Theoretical Framework of CTCA

Home Theoretical Framework of CTCA

What is the Theoretical Framework of CTCA?

When CTCA is being implemented, students are engaged in activities which demand that they (a) draw on their topic-relevant indigenous (cultural) knowledge; (b) use technology to seek pre-lesson knowledge of the topic to be taught; (c) work in groups to share knowledge gleaned from their socio-cultural interactions and web-based resources; (d) draw on their prior knowledge of the topic when class is in session and (e) relate lesson examples to their local contexts. In seeking a theory base for CTCA based on the foregoing, which existing theory does the cap fit?

With the five orientations of CTCA, it is obvious that several theories will “present their heads” to fit the CTCA theoretical framework cap. Two of these stand out. Orientations (a), (b), (c) and (e) of CTCA fit smugly with Vygosky’s theory of social constructivism. Orientation (a) (d) and (e) relate well with Ausubel’s subsumption theory. So, here we have in our hands, two theory bases for CTCA. Because of seeming overlap of the flavours of several educational theories, it is possible to straddle the theoretical framework of CTCA beyond these two. However, the decision is swayed in favour of the Vygotsky-Ausubel framework. How does the theory base of CTCA fit with Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism and Ausubel’s subsumption theory? These are the two questions to be addressed next.

Vygotsky's Theory of social constructivism

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory asserts that learning is an essentially social role in the development of social process. higher psychological functions. As you can see, this fits smugly with CTCA. CTCA is about the learner seeking information about indigenous (cultural) knowledge on a topic from parents and others before coming to class. It is about a social process of interacting with classmates (peers) to share knowledge in groups. Sociocultural theory includes a relationship between the teacher and student based on social interaction. When using CTCA, teachers create an organised learning environment leading to the tendency of students to be more engaged with the learning material.

Let us now move to the concept of scaffolding which is central to Vygotsky’s theory. Vygotsky scaffolding is part of the education concept “zone of proximal development” or ZPD. The ZPD is the set of skills or knowledge a student cannot do on his/her own but can do with the help or guidance of someone else. Vygotsky originally defined the ZPD 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.”

According to Vygotsky, through the assistance of a more knowledgeable other, a child is able to learn skills or aspects of a skill that go beyond the child’s actual developmental or maturational level. The lower limit of ZPD is the level of skill reached by the child working independently (also referred to as the child’s developmental level). The upper limit is the level of potential skill that the child is able to reach with the assistance of a more capable teacher. The advancement through and attainment of the upper limit of the ZPD is limited by the instructional and scaffolding-related capabilities of the more knowledgeable other (MKO). The MKO is typically assumed to be an older, more experienced teacher or parent, but often can be a learner’s peer or someone their junior. The MKO need not even be a person, it can be a machine or book, or other source of visual and/or audio input. The techno part of CTCA plays this MKO role. ZPD has become synonymous in the literature with the term scaffolding. The concept was introduced, but not fully developed by Vygotsky during the last three years of his life. So, it is important to note that Vygotsky never used this term in his writing, and it was introduced by Jerome Bruner (yes, the same Jerome Bruner of discovery learning fame!). Scaffolding helps students learn more by working with a teacher or a more advanced student to achieve their learning goals.

The theory behind instructional scaffolding is that, compared to learning independently, students learn more when collaborating with others who have a wider range of skills and knowledge than the student currently

does. These teachers or peers are the “scaffolding” who help the student expand learning boundaries and learn more than would be able to on his/her own. Vygotsky argued that a child gets involved in a dialogue with the “knowledgeable other” such as a peer or an adult and gradually, through social interaction and sense-making, develops the ability to solve problems independently and do certain tasks without help. Following Vygotsky, some educators believe that the role of education is to give children experiences that are within their zones of proximal development, thereby encouraging and advancing their individual learning such as skills and strategies.

ZPD is often depicted as a series of concentric circles. The smallest circle is the set of skills a student can learn on his/her own, without any help. Next is the

ZPD, or skills a student will not be able to do alone, but can do with help from a teacher or peer. Beyond that are skills the student cannot do yet, even with help. ZPD implies that each student, for each subject, has three levels of learning: things the student can accomplish on her own, things she can accomplish with help from someone else (the zone of proximal development) and things she can’t accomplish no matter how much help she has. The ZPD and Vygotsky scaffolding theory is that students learn the most when they are in their ZPD.

In order to use ZPD and scaffolding techniques successfully, it is important to know students’ current level of knowledge. This is the thrust of the pre-lesson activities of CTCA. Without this information, you will not be able to teach them in their ZPD or provide effective scaffolding support. The huge similarity between Vygotsky’s ideas on scaffolding and the Ausubelian subsumption theory will be seen in the next section.

Before you begin a lesson with ZPD or Vygotsky scaffolding, find students’ baseline knowledge by giving a short quiz or having an introductory discussion on the topic where you ask students questions to figure out what they already know. As stated earlier, this makes up steps 1 and 2 of CTCA. Since each student will have a different ZPD for each topic, it can be more effective to have students work in groups or individually so the teacher can provide guidance and tailor the technique to each student’s ZPD.

Ausubel's Theory of advance organiser

In Ausubel’s theory of meaningful verbal learning, an advance organiser is a statement preceding a lesson that is designed to preview the material to be learned and link it to content already existing in learner’s schemata. It can be defined as a tool used to introduce the lesson topic and illustrate the relationship between what the students are about to learn and the information they have already learned (Ausubel, 2012).

What encouraged Ausubel to propose his theory of advanced organiser is his desire that students should learn meaningfully rather than by rote. You like to know the difference between meaningful and rote learning? I believe you may have walked the two roads before. Let me provide a very simplistic explanation. During the course of your studying this chapter, you may have noted a few points, say, the meaning of zone of proximal development (ZPD) proposed by Jev Vygotsky. You probably just wrote this down in order to answer questions at the end of the chapter. A few weeks later, you may not remember much about ZPD. Apparently, you have learned the concept of ZPD by rote. On the other hand, if you read about ZPD, connect your prior knowledge to it and applied it in some form in your everyday activities or even share with others, chances are high that weeks, months and years after, ZPD will be nearly as fresh in your memory as the day you first read about it. You have attained some form of meaningful learning of the concept.

In the extensive study entitled “Attaining meaning learning of ecology and genetics through the concept mapping heuristic” Okebukola (1990) confirmed that meaningful learning involves understanding how all the pieces of an entire concept fit together. The knowledge gained through meaningful learning applies to new learning situations. This type of learning stays with students for a long time (for life). Meaningful learning is active, constructive, and longlasting, but most importantly, it allows students to be fully engaged in the learning process.

In his book “The psychology of meaningful verbal learning” which I encourage you to read, Ausubel (1963) gave the details of the differences. You will also find table 3.1 helpful.

What are advance organisers?

In Ausubel’s view, to learn meaningfully, students must relate new knowledge (concepts and propositions) to what they already know (see Ausubel, 1962; 1963; 2012; Okebukola 1990; 1991 for summaries). Ausubel proposed the notion of an advanced organiser as a way to help students link their ideas with new material or concepts. These more inclusive concepts or ideas are advance organisers. An advance organiser is information presented by a teacher or facilitator that helps the student organise new incoming information. This is achieved by directing attention to what is important in the coming material, highlighting relationships, and providing a reminder about relevant prior knowledge (Gidena and Gibeyehu, 2017). The advance organiser is designed to provide what cognitive psychologists call mental scaffolding. Now you can see the link between Vygotsky’s theory and that of Ausubel as both talk about “scaffolding”. You also see why the CTCA theoretical framework hinges on the theories of Vygotsky and Ausubel.

Advance organisers make it easier to learn new material of a complex or otherwise difficult nature, provided two conditions are met Ausubel (1963; 1978; 2012.). The first is that the student must process and understand the information presented in the organiser—this increases the effectiveness of the organiser itself. The second is that the organiser should have attributes that can be related to the basic concepts and terms of the incoming new material.

Ausubel identified two types of advance organiser: comparative and expository. The main goal of comparative organisers is to activate existing schemas. Similarly, they act as reminders to bring into the working memory of what you may not realise is relevant. In contrast, expository organisers provide new knowledge that students will need in order to understand the upcoming information. Expository organisers are often used when the new learning material is unfamiliar to the learner. They often relate what the learner already knows with the new and unfamiliar material—this in turn is aimed to make the unfamiliar material familiar to the learner.

Ausubel’s subsumption theory

Closely related to the theory of advanced organisers is subsumption theory (Ausubel, 1962). I am sure you are familiar with the word “subsume” which means incorporating into something larger or bigger. In this context, subsume means to incorporate new materials into one’s cognitive structure. From Ausubel’s perspective this is the meaning of learning. When information is subsumed into the learner’s cognitive structure it is organised hierarchically. Existing cognitive structure provides a framework into which new learning is related hierarchically to the previous information or concepts in the individual’s cognitive structure. When one encounters completely new and unfamiliar materials then rote learning takes place as opposed to meaningful learning. This rote learning can eventually contribute to the construction of new cognitive structures which can later be used in meaningful learning.

Okebukola's Eco-techno cultural theory of CTCA

After two decades of research to gather supporting evidence, Okebukola and Jegede, proposed the ecocultural theory of science learning (Okebukola & Jegede, 1990). The theory which is a STEM slant of the general theory of ecoculture holds that the context (ecology) where teaching and learning of science takes place as well as the microcultures of students and teachers, exert noteworthy effects on learning. The pathways of the effect are two bridges. The first bridge is the link between experiences derived from the learning context and the subject matter to be learned. This bridge can be seen, for example, in relating practices of electroplating that students can observe in their immediate school environment, perhaps in a nearby blacksmith workshop and the topic of electroplating in a chemistry class. The second bridge has longer span, tucked deep in the cultural orientation of learners. This cultural bridge links indigenous knowledge and cultural practices that are related to a STEM concept. The effect of the two bridges is likened to a catalyst accelerating the formation of neural networks which are evidentiary that learning has taken place.

The two bridges of context (ecology) and culture work in a similar manner to the neurotransmitter- acetylcholine in the transmission of nervous impulse from one neuron to another, a process that is implicated in the mechanism of learning. Acetylcholine acts at various sites within the central nervous system where it can function as a neurotransmitter and as a neuromodulator. It plays a role in motivation, arousal, attention, learning, and memory.

In a series of additional experiments within the framework of the ecocultural theory, two elements- technology and humour were inserted into the intervention equation. The aggregated findings of these studies led Okebukola (2015a) to derive the eco-techno cultural theory. This theory sees learning as product of the effect of activation energies from four sources. Like its precursor, the ecocultural theory, where two bridges link context and culture to concept formation, the eco-techno cultural theory, extends the bridging to four activation energies which ensure that the links by the bridges are speedily established and are longer lasting. Activation energies lower the rate of reactions which bring about learning of a (STEM) concept. They foster the formation of neural networks which are indicative that learning has occurred. Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices are ecocultural determinants which immerse the learner in a world where belief systems and cultural practices are drivers of learning. Human beings as social animals, have their behaviours changed as a consequence of interacting with significant others in a cultural setting.