Constructivism - Wikispaces Educational Theory Constructivism Abstract The following article provides a summary of the theory of learn-ing known as constructivism.

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


<ul><li><p>EBSCO Research Starters Copyright 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved</p><p>RESEARCH STARTERSACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS</p><p>ConstructivismEducational Theory &gt; Constructivism</p><p>AbstractThe following article provides a summary of the theory of learn-ing known as constructivism. Constructivism has received a great deal of recent attention in the educational literature, and as a result, has been defined in multiple ways. So many different definitions currently exist some scholars believe constructivism has been emptied of meaning altogether. The following will attempt to bring some clarity back to the theory by focusing on two different strands of constructivism; cognitive constructivism, as outlined in the work of Jean Piaget, and social constructiv-ism, as outlined in the work of Lev Vygotsky. Implications for teaching are introduced, as well as an example of a constructiv-ist classroom activity. The summary also introduces the larger epistemological debate surrounding constructivism. </p><p>OverviewIn recent years, constructivism has become one of the most often cited theories of learning in the educational literature (Null, 2004). Its popularity has achieved such heights that it has been referred to by various scholars as fashionable, faddish, and even by some, as a religion (Prouix, 2006). The frequent discussion of constructivism isnt a problem per se, but it has created some confusion regarding its exact meaning. As Harlow, Cummings, and Aberasturi (2006) acknowledge, constructivism has taken on as many different definitions as the number of people attempt-ing to define it (p. 41). As a result, they argue, it has also been emptied of meaning. Others concur, suggesting that the edu-cational literatureis littered with [such] a range of definitions that constructivism has become almostindefinable (Null, 2004, p. 180).</p><p>Perhaps more solid ground can be established by first recogniz-ing the philosophical foundations of constructivism. Although a relatively recent development in education, the issues addressed are ones that have been debated for thousands of years. At the core, constructivism is about epistemology, a branch of philoso-phy that studies the nature of knowledge what it is that we know, and how we know what we know. Although oversimpli-fied, philosophers have generally fallen into two camps; those who believe knowledge is an approximation of an independent reality a reality separate from the knower and representative of the ultimate Truth and those who believe that knowledge is created by human minds. Constructivists fall in the second camp, arguing that knowledge is constructed by individuals through their experience, and is not necessarily representative of the real world.</p><p>The notion of knowledge as a construction helps bring some clarity to this elusive concept, as does the recognition of one of its main pioneers. Although constructivism has roots in ancient philosophy, and its ideas have been extended by many modern day learning theorists, Piaget is most often credited with its devel-opment. As Prouix (2006) states, Even if many other authors </p><p>AbstractKeywordsOverview</p><p>Piaget &amp; Cognitive Constructivism</p><p>Lev Vygotsky &amp; Social Constructivism</p><p>Further InsightsViewpointsTerms &amp; ConceptsBibliographySuggested Reading</p><p>Table of Contents</p></li><li><p>Constructivism Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.</p><p>EBSCO Research Starters Copyright 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved Page 2</p><p>have contributed to numerous aspects of the theory in a tacit or indirect way (e.g., Dewey, Kant, Rousseau, Vico, etc.) the main pioneer of constructivism is without question Jean Piaget (p. 2). The following summary, therefore, will focus largely on the work of Piaget. In addition, the theoretical work of Vygotsky will be introduced. Vygotskys social constructivism is often contrasted with Piagets cognitive constructivism, but the fol-lowing will focus on the way in which these two strands are complementary. </p><p>Piaget &amp; Cognitive ConstructivismIn order to understand the significance of Piagets contribution, we must first place it within the context of the epistemological debate referenced in the introduction. For the past several cen-turies, those who believe that knowledge is an approximation of an independent reality representative of the ultimate Truth have held sway in the philosophical courts. For equally as long, how-ever, skeptics have argued that we cannot know the truth of our knowledge, because we would need access to the world that does not involve our experiencing it (von Glasersfeld, 1990, as cited in Prouix, 1996, p. 5). Despite what von Glasersfeld calls logically irrefutable arguments on the part of the skeptics, they were always summarily dismissed by pointing to the achieve-ments of human knowledge in ancient times, the prediction of eclipses, for example, and in more recent times, the accomplish-ments of modern technology. In the face of such successes, von Glasersfeld (2006) argues, it would, indeed, be ridiculous to question the validity of knowledge (p. 3). </p><p>What Piagets theory does, however, is make it possible to accept the skeptics logical conclusion without diminishing the obvious value of knowledge (von Glasersfeld, 1996, p. 4). More specifically, Piaget introduced the concept of adaptation </p><p>to epistemology. Having trained first as a biologist, Piaget stud-ied the relationship between mollusks and their environment; the ability to adapt, he concluded, was simply the ability to survive in a given environment. Knowledge, then, is not important to the extent that it represents an external reality, but is important to the extent that it is viable. Simply put, the notion of viability means that an action, operation, conceptual structure, or even a theory, is considered viable as long as it is useful in accomplishing the task or in achieving a goal that one has set for oneself (von Glasersfeld, 1998, as cited in Prouix, 2006, p. 5). In other words, truth is what works. </p><p>The question of what knowledge is, from a constructivist per-spective, has now been answered to some extent its not a representation of external reality or objective truth, but rather is truthful to the extent it is viable and adaptive but the exact mechanisms by which knowledge is constructed have not yet been explained. As Harlow, Cummings, and Aberasturi (2006) argue, those who overuse the term in the literature often ignore the how of constructivism. In other words, educators often pay lip service to the idea that people make meaning, but fail to understand the processes by which this occurs. Even teachers with the best intentions sometimes forget that cognitive con-flict, for example, is essential for new knowledge construction. Well turn to Piagets concepts of assimilation, accommodation, and disequilibrium for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.</p><p>According to Piaget, all learning is motivated by a desire to main-tain a state of equilibrium (Prouix, 2006). When an individual is confronted by information or an experience that contradicts his or her prior knowledge, the learner is motivated to modify or adapt prior knowledge in order to return to equilibrium. There-fore, those things that cause disequilibrium sometimes referred to a perturbations or cognitive conflicts play a critical role in the learning process. It is often through struggling to resolve the disequilibration caused by perturbations that one comes to a resolution that deepens and revises ones world-view (Prouix, 2006, p. 5). As Fosnot (1996) argues, in order to fully understand the concept of equilibration, one should understand its dynamic nature - it is a dynamic danceof growth and change (p. 14). The dance occurs between two polar tendencies our tendency to assimilate information and our tendency to accommodate information.</p><p>Assimilation occurs when new experiences or information fit into our existing mental structures. Stated differently, con-structivism asserts that our previous experiences serve as the lenses through which we read the world (Prouix, 2006, p. 5). Therefore, assimilation is largely an unconscious process, one in which we make new experiences fit into what we already know. Accommodation, on the other hand, takes place in the face of perturbations. When new knowledge or experiences contradict what was previously known, the learner must modify her exist-ing cognitive structures, the new knowledge/experience, or both. According to Prouix (2006) the learner tries to deliberately adapt or accommodate what is already known (previous knowledge) to a new experience that interrupts or contradicts established </p><p>Accommodation</p><p>Adaptation</p><p>Assimilation</p><p>Cognitive Constructivism</p><p>Disequilibrium</p><p>Objectivity</p><p>Piaget, Jean</p><p>Social Constructivism</p><p>Vygotsky, Lev</p><p>Zone of Proximal Development</p><p>Keywords</p></li><li><p>Constructivism Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.</p><p>EBSCO Research Starters Copyright 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved Page 3</p><p>interpretations (p. 5). In general, the mind tends to assimi-late; only when we have to accommodate does learning occur. </p><p>Although the basic structure of Piagets theory of knowing has been put forth, its worth noting a few other points of empha-sis. First and foremost, for Piaget and other constructivists in general, learning is always an active process. Importantly how-ever, active implies both physical and mental activity; that is, active in the sense of creating new mental structures and not just active in the sense of physically moving ones body. As Prouix (2006) explains, The word active should then not be read in the literal sense because it has a broader meaning in constructiv-ism. The idea that the learners have to be active does not imply that they have to construct a model physically with their hands, but instead that they develop their structures of knowledge by reflecting, analyzing, questioning themselves, working on prob-lems, and so on (p. 5) </p><p>Secondly, Piagets theory highlights the significant role of prior knowledge in the learning process, and the implications this has for teaching as well (Prouix, 2006). Students are not blank slates, and everything they experience in a classroom is interpreted in light of what they already know. As a result, teachers should recognize that learners possess knowledge already, and use that source of knowledge to build new understandings. Simply trans-mitting information to students as traditional teachers do in a lecture-based classroom does not acknowledge the learner as either active, or as an individual with pre-established cognitive structures.</p><p>As the two previous points imply, constructivists conceive of the classroom as learner-centered as opposed to teacher-centered. Learner-centered does not suggest, however, that students are free to create any meaning, to construct any knowledge. In other words, constructivists are often charged with promoting relativ-ism, a charge they dismiss with reference to the concept of fit and viability. Constructivism, with its concept of viability and fitting does not imply that anything goes but merely that theo-ries or explanations construed have to fit and be compatible with experiences lived (Prouix, 2006, p. 5). In other words, knowl-edge that is useful is more truthful than knowledge that is not. </p><p>Lev Vygotsky &amp; Social ConstructivismMuch of the current literature suggests that different strands of constructivism mainly, cognitive constructivism as outlined by Piaget and social constructivism as outlined by Vygtosky are at odds with one another (Cobb, 1996; Fosnot, 1996). Thus there is currently a dispute over whetherlearning is primar-ily a process of active cognitive reorganization or a process of enculturation into a community of practice (Cobb, 1996, p. 35). Others argue, however, that Piaget recognized the importance of social interaction in learning, even if he focused on it less than Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996). Thus the two theories are com-plementary more than they are competitive, and learning should be understood as a cognitive and a social process, not either-or (Cobb, 1996). </p><p>Thus, although much of Vygotskys work overlapped with Piag-</p><p>ets, he did in fact focus more heavily on the role of culture, language and social interaction in the construction of knowledge. Like Piaget, he believed learning to be developmental, but he made a distinction between what he viewed as the construction of spontaneous concepts (also known as pseudoconcepts) and the construction of scientific concepts (Fosnot, 1996). Sponta-neous concepts, he believed, were developed by children during their everyday activities, in the course of everyday life; these pseudoconcepts were similar to those studied by Piaget. On the other hand, scientific concepts, he suggested, originate in more formal settings like the classroom and represent culturally-agreed upon concepts. On their own, children would be unlikely to develop scientific concepts, but with the help of adults and older children, they can master ideas and thought processes that extend their knowledge. The space where children extend their current knowledge with adult assistance has become known as the Zone of Proximal Development.</p><p>Vygotsky is undoubtedly best known for the zone of proximal development, but two other concepts are also worthy of mention. Like Piaget, Vygotsky studied the language of preschoolers, but what Piaget concluded was egocentric speech, Vygotsky con-cluded was social from the very beginning. He argued that inner speech was the mechanism by which culturally prescribed forms of language and reasoning find their individualized realization (as cited in Fosnot, 1996, p. 19). Vygotsky also concluded that inner speech plays an important role in the development of spon-taneous concepts, and in particular, the attempts by children to communicate the concept to others. </p><p>Finally, Vygotsky was most interested in the role of other people in the development and learning processes of children. He emphasized the cooperative nature of the learning task to such an extent, for example, that he viewed tests or school tasks that only looked at the childs individual problem solving as inad-equate, arguing instead that the progress in concept formation achieved by the child in cooperation with an adult was a much more viable way to look at the capabilities of learners (Fosnot, 1996, p. 19). He referred to cooperation as the dialogical nature of learning; others have since extended this idea through the notion of scaffolding. Scaffolding is best exemplified by an infant/mother interaction, during which the mother at times imi-tates the baby, and other times, varies her response to further develop the childs response (Fosnot, 1996). </p><p>Further InsightsOne of the important distinctions theorists make about construc-tivism is that it is a theory of learning and is even, at times, called a theory of knowing and is not a theory of teaching. A...</p></li></ul>


View more >