Note: this post was created as an assignment for the course LDT100x Instructional Design and Technology: Learning Theories You can learn more about this course (and the Micro-Master's program it is a part of) here.
In this series, I will introduce core learning theories, detail their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss their potential applicability in the college or university classroom. I will also provide links throughout if you want to learn more.
How do we learn?
In the last post (link) we learned about behaviorism. Our topic for this post is constructivism. According to constructivists, we construct our learning and knowledge through our own personalities, experiences, and interactions with others. While behavioralists view learning as an individual passively responding to external stimuli, constructivists argue that learning happens through active engagement.
Remember (from my last post) when critics claimed that "highly effective teachers" do no use behavioralist approaches (Askew et al, 1997; Hassad, 2011)? In most of these cases, the argument is to use constructivists approaches instead. As such, this perspective is far more popular among teachers and educators (especially in higher education).
So, this means constructivism is awesome, amazing, and perfect? Not quite. Much as I implored readers to give behavioralist approaches a chance, as they may have (albeit limited) use in a classroom, constructivism- while arguably much more popular (for good reason!)- is not without its limitations or critiques.
Let's jump in.......
A (BRIEF!) History of Constructivism
Constructivists- most notably Jean-Jaques Piaget and Lev Vygotsky- view learning as an engaged, socially-mediated process. For Piaget, learners construct new knowledge by incorporating new knowledge into their existing knowledge schema. This process was dependent upon certain levels of cognitive development (Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which you can read more about here, is probably more well-known), and learners are able to progress to more and more complex thought processes and mental schemes as they develop (Tchoshanov, 2013).
Vygotsky was not focused on cognitive development to the same degree; rather, he emphasized how we learn through an inherently social process (e.g., dialogues with others) in the co-construction of knowledge (McLeod, 2020; Tchoshanov, 2013). Vygotsky argued that there were zones of proximal development wherein learners are on a threshold of a challenging new topic. In these instances, more knowledgeable members of society (a teacher, parent, mentor, older sibling, etc...) can encourage the learner and assist them in progressing the the next level of knowledge and information. (The emphasis of the importance of learning in conjunction with others is frequently referred to as social constructivism.)
Another popular constructivist, Jerome Bruner, expanded on the assumptions of Piaget and Vygotsky and introduced the idea of scaffolding (something the educators reading this post may be familiar with). Scaffolding is the building of knowledge from easier to more complex information, with the instructor (teacher, parent, or other such figure) removing some of the barriers and oversight as the learner progresses, allowing them more freedom and flexibility as they build new skills and assimilate new knowledge schemas.
Essentially, constructivist approaches base their approach to learning on several core premises. Social constructivists (to all my fellow sociologists out there: this is what we call "social constructionism") argue that reality and knowledge are constructed by human beings in their interactions with others and the natural world. In other words, we construct reality, in a particular way based on our experiences and interactions. Think of it this way- you are not born with all of the knowledge of the cultural norms, values, or ideas in your society. Instead, you learn these things through interactions with family, friends, media, schools, religious institutions, work, and other contexts. The meaning of these things can change over time as you are exposed to new situations and new knowledge schemas. Knowledge, from this perspective, is also a product of interaction and is socially constructed in a similar manner (Kim, 2001). As such, meaningful learning will happen when we are engaged with others in a process of creating and co-creating meaning.
Wait, so does this mean that there is no "truth" or that nothing can be known? This doesn't sound very academic or scientific....
While there are what we might call "pure" or "strong" constructivists who believe that there is no core, objective truth and that all "truths" are mediated through human lenses of experience (often aligned with or grouped under the moniker or "postmodernism"), there are also what we might call "soft" constructivists. For these folks, there is a degree of social construction of reality- what we might call a "relative truth"- but there are also what we could term "objective truths."
Let's look at an example to illustrate the difference:
Imagine that an alien comes to planet Earth and comes across two shiny bars that catch their attention: one is silver and one is gold. If you were to ask the alien which is worth more money, they would say "What is money?" and not really know the "correct" answer. The difference in value between silver and gold is a human creation- these two minerals are not "worth" anything in the absolute sense. Thus, it is a relative truth that gold is worth more than silver.
By contrast, the molecule H2O is liquid at a certain temperature (water) or solid at a certain temperature (ice). This process would happen regardless of human intervention or regardless of the meaning that humans attach to it. Thus, it is an absolute truth that H2O can exist in different states (i.e., solid, liquid, or gas).
For the purposes of this post, let's stick to a "soft" constructivist approach and focus on the ways in which learning is more than an individual as a passive receptacle of knowledge. Instead, meaningful learning happens when people are engaged in social activities with others and co-create knowledge.
Constructivism in the Classroom: An Example
A professor is teaching an introductory-level course to first-year community college students. Her learning goal for the particular module she is working on is to have students explain theories of global inequality and development, compare and contrast competing perspectives, and apply what they have learned.
When teaching students complex topics (like social theories) with the ultimate goal of higher order tasks (application) it is important to recognize that requiring too much, too quickly, without the appropriate level of guidance from a knowledgable person (in this case the professor) can result in student frustration and burnout. Thus, recognizing the appropriate places to provide encouragement and additional assistance (zone of proximal development) and scaffolding information and assessments that allow for more freedom, flexibility, and learner-driven knowledge in a way that is manageable for students is important (McLeod, 2019). The professor is also a proponent of a social constructivist perspective on learning, so she will have students work together in groups on a project where they apply their learning to a particular example; thus, building knowledge through interaction with others (Tchoshanov, 2013).
In this particular example, the professor will be providing more in-depth information at the early stages, perhaps starting the weekly session with a "mini-lecture," instructional video, or other such informational piece. Then, she will move into having students explain the core theories that they are covering, via classroom discussion- interjecting to ask questions, probe for more details, and bring students back on track if there is confusion. Then, she can move onto having students compare and contrast the different perspectives. This could be done via a class discussion or in a more formal way by having students write their responses to a question regarding the theories. Finally, when she students have demonstrated the subsequent background knowledge, she can have them break into groups with their peers to work on a scenario where they are to imaging that they are in charge of a non-profit organization and are proposing a plan to address some element of global inequality. Students would need to use the ideas/concepts from the theories they have learned in their presentation.
By using the methods above, the professor ensures basic background knowledge has been mastered, moves from easier to more complex topics (scaffolding), encourages self-reflection and learning in coordination with peers (social constructivism) and provides encouragement and feedback and important junctures along the way (ZPD).
Now that you have a basic idea of what constructivist approaches are, let's address some of the PROs and CONs.
The PROs of Constructivism (You probably already know)
Curriculum emphasizes core concepts and ideas, as opposed to focusing on areas of rote memorization
Learning is more flexible and driven by student progress, interest, and input
Professor moves from "sage on a stage" to a supportive guide to co-create knowledge with students
The CONs of Constructivism (Yes, there are some!)
Some academic disciplines require more strident rote memorization (for example, students training to be medical coders or x-ray technicians), so pure constructivists approaches may not be suitable in all classrooms
Students experiencing the highest levels of academic difficulty may not benefit from a purely constructivist approach to learning and classroom design and can experience measurable benefits in their academic achievement in behavioralist-focused classrooms (Miranda, 2009).
In general, constructivist approaches to learning, course design, and classroom dynamics are organized around active engagement of the learners and "student-driven" learning. This approach would prioritize higher order skills like analysis, application, or creation and use problem-based or experiential learning as a means of assessment.
The following infographic provides a summation of constructivist approaches:
Sources/Learn More:
Askew, M., V. Rhodes, M. Brown, D. William, and D. Johnson. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy: Report of a study carried out for the Teacher Training Agency. London: King’s College London, School of Education.
Hassad, R.A. (2011). Constructivist and behavioralist approaches: Development and initial evaluation for a teaching practice scale for introductory statistics at the college level. Numeracy, 4(2), Article 7.
Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 29, 2021, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/.
McLeod, S. (2020). Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory. SimplyPsychology https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html.
McLeod, S. (2019). The zone of proximal development and scaffolding. SimplyPsychology https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html.
Miranda, M.V. (2009). Creating the successful community college student: Using behaviorism to foster constructivism. The Community College Enterprise, 5(1), 21-38.
Tchoshanov, M. (2013). Engineering of learning: Conceptualizing e-didactics. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
Comentários