A CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE STUDENTS’ SELF-REGULATED LEARNING (SRL) AND TO OPTIMIZE THE LEARNING OF THE ENGLISH STRUCTURE
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
ZưxzÉư|âá câđàÉ T}|
Student Number: 01.6322.009
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
JANUARY, 2007
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 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 COMMITTEEb. Kinds of Constructivism
13 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
c. Constructivist’s Concepts in Learning
12
14
14
15
15
16
17
19
19
19
21
21
28
12
11
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
4. For Further Studies
ABSTRACT
INTISARI PENELITIAN TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS i ii iii iv v vii ix xi xiv xv xvi CHAPTER
I :
INTRODUCTION
A. Rationale
B. Limitation of the Research Area
C. Research Problems
D. Research Objectives
E. Benefit
1. To the Researcher
2. To Students of EESP
3. To English Structure Teacher
F. Definition of Terms
11
1. Constructivist Learning Approach
2. Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
3. English Structure and Learning the English Structure
4. English Education Study Program (EESP)
1
7
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
32
a. Definition and Concept of Self-Regulated Learning
2. Data Presentation
h. Learners’ Ability to Reflect on Learning i. Learners’ Perception on the Learning Method
g. Learners’ Engagement in the Learning Process
f. Learners’ Efforts for Gaining Deeper Understanding
e. Initiative and Readiness for the Next Learning Step
d. Learners’ Adaptation to the New Learning
c. Previous Learning Methods
b. Previous Way of Acquiring Knowledge
a. Learners’ Initial Perception of the Lecturer
1. Data Elicitation
C. The Learners’ Knowledge Acquisition
B. The Learners’ Self Regulated Learning
c. The Implementation Procedures
b. The Conceptual Foundation
a. The Learning Goals
2. The Proposed Learning Program Design
d. Problem of Learners’ Autonomy
c. Problem of Learning Focus
b. Problem of Learning Paradigm
3. Research Finding
68
1. Identifying the Underlying Problems
90
99
98
98
97
97
96
96
95
90
68
90
79
73
72
72
71
70
69
69
a. Problem of Learning Significance
A. Designing the Learning Program
b. SRL Cycle
B. Theoretical Framework
51
50
49
46
44
44
43
41
c. Steps of AR
54
b. Types of AR
a. Definition and Concept of Action Research (AR)
7. Action Research
6. Portfolio: Definition and Purposes
c. Collaborative Learning (CLM) and Cooperative Learning (CL)
b. Characteristics of CLM
a. Definition and Concept of Collaborative Learning
5. Collaborative Learning Model (CLM)
51
57
66 CHAPTER IV : ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
61
66
66
65
65
64
63
63
63
b. Research Instruments
58 CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
a. Method of Data Processing and Analysis
3. Step 3 - Evaluating the Program
c. The Implementation Schedule
b. Method of Selecting the Participants
a. The Research Participants
2. Step 2 - Implementing and Observing the Program
1. Step 1 - Planning: Developing a Learning Program
B. Research Procedures
A. Research Method
99 101 103
2. Research Finding
104 105
D. Other Findings
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
CHAPTER I 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
2 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 “internalize” the newly learned structures.
3 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. 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
4 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
5 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 individuals.
6 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
7 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 questions to answer. Those problems are formulated as:
8
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
9 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 what they have learned, and to become self-motivated and autonomous learners.
10 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 problems of learning.
11 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
12 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
13 many universities in Indonesia, EESP commonly belongs to the Faculty of Teachers Training and Education. The graduates of EESP are the certified English teachers.
CHAPTER II 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
15 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 the content of 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 the objectives have been fulfilled.
16
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 the process 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.
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
17 learning. In a progressivist environment, it is hoped that every individual learner
can find fun and relevance in something learned.
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.
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.
18 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
19 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 (Phillips and Soltis, 1991).
operation, conceptual reasoning c.
Constructivism
The basic concept of constructivism is essentially built upon the premise
20 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
21
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
22 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
th
20 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 assume that 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”.