2.1 Introduction
This Chapter reviews the literature on the following areas; Constructivism Learning Theory, Learner- centered Teaching Methods and Factors Affecting Effective Implementation of Learner- centered Methods.
2.2 Constructivism Learning Theory
Constructivism Learning Theory can be understood as a explanation to learning where learners construct knowledge through interaction of new information that they encounter together with their individual prior knowledge. Jean Piaget is regarded as the father of Constructivism though other scholars such as David Ausubel and Lev Vygotsky have also highly influenced Constructivism (Cakir, 2008).
Central to Piaget’s model is the process of Assimilation and Accommodation. According to Piaget Assimilation is the process of modifying new information in order to fit into the already existing knowledge or as he popularly called it ‘Schema’. This may occur when individual’s experiences are aligned with their mental representation of the world or they fail to understand the events they encounter and hence discrediting that particular event. For new information to be
assimilated it must first fit into the existing schema. New information that fits into the existing schema is likely to be understood than that which does not fit into the existing schema (Slavin, 1988). Accommodation on the other hand is the process of reframing ones mental representation of the external world to fit in new experiences. When a learner encounters a situation which does not match the existing schema, or cannot be explained by the existing schema, then the existing schema must be changed or new ones made. Assimilation and Accommodation are interactive and are almost interchangeable. The condition leading to accommodation is known as disequilibration, that is; the state encountered by the learner in which new information does not fit the existing schema (Slavin, 1988). To restore balance to the cognitive system, new schemas are built or old ones are modified. Hence during the learning process learners will be constantly trying to derive their own mental model of the real world from their interactions with new experiences and in the process developing their own mental models to reflect the new information.
According to Piaget, all knowledge is tied to an action schema and for one to be able to know an event or object he or she must assimilate it to an action schema (Piaget, 1967). For Piaget children and adults use mental patterns (Schema) to guide behaviors or cognition and interpret new experiences or materials in relation to existing schemas (Piaget, 1978). The learner therefore is not a passive participant in the learning process but an active one. Piaget further stressed that
learners progress through four distinct stages of cognitive development and that one is able to grasp concepts at an increasing level of abstraction depending on their level of maturity. He broadly categorized the maturity levels into four stages namely; Sensorimotor Stage (0-2years), Preoperational Stage (2-5years), Concrete Operational Stage (2-5years), Formal Operational Stage (12years- Adult).
Piaget put a lot of weight on cognition or the working of the mind. He laid no emphasis on the influence of the environment on learning. To Piaget Constructivism is purely a cognitive process and that speech and language are merely expressions of what has already been learned (Gredler, 1997).
David Ausubel agreed with Jean Piaget. He is regarded for having come up with Radical Constructivism which emphasized purely learner- centered and discovery- oriented learning process. According to Ausubel, social environment and social interactions work merely as a stimulus for individual cognitive conflict (Liu & Matthews, 2005). Ausubel too proposed that new knowledge that linked with the existing schema is likely to be easily learned and understood. Ausubel postulated that useful learning only takes place when ne information or experience is subsumed by the existing relevant concepts and those concepts undergo further change and growth (Novak, 1988). Ausubel further stressed that effective instruction requires the teacher to choose critical and very important information to teach in the classroom and that the teacher should provide the means to help the learners to relate this to concepts they already know. Given an option to reduce all Educational Psychology to just one principle advises that one should ascertain
what the learner already knows then teach him or her accordingly (Ausubel, 1963). Ausubel defines rote learning as arbitrary, verbatim, non-substantive incorporation of new ideas into cognitive structure. Information does enter the cognitive structure but does so with no specific relevance to existing concepts.
For both theorists (Piaget & Ausubel) the new concepts that are well anchored by or attached to the existing schemata (schema) will be more readily learned and assimilated than new information relating to less established schemata (Cakir, 2008). The two theorists purported little regard to the impact of the environment and language to the learning process did not go well with Vygotsky.
According to Vygotsky (1978) learners are believed to be enculturated into their learning community and appropriate knowledge based on their existent understanding, through their existent understanding, through their interaction with the immediate learning environment (Eggen & Kauchak, 1999; Mclnerney &Mclnerney, 2002). Vygotsky distinguished between a) Everyday concepts Formed from a learners experience and independent thinking and b) Scientific concepts taught in school (Moll, 1990). Scientific knowledge is systematic and hierarchical in nature but everyday concepts are unorganized and haphazard. Vygotsky explained that when a student has reached some understanding of concepts into hierarchical system of interrelationships, then this knowledge influences understanding of related everyday concepts by transforming and giving new directions to them. In a bid to explain dimensions of the school learning, Vygotsky developed the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). He defined ZPD
as the distance between actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. Vygotsky sought to show that everyday concepts grow and change under the influence of instruction in scientific concepts and that scientific concepts develop fully as they incorporate related everyday concepts (Howe, 1993). Scientific concepts are taught through verbal definition or mathematical symbols and reside on a level of abstraction. In contrast everyday concepts develop outside a definite system: in order to be understood in relation to what has been learned in school, thinking must move upward toward abstraction and generalizations. The student will see how the phenomena he or she has experienced fit into the scientific system he or she has been taught (Cakir, 2008).
Piaget (1978) asserts that learning progresses through four distinct stages of cognitive development and that one is able to master abstract ideas as his or her level of development matures through these stages (Slavin, 1988). Ausubel (1963) on the other hand says that learning is not dependent on stage but rather on ones prior knowledge. For Vygotsky words are the means through which thought was Formed. According to Vygotsky it was important to go beyond direct experience in teaching scientific concepts and to mediate experience with words. Experience alone is not enough since experience is an isolation observation, unless it is put into words and understood in a larger context (Howe, 1993).
