Constructivism
is a psychological theory of knowledge (epistemology)
[1] which argues that
humans generate knowledge and meaning from their experiences.
Constructivism is not a specific pedagogy, although it is often
confused with
Constructionism, an educational theory developed by Seymour
Papert. Piaget's theory of Constructivist learning has had wide
ranging impact on
learning theories and
teaching methods in
education and is an underlying theme of many
education reform movements. Research support for
constructivist teaching techniques has been mixed, with some
research supporting these techniques and other research
contradicting those results.
Formalization of the theory of constructivism is generally
attributed to
Jean Piaget, who articulated mechanisms by which knowledge
is internalized by learners. He suggested that through processes
of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new
knowledge from their experiences. When individuals assimilate,
they incorporate the new experience into an already existing
framework without changing that framework. This may occur when
individuals' experiences are aligned with their internal
representations of the world, but may also occur as a failure to
change a faulty understanding; for example, they may not notice
events, may misunderstand input from others, or may decide that
an event is a fluke and is therefore unimportant as information
about the world. In contrast, when individuals' experiences
contradict their internal representations, they may change their
perceptions of the experiences to fit their internal
representations. According to the theory, accommodation is the
process of reframing one's mental representation of the external
world to fit new experiences. Accommodation can be understood as
the mechanism by which failure leads to learning: when we act on
the expectation that the world operates in one way and it
violates our expectations, we often fail, but by accommodating
this new experience and reframing our model of the way the world
works, we learn from the experience of failure, or others'
failure.
It is
important to note that constructivism is not a particular
pedagogy. In fact, constructivism is a theory describing how
learning happens, regardless of whether learners are using their
experiences to understand a lecture or following the
instructions for building a model airplane. In both cases, the
theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct
knowledge out of their experiences. However, Constructivism is
often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote
active learning, or learning by doing.
Constructivist learning intervention
The nature of
the learner
The learner as a unique individual
Social
constructivism views each learner as a
unique individual with unique needs and backgrounds. The
learner is also seen as complex and multidimensional. Social
constructivism not only acknowledges the uniqueness and
complexity of the learner, but actually encourages, utilises and
rewards it as an integral part of the learning process (Wertsch
1997).
The importance of the background and culture of
the learner
Social
constructivism encourages the learner to arrive at his or her
version of the truth, influenced by his or her background,
culture or embedded
worldview. Historical developments and symbol systems, such
as language, logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by
the learner as a member of a particular culture and these are
learned throughout the learner's life. This also stresses the
importance of the nature of the learner's social interaction
with knowledgeable members of the society. Without the social
interaction with other more knowledgeable people, it is
impossible to acquire social meaning of important symbol systems
and learn how to utilize them. Young children develop their
thinking abilities by interacting with other children, adults
and the physical world. From the social constructivist
viewpoint, it is thus important to take into account the
background and culture of the learner throughout the learning
process, as this background also helps to shape the knowledge
and truth that the learner creates, discovers and attains in the
learning process (Wertsch 1997).
The responsibility for learning
Furthermore,
it is argued that the responsibility of learning should reside
increasingly with the learner (Von Glasersfeld 1989). Social
constructivism thus emphasizes the importance of the learner
being actively involved in the learning process, unlike previous
educational viewpoints where the responsibility rested with the
instructor to teach and where the learner played a
passive, receptive role. Von Glasersfeld (1989) emphasizes
that learners construct their own understanding and that they do
not simply mirror and reflect what they read. Learners look for
meaning and will try to find regularity and order in the events
of the world even in the absence of full or complete
information.
The
motivation for learning
Another
crucial assumption regarding the nature of the learner concerns
the level and source of motivation for learning. According to
Von Glasersfeld (1989) sustaining motivation to learn is
strongly dependent on the learner’s confidence in his or her
potential for learning. These feelings of competence and belief
in potential to solve new problems, are derived from first-hand
experience of mastery of problems in the past and are much more
powerful than any external acknowledgment and motivation (Prawat
and Floden 1994). This links up with
Vygotsky’s "zone
of proximal development" (Vygotsky 1978) where learners are
challenged within close proximity to, yet slightly above, their
current level of development. By experiencing the successful
completion of challenging tasks, learners gain confidence and
motivation to embark on more complex challenges.
The role of
the instructor
Instructors as facilitators
According to
the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to
the role of facilitators and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995).
Where a teacher gives a
didactic lecture which covers the subject matter, a
facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own
understanding of the content. In the former scenario the learner
plays a passive role and in the latter scenario the learner
plays an active role in the learning process. The emphasis thus
turns away from the instructor and the content, and towards the
learner (Gamoran, Secada, & Marrett, 1998). This dramatic change
of role implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally
different set of skills than a teacher (Brownstein 2001). A
teacher tells, a facilitator asks; a teacher lectures from the
front, a facilitator supports from the back; a teacher gives
answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides
guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive
at his or her own conclusions; a teacher mostly gives a
monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the
learners (Rhodes and Bellamy, 1999). A facilitator should also
be able to adapt the learning experience ‘in mid-air’ by using
his or her own initiative in order to steer the learning
experience to where the learners want to create value.
The learning
environment should also be designed to support and challenge the
learner's thinking (Di Vesta, 1987). While it is advocated to
give the learner ownership of the problem and solution process,
it is not the case that any activity or any solution is
adequate. The critical goal is to support the learner in
becoming an effective thinker. This can be achieved by assuming
multiple roles, such as consultant and coach.
According to
the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to
the role of facilitators and not teachers (Bauersfeld, 1995).
Where a teacher gives a
didactic lecture which covers the subject matter, a
facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her own
understanding of the content. In the former scenario the learner
plays a passive role and in the latter scenario the learner
plays an active role in the learning process. The emphasis thus
turns away from the instructor and the content, and towards the
learner (Gamoran, Secada, & Marrett, 1998). This dramatic change
of role implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally
different set of skills than a teacher (Brownstein 2001). A
teacher tells, a facilitator asks; a teacher lectures from the
front, a facilitator supports from the back; a teacher gives
answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides
guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to arrive
at his or her own conclusions; a teacher mostly gives a
monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the
learners (Rhodes and Bellamy, 1999). A facilitator should also
be able to adapt the learning experience ‘in mid-air’ by using
his or her own initiative in order to steer the learning
experience to where the learners want to create value.
The learning
environment should also be designed to support and challenge the
learner's thinking (Di Vesta, 1987). While it is advocated to
give the learner ownership of the problem and solution process,
it is not the case that any activity or any solution is
adequate. The critical goal is to support the learner in
becoming an effective thinker. This can be achieved by assuming
multiple roles, such as consultant and coach.
The nature of
the learning process
Learning is an active, social process
Social
constructivist scholars view learning as an active process where
learners should learn to discover principles, concepts and facts
for themselves, hence the importance of encouraging guesswork
and
intuitive thinking in learners (Brown et al.1989; Ackerman
1996). In fact, for the social constructivist, reality is not
something that we can discover because it does not pre-exist
prior to our social invention of it. Kukla (2000) argues that
reality is constructed by our own activities and that people,
together as members of a society, invent the properties of the
world.
Other
constructivist scholars agree with this and emphasize that
individuals make meanings through the interactions with each
other and with the environment they live in. Knowledge is thus a
product of humans and is socially and culturally constructed
(Ernest 1991; Prawat and Floden 1994). McMahon (1997) agrees
that learning is a social process. He further states that
learning is not a process that only takes place inside our
minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviours that is
shaped by external forces and that meaningful learning occurs
when individuals are engaged in social activities.
Vygotsky
(1978) also highlighted the convergence of the social and
practical elements in learning by saying that the most
significant moment in the course of intellectual development
occurs when speech and practical activity, two previously
completely independent lines of development, converge. Through
practical activity a child constructs meaning on an
intrapersonal level, while speech connects this meaning with the
interpersonal world shared by the child and her/his culture.
Dynamic interaction between task, instructor and learner
A further
characteristic of the role of the facilitator in the social
constructivist viewpoint, is that the instructor and the
learners are equally involved in learning from each other as
well (Holt and Willard-Holt 2000). This means that the learning
experience is both subjective and objective and requires that
the instructor’s culture, values and background become an
essential part of the interplay between learners and tasks in
the shaping of meaning. Learners compare their version of the
truth with that of the instructor and fellow learners in order
to get to a new, socially tested version of truth (Kukla 2000).
The task or problem is thus the interface between the instructor
and the learner (McMahon 1997). This creates a dynamic
interaction between task, instructor and learner. This entails
that learners and instructors should develop an awareness of
each other's viewpoints and then look to own beliefs, standards
and values, thus being both subjective and objective at the same
time (Savery 1994).
Some studies
argue for the importance of mentoring in the process of learning
(Archee and Duin 1995; Brown et al. 1989). The social
constructivist model thus emphasizes the importance of the
relationship between the student and the instructor in the
learning process.
Some
learning approaches that could harbour this interactive learning
include reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration,
cognitive apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, web
quests, anchored instruction and other approaches that involve
learning with others.
Collaboration among learners
Learners
with different skills and backgrounds should collaborate in
tasks and discussions in order to arrive at a shared
understanding of the truth in a specific field (Duffy and
Jonassen 1992).
Most social
constructivist models, such as that proposed by Duffy and
Jonassen (1992), also stress the need for collaboration among
learners, in direct contradiction to traditional competitive
approaches. One Vygotskian notion that has significant
implications for peer collaboration, is that of the
zone of proximal development. Defined 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, it differs from the fixed
biological nature of
Piaget's stages of development. Through a process of
'scaffolding' a learner can be extended beyond the limitations
of physical maturation to the extent that the development
process lags behind the learning process (Vygotsky 1978).
Learning by teaching (LdL) as constructivist method
Main
article:
Learning by teaching
If students have to present and train new contents with their
classmates, a non-linear process of collective
knowledge-construction will be set up.
The importance of context
The social
constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning
occurs as central to the learning itself (McMahon 1997).
Underlying
the notion of the learner as an active processor is "the
assumption that there is no one set of generalised learning laws
with each law applying to all domains" (Di Vesta 1987:208).
Decontextualised knowledge does not give us the skills to
apply our understandings to authentic tasks because, as Duffy
and Jonassen (1992) indicated, we are not working with the
concept in the complex environment and experiencing the complex
interrelationships in that environment that determine how and
when the concept is used. One social constructivist notion is
that of authentic or situated learning, where the student takes
part in activities which are directly relevant to the
application of learning and which take place within a culture
similar to the applied setting (Brown et al. 1989).
Cognitive apprenticeship has been proposed as an effective
constructivist model of learning which attempts to "enculturate
students into authentic practices through activity and social
interaction in a way similar to that evident, and evidently
successful, in craft apprenticeship" (Ackerman 1996:25).
Assessment
Holt and
Willard-Holt (2000) emphasize the concept of dynamic assessment,
which is a way of assessing the true potential of learners that
differs significantly from conventional tests. Here the
essentially interactive nature of learning is extended to the
process of assessment. Rather than viewing assessment as a
process carried out by one person, such as an instructor, it is
seen as a two-way process involving interaction between both
instructor and learner. The role of the assessor becomes one of
entering into dialogue with the persons being assessed to find
out their current level of performance on any task and sharing
with them possible ways in which that performance might be
improved on a subsequent occasion. Thus, assessment and learning
are seen as inextricably linked and not separate processes (Holt
and Willard-Holt 2000).
According to
this viewpoint instructors should see assessment as a continuous
and interactive process that measures the achievement of the
learner, the quality of the learning experience and courseware.
The feedback created by the assessment process serves as a
direct foundation for further development.
-
The
selection, scope and sequencing of the subject matter
-
Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole
Knowledge
should not be divided into different subjects or compartments,
but should be discovered as an
integrated whole (McMahon 1997; Di Vesta 1987).
This also
again underlines the importance of the context in which learning
is presented (Brown et al. 1989). The world, in which the
learner needs to operate, does not approach one in the form of
different subjects, but as a complex myriad of facts, problems,
dimensions and perceptions (Ackerman 1996).
Engaging and challenging the learner
Learners
should constantly be challenged with tasks that refer to skills
and knowledge just beyond their current level of mastery. This
will capture their motivation and build on previous successes in
order to enhance the confidence of the learner (Brownstein
2001). This is in line with Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development which can be described 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) (Vygotsky
1978).
Vygotsky
(1978) further claimed that instruction is good only when it
proceeds ahead of development. Then it awakens and rouses to
life an entire set of functions which are in the stage of
maturing, which lie in the zone of proximal development. It is
in this way that instruction plays an extremely important role
in development.
In order to
fully engage and challenge the learner, the task and the
learning environment should reflect the complexity of the
environment that the learner should be able to function in at
the end of learning. Learners must not only have
ownership of the learning or problem-solving process, but of
the problem itself (Derry 1999).
Where the
sequencing of subject matter is concerned, it is the
constructivist viewpoint that the foundations of any subject may
be taught to anybody at any stage in some form (Duffy and
Jonassen 1992). This means that instructors should first
introduce the basic ideas that give life and form to any topic
or subject area, and then revisit and build upon these
repeatedly. This notion has been extensively used in curricula.
It is also
important for instructors to realize that although a curriculum
may be set down for them, it inevitably becomes shaped by them
into something personal which reflects their own belief systems,
their thoughts and feelings about both the content of their
instruction and their learners (Rhodes and Bellamy 1999). Thus,
the learning experience becomes a shared enterprise. The
emotions and
life contexts of those involved in the learning process must
therefore be considered as an integral part of learning. The
goal of the learner is central in considering what is learned
(Brown et al. 1989; Ackerman 1996).
The structuredness of the learning process
It is
important to achieve the right balance between the degree of
structure and flexibility that is built into the learning
process. Savery (1994) contends that the more structured the
learning environment, the harder it is for the learners to
construct meaning based on their conceptual understandings. A
facilitator should structure the learning experience just enough
to make sure that the students get clear guidance and parameters
within which to achieve the learning objectives, yet the
learning experience should be open and free enough to allow for
the learners to discover, enjoy, interact and arrive at their
own, socially verified version of truth.
Pedagogies based on constructivism
In fact,
there are many pedagogies that leverage constructivist theory.
Most approaches that have grown from constructivism suggest that
learning is accomplished best using a hands-on approach.
Learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what
will happen. They are left to make their own
inferences, discoveries and conclusions. It also emphasizes
that learning is not an "all or nothing" process but that
students learn the new information that is presented to them by
building upon knowledge that they already possess. It is
therefore important that teachers constantly assess the
knowledge their students have gained to make sure that the
students' perceptions of the new knowledge are what the teacher
had intended. Teachers will find that since the students build
upon already existing knowledge, when they are called upon to
retrieve the new information, they may make errors. It is known
as reconstruction error when we fill in the gaps of our
understanding with logical, though incorrect, thoughts. Teachers
need to catch and try to correct these errors, though it is
inevitable that some reconstruction error will continue to occur
because of our innate retrieval limitations.
In most
pedagogies based on constructivism, the teacher's role is not
only to observe and assess but to also engage with the students
while they are completing activities, wondering aloud and posing
questions to the students for promotion of
reasoning (DeVries et al., 2002). (ex: I wonder why the
water does not spill over the edge of the full cup?) Teachers
also intervene when there are conflicts that arise; however,
they simply facilitate the students' resolutions and
self-regulation, with an emphasis on the conflict being the
students' and that they must figure things out for themselves.
For example, promotion of literacy is accomplished by
integrating the need to read and write throughout individual
activities within print-rich classrooms. The teacher, after
reading a story, encourages the students to write or draw
stories of their own, or by having the students reenact a story
that they may know well, both activities encourage the students
to conceive themselves as reader and writers.
Specific approaches to education that are based on
constructivism include:
Constructionism
An approach
to learning developed by
Seymour Papert and his colleagues at MIT in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Papert had worked with Piaget at the latter's
Institute in Geneva. Papert eventually called his approach "constructionism."
It included everything associated with Piaget's constructivism,
but went beyond it to assert that constructivist learning
happens especially well when people are engaged in constructing
a product, something external to themselves such as a sand
castle, a machine, a computer program or a book. This approach
is greatly facilitated by the ready availability of powerful
'constructing' applications on personal computers. Promoters of
the use of computers in education see an increasing need for
students to develop skills in
Multimedia literacy in order to use these tools in
constructivist learning.
-
Reciprocal Learning (each one teach one)
-
Procedural Facilitations for Writing
-
Cognitive Tutors
-
Cognitively Guided Instruction
A research
and teacher professional development program in elementary
mathematics created by Thomas P. Carpenter, Elizabeth Fennema,
and their colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Its
major premise is that teachers can use students' informal
strategies (i.e., strategies students construct based on their
understanding of everyday situations, such as losing marbles or
picking flowers) as a primary basis for teaching mathematics in
the elementary grades.
-
Anchored
Instruction (Bransford et al)
-
Problems
and approaches to solutions are embedded in a narrative
environment.
-
Cognitive Apprenticeship (Collins et al)
-
Learning
is achieved by integration into a specific implicit and
explicit culture of knowledge.
-
Cognitive Flexibility (Sprio et al)
Constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2007), a
constructivist approach to curriculum design, in which the
learning activities spelled out in the intended learning
outcomes are built into the teaching methods and assessment
tasks.
Pragmatic Constructivism (Müller, Klaus 2001)
The silent way, a constructivist approach to foreign
language teaching and learning developed by
Caleb Gattegno who worked with Piaget before WWII and in the
late 1940s.
Research and
evidence supporting constructivism
Hmelo-Silver,
Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of
the constructivist
problem-based and inquiry learning methods. For example,
they describe a project called GenScope, an
inquiry-based science software application. Students using
the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control
groups, with the largest gains shown in students from basic
courses.
[2]
Hmelo-Silver
et al also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of
inquiry-based science for middle school students, as
demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized
tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students
and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found that
inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement
gap for African-American students.[2]
Guthrie et
al (2004) compared three instructional methods for third-grade
reading: a traditional approach, a strategies instruction only
approach, and an approach with strategies instruction and
constructivist motivation techniques including student choices,
collaboration, and hands-on activities. The constructivist
approach, called CORI (Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction),
resulted in better student reading comprehension, cognitive
strategies, and motivation.[3]
Jong Suk Kim
found that using constructivist teaching methods for 6th graders
resulted in better student achievement than traditional teaching
methods. This study also found that students preferred
constructivist methods over traditional ones. However, Kim did
not find any difference in student self-concept or learning
strategies between those taught by constructivist or traditional
methods.[4]
Doğru and
Kalender compared science classrooms using traditional
teacher-centered approaches to those using student-centered,
constructivist methods. In their initial test of student
performance immediately following the lessons, they found no
significant difference between traditional and constructivist
methods. However, in the follow-up assessment 15 days later,
students who learned through constructivist methods showed
better retention of knowledge than those who learned through
traditional methods.[5]
