Constructivism perspective on the classroom interaction

Researchers (Brooks & Brooks 1993; Davidson 1999; Powel & Kalina 2009; Surgenor 2010) maintain that constructivism is an umbrella term that includes a number of learning theories. Despite their differences, they share core assumptions. There are many other constructivists who propound constructivism ideas, but the researcher concentrated on cognitive constructivism Piaget (1953) and social constructivism (Vygotsky 1978). Constructivists like Dillenbourg, Barker, Blaye and O’Malley (1996:191) acknowledge that the construction of knowledge emerges on the social level without denying the constitutive role of the individual. In fact, constructivism theories are based on the idea that learners construct their own meaning by building on their previous knowledge and experience. So, new ideas and experience are matched against existing knowledge, and the learner incorporates these to make sense of the world. Thus, in such an environment the teacher cannot be in charge of the learners’ learning, since everyone’s view of reality is different and the learners come to learning already possessing their own constructs of the world. In fact, according to Komar and Mozetic (2004:129-130) in constructivist classroom,

34

participants are teacher to learners, teacher to learner/a group of learners, learner to learner, and learners to learners.

In accordance with the opinions shown above, this study is based on classroom interaction in teaching and learning EFAL to enhance communicative competence. Since the focus is the understanding of classroom interaction and how it takes place in the classroom, the above explanation also acknowledges that the construction of knowledge emerges on the social level without denying the constitutive role of the individual, so in this perspective Piaget’s theory of cognitive constructivism comes into play.

Based on the above continuum, the two categories, namely, cognitive and social constructivism theories under the broad theory constructivism paradigm are illustrated below:

Figure 2.2: Constructivism Paradigm with its components

Researcher’s illustration

Figure 2.2 shows the constructivism paradigm embracing the two perspectives since they are entrenched and embedded in this paradigm. In fact, cognitive constructivism and social constructivism originate from the constructivism paradigm. The two theories share the same belief though they have some differences. Therefore, for the

Constructivism Cognitive constructivism _{Zone of} Proximal Development Social constructivism Conducive learning environment

35

purpose of this study, cognitive constructivism and social constructivism theories were fused and interwoven throughout the study while constructivism served as the foundation of these theories. The researcher’s intention to merge these theories in this study is that both theories complement each other and the researcher took the advantage of the rich sources of social learning environments that they can provide in order to attain effective classroom interaction to enhance communicative competence in the target language. Hence, these theories have played a positive role in teaching EFAL ever since the researcher practiced the strategies of the above-mentioned theories in classrooms.

 Cognitive constructivism

In line with Ültanir’s (2012) interpretation, Piaget’s basis of perception is composed of cognitive configuration and how knowledge is developed in a person. Additionally, Ültanir shows that Piaget perceives a child’s view of the world and decisions about reality as different from an adult’s. Therefore, Piaget’s basic theory of constructivism focuses on the individual and how the individual constructs knowledge. Powel and Kalina (2009:243) assert that Piaget (1954) incorporates the importance of understanding each individual’s needs to obtain knowledge and learn at his or her own pace. So, it is important for teachers to observe the level of each learner in order to provide necessary assistance that prepares and allows effective classroom interaction in the target language to take place. Ültanir (2012:202) also emphasises that Piaget’s (1952) theory of cognitive constructivism proposes that humans cannot be given information which they immediately understand and use; instead humans must construct their own knowledge. It is obvious that the individual learner has to be assisted in constructing his or her own understanding in order to build on what he or she understands during the classroom interaction.

In addition, Ültanir (2012:202) interprets Piaget (1971) and states that essential functions of the mind are formed by laying a foundation consisting of understanding and innovation and constructing reality. As this means that the learner has to understand the learning materials in order to take part in the classroom interaction. From this perspective, teachers have to provide the environment and activities that enable the individual learning. Moreover, the Intermediate Phase learner is at the

36

concrete operational stage (seven to eleven years old) according to Piaget (1954:75) when children begin to replace intuitive thought with their own logical reasoning, so the learner has to have own understanding before he or she grasps others’ ideas. Recognising that this process occurs within each individual learner at a different rate helps the teacher to facilitate constructivist learning by implementing different strategies for diverse understanding of learners in the interaction.

 Social constructivism

The theorist mostly commonly associated with social constructivism is Vygotsky, the founder of social constructivism who believes in social interaction and that it is an integral part of learning. Though Piaget believes in individual understanding, Vygotsky’s theory is based on social interaction. As a result, this study embraces the two perspectives as the Intermediate Phase is comprised of diverse learners who learn diversely and the two approaches complement each other in the constructivist teaching and learning environment. Similarly, Borich and Tombari (1997:144) define social constructivism as an approach to learning in which learners are provided the opportunity to construct their own sense of what is being learned by building internal connections or relationships between the ideas and facts being taught. Eggan and Kauchak (2007:62) consider social constructivism as a view of learning that says learners use their experiences to actively construct understanding that make sense to them, rather than have understanding delivered to them in an already organised form. So therefore, understanding social constructivism theory and creating a classroom where interaction is substantial help to develop effective classroom interaction as learners share ideas and learn from each other.

Regarding social interaction, Vygotsky (1978) declares that language forms the foundation of an individual’s conceptual ecology as well as the means of growth. Furthermore, Vygotsky (1978 cited in Wertsch, 1979) attests that language serves to mediate the higher order thinking of the learner. This suggests that for effective classroom interaction, learners have to exercise their language proficiency in the additional language. Thus, Powel and Kalina (2009:243) argue that social constructivism has challenged teachers to reconsider the critical role of language in the teaching-learning process. The most obvious explanation, the researcher

37

believes, is that without additional language proficiency the classroom interaction would not be effective as learners would be scared to make mistakes whenever the approach is employed. This point is the other rationale that resulted in the conducting of this study to find out how the Intermediate Phase EFAL teachers enhance communicative competence. In addition, Jones and Brades-Araje (2000:4) concurs with the studies of Vygotsky (1978) and Wertsch (1985) that language serves as a psychological tool that causes a fundamental change in mental functions since signalling, social, individual, communicative, intellectual, nominative, and indicative aspects are all functions of spoken language.

As a consequence of social constructivism, Vygotsky (cited in Jones & Brader-Araje 2000:4) demonstrates that the role of others, or social context, in learning has led teachers to re-examine the extent to which learning is an individual process. Learning, according to Vygotsky, is best understood in the light of others within an individual’s world. This continual interplay between the individual and others is described by Vygotsky (1978) as a zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Jones & Brader-Araje 2000:4).

 Zone of Proximal Development

Researchers such as Gauvain and Cole (1997; Palincsar 1998; Turuk 2008; Yu 2008; Powel & Kalina 2009; Surgenor 2010; Allahyar & Nazari 2012; Scott & Palincsar 2013) support Vygotsky’s theory of ZDP as it illustrates that the ability level learners can attain on their own can be exceeded with support and guidance from more advance peers or adults. In fact, the teacher as a coach and facilitator of learners’ learning or a peer who has more developed knowledge concerning the material being learnt during the classroom interaction delivers a huge impact on the learners’ knowledge development as he or she has more capabilities than the learner. Accordingly, those peers who have the potential to grasp the learning matter promptly can also assist the others who still lag behind by interacting and sharing their understanding with them. The presence of the teacher in this zone means that the outstanding issues that might obstruct the learners’ learning can be clarified.

38

Furthermore, Powell and Kalina (2009:244) insist that by assisting learners in learning, many theorists and educators have proven that Vygotsky’s theory works in practice. Powell and Kalina also assert that learners will learn easier within this ZPD when others are involved. Once the learners achieve the goal of the initial activity their zone expands and they can do more. Thus, to ensure development in ZPD, Surgenor (2010:5) suggests the following features to be displayed when assistance and guidance is received:

Table 2.1: Features essential for development in ZDP

Intersubjectivity Scaffolding Guided participation

The process whereby two participants who begin a task with different

understanding arrive at a shared understanding (Newson & Newson 1975 cited in Surgenor 2010:5). This creates a common ground for communication as each partner adjusts to the perspective of the other.

Adjusting the support offered during a teaching session to fit the child’s current level of

performance. This captures the form of teaching interaction that occurs as individuals work on tasks such as puzzles and academic

assignments.

Broader concept than scaffolding that refers to shared endeavours

between more experts and less expert participants, without specifying the precise features of communication.

Source: Surgenor (2010:5)

Vygotsky also uses scaffolding in his theory to understand that children learn more effectively when the others assist them. As a result, scaffolding is discussed in detail later in this study as a strategy of social constructivist learning that enhances learning (cf. 4.5.1).

39