Why does the Philippines

Needs the K+12 Education

System?
By A.T. Abueva

Filipinos are known to be competitive in the international

community. While this may be true, our current education system
hinders us in becoming more competitive among other countries.

If we want change in our society, we must start it with our education system.
Source: JB Solis (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Starting this coming school year 2012- 2013,the current education system of the Philippines will be
enhanced from the 10- years of basic education into 12- years through the program called the K-12
Education Plan of the Department of Education.

The implementation of the K- 12 education plan in the Philippine Basic Education Curriculum is the
key to our nation’s development. Though the government will face many problems in the long run of
the implementation of the program, there really is a need to implement it because the enhancement
of the quality of our education is very urgent and critical.

Here are some of the good reasons not to disagree with K- 12 education plan in the Philippines
according to Isagani Cruz (2010) in one of his columns in a local newspaper:

Sufficient Instructional Time

If K- 12 will be implemented, students will be able to get sufficient instructional time to do subject-
related tasks which makes them more prepared and well- trained on that subject area. On the other
hand, if we remain on the old system, Filipino students would continually get low achievement
scores. For instance, international test results revealed that we often come at the tail end in the
exams compared to other countries.

More Skilled and Competent Labor Force

Another good reason why we should support K- 12 is that the graduates of this program will be more
prepared to enter the labor force. As we all noticed, high school graduates of the current curriculum
are not yet employable for the reason that they are not yet competent and well – equipped with the
skills needed in the workplaces. In addition, most high school graduates are not yet reaching the
legal age of 18. With the new curriculum, senior high school students can choose a field that they
are good at and that they are interested in. As a result, they will be equipped with the skills needed
for a specific job even without a college degree. At the age of 18, the age when they graduate from
high school, they will be employable and competitive already. Thus, adding up to the nation’s
manpower.

Recognition as Professionals Abroad

Finally, with K- 12, Filipino graduates will be automatically recognized as professionals abroad
because we are following the international education standard as practiced by all nations. There will
be no need to study again and spend more money in order to qualify to their standards. With this,
Filipino professionals who aspire to work abroad will not find a hard time in getting jobs in line with
their chosen field and will be able to help their families more in the Philippines as well as the
country’s economy with their remittances, property buying, and creation of businesses.

What We Are

Filipinos are known to be competitive in the international community. While this may be true, our
current education system hinders us in becoming more competitive among other countries. The K-
12 education plan offers a great solution to that problem. However, it is undeniable that there seems
to be problems arising as we implement the program such as lack of government budget,
classrooms and school supplies as well as the teachers. But, if we focus on the long- term effect of
K- 12, we can conclude that it is very beneficial to us Filipinos. Therefore, we must have the strong
will in supporting K- 12 Educational Plan for the betterment of our education system and economy.
Remember, if we want change in our society, we must start it with our education system.

K-12 Changes Philippine Educational System

Posted by admin on Sep - 13 - 2012
By Erica Delos Santos

Figure 1: “The development of K to 12 Program has been made possible by the collaborative efforts of
members of the Steering Committee which is composed of DepED, CHED, TESDA, and other stakeholders.”
The government’s K-12 program is a much-needed change for the country’s education system. Through this
program, people may expect better-trained citizens who could be competitive with the knowledge and skills
of people trained abroad.
                Before the Implementation of the K-12 program began, the Philippines is one of the very few
countries remaining that provide only ten years of basic education, six years in elementary and four years
secondary. This short period makes it difficult for Filipinos to be competitive with countries like Japan or
Korea, that have at least 12 years of basic education under their belt. In most cases, the extra years spent
in basic education should enable students to tackle subjects like mathematics and science in more details,
instead of the rushed manner used in the old education system.

Figure 2: Comparative data on duration of basic and secondary education in Asia.

 People can also expect that the new K-12 system will produce graduates who are more prepared for college
education. The program is expected to provide a clear view of which career they would take. This may lead
to less drop-outs, and more chances of success in graduating from whatever course they choose.
 The K-12 system is not without its critics. Some people say that it is not the number of years that should be
increased, but the quality of instruction that the students receive. In a way, adding a few years to basic
education can still provide the quality that students need.
                Now on its first year of implementation, the K-12 program is not without challenges, but it is an
endeavor worth pursuing if we truly intend to improve the Philippine education system. By investing more
time and resources in our education, we can expect our graduates to become competitive in the global
business arena, and bring more success that would contribute towards building our nation.
Figure 3: Schematic implementation plan of K to 12.

Educational Problems in the Philippines

Issues and Problems in the Philippine Educational System: A Challenge Towards the
Attainment of Quality Education

Our country has gone through many changes and development for the past few years. The
continuous process made great impacts in the lives of millions of Filipinos. Relatively, the
changes have given us advantages not to mention the disadvantages it brought causing
downfall to many people. There are numerous questions concerning the issues and
problems existing in the Philippine Educational System as to how we can resolve it the best
way we could to attain that kind of quality of education we have been searching and longing
for. Where do we begin and how do we respond to such? Public schools are the building
blocks of our societies. They can be considered our foundational instruments. Although
 these venues of learning play significant roles, they are unable to provide the best they can,
due to their numerous flaws. As I’ve gone through different readings and researches,
questions were arising in my mind as to what solutions are applicable in addressing the
problems about the quality of education, affordability, budget, mismatch, integration of sex
education in the curriculum, R.A. 9710 (Magna Carta for Women) and other concerns which
are somehow related to it. I will always stand for what I believe in according to my
observations that we have good guidelines and policies on education but what is lacking is
the ability to implement such in accordance to the needs of every school, majority of which
belong to the public education system. Generally, Philippine Education aims to provide
quality and free education both for the elementary and secondary public schools but again
this have not been observed and understood well causing it to be a burden most especially
to the students and parents. Declining standards in public schools is one of the most
controversial education issues today is the continuing decline in student learning...

Standards-based Assessment
A standards based test is one based on the outcome-based education or performance-based education
philosophy. Assessment is a key part of the standards reform movement. The first part is to set new, higher
standards to be expected of every student. Then the curriculum must be aligned to the new standards.
Finally, the student must be assessed if they meet these standards of what every student "must know and
be able to do". A high school diploma which is given on passing a high school graduation examination or
Certificate of Initial Mastery is awarded only when these standards are achieved. At the end of the process
of reform, education officials believe that all students will succeed at a higher level. All will meet local, state
and federal standards which have been set at world-class standards level for the 21st century, though no
such standards document has ever existed. All will graduate reading and computing at or above grade level
with academic skills necessary for success in college, though grade level is traditionally defined as the level
of the middle 50th percentile. All gaps between all economic, racial, and gender subgroups must and will be
closed, though research has yet to produce even one program that has achieved this optimistic goal.

A criterion is set up for standards of what every student or child is expected to know, and a score is set
compared to these benchmarks rather than a ranking compared to a norm. It is fully expected that every
child will become proficient in all areas of academic skills by the end of a period, typically 10 years but
sometimes longer, after the passing of education reform bill by a state legislature. The federal government,
under No Child Left Behind can further require that all schools must demonstrate improvement among all
students, even if they are already all over proficient.

 Indicates what students know and are able to do;

 Measures a student’s progress toward the attainment of a standard;
 Indicates if the student has mastered the standard;
 Is on going;
 Clearly communicates expectations ahead of time;
 Is authentic to the learning experiences of the students, based on complex tasks, as opposed
to rote memory;
 Occurs when appropriate, not just on scheduled days. Often uses tasks that reveal common
misunderstandings so teachers can see whether students have truly learned the material;
 Grades are based on the results of multiple experiences over time.
Likert Scale – What is it?
When to Use it? How to
Analyze it?
Christian Vanek

Apr 24, 2012

71 Comments

Share

In all likelihood, you have used a Likert scale (or something you’ve called a Likert scale) in a
survey before.

It might surprise you to learn that Likert scales are a very specific format and what you have
been calling Likert may not be.

Not to worry — researchers that have been doing surveys for years still get their definitions
confused. In fact, many researchers do not even agree on the best way to report on the numeric
values in a Likert scale.

This article will explain the traditional and, in our opinion, most valuable way to use Likert
scales and report on them.

What is a Likert Scale vs. a Likert Item

A “Likert scale” is actually the sum of responses to several Likert items. These items are usually
displayed with a visual aid, such as a series of radio buttons or a horizontal bar representing a
simple scale.

In a “good” Likert scale, the scale is balanced on both sides of a neutral option, creating a less
biased measurement. The actual scale labels, as well as the numeric scale, may vary.

A “Likert Item” is a statement that the respondent is asked to evaluate. In the example below,
this item, “The checkout process was easy” is a Likert item — and the table as a whole is the
Likert scale.
Here’s how to remember it: The “scale” in “Likert scale” refers to the total sum of all Likert
items in the question — not the 1-5 range you see for each item. In the example below, the scale
would be 4 to 20.

Below is an example of a nearly perfect Likert scale. It has one potential flaw which we’ll
discuss later.
Please select the number below that best represents how you
feel about your recent online software purchase for each statement.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Undecided Disagree Disagree
==================================================================
1. The software I
wanted was easy 1 2 3 4 5
to find.

2. The checkout 1 2 3 4 5
process was easy

3. The software 1 2 3 4 5
solved my needs

4. I am happy with 1 2 3 4 5
my purchase

Historic Trivia: The Likert scale question itself was invented by the educator and psychologist Rensis
Likert in his thesis at Columbia University. You never know when this might come up in Market Research
Trivia night at your local bar.

So given this new information, when should you use a Likert scale?

To answer that, it’s important to look at how you’d report and analyze the data for this question
type. So let’s take a look.
Reporting on Likert Scales
The traditional way to report on a Likert scale is to sum the values of each selected option and
create a score for each respondent. This score is then used to represent a particular trait
(particularly when used for sociological or psychological research).

This is also quite useful for evaluating a respondent’s opinion of important purchasing, product,
or satisfaction features. The scores can be used to create a chart of the distribution of opinion
across the population. For further analysis, you can cross tabulate the score mean with
contributing factors.

Important Tip: For the score to have meaning, each item in the scale should to be closely related
to the same topic of measurement.

In the example Likert scale above, the third option is actually slightly out of place, as it doesn’t
relate to the purchasing or checkout process — which is the intended topic.

Ideally, in a Likert scale question, all of the items would be categorically similar so the summed
score becomes a reliable measurement of the particular behavior or psychological trait you are
measuring.

If you have an item on the scale that doesn’t fit, the total score for the respondent becomes
potentially polluted and you’ll end up spending a great deal of time deciphering the results!

When to Use Likert Scales

This is a very useful question type when you want to get an overall measurement of a particular
topic, opinion, or experience and also collect specific data on contributing factors. Measuring the
satisfaction (the trait) of a recent shopping experience is a common use.

You should not use this form of question (or at least you should not call it a Likert scale) when
the items in the question are unrelated to each other, or when the options are not in the form of a
scale.

As with all other rating and scale questions — we encourage you not to mix scales within your
surveys. Choose a particular scale (3 point, 5 point, 7 point, etc) and use it as your standard to cut
down on potential confusion and fatigue. This will also allow for comparisons within and
between your data sets!

Discussion
Use the Comments & Discussions area below the article to discuss Likert scales! Here are some
ideas:
  Have additional information you want to share?

 Do you have successful examples of Likert scales you’d like to share?

 Follow up questions?

HOW TO USE THE LIKERT SCALE IN STATISTICAL

ANALYSIS
20.30  STATISTICS CAFE  18 COMMENTS

A Likert scale (pronounced /ˈlɪkərt/,[1] also /ˈlaɪkərt/) is a psychometric scale commonly used in
questionnaires, and is the most widely used scale in survey research, such that the term is often used
interchangeably with rating scale even though the two are not synonymous. When responding to a Likert
questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement. The scale is named after
its inventor, psychologist Rensis Likert.[2]
Sample question presented using a five-point Likert item

An important distinction must be made between a Likert scale and a Likert item. The Likert scale is the
sum of responses on several Likert items. Because Likert items are often accompanied by a visual analog
scale (e.g., a horizontal line, on which a subject indicates his or her response by circling or checking tick-
marks), the items are sometimes called scales themselves. This is the source of much confusion; it is
better, therefore, to reserve the term Likert scale to apply to the summated scale, and Likert item to refer
to an individual item.

A Likert item is simply a statement which the respondent is asked to evaluate according to any kind of
subjective or objective criteria; generally the level of agreement or disagreement is measured. Often five
ordered response levels are used, although many psychometricians advocate using seven or nine levels;
a recent empirical study[3] found that a 5- or 7- point scale may produce slightly higher mean scores
relative to the highest possible attainable score, compared to those produced from a 10-point scale, and
this difference was statistically significant. In terms of the other data characteristics, there was very little
difference among the scale formats in terms of variation about the mean, skewness or kurtosis.

The format of a typical five-level Likert item is:

   1. Strongly disagree
   2. Disagree
   3. Neither agree nor disagree
   4. Agree
   5. Strongly agree

Likert scaling is a bipolar scaling method, measuring either positive or negative response to a statement.
Sometimes a four-point scale is used; this is a forced choice method[citation needed] since the middle
option of "Neither agree nor disagree" is not available.
Likert scales may be subject to distortion from several causes. Respondents may avoid using extreme
response categories (central tendency bias); agree with statements as presented (acquiescence bias); or
try to portray themselves or their organization in a more favorable light (social desirability bias). Designing
a scale with balanced keying (an equal number of positive and negative statements) can obviate the
problem of acquiescence bias, since acquiescence on positively keyed items will balance acquiescence
on negatively keyed items, but central tendency and social desirability are somewhat more problematic.
Scoring and analysis

After the questionnaire is completed, each item may be analyzed separately or in some cases item
responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items. Hence, Likert scales are often called
summative scales.

Whether individual Likert items can be considered as interval-level data, or whether they should be
considered merely ordered-categorical data is the subject of disagreement. Many regard such items only
as ordinal data, because, especially when using only five levels, one cannot assume that respondents
perceive all pairs of adjacent levels as equidistant. On the other hand, often (as in the example above) the
wording of response levels clearly implies a symmetry of response levels about a middle category; at the
very least, such an item would fall between ordinal- and interval-level measurement; to treat it as merely
ordinal would lose information. Further, if the item is accompanied by a visual analog scale, where equal
spacing of response levels is clearly indicated, the argument for treating it as interval-level data is even
stronger.

When treated as ordinal data, Likert responses can be collated into bar charts, central tendency
summarised by the median or the mode (but some would say not the mean), dispersion summarised by
the range across quartiles (but some would say not the standard deviation), or analyzed using non-
parametric tests, e.g. chi-square test, Mann–Whitney test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or Kruskal–Wallis
test.[4] Parametric analysis of ordinary averages of Likert scale data is also justifiable by the Central Limit
Theorem, although some would disagree that ordinary averages should be used for Likert scale data.

Responses to several Likert questions may be summed, providing that all questions use the same Likert
scale and that the scale is a defendable approximation to an interval scale, in which case they may be
treated as interval data measuring a latent variable. If the summed responses fulfill these assumptions,
parametric statistical tests such as the analysis of variance can be applied. These can be applied only
when more than 5 Likert questions are summed.[citation needed]

Data from Likert scales are sometimes reduced to the nominal level by combining all agree and disagree
responses into two categories of "accept" and "reject". The chi-square, Cochran Q, or McNemar test are
common statistical procedures used after this transformation.

Consensus based assessment (CBA) can be used to create an objective standard for Likert scales in
domains where no generally accepted standard or objective standard exists. Consensus based
assessment (CBA) can be used to refine or even validate generally accepted standards.
Level of measurement

The five response categories are often believed to represent an Interval level of measurement. But this
can only be the case if the intervals between the scale points correspond to empirical observations in a
metric sense. In fact, there may also appear phenomena which even question the ordinal scale level. For
example, in a set of items A,B,C rated with a Likert scale circular relations like A>B, B>C and C>A can
appear. This violates the axiom of transitivity for the ordinal scale.
Rasch model

Likert scale data can, in principle, be used as a basis for obtaining interval level estimates on a continuum
by applying the polytomous Rasch model, when data can be obtained that fit this model. In addition, the
polytomous Rasch model permits testing of the hypothesis that the statements reflect increasing levels of
an attitude or trait, as intended. For example, application of the model often indicates that the neutral
category does not represent a level of attitude or trait between the disagree and agree categories.

Again, not every set of Likert scaled items can be used for Rasch measurement. The data has to be
thoroughly checked to fulfill the strict formal axioms of the model.
Pronunciation

Rensis Likert, the developer of the scale, pronounced his name 'lick-urt' with a short "i" sound.[5][6] It has
been claimed that Likert's name "is among the most mispronounced in [the] field."[7] Although many
people use the long "i" variant ('lie-kurt'), those who attempt to stay true to Dr. Likert's pronunciation use
the short "i" pronunciation ('lick-urt').

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Likert scale is commonly used in survey research. It is often used to measure respondents' attitudes
by asking the extent to which they agree or disagree with a particular question or statement. A typical
scale might be "strongly agree, agree, not sure/undecided, disagree, strongly disagree." On the surface,
survey data using the Likert scale may seem easy to analyze, but there are important issues for a data
analyst to consider.

Instructions

   1. Get your data ready for analysis by coding the responses. For example, let's say you have a survey
that asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with a set of positions in a political party's platform.
Each position is one survey question, and the scale uses the following responses: Strongly agree, agree,
neutral, disagree, strongly disagree. In this example, we'll code the responses accordingly: Strongly
disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree = 5.
   2. Remember to differentiate between ordinal and interval data, as the two types require different
analytical approaches. If the data are ordinal, we can say that one score is higher than another. We
cannot say how much higher, as we can with interval data, which tell you the distance between two
points. Here is the pitfall with the Likert scale: many researchers will treat it as an interval scale. This
assumes that the differences between each response are equal in distance. The truth is that the Likert
scale does not tell us that. In our example here, it only tells us that the people with higher-numbered
responses are more in agreement with the party's positions than those with the lower-numbered
responses.
   3. Begin analyzing your Likert scale data with descriptive statistics. Although it may be tempting, resist
the urge to take the numeric responses and compute a mean. Adding a response of "strongly agree" (5)
to two responses of "disagree" (2) would give us a mean of 4, but what is the significance of that number?
Fortunately, there are other measures of central tendency we can use besides the mean. With Likert
scale data, the best measure to use is the mode, or the most frequent response. This makes the survey
results much easier for the analyst (not to mention the audience for your presentation or report) to
interpret. You also can display the distribution of responses (percentages that agree, disagree, etc.) in a
graphic, such as a bar chart, with one bar for each response category.
   4. Proceed next to inferential techniques, which test hypotheses posed by researchers. There are many
approaches available, and the best one depends on the nature of your study and the questions you are
trying to answer. A popular approach is to analyze responses using analysis of variance techniques, such
as the Mann Whitney or Kruskal Wallis test. Suppose in our example we wanted to analyze responses to
questions on foreign policy positions with ethnicity as the independent variable. Let's say our data
includes responses from Anglo, African-American, and Hispanic respondents, so we could analyze
responses among the three groups of respondents using the Kruskal Wallis test of variance.
   5. Simplify your survey data further by combining the four response categories (e.g., strongly agree,
agree, disagree, strongly disagree) into two nominal categories, such as agree/disagree, accept/reject,
etc.). This offers other analysis possibilities. The chi square test is one approach for analyzing the data in
this way.

Read more: How to Use the Likert Scale in Statistical Analysis | eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_4855078_use-likert-scale-statistical-analysis.html#ixzz1LGrJsRUS

Opinion:

There's a huge debate ongoing in the social / behavioral sciences over whether Likert scales should be
treated as ordinal or interval.

Count me as one who thinks it's OK to treat them as interval.

I would analyze the data both ways - with chi-square and with ANOVA, and see how it turns out - if the
outcomes are the same, you're all set. If you get something different with each method, then you have
something interesting...

Overall, you can treat the scales as interval and run methods that compare means, such as ANOVA. The
scales are close enough to interval so that these methods shouldn't lead you astray.

Yes, Tukey would be fine for a post-hoc test. It's "middle-of-the-road" in terms of liberal/conservative
(Fisher's LSD is liberal, Bonferroni is conservative).

In terms of how you would use chi-square, you could set up a comparison between the groups you want
to contrast, and do the analysis on the frequency of each choice, between the groups (i.e., did one group
choose "agree" more often than another group). Yes, it would be a chi-square test of independence. The
contingency table could be set up with groups as rows, and scale items as 8 columns. The cells of the
table would contain the response frequencies.

For chi-square post-hoc, use a simple comparison of two independent proportions with a z test.

You wouldn't necessarily report means with a chi-square analysis, since your interest is in comparing
frequencies, but that's not to say you wouldn't do some sort of basic descriptive statistics comparison
(means, medians, std dev, etc.)

Theories

Constructivist theory[edit]
Formalization of the theory of constructivism is generally attributed to Jean Piaget, who articulated
mechanisms by which knowledge is internalized by learners. He suggested that through processes
of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences.

When individuals assimilate, they incorporate the new experience into an already existing framework
without changing that framework. This may occur when individuals' experiences are aligned with
their internal representations of the world, but may also occur as a failure to change a faulty
understanding; for example, they may not notice events, may misunderstand input from others, or
may decide that an event is a fluke and is therefore unimportant as information about the world. In
contrast, when individuals' experiences contradict their internal representations, they may change
their perceptions of the experiences to fit their internal representations.

According to the theory, accommodation is the process of reframing one's mental representation of

the external world to fit new experiences. Accommodation can be understood as the mechanism by
which failure leads to learning: when we act on the expectation that the world operates in one way
and it violates our expectations, we often fail, but by accommodating this new experience and
reframing our model of the way the world works, we learn from the experience of failure, or others'
failure.

It is important to note that constructivism is not a particular pedagogy. In fact, constructivism is a

theory describing how learning happens, regardless of whether learners are using their experiences
to understand a lecture or following the instructions for building a model airplane. In both cases, the
theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct knowledge out of their experiences.

However, constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active

learning, or learning by doing. There are many critics of "learning by doing" (a.k.a. "discovery
learning") as an instructional strategy (e.g. see the criticisms below). [3][4] While there is much
enthusiasm for constructivism as a design strategy, according to Tobias and Duffy "... to us it would
appear that constructivism remains more of a philosophical framework than a theory that either
allows us to precisely describe instruction or prescribe design strategies.(p.4)". [3] This is unfortunate
because there is quite a bit of promise to the educational philosophy behind constructivism, but
constructivists seem to be having difficulties defining testable learning theories. [citation needed]

Constructivist learning intervention[edit]

The nature of the learner[edit]

Social constructivism not only acknowledges the uniqueness and complexity of the learner, but
actually encourages, utilizes and rewards it as an integral part of the learning process (Wertsch
1997).

The importance of the background and culture of the learner [edit]

Social constructivism or socioculturalism encourages the learner to arrive at his or her version of the
truth, influenced by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview. Historical developments
and symbol systems, such as language, logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by the
learner as a member of a particular culture and these are learned throughout the learner's life. This
also stresses the importance of the nature of the learner's social interaction with knowledgeable
members of the society. Without the social interaction with other more knowledgeable people, it is
impossible to acquire social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to utilize them.
Young children develop their thinking abilities by interacting with other children, adults and the
physical world. From the social constructivist viewpoint, it is thus important to take into account the
background and culture of the learner throughout the learning process, as this background also
helps to shape the knowledge and truth that the learner creates, discovers and attains in the learning
process (Wertsch 1997).
Responsibility for learning[edit]

Furthermore, it is argued that the responsibility of learning should reside increasingly with the learner
(Glasersfeld, 1989). Social constructivism thus emphasizes the importance of the learner being
actively involved in the learning process, unlike previous educational viewpoints where the
responsibility rested with the instructor to teach and where the learner played a passive, receptive
role. Von Glasersfeld (1989) emphasized that learners construct their own understanding and that
they do not simply mirror and reflect what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find
regularity and order in the events of the world even in the absence of full or complete information.

The Harkness Discussion Method[edit]

It is called the "Harkness" discussion method because it was developed at Phillips Exeter
Academy with funds donated in the 1930s by Edward Harkness. This is also named after the
Harkness table and involves students seated in a circle, motivating and controlling their own
discussion. The teacher acts as little as possible. Perhaps the teacher's only function is to observe,
although he/she might begin or shift or even direct a discussion. The students get it rolling, direct it,
and focus it. They act as a team, cooperatively, to make it work. They all participate, but not in a
competitive way. Rather, they all share in the responsibility and the goals, much as any members
share in any team sport. Although the goals of any discussion will change depending upon what's
under discussion, some goals will always be the same: to illuminate the subject, to unravel its
mysteries, to interpret and share and learn from other points of view, to piece together the puzzle
using everyone's contribution. Discussion skills are important. Everyone must be aware of how to get
this discussion rolling and keep it rolling and interesting. Just as in any sport, a number of skills are
necessary to work on and use at appropriate times. Everyone is expected to contribute by using
these skills.

The motivation for learning[edit]

Another crucial assumption regarding the nature of the learner concerns the level and source of
motivation for learning. According to Von Glasersfeld (1989) sustaining motivation to learn is strongly
dependent on the learner’s confidence in his or her potential for learning. These feelings of
competence and belief in potential to solve new problems, are derived from first-hand experience of
mastery of problems in the past and are much more powerful than any external acknowledgment
and motivation (Prawat and Floden 1994). This links up with Vygotsky’s "zone of proximal
development" (Vygotsky 1978) where learners are challenged within close proximity to, yet slightly
above, their current level of development. By experiencing the successful completion of challenging
tasks, learners gain confidence and motivation to embark on more complex challenges.
The role of the instructor[edit]
Instructors as facilitators[edit]

According to the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to the role of facilitators
and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995). Whereas a teacher gives a didactic lecture that covers the
subject matter, a facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own understanding of the content. In
the former scenario the learner plays a passive role and in the latter scenario the learner plays an
active role in the learning process. The emphasis thus turns away from the instructor and the
content, and towards the learner (Gamoran, Secada, & Marrett, 1998). This dramatic change of role
implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally different set of skills than that of a teacher
(Brownstein 2001). A teacher tells, a facilitator asks; a teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator
supports from the back; a teacher gives answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides
guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions; a
teacher mostly gives a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the learners (Rhodes
and Bellamy, 1999). A facilitator should also be able to adapt the learning experience ‘in mid-air’ by
taking the initiative to steer the learning experience to where the learners want to create value.

The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the learner's thinking
(Di Vesta, 1987). While it is advocated to give the learner ownership of the problem and solution
process, it is not the case that any activity or any solution is adequate. The critical goal is to support
the learner in becoming an effective thinker. This can be achieved by assuming multiple roles, such
as consultant and coach.

A few strategies for cooperative learning include

 Reciprocal Questioning: students work together to ask and answer questions

 Jigsaw Classroom: students become "experts" on one part of a group project and teach it to
the others in their group
 Structured Controversies: Students work together to research a particular controversy
(Woolfolk 2010)
The nature of the learning process[edit]
Learning is an active, social process[edit]

Social constructivism, strongly influenced by Vygotsky's (1978) work, suggests that knowledge is
first constructed in a social context and is then appropriated by individuals (Bruning et al., 1999; M.
Cole, 1991; Eggan & Kauchak, 2004). According to social constructivists, the process of sharing
individual perspectives-called collaborative elaboration(Meter & Stevens, 2000)-results in learners
constructing understanding together that wouldn't be possible alone (Greeno et al., 1996)

Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process where learners should learn to
discover principles, concepts and facts for themselves, hence the importance of encouraging
guesswork and intuitive thinking in learners (Brown et al.1989; Ackerman 1996). In fact, for the
social constructivist, reality is not something that we can discover because it does not pre-exist prior
to our social invention of it. Kukla (2000) argues that reality is constructed by our own activities and
that people, together as members of a society, invent the properties of the world.

Other constructivist scholars agree with this and emphasize that individuals make meanings through
the interactions with each other and with the environment they live in. Knowledge is thus a product of
humans and is socially and culturally constructed (Ernest 1991; Prawat and Floden 1994). McMahon
(1997) agrees that learning is a social process. He further states that learning is not a process that
only takes place inside our minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviors that is shaped by
external forces and that meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities.

Vygotsky (1978) also highlighted the convergence of the social and practical elements in learning by
saying that the most significant moment in the course of intellectual development occurs when
speech and practical activity, two previously completely independent lines of development,
converge. Through practical activity a child constructs meaning on an intra-personal level, while
speech connects this meaning with the interpersonal world shared by the child and her/his culture.

Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner [edit]

A further characteristic of the role of the facilitator in the social constructivist viewpoint, is that the
instructor and the learners are equally involved in learning from each other as well (Holt and Willard-
Holt 2000). This means that the learning experience is both subjective and objective and requires
that the instructor’s culture, values and background become an essential part of the interplay
between learners and tasks in the shaping of meaning. Learners compare their version of the truth
with that of the instructor and fellow learners to get to a new, socially tested version of truth (Kukla
2000). The task or problem is thus the interface between the instructor and the learner (McMahon
1997). This creates a dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner. This entails that
learners and instructors should develop an awareness of each other's viewpoints and then look to
their own beliefs, standards and values, thus being both subjective and objective at the same time
(Savery 1994).

Some studies argue for the importance of mentoring in the process of learning (Archee and Duin
1995; Brown et al. 1989). The social constructivist model thus emphasizes the importance of the
relationship between the student and the instructor in the learning process.

Some learning approaches that could harbour this interactive learning include reciprocal teaching,
peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, web quests, anchored
instruction and other approaches that involve learning with others.

Collaboration among learners[edit]

Learners with different skills and backgrounds should collaborate in tasks and discussions to arrive
at a shared understanding of the truth in a specific field (Duffy and Jonassen 1992).
Most social constructivist models, such as that proposed by Duffy and Jonassen (1992), also stress
the need for collaboration among learners, in direct contradiction to traditional competitive
approaches. One Vygotskian notion that has significant implications for peer collaboration, is that of
the zone of proximal development. Defined as the distance between the actual developmental
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, it differs from the fixed biological nature of Piaget's stages of development. Through a
process of 'scaffolding' a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation to
the extent that the development process lags behind the learning process (Vygotsky 1978).

Learning by teaching (LdL) as constructivist method [edit]

Main article: Learning by teaching

If students have to present and train new contents with their classmates, a non-linear process of
collective knowledge-construction will be set up.

The importance of context[edit]

The social constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning occurs as central to the
learning itself (McMahon 1997).

Underlying the notion of the learner as an active processor is "the assumption that there is no one
set of generalised learning laws with each law applying to all domains" (Di Vesta
1987:208). Decontextualised knowledge does not give us the skills to apply our understandings to
authentic tasks because, as Duffy and Jonassen (1992) indicated, we are not working with the
concept in the complex environment and experiencing the complex interrelationships in that
environment that determine how and when the concept is used. One social constructivist notion is
that of authentic or situated learning, where the student takes part in activities directly relevant to the
application of learning and that take place within a culture similar to the applied setting (Brown et al.
1989). Cognitive apprenticeship has been proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning
that attempts to "enculturate students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction
in a way similar to that evident, and evidently successful, in craft apprenticeship" (Ackerman
1996:25).

Holt and Willard-Holt (2000) emphasize the concept of dynamic assessment, which is a way of
assessing the true potential of learners that differs significantly from conventional tests. Here the
essentially interactive nature of learning is extended to the process of assessment. Rather than
viewing assessment as a process carried out by one person, such as an instructor, it is seen as a
two-way process involving interaction between both instructor and learner. The role of the assessor
becomes one of entering into dialogue with the persons being assessed to find out their current level
of performance on any task and sharing with them possible ways in which that performance might be
improved on a subsequent occasion. Thus, assessment and learning are seen as inextricably linked
and not separate processes (Holt and Willard-Holt 2000).
According to this viewpoint instructors should see assessment as a continuous and interactive
process that measures the achievement of the learner, the quality of the learning experience and
courseware. The feedback created by the assessment process serves as a direct foundation for
further development.

The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter[edit]

Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole [edit]

Knowledge should not be divided into different subjects or compartments, but should be discovered
as an integrated whole (McMahon 1997; Di Vesta 1987).

This also again underlines the importance of the context in which learning is presented (Brown et al.
1989). The world, in which the learner needs to operate, does not approach one in the form of
different subjects, but as a complex myriad of facts, problems, dimensions, and perceptions
(Ackerman 1996).

Engaging and challenging the learner[edit]

Learners should constantly be challenged with tasks that refer to skills and knowledge just beyond
their current level of mastery. This captures their motivation and builds on previous successes to
enhance learner confidence (Brownstein 2001). This is in line with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development, which can be described as the distance between the actual developmental 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 1978).

Vygotsky (1978) further claimed that instruction is good only when it proceeds ahead of
development. Then it awakens and rouses to life an entire set of functions in the stage of maturing,
which lie in the zone of proximal development. It is in this way that instruction plays an extremely
important role in development.

To fully engage and challenge the learner, the task and learning environment should reflect the
complexity of the environment that the learner should be able to function in at the end of learning.
Learners must not only have ownership of the learning or problem-solving process, but of the
problem itself (Derry 1999).

Where the sequencing of subject matter is concerned, it is the constructivist viewpoint that the
foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any stage in some form (Duffy and
Jonassen 1992). This means that instructors should first introduce the basic ideas that give life and
form to any topic or subject area, and then revisit and build upon these repeatedly. This notion has
been extensively used in curricula.

It is important for instructors to realize that although a curriculum may be set down for them, it
inevitably becomes shaped by them into something personal that reflects their own belief systems,
their thoughts and feelings about both the content of their instruction and their learners (Rhodes and
Bellamy 1999). Thus, the learning experience becomes a shared enterprise.
The emotions and life contexts of those involved in the learning process must therefore be
considered as an integral part of learning. The goal of the learner is central in considering what is
learned (Brown et al. 1989; Ackerman 1996).

The structuredness of the learning process[edit]

It is important to achieve the right balance between the degree of structure and flexibility that is built
into the learning process. Savery (1994) contends that the more structured the learning environment,
the harder it is for the learners to construct meaning based on their conceptual understandings. A
facilitator should structure the learning experience just enough to make sure that the students get
clear guidance and parameters within which to achieve the learning objectives, yet the learning
experience should be open and free enough to allow for the learners to discover, enjoy, interact and
arrive at their own, socially verified version of truth.

In adult learning[edit]

Constructivist ideas have been used to inform adult education. Where pedagogy applies to the
education of children, adults educators often speak instead of andragogy. Methods must take
account of differences in learning, due to the fact that adults have many more experiences and
previously existing neurological structures.

Approaches based on constructivism stress the importance of mechanisms for mutual planning,
diagnosis of learner needs and interests, cooperative learning climate, sequential activities for
achieving the objectives, formulation of learning objectives based on the diagnosed needs and
interests.

Personal relevance of the content, involvement of the learner in the process, and deeper
understanding of underlying concepts are some of the intersections between emphases in
constructivism and adult learning principles.

Experiential learning is the process of making meaning from direct experience, i.e., "learning from
experience".[1]

The experience can be staged or left open. Aristotle once said, "For the things we have to learn
before we can do them, we learn by doing them".[2] David A. Kolb helped to popularize the idea of
experiential learning drawing heavily on the work of John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget. His
work on experiential learning has contributed greatly to expanding the philosophy of experiential
education.

The Theory of Learning by Doing.

Anzai, Yuichiro; Simon, Herbert A.
Psychological Review, v86 n2 p124-40 Mar 1979
A theory is proposed of the processes which enable a subject to learn while solving a problem. One subject's
protocol--including 224 steps and taking 90 minutes--is described. Adequacy of the mechanisms is guaranteed
by a computer simulation of the processes in an adaptive production system. (Author/GDC)