Upload
gordon-rice
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
3o Years of English Language Teaching
- Past, Present, and Your Future
Paul Kawachi
CCRTVU Wuhan, 16 May 2009
1979 ~ 2009 :
- behaviourism- cognitivism- cognitive constructivism- social constructivism
- radical constructivism- constructionism- social constructionism
overview
behaviourism :
Teacher-centredTeacher gives stimulusStudent response is assessedTeacher adapts stimulus, and re-tests
There are two types ; -- intrinsic- extrinsic
cognitivism :
Teacher-sequenced inputs,
Response process (not product) is assessedConnections between parts – rather than whole
Teacher asks students to identify similarities or differences
cognitive constructivism :
Students are pre-tested to be put into streams
Teacher says the connections to be madebetween new information input and past prior knowledge
Open-ended questions to large classes or multiple-choice to individuals
social constructivism :
Pre-task awareness-raising, check there is adequate knowledgeor teacher as moderator –so then cooperative
Groups discuss concepts, ideas, not facts
Parts must be understood only in terms of the whole
radical constructivism :
Student-centredEach builds up own unique map of the world
Student’s mind changes to fit with experience
The outside world imposes constraintsbut mind acts within these constraints
Assess by problem-solving
constructionism :
Learning alone independently
Knowledge is in the ethereal interactionsnot constructivist in the world andnot cognitivist in the individual mind
Learning occurs through interacting with own imaginative projectionS
social constructionism :
Student learns through reflecting on own interactions with others
not from own experience, and not from other ideas
Diversity helps by enriching interactivity
Context-based ( not teacher- not student-based )
low
…
pr
ior
know
ledg
e …
hi
gh
low … task complexity … high
- - - b e h a v i o u r i s m - - -
- - -
- - - c o g n i t i v
i s m - - -
- - - - - -
c o g n i t i v i s m - -
- - - -
c o n s t r u c t i v i s m - - -
An online community of students studying together is often recommended. Why ?
First, let’s talk about the goals of education
and then we can see the role for social interactions online
Over all published reports, we can findthere are 5 Domains of Learning :
These 5 Domains or areas are :
- Cognitive knowledge and skills- Affective interest and love- Metacognitive satisfaction- Environment social aspects- Management coping with massive info
Following from Bloom’s Taxonomy,there are now 5 goals of education covering each of the 5 Domains :
- Cognitive- Affective- Metacognitive- Environment- Management
Let’s look at each of these, in turn . . .
- Cognitive knowledge and skills
This teaching and learning objective
involves increasing the student’s competence and proficiency
- Affective interest and love
This teaching and learning objective
involves initiating and developing the motivations to learn
- Metacognitive satisfaction
This teaching and learning objective
involves reflecting and self-awareness of achievements
- Environmental social aspects
This teaching and learning objective
involves building awareness, deploying a responsive team-spirit and fostering a learning community
- Management coping with massive info
This teaching and learning objective
involves the massive amounts of data now available ; determining the utility, the validities and the reliabilities of information, mastering necessary literacies including search,designing own learning, and designing research
From these, you can see why some teachershave looked at student satisfaction, or at building an online social community
- Cognitive knowledge and skills- Affective interest and love- Metacognitive satisfaction- Environment social aspects- Management coping with massive info
From these, you can see why some teachershave looked at student satisfaction, or at building an online social community
However, we should not think thatshort-term social interactions and satisfactioncan replace the need to acquire knowledge and critical thinking skillsfor lifelong learning
Now let’s look at Learning Models :
Then we can see how a frameworkor scaffold can be used in practiceto reason which kinds interactions
- cooperative or collaborative -
are needed, and timing for each kind
Dewey 1933 model :
1 imaginative suggestion of problem or solution
2 framing of perplexity and of the difficulty of the problem
3 use one suggestion after another to guide observation
4 Mental elaboration of an idea or supposition
5 testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action
Brookfield 1987 model :
1 a triggering event
2 an appraisal of the situation
3 an exploration to explain anomalies or discrepancies
4 developing alternative perspectives
5 Integration of alternatives in ways of thinking or living
Anderson 2007 model :
1 triggering event, recognizing problem or puzzlement
2 exploration, information exchange, brainstorming
3 integration, synthesis
4 resolution, apply, test, defend
Other models :
- Laurillard 1995 Conversation Model
- Grabinger & Dunlap 1995 Intentional Learning Model
- Dopper & Dijkman 1997 Action Learning Model
- Kearsley & Schneiderman 1998 Engagement Model
- Sfard 1998 Participation-Orientation Model
- Kawachi 2003 Transactional Distance Model
only Kawachi identifies and distinguishes cooperative and collaborative
What is the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning ?
What is the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning ?
Cooperative involves recycling old knowledge
Collaborative involves creating new knowledge
There are four distinct ways of learning
Learning-Alone Learning-in-a-Group
INDEPENDENT
Freedom
over content andmethod of learning
INDIVIDUAL
No Freedom
over content ormethod of learning
orpre-negotiated
freedom
INTERPERSONAL
COOPERATIVE COLLABORATIVE
CONNECTEDLEARNING
Group with a‘ knower ’
Group withno ‘ knower ’
1
23
4
56
Affirm
Elicit
Opinion
Requestunderstanding
Counter-opinion Confirm
collaborative interactions in practice
Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi 2003
This Model recognizes that learningstarts from what someone already knows through cooperative sharing,
and proceeds through collaborative reflectionabout new not-yet-learnt information
Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi 2003
1 elicit needs, sharing, brainstorming
2 rationalizing, theorizing, justifying
3 consider all possible alternatives, disjunctive thinking
4 test out new way, experiential, publish
decreasing
Transactional
Distance
1 S- D-
2 S+ D-
3 S+ D+
4 S- D+
Cooperative sharing old
Collaborative creative
Collaborative disjunctive
Cooperative experiential
Here we use the letters S and D to refer to :
S Structure : the educative structure imposed by the teacher, textbook or institution
D Dialogue : the educative guiding conversation ( not idle or social chat )
decreasing
Transactional
Distance
1 S- D-
2 S+ D-
3 S+ D+
4 S- D+
Cooperative sharing old
Collaborative creative
Collaborative disjunctive
Cooperative experiential
Stage 1 Cooperative
Stage 2Collaborative
Stage 4Cooperative
Stage 3Collaborative
Stage 1
is characterized by cooperative sharing of prior old knowledge and prior experience,eliciting views, brainstorming and divergent thinking to gather various differentframes of context
Stage 2
is characterized by collaborative creation and discovery of new theory rationalizing and underlying prior knowledge, developing metaphors, horizontal and lateral thinking
Stage 3
is characterized by collaborative testing out of hypotheses to co-discover some new potential knowledge, problem solving, vertical and disjunctive thinking
Stage 4
is characterized by cooperative presenting new ideain real-life, experiential,personal meaning-making,social-constructivist,dissemination, reflecting, judging, publishing
decreasing
Transactional
Distance
1 S- D-
2 S+ D-
3 S+ D+
4 S- D+
Cooperative sharing old
Collaborative creative
Collaborative disjunctive
Cooperative experiential
Now the main points in thisTransactional Distance Model :
are that initially the student chats, ( not educatively, so here D- and without teaching tasks S- )to share own background, to reduce anxiety,and to become comfortable and able then to engage S+ reasoning
Now the main points in thisTransactional Distance Model :
then the student explains to othersand must engage S+ reasoning
At this Stage 2, social interactions may be fun or desirable but is no longer needed
Now the main points in thisTransactional Distance Model :
then the teacher engages ( D+ )and raises alternatives to be explored ( S+ ),
and finally the student tries out a new ideain her own context ( S- )with teaching guidance and assessment ( D+ )
This Transactional Distance Model
succeeds through bringing the student from not knowing ( greatest Transactional Distance )
to knowing something ( zero Transactional Distance )
Learning Transaction =requires 4 interactions
1 student’s prior knowledge and need are identified
2 the text or teacher gives an amount of information
3 the student outputs an own construction
4 the teacher or society confirms the meaning
Three encounters / passes are needed to ‘learn’
decreasing
Transactional
Distance
1 S- D-
2 S+ D-
3 S+ D+
4 S- D+
Cooperative sharing old
Collaborative creative
Collaborative disjunctive
Cooperative experiential
Four Categories in Transactional Distance Theory
less
Transactional
Distance
1 S- D-
2 S+ D-
3 S+ D+
4 S- D+
added
Structure
added
Dialogue
Now we have the scaffold or frameworkconsisting of the four distinct Stageson which to put theessential kinds of interactions
that we need to bring about learning, through reducing the Transactional Distance
Difficulties are reported in achieving Stage 3
Renner 1976 found only 81% of final-year law students in 2 law schools reached Stage 3
Piaget 1977 acknowledged many people never reached Formal Operations level Stage 3 even in adulthood
McKinnon 1976 found only 50% of college students at 7 colleges could reach Stage 3
Gunawardena 1997 and 2001 found in graduate students and teachersthat the Stage 3 “collaboration simply did not happen”
Meyer 2003 found only 29% of graduate students reached Stage 3and Anderson 2007 only 13% of two graduate courses
How do other theories such as constructivismfit with this Transactional Distance Model ?
Most theories each have their own special practice
Behaviorism, and objectivism each suitsthe cooperative Stage 1 plus Stage 4 While cognitive constructivism suits Stage 2and social constructivism suits Stage 3
Overall, constructionism suits the whole Modelinvolving all four stages in sequence
Let’s open up these points a little . . .
Stage 1 T input : behaviourismStage 4 T-moderated output : behaviourism Stage 1 + Stage 4 : behaviourismStage 2 Ss told connections : cognitivismStage 3 Ss discuss connections : constructivism
T or S knows : cooperativeso we lack collaborative – critical thinking skills so adopt constructionism
in constructionism . . .
Learning is wholly within the student’s mindthrough interactions ( as in Conversation Model )
diversity helps to achieve collaborative Stage 3so adopt Transactional Distance Model
Stage 1 Cooperative
Stage 2Collaborative
Stage 4Cooperative
Stage 3Collaborative
The Transactional Distance Model is perfectly suited to early school education
The initial stage involves cooperative sharing . . .This can be from the student herself ( best ) or from other students ( suits large classes )or any source ( teacher, textbook or internet )
Younger children might prefer doing some activitiesto generate own ideas to share with others
1 Each student first expresses her own ideas or own findings or experience
2 The teacher then asks students to express why they feel or think like they do
3 and then raises other new alternatives using a textbook or the internet
4 for the students to take away and try out themselves
The Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi underpinned by the widely accepted
- Conversation Theory : Holmberg 1983 , Grogono 1993, Laurillard 2002
- Transactional Distance Theory : Peters 1973, Moore 1993
- Constructionism Theory : Papert 1991, Gergen 2001
Conversation Theory : Mitchell & Grogono 1993
- postulates that learning occurs through guiding transactions between a desirable target concept map model of knowledge and a student’s externalized model of prior understanding.
- Such transactions include asking the student to articulate and make explicit own elaborations
Conversation Model : learning transactions include
appropriation - whereby the teacher or a good student picks up points from weaker students and shows how they can fit into a larger picture, to model greater understanding for the weaker students to then see
elaboration - whereby conflicts, slight differences or diverging views are verbalized, and so lead to learning
justification - whereby thought processes and strategic knowledge initially implicit are made explicit through verbalization to help both the enquirer and the justifier to learn
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. Distance education : International perspectives, (pp. 114-122). London : Croom Helm.
Gergen K.J., & Wortham, S. (2001). Social construction and pedagogical practice. In K.J. Gergen (Ed.), Social construction in context, (pp. 115-136). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching : A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London : RoutledgeFalmer.
Mitchell, P.D., & Grogono, P.D. (1993). Modelling techniques for tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 20 (1), 55-61.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed), Theoretical principles of distance education, (pp. 22-38). London : Routledge.
These plus my own Kawachi 1999 – 2009 published works available from me by email
1979 ~ 2009 :
- behaviourism for teacher-based, and skills- cognitivism for sequential teaching- cognitive constructivism within inside - social constructivism from outside
- radical constructivism for student-centred- constructionism for e-learning- social constructionism for modern distance education
summary
2009 ~ 2039 :
- Student-created content shared in learner’s own languages- Continuous scaffolds for task, group size, mode, media- Externalise examinations away from universities- Share courses, increase diversity
vision
Teachers accept a model depending on :
- own early school experience- loyalties during own teacher-training- support from professional networks
hopefully we have all of these !
reflection
You can download these slides freely from
http://www.open-ed.net/overview.ppt
or by email from me at