Does Constructivism have a Place in a Modern Classroom?

Just Google It: The role of knowledge Construction in a Modern, Technology-Rich Classroom

As formalised education evolved in the post-industrial era, an emphasis on knowledge recall verses skill development began to emerge. Several new education and psychology theories became increasingly popular. One such theory is Constructivism. Originally attributed to the work of the French academic Jean Piaget; his interpretation of the concepts has since been dubbed cognitive constructivism (Powell & Kalina 2009). Since Piaget’s original writings, mid last century, the theory has continued to evolve into a wide range of sub-theories; most famously around the socio constructivist work of Lev Vygotsky and, more recently, the radical constructivist interpretations popularized by, among other, Ernst von Glaserfeld.

There is little doubt that the theory of constructivism has evolved; but has the previously well received theory of Constructivism kept pace with pedagogy changes brought about by the rapid infiltration of technology in classrooms? This paper will review a range of literature to clarify ‘How can aspects of constructivism be applied in a modern, technology-rich classroom’.      

The review will begin by examining varying definitions and sub-theories of Constructivism. It will then identify implications of the theory in a more modern classroom environment, characterized by high levels of technology integration. Constructivism’s relationship to the Kaupapa Maori Research will be justified, and the final section will examine criticisms of the theory.

Constructivism: A collection of differing theories.

Constructivism as a concept is attributed to a number of different educational pyschologists. In tracing the routes of the theory, while it is possible to go right back to the work of John Dewey, it is often the French theorist, Jean Piaget, who is credited with garnering widespread appreciated and contemplation of the theory. Rice and Wilson (1999) go so far as arguing that “Constructivism was the prominent perspective in the 1930s and 1940s among public educators (in the United States)” (p.28).

In an attempt to articulate an overriding understanding of the concept, it is possible to arrive at quite general, wide-ranging definitions. Schader (2015) notes that “various forms of Constructivism hold that meaning making and learning are created through active engagement with knowledge and in social interaction” (p.23). Green and Gredler (2002) essentially agree, as they note “that learners actively construct their own knowledge rather than receive preformed information from others” (p54). A third definition is gathered from Alesandrini and Larson (2002) who argue that “learning is a community activity facilitated by shared inquiry” (p. 118). What these definitions have in common is an agreement that the core characteristic of Constructivism is that knowledge is created actively in a classroom; students are not passive participants in a lesson. A final definition given here is slightly different. Rice and Wilson (1999) take a slightly less classroom based approach, stating that “the general constructivist view holds that individuals construct knowledge through interpreting their own experiences” (p.28). This definition could be interpreted as being more wide-ranging as it identifies that the learning is directed by what has previously occurred to a learner, rather than what is currently occurring in the classroom.    

While the definitions above can be seen to give a satisfactory introduction to understanding the Constructivist theory, most of the literature studied identifies that the sub theories of Constructivism are, in fact, the most important aspect of the theory to understand. While numerous sub theories like Radical Constructivism (Cobb 2011) and Holistic Constructionism (Green and Gredler 2002) are described, it is the theories of Piaget and Vigotsky that will be the focus of the remained of the view.

Piaget’s Constructivism as Cognitive Development Theory

Piagets’s constructivist theory is based on ideas around cognitive development. Powell and Kaline (2009) comment “that humans cannot be given information, which they immediately understand and use; instead, humans must construct their own knowledge” (p.242). Green and Gredler (2002) take a slightly different approach as they describe the focus of Piaget’s theory as “the various reconstructions that an individual’s thinking undergoes in the development of logical reasoning” (p.54). De Mello takes yet another slightly different angle in his 2012 paper, by noting that “individuals varying only in the pace of their learning according to their interactions with the physical and social environment” (p129). While these definitions of Piaget’s theory all differ in their primary emphasis, the overall agreement would be that learning for an individual student is dependent on their own previous experiences, and how these experiences can be utilized as an important component of the learning process. Direct implications of this for the classroom teacher will be addressed in a future section.     

Vygotsky’s Constructivism as a Sociocultural Theory

Whilst Piaget essentially argues that learning is an individual process, informed and influenced by past experience, Lev Vygotsky took a different approach. Whilst agreeing that knowledge is actively constructed, rather than passively absorbed, numerous articles identified the social nature of learning that he advocates. A clear articulation of the theory can be gained from Kim (2001) who defines Social Constructivism as “the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding” (p.2). Powell and Kaline (2009) also concur, and note that “social constructivism is based on the social interactions a student in the classroom along with a personal critical thinking process” (p.242). Whilst fundamentally agreeing with Piaget’s theory that knowledge must be created by the learner, Vygotsky clearly adds the social element to the equation. Learning should be social, the classroom too. 

Constructivism in a classroom

As the differing branches of constructivism have continued to gain support among educators, their applications in classrooms has become more developed. This section will attempt to summarise the major themes and thoughts that exist around what exactly are the characteristics of a constructivist classroom.  

Vermette and Foote (2001) identify the benefits of the theories by stating that “constructivism seems to match up quite nicely with the practices of cooperative learning” (p.28). They continue, by noting that a “constructivist classroom is marked by true student inquiry and by the teacher serving as challenger and facilitator of student thinking, not a transmitter of information or as manager of practice effects” (p.30). Powell and Kaline (2009) concur, and identify that “building a classroom where interaction is prominent helps develop effective classrooms” (p.243). Further advice in building such classrooms is provided by de Mello (2012) who notes that “a constructivist teacher must adopt the role of organizer of the student’s relationship with knowledge and with each other” (p.129). Perhaps the most interesting thoughts in this section come from Powell and Kaline (2009) who note that “students should use language as much as they use oxygen” (p.245). This is entirely at odds when the current pedagogical instruction at play at some teacher education institutions at present, where noise reduction can be held-up as the all-important pedagogical consideration!

Throughout writings on the implementation of constructivism, time is given to matters of assessment. Is it the construction of the knowledge that should be assesses, or the knowledge itself? One example of this is Alesandrini and Larson (2002), who comment that the “constructivist approach to evaluation emphasises self-assessment” (p.118). This is an interesting perspective, and the implications of this in an educational setting of standards based assessment will be discussed in a later section of this paper.

Relevance of Constructivism in a modern classroom

The fundamental question that this review is attempting to shed light on is regarding the suitability of an early to mid 20^th Century educational theory, to a modern, technology rich classroom. As noted by Kaya (2015), “it is essential to revise the teaching approaches, tools, learning environment, interaction patterns, teacher and student’s roles in the pedagogy of the 21^st century” (p.3). To what extent is Constructivism still relevant in the 21st century, and how can a teacher still benefit from the benefits of the theory, whilst still making use of newer, evolving understanding about effective student learning with technologies?

A number of authors agree that equity of access to technology is crucial if students are being exposed to learning activities that require them to construct their own knowledge. It is noted by de Mello (2012) that “In the information society, having access to information on knowledge networks, knowing how to select, among the multitude of accessible elements, analyzing what is found through critical scrutiny in order to make use of it become essential skills for effective functioning” (p.133).  

It is particularly interesting to note the optimism displayed by Rice and Wilson (1999). Writing in a time when technology integration was in its infancy, they could already articulate the potential benefits of how technology could aid constructivism. “The computer can serve in the process of information gathering, inquiry, and collaboration, not merely as a vestige of direct instruction with its reliance on integrating technology in the existing curriculum“(p29.).  They continue to say that “Technology can assist in the process by acting as a personal tool that empowers the learner to become independent” (p.32).  This is an interesting idea and, as a concept, it is noteworthy that it could be argued that this perspective has clearly links to Piaget theory but not Vygotsky, and resultantly it is a little hard to see how improved learner independence can be a desirable outcome of a socially constructive classroom. 

One author who feels clearly optimistic in the potential of social media particularly to aid in the implementation of a constructivist pedagogy is Schrader (2015). An example of her glowing writing about Constructivism and learning in the age of social media is “Constructivism is the psychological foundation and explains the necessary theoretical scaffolding necessary to construct new meaning in education created by the abundant and novel building blocks of technology” (p.32).  The main benefits of this technology is that it will allow students to “learn to take perspectives of others in important ways that influence social-emotional learning” (p.28).  This glowing sentiment is constricted a little by Kaya (2015) who reminds us that it is important to remember that “technology is just one means of assisting a teacher” (p.11).   

Maori applications

In the context of education theory and its potential applications in a New Zealand classroom it is remiss to not analyse the standing of any particular theory to Kaupapa Maori. Constructivism, particularly the Social branch of the theory, can be related clearly to the characteristics of Kaupapa Maori. Vygotsky was one of the educationalist identified by name by Macfarlane, Glynn, Grace, Penetito, and Bateman, (2008) directly prior to the comment “the Commentary Group were cognizant of the important parallels between this type of pedagogical approach and the values, beliefs and preferred practices that represent and embody an indigenous Maori cultural worldview” (p.105).  This group continue, by adding that the ideal learning environment is one where “learning relationships need to embody a careful balance between task orientation and task completion on the one hand, and caring and support on the other” (p.105).  There are clear parallels with social constructivism here, the relationships within the classroom being necessary for knowledge creation. “A Maori worldview is characterized by an abiding concern for the quality of human relationships that need to be established and maintained if learning contexts are to be effective for Maori students” (p.102) (Macfarlane et al 2008).

Perhaps the clearest piece of evidence that explains how constructivism can adapted and integrated successfully for Maori learning is Rangatiratanga. This concept aligns clearly with the underlying fundamental spirit of Constructivism and the desire for students to take responsibility for, and control over, their own learning.

Constructivism as a Flawed Theory for a Classroom

Due to the popularity that the theory of Constructivism, in its varying forms, has gained, it is sure, as indicated in the previous section, to have received some clear support within the literature. There remain, however, a clear undercurrent who are less supportive of the concept, particularly its application in a more contemporary classroom setting.

These concerns are perhaps most succinctly expressed by Koetzee (2010) who simply states that “Constructivism as a theory of knowledge is the wrong theory of knowledge for a realistic teaching practice” (p.178).  The article clarifies this strongly worded point by outlining a selection of posers that outline scenarios when the theory is simply not appropriate for classroom use. These posers are predominantly based around the issues of potential mixed messages of truth and opinion if students are able to construct their own knowledge, and the difficulties in formally assessing students’ progress when learning activities are designed to exhibit constructivist characteristics. Simply put, if a student is constructing their own knowledge, then how can what they have constructed be assessed, by a teacher, as not being correct?

  

A further series of criticisms of the model are based around the difficulty that some students may have in applying the new learning model. Matthews (2003) begins by arguing that “Constructivist teaching practice assumes the motivation to learn is internally generated by the child” (p.57). This point is extremely important and speaks clearly to the dangers in using constructivism as a tool to raise engagement in learners. Green and Gredler (2002) also raise concerns about the ability of learner to connect with a pedagogical change. They note that “students accustomed to teacher directed instruction cannot automatically switch to thoughtful classroom discourse” (p.62).  Gordon (2008) seems to agree and says that “if we force students to adopt a constructivist model, some of them might simply pretend to embrace it to please us or get a good grade, yet still hold on to attitudes or beliefs that are at odds with this model” (p.11).  While this is a valid concern, I am not sure that there will not be students about whom this could be written, no matter which pedagogy they are being exposed to! In the case of a multicultural New Zealand classroom there are going to be obvious situations where the world view of Maori, Pasifika and Pakeha students are potentially going to differ; leading to widely differing interpretations resulting from ‘knowledge creation’.

Conclusion

Constructivism is characterized by a range of different theories, most popularly those attributed to Piaget and Vygotsky. Despite the age of the theories, they are clearly still relevant in a modern, technology rich classroom. This review has identified certain aspirations and conditions that an aspiring constructivist teacher should meet, and just as importantly a few considerations that that teacher should be wary of, particularly around formal, particularly summative, assessment of student progress with their learning. It is in this area, student assessment, that more research needs to be done, in an attempt to answer the overarching concerns about how, in a standards based assessment environment, students who learn in an Constructivist environment, can be fairly assessed on their learning.  

Reference List

Schrader, Dawn E. (2015). Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social Media: Changing Minds and Learning Communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (144), 23-35.

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009) Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Kotzee, B. (2010). Seven posers in the Constructivist Classroom. London Review of Education, 8(2), 177-187. 

Vermette, P., & Foote, C. (2001). Constructivist Philosophy and Cooperative Learning Practice: Toward Integration and Reconsiliation in Secondary Classrooms. American Secondary Education, 30(1), 26-38.

Cobb, P. (2011). Implications of Ernst von Glasersfeld's Constructivism for Supporting the Improvement of Teaching on a Large Scale. Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 157-161.

Brown, H. (2004). Action Research in the Classroom: A Process that Feeds the Spirit of the Adolescent. International Journal Of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-30.

Green, S. K., & Gredler, M. E. (2002). A Review and Analysis of Constructivism for School-Based Practice. School Psychology Review, 31(1), 53.

Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers Bridge to Constructivism. Clearing House, 75(3), 118.

R de Mello, R. (2012). From Constructivism to Dialogism in the Classroom. Theory and Learning Environments. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(2), 127-152.

Rice, M. L., & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 90(1), 28.

Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism: From Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology

Macfarlane, H., Glynn, T., Grace, W., Penetito, W. & Bateman, S. (2008), Indigenous epistemology in a national curriculum framework? Ethnicities, 8, 102-127.

Kaya, H. ( ). Blending Technology with Constructivism: Implications for an ELT Classroom. Teaching English with Technology, 15(1), 3-13.

Gordon, M. (2008). Between constructivism and connectedness. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 322-337.

Matthews, W. J. (2003). Constructivism in the Classroom: Epistemology, history and empirical evidence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 51-64.