QUT Digital Repository:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Ashton-Hay, Sally (2006) Constructivism and Powerful Learning Environments:

Create Your Own! In: 9th International English Language Teaching Convention
"The Fusion of Theory and Practice", May 3-5, 2006, Middle Eastern Technical
University - Ankara, Turkey. ( Unpublished )

© Copyright 2006 Sally Ashton-Hay

 Constructivism and Powerful Learning Environments:
Create Your Own!

S. Ashton-Hay
Senior English Language Fellow, Selcuk University

Paper presented at the 9th International English Language Teaching Convention

The Fusion of Theory and Practice
Middle Eastern Technical University – Ankara, Turkey
3 -5 May 2006

Introduction
Recent educational reforms have been gaining increasing attention across
Europe, particularly for the creation of powerful learning environments
(Buchberger, 2001; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Lesgold, 2004; Palincsar &
Herrenkohl, 2002; Van Petegem, De Loght, & Shortridge, 2003) based on
constructivist educational theory. Most of these innovations are responses to
raising educational standards and creating more engaged, active learners.
Powerful learning environments aim to improve the quality of learning
experiences by creating more active, student-centered classrooms in schools
and universities, particularly through the use of technology. The notion of
‘powerful’ is emphasized in contrast to ‘weak’ learning environments where
students are mainly required to digest or memorize facts. This constitutes
contrasting views of education depending on whether students are required to
respond, engage and participate in their learning experiences or remain passive
and inactive as in more traditional behaviorist learning situations. Such
contrasting views of education are one of the reasons for the increased interest
in what powerful learning environments have to offer and what they mean in
terms of educational reform.

1
As widespread educational reforms have become a goal for European society
and other countries, the subsequent demand for English education is also
increasing. Many students and professionals from other nations often perceived
as racially and culturally distinct are seeking a faster learning experience in
English, through English and for English (Hoosain & Salili, 2005; Kubota & Lin,
2006). Their purposes may vary from gaining economic advantage to the
prestige of international qualifications and employment to the completion of
postgraduate research and study with prospects of eventual benefit to their
homeland, or simply for a brief cultural exchange in an English-speaking country.
Educators are challenged to provide more effective ways of learning in order to
meet the needs of increasing numbers of English language learners in
classrooms today. The challenge has led to an expansion of non-traditional
teaching approaches such as powerful learning environments in the search for
accelerated learning. This paper will explore some of the characteristics of
constructivism and powerful learning environments, highlight some recent
educational innovations underpinned by social constructivism, discuss some
factors inhibiting active learning and suggest ways for teachers to use active
collaborative learning in order to create more powerful learning environments in
their own individual teaching contexts.

What is Constructivism?
Although there are many forms of constructivism from radical constructivism to
social constructivism, this paper will focus briefly on the theory of social
constructivism that informs communicative language teaching rather than other
forms of more radical constructivism (Schwandt, 1998). Simons (1997) claims
that all learning is active in a certain sense, but some kinds of learning are more
active than others. In this way, constructivism is a philosophical approach to
knowledge that argues that knowledge is socially constructed rather than having
its own independent existence (Nunan, 1999). Learners construct their own
knowledge by building knowledge structures based on situations they encounter
and problems they solve that are connected to knowledge brought by the learner

2
to the learning situation (Lesgold, 2004). Thus, human beings do not find or
discover knowledge as much as they construct or create it. Children don’t get
ideas, they make ideas, Kafai and Resnick (1996) remind us.

Vygotsky is often credited for developing ideas of social constructivism with his
zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997). In the zone of
proximal development, Vygotsky gave importance to the developing or ripening
functions rather than the ripe functions, or skills that children could already
perform. Vygotsky (1997, p. 188) said, “What the child can do in cooperation
today he can do alone tomorrow.” He believed the keys to the constructive
principles of higher mental functions are through mediated activity, such as the
role of psychological tools and interpersonal relations. Interpersonal relations, as
one of the keys, takes place through collaboration and dialogic action with others
in solving problems, producing a product or discussing a subject. Psychological
tools, as the second key, were considered artificial formations, semiotic in nature
and could be represented by gestures, language sign systems, mnemonic
techniques and/or decision-making systems such as throwing a dice (Vygotsky,
1997). Psychological tools could also incorporate simple activities such as note-
taking. Vygotsky considered these instruments as elements for the construction
of higher mental functions. Active learning incorporating interpersonal relations
and psychological tools thus may encourage the development of higher order
thinking skills.

More recent research on learning shows that the acquisition of knowledge, skills,
attitudes and beliefs is an active process (Brown, 2000; Gillies, 2003; Nunan,
1990). Learning is most effective and productive if it is goal-oriented, self-
regulated, occurs in interaction and collaboration with others and is based on
constructive processes of knowledge and skill acquisition (Buchberger, 2001).
With increasing recognition of the benefits of interactive and collaborative
learning, constructivism has influenced communicative language teaching by
emphasizing learner-centered teaching strategies and the importance of using

3
the language to communicate and make meaning (Hymes, 1971, 1972).
Communicative competence is the goal of communicative language teaching
because learners are able to use the language effectively to make meaning
rather than just learning grammatical forms and stock phrases by rote. While
memorization can be useful in learning, the point of communicative competence
is to use the language meaningfully in contextualized sociocultural activities.

These ideas have impacted education and educational reforms in several ways.
First, the notion of language as an external body of grammatical structures or
lexical items has changed particularly through communicative language teaching
approaches which focus on making meaning in the language. Hymes (1971,
1972) developed the notion of communicative competence, or knowing when and
how to say what to whom. The advent of communicative language teaching
approaches in education and language teaching in particular, has had far-
reaching effects in the past decades by encouraging learners to speak and use
the language to make meaning. Secondly, learning is increasingly seen as an
important goal for European Union society to develop more active, critical
thinkers and self regulated citizens as a means of enhancing human resource
capacity (Kinzer, 2001; Niemi, 2002) and developing economic progress through
democratic, innovative leaders (Kalantzis & Cope, 2005; Satyal, 2005).
Globalisation and the increasing popularity of the English language are causing a
surge in English teaching as an international enterprise and also in the sheer
diversity of learners filling classrooms. As a result, innovative strategies for
teaching and learning are expanding in the search for inclusive educational
experiences. Thus, the experiential approach through communicative language
teaching informed by constructivist principles and educational innovations based
on constructivist philosophy has begun to impact educational reforms.

Powerful learning environments are novel and not common in the literature. Their
history encompasses at least ten years although there is no single definition for
what comprises a powerful learning environment. So far, powerful learning

4
environments have been most frequently used with computer technology and
created with the understanding that learning goes beyond current practice.
There is also the recognition that learning can happen in many different ways,
particularly when learners are more engaged and active. Although powerful
learning environments are usually linked with technology, researchers claim that
technology is not required. This presents a gap in the current literature and is
encouraging for educational contexts where technology is somewhat limited.
Technology is not required in some recent research studies which demonstrate
the potential for powerful learning environments where active learners learn
better through communicative language teaching strategies.

Since constructivist principles underpin many innovations for a more experiential

and learning-centered education, the characteristics of powerful learning
environments will be discussed in relation to recent educational innovations. Six
of the primary characteristics of powerful learning environments have been
identified in recent studies: learning is active; learning is cumulative or building
upon the experiences the learner brings to the situation; learning is constructive
or additive; learning is goal-directed; learning is diagnostic to point up and/or
complete limitations; and learning is reflective. These traits are present
throughout each innovative study of powerful learning environments
(Buchberger, 2001; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Lesgold, 2004; Palincsar &
Herrenkohl, 2002; Van Petegem et al., 2003). Other characteristics are often
present but are not necessarily present all of the time. These include learning
that is discovery-oriented, contextual, problem-oriented, social and intrinsically
motivated.

Educational Reform in European Union: Powerful Learning Environments

One of the main distinctions of a powerful learning environment is that it differs
from traditional or weak learning environments where students are required to
digest or memorize facts. Such notions distinguish teaching and learning which
has a knowledge transmission view of education. Key differences between a

5
traditional behaviorist model and a more experiential and constructivist model of
education across a range of dimensions have been charted by Kohonen (1992).
In this scheme, a behaviorist model has a transmission view of knowledge
learning while experiential constructivists view learning as transformation of
knowledge. In the behaviorist model, Kohonen emphasizes the teacher’s
authority while the constructivist view is the teacher as a “learner among
learners” (Nunan, 1999; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002) in a less formal power
relation. The behaviorist teacher’s role provides mainly class-fronted instruction
with learners as passive recipients of information (Brown, 2000; Kohonen, 1992;
Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Nunan, 1999) while the constructivist model facilitates
learning usually in small groups (De Corte, Verschaffel, Entwistle, & van
Merrienboer, 2003; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002).

Knowledge is presented as “certain” in traditional behaviorist models while

experiential education emphasizes the construction of personal knowledge
(Buchberger, 2001; Gillies, 2003; Lesgold, 2004). In learning experiences,
behaviorists stress the knowledge of facts, concepts and skills with greater focus
on content and product. In comparison, social constructivist learning emphasizes
the process of learning, self-inquiry, as well as social and communicative skills
(Brown, 2000; Buchberger, 2001; De Corte et al., 2003; Gerjets & Hesse, 2005;
Lowyck, Lehtinen, & Elen, 2004). In traditional behaviorist models of learning, the
teacher structures learning while a constructivist approach places more
emphasis on the learner and self-directed learning. Thus with constructivist
thinking, the learner’s perceptions and experiences are the beginning of an active
learning process.

Recent EU documents stress the necessity of active learning (Buchberger,

2001; Buchberger, Campos, Kallos, & Stephenson, 2000; De Corte et al., 2003;
Gerjets & Hesse, 2005; Lowyck et al., 2004) with active learning principles in
powerful learning environments. These recent European Union educational
studies aim to encourage curricula with the potential for powerful learning

6
environments and more actively engaged learners. A closer look at the common
qualities of powerful learning environments may assist in distinguishing the
reasons why this educational reform is gaining more and more attention
throughout Europe.

The first characteristic of powerful learning environments is active learners.

Learners can be engaged in problem-solving, producing a product or discussing
a topic rather than only listening to a lecture or copying notes. Such activity is
likely to stimulate language use and meaning making in the target language.
Students are encouraged to interactively discuss, negotiate and participate using
the target language. The second quality involves recognition of prior learning or
the experiences that learners bring to a learning situation. Such experiences can
be activated through focus questions, sharing with peers or group discussion. By
linking prior learning with lesson topics, interest is stimulated and learning
becomes cumulative or additive, as in the third quality where skills are developed
and enhanced. In a similar way, Vygotsky’s (Buchberger, 2001; Gerjets & Hesse,
2005; Lesgold, 2004; Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002; Van Petegem et al., 2003;
Vygotsky, 1962, 1987, 1997) zone of proximal development emphasizes the
ripening skills of learners rather than the ripe, or developed, skills.

The fourth characteristic of powerful learning environments relates to a goal-

directed outcome of a learning experience. Students should be able to
understand a new topic or process better, produce a product such as a research
report, or present a seminar, for example. The steps toward the goal can be
made clear with feedback on the progress made, either from a teacher or other
significant adult, or from peers. Such steps with feedback can also provide
diagnostics to point out learner limitations or deficiencies. In this fifth
characteristic, learners become more aware of their own skill gaps and what
remedial action may be required through diagnostic response. All of these
characteristics combine to provide increased opportunities for reflection, the sixth
feature of powerful learning environments. Through reflection, students develop a

7
deeper understanding, cognitive and metacognitive awareness as well as
increased opportunities to develop their own skills and self efficacy through
collaboration with others.

Powerful learning environments are possible with technological applications as

well as by other means such as communicative language teaching strategies.
Some of the educational innovations to induce active and constructive learning
behavior include simulation environments (de Jong & van Jooligen, 1998).
Classroom simulation activities could include drama, role play, reader’s theatre,
and theatre sports. Another example is interactive dynamic visualizations
(Schnotz, 2002; Bodemer, Ploetzner, Feuerlein, and Spada, 2004) which use
strategies such as video games. Web-based collaborative inquiry environments
(Slotta & Linn, 2000) are another form of engaging learning and may use
strategies such as web quests as well as hypermedia learning environments
(Cunningham, Duffy & Knuth, 1993; McGuire, 1996; Lawless & Brown, 1997).
Powerful learning environments often include computer supported collaborative
learning (Lehtinen, 2003); web-based hypermedia; interactive animations;
simulations; interactive hyper videos; and collaborative environments for inquiry
learning (Gerjets & Hesse, 2005). Intelligent tutors (Aleven, 2004) and virtual
synthetic worlds and avatars (Dede, 1995) are other examples of these powerful
learning environment innovations which are often linked with technology.

Innovative Teaching Responses

Some innovative teaching responses are based on constructivist principles but
do not specifically require the use of technology. Reciprocal Teaching (RT)
(Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 2002) is one approach geared toward creating a
learning community through the social aspects of learning and the role that
interactions with others play in academic engagement. The emergence of social
constructivist learning is recognized despite the researchers’ acknowledgement
that facilitating productive peer learning remains a complex enterprise.
Reciprocal teaching was designed as “an educational intervention for students

8
who demonstrate significant disparities between their ability to decode and
comprehend text” (Palincscar & Herrenkohl 2002, p. 26). The rationale behind
RT is that students and teachers take turns to lead discussions about a shared
text. RT is based upon constructivism that creates a shared social world through
the social process of learning.

The researchers (Palincscar & Herrenkohl 2002, p. 31) found that “students who
participated in groups that were heterogeneous with regard to comprehension
ability attained competence more quickly than students in groups that were
homogenous.” Although such observations raise further questions regarding how
such positive collaboration occurs and how such collaboration actually influences
cognitive development, other researchers (King, 2002) believe that if group
interaction is at a high cognitive level characterized by the exchange of ideas,
information, perspectives, attitudes and opinions, then peer interaction influences
cognitive processing. Those researchers also indicate that without teacher
intervention to influence group interaction, higher levels of cognitive thinking may
not be achieved. This strategy demonstrates a commitment toward finding a
common ground and focuses on guiding students to use strategies that expert
readers use. The benefits are intervention for poor comprehension,
interdependence because everyone contributes, and interactive collaboration.

Other areas of innovation in constructivist teaching include cooperative learning

in small groups. Cooperative learning is becoming a widely practiced teaching
strategy to promote learning and socialization across a range of curriculum areas
(Gillies, 2003). Research studies have documented the benefits of greater
participation and socialization (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2003, 2004), higher
academic outcomes (Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz & Slavin, 1998; Fall & Webb,
2000; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Leikin & Zaslavsky, 1997 cited in Gillies, 2003)
and more positive interaction including cross-ethnic, cross-sex and learning
disability peer relationships (Sharan, 1990; Warring, Johnson, Maruyama &
Johnson, 1985; Putnam, Markovchick, Johnson & Johnson, 1996 cited in Gillies,

9
2003). Cooperative learning has also proven successful with delinquent youth by
aiding social communication skills, achievement and enhanced self-esteem
(Rutherford, Mathur & Quinn, 1998; Ragan, 1993 cited in Gillies, 2003). With
these remedial and inclusive educational benefits, researchers argue that
cooperative group work may be one of the most valuable teaching practices
because of so many positive and diverse outcomes (Johnson, Johnson &
Stanne, 2001).

Both of these innovative teaching responses demonstrate constructivist teaching

principles which underpin communicative language teaching and powerful
learning environments. Vygotsky (1962, 1987, 1997) emphasized the zone of
proximal development where learners enhance ripening skills through dialogic
action with peers and significant adults with opportunities for reflection. The
benefits gained from collaborative learning have been documented in many
studies yet such learning collaboration is still not widely employed by educators.
The next section will discuss some of the factors that inhibit active learning.

Factors Inhibiting Active Learning

While the benefits of collaborative and active learners can be discussed, there
are also many factors which inhibit active learning in education and relate to
students, teachers and other external factors. Educators could take notice and try
to minimize such conditions in their own situations. One of the foremost factors
that inhibit active learning is students who may rely too heavily on teachers and
think that learning is simply copying or memorizing whatever information is given
to them. In this way, students may take schooling for granted and not consider
the goals or purposes of their education. Such learners do not develop their
thinking skills sufficiently and may become dependent or defensive (Brown,
2000) learners rather than creative or original thinkers. Learners who are not
introduced to social learning also lack team skills which are vitally important in
the workforce today. Students who rely on traditional education may also fear
change and trying a new approach to learning, or worse yet, be fearful of failure.

10
Many students focus solely on examinations and memorizing information in order
to pass. Surface processing may often be the consequence of this kind of
education, resulting in a lack of regulation skills where students are not used to
freedom or responsibility, take little initiative, and lack original ideas or creative
thinking. The behaviorist type of learning process where teachers
“programmatically feed students quantities of information, which they
subsequently devour, may foster a climate of defensive learning in which
learners try to protect themselves from failure, from criticism, from competition
with fellow students, and possibly from punishment” (Brown 2000, p. 91).
Interactive contexts provide meaningful situations for communication where
students engage in combining and sharing knowledge together “in the process of
becoming ‘persons’” (Brown 2000, p. 91). These traits reflect a more active and
engaged learner who might contribute more productively to society in the future.

Teachers may also inhibit active learning in several ways. With a transmission
view of learning, a teacher may not get in touch with the prior knowledge of the
students. The teacher may not recognize the students’ prior learning or
experiences which they bring with them. The acquisition of skills and connecting
learning experiences to relevant contexts, employment, and/or real world
examples may be lacking or not apparent as relevant to students. The question
of motivation also looms large: how does teaching add to what grows naturally?

Finally, the fear of change is another factor which can inhibit active learning.
Some teachers may fear losing control of a class or be uncertain of how to
handle group situations. Nunan (1999, p. 5) claims humanistic psychology
argues that “in order for learning to take place, learners must reconstruct the
skills and knowledge for themselves; they cannot simply ‘receive’ these from
external sources.” Rogers’ humanistic psychology emphasized the social and
interactive nature of learning, as did Vygotsky, and learning how to learn rather
than placing a focus on teaching (Brown 2000). The learner became more central

11
to the learning process and notions of learning as self-discovery led to more
experiential learning where the learner’s personal experiences are taken as the
point of departure (Nunan, 1999). Other influences in humanistic psychology
such as Dewey’s progressive philosophy of education, Lewin’s social
psychology, Piaget’s model of developmental psychology, Kelly’s cognitive
theory of education, and the work of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers in the
field of humanistic psychology concur with learners becoming more central to
learning. Such an emphasis placed more importance on democratically
organized classrooms and a greater reliance on negotiation in language learning
(Eyring, 2001).

Besides students and teachers, several other factors inhibit active experiential
learning. One of the leading influences is the pressure from exams. Exam results
have the ability to change lives and consequently, are extremely important. Some
students have said that their entire life depends upon a one-hour exam. Besides
the emphasis on exams, there is often a lack of teaching materials for active
learning. Textbooks are sometimes not suited to active learning and teachers
frequently do not have the time or energy to develop completely new materials.
School organization and parental objections may cause further reticence toward
different experiential approaches to education. This may be particularly true if
there is an emphasis on the importance of exams.

Creating Powerful Learning Environments

Educators can apply the principles of constructivism and powerful learning
environments to create more active learners and more powerful, as opposed to
weak, learning environments in their own situations. Constructivist classrooms
encourage interactive learners, dialogic activities and active participation in
knowledge creation by engaging learners in communicative tasks. The learning
contexts are authentic with authentic activities, expert performances and models
are accessible, and diverse roles and perspectives are provided for students to
compare and contrast (Herrington & Oliver, 2000). Constructivist learning

12
environments support collaborative construction of knowledge, promote
articulation, reflection as well as scaffolding and coaching from a teacher to aid
development and understanding in active, supported learning. Through exposure
to such materials, experiences and situations, learners can inductively build and
increase their own knowledge.

Communicative language teaching incorporates these same characteristics.

There is an emphasis on the learner and the learning process is central. The
main aim of communicative language teaching is for the capacity of
communication (Breen, 1984; Breen & Candlin, 2001), for the learner to use the
language to create meaning and practice with the language so that familiarity and
fluency in use are the result. The aim is for the learner to apply and transfer the
language skills to other contexts of language use. In this way, communicative
language teaching underpinned by social constructivist principles, expands the
horizons of language learners, enables them to benefit from collaborative
practice, and builds on their existing knowledge to create meaning. With active
learners, cumulative and constructive goal-directed learning with diagnostic
feedback and opportunities for reflection, educators can create their own
powerful learning environments.

13
 References

Aleven, V., Ogan, A., Popescu, O., Tomey, C., & Koedinger, K. (2004).
Evaluating the effectiveness of a tutorial dialogue system for self-
explanation. Paper presented at the The 7th International ITS Conference,
Maceio, Alagoas, Brazil.
Breen, M. P. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C.
Brumfit (Ed.), General English Syllabus Design: Curriculum and Syllabus
Design for the General English Classroom. Oxford: British Council and
Pergamon Press.
Breen, M. P., & Candlin, C. (2001). The Essentials of a Communicative
Curriculum in Language Teaching. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.),
Innovation in English Language Teaching: A Reader (pp. 9-26). London:
Routledge.
Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (Fourth ed.).
White Plains: Pearson Education.
Buchberger, F. (2001). Active Learning in Powerful Learning Environments.
Retrieved 21/1/06, 2006, from http://www.pa-
linz.ac.at/team/homepage/BuchbergerF/01%20FB%20Activec.pdf
Buchberger, F., Campos, B. P., Kallos, D., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Green
Paper on Teacher Education in Europe. Umea, Sweden: Umea University.
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., & van Merrienboer, J. (2003).
Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling basic components and
dimensions. Elsevier Science.
Dede, C. (1995). The Evolution of Constructivist Learning Environements:
Immersion in Distributed, Virtual Worlds. Retrieved 21/1/06 from Google
Scholar, 2006, from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/ss_pdf/constr.pdf
de Jong, T., & van Jooligen, W. (1998). Learning with computer simulations of
conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202.
Eyring, J. L. (2001). Experiential and Negotiated Language Learning. In M. E.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.).
London: Heinle & Heinle.
Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2005). When are powerful learning environments
effective? The role of learner activities and of students' conceptions of
educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research,
41(6), 445-465.
Gillies, R. M. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), 35-49.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for
authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(3), 23-48.
Hoosain, R. E., & Salili, F. (2005). Language in Multicultural Education.
Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R.
Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and Methods.
London: Academic Press.

14
Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. P. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: overview
and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, pp.95-105.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative
groups: Social interdependence theory. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman
(Eds.), Cooperative Learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of
learning in groups (pp. 136 - 176). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing Students in Groups:
Promoting Group Responsibility and Individual Accountability. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Introduction. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick
(Eds.), Constructionism in Practice - Designing, thinking and learning in a
digital world (pp. 1-8). Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by Design. Melbourne: Victorian
Schools Innovation Commission.
King, A. (2002). Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote High-Level Cognitive
Processing. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 34.
Kinzer, S. (2001). Crescent & Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: Second language learning
as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative
Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to Concepts and
Theories. TESOL Quarterly, 40(3), 471-493.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Supported Collaborative Learning: An Approach to Powerful
Learning Environments. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle & J.
van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling
Basic Components and Dimensions (pp. 35-53). London: Pergamon.
Lesgold, A. (2004). Contextual requirements for constructivist learning.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 495-502.
Lowyck, J., Lehtinen, E., & Elen, J. (2004). Students' perspectives on learning
environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 401-
406.
Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning--a cultural change needed in teacher education
and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763-780.
Nunan, D. (1990). Action research in the language classroom. In J. Richards &
D. Nunan (Eds.), Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 62-81).
Cambridge: CUP.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Palincsar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing Collaborative Learning
Contexts. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 26.

15
Satyal, R. (2005). Education system of less developed countries needs
fundamental change. Retrieved August 2, 2005, 2005, from
http://www2.unesco.org/wef/Lconf_toc.htm
Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human
Inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of
Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Simons, P. (1997). Definitions and theories of active learning. In D. Stern & G.
Huber (Eds.), Active Learning for Students and Teachers (pp. 159-173).
Frankfurt: Lang.
Van Petegem, P., De Loght, T., & Shortridge, A. M. (2003). Powerful Learning Is
Interactive: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Retrieved 24/01/06, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-
jist/docs/vol7_no1/FullPapers/Powerful_learning.htm
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of Proximal Development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Mind in
Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 52-91).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1997). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge:
The MIT Press.

16