Constructivism in Education

In current psychological theory there are two basic approaches to understanding how humans think, learn and behave.

One is known as the behaviorist model which relies purely on observable behaviors and assumes that all human activity, including learning, can be controlled purely by reward and punishment. It assumes that children are like blank slates waiting to be written on and that therefore facts, concepts and skills can be taught in isolation. Therefore ‘why’ we learn something is not important. Traditional classrooms are based on a behaviorist model where the ‘report card’ is the carrot and the stick.  There is little value placed on how the learner feels about what is taught or how it is taught.

The other approach assumes a cognitive model which believes that humans have an intrinsic need to understand and learn about their world. As part of that need we are constantly constructing an internal model of the world based on which we function in it. Therefore this approach is known as ‘constructivist’ approach. This internal model of the world is the sum total of our current knowledge, values, beliefs and assumptions. Anything new we learn has to “hook” on to something in our current understanding or knowledge. According to constructivism, when we learn something we change our model or our understanding of what our world is, how it works, and our role in it. In this model children learn eagerly and easily because they want to learn.

 Constructivism in the Classroom

A constructivist learning setting differs greatly from one based on the traditional model. In the constructivist classroom the teacher becomes a guide for the learner, providing bridging or scaffolding, helping to extend the learner’s zone of proximal development. The student is encouraged to develop metacognitive skills such as reflective thinking and problem solving techniques. The independent learner is intrinsically motivated to generate, discover, build and enlarge her/his own framework of knowledge.

Five Tenants of Constructivist Classrooms

The search for understanding which motivates students to learn found that, when students want to know more about an idea, a topic, or an entire discipline, they put more cognitive energy into classroom investigations and discussions and study more on their own.

1. How might students entry points be identified?

Constructivist teachers seek and value students’ points of view. Knowing what students think about concepts helps teachers formulate classroom lessons and differentiate instruction on the basis of students’ needs and interests.

2. What is involved in structuring the experiences that will build bridges from present understanding to new understanding?

Constructivist teachers structure lessons to challenge students’ suppositions. All students, weather the are 5 or 50, come to the classroom with life experiences that shape their views about how their world works. When educators permit students to construct knowledge that challenges their current suppositions, learning occurs. Only through asking students what they think they know, and why they think they know it, the teachers and the students are able to confront their suppositions.

3. How might the selection of projects pose questions that relate to students’ real-life experiences?

Constructivist teachers recognize that students must attach relevance to the curriculum. As students see relevance in their daily activities, their interest in learning grows.

4. What are the major concepts that students should understand?

Constructivist teachers structure lessons around big ideas, not small bits of information. Exposing students to wholes first helps them determine the relevant parts as they refine their understanding of the wholes. (Top-Down teaching strategy)

5. How might we move from right/wrong to monitoring students’ understanding?

Constructivist teachers assess student learning in the context of daily classroom investigations, not as separate events. Students demonstrate their knowledge every day in a variety of ways. Defining understanding as only that which is capable of being measured by paper-and-pencil assessments administrated under strict security perpetuates false and counterproductive myths about academia, intelligence, creativity, accountability, and knowledge.

Comparison of Traditionalist vs. Constructivist Teaching Approaches

Traditionalist:  Curriculum begins with the parts of the whole. Emphasizes basic skills.

Constructivist:  Curriculum emphasizes big concepts, beginning with the whole and expanding to include the parts.

Traditionalist:  Strict adherence to fixed curriculum is highly valued.

Constructivist:  Pursuit of student questions and interests is valued.

Traditionalist:  Materials are primarily textbooks and workbooks.

Constructivist:  Materials include primary sources of material and manipulative materials.

Traditionalist:  Learning is based on repetition.

Constructivist:  Learning is interactive, building on what the student already knows.

Traditionalist:  Teachers disseminate information to students; students are recipients of knowledge.

Constructivist:  Teachers have a dialogue with students, helping students construct their own knowledge.

Traditionalist:  Students are viewed as “blank slates” onto which information is etched by the teacher.

Constructivist:  Students are viewed as thinkers with emerging theories about the world.

Traditionalist:  Teacher’s role is directive, rooted in authority.

Constructivist:  Teacher’s role is interactive, rooted in negotiation.

Traditionalist:  Teachers generally behave in a didactic manner, disseminating information to students.

Constructivist:  Teachers generally behave in an interactive manner mediating the environment for students.

Traditionalist:  Assessment is through testing, correct answers.

Constructivist:  Assessment includes student works, observations, and points of view, as well as tests. Process is as important as product.

Traditionalist:  Assessment of student learning is viewed as separate from teaching and occurs almost entirely through testing.

Constructivist:  Assessment of student learning is interwoven with teaching and occurs through teacher observation of students at work and through exhibitions and portfolios.

Traditionalist:  Knowledge is seen as inert.

Constructivist:  Knowledge is seen as dynamic, ever changing with our experiences.

Traditionalist:  Teachers seek the correct answers to validate student lessons.

Constructivist:  Teachers seek the student’s point of view in order to understand student learning for use in subsequent conceptions.

Traditionalist:  Students work primarily alone.

Constructivist: Students work primarily in groups.