TESOL Practices with Constructivism Prospective within Adult and Higher Education with Focus to Iraq and China Models

Sherwan Taha Ameen; Awaz Mustafa Ismael

doi:10.33193/IJoHSS.44.2023.560

Sherwan Taha Ameen Assistant Lecturer and Researcher at English language Department, College of Basic Education, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
Awaz Mustafa Ismael Assistant Lecturer at English language department, College of Basic Education, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33193/IJoHSS.44.2023.560

Keywords: constructivism, curriculum design, education reform, TESOL, teaching practice

Abstract

Philosophical perspectives views are concerned with defining the natural of world, the place in which individuals stand, and the possible relationships between the world and its parts. These perspectives such as behaviourism, cognitivism, liberalism, and humanism provide frameworks to facilitate instructional designers and teachers when they are designing curriculums such as in TESOL classes. This paper aims to explain the proper and teachers’ reasonability of implementing constructivism while designing educational activities within TESOL and humanistic curriculum in higher education taking some qualitative classroom observation at English department at College of Basic Education in Duhok University. Moreover, the paper describes the definition of constructivism at first then, to shed on the rationale of choosing constructivism as the guiding theory will be interpreted, based on current practices of learning history as an adult learner in the Kurdistan Region besides presenting materials that necessary to use in TESOL curriculum. Following that assessment of history curriculum will be illustrated afterwards. A conclusion will be sum up in the end to find the key concepts of constructivism in education is that knowledge should not be passively received but contributed by cognizing subject activity by learners. In order to reach this goal, teachers should respect students’ prior experience, concepts and beliefs and assist them to understand new knowledge. What the paper found at the end is that students need to be encouraged and engaged to participate into learning activities by teachers especially in TESOL classes, in this process, the role of teachers is no longer as dominators but facilitators in the classroom. However, it demands high quality of teachers to complete the whole curriculum, because student performance on which can be significantly affected by the quality of teachers; teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours are all associated to the success of learners in the constructivist teaching approach.

References

1. Bevan, B. (2013). LOST opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer.
2. Biggs, J. 1993. “What do Inventories of Students’ Learning Processes Really Measure? A Theoretical Review and Clarification.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 3–19
3. Brooks, J. G. and Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms, Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development.
4. Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R., J. Jarvelle, and W. J.M. Levelt (eds.) The Child's Concept of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag.
5. Byrnes, R. S. (1997). Interrupting Ordinary Expectations in the Social Studies.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(2), 135-51.
6. Cennamo, K. S. (1993). Learning from video: Factors influencing learners' preconceptions and invested mental effort. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 33-45.
7. Constructivism and collaboration on the Internet: Case study of a graduate class experience. Computers & Education, 24(3), pp.203-209.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. & Falk, B. (1997). Using standards and assessments to support learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(3), 190-199.
9. Davey, G., De Lian, C. and Higgins, L. (2007). The university entrance examination system in China. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), pp.385-396.
10. Dennehy, E. (2014). Learning approaches and cultural influences: a comparative study of Confucian and western-heritage students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, pp.1-21.
11. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
12. Innocent, N. (2009). How museums, libraries and archives contribute to lifelong learning. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
13. Jiang, J. (2013). Critical Thinking in General Education in China. International Journal of Chinese Education, 2(1), pp.108-134.
14. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002).The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1-10.
15. Matthews, M. (1998). Constructivism in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
16. Piaget, J. (1967). Biologie et connaissance. [Paris]: Gallimard.
17. Pourhosein Gilakjani, A., Mei Leong, L. and Nizam Ismail, H. (2013). Teachers’ Use of Technology and Constructivism. IJMECS, 5(4), pp.49-63.
18. Schuh, K. and Barab, S. (2008). Philosophical Perspectives. In: J. Michael Spector, M. David Merrill and M. Driscoll, ed., Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd ed. [online] New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.67-82. Available at: http://www.aect.org/edtech/edition3/ER5849x_C007.fm.pdf [Accessed 3 Apr. 2015].
19. Sheahan, J. (1979). The relevance of a philosophical perspective on education. J Adv Nurs, 4(4), pp.429-438.
20. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. The invented reality, 17-40.
21. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Radical constructivism. London: Routledge.
22. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yakimovicz, A. and Murphy, K. (1995).