Constructivism in Learning

Thomas Johnson Constructivism in Learning | ict-design.org

student

Constructivism in Learning: Impossible not to implement

Literature Review

This essay examines proponents for and against Constructivism leading to the argument of semantics of knowledge acquisition. It inspects certain theories and philosophies in order to build upon them a new way of thinking about Constructivism through process.


Constructivism in Learning: Impossible not to implement

“[Jean Piaget] suggested that through processes

of accommodation and assimilation, individuals construct new

knowledge from their experiences. When individuals assimilate,

they incorporate the new experience into an already existing

framework without changing that framework.” (Wikipedia,

Constructivism (learning theory), 2009)

This essay argues that ‘constructivism’ is, in fact, impossible not to

implement and that arguments against constructivist theory are disagreements of

semantics. The essay will explain what constructivism is. It will demonstrate

how others are using constructivist methods in education. Following this, the

essay will delve into arguments against the constructivist model, and finally it will

state why it is impossible not to use constructivism in every day teaching. First,

we need to have a common understanding of our terms.

What is constructivism?

In its simplest sense constructivism is learning by doing. A person could

be ‘doing’ things physically or ‘doing’ by sensing things and interpreting them.

Ernst von Glasersfeld states that Piaget breaks the latter logic apart to both

empirical and reflective evidence. He demonstrates this in the following quote,

1 | P a g e


“’Empirical abstractions concern observables and reflective abstractions concern

coordinations.’ (Piaget et al., 1977a, Vol. 2; p.319)” (Glasersfeld, 2002)

We need to parse this apart in order to peruse its meaning. First examine

‘empirical’ which means that information has been proven over a period of time,

probably through formal or informal testing. ‘Abstractions’ are essentially the

generalizing of information. ‘Observables’ refers to the plural of something that is

recognizable due to “some sequence of physical operations.” (Wikipedia,

Observable, 2009) Further examination of the quote requires investigation of

‘reflective’ which is returned “characterized by or given to meditation or

contemplation; thoughtful” (Answers.com, 2009) and ‘coordinations’ are defined

as the plural of “the harmonious functioning of parts for effective results”

(Merriam-Webster, 2009)

Combining these explanations, constructivism refers to information that

has been recognized, tested against something and then formed into a

consolidated manner that the brain recognizes and understands. With this

veritable cornucopia of an explanation kept in mind this essay follows with

introspection of the lean towards a non-traditional approach to teaching and with

examples of everyday practice to demonstrate concrete examples.

2 | P a g e


Constructivism in use

A teacher said, “I think of constructivism as using previous knowledge to

build new knowledge upon.” (Perry, 2009) Further questioning revealed Perry

thought of the antithesis to constructivism as, “the ‘kitchen sink approach’.

Teachers disseminate knowledge to their students, probably due to curriculum

guidelines or for the test. Students learn this information for the instance it is

needed, essentially making no connections to it and not connecting the

knowledge to anything else in their minds. When the need for the data has

passed for the student the knowledge is released, or the ‘sink is drained’.” (Perry,

2009) To sum up her sentiments, people construe this as teaching through the

rote learning approach or teaching ‘to the test’. It seems far from the idea behind

constructivist learning.

To demonstrate cognitive strategies that educators have moved or are

moving towards for pedagogical practice through a more constructivist approach,

we should examine ‘Understanding by Design’ or ‘UbD’. ‘UbD’ is articulated as,

“engaging students in enquiry and uncovering of ideas [where teachers move

away from] ‘covering the curriculum’ to ‘creating curriculum’ and understanding

with technology” (Meier, nd) It starts with the end in mind. The approach used to

be called ‘backwards design’.

For an example, let us assume a teacher wants students to think about

Social issue awareness. This is the ‘enduring understanding’ as referred to by

the International Baccalaureate Organization (Quist, 2006), who modeled their

3 | P a g e


framework upon UbD. The IBO asks teachers to think of the enduring

understanding first. For a better recognition of what this means, a teacher could

ask themselves, “What do I want my students to remember 20 years from now?”

From this point, teachers develop guiding questions. For example, they may

derive “How can I be aware of social issues?” as a possible question leading to

the enduring understanding. This overarching question would not likely be easily

answered and would be informed through the positing of further questions,

hopefully by the students. After the development of questions leading to the big

idea, the teacher would develop proper assessment tasks. For example,

students may be asked to recognize what social issues are. Students would

identify and acknowledge a repertoire of social issues, possibly focusing on one

or two in order to delve further into their ideas. In order for students to ‘prove’ the

acquisition of this body of knowledge they may be asked to do any assortment of

tasks, from creating a poster-board, to PowerPoint presentation, to creating

websites, to writing short surveys for their friends that ask them to reflect upon

the ideas they are perusing. Educators could pair any of these tasks with a

rubric explaining expected outcome levels. In essence, tests could also be a

form of assessment for recognition of the obtained information.

The founders of this philosophy of thought declare this common

misconception about the UbD approach, “[Many people think] only alternative or

progressive methods of teaching and assessing can yield understanding. This is

all about process as opposed to content.” Wiggins and McTighe write, “Nothing

could be further from the truth. You cannot understand without subject matter

4 | P a g e


knowledge. All so-called traditional approaches at the college level, for example,

aim at and often succeed in yielding in-depth understanding. The challenge is

not to choose this or that tactic to the exclusion of others, but to expand and

better target our teaching repertoire, based on more careful consideration of what

our learning goals imply.” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)

Stepping back from this philosophy in order to observe the macrostructure

of knowledge we need to think of things in terms of epistemology, or the theory of

knowledge. “The kind of knowledge usually discussed is propositional

knowledge, also known as "knowledge-that" as opposed to "knowledge-how."

For example: in mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing

how to add two numbers.” (Wikipedia, Epistemology, 2009) This same article

further explains that knowledge is based upon the intersection of truths and

beliefs. The diagram below visually demonstrates this idea.

(Szczepan1990)

5 | P a g e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_knowledge


For this understanding, however, we need to examine an understanding of

beliefs and truths. Beliefs are unfounded evidences that could possibly prove to

be true. They may be something that is predicted and is much more subjective.

Truths are events, orders or conclusions that are known. For example, we might

take the idea of flight. It was believed by many that we could not fly, but it has

been proven through aerodynamic engineering and every day use that this idea

is in fact known to be a truth. This essay will refer back to this diagram in the

final section to posit an outer circle, which is defined as the constructivist circle.

What do beliefs and truths have to do with constructivism in practice?

Students are approaching each topic or each set of their unfound knowledge with

a belief system intact. They are constantly constructing new knowledge with the

recognition of truths. Their belief system is the “previous knowledge” Perry was

referring to. As they define and recognize the truths, this becomes knowledge.

“In the constructivist classroom, the teacher searches for students’

understandings of concepts, and then structures opportunities for students to

refine or revise these understandings by posing contradictions, presenting new

information, asking questions, encouraging research, and/or engaging students

in inquiries designed to challenge current concepts.” (Brooks, 1999) Brooks

refers to the teacher recognizing and then engaging in and sometimes against

the belief system of the student in order to present to them new truths which

become knowledge for the student. He artfully attacks traditional means of

education by stating that teachers should “seek and value their student’s point of

view; classroom activities challenge students’ suppositions; teachers pose

6 | P a g e


problems of emerging relevance; teachers build lessons around primary

concepts and ‘big ideas’; and teachers assess students in the context of daily

teaching.” All of this echoes the concepts and ideas that Wiggins and McTighe

present through UbD.

Many other practitioners argue for the use of this constructivist approach

in mathematics, which has often been deemed unnecessary to the students

because they cannot attach meaning or usefulness to the knowledge they could

be acquiring. Phillip E. Agre writes a chapter in Situated cognition: social,

semiotic, and psychological perspectives where he names his approach ‘living

math’ and defines “life situations are translated into formal cognitive structures or

‘problems’; these structures are then manipulated through mental processes

whose outcomes are finally interpreted within the larger life situation as actions to

take or answers to give.” (Kirshner & Whitson, 1997)

For an example of how this could work, there is an approach where

students are asked to think of what one-million dollars actually means to them.

The concept is probably never examined, but is something they may deal with

daily through reading about government or corporate spending and waste. In

order to understand, students are asked to measure a twenty-dollar bill’s width,

length and its minute height. Precision is important. The students take this

information and determine the size of a bundle of 25 twenty-dollar bills, which

would equal $500 in value. After recognizing something they can quantifiably

understand in their mind, both in value and in size, the students measure the

height, width and length of their classroom, also an understandable and

7 | P a g e


quantifiable number. The process ensues with students determining how many

bundles could divide into their classroom. This number would then be multiplied

to recognize it value. Whatever the number is, it is probably not one million

dollars, (unless it is an extremely large classroom) but the students have an

understanding of a full classroom of money’s worth, which they can visualize.

Recognizing this and then determining how many classrooms they would need

full of money to equal one-million dollars gives them an understandable and

quantifiable term for them to recognize how much money this value actually is.

(Johnson, 2009)

This is a spatial and kinesthetic way of understanding a quantifiable

concept. However, this example or something similar may not always prove to

be possible given knowledge that may not be tangible. In this case, the user of

the information needs to understand and make their meaning through their own

perspective or the teacher needs to guide them to thinking in that regard. Leone

Burton speaks specifically about mathematics when he says, “The introduction of

‘perspective’ also allows for the possibility of multiple perspectives, and hence

discussion and debate ensue over which perspectives should guide instruction.”

(Burton, 1999)

To sum this idea up, Susan J. Lamon relates, “When I talk to teachers

about constructivism and ask them how they have modified their instruction to

accommodate individual construction of knowledge, the response almost always,

is that they have their students work in groups with hands-on activities, and then

they facilitate post-investigation instruction. The class reaches a consensus and

8 | P a g e


the students have constructed for themselves the mathematics…” (Lesh & Doerr,

2003) However, there are those who make arguments against the constructivist

approach. This essay defines these disagreements in the following section.

Arguments against constructivism

The latter part of the quote from Lamon reads, “The class reaches a

consensus and the students have constructed for themselves the

mathematics…” Negated was the rest of her quote, which stated her true

sentiments:

…that took thousands of years to produce. Wait a minute! How

does this take into account the different knowledge structures with

which students have come into instruction? Does the construction

of knowledge happen merely because of the classroom

organization? The manipulatives? What role does content play

here? How do we know that we are giving all students access to

mathematics? How does the teacher build a model of the students

conceptual structures and track changes? [She argued] that

classroom interpretations of constructivism are not necessarily

headed in a useful direction...and that it may be time to consider

alternative, but not necessarily competing, perspectives on the

development of (mathematical) knowledge. (Lesh & Doerr, 2003)

9 | P a g e


Therefore, it is necessary to set out to define what the alternative methods

are. Chief opponents to the constructivist method cite these applicable methods

and strategies: “(a) modeling procedures for identifying and self-checking

important information… (b) showing students how to reduce that information to

paraphrases … (c) having students use notes to construct collaborations and

routines, and (d) promoting collaborative dialogue within problems.” (Kirshner,

Sweller, & Clark, 2006)

We can sum Kirshner, Sweller, & Clark’s main argument up that teachers

need to present early learners with direct instruction because they do not have

the basic understandings yet in order to be able to construct their own meanings.

They affirm very explicitly the statement, ”The past half-century of empirical

research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence

that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient

than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing

necessary for learning.” Since this bold statement contradicts so much of the

philosophies of teaching in present day, it may be time to reexamine approaches

to learning and teaching if empirical evidence is pointing against an ever-gaining

trend.

However, they seem to misrepresent the fact that scaffolding can be built

into a constructivist approach. The teacher is not writing a “big idea” on the

board for 4-year olds and saying, “Go to it.” Within any argument there are minor

details that are not addressed by the opposition, and this point would definitely

have been omitted from Kirshner et al.

10 | P a g e


On an altogether different note, teachers may feel uneasy with the

constructivist approach, especially if their educators taught using traditional rote

or direct instructional methods. The teachers who were students of the

traditional method may find it is hard to break apart from something they know

well. They may experience a feeling of slacking if they are presenting the “big

idea” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) for students to examine and then assuming to

allow students to learn on their own or with limited guidance. They may also

have the misconception they no longer need to cover the course material.

Where this may be a popular fallacy, it is not what Wiggins and McTighe had in

mind.

Teachers may even feel that traditional means of testing has become

outdated or irrelevant. Wiggins and McTighe make no claim to the fact that

‘traditional’ means to an end are no longer useful. In regards to testing, they

state, “appropriate diversity and validity is found in classroom assessment”

(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). In order for a teacher to fulfill these sorts of formal

and informal validations, the teacher needs to reach beyond summative tests,

probably also using formative tests and quizzes, observations, tasks, and

projects. Still, a teacher will never fully know what kind of connections a student

is making with newfound knowledge. They can only compare it to a grading

rubric, marking scheme, or some other form of method collection against the

standards they have set out to teach.

Other criticizers allege, “Constructivism breaks radically with the

foundations of empirico-realism, which claims to encode reality in terms of

11 | P a g e


substances and phenomena which are independent of the observers involved.

So doing, it challenges age-old beliefs which maintain that facts speak for

themselves, that knowledge is the reflection of ontological reality, and that

language objectively refers to this reality…it reintroduces the notion of

responsibility for one’s actions.” (Larochelle & Bednarz, 1988)

The idea of self-responsibility resonated by Larochelle and Bednarz can

be quite unsettling for teachers and especially for parents as it is a step in the

other direction from objectivism, which has always sought to leave out “properties

of the observer within the description of his or her observations.” (Larochelle &

Bednarz, 1988) Now, teachers place the onus back on the student to learn. The

adage, ‘you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’ becomes

absolutely prevalent and relevant through the lens of the constructivist teacher

and learner.

Conversely, the argument of this essay is not about which approach for

the teacher to use, but that whether a certain approach is used, the brain has to

use what it knows in order to build upon that knowledge. The next section will

deal with this construct further.

The impossibility for the brain not use constructivism in the classroom (or

anywhere else)

“[A]s constructivism implies that knowledge is always knowledge that a

person constructs, it has prompted the development of didactic situations which

12 | P a g e


stress the need to encourage greater participation by the student in their

appropriation of scholarly knowledge.” (Larochelle & Bednarz, 1988)

Does this need for didactic situations make itself apparent? For example,

a student is sitting and learning the Presidents of the United States for a test

coming up. Unless he or she really cares about this information or makes

connections to it the chances are they will forget much of it after the test has

taken place. Is this knowledge enduring? Yes, but not the content. The brain is

ALWAYS building upon previous knowledge, as far back as being a fetus in the

womb, unless there is a brain malfunction, like anterograde or retrograde

amnesia, which are the inabilities to recall short-term or long-term events

respectively.

In the modified diagram below, an outer “constructivist circle” has been

added that encompasses all learning.

We think of knowledge as the information the brain keeps. However, how

the brain keeps certain knowledge and discards other information is equally valid.

13 | P a g e

Constructivism by the brain


The brain process builds upon itself and it is this that is constructed from

previous experiences.

McTighe and Wiggins argue there needs to be a ‘big idea’ for teachers to

focus upon in order for students to learn well. I disagree, stating that ‘small

ideas’ are also relevant. Little connections, whether apparent or not are still

making up the learning and the connections that are taking place in a person’s

mind. They may not be apparent but they are still happening. The brain is

constantly formulating to recognize relevance.

Perry interpreted teaching through rote learning or for the test is the

opposite of learning through a constructivist approach. Whether the brain is

learning the substance or how to deal with the content, it is still following its own

constructivist approach. It is making connections, discrediting unnecessary

information and accruing the information it deems worthy.

In the case of rote learning or preparing for the test, the knowledge for the

test is the most important knowledge at that moment in time, whereas after the

test it becomes almost irrelevant. The brain learns the process rather than the

content. In many situations, the argument is that this is an equally valid

approach to teaching and learning as content-driven information becomes

outdated or is essentially irrelevant. Processing of information is a life-long skill

that we need to possess. There will be workplace or life scenario where we need

to know something for that moment, but after the process has occurred, it is no

longer necessary to know the information. Therefore, becoming autodidactic for

the time and learning to discard information can be very useful. Constructivism is

14 | P a g e


still apparent. However, the information being constructed is not the “what”, but

the “how”. Hence, the brain cannot not apply the constructivist approach. In

relative terms, the brain is always doing this. Through what guise we choose to

look at the formulated knowledge is the argument of semantics.

15 | P a g e


Works Cited

Answers.com. (2009). Reflective: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/reflective

Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: ASCD publications.

Burton, L. (1999). Learning mathematics: from hierarchies to networks. London: Biddles Ltd.

Glasersfeld, E. v. (2002). Radical Constructivism. London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Johnson, T. (2009, November 12). How to understand 1 million dollars. (V. Liu, Interviewer)

Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Situated cognition: social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Kirshner, 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,Experiental, and Inquiry-based Teaching. Educational Psychologist , 75-86.

Larochelle, M., & Bednarz, N. (1988). Constructivism and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Meier, E. B. (nd, nd nd). Understanding by Design Teaching. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from ilearn.org: http://iearn.org/civics/may2003workshop/Understanding%20by%20Design%20Teaching%20Ellen%20Meier%20CTSC.pdf

Merriam-Webster. (2009). Coordinations. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from Merriam-Webster.com: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coordinations

Perry, K. (2009, November 7). Informal. (V. Liu, Interviewer)

Quist, A. (2006, April 7). Why International Baccalaureate (IB) is un-American. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from crossroads.to: http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/edwatch/4-7-ib-why.htm

Szczepan1990. Classical Definition of Kno. Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg. Wikipedia, unknown.


Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria: ASCD Publications.

Wikipedia. (2009, October 29). Constructivism (learning theory). Retrieved October 29, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructivism_(learning_theory)&action=history

Wikipedia. (2009, November 10). Epistemology. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Wikipedia. (2009, August 17). Observable. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable

Documents

Constructivism in Learning