthey exist, and others are incomplete". It is the task of the teacher or facilitator to assist the student to build on this knowledge. Caprio (1994: 2 I0-211) emphasizes that "if the new material is to becomea partof the student's view, then the learner must construct the knowledge on the existing framework. Thus the name:

Constructivism".

Students must not be regarded as 'empty vessels' or being without any knowledge.

Constructivist learning theory involves trying to help students change their beliefs to be more in line with those held by the scientific community (Colburn 2000: 2) which does not mean that students must be indoctrinated into understanding science "more or less the same as their instructor's" (Caprio 1994: 2 I I). The role of the teacher in the constructivist classroom according to van Glasersfeld (1987: 16) is not to dispense 'truth' but rather to help and guide the student in the conceptual organization of certain areas of experience(see also van Glasersfeld 1989, 1993, 1998). Gorodetskyet al.(1997: 423) add that assessment should focus on the "learner's qualities rather than on the transmittance of disciplinary knowledge".

Roth (1994: 198) concurs that learning is an interpretive process, as new information is given meaning in terms of student's prior knowledge, which means that each learner actively constructs and reconstructs his or her understanding rather than receiving it from a more authoritative source such as a teacher or a textbook {see also Roth 1993; Roth and Roychoudhury 1993, 1994).

According to Pressley et al. (1992: 5) science, math and reading educators with constructivist orientations contend that various forms of knowledge, including knowledge of strategic procedures, are applied more generally if constructed by learners than if explicitly taught to them. Constructivists then, posit the individual's construction of knowledge rather than the knowledge simply being 'transferred' to the individual. The role of the individual is

recognized as being central in the creation of knowledge. By implication then, the 'world' of the learner which constitutes prior knowledge, experiences and beliefs which in turn have been shaped by their home, cultural, educational and social backgrounds play an integral part in shaping this 'world'. Rodriguez and Berryman (2002: 2) agree that knowledge is socially constructed and mediated by sociocultural, historical, and institutional contexts. Quay (2003:

3) therefore regards constructivism as limiting because it "views learning as a process that applies specifically to the individual person". Fleury (1998: 158) adds to this criticism, by stating that "construction of knowledge has traditionally been viewed among mainstream educators as an individual's personal action, with little consideration given to the influence of social context and environment on cognition". Quay (2003: 3) goes on to say that "the salient nature of this limitation is revealed when the possibility of a small group of people learning through their social interaction as a collective is considered, aptly described as social constructivism" (2003: 3). The constructivist view is thus extended by the social constructivist perspective.

Social Constructivism

Although learning environments are necessarily personal, each individual's constructions are mediated by the actions of others in a social setting and characteristics of the culture in which learning is situated...Thus, actions and interactions of those participate in an educational setting shape individual

constructions of the learning environment and the culture of the classroom provides a 26

Roth (1994: 198) concurs that leaming is an interpretive process, as new information is given meaning in terms of student's prior knowledge, which means that each learner actively constructs and reconstructs hisor her understanding rather than receiving it from a more authoritative source such as a teacher or a textbook (see alsoRoth 1993; Roth and Roychoudhury 1993, 1994).

According to Pressleyet al. (1992: 5) science, math and reading educators with constructivist orientations contend that various forms of knowledge, including knowledge of strategic procedures, are applied more generallyifconstructed by learners than ifexplicitly taught to them. Constructivists then, posit the individual's construction of knowledge rather than the knowledge simply being 'transferred' to the individual. The role of the individual is

3) therefore regards constructivism as limiting because it "views learning as a process that applies specifically to the individual person". Fleury(1998: 158) adds to this criticism, by stating that "construction of knowledge has traditionally been viewed among mainstream educators as an individual's personal action, with little consideration given to the influence of social context and environment on cognition". Quay (2003: 3) goes on to say that "the salient nature of this Iim italion is revealed when the possibil ity of a small group of people learning through their social interaction as a collective is considered, aptly described as social constructivism" (2003: 3). The constructivist view is thus extended by the social constructivist perspective.

Social Constructivism

Although learning environments are necessarily personal, each individual's constructions are mediated by the actions of others in a social setting and characteristics of the culture in which learning is situated ... Thus, actions and interactions of those participate in an educational setting shape individual

constructions of the learning environment and the culture of the classroom provides a

26

pervasive 'reality' that is experienced by the individuals who comprise a social setting (McRobbie and Tobin 1997: 197).

Social constructivism proposes that "collectives of persons are capable of actions and understandings that transcends the capabilities of the individuals on their own" (Davis et al.

2000: 68). They add that learning is always collective: embedded in, enabled by, and constrained by the social phenomenon of language; caught up in layers of history and tradition; confined by well established boundaries of acceptability (2000: 67). Each individual comes to the classroom with his or her own 'reality' which in turn is shaped by interaction with others and the environment itself. Cobb 1994; Fleury 1998; Greenfield 1999;

Roth 1994; Vygotsky 1978, 1981, 1987, 1993 emphasize the influence of social context and environment on cognition. Human beings do not exist in isolation and therefore do not learn in isolation. They interact with others, be it their teachers or their peers and as Vygotsky (1981: 163) succinctly states, "relations among people genetically underlie all higher

functions". The social context is of great value in construction for the individual. Moll (1993:

3) explained that Vygotsky's 'zone of proximal development' requires that "maturing or developing functions must be fostered and assessed through collaborative, not independent or isolated activities. He emphasized that what children can perform collaboratively or with assistance today they can perform independently and competently tomorrow" {see also Moll and Greenberg 1993). Their realities are constructed upon and this enables them to progress from one stage of learning to the next.

Taking Rodriguez and Berryman's (2002: 2) comment about the sociocultural, historical and institutional contexts, and Fleury's (1998: 158) recognition of the influence of the social context and environment on cognition, further, this view of social constructivism needs to be extended even further to embrace culture because every individual functions within a cultural context. The context of the institution with its own culture, the historical contexts of the different cultures within which individuals operate, and the influence of the environments (both at home and the institution) must be borne in mind. According to Boeren (1994: 78), each culture constructs its own 'reality', and no doubt, this construct influences the way members of a culture perceive and understand the things and ideas they are confronted with in life. Culture then is an essential component for one's creation of reality. The dynamism of culture is reflected in the dynamic nature of learning and of constructing reality.

pervasive 'reality' that is experienced by the individuals who comprise a social setting (McRobbie and Tobin 1997: 197).

Social constructjvism proposes that "collectives of persons are capable of actions and understandings that transcends the capabilities of the individuals on their own" (Daviset al.

2000: 68). They add that learning is always collective: embedded in, enabled by, and constrained by the social phenomenon of language; caught up in layers of history and tradition; confined by well establ ished boundaries of acceptabi lity (2000: 67). Each individual comes to the classroom with his or her own 'reality' which in turn is shaped by interaction with others and the environment itself. Cobb 1994; Fleury 1998; Greenfield 1999;

Roth 1994; Vygotsky 1978, 1981, 1987, 1993 emphasize the influence of social context and environment on cognition. Human beings do not exist in isolation and therefore do not learn

in isolation. They interact with others, be it their teachers or their peers and as Vygotsky (198\: 163) succinctly states, "relations among people genetically underlie all higher

functions". The social context is of great value in construction for the individual. Moll (1993:

3) explained that Vygotsky's 'zone of proximal development' requires that "maturLng or developing functions must be fostered and assessed through collaborative, not independent or isolated activities. He emphasized that what children can perform collaboratively or with assistance today they can perform independently and competently tomorrow" (see alsoMoll and Greenberg J993). Their realities are constructed upon and this enables them to progress

from one stage of learning to the next.

Taking Rodriguez and Berryman's (2002: 2) comment about the sociocultural, historical and institutional contexts, and Fleury's (1998: 158) recognition of the influence of tile social context and environment on cognition, further, this view of social constructivism needs to be extended even further to embrace culture because every individual functions within a cultural context. The context ofthe institution with its own culture, the historical contexts of the different cultures within which individuals operate, and the influence of the environments (both at home and the institution) must be borne in mind. According to Boeren (1994: 78), each culture constructs its own' reality', and no doubt, this construct influences the way members of a culture perceive and understand the things and ideas they are confronted with in life. Culture then is an essential component for one's creation of reality. The dynamism of culture is reflected in the dynam ic nature of learning and of constructing real ity.

Davis et al. (2000: 70) regard "individual knowledge, collective knowledge and culture" as

"three-nested, self-similar levels of one phenomenon". This, they say, explains the shift from

"the individual's efforts to shape an understanding of the world to the manners in which the world shapes the understanding of the individual". The social and cultural background of the individual has enabled the individual to create their own reality. Their interpretations of the world are influenced by this reality. Further interactions and experiences are influenced by this reality and in turn these new experiences influence and shape the individual's

interpretation of reality. Moll (1993: 15) agrees that in Vygotsky's theory about the zone of proximal development, "the emphasis is on social activity and cultural practices as sources of thinking". He adds that educational settings are social creations, they are socially constituted, and they can be socially changed (1993: 15). Blanck (1993: 44) concurs that mental activity is the result of social learning, of the internalization of social signs, and the internalization of culture and social relationships.

Taking Vygotsky's emphasis on the social context of thinking further, an elaboration of his theory on the zone of proximal development is necessary as Vygotsky regarded the role of

"peer interaction" (Tudge 1993: 159) and the "adult" (Tudge 1993: 155) as important in that they can "aid children's development" (Vygotsky 1978: 86). Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development as the distance between the real level of development and the potential level of development (1978: 85) and as "those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state" (1978: 86). Collaboration with another person, either an adult or a more competent peer, in the zone of proximal development thus leads to development in culturally appropriate ways (Tudge 1993: 157). As mentioned earlier, the role of the individual in this interaction must be borne in mind. The types of interaction that the individual engages in will determine to a large extent the 'level of development' that takes place. Collaboration or interaction with less competent others could have negative influences on the individual's development {see Ames and Murray 1982; Bearison et al. 1986; Dosie and Mugny 1984;

Murray 1982; Perret-Clermont 1980). This can be avoided in the classroom setting where the teacher guides the activities and ensures that collaborations are mediated, that is, the teacher is present and a part of the collaboration so that interactions and therefore learning are guided.

Daviset al. (2000: 70) regard "individual knowledge, collective knowledge and culture" as

"three-nested, self-sUn ilar levelsofone phenomenon". This, they say, explains the shift from

"the individual's efforts to shape an understanding of the world tothe manners in which the world shapes the understanding of the individual". The social and cultural background of the individual has enabled the individual to create their own reality. Their interpretations of the world are influenced by this reallty. Further interactions and experiences are influenced by this reality and in turn these new experiences influence and shape the individual's

interpretation of real ity. Moll (1993: 15)agrees that in Vygotsky's theory about the zone of proximal development, Hthe emphasis is on social activity and cultural practices as sources of thinking". He adds that educational settings are social creations, they are socially constituted, and they can be socially changed(1993: 15).Blanck(1993: 44) concurs that mental activity is the result of social learn ing, of the internalization of social signs, and the internal ization of culture and social relationships.

Taking Vygotsky's emphasis on the social context of thinking further, an elaboration of his theory on the zone of proximal development is necessary as Vygotsky regarded the role of

"peer interaction" (Tudge 1993: 159) and the "adult" (Tudge 1993: 155)as important in that they can "aid children's development" (Vygotsky 1978: 86). Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development as the distance between the real level of development and the potential level of development (1978: 85) and as "those functions that have notyetmatured but are in Che process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an em bryonic state"(1978: 86). Colla boration with another person, ei ther an ad uIt or a more competent peer, in the zone of proximal development thus leads to development in culturally appropriate ways (Tudge 1993: 157).As mentioned earlier, the role of the individual in this interaction must be borne in mind. The types of interaction that the individual engages in will determine to a large extent the 'level of development' that takes place. Collaboration or interaction with less competent others could have negative influences on the individual's development(see Ames and Murray 1982; Bearisonet al. 1986; Dosie and Mugny 1984;

Murray 1982; Perret~Clermont 1980). This can be avoided in the classroom setting where the teacher guides the activities and ensures that collaborations are mediated, that is, the teacher is present and a part of the collaboration so that interactions and therefore learning are guided.

Dalam dokumen Towards improving equity in assessment for tertiary science students in South Africa : incorporating an oral component. (Halaman 39-87)