Feasibility of constructivist learning in Sinagpore schools
You may focus on one or all questions. you can write it in English or Chinese. The deadline for this online discussion is 22:00 16 Jan (Sunday).
- To what extent do you think constructivist learning is feasible in the context of Singapore schools?
- What factors infulence the implementation of constructivist learning in Singapore schools?
- How will you implement constructivist learning in your instruction?
Click on the following # comments to make comments.
posted by qywang @ 6:38 PM
14 Comments:
I suppose violetferrari's concern that there is too little time to carry out constructivist instruction due to time constraint is valid. However, I still believe that it is achievable in the context of Singapore schools. Constructivist learning does not imply that we should reform the whole syllabus, or add in many new elements. I sincerely believe that with a similar syllabus, constructivist learning can be achieved by changing the teaching methods. It can be very simple like giving students reflection time after asking them questions, so that they have time to construct their own interpretations. Constructivist learning can also be implemented more easily with project work, since teachers can provide a wealth of resources to trigger students' thinking.
However, there still exist some constraints which limit the implementation of constructivist learning. Firstly, teachers do really need to believe that there is no absolute truths and that knowledge has to be constructed. This has to be achieved before they are willing to design their instructional procedure to be more supportive of constructivist learning. Secondly, the high-stake exit exams (O-levels, A-levels) do not test constructivist learning, but encourage regurgitation of standard answers without learners having to make meaning for themselves. Thirdly, it may not be easy to help students construct their own meanings in certain subjects, such as the Math and Science subjects which may be highly abstract.
For me, I will try to incorporate a more constructivist approach by including more reflection or thinking moments during the course of my lesson. In teaching the more abstract concepts, I will try to use more real-life examples to make the concepts more relevant to students, so that they can relate to the concepts and build a clearer picture in their minds. Analogies can also be used.
In an earlier comment (in fact, the very first), violetferrari mentioned that
"secondly,in order to teach constructivist learning effectively,we have to consider the knowledge background of each individual student. as this is hard to gauge, thus, there will always be only some who'll keep answering the questions and some who'll be passive during the questioning. also,as there amy be different perspectives on the same question, a debate may ensue and students may end up more confused than ever, especially if the topic of debate is more suited for objective learning or students need a higher level of comprehension before answering the question."I do agree that some basic level of comprehension is required before we can think of a more constructivist approach. To illustrate, for the sciences, we may need to teach our students in a more objectivist way at a lower levels, so that they learn the basic "truths" or universal laws, before we can invite them to challenge their own notions of the world.
However, I don't think we need to concern ourselves with gauging the background knowledge of students. Even if we can properly gauge the background knowledge and prior experiences of students, it is not feasible to cater to every individual. Instead, we might need to pick out certain common "knowledge", and then help students make sense of the world with this shared knowledge.
I agree with wenshi that the level of students does affect the feasibility of constructivist learning. When I learnt the concept of valence electrons and the Octet rule in Chemistry in Sec. 3, it was straighforward-- we were told that atoms react so that they can have eight electrons in the outermost shell and become stable. However, in NIE, my lecturer challenged this notion, and offered an alternative explanation using core charges. (I really apologise to those who found this too technical.)
The class of Chemistry trainee teachers were thoroughly confused at the end of the class, but we did have to think through and defend our previously-held notion. However, if someone had done that to me in Sec. 3, I'm afraid I would have learnt nothing at all.
As for school culture, I agree that certain schools may overemphasise results and stifle constructivist learning. Fortunately, project work, interdisciplinary subjects and group discussions are increasingly popular and I do feel these will promote constructivist learning. Besides, new teachers like us can try to make a difference, right?
Feasibility of constructivist learning in our society or perhaps in any society is decided by mutiple factors. Syllabus; attitude of teachers, students and the institute; policies; technical and software support, just to name few. Although the current trend of teaching is based on constructivism, but I personally do not believe and have not seen it being widely implemented in schools, and there are many reasons to this:
1. Attitude of students and parents. They expect teachers to feed the students with information, the more the merrier. In our society, education is still very much percieved as a "teacher impart knowledge" process. With such expectations from the parents and students, teachers are pressurised to teach in the traditional method.
2. Classroom learning environment. With teachers having lesser power to punish students, present teachers have problems controlling students in the class, especially those with discipline problems. Constructive learning requires teachers to conduct group work or hold lessons in non-classroom settings. But such lessons require the teacher to move the students from their classroom, which might ultimately lead to "havoc" in the students. As such many teachers avoid constructive learning, but stick on to the traditional "i teach you learn" methods.
3. Lack of technical and software support. In the context of using IT for constructive learning, teachers are required to spend many hours learning new softwares and programs, and using them to make learning softwares for the students. If specialist help can be provided to teachers, they can then be allowed to have more time to brainstorm more ideas for constructive learning, and leave the technical part of it to the specialists who will also produce quality work. This lack of support is also one main reason why teachers shun using IT to facilitate constuctive learning.
4. Overemphasise on exams. Although there has been constant talk to de-emphasising exams, but the fact is that this emphasise is there to stay at least for one or two decades time. Exams are conducted with clear cut right and wrong answers, and it requires students to learn in accordance to the exams' requirements. Constructive learning allows learners to construct their own knowledge, thus allow space for differences, and such differences might not be tolerated in exams. As such, as long as examination grades are passports to academic success, constructive learning will not be feasible in Singapore.
Above are just some of my thoughts, please feel free to comment and criticise them. Thank you.
Soon Yeow mentioned that the role of the teacher is changing from that of the presenter to that of a facilitator.
I was just thinking being schooled in a more objectivist environment themselves, do the current batch of teachers have sufficient training to carry out more constructivist modes of instruction? If not, we may need to consider the training of teachers...
目前，学校的教学活动不仅注重基于案例的学习，基于问题的学习以及基于项目的学习等相关课程设计，同时也开始把这类学习法列入考试计分的一部分。由此可见，建构主义的学习思想在新加坡的教育制度里受到了关注,并且逐步的在实行中。不过，我还是觉得好些老师只是“象征性”的在进行建构主义的学习，而且太拘泥于“建构主义的学习”一词，因此很多时候，老师为了建构而建构，如为了建构主义中的协商式教学而进行分组讨论，但是在协商的过程中，却没有采用合适的策略来支持整个过程，反而只是重视讨论后的结果。我想，要在本地学校实行建构主义的学习或教学，老师本身的心态与“建构”能力（评价能力、管理技能方面的能力……）是个极其重要的因素。如果老师把建构主义的学习视为只是学习中的其中一种形式，在特定的时候或需要的时候，才将之实践，那么，纵使让学生进行再多的相关教学活动，不见得会带来积极的效果。
How will you implement constructivist learning in your instruction?
Upon reading Jingwei's and Wenshi's comments about constructivist learning approach in Essay/Letter writing, I agree with them and therefore would like to add a little penny of my thoughts building on theirs.
Particularly essay writing in Chinese Language, it is an area which teachers should ought to take note of the instruction methods. From what we ourselves have gone through in Secondary school Chinese language lessons, most of the time we were given just the title or perhaps some helping words, and there you go, an essay expected to be in at the end of 2 periods. And the teacher starts marking some other stuffs while you finish up your 2 to 3 pages of essay.
As we know essay writing is a skill which proved very difficult for most students whose proficiencies in Chinese is relatively low, we should spend some time planning out on how we can improve their writing skills step by step.
We can start by not just throwing students a big title and just leaving them to write on their own，the guidance should carry on. Like other classmates had mentioned before about teachers being the facilitator in class, and i believe it should not differ in essay writing classes too.
In my opinion, essays qns that were set had expectations which contents are considered "familiar" to the students. So, teachers at this time need to be able to create a link between students' experiences and the essay qn that they are dealing with. Maybe before the writing starts, the teacher can conduct a discussion session whereby students can discuss what are their opinions towards the topic(this can be carried out in smaller groups too). So, the students not only have ideas of his/her own and will also have contributed ideas of others in the same group. If they have any comments or doubts about any contributions, students can immediately voice it out during the discussion and will not be stuck in his/her thoughts if left writing alone.
From there, the teacher can gather the points that the students had contributed and rephrase or comment on their contributions accordingly. This gives the students the general direction of their thoughts-flow. Gathering of ideas and gaining of knowledge as the discussion goes on in the class. Even though this does not guarantee quality essays, but at least they will be better than no guidance at all.
To add on another topic of interest, I see that there were a few classmates concerned about the factor of teachers being educated in a non-constructivist environment and are being expected to carry out constructivist modes of teaching. Personally I do feel that the current batch of teachers do have some kind of "struggling" while carrying out the constructivist modes of teaching, for eg. IT in class, the strong emphasis on exams etc. However, this is a transition phase which I think most superiors are taking note of. More time for the teachers to adjust and more tolerance for the transition to take place.
Even so, I think most teachers are aware that the education system which they were once under will not be efficient enough for the new generation. It's not just carrying out the expectations, say from your superiors, but rather the awareness that this teaching method is more beneficial for the students in the long run and they should be gaining more knowledge in this way. It depends quite largely on the attitude of the teacher to gauge what's best for the students, in the long run.
Assuming I translated Ya Ting's post correctly (I am sorry but there are some of us out there who can't really construct the meaning of the posts in Chinese), I agree with her that some teachers are using certain elements of constructivist teaching, such as discussion, without proper strategising, and calling it "constructivist instruction" unjustly.
Indeed, just reading some of the posts made me realise that each one of us has a different view of constructivism to start with. So how can we make sure that the teachers themselves are sure of that constructivist learning is and what it entails?
How can they come up with strategies and materials supporting constructivist posts then?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
我赞同shi xu同学所提出的看法。毕竟在新加坡这样特别的社会下（种族以华人居多，但官方用语却是英语），建构主义教学法的却为我们华文老师带来很大的挑战。
学生程度的问题，始终是采取建构主义教学法的致命伤。因此在采取这类教学法时，我觉得华文老师们需花一番功夫，先了解学生们的程度后，再来考虑说应不应该采取这类的教学法。只有找到了定点，才能以正确的教学法传把知识传授给学生。
因材施教亦是身为老师所要遵守的准则之一。如果只是因为要遵循教育学院所指定的教学法传授知识给学生，我认为受益的永远只有那些程度较好，悟性较高的学生。对于那些程度较差的学生来说，那是很不公平的。因而不能达到因材施教的准则了。
我觉得在华文教学里，建构主义教学法，除了可以用在作文教学及诗歌教学外，我觉得还可以运用在成语教学上。这项教学法可以在电脑室配合电脑使用。教师可以通过互联网搜寻器寻找把老师所指定的成语的典故，来源及造句找出来。这项工作是通过互助互动的方式执行。所具备的先备知识，也只是需要懂得利用电脑。
As a language teacher-to-be, I understand some of my coursemates' concern that the proficiency of our students in Mandarin may impede the feasibility of constructivist learning in Chinese.
Indeed, language shapes thought and without the appropriate standard, it is hard to get students to construct mental representations of the world. However, I feel that in Singapore, students do understand aural information. Their problems lie in recognising Chinese characters, and phrasing their responses in Mandarin.
In the teaching of moral values, stories of role models etc through the Chinese textbook content, is it not possible for teachers to still structure their lessons to promote constructivist learning? Perhaps, teachers can help them by requiring them to take smaller steps in the construction of new knowledge, rather than expect them to take huge leaps which may not be possible with their language proficiency.
Of course, in making this comment, I am being largely idealistic. Unfortunately, I do not have any specific suggestions as to how constructivist learning can be promoted to students who are weak in the language. After all, these students may not be weak in their abilities to process information and give critical responses, conduct independent research, hold discussions. Their limitations may really just lie in not having the right words in Chinese to express what they feel.
in my opinion, the following factors influence the implementation of constructivist learning in Singapore schools:
1. teacher's training
Not all teachers keep up with developments in pedagogy due to the heavy workload in schools. training may be required so that teachers can understand the principles and methods of constructivist learning.
2. teacher's resources
the amount of resources that MOE can provide the teachers with can facilitate the implementation of a constructivist learning environment. for example, providing teachers with sample lesson plans as reference. as constructivist classroom activities are not easy to design, providing teachers with relevant examples will be a great help.they will thus be more willing to implement constructivist activities.
3. Students' interest and motivation to learn.
chinese is a 2nd language in singapore and there are more and more english speaking families. many students are not very interested nor motivated to learn chinese because they find it very difficult to master. this is a major obstacle to the implementation of a constructivist learning enviroment because students may not be very enthusiastic in class and reluctant to participate in class activities. thus the constructivist learning programs may fail to achieve its desired outcomes.
4. Ability of students
constructivist learning activities involve the active participation of students. however, the standard of chinese language of singaporean students are not very high. many of them cannot even express themselves properly in chinese. they are unable to participate in discussions and may thus lose interest altogether.
one more point to consider. the nature of the chinese language sometimes makes it difficult to design constuctivist learning activities. for example, learning to recognize and write chinese characters. as the chinese language is not phonetic, all characters have to be learned by memory and practice. this kind of knowledge is cannot be contructed by the students.
In response to Daniel's comments that
"2) Learners' ideas often tend to contradict teachers'. Hence there is a need for teachers to be aware about how learners think. They have to be enaged as active learners. Teahers cannot simply assume that leaners are on the same wavelength when engaging them.
3)Learners like their own ideas. This is somewhat true due to human nature. Learners may be reluctant of accepting better constructed ideas if they feel that their own is deemed good enough for themselves. Teachers have to deal carefully with such learners and try not to affect self worth when attempting to correct ill-conceived notions."I think the problem for Singaporean students is not that of them having different mental representations as their teachers or unwilling to accept better constructions. While it is true that sometimes, students interpret what the teachers say differently from what the teachers intended, more often, students just absorb their teachers' messages without assimilation or processing them. Somehow, our students have the superb ability to reproduce what we say unerringly without showing signs of processing the information themselves. Perhaps what we need is to teach students to be more aware of their thought processes, and to teach them the relevant metacognition terms so that they can be more actively engaged in the learning process.
Yes, I agree that the mindset of teachers, parents and students is an important factor hindering the implementation of constructivist learning in Singapore. I guess we do not have the climate for constructivist learning in the singapore education system yet. I am under the impression that students attend lessons to learn how to handle exams questions rather than to gain knowledge. We are after all a pragmatic and results-orientated society. This obsession with aceing exams takes the joy out of learning and changes the focus of education from acquring knowledge to paper qualifications.
Regarding the point on training in NIE, the common belief amongst trained teachers that I have spoken to,is that NIE focuses alot on ideological theories, which are too idealistic and thus, hardly of any use in the real world. This is largely due to the lack of time, the lack of support from the school and parents, and students who are used to being spoon-fed. An experienced teacher commented that new teachers are usually very eager to practice what they have learnt in NIE and try hard to incorporate the new teaching/learning methods into their lessons. However, the responses from students not used to such teaching methods can be really disheartening and teachers are likely to feel that their efforts are not being appreciated and revert back to the traditional, tried and tested method of teaching.
However, despite the difficulties, i do believe that it is worth trying to implement constructive learning in singapore schools. Children learn best when they are engaged and interested in what they are learning, the process of learning would be more meaningful if they are given the opportunity to explore, discover and construct their own knowledge. As huijing has pointed out, we were taught under an objectivist learning environment and used to think that there is a model answer for all questions, that an absolute truth exists so perhaps, we should be more mindful of how our students' brains work, and not be too harsh in chiding them, for eg, colouring a durian red.
I agree with Suzanne that we can take small steps towards the implementation of constructivist learning, just a small activity a week regarding constructivist learning can go a long way into acheiving our ultimate goal in the long run.
just my two cents worth...
Post a Comment
<< Home