Constructivism

1.
Creative Constructivism: Teaching Writing Without Literature (Pt 1)

While I have been working towards a definition of 'english studies' that pits composition against
literature and creative writing, what is more important is the underlying ideologies beneath each
of them. I'm not the first to point this out, but this seems to me to be generally true and a helpful
way of understanding why things are they way they are.
Literature and creative writing adhere to a structuralist mode of thinking (and this includes post-
structuralism, as well). That is, to say, that what literature and CW are doing are looking for
structures as a method of interpretation. Pedagogically, what is generally taught are structures of
literature, whether it be for pure interpretation (literature) or for literary production (creative
writing). Practically, what this means is that in most classes students are given a model (i.e.,
"great" literature) and asked to learn about the structure of it so that they may mimic it or
interpret it. The great "truth" is that truth itself is an essential being and can be located and
discovered.
Conversely, on the other side of the hall is composition, and composition generally takes a
constructivist bent. That is, what is taught is that truth is not some 'reality' that can be discovered
through interpretation, but that truth is an entity that is always being formed or constructed
through human perception and experience. Students, instead of finding the truth through an
investigation of models and structures, are asked (in varying degrees, at least) to be a participant
in the creation of this truth or knowledge. What is valued is this is the constructed reality as
opposed to any form of ontological reality or truth.
So while I'm going to conveniently sidestep any debate over the incommensurability of these
competing frameworks (generally I think it doesn't work to cram both into the same class), I do
want to investigate the potential for a creative writing classroom that is based on social
constructivism as opposed to structuralist theories.
This leads me to this project: how do you teach the writing of literature with out relying on
models? I have a few ideas...and hopefully I'll be posting more ideas when they come to me.
The Writing Experience / Experiment (because I hate the term exercise)
Teaching Narrative:
I am hesitant to call this 'story' because the term story seems to be a narrowly defined term that is
immediately given to the genre of "fiction." In all of these experiences, I want to avoid labeling
anything as "poetry, fiction, or nonfiction." But here is an experience for teaching narrative that
might be useful, and does not rely on reading "great literature" to investigate what narrative is
and how we make it.
Place students in groups of 4 (ideally this should be a group they are already used to working in)
and give them a digital camera. (it could be one camera, or you could rely on students to have
one). Either way, the end product should be 8 images that are random and are not connected to
each other. Then, each student should individually place the images into an order that makes
sense (and by makes sense, obviously I mean that a narrative is constructed). Have each student
explain why they have placed the images into the order they have.
After each student has done this individual part of the assignment, students working as a group
will then come to a consensus over what the "correct" order for the images should be, with each
student offering their ideas on what two images should be placed together and why. At the end,
the group will decide on a group ordering of the images complete with an explanation of why
they, as a group, have decided that this order is the best order that the images can go in.
Of course, the explanation of why these images go together is the narrative itself. I suppose if
you wanted, you could then use this as a device to then craft a "plot." But since I'm not
concerned with the fulfillment of genre, I personally would not take this last step, except to say
that what has been constructed could be the framework of a potential plot.
Teaching Word Choice:
This is a really easy experiment to use that came to me while reading composition textbooks
from the 1970's. In this, each student is given a word-bank of 26 or so words with half being
made up words and the other half being essential articles and what not. Then, each student is
asked to arrange the words so that it sounds as though it should make sense (but of course won't
because the made up words have no meaning). Ask students to arrange the words so that it
sounds "beautiful." Ask students to arrange the words so that it sounds "ugly." When they are
done, ask them to compare their results with their group members and to formulate "rules" as to
how to make the words sound beautiful or ugly.
What I like about this simple experiment is that it does away with meaning and focuses solely on
the sound of language alone. You can throw in words other than "beautiful" or "ugly," for
instance, you might want to say "make it sound as though it is scientific" or "make it sound as
though it is drunk." It doesn't really matter what words you use. Of course there is no right
answer. The point is to create the right answer.
Posted by Matthew Williams on November 19, 2006 12:10 PM | Perm
2.Analysis of English Professional Writing and
constructivism
Posted:2010-7-23 11:32:00 Browse:22938 chinese Version
Paper Keywords: constructivist learning theory teaching of English
writing process approach
Abstract: The Teaching of English Writing problems are analyzed and discussed the
students knowledge of English writing, motivation and attitudes and the level of
their own writing, writing assessment and teaching methods given the expectations
of the course . with the author's teaching Experience in the teaching of specific
object of how to motivate their writing motivation, to develop their interest in
writing, and made the constructivist learning theory to writing instruction in English
through the writing process approach to improve the quality of teaching.
Students learning English, English writing skills is the most difficult to obtain. To
four scores in recent years English point of view, with a total of 100 points total,
four post-2004 national average score of writing 65.4 points, while 2005 dropped to
61.88 points. This shows that the writing of College Teaching of English, there are
still many problems in the teaching of writing and Research needs further
exploration. In teaching practice, having a good English writing course and write
well in English for teachers and students have put forward a great challenge.
The traditional English teaching mode restricts the creativity of teachers and
students, so that lack of interaction between teachers and students affect the
teaching effect, and constructivist learning theory can change the traditional
English teaching mode, guided by teachers, by writing ability of students to achieve
self-build, and fundamentally improve teaching effectiveness, to achieve truly
improve student writing skills.
1, Basic English writing the current issue of teaching
Because classroom teachers are the organizers and perpetrators, their teaching
methods and level of direct impact on the quality of teaching of writing. A long time,
the traditional institutions of higher learning English writing course teaching model,
teachers in class for a number of writing essentials weekly or every other week a
topic for a student according to the topic and related requirements (such as genre
and word count) students will write an article for a paper to the teacher of a teacher
correcting a student's essay to be writing teacher comments, and then is a new
reincarnation. This mode restricts the creativity of teachers and students, teachers,
so do not strong, the writing level of students is difficult to have substantially
enhanced.
The author of Nanjing University of Information Science 2005 Riverside College
conducted a survey course in English, many students do not turn when the English
writing books, do not check the information, and even dictionaries do not have to,
after the article is not repeated scrutiny, do not take the initiative to make changes
to the teacher on the bin, after correcting for articles by teachers, many students of
the teacher's marking is just a look. The situation of English teaching effectiveness,
teaching has a direct impact on the level of interest in the cultivation of student
writing and writing ability. to improve teaching effectiveness effective way is to use
constructivist learning theory to guide teaching of English writing.
2 on the constructivist learning theory
Cognitive constructivist learning theory is an important branch of learning theory. It
considers the individual cognitive Development and learning processes are closely
related. And very practical English writing courses that can be effectively in
constructivist learning environments promote students cognitive development.
(1) constructivist learning theory holds that human knowledge is not directly given
by the external stimulus, but awareness of external stimuli and internal mental
process of the main result of the interaction. Learning is the process of acquiring
knowledge, but knowledge is not taught by teachers was come, but in certain
situations learners - socio-cultural context, with the help of others, the use of
learning materials necessary way to get through the construction of meaning,
namely, how much depends on access to knowledge according to their own
experience to the learner the ability to construct knowledge of Sichuan.
Pages: 12 3 4 Show All

(2) constructivist learning theory emphasizes that: I) the student center, that
students are understanding the subject, meaning the active construction of
knowledge, not a passive recipient of external stimuli, and the inculcation of
knowledge objects, teachers, students only help and promote the construction of
meaning from the role; 2) "scenario" for the important role of the construction of
meaning. that learning is always linked with a certain scenario, the learners in real
situations, using their existing cognitive structures relevant experience in to
assimilate and adapt to the current new knowledge, assimilate and adapt to the
cycle as the form of knowledge construction; 3) collaborative learning on the key
role of the construction of meaning. Although "understanding" a matter of personal
constructs, can not be shared , but can communicate with others. through
communication, test and correct his own "understanding", to conform to the
objective law; 4) the design of the learning environment. that the learning
environment is learner "discovery" and "exploratory" place of learning. In this
learning environment, students can use a variety of learning tools and information
resources for learning, so as to achieve the desired learning goals. For students in
the constructivist learning environment to independently construct knowledge in
this, in addition to traditional teaching methods, modern multimedia Technology
and the increasing popularity of Internet applications for the realization of
constructivist learning environment provides ideal conditions. multimedia
technology is to create a very effective tool for writing scenario, Internet-based
network environment, provides an exception for the wealth of student writing , and
illustrations of the writing materials and resources, beyond time and space and
interactive writing to create a favorable geographical conditions for interaction
between teachers and students interaction marking composition provides the most
convenient conditions.
(3) constructivism the view that Education should be a rich personal experience, its
meaning must be personal life is important, so the core of effective teaching and
learning is to understand how to get the meaning of things, be able to clarify and
expand the personal meaning of the conversation. From Activity of writing
instruction, teachers taught me and it is difficult to separate. teachers and students,
between students and the students need to work together for certain issues to
explore, and communicate with each other in the process of exploration and
challenge, to understand each other's ideas. the experience background
differences, learner's views and understanding of the often vastly different. In fact,
a community of students, these differences in the phenomenon itself is a valuable
resource.
(4) constructivist view that knowledge of teachers more than their beliefs influence
their teaching behavior. Constructivism Although individual self-development very
seriously, but it does not deny the external guidance, which influence the teachers.
Teachers beliefs include teacher beliefs about students and learning, students
should be seen as customers, partners, personal explorers explorers and
democracy, and not as against the students who hold control, the study should be
understood as meaning, in the form of personal change rather than the amount of
learning as knowledge growth, are the memories. reposted elsewhere in the paper
for free download 3 Constructivist Teaching of English writing process
Guided by constructivism for teaching English, teachers should be conscious
consciously guide the use of constructivism, the students in the process of teaching
writing skills to implement the construction.
3.1 Constructivist Perspective behavior of student writing
In the constructivist view, the writing process is a positive, proactive process to
complete the construction of meaning, namely, cognition, cognitive output, critical
awareness, improve the cognitive process is the use of language to explore
knowledge, to understand the world, criticism, understanding of the world share
knowledge. The basic features of this process is to try writing a show with the
knowledge relevant to the subject occurrence and development of the full wealth of
scenarios as possible for students to produce cognitive conflict in this scenario,
Constructivism is the "assimilation" process in order to stimulate students to
explore knowledge of intrinsic motivation. so that students understand that writing
is not written for teachers, nor to writing and writing, writing is the students build
self-awareness and improve the construction of a cognitive process , students are
active participants in teaching and knowledge of the active builders.
2. Constructivist teaching behaviors of teachers writing
Under the guidance of constructivism, the construction of meaning with the help of
teachers, facilitators, and not to provide knowledge and instill those. Throughout
the writing process of teaching teachers are organizers, instructors, helpers and
facilitators, the use of scenarios, collaboration, conversation and other elements of
the learning environment of students and give full play the initiative, enthusiasm
and pioneering spirit, and ultimately to enable students to effectively achieve the
knowledge of the significance of the current construction purposes. teachers in the
appropriate language to guide, inspire and encourage students to writing problems
regularly provide feedback to students to help them reach higher cognitive levels,
to better complete the writing assignment. teachers teaching behavior of student
writing is a cognitive process of construction, including pre-writing, write the first
draft, revision, evaluation feedback, rewriting and other processes. The process also
conforms to build knowledge, critical awareness, improve circulation and re-
construction of knowledge. In this cycle, to further improve the students to
construct knowledge, cognitive ability further improved.
3.3 Implementation of Teaching English Writing links
Constructivist teaching of English writing the construction of meaning-oriented,
focusing on the writing process, focusing on the collective writing task, pay
attention to each other and the many changes between the students, focusing on
interaction between teachers and students. In the teaching process, students
should be actively teacher collaboration, spontaneously adopted as an intermediary
to obtain the knowledge of teachers. Teachers should be as organizational learning,
discussion and exchange, and collaborative learning process guidance, so that is
conducive towards the direction of the construction of meaning. focus on the writing
process for process Writing the core of the law, it found that writing is a meaning
and significance of the circular creation process, this process generally include pre-
writing, draft, feedback, modify, rewrite the 5 stages, they tend to cross, cycle
repeated. the basis of teaching practice in the specific teaching of writing will be
divided into pre-write, draft, peer assessment, teacher assessment, the second
draft revised peer assessment, teacher assessment areas 7, effectively
incorporated into the writing process Writing center of gravity. the writing process
student-centered, attention to students and teachers, students and peer interaction
between the cooperation and consultation, a change in the role of the former
monopoly of teachers, teachers in the writing process as organizer, coordinator,
answering questions and information providers, to guide students successful
completion of the whole process of writing, encourage more students and learn
from peers, and more consultation, and ask students to focus on writing content
and expression of the excavation, to allow students to actively invest in all stages of
the writing process, give full play to the initiative of students, students truly
understand the essence and meaning of writing, students solid training in the
writing process, and continuously improve their writing skills.
Special mention should be commenting on the feedback phase. Evaluator feedback
is the center stage of the writing process, it changes between the draft and
between stages, this stage is not the lack of critical awareness, and also improve
and re-construction of knowledge students need to prepare . The traditional practice
of a teacher marking the work practices of large, time-consuming and more, plus
some teachers more than the number of students brought class, some teachers are
often only given a score draw or look for language errors or grammatical errors, not
been able to text from the Structure or marking on the deep, inspiring students
thinking, help students to enrich and improve the content of the article structure, so
take the same level or equivalent peer review feedback. students each completed a
first draft, then ask them according to teachers provided in advance of the peer
review of specific criteria and rules for each article length, content and language
specific areas such as peer assessment, peer assessment requires students to as
much as possible through the composition of the bright spot found companions, and
came out with a wave coil, such as some good in language, a large segment or
sentence to a period as small as one new phrase or word, while some of the
expression of defective or wrong with the use of linear or the identity of the
specified standard out, the last article for the strengths and less than write specific
reviews. This assessment and feedback model we can uphold the student's self-
image, enhance the confidence of student writing, but also greatly facilitate the
interaction between the students learn from each other, is conducive to the
improvement of writing skills; Furthermore the teacher marked time much shorter,
so the effectiveness of teaching can be improved.
Paper Keywords: constructivist learning theory teaching of English writing process
approach
Abstract: The Teaching of English Writing problems are analyzed and discussed the
students knowledge of English writing, motivation and attitudes and the level of
their own writing, writing assessment and teaching methods given the expectations
of the course . with the author's teaching Experience in the teaching of specific
object of how to motivate their writing motivation, to develop their interest in
writing, and made the constructivist learning theory to writing instruction in English
through the writing process approach to improve the quality of teaching.
Students learning English, English writing skills is the most difficult to obtain. To
four scores in recent years English point of view, with a total of 100 points total,
four post-2004 national average score of writing 65.4 points, while 2005 dropped to
61.88 points. This shows that the writing of College Teaching of English, there are
still many problems in the teaching of writing and Research needs further
exploration. In teaching practice, having a good English writing course and write
well in English for teachers and students have put forward a great challenge.
The traditional English teaching mode restricts the creativity of teachers and
students, so that lack of interaction between teachers and students affect the
teaching effect, and constructivist learning theory can change the traditional
English teaching mode, guided by teachers, by writing ability of students to achieve
self-build, and fundamentally improve teaching effectiveness, to achieve truly
improve student writing skills.
1, Basic English writing the current issue of teaching
Because classroom teachers are the organizers and perpetrators, their teaching
methods and level of direct impact on the quality of teaching of writing. A long time,
the traditional institutions of higher learning English writing course teaching model,
teachers in class for a number of writing essentials weekly or every other week a
topic for a student according to the topic and related requirements (such as genre
and word count) students will write an article for a paper to the teacher of a teacher
correcting a student's essay to be writing teacher comments, and then is a new
reincarnation. This mode restricts the creativity of teachers and students, teachers,
so do not strong, the writing level of students is difficult to have substantially
enhanced.
The author of Nanjing University of Information Science 2005 Riverside College
conducted a survey course in English, many students do not turn when the English
writing books, do not check the information, and even dictionaries do not have to,
after the article is not repeated scrutiny, do not take the initiative to make changes
to the teacher on the bin, after correcting for articles by teachers, many students of
the teacher's marking is just a look. The situation of English teaching effectiveness,
teaching has a direct impact on the level of interest in the cultivation of student
writing and writing ability. to improve teaching effectiveness effective way is to use
constructivist learning theory to guide teaching of English writing.
2 on the constructivist learning theory
Cognitive constructivist learning theory is an important branch of learning theory. It
considers the individual cognitive Development and learning processes are closely
related. And very practical English writing courses that can be effectively in
constructivist learning environments promote students cognitive development.
(1) constructivist learning theory holds that human knowledge is not directly given
by the external stimulus, but awareness of external stimuli and internal mental
process of the main result of the interaction. Learning is the process of acquiring
knowledge, but knowledge is not taught by teachers was come, but in certain
situations learners - socio-cultural context, with the help of others, the use of
learning materials necessary way to get through the construction of meaning,
namely, how much depends on access to knowledge according to their own
experience to the learner the ability to construct knowledge of Sichuan.
(2) constructivist learning theory emphasizes that: I) the student center, that
students are understanding the subject, meaning the active construction of
knowledge, not a passive recipient of external stimuli, and the inculcation of
knowledge objects, teachers, students only help and promote the construction of
meaning from the role; 2) "scenario" for the important role of the construction of
meaning. that learning is always linked with a certain scenario, the learners in real
situations, using their existing cognitive structures relevant experience in to
assimilate and adapt to the current new knowledge, assimilate and adapt to the
cycle as the form of knowledge construction; 3) collaborative learning on the key
role of the construction of meaning. Although "understanding" a matter of personal
constructs, can not be shared , but can communicate with others. through
communication, test and correct his own "understanding", to conform to the
objective law; 4) the design of the learning environment. that the learning
environment is learner "discovery" and "exploratory" place of learning. In this
learning environment, students can use a variety of learning tools and information
resources for learning, so as to achieve the desired learning goals. For students in
the constructivist learning environment to independently construct knowledge in
this, in addition to traditional teaching methods, modern multimedia Technology
and the increasing popularity of Internet applications for the realization of
constructivist learning environment provides ideal conditions. multimedia
technology is to create a very effective tool for writing scenario, Internet-based
network environment, provides an exception for the wealth of student writing , and
illustrations of the writing materials and resources, beyond time and space and
interactive writing to create a favorable geographical conditions for interaction
between teachers and students interaction marking composition provides the most
convenient conditions.
(3) constructivism the view that Education should be a rich personal experience, its
meaning must be personal life is important, so the core of effective teaching and
learning is to understand how to get the meaning of things, be able to clarify and
expand the personal meaning of the conversation. From Activity of writing
instruction, teachers taught me and it is difficult to separate. teachers and students,
between students and the students need to work together for certain issues to
explore, and communicate with each other in the process of exploration and
challenge, to understand each other's ideas. the experience background
differences, learner's views and understanding of the often vastly different. In fact,
a community of students, these differences in the phenomenon itself is a valuable
resource.
(4) constructivist view that knowledge of teachers more than their beliefs influence
their teaching behavior. Constructivism Although individual self-development very
seriously, but it does not deny the external guidance, which influence the teachers.
Teachers beliefs include teacher beliefs about students and learning, students
should be seen as customers, partners, personal explorers explorers and
democracy, and not as against the students who hold control, the study should be
understood as meaning, in the form of personal change rather than the amount of
learning as knowledge growth, are the memories. reposted elsewhere in the paper
for free download 3 Constructivist Teaching of English writing process
Guided by constructivism for teaching English, teachers should be conscious
consciously guide the use of constructivism, the students in the process of teaching
writing skills to implement the construction.
3.1 Constructivist Perspective behavior of student writing
In the constructivist view, the writing process is a positive, proactive process to
complete the construction of meaning, namely, cognition, cognitive output, critical
awareness, improve the cognitive process is the use of language to explore
knowledge, to understand the world, criticism, understanding of the world share
knowledge. The basic features of this process is to try writing a show with the
knowledge relevant to the subject occurrence and development of the full wealth of
scenarios as possible for students to produce cognitive conflict in this scenario,
Constructivism is the "assimilation" process in order to stimulate students to
explore knowledge of intrinsic motivation. so that students understand that writing
is not written for teachers, nor to writing and writing, writing is the students build
self-awareness and improve the construction of a cognitive process , students are
active participants in teaching and knowledge of the active builders.
2. Constructivist teaching behaviors of teachers writing

Under the guidance of constructivism, the construction of meaning with the help of
teachers, facilitators, and not to provide knowledge and instill those. Throughout
the writing process of teaching teachers are organizers, instructors, helpers and
facilitators, the use of scenarios, collaboration, conversation and other elements of
the learning environment of students and give full play the initiative, enthusiasm
and pioneering spirit, and ultimately to enable students to effectively achieve the
knowledge of the significance of the current construction purposes. teachers in the
appropriate language to guide, inspire and encourage students to writing problems
regularly provide feedback to students to help them reach higher cognitive levels,
to better complete the writing assignment. teachers teaching behavior of student
writing is a cognitive process of construction, including pre-writing, write the first
draft, revision, evaluation feedback, rewriting and other processes. The process also
conforms to build knowledge, critical awareness, improve circulation and re-
construction of knowledge. In this cycle, to further improve the students to
construct knowledge, cognitive ability further improved.
3.3 Implementation of Teaching English Writing links
Constructivist teaching of English writing the construction of meaning-oriented,
focusing on the writing process, focusing on the collective writing task, pay
attention to each other and the many changes between the students, focusing on
interaction between teachers and students. In the teaching process, students
should be actively teacher collaboration, spontaneously adopted as an intermediary
to obtain the knowledge of teachers. Teachers should be as organizational learning,
discussion and exchange, and collaborative learning process guidance, so that is
conducive towards the direction of the construction of meaning. focus on the writing
process for process Writing the core of the law, it found that writing is a meaning
and significance of the circular creation process, this process generally include pre-
writing, draft, feedback, modify, rewrite the 5 stages, they tend to cross, cycle
repeated. the basis of teaching practice in the specific teaching of writing will be
divided into pre-write, draft, peer assessment, teacher assessment, the second
draft revised peer assessment, teacher assessment areas 7, effectively
incorporated into the writing process Writing center of gravity. the writing process
student-centered, attention to students and teachers, students and peer interaction
between the cooperation and consultation, a change in the role of the former
monopoly of teachers, teachers in the writing process as organizer, coordinator,
answering questions and information providers, to guide students successful
completion of the whole process of writing, encourage more students and learn
from peers, and more consultation, and ask students to focus on writing content
and expression of the excavation, to allow students to actively invest in all stages of
the writing process, give full play to the initiative of students, students truly
understand the essence and meaning of writing, students solid training in the
writing process, and continuously improve their writing skills.
Special mention should be commenting on the feedback phase. Evaluator feedback
is the center stage of the writing process, it changes between the draft and
between stages, this stage is not the lack of critical awareness, and also improve
and re-construction of knowledge students need to prepare . The traditional practice
of a teacher marking the work practices of large, time-consuming and more, plus
some teachers more than the number of students brought class, some teachers are
often only given a score draw or look for language errors or grammatical errors, not
been able to text from the Structure or marking on the deep, inspiring students
thinking, help students to enrich and improve the content of the article structure, so
take the same level or equivalent peer review feedback. students each completed a
first draft, then ask them according to teachers provided in advance of the peer
review of specific criteria and rules for each article length, content and language
specific areas such as peer assessment, peer assessment requires students to as
much as possible through the composition of the bright spot found companions, and
came out with a wave coil, such as some good in language, a large segment or
sentence to a period as small as one new phrase or word, while some of the
expression of defective or wrong with the use of linear or the identity of the
specified standard out, the last article for the strengths and less than write specific
reviews. This assessment and feedback model we can uphold the student's self-
image, enhance the confidence of student writing, but also greatly facilitate the
interaction between the students learn from each other, is conducive to the
improvement of writing skills; Furthermore the teacher marked time much shorter,
so the effectiveness of teaching can be improved.
3. Forum on Public Policy

1
Cognitive and Constructivist Strategies for Teaching about Language and for
Providing Reading and Writing Instruction
C. Glennon Rowell, Professor in Teacher Education, The University of Tennessee (Knoxville)
Barbara C. Palmer, Professor of Reading and Language Arts, The Florida State University
Abstract
College students learning about language and using this knowledge to learn how to teach reading and
writing should participate in strategies that simulate systems in the language and strategies that they in turn will use
in their own classrooms. Cognitive and constructivist strategies are interactive and thus more powerful than the
traditional lecture method of teaching college students, yet too often the traditional method prevails.
Four interactive strategies that we have used successfully are cooperative learning, semantic feature
analysis, nonsense story analysis, and fictitious writing systems. Surveys, exams, and informal discussions with
students following the use of these strategies indicate that students found these strategies to be very effective.
Introduction
In far too many cases, professors of education indirectly tell their students, even in
methodology courses, “Teach as I say to teach, not as I teach.” Admittedly, lecturing to a class
of prospective teachers seems to be the most expedient way to cover the complex content and
multiple strategies that should be taught. It is not unlike the situation that often is cited by
teachers in K-12 who state that they are expected to cover all of a prescribed course of study (as
usually found in textbooks) by the end of a year or by the time mandatory high-stakes tests are
given in their schools.
Reading methodology courses exemplify the broad spectrum that encompasses the
curriculum in a single disciplinary area. In the past, one three-hour course in reading was often
all that was required for elementary education majors (apart from a single course each in
language arts and children‟s literature). However, teaching the basic components of reading
knowledge takes a considerable amount of time. Consider the content and strategies that most
experts agree are the basic essentials to teach in reading: phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary development, comprehension, and more recently, fluency (Adler and others1; The
National Reading Panel2). In each area, there are numerous facts and strategies to be taught. For
1 C. R. Adler (Ed.) and others, Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read
(Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy, 2001), iii, 2, 12, 22, 37, 47.
2 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
Children to Read—An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its
Implications for Reading Instruction, (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000), 1-3.
3 R. L. Allington, What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs, 2nd ed.
(Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2006), 96-106.
4 D. R. Reutzels and R. B. Cooter, Jr., Teaching Children to Read: Putting the Pieces Together, 4th ed. (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, 2004), 198-199.
5 R. F. Hudson, H. B. Lane, and P.C. Pullen, “Reading Fluency Assessment and Instruction: What, Why, and How?”
The Reading Teacher, 58 (8), 702-714.
Forum on Public Policy
2
example, to adequately address the best-recognized strategies for teaching fluency, identified by
Allington as repeated reading, Readers‟ Theater, echo reading, modeling, paired reading, choral
reading, and audio-taped reading3, requires a significant amount of time in a three-hour reading
methodology course or even two three-hour courses. Then there are other facts/processes that
teachers should know about this component of reading, including major skills (automaticity,
quality, rate, prosody [pitch and other elements of expression]), benchmark standards, and
assessment of fluency (Reutzels, Cooter4; Hudson, Lane, Pullen5). To a lesser extent, the
problem of “too much content, too little time to teach it” occurs in the single secondary reading
course that has become a standard requirement for those who wish to become teachers of
science, social studies, mathematics, and other subject areas.
Recent publishing history backs up our assertion that there is more in reading than can be
covered in one or two courses. Furthermore, course expectations are growing rapidly. In the
past few years, more books have surfaced in reading instruction with “essentials” in the title than
ever before, suggesting that there has to be a narrowing of what can be included in a basic course
or two in reading methodology. In addition, there are more books being published in each of the
basic components of reading (Teaching Comprehension, Vocabulary Development, Phonics,
etc.), indicating growth of knowledge about the reading process and strategies for teaching it.
Going beyond the basic content and strategies for teaching each component of reading
takes additional time. How to find reading levels, basal readers vs. other kinds of programs
(literature-based programs, leveled readers, language experience programs—to name a few),
integration of reading with writing, primary-reading programs vs. upper-elementary grade
reading programs, assessment techniques for reading, and more recently, technology and how to
use it in the teaching of reading—extend the knowledge one should know for teaching reading.
In addition, there is the practicum aspect of teaching reading that includes planning and
implementing reading lessons. Concomitantly, both motivation and aliteracy are areas that must
be considered, particularly in those courses geared toward instructional design for struggling
readers.
Added to the fact that professors of reading instruction feel that they must “talk through”
the vast amount of content and strategies in a limited number of reading courses, there is the
continuing, hard-to-break cycle of one “teaching as he/she has been taught.” This cycle goes
beyond professors of reading to include professors from all fields. The end result is far too often
3
a situation in which there is much less transfer than there should be between what is “taught” in a
college course to the classroom where prospective teachers will be teaching. Although not as
severe as in reading methodology, writing instruction suffers some of the same problems,
compounded by the fact that writing is given even less attention because time in the introductory
language arts course is usually shared with several other areas such as spelling, handwriting,
usage, listening, and speaking.
To alleviate this situation, prospective teachers undoubtedly need more than one or two
three-hour courses in reading and a single three-hour language arts course where writing
instruction is taught. While taking more reading courses than the minimum of one or two will
hopefully be a direction colleges follow in the future, the best that we can do in the meantime is
to motivate students better than we are now doing to want to learn more about the powerful skill
areas of reading and writing and how to most effectively teach them. Where there is room for
electives, reading and writing courses must be included as premier options. Where there is room
for growth through in-service, especially during the first years of teaching, schools should
mandate extended learning in these areas. And through meaningful growth furnished by
professional associations, new teachers must be highly involved. However, as important as
these activities are, it is our belief that they will not have the impact of cognitive and
constructivist strategies used by reading and language arts professors in the college classroom to
help prospective teachers (1) better understand systems in the language that they will use and
teach daily and how these systems are represented via written symbols, (2) practice and
internalize the values of many of the reading/writing strategies now introduced too frequently via
the “telling” approach to teaching, and (3) use these strategies more effectively in teaching every
day to every child.
Strategies/Theoretical Foundations
The cognitive and constructivist strategies that we have used successfully in our reading
and language arts methodology courses include cooperative learning strategies (especially
Jigsaw), Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA), nonsense stories, and writing systems of four
fictitious groups of people. While we have seen and used other strategies, we wish to address
these four, give some background studies that have been done in these areas, tell you what we
have done, and tell you about the results. Theoretical underpinnings of all four of these
strategies include the work of cognitive and social constructivists. The two kinds of
4
constructivism, social and cognitive, are complementary and equally support the strategies we
have found to be successful in our college classrooms—strategies that we believe will help
prospective teachers transfer more effectively what they learn in the college classroom to the
K-12 classrooms in which they will teach.
The relationship between cognitive constructivism and social constructivism is explained
by Maxim in the following way:
Cognitive constructivists and social constructivists have much in
common, but they differ noticeably in one key area—the extent and type
of involvement of both students and teachers. Although each model
requires effort and responsibility on the part of both, social constructivists
stress the organization of “communities of learners” in which „more expert‟
adults or peers provide assistance to the less skilled learners. Cognitive
constructivists, on the other hand, describe a learner-centered environment
where the making of knowledge is carried out by individual students in a
fashion that supports their interests and needs. For cognitive constructivists,
learning is primarily an individualistic venture.6
Noll states that constructivism has been influenced by the theories of Jean Piaget, Lev
Vygotsky, and Jerome Bruner.7 Noll further explains that “Constructivists contend that
traditional models emphasize knowledge transmission without producing deeper levels of
understanding and internalization.”8 Social engagement is an integral component of
constructivist-based instruction. Tovani points out that small-group instruction “stimulates
higher levels of thinking…encourages articulation of thinking…helps students
remember…allows students to make connections and see different perspectives, as well as
promotes deeper understanding.” 9 It is this deeper level of understanding that we believe must
be promoted via a change in teaching strategies in the college classroom, not only in reading
methodology courses but in all coursework that prospective teachers take.
Elkind, while admitting that the constructivist movement has not been as successful as it
should be, contends that constructivism “is now a major educational philosophy and pedagogy”
6 G. W. Maxim, Dynamic Social Studies for Constructivist Classrooms, 8th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson,
Merrill Prentice Hall, 2006), 339.
7 J.W. Noll, Taking Sides—Clashing Views on Educational Issues, 14th ed. (Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill
Contemporary Learning Series, 2007), 50-51.
8 Ibid.
9 C. Tovani, Do I Really Have to Teaching Reading? (Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 2004), 90.
10 D. Elkind, “The Problem With Constructivism,” The Educational Forum, 2004, 68, 306-307.

5
and calls for readiness (1) in the curriculum, (2) on the part of society (becoming a nation eager
to accept educational change), and (3) in teacher preparatory programs. Of the latter, Elkind
contends that learning to teach has too often been relegated to learning “in the field.”10 In
addition to Elkind‟s belief that teachers should be taught more theoretical views, like
constructivism, prior to entering the job market, we contend that a change in how college
professors of education teach is an appropriate starting point for helping teachers of reading and
writing (and of other disciplines, too) more effectively implement strategies that they now
merely hear and perhaps read about in their coursework.
The constructivist philosophy can be most helpful as teacher educators scaffold
pre-service teachers in developing a theoretical model for their future practice. A constructivist
approach requires that educators consider the knowledge and experiences that students bring to
the learning task. Fennimore and Tinzmann identify a difference between a behaviorally
oriented curriculum in which knowledge and skills are taught individually and then connected as
opposed to a constructivist-oriented curriculum in which students acquire knowledge and skills
while carrying out tasks that require higher-order thinking.11 Constructivist curricula should be
developed in such a way that students are required to expand and develop prior knowledge by
connecting it to new learning (Huitt12). Vygotsky‟s “zone of proximal development—the
distance between actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance
or in collaboration with more capable peers” embraces this concept 13) as does Bruner‟s
instructional principles as outlined by Ferrer who states that:
1. “Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student
willing and able to learn (readiness).
2. Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral
organization).
11 T. Fennimore and M. Tinzmann, “What is a Thinking Curriculum?” (Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory, 1990). Retrieved May 9, 1999 from
http://www.ncrel.org/ncrel/sdrs/areas/rplesys/thinking.htm
12 W. Huitt, “Constructivism,” Educational Psychology Interactive. (Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University,
2003), Retrieved April 12, 2007 From http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html
13 L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1978), 76.
6
3. Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and/or fill in the gaps (going
beyond the information given) by stimulating cognitive skills required for application.”14
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is, we feel, one teaching strategy where constructivism reaches its
pinnacle. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, in 1990, stated that the amount of research that has
been done on cooperative learning in general is “staggering” and that we now know more about
“the efficacy” of cooperative learning than other methods/group procedures used in teaching.
Among these various methods/procedures are lecturing, age grouping, and departmentalization.
Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec further state “…working together to achieve a common goal
produces higher achievement and greater productivity than does working alone is so well
confirmed by so much research that it stands as one of the strongest principles of social and
organizational psychology.”15
At the college level, attention is increasing in the area of cooperative learning and other
forms of teaching strategies that would supplement the lecture and lecture-discussion strategies
that now prevail. Some research at this level has revealed positive outcomes for cooperative
learning. Judith L. Van Voorhis, in a 1992 presentation to the International Convention on
Cooperative Learning (Utrecht, The Netherlands), cited several examples of research that had
been done on cooperative learning in college classrooms. Among the values that have been
found are increased student involvement in college classes, student enjoyment in the learning
process, improved attitudes toward learning, and student mastery of course content.16 One
statement made by Van Voorhis affirms our earlier statement of the need to change teaching
strategies at the college level. Van Voorhis states,
If we expect future teachers to teach children cognitive processes in a variety
of settings, then we as teachers of preservice teachers need to model, define, and
demonstrate these processes. The literature also supported the assertion that
students entering colleges today may be underprepared in cognitive processing
and learn in a variety of ways. Additional assertions from the literature indicated
preservice teachers, as well as the students they will be teaching, may lack the
ability to direct their learning and behaviors due to deficits in sociolinguistic
14 M. Ferrer. “Constructivism „Spiral‟ ” Retrieved September 17, 2007 from
http://.west.net/~ger/Orientation/constructivist.html
15 D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and E. J. Holubec, Cooperation in the Classroom, Revised (Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company, 1990), 3:2; 3-3; 3:15-3:16.
16 J.L. Van Voorhis, “Instruction in Teacher Education: A Descriptive Study of Cooperative Learning,” Paper
presented at the International Convention on Cooperative Learning. (Utrecht, Netherlands, 1992), ED 349-297, 1-2.
7
experiences, such as the use of elaboration and rehearsal strategies in cooperative
structures. In order for these prospective teachers to utilize different types of
instruction to meet the needs of their future students, they need to experience
various types of instruction.17
The use of cooperative learning at the college level is a reversal from more traditional
methods of college-level pedagogy. It is student, rather than teacher-oriented, constructivist
rather than re-constructivist, group-oriented rather than individualistic. For this reason, some
justification must be given for its usefulness. In a review of recent research on cooperative
learning in the college classroom, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith provided assurance of the
efficacy of the use of cooperative learning at this level by stating:
Faculty who use cooperative learning are on safe ground. There is a
rich theoretical base for cooperative learning. As the research has
evolved over the past 35 years, five basic elements have emerged as
critical to cooperative work in classrooms: positive interdependence,
individual accountability, face-to-face positive interaction, social skills,
and group processing. The evidence itself indicates that a) the theories
underlying cooperative learning are sound and b) cooperative learning
does work in college classrooms.18
Johnson et al. further indicate that the benefits of cooperative learning are the promotion
of more positive attitudes toward learning, compared to competitive and individualistic types of
learning.19 George found that college students in an educational psychology course, following
the use of three cooperative learning strategies in the college classroom, had higher overall test
scores, promoted more positive attitudes toward classroom instruction, and rated this instruction
far more favorably than when students followed an individualized approach to learning.20
Several characteristics of cooperative learning make it especially useful in the training of
pre-service and in-service teachers by providing a model for effective teaching practices and an
opportunity for teachers to observe and practice the skills that they will eventually be asked to
use in their teaching. In addition, cooperative learning practices accommodate individual
differences within the classroom by capitalizing on the various strengths of each member of the
17 Ibid.,3.
18 D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith, “Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence is There
That it Works?” Change, July/August, 1998, 27-35. Retrieved May 13, 2007— Website
http://saweb.Memphis.edu/mimsac/downloads/CooperativeLearning. Pdf, 1-14.
19 Ibid.
20 P. G. George, “Using Cooperative Learning in the College Classroom,” Thought and Action. The NEA Higher
Education Journal, Spring, 1999, 33-38.
8
cooperative group; thus, more able members are positioned to scaffold others as needed.
Cultural differences enhance, rather than detract from, the group‟s construction of meaning
(Johnson and Johnson,21; Slavin,22; Stevens and Slavin,23,24). Cooperative learning promotes the
importance of “meaning-making” in the classroom because of the active nature of the
assignment. “Cooperative learners cognitively rehearse and restructure information to retain it in
memory and incorporate it into existing cognitive structures” (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith25).
Finally, Goodlad stresses that teachers are also concerned with the development of their
students‟ social and personal development. Cooperative learning allows the learners to practice
interpersonal as well as academic skills, in effect integrating multiple goals within the
application of a single best practice.26
One form of cooperative learning, Jigsaw, was developed by Aronson and associates
(Aronson and others27). This strategy calls for a broad topic to be divided into subtopics. Teams
of four-five students are placed in heterogeneous groups. Students in each cooperative learning
team are assigned or select a subtopic on which to become an expert on the content to be taught
as well as on the best way to teach this content. Students with the same subtopic then regroup,
forming what has been identified as a counterpart group. These group members then work
together, with the teacher‟s guidance, to define how they will return to their original cooperative
learning group to teach others in that group the subtopic on which they have become an expert.
An example of how a topic might be divided for studying using Jigsaw is the life of a U.S.
president being studied in fifth-grade social studies. The various stages of a president‟s life
might be early days up to school age, education, early career such as life as a lawyer, his home
life as an adult, days in the presidency (including important events the president had to deal
with), and days after leaving the White House.
21 D.W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, “Mainstreaming and Cooperative Learning Strategies, Exceptional Children,”
1986, 52, 553-561.
22 R. E. Slavin, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1990).
23 R. J. Stevens and R.E. Slavin, “The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on Students Achievement, Attitudes,
and Social Relations,” American Educational Research Journal, 1995, 32, 321-351.
24 ______________________, “Effects of a Cooperative Learning Approach in Reading and Writing on
Academically Handicapped Students,” Elementary School Journal, 1995, 95, 241-262.
25 D.W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith, “Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What Evidence is
There That it Works?” Change, July/August, 1998. Retrieved May 13, 2007—Website
http://saweb.memphis.edu/mimsac/downloads/CooperativeLearning. Pdf, 4.
26 J. Goodlad, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (New York: Teachers College Press, 1984).
27 E. Aronson and others, The Jigsaw Classroom (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Co., 1978).

9
Stallings and Stipek state, “The Jigsaw method was developed to foster peer cooperation
and tutoring and race relations by creating interdependence among students.”28 Research studies
measuring the effectiveness of the use of Jigsaw in K-12 settings indicate positive outcomes on
academic growth, students‟ attitudes toward their classmates, time-on-task, and self esteem
(Stallings and Stipek29).
Jigsaw For Teaching Writing Workshopand Guided Reading Using Leveled Books
One of the authors has used Jigsaw successfully with two different pre-service college
classes. One class was taking a language arts methods course in which writing instruction was
included; another class was in a reading methodology course in which the focus was on guided
reading using leveled books. The students were enrolled in a school-based, yearlong internship
program. On Monday afternoons during the fall semester, they participated in a mega-methods
course (six hours, including language arts, reading, social studies, science, and mathematics
methodology). While this left only four full days of internship the first semester, the interns
were back in their respective classrooms for the full five weekdays during the spring semester.
The course itself was the second six-hour mega-methods course that covered the same subjects;
the first having been taken when the students were seniors in an Arts & Sciences discipline but
with a minor in Education during what is known as the pre-internship year. The semester hours
allotted for language arts and reading methodology were 1.2 hours each in both mega-methods
courses (pre-internship and internship), although in this program, all students had taken a
required introductory two-hour basic reading course at the beginning of the pre-internship year.
Earlier, they had taken a children‟s literature course.
The textbook used in the reading segment was Fountas and Pinnell‟s Guided Reading
Instruction: First Teaching for All Children, a very comprehensive book that provides a solid
theoretical view of a balanced literacy program, using leveled books; and how to set up and carry
out such a program (Fountas and Pinnell 30). The textbook used in the writing segment with a
28 J.A. Stallings and D. Stipek, “Research on Early Childhood and Elementary School Teaching Programs,” in
Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., M.C. Wittrock, ed., American Educational Research Association (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986), 748.
29 Ibid.
30 I. C. Fountas and G. S. Pinnell, Guided Reading Instruction: Good First Teaching for All Children (Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann Educational Books, 1996).
10
different class in the same program a year earlier was Graves‟ Writing: Teachers and Children
at
Work. This book, first published in 1983, introduces the Workshop Approach to teaching
writing. Writing is examined as a craft where (1) children are guided to select their own topics
on which to write (a process modeled by the teacher), (2) written products are kept in an
individual‟s folder (known as a portfolio by many today) and modified from time-to-time, (3)
frequent conferencing is done, (4) mini-lessons about writing are taught as needed, and (5)
children share their written pieces with others during the writing of “a piece” and afterward
through some type of display of written products, called publication of writing (Graves31).
In the class where the Workshop Approach to writing was taught via Jigsaw, the entire
topic of the Workshop Approach was divided into four subtopics: Getting Started, Maintenance
and Development, Working With Individual Cases (Children Having Difficulty in Writing), and
Publishing and Sharing Writing of Children. There were only fifteen students in this college
class interning in one of four different schools in this program, so the cooperative teams were
smaller than one might find in a K-12 classroom. In the class of eighteen students that did
Jigsaw to learn guided reading using leveled books, the subtopics were Getting Your Classroom
Started in a Balanced Literacy Program, Selecting Leveled Books and Organizing Students to
Use Them in a Guided Reading Program, Moving Through a Complete Week (five days) of
Instruction in a Guided Reading Program, How to Help Students Who Fall Behind in a Guided
Reading Program (so-called Struggling Readers), and Integrating Reading and Writing. A sixth
topic was added for all groups to explore in addition to the subtopic covered by each cooperative
learning team. This topic was on Elements of a Guided Reading Program That Could be (Should
be) Adapted to Upper-Elementary and Middle-School Students. Students were asked to think
about and be able to explain (not teach) this topic because the Fountas and Pinnell book
primarily focuses on guided reading for beginning students, but the instructor of the college
course believes that there are certain elements of guided reading that could and should be
adapted to older students (especially the use of leveled books in the content areas). It was
necessary for a couple of the teams to either have one student on a team take two topics or have
someone from another group teach one of the topics when the cooperative groups were
reconvened.
31 D. H. Graves, Writing: Teachers & Children at Work (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1994).
11
Both books are relatively long (over 300 pages each) and have many excellent
organizational details that one would need to learn in order to implement the two approaches
(guided reading; workshop approach to writing). However, learning all content in each book
was not the focus of the class. Instead, the focus was to know enough philosophy and
structure in Writer’s Workshop and guided reading using leveled books to be able to
implement these two programs in the classroom. When students joined their counterpart
groups, they were asked to first outline the essential points that they would teach to their
cooperative team. Much discussion on what should be in the outline followed. These outlines
were checked by the instructor prior to the counterpart teams deciding how they were going to
teach the content of their subtopic.
In Table 1, the main objective and different learning strategies that were used by the
students with Jigsaw in both the writing and reading methodology segments of the megamethods
courses are shown. While these strategies were not equally divided across the two
classes, to some extent all were used in each class.
12
Table 1 Cooperative Learning (Jigsaw) in the College Classroom for Teaching Writing Workshop and
Guided Reading Using Leveled Books
Main Objective: To help students learn strategies of Jigsaw, Writing Workshop, and Guided Reading
Using Leveled Books as they plan and teach members of their cooperative team
(Learning Strategies)
1. Identifying in small groups the most essential elements of each subtopic in Writing Workshop and
Guided Reading Using Leveled Books
2. Outlining subtopic, both individually and in a small group (consensus-building)
3. Strategizing how best to teach selected subtopic to members of cooperative team
4. Learning more about and implementing different roles (discussant, listener, facilitator, note taker)
in small-group learning communities
5. Asking about and reflecting on learning modalities of team members
6. Teaching a segment (subtopic) and fielding questions about what was taught
7. Seeing how broad topics (Workshop Approach to Writing and Guided Reading Using Leveled
Books) are structured through stages (beginning, maintaining, full implementation)
8. Clarifying concepts and procedures for teaching both reading and writing in the programs being
studied in each area
9. Learning more about teaching reading and writing to different age levels
10. Evaluating individual and group contributions to cooperative teams and counterpart groups
11. Projecting how and where Jigsaw could be applied in the curriculum to be taught to upperelementary/
middle school students
.
Students in both the writing and reading classes were very resourceful in finding ways to
teach their subtopics. While the counterpart groups basically decided on one way to teach their
cooperative team the subtopic they selected, some variations were allowed and did occur in
teaching that was done. Charts and diagrams were used in some instances. One student
developed a Jeopardy-type game to teach her segment of Writer‟s Workshop. Another student
developed a song to the tune of the university‟s fight song for her group‟s segment of guided
reading. The most common technique employed was the use of PowerPoint presentations,
especially with the guided reading class. PowerPoint presentations were planned together, with
all students on a counterpart team having input into what was placed on each frame. However,
13
the student on each counterpart team who was the most skilled in using the computer was
generally selected to make the PowerPoint format, with paper copies being given to each team
member. Students also ran off paper copies of the presentation for their cooperative team
members.
A survey was done at the end of each of the two classes, asking for the effectiveness of
group work, individual contributions, which subtopics were learned best, and an overall appraisal
of this approach to learning the broader topic. The fifteen students in the writing class all
reported positively on the use of Jigsaw, although one felt that others did not understand him
when he contributed to plans for teaching the Workshop Approach to writing. Of the eighteen
students in the reading class, sixteen were positive, but two stated that they preferred other ways
to be taught. One student reported that she learned best on an individual basis where the
professor gave study notes and lectured. A second student cited the noise factor during planning
and teaching (where groups were working at the same time) as a distraction in learning the
materials. The general consensus was that the Jigsaw activity was excellent for covering a broad
topic in large blocks of time scattered over a relatively short period of the semester (most of a
three-hour block of time for the writing class over a third of the semester; two-fifths of a
fivehour
block of time for the reading class over about half of the semester). Two evaluative factors
mentioned by several students were responsibilities of individual team members and concern that
others learn what they taught. In Table 2, (see Page 29) a breakdown of the student responses
following the guided reading Jigsaw activity is given. It is interesting to note that while two
students preferred other means of teaching, as earlier stated, they gave positive responses about
participation in both the cooperative team and the counterpart group (Questions 1 and 2 in Table
2). The self-evaluations and group evaluations (Questions 3 and 4) were both rated quite highly
(means of 8.3 and 9.0, respectively, where 1 is lowest and 10 is highest) by the students who
participated in this Jigsaw strategy.
Assessments in both segments of the mega-methods course that pertained to writing and
reading on end-of-the-semester examinations ran unusually high. When this was discussed with
the students, in each class, students stated that they could recall how their cooperative team
members covered a specific phase of a question asked on the examination (the song created was
the most frequently mentioned activity). Of the eighteen who were taught guided reading using
leveled books, a follow-up survey eight months after the students had followed the Jigsaw
14
approach to teaching-learning, students were asked to list the main concepts and strategies under
each of the five topics that had been designated. Students were able to list the major points that
they had learned, although the points listed were understandably more thorough for the topic that
students had worked in counterpart groups to teach other students (a point that students had
earlier mentioned just after the Jigsaw experience was completed).
Semantic Feature Analysis Defined
Another strategy that embraces a constructivist approach to learning is Semantic Feature
Analysis (SFA). SFA is a vocabulary strategy that calls for students to use their knowledge and
make explorations to contrast two or more words or concepts. As Vacca and Vacca state,
“Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA) establishes a meaningful link between students‟ prior
knowledge and words that are conceptually related to one another” (Vacca and Vacca32).
According to Anders and Bos, this strategy helps reinforce vocabulary considered to be essential
for understanding concepts in texts.33 Furthermore, Nagy pointed out the diverse utility of SFA
when relationships between word concepts are not easy to distinguish.34 For SFA, a grid is built
in which two or more related words are placed on one axis, and characteristics that are associated
with the words/concepts on the first axis are placed on the second axis. For example, cabin,
bungalow, mansion, hut, hogan, igloo, and other places where people might dwell could be
placed on the horizontal axis of a grid while features one generally associates with dwellings
would be placed on the vertical axis. Features such as in the woods, compact, spacious, roomy,
simple, and airy are but a few words that might be placed on the vertical axis. When students
work together on such a grid, or if they work individually first, they usually write “Y” for yes or
a code for “Yes” in the intersecting cell if the feature is one that pertains to a word on the
horizontal axis. They may also use an “N” for no (or a code for “No”) if the feature is one that is
not possessed by a place of dwelling found on the horizontal axis or leave that cell blank. Where
students do not know whether to mark yes or no, a question mark is used. Words that are not
readily known call for exploration, thus leading to new knowledge about vocabulary terms.
32 R. T. Vacca and J.L. Vacca, Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning Across the Curriculum, 8th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon, 2005), 282.
33 P.L. Anders and C.S. Bos, “Semantic Feature Analysis: An Interactive Strategy for Vocabulary Development and
Text Comprehension,” Journal of Reading, 1986, 29 (7), 610-616.
34 W.E. Nagy, Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension (Urbana, IL, National Council of
Teachers of English, 2000).
15
A value of Semantic Feature Analysis is that it expands various conceptual categories of
schema, the stored knowledge that aids comprehension (Anders and Bos,35; Johnson and
Pearson,36 Pittleman and others, 37 Vacca and Vacca38). As pointed out by Palmer, Rowell, and
Brooks:
…As students learn, new concepts are linked and organized according
to their relationship to pre-existing schema. A form of scaffolding is
involved in helping make transitions from known to unknown knowledge.
….Through scaffolding, teachers initiate interactive strategies that teach
students how to learn.39
When constructing a Semantic Features Analysis, the teacher should include both known
and unknown features. The unknown features would lead the students toward a search for new
knowledge while building on their former knowledge, a key element of instructional scaffolding.
New concepts can then be expanded and extended through teacher-and self-questioning
strategies (Palmer, Rowell, and Brooks40). Several modifications of the SFA strategy are possible
based on the knowledge base of the students. In an elementary school classroom, students and
their teacher can work together as the teacher models the strategies for completing the SFA,
while in a college classroom students can be expected to develop many of their own comparative
features for the SFA.
Since the early 1980s, SFA has been supported by solid theory and research (Baldwin,
Peleg-Bruckner, and McClintock41; Johnson, Toms-Bronowski, and Pittelman42; Osako and
35 Anders and Bos, “Semantic Feature Analysis,” 611.
36 D.D. Johnson and P.D. Pearson, Teaching Reading Vocabulary, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1984).
37 S. Pittelman and others, Semantic Feature Analysis: Classroom Applications (Newark, DE: International Reading
Association, 1991).
38 Vacca and Vacca, Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning Across the Curriculum.
39 B. C. Palmer, C. G. Rowell, and M.A. Brooks, “Reflection and Cognitive Strategy Instruction: Modeling Active
Learning for Pre-Service Teachers,” Reading Horizons, 2005, 45(3), 199.
40 Ibid.
41 R. S. Baldwin, Z. Peleg-Bruckner, and A.H. McClintock, “Effects of Topic Interest and Prior Knowledge on
Reading Comprehension,” Reading Research Quarterly, 1985, 20, 497-504.
42 D.D. Johnson, S. Toms-Bronowski, and S. Pittelman, “A Review of Trends in Vocabulary Research and the
Effects of Prior Knowledge on Instructional Strategies for Vocabulary Acquisition,” Theoretical Paper Number 95,
(Madison, WI: Center for Education Research, 1981).
16
Anders43). Bos and Anders focused their research on interactive teaching.44 According to
Tempe and others,
In their research to determine the effectiveness of various approaches
to vocabulary learning, Bos and Anders (1989, 1990, 1992) compared
the effectiveness of three semantic-related techniques (mapping, semantic
feature analysis, and semantic/syntactic feature analysis) to definition
study with students of various ages and abilities. They concluded that all
three of the interactive techniques were more effective than the traditional
approach that has students write and study definitions.45
In addition to active engagement of discussion about the relationships that are being
charted and the justifications for same, various processes such as conferring, predicting, and
integrating (concepts) are involved when using SFA. (Anders and Bos46). In addition, students
must determine when they know or do not know concepts charted. As Brozo and Simpson state,
meta-cognitive awareness “…is the cognitive process that directs and orchestrates the other
active learning processes.” 47
Given the solid theory and research support for SFA with students across the K-12
continuum, a search for research on the use of SFA in pre-service reading courses yielded a
paucity of studies. Hypothesizing that SFA would be best learned by doing (following John
Dewey‟s supposition that learning is interactive and social48), one of the authors of this paper
introduced university students to SFA via two birds—the owl (that the students readily knew)
43 G. N. Osako and P.L. Anders, “The Effect of Reading Interest on Comprehension of Expository Materials With
Controls for Prior Knowledge,” In J. Niles and L. Harris, eds. , In Search for Meaning in Reading, Language
Processing, and Instruction, (Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference, 1983).
44 C. S. Bos and P.L. Anders, “Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills Through Interactive Teaching,” Journal of
Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, International, 1989, 4(4), 259-274.
45 C. Tempe and others, All Children Read: Teaching for Literacy in Today’s Diverse Classroom (Boston: Allyn &
Bacon, 2008), 189.
46 Anders and Bos, “Semantic Feature Analysis,” 615.
47 W. G. Brozo and M.L. Simpson, Readers, Teachers, and Learners: Expanding Literacy in the Secondary Schools
(New York: Macmillan, 1991), 18.
48 J. Dewey, How We Think (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1910).

17
and the dodo (that the students knew little about). The SFA constructed is shown in Figure 1.
The university students worked in groups to establish a better understanding between
these two kinds of birds, one still in existence and one long extinct. Among other resources,
students explored children‟s books, the Internet, videotapes, and books on birds (Palmer,
Rowell,
and Brooks49). A large number of facts were learned in the search for unique and shared
characteristics between the owl and the dodo. The students learned where the dodo once lived
49 B. C. Palmer, C. G. Rowell, and M.A. Brooks, “Reflection and Cognitive Strategy Instruction,” 204, 214-215.
18
(island of Mauritius) and located it on the map, how the dodo became extinct, and how the
ecosystem was affected by its extinction. Students, in their search for information about the owl,
learned that some owls build their nests on the ground (although most kinds of owls do not) and
even one type of owl (the Burrowing Owl) goes underground to build its nest. Above all,
students learned how the use of the SFA contrasting a known bird with a little-known bird (or
other related entities) could lead to much further learning in science, social studies, and other
content courses, starting out with what was already known (the main tenet in constructivism).
The learning strategies involved in this activity were numerous, calling for students to discuss
and reflect on concepts, learn new vocabulary terms, be articulate in group discussions, use
various listening skills, practice finding resources, and reflect on how these strategies could be
transferred to the K-12 classroom.
On the end-of-the-semester examination, on a case-study question, students were asked to
design a Semantic Feature Analysis as a part of a larger unit of study. The results were
outstanding, clearly showing that students learned much about how to apply SFA to the
classroom situation. One year later, a survey was done electronically to see if the university
students in the class had used SFA in their own teaching. Several reported that they had done so,
with two teachers reporting that they also had introduced this important strategy to teachers in
in-service classes.50
Another one of the authors has recently used a modified SFA in a graduate-level trends
and issues course where the focus is on reflective thinking and writing about current educational
issues of the day. After the students had read and reacted via short papers on three types of
alternatives to public schooling—vouchers, charter schools, home schooling—that were placed
on one axis of a grid, they were asked in small groups to plot on the second axis of the grid the
following features: (1) will take funds from public schools, (2) will negatively impact public
schools, (3) will allow special interest groups to push their own agendas, (4) will offer healthy
competition to public schools, (5) will significantly hurt good private schools now existing, (6)
will have significantly greater involvement of parents than now found in public schools, and (7)
will affect elementary, middle, and high school students in the same way. The SFA, once
completed, led to a lively discussion where students in each group had to not only tell what they
put ( “Y”, “N”, or ?) in intersecting cells but also had to defend their answers.
50 Ibid., 204-205.
19
Nonsense Stories Used for Identifying Systems in Our Language and for Identifying Major
Word Patterns
One teaching approach that stimulates thinking to a deeper level (a main tenet of
cognitive and constructivist strategies) than “teacher telling” is the use of simulations. Often
these are case studies in which students are asked to read a teaching episode and respond to it.
Lunce states that “An educational simulation is based on an internal model of a real-world
system or phenomena in which some elements have been simplified or omitted in order to
facilitate learning.”51 Lunce identifies one type of simulation as “situated learning” in which
some form of human behavior is modeled, students interact with others, and scenario-based
learning activities are used.52 Lunce also states that those who have explored situated learning,
including McClellan,53 have identified meaningful strategies such as use of stories, reflection,
exploration, and articulation (Lunce54). Bernstein, Scheerhorn, and Ritter stress that simulations
and collaborative teaching together help move college students (especially in introductory
classes) from being passive observers to active participants, reasoning that …“By making
students active learners, we motivate them to learn the material and succeed in the class. They
also learn to view the material with a more critical eye as they make decisions themselves rather
than passively accepting those made by others.”55
We have used simulations (especially scenario-based learning activities) successfully
with fictitious stories (and sometimes just words and sentences) to motivate students who are just
beginning the study of reading and language arts. In doing so, students are involved in reflecting
about the systems used in our language and specific patterns in which many words can be
classified, such as CVC, CVCe, etc. On the very first day of a beginning reading or language
arts class, students working alone are asked to first identify what a system is and then read a
nonsense story and answer questions about this story. To keep students from being embarrassed
if they do not know the names of systems in operation in their language (although they know
51 L.M. Lunce, “Simulations: Bringing the Benefits of Situated Learning to the Traditional Classroom,” Journal of
Applied Educational Technology, 2006, 3(1), 39.
52 Ibid., 38-40.
53 H. McClellan, “Situated Learning: Multiple Perspectives,” In H. McLellan, ed., Situated Learning Perspectives
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1986), 5-18.
54 Lunce, “Simulations,” 38-40.
55 J. L.Bernstein, S. Scheerhorn, and S. Ritter, “Using Simulations and Collaborative Teaching to Enhance
Introductory Courses,” College Teaching, 2002 50.1 9(4), 1-6.
20
how to use these systems), students are asked to place a five-digit number on the form with the
nonsense story with first and last digits that are different to decrease the chances of any two
students choosing the same number. Students read the story to themselves and then answer the
questions. Students then come together in small groups to discuss their individual answers,
completing a group response. Forms first used by individual students are not marked on but used
to make contributions to the composite form each group is asked to complete. Both the
individual forms and the composite forms are submitted to the instructor. In Table 3, one that
has been effective with students in beginning reading/language arts courses, is shown.
Table 3 A Nonsense Story for Learning Systems in the Language and Some Major Word Patterns
Zummy and Wicky
This is a story of a blimpy ooble. His ved is Zummy Ooble. Zummy is a kide ooble. He is also a
vot ooble. Zummy is kide and vot.
Zummy has a black and white blay. His ved is Wicky. Wicky is a meeb blay. Wicky is also a gite
blay. He is meeb and gite.
Wicky and Zummy like to tas. Yesterday, they tassed by the lun. Today, they tassed by the nud.
They are always simmy when tassing.
Some days Zummy and Wicky go lelling. They lell for teep. Last week they lelled for voil. They
are simmy when they go lelling.
Most of all, Zummy and Wicky like to fap. They have fapped by the vape. They have fapped by
the neep. Would you like to go fapping with Zummy and Wicky?
Now Answer These Questions:
1. What system(s) in our language is/are in operation that enable(s) you to pronounce most if
not all of the nonsense words?
2. In paragraphs three, four, and five base words take on different endings as in tas (s) (ed),
tas (s) (ing); lell (ed), lell (ing); fap (p) (ed); fap (p) (ing). What system in our language
lets this happen?
3. Why is this a story even though it has so many nonsense words?
4. What system in our language permits you to tell what Zummy and Wicky like to do most?
From the authors‟ Reading and Language Arts class notes
21
As students move into their small groups, the first task to be accomplished is to reflect
further about the meaning of “systems” by identifying various body functions that are separate
systems that work with other systems to keep a person alive. Students can easily identify such
systems (e.g., the digestive system, the respiratory system, the circulatory system, and so on).
They are asked to reflect on their individual definition of “system” and discuss it in their small
groups in relation to body-function systems. The students then pool their answers to the
questions in Table 3, completing a composite form. Even after pooling their knowledge, some
students fail to identify correctly the phonological and morphological systems that help answer
question one, the morphological system that helps answer question two, and the syntactical
system that helps answer question four. Students can more easily give the characteristics of a
story (characters, setting, events) that help answer question three, “Why is this a story even
though it has so many nonsense words?”
After discussion of the unique but complementary systems in our language that help us
read and write, students then are asked to identify a series of word patterns from the nonsense
words and to verify these patterns with a list of real words that they know. Nonsense words in
the story in Table 3 and the patterns that follow include ved, vot, tas, lun, nud, fap (CVC
words where the vowel sound is usually short); kide, gite, vape (CVCe where the final e
usually dictates that the vowel sound is long); Zummy, tassed, simmy, tassing, lelling, lelled,
fapped, fapping (where the double consonant usually dictates that the preceding vowel
sound is short); meeb, teep, neep (where double e is usually pronounced as long e); and
blimpy, Zummy, Wicky, simmy (where the ending <y> is usually a long e sound).
In a sense, when students cannot identify specifically the language systems in operation,
they are not seeing the forest for the trees. Language systems that they have used to the point of
applying them automatically have been thought of not so much as “systems” but in everyday use
as “tools.”
We have used another activity similar to the nonsense story in Table 3 that also embraces
a scenario-based learning activity to help students understand the major kinds of writing systems
that are used to record oral language in different parts of the world as well as to think more
deeply about their own writing system. In this activity, students are asked to use their own
knowledge of selected English words and their meanings to reflect on fictitious people who
invented writing systems (but systems that in fact simulate real-world writing systems). (Palmer,
22
Rowell, and Brooks56). These systems are shown in Table 4, followed by questions that help
students analyze differences among the writing systems of the four fictitious groups of people.
56 Palmer, Rowell, and Brooks, “Reflection and Cognitive Strategy Instruction,” 207-209.
23
24
As in the nonsense-story activity, students are given a form with space to record their
answers. They code the sheet, using a five-digit number to keep their identity from being known
by the instructor. After fifteen-twenty minutes, students are grouped to make a composite of
their answers. By pooling their individual knowledge, students are able to figure out that in the
first system (the Unga People), single symbols are used for individual words, even where a word
is more than one syllable. In the second system, the system of the Lunacans, a symbol is used to
represent each syllable. Thus, a two-syllable word has two symbols while a one-syllable word
has a single symbol. The third system (the Tippalians) has symbols to represent sounds or
phonemes, although some symbols represent more than one sound as is the case with the English
language. The fourth system, the one developed by the Gula people, is more of a true alphabetic
system with each sound having its own unique symbol.
Most students often state that while they know words in our language have different
sounds in them and that there are several ways to write most sounds, they had not thought much
about other ways to write. After a bit of probing, however, students can come up with a fairly
large number of symbols used in math and other content fields to represent whole words such as
%, $, #, +, = and so on. Occasionally, a student will have had some exposure to Chinese and/or
Japanese symbols for writing but usually not know precisely how they differ from our system in
which most symbols represent sounds, not words/concepts, or syllables.
Why is this important in classes where instruction in how to teach reading and writing
takes place? It is important because it helps set the stage for learning any number of concepts
and skills that are later taught. One such concept is phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness
is “…the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual sounds—phonemes—in spoken
words.” (Adler and others57). In our opinion, phonemic awareness is better understood by the
college student if that student has an understanding of symbols representing sounds (not syllables
or words) in the language to be taught, leading to a better understanding of the alphabetic
principle. As one moves more into phoneme-grapheme correspondences and especially into
rules that govern these correspondences and their uses, having knowledge that many symbols in
our writing system represent different phonemes is helpful.
Position of sounds in a language is also helpful to understand as one begins to teach
reading. We often point out that a statement attributed to Sir George Bernard Shaw that ghoti
57 Adler and others, Put Reading First, 4.
25
can spell fish in the English language is wrong. Shaw‟s explanation (<gh> spells the f sound as
in laugh, <o> spells the short i sound as in women, and <ti> spells the sh sound as in nation)
was wrong because position of sound was not considered by Shaw in the f and sh sounds, and
the <o> used to spell the short i sound in women is so rare that one cannot generalize that this is
really a productive way to spell the short i sound. As one moves more into phonics (using
sound-symbol correspondences to predict how to say words), students having a rudimentary
knowledge that symbols in words we read and write represent sounds is important.
Conclusion
While you may still argue that there is too much content to cover in your college classes
to institute the strategies that we have used to transform passive students into active learners, we
argue that the strategies actually serve as a catalyst for more effective independent learning of
the content intended as well as related content. We also maintain that this content for most
students will soon be forgotten if college professors rely solely on traditional modes of lecture
and/or lecture-discussion. We further argue that cooperative learning like Jigsaw that we have
used successfully, graphic portrayal of vocabulary terms using SFA where college students
interact with each other and explore materials extensively, the simulation strategy of situated
learning in two forms (nonsense story and fictitious writing systems), or any of the other myriad
ways to get students to use their experiences to learn new materials more effectively, lead to
more efficient learning and, in turn, to a more effective transfer to the K-12 classroom.
Cognitive and constructivist strategies for teaching reading and writing and learning about the
language we use daily provide the theoretical framework for interactive learning that we believe
is a reachable goal for college professors of these vital areas of the curriculum.
References
1. Adler, C. R., ed, B. M. Armbruster, F. Lehr, and J. Osborn. 2001. Put
Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children
to Read. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy. Washington,
DC: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
2. Allington, R. L. 2006. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing
Researh-Based Programs, 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
3. Anders, P.L. and C. S. Bos. 1986. Semantic Feature Analysis: An Interactive
Strategy for Vocabulary Development and Text Comprehension.
Journal of Reading 29(7): 610-616.
26
4. Aronson, E., N. Blaney, C. Stephan, J. Sikes, and M. Snapp.1978. The Jigsaw
Classrroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Co.
5. Baldwin, R. S., Z. Peleg-Bruckner, and A.H. McClintock. 1985. Effects of
Topic Interest and Prior Knowledge on Reading Comprehension,
Reading Research Quarterly 20: 497-504.
6. Bernstein, J.L., S. Scheerhorn, and S. Ritter. 2002. Using Simulations and
Collaborative Teaching to Enhance Introductory Courses. College .
Teaching 50.1 9(4): 1-6.
7. Bos, C. S. and P.L. Anders.1989. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills
Through Interactive Teaching. Journal of Reading, Writing, and
Learning Disabilities International 4(4): 259-274.
8. Brozo, W. G. and M. L. Simpson.1991. Readers, Teachers, and Learners:
Expanding Literacy in the Secondary Schools. New York: Macmillan.
9. Dewey, J. 1910. How We Think. Lexington, MA: Heath.
10. Elkind, D. 2004. The Problem With Constructivism. The Educational
Forum 68: 306-307.
11. Ferrer, M. (n.d.) “Constructivist „Spiral.‟” Retrieved September 17, 2007 from
http://.west.net/~ger/Orientation/constructivist.html
12. Fennimore, T. and M. Tinzmann. 1990. What is a Thinking Curriculum? Oak
Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved May 9, 1999 From
http://www.ncrel.org/ncrel/sdrs/areas/rplesys/thinking.htm
13. Fountas, I. C. and G.S. Pinnell. 1996. Guided Reading Instruction: Good First
Teaching for All Children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Educational Books.
14. George, P. G. 1999. Using Cooperative Learning in the College
Classroom. Thought and Action, The NEA Higher
Education Journal. Spring Issue: 33-38.
15. Goodlad, J. 1984. A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future. New
York: Teachers College Press.
16. Graves, D. H. 1994. Writing: Teachers & Children at Work. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
17. Hudson, R. F., H.B. Lane, and P.C. Pullen. 2005. Reading Fluency
Assessment and Instruction: What, Why, and How? The
Reading Teacher 58 (8): 702-714.
18. Huitt, W. 2003. Constructivism. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta,
GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved April 12, 2007 From
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html
Johnson, D. D. and P.D. Pearson. 1984. Teaching Reading Vocabulary, 2nd ed.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
20. Johnson, D. D., S. Toms-Bronowski, and S. Pittelman. 1981. A Review of
Trends in Vocabulary Research and the Effects of Prior Knowledge
on Instructional Strategies for Vocabulary Acquisition, Theoretical
Paper Number 95, Madison, WI: Center for Education Research.
21. Johnson, D.W. and R.T. Johnson. 1986. Mainstreaming and Cooperative
Learning Strategies. Exceptional Children 52: 553-561.
22. Johnson, D.W., R. T. Johnson, and E.J. Holubec. 1990. Cooperation in the
Classroom, Revised. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
23. Johnson, D.W., R. T. Johnson, and K.A. Smith. 1998. Cooperative Learning
Returns to College: What Evidence is There That it Works?
Change, July/August: 27-35. Retrieved May 13, 2007-Website
http://saweb.memphis.edu/mimsac/downloads/CooperativeLearning.
pdf, pp. 1-14.
24. Lunce, L.M. 2006. Simulations: Bringing the Benefits of Situated Learning
to the Traditional Classroom. Journal of Applied Educational
27
Technology 3(1): 38-40.
25. Maxim, G.W. 2006. Dynamic Social Studies for Constructivist Classrooms,
8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.
26. McClellan, H. 1986. Situated Learning: Multiple Perspectives. In H. McLellan,
ed. Situated Learning Perspectives, 5-18. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
27. Nagy, W. E. 2000. Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
28. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. Report of the
National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read—An
Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research
Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading
Instruction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office), 1-3.
29. Noll, J. W. 2007. Taking Sides—Clashing Views on Educational Issues,
14th ed. Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill Contemporary Learning
Series, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
30. Osako, G. N. and P.L. Anders. 1983. The Effect of Reading Interest on
Comprehension of Expository Materials With Controls for Prior
Knowledge. In J. Niles and L. Harris, eds. In Search for Meaning in
Reading, Language Processing, and Instruction. Rochester, NY:
National Reading Conference.
31. Palmer, B. C., C.G. Rowell, and M.A. Brooks. 2005. Reflection and Cognitive
Strategy Instruction: Modeling Active Learning for Pre-Service
Teachers. Reading Horizons 45(3):195-213.
32. Pittelman, S., J. Heimlich, R. Berglund, and M. French. 1991. Semantic
Feature Analysis: Classroom Applications. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
33. Reutzels, D. R. & R. B. Cooter, Jr. 2004. Teaching Children to Read: Putting the
Pieces Together, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill
Prentice Hall.
34. Slavin, R.E. 1990. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
35. Stallings, J. A. and D. Stipek. 1986. Research on Early Childhood and
Elementary School Teaching Programs, in Handbook of Research
on Teaching, 3rd ed., Wittrock, M.C., ed. American Educational
Research Association, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
36. Stevens, R. J. and R.E. Slavin. 1995a. The Cooperative Elementary School:
Effects on Students‟ Achievement, Attitudes, and Social
Relations. American Educational Research Journal 32: 321-351.
37. ______________ .1995b. Effects of a Cooperative Learning Approach in
Reading and Writing on Academically Handicapped and
Nonhandicapped Students. Elementary School Journal 95: 241-262.
38. Tempe, C., D. Ogle, A. Crawford, and P. Freppon. 2008. All Children Read:
Teaching for Literacy in Today’s Diverse Classrooms. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
39. Tovani, C. 2004. Do I Really Have to Teach Reading? Portland, ME:
Stenhouse Publishers.
40. Vacca, R. T. & J. L.Vacca. 2005. Content Area Reading: Literacy and Learning
Across the Curriculum, 8th ed. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
41. Van Voorhis, J. L. 1992. Instruction in Teacher Education: A Descriptive
Study of Cooperative Learning, Paper presented at the International
Convention on Cooperative Learning. Utrecht, Netherlands, ED 349-
28
297.
42. Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29
Table 2 Responses to Value of Jigsaw for Learning About Guided Reading Using Leveled Books
Question 1. Value of time (one-plus class session) in Question 2. Value of time (two-plus class sessions) spent
in class in
cooperative teams deciding who would take which of the counterpart groups outlining content of topic and
planning how to
five topics and how each group member learns best teach each topic to other cooperative team members
-My group wasted no time. We asked questions of each -We created an in depth outline, taking two class periods.
other and valued everyone‟s opinion. Each gave valuable input. No wasted time.
-Beneficial. -Different ideas/approaches helped make clearer how/what
to teach. Helped identify most important concepts to teach.
-Everyone participated. -Class time spent efficiently.
-Good use of time. Valuable group work. Helps us see -In-class time helped us because we aren‟t in same school.
how teachers divide up a subject.
-Helpful. We discussed how each one learned best. -It was very valuable. Saved time. I wasn‟t overwhelmed.
Got information needed.
-Helped us focus more on one topic. -Valuable time spent in class. Got right to the point. Made sure
everyone did something for group.
-Helpful for others to share their ideas. -Very helpful. Allowed us to plan together without being rushed.
-Somewhat valuable to decide which topic each would take. -Very valuable.
-Yes. We easily decided which topic we would take. -Worked out well. We all did our part.
-Time well spent. Matched topic to our knowledge and interest. -Just enough time to get our thoughts together and
not have to meet
outside class, except e-mail.
-Yes. It went well. -Yes, time was well spent.
-Easy to decide. Each member volunteered for topic wanted. -Time was useful. My group worked well together. Just
enough time.
-Yes, we spent quality time making responsible decisions. -We worked well together. We spent all of the time on
who would do
what in our group.
-Everyone chose topic he/she wanted. -The time was an integral part of the success of our counterpart group.
-We did not need all the time allocated. -Only one session was needed since ______came to the first session
with outline of content.
-We did a nice job deciding. Everyone got topic wanted. -Nice job staying on task and developing our ideas. We
worked well
together.
-We worked well together and made decisions quickly. -Initially, we were concerned if group would discuss and
locate
information needed for my presentation. But it worked out great.
Really pleased with outline of content.
-Only problem—four of us and five topics. We were -Spent time wisely but one person was very studious and came
to first
pressured about how extra topic was to be covered. session with outline.
Question 3. Your effort (scale of 1-10 with 10 highest) Question 4. Team effort (1-10 with 10 highest) of your
cooperative
on deciding content and how to teach it team in teaching content to total team members
Mean = 8.3 Range 5-10 Mean = 9.0 Range
30
Published by the Forum on Public Policy
Copyright © The Forum on Public Policy. All Rights Reserved. 2007.
4.Constructivism is a theory of knowledge (epistemology) [1] that argues that humans generate
knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experiences and their ideas. During
infancy, it is an interaction between their experiences and their reflexes or behavior-patterns.
Piaget called these systems of knowledge schemata. Constructivism is not a specific pedagogy,
although it is often confused with constructionism, an educational theory developed by Seymour
Papert, inspired by constructivist and experiential learning ideas of Jean Piaget. Piaget's theory of
constructivist learning has had wide ranging impact on learning theories and teaching methods in
education and is an underlying theme of many education reform movements. Research support
for constructivist teaching techniques has been mixed, with some research supporting these
techniques and other research contradicting those results.
5. Teaching with Writing

Resources for Teaching with Writing
Princeton Writing Program
www.princeton.edu/writing
The Writing Program offers workshops and conversations on integrating writing
instruction into courses, designing writing assignments, responding effectively to
student writing, and grading consistently and fairly. Resources for teaching with
writing are available online.
The McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning
www.princeton.edu/mcgraw
McGraw Center staff provide ideas for using writing to meet learning goals,
structuring class time to address writing as a process, and advising students doing
independent work.
The University Library
library.princeton.edu
Reference librarians offer guidance on incorporating library research into course
design, arrange for course-specific instructional sessions, and make materials from
Rare Books and Special Collections available. Mudd Manuscript Library contains
an archive of Senior Theses, which can be read on site or copied for a fee (with 3
weeks’ notice).
The Educational Technology Center
www.princeton.edu/~etc
ETC staff help faculty develop teaching-related websites, blogs, and wikis, create
interactive classroom modules, and use digital media in teaching. ETC also
administers
Blackboard, the University’s learning management system.
Academic Integrity at Princeton
www.princeton.edu/writing/integrity
The University holds students to a high standard of academic conduct. Useful
resources are available online, along with Princeton policies and procedures
regarding plagiarism, multiple submission, collaboration, and the disciplinary
process.
Teaching with Writing
A Guide for Faculty and Graduate Students
Kerry Walk
Director of the Princeton Writing Program
Acknowledgments
I’d like to thank my colleagues in the Princeton Writing Program and
Harvard’s Expository Writing Program for their invaluable feedback on drafts
of various sections of this guide. Special thanks go to Elizabeth Abrams, Raf
Allison, Pat Bellanca, Margie Duncan, Alfie Guy, Gordon Harvey, Amanda Irwin
Wilkins, Ann Jurecic, Pat Kain, Soo La Kim, and Laura Saltz.
I’m especially grateful to Judy Swan, who contributed the section on teaching
with writing in science and engineering, and who worked with me to develop
the cross-disciplinary writing lexicon that concludes this guide.
My greatest debt is to Nancy Sommers, mentor and friend.
Teaching with Writing will benefit from your feedback. If you have comments
on how to make this guide more useful to you in your teaching, please drop me
a line at kwalk@princeton.edu.
—Kerry Walk
Teaching with Writing: A Guide for Faculty and Graduate Students
by Kerry Walk
Copyright c 2007, 2008 The Trustees of Princeton University
All rights reserved
Contents
Resources for Teaching with Writing Front Cover
1 Writing at Princeton 1
2 Writing and the College Classroom 3
3 The Writing Workshop 11
4 Sequencing Assignments 17
5 Crafting Assignments 27
6 Commenting on Student Writing 31
7 Grading Papers 37
8 Cultivating Academic Integrity 41
9 Teaching with Writing in Science and Engineering 45
By Judith A. Swan
10 A Language for Describing Writing 49
Resources for Writers Back Cover
1 I Writing at Princeton
Writing can be said to define a Princeton undergraduate education. By the time our
students walk through FitzRandolph Gate on Commencement Day, they have
produced
numerous papers and reports, typically one or two Junior Papers (JPs), and a
Senior Thesis, for an average output of around a hundred pages a year. 1
The emphasis on writing at Princeton stems from the University’s recognition
that writing is a central component of all academic work, and that the ability to
write cogently and coherently is the hallmark of educated men and women.
To prepare students for the rigorous demands of writing at Princeton, every
undergraduate, without exception, takes a topic-based Writing Seminar freshman
year. In the Writing Seminars, students learn to develop original arguments
through the critical use of sources, and express and organize ideas in a clear,
coherent way. But the Writing Seminar is just a beginning: it can provide a solid
foundation for writing at Princeton, but students need ongoing guidance if
they’re to develop as proficient writers in the disciplines.
To understand why guidance in writing in the disciplines is essential, simply
imagine a great writer like Virginia Woolf reporting in the journal Science on
a new statistical method for analyzing the human genome. Could she do it?
No doubt. But success would take more than knowing the science and
understanding
how to write a sentence; it would also require Woolf to have a deep
familiarity with the complex conventions and expectations of scientific writing.
Although her peerless ability in English sentence construction would certainly
come in handy, it’s likely that even this great writer could become proficient as a
scientific writer only with expert instruction, repeated practice, and meaningful
feedback.
As this scenario suggests, writing isn’t a simple matter of expressing ideas in
grammatically correct sentences. Rather, writing is a form of critical thinking
that must be adapted to different disciplines and genres. As such, writing is an
essential component of disciplinary knowledge, a practice that must be cultivated
in every course as actively as any other discipline-based practice, whether
an analytical approach, a research method, or a laboratory or computational
technique.
1The statistics on freshman writing come from the Freshman Survey of Writing (Class of
2005), conducted in Spring 2002. The statistics on junior writing come from the Junior Survey
of Writing (Class of 2007), conducted in Spring 2006. Both surveys were designed by the
Princeton Writing Program.
2
The purpose of this guide is to offer Princeton faculty and graduate student
instructors ideas for teaching with writing. Many of the ideas presented here
will be familiar; others, new. But all are designed to help you make greater use
of writing as a powerful critical thinking tool and to assist you in providing
the guidance that students need to write as novice practitioners in your course
or discipline. Each semester, if you implement only one of the ideas presented
here, you’ll be taking an important step toward bringing your students into the
exclusive circle of your discipline. You’ll also be creating on a small scale the
kind of vibrant academic community to which you, as a professional scholar or
scientist, already belong.
Writing at Princeton
3
2 I Writing and the College Classroom

Whether you’re teaching a lecture course, seminar, precept, or lab, you can
profitably
integrate writing into the classroom experience. In fact, if you spend only
three to five minutes per session on any of the following activities, you would be
making a significant difference in students’ understanding of what it means to
write—and therefore think—in your course or discipline:
n Use in-class writing to deepen students’ thinking.
n “Meta-teach” during lecture or discussion.
n Discuss secondary sources in terms of writing.
n Discuss strategies for approaching writing assignments.
n Workshop current students’ writing.
n Discuss exemplary writing from former students.
n Organize and promote writing groups.
Each of these activities is discussed in detail below.

Use In-Class Writing to Deepen Students’ Thinking
Ask students to write for two or three minutes on the spot—at the beginning of
class to stimulate discussion or gather students’ attention; in the middle of class to
make a transition in topic, work through a difficult issue or problem, or keep
students
engaged; or at the end of class to give students a chance to reflect on what they’ve
learned, sealing it in their memories. There’s no need to collect this “low-stakes”
writing,
but you can use it as the basis of a class discussion or a two- or three-minute
conversation
among small groups of students. Not only does it deepen students’ thinking
and give them practice writing; it also provides quiet students with a space to
articulate
their ideas. Once these students have written something, you can call on them
with the assurance that they’ll have something to say.
Depending on what you’re after, the writing prompt you give students can be highly
specific or as open-ended as “Take a few minutes to reflect on the reading you did
for
today.” You may even wish to design some prompts to help students make progress
on a particular formal writing assignment. Here are a few sample prompts to get
you
thinking:
4
n Identify and define one of an author’s key words.
n Locate a “hotspot” in the text (a passage that seems important, striking,
puzzling) and write a brief comment on what makes it interesting or
suggestive.
n Given a particular position or theory (for example, in a secondary source),
find a passage in the text under discussion that supports or challenges it,
and say briefly how.
n Write a brief note to an author challenging a key idea or finding.
n Agree or disagree with an author’s perspective or claim.
n Reflect on the most important thing you learned in lecture/precept today.

“Meta-Teach” During Lecture or Discussion
The premise of a liberal arts education is that students can take skills, strategies,
and information and apply them to other situations. Thus does the Anthropology
concentrator become a physician, the Music concentrator a delegate to the
United Nations, and the Chemistry concentrator an entrepreneur. But only the
most gifted students are capable of making these crucial “knowledge transfers”
unaided. You can help students generalize their learning and transfer it to other
situations through “meta-teaching”—that is, taking a step back and naming the
intellectual operation being performed. Meta-teaching takes only seconds to
do, but it can help students see methodology where before they saw only “content,”
and it can help them connect their classroom experience to their writing.
For example, if you’re discussing a graph, painting, case history, or other course
“text,” point out to students when the analysis being performed, either by you or
by them, is characteristic of the discipline, and explain that they should perform
this kind of analysis in their papers. Or if a student’s or your understanding of
the data or text challenges prevailing ideas, you can explain that most academic
papers begin in just that way—by identifying the status quo, then challenging
it. Or if a student comes up with an interesting idea that would make for a good
paper, say so, and explain why, to help every student see what good inquiry in
the course or discipline looks like.
Writing and the college classroom
5
Discuss Secondary Sources in Terms of Writing
You can “meta-teach” secondary sources, too, including journal articles, book
chapters, and textbook introductions. In fact, it’s worth assigning good secondary
material if only to give students some models for discipline-based writing.
Otherwise,
they’ll write according to their perhaps mistaken notions of what “scientific,” or
“sociological,” or “historical” writing looks like—or, worse, they’ll imitate the
writing of the primary source authors. Even advanced students typically have less
experience reading secondary sources than you might expect, and few are likely to
have considered what these sources can tell them about the discipline’s methods of
written inquiry and analysis.
You can simply point out how a secondary source models a particular approach to
the material or makes a particular rhetorical move. For example, you might note
that
a source’s approach is to apply a theory, test a hypothesis, critique an argument,
make
a recommendation, or provide an explanation. Specific moves you could point out
might include how the author frames the research question or problem, provides
background information, performs analysis, handles counter-arguments, or
integrates
and cites sources. A focus on professional scholars’ use of sources—how they
announce them, incorporate them (through quotation? paraphrase? summary?), cite
them, and connect them to their own argument—can cultivate an ethos of academic
integrity in your classroom and help students steer clear of plagiarism.
A more time-consuming but also more effective way to heighten students’
awareness
of how course readings function as writing is to take a workshop approach. In a
workshop,
students themselves examine a source for what it can tell them about disciplinary
discourse. Below are some questions you might ask students to answer in pairs or
small groups. Even if you ask them to answer only one of these questions per
reading,
by the end of the term, they’ll know a great deal about writing in the discipline.
n What are the main parts of this piece of writing, and what are the primary
functions of each?
n What are the elements of the introduction? the body? the conclusion?
n Who is the author’s imputed reader, and how do you know?
n What are the form and function of each source citation?
n What style does the author use for documenting sources, and why do you
think this style is preferred?

n Consider the kind of academic writing that’s furthest from the kind
represented by this source. What are the differences between the two?
6
Discuss Strategies for Approaching
Writing Assignments
As long as the assignment allows for a wide variety of responses, it’s not cheating
to discuss how students might approach it. In fact, discussing approaches
to an assignment can form an important part of students’ learning about what’s
valued in the course or discipline, and can help them formulate ideas that are
both complex and distinctively their own. While it’s tempting to append a few
words of advice to the assignment sheet and leave it at that, a discussion that
takes place in class will be more meaningful and engaging for students, provide
them with an opportunity to ask for clarification and guidance, and, perhaps
most important of all, give them a jump on the assignment, which they might
otherwise sit on until the night before it’s due.
You can discuss the assignment directly by asking students for their ideas about
how to approach it. This discussion will give you a chance to offer some ideas
of your own, convey your expectations (if you want an argument rather than
a report, or vice versa, you need to say so), and warn students away from pitfalls.
Alternatively (or in addition), you can discuss the assignment indirectly
by leading a workshop that will actually get students started on the work of
writing the paper. One method is to give students an assignment that asks them
to approach a text or texts in a particular way rather than giving them topics per
se (see Section 4, “Sequencing Assignments,” for further discussion). In class,
have students brainstorm topics that will work for the assignment, put these on
the board, then ask students to choose one and freewrite on it for one or two
minutes. With little time investment, students will have learned how to come
up with their own topic and even begun engaging it.
One final idea: you can model a response to the assignment in class discussion.
Just be sure to make explicit that you’re modeling a response; otherwise, many
students won’t make the connection. It’s also a good idea to make the text(s) you
use in the modeling exercise off-limits when it comes to the assignment itself. So,
for example, if the assignment asks students to place a text in a particular context,
you can model the assignment using an off-limits text. In this way, students
can learn the complex analytical operations necessary to write the paper—
operations
such as applying a theory, critiquing a text, or comparing texts in a given
framework—and then practice these operations in their own papers.
7
Workshop Current Students’ Writing
All sophomores, juniors, and seniors have taken Writing Seminars, and all freshmen
are in the process of doing so. This means that nearly the entire student
body has experience providing constructive criticism in response to student
writing. You can capitalize on students’ experience by workshopping some of
their writing—a partial or whole draft, or a short exercise, such as a paper proposal
or even an annotated bibliography. Next to giving students detailed comments
on their writing, workshopping is the best method for showing students,
in practical and concrete terms, the kind of inquiry and analysis valued in your
course or discipline. And, of course, workshopping is more efficient than writing
individual comments on drafts. For detailed information on how to workshop
student writing, see Section 3, “The Writing Workshop.”
Discuss Exemplary Writing from Former Students
A variation on the writing workshop is to lead a discussion of a model student
paper from a previous course or precept. The purpose is for students to see how
another student intelligently frames an inquiry, provides context, structures
ideas, performs analysis, and integrates sources—all of which are specific to the
course or discipline. While it usually makes sense to workshop current students’
writing onymously—that is, with their names attached—you should strip all
identifying information from writing by students who aren’t part of the classroom
experience.
Two pieces of advice. First, ask students to submit their writing electronically
(instead of, or in addition to, submitting it in hard-copy form) so that you can
stockpile it for future use. Second, do your best to get students’ permission to
use their writing in future courses. A quick e-mail to a student asking for permission
to share his or her exemplary piece of writing will do the trick. Or ask
students to sign a confidential statement like the following, to be collected at
the end of the semester:
I give/do not give my professor/preceptor permission to use the writing
I have produced in this course for teaching, training, and studying.
I understand that my name and other identifying information will not
appear on my writing.
8
Organize and Promote Writing Groups
You can capitalize on students’ experience of workshopping writing in the
Writing Seminar by organizing them into writing groups of two or three
students each. Writing group members typically give each other feedback on
drafts outside of class, though you might set aside a few minutes of class time
to get the groups going. Participating in a writing group will mean, at the very
least, that students will have started working on their papers well in advance of
the deadline and, at the very most, that they’ll give and get helpful feedback
while enjoying a free exchange of ideas. Either way, the result will be better final
papers with little time expenditure on your part.2
While some students will form writing groups voluntarily, most won’t, because
writing groups require work (which is the whole point, from your perspective!). So
to implement this idea successfully, you need to require a draft, which means that
you have to put a draft deadline in your syllabus, along with a deadline for writing
groups to meet and a deadline for the final version of the paper. You should also ask
students to attach a cover letter to the final version of their papers in which they
discuss their writing process, the advice they received, and how they incorporated
it. The cover letter will not only let you know who participated in the groups (and
who didn’t); it will also give you a starting point for your comments on the paper.
Finally, you might ask students to follow common scholarly practice by including a
note in the final version in which they acknowledge the feedback and support they
received in writing the paper. See Section 8, “Cultivating Academic Integrity,” for
wording you might use in asking for “Acknowledgments.”
The easiest way to form groups is by residence hall, but, in any case, don’t worry
too much about group composition; even weak writers can give excellent advice.
And don’t worry too much about students giving each other bad advice, either;
what’s true for professional scholars and scientists is true for students: the
responsibility to decide which advice to take and which to reject is theirs and
theirs alone. By the deadline, students exchange drafts by e-mail or hard copy
in class, or by posting to a Discussion Board forum on Blackboard. If you want
to monitor the exchange, simply have students submit a copy of their drafts,
or look on the Discussion Board forum to see who has posted. Or just let the
process unfold; the cover letter on the final version or the “Acknowledgments”
will let you know who participated.
2One caveat: The assignment has to allow for a wide variety of responses (not a few set
“answers”) so that students aren’t nudged toward plagiarism. See the discussion in Section 8 of
this guide for more information on helping students draw the line between permissible and
impermissible
collaboration, and the discussion in Section 4 about designing writing assignments
that give students room to create their own ideas.
9
You can enhance the writing group experience by giving students guidelines
for providing feedback. For example, you might tell them that you specifically
want them to discuss the effectiveness of the graphs and written analysis, or the
summary and application of a theory in interpreting a case. If the class is very
small (under 15) and the writing groups are meeting to discuss drafts of research
papers, you might even meet with the groups yourself. Obviously, this is a
timeconsuming
option, but it may save you ink in the long run and is almost guaranteed
to be a highlight of the semester—the kind of intense intellectual exchange
that students came to Princeton for in the first place.
10
11
3 I The Writing Workshop
If you’ve ever presented a paper at a conference or works-in-progress colloquium,
or simply asked a colleague or two to give you feedback on a draft, you’ve
participated in the kind of collegial exchange that’s at the heart of academic life.
The writing workshop, briefly discussed in the previous section, gives students
an early opportunity to belong to an authentic academic community. It’s also
a highly effective method for helping students learn to perform the kind of inquiry
and analysis valued in your course or discipline.
In a writing workshop, the class as a whole offers constructive feedback on the
writing of a few class members. The time involved is anywhere from five minutes
to an hour and a half—in other words, the writing workshop is an extraordinarily
flexible teaching method. It’s extraordinarily useful, too, and not just
for the student writers on the “hot seat,” who learn first-hand how real readers
respond to their work. Students whose role is to give feedback benefit in two
major ways. First, they learn about the qualities of writing most valued in the
discipline. Second, by becoming better critics of others’ writing, they become
better critics of their own. This is an important step, because self-critique is
essential
for effective revision.
Writing workshops benefit you, the instructor, as well: instead of meeting with
students one-on-one to discuss their writing—an impossible undertaking in
most courses—the writing workshop gives you a time- and labor-saving way to
help students write papers that are appropriate to the discipline.
Now for the really good news: Princeton undergraduates participate in several
writing workshops freshman year in the Writing Seminar. Not only are they
familiar with the experience, but they’re familiar with a language for describing
writing, discussed in the final section of this guide. It’s useful to keep in mind
that you can rely on your students for help in this teaching situation.
Paper Flow
The writing to be workshopped can be (1) a full draft of a paper or a stand-alone
piece, such as a proposal, an outline, or a literature review, or (2) parts of drafts,
such as titles; introductions; background sections, in which various kinds of
context—theoretical, historical, critical—are provided; analytical sections, in
which data, whether lines from a poem or statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau,
are interpreted; and conclusions.
12
If the total number of pages to be workshopped is under five—for example, two
students’ proposals—the class can read these on the spot. All you have to do is
either choose the two proposals from the batch sitting on your desktop (real or
virtual) or, if your classroom has a photocopier nearby, simply go to class, ask
for two students to volunteer their proposals, and spend two minutes photocopying
the proposals while students do a little bit of in-class writing on a topic
related to their writing project.
If the total number of pages to be workshopped is over five (keeping in mind that
20 pages is a reasonable upper limit), the workshop materials must be pre-
circulated,
either by you or by the students themselves, at least 24 hours in advance. This can
be
done via e-mail or over your course Blackboard site (simply create a Discussion
Board
for the purpose). Again, you can either choose the material to be workshopped or
ask
for volunteers. If you do the choosing, try to select writing that’s on topics and texts
that no one else is writing about, that’s middle-of-the-road—neither the top of the
class nor the bottom—and that has strengths and weaknesses that everyone in the
class can relate to. You would be wise to let the writers know by e-mail that they are
the Chosen Ones, news you might accompany with a few encouraging words.
Note that there’s really no need to strip identifying information from the workshop
materials. The workshop will, in fact, probably go better if everyone knows who’s
sitting on the “hot seat,” if only because the situation is likely to be less socially
awkward
than having an anonymous writer lurking somewhere in the classroom. But
circumstances may dictate that anonymity is the way to go. Use your judgment.
In the case of pre-circulated workshop materials, it’s helpful if each writer includes
a cover letter to supply context for his or her paper and to express specific
questions
and concerns. Everyone else will read the workshop materials before the
workshop and either write letters to the writer(s) or prepare detailed notes that
are formal enough to be handed over. These “draft responses” address each
writer’s
questions and concerns, and otherwise focus on global issues, such as structure,
and avoid the picayune, such as comma usage. Warning: If you don’t ask students
to prepare some kind of written response to the workshop materials, students are
likely to come to class unprepared. For more information, see “Cover Letters” and
“Draft Responses” at the end of this section.
Workshop Structure
A workshop on a piece of writing between 5 and 20 pages in length is likely to
run between 30 and 45 minutes. A workshop on a shorter piece will be accordingly
shorter—in fact, as little as five minutes. Here’s a typical structure for a
workshop on a 7- to 10-page draft:
the writing workshop
13
n 5 minutes: State the purpose of the workshop and establish ground rules. Purpose:
To give the writer some feedback but also to give others the chance to
practice critiquing writing. Critiquing others’ writing is the first step toward
becoming a good reviser; self-critique is the second step. Ground Rules: These
may be that the writer should remain silent for the first 10 minutes to hear
how readers have read his or her draft, and that commentators should remember
that the writer is a real, live person with real, live feelings. Also:
Remind the person on the “hot seat” to take notes.
n 30 minutes: Discuss first the strengths and then the weaknesses of the draft,
and how the writer might revise. This is the heart of the workshop and will
take the most time. Especially in the weaknesses discussion, ask students to
look closely at the text—at particular sections, paragraphs, or elements. If
you suspect that everyone is having trouble structuring the introduction,
discussing a figure or table, or using secondary sources effectively, you can
draw students’ attention to a useful spot in the text so as to work through the
general problem. Eventually, be sure to turn from critique to concrete advice:
How should the writer revise? For a useful terminology, see Section 10, “A
Language for Describing Writing.”
n 5-10 minutes: Sum up, then ask students to relate their own current writing
experience to the discussion. These are the two crucial moves! Without this
summary/ discussion, students may think the workshop was a waste of time
for everyone but the writer. At this point, you could also have writing groups
of two or three students exchange and discuss their drafts, based on what they
learned in the large group about what to look for. If you’d like the writing
groups to meet outside of class, simply give them a few minutes in class to
get organized.
n 1 minute: Once the workshop is over, students should give their draft responses
to the writer(s), with a copy to you. This process can also take place via email
or on the course Blackboard site. You don’t have to read students’ draft
responses carefully, but a quick glance through will show you who’s taken the
assignment seriously and who needs to do a better job next time. One quick
way to encourage students to write better draft responses is to photocopy a
good draft response, annotate its strengths, and distribute it to students in
the next class session.
You can adapt this structure to fit the situation. For example, if you’re workshopping
one student’s “Results” section, you might spend a minute on ground
rules, eight minutes on reading the “Results” and discussing strengths, weaknesses,
and revision ideas, and a minute on summing up.
14
The Cover Letter
The cover letter, which students include with their papers, gives them an
opportunity
to set the terms of the workshop experience. Especially early in the
semester, it’s a good idea to give students written instructions for the cover
letter—for example:
Please include a cover letter with your draft in which you answer the
questions below and present any other concerns that you have. Think of
the cover letter as an opportunity to ask for the kind of feedback you need.
All cover letters should be about a single page double-spaced.
n What do you see as your main idea or point?
n What idea or point do you feel you’ve made most successfully? least
successfully?
n What’s the number one question about your paper that you’d like your
reader to answer for you?

n If you were going to start revising today, what would you focus on?
Sample Cover Letter

Dear Reader:
The main idea of this paper is to show why the character of Horatio was needed in
the play and how Hamlet made use of him. The speech I’ve chosen to examine implies a special
relationship between the two characters, one that I’ve also tried to explore. It seems to me that
Hamlet uses Horatio to fill in the gaps that were created by his madness and political intrigues at
court, though I’m not sure this idea comes across clearly enough.
The point I think that I’ve made most successfully has to do with Horatio’s overall
quality, a point that I reinforce throughout the paper. But I would really like to more fully explore
Hamlet’s personal doubts and complaints as reflected in his speech, especially concerning his potential
insanity. It just seems to me that my thesis could be stronger. I also think I need to work on
my structure. I think the overall organization works—intro, background on Horatio, discussion
of the speech, discussion of Horatio’s importance to Hamlet, conclusion—but within each section,
I’m having trouble linking my ideas to my thesis. Each paragraph needs to have a purpose
that’s unique, yet not so different that it doesn’t fit into the essay. That’s the trouble I’m having.
Aside from the questions I have about thesis and structure, I’d like to know, How can
I make the “speech” portion of my paper stronger? It needs to be more carefully planned and to
end with a bang, not a whimper. Any help you can give me about how to expand this part of the
paper and make it strongly would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your help and for taking the time to read this draft!
Sincerely,
[Student’s Name]
15
The Draft Response
The draft response, which readers write in the form of a letter to the draft writer,
gives students an opportunity to formulate their ideas before arriving at the
workshop. As such, it all but ensures a high-level discussion. As with the cover
letter, it’s a good idea, especially early in the term, to give students written
instructions
for the draft response—for example:
You can expect to spend at least 30 minutes reading and responding to
the draft. As you carefully read each draft, write marginal notes to the
writer on anything that puzzles you, then write a letter to the writer in
which you address these questions:
n In your own words, what’s this paper about? (What’s its idea?) Don’t
assume that the writer knows what his or her own paper is about!
Mistrust the stated thesis (if there is one).
n What do you see as the strength(s) of the draft?
n Identify two elements of academic writing (thesis, structure, etc.) that you
think the writer should focus on in revising, and discuss these in relation
to the draft. Try to point to specific sentences and paragraphs whenever
possible.
n In the cover letter, the writer has asked one or more questions. What
answers do you have to offer?

Sample Draft Response
Dear [Fellow Student],
To me, your paper is about the fact that Hamlet chooses Horatio as an ally because
he recognizes in Horatio the strength and clarity of mind that he lacks in himself. This is a
good idea. I like how you consistently tie this idea into your paragraphs throughout the paper.
Your stitching is also very good, and I felt that the transitions between paragraphs were pretty
smooth. Good job with that.
I think you’re right when you say in your cover letter that the thesis could be stronger.
I think the thesis needs a little work. It doesn’t really address a problem that you have
with Hamlet’s speech; it’s more of a statement about the value of his friend. I think part of the
general problem you’re having is that you don’t tie the actual speech into the paper enough.
The introductory paragraph doesn’t mention the speech at all, and the paper is supposed to
be about the speech. If you focus more on the text and adjust your thesis so that it addresses
a specific aspect of the speech, you might have an easier time making the point of your paper
more clear.
The other element that I would focus on when you revise the paper is style. Sometimes
your word choice and use of idiomatic phrases detracts from the quality of the paper.
16
Some of the things you state would be fine in casual conversation, but are not appropriate in an
academic essay. For example, on p. 2, you say that Hamlet is not “on top form,” and on p. 4, you
say that Hamlet decided to “get serious.” You could put these ideas another way.
In terms of other stuff, I like the comparison to other Shakespearean works in your
intro. I was a little taken by surprise when you mentioned the possibility of a romantic relationship
between Hamlet and Horatio later in the paper because I definitely didn’t see that
coming, but I kind of like the idea. It’s definitely an interesting perspective that deserves to be
mentioned, and you do a fairly good job of providing evidence for it. Maybe you should just
prepare your reader somehow beforehand so the theory doesn’t seem like it’s coming out of
nowhere.
In general, I would say focus on your thesis and on incorporating the speech more into
your essay, and be careful not to let your “street voice” creep into the essay. If you can solidify the
thesis so that it focuses more on a problem or on a unique interpretation, then I think the paper
will be much more effective overall. Good luck, and try to get a couple hours of sleep :)
Sincerely,
[Fellow Student]
17
4 I Sequencing Assignments
A well-designed writing assignment can give students the chance to engage
course material in a deep, sustained, and individual way, and to learn essential
aspects of writing in a particular discipline. A well-designed assignment can also
prepare students for the ultimate challenge—writing on a topic of their own
choosing with sources they’ve collected themselves—by exemplifying how to
formulate an appropriate question and think fruitfully about course texts and
ideas.
This section contains ideas about how to choose readings strategically in order
to create the conditions for good writing experiences, and how to sequence
assignments
that ramp up the intellectual work required of students. In the next
section, you’ll find approaches for crafting individual assignments with precision
and foresight.
Using Readings to “Stage” Writing Assignments
In many courses, even those with a significant writing requirement, the writing
can seem added on—extra and inessential. In these courses, the writing
assignments
may even be designed in medias res rather than during the course conception
stage; they’re like road signs along the journey (the reading experience)
and as such function simply to ensure that students are on the right path (have
read and understood the material). Good writing assignments, by contrast, are
integral to course design: they’re conceived simultaneous with the course itself
as essential to its shape and its goals. Such assignments do more than test
students’
grasp of the material; they give students practice doing the intellectual
work of the discipline, whether that’s interpreting data, situating an empirical
study in the secondary literature, or making informed policy recommendations.
They’re integral to the journey, and as such they typically allow for a
variety of responses.
If you design your writing assignments in concert with your reading assignments,
not after the fact, you’ll be in a position to create the best conditions
for particular kinds of intellectual work to take place. You might think of this
as “staging” writing assignments, a strategy for course design involving the
strategic
selection of readings to create a particular writing experience. In practical
terms, staging a writing experience might mean assigning some readings that
you hadn’t considered before in order to give students practice doing certain
kinds of intellectual work, or it might mean not assigning some readings, because
they “scoop” students—do too much of the work for them.
18
Let’s say, for example, that you think it’s important for students to learn to read
the scientific literature critically. So you go beyond the textbook and include a
few relevant journal articles in your syllabus for students to critique as a writing
assignment, but you suppress a review article that already does the critique
magnificently.
(In fact, a clever way to design writing assignments is to find articles
you think are interesting, then to give students the sources cited in the article
while withholding the article itself.) Or let’s say that early in your course you
want students to learn how to apply a theory to a case—a typical analytical
operation
in the social sciences. So you move up a theoretical reading and also include
a few extra cases, just to give students greater freedom of choice. In these
examples, the reading and writing assignments are married; they work together
to give students practice performing essential discipline-based work.
Writing Assignments as Sequenced
Intellectual Work
Of course, different writing assignments require different intellectual work.
In designing assignments, it’s therefore important to think about the different
kinds of intellectual work you want your students to do and how you plan to
sequence this work throughout the term.
While different disciplines require different kinds of intellectual work, we
might usefully identify some of the most common types, as follows:
n Critique a text 3
Anthropology: Critique either the majority or dissenting opinion in

U.S. v. Guzman in terms of the concept of “cultural heritage.”
Sociology: Use a work of reportage about war to critique or refine one of
the sociological theories of war that we’ve studied this semester.
n Assess or evaluate a text
Biology: Evaluate a claim about a conservation issue made in an article

intended for a popular audience.
Psychology: Assess one of the models of attention we’ve encountered in the
course.
Sequencing assignments
3“Text” is used broadly, to refer to any object of analysis or interpretation, such as an artifact,
data set, person, event, communication product (film, speech, website), and so on.
19
n Analyze or interpret a text
Literary Studies: Choose a speech from Hamlet of at least twenty-five lines and
offer an interpretation that challenges or complicates the standard reading.
Sociology: Analyze an inconsistency, tension, or problem with Kunstler’s
depiction of suburban community life in The Geography of Nowhere.
n Define a concept
Biology: Make an argument about how a response to a problem in current

medicine extends or redefines prevailing concepts of health and illness,
medical ethics, or the role of medicine in society.
n Explain an event or phenomenon
Politics: Select a country that has chosen to develop nuclear weapons or

that initially had a weapons program that it chose to end, and explain that
country’s decisions with respect to nuclear weapons.
nTake a stand on an issue (or recommend a course of action)
Biology: Argue for or against the claim that speciation by sexual selection
is responsible for the observed sterility patterns encompassed by
Haldane’s rule.
Sociology: Using course readings to help justify your argument, make a
recommendation to the College Board that the category “African
American” be retained, eliminated, or altered.
Writing assignments typically ask students to perform one (or more) of the
above operations either (1) without the aid of other texts (without context) or
(2) with the aid of other texts (with context). This may seem like a simple
distinction,
but in fact these two assignment types are realms apart when it comes
to complexity. Each can be made more complex still when the focus of analysis
is multiplied, as the examples below suggest.
Sequencing Assignments
The assignments in your sequence will depend on the level of the course you’re
teaching and the methodologies of your discipline. Sequences generally move
from shorter, simpler, more circumscribed assignments that give students a
chance to build skills and strategies, to longer, more complex, more open assign-
20
ments that more closely resemble normative writing in the discipline. Sequences
also generally include a strategic mix of low-stakes and high-stakes writing, to be
discussed below.
In literary studies, for example, students are likely to begin the semester practicing
“close reading.” This assignment has a single focus (a text) and is performed
without the aid of other texts; it’s the simplest of all assignments involving the
interpretation of a text. Depending on the level of the course, students may
build up to a more complex project by the end of the semester, such as interpreting
several related texts in a larger context established with the aid of other
sources. This is the most challenging of all assignments involving textual
interpretation
and, not surprisingly, is a good description of many Senior Theses in
literary studies, to say nothing of articles and books by professional scholars.
The leap between the first and last assignments is wide, so intermediate
assignments
would be necessary to bridge the gap. A sequence might look like this:
n Interpret a literary text (no context).
n Use a theory to re-interpret a literary text. Alternatively, interpret a
literary text in the context of literary criticism—by disagreeing with or

extending a critic’s interpretation.
n Interpret a set of related literary texts within a theoretical and/or critical
context.
Or take another example: the Junior Paper in Economics. This JP, like most
scientific and technical papers, asks students to explain a phenomenon with
reference to other explanations. This is a more complicated assignment than
may at first appear: students need to perform a sequence of tasks in order to
accomplish it:
n Define a feasible research question or problem.
n Situate the question in the secondary literature.
n Propose a methodology for addressing the question or problem.

n Characterize and analyze the data.
So complex is this assignment that the sequence of assignments leading up to
it corresponds to the main parts of the paper itself: Introduction, Literature
Review, Methods, and Results. Add an “Abstract,” “Conclusions,” and “References,”
and the paper is finished.
21
The Role of “Low-Stakes” Writing in
Assignment Sequences
As discussed in Section 2, “Writing and the College Classroom,” you can use
in-class writing to help students make progress on a particular writing assignment.
But such “low-stakes” writing need not be confined to class time; it can be
assigned as short take-home writing exercises, sometimes called “response
papers,”
or brief postings on a Discussion Board forum on Blackboard. Low-stakes
writing isn’t graded; that’s what makes it “low stakes” (though some instructors
evaluate it on an informal scale of check marks: √+ [more than adequate], √
[adequate], or √- [inadequate]). Whether you should make written comments
on low-stakes writing depends on how important the writing is to students’
development
in the course: you would probably not collect a two-minute freewrite
in class meant to stimulate thought, whereas you would be likely to collect
and comment on a proposal for a research paper.
Low-stakes writing intended to help students make progress on an assignment
usually represents an actual step in the writing process and also gives students
practice performing essential skills. As a lead-up to an assignment in Sociology
asking students to choose a theory and then apply it to a particular case, students
might do an exercise in which they choose their theory and summarize it.
The summaries would give students a foundation for writing the paper as well
as for class discussion.
Coming up with low-stakes writing assignments is relatively easy: all you have to
do is think about the steps a writer would take, or the skills a writer would need,
to do the “high-stakes” assignment, then turn one of those steps or skills into a
low-stakes assignment. An obvious way to do this is to break the writing process
into stages. For example, you could ask students to write a paper proposal,
which might include a statement of the problem or question to be addressed, a
description of the primary sources or data to be analyzed, an overview of other
sources to be used (if any), and even a preliminary structure for the paper.
But your low-stakes assignments need not be a prescribed stage in the writing
process. Here are some other possibilities:
n Free-write in response to a text or topic.
n Describe a personal experience that bears on the topic.
n Locate and analyze a textual “hotspot”—a passage that seems important,
striking, puzzling.
22
n Locate and define a tension, gap, or incongruity in a text.
n Critically summarize a text.
n Identify and define a key term or concept.
n Support and then challenge a key concept.
n Locate and define a conflict of opinion in a set of secondary sources.

The Draft as a Low-Stakes Assignment
Perhaps the most important low-stakes writing of all is the draft. Because so
many demands are placed on students’ time, many of them will wait until the
last possible moment to produce a draft, and as a result may not have time to
get feedback and revise. You can ensure that students begin the writing process
well before the deadline by requiring a draft. In a perfect world, you would give
students individual feedback on their drafts, but class size and time constraints
often make doing so impossible. In these cases, you can simply leave it up to
students to get feedback and revise, or you can actively organize students into
writing groups for the purpose of exchanging papers and providing feedback
(see Section 2, “Writing and the College Classroom,” for more information).
Alternatively, you can choose one or two drafts (or parts of drafts) for the entire
class to read, and then run a writing workshop (see Section 3, “The Writing
Workshop,” for more information). Note that for either of these activities to
work, the assignment must allow for multiple responses; if students are writing
essentially the same papers, they’ll find it difficult to maintain the integrity of
their own work.
If you have time to comment on drafts, or if students come to your office hours
with a draft and you can read it on the spot, remember that different writers use
drafts in different ways, and none of these ways is bad or wrong. Some writers
use drafts to dump information in a tidy but uninteresting pile, others to discover
their ideas through an exciting but messy process, still others to try out ideas
they would never hazard in a high-stakes setting. It’s important to read drafts
for their promise and possibility, no matter how confusing, simplistic, boring,
or zany they are, and not to get bogged down in the problems, which are likely
to be numerous. Because drafts serve the writer’s purpose (to create one’s own
ideas) rather than the reader’s (to understand and engage another’s ideas), it’s
not advisable to grade drafts, only to note whether a student has written one.
23
The Research Paper
Almost every paper students write at Princeton will draw on written sources—
usually primary, sometimes also secondary. Who supplies the sources? In most
cases, the professor, who orders textbooks and/or assembles a course packet. In
less frequent but important cases, students either supplement the readings
assigned
by the professor or do all of the research themselves; the JP and Senior
Thesis most obviously fit this category, but students write research papers in
many courses, including the Writing Seminar freshman year.
There are many ways to prepare undergraduates for this most challenging of
assignments, but one of them is not to give students plenty of advance notice
and leaving the rest up to them. Even seniors rarely have enough experience (or
discipline) to take a research project from beginning to end without assistance.
Following are ideas for helping students produce research papers that are worth
writing—and worth reading.
n Define the project. Many students think a research paper is a report on a
topic rather than a unique contribution to or viewpoint on a field of knowledge.

Let students know which kind of “research paper” you want: a report
or an argument. (You might even distribute model papers either by students
or by scholars.) And instead of telling students, “Write on anything you’d
like that has to do with this course,” consider carving out a broad yet delimited
area for the research paper. Doing so will provide structure (and thus
discourage plagiarism) as well as stimulate students’ interest in each other’s
projects. In a course on foreign policy, for example, you might limit the area
to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq; in a course on developmental psychology, to
disorders affecting children and adolescents.
n Sequence the research paper. Whether it’s 10 pages long or 80, a research
paper is a major undertaking. You can assist students by breaking down

the process into a sequence of assignments—for example, proposal, literature
review (or annotated bibliography), draft—and provide students
with feedback on each. If you’re working with students on independent
research projects, you can ask them to submit a research plan that includes
assignments and deadlines of their own.
n Involve students in each other’s research and writing process. By breaking
down the process into stages, you create opportunities for students to give
each other feedback on their research and writing. Students can workshop
each others’ proposals in class, give research presentations, and exchange
drafts in small groups. See Section 2, “Writing and the College Classroom,”
and Section 3, “The Writing Workshop.”
24
n Formally introduce students to source-based research methods in your field
or discipline. By definition, undergraduates are generalists; even seniors
are unlikely to be familiar with the major journals, indexes, and special
tools (such as Stata) in your field. The simplest way to introduce students
to source-based research is to ask a Subject Specialist from the University
library to teach part of a class or an extra session on discipline-based research.
The librarian can even make this session a hands-on workshop in
an electronic classroom followed by one-on-one research conferences.
Sample Assignment Sequences
Below are sample assignment sequences in courses across the disciplines and at
various levels.
Introductory Literature Course
Phase I:
n One-page paper (ungraded): Analyze a short passage in a text
n One-page paper (ungraded): Analyze another short passage in a text
n Paper #1 (5-7pp.; graded): Analyze a primary text
Phase II:
n One-page paper (ungraded): Summarize several socio-historical sources
n One-page paper (ungraded): Critique two secondary sources
n Paper #2 (6-8pp; graded): Interpret a primary text in a critical or sociohistorical
context
Science Course with a Research Paper
Phase I:
n One-page paper (ungraded): Critique a scientific article
n Two one-page papers (ungraded): Critique 2 scientific articles on a chosen
topic (e.g. climate change)

n Paper (4-5pp.; graded): Analyze the scientific debate on the topic based on
a critical reading of 4 to 5 scientific articles in the source book

Phase II:
n One-page paper (ungraded): Analyze the public policy debate on the topic
based on a critical reading of sources found through library research

nResearch paper (8-10pp.; graded): Recommend policy changes based on
the state of scientific knowledge.
25
Advanced Course in Engineering
n Short paper (2-3pp.; graded): Identify a design problem and review
current solutions
n Paper (10pp.; graded): Propose a new design
n Short paper (2pp.; graded): Recommend to a manager lacking a technical
background whether another student’s design should be accepted

Two-Semester “Methods” Course in History
Fall Semester:
n Paper #1 (graded): Analyze a primary document
n Paper #2 (graded): Analyze a primary document
n Paper #3 (graded): Analyze a primary document in the context of
secondary sources
n Paper #4 (graded): Take a position in a historiographic debate
Spring Semester:
n Short proposal for a research paper based on primary documents (ungraded)
n Annotated bibliography (ungraded)
n Outline (ungraded)
n Draft of the research paper (ungraded)
n Revision of the research paper (graded)

26
27
5 I Crafting Assignments
Once you’ve established your assignment sequences, as discussed in Section 4,
you can work on crafting each assignment to position students to perform particular
kinds of intellectual work. The way an assignment is formulated will have
an enormous impact on student performance. If the assignment is unfocused
or inexact, you’re likely to see unfocused, inexact papers. If it calls for students
to “discuss,” you’re likely to see descriptive answers rather than papers with an
articulated viewpoint. So it’s important to craft assignments with precision and
foresight—the way an experienced writer crafts any important piece of writing.
Surprisingly, more than a few writing assignments lack the crucial ingredient: the
assignment itself. These ineffective assignments, consisting of paragraphs full of
background information, multiple directives, questions to ponder, and/or a list
of topics, may never actually give a unified instruction as to the intellectual work
required. Four useful strategies for crafting clear assignments are these:
(1) Encapsulate the assignment in a single sentence, beginning with “Your
assignment is to …” and a strong verb, such as “analyze,” “assess,” or
“explain,” that signals the intellectual work required;
(2) Minimize the amount of background information you provide so that
instead of framing students’ papers for them (and possibly stealing
their thunder), you’re requiring students to frame their papers for
themselves;
(3) Put any advice for approaching the assignment in an “Advice” section,
separate from the assignment itself; and
(4) Include logistical information about when and where the paper is
due, how long will it probably be, what the formatting specifications
are (margin width, font size, etc.), and which citation style should
be used.
The first two strategies are the hardest to implement, but doing so will ensure that
your assignment is clear and unified. Here are a few examples to inspire you:
Your assignment is to . . .
… Critique Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics using DeMott’s work on
contemporary “friendship orthodoxy.”
… Assess emotivism or prescriptivism as an account of moral disagreement.
28
… Analyze the relationship between Ishi and the anthropologist Kroeber as
portrayed in the film The Last of His Tribe.
… Test Richard Rorty’s hypothesis that novels foster solidarity, using J. M.
Coetzee’s novel Disgrace as your test case.
… Argue why one Impressionist painter more accurately captures some
aspect of nineteenth-century Parisian society than another painter from
the same period.
… Re-evaluate a contemporary public policy issue through the lens of
social class.
… Agree or disagree with realist theories that treat states as a unitary rational
actor, supporting your argument with specific historical examples.
The exercise of encapsulating your assignment into a single, sharp-edged
sentence will help you and your students alike identify with precision the intellectual
work you’re asking students to perform.
The Reader Test
Having drafted the assignment, you should try reading it from your readers’
point of view—in other words, you should submit it to the Reader Test. Will
students read the assignment and know what’s being asked of them? Will they
think they’re supposed to answer several questions instead of just one? Will
they know to limit their topic and write a coherent paper? What are the likely
responses you can imagine to the assignment, and are these in any way
problematic?
A professor in a literature course drafted an assignment that asked students to
do the following:
Select a story by either Eudora Welty or Flannery O’Connor
and make an argument for its being typified as Southern, concentrating
on aspects such as characterization and setting, and
dominant themes such as family relations and community.
In reviewing her assignment, the professor saw two main problems—first, that
students were likely to provide flat or banal definitions of “Southern,” thereby
dooming their papers from the start, and, second, that they were likely to string
together paragraphs on the topics mentioned in the assignment instead of
crafting assignments
29
narrowing their analysis. She also saw that the assignment would probably produce
responses with no tension or interest in them; she could all too easily imagine
a stack of papers “arguing” that Welty’s or O’Connor’s stories should, indeed,
be “typified as Southern.” A better assignment, she realized, would nudge
students toward a more interesting or complex take on Welty’s or O’Connor’s
“Southernness.”
Once the professor read her assignment as a student might, and once she
thought, too, about what the strongest papers in response would look like, she
was able to produce a revision that addressed all the problems she saw:
Louis D. Rubin identifies six characteristics of Southern literature,
all of which could be defended as general characteristics of what
it means to be Southern: [six characteristics listed here]. Using a
short story by either O’Connor or Welty, make an argument about
how the author comments on, complicates, or critiques one of these
characteristics of Southernness.
Note that the revised assignment is not only more straightforward but also
more challenging than the original, asking students to regard the relationship
between a Southern author and her depiction of Southernness as complicated—
and therefore worthy of analysis.
A Sample Writing Assignment
The draft of the assignment discussed above was clear enough, but a little
reflection
suggested that it would prompt students to write uninspired papers. Many
assignments suffer far greater ills. A student responding to the following
assignment
felt totally at sea, with good reason:
Write an essay describing the various conceptions of property found
in your readings and the different arguments for and against the distribution
of property and the various justifications of, and attacks
on, ownership. Which of these arguments has any merits? What is
the role of property in the various political systems discussed? The
essay should concentrate on Hobbes, Locke, and Marx.
“How am I supposed to structure the essay?” the student asked. “Address the
first question, comparing the three guys? Address the second question, doing
the same, etc.? ... Do I talk about each author separately in terms of their
conceptions
of the nation, and then have a section that compares their arguments,
or do I have a 4 part essay which is really 4 essays (two pages each) answering
30
each question? What am I going to put in the intro, and the conclusion?” Given
the tangle of ideas presented in the assignment, the student’s panic and confusion
are understandable.
A better formulated assignment poses significant challenges, but one of them
is not wondering what the instructor secretly wants. Here’s a possible revision,
which follows the guidelines suggested above:
Logistics p [Course Name and Title]
[Instructor’s Name]
Paper #2
Due date: Thurs., February 21, 11:00am in precept
Length: 5-6pp. double-spaced
Assignment p Limiting your reading to the source packet, choose two of the
three theorists we’ve read—Hobbes, Locke, and Marx—and
make an argument for the persuasiveness of one theorist’s
conception of property over the other’s.
Advice p The best papers will focus on a single shared aspect of the
theorists’ respective political ideologies, such as how property
is distributed, whether it should be owned, or what role it
serves politically. The best papers will also state and argue for
a thesis, and describe the theorists’ viewpoints clearly
and concisely.
Rather than asking students to do little more than demonstrate their reading
comprehension, the assignment asks them to use their understanding of the
reading in the service of their own argument—a higher-order skill than mere
demonstration, certainly, and an entirely appropriate (and more engaging) one
for college students to develop.
31
6 I Commenting on Student Writing

Your comments on student writing arguably constitute the most personal, serious,
and lasting intervention you can make in a student’s academic career.
In addition to providing the student with an evaluation of a particular paper,
comments perform several important functions. At their most basic level, comments
illustrate to students that their papers are written to be read. This idea—
that someone is actually going to take what they write seriously—is big news to
many students and can transform them from dull, confusing, or oblivious scribblers
into self-critical writers for whom the reader’s interest and understanding
are paramount. By communicating your expectations and explaining
disciplinebased
methodologies and conventions, comments also shape the way students
will formulate ideas and arguments in the future.
Writing good comments is challenging work, not least because it’s time-consuming,
hand-hurting, and at times (2:00 a.m., for instance) soul-defeating.
The first paper in the stack is usually the hardest to get through; the last is equal
parts exhilaration and exhaustion. But the pay-off for students is inestimable: a
good comment can help them write with the knowledge that a real, live person,
interested yet skeptical, is at the other end of the process.
Commenting typically involves reading each paper carefully while making marginal
comments, then writing a final comment that sums up the paper’s main
strengths and weaknesses. You’ll find suggestions for accomplishing each of
these tasks below, along with strategies for establishing evaluation criteria and
speeding up the process. Grading, which is much less agonizing when it takes
place after commenting, is discussed in the next section of this guide.
Before Reading the Papers
Perhaps the most crucial step you can take toward responding to student writing
fairly, effectively, and efficiently is to decide on your evaluation criteria. As
students so often put it: What are you looking for? Here are three ways to work
out a useful answer to this all-important question:
n Identify the qualities of the best writing in your field. Luckily, this is easier
to do than it sounds. Just take a look at Section 10, “A Language for

Describing Writing”: each term listed there corresponds to a quality that
most faculty and graduate student instructors value in both professional
and student writing. At the top of the list is “motive”: the most exciting
papers tend to be those that are compelled by a genuine issue, whether an
anomaly in the text or data, or a hole or disagreement in the secondary
32
literature. See Section 10 for other typical qualities of good writing in both
humanistic and scientific disciplines.
n Take your cue from the assignment. What do you expect will be the characteristics
of the best responses? You should add these characteristics to your

list of evaluation criteria. For example, if the assignment asks students to
take a side on an issue, you’ll be looking for an explicitly stated position. If
the assignment asks students to interpret a text in light of a theory, you’ll
be looking for an explanation of the theory and a statement of how the
theory provides a new understanding of the text.
n Let the stack instruct you. While it’s entirely possible to receive only
mediocre papers, not an exciting or fabulous one among them, some papers
will nevertheless be better than others. You can learn from the better ones
what relatively successful responses to the assignment look like, and add the
qualities of these better papers to your list of evaluation criteria. In the process,
you might also get a sense of how to revise the assignment for future courses.
In establishing your evaluation criteria, you’re well advised to resist the simplistic
distinction between “writing” and “content.” As discussed in Section
10, “writing” in this context usually means “mechanics,” whereas “content”—a
large, undifferentiated category if there ever was one—presumably means
everything
else. A more careful articulation of the elements of academic writing
will enable your students to improve particular aspects of their writing—for
example,
their ability to pose a compelling problem or question, or their analysis
of texts or data.
Making Comments in the Margins
One of the most significant conversations you can have with a student takes
place not in office hours but in the margins of the student’s paper. Marginal
comments are by nature dialogic and multi-purpose: in them, you may give advice,
pose questions, offer praise, express puzzlement, suggest new lines of inquiry,
and provoke thought. Marginal comments not only show a student that
you attentively read his or her paper, but also provide examples of the general
observations you’ll go on to make in your final comments. If you tell a student
in the final comments that more analysis is needed, for example, the student
should be able to locate one or more specific places in the text where you’ve
indicated that analysis is lacking.
To students, it can sometimes seem as if marginal comments come in only two
sizes: too few and too many. Comments that consist of scattered marks—?, !, √—
commenting on student writing
33
with the odd “good” or “vague” tossed in, are not only unhelpful; they leave
student writers feeling cheated and angry, and wondering if their instructor
read their paper closely or at all. On the other end of the scale are comments so
numerous or lengthy that they literally obscure the student’s words on the page.
Finding the middle ground between “not enough” and “too much” is one of the
main challenges of marginal commenting. Below are suggestions for addressing
this challenge, and for writing marginalia that respectfully guide and motivate
student writers rather than “correct” them.
n Comment primarily on patterns—representative strengths and weaknesses.
Noting patterns (and marking these only once or twice) will help you
strike a balance between making students wonder whether anyone actually
read their essay and overwhelming them with ink. The “pattern” principle
applies to grammar and other sentence-level problems, too. Resist the
temptation to copy-edit! To detect patterns more easily, read through the
entire paper quickly before writing any comments.
n Make some positive comments. “Good point” and “great move here” mean a
lot to students, as do fuller indications of your engagement with their writing.

Students need to know what works in their writing if they’re to repeat
successful strategies and make them a permanent part of their repertoire as
writers. They’re also more likely to work hard to improve when given some
positive feedback.
n Write in complete sentences whenever possible. Cryptic comments—e.g.
“weak thesis,” “more analysis needed,” and “evidence?”—will be incompletely

understood by most students, who will wonder, What makes the
thesis weak? What does my professor or preceptor mean by “analysis”?
What about my evidence? Symbols and abbreviations such as “awk” and
“?” are likewise confusing. The more specific and concrete your comments,
the more helpful they’ll be to student writers.
n Ask questions. Asking questions in the margins promotes a useful analytical
technique while helping students anticipate future readers’ queries.

n Write legibly (in any ink but red). If students have to struggle to decipher
a comment, they probably won’t bother. Red ink will make them feel as if
their paper is being corrected rather than responded to.
n Use a respectful tone. Even in the face of fatigue and frustration, it’s important
to address students respectfully, as the junior colleagues they are.

34
Here’s an example of marginal comments that make use of this advice:
Writing Final Comments
Your response to most student papers is likely to be complicated, because most
student papers are complicated, possessing a sometimes bewildering combination
of qualities—some desirable, some less so. Final comments give you an
important teaching opportunity: the chance to synthesize the many strands
of your response into a coherent, constructive statement of the paper’s main
strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, this statement will not only help the student
regard his or her paper more critically but also positively influence the student’s
future writing experiences.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the key to writing good final comments is the
same as the key to writing good anything: a strong sense of the reader. And yet
many comments seem intended merely to evaluate the paper rather than to teach
the person who wrote it. An easy antidote is to write final comments that take the
form of a letter to the student. Here’s a possible structure for such a letter:
n Open with a salutation. By addressing the student directly (“Dear Pat”),
you make a personal connection with the student and indicate that you
have a stake in his or her intellectual welfare. You also signal that you’re
writing to the person, not to the paper.
35
nReflect back the paper’s main point. By stating your understanding of the
paper’s argument or main idea, you show students that you listened to
what they were saying, that you took them seriously—perhaps the most
important thing teachers can do for their students. A restatement in your
own words will also help you ground your comment in the paper, providing
a solid foundation for the rest of your discussion.
n Discuss the paper’s strengths. Praise in the final comment, as in the margins,
not only encourages writers but also helps them identify and develop their
strengths. Even very good writers need to know what they’re doing well so
that they can do it again in the future. Specific examples make the praise
believable.
n Discuss the paper’s weaknesses, focusing on large problems first. You don’t
have to comment on every little thing that went wrong in a paper. Instead,
choose three or four of the most important areas in which the student
needs to improve, and present these in order of descending importance.
You may find it useful to key these weaknesses to your grading criteria.
Give specific examples to show the student what you’re seeing. If possible,
suggest practical solutions so that the student writer can address the
problems in the next paper.
n Type your final comments if possible. If you handwrite them, write in a
straight line (not on an angle or up the side of a page), and avoid writing
on the reverse side; instead, append extra sheets as needed. The more readable
your comments are, the more likely it is that students will read them
and take them seriously.
This section closes with sample final comments:
Salutation p Dear Pat,
Restatement of You argue with conviction that Murray’s argument is
Main Point p wrong for a variety of reasons, including his reactionary
misogyny, the primary burden of child rearing falling to
women, and the underfunding of the AFDC.
Strengths p The paper’s impassioned tone is what I like best about it.
I also think you have moments of analytical insight—for
example, when you uncover Murray’s assumptions about
welfare on p. 2.
36
3 or 4 Main But the paper has some problems that detract from its
Weaknesses p persuasiveness. I’ve outlined these below:
(1) The paper is full of arguments against Murray, but
instead of just listing complaints, you need to come up
with a focused argument. The focus you suggest in your
title—Murray’s misogyny—would work well if you gave
a coherent summary of Murray’s article early on and then
attacked what you see as his misogyny. Don’t get sidetracked.
(2) The paragraph on orphanages (p. 3) gives the best analysis
in the paper. Elsewhere—for example, the shotgun
marriages paragraph on the same page—your evidence is
way under-analyzed. You need to analyze Murray’s arguments
more using some of the tools and concepts we’ve
discussed in class.
(3) You obviously have the ability to write clear prose, but
mechanical errors obscure your meaning and reduce your
credibility. Proofread more carefully next time.
Conclusion p Let’s talk about your next paper before you write it. Once
you learn how to sustain a single focus and make sound
economic arguments, you’ll be able to write much
stronger papers.
Signature p —Professor Witherspoon
Grade p Grade: C
37
7 I Grading Papers
Grades are seen by many students as random and subjective, a belief that rampant
grade inflation at the college level has helped to reinforce. Yet grades have the
potential
to be among the most powerful of teaching tools. When standards are announced
and consistently applied, grades provide a reasonably objective measure
of achievement, signaling to students the extent to which they need to challenge
familiar ways of thinking and writing. Grades also give written comments an edge
they might not otherwise have.
As useful as grades are, assigning them can be a perplexing business for new and
veteran
teachers alike. This is especially so when the stack is high and the papers aren’t
easily categorizable: a smart, lively paper may lack a coherent argument; a
misshapen
wreck may yield up some breathtaking insights. Given the inherent difficulties of
grading, how can it be accomplished in a fair, consistent, and efficient way?
For students to be motivated by grades, they need to believe the grades they get
are fair, not arbitrary or idiosyncratic. Students must, in other words, trust their
teacher’s judgment. One way to encourage this trust is to provide students with
grading criteria early on and to use the criteria when discussing or evaluating
writing.
When students are made aware of the widely shared qualities of good writing,
and when their writing is measured against these criteria, they’re better able to
trace a disappointing grade back to the source—the paper, not the teacher—and
to see how they can improve next time.
Most experienced readers agree that the primary hallmarks of excellent writing
are an interesting, arguable thesis; the development of the thesis in a logical yet
supple way; the substantiation of it and any sub-claims with incisively analyzed
evidence; the engaging use of properly attributed sources when appropriate;
and a clear, compelling style that conforms to standard usage. Many faculty create
and distribute “grading rubrics” in which these qualities are used to describe
A, B, C, D, and F papers. 4
Grading with clear criteria in mind helps to ensure fairness and objectivity. So
does another principle of grading: Grade the paper and nothing but the paper—
not the person who wrote it, the effort that went into it, or the improvement it
shows. This principle dramatically simplifies the task of evaluation by eliminating
second guessing; it also guarantees that students are judged on an equal basis.
“Grade the paper and nothing but the paper” means grading the entire paper, not
just a part of it. Papers bend and swoop and turn, and grades need to be responsive
to their sometimes erratic flight patterns. It means grading the actual paper as
4The Princeton Writing Program’s grading rubric is downloadable at http://www.princeton.
edu/writing/rubric.doc.
38
well. Rather than assigning a grade based on what a paper seems at first glance to
be, or what in hindsight it might have been, it’s more fair—and more objective—
to grade the paper as it actually is.
Concrete Strategies for Grading
If you wait to decide on the grade until after you’ve written your final comment,
the grade you assign is likely to be more accurate and fair than would otherwise
be true, and the decision-making process will be less agonizing. To determine
the grade, try these three steps:
n Re-read your final comment. As you do this, think about the extent to
which the paper has met your grading criteria. You might even compose,
in your notes or in your mind, a brief description of the paper in terms of
these criteria—for example, “Good research question, obvious enthusiasm
for the topic, and clear writing, but driven by an observation, not a thesis;
use of a listing structure; lack of evidence to ground generalizations; overreliance
on the opinions of secondary sources.”
n Determine whether a paper falls above or below “the line.” It’s useful to think of
papers as falling above or below an imaginary line in the grading scale—for

example, B-/C+. A line set higher on the grading scale (say, at A-/B+) will
result in higher grades. Whether a paper falls above or below the line most
often depends on how effective the paper’s thesis and structure are: a readable
paper with a clear argument will usually receive an above-the-line grade; a
paper that’s difficult to read and doesn’t have a clear argument will usually receive
a below-the-line grade. The paper described above would most certainly
fall below the line, no matter where the line is set.
n Make fine distinctions. Having determined whether a paper is above or below
the line, consider why it should receive a particular grade, not something
slightly higher or slightly lower. If the line is set at B-/C+, then the
paper described above would probably earn a C, because its weaknesses
make a C+ too generous, and its strengths make a C- or lower too harsh. If
the line is set at A-/B+, the paper would probably get a B. As you can infer,
disagreements over grades are often actually disagreements over where the
line is set.
Although grading a piece of writing will never be an exact science, implementing
the simple techniques discussed above can make the process less subjective
and even less agonizing. Grading without a staircase may turn out to be not so
difficult after all.
grading papers
39
Speeding Up the Process
There’s no doubt about it: responding to student writing is a time-consuming
process. The strategies described in this section and the previous one—knowing
what to look for, resisting the temptation to copy-edit, identifying in the final
comment no more than three or four areas for improvement, deciding on the
grade after writing the comment—can make the process more efficient and
effective.
Taking certain steps before the papers come in can also make a significant
difference in the responding process. Four strategies in particular are worth
trying out:
n Design good writing assignments. The motto of assignment design is: “You
get what you ask for.” An unfocused, inexact writing assignment is likely to
yield unfocused, inexact papers. By contrast, an assignment that creates an
occasion for sustained argument has a good chance of actually producing
it. See Sections 4 and 5, on assignment design.
n Respond to proposals, outlines, and drafts. Although responding to students’
efforts at various stages in the writing process is itself time-consuming, the

investment may be worth making: the five minutes it takes to read and
critique a tentative thesis or outline via e-mail, or the 20 minutes spent
with a student in office hours discussing a draft, can save significant time
down the line; it can also mean the difference between getting an uninteresting,
descriptive, or confusing paper and one that’s refreshingly original
and persuasively argued.
n Organize students into writing groups. By participating in a writing group
of two or three people who are assigned to read and respond to each others’
papers, students derive two main benefits: they start working on their
papers earlier than they might otherwise have done, and they begin to realize
that, for their writing to be effective, it must engage and persuade real
readers. And although students can’t necessarily provide one another with
scholarly guidance (for example, the context for a debate or a list of relevant
sources), they can learn to identify weaknesses in an argument and
make concrete suggestions for revision, skills that they in turn can apply to
their own writing. See Section 2, “Writing and the College Classroom.”
n Ask for a cover letter. Self-awareness in writing—knowing what works in
a paper and what doesn’t—is one of the keys to improvement. Students

who are required to submit their papers with a cover letter attached
become more self-conscious writers through the experience of reflecting
on a paper’s strengths and weaknesses. Cover letters also facilitate the
commenting
process by creating a dialogue between reader and writer: given
grading papers
40
the chance to respond to a writer’s specific concerns and questions, the
instructor (or any reader) is better positioned to make comments that are
more individualized and thus more useful. See Section 3, “The Writing
Workshop,” for sample cover letters and instructions.
Good writing is a pleasure to read. By implementing teaching techniques that
encourage good writing, the sometimes onerous process of responding to student
writing can be made not only more expedient but more enjoyable as well.
grading papers
41
8 I Cultivating Academic Integrity

Although the act of writing can be a lonely one, scholars and scientists are in fact
doubly connected to other people—through the sources they draw on (documents,
data, interviews, visual artifacts, and so on) and through the writing support
they receive (research assistance, feedback on drafts, and so on). The resulting
webs of connection are visible in two conventional apparatuses of scholarly
writing: source citations, notes and lists in which the writer acknowledges other
people’s language, facts, findings, and ideas, and Acknowledgments, a section or
note in which the writer expresses indebtedness and gratitude to anyone who
provided feedback or other kinds of assistance and support—intellectual,
bibliographical,
clerical, financial, emotional.
These scholarly apparatuses reflect the University ethos of academic integrity, in
which each member of the academic community is required to ensure the
originality
of his or her own work. Students often interpret “originality” as meaning
“groundbreaking” or “new” when in this context it has a more humble meaning:
“one’s own, and not someone else’s.” Proper source citations let the reader know
what belongs to the writer—is original to him or her—and what belongs, or is
original, to other people. “Acknowledgments” similarly indicate that although
a writer has relied on others in the process of creating scholarship, that reliance
has been appropriate, and the integrity of the writer’s own work has been
maintained.
The extent to which a writer may receive assistance is officially known as
“permissible collaboration”—“collaboration” in this case being understood as
“give-and-take” rather than “the joining of forces” (though a co-authored paper
is collaborative in both senses of the word).
The risky but necessary proposition of scholarship is to maintain the integrity
of one’s own work while producing it in the context of other people’s ideas and
input. In teaching novice scholars, some faculty choose to remove the danger
altogether: they simply forbid students from reading secondary sources, or
browsing the Web, or getting feedback on drafts. The unfortunate result is that
students fail to acquire essential scholarly skills and fail, too, to understand
scholarship as an essentially social activity. But others recognize that the best
way to cultivate academic integrity is to give students plenty of practice and
guidance in drawing the line between their own work and that of others, and
between appropriate writing assistance and assistance that’s excessive.
42
Academic Integrity Guidelines and
Campus Resources
Elsewhere in this guide, you’ll find teaching ideas for how you can cultivate your
students’ sense of academic integrity. For example, you can use assigned readings
to show students how professional scholars introduce and cite their sources
(see Section 2, “Writing and the College Classroom”). You can design writing
assignments that will prompt not just one answer but many different kinds of
responses, thereby making it feasible for students to exchange drafts with one
another without the fear of being overly influenced (see Section 4, “Sequencing
Assignments”). And you can organize students into writing groups that workshop,
rather than copy-edit, drafts—even without your needing to be present
(see Section 2, “Writing and the College Classroom”).
One other easy way to cultivate academic integrity is to give students clear written
guidelines for source citation and collaboration in your course.5 This is especially
important, because styles of citation differ from discipline to discipline,
and the limits of collaboration differ from professor to professor. Which citation
style should students use, and where can they find a style guide? Are they
allowed to receive assistance and feedback on their papers? If so, where should
they draw the line between “just right” and “too much”? And should the assistance
they receive be explicitly acknowledged?
Sample Academic Integrity Policies
Below are some sample policies for you to adapt to your course and include in
your syllabus. You might also consider including in your syllabus the list of
Resources
for Writers provided inside the back cover of this guide.
n Acknowledgment of Original Work. This course is governed by Princeton
University’s academic rules and regulations, stated in Rights, Rules, Responsibilities

and discussed at greater length in Academic Integrity at Princeton.
According to these rules and regulations, you must properly cite your
sources to distinguish your ideas from others’. You must also write the
following pledge at the end of all drafts and revisions and then sign your
name: “This paper represents my own work in accordance with University
regulations.” Suspicions of plagiarism will be reported to the Committee
on Discipline and may have serious consequences.
5For a discussion of permissible collaboration at Princeton, see Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,
at http://www.princeton.edu.rrr, and Academic Integrity at Princeton, at
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity. Princeton’s Honor Code governs only in-class
exams (no help allowed). Papers written outside of class fall under the University’s “Academic
Regulations,” as specified in Rights, Rules.
cultivating academic integrity
43
n Acknowledgment of Feedback and Support. In this course, you are
encouraged to give and get feedback on drafts of the assigned papers.
Note, however, that any feedback you give or get must be within
appropriate limits and acknowledged in writing. See http://www.
princeton.edu/writing/feedback.doc for guidelines.
n Citation Style. For this course, please use the [MLA, CMS, APA, CSE,
etc.] citation style. An online guide is available via the University Library
website at http://library.princeton.edu/help/citing.php. If you can’t find
an example of a specific citation type, browse through recent issues of
[PMLA, American Historical Review, American Psychologist, Nature, etc.]
for models. This journal is available via the Library website at http://library.
princeton.edu/catalogs/articles.php. Ask a Reference Librarian if
you need assistance.
cultivating academic integrity
44
45
9
I Teaching with Writing in Science

and Engineering
By Judith A. Swan 6
Writing is as central to science and engineering as it is to other disciplines. Most
scientific and technical documents are arguments: they make claims grounded
in evidence that has been analyzed and interpreted. While arguments in the
humanities are usually qualitative and based on textual evidence, in science and
engineering, the arguments are often quantitative, and the evidence is more often
represented not in prose but in visual form, as graphs, tables, photographs,
and so on. Because obtaining evidence can be extremely difficult, training in
science and engineering focuses heavily on developing the necessary technical
expertise.
Yet technical mastery alone is not enough; when students’ technical expertise
outweighs their experience in arguing and interpreting the data, they risk becoming
not good scientists and engineers but merely good technicians. Students
need practice in the techniques of both laboratory work and scientific and
technical writing—techniques that must be taught explicitly. No one is born
knowing the difference between an independent and dependent variable, and
no one learns to write the independent variable before the dependent variable
without instruction. Moreover, there is no single form for a scientific or technical
research article; each discipline has evolved its own format to address the
discipline’s particular needs.
By learning the discipline’s practices, students become participants in the
construction
of disciplinary knowledge. The most effective way is for students to
engage these practices alongside more experienced mentors. Students need to
read, design, graph, interpret, critique, analyze, and persuade. The ideas for
teaching with writing presented in this guide—organizing writing groups,
sequencing
assignments, commenting and grading, and others—are useful for
faculty and graduate student instructors across the disciplines. Below are some
suggestions for how these ideas might apply in science and engineering.
6Judith A. Swan is Assistant Director of the Princeton Writing Program and Coordinator of
Writing in Science and Engineering (WSE). Her e-mail address is jswan@princeton.edu.
46
Assign and Discuss the Scientific Literature
Give readings from the scientific literature. Unlike professional scientists and
engineers,
who read research articles, proposals, reviews, and so on, students typically
read textbooks, notes, and summaries, and for this reason have little experience
with the literary practices of professionals in the field. Students need to be
introduced
to the standard documents of science; they also need guidance on how
to read those documents. You can assist by assigning readings from the scientific
literature. In discussion, you can then model for students how to read strategically
and analyze critically, and draw explicit attention to the ways in which scientists
and engineers make arguments. Where are the documents persuasive? Where do
they fail? How can students use them as models for their own writing?
Critique data in visual forms. One of the most distinctive aspects of scientific
documents is their abundant visuals. Designing effective visuals is not
straightforward—
witness the emergence of data visualization as an area of research—
and requires explicit instruction to establish standards of rigor and validity. Because
visuals in the published literature are usually adequate but not optimized,
they offer excellent examples for launching discussions. Take five minutes of
class time to read a figure closely with your students. What elements make a
particularly good figure effective? What are the minimum requirements for
clarity? What interferes with the message of a less effective figure? What should
have been in the figure that is not? How could the figure be improved?
Design Strategic Assignments
Incorporate interpretation into standard assignments. Because professional
scientists
and engineers not only produce data but also interpret it, students need
to practice interpretation with assignments that ask for more than the presentation
of established facts. Assignments that ask for interpretation usually include
prompts such as “analyze,” “assess,” “evaluate,” or “argue for.”
One simple way to incorporate interpretation into standard assignments is to
ask for a narrative explanation to accompany a numerical or quantitative return.
The central premise in science is that the world is explainable; even when what
happens is unexpected, things happen in the laboratory for a reason. Asking
students to explain why these data constitute an answer to a particular question
shifts their focus away from simply getting the correct answer to thinking about
the science behind that correct answer. In addition, asking for writing in small
doses makes writing into an everyday practice of science, which can greatly reduce
the anxiety many students feel when confronted with large research projects,
like the Senior Thesis.
teaching with writing in science and engineering
47
Set intermediate writing deadlines in research projects. Less experienced
researchers
typically have difficulty managing the research process. Because they can’t
imagine in detail everything they have to do, they often produce much of their
work in a frantic rush to meet a deadline, to the frustration of both the writer
and the reader. You can help students learn effective research management by
setting intermediate writing deadlines in advance of the final one. Such deadlines
offer short-term goals that help manage the process as well as create opportunities
for revision. Even without feedback, simply building in time for
revision improves the quality of the final product. With feedback, students can
correct a problem early in the process that might derail the final product.
Here’s an example of an effective intermediate deadline. In a laboratory course,
as soon as students have produced the first piece of data that’s guaranteed to
appear in the final document, give a short assignment to “write it up”: ask students
to prepare the figure, give it a title, write its caption, describe the method,
and report the result. The piece of writing that they produce might be two or
three pages at most, but as students work through these new tasks, they’ll start
to see the new challenges: How much detail is sufficient? What does a figure
caption require? Well in advance of the final deadline, students will recognize
that completing the assignment will require that they obtain some additional
information and guidance.
Provide Meaningful Feedback
Write helpful comments. Because intellectual work in all fields involves language,
experts in a discipline know things about language that can help students do the
discipline’s work more skillfully. But since few scientists are studying grammar,
focusing
intensely on grammar in your comments will deflect the writers’ attention
from more important issues. Instead, your comments will be more helpful if they
focus on your areas of expertise: the science and the argument.
In particular, you can use your comments to reflect back to students the concerns
of scientific readers, who expect to find certain elements in any scientific paper:
n An explicit, significant, and well-defined purpose. Readers expect a paper
to have a significant purpose, one that is worth examining and is

explicitly announced in the introduction. Fulfilling the purpose successfully
will resolve some still undecided question and will connect to the broader
questions of the field.
n Appropriate sources. Although scientific documents rarely quote their
sources, readers nevertheless expect the paper to cite the sources that are
48
essential both to establishing the known facts in the field and to clarifying
the boundary between accepted facts and still unresolved issues.
n Valid and justified methods. Readers expect the methods to be justified and
explained in sufficient detail such that the techniques can be evaluated or

even reproduced. Too little detail calls the whole enterprise into question,
but too much detail overwhelms readers.
n Visual presentations of data. Readers expect every figure to be roughly
interpretable
on its own, to make a clear point, and to include all the data
necessary to support the argument.
n Results and analysis. Readers expect papers not only to present the data but
also to analyze the data and present results, which fulfill the purpose of the
paper and answer the questions posed initially.
Create opportunities for students to give each other feedback. Writers benefit from
feedback, but that doesn’t mean that all the feedback needs to come directly
from you. Students can benefit as much from giving feedback as from receiving
it because responding to their peers requires that they make judgments—and
justify them. Writing groups of two or three members give students the chance
to engage in the practices of professionals and internalize the standards of the
scientific community.
Peer response has an additional practical benefit: it preserves your resources. By
giving student writers an opportunity to resolve for themselves the problems
visible to them and their peers, you can focus your energies on pursuing the less
obvious issues that your greater experience enables you to see. For example, by
letting students comment on the missing labels in a figure, you can concentrate
your comments on whether the data plotted in the figure address the scientific
question at hand.
Expand the Definition of Writing
As the above ideas suggest, perhaps the most significant assistance you can offer
students is to expand their definition of writing to include all forms of inscription
intended to communicate or make meaning. Writing in science and
engineering includes not only sentences but also figures, graphs, images, and
drawings. This broader definition can help students recognize that whenever
they interpret data, whether by drawing a figure, graphing variables to discover
a relationship, or designing an apparatus, they’re in fact writing science.
49
10 I A Language for Describing Writing

The approaches to teaching with writing described in this guide can be significantly
enhanced when the language that writers and readers use to talk about
writing is public and shared. Even if you don’t realize it, you already use a language
for describing writing, whether you’re a chemist presenting “results,” a
historian analyzing “primary documents,” or some other type of scholar or scientist
in conversation with others about writing. Humanists and some social
scientists, whose writing is based primarily on texts, might include “evidence”
and “analysis” in their writing lexicon. Scientists, engineers, and some other
social scientists, whose writing is based primarily on quantitative data, might
instead include “data” and “discussion” in theirs.
You can capitalize on your experiences as a scholarly or scientific writer by making
your writing lexicon as explicit as possible for students. Some possibilities
follow. But whatever language you use, you would be wise to avoid the false
dichotomy between “writing” and “content.” What’s usually meant by “writing”
in this context is “mechanics”—grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Yet
writing, as we all know from experience, comprehends so much more: the
establishment
of a viewpoint in relation to others’ viewpoints; the organization
of complex ideas and arguments; the convincing analysis of evidence, and so
on. Rather than limiting your writing lexicon to the two large, undifferentiated
categories “writing” and “content,” try using terms that can facilitate a more
nuanced
and meaningful discussion of everything that’s on the page.
When asked to describe academic writing in their fields, scholars and scientists
use many of the terms defined in the writing lexicon below.7
A Writing Lexicon
Thesis: A paper’s central claim or promise.
In humanistic disciplines, the thesis is an arguable claim—i.e., an assertion
someone could reasonably argue against; as such, it provides unexpected
insight, goes beyond superficial interpretations, or challenges, corrects, or
extends other arguments. In scientific disciplines, the thesis is a statement
of purpose indicating that a particular investigation will be described and
significant results presented—results that challenge standard opinions or
methodology, or add to knowledge in the field.
7This lexicon was developed by the author with assistance from Judith A. Swan, Assistant Director
of the Princeton Writing Program, and was inspired by Gordon C. Harvey’s “Elements
of the Academic Essay,” available at http://www.princeton.edu/writing/elements.doc.
50
Motive: Defined by Gordon Harvey as the “intellectual context” that’s established
at the beginning of a paper to suggest why the thesis is original or worthwhile.
In both humanistic and scientific disciplines, the motive is typically an incongruity,
puzzle, or surprise in the primary sources or data; and/or holes,
limitations, or disagreements in the secondary literature. All good academic
papers have a well-defined motive, which, according to Harvey, is “usually
defined by a form of the complicating word ‘But.’”
Structure: A paper’s line of reasoning, from beginning to end and also within
and between paragraphs.
A successful structure is logical, coherent, and easy to follow. In humanistic
disciplines, the structure allows for a dynamic development of ideas (is not
merely a list of points or examples). In scientific disciplines, the overall structure
is typically signaled with subheadings, such as Title, Abstract, Introduction,
Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References;
within each section, the structure allows for a logical development of ideas.
Key Words: A paper’s main terms or concepts.
Key Words usually appear in the title, are defined early on (often with the aid
of sources), and could be used in a library or Web search to locate the paper
if it were published.
Methodology: The methods and strategies used to make an argument or conduct
an investigation.
In humanistic disciplines, scholars typically don’t discuss their methodology,
except to describe an analytic framework, but social scientists and scientists
always do, whether their projects are empirical or theoretical. One reason for
the difference is that social scientists and scientists value reproducible results,
which are dependent on methodology.
Evidence, or Data: Interpreted primary sources, empirical observations, or factual
information.
In humanistic disciplines, evidence is usually quoted and analyzed. In scientific
disciplines, data are visually summarized in labeled graphs and figures.
Analysis: The interpretation of sources.
In humanistic disciplines, analysis of primary sources is used to support claims,
while analysis of other kinds of sources is used to advance the overall argument
a language for describing writing
51
(for example, by providing a theoretical framework). In scientific disciplines,
analysis of data leads to results (described in the Results section); the results are
further analyzed for their larger implications (in the Discussion section).
Sources: The various materials used to develop an argument, including artifacts,
information, and other people’s ideas.
Primary sources are uninterpreted documents, artifacts, data, or information
that, when analyzed, function as evidence. Secondary sources, also known as
“the literature” or “the secondary literature,” are texts that make direct claims
about the topic and may be used to establish a problem or question worth
addressing, the standard opinion(s) on the topic, the standard way in which
the problem or question is approached, or the current state of knowledge in
the field. Other relevant sources are texts that relate indirectly to the topic
and may be used to provide context or background information, key words
or concepts, or points of comparison.
Sources appear in any of several forms: they may be quoted (if the style of
writing is special or significant), paraphrased (if the style of writing is complex
or jargon-laden), summarized (if the source is long and complicated),
or referenced (if the source is briefly mentioned). In humanistic disciplines,
sources appear in each of these forms. In scientific disciplines, sources are
usually referenced or summarized, almost never quoted or paraphrased.
Orienting: Defined by Gordon Harvey as “bits of information, explanation,
and summary that orient the reader.”*
The amount of orienting, or context, a writer provides depends on readers’
likely expertise in the subject. Even experts require some orienting; those
with less expertise require more.
Citations: Bibliographic information that enables readers to track down a paper’s
sources.
In academic writing, sources are always cited; the citation style employed
(e.g., MLA, APA, CMS, CSE) depends on the discipline. A list of sources is
called the Works Cited, Bibliography, or References, depending on purpose
and discipline.
Conventions: The accepted standards of various elements of academic writing,
such as paper format, voice, tone, diction, and citation style.
Academic writing in different disciplines follows distinctive conventions.
Should a writer include a roadmap at the beginning of a paper or divide the
52
paper up into conventional sections? Is the active or passive voice preferred?
May a writer refer to him- or herself in the first-person singular? Is there a
specialized language, or jargon, that the writer should use? Which citation
style is appropriate? Writers can infer answers to these and other questions of
convention by glancing through the most widely read journals in the field—
for example, PMLA, Social Science Research, and Nature—or by reading excellent
papers (by students or professionals) distributed by the professor or
graduate student instructor.
Mechanics: Grammar, punctuation, spelling, and citation format.
Writing guides that focus on mechanics are readily available online, as are
guides to the citation styles used in various disciplines. See, for example,
“Resources for Writers” at http://www.princeton.edu/writing/resources and
“Citing Sources” at http://library.princeton.edu/help/citing.php.
These are just a few of the terms that are widely used by scholars and scientists
when discussing writing. By adopting these or other useful terms as you work
with students on their writing, you’ll make visible the practices—and values—
of your discipline while giving students some of the critical tools they need to
excel at Princeton and beyond.
Resources for writers
The Writing Center
The Writing Center offers student writers one-on-one conferences with experienced
fellow writers trained to consult on papers and research projects in any discipline.
Resources on key aspects of writing are available online.
“Ask a Librarian”
library.princeton.edu/help/sub.php
Librarians are available—by e-mail, live chat, and appointment—to help students
make a research plan, find sources, and provide guidance through the research
process.
Academic Consultations for Excellence (ACE)
www.princeton.edu/mcgraw/ace.html
The McGraw Center’s ACE consultants are undergraduates who provide one-on-one
consultations on best study strategies—note-taking, time management, and more.
EndNote & RefWorks Help
www.princeton.edu/asap/endnote_refworks
EndNote and RefWorks are software programs that enable researchers to format
references automatically in any standard citation style.
Online Guides to Source Citation
library.princeton.edu/help/citing.php
Online guides to citation in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences are
available
through the Library website.
Senior Thesis Writing Groups
www.princeton.edu/ASAP
Senior Thesis writing groups in over 20 departments enhance the senior thesis
experience while helping students produce better writing.
Academic Support at Princeton (ASAP)
www.princeton.edu/ASAP
ASAP is an online gateway to Princeton’s academic support services, including
those listed above plus many others.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 History
• 2 Constructivist theory
o 2.1 Constructivist learning intervention
 2.1.1 The nature of the learner
 2.1.1.1 The learner as a unique individual
 2.1.1.2 The importance of the background and culture of

the learner
 2.1.1.3 The responsibility for learning
 2.1.1.4 The motivation for learning
 2.1.2 The role of the instructor
 2.1.2.1 Instructors as facilitators
 2.1.3 The nature of the learning process
 2.1.3.1 Learning is an active, social process
 2.1.3.2 Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and

learner
 2.1.4 Collaboration among learners
 2.1.4.1 Learning by teaching (LdL) as constructivist

method
 2.1.4.2 The importance of context
 2.1.4.3 Assessment
 2.1.5 The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter
 2.1.5.1 Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated

whole
 2.1.5.2 Engaging and challenging the learner
 2.1.5.3 The structuredness of the learning process
 2.1.6 Constructivism for Adult Learners
 2.1.6.1 Final remarks
• 3 Pedagogies based on constructivism

[edit] History
In past centuries, constructivist ideas were not widely valued due to the perception that children's
play was seen as aimless and of little importance. Jean Piaget did not agree with these traditional
views, however. He saw play as an important and necessary part of the student's cognitive
development and provided scientific evidence for his views. Today, constructivist theories are
influential throughout much of the informal learning sector. One good example of constructivist
learning in an informal setting is the Investigate Centre at The Natural History Museum, London.
Here visitors are encouraged to explore a collection of real natural history specimens, to practice
some scientific skills and make discoveries for themselves.
Some historical figures who influenced constructivism:
• Giambattista Vico (1668–1744)
• Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
• John Dewey (1859–1952)
• Maria Montessori (1870–1952)
• Władysław Strzemiński (1893–1952)
• Jean Piaget (1896–1980)
• Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934)
• Heinz von Foerster (1911–2002)
• Jerome Bruner (1915-)
• Herbert Simon (1916–2001)
• Paul Watzlawick (1921–2007)
• Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917–2010)
• Edgar Morin (1921-)
• [(Isner)]
For more detailed information on the philosophy of the construction of human knowledge, see
constructivist epistemology.
[edit] Constructivist theory

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.
[edit] Constructivist learning intervention
[edit] The nature of the learner
[edit] The learner as a unique individual

Social constructivism views each learner as a unique individual with unique needs and
backgrounds. The learner is also seen as complex and multidimensional. 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).
[edit] The importance of the background and culture of the learner

Social constructivism 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).
[edit] The responsibility for learning

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) emphasizes 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.
[edit] The motivation for learning

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.
[edit] The role of the instructor
[edit] Instructors as facilitators

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 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)
[edit] The nature of the learning process
[edit] Learning is an active, social process

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 behaviours 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
intrapersonal level, while speech connects this meaning with the interpersonal world shared by
the child and her/his culture.
[edit] Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner

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.
[edit] Collaboration among learners

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

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.
[edit] The importance of context

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).
[edit] Assessment
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.
[edit] The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter
[edit] Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole

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).
[edit] Engaging and challenging the learner

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 also 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).
[edit] The structuredness of the learning process

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.
[edit] Constructivism for Adult Learners

Adults learn in fundamentally different ways than children. Children have fewer experiences, so
their brains are able to create new neurological structures when they learn. Adults have
previously existing neurological structures due to their vast amount of experience, so new
learning for adults requires new connections between already existing neurological structures.
There are several processes that are important for working with adult learners: 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, selection of methods, materials, and resources, and evaluation of
learning. Adult learners should be informed why something is important to learn and be shown
how to direct themselves through information. The topic being presented should be related to the
learners’ experiences. People tend not to learn until they are ready and motivated, and they may
need help overcoming inhibitions, behaviors and beliefs about learning.
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.
[edit] Final remarks

A constructivist learning intervention is thus an intervention where contextualised activities
(tasks) are used to provide learners with an opportunity to discover and collaboratively construct
meaning as the intervention unfolds. Learners are respected as unique individuals, and instructors
act as facilitators rather than as teachers.
[edit] Pedagogies based on constructivism

Main article: Constructivist teaching methods
In fact, there are many pedagogies that leverage constructivist theory. Most approaches that have
grown from constructivism suggest that learning is accomplished best using a hands-on
approach. Learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what will happen. They are
left to make their own inferences, discoveries and conclusions. It also emphasizes that learning is
not an "all or nothing" process but that students learn the new information that is presented to
them by building upon knowledge that they already possess. It is therefore important that
teachers constantly assess the knowledge their students have gained to make sure that the
students' perceptions of the new knowledge are what the teacher had intended. Teachers will find
that since the students build upon already existing knowledge, when they are called upon to
retrieve the new information, they may make errors. It is known as reconstruction error when we
fill in the gaps of our understanding with logical, though incorrect, thoughts. Teachers need to
catch and try to correct these errors, though it is inevitable that some reconstruction error will
continue to occur because of our innate retrieval limitations.
In most pedagogies based on constructivism, the teacher's role is not only to observe and assess
but to also engage with the students while they are completing activities, wondering aloud and
posing questions to the students for promotion of reasoning (DeVries et al., 2002). (ex: I wonder
why the water does not spill over the edge of the full cup?) Teachers also intervene when there
are conflicts that arise; however, they simply facilitate the students' resolutions and self-
regulation, with an emphasis on the conflict being the students' and that they must figure things
out for themselves. For example, promotion of literacy is accomplished by integrating the need
to read and write throughout individual activities within print-rich classrooms. The teacher, after
reading a story, encourages the students to write or draw stories of their own, or by having the
students reenact a story that they may know well, both activities encourage the students to
conceive themselves as reader and writers.
Specific approaches to education that are based on constructivism include:
0100 The lists in this article may contain items that are not notable, not
0900 encyclopedic, or not helpful. Please help out by removing such elements
0003 and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article.
8b0d (December 2010)
0000
0000
7208
0000
0000
7208
0000
2606
0f00d
a105
74d4
6430
1000
0000
0000
100b
1490
0000
0000
1000
000b
8100
0000
0000
000b
8100
0000
1000
0006
c000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0002
7000
0002
7000
0000
0000
0000
0000
000d
a030
000d
d030
0002
0454
d460
0000
100b
8100
0000f
0000
0001
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0056
0500
0000
0300
0051
0100
00be
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0068
2405
0030
e602
0046
0000
002c
0000
0020
0000
0045
4d46
2b01
4001
001c
0000
0010
0000
0002
10c0
db01
0000
0060
0000
0060
0000
0046
0000
00f80
4000
0ec0
4000
0454
d462
b224
0040
00c0
0000
0000
0000
01e4
0090
00c0
0000
0000
0000
0244
0010
00c0
0000
0000
0000
0304
0020
0100
0000
0040
0000
0000
0803f
2140
0700
0c00
0000
0000
0000
0840
0005
4404
0000
3804
0000
0210
c0db
0100
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0100
0000
8950
4e47
0d0a
1a0a
0000
000d
4948
4452
0000
0028
0000
0028
0806
0000
008cf
eb86
d000
0000
6624
b474
400ff
00ff0
0ffa0
bda7
9300
0000
0774
494d
4507
d907
1113
0d24
34ad
8c18
0000
03bd
4944
4154
5885
ed98
4d6e
db3c
1086
5f529
6ed2
4886
5456
9802
0708
0200
8bafa
2e91
65d1
8bf40
6b94
9904
5b7b
9405
7bd4
cf746
0007
817e
ec98
22a7
8bcf7
4258
aa42
93b9
b021
d401
035a
6380f
879c
195a
c03f3
94c9
84df9
f4f47
44e4
45fa2
281a
4751
04ce
3900
4029
0529
65eb
2e84
e8e8
a494
1042
0000
8410
d6f77
49f4d
7b25
84f8f
1fcfcf
c6ab
20c6
c807
11cff
bcbfb
fff2f8
e63c
6587
b0e4
4d4b
aebb
652a
ad34f
eb74
5fd77
35dd
7787
c7cfc
05e0
7310
20e7f
c763
69bc
5f3f9
1c8c
3110
11e2
3886
9472
6ba0
096e
4e22
5434
6892
2448
d3f49
3ad8f
1590
8820
84c0
6ab5
02f0f
f4cc7
e331
eaba
6e01
99f77
d81e
bba7
6be6
3053
48d3
52f17
d847
7834
1850
bbde
0555
9625
d6ebf
5416
0599
6b56
cf502
d49b
d706
c718
4314
4588
e3b8
0316
0aa8
c7d1
7b59
b77b
01ba
e000
a0aa
2a14
45d1
010c
8564
8c61
3299
04f57
5023
623d
55ce
a244
9707
a7ad
a994
028a
4990
5b4a
e176
0d39
8095
a962
596c
ba51
3260
4703
69b7
9fb04
01da
e000
6038
1c76
3c1c
02d6
9450
8ff70
a12d
dd64
1120
2e8d
2998
1d16
b897
5c5a
8eb1
aefef
ef383
a3a6
a192
bcb7
21b2
4fb2c
f1c14
1a26
7f3fa
fa8aa
bab2
b082
15a5
e4ad
3149
3c9a
4031
3eac
90f0b
928b
8b8b
d6cb
7a69f
23cc
772b
9f496
389f7
7880
8d7d
7d75
eb02
040c
658a
bfe6a
a3a3
d1a8
03b2
4fb26
eb6c
dd35
010a
009a
69f5d
41e2
82b6
c135
2b89
cf8b3
b016
da04
5512
0cff3
a0c3
826b
3f264
9d2d
997c
1803
a8a4
def69
dd74
3a6d
4561
b31fe
71ce
3f178
27a4
09d4
6b89
89a8
3580
095a
9625
aaaa
ea18
678c
6138
1ce2f
2f2d2
0bd8
8c62
5b44
ef047
41d2
0b5e
eece
c0c5
9963
92b8
d6f6f
bae0f
64a3
3ae2
5f6e9
6cc0
b649
868a
3751
2f160
b482
9717
e7ed
e1a7
83e9f
778e
5b7d
83e4
eeee
6e67
043b
01a5
9420
228c
4623
2449
d2f92
f92a6
e936
0a7d
4bdb
b746
0703
ea25
3e39
39d9
c236
072e
8aa2
1324
362fb
a208
8083
7373
73b0
3c40
9e84
b338
0fdb8
e50b
16b3
dd2c
9d07
953a
dbe0
005a
95c4
e539
d7be
b4fd0
fd92b
cdf82
4cff3
6d25f
179c
bb7c
cd3e
9f4b0
e396
cff5b
e203
1db9
c731
c1f1f
77f2d
d2e1
b5e4
057d
9d19
2e73
9aaa
a0a4
ed2b
7b7b
73b4
13e1
430c
bb26
d6eb
4ed3
99bc
e3cd
e877
80f00
b84d
a9a3
b88fb
88c9
afabe
a0de
4ae2
7ab6f
de63
ab1d
8528
90f3a
0850
4ad9
5a22
ce79
ebde
1457
5a69
c299
90e6
37c6
de69
66bd
5e2f5
e5e5
e12fd
6555
439b
60a6
b80c
ed3a
0f32c
6b05
82c9
6c18
0455
17c7
d787
8f8c6
398f0
1402
9154
9298
752c
a582
9152
ba50
6000
69b7
6444
4111
1716
0fb49
9918
63c4
1893f
ae29
cd75
1140
9c65
83d1
80cd
69c7
3b17
926a
5947
c7b7
bfb6e
9d9c
75ca
7e89
011c
6fae1
180e
166a
203fc
093a
02a0
00d4
00d6
00de
01ac
0054
9bbb
3f4df
c4df2
1be2
5a59
1905
e48ff
b000
0000
0494
54e4
4ae4
2608
2000
8400
1082
4000
0001
8000
0000
210c
0db0
1000
0000
3000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0001
b400
0004
0000
0003
4000
0000
1000
0000
2000
0000
0000
0bf00
0000
bf000
0204
2000
0204
2030
0000
0000
000b
3000
000b
3ffff1
f4200
0000
b300
0000
b3ffff
1f422
1000
0000
8000
0006
2000
0000
c000
0000
1000
0001
5000
0000
c000
0000
4000
0001
5000
0000
c000
0000
4000
0004
6000
0001
4000
0000
8000
0005
44e5
0500
6010
0005
1000
000c
0010
0000
0000
0000
0000
0002
7000
0002
7000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0002
8000
0002
8000
0005
0000
0003
0000
0008
0000
0004
0010
0000
0000
0008
600e
e002
8000
0002
8000
0002
8000
0002
8000
0002
8000
0000
1000
1000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
000ff
ffff00
0000
0000
0003f
9030
0022
2000
066c
cff01
5555
5540
6dcef
f07fff
fffe0f
8fdff
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffc
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffc
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
82d5f
f07fff
fffe0
66ccf
f07fff
fffe0
6dcef
f07fff
fffe0f
8fdff
02aa
aaaa
a000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
5100
0000
7408
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
2700
0000
2700
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
5000
0000
e401
0000
3402
0000
4006
0000
0000
0000
c600
8800
2800
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
0100
0800
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
6f000
0000
0000
0000
0000
000ff
ffff00
9898
9800
9e9e
9e00
a0a0
a000
9b9b
9b00
9696
9600
8f8f8
f008a
8a8a
0085
8585
007d
7d7d
0078
7878
0073
7373
006e
6e6e
0069
6969
0062
6262
005a
5a5a
00e0
e0e0
00e5
e5e5
00e6
e6e6
00e4
e4e4
00e3
e3e3
00e1
e1e1
00de
dede
00dd
dddd
00db
dbdb
00da
dada
00d8
d8d8
00d4
d4d4
006b
6b6b
00fdf
dfd00
e7e7
e700
ebeb
eb00
e8e8
e800
e9e9
e900f
7f7f7
007c
7c7c
009f9
f9f00
f8f8f
800d
cdcdc
00e2
e2e2
00f3f
3f300
dfdfd
f00d7
d7d7
00d1
d1d1
00d2
d2d2
00d3
d3d3
009c
9c9c
00d6
d6d6
00d9
d9d9
00f4f
4f400
9a9a
9a00f
9f9f9
00d0
d0d0
00c4
c4c4
00c5
c5c5
00c6
c6c6
00c7
c7c7
007b
7b7b
00cb
cbcb
00ccc
ccc00
cdcdc
d009
4949
400d
5d5d
500e
aeae
a00f5
f5f50
0929
2920
0c8c
8c80
0c9c
9c90
07a7
a7a0
08e8
e8e0
0cec
ece0
0ece
cec0
0797
9790
08c8
c8c0
0cfcf
cf00e
dede
d00e
eeee
e00f6
f6f60
0777
7770
0888
8880
0efef
ef008
6868
600c
acac
a007
6767
6008
3838
300f0
f0f00
0f1f1
f1007
4747
4008
2828
200f2
f2f20
07e7
e7e0
0717
1710
06d6
d6d0
06c6
c6c0
06a6
a6a0
0686
8680
0656
5650
0646
4640
0616
1610
05b5
b5b0
05c5
c5c0
0545
4540
0505
0500
04e4
e4e0
04b4
b4b0
04a4
a4a0
04c4
c4c0
0535
3530
0585
8580
05d5
d5d0
0010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1000
1010
1000
1010
1000
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1016
5011
0016
6016
7016
8016
9016
a016
a016
b016
8016
c016
d016
e016
5010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1016
4281
4141
4121
2121
2131
3131
3131f
1f1f1
f1f1f
2121
2121
211f1
f1f21
6301
0101
0101
0101
0101
0163
2322
4021
514c
4d4d
4d51
5657
5a29
2932
3241
414e
4e4e
4e41
4132
3223
0c01
0101
0101
0101
0101
0162
4e21
2213
4d20
484c
4d51
5156
575a
2932
4141
4e4e
2323
234e
4141
324e
0c01
0101
0101
0101
0101
0161
4e21
221f4
d204
84c4
d515
6575
75a2
9324
14e4
e232
6262
3234
e413
2230
c010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1604
e212
21f4d
2048
4c4d
5156
575a
2929
3241
4e23
2626
2626
234e
4e41
230c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5f4e2
1221f
4d20
481a
352c
2c2d
2e2e
1c1c
3f3f3
f2634
3426
2623
4e41
230c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5e4e
2122
1f4d2
0481f
1213
1f212
1224
0402
0484
d263
4342
6262
34e4
1230
c010
1010
1010
1010
1010
15d2
3212
21f4d
2048
3044
533b
3b3c
3c3c
3d3d
474b
4b4b
4b4b
4b4e
4e41
2301
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5c23
2122
1f4d2
0481
5172
a111
6161
6281
5141
2121
2131
3121
34e4
1322
30c0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
c232
1221
34d2
0481
1311
a1a1
9272
7181
7172
a2a2
a111
1112
a414
1324
e0c0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1015
4231f
2113
4d20
481a
3535
2c2c
2d2e
2e2e
1c3f3
f3f3f
3f3f1
c413
2324
e0c0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
b232
7201f
4d20
2013
1412
131f1
f2121
2222
4040
2020
2020
2032
3229
4e0c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
3a26
3f2d1
34d4
0203f
4444
4453
3b3b
3b3c
3c3c
3d3d
3d3d
3d47
2929
5a4e
0c01
0101
0101
0101
0101
0124
261f2
1124
c402
0484
84c4
d515
6565
7575
a292
9292
9292
9292
95a5
a4e0
c010
1010
1010
1010
1010
15b2
6131f
124c
4040
2048
4c4d
4d51
5656
5757
5a5a
5a5a
295a
5a5a
5757
4e0c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5923
131f1
24c2
2403
14b4
b353
5352
c2b5
6575
7575
a5a5
a5a5
7575
7564
e580
1010
1010
1010
1010
1015
5261
31f14
4822
4014
2815
1514
1212
1f515
6565
6575
7575
7575
6565
6415
8010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1522
6121
3144
8222
21c3
9434
3434
4444
4535
3533
b3b3
b3b3
b3c5
1515
1415
4010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1502
6121
3142
0212
2111
9272
7181
8181
8171
72a2
a2a2
a2a2
a115
14d4
d414f
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0826
1212
1520
2121
1830
302b
2b1b
1b31
3131
3131
3131
3131
314d
4d4c
4e4f0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1014
a261
4221
5401f
2130
3d47
4747
474b
4b4b
3535
3535
3535
354b
4c4c
4841
4901
0101
0101
0101
0101
0146
2647
2214
4013
1f151
1111
6161
6282
8151
5151
5151
4141
4154
8484
8414
9010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1072
62a1
b162
2131
32d3
8383
9393
9393
9434
3434
3434
3434
3442
0202
0414
5010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1422
6151
5162
2121
3181
b313
11a1
a191
9191
9192
7272
7272
7182
0404
0410
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
13e2
6281
5112
2121
21a2
e1c1
c3f3f
3030
3030
3030
3030
3030
3040
4040
413a
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0626
1628
1121
1412
1c3b
3b3c
3c3c
3c3c
3d3d
3d3d
3d3d
3d3d
3c22
2222
323a
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0226
1616
2a21
1514
2a18
1817
172a
2a2a
1111
1111
1111
1111
2a21
2121
323a
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
3334
1116
171f1
5153
5363
6363
7373
7383
8383
8383
8383
8383
91f1f
1f322
4010
1010
1010
1010
1010
12f26
1111
1713
2815
1a30
3030
2b2b
1b1b
1b1b
1b1b
1b1b
1b1b
311f1
3133
2240
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
3262
a111
8131
6282
b2c2
c2d2
d2d2
e2e2
e2e2
e2e2
e2e2
e2e2
e131
3122
90a0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1012
5261
72a1
8121
6162
8281
5151
5141
4141
2121
2121
2121
2121
2121
2122
90a0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1012
5261
7172
7141
1111
6162
8281
5151
5151
4141
4141
4141
4141
4141
4142
90a0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
41e1
31f13
2021
211f2
1212
1222
2222
2222
2222
2222
2222
2222
2212
1232
4010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1031
1121
3131
3131
2121
4141
4151
6161
6161
1171
7181
8191
91a1
a1b1
b1c1
d010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
2010
3010
4010
5010
6010
7010
8010
9010
a010
b010
c010
d010
e010f
0110
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0146
0000
0014
0000
0008
0000
0054
4e50
5007
0100
004c
0000
0064
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0027
0000
0027
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0028
0000
0028
0000
0029
00aa
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0080
3f000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0803f
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
2200
0000
0c00
0000f
fffffff
4600
0000
1c00
0000
1000
0000
454d
462b
0240
0000
0c00
0000
0000
0000
0e00
0000
1400
0000
0000
0000
1000
0000
1400
0000
0400
0000
0301
0800
0500
0000
0b02
0000
0000
0500
0000
0c02
2800
2800
0300
0000
1e00
0400
0000
0701
0400
0400
0000
0701
0400
c500
0000
410b
8600
ee00
2800
2800
0000
0000
2800
2800
0000
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
0100
0100
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000f
fffff0
0000
0000
0000
3f903
0002
2200
0066
ccff0
1555
5554
06dc
eff07
ffffffe
0f8fd
ff07ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
c000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
c000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
0000
0000
7ffffff
e000
0000
07ffff
ffe00
0000
007ff
ffffe0
0000
0007f
fffffe
082d
5ff07
ffffffe
066c
cff07f
fffffe
06dc
eff07
ffffffe
0f8fd
ff02a
aaaa
aa00
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
01f04
0000
410b
c600
8800
2800
2800
0000
0000
2800
2800
0000
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
2800
0000
0100
0800
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
6f000
0000
0000
0000
0000
000ff
ffff00
9898
9800
9e9e
9e00
a0a0
a000
9b9b
9b00
9696
9600
8f8f8
f008a
8a8a
0085
8585
007d
7d7d
0078
7878
0073
7373
006e
6e6e
0069
6969
0062
6262
005a
5a5a
00e0
e0e0
00e5
e5e5
00e6
e6e6
00e4
e4e4
00e3
e3e3
00e1
e1e1
00de
dede
00dd
dddd
00db
dbdb
00da
dada
00d8
d8d8
00d4
d4d4
006b
6b6b
00fdf
dfd00
e7e7
e700
ebeb
eb00
e8e8
e800
e9e9
e900f
7f7f7
007c
7c7c
009f9
f9f00
f8f8f
800d
cdcdc
00e2
e2e2
00f3f
3f300
dfdfd
f00d7
d7d7
00d1
d1d1
00d2
d2d2
00d3
d3d3
009c
9c9c
00d6
d6d6
00d9
d9d9
00f4f
4f400
9a9a
9a00f
9f9f9
00d0
d0d0
00c4
c4c4
00c5
c5c5
00c6
c6c6
00c7
c7c7
007b
7b7b
00cb
cbcb
00ccc
ccc00
cdcdc
d009
4949
400d
5d5d
500e
aeae
a00f5
f5f50
0929
2920
0c8c
8c80
0c9c
9c90
07a7
a7a0
08e8
e8e0
0cec
ece0
0ece
cec0
0797
9790
08c8
c8c0
0cfcf
cf00e
dede
d00e
eeee
e00f6
f6f60
0777
7770
0888
8880
0efef
ef008
6868
600c
acac
a007
6767
6008
3838
300f0
f0f00
0f1f1
f1007
4747
4008
2828
200f2
f2f20
07e7
e7e0
0717
1710
06d6
d6d0
06c6
c6c0
06a6
a6a0
0686
8680
0656
5650
0646
4640
0616
1610
05b5
b5b0
05c5
c5c0
0545
4540
0505
0500
04e4
e4e0
04b4
b4b0
04a4
a4a0
04c4
c4c0
0535
3530
0585
8580
05d5
d5d0
0010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1000
1010
1000
1010
1000
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1016
5011
0016
6016
7016
8016
9016
a016
a016
b016
8016
c016
d016
e016
5010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1016
4281
4141
4121
2121
2131
3131
3131f
1f1f1
f1f1f
2121
2121
211f1
f1f21
6301
0101
0101
0101
0101
0163
2322
4021
514c
4d4d
4d51
5657
5a29
2932
3241
414e
4e4e
4e41
4132
3223
0c01
0101
0101
0101
0101
0162
4e21
2213
4d20
484c
4d51
5156
575a
2932
4141
4e4e
2323
234e
4141
324e
0c01
0101
0101
0101
0101
0161
4e21
221f4
d204
84c4
d515
6575
75a2
9324
14e4
e232
6262
3234
e413
2230
c010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1604
e212
21f4d
2048
4c4d
5156
575a
2929
3241
4e23
2626
2626
234e
4e41
230c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5f4e2
1221f
4d20
481a
352c
2c2d
2e2e
1c1c
3f3f3
f2634
3426
2623
4e41
230c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5e4e
2122
1f4d2
0481f
1213
1f212
1224
0402
0484
d263
4342
6262
34e4
1230
c010
1010
1010
1010
1010
15d2
3212
21f4d
2048
3044
533b
3b3c
3c3c
3d3d
474b
4b4b
4b4b
4b4e
4e41
2301
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5c23
2122
1f4d2
0481
5172
a111
6161
6281
5141
2121
2131
3121
34e4
1322
30c0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
c232
1221
34d2
0481
1311
a1a1
9272
7181
7172
a2a2
a111
1112
a414
1324
e0c0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1015
4231f
2113
4d20
481a
3535
2c2c
2d2e
2e2e
1c3f3
f3f3f
3f3f1
c413
2324
e0c0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
b232
7201f
4d20
2013
1412
131f1
f2121
2222
4040
2020
2020
2032
3229
4e0c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
3a26
3f2d1
34d4
0203f
4444
4453
3b3b
3b3c
3c3c
3d3d
3d3d
3d47
2929
5a4e
0c01
0101
0101
0101
0101
0124
261f2
1124
c402
0484
84c4
d515
6565
7575
a292
9292
9292
9292
95a5
a4e0
c010
1010
1010
1010
1010
15b2
6131f
124c
4040
2048
4c4d
4d51
5656
5757
5a5a
5a5a
295a
5a5a
5757
4e0c
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
5923
131f1
24c2
2403
14b4
b353
5352
c2b5
6575
7575
a5a5
a5a5
7575
7564
e580
1010
1010
1010
1010
1015
5261
31f14
4822
4014
2815
1514
1212
1f515
6565
6575
7575
7575
6565
6415
8010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1522
6121
3144
8222
21c3
9434
3434
4444
4535
3533
b3b3
b3b3
b3c5
1515
1415
4010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1502
6121
3142
0212
2111
9272
7181
8181
8171
72a2
a2a2
a2a2
a115
14d4
d414f
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0826
1212
1520
2121
1830
302b
2b1b
1b31
3131
3131
3131
3131
314d
4d4c
4e4f0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1014
a261
4221
5401f
2130
3d47
4747
474b
4b4b
3535
3535
3535
354b
4c4c
4841
4901
0101
0101
0101
0101
0146
2647
2214
4013
1f151
1111
6161
6282
8151
5151
5151
4141
4154
8484
8414
9010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1072
62a1
b162
2131
32d3
8383
9393
9393
9434
3434
3434
3434
3442
0202
0414
5010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1422
6151
5162
2121
3181
b313
11a1
a191
9191
9192
7272
7272
7182
0404
0410
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
13e2
6281
5112
2121
21a2
e1c1
c3f3f
3030
3030
3030
3030
3030
3040
4040
413a
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0626
1628
1121
1412
1c3b
3b3c
3c3c
3c3c
3d3d
3d3d
3d3d
3d3d
3c22
2222
323a
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0226
1616
2a21
1514
2a18
1817
172a
2a2a
1111
1111
1111
1111
2a21
2121
323a
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
3334
1116
171f1
5153
5363
6363
7373
7383
8383
8383
8383
8383
91f1f
1f322
4010
1010
1010
1010
1010
12f26
1111
1713
2815
1a30
3030
2b2b
1b1b
1b1b
1b1b
1b1b
1b1b
311f1
3133
2240
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
3262
a111
8131
6282
b2c2
c2d2
d2d2
e2e2
e2e2
e2e2
e2e2
e2e2
e131
3122
90a0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1012
5261
72a1
8121
6162
8281
5151
5141
4141
2121
2121
2121
2121
2121
2122
90a0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1012
5261
7172
7141
1111
6162
8281
5151
5151
4141
4141
4141
4141
4141
4142
90a0
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
41e1
31f13
2021
211f2
1212
1222
2222
2222
2222
2222
2222
2222
2212
1232
4010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1031
1121
3131
3131
2121
4141
4151
6161
6161
1171
7181
8191
91a1
a1b1
b1c1
d010
1010
1010
1010
1010
1010
2010
3010
4010
5010
6010
7010
8010
9010
a010
b010
c010
d010
e010f
0110
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
0101
010c
0000
0040
0929
00aa
0000
0000
0000
0028
0028
0000
0000
0004
0000
0027
01ffff
0300
0000
0000
• Constructionism
o An approach to learning developed by Seymour Papert and his

colleagues at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Papert had worked
with Piaget at the latter's Institute in Geneva. Papert eventually called
his approach "constructionism." It included everything associated with
Piaget's constructivism, but went beyond it to assert that constructivist
learning happens especially well when people are engaged in
constructing a product, something external to themselves such as a
sand castle, a machine, a computer program or a book. This approach
is greatly facilitated by the ready availability of powerful 'constructing'
applications on personal computers. Promoters of the use of computers
in education see an increasing need for students to develop skills in
Multimedia literacy in order to use these tools in constructivist
learning.
• Reciprocal Learning
o Two teach each other.
• Procedural Facilitations for Writing
• Critical Exploration (Duckworth, 2006) The two components of critical

exploration are curriculum development and pedagogy. In this method
teachers find ways to encourage their students to explore the subject matter
and express their thoughts on the material(Duckworth).
• Cognitive Tutors
• Cognitively Guided Instruction
o A research and teacher professional development program in

elementary mathematics created by Thomas P. Carpenter, Elizabeth
Fennema, and their colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Its major premise is that teachers can use students' informal strategies
(i.e., strategies students construct based on their understanding of
everyday situations, such as losing marbles or picking flowers) as a
primary basis for teaching mathematics in the elementary grades.
• Inquiry-based learning
• Problem-based learning
• Cognitive apprenticeships
• Various methods involving collaboration or group work
• Cooperative learning (reciprocal questioning, Jigsaw Classroom, structured

controversies)
• Anchored Instruction (Bransford et al.)
o Problems and approaches to solutions are embedded in a narrative

environment.
• Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins et al.)
o Learning is achieved by integration into a specific implicit and explicit

culture of knowledge.
 Six features of cognitive apprenticeships: modeling of the

performance, support through coaching/tutoring, scaffolding,
students articulate knowledge, reflection on progress,
exploration of new applications. (Woolfolk, 2010)
• Cognitive Flexibility (Sprio et al.)
• Constructive Alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2007)
o A constructivist approach to curriculum design, in which the learning

activities spelled out in the intended learning outcomes are built into
the teaching methods and assessment tasks.
• Pragmatic Constructivism (Müller, Klaus 2001)
• The Silent Way
o A constructivist approach to foreign language teaching and learning

developed by Caleb Gattegno who worked with Piaget before WWII and
in the late 1940s.
[edit] Research and evidence supporting constructivism

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist
problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called
GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application. Students using the GenScope software
showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in students from
basic courses.[2]
Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science
for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized
tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students and 13% for the second cohort.
This study also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap
for African-American students.[2]
Guthrie et al. (2004) compared three instructional methods for third-grade reading: a traditional
approach, a strategies instruction only approach, and an approach with strategies instruction and
constructivist motivation techniques including student choices, collaboration, and hands-on
activities. The constructivist approach, called CORI (Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction),
resulted in better student reading comprehension, cognitive strategies, and motivation.[3]
Jong Suk Kim found that using constructivist teaching methods for 6th graders resulted in better
student achievement than traditional teaching methods. This study also found that students
preferred constructivist methods over traditional ones. However, Kim did not find any difference
in student self-concept or learning strategies between those taught by constructivist or traditional
methods.[4]
Doğru and Kalender compared science classrooms using traditional teacher-centered
approaches to those using student-centered, constructivist methods. In their initial test of student
performance immediately following the lessons, they found no significant difference between
traditional and constructivist methods. However, in the follow-up assessment 15 days later,
students who learned through constructivist methods showed better retention of knowledge than
those who learned through traditional methods.[5]
[edit] Criticism of educational constructivism

As with any theory it is important to consider opposing perspectives. Several cognitive
psychologists and educators have questioned the central claims of constructivism. It is argued
that constructivist theories are misleading or contradict known findings.[6][7][8][9] Matthews (1993)
attempts to sketch the influence of constructivism in current mathematics and science education,
aiming to indicate how pervasive Aristotle's empiricist epistemology is within it and what
problems constructivism faces on that account.[10]
In the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development it is maintained that learning at any age
depends upon the processing and representational resources available at this particular age. That
is, it is maintained that if the requirements of the concept to be understood exceeds the available
processing efficiency and working memory resources then the concept is by definition not
learnable. Therefore, however active a child is in a leaning endeavor, to learn the child must
operate in a learning environment that meets the developmental and individual learning
constraints that are characteristic for the child's age and this child's possible deviations from her
age's norm. If this condition is not met, construction goes astray.[11][12]
Several educators have also questioned the effectiveness of this approach toward instructional
design, especially as it applies to the development of instruction for novices (Mayer, 2004;
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, 2006). While some constructivists argue that "learning by doing"
enhances learning, critics of this instructional strategy argue that little empirical evidence exists
to support this statement given novice learners (Mayer, 2004; Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark,
2006). Sweller and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental
models, or "schemas" necessary for "learning by doing" (e.g. Sweller, 1988). Indeed, Mayer
(2004) reviewed the literature and found that fifty years of empirical data do not support using
the constructivist teaching technique of pure discovery; in those situations requiring discovery,
he argues for the use of guided discovery instead.
Mayer (2004) argues that not all teaching techniques based on constructivism are efficient or
effective for all learners, suggesting many educators misapply constructivism to use teaching
techniques that require learners to be behaviorally active. He describes this inappropriate use of
constructivism as the "constructivist teaching fallacy". "I refer to this interpretation as the
constructivist teaching fallacy because it equates active learning with active teaching." (Mayer,
2004, p. 15). Instead Mayer proposes learners should be "cognitively active" during learning and
that instructors use "guided practice."
In contrast, Kirschner, et al. (2006) describe constructivist teaching methods as "unguided
methods of instruction." They suggest more structured learning activities for learners with little
to no prior knowledge. Perhaps because of this proposition the Kirschner, et al. (2006) article has
been criticized by a number of authors for various reasons.
[edit] Criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark

Critics argue that the article creates a false dilemma between "guided" and "unguided"
instruction without recognizing the continuum of guidance and structure possible within
constructivist, problem-based learning, and other methods.[2][13][14] Kirschner et al. also group a
number of learning theories together (Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-
Based learning), disregarding the differences and actual amount of structure and scaffolding
included in the theories.[13][14] Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn have stated that highly scaffolded
constructivist teaching methods like problem-based learning and inquiry learning are effective,
and the evidence does not support Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark's conclusion.[2] Hmelo-Silver et
al. argue that Kirschner et al. "overlooked" research favorable to problem-based learning. They
include in their response a 2003 meta-analysis showing PBL has benefits for knowledge
application over traditional curriculum.[2]
In addition, some critics state Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark focus more on learning as
memorization rather than learning as behavior change or action. For example, in their article they
criticize a project-based learning experiment for medical students because students did not
perform as well on a written test as traditionally taught students. The medical students
demonstrated better clinical skills, but were less efficient, ordering more unnecessary tests during
clinical tests. Nevertheless, some critics of Kirschner et al. have argued that they personally
would prefer the better clinical skills, regardless of written test performance.[15]
[edit] A rebuttal to the criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark

While there are critics of the Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark article, Sweller and his associates
have written in their articles about:
1. instructional designs for producing procedural learning (learning as behavior
change)(Sweller, 1988);
2. their grouping of seemingly disparate learning theories (Kirschner et al.,2006)

and;
3. a continuum of guidance beginning with worked examples that may be

followed by practice, or transitioned to practice (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler,
and Sweller, 2003; Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002)
Kirschner et al. (2006) describe worked examples as an instructional design solution for
procedural learning. Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller (2006) describe this as a very effective,
empirically validated method of teaching learners procedural skill acquisition. Evidence for
learning by studying worked-examples, is known as the worked-example effect and has been
found to be useful in many domains [e.g. music, chess, athletics (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, &
Wortham, 2000); concept mapping (Hilbert & Renkl, 2007); geometry (Tarmizi and Sweller,
1988); physics, mathematics, or programming (Gerjets, Scheiter, and Catrambone, 2004)].
Kirschner et al. (2006) describe why they group a series of seemingly disparate learning theories
(Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning). The reasoning for this
grouping is because each learning theory promotes the same constructivist teaching technique --
"learning by doing." While they argue "learning by doing" is useful for more knowledgeable
learners, they argue this constructivist teaching technique is not useful for novices. Mayer states
that it promotes behavioral activity too early in the learning process, when learners should be
cognitively active (Mayer, 2004).[16]
In addition, Sweller and his associates describe a continuum of guidance, starting with worked
examples to slowly fade guidance. This continuum of faded guidance has been tested empirically
to produce a series of learning effects: the worked-example effect (Sweller and Cooper, 1985),
the guidance fading effect (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002), and the expertise-reversal
effect (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller, 2003).
[edit] Criticism of discovery-based teaching techniques
“ ”
After a half century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal
guidance, there appears no body of research supporting the technique. In
so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly
supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather constructivist-based
minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate
learners. Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong
guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as
unguided approaches. Not only is unguided instruction normally less
effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when
student acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge
— Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of

the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching by Kirschner, Sweller, Clark
[17]
Mayer (2004)[16] argues against discovery-based teaching techniques and provides an extensive
review to support this argument. Mayer's arguments are against pure discovery, and are not
specifically aimed as constructivism: "Nothing in this article should be construed as arguing
against the view of learning as knowledge construction or against using hands-on inquiry or
group discussion that promotes the process of knowledge construction in learners. The main
conclusion I draw from the three research literatures I have reviewed is that it would be a
mistake to interpret the current constructivist view of learning as a rationale for reviving pure
discovery as a method of instruction."[16]
Mayer's concern is how one applies discovery-based teaching techniques. He provides empirical
research as evidence that discovery-based teaching techniques are inadequate. Here he cites this
literature and makes his point “For example, a recent replication is research showing that
students learn to become better at solving mathematics problems when they study worked-out
examples rather than when they solely engage in hands-on problem solving (Sweller, 1999).
Today’s proponents of discovery methods, who claim to draw their support from constructivist
philosophy, are making inroads into educational practice. Yet a dispassionate review of the
relevant research literature shows that discovery-based practice is not as effective as guided
discovery.” (Mayer, 2004, p. 18)
Mayer’s point is that people often misuse constructivism to promote pure discovery-based
teaching techniques. He proposes that the instructional design recommendations of
constructivism are too often aimed at discovery-based practice (Mayer, 2004). Sweller (1988)
found evidence that practice by novices during early schema acquisition, distracts these learners
with unnecessary search-based activity, when the learner's attention should be focused on
understanding (acquiring schemas).
[edit] The math wars and discovery-based teaching techniques

Main article: Math Wars
The math wars controversy in the United States is an example of the type of heated debate that
sometimes follows the implementation of constructivist-inspired curricula in schools. In the
1990s, mathematics textbooks based on new standards largely informed by constructivism were
developed and promoted with government support. Although constructivist theory does not
require eliminating instruction entirely, some textbooks seemed to recommend this extreme.
Some parents and mathematicians protested the design of textbooks that omitted or de-
emphasized instruction of standard mathematical methods. Supporters responded that the
methods were to be eventually discovered under direction by the teacher, but since this was
missing or unclear, many insisted the textbooks were designed to deliberately eliminate
instruction of standard methods. In one commonly adopted text, the standard formula for the area
of a circle is to be derived in the classroom, but not actually printed in the student textbook as is
explained by the developers of CMP: "The student role of formulating, representing, clarifying,
communicating, and reflecting on ideas leads to an increase in learning. If the format of the texts
included many worked examples, the student role would then become merely reproducing these
examples with small modifications."[18]
Similarly, this approach has been applied to reading with whole language and inquiry-based
science that emphasizes the importance of devising rather than just performing hands-on
experiments as early as the elementary grades (traditionally done by research scientists), rather
than studying facts. In other areas of curriculum such as social studies and writing are relying
more on "higher order thinking skills" rather than memorization of dates, grammar or spelling
rules or reciting correct answers.
[edit] Constructivist learning environments? ...for which learners?

During the 1990s, several theorists began to study the cognitive load of novices (those with little
or no prior knowledge of the subject matter) during problem solving. Cognitive load theory was
applied in several contexts (Paas, 1992; Moreno & Mayer, 1999; Mousavi, Low, & Sweller,
1995; Chandler and Sweller, 1992; Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Cooper & Sweller, 1987). Based on
the results of their research, these authors do not support the idea of allowing novices to interact
with ill-structured learning environments. Ill-structured learning environments rely on the learner
to discover problem solutions (Jonassen, 1997). Jonassen (1997) also suggested that novices be
taught with "well-structured" learning environments.
Jonassen (1997) also proposed well-designed, well-structured learning environments provide
scaffolding for problem-solving. Finally both Sweller and Jonassen support problem-solving
scenarios for more advanced learners (Jonassen, 1997; Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller,
2003).
Sweller and his associates even suggest well-structured learning environments, like those
provided by worked examples, are not effective for those with more experience—this was later
described as the "expertise reversal effect" (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Cognitive load theorists
suggest worked examples initially, with a gradual introduction of problem solving scenarios; this
is described as the "guidance fading effect" (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002; Sweller,
2003). Each of these ideas provides more evidence for Anderson's ACT-R framework (Clark &
Elen, 2006).[19] This ACT-R framework suggests learning can begin with studying examples.
Finally Mayer states: "Thus, the contribution of psychology is to help move educational reform
efforts from the fuzzy and unproductive world of educational ideology—which sometimes hides
under the banner of various versions of constructivism—to the sharp and productive world of
theory-based research on how people learn." (Mayer, 2004, p. 18).
[edit] Confusion between constructivist and maturationist
views
Many people confuse constructivist with maturationist views. The constructivist (or cognitive-
developmental) stream "is based on the idea that the dialectic or interactionist process of
development and learning through the student's active construction should be facilitated and
promoted by adults" (DeVries et al., 2002). Whereas, "The romantic maturationist stream is
based on the idea that the student's naturally occurring development should be allowed to flower
without adult interventions in a permissive environment" (DeVries et al., 2002). In other words,
adults play an active role in guiding learning in constructivism, while they are expected to allow
children to guide themselves in maturationism.
[edit] Social constructivism

In recent decades, constructivist theorists have extended the traditional focus on individual
learning to address collaborative and social dimensions of learning. It is possible to see social
constructivism as a bringing together of aspects of the work of Piaget with that of Bruner and
Vygotsky (Wood 1998: 39). The term Communal constructivism was introduced by Bryn
Holmes in 2001. As described in an early paper, "in this model, students will not simply pass
through a course like water through a sieve but instead leave their own imprint in the learning
process."[20]
[edit] Influence on computer science

Constructivism has influenced the course of programming and computer science. Some famous
programming languages have been created, wholly or in part, for educational use, to support the
constructionist theory of Seymour Papert. These languages have been dynamically typed, and
reflective.
• Logo is a multi-paradigm language, which is an easier-to-read adaptation and
dialect of Lisp, without the parentheses. Logo is known for its introduction of
turtle graphics to elementary schoolchildren in the 1980s. Its creators were
Wally Feurzeig, and Papert.
• Smalltalk is an object-oriented language that was designed and created at

Xerox PARC by a team led by Alan Kay.
• Etoys is being developed since the 1990s under the direction of Alan Kay,
most recently by the Viewpoints Research Institute, based on Morphic tile
scripting. Etoys was initially targeted at primary school math and science
education.
• Scratch was developed in the early 21st century at MIT Media Lab under
Mitchel Resnick. Like Etoys, it is based on Morphic tile scripts. Scratch is
initially targeted at programming interactive multimedia, in primary and
secondary education.
• StarLogo TNG was developed by the MIT Scheller Teacher Education Program
under Eric Klopfer. It combines a block programming interface with
compelling 3D graphics. It is targeted at programming games and game-like
simulations in middle and secondary schools.
[edit] See also

• Constructivist epistemology
• Learning theory
• Autodidactism
• Learning styles
• Educational psychology
• Vocational education
• Socratic method
• Teaching for social justice
• Situated cognition
• Critical pedagogy
• Reform mathematics
[edit] References
1. ^ Jean Piaget, 1967
2. ^ a b c d e Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry

Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Hmelo-Silver,
Duncan, & Chinn. (2007). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107
3. ^ Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-

Oriented Reading Instruction, Guthrie et al., 2004, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(3), pp. 403–423
4. ^ Kim, 2005. The Effects of a Constructivist Teaching Approach on Student

Academic Achievement, Self-Concept, and Learning Strategies. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 6(1) p7-19
5. ^ Doğru and Kalender, 2007, Applying the Subject “Cell” Through

Constructivist Approach during Science Lessons and the Teacher’s View,
Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2 (1), 3-13
6. ^ Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics

Education
7. ^ Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education, Michael R.

Matthews
8. ^ Research Link / Caution: Constructivism Ahead Holloway, Educational

Leadership, 57(3). November 1999.
9. ^ Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined Liu &
Matthews, International Education Journal, 2005, 6(3), 386-399.
10.^ Journal of Science Education and Technology
11.^ Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, K.

F. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 179-269).
London: Wiley.
12.^ Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., & Efklides, A. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of
cognitive development: Implications and applications to education. London:
Routledge
13.^ a b Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) Readings, Stephen Downes, November

12, 2007
14.^ a b
Response to Kirschner, Stephen Downes, November 18, 2007
15.^ Why We Still Need Teachers, Drs. Fernette and Brock Eide, October 26,
2006
16.^ a b c Mayer, 2004 Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure

Discovery Learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19
17.^ Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of
the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching Paul A. Kirschner Utrecht University, The Netherlands,
John Sweller University of New South Wales, Richard E. Clark University of
Southern California
18.^ CMP2 Parent Website FAQ
19.^ Clark, R. E. & Elen, J., (2006). When less is more: Research and theory
insights about instruction for complex learning. In R. E. Clark & J. Elen (Eds.)
Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Research and Theory.
London: Elsevier. 283-295.
20.^ [1] "Communal Constructivism: Students Constructing Learning for as well

as with others," by Holmes, et al.
• John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder, and Herbert A. Simon, Applications and

misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education, Texas
Educational Review 6 (2000).
• John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder, Herbert A. Simon, K. Anders Ericsson, and

Robert Glaser, Radical Constructivism and Cognitive Psychology, Brookings
Papers on Education Policy (1998), no. 1, 227-278.
• Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning
from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research.
Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.
• Bruner, J. S. (1961). "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review 31

(1): 21–32.
• Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School (expanded edition), Washington: National
Academies Press.
• Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). "Effects of schema acquisition and rule
automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer". Journal of
Educational Psychology 79 (4): 347–362. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347.
• Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). "The split-attention effect as a factor in the
design of instruction". British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 233–246.
• Clark, R. C. and Zuckerman, P. (1999). Multimedia Learning Systems: Design

Principles. In Stolovitch, H. D. and Keeps, E. J. (Eds) Handbook of Human
Performance Technology. (2nd Ed). (p.564-588). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
ISBN 0787911089.
• Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F., and Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning:

Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
ISBN 0-7879-7728-4.
• de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In

R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215-
229).. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521547512.
• de Jong, T. & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). "Scientific discovery learning with

computer simulations of conceptual Domains". Review of Educational
Research 68 (2): 179–201.
• Dalgarno, B. (1996) Constructivist computer assisted learning: theory and

technique, ASCILITE Conference, 2–4 December 1996, retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide96/papers/21.html
• DeVries et al. (2002) Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum:

practical principles and activities. Teachers College Press: New York. ISBN 0-
8077-4121-3, ISBN 0-8077-4120-5.
• Duckworth, E. R. (2006). "The having of wonderful ideas" and other essays on

teaching and learning. Third edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D. (Eds.), (1992).Constructivism and the technology

of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gamoran, A, Secada, W.G., Marrett, C.A (1998) The organizational context of

teaching and learning: changing theoretical perspectives, in Hallinan, M.T
(Eds),Handbook of Sociology of Education
• Gerjets, P. Scheiter, K. and Catrambone, R. (2004).Designing instructional

examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: molar versus modular
presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science. 32(1) 33–58
• Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.

Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
• Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning how to Learn by Concept Mapping:
A Worked-Example Effect. Oral presentation at the 12th Biennial Conference
EARLI 2007 in Budapest, Hungary
• Holt, D. G.; Willard-Holt, C. (2000). "Lets get real – students solving authentic
corporate problems". Phi Delta Kappan 82 (3).
• Jeffery, G. (ed) (2005) The creative college: building a successful learning

culture in the arts, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1997). "Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and

Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes". Educational Technology
Research and Development 45 (1): 65–94. doi:10.1007/BF02299613.
• Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a

constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T.M.
Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for
constructive learning (pp. 231–247). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Kalyuga,S., Ayres,P. Chandler,P and Sweller,J. (2003). "The Expertise Reversal

Effect". Educational Psychologist 38 (1): 23–31.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., and Clark, R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.
Educational Psychologist 41 (2) 75-86
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (1999). "Cognitive principles of multimedia learning:

The role of modality and contiguity". Journal of Educational Psychology 91:
358–368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358.
• Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). "Reducing cognitive load by mixing
auditory and visual presentation modes". Journal of Educational Psychology
87 (2): 319–334. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319.
• Leutner, D. (1993). "Guided discovery learning with computer-based

simulation games: effects of adaptive and non-adaptive instructional
support". Learning and Instruction 3: 113–132. doi:10.1016/0959-
4752(93)90011-N.
• Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.
• Jean Piaget (1967). Logique et Connaissance scientifique, Encyclopédie de la

Pléiade.
• Mayer, R. (2004). "Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery

learning? The case for guided methods of instruction". American Psychologist
59 (1): 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14. PMID 14736316.
• Paas, F. (1992). "Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving

skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach". Journal of Educational
Psychology 84: 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.
• Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., Maier, U., & Staley, R. (2002). "From example study to
problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning". Journal of Experimental
Education 70: 293–315. doi:10.1080/00220970209599510.
• Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell,

Australia: ACER Press. isbn=978-0-86-431312-6.
(see also Tuovinen, J.E. & Sweller, J. (1999). A Comparison of Cognitive Load Associated With
Discovery Learning and Worked Examples. Journal of Educational Psychology. 91(2) 334-341)
• Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.),
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.
ISBN 0125433433.
• Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). "The use of worked examples as a

substitute for problem solving in learning algebra". Cognition and Instruction
2 (1): 59–89. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.
• Scerri, E.R. (2003). Philosophical Confusion in Chemical Education, Journal of

Chemical Education, 80, 468-474. (This article is a critique of the use of
constructivism in chemical education.)
• Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on

learning". Cognitive Science 12 (1): 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-
0213(88)90023-7.
http://dcom.arch.gatech.edu/old/Coa6763/Readings/sweller-88a.pdf.
• Tarmizi, R.A. and Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem

solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4) 424-436
• de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In

R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215-
229).. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521547512.
• Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). "A comparison of cognitive load

associated with discovery learning and worked examples". Journal of
Educational Psychology 91 (2): 334–341. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.334.
• Rivers, R. H. & Vockell, E. (1987). "Computer simulations to Simulate

scientific problems solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching". Journal
of Research in Science Teaching 24 (5): 403–416.
• Vygotskii, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
• Wood, D. (1998) How Children Think and Learn. 2nd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. ISBN 0-631-20007-X.
• Wertsch, J.V (1997) "Vygotsky and the formation of the mind" Cambridge.
[edit] External links
• A journey into Constructivism by Martin Dougiamas, 1998-11.
• Cognitively Guided Instruction reviewed on the Promising Practices Network
• Sample Online Activity Objects Designed with Constructivist Approach (2007)
• Liberal Exchange learning resources offering a constructivist approach to

learning English as a second/foreign language (2009)
• Definition of Constructivism by Martin Ryder (a footnote to the book chapter

The Cyborg and the Noble Savage where Ryder discusses One Laptop Per
Child's XO laptop from a constructivist educator's point of view)
[hid
e]
v•d •
e
Sta
nd
ard
s-
bas
ed
ed
uca
tio
n
ref
or
m
The
orist
s
Willi
am
Spa
dy •
Jean
Piag
et •
Benj
ami
n
Bloo
m•
Mar
c
Tuck
er •
Mari
a
Mon
tess
ori •
Con
stan
ce
Kam
ii •
Rhet
a
DeV
ries
•
Bett
y
Zan
The
orie
s
Outc
ome
-
base
d
edu
cati
on •
Cog
nitiv
e
load
•
Stan
dard
s-
base
d
edu
cati
on
refor
m•
Dev
elop
men
tally
Appr
opri
ate
Prac
tice
•
Holi
sm •
Con
stru
ctivi
sm
•
Bloc
k
sche
duli
ng •
Holi
stic
grad
ing
•
Acti
ve
lear
ning
•
Prob
lem-
base
d
lear
ning
•
Disc
over
y
lear
ning
•
Inqu
iry-
base
d
lear
ning
•
Inve
ntiv
e
spell
ing
•
Ope
n-
spac
e
scho
ol •
Sma
ll
scho
ols
mov
eme
nt •
Inclu
sion
Valu
es
Exce
llenc
e
and
equi
ty •
Achi
eve
men
t
gap
Lear
ning
stan
dard
s
Nati
onal
Scie
nce
Edu
cati
on
Stan
dard
s•
Nati
onal
Rea
ding
Pan
el •
No
Chil
d
Left
Behi
nd
Act
•
Ade
quat
e
Year
ly
Prog
ress
•
Goal
s
200
0•
Sch
ool-
to-
wor
k
tran
sitio
n•
Prin
ciple
s
and
Stan
dard
s for
Sch
ool
Mat
hem
atics
•
Nati
onal
Skill
Stan
dard
s
Boar
d
Stan
dard
s-
base
d
asse
ssm
ent
Auth
enti
c
asse
ssm
ent
•
Crite
rion-
refer
ence
d
test
•
Nor
m-
refer
ence
d
test
•
Stan
dard
s-
base
d
asse
ssm
ent
•
High
scho
ol
grad
uati
on
exa
min
atio
n
Stan
dard
ized
test
s
List
of
stan
dard
ized
test
s in
the
Unit
ed
Stat
es •
Stan
dard
ized
testi
ng
and
publ
ic
polic
y
Stan
dard
ized
curri
culu
m
Dec
oda
ble
text
•
Guid
ed
read
ing
•
Pho
nics
•
Who
le
lang
uag
e•
Trad
ition
al
edu
cati
on •
Trad
ition
al
mat
hem
atics
•
Dire
ct
instr
ucti
on •
Rote
lear
ning
•
Gra
des
•
Lect
ure
•
Trac
king
(edu
cati
on)
•
Stan
dard
algo
rith
ms
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)"
Categories: Education reform | Alternative education | Educational psychology |
Constructivism
Hidden categories: Articles needing cleanup from December 2010 | All pages
needing cleanup | Wikipedia laundry list cleanup from December 2010
Personal tools
• Log in / create account
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version
Languages
• Català
• Deutsch
• Español
• Euskara
• Français
• 한국어
• Bahasa Indonesia
• Íslenska
• ‫עברית‬
• 日本語
• Norsk (bokmål)
• Norsk (nynorsk)
• Piemontèis
• Português
• Suomi
• Svenska
• Türkçe
• 中文
• This page was last modified on 25 December 2010 at 16:10.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.
•
• Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 60
• LEARNING AND TEACHING LANGUAGES ONLINE: A CONSTRUCTIVIST
APPROACH
• Tuncer CAN*
• * İstanbul University, Turkey, tcan@istanbul.edu.tr
• Abstract: The recent advances in technology have necessitated first new approaches and then new
methodologies in the area of foreign language learning and thoroughly teaching. The Internet and the
virtual learning environments have diversified the opportunities for school teachers, instructional designers
as well as learners by varying and broadening the alternatives for learning and teaching of languages.
Employing tools and applications, other than classroom and course books, in the learning of foreign
languages requires reconsidering the pedagogy, methodology, applications, teacher roles, interaction types,
and teaching environment itself. And also multiple selections of channels, through which the teaching
materials can be implemented mandate the revision of traditional one way communication between the
teachers and the learners. An acknowledgement is brought about by the constructivist approach with its
assumptions about learning and knowledge, multiple perspectives and modes of learning and the
complexity of learning environments. Constructivist approach is promising at promoting learners’ language
and communicative skills as well as at fostering their autonomy, social and interactive skills contributing to
their development into more confident, pro-active and responsible individuals by supporting incentives on
diverse media in language learning and teaching.
• Key words: Constructivism, Foreign Language Learning, Distance Education, E-Learning,
Videoconferencing Özet: Teknolojideki son gelişmeler, yabancı dil öğrenimi ve öğretiminde öncelikle
yeni yaklaşımları ve sonrasında da yeni yöntemleri gerekli kılmaktadır. Internet ve sanal öğrenme
ortamları, öğretmenler, eğitim tasarımcıları ve öğrenciler için yabancı dil öğrenme ve öğretme
seçeneklerini çeşitlendirip genişleterek fırsatları değiştirmektedir. Sınıf ve ders kitapları gibi eğitim
araçlarından farklı araç ve uygulamalar kullanmak, eğitimin, yöntemlerin, uygulamaların, öğretmenin
görevlerinin, etkileşim şekillerinin ve eğitim ortamının kendisinin sorgulanmasını gerektirmektedir.
Eğitim araç gereçlerinin uygulanması için seçilen çokluklu kanallarını öğretmen ve öğrenci arasındaki tek
yönlü iletişimin de gözden geçirilmesini gerektirir. Bu sorgulamalara bir karşılık, öğrenme ve bilgi, çoklu
görüşler, öğrenme şartları ve öğrenme ortamlarının karmaşıklığı ile ilgili ilkeleri ile oluşturmacı
yaklaşım tarafından gelmektedir. Oluşturmacı yaklaşım ayrıca dil öğretiminde çeşitli araçların
kullanımını özendirerek öğrenenlerin dil ve iletişim becerilerini desteklemesinde, özerkliğini
beslenmesinde, öğrenenlerin toplumsal ve etkileşimsel becerilerine katkıda bulunarak onların daha
özgüvenli, proaktif ve sorumluluk sahibi bireyler olmasında da ümit vericidir.
• Anahtar Sözcükler: Oluşturmacılık, Yabancı Dil Öğretimi, Uzaktan Eğitim, E-Öğrenme,
Videokonferans 1. Introduction
• To Driscoll (2000), “Constructivism has multiple roots in the psychology and philosophy,
among which are cognitive and developmental perspectives of Piaget, the interaction and
cultural emphases of Vygotsky and Bruner, the contextual nature of learning, the active
learning of Dewey, the epistemological discussions of von Glasersfeld, postmodernist views,
and the paradigm and scientific revolutions of Thomas Kuhn” (p. 375). Constructivist
assumptions about Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 61
• learning could be summarized as “knowledge is actively constructed by learners as they are
trying to make sense of their experiences, learners form, elaborate and test candidate mental
structures until a satisfactory one emerges” (Perkins, 1991, p.20), particularly conflicting
experiences will cause perturbation in the new structures, so that they can be restructured and
constructed anew to make sense of the new information (Piaget, 1973; Bruner, 1966;
Vygotsky, 1978). That is, knowledge is not representing or corresponding to the external
reality, but is viable (von Glasersfeld, 1996). To Vygotsky (1978), learning is a social
negotiation of meaning.
• Jean Piaget’s view is constructivist, because he firmly believed that knowledge acquisition is
a process of continuous self-construction. That is, knowledge is not out there, external to the
child and waiting to be discovered. Instead, knowledge is invented and reinvented as the
child develops and interacts with the surrounding world. Accordingly, children actively
approach their environments and acquire knowledge through their actions. Children go
through stages and processes of development. These processes, assimilation, accommodation
and equilibration, are critical to development and to advancing between stages. Children
assimilate the newly perceived objects and events according to their existing schemes. Then
they need to modify their existing schemes according to the new experience, this is called
accommodation. Finally, the state of disequilibrium and contradiction arising between the
existing schemes and the more sophisticated mode of thought adopted by the new experience
has to be resolved via equilibrium process. Language is also central in Piaget’s theory of
development and learning. Children make sense of their environment via language and as
they advance through stages and processes language acquisition plays an important role
(Piaget, 1973).
• Much like Piaget, Bruner, defining discovery as all forms of obtaining knowledge for oneself
by the use of one’s own mind, proposes that a true act of discovery is not accidental. It
involves an expectation of finding regularities and relationships in the environment. With this
expectation, children devise strategies for searching and finding out what the regularities and
relationships are. The character of this searching and finding is an attitude of constructing.
The mental contrasts and contradictions that the children come across during the act of
discovery create urge for restructuring of their previous knowledge about their environment.
According to Bruner (in Driscoll 2000, p. 375) “children, as they grow, must acquire the
ways of representing the recurrent regularities in their environment.” He posited that humans
respond to their environment through conventionalized imagery and perception, and through
language and reason. These representations are enactive, iconic and symbolic. Bruner also
believed that the process of discovery is an exercise of problem solving that contributes
remarkably into the intellectual development (Bruner, 1966).
• Vygotsky postulated that the concepts of development and learning of the individuals could
not be understood without reference to the social and cultural context in which these concepts
are embedded. Development is the conversion of social relations into mental functions.
Individuals actively modify the situations as part of the process of responding to it, this is
called mediation. The mediation is linking the social to the mental through a tool or sign.
Language serves as a sign and tool in the internalization process of the outer social
environment into the inner mental world. Also the interaction between individuals in the
process of development and learning serves as a social space for the occurrence of a gap
between developmental level determined by independent problem solving and the potential
development determined by problem solving under adult scaffolding, guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers. This is called Zone of Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-
74. 62
• Proximal Development (ZPD). To Vygotsky, learning is a socio-cultural construction and
meaning negotiation achieved through language; language has a particular role in learning
and development, by acquiring a language, the child gains the means to think in new ways
and a new cognitive tool for making sense of the world. Language is used by children as an
additional device in solving problems, to overcome impulsive action, to plan a solution
before trying it out and to control their own. They use the language to obtain the help of
others and to solve problems (Vygotsky, 1978).
• According to Dewey knowing is not a process of registration or representation, but a process
of intervention; knowledge does not point to an external, independent and objective reality,
but is always involved in the action. Knowing consists of operations that turn the experienced
reality into a form of relationships that can be used in the future actions. Social interaction
drives all involved participants to pay attention to the contribution made by the other
participants. To be able to continue the social interaction, participants have to observe and
comply with the objects and inferences which others construct. Dewey defined reflection as a
proactive, ongoing examination of beliefs and practices, their origins, and their impacts
during interaction. Therefore, he favours “learning by doing” (Dewey, 1966).
• Kuhn (1970) demonstrated how intellect of the world progressed through revolutionary
paradigm shifts that influenced how the individuals experience the world. Suffice to say,
people construct their understanding about the world through constant restructuring of their
thoughts, they also perceive the world through their experiences, through the interface of
their senses and their self-constructed meanings of those senses. According to von
Glasersfeld constructivism posits that humans interpret the world in ways that cohere with
reality. Coming to know is a process of dynamic adaptation towards viable interpretations of
experience. The knower does not necessarily construct knowledge of a "real" world. von
Glasersfeld has particularly focused on individual self-regulation and the building of
conceptual structures through reflection and abstraction (von Glasersfeld, 1996). According
to Fosnot (1996), in terms of constructivism, knowledge is temporary, developmental, non-
objective, internally constructed, socially and culturally mediated; and constructivist learning
is a process in which the learner solves conflicts which arise between old and new knowledge
with help from culturally created tools and in cooperation with others (p. ix).
• 2. Constructivist Learning
• Regarding the constructivist learning Driscoll (2000, p. 378) summarizes Umberto Eco’s
“rhizome” metaphor: “The rhizome models the unlimited potential for knowledge
construction, because it has no fixed points and no particular organization. Eco also spoke of
a jar full of marbles, which, when shaken, will produce a new configuration and a new set of
connections among marbles”. Cunningham (1992) states that “the rhizome concept alerts us
to the constructed nature of our environmental understanding and the possibilities of different
meaning, different truths, and different worlds” (p. 171).
• Constructivist theory poses that knowledge is a “web of relationships” and is constructed
actively by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences and environments.
Therefore, learners are not empty cans to be filled with knowledge, but dynamic organisms
seeking meaning. Perkins (1991) states that “regardless of what is being learned, constructive
processes Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 63
• operate and learners form, elaborate, and test candidate mental structures until a satisfactory
one emerges. Moreover, new, particularly conflicting experiences will cause perturbations in
these structures, so that they must be constructed anew in order to make sense of the new
information” (p.20). Piaget, Bruner and Vygotsky referred to the similar process as schema
accommodation and restructuring.
• Constructivist approach acknowledges learning in context (Duffy and Jonassen, 1991, p.8)
and learning of knowledge could only be achieved through meaningful activity, learning is a
continuous, life-long process resulting from acting in situations (Brown, 1989, p.33).
Learners should identify, pursue and reflect on their own learning goals while solving the
genuine problems in the world. That is, learners are to be self aware and autonomous. In this
respect, the necessary constructivist conditions for learning (in Driscoll, 2000, pp. 382-3 and
elsewhere) are summarized as follows:
• 1. Embedded learning in complex, realistic and relevant environments (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991;
Cunningham, 1991; Honebein, 1996).
• 2. Provide for social negotiation (cooperative and socio-moral atmosphere) as an integral part of
learning (Piaget, 1973; Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1966; De Vries, 2002).
• 3. Support multiple perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation (Duffy and
Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, 1996).
• 4. Encourage ownership in learning (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996; Honebein, 1996).
• 5. Provide adequate time for learners’ investigation and in-depth engagement (De Vries, 2002).
• 6. Nurture self awareness of the knowledge construction process (Jonassen, 2003; Duffy and
Cunningham, 1996).
• Problems and experiences in real life are complex and relevant; one cannot escape multiple
attractors while trying to solve these problems. For this, school education must reflect the
complexity of life. In Dewey’s words (1966); education is not simply transmission of
knowledge, but, “in its broadest sense, is the means of this social continuity of life” The
complexity of learning environment could be provided via tools and content to be learnt.
Perkins (1991) proposes “construction kits” and “phenomenaria” which could be either way
digital or realia, and could enable learners to assemble toys, as well as abstract entities, such
as commands in a program language, creatures in a simulated ecology, Legos, and language
learning softwares. Wilson (1996) exemplifies phenomenaria like SimCity and SimEarth
which enable learners to observe various phenomena and to manipulate concepts and
assumptions. These are games where language learners could both create all aspects of a real
city and manipulate among the relationships of language, city parts and construction. Sims is
another version of phenomenaria in which virtual avatars (animated individuals) could build
their own houses, buy their furniture, apply for jobs, shop for food, socialize with neighbors,
go downtown for a drink and etc. While these games reflect the complex and interconnected
aspects of life they also reflect the vocabulary, contexts, discourses and necessary linguistic
and pragmatic aspects of language. “Second Life” and “Active Worlds” provide another
example of virtual environment in which learners are allowed to create their own avatar and
interact and communicate with other real people via these avatars. As in Sims, learners are
granted a virtual second life representing real life complex structures and relevant domain
based language experience on islands, bars, restaurants, schools, shops exchanging real life
money. They allow virtual environment and space for educational purposes such as “The
Active World Education Universe” (AWEDU) as well. Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 64
• Jonassen (2003) offers an instructional design model for developing instructions to teach
problem-solving in both well-structured and ill-structured domains like medical schools and
geography. He proposes contextual analysis to be favored in instruction of relevant and
complex problems in real life. This idea could be worked out for the purposes of language
learning and teaching. Construction kits on the other hand are similar to phenomenaria except
they are less tied to natural phenomena. Construction kits are packaged collections of content
components for assembly and manipulation. They may have no clear counterpart in the "real"
world. Examples include Legos, learning logs, math-manipulation software such as the
Geometric Supposer, or authoring tools such as HyperStudio (Wilson, 1995).
• Bruner (1986) asserts that “learning in most settings is a communal activity, a sharing of the
culture” (p.127). So to say, collaboration is an important notion in constructivist learning
environments. Collaboration representing and providing the social aspect of learning enables
learner to “develop their own plans and understandings through joint effort and have the
opportunity to come to new understanding through the give-and-take of interaction, argument
and discussion” (Vygotsky, 1978; Watson and others, 1999, p. 142).
• In constructivist field, collaboration enables insights and solutions to arise synergistically
(Brown, 1989). Collaboration also provides means for learners to understand and learn point
of view other than their own. In this aspect, collaboration has the potential to transform all
the interactants involved in the interaction. Cooperative learning in constructivist approach
facilitates the socio-moral atmosphere of the learning environment by explicitly or implicitly
referring to values, consideration, fairness, respect to others, helpfulness, personal
responsibility governing the whole classwork and interaction (Watson and others,
1999p.142). To Edelson (1996 in Driscoll 2000), “advances in technology starting with the
personal computer have assisted in broadening the form that collaboration takes to include
not just discussion but sharing of artifacts and cooperative work across time and distance.
Moreover, the potential is there for technology to play a revolutionary role in supporting new
forms of learning conversations in educational settings.” For example, not only groupwork
activities in classrooms, but Internet, software and websites that enable chatting, forums and
blogging, and web projects as well create opportunities for social negotiation and
interactional learning.
• According to constructivist approach like complexity, diversity is one of the characteristics of
life which is to be reflected into the constructivist learning environments. General principles
and single models do not always apply to all situations and cases in life. People differ in their
social backgrounds thus their perceptions about the matters they encounter may be multiple.
Multiple perspectives is widely accepted among constructivists (Duffy and Cunningham,
1996; Honebein, 1996). Negotiation among learners represents the diversity of perspectives
and opinions about issues. According to Spiro (in Driscoll 2000, p. 380) “revisiting the same
material, at different times, in rearranged contexts, for different purposes, and from different
conceptual perspectives is essential for attaining the goals of advanced knowledge
acquisition.” He also proposed that hypermedia provides an excellent tool for achieving this.
A rich and flexible knowledge base can be built that enables learners to systematically
explore multiple models and multiple interpretations. To constructivists, hypermedia and the
emerging technologies can be effectively used to encourage learners to think about ideas,
theories, literary works, or whatever, from variety of perspectives (Cunningham, 1992).
Viewing the same learning content via different sensory modes (such as visual, auditory, or
tactile) enables different aspects of it to be seen. As a Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 65
• instructional strategy, multiple modes of representation receive support from cognitivist
views as well as biological and pedagogic theories (Driscoll, 2000).
• Constructivist theory holds the view that learners actively construct meaning for themselves
in the process of learning. This necessitates their ownership in learning and posits that they
need to take responsibility in their learning. However, learners need to be taught to develop
autonomy besides content. They have to be given opportunity to select and negotiate the
content, and work autonomously on it. For this, from the beginning, learners need to be asked
to reflect on the content, investigate the topics relevant to their interests; and teachers should
imply that they are there to coach and are ready to share and question their authority and
resources. Honebein (in Wilson, 1996) asserts that “learners might have difficulty in
navigating a learning environment or try not to so on their own accord is that such
environments have typically been decontextualized, however, tasks that are thought to be
difficult when attempted in a decontextualized environment become intuitive when situated
in a larger framework, that is, a more authentic context” (p. 12). Learners need time to be
able to analyze the context in all its perspectives. Teachers should allow for thinking time
before and during the activities.
• Cunningham (in Driscoll, 2000) defines self reflexivity as “the ability of learners to be aware
of their own role in the knowledge construction process. To this definition Driscoll (2000)
adds that “with this awareness comes the ability to invent and explore new structures or new
interpretive contexts, and when the learners come to realize how a particular set of
assumptions or worldview shapes their knowledge, they are free to explore what may result
from an alternate set of assumptions or a different worldview” (p. 390).
• 3. Constructivist Approach in Online Learning and Teaching
• From the constructivist principles above, it is so obvious that the achievement of these
conditions for learning in the classroom and by course books only would not be possible. For
this teachers and instructional designers need to liberate the learners from the restricting
walls and pages. Freeing, especially, the language learners from rigid and restrictive rules of
grammar and classrooms is even more important.
• Employing technologies like the Internet, websites and the virtual learning environments,
creating 'microworlds' and 'hypermedia' designs for learning, applying collaborative learning,
problem-based learning and goal-based scenarios, making Open Software and Course
Management Tools, like Moodle and BlackBoard, accessible to learners, and using distance
learning applications like computer-conferencing and videoconferencing could serve to
implement the multiple constructivist conditions for learning, which in return has the
potential of upheavals in the online teaching and learning of foreign languages and other
subject matters (Driscoll, 2000; Duffy and Jonassen, 1992; Schank, 1994; Lebow, 1993; Can,
2006).
• 3.1. Microworlds and Hypertext
• Papert (1981) defines microworlds as “small but complete subsets of real environments that
promote discovery and exploration, they have two essential characteristics, one is they
embody the simplest working model of a domain or system, and the second is that they offer
a point of entry that matches the learner’s cognitive state” (p. 204). Papert applied these
arguments to the use of the programming language LOGO, he claims that LOGO provides a
culture which helps to Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 66
• make abstract concepts simple and concrete so that the child can relate them to his or her
existing knowledge and fit them into his or her knowledge structure. One metaphor Papert
uses is the way children learn to talk. This process happens without any formal organised
learning and is encouraged by the environment. Papert used this analogy in describing
´Mathland´ a context which is to learn Maths like living in France is learning French. This
application could be beneficial in foreign language learning and teaching as well. Online
games and virtual microworlds like Sims and Second Life could be employed to enrich the
language learning experience and provide space for constructivist conditions mentioned
earlier. Hypermedia designs like PCs, DVDs and other digital devices could easily be
compiled and put into use to prosper the classrooms. They also allow for networking, thus
sharing and collaboration is possible. In these designs, vast body of information about
matters of interest like personal data, definitions, descriptions, photographs, videos and
graphic designs, interviews and other samples of research could be presented.
• Using hypertext allows the learners to navigate through the materials. Via hypertext
information chunks can be constructed and interlinked to stimulate and simulate the learning
process and knowledge, links could be created to external information and learners’ own
texts could be published and shared in real life. Another constructivist aspect in hypertext is
that pictures, sounds and other multimedia can be incorporated, which could benefit learners
and language learners by creating a learning environment and setting in constructivist
perspective. Accumulation of these hypertexts creates microworlds and hypermedia which
provide access to rich information especially if they are implemented alongside the Web.
Lowry & Wilson (2000) exemplify “World Lecture Hall” a website which presents examples
of the Web being used for learning-courses, activities, etc. and serves as a mini-browsing
environment with some quality screening, but lots of room to explore. Regarding the Internet
online hypermedia they also think that “the point is that information of all kinds can be
placed on the Web and made available for convenient access, bookmarking, and use. A site’s
value lies partly in the design of the information presented, but remains largely in the hands
of the users. If a resource is accessed by a person skilled at self-directed learning, with clear
learning goals, then the resource will likely be an effective aid to constructivist learning”
(http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/WebLearning.html accessed 3/3/2009). Lowry and
Wilson gather a number of metaphors to describe the Web: “information highway, digital
library, cyberspace, global village. All of these are compatible with learners constructing
meaning through self-directed inquiry, guided activity, or community-based co-
participation.” “Wikipedia” and other specialized, topic based wikis can also be both used
and even created by learners. These allow for opportunities to implement asynchronic
distance learning and e-learning as well.
• 3.2. Bubble Dialogue
• Driscoll (2000, p. 378-83) summarizes “Bubble Dialogue”, “developed by the Language
Development and Hypermedia Group” in 1992, as an example of “open software” which can
be used to promote constructivist learning principles. In Bubble Dialogue, content is empty
and the software is like a shell ready to be filled by the learners. Learners adapt these shells
according to their intentions, and “create conversations among comic strip characters,
including thoughts that would not be said out loud. In this way, they have the opportunity to
express personal views of the world, to contemplate multiple perspectives in both public and
private domains and to accommodate their own thinking to contrary views. Another example
is “Construe”, open Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 67
• software found in course management tool. It is designed to enable course instructors to
mount Web-based courses with constructivist principles. One example from the application is
that an informational database is presented in the form of online articles that can be searched
easily by author or keyword; while reading the articles learners can publish their own ideas
online as well. Therefore, they can bring in new resources into the learning environment for
their peers. A computer conferencing system is also integrated so that learners can discuss
their opinions throughout the semester; thus, a public knowledge building community
environment is being constructed by the learners themselves (Driscoll, 2000). Bloggers are
another Internet application which could be implemented into the course. Blogs on various
topics relating learners’ interest can be written collaboratively or individually, they also allow
for construction and co-construction of various texts, which promotes learner autonomy; and
they can also serve as log books allowing learners to reflect on their own learning and
learning process.
• 3.3. Videoconferencing
• According to Miller (in Can 2006) videoconferencing can be defined as communication in
which all parties can send-and-receive audio-and-video to-and-from each other. All other
types of electronic communication (including typing, electronic drawing, the viewing and
manipulating of websites, the playing of pre-recorded video, etc.) can occur within, or
concurrently with videoconferencing. Videoconferencing is a form of interactive television.
Burn (2002) asserts that “within the field of education, whilst videoconference systems
appear to provide the potential to reach a wider student audience, offer greater flexibility,
make use of scarce expertise and enhance communication channels between remote groups of
learners and their tutors, its use within an educational context is still not well understood.”
Distance learning applications like computer conferencing and videoconferencing for
language learning and teaching could be used by schools to enrich the classroom experience
by allowing for all types of electronic communication and media, by connecting them to
learning parks, museums, experts and even other schools worldwide through television
monitors and video cameras. Along with the instructor on one end a facilitator could be
employed on the other end. Thus, a conventional classroom is enriched. The facilitator could
act as a helper, guide, example or interactor, communicative pair in activities. These aspects
of conferencing and videoconferencing could bring into language learning the real life, real
interlocutors and the target culture, which in return could serve as a valuable resource for
meaningful language input, real life and simultaneous language practice, comprehensive
output, pragmatic and discourse awareness (Can, 2006).
• These e-learning applications could serve for collaborative and problem scaffolding as well.
According to Male (1999, p. 267) these collaborative applications which could also be
termed as “groupware” are required to be learner and problem oriented. Moreover, learner-
centered software enables students to take intellectual risks and communicate about the task
with each other. Through learner-centred software, a student:
• is in charge of the goal or the means to reach the goal;
• receives informational rather than judgmental (positive or negative) feedback;
• is encouraged to make approximations as a part of problem solving (Male, 1999, p. 267).
• Johnson, Johnson & Stanne (1986) (in Male, 1999, p. 268) found that “cooperative learning
with computers promoted greater quantity and quality of daily achievement and more
successful problem-solving. Cooperative learning resulted in higher performance on factual
recognition, Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 68
• application, and problem solving test items than did competitive or individualized learning
with computers.” Driscoll (2000) asserts that “another advantage of collaborative Web-based
technologies is that they can provide problem scaffolding in the form of virtual access to
knowledge experts and on-line support to make thinking visible. In this way, learners can
identify learning goals, conduct investigations, keep track of their progress, think about their
ideas and those of others, and communicate to others within or outside the immediate
learning community.” Collaborative online learning applications facilitate both synchronic
and asynchronic distance learning.
• As another example of e-learning, online and computer based learning environment Goal-
based scenarios (GBS) are real-time simulations presenting clear and concrete goals and
missions to be achieved (e.g. designing a house, a city, shopping for many things) and
providing a task environment in which learners learn and practice basic language or other
target skills (Shank, 1994).
• Jonassen (2003) presents Problem-based learning (PBL) as a constructivist application.
Problem-based learning necessitates that learners work together to solve real problems while
employing various resources and technologies. In this process, learners work together to
identify the problem, assign tasks to be completed in order to achieve a solution, think
critically as they gather data and resources towards solution, find a solution, then assess and
reflect on the solutions (Jonassen, 2003). Webquests also help in learners’ interaction with
the content by posing problems and providing different activities in the process of finding a
solution. Lowry and Wilson (2002) exemplify one such example for language learning,
“Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner: A French Revolutionary Dining Experience” in which
learners prepare to assume identities of prominent French people like Rousseau and King
Luis XVI and get ready for dining language. These applications create an environment for
distance and e-learning.
• The Internet, websites and virtual learning environments provide autonomy, embedded
learning in complex and relevant environments. Microworlds and hypermedia, with their
potential for authentic activities, assist in rich learner centred learning environment and social
negotiation. Goal-based, Problem-based and collaborative learning prosper the task
environments and skills, and contribute into the implementation of variety of resources,
technology, solutions via multiple perspectives, multiple modes of representations and
reality, and helps in reflection on reasoning and ownership in learning. By creating
conversation and collaboration among students, Open Software and Course Management
Tools supply rich resources in construction and creation of new knowledge, encourage
ownership, autonomy and reflection in learning.
• 4. Constructivist Approach in Online Learning and Teaching of Languages
• Reinfried (2000) summarizes the constructivist principles in foreign language learning and
teaching by comparing Wolff and Wendt’s views. According to Reinfried constructivist
language learning should be action oriented where language is learned through collaboration,
free creation is praised, and learning is achieved by actively doing projects and self teaching.
Constructivist language learning should be learner centred that supports individualization of
learning and autonomy. Learner should develop awareness not only for learning but for the
language itself and for the intercultural aspect as well. The last but not the least,
constructivist language learning is to be holistic with content oriented perspective, authentic
and complex learning environment. In this Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 69
• aspect, implementing online applications, using instructional technologies and diverse media
in the process of learning and teaching languages are all advocated by constructivist
approach.
• The Education Committee of European Union have defined the language learning and
teaching experience in their comprehensive “Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages” (CEF) as process oriented, including linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic
competence, skills and abilities for learning. Promotion of plurilingualism has been of
concern for the European Union, for this the Education Committee has outlined some key
concepts in language learning and teaching. Among these are action oriented approach that is
encouraging active learning of the language learners, autonomy and self awareness in
learning, cognitive and social aspects of learning, using instructional technologies and
diverse media in the process of teaching and learning languages, promotion of life-long
learning (CEF, 2001). These concepts are in line with the constructivist learning conditions
mentioned above.
• The implementation of computerized online applications, CALL applications, the Internet,
websites and the virtual learning environments (i.e. LOGO, Second Life, interactive websites,
chat-rooms, interactive games like Sims and SimCity) in the context of language learning
could benefit learners with enriched resources and possibilities for language use, creation and
practice. Self study websites and CD ROMs have the potential to free the learners from the
rigid rules of grammar and classrooms, and taking learners away from classrooms could
assist in self awareness and autonomy by providing opportunities for ownership in learning.
• For Dudeney (2000), The Internet is a medium for teachers to find authentic and infinite
resource files of texts, visual stimuli, listening materials, vocabulary, cultural information,
video files, live TV and radios, newspapers from around the world. The Internet also allows
for contextualized real time communication via voice-chat, chat, e-mails and forums.
Browsing the Internet creates various opportunities for learners to take control of their own
learning, especially in foreign language learning classes, learners can benefit from the
authentic content, vocabulary and various language practice opportunities while filling forms
for registration, searching for e-mail pals and posting questions to experts, writing reviews
for movies, books and etc. on various blogs and websites, looking for perfect holiday places,
sharing their own views and learning about the views of others, preparing Web-based
Projects in collaboration, finding images relating the classroom topics; these in return enable
contextual practice and real time discourse instances to be mastered. The Internet provides
language learners with the opportunity to create their own materials and share these with
public in collaborative contexts as well as real life, Scenario-based and Problem-based
learning environments.
• Creating Microworlds and Hypermedia designs for language learning where collaborative
learning (i.e. working in groups for creating a content website, film making or preparing
presentation on a specific language piece using wikis), problem-based learning (i.e. solving
real life communication and interaction problems between people, creating focused wikis)
and goal-based scenarios (i.e. creating scripts for events and texts, writing for blogs) are
elaborated could construe a prosperous context for meaningful language input, real life and
simultaneous language practice, comprehensive output, pragmatic and discourse awareness.
This would boost the learning opportunities and contexts as well as other skills necessary for
language, technology and knowledge creation. One such project for learning languages has
been carried out at Georgia Institute of Technology. A resource for using hypertext in online
language learning environments Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 70
• is the platform “CoWeb” (Collaborative Web), which allows the learners to co-write texts
and to make hyperlinks in published texts to comment on these, but also to make hyperlinks
in others’ comments to comment on those. An example of how to use virtual environments as
part of language learning is online role play games (i.e. Sims) where the learner chooses a
character and socializes with other characters. These also enable learners to construct their
own virtual environments (i.e. AWEDU has been mentioned) and characters via
collaboration and negotiation in groups and projects. At Georgia Institute of Technology
project “Villa Diodati” is carried out, where learners of literature represent and analyze their
poems and novels differently by constructing their virtual forms. The structure of the literary
text and the appearances of the characters are determined and different costumes for visitors
are created. These virtual environments also create opportunity for context based language
forms, which could facilitate creative and autonomous language use.
• Other e-learning applications that constructivist theory supports in foreign language learning
and teaching are, as Shih (2006) proposes PDAs and Hyper Pens. Teachers share their course
materials, videos and files, make individualized tests and learners have the chance to practice
via personal PDAs. Hyper Pens allow learners to make practice, store and share content and
references. By creating digital content PDAs and Hyper Pens can assist in authoring of the
learners and teachers, in preparing presentations, interaction with and evaluation of content,
simulation-based learning, case-based teaching and learning and learning by exploring and
discovery.
• Distance learning applications like computer conferencing and videoconferencing for
language learning and teaching could be used by schools to enrich the classroom experience
by connecting them to learning parks, museums, experts and even other schools worldwide
through television monitors and video cameras. All other types of electronic communication
(including typing, electronic drawing, the viewing and manipulating of websites, the playing
of pre-recorded video, etc.) can occur within or concurrently with videoconference. Along
with the instructor on one end a facilitator could be employed on the other end. Thus, a
conventional classroom is enriched. The facilitator could act as a helper, guide, example or
interactor, communicative pair in activities. These aspects of conferencing and
videoconferencing could bring into language learning the real life, real interlocutors and the
target culture, which in return could serve as a valuable resource for meaningful language
input, real life and simultaneous language practice, comprehensive output, pragmatic and
discourse awareness (Can, 2006, p. 447-52).
• The Internet, websites and virtual learning environments provide autonomy, embedded
learning in complex and relevant environments. Microworlds and hypermedia, with their
potential for authentic language activities, assist in rich learner centred learning environment
and social negotiation in foreign language learning area. Goal-based, Problem-based and
collaborative learning prosper the task environments and skills, and contribute into the
implementation of variety of resources, solutions via multiple perspectives, multiple modes
of representations and reality, and help in reflection on reasoning and ownership in foreign
language learning. By creating conversation and collaboration among students, Open
Software and Course Management Tools supply rich resources in construction and creation
of new knowledge, encourage ownership, autonomy and reflection in foreign language
learning. Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 71
• 6. Conclusion
• In concordance with constructivist approach employing technologies like the Internet which
creates a new environment both for foreign language learning and teaching will diversify the
classroom and course books. Websites and the virtual learning environments have the
potential to transform the pedagogy and methodologies for foreign language learning and
teaching. Creating Microworlds and Hypermedia designs for learning necessitates new
approaches to learning like collaborative learning, problem-based learning and goal-based
scenarios. Learners have the opportunity to work together and collaborate while learning the
language by creating their own designs and projects. In terms with constructivism they are
likely to learn for themselves while solving real life problems and achieving goals in teams
and groups like real micro societies. Moreover, forming such societies out of classroom is
acknowledged for the sake of simulating the real life solutions to real life problems.
Negotiation of meaning could easily be achieved through this kind of collaborative and
meaning construction approach.
• Making Open Software and Course Management Tools, like Moodle and BlackBoard,
accessible to learners could serve to implement the multiple constructivist conditions for
learning in the foreign language learning and teaching. Learners would have more
opportunities to contact all classroom materials, activities and the instructor on and out of
site; this in return would enrich learner activity and learning opportunities. They would also
serve as synchronous and asynchronous learning environments, where learners could create
and learn together both during and out of class. In addition, using distance learning
applications like computer-conferencing and videoconferencing could serve as brand new
environments for communication, sharing and experience in foreign language learning and
teaching. Learners would have the opportunity to come together from very different physical
environments and enable them to share diverse experiences and perspectives and cultures.
This is in lines with constructivist approach, which necessitates multiple experiences and
perspectives of the knowledge to be constructed during the classes.
• According to constructivist approach and constructivist learning principles, online learning
and teaching of languages mentioned above could also be promising at promoting learners’
language and communicative skills as well as at fostering their autonomy. Learners would
have more opportunity for self study as well as collaboration. In asynchronous learning
environments, for instance, learners could contribute by having time for research and acquire
the necessary skills for further knowledge construction. The acquisition of these social and
interactive skills would contribute into their development into more confident, pro-active,
responsible and social individuals. This has also been considered in CEF, the Common
European Framework for Teaching and Learning of Languages. (Driscoll, 2000; Duffy and
Jonassen, 1992; Schank, 1994; Lebow, 1993; Can, 2006). Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74.
72
• References
• Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. J. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for
Constructivist Classrooms, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, New
York, USA.
• Brown, J. S., et. al. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Education
Researcher, 18, 32-42.
• Bruner J. S. (1966). Toward A Theory Of İnstruction, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of
Harvard University.
• Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. USA
• Burns, J. T. (2002). Evaluating staff development and training models to support the
implementation of videoconferencing technology for teaching and learning in a distributed
University. Retreived March 17, 2008 from
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2002/3ICLPaper%20HTLM.htm
• Can, T. (2006). Teaching foreign languages via videoconference (a practice paper) in
Lifelong Open and Flexible Learning in the Globilized World Proceedings, pp: 447-452.
International Open and Distance Learning (IODL) Symposium, Anadolu University,
Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework Of Reference For Languages :
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, U.K. : Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
• Cunningham, D. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue.
Educational Technology, 31 (5), 13-17.
• Devries, R. et. al. (2002). Developing Constructivist Early Childhood Curriculum, New
York: Teacher’s College Press.
• Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy And Education : An İntroduction To The Philosophy Of
Education, New York : The Free Press.
• Driscoll, P.M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Allyn&Bacon: Massachusetts.
• Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional
technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-11.
• Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A
Conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Inc.: New Jersey.
• Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and
delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (eds.), Handbook of Research for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.
Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 73
• Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In Fosnot, C.T.
(ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. (pp: 8-33). New York and
London: Teachers College Press.
• Honebein, J. (1996). Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning. Retreived
January 11, 2008 from
http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/JimL_Courses/edpsy490i/su01/readings/honebein.htm
• Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Learning To Solve Problems With Technology : A Constructivist
Perspective. Upper Saddle River: N.J.
• Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd. edition) Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
• Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional design: five principles toward a new
mindset. ETR & D. 41(3), 4–16.
• Lowry, M. & Wilson, B. (2000). For inclusion in Liz Burge (ed.), Learning Technologies:
Reflective and Strategic Thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, (2001). Retrieved April 5, 2008 from
http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/WebLearning.html
• Male, M. (1999). Cooperative Learning and Computers. In Sharan, S. (ed). Cooperative
Learning Methods, (pp. 267-280). Praeger Publishers: Westport.
• Reinfried, M. (2000). Can Radical Constructivism Achieve a Viable Basis for Foreign
Language Teaching? Retrieved March 10, 2008 from
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic20/marcus/8_2000.htm
• Papert, S. (1981). Computer-based microworlds as incubators for powerful ideas. In R.
Taylor (ed.), The Computer in The School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. (pp. 203-210). Teacher's
College Press: New York.
• Perkins, D.N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner, Educational Technology,
39(9), 9-21.
• Piaget, J. (1973). To Understand is to Invent, Grossman, New York, USA. Retrieved Jan 12,
2006 from http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/501const.htm,.
• Schank, R. C., (1994). Active Learning through IEEE Multimedia, Vol:1, No:1, p.69-78.
• Shih, T. K. (2006). Ubiquitous e-learning with scorm in lifelong open and flexible learning in
the globilized world. Proceedings, pp: 41-55. 2nd International Open and Distance Learning
(IODL) Symposium, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey
• Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Radical Constructivism: A way of Knowing and Learning. The
Falmer Press: London. Novitas-ROYAL, 2009, Vol.: 3(1), 60-74. 74
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Harvard University Press: Harvard.
• Watson, M., et. al. (1999). CDP cooperative learning: Working together to construct social,
ethical and intellectual understanding. In Sharan, S. (ed). Cooperative Learning Methods.
(pp. 137-156), Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.
• Wilson, B. G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments.
Educational Technology, 35 (5), 25-30. Retreived April 20, 2008 from
http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson
• Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies
in Instructional Design. Educational Technology Publications: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.

Constructivism

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Constructivism

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1.

Creative Constructivism: Teaching Writing Without Literature (Pt 1)

Pages: 12 3 4 Show All

2. Constructivist teaching behaviors of teachers writing

3. Forum on Public Policy

Forum on Public Policy

Forum on Public Policy

Forum on Public Policy

5. Teaching with Writing

2 I Writing and the College Classroom

n “Meta-teach” during lecture or discussion.

n Discuss secondary sources in terms of writing.

n Discuss strategies for approaching writing assignments.

n Workshop current students’ writing.

n Discuss exemplary writing from former students.

n Organize and promote writing groups.

Each of these activities is discussed in detail below.

n Agree or disagree with an author’s perspective or claim.

n Reflect on the most important thing you learned in lecture/precept today.

n Who is the author’s imputed reader, and how do you know?

n What are the form and function of each source citation?

think this style is preferred?

reader to answer for you?

Sample Cover Letter

answers do you have to offer?

Anthropology: Critique either the majority or dissenting opinion in

Biology: Evaluate a claim about a conservation issue made in an article

Biology: Make an argument about how a response to a problem in current

Politics: Select a country that has chosen to develop nuclear weapons or

n Use a theory to re-interpret a literary text. Alternatively, interpret a

literary text in the context of literary criticism—by disagreeing with or

n Situate the question in the secondary literature.

n Propose a methodology for addressing the question or problem.

n Describe a personal experience that bears on the topic.

n Locate and analyze a textual “hotspot”—a passage that seems important,

n Support and then challenge a key concept.

n Locate and define a conflict of opinion in a set of secondary sources.

topic rather than a unique contribution to or viewpoint on a field of knowledge.

paper is a major undertaking. You can assist students by breaking down

n One-page paper (ungraded): Analyze another short passage in a text

n Paper #1 (5-7pp.; graded): Analyze a primary text

n One-page paper (ungraded): Critique two secondary sources

n Paper #2 (6-8pp; graded): Interpret a primary text in a critical or sociohistorical

n Two one-page papers (ungraded): Critique 2 scientific articles on a chosen

topic (e.g. climate change)

a critical reading of 4 to 5 scientific articles in the source book

based on a critical reading of sources found through library research

n Short paper (2pp.; graded): Recommend to a manager lacking a technical

background whether another student’s design should be accepted

n Paper #2 (graded): Analyze a primary document

n Paper #3 (graded): Analyze a primary document in the context of

n Annotated bibliography (ungraded)

n Draft of the research paper (ungraded)

n Revision of the research paper (graded)

6 I Commenting on Student Writing

to do than it sounds. Just take a look at Section 10, “A Language for

of the best responses? You should add these characteristics to your

lot to students, as do fuller indications of your engagement with their writing.

“weak thesis,” “more analysis needed,” and “evidence?”—will be incompletely

technique while helping students anticipate future readers’ queries.

to address students respectfully, as the junior colleagues they are.

papers as falling above or below an imaginary line in the grading scale—for