136

The Constructivist Perspective: Implications and TeachingStrategies for ScienceWalter L. Saunders Department of Secondary Education

Utah State UniversityLogon, Utah 84322-2815

The constructivist perspective is becoming a dominantparadigm in the field of cognitive psychology. Researchfindings resulting from this perspective have profoundimplications for the way in which science instruction is carriedout.

Within the past two decades, a major shift has occurred inhow those who study human learning view the nature of thelearning process (Wittrock, 1985). Research questions whichare studied have changed from questions about factors externalto the learner, such as teacher variables, personality, clarity ofexpression, enthusiasm, use of praise, etc. to questions aboutfactors inside the mind of the learner, such as prior knowledge,naive conceptions, memory capacity, information processingcapacity, motivation, attention, and cognitive style (Wittrock,1985). This focus upon studies of cognition has resulted in arapidly growing body of research literature which is beginningto provide unprecedented insights into the nature ofthe learningprocess especially thosecognitiveprocesses thought to underliemeaningful learning.

The science education research community is contributinggreatly to this body ofknowledge. Findings from these researchefforts have begun to generate important insights about howstudents acquiremeaning and understanding ofscience conceptsboth in and out of school and on how prior knowledge caninterfere with orenhancestudent understanding. These insightsstem from akeyphilosophicalstanceknown as theconstructivistperspective, and they carry profound implications forinstructional practices, practices which some experiencedteachers seem to effect intuitively. Unfortunately, however, avast majority ofscience programs are textbook driven and thusoften fail to capitalize upon more effective instructional practicesstemming from these new insights.

Constructivist Theory

Construct!vism can bedefined as that philosophical positionwhich holds that any so-called reality is, in the most immediateand concrete sense, the mental construction of those whobelieve they have discovered and investigated it. In otherwords, what is supposedly found is an invention whose inventoris unaware of his act of invention and who considers it assomething that exists independently of him; the invention thenbecomes the basis of his world view and actions (Watzlawick,1984).

The most salient feature of the constructivist perspectivethen is reflected in Watzlawick’s definition. It is the notion thatlearners respond to their sensory experiences by building orconstructing in their minds, schcmas or cognitive structureswhich constitute the meaning and understanding oftheir world.Individuals attempt to make sense of whatever situation orphenomenon they encounter, and a consequence of this sensemaking process (a process which takes place within the mindof these individuals) is the establishment of structures in themind.

These structures or schemas as they are frequently calledcan be thought of as one’s beliefs, understandings, andexplanations, in short, one’s necessarily subjective knowledgeof the world. The first major tenant of the constructivist theoryis, "Meaning is constructed by the cognitive apparatus of thelearner" (Resnick, 1983). Consequently, it is not communicatedby the teacher to student.

To say it another way, meaning is created in the mind of thestudent as a result of the student’s sensory interaction with heror his world. Because it is created in the mind of the learner, itcannot simply be told to the studentby the teacher. In the wordsof Bransford, Franks, Vyc, and Sherwood (1989), "Wisdomcan’t be told."

It is important to note that these mental constructions areoften not in accord with those of the community of scientists orthose given in textbooks and as such are described variously asmisconceptions, alternative conceptions (Viennot, 1979;White & Tisher, 1986), alternative frameworks (Driver &Easley, 1978), homegrown conceptions (Rowe, 1983), andintuitive conceptions (Burbulcs & Linn, 1988).

The way in which the sensory experiences and cognitivestructures interact to result in understanding is best illustratedwith a detailed discussion of an example. The well-knownPiagetian task, displacement of volume, will be used here.Suppose the thought processes ofJohn (age 12 to 14). a learnerwho is in the process oftrying to understand how the density (hemay or may not understand the term) of an object is related tothe amount of water it would displace if the object werecompletely submerged in the water, is examined.

Typically,John has constructed schema from manypreviousexperiences with objects and liquids such as toys, cars,bathtubs, dishpans, sinks, water, milk, juices, boats, etc.These schemahavebeen created, often in an almost unconsciousfashion. over aperiod ofseveral years and they are employed by

School Science and Mathematics

The Constructivist Perspective137

him to make predictions about the behavior of objectssubmerged in liquids.

Two important uses of these structures are that they: (a)provide the learner with the power to utilize his past experienceto make predictions and (b) provide a means by which he candevelop explanations for these predictions. It is important tonote that the predictions and the explanations mightbe wrong inthe sense that they don’t agree with those which are generallyaccepted by the community ofscientists at large. To the learner,they make logical sense within the context of the world view hehas constructed out ofhis experience. Forexample, suppose thelearner expects that water will overflow and spill from a bucketfull of water when an object is submerged in it. From pastexperiences with water levels and immersed objects, he knowsthat the water level will rise when an object is immersed in it.

Supposenow that the learner is handed two metal objects, thesame size and shape, one of brass, the other aluminum. He isthen asked to make a prediction about the amount of water eachwould displace if they were submerged. He holds the objects inhis hand and notices the brass object is much heavier than thealuminum. He is then asked to place the aluminum object in thegraduated cylinder and observe the resulting water level afterimmersion.

Now, John is asked to make a prediction about the rise inwater level which would result from immersing the brass object.John recalls his sensory experience with objects (i.e. the brasswas much heavier than thealuminum) and consequentlypredictsthat the brass will displace more water than the aluminum. (Hisschema tells him the heavier object will displace more water.)

Such a prediction is very common among persons whenfaced with questions of this sort. How is such a predictionformulated? According to constructivist theory, it arises out ofone’s schema of submerged objects. The schema which manystudents invoke in order to formulate such a prediction is usuallysomething like, "The heavier object will displace more waterbecause heavier means bigger, and bigger takes up more space,so the heavier object will make the water level rise more." Manystudents, however, will simply say, "I don’t know why. That’sjust the way it is" or "I remember we learned it in school."

Now, the description of the interaction between sensoryexperienceand cognitive structurewhere the learner’s predictionsare compared with his observations will be addressed. Thelearner is asked to place the brass object in the graduatedcylinder and observe the resulting water level. In other words,he is placed in a situation where he must compare an aspect ofhis cognitive universe with an aspect of the natural universe.(The reader, no doubt, realizes that the correct schema is thatwhen objects denser than water are submerged, they displace avolume of water equal to the volume of the submerged object.)At this point, it is appropriate to describe a second importanttenant of constructivist theory.

The second important tenant is these schema or mentalconstructions have been created at great cognitive expense, i.e.the construction of meaning is a psychologically active process

which requires the expenditure of mental effort.As long as the learner’s predictions continue to agree with

his experience, the schema remains intact. In other words,they are confirmed or more strongly held. In the eventprediction does not agree with experience, the learnerbecomessurprised, puzzled, frustrated, or in Piaget’s terms,disequilibrated.

In theprocess ofreconciling this conflictbetween predictionand observation (e.g. internal world and external world), thelearner has three options. He can deny the existence of thesensory data, distrust it by claiming it to be invalid, orrationalizing it away. This is called the intact schema option.He can also revise the schema in some way so that thepredictions agree with experience. This is called the cognitiverestructuring option. These options are two sides of the samecoin. i.e. to revise or not revise one’s schema. A third option,is apathy. Here, the learner simply disengages himselfcognitively. He simply docs not accept the responsibility tounderstand but instead maintains the attitude that, "I don’tknow why and I don’t care (why)".

With the intact schema option, the thinking is somethinglike, "Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already madeup." Here the learner chooses (probably unconsciously) todisbelieve his or her senses or tends to invoke magic ormysticism or in some other way reject his sensory experiencewith the world. This first option manifests itself in statementslike, "Itjust looks like it displaces the same amountbut it reallyisn’t the same" or "Its magic water" (Linn, 1983) or "Real waterdoesn’t do that." Children, and even adults, actually say suchthings. Such statements are indications of the tremendouscognitive inertia which mustbeovercome in order to restructureschema.

There is considerable evidence in the literature whichsuggests that discarding or restructuring one’s schema does notcome easily (Champagne, Klopfcr, & Andcrson, 1980;Eylon& Linn, 1988; Gunstone & White, 1980; Linn & Thier. 1975).Instead it seems, the learnerchooses to ignore newsensory dataand clings tenaciously to her or his schema.

The second option, cognitive restructuring, is to trust thedata (e.g. to accept one’s sensory experience) and revise or alterone’s schema such that its predictions are more in harmonywith what is observed. In such a case, it is said that meaningfullearning occurs. This option manifests itself in studentstatements such as, "Oh! Now I get it" (understands thephenomena) or "I was wrong. It’s not theweightbut the volumethat does it." The gleam in the eye of the learner is readilyapparent when the light comes on (the insight is gained). It isof utmost importance to point out that the teacher cannotconvey this insight through lecture. The student must constructit in the mind. The teacher cannot modify the student’scognitive structure, only the student can. The teacher can assiststudents with cognitive restructuring by placing them insituations which result in disequilibration. The teacher cannotconvey or transmit meaning. The teacher can only transmit

Volume 92(3), March 1992

The Constructivist Perspective138

words. Meaning must be created by the student.The existence of the first option, intact schema, brings us to

a third tenant of the constructivist theory. Cognitive structuresare sometimes highly resistant to change, even in the face ofobservational evidence and/or formal classroom instruction tothe contrary (Champagne et al., 1980; Linn, 1983; McDermott,1984; Whittrock, 1985).

To help visualize the relationships among experience,schema, and meaningful learning, the interaction betweencognitive and sensory events is represented with a model (seeFigure 1). The model shows the interaction of the learner withthe environment, i.e. the connections between the learner’scognitiveuniverse (internal) and thephysical universe (external).When the learner is engaged in the processes described in theexample, the learner is said to be in a state of active cognitiveinvolvement or the constructivist learning model is activated.

The connection between these two universes takes placethrough the sensory apparatus and associated neurological,physiological and biochemical mechanisms, in short, theapparatus through which the world around us is experienced.The flow of this sensory data into the structures of the mind isknown as assimilation in Piagetian terminology; however, themodel shows that when the learner’s expectations (predictions)do not coincide with experience (measurements) the result isdisequilibration.

Discquilibration can result in the modification of one’sschema, e.g. the learner restructures his schema such thatexpectations are morein agreementwith one’s experience. Thisschema restructuring process is interpreted as meaningfullearning. From this, it can be inferred that restructuring hasoccurred when learners verbalize phrases such as, "Oh, now Iget it; it’s not the weight of the brass and aluminum whichdetermines the rise in water level, it’s the volume."

In summary, learners construct knowledge through apsychologically active process. These knowledge structuresare sometimes highly resistant to change. Finally,disequilibrating experiences can result in modification of thesecognitive structures and hence give rise to increases in thelearners understanding of the world.A necessary condition for cognitive restructuring is an

opportunity for repeated, exploratory, inquiry-orientedbehaviors about an event or phenomena in order to realize thatthe intact schema option is no longer tenable, and that the onlyreasonable option is to revise one’s cognitive structure so as tobe more consistent with one’s experience (data, measurements,or observations).

Implications for Instructional Practices

What are the implications of the constructivist perspectivefor learning in the science classroom? Science learning is theacquisition of meaning, not the mere rote memorization ofinformation, but rather cognitive restructuring in a directionsuch that one’s internal world is more consistent with one’s

empirical data about the external world. Such restructuringclearly implies that learners need abundant sensory experienceswith their external world and opportunities for reducingdisequilibration. What are important features of effectivescience programs in light of the constructivist perspective?Four instructional features which stem directly from theconstructivist perspective, have been shown by research toenhance meaningful learning, and are relatively easy toimplement in science classrooms are presented below. Thefeatures are presented separately; however, in actual practice.they are interwoven in complex ways to create an environmentdesigned to engender meaningful learning.

Hands On, Investigative Labs

First hand, direct sensory experiences (hands on laboratoryactivities) provide opportunities for learners to experience forthemselves (assimilate) the phenomena or materials understudy and, as a result of disequilibrating experiences, to modifytheir schema so as to understand their sensory experiences. Theuse of manipulative activities has been shown to be far moreeffective in producing large gains in achievement than merelyhaving students observe or read about a phenomena or event(Wise & Okey, 1983). It is important to note that not alllaboratory activities are equally effective in bringing aboutmeaningful learning. Laboratory instruction has long beenexamined from two points of view: (a) the traditional orverification lab and (b) the investigative or inquiry approach.

In the traditional approach, students are provided a handout,workbook, lab manual, orotherprinted materials containing thepurpose ofthe experimentand detailed instructions for carryingit out. In this approach (commonly termed cookbook), both thedesign ofexperiment and theprocedures for carrying it out havebeen thought out by someone other than the learner. In a sense,then, some of the cognitive work has been done for the studentinstead ofby the student. If the student does not understand thepurpose of the experiment, she or he will gain little or nounderstanding by merely carrying out a set of procedures oftenin a somewhat rote fashion (Bumett, 1939). When one queriesstudents who are engaged in cookbook lab activities about whattheir purpose is, what they are learning about, or why they areconducting a particularprocedure, they usually respond with. "Idon’t know" or "The "teacher told us to do this." All toofrequently, they are simple following instructions, step by step,in a cognitively very passive way, often attending to visualstimuliandconversational topics other than thatofthe laboratoryactivity. This passive, robot like mental activity is likely not toproduce disequilibrating experiences. Students simply havenot relied upon their existing schema’s to generate expectations(a product ofone’s cognitive world) about their (external world)observations.

In the investigative or inquiry approach, the student must, ofnecessity, utilize her or his schema to formulate an expectationabout what is likely to be observed. Further, if the student is

School Science and Mathematics

The Constructivist Perspective139

Figure 1. A constractivist learning model.

Internal World(World of the Mind)

External World(World of Natural

Objects & Phenomena)

Cognitive Universe

Cognitive Structures

(Ideas and Beliefs)Assimilation

(Taking of environmentaldata into the

cognitive structuresthrough the sensory

apparatus)

Natural UniverseObjects & Phenomena

(The stuff of reality)

[ExpectationsI (Predictions)

Observations ](Measurements) j

Differences between one’s PREDICTIONSand one’s MEASUREMENTS cause a state of

fAccomodatlon(Modifying cognitivestructures so theyare consistent with

experience)

rDisequilibration^

-(gives rise xo)

allowed someinvolvement in the designofthe investigation, sheor he must, again, of necessity, formulate a plan for measuringor observing the anticipated outcome. This plan evolves out ofand is built upon his understanding of the situation (her or hisinternal world). This active cognitive involvement sets the stagefor assimilation of the external environment and the consequentdisequilibration resulting from the differences in predictions

and measurements. Consequently, in the investigative orinquiry lab, the learner is much more likely to be immersed inan environment rich with opportunities that evokedisequilibration and hence give rise to the potential forcognitive restructuring. These sons of outcomes are clearlyshown in Raghubir’s (1979) study of investigative labs in highschool biology as well as in several studies ofthe learning cycle

Volume 92(3), March 1992

The Constructivist Perspective

140

model of instruction (Purser & Renncr, 1983; Saunders & inclusion of test items which activate higher level cognitiveShepardson, 1987; Schneider & Renner, 1980; Sheehan, 1970). processes.

Active Cognitive Involvement

A second feature ofclassroom environments which enhancemeaningful learning is the opportunity for active cognitiveinvolvement of learners. Cognitive activities such as thinkingout loud, developing alternative explanations, interpretingdata, participating in cognitive conflict (constructiveargumentation about phenomena under study), development ofalternative hypothesis, the design of further experiments to testalternative hypothesis, and the selection ofplausible hypothesesfrom among completing explanations are all examples oflearneractivities which activate the constructivist learning model.

Group Work

Students benefit from working in small groups, both in theconduct of investigations (hands-on lab activities) and in thedevelopment of explanations, interpretations, and conclusionsabout phenomena under investigation (active cognitiveinvolvement). Small-group work tends to stimulate a higherlevel of cognitive activity among a larger number of studentsthan does listening to lectures and thus provides expandedopportunities for cognitive restructuring.

Higher-Level Assessment

Like it or not, many students are strongly motivated toleam what they need to know to pass the test or exam. Becausemany cornmercial and teacher made tests placea heavy emphasisupon lower-level knowledge, students often do not engage inhigher-level learning. The more frequent use of quiz and testquestions which tap higher-level cognitive abilities is a veryimportant aspect of learning environments which help insurethat students will be more actively involved in meaningfullearning. Ifteachers incorporate suggestions one, two, and threeabove without utilizing four, there is a strong likelihood thatstudent cognitive activity will remain at a low level, andmeaningful learning is less apt to take place.

Summary

Theconstructivistperspective holds that meaningful learningor understanding is constructed in the internal world of thelearner as a result of her or his sensory experiences with theworld (hence, it cannot be told to the studentby the teacher) and,that while these understandings or schema tend to resist change,they can change as a result ofdiscquilibration. The implicationsfor classroom instruction include the ample use of hands-oninvestigative laboratory activities, a classroom environmentwhich provides learners with a high degree of active cognitiveinvolvement, use of cooperative learning strategies, and the

References

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N., & Sherwood, R. D.(1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdomcan’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470-491).Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Burbules, N. C., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Response tocontradiction: Scientific reasoning during adolescence.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 67-75.

Bumett, R. W. (1939). Vitalizing the laboratory to encouragereflective thinking. Science Education, 25(3), 136-141.

Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E., & Anderson. J. H. (1980).Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074-1079.

Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: Areview of literature related to concept development inadolescent science students. Studies in Science Education,5,61-84.

Eyion, B.,& Linn, M. (1988). Learning and instruction: Anexamination of four research perspectives in scienceeducation. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), 251-301.

Gunstone,R.F.,&White,R. (1980). A matter ofgravity. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Australian ScienceEducation Research Association, Melbourne.

Linn, M.C. (1983). Content, context, and process in reasoningduring adolescence: Selecting a model. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 3, 63-82.

Linn, M. C., & Their, H. D. (1975). The effect of experientialscience on the development of logical thinking in children.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12,49-62.

Purser, R. K.. & Renner, J. W. (1983). Results of two tenth-grade biology teaching procedures. Science Education,67(1). 85-98.

Raghubir.K.P. (1979). Thelaboratory-investigative approachto science instructors. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 16,13-17.

Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: Anew conception. Science, 29,477.

Rowe, M. B. (1983). Science education: A framework fordecision makers. Daedalus, 7(2), 123-142.

Saunders, W. L., & Shepardson, D. (1987). A comparison ofconcrete and formal science instruction upon scienceachievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 39-51.

Schneider, L.S..& Renner,J.W. (1980). Concrete and formalteaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 77(6),503-517.

Sheehan, D. J. (1970). The effectiveness of concrete andformal instructional procedures with concrete and formal

School Science and Mathematics

The Constructivist Perspective141

operational students. (Doctoral dissertation. StateUniversity^acfc*/2^(3rded.)(p.886).NewYork: MacmillanPublishingofNewYork, Albany) Dissertation AbstractsInternational,Company.57,2748A.Wise. K. C., & Okey. J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the

Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementaryeffectsofvarious science teaching strategies on achievement.dynamics. European Journal of^ScienceEducation, 7,205-Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,419-435.221.Wittrock,M. C. (1985). Cognitive process in the learning and

Watzawick,P.(Ed.). (1984). The inverted reality. New York:teaching of science. Paper presented at annual meeting ofW. W.Norton,theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago,

White, R. T., & Tisher, R. P. (1986). Research on naturalIL.sciences. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook ofresearch on

Call For Speakers

The 1992 joint conference of the School Science and Mathematics Association and the MichiganCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics will be held on October 8-10, 1992, on the campus of NorthernMichigan University in Marquette, Michigan.

If you would like to be considered as a speaker for sessions (50 minutes) or workshops (80 minutes),please fill out the form below. Please note that unfortunately the co-sponsors are unable to pay expensesfor speakers.

Deadline - April 1,1992

Name:

Address:

Telephone: (Home) __________________ (Business)

Presentation Title:

Grade Level of Presentation:

Workshop: ____________________ Session:

Brief Description of Presentation:

Please return to:Robert L. McGintyMathematics Department WS161Northern Michigan UniversityMarquette, MI 49855

Volume 92(3), March 1992