Constructivist Learning Design

by George W. Gagnon, Jr. and Michelle Collay

This paper represents a collaborative effort of two teacher educators to articulate a
constructivist approach to "designing for learning" rather than planning for
teaching. See our Constructivist Learning Design Notes for a simplified version.
Ongoing collaborative research with teachers is presented in our Constructivist
Learning Design Study. We believe this focus on learning is needed if teachers are
to implement a constructive approach to thinking about day-to-day learning by the
students. Conventional lesson planning focuses on what the teacher will do. If
learning is teacher directed, then the focus of the lesson plan is on what the teacher
does. When designing a learning experience for students, teachers focus on what
students will do. Our language encourages teachers to focus on thinking about how
to organize what learners will do rather than plan their teaching behaviors.
Teachers and teacher educators make different meanings of constructivist learning
theory. At a recent retreat with facilitators of learning communities for teachers
who were studying in a Masters of Education program, we were talking about our
common reading of The Case for Constructivist Classrooms (Brooks & Brooks,
1993). We asked the ten facilitators to answer this question, "What is
constructivism?" The results were interesting because all of their definitions were
quite different and reflected their own understanding of the term and the text. This
was a clear demonstration that what we read does not produce a single meaning but
that understanding is constructed by the readers who bring prior knowledge and
experience to the text and make their own meaning as they interact with the
author's words. The following interpretation of constructivist learning reflects our
understanding of and beliefs about constructivism.
Constructivist Learning
Constructivist learning has emerged as a prominent approach to teaching during
this past decade. The work of Dewey, Montessori, Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky
among others provide historical precedents for constructivist learning theory.
Constructivism represents a paradigm shift from education based on behaviorism to
education based on cognitive theory. Fosnot (1996) has provided a recent summary
of these theories and describes constructivist teaching practice. Behaviorist
epistemology focuses on intelligence, domains of objectives, levels of knowledge,
and reinforcement. Constructivist epistemology assumes that learners construct
their own knowledge on the basis of interaction with their environment. Four
epistemological assumptions are at the heart of what we refer to as "constructivist
learning."
1. Knowledge is physically constructed by learners who are involved in
active learning.

2. Knowledge is symbolically constructed by learners who are making their

own representations of action;
3. Knowledge is socially constructed by learners who convey their meaning
making to others;
4. Knowledge is theoretically constructed by learners who try to explain
things they don't completely understand.
With these common assumptions, teacher planning according to the Tyler or
Hunter models is no longer adequate. Research indicates that few classroom
teachers plan using these models anyway (Morine-Dershimer, 1979; Zahorik, 1975)
and usually because of administrative pressure if they do (McCutcheon, 1982)
However, few approaches are available for working with prospective teachers or
new teachers to organize for learning. Simon (1995) and Steffe & Ambrosio (1995)
describe their processes of planning for constructivist learning and constructivist
teaching respectively, but these methods are complex and represent the thinking of
experienced teachers.
We are proposing a new approach for planning using a "Constructivist Learning
Design" that honors the common assumptions of constructivism and focuses on the
development of situations as a way of thinking about the constructive activities of
the learner rather than the demonstrative behavior of the teacher. Most conventional
teacher planning models are based on verbal explanations or visual demonstrations
of a procedure or skill by the teacher which are then combined with practice of this
method or skill by the student. Much of this approach seems consistent with the
description of classroom activities reported in a major research study titled A place
called school conducted ten years ago by Goodlad (1984). He found that most of
the time, most of the teachers talk to the kids. Students explained that physical
education, fine arts, or industrial arts were their most interesting classes because
they actually got to do something. They were active participants in learning rather
than passive recipients of information. This is the primary message of
constructivism; students who are engaged in active learning are making their own
meaning and constructing their own knowledge in the process.
Constructivist Learning Design
The "Constructive Learning Design" we are using now has been through a variety
of revisions in the past seven years and now emphasizes these six important
elements: Situation, Groupings, Bridge, Questions, Exhibit, and Reflections.
These elements are designed to provoke teacher planning and reflection about the
process of student learning. Teachers develop the situation for students to explain,
select a process for groupings of materials and students, build a bridge between
what students already know and what they want them to learn, anticipate questions
to ask and answer without giving away an explanation, encourage students to

exhibit a record of their thinking by sharing it with others, and solicit students'
reflections about their learning. We now longer refer to objectives, outcomes, or
results since we expect that teachers have that determined by the district curriculum
or the textbook they are using in their classroom and need to think more about
accomplishing it than about writing it again.
This brief overview above indicates how each of these six elements integrate
and work as a whole, but all need further explanation:
1. Situation: What situation are you going to arrange for students to
explain? Give this situation a title and describe a process of solving
problems, answering questions, creating metaphors, making decisions,
drawing conclusions, or setting goals. This situation should include what
you expect the students to do and how students will make their own
meaning.
2. Groupings: There are two categories of groupings:
A. How are you going to make groupings of students; as a whole
class, individuals, in collaborative thinking teams of two, three,
four, five, six or more, and what process will you use to group
them; counting off, chosing a color or piece of fruit, or similar
clothing? This depends upon the situation you design and the
materials
you
have
available
to
you.
B. How are you going to arrange groupings of materials that
students will use to explain the situation by physical modeling,
graphically representing, numerically describing, or individually
writing about their collective experience. How many sets of
materials you have will often determine the numbers of student
groups you will form.
3. Bridge: This is an initial activity intended to determine students'
prior knowledge and to build a "bridge" between what they already
know and what they might learn by explaining the situation. This might
involve such things as giving them a simple problem to solve, having a
whole class discussion, playing a game, or making lists. Sometimes this
is best done before students are in groups and sometimes after they are
grouped. You need to think about what is appropriate.
4. Questions: Questions could take place during each element of the
Learning Design. What guiding questions will you use to introduce the
situation, to arrange the groupings, to set up the bridge, to keep active
learning going, to prompt exhibits, and to encourage reflections? You
also need to anticipate questions from students and frame other

questions to encourage them to explain their thinking and to support

them in continuing to think for themselves.
5. Exhibit: This involves having students make an exhibit for others of
whatever record they made to record their thinking as they were
explaining the situation. This could include writing a description on
cards and giving a verbal presentation, making a graph, chart, or other
visual representation, acting out or role playing their impressions,
constructing a physical representation with models, and making a video
tape, photographs, or audio tape for display.
6. Reflections: These are the students' reflections of what they thought
about while explaining the situation and then saw the exhibits from
others. They would include what students remember from their thought
process about feelings in their spirit, images in their imagination, and
languages in their internal dialogue. What attitudes, skills, and concepts
will students take out the door? What did students learn today that they
won't forget tomorrow? What did they know before; what did they want
to know; and what did they learn?
Educational Precedents
Each of these six elements of our constructivist learning design has
educational precedents. The following overview provides brief references to
theoretical ancestors which support including these ele ments in organizing
for learning:
1. Situations : The work of Duckworth (1987) describes situations to
engage students in having their own wonderful ideas about science,
Steffe and Ambrosio (1995) use situations for students to explain in
math, and Fosnot (1996) provides similar examples from writing and
art.
2. Groupings: Schmuck and Schmuck (1988) introduced group process
dynamics to classrooms, and heterogeneous groupings are common to
the cooperative learning work of Johnson and Johnson (1975) or
Slavin (1980a). The materials category is often included in lesson
plans.
3. Bridge: This has some grounding in the set induction described by
Gagne (1970), the anticipatory set of Madeline Hunter (1982) and the
advanced organizer of Ausubel (1978).
4. Questions: There is precedence in Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of
educational objectives in the cognitive domain which led to higher
level thinking questions, Sanders' (1966) work on kinds of classroom
questions, and Flanders' (1970) work describing classroom
questioning strategies.

5. Exhibit: The work of Theodore Sizer (1973) and the coalition for

essential schools includes an exhibition as part of the learning process.

The passages of the Jefferson County Open School in Colorado and
the validations of the St. Paul Open School in Minnesota put into
practice authentic assessment approaches from a variety of sources
including Wiggins (1995). Documentation from Engel (1994),
portfolios from Carini (1986), and alternative assessment from the
North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation led by Perrone (1988)
encouraged teachers to move from testing memorization of
information to demonstration of student learning.
6. Reflections: We see earlier work in Hunter's (1982) description of
"transfer," the work of Schon (1987) about reflective practice of
teachers, which also applies to student learning, reflection about
learning through journaling as described by Cooper (1991), and
Brookfield's (1986) work on critical reflection. These precedents
provide a theoretical framework for a constructivist learning design.
Assessment
Assessment becomes an integral part of every step in this learning design.
Teachers design the situation based on their assessment of students' learning
approaches, interests, and needs. Teachers design a process for groupings
based on their assessment of materials of available and desired mixture of
students. Teachers design a simple assessment of what students already
know as a bridge to what they want students to learn. Teachers design
questions to assess student understanding of the concepts, skills, or attitudes
they are trying to learn. Teachers arrange an exhibit for students to record
what they thought and submit it to others for assessment. Teachers arrange
for reflections about what students' have learned and their internal process
of representations as a context for self-assessment of individual learning.
Applications
The planning approach we are proposing is based on actively engaging
students in situations that involve collaboratively considering their own
explanations for phenomena, resolutions to problems, or formulation of
questions. Students are asked to actively construct their own knowledge by
making meaning out of the situation by themselves with support and
guidance from the teacher. Teachers organize the situation and then provide
encouragement and questions to groups of students who are trying to
construct and to display their own explanations. For example, composition
teachers might ask students to construct the simplest sentences and compare
structures, literature teachers might ask students to explain the motives of a
character, social studies teachers might ask students to assume the roles of
two adversaries in a meeting, science teachers might demonstrate a

phenomenon and ask students to explain what was observed, math teachers
might ask students to find examples of sloping lines in the world around
them and then introduce grids to determine equations, language teachers
might engage students in conversational immersion without resorting to
English translations, art teachers might ask students to transform clay with
their hands without looking at it, music teachers might ask students to
identify rhythms in a piece of music using their own annotations. The
constructivist approach can be adapted to any subject area or curriculum by
involving students as active participants in making meaning instead of
passive recipients of information given to them by the teacher. This
approach can be incorporated into 45 or 50 minute class periods to teach a
particular concept, skill, or attitude.
When referring to student learning we deliberately use the phrase "concepts,
skills, and attitudes" to convey different dimensions of knowledge. The
accepted educational language described by current NCATE accreditation
standards is "knowledge, skills, and attitudes." This implies that skills and
attitudes are something different than knowledge or that knowledge is
merely a collection of facts or information. Perhaps some of the confusion
derives from Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of objectives starting with
knowledge and proceeding through comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Again, this language is accepted as a standard in
the education curriculum. Bloom later classified objectives in the affective
domain and the psychomotor domain as well as in the cognitive domain.
This left us with the legacy of knowledge as separate from what we can do
with it or how we feel about it. We would argue that what Bloom has labeled
knowledge is really information and that the other levels are different ways
that learners construct knowledge for themselves and may not be discreet
and hierarchical as Bloom suggests. However, these classifications can serve
as an important guidelines for moving beyond recitation of information as
the goal of education. We contend that an understanding of education should
begin with epistemology rather than relegating it to the province of
philosophy as an academic pursuit. Constructivist learning implies an initial
concern with what knowledge is and how knowledge is actively constructed
by the learner. Advocates of constructivism agree that acquiring knowledge
or knowing is an active process of constructing understanding rather than the
passive receipt of information.
References
Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics.
Review of Educational Research, 48, 251-259.
Bloom, Benjamin. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon and Brooks, Martin G. (1993). The case for
constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Brookfield, Stephen. (1986) Understanding and facilitating adult learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bruner, Jerome. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Carini, Patricia. (1986) Building from children's strengths. Journal of
Education, 168(3), 13-24.
Cooper, Joanne. (1991) Telling our own stories: The reading and writing of
journals or diaries. In Stories Lives Tell, (eds. Witherell, C. & Noddings, N.)
New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, John (1964) John Dewey on education: Selected writings. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Duckworth, Eleanor. (1987) The having of wonderful ideas. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Engel, Brenda. (1994) Portfolio assessment and the new paradigm: New
instruments and new places. The Educational Forum, 59 (Fall, 94) 22-27.
Flanders, N. (1970) Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Fosnot, Catherine. (1996) Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gagne, Robert. (1970) The conditions of learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston. .
Goodlad, John. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hunter, Madeline. (1982) Mastery Learning. El Segundo, CA: TIP
Publications.
Johnson, David and Johnson, Roger. (1975) Learning together and alone.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCutcheon, G. (1982). How do elementary teachers plan? The nature of
planning and influences on it. In W. Doyle & T. Good (Eds.), Focus on
teaching (pp. 260-279). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Montessori, Maria. (1965) Dr. Montessori's own handbook. New York:

Schocken Books. (Original work published in 1914)
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1979). Teacher plans and classroom reality: The
South Bay study: Part 4 (Research Series No. 60). East Lansing: Michigan
State University Institute for Research on Teaching.
Perrone, Vito. (1988). Alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Piaget, Jean. (1977) Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking
Press.
Sanders, Norris. (1966). Classroom questions: what kinds?. New York:
Harper & Row.
Schmuck, Richard. & Schmuck, Pat. (1988) Group processes in the
classroom. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
Schon, David. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Simon, Martin A. (1995) Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a
constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
26, 114-145.
Sizer, Theodore. (1992) Horace's school: redesigning the American high
school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Slavin, R. E. (1980a). Cooperative Learning. Review of educational
research, 50, 317-343.
Steffe, Leslie P. & and D'Ambrosio, Beatriz S. (1995). Toward a working
model of constructivist teaching: A reaction to Simon. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 26, 146-159.
Steffe Leslie P. & Gale J. (Eds.) (1995). Constructivism in education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
von Glasserfield, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L.
Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Vygotsky, Lev. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(Original work published in 1962)

Wiggens, Grant. (1995) Curricular coherence and assessment: Making sure

that the effect matches the intent. ASCD Yearbook 1995, 101-119.
Zahorik, J. (1975). Teachers' planning models. Educational Leadership, 33(
), 134-139.
For a simplified version of our Constructivist Learning Design follow
this link:
Constructivist Learning Design Notes
For a description of our Constructivist Learning Design research follow
this link:
Constructivist Learning Design Study

2. Pengertian Belajar Penyusunan Behavioristik pengetahuan dari pengalaman konkrit perubahan

Kognitivistik struktur mental internalKonstruktivistik perolehan pengetahuan
3. tujuan pembelajaran, sifat Behavioristik materi pelajaran, karakteristik pembelajar, media dan
fasilitas pembelajaran yang tersedia Universal, realitas Kognitivistik natural, kontekstual, siswa
aktif si belajar (siswa/murid), guru/ pendidik, saranaKonstruktivistik belajar, dan evaluasi belajar.
4. Keunggulan dan Kelemahan Teori Konstruktivistik
5. KeunggulanBerpikir Kefahaman Mengingat Kemahiran Sosial

6. KelemahanMiskonsepsi waktu Sarana & Kualitas prasarana guru

7. Teori Belajar Konsep Konstruktivisme menekankan bahwa pengetahuan dibentuk oleh siswa
yang sedang belajar, dan teori perubahan konsep yang menjelaskan bahwa siswa mengalami
perubahan konsep terus menerus, sangat berperan dalam menjelaskan mengapa seorang siswa
bisa salah mengerti dalam menangkap suatu konsep yang ia pelajari. Konstruktivisme membantu
untuk mengerti bagaimana siswa membentuk pengetahuan yang tidak tepat.

8. Teori Bermakna AusubelKeduanya menekankan pentingnya pelajarmengasosiasikan

pengalaman, fenomena, danfakta-fakta baru ke dalam sistem pengertianyang telah dimiliki.
Keduanya menekankankepada pentingnya menggali pengalaman baruke dalam konsep atau
pengertian yang sudahdimiliki siswa. Keduanya mengandaikan bahwadalam proses belajar itu
siswa aktif.

9. Teori SkemaTeori ini lebih menunjukkan bahwa pengetahuankita itu tersusun dalam suatu
skema yangterletak dalam ingatan kita. Dalam belajar, kitadapat menambah skema yang ada
sehinga dapatmenjadi luas dan berkembang.

10. Konstruktivisme, Behaviorisme, MaturasionismeDalam teori ini kreatifitas dan kekatifan

siswaakan membantu mereka untuk berdiri sendiridalam kehidupan kognitif mereka. Mereka
akanterbangun menjadi orang yang kritismenganalisis suatu hal karena mereka berfikirdan bukan
meniru saja.

KonstruktivismeDocument Transcript

1. Pusat Perkembangan Kurikulum Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia

2. JULAI 2001
3. Cetakan Pertama 2001 Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia Hak Cipta Terpelihara. Tidak
dibenarkan mengeluar ulang mana-mana bahagian artikel, ilustrasi, dan isi kandungan buku ini
dalam apa juga bentuk dan dengan cara apa jua sama ada secara elektronik, fotokopi, mekanik,
rakaman atau cara lain sebelum mendapat izin bertulis daripada Pengarah, Pusat Perkembangan
Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Persiaran Duta off Jalan Duta, 50604 Kuala
Lumpur. Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Data Pengkatalogan-dalam-Penerbitan Malaysia. Pusat
Perkembangan Kurikulum Pembelajaran secara konstruktivisme / Pusat Perkembangan
Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Bibliografi: ms. 38 ISBN 983-2340-32-2 1.
Constructivism (Education). 2. Cognitive learning. 3. Leaning, Psychology of. I. Judul 370.152 i
4. KATA PENGANTAR Pelaksanaan kurikulum sekolah yang disemak semula memberi
penekanan atas strategi pembelajaran yang berkesan sesuai dengan kehendak pendidikan masa
kini dan masa depan. Sebagai usaha untuk membantu guru memahami dan mengamalkan
strategi tersebut, Pusat Perkembangan Kurikuljum (PPK) telah menghasilkan pelbagai bahan
sokongan kurikulum yang terdiri daripada beberapa modul pengajaran dan pembelajaran (P&P)
dan buku penerangan am tentang pengurusan dan pelaksanaan kurikulum. Modul (P&P) boleh
membantu guru mempelbagaikan kaedah pengajaran dan pembelajaran yang berkesan di
samping mewujudkan suasana bilik darjah yang menggembirakan. Buku penerangan am
bertujuan untuk menjadi panduan kepada pengurus dan pelaksana kurikulum dalam usaha
mereka untuk melaksanakan kurikulum dengan lebih berkesan. PPK merakamkan setinggi-tinggi
penghargaan dan terima kasih kepada semua yang terlibat dengan penyediaan modul-modul
serta buku penerangan am ini. Semoga bahan sokongan berkenaan dapat dimanfaatkan oleh
semua pihak yang terlibat. Dr. SHARIFAH MAIMUNAH BINTI SYED ZIN Pengarah Pusat
Perkembangan Kurikulum Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia ii
5. KANDUNGAN MUKA SURAT Objektif Modul 1 Pengenalan 2 Teori Pembelajaran 3 Apakah
Konstruktivisme? 6 Implikasi Pengertian Konstruktivisme 11 Ciri-Ciri Pembelajaran Secara
Konstruktivisme 12 Kelebihan Pembelajaran Secara Konstruktivisme 13 Peranan Murid Dan
Guru Serta Cabaran Kelas Konstruktivisme 15 Perbandingan Pembelajaran Secara Tradisional
Dan Konstruktivisme 18 Contoh Pembelajaran Secara Konstruktivisme 19 Penilaian Modul 37
Rujukan 38 Lampiran 41 iii

6. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME PEMBELAJARAN SECARA

KONSTRUKTIVISME OBJEKTIF MODUL Membezakan pelbagai pandangan tentang teori
pembelajaran Menyatakan pengertian dan implikasi pembelajaran secara konstruktivisme
Menyenaraikan ciri-ciri pembelajaran secara konstruktivisme Menghuraikan kepentingan
pembelajaran secara konstruktivisme Mengaplikasikan pembelajaran secara konstruktivisme
dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran 1

7. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME PENGENALAN In class, try to avoid telling

your students any answers . Do not prepare a lesson plan. Instead, confront your students with
some sort of problem which might interest them. Then, allow them to work the problem through
without your advice or counsel. Your talk should consist of questions directed to particular
students, based on remarks made by those students. If a student asks you a question, tell him
that you don't know the answer, even if you do. Don't be frightened by the long stretches of
silence that might occur. Silence may mean that the students are thinking. (Postman, N.&
Weingartner, C.,1969) Satu pandangan baru tentang ilmu pengetahuan dan cara bagaimana
manusia memperoleh ilmu pengetahuan telah mula menarik perhatian para pendidik seluruh
dunia. Pandangan baru ini menganggap murid bukan hanya menerima pengetahuan secara pasif
daripada gurunya tetapi membina pengetahuannya melalui interaksi dengan persekitarannya.
Pandangan ini dikenali sebagai Konstruktivisme yang mampu menyediakan warganegara yang
berupaya menghadapi sebarang kemungkinan pada masa hadapan. 2

8. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME TEORI PEMBELAJARAN : DARIPADA

BEHAVIORISME KEPADA KONSTRUKTIVISME BEHAVIORISME Menekankan kepada
tingkah laku yang boleh diperhatikan. Perlakuan boleh diperkukuh atau dihentikan melalui
ganjaran atau hukuman. Pengajaran dirancang berdasarkan objektif perlakuan yang boleh

diukur atau diperhatikan. Guru tidak perlu mengambil tahu pengetahuan sedia ada murid dan
perubahan yang berlaku dalam minda semasa pengajaran. Satu daripada teori pembelajaran
yang banyak mempengaruhi pendidikan adalah teori Behaviorisme. Antara ahli psikologi yang
menjadi pendokong Behaviorisme adalah B. F. Skinner, John B. Watson dan Edward Thorndike.
Mereka amat berminat dengan tingkah laku yang boleh diperhatikan. Penyelidikan mereka
tertumpu kepada tingkah laku ini. Mereka tidak mementingkan struktur mental yang melibatkan
pemikiran, idea, impian dan imej mental. Sebaliknya, tindakan dan pola perlakuan individu diberi
penekanan. Menurut mereka, jika kita ingin sesuatu perlakuan itu dilakukan lagi atau diulangi,
maka kita hanya perlu mengukuhkannya dengan memberi ganjaran, atau jika kita hendak
menghentikan atau mengurangkan sesuatu perlakuan, maka kita menghukum atau
menghentikan ganjarannya. Implikasi Behaviorisme dalam pendidikan amat mendalam
kesannya. Menurut Gardner (2000), dalam merancang pengajaran sesuatu konsep atau
kemahiran, seorang guru akan menulis objektif untuk perlakuan yang boleh diukur atau
diperhatikan pada akhir pengajaran. Guru tidak perlu mengambil tahu apa yang muridnya telah
tahu atau mengambil kira apakah perubahan yang mungkin berlaku dalam minda muridnya
semasa pengajaran. Guru 3

9. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME hanya mengatur strategi dengan memberi

ganjaran kepada murid yang menunjukkan perlakuan yang dikehendaki dengan menekankan
kepada latih tubi. Guru lebih menekankan kepada apa yang murid boleh lakukan, bukannya
kefahaman murid. KOGNITIVISME Semua idea dan imej dalam minda individu diwakili melalui
skema. Jika maklumat baru secocok dengan skema, maka maklumat itu diterima. Jika tidak,
maklumat itu ditolak atau diubah suai, atau skema diubah suai. Satu lagi pandangan tentang cara
manusia belajar dan memperoleh pengetahuan ialah secara Kognitivisme. Penggerak utama
Kognitivisme adalah Jean Piaget. Idea utama Kognitivisme adalah perwakilan mental. Semua
idea dan imej dalam minda individu diwakili melalui struktur mental yang dikenali sebagai skema.
Skema akan menentukan bagaimana data dan maklumat yang diterima akan difahami oleh
minda manusia. Jika maklumat ini secocok dengan skema yang ada, maka murid akan menyerap
maklumat tersebut ke dalam skema ini. Sekiranya tidak secocok dengan skema yang ada,
maklumat ini mungkin ditolak atau diubah suai atau skema akan diubah suai. 4

10. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME KONSTRUKTIVISME Pengetahuan dibina

sendiri oleh murid secara aktif berdasarkan kepada pengetahuan sedia ada. Bertitik tolak
daripada pandangan Kognitivisme ini maka lahirlah satu pandangan tentang cara manusia
belajar iaitu secara Konstruktivisme. Mengikut Konstruktivisme, pengetahuan dibina secara aktif
oleh individu yang berfikir. Individu ini tidak menyerap secara pasif sebarang pengetahuan yang
disampaikan oleh gurunya. Murid akan menyesuaikan sebarang maklumat baru dengan
pengetahuan sedia ada mereka untuk membentuk pengetahuan baru dalam mindanya dengan
bantuan interaksi sosial bersama rakan dan gurunya. 5

11. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME APAKAH KONSTRUKTIVISME ?

Constructivism is an approach to teaching based on research about how people learn. Many
researchers say that each individual constructs knowledge rather than receiving it from others.
(McBrien & Brandt,1997) (Konstruktivisme adalah satu pendekatan pengajaran berdasarkan
kepada penyelidikan tentang bagaimana manusia belajar. Kebanyakan penyelidik berpendapat
setiap individu membina pengetahuan dan bukannya hanya menerima pengetahuan daripada
orang lain) They are constructing their own knowledge by testing ideas and approaches based
on their prior knowledge and experience, applying these to a new situation and integrating the
new knowledge gained with pre-existing intellectual constructs. (Briner, M.,1999) (Murid
membina pengetahuan mereka dengan menguji idea dan pendekatan berdasarkan pengetahuan
dan pengalaman sedia ada, mengaplikasikannya kepada situasi baru dan mengintegrasikan
pengetahuan baru yang diperoleh dengan binaan intelektual yang sedia wujud) 6
12. PEMBELAJARAN SECARA KONSTRUKTIVISME Constructivist theory posits that students
make sense of the world by synthesizing new experiences into what they have previously
understood. They form rules through reflection on their interaction with objects and ideas. When
they encounter an object, idea or relationship that does not make sense to them, they either

interpret what they see to conform to their rules or they adjust their rules to better account for the
new information. (Brooks & Brooks, 1993) (Teori konstruktivisme menyatakan bahawa murid
membina makna tentang dunia dengan mensintesis pengalaman baru kepada apa yang mereka
telah fahami sebelum ini. Mereka membentuk peraturan melalui refleksi tentang interaksi mereka
dengan objek dan idea. Apabila mereka bertemu dengan objek, idea atau perkaitan yang tidak
bermakna kepada mereka, maka mereka akan sama ada menginterpretasi apa yang mereka lihat