Perceived Competence of Constructivist Instructional Skills Among Secondary SchoolTeachers of Kerala

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Abstract

This article aims to throw more light into the area of instructional design in terms of the epistemology of Constructivism. Constructivist instructional design aims to provide generative mental construction “tool kits” (Jonassen, 1991) embedded in relevant learning environments that facilitate knowledge construction by learners. Compared to traditional instructional systems approaches of designing instruction, constructivism makes a different set of assumptions about learning and suggests new instructional principles. However, design practices do not merely accommodate constructivist perspectives. The implications of constructivism for instructional design is revolutionary as they replace rather than add to our current understanding of learning (Bednar et al., 1992). Instructional designers are thus challenged to translate the philosophy of constructivism into actual practice. This paper proposes a constructivist approach to help develop teachers CIS through a combination of practice and the knowledge about constructivist instructional design. By investigating the nature of CLD and contemporary methods of teaching and learning, an instructional framework is proposed to help prepare teachers for workplace by promoting CIS development as well as subject specific knowledge.


A research question and three hypotheses were raised for the descriptive survey study and the findings are. Most teachers in Kerala State secondary schools do not have the required competence in CIS, those teachers in the Arts have more competence in CIS than teachers in the sciences, Academic qualification of a teacher does not have any effect on teacher's competence in CIS and Teachers' competence in the use of CIS is not influenced by their teaching experience.

References

Chomsky (1968) first introduced the twin concepts of competence and performance, though, as noted in Section 2.1, he used them in a different context and with somewhat different meanings.

Applebee, A.N. (1993). Literature in the secondary school: Studies of curriculum and instruction in the United States. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bentley, A.F. & Dewey, J. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 17–34.

Boomer, G. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum. In G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. Onore, & J. Cook (Eds.), (1992). Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century (pp. 4–14). London: The Falmer Press.

Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Chaucer, G. The prologue to the Canterbury Tales. In C.T. Fyfe (Ed.), (1959). A book of good poems. Vancouver: The Copp Clark Publishing Company.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.