CHILD DEVELOPEMNT

7/30/2019 CHILD DEVELOPEMNT

1/5

Constructivism

Citation: Huitt, W. (2009). Constructivism. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State

University. Retrieved [date], fromhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/construct.html

Return to: |Overview of the Cognitive System|EdPsyc Interactive: Courses |

Theconstructivistic approachto teaching and learning is based on a combination of a subset ofresearch withincognitive psychologyand a subset of research within social psychology, just as

behavior modification techniquesare based onoperant conditioning theorywithinbehavioralpsychology. The basic premise is that an individual learner must actively "build" knowledge and

skills (e.g.,Bruner, 1990) and that information exists within these built constructs rather than in

the external environment. [See Ullman (1980) versus Gibson (1979) for an overview of thiscontroversy within the cognitive perspective.] However, all advocates of constructivism agree

that it is the individual's processing of stimuli from the environment and the resulting cognitive

structures, that produce adaptive behavior, rather than the stimuli themselves (Harnard, 1982).John Dewey(1933/1998) is often cited as the philosophical founder of this approach; Ausubel

(1968),Bruner(1990), andPiaget(1972) are considered the chief theorists among the cognitive

constructionists, whileVygotsky(1978) is the major theorist among thesocial constructionists.Activity theoryandsituated learningare two examples of modern work based on the work of

Vygotsky and some of his followers.

A major problem is that making connections between thinking (in terms of knowledge,

intellectual skills, attitudes, etc.) and behavior has proven very illusive (Doyle, 1997). One

reason is that other factors, such as situational variables, emotions, and consequences, all play an

important role in the production of overt, adaptive behavior. As Doyle points out

Mental representations such as attitudes, mental models, scripts, and schemas are, of

course, related to behavior, but the relationship is often complex and counterintuitive.There is also a growing body of evidence that suggests that the mental representations on

which decisions and behavior are based can be highly variable depending on subtle

aspects of the particular situation or context decision makers are in at any given time(Payne et al., 1992), making it difficult to generalize results across task and domain

differences. Until more is known about the form, content, and function of mental models

of systems in a particular research setting, assessments of systems thinking interventions

should measure both behavioral and cognitive changes.

At this point, without a unifying theory as to how the different learning theories interact within asingle individual to produce behavior, we have to study these different viewpoints independently

and then piecemeal them together into a school curriculum. However, acceptance of a particular

viewpoint provides a different starting point for curriculum development.Fennimore and

Tinzmann(1990) suggest a difference between a behaviorally-oriented curriculum in whichknowledge and skills are taught discretely and then inductively connected versus the
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/construct.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/construct.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/construct.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/interact.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/interact.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/interact.htmlhttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construchttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construchttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construchttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/psyc.html#Cognitivehttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/psyc.html#Cognitivehttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/psyc.html#Cognitivehttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behmod.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behmod.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/operant.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/operant.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/operant.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behsys.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/dewey.htmhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/dewey.htmhttp://au.geocities.com/vanunoo/Humannature/bruner.htmlhttp://au.geocities.com/vanunoo/Humannature/bruner.htmlhttp://au.geocities.com/vanunoo/Humannature/bruner.htmlhttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.htmlhttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.htmlhttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.htmlhttp://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.htmlhttp://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.htmlhttp://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/soc_cult.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/soc_cult.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/soc_cult.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/activity.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/activity.htmlhttp://tip.psychology.org/lave.htmlhttp://tip.psychology.org/lave.htmlhttp://tip.psychology.org/lave.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://tip.psychology.org/lave.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/activity.htmlhttp://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/soc_cult.htmlhttp://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.htmlhttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.htmlhttp://au.geocities.com/vanunoo/Humannature/bruner.htmlhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/dewey.htmhttp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/operant.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/col/behsys/behmod.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/psyc.html#Cognitivehttp://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html#construchttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/interact.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/interact.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/construct.html


2/5

constructivistically-oriented classroom in which students acquire content while carrying out tasks

requiring higher-order thinking:

An example should help clarify this characteristic of a thinking curriculum. Summarizing

is a common skill learned in school. In conventional curricula, young students frequently

are expected to learn how to summarize by first learning each "step" in the summarizingprocess. They are taught these steps one at a time. Ample time is given to practice the

first step; for example, categorizing items or activities described in a text under a more

inclusive label. Indeed, they may complete numerous worksheets on categorizing. Then,the teacher may teach them a second "step;" for example, deleting redundant information.

Again, the students practice. This approach continues until students have been taught all

the steps or subprocesses thought to be involved in summarizing. In short, curriculum

tends to routinize the task. Finally, students are asked to put all these subskills together.Unfortunately, many students cannot do this---they are stuck at the subskill level, each of

which they might perform beautifully, but which they cannot integrate into a smooth

process of summarizing.

In contrast, in a thinking curriculum, summarizing would be conceived and taught as a

holistic process. Rather than fragmenting the process, it would be taught in a context orenvironment in which students can succeed. For young children, this might mean asking

them first to summarize relatively short paragraphs that deal with information with which

they are very familiar. The teacher may also ask students to work collaboratively to

summarize information at this initial learning stage. As students gain skill and confidencein summarizing, the teacher would ask them to summarize longer paragraphs, perhaps

containing less familiar information. In summary, a thinking curriculum always treats

tasks as indivisible wholes; variations that acknowledge the novice status of the learnerare changes the teacher can make in the environment.

Bruner (seeKearsley, 1999) provides the following principles of constructivistic learning:

1. Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make thestudent willing and able to learn (readiness).

2. Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student(spiral organization).

3. Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps(going beyond the information given).

Advocates of a constructivistic approach suggest that educators first consider the knowledge andexperiences students bring with them to the learning task. The school curriculum should then be

built so that students can expand and develop this knowledge and experience by connecting them

to new learning. Advocates of the behavioral approach, on the other hand, advocate first deciding

what knowledge or skills students should acquire and then developing curriculum that willprovide for their development.

Using a framework developed by Dunn and Larson (1998) to explain the process of

implementing elementary level technology curricula, Alexandria and Larson (2002) specified ten
http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.html


3/5

events that provide the foundation for a constructivistic approach to instruction. They

categorized these events into five components of an effective constructivistic lesson:

investigation, invention, implementation, evaluation, and celebration.

Investigation

1. Contextualizing: The teacher explains the process to the whole class, then workswith students in small groups to help them connect the students previous experiences

to the task at hand.2. Clarifying: The students discuss the project among themselves in small groups and

the teacher facilitates students as they determine what they need to know in order to

complete the project.3. Inquiring: Students begin the process of acquiring the necessary knowledge and

skills they might need to complete the project; teachers facilitate by asking questions

and helping students identify and understand credible resources.

Invention and Initial Implementation

4. Planning: Students in each group begin to organize their knowledge and developsome initial plans as to how to approach the project.

5. Realizing: Students develop a first draft or beginning product that will meet thestated criteria for the project. Each small group will develop an original approachand no two will look exactly alike.

Further Implementation and Evaluation

6. Testing: The students check their project against the criteria to see if it meets the

specifications. It is expected that the first attempt will need some or severalmodifications.

7. Modifying: Students rework their project in terms of deficiencies they may haveidentified. They then retest and modify until they have a finished project that meets

the stated criteria.

8. Interpreting: Students describe the value of the project relative to their backgroundsand experience.

9. Reflecting: Students broaden their evaluations of the project and put it in largercontext.

Celebration

10.Celebration: Students present their projects to the larger group while the largergroup acknowledges the value of the effort and results of the group.

Those advocating a constructivisitic approach should consider there are a variety of principles

from operant conditioning and information processing learning theories that can be utilized

within this approach. For example, when mediating a students learning it is certainly appropriate

to teach a specific skill using direct instruction, observe students practicing the skill, and


4/5

providing corrective feedback. The major issue is whether to start with a curriculum that is

taught step-by-step in an inductive manner as suggested by the behaviorists or to start with the

students knowledge and understandings and help the child fill in gaps necessary to solve asituation-specific problem as suggested by the constructivists.

Principles of learning from an information processing perspective such as recognizing the limitsof short-term memory, providing many opportunities for students to connect prior knowledge to

current learning, and recognizing the need for spaced practice can also be implemented within a

constructivistic approach. Again, the major distinction is in where to start: with a predesignedcurriculum or with the students experiences and knowledge base.

What is the correct approach? In my view the answer is "YES." If we start with the student'sknowledge base before we have established desired end goals, there is a tendency to have the

students simply make progress, thereby limiting students who are not adequately prepared.

These students may develop adequate thinking skills, but can have large gaps in their knowledge

and skills. On the other hand, if we focus only on desired end goals, especially knowledge goals,

without consideration of the student's acquired knowledge and background, we run the risk ofdeveloping knowledge and skills that have no meaning to the learner and are therefore easily

forgotten.

References

Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002, January/February). Teachers bridge to

constructivism. The Clearing House, 75(3), 118-121.

Ausubel, D. (1968).Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.

Bruner, J. (1990).Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Dewey, J. (1933/1998)How we think(Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton MifflinCompany.

Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics

Review, 13(3): 253-265.

Dunn, S., & Larson. R. (1998).Design technology: Children's engineering. Bristol, PA:Taylor and Francis Publishers (The Falmer Press).

Fennimore, T., & Tinzmann, M. (1990). What is a thinking curriculum? Oak Brook, IL:

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved December 2002, fromhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdf

Gibson, J. J. (1979).An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Harnad, S. (1982) Neoconstructivism: A unifying theme for the cognitive sciences. In T.Simon & R. Scholes (Eds.),Language, mind and brain (1 - 11). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Retrieved May 1999, from

http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.html

Kearsley, G. (1994, 1999).Explorations in learning & instruction: The theory intopractice database. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Retrieved May

1999, fromhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdfhttp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://www.gwu.edu/~tip/http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad82.neoconst.htmlhttp://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/thinking-ft.pdf


5/5

Ullman, S. (1980) Against direct perception.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 373 -

415.

Vygotsky, L. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Return to: |Overview of the Cognitive System|Home Page|

All materials on this website [http://www.edpsycinteractive.org] are, unless otherwise stated, the property of William G. Huitt. Copyright andother intellectual property laws protect these materials. Reproduction or retransmission of the materials, in whole or in par t, in any manner,without the prior written consent of the copyright holder, is a violation of copyright law.
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/index.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/index.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/index.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/index.htmlhttp://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.html

Documents

CHILD DEVELOPEMNT