Constructivism (philosophy of education): Difference between revisions
Revert to revision 1208396520 dated 2024-02-17 09:50:33 by Grimes2 using popups |
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Page numbers needed}} |
||
(41 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge; theory of knowledge}} |
{{Short description|Philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge; theory of knowledge}} |
||
{{Other uses|Constructivism (disambiguation){{!}}Constructivism}} |
{{Other uses|Constructivism (disambiguation){{!}}Constructivism}} |
||
{{ |
{{More citations needed|date=December 2023}} |
||
{{More citations needed|date = December 2023}} |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2024}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2024}} |
||
[[File:Jean Piaget.jpg|thumb|[[Jean Piaget]] constructed the [[theory of cognitive development]] which describes how children represent and reason about the world.<ref |
[[File:Jean Piaget.jpg|thumb|[[Jean Piaget]] constructed the [[theory of cognitive development]], which describes how children represent and reason about the world.<ref>{{cite book |last1=White |first1=Fiona Ann |last2=Hayes |first2=Brett Kenneth |last3=Livesey |first3=David James |date=2016 |title=Developmental Psychology: From Infancy to Adulthood |edition=4th |location=Melbourne, Vic. |publisher=[[Pearson Education|Pearson Australia]] |isbn=9781486018277 |oclc=904034548}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bjorklund|first=David F.|date=1 November 2018|title=A Metatheory for Cognitive Development (or "Piaget is Dead" Revisited)|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/cdev.13019|journal=Child Development|language=en|volume=89|issue=6|pages=2288–2302|doi=10.1111/cdev.13019|pmid=29336015|via=|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082708/https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.13019|url-status=live}}</ref>]] |
||
'''Constructivism''' is a |
'''Constructivism''' in education is a theory that suggests that [[learner]]s do not passively acquire [[knowledge]] through [[direct instruction]]. Instead, they ''construct'' their understanding through experiences and social interaction, integrating new [[information]] with their existing knowledge. This theory originates from [[Switzerland|Swiss]] developmental psychologist [[Jean Piaget]]'s [[Piaget's theory of cognitive development|theory of cognitive development]]. |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
Constructivism in education |
Constructivism in education is rooted in [[epistemology]], a theory of knowledge concerned with the logical categories of knowledge and its justification.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Steffe|first1=Leslie P.|title=Constructivism in Education|last2=Gale|first2=Jerry|date=2012|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-47608-2|location=Oxon}}</ref> It acknowledges that learners bring prior knowledge and experiences shaped by their social and cultural environment and that learning is a process of students "constructing" knowledge based on their experiences. While Behaviorism focuses on understanding what students are doing, constructivism emphasizes the importance of understanding what students are thinking and how to enrich their thinking.<ref name="educational psychology">Seifert, Kelvin & Sutton, Rosemary. ''[http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Educational-Psychology.pdf Educational Psychology: Second Edition] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829003228/https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Educational-Psychology.pdf |date=29 August 2017 }}''. Global Text Project, 2009, pp. 33–37.</ref> |
||
Constructivism |
Constructivism in [[educational psychology]] can be attributed to the work of [[Jean Piaget]] (1896–1980) and his [[Piaget's theory of cognitive development|theory of cognitive development]]. Piaget's focus was on how humans make meaning by integrating experiences with ideas, emphasizing human development as distinct from external influences<ref>Piaget, J., ''Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge'' (New York: Grossman, 1971).</ref> Another influential figure, [[Lev Vygotsky]] (1896–1934), emphasized the importance of sociocultural learning in his theory of social constructivism, highlighting how interactions with adults, peers, and cognitive tools contribute to the formation of mental constructs. |
||
Building upon Vygotsky's work, [[Jerome Bruner]] and other [[educational psychologist]]s introduced the concept of [[instructional scaffolding]], where the learning environment provides support that is gradually removed as learners internalize the knowledge.<ref name="educational psychology"/> |
|||
Views more focused on human development |
Views more focused on human development within the social sphere include the sociocultural or socio-historical perspective of Lev Vygotsky and the [[situated cognition]] perspectives of [[Mikhail Bakhtin]], [[Jean Lave]], and [[Étienne Wenger|Etienne Wenger]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation|last1=Lave|first1=Jean|last2=Wenger|first2=Etienne|date=27 September 1991|publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-42374-8}}{{Page needed|date=January 2018}}</ref> Additionally, the works of Brown, Collins, and Duguid,<ref name=":2">{{cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=J.S. |last2=Collins |first2=A. |last3=Duguid |first3=P. |year=1989 |title=Situated cognition and the culture of learning |url=https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/oa-edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203990247-34&type=chapterpdf |journal=Educational Researcher |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=32–42 |doi=10.3102/0013189x018001032 |hdl=2142/17979 |s2cid=9824073 |hdl-access=free }}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> as well as Newman, Griffin, Cole,<ref>{{cite book|title=The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School |last1=Newman |first1=Denis |last2=Griffin |first2=Peg |last3=Cole|first3=Michael|date=28 April 1989|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-38942-6}}{{Page needed|date=January 2018}}</ref> and [[Barbara Rogoff]].<ref>{{cite book|title=Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context|last=Rogoff|first=Barbara|date=1990|publisher=Oxford University Press}}{{Page needed|date=January 2018}}</ref> |
||
The [[concept]] of constructivism has |
The [[concept]] of constructivism has impacted a number of disciplines, including [[psychology]], [[sociology]], [[education]], and the [[history of science]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Eddy|first1=Matthew Daniel|title=Fallible or Inerrant? A Belated review of the "Constructivist Bible"|journal=British Journal for the History of Science|date=2004|volume=37|pages=93–8|doi=10.1017/s0007087403005338|s2cid=141028650|url=https://www.academia.edu/3426767|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082647/https://www.academia.edu/3426767|url-status=live}}</ref> In its early stages, constructivism focused on the relationship between human experiences and their reflexes or behavior patterns. Piaget referred to these systems of knowledge "schemes." |
||
Piaget's theory of constructivist learning has significantly influenced [[learning theory (education)|learning theories]] and [[teaching method]]s in education. It serves as a foundational concept in [[education reform]] movements within cognitive science and neuroscience.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carey |first1=Susan |last2=Zaitchik |first2=Deborah |last3=Bascandziev |first3=Igor |date=1 December 2015 |title=Theories of development: In dialog with Jean Piaget |journal=Developmental Review |volume=38 |pages=36–54 |doi=10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.003 |issn=0273-2297|doi-access=free }}</ref> |
|||
Schemes are not to be confused with [[Schema (psychology)|''schemata (schemas)'']], a term that comes from [[Schema (psychology)|schema theory]], which is from [[Information processing (psychology)|information-processing]] perspectives on human [[cognition]]. Whereas Piaget's schemes are content-free, schemata (the plural of schema) are [[concept]]s; for example, most humans have a schema for "[[Grandparent|grandmother]]", "[[egg]]", or "[[magnet]]." |
|||
Constructivism does not refer to a specific [[pedagogy]], although it is often confused with [[Constructionist learning|constructionism]], an [[Educational sciences|educational theory]] developed by [[Seymour Papert]], inspired by constructivist and [[experiential learning]] ideas of Piaget. |
|||
Piaget's theory of constructivist learning has had wide-ranging impact on [[learning theory (education)|learning theories]] and [[teaching method]]s in education, and is an underlying theme of [[education reform]] movements in cognitive science and neuroscience.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carey |first1=Susan |last2=Zaitchik |first2=Deborah |last3=Bascandziev |first3=Igor |date=1 December 2015 |title=Theories of development: In dialog with Jean Piaget |journal=Developmental Review |volume=38 |pages=36–54 |doi=10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.003 |issn=0273-2297|doi-access=free }}</ref> |
|||
==History== |
|||
{{Further|constructivist epistemology}} |
|||
Earlier [[educational philosophies]] did not place much value on what would become constructivist ideas; children's [[Play (activity)|play]] and [[exploration]] were seen as aimless and of little importance.{{Citation needed |date=November 2016}} Jean Piaget did not agree with these traditional views; he saw play as an important and necessary part of the student's [[cognitive development]] and provided [[scientific evidence]] for his views. Today, constructivist theories are influential throughout the formal and informal learning sectors. In [[museum education]], constructivist theories inform [[exhibit design]]. One good example of constructivist learning in a non-formal setting is the Investigate Centre at [[Natural History Museum, London|The Natural History Museum, London]].{{citation needed|date=October 2015}} Here visitors are encouraged to explore a collection of real [[natural history]] specimens, to practice some scientific skills and make discoveries for themselves. Writers who influenced constructivism include: |
|||
*[[John Dewey]] (1859–1952) |
|||
*[[Maria Montessori]] (1870–1952) |
|||
*[[Władysław Strzemiński]] (1893–1952) |
|||
*[[Jean Piaget]] (1896–1980) |
|||
*[[Lev Vygotsky]] (1896–1934) |
|||
*[[Heinz von Foerster]] (1911–2002) |
|||
*[[George Kelly (psychologist)|George Kelly]] (1905–1967) |
|||
*[[Jerome Bruner]] (1915–2016) |
|||
*[[Herbert A. Simon|Herbert Simon]] (1916–2001) |
|||
*[[Paul Watzlawick]] (1921–2007) |
|||
*[[Ernst von Glasersfeld]] (1917–2010) |
|||
*[[Edgar Morin]] (born 1921) |
|||
*[[Humberto Maturana]] (1928–2021) |
|||
*[[Paulo Freire]] (1921–1997) |
|||
==Overview== |
==Overview== |
||
The formalization of constructivism from a within-the-human perspective is commonly credited to [[Jean Piaget]]. Piaget described the mechanisms by which [[information]] from the environment and ideas from the individual interact to form internalized structures developed by learners. He identified processes of ''assimilation'' and ''accommodation'' as crucial in this interaction, as individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences. |
|||
The formalization of constructivism from a within-the-human perspective is generally attributed to Jean Piaget, who articulated mechanisms by which [[information]] from the environment and ideas from the individual interact and result in internalized structures developed by learners. He identified processes of ''assimilation'' and ''accommodation'' that are key in this interaction as individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences. |
|||
When individuals ''assimilate'' new information, they incorporate it 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 [[Coincidence|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. |
|||
When individuals ''assimilate'' new information, they integrate it into their existing framework without altering that framework. This can happen when their experiences align with their internal view of the world, but it can also occur if they fail to update a flawed understanding. ''Accommodation'' is the process of adjusting one's mental representation of the external world to fit new experiences. It can be understood as the mechanism by which failure leads to learning. |
|||
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 specific pedagogy, but rather a theory explaining how learning occurs, regardless of the learning environment. However, constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote [[active learning]], or learning by doing. While there is much enthusiasm for constructivism as a [[Strategic design|design strategy]], some experts believe that it is more of a philosophical framework than a theory that can precisely describe instruction or prescribe design strategies.<ref name="Tobias, S. 2009">{{cite book |last1=Tobias |first1=S. |title=Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? |last2=Duffy |first2=T. M. |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2009 |isbn=9780415994231 |location=New York}}</ref>{{Rp|4}} |
|||
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 aircraft|model airplane]]. In both cases, the theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct knowledge out of their experiences. |
|||
==Constructivist pedagogy== |
|||
However, constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote [[active learning]], or learning by doing. There are many critics of "learning by doing" (a.k.a. "[[discovery learning]]") as an instructional strategy (e.g. see the criticisms below).<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006">{{cite journal|last1=Kirschner|first1=P. A.|last2=Sweller|first2=J.|last3=Clark|first3=R. E.|year=2006|title=Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching|journal=[[Educational Psychologist (academic journal)|Educational Psychologist]]|volume=41|issue=2|pages=75–86|doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1|hdl=1820/8951|s2cid=17067829|url=https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/f52dc05c-2fdf-4ec6-888a-1ffa9af85100|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082733/https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/why-minimal-guidance-during-instruction-does-not-work-an-analysis|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Tobias, S. 2009">{{cite book |last1=Tobias |first1=S. |last2=Duffy |first2=T. M. |year=2009 |title=Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? |location=New York |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=9780415994231 }}</ref> While there is much enthusiasm for constructivism as a [[Strategic design|design strategy]], according to Tobias and Duffy "... to us it would appear that constructivism remains more of a philosophical framework than a theory that either allows us to precisely describe instruction or prescribe design strategies."<ref name="Tobias, S. 2009"/>{{Rp|4}} |
|||
===Nature of the learner=== |
|||
[[Social constructivism]] recognizes and embraces the individuality and complexity of each learner, actively encouraging and rewarding it as a vital component of the learning process.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|title=Vygotsky and the social formation of mind|last=Wertsch|first=James V.|date=1997|publisher=Harvard Univ. Press|location=Cambridge, Mass.|oclc=489891986}}</ref> |
|||
====Background and culture==== |
|||
==Constructivist Pedagogy== |
|||
Social constructivism, also known as socioculturalism, emphasizes the role of an individual's background, [[culture]], and [[worldview]] in shaping their understanding of truth. According to this theory, learners inherit historical developments and symbol systems from their culture and continue to learn and develop these throughout their lives. This approach highlights the significance of a learner's [[social interactions]] with knowledgeable members of society. It suggests that without such interactions, it is challenging to grasp the social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to effectively use them. Social constructivism also points out that young children develop their thinking abilities through interactions with peers, adults, and the physical world. Therefore, it is essential to consider the learner's background and culture throughout the learning process, as these factors help shape the knowledge and truth that the learner acquires.<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
===The nature of the learner=== |
|||
[[Social constructivism]] not only acknowledges the [[uniqueness]] and complexity of the learner, but actually encourages, utilizes and rewards it as an integral part of the learning process.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|title=Vygotsky and the social formation of mind|last=Wertsch|first=James V.|date=1997|publisher=Harvard Univ. Press|location=Cambridge, Mass.|oclc=489891986}}</ref> |
|||
==== |
==== Motivation and responsibility for learning ==== |
||
Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of the student 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) emphasized 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.<ref name=":1">{{cite book|title=Constructivism in Science Education|last=Von Glasersfeld|first=Ernst|date=1998|publisher=Springer, Dordrecht|isbn=978-0-7923-4924-2|pages=11–30|chapter=Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching|chapter-url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294754.pdf|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=16 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516193107/http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294754.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
Social constructivisms or socioculturalism encourage the learner or learners to arrive at their version of the [[truth]], influenced by their background, [[culture]] or embedded [[worldview]]. [[History|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 relation|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.<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
When considering students' learning, it is essential to take into account their [[motivation]] and confidence. According to Von Glasersfeld, a student's motivation to learn is strongly influenced by their belief in their potential for learning<ref name=":1" /> This belief is shaped by their past experiences of successfully mastering problems, which is more influential than external acknowledgment and motivation'''.'''<ref name="prawat1994">{{cite journal|last1=Prawat|first1=Richard S.|last2=Floden|first2=Robert E.|date=1 January 1994|title=Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243777968|journal=Educational Psychologist|volume=29|issue=1|pages=37–48|doi=10.1207/s15326985ep2901_4|issn=0046-1520|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082711/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243777968_Philosophical_perspectives_on_constructivist_views_of_learning|url-status=live}}</ref> This idea aligns with [[Lev Vygotsky|Vygotsky]]'s concept of the "[[zone of proximal development]]," where students are challenged at a level slightly above their current development. By successfully completing challenging tasks, students build confidence and motivation to take on even more complex challenges.<ref name="vygotsky1978">{{cite book|title=Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes|last1=Vygotsky|first1=L. S.|last2=Cole|first2=Michael|date=1978|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-57629-2|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/mindinsocietydev00vygo}}</ref> |
|||
====Responsibility for learning==== |
|||
Furthermore, it is argued that the responsibility of learning should reside increasingly with the student. [[Social constructivism]] thus emphasizes the importance of the student 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) emphasized 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.<ref name=":1">{{cite book|title=Constructivism in Science Education|last=Von Glasersfeld|first=Ernst|date=1998|publisher=Springer, Dordrecht|isbn=978-0-7923-4924-2|pages=11–30|chapter=Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching|chapter-url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294754.pdf|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=16 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516193107/http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED294754.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
According to a study on the impact that COVID-19 had on the learning process in Australian University students, a student's motivation and confidence depends on [[self-determination theory]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ryan |first1=Richard M. |last2=Deci |first2=Edward L. |date=2000 |title=Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 |journal=American Psychologist |language=en |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=68–78 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 |pmid=11392867 |issn=1935-990X}}</ref> This theory requires support from the educational environment to fulfill three basic needs to achieve growth, including autonomy, relatedness, and competency.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Eckley |first1=Darrell |last2=Allen |first2=Andrew |last3=Millear |first3=Prudence |last4=Rune |first4=Karina Tirsvad |date=February 2023 |title=COVID-19's impact on learning processes in Australian university students |journal=Social Psychology of Education |language=en |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=161–189 |doi=10.1007/s11218-022-09739-x |issn=1381-2890 |pmc=9668712 |pmid=36415584}}</ref> During the historical event of COVID-19, the basic needs were hindered in some way, along with environments that were meant to foster education and growth, which was hindered through the change from traditional in-person classes to online classes that left students with significantly less opportunities for social interactive and active learning opportunities. |
|||
====The motivation for learning==== |
|||
Another crucial assumption regarding the nature of the student concerns the level and source of [[motivation]] for learning. According to Von Glasersfeld, sustaining motivation to learn is strongly dependent on the student's [[confidence]] of potential for learning.<ref name=":1" /> These feelings of competence and belief in potential to solve new [[Problem solving|problems]], are derived from first-hand experience of mastery of problems in the past and are much more important than any external acknowledgment and motivation.<ref name=prawat1994>{{cite journal|last1=Prawat|first1=Richard S.|last2=Floden|first2=Robert E.|date=1 January 1994|title=Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243777968|journal=Educational Psychologist|volume=29|issue=1|pages=37–48|doi=10.1207/s15326985ep2901_4|issn=0046-1520|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082711/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243777968_Philosophical_perspectives_on_constructivist_views_of_learning|url-status=live}}</ref> This links up with [[Vygotsky]]'s "[[zone of proximal development]]" where students are challenged in close proximity to, yet slightly above, their current level of development. By experiencing the successful completion of challenging tasks, students gain confidence and motivation to embark on more complex challenges.<ref name=vygotsky1978>{{cite book|title=Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes|last1=Vygotsky|first1=L. S.|last2=Cole|first2=Michael|date=1978|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-57629-2|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/mindinsocietydev00vygo}}</ref> |
|||
=== |
===Role of the instructor=== |
||
==== Instructors as facilitators ==== |
==== Instructors as facilitators ==== |
||
According to the social constructivist approach, instructors |
According to the social constructivist approach, instructors are expected to adapt to the role of [[facilitator]]s rather than traditional [[teacher]]s.<ref>{{cite book | last=Bauersfeld | first=H. | chapter='Language games' in the mathematics classroom: Their function and their effects | editor-last=Cobb | editor-first=Paul | editor-last2=Bauersfeld | editor-first2=H. | title=The emergence of mathematical meaning: interaction in classroom cultures | publisher=L. Erlbaum Associates | publication-place=Hillsdale, N.J. | date=1995 | isbn=0-8058-1728-X | oclc=31436489 | page=}}</ref> While a teacher gives a [[Didacticism|didactic]] lecture that covers the subject matter, a facilitator assists the student in developing their own understanding of the content. This shift in roles places the focus on the student's active involvement in the learning process, as opposed to the instructor and the content itself.<ref>{{cite book|title=Handbook of the Sociology of Education|last1=Gamoran|first1=Adam|last2=Secada|first2=Walter G.|last3=Marrett|first3=Cora B.|date=2000|publisher=Springer, Boston, MA|isbn=978-0-387-32517-0|editor-last=Hallinan|editor-first=M.T.|series=Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research|pages=37–63|chapter=The Organizational Context of Teaching and Learning|chapter-url=http://content.schweitzer-online.de/enwiki/static/catalog_manager/live/media_files/representation/zd_std_orig__zd_schw_orig/001/428/476/9780387325170_content_pdf_2.pdf|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=31 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180131081103/http://content.schweitzer-online.de/enwiki/static/catalog_manager/live/media_files/representation/zd_std_orig__zd_schw_orig/001/428/476/9780387325170_content_pdf_2.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> |
||
As a result, a facilitator requires a different set of [[skill]]s compared to a teacher.<ref name="browstein2001">{{cite journal|last=Brownstein|first=Bonnie|date=22 December 2001|title=Collaboration: the foundation of learning in the future|journal=Education|volume=122|issue=2}}</ref> For instance, a teacher imparts information, whereas a facilitator encourages questions; a teacher leads from the front, while a facilitator provides support from the background; and a teacher delivers answers based on a set [[curriculum]], whereas a facilitator offers guidance and creates an environment for the learner to form their own conclusions. Furthermore, a teacher typically engages in a monologue, whereas a facilitator maintains an ongoing dialogue with the learners.<ref name="rhodes1999">{{cite journal|last1=Rhodes|first1=Lynn K.|last2=Bellamy|first2=G. Thomas|date=1 January 1999|title=Choices and Consequences in the Renewal of Teacher Education|journal=Journal of Teacher Education|volume=50|issue=1|pages=17–26|doi=10.1177/002248719905000103|s2cid=143182193|issn=0022-4871}}</ref> |
|||
The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the student's thinking.<ref name=divesta1987>{{cite book|title=Historical Foundations of Educational Psychology|last=Di Vesta|first=Francis J.|date=1987|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-4899-3622-6|series=Perspectives on Individual Differences|location=Boston|pages=203–233|chapter=The Cognitive Movement and Education|doi=10.1007/978-1-4899-3620-2_11}}</ref> While it is advocated to give the student 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 student in becoming an effective [[Thought|thinker]]. This can be achieved by assuming multiple roles, such as [[consultant]] and [[Coaching|coach]]. |
|||
Additionally, a facilitator should be able to dynamically adapt the learning experience by taking the lead in guiding the experience to align with the learners' interests and needs in order to create value. |
|||
The learning environment should be created in a way that both supports and challenges the student's thinking<ref name="divesta1987">{{cite book|title=Historical Foundations of Educational Psychology|last=Di Vesta|first=Francis J.|date=1987|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-4899-3622-6|series=Perspectives on Individual Differences|location=Boston|pages=203–233|chapter=The Cognitive Movement and Education|doi=10.1007/978-1-4899-3620-2_11}}</ref> While it is advocated to give the student ownership of the problem and solution process, it is not the case that any and all activities or solutions are adequate. The critical goal is to support the student in developing effective thinking skills. |
|||
==== Relationship between instructor and students ==== |
==== Relationship between instructor and students ==== |
||
In the social constructivist viewpoint, the role of the facilitator involves both the instructor and the students being actively engaged in learning from each other.<ref name=":5">{{cite journal|last1=Holt|first1=Dan G.|last2=Willard-Holt|first2=Colleen|date=1 November 2000|title=Let's Get Real™: Students Solving Authentic Corporate Problems|journal=Phi Delta Kappan|volume=82|issue=3|pages=243–246|doi=10.1177/003172170008200315|s2cid=143466659|issn=0031-7217}}</ref> This dynamic interaction requires that the instructor's culture, [[Value (ethics and social sciences)|values]], and background play a significant part in shaping the learning experience. Students compare their own thoughts with those of the instructor and their peers, leading to the development of a new, socially validated understanding of the subject matter.<ref name=":4" /> The task or problem serves as the interface between the instructor and the student, creating a dynamic interaction. As a result, both students and instructors need to develop an awareness of each other's viewpoints and consider their own beliefs, standards, and values, making the learning experience both subjective and objective at the same time.<ref name=":6">{{cite journal|last=Savery|first=Lawson K.|date=1 June 1994|title=The Influence of the Perceived Styles of Leadership on a Group of Workers on their Attitudes to Work|journal=Leadership & Organization Development Journal|volume=15|issue=4|pages=12–18|doi=10.1108/01437739410059863|issn=0143-7739}}</ref> |
|||
Several studies highlight the significance of [[Mentorship|mentoring]] in the learning process.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{cite conference|last1=Archee|first1=Ray|last2=Hill Duin|first2=DA|date=1995|title=The World Wide Web and Distance Education: Congergenece or Cacophony?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jZiM77RkNBMC&pg=PA348|conference=AUUG Conference Proceedings|publisher=AUUG, Inc.|pages=348–356|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082711/https://books.google.com/books?id=jZiM77RkNBMC&pg=PA348|url-status=live}}</ref> The social constructivist model underscores the importance of the relationship between the student and the instructor in facilitating learning. |
|||
Interactive learning can be facilitated through various approaches such as [[reciprocal teaching]], peer collaboration, [[cognitive apprenticeship]], problem-based instruction, [[Anchored Instruction]], and other methods that involve collaborative learning. |
|||
=== Learning is an active process === |
=== Learning is an active process === |
||
Social constructivism, strongly influenced by Vygotsky's |
Social constructivism, which is strongly influenced by Vygotsky's work, proposes that knowledge is initially built within a [[Social environment|social setting]] and is then taken in by individuals.<ref>{{cite book|title=Cognitive Psychology and Instruction|last1=Bruning|first1=Roger H.|last2=Schraw|first2=Gregory J.|last3=Ronning|first3=Royce R.|date=1999|publisher=Prentice-Hall, Inc|isbn=978-0-13-716606-0|edition=3rd}}</ref> According to social constructivists, the act of sharing individual viewpoints, known as ''collaborative elaboration'', leads to learners jointly constructing understanding that would not be achievable on their own.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Meter|first1=Peggy Van|last2=Stevens|first2=Robert J.|date=1 January 2000|title=The Role of Theory in the Study of Peer Collaboration|journal=The Journal of Experimental Education|volume=69|issue=1|pages=113–127|doi=10.1080/00220970009600652|s2cid=143292199|issn=0022-0973}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Greeno|first1=James G|last2=Collins|first2=Allan M|last3=Resnick|first3=Lauren B|date=1996|title=Cognition and learning|journal=Handbook of Educational Psychology|volume=77|pages=15–46}}</ref> |
||
Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process |
Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process in which students are encouraged to discover [[principle]]s, [[concept]]s, and facts independently. Therefore, it is crucial to promote speculation and [[Intuition|intuitive thinking]] in students.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal|last=Ackerman|first=Phillip L.|date=1 March 1996|title=A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge|journal=Intelligence|volume=22|issue=2|pages=227–257|doi=10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1|issn=0160-2896}}</ref> |
||
According to other constructivist scholars, individuals create meanings through their interactions with each other and the environment they inhabit.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hsu|first=Liwei|date=2013|title=English as a foreign language learners' perception of mobile assisted language learning: a cross-national study|journal=Computer Assisted Language Learning|publisher=Taylor & Francis online |volume=26 |issue=3|pages=197–213|doi=10.1080/09588221.2011.649485|s2cid=62711257}}</ref> Knowledge is created by people and is shaped by social and cultural influences.<ref name="prawat1994" /><ref>{{cite book | last=Ernest | first=Paul | title=The philosophy of mathematics education | publisher=Falmer Press | publication-place=London | date=1991 | isbn=0-203-22423-X | oclc=52100009 | page=}}</ref> McMahon (1997) also emphasizes the social nature of learning, stating that it is not solely a mental process or a result of external factors shaping behavior. Instead, meaningful learning occurs when individuals participate in social activities.<ref name=":4">{{cite conference |last=McMahon |first=M. |date= December 1997 |title=Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web – A Paradigm for Learning |conference=Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education 1997 conference |volume=327 |place=Perth}}</ref> |
|||
Vygotsky (1978) |
According to Vygotsky (1978), an important aspect of [[Cognitive development|intellectual development]] is the convergence of [[speech]] and practical activity. He emphasized that as children engage in practical activities, they construct meaning on an individual level, and through speech, they connect this meaning to their culture and the interpersonal world they share with others.<ref name="vygotsky1978" /> |
||
====Collaboration among learners==== |
====Collaboration among learners==== |
||
{{main|Learning by teaching}} |
{{main|Learning by teaching}} |
||
Learners with different skills and backgrounds should collaborate in tasks and discussions to arrive at a shared understanding of the truth in a specific field.<ref name=":7">{{cite book|title=Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation|date=1992|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates|isbn=978-0-8058-1272-5|editor-last=Duffy|editor-first=Thomas|location=Hillsdale, New Jersey|editor-last2=Jonassen}}{{Page needed|date=February 2018}}</ref> |
|||
Another tenet of social constructivism is that collaboration among individuals with diverse skills and backgrounds is essential for developing a comprehensive understanding of a particular subject or field.<ref name=":7">{{cite book|title=Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation|date=1992|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates|isbn=978-0-8058-1272-5|editor-last=Duffy|editor-first=Thomas|location=Hillsdale, New Jersey|editor-last2=Jonassen}}{{Page needed|date=February 2018}}</ref> |
|||
Some social constructivist models also stress the need for collaboration among learners, in direct contradiction to traditional competitive approaches.<ref name=":7" /> 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 [[Child development stages|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 [[Theory of cognitive development|Piaget's stages of development]]. Through a process of '[[Instructional scaffolding|scaffolding]]' a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation to the extent that the development process lags behind the learning process.<ref name="vygotsky1978" /> |
|||
In some social constructivist models, there is an emphasis on the importance of [[collaboration]] among learners, which contrasts with traditional competitive approaches. One concept from Vygotsky that is particularly relevant to peer collaboration is the [[zone of proximal development]]. This is defined as the gap between a learner's actual developmental level, determined by independent problem-solving, and the level of potential development, determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. It differs from Piaget's fixed biological stages of development. Through a process called "[[Instructional scaffolding|scaffolding]]," a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation, allowing the development process to catch up to the learning process.<ref name="vygotsky1978" /> |
|||
If students have to present and train new contents with their classmates, a [[Nonlinear system|non-linear]] process of collective knowledge-construction will be set up. |
|||
When students present and teach new material to their peers, it fosters a non-linear process of collective knowledge construction. |
|||
====The importance of context==== |
|||
The social constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning occurs as central to the learning itself.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
====Importance of context==== |
|||
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".<ref name=divesta1987 />{{rp|208}} [[Contextualism|Decontextualised]] knowledge does not give us the skills to apply our understandings to authentic tasks because 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.<ref name=":7" /> One social constructivist notion is that of authentic or [[situated learning]], where the student takes part in activities directly relevant to the application of learning and that take place within a culture similar to the applied setting.<ref name=":2" /> [[Cognitive apprenticeship]] has been proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning that 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".<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|25}} |
|||
The social constructivist paradigm emphasizes that the environment in which learning takes place plays a crucial role in the learning process.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
The concept of the learner as an active processor is based on the idea that there are no universal learning laws that apply to all domains.<ref name="divesta1987" />{{rp|208}} When individuals possess decontextualized knowledge, they may struggle to apply their understanding to real-world tasks. This is due to the lack of engagement with the concept in its complex, real-world environment, as well as the absence of experience with the intricate interrelationships that influence the application of the concept.<ref name=":7" /> |
|||
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.<ref name=":5" /> |
|||
One concept within social constructivism is authentic or [[situated learning]], which involves students participating in activities directly related to the practical application of their learning within a culture similar to the real-world setting. [[Cognitive apprenticeship]] is a suggested effective model of constructivist learning that aims to immerse students in authentic practices through activity and social interaction, similar to the successful methods used in craft apprenticeship.<sup>[</sup><ref name=":3" />{{Rp|25}} |
|||
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 [[Educational software|courseware]]. The feedback created by the assessment process serves as a direct foundation for further development. |
|||
Holt and Willard-Holt (2000) highlight the concept of [[dynamic assessment]], which offers a distinct approach to evaluating learners compared to traditional tests. Dynamic assessment extends the interactive nature of learning to the assessment process, emphasizing interaction between the assessor and the learner. It involves a dialogue between the assessor and the learner to understand the current performance level on a task and explore ways to improve future performance. This approach views assessment and learning as interconnected processes, rather than separate entities.<ref name=":5" /> |
|||
===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.<ref name=divesta1987 /><ref name=":4" /> |
|||
According to this viewpoint, instructors should approach assessment as an ongoing and interactive process that evaluates the learner's achievements, the quality of the learning experience, and course materials. The feedback generated by the assessment process is crucial for driving further development. |
|||
This also again underlines the importance of the context in which learning is presented.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
===Selection, scope, and sequencing of subject matter=== |
|||
The organization of knowledge should prioritize integration over division into separate subjects or compartments.<ref name="divesta1987" /><ref name=":4" /> This again emphasizes the significance of presenting learning within a specific context.<ref name=":2" /> The world in which learners operate is not divided into separate subjects but rather comprises a complex array of facts, problems, dimensions, and perceptions.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
==== Engaging and challenging the student ==== |
==== Engaging and challenging the student ==== |
||
Students benefit from being challenged with tasks that require them to apply skills and knowledge slightly beyond their current level of mastery. This approach can help to maintain their motivation and build on past achievements to boost their confidence.<ref name="browstein2001" /> This is in line with Vygotsky's [[zone of proximal development]], which refers to the gap between a person's current level of ability and their potential level of development under the guidance of adults or more capable peers.<ref name="vygotsky1978" /> |
|||
Vygotsky (1978) |
Vygotsky (1978) argued that effective instruction should be slightly ahead of a learner's current [[Child development|developmental stage]]. By doing so, instruction can stimulate the development of a range of functions that are in the learner's zone of proximal development. This highlights the crucial role of instruction in fostering development.<ref name="vygotsky1978" /> |
||
In order to effectively engage and challenge students, it is important that the tasks and learning environment mirror the complexity of the real-world environment in which the students are expected to operate upon completing their education. Students should not only take ownership of the learning and problem-solving process but also take ownership of the problems themselves.<ref>{{cite book | last=Derry | first=Sharon J. | chapter=A Fish Called Peer Learning: Searching for Common Themes | editor-last=O'Donnell | editor-first=Angela M. | editor-last2=King | editor-first2=Alison | title=Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning | publisher=Taylor and Francis | publication-place=Hoboken | date=2014 | isbn=978-1-4106-0371-5 | oclc=881162577 | page=}}</ref> |
|||
When it comes to organizing subject matter, the constructivist perspective suggests that the fundamental principles of any subject can be taught to anyone at any point, in some capacity.<ref name=":7" /> This approach entails introducing the foundational concepts that makeup topics or subject areas initially and then consistently revisiting and expanding on these ideas. |
|||
Instructors should recognize that while they are given a set curriculum to follow, they inevitably personalize it to reflect their own beliefs, thoughts, and emotions about the subject matter and their students. As a result, the learning experience becomes a collaborative effort, influenced by the emotions and life experiences of all involved. It's important to consider the student's motivation as central to the learning process.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /> |
|||
==== |
==== Structuredness of the learning process ==== |
||
Incorporating an appropriate balance between structure and flexibility into the learning process is essential. According to Savery (1994), a highly structured learning environment may pose challenges for learners in constructing meaning based on their existing conceptual understandings. A facilitator should strive to provide adequate structure to offer clear guidance and parameters for achieving learning objectives, while also allowing for an open and flexible learning experience that enables learners to discover, interact, and arrive at their own understanding of truth.<ref name=":6" /> |
|||
=== Teaching |
=== Teaching techniques === |
||
{{Main article|Constructivist teaching methods}} |
{{Main article|Constructivist teaching methods}} |
||
A few strategies for cooperative learning include: |
A few strategies for cooperative learning include: |
||
* Reciprocal |
* Reciprocal questioning: students work together to ask and answer questions |
||
*[[Jigsaw (teaching technique)|Jigsaw |
*[[Jigsaw (teaching technique)|Jigsaw]]: students become "experts" on one part of a group project and teach it to the others in their group |
||
* Structured |
* Structured controversies: Students work together to research a particular controversy<ref>{{cite book | last=Woolfolk | first=Anita | title=Educational psychology | edition=11th | publication-place=Upper Saddle River, N.J. | publisher=Merrill | date=2010 | isbn=978-0-13-714454-9 | oclc=268547518 | page=}}</ref> |
||
The "Harkness" discussion method is named after Edward Harkness, who funded its development at Phillips Exeter Academy in the 1930s. This method involves students sitting in a circle, guiding their own discussion. The teacher's role is minimized, with the students initiating, directing, and focusing the discussion. They work together as a team, sharing responsibility and goals. The ultimate aim is to illuminate the subject, interpret different viewpoints, and piece together a comprehensive understanding. Discussion skills are crucial, and every participant is expected to contribute to keeping the discussion engaging and productive.{{Citation needed|date=December 2023|reason=I will delete this section unless someone can provide a source. If a source is provided I will move it to the [[Constructivist teaching methods]] article}} |
|||
====The Harkness discussion method==== |
|||
It is called the "Harkness" discussion method because it was developed at [[Phillips Exeter Academy]] with funds donated in the 1930s by [[Edward Harkness]]. This is also named after the Harkness table and involves students seated in a circle, motivating and controlling their own discussion. The teacher acts as little as possible. Perhaps the teacher's only function is to observe, although they might begin or shift or even direct a discussion. The students get it rolling, direct it, and focus it. They act as a team, cooperatively, to make it work. They all participate, but not in a competitive way. Rather, they all share in the responsibility and the goals, much as any members share in any team sport. Although the goals of any discussion will change depending upon what's under discussion, some goals will always be the same: to illuminate the subject, to unravel its mysteries, to interpret and share and learn from other points of view, to piece together the puzzle using everyone's contribution. Discussion skills are important. Everyone must be aware of how to get this discussion rolling and keep it rolling and interesting. Just as in any [[sport]], a number of skills are necessary to work on and use at appropriate times. Everyone is expected to contribute by using these skills.{{Citation needed|date=December 2023|reason=I will delete this section unless someone can provide a source. If a source is provided I will move it to the [[Constructivist teaching methods]] article}} |
|||
==Pedagogies based on constructivism== |
|||
{{main|Constructivist teaching methods}} |
|||
Various approaches in pedagogy derive from constructivist theory. They usually suggest that learning is accomplished best using a hands-on approach. Learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what will happen, and are left to make their own [[inference]]s, discoveries and conclusions. |
|||
===In adult learning=== |
|||
Constructivist ideas have been used to inform [[adult education]]. Current trends in higher education push for more "active learning" teaching approaches which are often based on constructivist views.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}} |
|||
Approaches based on constructivism stress the importance of mechanisms for mutual planning, diagnosis of learner needs and interests, cooperative learning climate, sequential activities for achieving the objectives, formulation of [[Educational aims and objectives|learning objectives]] based on the diagnosed needs and interests. While adult learning often stresses the importance of personal relevance of the content, involvement of the learner in the process, and deeper understanding of underlying concepts, all of these are principles that may benefit learners of all ages as even children connect their every day experiences to what they learn.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}} |
|||
=== Supporting research and evidence=== |
|||
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist [[Problem-based learning|problem-based]] and inquiry learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an [[Inquiry-based learning|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.<ref name="hmelo">{{cite journal |url=http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf |title=Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) |last1=Hmelo-Silver |last2=Duncan |last3=Chinn |year=2007 |journal=Educational Psychologist |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=99–107 |doi=10.1080/00461520701263368 |s2cid=1360735 |access-date=27 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101223152831/http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf |archive-date=23 December 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
|||
Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of [[Inquiry-based learning|inquiry-based science]] for middle school students, as demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes [[standardized test]]s. 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 in the United States|achievement gap]] for [[African Americans|African-American]] students.<ref name="hmelo" /> |
|||
Guthrie et al. (2004) compared three instructional methods for [[Third grade|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.<ref name="Guthrie">{{cite journal |url=http://www.cori.umd.edu/research/publications/2004-guthrie-wigfield-etal.pdf |title=Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction |last=Guthrie |year=2004 |journal=[[Journal of Educational Psychology]] |volume=96 |issue=3 |pages=403–423 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403 |display-authors=etal |access-date=29 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060525225834/http://www.cori.umd.edu/research/publications/2004-guthrie-wigfield-etal.pdf |archive-date=25 May 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
|||
Jong Suk Kim found that using constructivist teaching methods for [[Sixth grade|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.<ref name="kim">{{cite journal |url=http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2a/5a/af.pdf |last=Kim |year=2005 |title=The Effects of a Constructivist Teaching Approach on Student Academic Achievement, Self-Concept, and Learning Strategies |journal=Asia Pacific Education Review |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=7–19 |doi=10.1007/bf03024963 |s2cid=13864166 |access-date=16 December 2007 |archive-date=6 March 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306105314/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2a/5a/af.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|||
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.<ref name="Doğru">{{cite journal |url=http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2d/77/67.pdf |last1=Doğru |last2=Kalender |year=2007 |title=Applying the Subject 'Cell' Through Constructivist Approach during Science Lessons and the Teacher's View |journal=Journal of Environmental & Science Education |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=3–13 |access-date=16 December 2007 |archive-date=6 March 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306105335/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/2d/77/67.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|||
== Criticism == |
== Criticism == |
||
Many [[Cognitive psychology|cognitive psychologists]] and educators{{Who|date=October 2024}} have raised concerns about the core principles of constructivism, arguing that these theories may be misleading or inconsistent with well-established findings.{{Clarify|date=October 2024}}<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006">{{cite journal |last1=Kirschner |first1=P. A. |last2=Sweller |first2=J. |last3=Clark |first3=R. E. |year=2006 |title=Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching |url=https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/f52dc05c-2fdf-4ec6-888a-1ffa9af85100 |url-status=live |journal=[[Educational Psychologist (academic journal)|Educational Psychologist]] |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=75–86 |doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 |s2cid=17067829 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082733/https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/why-minimal-guidance-during-instruction-does-not-work-an-analysis |archive-date=14 August 2021 |access-date=14 August 2021 |hdl=1820/8951}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Anderson | first1=John R. | last2=Reder | first2=Lynne M. | last3=Simon | first3=Herbert A. | title=Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology in mathematics education | date=1998 | url=http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html | access-date=4 February 2007 | archive-date=8 September 2011 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110908220818/http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/matthews.html Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091118172926/http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/matthews.html |date=18 November 2009 }}, Michael R. Matthews</ref><ref>[http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el199911_holloway.html Research Link / Caution: Constructivism Ahead] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060427051821/http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el199911_holloway.html |date=27 April 2006 }} Holloway, ''Educational Leadership, 57'' (3). November 1999.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Liu | first1=Charlotte Hua | last2=Matthews | first2=Robert | title=Vygotsky's Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined | journal=International Education Journal | volume=6 | issue=3 | date=9 July 2005 | issn=1443-1475 | pages=386–99 | url=https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.pdf |id={{ERIC|EJ854992}} | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210809085130/https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.pdf | archive-date=9 August 2021 | url-status=live }}</ref> |
|||
In the [[neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development]] it is maintained that learning at any age depends upon the processing and representational resources available at this particular age. That is, it is maintained that if the requirements of the concept to be understood exceeds the available processing efficiency and [[working memory]] resources then the concept is by definition not learnable. This attitude toward learning impedes the learning from understanding essential theoretical concepts or, in other words, reasoning.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Warmaudit31%205.pdf |title=Why We Don't Really Know What "Statistical Significance" Means: A Major Educational Failure* |author1=Raymond Hubbard |author2=J. Scott Armstrong |year=2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100620221122/http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Warmaudit31%205.pdf |archive-date=20 June 2010 }}</ref> Therefore, no matter how active a child is during learning, to learn the child must operate in a learning environment that meets the developmental and individual learning constraints that are characteristic for the child's age and this child's possible deviations from her age's norm. If this condition is not met, construction goes astray.<ref>Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, K. F. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), ''Life-span developmental psychology'' (pp. 179–269). London: Wiley.</ref><ref>Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., & Efklides, A. (1992). ''Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development'': ''Implications and applications to education''. London: Routledge</ref> |
|||
Several educators have also questioned the effectiveness of this approach toward instructional design, especially as it applies to the development of instruction for novices.<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /><ref name="Mayer" /> While some constructivists argue that "learning by doing" enhances learning, critics of this instructional strategy argue that little [[empirical evidence]] exists to support this statement given novice learners.<ref name= "Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /><ref name="Mayer" /> Sweller and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental models, or "schemas" necessary for "learning by doing".<ref name=":8">{{cite journal|last=Sweller|first=J|date=June 1988|title=Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning|journal=Cognitive Science|volume=12|issue=2|pages=257–285|doi=10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7|issn=0364-0213|doi-access=free}}</ref> Indeed, Mayer (2004) reviewed the literature and found that fifty years of empirical data do not support using the constructivist teaching technique of pure discovery; in those situations requiring discovery, he argues for the use of guided discovery instead.<ref name="Mayer" /> |
|||
Mayer (2004) argues that not all teaching techniques based on constructivism are efficient or effective for all learners, suggesting many educators misapply constructivism to use teaching techniques that require learners to be behaviorally active. He describes this inappropriate use of constructivism as the "constructivist teaching fallacy". "I refer to this interpretation as the constructivist teaching fallacy because it equates active learning with active teaching."<ref name="Mayer" />{{Rp|15}} Instead Mayer proposes learners should be "cognitively active" during learning and that instructors use "guided practice." |
|||
In contrast, Kirschner ''et al.'' (2006)<ref name= "Kirschner, P.A. 2006"/> describe constructivist teaching methods as "unguided methods of instruction." They suggest more structured learning activities for learners with little to no prior knowledge. Slezak states that constructivism "is an example of fashionable but thoroughly problematic doctrines that can have little benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher education."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Slezak|first=Peter|date=2010|title=Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite.|journal=Constructivist Foundations|volume=6|issue=1|issn=1782-348X}}</ref> Similar views have been stated by Meyer,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Meyer |first=D. L. |year=2009 |title=The Poverty of Constructivism |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=332–341 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00457.x |s2cid=144604333 }}</ref> Boden, Quale and others. |
|||
Kirschner ''et al.'' group a number of learning theories together (Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning) and stated that highly scaffolded constructivist methods like problem-based learning and inquiry learning are ineffective.<ref name= "Kirschner, P.A. 2006"/> Kirschner ''et al.'' described several [[Observational study|research studies]] that were favorable to problem-based learning given learners were provided some level of guidance and support.<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /> |
|||
===A rebuttal to the criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark=== |
|||
While there are critics of the Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark<ref name= "Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /> article, Sweller and his associates have written in their articles about: |
|||
#instructional designs for producing procedural learning (learning as behavior change);<ref name=":8" /> |
|||
#their grouping of seemingly disparate learning theories<ref name= "Kirschner, P.A. 2006"/> and; |
|||
#a continuum of guidance beginning with worked examples that may be followed by practice, or transitioned to practice<ref name=":9" /> (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002) |
|||
Kirschner ''et al.'' (2006) describe worked examples as an instructional design solution for procedural learning.<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /> Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller (2006) describe this as a very effective, empirically validated method of teaching learners procedural skill acquisition. Evidence for learning by studying worked-examples, is known as the [[worked-example effect]] and has been found to be useful in many domains (e.g. music, chess, athletics)<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Atkinson |first1=R. K. |last2=Derry |first2=S. J. |last3=Renkl |first3=A. |last4=Wortham |first4=D. W. |year=2000 |title=Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research |journal=Review of Educational Research |volume=70 |issue= 2|pages=181–214 |doi=10.3102/00346543070002181 |citeseerx=10.1.1.115.1348 |s2cid=2956761 }}</ref> concept mapping,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hilbert |first1=T. S. |last2=Renkl |first2=A. |year=2007 |title=Learning how to Learn by Concept Mapping: A Worked-Example Effect |journal=Paper Presentation at the 12th Biennial Conference EARLI 2007 in Budapest, Hungary }}</ref> geometry,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tarmizi |first1=R. A. |last2=Sweller |first2=J. |year=1988 |title=Guidance during mathematical problem solving |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |volume=80 |issue=4 |pages=424–436 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424 |hdl=1959.4/69310 |url=https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:70660/SOURCE01?view=true |access-date=14 August 2021 |archive-date=4 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201104210709/https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:70660/SOURCE01?view=true |url-status=live |hdl-access=free }}</ref> physics, mathematics, or programming.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gerjets |first1=P. |last2=Scheiter |first2=K. |last3=Catrambone |first3=R. |year=2004 |title=Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures |journal=Instructional Science |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=33–58 |doi=10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021809.10236.71 |s2cid=16755228 |url=https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197417/file/Gerjets-Peter-2004b.pdf |access-date=14 August 2021 |archive-date=27 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227232936/https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197417/file/Gerjets-Peter-2004b.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|||
Kirschner ''et al.'' (2006)<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006"/> describe why they group a series of seemingly disparate learning theories (Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning). The reasoning for this grouping is because each learning theory promotes the same constructivist teaching technique—"learning by doing." While they argue "learning by doing" is useful for more knowledgeable learners, they argue this teaching technique is not useful for novices. Mayer states that it promotes behavioral activity too early in the learning process, when learners should be cognitively active.<ref name="Mayer">{{cite journal |url=http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/MayerThreeStrikesAP04.pdf |last=Mayer |year=2004 |title=Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? |journal=American Psychologist |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=14–19 |doi=10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 |pmid=14736316 |citeseerx=10.1.1.372.2476 |s2cid=1129364 |access-date=29 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150215142158/http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/MayerThreeStrikesAP04.pdf |archive-date=15 February 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
|||
In addition, Sweller and his associates describe a continuum of guidance, starting with worked examples to slowly fade guidance. This continuum of faded guidance has been tested empirically to produce a series of learning effects: the worked-example effect,<ref name=sweller1985>{{cite journal |last1=Sweller |first1=J. |last2=Cooper |first2=G. A. |year=1985 |title=The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra |journal=Cognition and Instruction |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=59–89 |doi=10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 }}</ref> the guidance fading effect,<ref name=":10">{{cite journal |last1=Renkl |first1=A. |last2=Atkinson |first2=R. K. |last3=Maier |first3=U. H. |last4=Staley |first4=R. |year=2002 |title=From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning |journal=Journal of Experimental Education |volume=70 |issue=4 |pages=293–315 |doi=10.1080/00220970209599510 |citeseerx=10.1.1.464.2351 |s2cid=21032460 }}</ref> and the expertise-reversal effect.<ref name=":9">{{cite journal |last1=Kalyuga |first1=S. |last2=Ayres |first2=P. |last3=Chandler |first3=P. |last4=Sweller |first4=J. |year=2003 |title=The expertise reversal effect |journal=Educational Psychologist |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=23–31 |doi=10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 |s2cid=10519654 |url=http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/136 |access-date=14 August 2021 |archive-date=10 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151110051829/http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/136/ |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|||
===Criticism of discovery-based teaching techniques=== |
|||
{{Blockquote|After a half century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, there appears no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners. Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches. Not only is unguided instruction normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge|Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching by Kirschner, Sweller, Clark<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" />}} |
|||
Mayer (2004) argues against discovery-based teaching techniques and provides an extensive review to support this argument. Mayer's arguments are against pure discovery, and are not specifically aimed at constructivism: "Nothing in this article should be construed as arguing against the view of learning as knowledge construction or against using hands-on inquiry or group discussion that promotes the process of knowledge construction in learners. The main conclusion I draw from the three research literatures I have reviewed is that it would be a mistake to interpret the current constructivist view of learning as a rationale for reviving pure discovery as a method of instruction."<ref name="Mayer" /> |
|||
Mayer's concern is how one applies discovery-based teaching techniques. He provides empirical research as evidence that discovery-based teaching techniques are inadequate. Here he cites this literature and makes his point "For example, a recent replication is research showing that students learn to become better at solving [[mathematics]] problems when they study worked-out examples rather than when they solely engage in hands-on problem solving.<ref>{{cite book|title=Instructional Design in Technical Areas|last=Sweller|first=John|date=1999|publisher=ACER Press|isbn=978-0-86431-312-6|series=Australian education review|location=Camberwell}}</ref> Today's proponents of discovery methods, who claim to draw their support from constructivist philosophy, are making inroads into educational practice. Yet a dispassionate review of the relevant research literature shows that discovery-based practice is not as effective as guided discovery."<ref name="Mayer" />{{Rp|18}} |
|||
Mayer's point is that people often misuse constructivism to promote pure discovery-based teaching techniques. He proposes that the instructional design recommendations of constructivism are too often aimed at discovery-based practice.<ref name="Mayer" /> Sweller (1988) found evidence that practice by novices during early schema acquisition, distracts these learners with unnecessary search-based activity, when the learner's attention should be focused on understanding (acquiring schemas).<ref name=":8" /> |
|||
The study by Kirschner et al. from which the quote at the beginning of this section was taken has been widely cited and is important for showing the limits of minimally-guided instruction.<ref>{{Cite book | last = Nilson | first = Linda Burzotta | title = Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors | publisher = John Wiley and Sons | year = 2010 | location = San Francisco | pages = 176 | isbn = 9780470401040}}</ref> Hmelo-Silver et al. responded,<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Hmelo-Silver | first = Cindy E. |author2=Ravit Golan Duncan |author3=Clark A. Chinn | s2cid = 1360735 | title = Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) | journal = Educational Psychologist | volume = 42 | issue = 2 | pages = 99–107 | year = 2007 | doi=10.1080/00461520701263368}}</ref> pointing out that Kirschner et al. conflated constructivist teaching techniques such as inquiry learning with "[[discovery learning]]". (See the preceding two [[Constructivism (learning theory)#Criticism|sections]] of this article.) This would agree with Mayer's viewpoint that even though constructivism as a theory and teaching techniques incorporating guidance are likely valid applications of this theory, nevertheless a tradition of misunderstanding has led to some question "pure discovery" techniques. |
|||
===The math wars and discovery-based teaching techniques=== |
|||
{{main|Math Wars}} |
|||
The [[math wars]] controversy in the United States is an example of the type of heated [[debate]] that sometimes follows the implementation of constructivist-inspired curricula in schools. In the 1990s, mathematics textbooks based on new [[National Council of Teachers of Mathematics#1989 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics|standards]] largely informed by constructivism were developed and promoted with government support. Although constructivist theory does not require eliminating instruction entirely, some textbooks seemed to recommend this extreme. Some parents and mathematicians protested the design of textbooks that omitted or de-emphasized instruction of standard mathematical methods. Supporters responded that the methods were to be eventually discovered under direction by the teacher, but since this was missing or unclear, many insisted the textbooks were designed to deliberately eliminate instruction of standard methods. In one commonly adopted text, the standard formula for the area of a circle is to be derived in the classroom, but not actually printed in the student textbook as is explained by the developers of [[Connected Mathematics|CMP]]: "The student role of formulating, representing, clarifying, communicating, and reflecting on ideas leads to an increase in learning. If the format of the texts included many worked examples, the student role would then become merely reproducing these examples with small modifications."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://connectedmath.msu.edu/parents/faq.html#q15 |title=CMP2 Parent Website FAQ |access-date=8 January 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090622080110/http://connectedmath.msu.edu/parents/faq.html#q15 |archive-date=22 June 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
|||
Similarly, this approach has been applied to reading with [[whole language]] and inquiry-based science that emphasizes the importance of ''devising'' rather than just performing hands-on experiments as early as the [[Primary education|elementary grades]] (traditionally done by research scientists), rather than studying facts. In other areas of curriculum such as [[social studies]] and [[writing]] are relying more on "higher order thinking skills" rather than memorization of dates, [[grammar]] or [[spelling]] rules or reciting correct answers. Advocates of this approach counter that the constructivism does not require going to extremes, that in fact teachable moments should regularly infuse the experience with the more traditional teaching. The primary differentiation from the traditional approach being that the engagement of the students in their learning makes them more receptive to learning things at an appropriate time, rather than on a preset schedule. |
|||
===Importance of structure in constructivist learning environments=== |
|||
In [[neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development]], it is proposed that learning is influenced by the processing and representational resources available at a particular age. This implies that if the demands of a concept to be learned exceed the available processing efficiency and [[working memory]] resources, then the concept is considered unlearnable. This approach to learning can impact the understanding of essential theoretical concepts and reasoning. Therefore, for effective learning to occur, a child must operate in an environment that aligns with their developmental and individual learning constraints, taking into account any deviations from the norm for their age. If this condition is not met, the learning process may not progress as intended.<ref>Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, K. F. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), ''Life-span developmental psychology'' (pp. 179–269). London: Wiley.</ref><ref>Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., & Efklides, A. (1992). ''Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development'': ''Implications and applications to education''. London: Routledge</ref> |
|||
During the 1990s, several theorists began to study the [[cognitive load]] of novices (those with little or no prior knowledge of the subject matter) during problem solving. Cognitive load theory was applied in several contexts.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Paas|first=Fred G.|date=1992|title=Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach.|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=84|issue=4|pages=429–434|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429|issn=1939-2176}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Moreno|first1=Roxana|last2=Mayer|first2=Richard E.|date=1999|title=Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity.|url=http://visuallearningresearch.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/Moreno%20%26%20Mayer%201999.pdf|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=91|issue=2|pages=358–368|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358|issn=0022-0663|citeseerx=10.1.1.458.4719|access-date=13 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809223719/http://visuallearningresearch.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/Moreno%20%26%20Mayer%201999.pdf|archive-date=9 August 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Mousavi|first1=Seyed Yaghoub|last2=Low|first2=Renae|last3=Sweller|first3=John|date=1995|title=Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes.|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=87|issue=2|pages=319–334|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319|issn=0022-0663|citeseerx=10.1.1.471.2089}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chandler|first1=Paul|last2=Sweller|first2=John|s2cid=40723362|date=June 1992|title=The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction|journal=British Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=62|issue=2|pages=233–246|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x|issn=0007-0998}}</ref><ref name=sweller1985 /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cooper|first1=Graham|last2=Sweller|first2=John|date=1987|title=Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=79|issue=4|pages=347–362|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347|issn=0022-0663}}</ref> Based on the results of their research, these authors do not support the idea of allowing novices to interact with ill-structured learning environments. Ill-structured learning environments rely on the learner to discover problem solutions. Jonassen (1997) also suggested that novices be taught with "well-structured" learning environments.<ref name=":11">{{cite journal|last=Jonassen|first=David H.|date=March 1997|title=Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes|journal=Educational Technology Research and Development|volume=45|issue=1|pages=65–94|doi=10.1007/BF02299613|s2cid=18701133|issn=1042-1629}}</ref> |
|||
Many educators have raised concerns about the effectiveness of this approach to [[instructional design]], particularly when it comes to creating instruction for beginners. While some proponents of constructivism claim that "learning by doing" improves learning, critics argue that there is insufficient empirical evidence to support this assertion, especially for novice learners.<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /><ref name="Mayer">{{cite journal |last=Mayer |year=2004 |title=Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? |url=http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/MayerThreeStrikesAP04.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=American Psychologist |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=14–19 |citeseerx=10.1.1.372.2476 |doi=10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 |pmid=14736316 |s2cid=1129364 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150215142158/http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/MayerThreeStrikesAP04.pdf |archive-date=15 February 2015 |access-date=29 December 2007}}</ref> Sweller and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental models, or "schemas" necessary for "learning by doing".<ref name=":8">{{cite journal|last=Sweller|first=J|date=June 1988|title=Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning|journal=Cognitive Science|volume=12|issue=2|pages=257–285|doi=10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7|issn=0364-0213|doi-access=free}}</ref> Additionally, Mayer (2004) conducted a review of the literature and concluded that fifty years of empirical data do not support the use of pure discovery as a constructivist teaching technique. In situations requiring discovery, he recommends the use of guided discovery instead.<ref name="Mayer" /> |
|||
Jonassen (1997) also proposed well-designed, well-structured learning environments provide scaffolding for problem-solving. Finally, both Sweller and Jonassen support problem-solving scenarios for more advanced learners.<ref name=":11" /><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Kalyuga | first1=Slava | last2=Ayres | first2=Paul | last3=Chandler | first3=Paul | last4=Sweller | first4=John | title=The Expertise Reversal Effect | journal=Educational Psychologist | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=38 | issue=1 | date=1 January 2003 | issn=0046-1520 | doi=10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4 | pages=23–31| s2cid=10519654 | url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/136 }}</ref> |
|||
Some researchers, such as Kirschner ''et al.'' (2006),<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /> have characterized the [[constructivist teaching methods]] as "unguided methods of instruction" and have suggested more structured learning activities for learners with little to no prior knowledge. Slezak has expressed skepticism about constructivism, describing it as "fashionable but thoroughly problematic doctrines that can have little benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher education."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Slezak|first=Peter|date=2010|title=Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite.|journal=Constructivist Foundations|volume=6|issue=1|issn=1782-348X}}</ref> Similar views have been stated by Meyer,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Meyer |first=D. L. |year=2009 |title=The Poverty of Constructivism |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=332–341 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00457.x |s2cid=144604333 }}</ref> Boden, Quale and others. |
|||
Sweller and his associates even suggest well-structured learning environments, like those provided by worked examples, are not effective for those with more experience—this was later described as the "[[expertise reversal effect]]".<ref name=":9" /> Cognitive load theorists suggest worked examples initially, with a gradual introduction of problem solving scenarios; this is described as the "guidance fading effect"<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{cite book|title=Psychology of Learning and Motivation|last=Sweller|first=J|date=2003|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=978-0-12-543343-3|editor-last=Ross|editor-first=Brian|location=San Diego|chapter=Evolution of human cognitive architecture|chapter-url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/bookseries/00797421/43|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=14 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170814124222/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/bookseries/00797421/43|url-status=live}}</ref> Each of these ideas provides more evidence for Anderson's ACT-R framework.<ref>Clark, R. E. & Elen, J., (2006). When less is more: Research and theory insights about instruction for complex learning. In R. E. Clark & J. Elen (Eds.) Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Research and Theory. London: Elsevier. 283–295.</ref> This [[ACT-R]] framework suggests learning can begin with studying examples. |
|||
Kirschner et al. grouped several learning theories together, including [[Discovery learning|Discovery]], [[Problem-based learning|Problem-Based]], [[Experiential learning|Experiential]], and [[Inquiry-based learning|Inquiry-Based learning]], and suggested that highly scaffolded constructivist methods such as problem-based learning and inquiry learning may be ineffective.<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /> They described several [[Observational study|research studies]] that were favorable to problem-based learning given learners were provided some level of guidance and support.<ref name="Kirschner, P.A. 2006" /> |
|||
Finally Mayer states: "Thus, the contribution of psychology is to help move educational reform efforts from the fuzzy and unproductive world of educational ideology—which sometimes hides under the banner of various versions of constructivism—to the sharp and productive world of theory-based research on how people learn."<ref name="Mayer" />{{Rp|18}} |
|||
===Confusion |
===Confusion with maturationism=== |
||
Many people confuse |
Many people confuse constructivism with [[maturationism]]. The constructivist (or cognitive-developmental) stream "is based on the idea that the [[dialectic]] or [[interactionist]] process of development and learning through the student's active construction should be facilitated and promoted by adults".<ref name=":12">{{cite book|title=Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: practical principles and activities|date=2002|publisher=Teachers College Press|isbn=978-0-8077-4121-4|editor-last=DeVries|editor-first=Rheta|series=Early childhood education series|location=New York}}</ref> The romantic maturationist stream emphasizes the natural development of students without adult interventions in a permissive environment.<ref name=":12" /> In contrast, constructivism involves adults actively guiding learning while allowing children to take charge of their own learning process. |
||
==Subtypes== |
==Subtypes== |
||
=== Contextual constructivism === |
=== Contextual constructivism === |
||
According to William Cobern (1991) Contextual constructivism is "about understanding the fundamental, culturally based beliefs that both students and teachers bring to class, and how these beliefs are supported by culture. Contextual constructivists not only raise new research questions, they also call for a new research paradigm. The focus on contextualization means that qualitative, especially ethnographic, techniques are to be preferred" (p. 3).<ref name=Cobern1991>{{cite journal|last=Cobern|first=William|date=April 1991|title=Contextual Constructivism: The Impact of Culture on the Learning and Teaching of Science|journal=Theoretical Bases for Science Education Research|url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338488}}</ref> |
According to William Cobern (1991) Contextual constructivism is "about understanding the fundamental, culturally based beliefs that both students and teachers bring to class, and how these beliefs are supported by culture. Contextual constructivists not only raise new research questions, they also call for a new research paradigm. The focus on contextualization means that qualitative, especially ethnographic, techniques are to be preferred" (p. 3).<ref name="Cobern1991">{{cite journal|last=Cobern|first=William|date=April 1991|title=Contextual Constructivism: The Impact of Culture on the Learning and Teaching of Science|journal=Theoretical Bases for Science Education Research|url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338488}}</ref> |
||
=== Radical constructivism === |
=== Radical constructivism === |
||
{{Main|Radical constructivism}} |
{{Main|Radical constructivism}} |
||
[[Ernst von Glasersfeld]] developed [[radical constructivism]] by coupling Piaget's theory of learning and philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge with [[Kantian ethics|Kant's]] rejection of an objective reality independent of human perception or [[reason]]. Radical constructivism does not view knowledge as an attempt to generate ideas that match an independent, objective reality.<ref>{{cite book | last=von Glasersfeld | first=Ernst | title=Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning |series=Studies in Mathematics Education Series, no. 6 | id={{ERIC|ED381352}} | year=1995 | isbn=0-7507-0387-3 | oclc=52130078 | publisher=Falmer Press | place=London}}</ref> Instead, theories and knowledge about the world, as generated by our [[sense]]s and reason, either fit within the constraints of whatever reality may exist and, thus, are viable or do not and are not viable.<ref>{{cite journal | last=von Glasersfeld | first=Ernst | title=Chapter 2: An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical | journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Monograph | publisher=National Council of Teachers of Mathematics | volume=4 | year=1990 | issn=0883-9530 | doi=10.2307/749910 | pages=19–29, 195–210 | jstor=749910 }}</ref> As a theory of education, radical constructivism emphasizes the experiences of the learner, differences between learners and the importance of [[uncertainty]].<ref>{{cite journal | last=Gash | first=H. | title=Constructing Constructivism | journal=Constructivist Foundations | volume=9 | issue=3 | date=15 July 2014 | url=https://philpapers.org/rec/GASCC | pages=302–310}}</ref> |
[[Ernst von Glasersfeld]] developed [[radical constructivism]] by coupling Piaget's theory of learning and philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge with [[Kantian ethics|Kant's]] rejection of an objective reality independent of human perception or [[reason]]. Radical constructivism does not view knowledge as an attempt to generate ideas that match an independent, objective reality.<ref>{{cite book | last=von Glasersfeld | first=Ernst | title=Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning |series=Studies in Mathematics Education Series, no. 6 | id={{ERIC|ED381352}} | year=1995 | isbn=0-7507-0387-3 | oclc=52130078 | publisher=Falmer Press | place=London}}</ref> Instead, theories and knowledge about the world, as generated by our [[sense]]s and reason, either fit within the constraints of whatever reality may exist and, thus, are viable or do not and are not viable.<ref>{{cite journal | last=von Glasersfeld | first=Ernst | title=Chapter 2: An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical | journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Monograph | publisher=National Council of Teachers of Mathematics | volume=4 | year=1990 | issn=0883-9530 | doi=10.2307/749910 | pages=19–29, 195–210 | jstor=749910 }}</ref> As a theory of education, radical constructivism emphasizes the experiences of the learner, differences between learners and the importance of [[uncertainty]].<ref>{{cite journal | last=Gash | first=H. | title=Constructing Constructivism | journal=Constructivist Foundations | volume=9 | issue=3 | date=15 July 2014 | url=https://philpapers.org/rec/GASCC | pages=302–310}}</ref> |
||
Line 227: | Line 142: | ||
=== Communal constructivism === |
=== Communal constructivism === |
||
The concept ''Communal constructivism'' was developed by Leask and Younie<ref name="Leask and Younie">Leask, M., and Younie, S. (2001a) 'Communal Constructivist Theory: pedagogy of information and communications technology & internationalisation of the curriculum', Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1 & 2, pp117 –134</ref> in 1995 through their research on the European [[Global SchoolNet|SchoolNet]]<ref name="Younie and Leask">{{cite journal | last1 = Younie | first1 = S. | last2 = Leask | first2 = M. | year = 2001b | title = The European SchoolNet: An online community for European teachers? A valuable professional resource? | url = http://www.editlib.org/p/94352/ | journal = Teacher Development | volume = 5 | issue = 2 | pages = 157–172 | doi = 10.1080/13664530100200140 | s2cid = 145109452 | access-date = 14 August 2021 | archive-date = 15 August 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160815122924/http://www.editlib.org/p/94352/ | url-status = live | doi-access = free }}</ref> which demonstrated the value of experts collaborating to push the boundaries of knowledge |
The concept ''Communal constructivism'' was developed by Leask and Younie,<ref name="Leask and Younie">Leask, M., and Younie, S. (2001a) 'Communal Constructivist Theory: pedagogy of information and communications technology & internationalisation of the curriculum', Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1 & 2, pp117 –134</ref> in 1995, through their research on the European [[Global SchoolNet|SchoolNet]],<ref name="Younie and Leask">{{cite journal | last1 = Younie | first1 = S. | last2 = Leask | first2 = M. | year = 2001b | title = The European SchoolNet: An online community for European teachers? A valuable professional resource? | url = http://www.editlib.org/p/94352/ | journal = Teacher Development | volume = 5 | issue = 2 | pages = 157–172 | doi = 10.1080/13664530100200140 | s2cid = 145109452 | access-date = 14 August 2021 | archive-date = 15 August 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160815122924/http://www.editlib.org/p/94352/ | url-status = live | doi-access = free }}</ref> which demonstrated the value of experts collaborating to push the boundaries of knowledge, including communal construction of new knowledge between experts, rather than the social construction of knowledge, as described by Vygotsky, where there is a learner to teacher scaffolding relationship. "Communal constructivism,” as a concept, applies to those situations in which there is currently no expert knowledge or research to underpin knowledge in an area. "Communal constructivism" refers, specifically, to the process of experts working together to create, record, and publish new knowledge in emerging areas. In the seminal European SchoolNet research where, for the first time, academics were testing out how the internet could support classroom practice and pedagogy, experts from a number of countries set up test situations to generate and understand new possibilities for educational practice. |
||
Bryan Holmes in 2001 applied this to student learning as described in an early paper, "in this [[model (abstract)|model]], students will not simply pass through a course like [[water]] through a [[sieve]] but instead leave their own imprint in the learning process."<ref name="Holmes">{{cite web|last1=Holmes|first1=Bryan|last2=Tangney|first2=Brendan|last3=FitzGibbon|first3=Ann|last4=Savage|first4=Tim|last5=Mehan|first5=Siobhan|title=Communal Constructivism: Students constructing learning for as well as with others|url=https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf|publisher=Trinity College|journal=|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=27 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227232934/https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> |
Bryan Holmes, in 2001, applied this to student learning, as described in an early paper, "in this [[model (abstract)|model]], students will not simply pass through a course like [[water]] through a [[sieve]] but instead leave their own imprint in the learning process."<ref name="Holmes">{{cite web|last1=Holmes|first1=Bryan|last2=Tangney|first2=Brendan|last3=FitzGibbon|first3=Ann|last4=Savage|first4=Tim|last5=Mehan|first5=Siobhan|title=Communal Constructivism: Students constructing learning for as well as with others|url=https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf|publisher=Trinity College|journal=|access-date=14 August 2021|archive-date=27 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227232934/https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> |
||
===Critical constructivism=== |
|||
{{AI-generated|section|certain=yes|date=December 2024}} |
|||
{{Page numbers needed|section|date=December 2024}} |
|||
<!-- See talk page on use of Gemini chatbot to stub this section in -->Critical constructivism is a theory of learning that combines elements of constructivism and [[critical theory]].<ref name=Freire1970> |
|||
{{cite book |
|||
|last=Freire |
|||
|first=Paulo |
|||
|title=Pedagogy of the Oppressed |
|||
|publisher=Continuum |
|||
|year=1970 |
|||
}}</ref> It emphasizes the role of social and cultural factors in shaping knowledge construction. Critical constructivists argue that learners actively construct knowledge through their interactions with the world, but also recognize the power imbalances and social structures that can influence this process.<ref name=KM1994>{{cite journal |
|||
|last1=Kincheloe |
|||
|first1=José Luis |
|||
|last2=McLaren |
|||
|first2=Peter L. |
|||
|title=Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research |
|||
|journal=Qualitative Inquiry |
|||
|volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=7–28 |
|||
|year=1994 }}</ref> |
|||
Key concepts in critical constructivism include: |
|||
* critical consciousness – ability to critically analyze social and political structures<ref name=Freire1970/> |
|||
* empowerment – process of gaining control over one's own life and the lives of others<ref name=Freire1970/> |
|||
* social justice – pursuit of fairness and equality for all<ref name=NCSS2023> |
|||
{{cite web |
|||
|url=https://www.socialstudies.org/ |
|||
|title=What is Social Studies? |
|||
|publisher=National Council for the Social Studies |
|||
|access-date=2024-12-10 |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
Critical constructivism has implications for education, as it suggests that teachers should create learning environments that foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and social justice.<ref name=KM1994/> |
|||
== Influence on computer science and robotics == |
== Influence on computer science and robotics == |
||
Constructivism has influenced the course of programming and [[computer science]]. Some famous [[programming language]]s have been created, wholly or in part, for [[education]]al use, to support the [[Constructionism (learning theory)|constructionist]] theory of Seymour Papert. These languages have been [[dynamic typing|dynamically typed]] |
Constructivism has influenced the course of programming and [[computer science]]. Some famous [[programming language]]s have been created, either wholly or in part, for [[education]]al use, to support the [[Constructionism (learning theory)|constructionist]] theory of Seymour Papert. These languages have been [[dynamic typing|dynamically typed]] and [[reflection (computer science)|reflective]]. [[Logo programming language|Logo]] and its successor, [[Scratch programming language|Scratch]], are the best known of them. Constructivism has also informed the design of interactive [[machine learning]] systems,<ref>{{Cite conference |last=Sarkar |first=Advait |date=1 January 2016 |title=Constructivist Design for Interactive Machine Learning |conference=Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems |location=New York |publisher=ACM |pages=1467–1475 |doi=10.1145/2851581.2892547 |isbn=9781450340823 |s2cid=1949678}}</ref> whereas [[constructivist epistemology|radical constructivism]] has been explored as a paradigm to design experiments in [[rehabilitation robotics]] and more precisely in [[prosthetics]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nowak |first1=Markus |last2=Castellini |first2=Claudio |last3=Massironi |first3=Carlo |title=Applying Radical Constructivism to machine learning: a pilot study in assistive robotics |journal=Constructivist Foundations |date=2018 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=250–262 |url=http://constructivist.info/13/2/250.nowak |access-date=20 February 2019 |archive-date=21 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190221000106/https://constructivist.info/13/2/250.nowak |url-status=live }}</ref> |
||
==List of notable constructivists== |
|||
Writers who influenced constructivism include: |
|||
*[[John Dewey]] (1859–1952) |
|||
*[[Maria Montessori]] (1870–1952) |
|||
*[[Władysław Strzemiński]] (1893–1952) |
|||
*[[Jean Piaget]] (1896–1980) |
|||
*[[Lev Vygotsky]] (1896–1934) |
|||
*[[Heinz von Foerster]] (1911–2002) |
|||
*[[George Kelly (psychologist)|George Kelly]] (1905–1967) |
|||
*[[Jerome Bruner]] (1915–2016) |
|||
*[[Herbert A. Simon|Herbert Simon]] (1916–2001) |
|||
*[[Paul Watzlawick]] (1921–2007) |
|||
*[[Ernst von Glasersfeld]] (1917–2010) |
|||
*[[Edgar Morin]] (born 1921) |
|||
*[[Humberto Maturana]] (1928–2021) |
|||
*[[Paulo Freire]] (1921–1997) |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Line 240: | Line 205: | ||
* [[Connectivism]] |
* [[Connectivism]] |
||
* [[Constructivist epistemology]] |
* [[Constructivist epistemology]] |
||
* [[Constructivist teaching methods]] |
|||
* [[Critical pedagogy]] |
* [[Critical pedagogy]] |
||
* [[Cultural-historical activity theory]] (CHAT) |
* [[Cultural-historical activity theory]] (CHAT) |
||
Line 250: | Line 216: | ||
* [[Teaching for social justice]] |
* [[Teaching for social justice]] |
||
* [[Vocational education]] |
* [[Vocational education]] |
||
* [[APOS Theory]] |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
Latest revision as of 11:22, 20 December 2024
This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2023) |
Constructivism in education is a theory that suggests that learners do not passively acquire knowledge through direct instruction. Instead, they construct their understanding through experiences and social interaction, integrating new information with their existing knowledge. This theory originates from Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
Background
[edit]Constructivism in education is rooted in epistemology, a theory of knowledge concerned with the logical categories of knowledge and its justification.[3] It acknowledges that learners bring prior knowledge and experiences shaped by their social and cultural environment and that learning is a process of students "constructing" knowledge based on their experiences. While Behaviorism focuses on understanding what students are doing, constructivism emphasizes the importance of understanding what students are thinking and how to enrich their thinking.[4]
Constructivism in educational psychology can be attributed to the work of Jean Piaget (1896–1980) and his theory of cognitive development. Piaget's focus was on how humans make meaning by integrating experiences with ideas, emphasizing human development as distinct from external influences[5] Another influential figure, Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934), emphasized the importance of sociocultural learning in his theory of social constructivism, highlighting how interactions with adults, peers, and cognitive tools contribute to the formation of mental constructs. Building upon Vygotsky's work, Jerome Bruner and other educational psychologists introduced the concept of instructional scaffolding, where the learning environment provides support that is gradually removed as learners internalize the knowledge.[4]
Views more focused on human development within the social sphere include the sociocultural or socio-historical perspective of Lev Vygotsky and the situated cognition perspectives of Mikhail Bakhtin, Jean Lave, and Etienne Wenger.[6] Additionally, the works of Brown, Collins, and Duguid,[7] as well as Newman, Griffin, Cole,[8] and Barbara Rogoff.[9]
The concept of constructivism has impacted a number of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, education, and the history of science.[10] In its early stages, constructivism focused on the relationship between human experiences and their reflexes or behavior patterns. Piaget referred to these systems of knowledge "schemes."
Piaget's theory of constructivist learning has significantly influenced learning theories and teaching methods in education. It serves as a foundational concept in education reform movements within cognitive science and neuroscience.[11]
Overview
[edit]The formalization of constructivism from a within-the-human perspective is commonly credited to Jean Piaget. Piaget described the mechanisms by which information from the environment and ideas from the individual interact to form internalized structures developed by learners. He identified processes of assimilation and accommodation as crucial in this interaction, as individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences.
When individuals assimilate new information, they integrate it into their existing framework without altering that framework. This can happen when their experiences align with their internal view of the world, but it can also occur if they fail to update a flawed understanding. Accommodation is the process of adjusting one's mental representation of the external world to fit new experiences. It can be understood as the mechanism by which failure leads to learning.
It is important to note that constructivism is not a specific pedagogy, but rather a theory explaining how learning occurs, regardless of the learning environment. However, constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning, or learning by doing. While there is much enthusiasm for constructivism as a design strategy, some experts believe that it is more of a philosophical framework than a theory that can precisely describe instruction or prescribe design strategies.[12]: 4
Constructivist pedagogy
[edit]Nature of the learner
[edit]Social constructivism recognizes and embraces the individuality and complexity of each learner, actively encouraging and rewarding it as a vital component of the learning process.[13]
Background and culture
[edit]Social constructivism, also known as socioculturalism, emphasizes the role of an individual's background, culture, and worldview in shaping their understanding of truth. According to this theory, learners inherit historical developments and symbol systems from their culture and continue to learn and develop these throughout their lives. This approach highlights the significance of a learner's social interactions with knowledgeable members of society. It suggests that without such interactions, it is challenging to grasp the social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to effectively use them. Social constructivism also points out that young children develop their thinking abilities through interactions with peers, adults, and the physical world. Therefore, it is essential to consider the learner's background and culture throughout the learning process, as these factors help shape the knowledge and truth that the learner acquires.[13]
Motivation and responsibility for learning
[edit]Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of the student 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) emphasized 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.[14]
When considering students' learning, it is essential to take into account their motivation and confidence. According to Von Glasersfeld, a student's motivation to learn is strongly influenced by their belief in their potential for learning[14] This belief is shaped by their past experiences of successfully mastering problems, which is more influential than external acknowledgment and motivation.[15] This idea aligns with Vygotsky's concept of the "zone of proximal development," where students are challenged at a level slightly above their current development. By successfully completing challenging tasks, students build confidence and motivation to take on even more complex challenges.[16]
According to a study on the impact that COVID-19 had on the learning process in Australian University students, a student's motivation and confidence depends on self-determination theory.[17] This theory requires support from the educational environment to fulfill three basic needs to achieve growth, including autonomy, relatedness, and competency.[18] During the historical event of COVID-19, the basic needs were hindered in some way, along with environments that were meant to foster education and growth, which was hindered through the change from traditional in-person classes to online classes that left students with significantly less opportunities for social interactive and active learning opportunities.
Role of the instructor
[edit]Instructors as facilitators
[edit]According to the social constructivist approach, instructors are expected to adapt to the role of facilitators rather than traditional teachers.[19] While a teacher gives a didactic lecture that covers the subject matter, a facilitator assists the student in developing their own understanding of the content. This shift in roles places the focus on the student's active involvement in the learning process, as opposed to the instructor and the content itself.[20]
As a result, a facilitator requires a different set of skills compared to a teacher.[21] For instance, a teacher imparts information, whereas a facilitator encourages questions; a teacher leads from the front, while a facilitator provides support from the background; and a teacher delivers answers based on a set curriculum, whereas a facilitator offers guidance and creates an environment for the learner to form their own conclusions. Furthermore, a teacher typically engages in a monologue, whereas a facilitator maintains an ongoing dialogue with the learners.[22]
Additionally, a facilitator should be able to dynamically adapt the learning experience by taking the lead in guiding the experience to align with the learners' interests and needs in order to create value.
The learning environment should be created in a way that both supports and challenges the student's thinking[23] While it is advocated to give the student ownership of the problem and solution process, it is not the case that any and all activities or solutions are adequate. The critical goal is to support the student in developing effective thinking skills.
Relationship between instructor and students
[edit]In the social constructivist viewpoint, the role of the facilitator involves both the instructor and the students being actively engaged in learning from each other.[24] This dynamic interaction requires that the instructor's culture, values, and background play a significant part in shaping the learning experience. Students compare their own thoughts with those of the instructor and their peers, leading to the development of a new, socially validated understanding of the subject matter.[25] The task or problem serves as the interface between the instructor and the student, creating a dynamic interaction. As a result, both students and instructors need to develop an awareness of each other's viewpoints and consider their own beliefs, standards, and values, making the learning experience both subjective and objective at the same time.[26]
Several studies highlight the significance of mentoring in the learning process.[7][27] The social constructivist model underscores the importance of the relationship between the student and the instructor in facilitating learning.
Interactive learning can be facilitated through various approaches such as reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, Anchored Instruction, and other methods that involve collaborative learning.
Learning is an active process
[edit]Social constructivism, which is strongly influenced by Vygotsky's work, proposes that knowledge is initially built within a social setting and is then taken in by individuals.[28] According to social constructivists, the act of sharing individual viewpoints, known as collaborative elaboration, leads to learners jointly constructing understanding that would not be achievable on their own.[29][30]
Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process in which students are encouraged to discover principles, concepts, and facts independently. Therefore, it is crucial to promote speculation and intuitive thinking in students.[31]
According to other constructivist scholars, individuals create meanings through their interactions with each other and the environment they inhabit.[32] Knowledge is created by people and is shaped by social and cultural influences.[15][33] McMahon (1997) also emphasizes the social nature of learning, stating that it is not solely a mental process or a result of external factors shaping behavior. Instead, meaningful learning occurs when individuals participate in social activities.[25]
According to Vygotsky (1978), an important aspect of intellectual development is the convergence of speech and practical activity. He emphasized that as children engage in practical activities, they construct meaning on an individual level, and through speech, they connect this meaning to their culture and the interpersonal world they share with others.[16]
Collaboration among learners
[edit]Another tenet of social constructivism is that collaboration among individuals with diverse skills and backgrounds is essential for developing a comprehensive understanding of a particular subject or field.[34]
In some social constructivist models, there is an emphasis on the importance of collaboration among learners, which contrasts with traditional competitive approaches. One concept from Vygotsky that is particularly relevant to peer collaboration is the zone of proximal development. This is defined as the gap between a learner's actual developmental level, determined by independent problem-solving, and the level of potential development, determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. It differs from Piaget's fixed biological stages of development. Through a process called "scaffolding," a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation, allowing the development process to catch up to the learning process.[16]
When students present and teach new material to their peers, it fosters a non-linear process of collective knowledge construction.
Importance of context
[edit]The social constructivist paradigm emphasizes that the environment in which learning takes place plays a crucial role in the learning process.[25]
The concept of the learner as an active processor is based on the idea that there are no universal learning laws that apply to all domains.[23]: 208 When individuals possess decontextualized knowledge, they may struggle to apply their understanding to real-world tasks. This is due to the lack of engagement with the concept in its complex, real-world environment, as well as the absence of experience with the intricate interrelationships that influence the application of the concept.[34]
One concept within social constructivism is authentic or situated learning, which involves students participating in activities directly related to the practical application of their learning within a culture similar to the real-world setting. Cognitive apprenticeship is a suggested effective model of constructivist learning that aims to immerse students in authentic practices through activity and social interaction, similar to the successful methods used in craft apprenticeship.[[31]: 25
Holt and Willard-Holt (2000) highlight the concept of dynamic assessment, which offers a distinct approach to evaluating learners compared to traditional tests. Dynamic assessment extends the interactive nature of learning to the assessment process, emphasizing interaction between the assessor and the learner. It involves a dialogue between the assessor and the learner to understand the current performance level on a task and explore ways to improve future performance. This approach views assessment and learning as interconnected processes, rather than separate entities.[24]
According to this viewpoint, instructors should approach assessment as an ongoing and interactive process that evaluates the learner's achievements, the quality of the learning experience, and course materials. The feedback generated by the assessment process is crucial for driving further development.
Selection, scope, and sequencing of subject matter
[edit]The organization of knowledge should prioritize integration over division into separate subjects or compartments.[23][25] This again emphasizes the significance of presenting learning within a specific context.[7] The world in which learners operate is not divided into separate subjects but rather comprises a complex array of facts, problems, dimensions, and perceptions.[31]
Engaging and challenging the student
[edit]Students benefit from being challenged with tasks that require them to apply skills and knowledge slightly beyond their current level of mastery. This approach can help to maintain their motivation and build on past achievements to boost their confidence.[21] This is in line with Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, which refers to the gap between a person's current level of ability and their potential level of development under the guidance of adults or more capable peers.[16]
Vygotsky (1978) argued that effective instruction should be slightly ahead of a learner's current developmental stage. By doing so, instruction can stimulate the development of a range of functions that are in the learner's zone of proximal development. This highlights the crucial role of instruction in fostering development.[16]
In order to effectively engage and challenge students, it is important that the tasks and learning environment mirror the complexity of the real-world environment in which the students are expected to operate upon completing their education. Students should not only take ownership of the learning and problem-solving process but also take ownership of the problems themselves.[35]
When it comes to organizing subject matter, the constructivist perspective suggests that the fundamental principles of any subject can be taught to anyone at any point, in some capacity.[34] This approach entails introducing the foundational concepts that makeup topics or subject areas initially and then consistently revisiting and expanding on these ideas.
Instructors should recognize that while they are given a set curriculum to follow, they inevitably personalize it to reflect their own beliefs, thoughts, and emotions about the subject matter and their students. As a result, the learning experience becomes a collaborative effort, influenced by the emotions and life experiences of all involved. It's important to consider the student's motivation as central to the learning process.[7][31]
Structuredness of the learning process
[edit]Incorporating an appropriate balance between structure and flexibility into the learning process is essential. According to Savery (1994), a highly structured learning environment may pose challenges for learners in constructing meaning based on their existing conceptual understandings. A facilitator should strive to provide adequate structure to offer clear guidance and parameters for achieving learning objectives, while also allowing for an open and flexible learning experience that enables learners to discover, interact, and arrive at their own understanding of truth.[26]
Teaching techniques
[edit]A few strategies for cooperative learning include:
- Reciprocal questioning: students work together to ask and answer questions
- Jigsaw: students become "experts" on one part of a group project and teach it to the others in their group
- Structured controversies: Students work together to research a particular controversy[36]
The "Harkness" discussion method is named after Edward Harkness, who funded its development at Phillips Exeter Academy in the 1930s. This method involves students sitting in a circle, guiding their own discussion. The teacher's role is minimized, with the students initiating, directing, and focusing the discussion. They work together as a team, sharing responsibility and goals. The ultimate aim is to illuminate the subject, interpret different viewpoints, and piece together a comprehensive understanding. Discussion skills are crucial, and every participant is expected to contribute to keeping the discussion engaging and productive.[citation needed]
Criticism
[edit]Many cognitive psychologists and educators[who?] have raised concerns about the core principles of constructivism, arguing that these theories may be misleading or inconsistent with well-established findings.[clarification needed][37][38][39][40][41]
In neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, it is proposed that learning is influenced by the processing and representational resources available at a particular age. This implies that if the demands of a concept to be learned exceed the available processing efficiency and working memory resources, then the concept is considered unlearnable. This approach to learning can impact the understanding of essential theoretical concepts and reasoning. Therefore, for effective learning to occur, a child must operate in an environment that aligns with their developmental and individual learning constraints, taking into account any deviations from the norm for their age. If this condition is not met, the learning process may not progress as intended.[42][43]
Many educators have raised concerns about the effectiveness of this approach to instructional design, particularly when it comes to creating instruction for beginners. While some proponents of constructivism claim that "learning by doing" improves learning, critics argue that there is insufficient empirical evidence to support this assertion, especially for novice learners.[37][44] Sweller and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental models, or "schemas" necessary for "learning by doing".[45] Additionally, Mayer (2004) conducted a review of the literature and concluded that fifty years of empirical data do not support the use of pure discovery as a constructivist teaching technique. In situations requiring discovery, he recommends the use of guided discovery instead.[44]
Some researchers, such as Kirschner et al. (2006),[37] have characterized the constructivist teaching methods as "unguided methods of instruction" and have suggested more structured learning activities for learners with little to no prior knowledge. Slezak has expressed skepticism about constructivism, describing it as "fashionable but thoroughly problematic doctrines that can have little benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher education."[46] Similar views have been stated by Meyer,[47] Boden, Quale and others.
Kirschner et al. grouped several learning theories together, including Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning, and suggested that highly scaffolded constructivist methods such as problem-based learning and inquiry learning may be ineffective.[37] They described several research studies that were favorable to problem-based learning given learners were provided some level of guidance and support.[37]
Confusion with maturationism
[edit]Many people confuse constructivism with maturationism. The constructivist (or cognitive-developmental) stream "is based on the idea that the dialectic or interactionist process of development and learning through the student's active construction should be facilitated and promoted by adults".[48] The romantic maturationist stream emphasizes the natural development of students without adult interventions in a permissive environment.[48] In contrast, constructivism involves adults actively guiding learning while allowing children to take charge of their own learning process.
Subtypes
[edit]Contextual constructivism
[edit]According to William Cobern (1991) Contextual constructivism is "about understanding the fundamental, culturally based beliefs that both students and teachers bring to class, and how these beliefs are supported by culture. Contextual constructivists not only raise new research questions, they also call for a new research paradigm. The focus on contextualization means that qualitative, especially ethnographic, techniques are to be preferred" (p. 3).[49]
Radical constructivism
[edit]Ernst von Glasersfeld developed radical constructivism by coupling Piaget's theory of learning and philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge with Kant's rejection of an objective reality independent of human perception or reason. Radical constructivism does not view knowledge as an attempt to generate ideas that match an independent, objective reality.[50] Instead, theories and knowledge about the world, as generated by our senses and reason, either fit within the constraints of whatever reality may exist and, thus, are viable or do not and are not viable.[51] As a theory of education, radical constructivism emphasizes the experiences of the learner, differences between learners and the importance of uncertainty.[52]
Relational constructivism
[edit]Björn Kraus' relational constructivism can be perceived as a relational consequence of radical constructivism. In contrast to social constructivism, it picks up the epistemological threads and maintains the radical constructivist idea that humans cannot overcome their limited conditions of reception. Despite the subjectivity of human constructions of reality, relational constructivism focuses on the relational conditions that apply to human perceptional processes.[53]
Social constructivism
[edit]In recent decades, constructivist theorists have extended the traditional focus on individual learning to address collaborative and social dimensions of learning. It is possible to see social constructivism as a bringing together of aspects of the work of Piaget with that of Bruner and Vygotsky.[54]
Communal constructivism
[edit]The concept Communal constructivism was developed by Leask and Younie,[55] in 1995, through their research on the European SchoolNet,[56] which demonstrated the value of experts collaborating to push the boundaries of knowledge, including communal construction of new knowledge between experts, rather than the social construction of knowledge, as described by Vygotsky, where there is a learner to teacher scaffolding relationship. "Communal constructivism,” as a concept, applies to those situations in which there is currently no expert knowledge or research to underpin knowledge in an area. "Communal constructivism" refers, specifically, to the process of experts working together to create, record, and publish new knowledge in emerging areas. In the seminal European SchoolNet research where, for the first time, academics were testing out how the internet could support classroom practice and pedagogy, experts from a number of countries set up test situations to generate and understand new possibilities for educational practice.
Bryan Holmes, in 2001, applied this to student learning, as described in an early paper, "in this model, students will not simply pass through a course like water through a sieve but instead leave their own imprint in the learning process."[57]
Critical constructivism
[edit]This section incorporates text from a large language model. (December 2024) |
Critical constructivism is a theory of learning that combines elements of constructivism and critical theory.[58] It emphasizes the role of social and cultural factors in shaping knowledge construction. Critical constructivists argue that learners actively construct knowledge through their interactions with the world, but also recognize the power imbalances and social structures that can influence this process.[59]
Key concepts in critical constructivism include:
- critical consciousness – ability to critically analyze social and political structures[58]
- empowerment – process of gaining control over one's own life and the lives of others[58]
- social justice – pursuit of fairness and equality for all[60]
Critical constructivism has implications for education, as it suggests that teachers should create learning environments that foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and social justice.[59]
Influence on computer science and robotics
[edit]Constructivism has influenced the course of programming and computer science. Some famous programming languages have been created, either wholly or in part, for educational use, to support the constructionist theory of Seymour Papert. These languages have been dynamically typed and reflective. Logo and its successor, Scratch, are the best known of them. Constructivism has also informed the design of interactive machine learning systems,[61] whereas radical constructivism has been explored as a paradigm to design experiments in rehabilitation robotics and more precisely in prosthetics.[62]
List of notable constructivists
[edit]Writers who influenced constructivism include:
- John Dewey (1859–1952)
- Maria Montessori (1870–1952)
- Władysław Strzemiński (1893–1952)
- Jean Piaget (1896–1980)
- Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934)
- Heinz von Foerster (1911–2002)
- George Kelly (1905–1967)
- Jerome Bruner (1915–2016)
- Herbert Simon (1916–2001)
- Paul Watzlawick (1921–2007)
- Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917–2010)
- Edgar Morin (born 1921)
- Humberto Maturana (1928–2021)
- Paulo Freire (1921–1997)
See also
[edit]- Autodidactism
- Connectivism
- Constructivist epistemology
- Constructivist teaching methods
- Critical pedagogy
- Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)
- Educational psychology
- Learning styles
- Philosophy of education
- Reform mathematics
- Situated cognition
- Socratic method
- Teaching for social justice
- Vocational education
- APOS Theory
References
[edit]- ^ White, Fiona Ann; Hayes, Brett Kenneth; Livesey, David James (2016). Developmental Psychology: From Infancy to Adulthood (4th ed.). Melbourne, Vic.: Pearson Australia. ISBN 9781486018277. OCLC 904034548.
- ^ Bjorklund, David F. (1 November 2018). "A Metatheory for Cognitive Development (or "Piaget is Dead" Revisited)". Child Development. 89 (6): 2288–2302. doi:10.1111/cdev.13019. PMID 29336015. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ Steffe, Leslie P.; Gale, Jerry (2012). Constructivism in Education. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-47608-2.
- ^ a b Seifert, Kelvin & Sutton, Rosemary. Educational Psychology: Second Edition Archived 29 August 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Global Text Project, 2009, pp. 33–37.
- ^ Piaget, J., Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge (New York: Grossman, 1971).
- ^ Lave, Jean; Wenger, Etienne (27 September 1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-42374-8.[page needed]
- ^ a b c d Brown, J.S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. (1989). "Situated cognition and the culture of learning". Educational Researcher. 18 (1): 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032. hdl:2142/17979. S2CID 9824073.[permanent dead link ]
- ^ Newman, Denis; Griffin, Peg; Cole, Michael (28 April 1989). The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-38942-6.[page needed]
- ^ Rogoff, Barbara (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.[page needed]
- ^ Eddy, Matthew Daniel (2004). "Fallible or Inerrant? A Belated review of the "Constructivist Bible"". British Journal for the History of Science. 37: 93–8. doi:10.1017/s0007087403005338. S2CID 141028650. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ Carey, Susan; Zaitchik, Deborah; Bascandziev, Igor (1 December 2015). "Theories of development: In dialog with Jean Piaget". Developmental Review. 38: 36–54. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.003. ISSN 0273-2297.
- ^ Tobias, S.; Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?. New York: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415994231.
- ^ a b Wertsch, James V. (1997). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. OCLC 489891986.
- ^ a b Von Glasersfeld, Ernst (1998). "Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching" (PDF). Constructivism in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 11–30. ISBN 978-0-7923-4924-2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 May 2017. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ a b Prawat, Richard S.; Floden, Robert E. (1 January 1994). "Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning". Educational Psychologist. 29 (1): 37–48. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2901_4. ISSN 0046-1520. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ a b c d e Vygotsky, L. S.; Cole, Michael (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-57629-2.
- ^ Ryan, Richard M.; Deci, Edward L. (2000). "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being". American Psychologist. 55 (1): 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. ISSN 1935-990X. PMID 11392867.
- ^ Eckley, Darrell; Allen, Andrew; Millear, Prudence; Rune, Karina Tirsvad (February 2023). "COVID-19's impact on learning processes in Australian university students". Social Psychology of Education. 26 (1): 161–189. doi:10.1007/s11218-022-09739-x. ISSN 1381-2890. PMC 9668712. PMID 36415584.
- ^ Bauersfeld, H. (1995). "'Language games' in the mathematics classroom: Their function and their effects". In Cobb, Paul; Bauersfeld, H. (eds.). The emergence of mathematical meaning: interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-1728-X. OCLC 31436489.
- ^ Gamoran, Adam; Secada, Walter G.; Marrett, Cora B. (2000). "The Organizational Context of Teaching and Learning" (PDF). In Hallinan, M.T. (ed.). Handbook of the Sociology of Education. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston, MA. pp. 37–63. ISBN 978-0-387-32517-0. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 January 2018. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ a b Brownstein, Bonnie (22 December 2001). "Collaboration: the foundation of learning in the future". Education. 122 (2).
- ^ Rhodes, Lynn K.; Bellamy, G. Thomas (1 January 1999). "Choices and Consequences in the Renewal of Teacher Education". Journal of Teacher Education. 50 (1): 17–26. doi:10.1177/002248719905000103. ISSN 0022-4871. S2CID 143182193.
- ^ a b c Di Vesta, Francis J. (1987). "The Cognitive Movement and Education". Historical Foundations of Educational Psychology. Perspectives on Individual Differences. Boston: Springer. pp. 203–233. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3620-2_11. ISBN 978-1-4899-3622-6.
- ^ a b Holt, Dan G.; Willard-Holt, Colleen (1 November 2000). "Let's Get Real™: Students Solving Authentic Corporate Problems". Phi Delta Kappan. 82 (3): 243–246. doi:10.1177/003172170008200315. ISSN 0031-7217. S2CID 143466659.
- ^ a b c d McMahon, M. (December 1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web – A Paradigm for Learning. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education 1997 conference. Vol. 327. Perth.
- ^ a b Savery, Lawson K. (1 June 1994). "The Influence of the Perceived Styles of Leadership on a Group of Workers on their Attitudes to Work". Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 15 (4): 12–18. doi:10.1108/01437739410059863. ISSN 0143-7739.
- ^ Archee, Ray; Hill Duin, DA (1995). The World Wide Web and Distance Education: Congergenece or Cacophony?. AUUG Conference Proceedings. AUUG, Inc. pp. 348–356. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ Bruning, Roger H.; Schraw, Gregory J.; Ronning, Royce R. (1999). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. ISBN 978-0-13-716606-0.
- ^ Meter, Peggy Van; Stevens, Robert J. (1 January 2000). "The Role of Theory in the Study of Peer Collaboration". The Journal of Experimental Education. 69 (1): 113–127. doi:10.1080/00220970009600652. ISSN 0022-0973. S2CID 143292199.
- ^ Greeno, James G; Collins, Allan M; Resnick, Lauren B (1996). "Cognition and learning". Handbook of Educational Psychology. 77: 15–46.
- ^ a b c d Ackerman, Phillip L. (1 March 1996). "A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge". Intelligence. 22 (2): 227–257. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1. ISSN 0160-2896.
- ^ Hsu, Liwei (2013). "English as a foreign language learners' perception of mobile assisted language learning: a cross-national study". Computer Assisted Language Learning. 26 (3). Taylor & Francis online: 197–213. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.649485. S2CID 62711257.
- ^ Ernest, Paul (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: Falmer Press. ISBN 0-203-22423-X. OCLC 52100009.
- ^ a b c Duffy, Thomas; Jonassen, eds. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-1272-5.[page needed]
- ^ Derry, Sharon J. (2014). "A Fish Called Peer Learning: Searching for Common Themes". In O'Donnell, Angela M.; King, Alison (eds.). Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 978-1-4106-0371-5. OCLC 881162577.
- ^ Woolfolk, Anita (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill. ISBN 978-0-13-714454-9. OCLC 268547518.
- ^ a b c d e Kirschner, P. A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R. E. (2006). "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching". Educational Psychologist. 41 (2): 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1. hdl:1820/8951. S2CID 17067829. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ Anderson, John R.; Reder, Lynne M.; Simon, Herbert A. (1998). Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology in mathematics education. Archived from the original on 8 September 2011. Retrieved 4 February 2007.
- ^ Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education Archived 18 November 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Michael R. Matthews
- ^ Research Link / Caution: Constructivism Ahead Archived 27 April 2006 at the Wayback Machine Holloway, Educational Leadership, 57 (3). November 1999.
- ^ Liu, Charlotte Hua; Matthews, Robert (9 July 2005). "Vygotsky's Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined" (PDF). International Education Journal. 6 (3): 386–99. ISSN 1443-1475. ERIC EJ854992. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 August 2021.
- ^ Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, K. F. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 179–269). London: Wiley.
- ^ Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., & Efklides, A. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications to education. London: Routledge
- ^ a b Mayer (2004). "Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?" (PDF). American Psychologist. 59 (1): 14–19. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.372.2476. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14. PMID 14736316. S2CID 1129364. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 February 2015. Retrieved 29 December 2007.
- ^ Sweller, J (June 1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning". Cognitive Science. 12 (2): 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7. ISSN 0364-0213.
- ^ Slezak, Peter (2010). "Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite". Constructivist Foundations. 6 (1). ISSN 1782-348X.
- ^ Meyer, D. L. (2009). "The Poverty of Constructivism". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 41 (3): 332–341. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00457.x. S2CID 144604333.
- ^ a b DeVries, Rheta, ed. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: practical principles and activities. Early childhood education series. New York: Teachers College Press. ISBN 978-0-8077-4121-4.
- ^ Cobern, William (April 1991). "Contextual Constructivism: The Impact of Culture on the Learning and Teaching of Science". Theoretical Bases for Science Education Research.
- ^ von Glasersfeld, Ernst (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. Studies in Mathematics Education Series, no. 6. London: Falmer Press. ISBN 0-7507-0387-3. OCLC 52130078. ERIC ED381352.
- ^ von Glasersfeld, Ernst (1990). "Chapter 2: An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical". Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Monograph. 4. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 19–29, 195–210. doi:10.2307/749910. ISSN 0883-9530. JSTOR 749910.
- ^ Gash, H. (15 July 2014). "Constructing Constructivism". Constructivist Foundations. 9 (3): 302–310.
- ^ See Björn Kraus: The Life We Live and the Life We Experience: Introducing the Epistemological Difference between "Lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) and "Life Conditions" (Lebenslage) Social Work and Society. International Online Journal. Vol. 13, No. 2 2015, http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438 Archived 13 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine; Björn Kraus: Plädoyer für den Relationalen Konstruktivismus und eine Relationale Soziale Arbeit. in Forum Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29–35, http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/51948 Archived 1 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Wood, David (1998). How Children Think and Learn. Understanding children's worlds (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 39. ISBN 978-0-631-20007-9.
- ^ Leask, M., and Younie, S. (2001a) 'Communal Constructivist Theory: pedagogy of information and communications technology & internationalisation of the curriculum', Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1 & 2, pp117 –134
- ^ Younie, S.; Leask, M. (2001b). "The European SchoolNet: An online community for European teachers? A valuable professional resource?". Teacher Development. 5 (2): 157–172. doi:10.1080/13664530100200140. S2CID 145109452. Archived from the original on 15 August 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ Holmes, Bryan; Tangney, Brendan; FitzGibbon, Ann; Savage, Tim; Mehan, Siobhan. "Communal Constructivism: Students constructing learning for as well as with others" (PDF). Trinity College. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- ^ a b c Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
- ^ a b Kincheloe, José Luis; McLaren, Peter L. (1994). "Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research". Qualitative Inquiry. 1 (1): 7–28.
- ^ "What is Social Studies?". National Council for the Social Studies. Retrieved 10 December 2024.
- ^ Sarkar, Advait (1 January 2016). Constructivist Design for Interactive Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM. pp. 1467–1475. doi:10.1145/2851581.2892547. ISBN 9781450340823. S2CID 1949678.
- ^ Nowak, Markus; Castellini, Claudio; Massironi, Carlo (2018). "Applying Radical Constructivism to machine learning: a pilot study in assistive robotics". Constructivist Foundations. 13 (2): 250–262. Archived from the original on 21 February 2019. Retrieved 20 February 2019.
Further reading
[edit]- Anderson, John R.; Reder, Lynne M.; Simon, Herbert A.; Ericsson, K. Anders; Glaser, Robert (1998). "Radical Constructivism and Cognitive Psychology". Brookings Papers on Education Policy (1): 227–278. ISSN 1096-2719. JSTOR 20067198. Archived from the original on 5 February 2018. Retrieved 13 February 2020.
- Bruner, J. S. (1961). "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review. 31 (1): 21–32.
- Bransford, J.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/6160. ISBN 978-0-309-06557-3. S2CID 235510978.
- Clark, R. C.; Zuckerman, P. (1999). "Multimedia Learning Systems: Design Principles". In Stolovitch, H. D.; Keeps, E. J. (eds.). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. pp. 564–588. ISBN 978-0787911089.
- Clark, R.C.; Nguyen, F. & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 978-0-7879-7728-3.
- de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215-229). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521547512.
- de Jong, T.; van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). "Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual Domains" (PDF). Review of Educational Research. 68 (2): 179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179. S2CID 220488826. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
- Dalgarno, B. (1996) Constructivist computer assisted learning: theory and technique, ASCILITE Conference, 2–4 December 1996, retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20140902003411/http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide96/papers/21.html
- Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning how to Learn by Concept Mapping: A Worked-Example Effect. Oral presentation at the 12th Biennial Conference EARLI 2007 in Budapest, Hungary
- Jeffery, G. (ed) (2005) The creative college: building a successful learning culture in the arts, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
- Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231–247). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
- Leutner, D. (1993). "Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: effects of adaptive and non-adaptive instructional support". Learning and Instruction. 3 (2): 113–132. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(93)90011-N.
- Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.
- Jean Piaget (1967). Logique et Connaissance scientifique, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade.
- Tuovinen, J. E. & Sweller, J. (1999). "A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples". Journal of Educational Psychology. 91 (2): 334–341. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.334. S2CID 54592195.
- Rivers, R. H.; Vockell, E. (1987). "Computer simulations to Simulate scientific problems solving". Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 24 (5): 403–416. Bibcode:1987JRScT..24..403R. doi:10.1002/tea.3660240504.
External links
[edit]- A journey into Constructivism by Martin Dougiamas, 1998–11.
- Cognitively Guided Instruction reviewed on the Promising Practices Network
- Sample Online Activity Objects Designed with Constructivist Approach (2007)
- Liberal Exchange learning resources offering a constructivist approach to learning English as a second/foreign language (2009)
- Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2018). "Connecting cognitive development and constructivism." In W. Huitt (Ed.), Becoming a Brilliant Star: Twelve core ideas supporting holistic education (pp. 45–63). IngramSpark.
- Definition of Constructivism by Martin Ryder (a footnote to the book chapter The Cyborg and the Noble Savage where Ryder discusses One Laptop Per Child's XO laptop from a constructivist educator's point of view)