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

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved

RESEARCH STARTERSACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

ConstructivismEducational Theory > Constructivism

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.

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 isn’t 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 literature…is littered with [such] a range of definitions” that constructivism has become “almost…indefinable” (Null, 2004, p. 180).

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.’

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

AbstractKeywordsOverview

Piaget & Cognitive Constructivism

Lev Vygotsky & Social Constructivism

Further InsightsViewpointsTerms & ConceptsBibliographySuggested Reading

Table of Contents

Constructivism Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 2

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. Vygotsky’s social constructivism is often contrasted with Piaget’s cognitive constructivism, but the fol-lowing will focus on the way in which these two strands are complementary.

Piaget & Cognitive ConstructivismIn order to understand the significance of Piaget’s 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).

What Piaget’s 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

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.

The question of what knowledge is, from a constructivist per-spective, has now been answered to some extent – it’s 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. We’ll turn to Piaget’s concepts of assimilation, accommodation, and disequilibrium for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

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 one’s 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 ‘dance’…of growth and change’ (p. 14). The dance occurs between two polar tendencies – our tendency to assimilate information and our tendency to accommodate information.

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

Accommodation

Adaptation

Assimilation

Cognitive Constructivism

Disequilibrium

Objectivity

Piaget, Jean

Social Constructivism

Vygotsky, Lev

Zone of Proximal Development

Keywords



interpretations…” (p. 5). In general, the mind tends to assimi-late; only when we have to accommodate does learning occur.

Although the basic structure of Piaget’s theory of knowing has been put forth, it’s 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 one’s 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)

Secondly, Piaget’s 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.

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.

Lev Vygotsky & 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 whether…learning 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).

Thus, although much of Vygotsky’s work overlapped with Piag-

et’s, 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.

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.

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 child’s 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 child’s response (Fosnot, 1996).

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. As a result, constructivism doesn’t tell teachers what they should do, but rather provides a general framework within which they can work with students. As Prouix (2006) explains, “It is argued that constructivism brings a proscriptive discourse on teaching, one that sets boundaries in which to work, but does not prescribe teaching actions” (p. 5). von Glasersfeld elaborates, “It means that constructivism…cannot tell teachers very much about what they should do, but it can specify a number of things which they certainly should not do” (as cited in Prouix, 2006, p. 5). Within



the realm of what they should do, he further argues, the possibili-ties are limitless.

Therefore, providing a specific example of constructivist teaching in the classroom might be the best way to introduce its application to the classroom. Before we proceed with the example, however, it might be worthwhile to outline what Prouix (2006) refers to as “implications” for teaching (as opposed to directives), as well as some pitfalls to be avoided. For example, constructivist teaching does not suggest that teachers should stop explaining information; while teachers are encouraged to create disequilibrium – or perturbations – for their students, this should not occur at the expense of explanation and elaboration. As Prouix (1996) argues, “constructivism is not saying that teachers should not explain, it only renders problematic the assumption that by ‘telling’ or explaining the learners will automatically understand” (p. 5). He further suggests that constructivism does not imply students are always right or that students will always learn on their own without guidance from teachers. Finally, he encourages teachers to acknowledge the importance of prior knowledge in the learning process, as well as the role of ‘mis-takes.’ “Mistakes inform the learning process enormously and enable a better understanding of the domain…” Mistakes should not, he continues, be viewed as “humiliating blunders” never “to be repeated again” (Prouix, 2006, p. 5).

Fosnot (1996), in her edited book, “Constructivism: Theory, Per-spectives, and Practice,” devotes several chapters to examples of constructivist teaching in the classroom. The following example is taken from the chapter on constructivist perspectives in math-ematics, and serves as a summary of what is outlined in greater detail by Schifter (1996). Schifter (1996) describes a lesson on measurement designed by a first-grade teacher; the teacher uses masking tape to outline the shape of a boat on the classroom floor, and asks her students how they would go about measuring it, in order to report its size to the King. After several days of allowing her students to search for answers, the class decided to report the measurement of the boat in terms of the length of Zeb’s (a classmate) foot. The teacher describes:

On the third day of our exploration, I asked the children why they thought it was important to develop a standard form of measurement (or in words understandable to a first grader, mea-surement that would always be the same size) such as using only ‘Zeb’s foot’ to measure everything. Through the discussions over the past several days, the children were able to internal-ize and verbalize the need or important for everyone to measure using the same instrument. They saw the confusion of using dif-ferent hands, bodies, or feet because of the inconsistency of size” (Schifter, 1996, p. 76).

The example highlights several characteristics of constructivist teaching. First and foremost, rather than telling the class exactly how to perform a task (e.g., measurement), the teacher poses it in the form of a problem and allows the class to come to its own solution. In other words, the teacher allowed the students to construct their own meanings. Secondly, the example highlights the importance of perturbations; the teacher’s role wasn’t neces-

sarily to allay confusion, but even at times to further elicit it. In addition, the example demonstrates the role of social interac-tion in the learning process; the students made progress toward a solution by building upon each other’s responses. And finally, the example emphasizes the role of prior knowledge in learning situations; student’s drew upon their previous experiences with ‘measurement’ and, in this case, modified their existing under-standings in order to incorporate what they learned through this exercise.

ViewpointsAs stated in the introduction, constructivism is a frequent topic of conversation in the educational literature, and has been defined in multiple ways. Limiting this summary to cognitive and social constructivism does not do justice to the many forms in which it exists. Von Glasersfeld, for example, while drawing heavily on the work of Piaget, has developed his own form of radical constructivism. Jerome Bruner (1990) has extended the work of Vygotsky and other social constructivists in focusing on the role of culture in learning. Similarly, this summary has only briefly touched upon the educational and philosophical foundations of constructivism; Null (2004), for example, traces constructiv-ist thought back to Rousseau and G. Stanley Hall. Others have emphasized the contribution of John Dewey.

Despite its current popularity, there are many who oppose constructivism and its approach to teaching and learning. Con-structivism, after all, addresses questions about knowledge and knowing that have been debated for over two thousand years; the debates are likely to continue. Alexander (2006), for exam-ple, discusses the “new skirmishes in the methodology wars,” which have recently resurfaced after positivists and construc-tivists had supposedly agreed to ‘peacefully coexist’ (p. 206). Although some (Alexander, 2006; Johnson, 2005) propose a middle ground, or what Alexander (2006) refers to as “a view from somewhere” that provides a place for both positivists and constructivists, it’s likely that educators and philosophers will continue to have differences of opinion.

Terms & ConceptsAccommodation: According to Piaget’s theory of knowing, humans attempt to maintain a state of equilibrium by either assimilating new information and experiences or accommodat-ing them. Accommodation takes place when new information contradicts what was previously known, so that the learner must modify cognitive structures, modify the new information, or both.

Adaptation: Piaget transferred the concept of adaptation from his studies in biology to the studying of human learning. He defined adaptation as the ability to survive in one’s environment; with regard to knowledge, he believed knowledge is ‘true’ to the extent that it’s useful and adaptive, rather than the extent to which it mirrors an objective, independent reality.

Assimilation: According to Piaget’s theory of knowing, humans



attempt to maintain a state of equilibrium by either assimilat-ing new information and experiences or accommodating them. Assimilation takes place when new information is consistent with what was previously known, so that it can be ‘taken in’ without modifying existing cognitive structures.

Cognitive Constructivism: Although there are many branches of constructivism, cognitive constructivism and social construc-tivism are considered two of the primary strands. Cognitive constructivism is based on the work of Piaget, and defines learning in terms of changes in cognitive structures. Although cognitive and social constructivism are often considered to be at odds, more recently scholars have recognized the ways in which they are complementary.

Disequilibrium: According to Piaget, learning is motivated by an individual’s desire to maintain a state of equilibrium. Disequilibrium occurs when new information or experience con-flicts with what was previously known, requiring the individual to modify or adapt in some way.

Scaffolding: An outgrowth of Vygotsky’s social constructivism. Representative of the cooperative, dialogical nature of learning, scaffolding occurs in dyads. For example, when a mother imi-tates the gestures and sounds of an infant, but sometimes varies her response in order to elicit new responses from the child, she is engaged in scaffolding.

Social Constructivism: Although there are many branches of constructivism, cognitive constructivism and social con-structivism are considered two of the primary strands. Social constructivism is based on the work of Vygotksy, and defines learning in terms of social interaction, language, and culture. Although cognitive and social constructivism are often consid-ered to be at odds, more recently scholars have recognized the ways in which they are complementary.

Zone of Proximal Development: One of the primary concepts of Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism. According to Piaget, children are able to extend their current knowledge to a greater extent by working with adults and older children. The ‘space’ in which they are challenged to extend themselves has become known as the zone of proximal development.

BibliographyAlexander, H.A. (2006). A view from somewhere: Explaining

the paradigms of educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(2), 205-221. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21492094&site=ehost-live

Cardellini, L. (2006). The foundations of radical con-structivism: An interview with Ernst von Glasersfeld. Foundations of Chemistry, 8(2), 177-187. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22437372&site=ehost-live

Cobb, P. (1996). Where is the mind? A coordination of socio-cultural and cognitive constructivist perspectives. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Elkind, D. (2005). Response to objectivism and education. Educational Forum, 69(4), 328-334. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17685721&site=ehost-live

Fostnot, C.T.. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Harlow, S., Cummings, R., & Aberasturi, S. (2006). Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A rationale for constructivism. Educational Forum, 71(1), 41-48. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22991047&site=ehost-live

Johnson, M. (2005). Instructionism and constructivism: Reconciling two very good ideas. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from Education Resource Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/31/ba/07.pdf

Moford, J. (2007). Perspectives constructivism: Implications for postsecondary music education and beyond. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(2), 75-83. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25148461&site=ehost-live

Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on a popular advocacy. Educational Forum, 68, 180-188. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from Education Resource Information Center. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/31/3f/04.pdf

Prouix, J. (2006). Constructivism: A re-equilibration and clarification of concepts, and some potential implications for teaching and pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, 7(1), 5. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21174718&site=ehost-live

von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of construc-tivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.



Suggested Reading

Brown, T.H. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring future learning paradigms. Education Today, 2, 14-30. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17160280&site=ehost-live

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

Flynn, P., Mesibov, D., Vermette, P., & Smith, R. (2004). Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step guide for motivating elementary students. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Flynn, P., Mesibov, D., Vermette, P., & Smith, R. (2004). Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step guide for motivating middle and high school students. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Meltzer, E. (2006). Constructivism and objectivism: Additional Questions. Educational Forum, 70(3), 200-201. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20786243&site=ehost-live

Pass, S. (2004). Parallel paths to constructivism: Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.

Jennifer Kretchmar earned her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She cur-rently works as a Research Associate in undergraduate admissions.