Shanlax

shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

Effective Constructivist Teaching

OPEN ACCESS
Learning in the Classroom
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Shah
Volume: 7
Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Kailali Multiple Campus, Kailali, Nepal

Issue: 4 Abstract
Constructivism has been a very powerful model for explaining how knowledge is produced in the
world as well as how students learn. Moreover, constructivist teaching practices are becoming
Month: September
more prevalent in teacher education programs, while demonstrating significant success in pro-
moting student learning. In this paper, the author takes a serious look at constructivist teaching
Year: 2019 practices highlighting both the promises and potential problems of these practices. The author
argues that constructivist teaching has often been misinterpreted and misused, resulting in learning
practices that neither challenge students nor address their needs. He outlines some of the ways in
P-ISSN: 2320-2653 which constructivism has been misconstrued and analyzes several ways in which constructivist
teaching has been misused. The author also presents two examples that illustrate the effective use
E-ISSN: 2582-1334 of constructivist teaching and explains what makes them successful.
Keywords: constructivism, teaching, learning, misuse, effective use.

Received: 23.07.2019
An individual’s own learning experience shapes his unique perspective
about process of education which in turn influences his/her decisions as an
Accepted: 16.08.2019
administrator, a manager or a police maker. For instance, teachers often treat
their students in the same manner as they had been treated their teachers and
Published: 01.09.2019
others in their childhood. Meaning thereby that a person’s approach towards
education determine his/her performance and practice inside or outside
Citation:
the classroom. Conversely, it is also possible to help the teachers and other
Shah, Rajendra Kumar.
interested persons to look into perspective of other’s if they are enable to
“Effective Constructivist
understand the background of psychological and pedagogical thought in which
Teaching Learning in
the new ideas emerge. This is particularly important for facilitating desirable
the Classroom.” Shanlax
changes in teaching process.
International Journal of
The purpose of the paper is to present a comparative description of traditional
Education, vol. 7, no. 4,
and constructivist approaches to education.
2019, pp. 1–13.

Vignette-1
DOI:
Four years old Nish came weeping-“Mom I don’t want to go to school”
https://doi.org/10.34293/
Mother: “My child but why?”
education.v7i4.600
(The mother got worried. Because she had thought that her child will adjust
nicely in that well established school, leaving behind the confines of their flat
on the third floor. She had seen, Nisha running to the swing at the far end of
the field and even talking to some of the children there, on the very first day she
This work is licensed
was admitted to the school).
under a Creative Commons
The mother decided to meet the principles.
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
Mother: Today my daughter refused to come to school.
International License
Principal: And you come to make a complaint with me?
Mother: No principal……but……………
Principal: Please listen to me. Your daughter is very naughty. I always find her
moving in the classroom. She cannot repeat ABCD with the whole
class. She cannot learn numbers and does not like to write.

1 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

Mother: I have an idea principal. Please allow and fluently recite many rhymes which
Nisha to spend some time in the open she has been learnt so fast.
field for some days. Parents I: All Nepali poetry and that’s all.
Principal: …………….and break the disciple of the Parents II: My son also says that he likes to sing and
whole class. Then who do you think will recite poetry in Nepali.
take dawn her class work and home. Principal: we give same weightage to both the
Mother: “I have another idea principal .…………. languages but never force a child
Take the whole class to that ground” to specific one. Then we have also
Principal: (Now looked annoyed)……………….. exhibited the sketches-all drawn out by
And brake the discipline of the whole the children themselves. We also wish to
school? Madam listen. Rules, discipline inform you that children are taking great
and hard work is the motto of our school. interest in the activities of Eco-Club
(then resumed her professional calm). which we have opened recently.
Don’t worry. Your daughter will soon be Parent III: But the children have to compare with
able to learn. the students from other schools. In
An analysis of the above vignette with academic this way they will never English at
interest reveals different perspectives of the parents all………………….
and teachers / principals. Nisha’s mother could The above conversation reveals that the objections
understand her daughter’s interests, performances, made by the parents due to their anxiousness over
and maturity level and believes that her child could slight deviations in the established structure of
can learn in the open field also and perhaps better education which again reflects their belief in rigid
but needs proper guidance of the teacher. But management centric approach which focuses upon
the principal’s perspective reflected in classroom part to whole learning, quantitative measurement and
practices is influenced by management centric extrinsic motivation. The classrooms are considered
approach based on industrial model. This perspective a work place and listening to the instructions is a
place importance to outcome based pedagogy. thought of as the traditional perspective because it
has had a profound effect on schools in the last one
Vignette-II hundred years.
In dhangadhi, well educated and enlighten The opposing idea, Progressivism led by Dewey
parents of a brilliant scientist family daughter, has also influenced the schools and society throughout
opened a school, after the untimely demise of their the last century. His school of thought advocated child
daughter, on profit and no loss basis. The lady, a centered and experiential approach to teaching and
retired lecturer in her own right, knew that the school learning. This approach laid emphasis on discovery
should not become a synonym of jail for the children. and dialectical approach to constructing knowledge.
About fifteen students, aged 3-4 years were admitted Dewey convinced American to Unbolt School Desks
in the first session. The organizers were satisfied. from the floor. His perception about the classroom
They will raise these children as they had brought was a learning place. Dewey saw connections with
up their own daughter-they thought. Following are democracy and pedagogy. Democracy was not the
some excerpts of their talk. subject to be studied rather a value to be lived. He
Parents: About two months have been passed believed that the theory and practice of democracy
Madam. And my daughter cannot write should be nourished be power of pedagogy. Dewey’s
a single letter yet. legacy is seen in holistic learning, reflective
Principal: We feel that children find writing very assessment and intrinsic motivation. This approach
cumbersome in the beginning. Therefore eventually resulted in other perspectives known as
we are concentrating on no oral skills cognitivism, socialcognitvism, interactionism, and
and good habits first. You must have transformative education.
noticed that your daughter can clearly

2 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

Vignette-III touch the ground.” In the evening the mother saw

One day five years old Sangita, was very much her daughter a banana peel on a stick and running in
exited-“Papa I have seen a thing in the garden which a circle with that stick “Look this is my jet and I am
was changing its colour. I saw it on the tree. It was flying it.”
dirty! dirty! Then it went on the leaves it become In the above explanation, assimilation of new
green. After a while its head become red!.” ideas in the children’s existing mental structure are
“It was a chameleon.” Her father said. “Really explicit. Both Sanngita and Dibya’s experiences
Papa! Have you also seen it.” Sangita was very and actions may be explained on the basis of the
happy as she started repeating its name. theory of intellectual development which focuses
After a while she saying “C for cat ……….C on cognitive constructions of the growing children.
for Coat and C for ……………..” The father had an Constructivism is an epistemology that presents
opportunity to tell her the spelling also which Sangita explanation of the nature and acquisition of
could differentiate easily and could remember very knowledge among human beings. The constructivist
fast. theory posits that knowledge is constructed by
Sangita’s play becomes more enriched. learners as they attempts to make sense of their
Giving a pause to her continuous repetition, the experiences. Learners, therefore, are not empty
mother added, “……………..and C for camel also.” vessels to be filled but active organisms seeking
Sangita stopped. “But I have never seen a camel!” meaning (Driscoll, 1994).
“O.K. when we will go to zoo we will show a
camel to you.” Traditional and Constructivist Instructional
“And when you will come to my school I will Approaches
show you the chameleon….” The traditional classes are usually dominated
Then noticing surprise on mother’s face Sangita by direct and unilateral instruction. Traditional
said “Chameleon is my friend. It will come to meet approach followers assume that there is a fixed
me again.” body of knowledge that the student must come to
Suddenly she realized “F for fan and F for friend know. Students are expected to blindly accept the
also.” And she resumed her play now speaking more information they are given without questioning the
letters with words she know. Her parents also got instructor (Stofflett, 1998). The teacher seeks to
more opportunity to enrich her game as well as transfer thoughts and meanings to the passive student
knowledge in interesting manner. leaving little room for student-initiated questions,
Sangita’s mother was satisfied with the progress independent thought or interaction between students
her daughter was exhibiting in her performance. But (VAST, 1998). Even the in activities based subjects,
she knew that ultimately they had to depend upon the although activities are done in a group but do not
school. While sharing her experiences with Diby’s encourage discussion or exploration of the concepts
mother both of them agreed that children learn in involved. This tends to overlook the critical thinking
their knowledge gets enriched through interaction and unifying concepts essential to true science literacy
with more knowledgeable peers and adults. Diby’s and appreciation (Yore, 2001). This teacher centered
mother also added “My Diby is now more than 7 method of teaching also assumes that all students
years old. He makes all different sounds through her have the same level of background knowledge in the
same manner and will say “Look I am a car. Then she subject matter and are able to absorb the material at
will correct herself if the sound and the movement the same pace (Lord, 1999).
do not correspond.” The mother was laughing “the In contrast, constructivist or student centered
other day she came running to me “Mom now I know learning poses a question to the students, who then
what it means to fly! I have seen a butterfly sitting on work together in small groups to discover one or
the flower…………..then flying to other…………then more solutions (Yager, 1991). Students play an
to another. And you know? I can also fly-she showed active role in carrying out experiments and reaching
through his actions and movements –only my feet their own conclusions. Teachers assist the students

3 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

in developing new insights and connecting them thinking and participation in the creative part of
with previous knowledge, but leave the discovery activities. Most of the time, during teaching learning
and discussion to the student groups (VAST, 1998). process, instruction remain unilateral which is and
Questions are posed to the class and student teams consider to be orthodox activity. The up-and-coming
work together to discuss and reach agreement trends changed the present scenario and adopted the
on their answers, which are then shared with the constructivist approach which is moral and more focus
entire class. Students are able to develop their own on innovative activities and knowledge acquisition.
understanding of the subject matter based on previous Constructivism is a paradigm that hypothesizes
knowledge, and can correct any misconceptions they learning as an active, contextualized, or constructive
have. Both teaching styles can lead to successful process. Constructivism is a reaction to teaching
learning but it has been shown that students in the approaches such as behaviorism and programmed
constructivist environmental demonstrated more instruction. The learner acts as an information
enthusiasm and interest in the subject matter. In fact, constructor. Learners construct knowledge based
repeated research has found that teacher-centered on their personal experiences and hypotheses of the
lessons can be less or non-productive, and in some environment. Learners actively construct or create
cases, detrimental to the students’ learning process their own subjective or objective reality. Learners,
(Zoller, 2000). Many teachers are hesitant to try the through social negotiation, continuously test their
constructivist model, because it requires additional hypotheses and create new knowledge, correct
planning and a relaxation of the traditional rules previous knowledge, or confirm present knowledge.
of the classroom (Scheurman, 1998). Learner linked new knowledge to prior knowledge.
Teachers often feel as though they aren’t doing Constructivists argued that learner is not a blank
their job if the students are working together and slate (tabula rasa) but brings past experiences and
actively discussing the material instead of busily cultural factors to a construct new knowledge in
taking notes (Sprague and Dede, 1999). Since any given situation.
new idea is likely to be rejected unless teachers Therefore each learner has a different
examine their own theoretical framework and interpretation and constructions of knowledge
develop their own justification for the change, it process based on mental representations (Learning
was suggested that additional quantitative evidence Theories Knowledgebase, 2008). Constructivism
in support of constructivism might encourage more activates the student’s inborn curiosity about the
teachers to embrace this teaching style (Shymansky, real world to observe how things work. A common
1992). Numerous studies have been completed misunderstanding regarding constructivism, due to
to compare students’ learning in traditional and confusion of theory of pedagogy (teaching) with
constructivist classrooms. These studies generally a theory of knowing, is that instructors should
based their conclusions on test or quiz scores and never tell students anything directly but, instead,
student comments or evaluations (Lord, 1997; Lord, should always allow them to construct knowledge
1999). The use of a quantitative analysis based on for themselves. Constructivism assumes that all
videotapes of the labs, which takes into account the knowledge is constructed from the learner’s previous
actions of both students and teacher, should provide knowledge, regardless of how one is taught. Thus,
a new outlook on these teaching styles, as well as even listening to a lecture involves active attempts
offering another means of objectively comparing the to construct new knowledge. In the classroom, the
results. constructivist view of learning can point towards
Traditional teaching approach (lecture method) is a number of different teaching practices. In the
very common in the field of education Traditional most general sense, it usually means encouraging
method ignores the students consequently the mental students to use active techniques (experiments, real-
level of interest of the students. It involves coverage world problem solving) to create more knowledge
of the context and rote memorization on the part of and then to reflect on and talk about what they are
the students. It did not involve students in creative doing and how their understanding is changing. The

4 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

teacher makes sure that he understands the students’ metaphor to highlight the fact that knowledge
preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to is constructed by people who are socially and
address them and then build on them. Constructivism culturally embedded rather than isolated individuals
modifies role of teacher that he facilitate and help or detached minds. To assert that knowledge is
students to construct knowledge rather than to constructed rather than discovered implies that it is
reproduce a series of facts. neither independent of human knowing nor value
The constructivist teacher help the students free. Indeed, constructivists believe that what is
through problem-solving and inquiry-based learning deemed knowledge is always informed by a particular
activities with which students formulate and test their perspective and shaped by various implicit value
ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, and pool and judgments. Informed by the insights of theorists
convey their knowledge in a collaborative learning such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and Freire constructivism
environment. Constructivism transforms the student has helped to shift the way in which knowledge
from a passive recipient of information to an active is understood and assessed. Piaget believed that
participant in the learning process. Always guided to understand the nature of knowledge, ‘we must
by the teacher, students construct their knowledge study its formation rather than examining only the
actively rather than just mechanically ingesting end product’ (Kamii & Ewing, 1996, p. 260). His
knowledge from the teacher or the textbook. The developmental theory demonstrates that the way one
task of the instructor is to translate information to arrives at knowledge is equally, if not more, important
be learned into a format appropriate to the learner’s than the final result. Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of
current state of understanding. Curriculum should the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ enables us
be organized in a spiral manner so that the student to realize that human learning, development, and
continually builds upon what they have already knowledge are all embedded in a particular social
learned. Bruner (1966) states that a constructivists and cultural context in which people exist and grow:
or theory of instruction should address four major Since mental activity, he maintained, takes
aspects: predisposition towards learning, the ways place in a social and cultural context, thought
in which a body of knowledge can be structured so will operate differently in diverse historical
that it can be most readily grasped by the learner, situations. Cognition thus is shaped by the
the most effective sequences in which to present interactions among social actors, the contexts
material, and the nature and pacing of rewards and in which they act, and the form their activities
punishments. assume. (Kincheloe, 1999, p. 9)
Freire (1994) insists that knowledge is not a gift
Defining Constructivism or a possession that some individuals have and others
In the past few decades, a constructivist approach lack. On the contrary, knowledge is attained when
has emerged as a very powerful model for explaining people come together to exchange ideas, articulate
how knowledge is produced in the world as well their problems from their own perspectives, and
as how students learn. For constructivists like Joe construct meanings that makes sense to them. It is a
Kincheloe and Barbara Thayer-Bacon, knowledge process of inquiry and creation, an active and restless
about the world does not simply exist out there, process that human beings undertake in order to make
waiting to be discovered, but is rather constructed sense of themselves, the world, and the relationships
by human beings in their interaction with the world: between the two.
The angle from which an entity is seen, the values of In light of the insights of Piaget, Vygotsky, and
the researcher that shape the questions he or she asks Freire, a constructivist approach to education is
about it, and what the researcher considers important one in which learners actively create, interpret, and
are all factors in the construction of knowledge about reorganize knowledge in individual ways. According
the phenomenon in question. (Kincheloe, 2000, p. to Windschitl (1999), ‘these fluid intellectual
342) transformations occur when students reconcile
Thayer-Bacon (1999) invokes a quilting bee formal instructional experiences with their existing

5 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

knowledge, with the cultural and social contexts in suggests we view constructivist classrooms as a
which ideas occur, and with a host of other influences culture, ‘a set of beliefs, norms and practices that
that serve to mediate understanding’ (p. 752). In constitute the fabric of school life’ (p.752).This
this view, teaching should promote experiences culture, in turn, influences interactions, relationships
that require students to become active, scholarly and experiences. DeVries & Zan (1994) also provide
participators in the learning process. Windschitl goes an indepth discussion of constructivist classrooms
on to note that ‘such experiences include problem- based on ‘their research in kindergarten classrooms.
based learning, inquiry activities, dialogues with They argue that implementing constructivist
peers and teachers that encourage making sense education involves more than activities, materials
of the subject matter, exposure to multiple sources and classroom organization and suggest that a socio-
of information, and opportunities for students to moral atmosphere (‘the network of interpersonal
demonstrate their understanding in diverse ways’ (p. relations that make up a child’s experience of school,’
752). p.22) supports and promotes children’s development.
To be sure, such pedagogical recommendations They describe constructivist classrooms in terms of
make a great deal of sense. In fact, constructivist a) the organization, including meeting children’s
teaching practices are becoming more prevalent in needs, encouraging peer interaction and facilitating
teacher education programs and public schools across children taking responsibility; b) activities, including
the nation, while demonstrating significant success in engaging children’s interest, encouraging active
promoting student learning (e.g., Baines & Stanley, experimentation, and fostering cooperation; and c)
2000; Davis & Sumara, 2002; Fang & Ashley, 2004; the teacher’s roles and relationships with children,
Gordon & O’Brien, 2007; Marlowe & Page, 2005; including facilitating children’s constructions,
Oxford, 1997; Richardson, 1997). Still, Van Huizen, fostering cooperation and interpersonal
Van Oers, and Wubbels (2005) are probably correct in understanding, and promoting moral values.
asserting that, as with other paradigms, the impact of Piaget has expounded that a child is not just a
constructivism has remained limited, and that, ‘rather miniature adult but his distinctive mental structure
than being reformed by them, teacher education has is qualitatively different from those of adults. The
absorbed elements of these paradigms’ (p. 268). One children at different stages of development view the
noteworthy problem is that constructivist teaching world from their unique perspectives and they are
has often been misinterpreted and misused, resulting different from adults in their use of language. Piaget
in learning practices that neither challenge students viewed that the children learn best from concrete
nor address their needs. activity but physical experiences and concrete
Wilson (1996) defines constructivist learning manipulation are not only ways in which the child
environments as ‘a place where learners may work learns. His social experiences and interaction
together and support each other as they use a variety with others, be they peers or adults, lead, to their
of tools and information resources in the guided understanding about the world around them. Thus the
pursuit of learning goals and problem-solving teachers must make special efforts to understand the
activities’ (p.5). He suggests analysis that focuses unique properties of the child’s experiences and his
on the constituent parts or key components of ways of thinking. In piagetian curriculum teaching
typical learning environments. Marlowe and Page is always a two step process of diagnosis followed
(1998) identify core components of constructivist presenting the materials which require cognitive
classrooms. They include the language you use in the adaption. Piaget believed that single global diagnosis
classroom and the classroom communication system, for each child, that, is preoperational, transitional
student and teacher roles, classroom management, concrete operational is not sufficient. For any given
the physical environment, student choice, how child the current stage of classificatory development
students interact with content, and assessing student and both may be different from the current stage
learning. They suggest a continuum of practice of spatial development. Once the stage her been
within each of these components. Winstichl (1999) defined in a given area the teacher can orchestrate

6 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

the instructional material accordingly. classroom is one in which there is a balance between
Another strand of constructivist idea, social teacher- and student-directed learning and requires
constructivism has been identified in the work of teachers to take an active role in the learning process,
Vygotsky who believed that culture and social including formal teaching. Dewey (1956), who was
interactions are essential features in shaping one of the pioneers of modern constructivism, taught
knowledge. For Vygotsky interaction with us long ago that in education extremes are dangerous
caregivers, peers, teachers and material world is the and that we should avoid approaches that either
basis of intellectual development. He believed that marginalize the needs, experiences, and interests of
potential for Cognitive Development depends upon children or focus entirely on these factors.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Therefore Another widespread misconception regarding
the settings of cooperative learning, arrangement constructivist teaching is the view that there is
among groups of students with differing levels of no body of knowledge associated with it and that,
ability, tutoring by more competent peers can be therefore, teachers do not need to be experts in a
effective in promoting growth within ZPD. Other particular content area. As Baines and Stanley (2000)
constructivist methods include reciprocal teaching, assert, ‘with constructivism, the teacher is supposed
scaffolding and discovery learning etc. Vygotsky to set up the learning environment, know student
theory does not mean that anything can be taught preferences, guide student investigations, and then
to any child. But instructions can be planned to get out of the way’ (p. 330). However, theorists,
provide practice within ZPD for individual children such as Virginia Richardson and Mark Windschitl,
or for a group of children. According to him the correctly insist that constructivist teaching places
basic purpose of instruction is not to add one piece great demands on a teacher’s subject matter
of knowledge to another but to stimulate cognitive understanding. Richardson (2003) maintains that
development. Central to his approach is a view of ‘research within the last several years has indicated
mind which extends beyond the skills, which does the importance of deep and strong subject matter
not stimulate the thinking in the confined spaces of knowledge in a constructivist classroom’ (p. 1631).
the individual brain or mind. Instead he proposes Windschitl (1999) adds that in these classrooms
a sustained dynamic between other humans both ‘the teacher must not only be familiar with the
present and past, book, the rest of our material and principles underlying a topic of study but must also
nonmaterial culture and the individual engaged is be prepared for the variety of ways these principles
symbolic activity. can be explored’ (p. 753). For instance, teachers who
are covering the concept of density in a science class
Constructivism Misconstrued must be able to support the understanding of those
One of the most common ways in which students who approach this concept in an abstract
educational theorists have misunderstood manner using equations and graphs as well as those
constructivism is to equate it with student-centered that need more concrete illustrations and real-life
teaching approaches. Baines and Stanley (2000) applications of density.
write that ‘textbooks tell us that constructivism is The notion that constructivist teaching does
student-centered and is on the opposite side of the not require content expertise is based in part on a
continuum from subject-centered or teacher-centered misreading of Paulo Freire’s concept of problem-
instruction’ (p. 327). However, constructivism posing education. While Freire (1994) distinguished
should not be confused with the various child- his notion of problem-posing education from
centered teaching models that have emerged in banking education by emphasizing that in the latter
different versions over the last couple of centuries. the teacher is in total control of the construction and
The latter are indebted to theorists like Rousseau dissemination of knowledge, he never claimed that
who asserted in the Emile that the educator should problem-posing educators need not have content
intervene as little as possible with the ‘natural’ knowledge expertise. In fact, Freire has stated quite
development of children. In contrast, a constructivist bluntly that educators who have nothing to teach

7 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

their students should look for a different profession. purely entertainment, academic rigor and in-depth
The main difference between banking education exploration of the subject matter suffer. In short,
and Freire’s pedagogical approach does not hinge many constructivist teachers who want to prevent
on the expertise of the teacher but rather on the way their students from becoming bored at all cost are
in which students are taught and interact with the compromising their ability to gain a broader and
teacher. In the former, teachers make ‘deposits’ of deeper understanding of the content.
information into a passive group of students, while Another misuse of constructivist teaching is
in the latter teachers and students engage in dialogue when teachers essentially require their students
with and teach each other. to teach themselves. Teacher candidates in our
Hence, the authority of knowledge in program spoke about professors who, after the first
constructivist classrooms still rests heavily on the class meeting, divided the students into small groups
teachers’ own knowledge and experience. Maughn and devoted the rest of the semester to having each
Rollins Gregory (2002) echoes this point when she group present to the class one or more chapters from
writes that: the textbook. These teacher candidates reported that
Since an autonomous community of uninitiated ‘they had learned nothing in this class’ or that ‘the
students may construct understandings and professor had a very hands-off approach and did not
values at odds with disciplinary standards, really teach us very much’. To be sure, these students
and verify those understandings to themselves may be exaggerating when they claim that they didn’t
with utter conviction, there must always be an learn anything in the course. Still, it seems to me that
ineradicable element of authority in the practice there is a serious problem with the expectation that
of even constructivist pedagogy. Although the students teach themselves. While the constructivist
constructivist account of oneself in practice, notion that students should be encouraged to create
the intelligibility of an idea to myself, as Peirce their own interpretations of the text is a sound idea,
argued against Descartes, is no epistemological this is not the same as leaving students to their own
warrant of its truth. (p. 400) devices and requiring them to teach themselves. As
The misguided notions about constructivism Dewey (1956) warned us over a 100 years ago:
mentioned above have contributed to the misuse of Nothing can be developed from nothing; nothing
constructivist teaching in various schools across the but the crude can be developed out of the crude
USA. For example, a high school Spanish teacher – and this is what surely happens when we throw
in an exclusive private school has reported that the child back upon his achieved self as a finality,
her supervisor insists that each lesson should start and invite him to spin new truths of nature or
with a few minutes of warm-up games in order of conduct out of that. It is certainly as futile to
to immediately grab the students’ attention. This expect a child to evolve a universe out of his own
supervisor also recommends that each lesson include mind as it is for a philosopher to attempt that
at least five different activities for the students. This task. (p. 18)
teacher described how some of the other teachers A final misuse of constructivist teaching worth
in the department spend virtually the entire lesson mentioning happens when teachers communicate
engaging their advanced Spanish students in word to students the message that there are no incorrect
games and other ‘fun activities’, rewarding them answers and that knowledge is in the eye of the
with candy for correct answers. The main idea in beholder. MacKinnon and Scarff-Seatter (1997)
these lessons is to keep adolescents, whose attention provide a quote from an elementary science methods
span is supposedly short, entertained throughout student that illustrates this problem :
the 50-minute lesson. In this way, learning is I am very anxious to return to my classroom and
reduced to a form of entertainment in which the teach science. Constructivism has taught me
main goal is to keep students amused. While getting [that] I do not need to know any science in order
students to enjoy the lesson may increase their to teach it. I will simply allow students to figure
motivation and attention, when learning becomes things out for themselves, for I know that there is

8 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

no right answer. (p. 53) posed several questions to his students, such as:
Similarly, Holt-Reynolds (2000) describes a Who benefited most and least from the American
situation in which a prospective English teacher Revolution? Who benefited most and least from
internalized the notion that constructivist teaching the Constitution? And, how have people struggled
meant that she had to encourage her students to to expand the democratic sprit of the American
construct their own interpretations of the story and Revolution after the Constitution was ratified? To
affirm each interpretation regardless of its accuracy help his students prepare for the role play activity,
or fidelity to the text. The point, illustrated by these Peterson also showed them a picture of a painting
two examples, is that constructivist teaching has depicting the original Constitutional Convention
sometimes been used to justify the misguided notion (which includes only wealthy white men), introduced
that knowledge is only relative and that students do them to some important vocabulary they will need to
not need to be held to rigorous academic standards. use, and gave them mini-lectures on each of the seven
When constructivist teaching is portrayed in such a groups that have been invited to the convention.
tentative way, it opens itself to the charge that it is a Once the students were divided into the groups, they
kind of ‘anything goes’ relativist model of teaching. began to get ready for the convention, brainstorming
In contrast, I will argue that effective constructivist a list of arguments they can use in their role play.
teaching not only includes a number of specific Throughout the entire process of preparing for and
criteria, but that it actually raises the bar and demands conducting the mock convention, Peterson played an
far more from students than many teacher-centered active role in every step of the process by providing
models of learning. his students some background knowledge on this
event, informing them on the position of each group,
Effective Constructivist Teaching and Learning: and helping them construct their arguments for the
Aboard Experiences role play.
One example of effective constructivist teaching Peterson’s experience of conducting this mock
and learning is taken from Bill Peterson’s fifth grade convention and role play for a number of years
class and their study of the American Revolution indicates that ‘it brings the above questions to life,
and the creation of the Constitution of United Satate. energizes the class, and helps me assess my students’
Unlike the traditional way in which this topic has knowledge and skills’ (p. 63). Through this exciting
been taught through sterile lectures, boring textbook project, Peterson’s students learned firsthand that,
readings, and rote memorization of factoids, Peterson historically, many oppressed groups of people
decided to have the students in his class reenact were excluded from participating in the democratic
through role play the Constitutional Convention process and how those groups fought to secure their
of 1787. Only this particular convention included freedom and equality. In this way, they gained a
a twist in that they decided to invite many groups deep understanding of the background, content, and
of people who were excluded from the original implications of this major historical event, unlike
one in Philadelphia (e.g., indentured servants, the surface knowledge that comes from a cursory
African American slaves, white women, and Native reading of history in a text book. Participating in the
Americans). As Peterson (2001) describes this role play also enables Peterson’s students to hone
project: their critical thinking skills and come to appreciate
The basic components of the role play are the the value that dissent and resistance have in bringing
dividing of the class into seven distinct social about social change in a democratic society.
groups, having them focus on the key issues of Another example of successful constructivist
slavery and suffrage, negotiate among themselves teaching and learning from a different context is
to get other groups to support their positions, taken from Rosemary Dusting’s teaching of ninth-
and then have debate and a final vote at a mock grade math. Following the same pedagogical method
Constitutional Convention. (pp. 63–64) that she experienced when she was a student, Dusting
In preparation for the mock convention, Peterson initially taught math in the traditional exposition

9 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

model in which the teacher is in complete control implementing these changes suggests that:
of the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Once the students were familiar with the
Ignoring her own memories of how she struggled expectations of these approaches, they
with math when she was a student and the boredom (generally) became quite accepting of the tasks.
she often felt, Dusting preferred to stick to the only They quickly got down to the process which
method she was familiar with: involved writing; they listened attentively as
I suppressed memories about how certain others read out their versions; and they checked
teachers made me feel idiotic if I ventured a and altered their own writing as a result of what
response that was incorrect, or how others barely they heard and now thought. (Loughran et al.,
even noticed whether there were any students in 2002, p. 180)
the class, rarely leaving their chair or putting Still, Dusting was unsure whether or not her
down the chalk as they ploughed on through sets new teaching approach, based on constructivist
of notes they’d been using for the past x years. principles, was actually resulting in better quality
(Loughran, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 2002, p. 174) learning for her students. She felt a need to find out
Over time, however, Dusting began to notice more about her students’ views on the way they were
that the traditional way of teaching math was not being taught and were asked to learn. Therefore, in
effective for many students whose interest and 1999, Dusting decided to survey her entire tenth-
engagement were not aroused. Other students did grade class, some of which were her ninth-grade
not understand the concepts and therefore turned off students the year before as well as her current
instead of admitting that they were struggling with ninth-grade students. The results of these surveys
comprehension. Students in Dusting’s class had indicated that the students’ views on Dusting’s
very few opportunities to experience and practice teaching approach were mixed. Some students
math thinking skills. Ultimately, she concluded that appreciated the opportunity to work independently
her problems getting students to understand math or in groups on solving math problems and think
stemmed from two factors: ‘the inherent weaknesses for themselves. Others acknowledged the chance to
of the chalk and talk transmissive model; and the fact take responsibility for their own learning but noted
that it was the only style I was using’ (Loughran et that they were often confused and did not receive
al., 2002, p. 176). adequate explanations of some concepts. Finally,
In the late 1990s, Dusting began to implement there was a group of students who did not appreciate
changes in her teaching of math by focusing on Dusting’s constructivist teaching approach and
teaching for understanding and implementing complained that they did not learn much because
many constructivist principles of learning into her ‘she did not explain well and do her job properly’.
lessons. For instance, instead of writing formulae Based on her students’ survey responses, Dusting
on the board and demonstrating how to solve them, concluded that her constructivist teaching approach
she sometimes asked students to try to study a new had not been successful for a significant number of
concept in the book on their own and then come up her students, especially those who were not able to
to the board and offer an explanation of this concept make the connections between the different concepts
to the rest of the class. Moreover, when introducing themselves:
a new topic, Dusting began to rely on brainstorming I certainly recognize that, in teaching, it is not
techniques, which required students to tap into their sufficient to ‘throw’ out some ideas, wait, then
prior knowledge, helped them make connections allow time for discussion and exploration if the
to other topics, and got everyone involved in the overall big picture, the purpose underpinning the
lesson. On other occasions, after class discussions or approach, is not made clear. It seems to me that
other activities, Dusting asked them to write down I had not done this well enough for some of my
their understanding of a math concept, identify the students. (Loughran et al., 2002, p. 191)
use of an algorithm, or write in their own words the Analyzing this experience, Dusting realized
steps used to solve a problem. Her experience with that in order to reduce her students’ confusions and

10 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

misunderstandings, she had to use her professional show that they have learned a set of predetermined
knowledge to respond to contextual factors and to skills, facts, or formula in different disciplines.
step in and clarify questions as they arise. As a result Joe Kincheloe argues correctly that such technical
of this insight, in 1999 Dusting decided to tone down standards are grossly inadequate in that they remove
her teaching approach and balance her desire for the crucial meaning making process from students’
students to construct their own understandings of learning. ‘Meaning in this context has already
math concepts with the need to respond to students been determined by the curriculum makers and is
questions and provide them with good explanations. simply imposed on students as a done deal-there is
Not surprisingly, when she surveyed this new cohort no room for negotiation about the interpretation of
of students about their experiences learning math, information’ (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 4). Kincheloe’s
the vast majority of students had positive reactions to point is not that teachers and students should
Dusting’s teaching approach. She, therefore, learned disregard the information that has been generated by
how important it is to not only attend to her own others. It is that schools should place less emphasis
agenda as a teacher, but to be equally mindful of the on the simple acquisition of a set of predigested
students’ needs and experiences. facts and much more on the ability to interpret
and make sense of ideas and experiences that
Reflections students encounter. The two examples of effective
First of all, genuine learning requires students constructivist teaching illustrate this point. Peterson
to be active, not passive, and to construct their challenged his students to interpret the Constitutional
own interpretations of the subject matters. For Convention of 1787 and consider this event from
both Peterson and Dusting, it is clear that learning multiple perspectives, thereby helping them arrive
is not about accumulating random information, at a deeper understanding of American history and
memorizing it, and then repeating it on some exam; the democratic process in the USA. And Dusting
learning is about understanding and applying helped her students make sense of complex math
concepts, constructing meaning, and thinking about concepts by encouraging them to develop their own
ideas. At the same time, effective constructivist definitions of these concepts, explain them to other
teaching does not mean that the teacher takes a back students, and ask her questions about them.
seat and forces students to learn the concepts of the Finally, is the notion that good constructivist
lesson on their own. Both Peterson and Dusting teaching ought to be flexible and attend first and
assumed an active role in their classes and facilitated foremost to the actual needs of students and not just
their students learning through explanations, mini- to the teacher’s perceptions of those needs. Much like
lectures, and guiding their research. That is, they Dusting, who adjusted her teaching approach when
created a community of learners in their classrooms she realized that it was not working well for some of
in which they were an integral and dynamic part. her students, constructivist educators are successful
Both did not shy away from using their content to the extent that they constantly monitor how
expertise to answer student questions or correct their their students are responding to their pedagogical
misconceptions about a particular issue that they approaches and how well they are actually learning.
were trying to figure out.
Secondly, the examples of Peterson and Dusting Conclusion
illustrate that effective constructivist teaching has The growing reliance on constructivist teaching
to be challenging for students: that they have to be in teacher education programs and public schools
able to demonstrate an in-depth understanding of across the nation is a mixed blessing. On the one
the subject matter and be held to rigorous standards hand, the increase use of constructivist pedagogies is
of performance. This means that students need to good since it indicates that more and more teachers
be held to much higher standards than the normal and schools are finally moving away from traditional
technical standards, measured by one’s performance models of teaching, which often did not challenge
on standardized tests, which merely ask students to learners to construct their own understandings of the

11 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

content and did not meet the needs of many students. New York, 2000.
Many teachers like Peterson and Dusting who rely Gordon, M and O’Brien, T. Bridging theory and
on constructivist teaching strategies have been able practice in teacher education, Sense Publishers,
to get their students to become more engaged in the Netherlands, 2007.
learning process and attain a deeper knowledge of Holt-Reynolds, D. “What does the teacher do?
the subject matter. On the other hand, the prevalence Constructivist pedagogies and prospective
of constructivist teaching practices suggests that teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher.”
educators need to become much more vigilant both Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 16, no. 1,
about what we mean by constructivism and how 2000, pp. 21-32.
we apply constructivist teaching. We need to be Kamii, C and Ewing, J. K. “Basing Teaching on
careful not to confuse constructivism with student- Piaget’s Constructivism.” Childhood Education,
centered teaching or to assume that teachers who vol. 72, no.5, 1996, pp. 260-264.
espouse this approach have no content expertise. Kincheloe, J. “The Foundations of a Democratic
Moreover, teachers who rely on constructivist Educational Psychology.” Rethinking
pedagogical practices need to be mindful to avoid Intelligence: Confronting Psychological
some of the pitfalls discussed above such as reducing Assumptions about Teaching and Learning,
learning to entertainment or requiring students to edited by J.L. Kincheloe. et al. Routledge, New
teach themselves. Above all, teachers, educational York, 1999, pp. 1-26.
theorists, and educators in general should remember David, L. “Constructivism.” Learning Theories,
that as with any effective model of teaching and 2015, http://www.learning-theories.com/
learning, constructivism is not a panacea that constructivism.html
can cure us of all of our educational woes. As Lord, Thomas R. “A Comparison Between Traditional
evidenced by the examples of Peterson and Dustings, and Constructivist Teaching in Environmental
constructivist teaching can produce tremendous Science.” Journal of Environmental Education,
results when used correctly and judiciously; it can vol. 30, no. 3, 1999, pp. 22-27.
also lead to poor results and ineffective learning Loughran, J. et al. Learning from Teacher Research,
when it is misconstrued or misused. Teachers College Press, 2002.
MacKinnon, A. and Scarff-Seatter, C.
Reference “Constructivism: Contradictions and Confusions
Baines, L.A. and Stanley, G. “We Want to see the in Teacher Education.” Constructivist
Teacher: Constructivism and the Rage against Teacher Education: Building a World of New
Expertise.” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 82, no. 4, Understandings, edited by V. Richardson,
2000, pp. 327-330. Falmer Press, 1997, pp. 39-56.
Bruner, J. Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard Marlowe, B.A. and Page, M.A. Creating and
University Press, Cambridge, 1974. Sustaining the Constructivist Classroom, Corwin
Davis, B and Sumara, D. “Constructivist Discourses Press, 2005.
and the Field of Education: Problems and Oxford, R. “Constructivism: Shape-shifting,
Possibilities.” Educational Theory, vol. 52, no.4, substance, and teacher education applications.”
2002, 409-428. Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 72, no. 1,
Dewey, J. The School and Society: The Child and 1997, pp. 35-66.
the Curriculum, University of Chicago Press, Peterson, B. “Rethinking the US Constitutional
Chicago, 1990. Convention: A Role Play.” Rethinking Our
Fang, Z and Ashley, C. “Preservice Teachers’ Classrooms, edited by B. Bigelow. et al.
Interpretations of a Field-based Reading Block”. Rethinking Schools, 2001, pp. 63-64.
Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 55, no. 1, Richardson, V. “Constructivist Pedagogy.”
2004, pp. 39-54. Teachers College Record, vol. 105, no. 9, 2003,
Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum, pp. 1623-1640.

12 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
 Shanlax
shanlax
#SINCE1990
International Journal of Education

Scheurman, Geoffrey. “From Behaviorist to science educators?” Current Topics in Science

Constructivist Teaching.” Science Education. Education, Virginia Association of Science
vol. 62, no. 1, 1998, pp. 6-9. Teachers (VAST), 1998.
Shymansky, James A. “Using Constructivist Ideas Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development
to Teach Science Teachers About Constructivist of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard
Ideas, or Teachers Are Students, Too!.” Journal University, Cambridge, 1978.
of Science Teacher Education, vol. 3, no. 2, 1992, Windschitl, M. “The Challenges of Sustaining a
pp. 53-57. Constructivist Classroom Culture.” Phi Delta
Sprague, Debra and Christopher Dede. Kappan, vol. 80, no. 10, 1999, pp. 751-757.
“Constructivism in the Classroom: If I Teach Yager, Robert E. “The Constructivist Learning
This Way, Am I Doing My Job?.” Learning and Model.” The Science Teacher, vol. 58, no. 6,
Leading with Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, 1999, 1991, pp. 53-57.
pp. 6-21. Yore, Larry D. “What is Meant by Constructivist
Stofflett, Rene T. “Putting Constructivist Teaching Science Teaching and Will the Science Education
into Practice in Undergraduate Introductory Community Stay the Course for Meaningful
Science”. Electronic Journal of Science Reform?.” Electronic Journal of Science
Education, vol. 3, no. 2, 1999. Education, vol. 5, no. 4, 2001.
Thayer-Bacon, B. “The Thinker Versus a Quilting Zoller, Uri. “Teaching Tomorrow’s College Science
bee: Contrasting Images.” Educational Courses - Are We Getting It Right?.” Journal of
Foundations, vol. 13, no. 4, 1999, pp. 47-65. College Science Teaching, vol. 29, no. 6, 2000,
“What is constructivism and what does it mean for pp. 409-414.

Author Details
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Shah, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Kailali Multiple Campus, Kailali, Nepal.
Email ID: [email protected].

13 http://www.shanlaxjournals.in
Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2016.040211

Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance

Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs
Joseph P. Akpan1, Lawrence A. Beard2,*

1
Department of Secondary Education, Jacksonville State University, USA
2
Curriculum and Instruction, Jacksonville State University, USA

Copyright © 2016 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

Abstract Over the past decades many teaching strategies expressing concern over the education of students with
have been proposed by various educators to improve special needs. School officials are calling on states to
education of all students including students with special transform post-secondary educator preparation in order to
needs. No single one of these proposed teaching strategies better serve all learners, including those with special needs.
meets the needs of all students. The new Every Student Recently, a bipartisan group of lawmakers voted 85 to 12 to
Succeeds Act, successor to No Child Left behind Law, which approve large-scale sweeping legislative changes successor
transfers oversight from federal level back to states, could be to No Child Left behind Law to the Every Student Succeeds
a benefactor for constructivism and special education. Act. These sweeping changes would not only end a
Educators are also optimistic that the new Every Student controversial federal policy which has governed education
Succeeds Act will be better for vulnerable students in special for more than a decade, but will become a benefactor for
education because it will introduce more flexibility in how special education and student-centered teaching strategies.
individual states carry out evaluation of students and This article addresses how the new Every Student Succeeds
teachers. In addition, it will provide more flexibility on Act affects special education as well as being a benefactor to
testing and adapt the curriculum to student’s needs. It would student-centered teaching strategies. In addition, this article
further reduce time and energy for students preparing for proposes that the large-scale education changes would
standardized tests or statewide exams. It will also end benefits constructivism than before. The article furthermore
“Adequate Yearly Progress”-a measure that required schools proposes that the sweeping changes will put to an end the
to show test score gains. Constructivist teaching philosophy “teacher-shoptalk”: lessons that are predominantly textbooks
is all about accepting student autonomy where student oriented the devaluing of all students thinking, tests that
thinking drives the lessons, where dialogue, inquiry, and drive curriculum testing, and overemphasize curriculum
puzzlement are valued and assessing student learning is in mastery. It is time for the lawmakers to begin to make a
the context of teaching. It helps teachers to draw on new difference in how students learn by encouraging
ideas as they make decisions about which teaching student-to-student interaction, initiating lessons that foster
techniques are most appropriate for all students to learn. cooperative learning, and providing opportunities for
Now is the time to revisit the great debate of constructivism students to be exposed to interdisciplinary curriculum.
versus teacher-centered instruction and special education. However, students must understand that they are ultimately
Time has come to effectively explore our educational system responsible for their own learning within a learning
and examine the core unit of the whole enterprise, the atmosphere that includes all the aforementioned strategies
textbook, the classroom, a setting that is often dominated by (Duke, Harper, & Johnston, 2013[1]; Tracey & Morrow,
teacher talk and students listen. 2012[2]; Hashim & Kasbolah, 2012[3]; Ultanir, 2012[4];
Keywords Constructivist Teaching Strategies, Student Brown, 2003[5]; Hakverdi-Can, & Sonmez, 2012[6].
with Special Needs, Academic Outcomes, Students with Every student receives and processes information in
Learning Disabilities, Positive Learning, Policy Makers, different ways: Some learn by listening and sharing ideas,
Indirect Instruction, Every Student Succeeds Act some learn by thinking through ideas, some learn by testing
theories, some learn by synthesizing content and context, and
some learn by reasoning logically and intuitively. Learning
disabilities are a group of disorders manifested by difficulties
in acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
1. Introduction reasoning, mathematical abilities or of social skills (National
Institute for Literacy, 2002, p. 2) [7]. These disorders are
American politicians, educators and lobbyists have been presumed to exist due to a central nervous system
 Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016 393

dysfunction. Legislators, policy makers, school principals, them with the tool to implement this model in their
counselors and post-secondary educators believe that the classrooms. All educators should encourage students to
time has come to reform our current teaching strategy for all come to class with expectancy and excitement, essentially to
students, including students with special needs. The concept learn by doing. Critiques of constructivism think that the
of constructivism has extended beyond research and into the model is old wine in the new bottle of education or a weak
American classroom. It has also been the subject of present concept that does not provide students with lifelong learning.
exploration by academics (Jia, 2010; [8] Bay, Bagceci & This paper asserts that constructivism is new wine in a new
Cetin, 2012 [9]; Brandon & All, 2010 [10]; Steele, 2005 bottle; every post-secondary educator must be encouraged to
[11]). One of the most unique and challenging issues that jump on this bandwagon to provide all students with a unique
parents, teachers, school administrators, politicians, and and life-long learning experience. Teachers must come
philosophers have debated is how to enhance the academic together to understand the idea that knowledge is constructed
learning experience and opportunities for all students (Steele, by individuals differently and is a product of the human mind.
2005 [11]; Brandon & All, 2010 [10]; Snowman, McCown, All learners need teaching strategies which arouse the unique
& Biehler, 2009 [12]; Sultan, Woods, & Koo, 2011 [13]; interest and curiosity to learn. The use of real-life
Ultanir, 2012 [4]; Koh, Chai & Tsai, 2014[14]. applications and asking stimulating open-ended questions
Misconceptions on how students construct knowledge and enhance the learning experience for all students. Today, the
how teachers should deliver instruction in our nation’s challenges of teaching a diverse student population are at the
schools currently exist. These include lessons dominated by forefront of all education initiatives nationwide. The use of
expository methodology in which the teacher is the expert. constructivist teaching model can help teachers meet some
Using the expository teaching, students are viewed as “blank learning challenges of our students with special needs and
slate” onto which information is etched by the teacher. The therefore bridge the achievement gap in the 21st century. It is
teacher plays videos to wipe away instructional time, assigns the most effective teaching strategy that works well in an
meaningless tasks for lessons which are predominantly inclusive classroom, as learning begins with students
textbook oriented. Moreover they discredit student thinking, understanding of a subject and is developed by participation
and overemphasize curriculum mastery. These strategies are in the realistic and meaningful learning experiences
not helping students construct meaning in the classroom (Snowman, et., 2009 [12]; Ultanir, 2012 [4]; Koh, Chai &
because students are not viewed as thinkers with emerging Tsai, 2014[14]; Hashim & Kasbolah, 2012[3]; Sultan,
theories about the world they live. It is time educators begin Woods, & Koo, 2011 [13].
to make a difference in how students learn by encouraging
student-to-student interaction, curricular activities rely
heavily on primary sources of data and manipulative 2. Legislative Changes and Special
materials, initiating lessons that foster cooperative learning, Education
and providing opportunities for students to be exposed to
interdisciplinary curriculum. Students would then be The current legislative act that revises No Child Left
responsible for their own learning within an environment behind Law is a breakthrough to special education and
that includes all the aforementioned teaching methods. constructivism. The sweeping changes would affect how
This article calls for all educators including teachers of schools are judged, and would eliminate a deadline for
students with special needs to begin to make important academic proficiency and streamline students’ annual testing
paradigm shifts in the way they teach and care about students regime if administered correctly. It can end controversial
learning. Teachers must abandon the old traditional teaching federal policy that has governed education for decades and
model in which curriculum is presented part to whole, with restore much control to local districts and schools. The
emphasis on basic skills. In the constructivist classroom, successor to No Child Left behind Act would end the
curriculum is presented whole to part with emphasis on big expository methodology view of teaching and learning,
concepts. These best teaching practices influence and which claimed that knowledge, is discovered through the
enhance how students think, act, demonstrate, and exhibit manipulation of objects or acquired from others when
knowledge. In the constructivist classroom, simple or learners listen to what teachers say. Now is the time to
complex curricular activities serve to bolster relevance in revisit the long standing debate of constructivism versus
students and teachers generally behave in an interactive teacher-centered instruction for special education. The new
manner, mediating the environment for students learning. Every Student Succeeds Act will be better for vulnerable
Constructivist instructions are practical in nature; focus on students in special education because it provides more
real-life applications that might be used to refocus the flexibility on testing. It also ends “Adequate Yearly
process of educational reform. This method of instruction Progress” a measure that required schools to show test score
suggests new norms, culture of teaching, and structures for gains. Preschool development grants for low-income
classroom practices in the 21st century education. children and an arts education fund are included. Experts
Furthermore, this article will acquaint educators with the claimed that Arts education is more construcvist than
philosophical roots of the constructivist model and enable practicing for the high stakes test (Koh, Chai & Tsai,
394 Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs

2014[14]; Sultan, Woods, & Koo, 2011 [13].The new Every experience something new, we internalize it through our past
Student Succeeds Act will stop the practice of putting experience or knowledge constructions we have previously
multiple student subgroups (students with disabilities and established” (Crowther, 1997, p. 3; [19] Steele, 2005 [11]).
low-income students, for example) into “supersubgroup”-a The primary job of a teacher is to enable children to think
practice that can mask inequities. Every Student Succeeds out-of the-box by making their own connections that result in
Act gives schools more local control over curriculum that valid internalized meanings unique to them. In this case, the
individual districts will now move toward more teacher leads the children through exploratory activities that
constructivist teaching methods versus teaching to the test enable them to investigate on their own and come to their
(Kirp, D. L. 2015[37]. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/referen own conclusions as to what is happening in the immediate
ce/timestopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.ht environment (Martin, 2003; [20] Von Glasersfeld, 1989
ml [15]). Penner (2001) [21] argues that, “learning activities
must begin by considering the role of student current
knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and the role of
3. Constructivist Teaching Model the activities in building knowledge” (p. 3). In other words,
individuals construct their own new understandings through
In very simple terms, people construct their own the interactions of their existing experiences with whatever
understandings of the world in which they live. Teachers they come into contact with, making learning a social
constantly search for new strategies to help them understand activity which engages the teacher as facilitator, mentor, and
and connect to their past or present experiences. As a co-explorer who encourages learners to question, challenge
function of conventional wisdom, we know that some people and formulate their own ideas and conclusions (Ultanir, 2012;
are good, some are bad, some are more complex than others, [4] Brooks & Brooks, 1993; [18]).
etc. These are all lessons from reflection and interactions The general consensus among educators is that what a
with people. person knows is not a function of detached observation but
Constructivism is a teaching model not a theory. rather created through interaction with their world view and
Essentially, it is a model or metaphor of how people learn or that knowledge and reality are subjective in nature (Fosnot,
how learning takes place (Von Glasersfeld, 1989 [15]; 1989; [22] Larson & Keiper, 2007; [23] Brooks & Brooks,
Cobern, 1995; [16]). It justifies the putting together of new 1993; [18] Bransfor, Brown & Cocking, 2000; [24]
ideas by interpreting new experiences in light of prior Snowman, et al., 2009 [12]). A typical constructive
knowledge so that the new ideas come to make sense to the classroom environment is tasks oriented and designed to
learner (Cobern, 1995 [16]). The strengths of constructivism enhance hands-on and minds-on learning for all students
lie in the construction of knowledge and what that means for similar to those encountered in the real world. This type of
students and teachers. Since knowledge cannot be learning environment should focus on authentic tasks similar
transferred from one individual to another like a commodity, to what people see in every day practice similar to on-the-job
the role of the teacher as knowledge giver in the classroom experiences that would benefit all students (Cognition and
becomes moot. Educators must accept the fact that Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990; Larson & Keiper,
knowledge is constructed in action and must be constructed 2007 [23].
by individual knowers; instruction must be A constructivist teacher would have his or her classroom
student-dominated where teachers function as facilitators. focus on real life problem solving, problem-based learning
Baker & Piburn (1997) [17] further claim that knowledge is (PBL), independent investigation, and the pursuit of personal
built in social contexts; pedagogy must encourage interests, simulation, discussion collaborative learning,
student-to-student interactions and collaboration. It is a think-pair share, and the utilization of higher-order thinking
well-known fact that knowledge construction is strongly skills. Research studies in cognition, authentic learning, and
influenced by prior experience and learners make sense of student engagement support claims that student-centered
the world by synthesizing new experiences into what they teaching is a beneficial teaching strategy for all students,
have previously come to understand in their daily life including students with special needs (Brooks & Brooks,
(Brooks & Brooks, 1993; [18] Ultanir, 2012; [4] Steele, 2005 1993; [18] Larson & Keiper, 2007 [23].
[11]. In other words each learner must construct meaning for
oneself and that the only learning that can take place is that
which is connected to the individual’s already-existing 4. Evidence Supporting Constructivism
knowledge, experiences, or conceptualizations (Von
Glasersfeld, 1989[15]). This implies that learning involves Learners will be able to control their own learning. Some
negotiation and interpretation. According to Von Glasersfeld, educators are extremely optimistic that the new Every
(1989[15]), what children learn is not a copy of what they Student Succeeds Act will open a new door for special
observe in their immediate environments but comes from the education and students with special needs. The power and
result of their own thinking, reflection and processing sanctity of the curriculum and the subordination of students
information (Von Glasersfeld, 1989; [15] Steele, 2005; [11]). own emerging concepts are profound concerns of
A constructivist teaching model suggests that “as we constructivism. Many students struggle to understand
 Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016 395

concepts in isolation, to learn parts without seeing wholes, to reform Act that will results in increased learning.
make connections where they see only disparity, and to Educators must come to realize that knowledge cannot be
accept as reality what their perceptions question. For smart passed intact from a teacher or book to a learner, nor is it
students, success in school has very little to do with true simply discovered in the real world. All students must
understanding, and much to do with coverage of the construct new knowledge for themselves. Instruction guided
curriculum. In most schools, the curriculum is held as by the constructivist learning method enhances student
absolute, and teachers are not allowed to make changes even engagement learning. This view of knowledge construction
when students do not clearly understand important concepts. in action is called constructivism. In the constructive
The current new Every Student Succeeds Act will make sure perspective, new knowledge is always based on the prior or
that teachers are not reticent to adapting the curriculum to existing knowledge that learners bring to learning situations.
students’ needs; the school responsibility is to view Students take in information from many sources, but in
transcripts of those students who have difficulty building their own knowledge, they connect information to
understanding the unchanged curriculum as slow or disabled. prior knowledge and experiences, organize it, and construct
These students can be removed from the mainstream classes, meaning for them. What learners already know influences
provide remedial instruction, or differentiate the instruction. what they attend to, how they organize input, and how they
In many school districts throughout the nation, students are able to integrate new constructions to expand their
spend a good deal of time preparing for standardized tests or knowledge bases (Brooks, & Brooks, 1999 [18]. The new
statewide exams. The debate that frames the current Every Every Student Succeeds Act passed by the U.S. legislations
Student Succeeds Act will end all the helpless testing. We this year is an attempting to improve the civil rights of
must set standards for our own professional practice and free students with special needs.
students from the anti-intellectual training that occurs under All learners are different in many ways. Watts and Pope
the banner of test preparation. The current Every Student (1989) [25], emphasized that persons differ from each other
Succeeds Act calls on educators, school teachers and in their ways of construction of knowledge; meaning
education professionals to adopt student-centered teaching individuals interpret the world around them differently
strategy and successfully prepare students for their lives by through their own world view rather than being a passive
understanding and honoring the dynamics of learning. In recipient of another individual’s knowledge or thinking. The
addition, education professionals must recognize that for rationales of adopting constructivist model to enhance
students, schooling must be a time of curiosity, exploration, education of all students are twofold: first, this model allows
and inquiry, and memorizing information must be educators to learn about their own learners, which gives rise
subordinated to learning how to find information to solve
to better tailored activities promoting learning by doing
real life problems (Brooks, & Brooks, 1999[18]. Students
(Watts & Pope, 1989 [25]). Secondly, the learner has the
experiencing difficulty understanding the lesson or who do
opportunity to think and rethink about their own creativity.
not comply with directions might need the teacher to make
Teachers must enable students to think critically. As a
sure directions are clear, concrete, use fewer words, increase
student’s ideas change, their knowledge increases. The
wait time for full compliance. Teachers must physically
teacher facilitates this change by interacting with students in
show students directions, ask the students to repeat it by
positive ways such as asking questions, building appropriate
using Say See Do teaching strategy, so that the student
knows what is required to do. These are different ways challenges and experiences, and offering new ways of
constructivist teachers can help all students understand and thinking. (Watts & Pope, 1989 [25]). Steele (2005) [11]
increase their full participation and mask inequities in the states that students with special needs will benefit most from
classroom (Koh, Chai & Tsai, 2014[14]; Sultan, Woods, & the constructivist model because of their difficulty in
Koo, 2011 [13]; Von Glasersfeld, Watson (2001) [15]; adapting from the classroom to more interactive settings
Battenfeld & Crowford (2015[39]. http://www.truth-out.org according to Snowman, et al., 2009 [12].
/opinion/item/34080-every-student-Succeeds-act-still-leaves Teachers should encourage students to express their
-most-vulnerable-kids-behind problems and then facilitate ways to aid students with
This truth lies at the heart of the constructivist approach to solutions to their problems by using what they already know
education. This shift in teaching will enable teachers to to go beyond what they already think. When educators work
develop and implement best classroom practices and with students with special needs, guided discovery learning
negotiate the lesson to make sure that students construct (GDL) becomes very effective. The goal of GDL is to teach
knowledge. Individual students will construct meaning students to be independent problem solvers, to learn the
differently. Every Student Succeeds Act values all students generic steps to scientific inquiry and engage in logical
and encourages learners to control their own learning. This thinking. (McLeskey, Rosenberg & Westling, 2010 [26]).
new legislative act is capable of shifting our priorities from Von Glasersfeld (1989) [15] “described knowledge as
ensuring that all students learn the same concepts to ensuring something actively built up from within by a thinking person,
that teachers carefully analyze students’ understandings of and social interactions among students as learners is the core
the concepts to customize their teaching approaches is of building knowledge as individuals” (Von Glasersfeld,
important step in the new every Student Succeeds education 1989) [15]. In support of Von Glasersfeld, Watson (2001)
396 Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs

[15] stated that student learning is a shared social activity, students make connections to the real world. Since more
and should be part and parcel of classroom instruction. teachers do not have constructivist backgrounds more
Furthermore, according to Watson, the constructivist model teacher extensive training and professional development on
encourages all students, including special needs to develop a how to teach using constructivist methods are needed.
sense of autonomy and initiative they might not otherwise Students, parents and teachers are part of the Every Student
develop in an expository classroom. Educators should Succeeds Act. There is no doubt that constructivism has a
encourage students to express their ideas to visualize the place in the American classroom as well as absolute flaws
relationships between ideas and big concepts, and by doing and professional development training for teachers and
so, develop problem solving skills. The major responsibility administrators are needed. All educators must be trained on
for today’s educators should focus on providing a realistic the constructivist teaching methods in order to make Every
learning environment for their students by modeling, through Student Success Act a success. A balanced approach to these
experimentation, leading questions and scaffolding to elicit recommendations is to put the student first. Teachers must
student’s knowledge. make sure that students are taught necessary skills, more
problem-based instructions and how to help students build
on prior knowledge. Administrators must equally make
5. Evidence against Constructivism funding available to train teachers across all school districts
and encourage the support of non-teaching staff to make
Several theorists including teachers and administrators constructivist teaching a reality, no matter one’s opinion on
have rebelled against constructivism. Some called it constructivism.
propaganda, disastrous fad, teaching strategies with low For those students with neurological-based behavior
intellectualism, colorful and jazzy drill and practice ways of (NBB), such as Learning Disability (LD), Attention-Deficit
instruction (Hayes, 2012[27]; Mayer, 2004[28]; Kirschner et Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHA), Sensory Integration
al., 2006[29]; Clements & Batista, 2009[30]. In addition, Dysfunction (SID), Bipolar Disorder (BD), Fetal Alcohol
some advocates explained failures not because of the Spectrum Disorder (FAS), etc., in which the brain’s
methods is at fault, but because these educational methods informational processing capability has been compromised,
require a great deal of expertise and have not always been teachers must remain positive. Positive attitudes can greatly
implemented well in actual classroom and this doesn’t refute improve the quality of service a teacher provides to students
the message, only the implementation (Clements & Batista, with NBB and their families. Teachers must use fewer words
2009 [30]; Marzano, 2011[31]; Tobias & Duffy, 2009[32]. and tell students what to do to fix mistakes. Stand close to the
Those who argued against constructivist teaching fail to students and congratulate them when they begin to comply.
understand it roots and principle. Constructivist methods The shifting of interaction maybe difficult for NBB students,
were simply developed because the nation recognized that and Rees and Skimore (2008[35] found acquired brain injury
our students were not being educated to live in our new students could Succeeds at one task while ignoring another;
information society, this is why the new Every Student they could also Succeeds at completing a task, but would not
Succeeds Act would make sure that our students are understand why or contribute to their learning in terms of
educated to their full potential. Constructivist teaching and building concepts. Educators dealing with these students
learning are based on students constructing their own must comply with them by making directions clear, provide
knowledge and understanding through their own activity. By concrete, and consistent feedback. Using fewer words,
doing so, they can make connections between the new increasing wait time for compliance, physically showing
knowledge and previous activity. Those in support of directions, and asking the student to repeat the directions and
constructivist approach say that students perform higher than show the teacher what they are required to do. These are
those students who were taught using the traditional methods. ways teachers can help students with NBB increase their
Also, those students who taught using constructivist methods participation in the classroom and enjoy school (Watson,
were able to answer standard procedural questions 2001[36]; U. S. Congress. (1988 [38].
conceptual questions and critical questions outperform those
who were taught using direct instruction (Kain,2003[33];
Boaler, 2001[34]; Kirschner, 2014[29]; Rowman & 7. Conclusions
Littlefeld, 2015[40]. Retrieved from: http://betrayed-whyed
ucationisfailing.blogspot.com/2012/04/has-constructivism-i In summary, constructivism is a model of how students
ncreased-special.html learn and how learning takes place. The student is always
active when learning takes place. The central focus is that
knowledge is constructed by individual knower’s; therefore,
6. Recommendations instruction must be student centered. In addition, knowledge
is built in social contexts; pedagogy must encourage
This paper makes many recommendations for those who student-to-student interactions. Furthermore, knowledge
opposed constructivist principle. They should make all construction is strongly influenced by prior experience;
efforts to relay the necessary information and then help students must be treated as individuals. No one’s knowledge
 Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(2): 392-398, 2016 397

is an accurate reflection of reality; there is room always for metacognitive levels. Journal of Social Science, 8(3),
discussion and critical thinking. Many promising proposals 343-348.
have been put forth in the past decades to address the issues [10] Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010). Constructivism theory
surrounding students’ construction of knowledge. Not a analysis and application to curricula. Nursing Education
single proposal met all student needs. While these are good Perspectives, 31(2), 89.
intentions, these proposals don’t quite go deep enough to [11] Steele, M. M. (2005). Teaching students with learning
help all students construct knowledge. It promotes learning disabilities: Constructivism or behaviorism? Current Issues in
through experience in an environment that involves the “real Education [Electronic-version] 8(10). Available:
world” and offers meaningful, personally interesting http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number10/.
challenges. Moreover it requires active learning, provides
[12] Snowman, J., McCown, R., Biehler, R. (2009). Psychology
opportunities to solve real world problems, answer real applied to teaching (12th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
questions, address real needs, offers the student an
opportunity to perform as a expert or professional in their [13] Sultan, W. H., Woods, P. C., & Koo, A.(2011). A
chosen field. Approaching instruction from the constructivist constructivist approach for digital learning: Malaysian school
case study. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4),
continuum reaches a broader range of students and increases 149-150.
comprehension and self-confidence in all students, teaching
students to think for themselves, ask questions and seek [14] Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. (2014). Demographic
answers. The usage of multiple approaches and perspectives factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers perceptions of
constructivist-Oriented TPACK. Educational Technology &
when problem solving are vital to the success of all students Society, 17(1), 186. Retrieved from Questia.
in American classrooms.
[15] Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of
knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.

[16] Cobern, W. (1995). Constructivism for science teachers, 6(3).

Science Education International, 6(3).
REFERENCES
[17] Baker, D., & Piburn, M. (1997). Constructing science in
[1] Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Constructivism middle and secondary classrooms. Boston, MA: Allyn &
as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Bacon.
Review, Special Issue, 4-13.
[18] Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of
[2] Tracy, D. H., & Morrow, L. M.(2012). Lenses on reading: an understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms.
introduction to theories and models. New York: The Guilford Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Press. Development.
[3] Hashim, M., & Kasbolah, M. (2012). Application of [19] Crowther, D. T. (1997). The constructivist zone: Editorial.
Needham’s five phase constructivism model in (civil, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2(2).
electrical and mechanical) engineering subject at technical http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejsev2n2ed.html.
secondary school. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1),
Retrieved from Questia. [20] Martin, D. J. (2003). Elementary science Methods: A
constructivist Approach 3nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
[4] Ultanir, E. (2012). An epistemological glance at the
Education, Allyn & Bacon.
constructivist approach: constructivist learning in Dewy,
Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction, [21] Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic
5(2), 195-212. science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling.
[5] Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to Review of Research in Education, 25(2000-2001), 1-35.
learning-centered curriculum: improving learning in diverse
[22] Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Inquiring teachers, enquiring learners.
classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
New York: Teachers College Press. …
[6] Hakverdi-Can, M. & Sonmez, D. (2012). Learning how to
[23] Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2007). Instructional strategies
design a technology supported inquiry-based learning
for middle and high school. Taylor & Francis Group: Oxon
environment. Science Education International, 23(4),
OX 144RN.
338-356.

[7] National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). (2002). Adults with [24] Branford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.).
learning disabilities: definitions and issues. Retrieved (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
September 7, 2015, from school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/id/archive/definition.htm.
[25] Watts, M., Pope, M. (1989). Thinking about thinking,
[8] Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of learning about learning: Constructivism in physics education.
constructivist teaching theory on classroom teaching reform Physics Education, [Electronic version] 24(6), 326-331.
in basic education, 3(2), 197-199. Retrieved June 16, 2015 from Electronic Journal Center.

[9] Bay, E., Bageeci, B., & Cetin, B. (2012). The effects of social [26] McLesky, J., Rosenberg, M. & Westling, D. (2012). Inclusion:
constructivist approach on the learners problem solving and Effective Practices for All Students (2nd Ed). Old Tappan, NJ:
Pearson, 2012.
398 Using Constructivist Teaching Strategies to Enhance Academic Outcomes of Students with Special Needs

[27] Hayes, N. (2012). Has constructivism increased 121-128.

special-education enrollment in public schools? Retrieved
from www. [35] Rees, S., & Skidmore, D. (2008). The classical classroom:
http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/12/28/2 Enhancing Learning for Pupils with Acquired Brain Injury
015. (ABI). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8(2)
88-95.
[28] Mayer, R. E., (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule
against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, [36] Watson, J. (2001). Social constructivism: Social
59(1), 13-20. constructivism in the classroom. Support for learning,
[Electronic-version] 16(3), 140-147. Retrieved June 16, 2015
[29] Kirschner, P. A. & Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why from Electronic Journal Center.
minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, [37] Kirp, D. L. (2015). No Child Left Behind Retrieved from: The
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. New York Time: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/tim
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-78. estopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.html 30
December, 2015
[30] Clements, D. H. & Battista, M. T. (1990). Constructivist
learning and teaching. Arithmetic Teacher, 38(1), 34-35. [38] U. S. Congress.(1988). U. S. Congress, Pub. L. No. 100-407.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
[31] Marzo, R. J. (2011). Art and science of teaching: The perils
2004.
and promises of discovery learning. Educational Leadership,
86-87. [39] Battenfeld & Crowford (2015).Why public education id
[32] Tobias, S. & Duffy, M. D. (2009). Constructivist instruction: failing. Retrieved from:
Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34080-every-student-
Succeeds-act-still-leaves-most-vulnerable-kids-behind 30
[33] Kain, D. (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered: December 2015.
Balancing constraint and theory in the composition classroom.
Pedagogy 3(1), 104-108. [40] Rowman & Littlefeld, 2015[39]. Why public education is
failing. Retrieved from: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailin
[34] Boaler, J. (2001).Mathematical modeling and new theories of g.blogspot.com/2012/04/has-constructivism-increased-specia
learning. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 20(3), l.html. 30 December 2015.
 RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a
Distancia
ISSN: 1138-2783
ISSN: 1390-3306
[email protected]
Asociación Iberoamericana de Educación Superior a
Distancia
Brasil

Constructivism and connectivism in

education technology: Active, situated,
authentic, experiential, and anchored
learning
Mattar, Joao
Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic, experiential, and anchored
learning
RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, vol. 21, no. 2, 2018
Asociación Iberoamericana de Educación Superior a Distancia, Brasil
Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=331455826012
DOI: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.2.20055
“Los textos publicados en esta revista están sujetos a una licencia “Reconocimiento-No comercial 3.0” de
Creative Commons. Puede copiarlos, distribuirlos, comunicarlos públicamente, siempre que reconozca los
créditos de la obra (autor, nombre de la revista, instituciones editoras) de la manera especificada en la revista.”

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 International.

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

ESTUDIOS E INVESTIGACIONES

Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated,

authentic, experiential, and anchored learning
El constructivismo y el conectivismo en tecnología educativa: El aprendizaje activo, situado, auténtico, experiencial y
anclado
Joao Mattar ACADÉMIC AND PROFESSIONAL DOI: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/
PROFILE OF THE AUTHOR ried.21.2.20055
Centro Universitário Uninter, Brasil Redalyc: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?
[email protected] id=331455826012
Received: 15 October 2017
Accepted: 18 November 2017

Abstract:
e main objectives of this theoretical paper are to compare some constructivist-related learning theories and explore how they
can be adequately used in educational technology and distance education. Aer a brief introduction, constructivism is defined
as a general philosophy of education encompassing several different learning theories. e article then presents and discusses
the following theories: situated cognition, activity theory, experiential learning, anchored instruction, and authentic learning.
Connectivism or distributed learning is also presented as a new and important theory, including its pedagogical view and practice
in massive open online courses (MOOCs). ese theories are then organized in a coherent way, classified under the constructivist
umbrella, pointing their common and distinctive features. Connectivism is positioned as a new philosophy of education for the
digital age, making Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD) more flexible and stretching it to include learning
that lies outside the learner, in social networks and technological tools. e text finally proposes further work on how these theories
can be properly combined and used as frameworks for constructivist projects and activities in the fields of educational technology
and distance education. e article is based on the search and review of peer-reviewed articles on constructivism, connectivism,
the other aforementioned theories, and education technology and distance education.
Keywords: learning, cognition, educational technology, distance education.

Resumen:
Este artículo teórico pretende comparar algunas teorías de aprendizaje relacionadas con el constructivismo y explorar cómo pueden
usarse adecuadamente en el campo de la tecnología educativa y la educación a distancia. Después de una breve introducción, el
constructivismo queda definido como una filosofía general de la educación que abarca varias teorías de aprendizaje diferentes.
El artículo presenta y analiza las siguientes teorías: cognición situada, teoría de la actividad, aprendizaje experiencial, instrucción
anclada y aprendizaje auténtico. El conectivismo o aprendizaje distribuido también se presenta como una nueva e importante
teoría, que incluye su visión pedagógica y práctica en cursos masivos y abiertos en línea (MOOCs). Organizamos estas teorías de
manera coherente bajo el paraguas constructivista e indicamos las principales similitudes y diferencias entre ellas. El conectivismo
se posiciona como una nueva filosofía de la educación para la era digital, flexibilizando y ampliando el concepto de Zona
de Desarrollo Próximo (ZDP) de Vygotsky para incluir el aprendizaje que se encuentra fuera del alumno, en redes sociales
y herramientas tecnológicas. El texto finalmente propone un trabajo adicional sobre cómo estas teorías pueden combinarse y
utilizarse adecuadamente como marcos para proyectos y actividades constructivistas en los campos de la tecnología educativa y la
educación a distancia. El artículo se basa en la investigación y revisión de artículos revisados por pares sobre el constructivismo, el
conectivismo, las otras teorías mencionadas y la tecnología educativa y la educación a distancia.

Author notes

ACADÉMICJoao Mattar. Post-doc researcher and visiting scholar (Stanford University), PhD in Languages and Literature (University of Sao Paulo — USP)
AND and Master in Educational Technology (Boise State University). Professor, researcher, and advisor at Centro Universitário Uninter and PUC–
SP (Brasil). Director of the Brazilian Association of Distance Education (ABED) and Vice-President of the Brazilian Association of Educational
PROFESSIONAL
PROFILETechnology (ABT). Author of several books by publishers such as Pearson and Cengage Learning in the fields of Distance Education and Educational
OF Technology.
THE
AUTHOR

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 201
 RIED, 2018, vol. 21, no. 2, July-December, ISSN: 1138-2783 1390-3306

Palabras clave: aprendizaje, cognición, tecnología de la educación, educación a distancia.

e purpose of this article is to discuss and help to understand how constructivist- related theories on
learning can be properly used in the fields of educational technology and distance education.
e Web 2.0 movement and new tools such as blogs and microblogs, wikis, podcasting, social bookmarking
and social networking contributed to replace passive teaching methodologies by more active ones including
student-centred learning, the co-creation of knowledge, and peer review assessment strategies. Siemens
(2008), for instance, argues that technological development and social soware significantly alter the way
learners access information and knowledge and interact with their instructors and peers. Dron and Anderson
(2014) list some of the major pedagogical contributions of social soware: it helps build communities and
create knowledge; engages, motivates and is enjoyable; is cost-effective; is accountable and transparent; spans
the gap between formal and informal learning; addresses both individual and social needs; builds identity,
expertise, and social capital; is easy to use; is accessible; protects and advances current models of ownership
and identity; is persistent and findable; supports multiple media formats; encourages debate, cognitive
conflict, and discussion; leads to emergence; is so; supports creativity; and expands the adjacent possible
(new paths for changes opened up by new technologies).
In this article, the following specific theories are discussed: situated cognition, activity theory, experiential
learning, anchored instruction, authentic learning and connectivism. e hypothesis is that they are subtypes
of constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. e text explores and organizes these theories under
the constructivism umbrella, comparing and pointing their common and distinctive features.
Aer explaining the methodology, the article presents the results of the review for each of these theories,
discussing then the findings in a comparative way and concluding with suggestions for further work.

METHODOLOGY

e research involved a literature review following Okoli’s (2015) guidelines and including the following
steps: identifying the purpose of the review; protocol draing and team training; applying practical screens;
search for literature; data extraction; quality appraisal; synthesizing studies and writing the review.
e review, intended to characterize and differentiate the aforementioned theories, was performed
individually by the author. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were used as databases for the
searches, and the names of the theories themselves for the queries: “constructivism” OR “connectivism”
OR “educational technology” OR “education technology” OR “activity theory” OR “situated learning” OR
“authentic learning” OR “experiential learning” OR “anchored learning”.
Owing to the large number of results obtained, its relevance and the number of citations of the papers
were used as practical screening inclusion criteria. Texts in English, Spanish, and Portuguese were read and
a preference was given to theoretical articles published in peer-review journals in the fields of educational
technology and distance education. e distribution of texts by journal in this initial search is showed in the
following table:

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 202
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

TABLE 1
e distribution of texts by journal

ese initial research results were expanded using different techniques: backward search (searching for
quoted texts and theoretical references by these articles, including papers, chapters, articles, dissertations, and
theses); search for articles published by the same authors; and forward search (texts that cited these initial
articles). Milestone referenced works on the selected articles and references that explored similar objectives
to this research were also read.
Data extraction involved the main aspects of each of the theories and its relationships to constructivism,
educational technology, and distance education. Content analysis (Bardin, 2013) was used as technique for
coding, analyzing, and synthesizing the texts, with categories constructed a posteriori to the readings. No
soware was used for this coding and categorization. A brief text was then written for each theory with a
final comparison and summary of its main points.

RESULTS

e results are presented taking constructivism as an umbrella for the analyzed learning theories.
Connectivism is treated as a separate theory, although in some points it is based on constructivism.

Constructivism

Associated with the works of main authors such as Lev Vygotsky, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget,
constructivism can be considered a major theory of learning, and in a broader sense a philosophy of education,
used as a general title to classify several other theories. ere is then a need to define what we mean by
constructivism to adequately found our work in education, more specifically in the fields of educational
technology and distance education.
In an important theoretical work, Kanuka and Anderson (1999) try to organize a scheme of constructivist
learning theories, criticizing the systematic aspect of instructionism, which does not correspond to the way
we learn. Educators should use the time to understand the real and actual interests of learners and, based
on this information, incorporate learning activities that have real relevance for each learner. Instructivism,
on the other hand, distances us from critical thinking with its proposal to follow models of instructional
systems design, though freeing us from confronting the complexity of the world where we must act, which
is problematic, ambiguous, and constantly changing.

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 203
 RIED, 2018, vol. 21, no. 2, July-December, ISSN: 1138-2783 1390-3306

e authors also review the main constructivist theories that influenced learning
mediatedbytechnology,tryingtoorganizethemintwodimensions:theunderstanding of reality as objective/
subjective and the design of knowledge as social/individual. e combination of these two continua
result in four types of constructivism: (1) cognitive constructivism, (2) radical constructivism, (3) situated
constructivism, and (4) co-constructivism. Despite the differences among these four views, the authors
argue that they share common beliefs: learning is active, not passive; language is an important element in
the learning process; and learning environments should be focused on the learner. e focus of education
according to constructivism is not on content but process, so educators need to know their learners to
organize this process. Much later, Anderson (2016) points out that all forms of constructivist theories “share
the understanding that individuals’ construction of knowledge is dependent upon individual and collective
understandings, backgrounds, and proclivities” (p. 38).
Tam (2000) relates constructivism, the construction of technology-supported learning environments and
the practice of distance education. Distance learning provides a unique context to infuse constructivist
principles, where learners are expected to function as self-motivated, self-directed, interactive, and
collaborative participants in their learning experiences. e author explores how constructivism theory
and education technology can combine to transform distance learning from a highly industrialized mass
production model to one that emphasizes subjective construction of knowledge and meaning derived from
individual experiences.

Constructivist theories

Several learning theories are usually classified as constructivists. is section presents and differentiates some
of these theories that are oen used as synonyms: situated cognition, activity theory, experiential learning,
anchored instruction, and authentic learning. Connectivism is also presented as a new and important theory
somehow linked to constructivism.
Situated cognition
Situated cognition emphasizes the importance of context and interaction in the process of knowledge
construction. Jean Lave’s Cognition in Practice (1988) is generally considered a founding reference for the
theory.
Greeno (1989) argues that thinking is situated in physical and social contexts, so cognition (including
thinking, knowing, and learning) should be considered a relation in a situation, rather than an activity in
an individual’s mind. inking involves individuals’ constructive and cognitive interactions with objects
and structures of situations, rather than simply processes and manipulations of symbols that occur in the
minds of individuals, as many information-processing models propose. Knowing is a product of the students’
individual and social intellectual activity, so teachers should create social settings to support this production.
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) argue that knowledge, learning, and cognition are fundamentally
situated in activity, context, culture, and situations.
Knowledge indexes the situation in which it arises and in which it is used, and learning is a process of
enculturation, partly supported through social interaction. Representations arising out of activity cannot
be easily replaced by descriptions: problems do not come in textbooks, so learning methods should be
embedded in authentic situations. As an alternative to conventional schooling practices, these authors
propose “cognitive apprenticeship”, which tries to enculturate students into authentic practices through
activity and social interaction, like cra apprenticeship.
Clancey (1994) argues that the world is not given as objective forms, pre- represented; on the contrary,
what we perceive as properties and events is constructed in the context of activity. Representational forms
are given meaning and constructed in a perceptual process, which involves interacting with the environment
and creating information. e author studies how interpersonal and gestural-material processes change

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 204
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

attention, what is perceived, and what is represented. Human memory is not a place where linguistic
descriptions are stored, but they are created, given meaning and influence behavior through interactions.
In equating human knowledge with descriptions, we oversimplified the complex processes of coordinating
perception and action, objectifying what is an interactive and subjective process. e author proposes a
shi from the individualist point of view of linguistic models, which take what goes on inside the head of a
person to be the locus of control, to interactions between people and between internal and external processes.
Instructional design based on the constructive nature of learning should consider these interpersonal and
gestural-material aspects of perception. In this sense, situated cognition provides a new way of integrating
instructional ideas.
Wilson and Myers (2000) explore situated cognition (SitCog) and situated learning. Not only does SitCog
mean concrete learning, but it also emphasizes the network of social systems and activities in which the
authentic practice evolves. While the theory of symbolic processing focuses on neural mechanisms and
symbolic representations of the mind, SitCog focuses on the structures of the world and how they determine
and guide behavior. Knowledge, learning, and cognition are social constructions expressed in actions of
people interacting in the communities. e article remarks that the field of study is vast and varied, including
both (1) social, cultural, and historical perspectives based on Vygotsky (as the anthropologists Jean Lave and
Lucy Suchman), interested in the cultural construction of meaning; and (2) cognitive scientists (such as Allan
Collins, John Seeley, Don Norman, and Bill Clancey), interested in cognition at the individual and social
levels, based on theories of artificial intelligence, psychology, and linguistics. e general feature of situated
cognition is the positioning of individual cognition in a broader physical and social context of interactions,
tools, and culturally constructed meanings, as the construction of meaning is a social activity. Design should
though be seen more in terms of interaction and less in terms of rational planning, and design theories should
be chosen according to the learning situation.
A more theoretical approach is developed by Hung, Looi, and Koh (2004), in which they revisit the
foundations of situated cognition relating it to the work of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger and
the interest in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).
Active learning
e activity theory emphasizes the importance of learner engagement and action to support the learning
process. Learning is considered an active construction process, inseparable from doing, and a reflection about
what learners are doing, not a passive reception of knowledge.
Jonassen (2000) explores the use of the activity theory for the design of learner- centered learning
environments. e activity theory is defined as a philosophical framework, based on the ideas of the German
philosophers Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, and Karl Marx and the Russians Lev Vygotsky, Alexander Luria
and Alexei Leontev. Activity and conscious learning are dynamically interrelated and cannot be separated.
erefore, it would be important to examine the activity systems (structures of activities in their sociocultural
and sociohistorical contexts) as part of the process of instructional design. ese systems are composed of
individuals, tools, objects, division of labor, community, and rules, all involved in mutual interactions. In the
design process, though, the concepts, rules, and theories that are not associated with action have no meaning.
ere is no sense, therefore, to simply slice content or decompose knowledge out of context, as proposed by
many models of instructional design.
During the last years, several active methodologies have been developed and stressed both for face-to-
face and online learning: blended learning (Horn & Staker, 2014), flipped classroom (Bergmann & Sams,
2012), peer instruction (Crouch & Mazur, 2001), case method (Kasloff, 2011), problem-based learning
(Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning — IJPBL and e Journal of Problem Based Learning
in Higher Education — JPBLHE), project-based learning (Bender, 2012), game-based learning (Bedwell,
Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012), gamification (Landers, 2014), and design thinking (Scheer, Noweski,
& Meinel, 2012; Koh, Chai, Benjamin, & Hong, 2015). Active learning can though be considered an

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 205
 RIED, 2018, vol. 21, no. 2, July-December, ISSN: 1138-2783 1390-3306

umbrella expression for several theories and practices, whose principles are distributed through all the
theories studied in this article.
Experiential learning
Experiential learning emphasizes the importance of experience in constructing knowledge. Two works by
Kolb (1984, 1993) are usually mentioned as references for the concept, although John Dewey’s notion of
experience and Malcom Knowles’ andragogy are also foundational. Real-life and practice-based experiences
in authentic workplaces are considered drives for relevant teaching and learning.
Hansen (2000) explores how the discursive and non-discursive worlds blend in education and how to
balance factual and practical knowledge adding experience as a central ingredient. As he concludes:
making experience a central element in school curriculum would mean that writing curriculum would change dramatically.
Learning outcomes would likely be more difficult to articulate. eir achievement by students would be less controlled and
less controllable. In the context of increasing teacher accountability, reducing teacher control on a system-wide basis could
be a recipe for disorder if not chaos. On the other hand, interests outside of and inside the schooling infrastructure are calling
for greater relevance in the curriculum and an experiential curriculum could be the answer (p. 30).

Beckem and Watkins (2012) show how simulations might provide valuable experiential and authentic
student-centred practices, increasing student engagement and promoting deeper learning.
Anchored learning
For the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990), who coined the expression, anchored
learning is related to situated cognition, authentic learning, and experiential learning, some of the other
theories studied in this article. e theoretical and empirical background of anchored instruction goes back
to Whitehead’s (1929) inert knowledge problem (“knowledge that can usually be recalled when people are
explicitly asked to but is not used spontaneously in problem solving even though it is relevant”, p. 2) and
Dewey’s (1933) concept of knowledge as a tool.
Anchored instruction aims to overcome the problem of inert knowledge through immersion: as “novices
have not been immersed in the phenomena being investigated, they are unable to experience the effects
of the new information on their own noticing and understanding” (Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt, p. 3). e group anchors instruction in complex problem-solving environments, called macro
contexts, which enable the exploration of a problem for extended periods of time from many perspectives,
serving as environments for cooperative learning and teacher-directed mediation. Concepts that explore
the relationships between anchored instruction and situated cognition include cognitive apprenticeship
and authentic tasks (Brown et al., 1989), with the suggestion of transforming school instruction into
apprenticeships. Anchors should provide opportunities for teacher- guided discovery. e Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993) revisited the concept; other articles were later published, as well
as a book (1997).
Young and Kulikowich (1992) define anchored instruction as teaching through situations. Several
references already mentioned about the benefits of teaching in a complex realistic context are presented:
Whitehead’s e Aims of Education and other essays (1929), Dewey’s Experience and education (1938),
Lave’s Cognition in practice (1988), and the concept of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989).
Situated cognition states that not only learning, but all thinking is situated (Clancey, 1994; Greeno, 1989).
Situated learning is analyzed by the authors from an ecological perspective and they develop the idea of
anchored assessment to assess situated learning. e goal of situated learning is defined as cross-situational
transfer.
e transfer of learning in anchored instruction can also involve knowledge abstraction strategies, in which
knowledge is decontextualized from the learning situation.
Authentic learning
Authentic learning emphasizes that learning contexts, tasks, activities, and assessment should be the
most authentic possible to support the transfer of knowledge from formal education to practice. Reeves,

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 206
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

Herrington, and Oliver (2002) present ten characteristics of authentic activities which they apply to online
learning:
1. Authentic activities have real-world relevance.
2. Authentic activities are ill-defined, requiring students to define the tasks and sub-tasks needed to
complete the activity.
3. Authentic activities comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of
time.
4. Authentic activities provide the opportunity for students to examine the task from different
perspectives, using a variety of resources
5. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to collaborate.
6. Authentic activities provide the opportunity to reflect.
7. Authentic activities can be integrated and applied across different subject areas and lead beyond domain-
specific outcomes.
8. Authentic activities are seamlessly integrated with assessment.
9. Authentic activities create polished products valuable in their own right rather than as preparation for
something else.
10. Authentic activities allow competing solutions and diversity of outcome.
Our research, however, did not identify authentic learning as a separate and sound theory with founding
authors and works such as the other ones analyzed, but instead as a general principle present in the other
theories studied. As Maina (2004) states, authentic learning “involves increasing motivation and enthusiasm,
helping learners to make decisions concerning their learning, as well as identifying non-traditional ways
learning is enhanced and accounting for such learning” (p. 7).

Connectivism

Although some authors argue that connectivism should not be considered a new theory of learning and/
or question its fundamentals (Kerr, 2007; Kop & Hill, 2008; Kop, 2011; Bell, 2011; Clarà & Barberà,
2014), it is possible to position it as the development of constructivism in response to the current scenario
of the intense use of technology in education, functioning though as a philosophy of education. Anderson
and Don (2011, 2012), for instance, place it as the third generation of pedagogy of distance education,
following behaviorism/cognitivism and social- constructivism, associating each one to different technologies,
instructional designs, and educational activities.
In his classical article, Siemens (2004) discusses the limitations of behaviorism, cognitivism, and
constructivism as theories of learning because they would not address learning that occurs outside people
(i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology) and within organizations. Connectivism or
distributed learning is then proposed as a more adequate theory for a digital age, when action is needed
without personal learning, using information outside our primary knowledge. Learning theories should be
adjusted in an age in which knowledge is no longer acquired in linear manner, technology executes many
of the cognitive operations previously performed by learners (information storage and retrieval), and in
many moments performance is needed in the absence of complete understanding. Learning is no longer
a process that is entirely under the control of the individual, an internal, individualistic activity: it is also
outside ourselves, within other people, an organization or a database, and these external connections which
potentiate what we can learn are more important than our current state of knowing.
Cognition and learning are distributed not only among people, but also among artifacts, as we can offload
some cognitive work to devices that are more efficient at performing tasks than humans. is can either
happen naturally in the learning process or be used as an instructional strategy, for example for designing

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 207
 RIED, 2018, vol. 21, no. 2, July-December, ISSN: 1138-2783 1390-3306

distributed learning environments. In this new scenario, Siemens (2008) builds four metaphors for the
educator: master artist, network administrator, concierge, and curator.
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are one of the important outputs of connectivism, although the
Coursera-style courses (xMOOCs) vary significantly fromthe initial MOOCs proposed by George Siemens
and Stephen Downes (cMOOCs) (Siemens, 2012), with rhizomatic learning MOOCs (with no centre,
no content, nor assessment: the community being the curriculum) positioned on the extreme “c” of the
spectrum (Mackness & Bell, 2015). However, negative results are also reported related to connectivist-
style MOOCs. Kop (2011), for instance, researched the Personal Learning Environments, Networks, and
Knowledge (PLENK2010) MOOC, facilitated by George Siemens, Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier, and
Rita Kop with 1,610 participants. e results showed that not all students were able to autonomously
direct their own learning and master critical literacies, such as the creation and distribution of digital
artifacts and the use of several tools, to properly learn in a changing and complex learning environment
missing organized guidance and the social presence of facilitators and participants. Mackness and Bell (2015)
researched Rhizomatic Learning: e Community is the Curriculum (Rhizo14), led by Dave Cormier in
January/February 2014 with more than 500 participants. Although many students experienced the light side
of the course, some had mixed feelings and experiences, while some even felt disconnected, demotivated,
demoralized, disenfranchised, and disturbed — the dark side. It seems, though, that there is a challenge to
connectivism to scale up as a theory for networked learning, one of its objectives.

DISCUSSION

e results of this research show a strong similarity between situated cognition and anchored learning.
Both emphasize the importance of context for learning and refer to Jean Lave’s founding work Cognition
in practice (1988), John Dewey’s ideas, and the concept of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989).
Although several authors have contributed to the concept of situated cognition, the Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt is responsible for the development of the concept of anchored learning. A
specific and systematic comparison of these two theories, though, seems to be a valuable research direction
for the fields of educational technology and distance education.
Experiential learning, although briefly explored in this article, deserves a place in the list of constructivist
theories both because of the founding works of Kolb (1984, 1993) and the positioning of experience as a
central element in education, what differentiates it from the other theories analyzed.
Activity theory and active learning, as noted, can be more adequately classified as a philosophical
framework, entailing principles that can be found in all the theories studied in this article. As Kanuka and
Anderson (1999) state, “learning is active” is a common belief of different constructivist views. Authentic
learning, in turn, is not linked to any founding authors or works and involves principles that are also part of
all the other constructivist theories analyzed.
Connectivism deserves a more careful discussion. Although Siemens (2004) advocates that it is a new
learning theory (more adequate then behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism for a digital age),
Anderson and Don (2011, 2012) position it as a pedagogy of distance education following behaviorism/
cognitivism and social-constructivism, that is to say, an updated version of a philosophy of education, in the
terms we have defined constructivism in this article. But there is at least a specific point that contributes to
differentiate these two general approaches.
Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD) signalizes “the distance between
the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more
capable peers” (p. 86), that is to say, a virtual space between (a) what a learner can know/do working alone
and (b) what the learner can know/do supported by a teacher or a more experienced peer. We could even

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 208
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

say that there is still a previous stage where the learner knows/can do things without working at all (–a) and
a zone where the learner can´t know/work even when guided, because, for instance, he or she is still not
psychologically mature or technically prepared (b+).
Connectivism somehow subverts this hierarchy (–a, a, b, b+) and even blows these limits. Digital
technologies contribute to a collaborative epistemology in which learning is constructed by a group, not only
by an individual anymore, even when interacting with others. Learning is now negotiated through these
interactions, it is a networked activity and construction.
Social soware and media are then the drives for network-directed learning, moving beyond self-directed
learning. In this sense, Siemens (2011) criticizes the concept of autonomy: self-directed learning, in which
learners learn in their own pace and interest, would not be sufficient to describe our knowledge needs today:
When faced with learning in complex environments, what we need is something more like network-directed learning –
learning that is shaped, influenced, and directed by how we are connected to others. Instead of sensemaking in isolation, we
rely on social, technological, and informational networks to direct our activities.

Besides, as Siemens (2004) states, “know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where
(the understanding of where to find knowledge needed)”. We do not need to learn (and internalize) how
or what to do, but we need to know where to find knowledge (outside ourselves) to support our actions
in certain situations. Social soware and media though support not only social interactions, but also active
learning.
at is to say, the support for the learner through the ZPD can today be appropriately exercised both
by tools (learning occurs outside people) and by group collaboration, where sometimes the learner is
learning, sometimes teaching, and this collaboration constructs the group’s knowledge, not only individual
knowledge.
But it is still possible to advance in the comparison: we can say that connectivism reformats Vygotsky’s
ZPD. Initially, it proposes that learning can occur outside people, for example stored and manipulated by
technological tools. In this sense, it ceases to be an internal process, an individualistic activity. Besides, a user
can “learn” something (or how to do something) by activating these tools, which perform the task of the
adult or a more capable peer, but then forget that knowledge — because they do not need it anymore, while
the learning continues to rest outside the person, stored and manipulated by external artifacts. e person
gets back to the position of not knowing, so the ZPD starting point (a) is, aer the action is concluded,
reconstructed backwards — we have now a flexible zone! Technology “teaches” the learner, making them
capable of knowing (or knowing how), but that knowledge is then lost — although it can be retrieved and
activated again whenever needed. We can then say that the digital age has reconfigured ZPD to a heart zone,
which stretches and retracts according to the learner’s interest — but an external heart, an accordion, for it
is not anymore an individual internal virtual space, but an external collaborative virtual group: an artificial
intelligence heart.
ere is though no more need to conceive a totally controlled, internal, and individual ZPD: cognition
and learning are distributed not only among people, but also among artifacts. In this sense, we can say that
connectivism is an updated version of the constructivist philosophy of education for a digital age.

CONCLUSION AND FURTHER WORK

Our theoretical journey explored the main aspects of theories generally classified as constructivists and
the main ideas they propose: (a) situated cognition (context and interaction are essential in learning) and
anchored instruction (education through immersion in authentic contexts) and (b) experiential learning
(experience should be used strategically in education). Authentic learning (learning needs authentic contexts,

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 209
 RIED, 2018, vol. 21, no. 2, July-December, ISSN: 1138-2783 1390-3306

tasks, activities, and assessment to support knowledge transfer) and activity theory (learning is an active
construction) were not considered theories, but general features of these other constructivist theories.
One of the contributions of this article is a new perspective on Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal
development (ZPD) through the lens of connectivism. ZPD can now be conceived as a group and network
activity, not only as something that happens in the mind of an individual learner. Instead of being directed
by a more experienced peer, learning can now be conceived as a network-directed activity. Besides, the ZPD
path can now be actively supported by tools (or educational technologies), not only people. And the zone
can even be considered flexible, in the sense that networks and technologies allow it to expand and retract,
according to the learner’s immediate needs.
Although the article explored uses of these theories in educational technology and distance education,
further work is needed to determine if they can be coherently grouped as a specific set of constructivist
theories and if they can serve as a theoretical framework for educational technology and distance education
projects and activities. Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005), for example, explore how constructivism supports
instructional design, paying specific attention to authentic learning, active learning, situated cognition, and
anchored instruction.
e article proposes that connectivism or distributed learning should be considered an updated version
of constructivism, understood as a general philosophy of education for the digital age. In this sense, further
work is necessary to determine if (and how) connectivism can function, as constructivism does, as a general
title for theories such as situated cognition, anchored instruction, and experiential learning,
or if it does not encompass the main aspects of these theories. Further work is also needed to explore
the application of connectivism in educational technology and distance education. Of specific interest is
the development of reflection on the reconfiguration of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and its
potential uses in education.
Tendencies such as virtual and augmented reality, artificial intelligence, machine learning, semantic web,
internet of things, and learning analytics should play a role in the future research and practice of educational
methodologies and technologies, particularly in distance education. In this sense, we must reflect if the
theories studied in this article can serve as background for these practices or if we need to produce new
theories for that purpose.

REFERENCES

Anderson, T. (2016). eories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and
innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications (35-64). Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). ree generations of distance education pedagogy. e International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2012). Learning technology through three generations of technology enhanced distance
education pedagogy. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning, 15(2).
Bardin, L. (2013). L’analyse de contenu. París: Presses Universitaires de France.
Beckem, J. M., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online
and blended courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5),
Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes
to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729-760.
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning.
e International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 98-118.
Bender, W. N. (2012). Project-based learning: Differentiating instruction for the 21st century. Corwin Press.
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International
Society for Technology in Education.

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 210
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January/February). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Retrieved from http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/ resources/
museumeducation/situated. html
Clancey, W. J. (1994). Situated cognition: How representations are created and given meaning. In Lewis, R. &
Mendelsohn P. (Eds.), Lessons from learning (pp. 231-242). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Retrieved from
http://cogprints. org/661/1/133.htm
Clará, M., & Barberá, E. (2014). ree problems with the connectivist conception of learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 30(3), 197-206.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics,
69(9), 970-977.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston:
D.C. Heath and company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press.
Greeno, J. D. (1989, February). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44(2), 134-141. Retrieved from
http:// inkido.indiana.edu/syllabi/p500/greeno. pdf
Hansen, R. E. (2000, Spring). e role of experience in learning: Giving meaning and authenticity to the learning
pro- cess in schools. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 23-32. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.4.6974&rep=rep1&- type=pdf
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Hung, D., Looi, C.-K., & Koh, T.-S. (2004). Situated cognition and communities of practice: First-person “lived
experiences” vs. third-person perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 193-200.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning
environments. In Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.), eoretical foundations of learning environments
(89-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: Constructing order out
of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy, 1(2). Retrieved from http:// radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/
issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005, January). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential
and limita- tions. Journal of Educational Technolo- gy & Society, 8(1), 17-27. Retrieved from http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.117.357&rep=re- p1&type=pdf#page=22
Kasloff, P. (2011). Active Online Learning: Implementing the Case Study/Personal Portfolio Method. In K. D.
Kirstein, J. M. Hinrichs, & S. G. Olswang (Eds.), Authentic Instruction and Online Delivery: Proven Practices
in Higher Education (pp. 283-304). CreateSpace.
Kerr, B. (2007). A Challenge to Connectivism. Transcript of Keynote Speech, Online Connectivism Conference.
University of Manitboa. Retrieved from http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/index. php?title=Kerr_Presentation
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson design for 21st century learning. e Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535-543.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1993). e process of experiential learning. In M. orpe, R. Edwards, & A. Hanson (Eds.), Culture and
processes of adult learning. New York: Routledge.
Kop, R. (2011). e challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a
massive open online course. e International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3),
19-38.

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 211
 RIED, 2018, vol. 21, no. 2, July-December, ISSN: 1138-2783 1390-3306

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? e International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/
irrodl/article/view/523/1137
Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning.
Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752-768.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York, NY, US: Cambridge
University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mackness, J., & Bell, F. (2015). Rhizo14: A rhizomatic learning cMOOC in sunlight and in shade. Open Praxis, 7(1),
25-38.
Maina, F. W. (2004). Authentic learning: Perspectives from contemporary educators [Editorial]. Journal of
Authentic Learning, 1(1), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.oswego.edu/ academics/colleges_and_departments/
education/jal/vol1no1/maina.pdf
Okoli, C. (2015). A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 37(43), 879-910.
Reeves, T.C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2002) Authentic activities and online learning. In: HERDSA 2002 Quality
Conversations, 7 - 10 July 2002, Perth, Western Australia pp. 562-567.
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in
education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8-19.
Siemens, G. (2004, December). Connectivism: A theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.
org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper 105:
University of Georgia IT Forum. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/ Siemens.pdf
Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. Elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/
blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a- platform/
Siemens, G. (2011). Moving beyond self- directed learning: Network-directed learning. Connectivism. Retrieved from
http://archive.is/tVRLa
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance
learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_2/
tam. html
e Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated
cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10. doi: 10.3102/0013189X019006002.
e Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited.
Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
e Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). e Jasper Project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction,
assessment, and professional development.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: e Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). e aims of education and other essays. New York: e Macmillan company.
Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In Jonassen, D. H.,
& Land, S. M. (Eds.), eoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 212
Joao Mattar. Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic,...

Young, M. F., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1992). Anchored instruction and anchored assessment: An ecological approach
to measuring situated learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA, 1-21. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED354269.pdf

Additional information

How to cite this article:: Mattar, J. (2018). Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active,
situated, authentic, experiential, and anchored learning. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a
Distancia, 21(2), pp. 201-217. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.5944/ried.21.2.20055

PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc

Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative 213
 Numeracy
Advancing Education in Quantitative Literacy

Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 7

2011

Constructivist and Behaviorist Approaches: Development and

Initial Evaluation of a Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory
Statistics at the College Level
Rossi A. Hassad
Mercy College, New York, USA, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy

Part of the Mathematics Commons, and the Science and Mathematics Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Hassad, Rossi A.. "Constructivist and Behaviorist Approaches: Development and Initial Evaluation of a
Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics at the College Level." Numeracy 4, Iss. 2 (2011): Article
7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7

Authors retain copyright of their material under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution 4.0 License.
Constructivist and Behaviorist Approaches: Development and Initial Evaluation of
a Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics at the College Level

Abstract
This study examined the teaching practices of 227 college instructors of introductory statistics from the
health and behavioral sciences. Using primarily multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques, a two-
dimensional, 10-item teaching-practice scale, TISS (Teaching of Introductory Statistics Scale), was
developed. The two dimensions (subscales) are characterized as constructivist and behaviorist; they are
orthogonal. Criterion validity of the TISS was established in relation to instructors’ attitude toward
teaching, and acceptable levels of reliability were obtained. A significantly higher level of behaviorist
practice (less reform-oriented) was reported by instructors from the U.S., as well as instructors with
academic degrees in mathematics and engineering, whereas those with membership in professional
organizations, tended to be more reform-oriented (or constructivist). The TISS, thought to be the first of
its kind, will allow the statistics education community to empirically assess and describe the pedagogical
approach (teaching practice) of instructors of introductory statistics in the health and behavioral
sciences, at the college level, and determine what learning outcomes result from the different teaching-
practice orientations. Further research is required in order to be conclusive about the structural and
psychometric properties of this scale, including its stability over time.

Keywords
Statistics, Introductory, Literacy, Scale, Constructivist, Behaviorist, Teaching

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

Cover Page Footnote

Rossi A. Hassad is an associate professor in the School of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Mercy College,
New York, where he teaches at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and serves as a co-chair of
the College-wide committee on student learning assessment. His teaching expertise and research
interests include statistical literacy and evidence-based practice in the health and behavioral sciences. He
also serves as an adjunct associate professor at Hunter College, Department of Psychology (City
University of New York), and was the recipient of the American Statistical Association (Joint Statistical
Meetings 2003) award for best contributed paper (Section on the Teaching of Statistics in the Health
Sciences).

This article is available in Numeracy: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7

 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Introduction
The ability to critically evaluate research findings expressed in statistical language
is an essential skill for practitioners and students in evidence-based disciplines
such as the health and behavioral sciences (Belar 2003; Garfield and Ben-Zvi
2007a, 2009b; Hassad 2010). Undergraduate students in these disciplines,
therefore, are generally required to take introductory statistics as a core course.
Consequently, there is a consensus among educators that the goal of this course
should be to facilitate statistical literacy through active learning strategies
emphasizing concepts and applications rather than mathematical procedures
(Franklin and Garfield 2006; Hassad and Coxon 2007; Froelich et al. 2008). Also
motivating this pedagogical approach is the realization that, for the majority of
these students, the introductory course will be their only formal exposure to
statistics (Moore 1998).
For over a decade there has been emphasis on reform-oriented teaching at the
college level, fueled by a consensus among educators that traditional curricular
material and pedagogical strategies have not been effective in promoting
statistical literacy (Cobb 1992; delMas et al. 2006; Garfield et al. 2002; Hassad
2009), an essential component of quantitative literacy (Steen 2004). In spite of
these reform efforts focused on course content, pedagogy, assessment, and
integration of technology, research continues to show that students are emerging
with a lack of understanding of core concepts (delMas et al. 2006; Green et al.
2009). Such evidence has raised concerns about instructors’ level of awareness,
understanding, and appropriate use of active learning strategies (Hassad 2007).
Also, empirical information on what core strategies underlie reform-oriented
teaching of introductory statistics is lacking (Garfield et al. 2002). This is a major
impediment to characterizing teaching practice and assessing the effectiveness of
reform-oriented teaching compared to the traditional pedagogical approach.

Objective
The objective of the study reported here was to develop and validate a scale
(instrument) to empirically assess and describe the teaching practice of instructors
of introductory statistics in the health and behavioral sciences at the college level.
Such a scale can be used to characterize teaching practice, toward identifying
individual strengths and weaknesses regarding reform-oriented (constructivist or
concept-based) teaching of introductory statistics. More importantly, this
teaching-practice scale can help to determine what learning outcomes result from
the different teaching-practice orientations considered, namely constructivist and
behaviorist (traditional).

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 1

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Theoretical and Conceptual Basis of Reform-

Oriented Pedagogy
The conceptual underpinning of reform-oriented pedagogy is typically described
with reference to theories of learning based on constructivism, which is
considered a family of concepts and principles about the construction of
knowledge and meaning (von Glasersfeld 1987; Cobb 1994; delMas et al. 1999;
Trigwell and Prosser 2004; Fosnot 2005). Strictly speaking, constructivism is not
a philosophy of learning; it is “a model of knowing that is pedagogically useful”
(Thompson 2000, p. 423) and supports multiple teaching approaches and
strategies. Indeed, constructivism is neither limited to reform-based teaching of
introductory statistics nor the broader education context. However, there is a large
and increasing body of scientific research that recognizes constructivism as a
major theoretical influence in contemporary and reform-based science,
mathematics and statistics education (Garfield 1993; Steinhorst and Keeler 1995;
Mills 2002; Mvududu 2003; Fosnot et al. 2007; Froelich et al. 2008; Garfield and
Ben-Zvi 2009).
Moreover, in the education literature (particularly mathematics and statistics)
the expression, “constructivist pedagogy” is widely used interchangeably and
synonymously with “reform-based” and “reform-oriented” teaching (Mvududu
2003; Fosnot 2005; Luft and Roehrig 2007; Pecore 2009; Jenkins 2010). Notably,
the rationale for the use of the constructivist label in introductory statistics
education is premised on the understanding that reform-based pedagogy, in this
context, emphasizes “learners’ active participation” and “the social nature of
learning,” which are the core principles of constructivism (Liu and Matthews
2005).
Another perspective of the constructivist paradigm is that it serves as an
epistemological model, which defines knowledge as “temporary, developmental,
socially and culturally mediated, and thus, non-objective” (Brooks and Brooks
1993, p. vii). There are two recognized forms of constructivism: cognitive or
Piagetian constructivism (Piaget 1950, 1967, 1977), and social or Vygotskian
constructivism (Vygotsky 1962, 1978). Cognitive constructivism emphasizes the
mind of the individual, and views learning as simply the assimilation and
accommodation of new knowledge by learners, in other words, merely a process
of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences. On the other
hand, social or Vygotskian constructivism is aimed at social transformation and
underscores the socio-cultural context in which the individual or student is
situated. It holds that the construction of individual meaning and understanding
results from mutually beneficial social or group interactions (primarily through
collaboration and negotiation).Vygotsky posited that all learning takes place in
the “zone of proximal development,” which he defined as the difference between

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 2
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

what a learner can do alone, and what he or she can do with assistance. Indeed,
these two forms of constructivism are not mutually exclusive, as social
constructivism is as extension of cognitive constructivism. When used in the
teaching-learning context (in particular, reform), constructivism is understood to
mean social constructivism.
Instructional design based on constructivism is generally contrasted with
instruction based on behaviorism, which is typically described as a rigid
procedural approach, aimed at using fixed stimuli and reinforcements to promote
a fixed world of objective knowledge, measured primarily in terms of observable
behavior (Skinner 1974; Caprio 1994). Instructional design based on behaviorism
focuses on discrete and compartmentalized knowledge and skills rather than
integration of knowledge, and conceptual understanding. The key difference
between these two approaches is that behaviorism is centered around transmission
of knowledge from the instructor to the student (passive student and a top-down
or instructor-centered approach) whereas constructivism is focused on the
construction of knowledge by the student (active student and a bottom-up or
student-centered approach). According to Askew et al. (1997) highly effective
teachers possess a constructivist (or connectionist) orientation rather than a
behaviorist (or transmission) orientation.
In the constructivist context, the instructor utilizes active learning strategies
to scaffold activities and tasks (so that students can progress from the simple to
the complex), explore information, discover concepts, and construct knowledge
and meaning. According to Fosnot (2005, p. 13), in this context, instructors
become “facilitators, provocateurs and questioners.” This allows for the
development of deep and conceptual understanding, that is, the ability to know
“what to do and why” (Skemp 1987, p. 9) rather than surface knowledge (from
rote learning associated with behaviorist pedagogy). A key goal in selecting active
learning strategies is to facilitate cognitive apprenticeship (Singer and Willett
1993; Dennen 2004) through authentic activities (Leont’ev 1972), encompassing
projects, group work (including discussions), problem-solving situations, oral and
written presentations, as well as other tasks which model discipline-specific real-
world activities, through expert demonstration and guidance (coaching). These
activities should be structured and administered so as to provide stimuli for
cognitive dissonance or conflict (Liu and Matthews 2005) which serves to
promote inquiry, and challenges the individual to think critically and reason,
resulting in learning that is deep and conceptual, and hence a meaning-making
experience (Dennen, 2004).

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 3

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Relevant Operational Definitions

The reform-oriented (concept-based or constructivist) approach to teaching
introductory statistics is generally operationalized as a set of active learning
strategies intended to facilitate statistical literacy. Such active learning strategies
include projects, group discussions, data collection, hands-on computer data
analysis, critiquing of research articles, report writing, oral presentations, and the
use of real-world data. Statistical literacy (thinking and reasoning) refers to the
ability to understand, critically evaluate, and use statistical information and data-
based arguments (Gal 2000; Garfield et al. 2002). The GAISE (Guidelines for
Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education) report (Franklin and Garfield
2006) which serves as a blueprint for reform-oriented teaching of introductory
statistics, recommends the following:
1. Emphasize statistical literacy and develop statistical thinking.
2. Use real data.
3. Stress conceptual understanding rather than mere knowledge of procedures.
4. Foster active learning in the classroom.
5. Use technology to develop conceptual understanding and analyze data.
6. Use assessments to improve and evaluate student learning.

Methodology
Study Design and Participants
The development of this teaching-practice scale was one component of an initial
exploratory cross-sectional study which concurrently developed and validated an
attitude scale for instructors of undergraduate introductory statistics (see
Appendix). Qualitative methods (in-depth interviews and focus group
discussions) were also employed, especially for item generation, item analysis,
and in general, for establishing content validity. The study participants were 227
volunteer instructors of introductory statistics courses in the health and behavioral
sciences at four-year regionally accredited, degree-granting institutions in the
USA (and the equivalent in foreign countries 1). Both full-time and adjunct (part-
time) instructors who had full responsibility for an introductory statistics course
were eligible to participate. The ASA/MAA (American Statistical
Association/Mathematical Association of America) Joint Committee on

1
This includes accreditation by a Ministry of Education or other (Governmental) Higher
Education Quality Assurance Body.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 4
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Undergraduate Statistics was consulted during the initial phase of the study
regarding development of the study methodology2.
Sampling
A purposive sample (n = 227) was used to reflect the broad range of instructors
that the final measure is intended to be used on (Patton 1990), and to allow for
meaningful statistical analysis (Sackett et al. 2000). Also, the generally
recommended sample size of at least 200, deemed acceptable for scale
development (including stability and replicability of structural analyses) was met
(Gorsuch 1983; Floyd and Widaman 1995; Clark and Watson 1995). Purposive
sampling has been widely used in major studies to explore teachers’ beliefs,
attitudes and practices in school reform situations (Goertz et al. 1996; Ravitz et al.
2000; Tschannen-Moran et al. 2000). Specifically, this sampling approach helps
to guard against a restricted range in measurement, which can result in attenuated
correlations among items (Gorsuch 1983; Comrey and Lee 1992; Tucker and
MacCallum 1997; Fabrigar et al. 1999). Furthermore, it must be recognized that
this was an initial exploratory study, and therefore, purposive sampling was
desirable in order to “maximize discovery of the heterogeneous patterns and
problems that occur in the particular context under study” (Erlandson et al. 1993,
p. 82). Moreover, according to Viswanathan (2005, p. 70) “convenience sampling
is suited for these studies rather than probabilistic sampling because the aim is not
to establish population estimates, but rather to use correlational analysis to
examine relationships between items and measures.”
Respondents’ Background Characteristics
Of the 227 3 participants, 222 provided country information: 165 (74%) were from
the U.S., and 57 (26%) were from international locations (primarily the UK,
Netherlands, Canada, and Australia). In all, the participants represented 24
countries and 133 academic institutions. The median age category was 41−50
years, and median duration of teaching was 10 years. The majority (139 or 61%)
of participants were male, and from the U.S. sub-sample, 135 (82%) identified as
Caucasian. There were 94 (41%) instructors from the health sciences, 102 (45%)
from the behavioral sciences, and 31(14%) who taught both in the health and
behavioral sciences. The modal category for academic degree concentration was
statistics, 92 (41%), followed by psychology/social/behavioral sciences, 71(31%),
health sciences/public health/epidemiology/biostatistics, 28 (12%), education/
business/operations research, 19(8%), and mathematics/engineering, 17 (8%).

2
http://www.austincc.edu/statcomm/m010804.pdf (Minutes of the Committee Meeting) accessed
December 15, 2010.
3
n varies between 219 and 227 due to missing data (item non-response).

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 5

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Development of the Teaching-Practice (Scale) Items

Teaching practice was conceptualized as a continuum, that is, high-reform
(concept-based or constructivist) practice to low-reform (traditional or
behaviorist) practice. Development of the scale content was guided by the seminal
recommendations of the ASA/MAA Joint Committee on Undergraduate Statistics
(Cobb, 1992) and the GAISE report on introductory statistics (Franklin and
Garfield 2006). Active learning strategies with reference to course content,
pedagogy, assessment, and integration of technology are emphasized in these
reports.
Toward content validity, the initial pool of teaching-practice items was
formulated following an extensive literature review. Also, a teaching-practice
inventory (Handal 2003) which profiles teachers of mathematics as either
constructivist or behaviorist was used as a guide. In keeping with other best
practices in scale development (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994; Haynes et al.
1995), the initial list of 14 teaching-practice items (with iterations of up to 30
items) was evaluated for breadth and relevance of content in a mini-survey of
pioneer and expert statistics educators, researchers, and practitioners. Two
qualitative item-analysis exercises followed, one in-person, and the other via
email; these involved instructors from the disciplines of health sciences,
psychology, education and statistics (including psychometrics), as well as
language and communications. In general, items were added, rephrased, or
removed based on consensus. All items were assessed for face and content
validity, salience, readability (including double-barreled or ambiguous items),
theoretical relevance, and redundancy.
A pilot survey was then conducted via email with a sample of 30 instructors, 4
and the resulting data (including open-ended feedback) allowed for refining the
item set. At this stage, responses were evaluated for variability, in particular, the
potential discriminant value of each item. The revised item set was reviewed via
email by a group of introductory statistics educators, before it was finalized with
ten items on a frequency of use scale of 1 (never) through 5 (always). Also, in
order to explore variability in teaching practice, the questionnaire ascertained
information on gender, age, ethnicity, country, duration of teaching, teaching area,
membership status in professional organizations, highest academic degree
concentration, and employment status. In general, items intended to measure
constructivist and behaviorist teaching orientations were alternated so as to reduce
possible acquiescent-response bias. Supposedly, the level of education of the
participants was also beneficial in this regard.

4
These instructors were not part of the final sample.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 6
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Recruitment of Subjects and Data Collection

The general goal of recruitment was to enlist a sample of instructors that
represents the broad range of teaching practices. The questionnaire was
programmed in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and three emails (an
invitation to participate, a reminder, and a last call to participate) were sent one
week apart with an online link to the questionnaire. Informed consent was
obtained online, and data collection took place between August and October of
2005. The completed questionnaires were checked for redundant or duplicate
submissions, and, as an incentive to participate, all subjects who completed the
instrument were given a chance to win one of three $100 awards toward
conference registration, journal subscription, continuing education courses or
other professional development activities. All data were self-reported.
Specifically, recruitment was aimed at maximizing similarities and
differences with respect to teaching practice. It involved targeting instructors of
introductory statistics in the health and behavioral sciences at four-year colleges
where pioneer educators active in the reform movement were employed.
This approach was assumed to increase the likelihood of recruiting instructors
who have adopted or are moving toward reform recommendations (that is,
constructivist pedagogy). Such strategy for identifying institutions was used by
Riel and Becker (2000) in their study of teacher leaders’ beliefs and practices
regarding computer use. Pioneer educators were identified from the membership
database of the ASA (Sections on Statistics Education, and Teaching of Statistics
in the Health Sciences). Additionally, the ASA Directory of Minority Statisticians
was consulted.
Instructors were also targeted based on their publications, research interests,
and a review of their course outlines. Faculty who could be characterized as
having a mathematical/traditional/behaviorist focus were equally targeted.
Additional contact information was obtained from the following sources:
1. Articles in the Journal of Statistics Education (online).
2. The first USCOTS (United States Conference On Teaching Statistics)
resource notebook.
3. JSM (Joint Statistical Meetings, American Statistical Association)
conference proceedings.
4. Online institutional faculty lists.
5. ICOTS (International Conference On Teaching Statistics) conference
proceedings.
6. ASA/MAA Joint Committee on Undergraduate Statistics.
7. The Stanford University online directory of statistics departments
(USA and international).
8. The ASA list of schools offering degrees in statistics.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 7

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

9. CAUSE (Consortium for the Advancement of Undergraduate Statistics

Education).
10. The RSS (Royal Statistical Society, UK), Center for Statistics
Education.
11. IASE (The International Association for Statistical Education).

Additionally, Departmental Chairs were contacted and asked to circulate the

questionnaire link to relevant faculty. Departments included statistics,
mathematics, health sciences, biostatistics, public health, epidemiology,
psychology, behavioral sciences, social sciences, and sociology. To further
supplement the sample, participation was solicited from instructors of
introductory statistics who participated in a preliminary mini email survey
(Hassad 2003) and self-characterized their teaching as either concept-based or
calculation-based. Participation was also sought via online discussion forums, and
listservs such as:
1. [email protected] - A UK-based worldwide email
broadcast system for the statistical community.
2. [email protected] - A UK-based
worldwide email broadcast system, concerned with the initial learning
and teaching of statistics.
3. [email protected] - A mailing list of the Survey
Research Methods Section of the ASA (American Statistical
Association).
4. [email protected] - An email forum devoted to
discussion of topics related to the teaching and learning of statistics at
the college level.

Data Analysis
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)
The underlying dimensionality of the teaching-practice data was examined using
primarily multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques. MDS is a set of
exploratory multivariate statistical techniques aimed at reducing and organizing
data so as to elucidate how and why the measured variables or items are related
(Kruskal and Wish 1978; Coxon 1982). The aim of MDS is to achieve a low-
dimensional spatial representation (geometric map or configuration) of the latent
or hidden structure that underlies and explains the relationships among the
measured variables or items (Kruskal and Wish 1978; Coxon 1982; Fitzgerald and
Hubert 1987). Such graphical representations or spatial maps (not obtained with
factor analysis) can be formative and intuitive toward identifying possible
dimensions underpinning reported perceptions and behaviors (Kruskal and Wish

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 8
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

1978; Coxon 1982; Jaworska and Chupetlovska-Anastasova 2009). Therefore,

compared to factor analysis, MDS can result in a more interpretable, plausible and
parsimonious latent structure or model (Kruskal and Wish 1978; Fitzgerald and
Hubert 1987; Jaworska and Chupetlovska-Anastasova 2009).
Furthermore, unlike factor analysis which requires the assumptions of metric
data, linear relationships, and multivariate normality, “MDS procedures can be
used on a wide variety of data, using different models and allowing different
assumptions about the level of measurement” (Coxon 2004, p. 1). Specifically,
there are metric (linear transformation) and non-metric (ordinal transformation)
variants of MDS. The teaching-practice data of this study are ordinal (obtained on
a Likert-type scale) and hence non-metric; therefore, MDS is suitable for this
study. The input information for MDS is a numerical measure of distance
indicating how similar (or dissimilar) each item is to every other item. Both
metric (MRSCAL 5) and non-metric (MINISSA 6) MDS were carried out using the
NewMDSX program (Coxon et al. 2010), and for each model both Pearson’s
product-moment correlation coefficient (based on the interval properties of the
data) and Kendall’s tau (based on the rank order of the data) were used as
measures of similarity. By accommodating other measures of similarity or
association (including Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau), and allowing for the
modeling of non-linear relationships, MDS can facilitate a more comprehensive
exploration of the data, compared to factor analysis (Coxon 1982).
It is worth emphasizing that this is an initial exploratory study, and hence
there was no firm a priori model specification (for teaching practice, in this
context) to test; therefore, methods such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
were not warranted at this stage. As Byrne (2001, p. 99) stated, “the application of
CFA procedures to assessment instruments that are still in the initial stages of
development represents a serious misuse of this analytic strategy.”
Interpretation of the MDS Maps (Configurations)
Interpretation involved identifying and assigning meanings to patterns and regions
(clusters of items or variables), and this is referred to as the neighborhood
approach (as against the dimensional approach which is based on multiple
regression). In particular, the neighborhood approach to interpretation of the maps
can uncover other (and more meaningful) patterns in the data because its focus “is
primarily on the small distances (large similarities), while a dimensional approach
attends most to the large distances” (Kruskal and Wish 1978, p. 44). According to
Kruskal and Wish (1978, p. 58), for the neighborhood approach “a two-
dimensional configuration is far more useful than one involving three or more

5
MRSCAL: MetRic SCALing (Roskam 1972)
6
MINISSA: Michigan-Israel-Netherlands-Integrated Smallest Space Analysis (Roskam and
Lingoes 1970)

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 9

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

dimensions.” However, other configurations were explored. For all MDS

procedures, the behaviorist items were reverse-coded to obtain meaningful scores.
Also, cluster analysis was used to guide the identification of patterns within the
spatial maps (Coxon 1982).
All MDS maps were rotated to simple structure to achieve interpretability
(Kruskal and Wish 1978). Following rotation, 7 the projections of points on the
axes change, but the distances between points or items (which the configuration is
based on) do not change (Kruskal and Wish 1978). For ordinary MDS, the axes
are arbitrary from the interpretation perspective (Coxon 1982). Rotation allows
for delineating possible meaningful clusters representing separable structures or
dimensions underlying the measured variables or items.
MDS plots the objects (each item) on a map, placing similar objects close to
each other and dissimilar objects further apart (Coxon 1982; Kruskal and Wish
1978; Young 1987). In metric MDS (using the MRSCAL algorithm) the
Euclidean distance between any pair of items is linearly related to the
corresponding input proximity value (correlation coefficient). This involves a
linear transformation of the data, and the relationship is inverse, as the
correlations represent similarities. That is, higher correlation coefficients
(Pearson’s and Kendall’s) would indicate greater similarity between the items,
and hence they will be closer in the spatial map (that is, a shorter inter-item
distance). For non-metric MDS (using the MINISSA algorithm) the Euclidean
distance between any pair of items in the spatial map matches the rank-order of
the corresponding input proximity data, and hence a monotonic, ordinal or non-
metric transformation of the data is carried out (Borg and Groenen 1997).
The adequacy of the MDS solutions was evaluated using the level of Stress1
and the coefficient of determination (R2). Both values are measures of goodness
of fit between the input data and the MDS model (Coxon 1982). The stability of
the solutions was assessed using the guideline of at least 4k + 1 objects (items) for
a k-dimensional solution, as well as consistency across the MDS configurations
(Kruskal and Wish 1978). In general, all MDS solutions were evaluated with
regard to adequacy, interpretability, parsimony, plausibility, and construct
validity.
Reliability Analysis
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach 1951) which quantifies the degree of internal
consistency (reliability) of a set of items, was calculated for each subscale, as well
as the overall scale. In general, a Cronbach’s alpha of at least .7 is viewed as the
minimum acceptable level of reliability (Nunnally 1978); however, a prior
recommendation that “in the early stages of research ... reliabilities of .60 or .50

7
Rotation does not alter the solution in the Euclidean distance model.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 10
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

will suffice” was also considered (Nunnally 1967, p. 226), as this is an initial
exploratory study. Furthermore, based on its mathematical underpinning,
Cronbach’s alpha varies directly with the number of items and the mean inter-
item correlation (Streiner and Norman 1989), so any interpretation of alpha must
take into account these two parameters. Loewenthal (1996) suggests that a
reliability level of .6 may be considered acceptable for scales with less than ten
items. Also, dimensionality must be given key consideration as Cronbach’s alpha
is an underestimate of reliability if the scale is not unidimensional (Cronbach
1947, 1951; Schmitt 1996).
Consequently, the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and range)
of the distribution of the inter-item correlations were examined to assess both
internal consistency and homogeneity. For homogeneity (unidimensionality), a
recommended optimal mean inter-item correlation between .2 and .4 (with almost
all of the individual inter-item correlations being moderate and in the range of .15
to .5) was the standard used (Briggs and Cheek 1986; Clark and Watson 1995).
Indeed, higher inter-item correlations would suggest redundancy in the contents
of the scale. Also, in order to establish the contribution of individual items to each
subscale, the change in Cronbach’s alpha was noted following the deletion of
each item. Furthermore, according to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), the
corrected8 item-total correlations should be at least .3 in order for that item to be
considered a meaningful contribution to the scale, and this criterion was followed.
Additionally, inter-subscale correlation analysis was performed to give further
insight into the interpretability of the subscales. Note that for all relevant analyses,
the observed correlation coefficients are presented in light of the controversy
surrounding correction for attenuation due to measurement error (Lord and
Novick 1968), and given that this is an initial exploratory study.
Criterion (Concurrent) Validity Analysis
Validity is a multidimensional concept (more precisely termed construct validity),
and refers to whether the scale measures the construct (teaching practice) as
theorized (Cronbach and Meehl 1955). In other words, validity is the extent to
which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure (Carmines and
Zeller 1979). Muldoon et al. (1998, p. 543) noted that “while validity can be
examined in several ways, comparison with the best indicator available (criterion
validity) is the preferred method.” Specifically, “criterion validity assesses the
measure's ability to distinguish between groups that it should theoretically be able
to distinguish between” (Maclnnes 2003). This is particularly relevant to
psychological constructs (e.g., attitude) which are latent and hence not directly

8
This refers to the correlation between an item and the remaining items in a scale.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 11

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

observable. Therefore, in order to determine whether a hypothetical construct is

being measured, we must show that it relates to a measure of another construct
(the criterion) in a theoretically predictable way (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955).
Note that criterion validity is also referred to as concurrent validity when both
constructs are measured simultaneously.
Accordingly, criterion validity is reported herein. In this regard, the attitude-
practice relationship was explored, consistent with the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), and the
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen 1991), and with the expectation of a
meaningful and statistically significant relationship between attitude score and
practice score (recognizing that this could be a bi-directional relationship).
Instructors’ attitude toward reform-based teaching was measured concurrently
with teaching practice, and the Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient
(r) was used to assess this relationship. Additionally, standard multiple linear
regression analysis was performed to determine the extent to which the five
attitude components (the independent variables) can explain and predict teaching
practice (the dependent variable) in this context (Meehl 1954; Asher 1997), and
the relative contribution of each predictor to the model. An alpha level of .05 was
used for all tests of significance. Also, where applicable, assumptions underlying
statistical methods were checked, and post-hoc analyses (with Bonferroni
correction) were performed. SPSS version 18.0 was also used for data entry and
analysis.
Calculation of the Teaching-Practice and Attitude Scores
A composite teaching-practice score was obtained for each respondent by
summing the values of the ten practice items (Table 1). The distribution has a
mean (SD = 5) and median of 35, and a mode of 36, with a possible maximum
score of 50. Note that higher scores reflect more favorable reform-based practice.
The behaviorist items were reverse-coded for calculation of the composite
teaching-practice score.
Instructors’ attitude toward reform-oriented teaching was measured using the
Faculty Attitudes Toward Statistics (FATS©) scale (see Appendix), which
consists of 25 items. A composite attitude score was obtained for each respondent
by summing the values of the 25 items. The distribution has a mean of 99 (SD =
12.6) and a median and mode of 100, with a possible maximum score of 125.
Note that higher scores reflect a more favorable attitude toward reform-based
practice. In calculating the composite scores for attitude and practice, all items
were equally weighted (Russel 2002; Hogue et al. 2005).

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 12
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Results
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) of the Teaching-Practice
Items
Of the two- and three-dimensional MDS configurations produced by the metric
(MRSCAL) and non-metric (MINISSA) analyses, the two-dimensional maps
were the most meaningful and interpretable (following rotation to simple
structure), and the best fit was obtained with non-metric MDS using Pearson’s
correlation coefficient (r) as the input measure of similarity (Figure 1). This map
separates the ten teaching-practice items (Table 1) into two distinct clusters (of
five items each), which are labeled behaviorist and constructivist in the figure and
table. Teaching practice was modeled and items generated, based on these two
domains—behaviorist and constructivist—which structure was confirmed by this
MDS analysis.

Table 1
Teaching of Introductory Statistics Scale
Some-
Teaching-Practice Items Never Rarely Usually Always N *Mean(SD)
times
(1) I emphasize rules and formulas as
5 4 3 2 1 227 2.73(0.82)
a basis for subsequent learning. B
(2) I integrate statistics with other
1 2 3 4 5 226 3.77(0.95)
subjects. C
(3) Students use a computer program
1 2 3 4 5 226 4.02(1.08)
to explore and analyze data. C
(4) I assign homework primarily from
5 4 3 2 1 226 2.87(1.13)
the textbook. B
(5) Critiquing of research articles is a
1 2 3 4 5 227 2.98(1.15)
core learning activity. C
(6)The mathematical underpinning of
5 4 3 2 1 227 2.78(0.95)
each statistical test is emphasized. B
(7) I use real-life data for class
1 2 3 4 5 226 4.06(0.75)
demonstrations and assignments. C
(8) I require that students adhere to
5 4 3 2 1 225 2.77(0.93)
procedures in the textbook. B
(9) Assessment includes written
1 2 3 4 5 225 3.59(1.12)
reports of data analysis. C
(10) I assign drill and practice
exercises (mathematical) for each 5 4 3 2 1 227 2.67(1.07)
topic. B
(B) Behaviorist subscale items. These items must be reverse-coded (as shown here) for calculation of the overall
teaching-practice score, so that higher values indicate more favorable levels of reform-oriented (concept-based or
constructivist) practice. (C) Constructivist subscale items. *For the Mean and SD presented here, these items were not
reverse-coded.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 13

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

The solution configuration of Figure 1 fits the input data very well, with a
Stress1 9 value (residual sum of squares from monotonic regression) of .07.
Stress1 values closer to zero represent a better fit. In this case, the Stress1 value is
less than one-half the size of Stress1 from simulation studies of random
configurations of the same number of points and dimensions (Spence 1979). The
proportion of variance in the input data that is accounted for by this two-
dimensional solution is 89% (R2), suggesting a very good fit. Additionally, the
stability of the solution is in keeping with the empirical guideline of at least 4k +
1 objects for a k-dimensional solution with non-metric scaling (Kruskal and Wish
1978). In this context, the objects are the ten teaching-practice items, and k = 2, as
this is a two-dimensional solution.

Figure 1. Two-dimensional MDS map (non-metric). Numbers refer to teaching-

practice items (see Table 1).

9
Stress1 is a form of raw Stress, normalized for symmetric data.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 14
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Reliability Analysis
The Cronbach’s alpha of the overall scale is .6 (Table 2), which (albeit less than
the standard minimum of .7) is considered an acceptable level for initial
exploratory studies (Nunnally 1967; Robinson et al. 1991). Furthermore, each
subscale (behaviorist: alpha = .61, constructivist: alpha =.66) is somewhat more
internally consistent than the overall scale, and this could support the MDS
finding that two dimensions underlie teaching practice (Yu 2001). Notably, each
subscale has five items and according to Loewenthal (1996), a reliability level of
.6 may be considered acceptable for scales with less than ten items.

Table 2
Cronbach’s Alpha and Mean Correlation Coefficients for the Overall Teaching-Practice
Scale and Subscales
Number of Cronbach’s Mean Correlation (SD)
Scale/subscale N
items alpha Inter-item Item-scale
Overall Teaching-Practice
219 10 .60 .13 (.15) .25 (.11)
Scale (TISS)
Behaviorist Subscale 224 5 .61 .25 (.10)* .37 (.06)
Constructivist Subscale 222 5 .66 .29 (.10)** .42 (.08)
Inter–subscale correlation: Pearson’s r = -.06, df =217, ns
*Ranged from .06 to .39 (with 9 (90 % ) of the correlations being between .14 and .39, and 70% between .23
and .39 )
**Ranged from .12 to .50 (with 9 (90%) of the correlations being between .19 and .50)

More importantly, the mean inter-item correlation for the overall scale (.13)
is substantially less than the mean inter-item correlations for the behaviorist (.25)
and constructivist (.29) subscales. In particular, almost all of the inter-item
correlations for both subscales are moderate in magnitude and cluster narrowly
around the mean value, and together this can be considered strong evidence of
two separate and distinct subscales with acceptable internal consistency (Green
1978; Clark and Watson 1995). Additionally, deletion of any item did not
appreciably improve the reliability of the subscales, and the corrected item-total
correlations are .3 or higher, indicating that each item is meaningful to its
subscale (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Furthermore, the two subscales
(behaviorist and constructivist) are almost orthogonal to each other (Pearson’s
product-moment correlation coefficient, r = -.06, df = 217, ns), and hence can be
considered independent dimensions of teaching practice.
Criterion (Concurrent) Validity
According to attitude theory, and the attitude-behavior relationship (Ajzen and
Fishbein 2004; Wallace et al. 2005; Schwartz 2007), high-reform instructors
(higher practice scores) should possess more favorable attitudes (higher attitude
scores) toward reform-based pedagogy. As shown in Table 3, the relationships are

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 15

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

in the expected (positive) direction, and all but “perceived difficulty” (ease of use)
were moderate, meaningful, and statistically significant. Indeed, these
relationships could be viewed as bi-directional.

Table 3
Bivariate Correlation between Total Attitude (and Subscale
Scores) and Teaching-Practice Score
Teaching-
Attitude Subscales N Practice Score
Pearson’s r
Perceived Usefulness 219 .364*
Intention 218 .452*
Personal Teaching Efficacy 217 .421*
Avoidance-Approach 218 .387*
Perceived Difficulty (Ease of Use) 218 .073
Total Attitude Score 214 .498*
*p < .001

Multiple regression analysis (Meehl 1954; Asher 1997) was next conducted.
Although perceived difficulty was not statistically significant in the bivariate
analyses (Table 3), it was entered into the multiple regression model because of
its noted conceptual (and empirical) relevance to both intention and behavior
(Albarracin et al. 2001). Teaching-practice score (the dependent variable) was
regressed on the five attitude subscale scores (the independent variables). The
standard assumptions for multiple regression were met: normality, linearity, non-
multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals. The strongest
correlation among the predictors was noted for perceived usefulness and intention
(r = .7, df = 223, p < .001). Also, perceived difficulty (ease of use) was
significantly correlated with personal teaching efficacy (r = .4, df = 222, p < .001)
only.
The overall model (Table 4) was statistically significant, and explained 28%
of the variance in teaching practice (see adjusted R2), which is consistent with
major attitude-behavior research (Armitage and Conner 1999). Intention (one
component of attitude) was the strongest predictor of practice (β = 0.264, p =
.003), a finding that is both theoretically and empirically well-supported
(Armitage and Conner 1999; Ajzen and Fishbein 2004; Wallace et al. 2005).
Notably, perceived usefulness was not statistically significant in the multiple
regression model, and as previously mentioned, this construct had a strong and
statistically significant relationship with intention (r = .7), but did not meet the
generally acceptable statistical criterion (of r = .9) for redundancy (Kline 2005).
Also, from a theoretical and empirical perspective, these two constructs
(perceived usefulness and intention) are known to be strongly related but different

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 16
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

(Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; Davis et al. 1989; Taylor and Todd 1995; Kloeblen
and Batish 1999; Venkatesh and Davis 2000).

Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis of Overall Teaching-Practice Score on Attitude Subscale Scores
Predictors Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
(Attitude Subscales) B Std. Error Beta (β) t Sig.
(Constant) 17.05 2.30 7.42 .001
Perceived Usefulness 0.04 0.61 0.01 0.07 .946
Intention 1.58 0.52 0.26 3.01 .003
Personal Teaching Efficacy 1.62 0.54 0.24 3.01 .003
Avoidance-Approach 1.46 0.48 0.20 3.07 .002
Perceived Difficulty -0.42 0.35 -0.08 -1.22 .225

Model Significance: F (5, 208) = 17.3, p < .001, Adjusted R2 = .28 (28%)

Correlates of Teaching Practice

Overall teaching-practice, as well as the constructivist and behaviorist subscale
scores did not vary significantly with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, duration of
teaching, teaching area, and employment status. However, statistically significant
differences were noted as follows. For these analyses, the independent samples t-
test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used. Note that these
differences and any suggested trend are tentative (given the non-probability nature
of the sample), and should not be generalized, but used to inform hypothesis
generation.

(1) Location: Instructors from international locations 10(M = 36.80, SD =

4.44) reported a higher level of reform-based teaching compared to
those from the U.S. (M = 34.03, SD = 4.57), t (212) = 3.88, p =.001.
In particular, instructors from international locations (M = 12.13, SD =
3.27), reported a lower level of behaviorist practice than those from
the U.S. (M = 14.32, SD = 2.85), t (217) = 4.76, p = .001.
(2) Highest Academic Degree Concentration: In general, instructors
with mathematics and engineering degrees (M = 32.81, SD = 4.28)
reported the lowest level of reform-based teaching compared to those
with health sciences degrees (M = 36.00, SD = 4.96), who reported the
highest level, t (41) = 2.14, p = .038. Specifically, instructors with
mathematics and engineering degrees (M = 15.23, SD = 2.88) reported
the highest level of behaviorist practice compared to those with health
sciences degrees (M = 12.39, SD = 3.22) who reported the lowest
level, t (43) = 2.98, p = .005.
10
These instructors were primarily from the UK, Netherlands, Canada, and Australia.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 17

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

(3) Membership Status in Professional Organizations: In general,

instructors with membership (M = 35.33, SD = 4.92) reported a
marginally higher level of reform-based teaching compared to non-
members (M = 34.07, SD = 4.43), t (214) = 1.99, p = .048.

Discussion
The objective of this study was to develop and initially validate a scale
(instrument) to characterize the teaching-practice orientation of instructors of
introductory statistics in the health and behavioral sciences at the college level.
Given the totality of the evidence, in accordance with scientific standards for
scale development (Clark and Watson 1995; DeVillis 2003), a scale with
acceptable levels of reliability and validity has been developed and will be
referred to as TISS (Teaching of Introductory Statistics Scale).
The Structure of the Teaching-Practice Scale
The TISS is two-dimensional, and the two components or subscales
(constructivist and behaviorist) are orthogonal to each other, indicating that two
independent or separable (but complementary) dimensions underlie teaching
practice, in this context. In other words, contrary to the initial conceptualization
and general view, teaching practice appears not to be bipolar or reciprocal. That
is, a higher level of constructivist practice does not result in a lower level of
behaviorist practice, and vice versa. And knowing one dimension does not
meaningfully inform us about the other. Therefore, both subscales must be used in
order to meaningfully measure and address teaching practice. Similar findings of
an orthogonal relationship between behaviorist and constructivist dimensions with
regard to teachers’ beliefs and practices (elementary and secondary school) were
reported by Handal (2003) and Woolley et al. (2004), with correlation coefficients
of −.232 and −.011, respectively.
This orthogonal two-dimensional construct or scale (TISS) is substantive, and
can be plausibly explained in terms of two possible underlying motivational (and
perceptual) processes regarding constructivist and behaviorist teaching practices,
each with different antecedents and likely complex interactions (Cacioppo et al.
1997). This could mean, that in addition to pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman 1986; Hassad; 2006), the decision to utilize a particular set of teaching
strategies is influenced by instructors’ perceptions about contextual factors, such
as the level of preparedness of students, duration of the session, availability and
accessibility of teaching resources, class size and heterogeneity (including
variability in students’ ability and academic major), as well as administrative
support. Logically and empirically, beliefs relating to such contextual factors can
facilitate or inhibit the implementation of reform-based practices, and hence an

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 18
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

instructor may vary in his/her pedagogical approach. In particular, these beliefs

can influence an instructor’s perception of self-efficacy and affect decision-
making regarding the use of particular teaching strategies. Another important
factor in this process is perceived usefulness (of pedagogical strategies),
especially given its strong and significant relationship with intention, which
emerged in this study, as the strongest predictor of teaching practice. Perceptions
(or beliefs) about self-efficacy and usefulness are modifiable; they should be a
focus of professional development programs aimed at facilitating the adoption and
use of reform-based pedagogical practices.
The Use of MDS (Multidimensional Scaling)
The plausible two-dimensional structure underlying this teaching-practice scale
emerged from non-metric (monotonic or ordinal) multidimensional scaling
(MDS), with Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) as the input measure of
proximity. The non-metric MDS algorithm transforms the proximity data (r) into
quasi-Euclidean distances, which preserve the rank-order of the proximity data
(Coxon 1982; Borg and Groenen 1997). Hence an ordinal transformation of the
data is carried out. These distances are then represented in a low-dimensional
geometric space as a map or configuration, resulting in solutions that tend to be
more parsimonious, interpretable, and meaningful than those obtained from
standard Factor Analysis (FA). Also, if Factor Analysis proceeds from measures
such as Pearson’s r rather than the original scores, then a non-metric analysis
cannot be performed due to the problem of communalities, and Kruskal and
Shepard (1974) have moreover shown that the non-linearity permitted by the
monotone function can actually give a better solution.
Indeed, given the ordinal nature of these data (obtained from Likert-type
scales), as well as our understanding of psychological processes and behavioral
phenomena (as being largely non-linear), a statistical model other than a non-
metric variant could be deemed tenuous. Accordingly, the use of non-metric MDS
(with Pearson’s r) is a more conservative data analytic approach than any of the
standard forms of FA. This statistical methodology is therefore a key strength of
this study, and the size (n =227) and type of sample (purposive) can help to assure
replicability and stability of this scale structure. Further research could utilize
INDSCAL (Individual Differences Scaling; Carroll and Chang 1970), a three-way
weighted MDS model to determine subgroup differences with regard to the
salience (weights) attributed to the dimensions underlying teaching practice
(Coxon 1982). Subgroup variability in terms of underlying dimensionality of
teaching practice should also be explored.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 19

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Psychometric Properties of the Teaching-Practice Scale

Reliability. Critical to the use of any instrument or scale are its psychometric
properties, namely reliability and validity, and based on the evidence from this
study, acceptable levels of both properties have been obtained. While the
Cronbach’s alphas for the overall scale (.6) and the subscales (behaviorist = .61,
constructivist = .66) are less than the usual minimum (albeit sometimes
mechanical) standard of .7, other criteria are more pertinent to the evaluation of
internal consistency (reliability), in this context. This is particularly so, given that
the (overall) scale is not unidimensional, that both subscales consist of just five
items each, and that this is an initial exploratory study. These additional criteria,
which are based on the mean inter-item correlations, as well as the range of the
individual inter-item correlations (Briggs and Cheek 1986; Clark and Watson
1995), were adequately met, and are presented and explained above (see Table 2).
Furthermore, the utility of this scale is strengthened by the comprehensive and
scientific methodology that was used for content coverage, and the resulting
meaningful items. In this regard, national and international experts (in statistics
education and psychometrics) served as content specialists. It is also worth noting
that it is not uncommon to encounter major studies (Clarke and Watson 1995;
Leonhard et al. 2000; Cruise et al. 2006; Kahveci 2009) that have invoked and
used Nunnally’s (1967, p. 226) suggestion that reliability values of .5 or .6 are
acceptable in the early stages of research, as well as Loewenthal’s (1996)
recommendation that a reliability level of .6 may be considered acceptable for
scales with fewer than 10 items.
Validity. Undoubtedly, the greatest strength of this study is in demonstrating
acceptable construct (specifically, criterion) validity of the newly developed scale
(TISS). Toward this end, the attitude-practice relationship was explored based on
theoretical understanding (particularly, the TRA and TPB), and empirical data
that attitudes are predispositions to act favorably or unfavorably, and hence are
necessary to predict and explain behavior (practice). As shown in Table 3, the
correlation coefficients for the bivariate relationships between total attitude (and
subscale) scores and teaching-practice score are moderate to large (Cohen 1988),
and consistent with major attitude-behavior research (Ajzen and Fishbein 2004;
Schwartz 2007). Moreover, the five attitude subscales together accounted for 28%
(R2) of the variance in teaching practice (see Table 4) which is among the higher
values of R2 that have been reported for attitude-behavior research premised on
the TRA and TPB (Armitage and Conner 1999; Ajzen and Fishbein 2004).
Additionally, the R2 value of 28%, obtained in this study, parallels the average R2
of 27% from a major authoritative meta-analysis of 185 independent attitude-
behavior studies guided by the TPB model (Armitage and Conner 1999; Armitage
and Christian 2003; Ajzen and Fishbein 2004).

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 20
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Another finding that enhances the construct validity of this scale is the
emergence of intention as the strongest predictor of teaching practice, which is
theoretically and empirically well established in attitude-behavior research
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen 1991; Armitage and Conner 1999; Ajzen and
Fishbein 2004). In general, the validity coefficients (r and R2) obtained in this
study are relatively substantial in the attitude-behavior context, and in this regard,
one aspect of this study methodology warrants emphasis. According to Ajzen and
Fishbein (1977) attitude is a stronger predictor of behavior when the measures of
attitude and behavior correspond in specificity, regarding target, action, context
and time. This principle was a key design feature of this study, in that attitude and
practice items were concurrently measured, and framed with reference to the
teaching of introductory statistics in the health and behavioral sciences at the
tertiary level, using the concept-based or reform-oriented pedagogy (considered
an innovative teaching approach).
Worthy of note, is the seemingly counter-intuitive observation that two of the
attitude subscales, perceived usefulness and perceived difficulty (ease of use),
were not statistically significant independent predictors of teaching practice
(Table 4). Similar observations regarding perceived difficulty have been reported
by Wallace et al. (2005) and Kaiser and Schultz (2009). Specifically, Wallace et
al. (2005) concluded from a major meta-analysis that “one intriguing and
unexpected finding” was that perceived difficulty did not moderate the attitude-
behavior relationship regarding both self-reported and directly observed
behaviors. Nonetheless, both perceived usefulness and perceived difficulty are
generally considered conceptually relevant to attitude formation and the
prediction of behavior (practice). Therefore, it is prudent to make a distinction
between predicting and explaining behavior or practice (Cook and Campbell
1979; Asher 1997), especially recognizing that “a multiple regression equation,
although succinct, may suppress useful explanatory relationships” (Asher 1997, p.
7). Accordingly, while these two attitude subscales are not significant predictors
of practice (in this context), the results of this analysis should not be interpreted as
indicating that perceived usefulness and perceived difficulty are not important in
explaining and understanding the theory underlying the overall model (Asher,
1997; Ajzen 2002). The relationship that each of these two subscales has with
other variables (which emerged as significant predictors of practice) must be
considered, particularly, perceived usefulness and intention (r = .7), and perceived
difficulty and personal teaching efficacy (r = .4). This could suggest the presence
of nested, higher-order or hierarchical factors, which should be hypothesized and
explored.
While attitude is generally conceptualized as necessary for meaningful
explanation and prediction of behavior (or practice), it is clearly not sufficient in
this regard. In this study (and based on multiple regression analysis), attitude

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 21

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

toward teaching accounted for 28% (R2) of the variance in teaching practice,
leaving a large proportion of the variance unexplained or unaccounted for.
However, such model performance is not uncommon in the behavioral sciences,
and this level of R2 is considered acceptable, particularly for a single predictor
construct. For example, Ajzen and Fishbein (2004, p. 433), in commenting on two
attitude-behavior models with R2 values of 21% and 31% (Armitage and Conner
1999), noted that they accounted for “considerable variance.” Nonetheless, other
factors, including possible moderating and mediating variables (Armitage and
Christian 2003; Schwartz 2007), should be explored toward improving the
predictive value of this attitude-practice model.
Correlates of Teaching Practice
Finally, as noted above, the observed variability in teaching practice with regard
to location, highest academic degree concentration, and membership status in
professional organizations, should be viewed as tentative, given the non-
probability nature of the sample, which could have compromised
representativeness, and therefore limit external validity or generalizability. Also,
the practical significance of these findings must be carefully evaluated with
reference to the size of the overall sample and subsamples. Notwithstanding these
concerns, these results are interesting and plausible; they hold much potential for
informing the statistics education community regarding facilitating and inhibiting
factors for reform-based teaching of introductory statistics, and should be further
explored with an appropriate sample. Note that the issue of representativeness
regarding the correlates of teaching practice does not apply to the teaching-
practice scale per se. Representativeness in the context of scale development
research does not follow conventional wisdom; that is, the goal is not to closely
represent any defined population but to ensure that those who are likely to score
high and those who are likely to score low are well represented. This was
achieved with the purposive sample used in this study (Gorsuch 1997).

Conclusions
This initial exploratory study examined the teaching practices of college
instructors of introductory statistics from the health and behavioral sciences.
Using primarily multidimensional scaling (MDS) techniques, a two-dimensional,
ten-item teaching-practice scale was developed, and acceptable levels of
reliability and validity were demonstrated. This scale will be referred to as TISS
(Teaching of Introductory Statistics Scale). The two teaching dimensions
(subscales) are characterized as constructivist (reform-oriented, student-centered,
and active learning), and behaviorist (traditional, instructor-centered, and passive
learning); they are orthogonal. Further research will be required in order to be

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 22
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

conclusive about the structural and psychometric properties of this scale. Also,
this study examined internal consistency (reliability), and not test-retest
reliability, which should be assessed in order to determine the stability of the scale
over time. Indeed, this new scale (TISS), will allow us to empirically assess and
describe the pedagogical approach (teaching practice) of instructors of
introductory statistics in the health and behavioral sciences, at the college level,
and determine what learning outcomes result from the different teaching-practice
orientations.

Acknowledgments
This study had widespread support from the statistics education community
(nationally and internationally). Special thanks to all the respondents from 24
countries, the Administrations of Mercy College and Hunter College, members of
the ASA/MAA Joint Committee on Undergraduate Statistics, and to the
following, who served as either content experts and/or provided feedback at
various stages of this study: Martin Bland (UK), Paul J. Fields (USA), Joan
Garfield (USA), Cyndy Long (USA), Anne Porter (Australia), Candace Schau
(USA), W. Robert Stephenson (USA), Dirk Tempelaar (the Netherlands), and Jeff
Witmer (USA). To Dr. Edith Neumann and Dr. Frank Gomez, thanks for your
guidance and support over the years. Also, I extend my sincere appreciation to
Gerald Iacullo for his help. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Anthony Coxon for his
expert advice on Multidimensional Scaling, and continued mentorship. Finally, I
wish to thank the Numeracy reviewers and editor assigned to this paper for the
helpful feedback and guidance that made possible the publication of this study.

Appendix: The FATS©

The Faculty Attitudes Toward Statistics scale (FATS©) was developed and
initially validated concurrently with the teaching-practice scale (Hassad and
Coxon 2007; Hassad 2007). The FATS© was developed to measure instructors’
attitudes toward concept-based (reform-oriented or constructivist) teaching of
introductory statistics in the health and behavioral sciences at the college level. It
consists of five subscales with a total of 25 items, and an overall Cronbach’s
alpha (internal consistency) of .89. Further evidence of the psychometric
worthiness of the FATS© is presented by McGowan (2009).
Attitude was conceptualized and defined as an evaluative disposition toward
some object based upon cognitions, affective reactions, and behavioral intentions.
In other words, attitude is an informed predisposition to respond. According to
the tripartite attitude theory, attitude is composed of three dimensions: beliefs,
affect (feelings), and a readiness or intent for action (Smith 1947; Rosenberg and

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 23

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Hovland 1960; Oppenheim 1982; Zimbardo and Leippe 1991; Jaccard and
Blanton 2005). The five attitude components or subscales encompass cognition,
affect and intentionality, consistent with the tripartite attitude theory, and are
detailed in Table A1. Additionally, the FATS© is grounded in the Theory of
Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), the
Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen 1991), and the “Stages of Concern”
component of the Concerns Based Adoption Model (Hall and Hord 1987), with
attention to change and innovation.
Responses are obtained on a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. A
composite attitude score is calculated by summing the values of the 25 items, with
a possible maximum score of 125. All “negatively” worded items (indicated with
an asterisk in the table) must be reverse-coded so that for all items, higher values
indicate a more positive attitude toward reform-oriented pedagogy. Note that
either reform-oriented or constructivist can be substituted for concept-based.

Table A1
The Faculty Attitudes Toward Statistics (FATS©) Scale
Perceived Usefulness: Beliefs about the value, benefit or worth of the concept-based approach to the
teaching of introductory statistics (7 items, alpha = .85).
1. The concept-based approach to teaching introductory statistics (rather than emphasizing calculations and
formulas) makes students better prepared for work.
2. The concept-based approach to teaching introductory statistics (rather than emphasizing calculations and
formulas) makes students better prepared for further studies.
3. *Emphasizing concepts and applications in the introductory statistics course (rather than calculations and
formulas) is a disservice to our students.
4. *The concept-based approach to teaching introductory statistics is for low achievers only.
5. The concept-based approach to teaching introductory statistics enables students to understand research.
6. I am convinced that the concept-based approach to teaching introductory statistics enhances learning.
7. Teaching introductory statistics using the concept-based approach is likely to be a positive experience for me.
Personal Teaching Efficacy: Beliefs about one’s capability to successfully use the concept-based approach
to teach introductory statistics (5 items, alpha = .77).
1. I will adjust easily to teaching introductory statistics using the concept-based approach.
2. *Concept-based teaching of introductory statistics may be problematic for me.
3. *I do not understand how to organize my introductory statistics course to achieve statistical literacy.
4. *Teaching introductory statistics with emphasis on concepts and their applications (rather than calculations and
formulas) may be stressful for me.
5. *I am concerned that using the concept-based approach to teach introductory statistics may result in me being
poorly evaluated by my students.
Perceived Difficulty: Beliefs about the ease of use, or effort involved in using the concept-based approach to
teach introductory statistics (3 items, alpha = .65).
1. *Teaching introductory statistics with emphasis on concepts and applications rather than calculations and
formulas, can be time consuming.
2. *The preparation required to teach introductory statistics using the concept-based approach is burdensome.
3. *Using active learning strategies (such as projects, group discussions, oral and written presentations) in the
introductory statistics course can make classroom management difficult.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 24
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Avoidance-Approach: Positive and negative feelings (affect), inclination, proclivity or propensity toward
using the concept-based pedagogy to teach introductory statistics (5 items, alpha = .69).
1. *I am not comfortable using computer applications to teach introductory statistics.
2. Using computers to teach introductory statistics makes learning fun.
3. *I will avoid using computers in my introductory statistics course.
4. I will incorporate active learning strategies (such as projects, hands-on data analysis, critiquing research articles,
and report writing) into my introductory statistics course.
5. *I am hesitant to use computers in my introductory statistics class without the help of a teaching assistant.
Behavioral Intention: Likelihood of using the concept-based pedagogy to teach introductory statistics (5
items, alpha = .85).
1. I am engaged in the teaching of introductory statistics using the concept-based approach.
2. I am interested in using the concept-based approach to teach introductory statistics.
3. I want to learn more about the concept-based approach to teaching introductory statistics.
4. *Using the concept-based approach to teach introductory statistics is not a priority for me.
5. I plan on teaching introductory statistics according to the concept-based approach.

References
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2): 179−211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T
———. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory
of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 665−683.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
———, and M. Fishbein.1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84: 888−918.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
———.1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
———. 2004. Questions raised by a reasoned action approach: Comment on Ogden
(2003). Health Psychology, 23(4): 431−434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-
6133.23.4.431
Albarracin, D., B.T. Johnson, M. Fishbein, and P.A. Muellerleile. 2001. Theories of
reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta- analysis.
Psychology Bulletin, 127(1): 142−161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.127.1.142
Armitage, C. J., and J. Christian. 2003. From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied
research on the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 22(3), 187−195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
003-1015-5
Armitage, C. J., and M. Conner. 1999. The theory of planned behaviour: Assessment of
predictive validity and “perceived control.” British Journal of Social Psychology,
38: 35−54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466699164022
Asher, J. W. 1997. The role of measurement, some statistics, and some factor analysis in
family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 11(3): 351−360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.11.3.351

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 25

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

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.
Belar, C. 2003. Training for evidence-based practice. APA Monitor on Psychology, 34
(5): 56.
Borg, I., and P. Groenen.1997. Modern multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Briggs, S. R., and J. M. Cheek. 1986. The role of factor analysis in the development and
evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality,54(1):106−148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
Brooks, J. G. and M. G. Brooks.1993. In search of understanding: The case for
constructivist classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. Alexandria, VA.
Byrne, B. M. 2001. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cacioppo, J. T., W. L. Gardner, and G. G. Berntson.1997. Beyond bipolar
conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(1): 3−25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2
Caprio, M. 1994. Easing into constructivism. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(6):
210−212.
Carmines, E. G., and R. A. Zeller.1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Carroll, J. D., and J.J. Chang. 1970. Analysis of individual differences in
multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young”
decomposition. Psychometrika, 35: 283−319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310791
Clark, L. A., and D. Watson. 1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 309−319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Cobb, G. W. 1992. Teaching statistics. In Heeding the call for change: Suggestions for
curricular action, ed. L. Steen, MAA Notes, No. 22, 3−43.
Cobb, P. 1994. Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7): 13−20.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nded.). Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Comrey, A. L., and H. B. Lee. 1992. A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Cook, T. D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis
issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Coxon, A. P. M. 1982. The user’s guide to multidimensional scaling. London:
Heinemann Educational Books.
———. 2004. Multidimensional Scaling. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science
Research Methods, ed. M.S. Lewis-Beck, et al. London: Sage Publications.
——— et al. 2010. NewMDSX: The User Manual. http://www.newmdsx.com

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 26
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

(accessed May 12, 2011).

Cronbach, L. J. 1947. Test “reliability”: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika,
12: 1−16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02289289
———. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3):
297−334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
———, and P.C. Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52: 281-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Cruise, S. M., C. A. Lewis, and C. McGuckin. 2006. Internal reliability and temporal
stability of the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire short-form: Test-retest data over
two weeks. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(2): 123−126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.123
Davis, F., R. Bagozzi, and R. Warshaw.1989. User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35: 982-1003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Dennen, V. P. 2004. Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on
scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, ed. D. H.
Jonassen, 813−828. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NJ.
delMas, R. C., J. Garfield, and B. Chance. 1999. A model of classroom research in
action: Developing simulation activities to improve students' statistical reasoning.
Journal of Statistics Education,7(3).
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/secure/v7n3/delmas.cfm (accessed January
12, 2011).
delMas, R., J. Garfield, A. Ooms, and B. Chance. 2006. Assessing students’ conceptual
understanding after a first course in statistics. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting
of The American Educational Research Association (AERA). San Francisco, CA.
DeVellis, R. F. 2003. Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Erlandson, D. A., E. L. Harris, B. Skipper, and S. D. Allen.1993. Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fabrigar, L. R., D. T. Wegener, and R. C. MacCallum. 1999. Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3):
272−299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fitzgerald, L. F., and L. J. Hubert.1987. Multidimensional scaling: Some possibilities for
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4): 469−480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.469
Floyd, F. J., and K. F. Widaman. 1995. Factor analysis in the development and
refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3):
286−299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
Fosnot, C. T. 1996. Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, Vol. I. New
York: Teachers College Press.
———. 2005. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, Vol. II. New York:

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 27

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Teachers College Press.

——— et al. 2007. Contexts for learning mathematics, K-6, Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann Press and Harcourt School Publishers.
Franklin, C., and J. Garfield. 2006. The GAISE project: developing statistics education
guidelines for pre K-12 and college courses. In Thinking and reasoning with data
and chance, ed. G. F. Burrill and P.C. Elliot, 345−375. NCTM Yearbook.
http://www.amstat.org/Education/gaise/GAISECollege.htm (accessed January 12,
2011).
Froelich, A., W. R. Stephenson, and W. Duckworth. 2008. Assessment of materials for
engaging students in statistical discovery. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(2).
www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v16n2/froelich.html (accessed January 12, 2011).
Gal, I. 2000. Statistical literacy: Conceptual and instructional issues. In Perspectives on
adults learning mathematics, ed. D. Coben, J. O’Donoghue, and G. E. Fitzsimons,
135-150. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Garfield, J. 1993. Teaching statistics using small-group cooperative learning. Journal of
Statistics Education, 1(1). http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v1n1/garfield.html
(accessed January 12, 2011).
———, and D. Ben-Zvi. 2007. How students learn statistics revisited: A current review
of research on teaching and learning statistics. International Statistical Review,
75(3): 372−396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2007.00029.x
———. 2009. Helping students develop statistical reasoning: Implementing a statistical
reasoning learning environment. Teaching Statistics, 31(3): 72−77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9639.2009.00363.x
Garfield, J., B. Hogg, C. Schau, and D. Whittinghill. 2002. First courses in statistical
science: The status of educational reform efforts. Journal of Statistics Education,
10(2). http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v10n2/garfield.html (accessed January
12, 2011).
Gorsuch, R. L. 1983. Factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
———. 1997. Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68(3): 532−560.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6803_5
Green, B.F. 1978. In defense of measurement. American Psychologist, 33: 664−670.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.7.664
Green, J. J., C. C. Stone, A. Zegeye, and T. A. Charles. 2009. How much math do
students need to succeed in business and economics statistics? An ordered probit
analysis. Journal of Statistics Education, 17(3).
www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n3/green.html (accessed January 12, 2011).
Hall, G., and S. Hord. 1987. Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Handal, B. 2003. Profiling teachers: Constructivist- and behaviorist-oriented
mathematics. The International Online Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 3.
Hassad, R. A. 2003. Teaching introductory statistics in the social and behavioral sciences
– Approach and rationale. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 28
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Joint Statistical Meetings. San Francisco, CA.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED506521.pdf (accessed January 12, 2011).
———. 2006. Reflection on training, experience, and introductory statistics: A mini-
survey of tertiary level statistics instructors. In Proceedings of the ISI-IASE
International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS-7), ed. A. Rossman and B.
Chance. Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/17/C141.pdf (accessed January
12, 2011).
———. 2007. Development and validation of a scale for measuring instructors' attitudes
toward concept-based or reform-oriented teaching of introductory statistics in the
health and behavioral sciences. PhD dissertation, Touro University International.
———. 2009. Reform-oriented teaching of introductory statistics in the health, social and
behavioral sciences – Historical context and rationale. International Journal of
Human and Social Sciences, 4(2): 132−137.
http://www.waset.org/journals/ijhss/v4/v4-2-17.pdf (accessed January 12, 2011).
———. 2010. Toward improving The quality of doctoral education: A focus on statistics,
research methods, and dissertation supervision. In Proceedings of the ISI-IASE
International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS-8), ed. C. Reading.
Ljubljana, Slovenia.
http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/icots8/ICOTS8_C121_HASSAD.
pdf (accessed January 12, 2011).
———, and A. P. M. Coxon 2007. Development and validation of a scale to measure
instructors’ attitudes toward concept-based teaching of introductory statistics in the
health and behavioral sciences at the tertiary level. In Proceedings of the
International Statistical Institute (ISI), 56th Session. Lisbon, Portugal.
http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/isi56/CPM81_Hassad.pdf
(accessed January 12, 2011).
Haynes, S. N., D. R. Richard, and E. S. Kubany. 1995. Content validity in psychological
assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological
Assessment, 7(3): 238−247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
Hogue, A., H. A. Liddle, A. Singer, and J. Leckrone. 2005. Intervention fidelity in
family-based prevention counseling for adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of
Community Psychology, 33(2): 191−211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20031
Jaccard, J., and H. Blanton. 2005. The origins and structure of behavior: Conceptualizing
behavior in attitude research: In Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change, ed. D.
Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jaworska, N., and A. Chupetlovska‐Anastasova. 2009. A review of multidimensional
scaling (MDS) and its utility in various psychological domains. Tutorials in
Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 5(1): 1–10.
Jenkins, O. F. 2010. Developing teachers’ knowledge of students as learners of
mathematics through structured interviews. J Math Teacher Educ, 13(2):141–154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9129-9
Kahveci, A. 2009. Exploring chemistry teacher candidates’ profile characteristics,
teaching attitudes and beliefs, and chemistry conceptions. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,
10(2): 109–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b908248b

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 29

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Kaiser, F. G., and P. W. Schultz. 2009. The attitude-behavior relationship: A test of three
models of the moderating role of behavioral difficulty. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(1): 186−207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2008.00435.x
Kline, T. 2005. Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kloeblen, A. S., and S. S. Batish.1999. Understanding the intention to permanently
follow a high folate diet among a sample of low-income pregnant women according
to the Health Belief Model. Health Educ. Res, 14(3): 327−338.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/14.3.327
Kruskal, J. B., and R. N. Shepard. 1974. A nonmetric variety of linear factor analysis,
Psychometrika, 39 (2): 123−157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291465
Kruskal, J. B., and M. Wish. 1978. Multidimensional Scaling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leonhard, C., K. Mulvey, D. R. Gastfriend, and M. Shwartz. 2000. The addiction severity
index: A field study of internal consistency and validity. Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment, 18(2): 129−35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(99)00025-2
Leont'ev, A. N. 1972. The problem of activity in psychology. Voprosy filosofii, 9:
95−108.
Liu, C. H., and R. Matthews. 2005. Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its
criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6(3): 386−399.
Loewenthal, K. M. 1996. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. London:
UCL Press Limited. Lord, F. M., and M.R. Novick. 1968. Statistical theories of
mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Luft, J. A., and G. H. Roehrig. 2007. Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs:
The development of the Teacher Beliefs Interview. Electronic Journal of Science
Education, 11(2): 38−63. http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7794 (accessed
January 12, 2011).
Maclnnes, D. 2003. Evaluating an assessment scale of irrational beliefs for people with
mental health problems. Nurse Researcher, 10(4): 53−67.
Meehl, P. E. 1954. Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a
review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11281-000
McGowan. H. M. 2009. Experimentation Methodologies for Educational Research with
an Emphasis on the Teaching of Statistics. PhD Dissertation, University of
Michigan.
Mills, J. D. 2002. Using computer simulation methods to teach statistics: A review of the
literature. Journal of Statistics Education,10(1).
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v10n1/mills.html (accessed January 12,
2011).
Moore, D.S. 1998. Statistics among the liberal arts. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 93(444): 1253-1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2670040
Muldoon, M. F., S. Barger, J. Flory, and S. Manuck. 1998. What are quality of life
measurements measuring? British Medical Journal, 316 (7130): 542−545.

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 30
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

Mvududu, N. 2003. A cross-cultural study of the connection between students' attitudes

toward statistics and the use of constructivist strategies in the course. Journal of
Statistics Education, 11(3).
http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v11n3/mvududu.html (accessed January 12,
2011).
Nunnally, J. C. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
———. 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
———, and I. H. Bernstein.1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Oppenheim, B. 1982. An exercise in attitude measurement. In Social psychology: A
practical manual, ed. G.M. Breakwell, H. Foot, and R. Gilmour. London:
Macmillan Press.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pecore, J. 2009. A case study of secondary teachers facilitating a historical problem-
based learning instructional unit. PhD dissertation, Georgia State University.
Piaget, J. 1950. The psychology of intelligence. London. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
———. 1967. Biologie et connaissance (Biology and knowledge). Paris: Gallimard.
———. 1977. Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge. NewYork:
Penguin.
Ravitz, J.L., H.J. Becker, and Y. Wong. 2000. Constructivist compatible beliefs and
practices among U.S. teachers. Teaching, Learning and Computing Report 4.
University of California.
Riel, M., and H. Becker. 2000. The beliefs, practices, and computer use of teacher
leaders. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (AERA). New Orleans.
Robinson, J. P., P. R. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman. 1991. Measures of personality and
social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M., and C. Hovland. 1960. Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of
attitudes. In Attitude organization and change, ed. C. I. Hovland and M. J.
Rosenberg, 1−14. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Roskam, E. E. 1972. MDS by metric transformation of the data. Psychologie, 27.
———, and J. C. Lingoes. 1970. Minissa-I: A FORTRAN IV (G) program for the
smallest space analysis of square symmetric matrices. Behavioral Science, 15:
204−205.
Russell, D.W. 2002. In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor
analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(12): 1629−1646.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616702237645
Schmitt, N. 1996. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha, Psychological Assessment, 8(4):
350−353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
Schwarz, N. 2007. Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25 (5):
638−656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638
Shulman, L.S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational
Researcher, 15(2): 4−14.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 31

 Numeracy, Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 2, Art. 7

Singer, J., and J. Willett. 1993. Lessons we can learn from recent research on teaching:
It's not just the form, it's the authenticity. In Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association Joint Statistical Meetings. San Francisco, CA.
Skinner, B. F. 1974. About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Skemp, R. R. 1987. The psychology of learning mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: NJ Hillsdale.
Smith, M. B. 1947. The personal setting of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11:
507−23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2745499
Spence, I. 1979. A simple approximation for random rankings stress values. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 14: 355−365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1403_5
Steen, L. A., ed. 2004. Achieving quantitative literacy: An urgent challenge for higher
education. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Steinhorst, R. K., and C. M. Keeler. 1995. Developing material for introductory statistics
courses from a conceptual, active learning viewpoint. Journal of Statistics
Education, 3(2). http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v3n3/steinhorst.html
(accessed January 12, 2011).
Streiner, D. L., and G. R. Norman. 1989. Health measurement scales: A practical guide
to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, S., and P. A. Todd. 1995. Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2):144−176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Thompson, P. W. (2000). Radical constructivism: Reflections and directions. In Radical
constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld,
ed. P. Steffe, and P. W. Thompson, 412−448. London: Falmer Press.
Trigwell, K., and M. Prosser. 2004. Development and use of the approaches to teaching
inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4): 409−424.
Tschannen-Moran, M., C. Uline, A. W. Hoy, and T. Mackley. 2000. Creating smarter
schools through collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(3):
247−271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230010342312
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science,
46:186−205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Viswanathan, M. 2005. Measurement Error and Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
von Glasersfeld, E. 1987. Learning as a constructive activity. In Problems of
representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, ed. C. Janvier, 3−17.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and language. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
———. 1978. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, D. S., R. M. Paulson, C. G. Lord, and C. F. Bond. 2005. Which behaviors do
attitudes predict? Meta-analyzing the effects of social pressure and perceived

https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/numeracy/vol4/iss2/art7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.4.2.7 32
 Hassad: A Teaching Practice Scale for Introductory Statistics

difficulty. Review of General Psychology, 9(3): 214−227.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.214
Woolley, S. L., W. J. Benjamin, and A. W. Woolley. 2004. Construct validity of a self-
report measure of teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches
to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2):
319−331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164403261189
Yu, C. H. 2001. An introduction to computing and interpreting Cronbach coefficient
alpha in SAS. In Proceedings of 26th SAS User Group International Conference.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Zimbardo, P.G., and M.R. Leippe. 1991. The psychology of attitude change and social
influence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Published by Scholar Commons, 2011 33

 Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://ijep.hipatiapress.com

From Constructivism to Dialogism in the Classroom. Theory and

Learning Environments

Roseli Rodrigues de Mello 1

1 ) Universidade Federal de São Carlos

Date of publication: June 24th, 201 2

To cite this article: Mello, R.R. (201 2). From Constructivism to Dialogism in
the Classroom. Theory and Learning Environments. International Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1(2), 1 27-1 52. doi: 1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.08
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System
and to Creative Commons Non-Commercial and Non-Derivative License.
IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology Vol. 1 No. 2
June 2012 pp. 127-152

From Constructivism to
Dialogism in the Classroom.
Theory and Learning
Environments
Roseli Rodrigues de Mello
Federal University ofSão Carlos, FAPESP - CNPq

Abstract
This paper discusses the move from learning theories from the industrial society to
learning theories from and for dialogic societies. While in the past intra-
psychological elements, such as mental schemata of prior knowledge, were the key
to explain learning, today theories point to interaction and dialogue as main means
for achieving deep understandings of the curriculum. Concepts arising from
psychology and sociology are essential to understand this new conceptualization of
learning: dialogic learning, which implies a historico-cultural analysis of mind and
the concept of communicative action. This dialogic turn in the explanation of
learning has also found its manifestation in classrooms. The Interactive Groups is
one learning environment grounded in the theory of dialogic learning which leads
to improved academic achievement and coexistence. The article points out some of
the dialogic elements of Interactive Groups which explain those results, illustrating
how the dialogic construction of knowledge can be favored in classrooms
worldwide.
Keywords: interaction, group work, constructivism, dialogic learning,
interactive groups.

2012 Hipatia Press

ISSN 2014-3591
DOI: 10.4471/ijep.2012.08
128 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

T he organization of classrooms, since the school became part of

educational systems, has assumed important variations
according to the evolution of societies and learning theories
(Aubert, Flecha, Garcia, Flecha & Racionero, 2008). Taking educational
approaches mainly grounded in knowledge produced by psychology, we
highlight three schools of thought that have influenced school practices
since the second half of the 20th century.
  In the first school of thought we find psychological theories that see
learning as something that results from and depends on “suitable” and
“advanced” models of thinking and behavior, models embodied in the
figure of the teacher or specialist. In this perspective, programming of
the exposure, relationships, materials, and interactions discourages
alternatives of group work or of interaction among peers in the
classroom, except in the form of tutoring. In interactions between peers,
the more advanced student would serve as a parameter for the less
advanced one, and would thus be a source for the other to learn. It is
assumed that the most capable will never benefit from the interaction,
but indeed would run the risk of regressing (Rosenthal & Zimmerman,
1972). Knowledge, understood as originating from a single stable and
authoritative source, passes through the scrutiny of the teacher, a stable
agent of authority, to be learned by each student. Also, it is considered
that all students should reach the same learning port.

Figure 1 . Vertical diagram of knowledge-teacher-student relationship. 1

 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 129

Later, in a different direction and concerned with the study and

understanding of the processes of signification typical of human
cognition, constructivist approaches began to strongly affect the
organization of schools and classrooms (Lima, 1990). As a whole,
constructivist theories have shown that several sources of knowledge
and different experiences are at play in a classroom, and that the teacher
must stop assuming the role of a filter of knowledge to be conveyed to
the student, or of an organizer of the learning material to be used by the
individual student, adopting, instead, the role of organizer of the
students’ relationship with knowledge and with each other. Starting from
very different assumptions about intelligence, and thus producing very
dissimilar theories and equally divergent school outcomes, we begin by
discussing two constructivist theories, the Piagetian and the Ausubelian,
which share a common vision of intelligence as something individual,
but which differ from each other in their constitution.
  In Piaget’s constructivist theory, the structures and functions of
human development are universal, occurring in unalterable sequential
stages, with individuals varying only in their pace of learning according
to their interactions with the physical and social environment (Piaget,
1987; Flavell, 1988). This pace can be modified by interaction among
peers whose levels of learning differ from each other (Perret-Clermont,
1980; Perret-Clermont & Schubauer-Leoni, 1981). Also, the starting and
ending points, even at different paces, are common to everyone.
  In the Ausubelian perspective, individual intelligence is determined
by the individual’s social background (including his or her cultural,
racial and gender origins), which would determine his or her greater or
lesser propensity for school learning, since each new lesson learned
depends on existing prior knowledge to which the new lesson can be
linked (Ausubel, 1968; Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian, 1980). Thus,
intelligence is equated with schooled ways of thinking, which posits
socially marginalized groups as groups that are less capable (Valencia &
Suzuky, 2011). It would be up to the teacher or teachers to prepare the
lesson, the training courses, or the instructional material based on two
elements: the student’s level of prior knowledge and the structure of the
contents to be learned, organizing the classroom based on meaningful
learning by transmission on behalf of the teacher or by discovery. In the
130 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

Ausubelian perspective, it is primarily individual programs based on

each student’s prior knowledge which are most valued. Group work
choices may consider the possibility of joining students who share the
same type of origin, experience and levels of ability in the same
classroom, or setting up different classrooms according to ability level.
Considering that students have unequal starting points, it is expected
that the points of arrival will be unequal as well. All research on ability
grouping has demonstrated such student grouping to be ineffective in
raising the levels of achievement of the less advantaged (INCLUD-ED
Consortiu, 2009; Oakes, 1985).
  According to the Piagetian and Ausubelian constructivist theories,
scientific/academic knowledge synthesizes reality, but its apprehension
is determined by the student’s interpretative ability. In other words, the
student grasps and learns knowledge: a) according to the consecutive
and universal stages of development; b) depending on his or her group
of origin and intrinsic motivation; c) through the stage at which he or
she is, and d) in a manner determined by the starting cognitive point. In
this framework, interactions serve to generate cognitive conflict
between peers at the same developmental stage or at the border between
two stages (Ferreiro, 2001). Such interactions serve for adaptation
between peers at similar levels who collaborate with one another, or
between peers at unequal levels to motivate the less advanced through a
more affective than cognitive effect. Overall, both approaches, illustrate
that in the constructivist school of thought of psychology we move from
a vertical diagram of the relationship between knowledge, teacher and
student, to a triangular diagram of relationships, which has been known
as “interactive triangle” (See Figure 2).
More recently, delving deeper into the relationship between know-
ledge and meaning, principally under the influence of the Soviet school,
constructivist approaches of psychology have focused on the study of
the relationship between meaning and sense in learning processes,
which has led constructivist scholars to point to the need to consider
dialogic and communicative perspectives of interactions.
Referring to this process, Zittoun, Mirza & Perret-Clermont (2007)
point out that the criticisms of the Piagetian theory about the insufficient
attention to the cultural aspects of human development led Piaget
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 131

Figure 2. Interactive Triangle of the two-way relationship knowledge-teacher-

student. 2

himself to engage in new studies in different cultures (Piaget, 1966).

Clinical trials about conservation (quantity, mass and volume) became a
focal point in psychology, to verify the universality of the structures of
thought, and were recognized as the most suitable model for the study of
intelligence in different cultures. Under theoretical and methodological
criticisms (Cole & Scribner, 1974), researchers in the so-called
transcultural or intercultural studies area produced a body of knowledge
that led to the advancement of understanding about psychological
phenomena in relation to cultures which generates specific
significations and meanings. According to Zittoun, Mirza, & Perret-
Clermont (2007), in reference to the methods of investigation and the
results found:
The decentration treated by intercultural research thus reveals a
hitherto invisible dimension: the signification of the task is not given
in itself. The person to whom the task is assigned interprets and
(re)constructs it, making use of his “personal culture,” i.e., the
languages, rules and modes of thought which he grew up with and to
which he has access (p. 67).
Each person’s group of origin and of coexistence are thus considered as
sources and archives of knowledge that are deployed in any action of
the individuals, which give meaning to the other, to his expectations and
132 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

to his actions, thus enabling him to engage in interactions with the

objects in specific activities, or to communicate with others if the task
requires cooperation in the activity. Unlike Ausubel et. al. (1980), who
consider base cultures as subcultures -therefore less complex and
causing environments in which less gifted intelligences are produced-,
intercultural and transcultural studies have brought fundamental
elements of culture as the context for the successful psychological
development of individuals.
  Returning to the Piagetian perspective, the focus of analysis and
understanding lies in the mental structures of the individual, built
through constant interactions with the environment – physical and social
– during his development. The mind of the child is primary and
egocentric and therefore, from this perspective, there is primacy of the
individual in relation to social exchanges and to the cultural
environment.
  In the other position are the sociocultural or historical-cultural
approaches, which consider the human mind as social and cultural
(Vigotski, Luria & Leontiev, 1988). In this perspective, every act of the
child is seen as occurring in an environment built culturally through the
history of humanity (Tomasello, 1999). Thus, social interaction is
constitutive of human development and of the mental processes of
individuals.
Zittoun, Mirza, & Perret-Clermont (2007) organize the productions of
sociocultural or cultural historical approaches, which they call post-
Piagetian, into four distinct perspectives, as follows: (a) one that focuses
on narrations and cultural works (Bruner, 1960, 1983, 1990), (b) one
that focuses on activity as a central concept in the analysis of culture
and mind (Scribner & Cole 1981; James Wertsch, 1991, 2002; Rogoff,
1990, 1995, 1998, 2003; Scribner, 1984), (c) one that focuses on the
semiotic processes (Valsiner, 2000; Abbey, 2006; Lawrence & Valsiner
2003), (d) the one that focuses on dialogic processes, where are grouped
the authors dedicated to the analysis of discursive processes and of
negotiation of understanding and repositioning in group relations
(Pontecorvo, 2004; Clôt, 1999; Rochex,1999; Muller & Perret-
Clermont, 1999).
But what are the consequences of these most recent contributions to
classroom organization and learning processes in school? How do they
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 133

support the social networking that individuals need for their

development? In what follows we will answer this question through
theories related to the concept of dialogic learning.
Dialogic learning: interaction, intersubjectivity
and learning in the information society
In today’s context, the production of academic knowledge is intense as
information is widely disseminated and incorporated into production
systems and social life. The new information and communication
technologies generate networks of creation, diffusion and the
incorporation of knowledge into production processes in real time
(Castells, 1999; Ianni, 2004; Flecha, 2000; Aubert et al, 2008;
Racionero et al, 2012). In the Information Society, having access to
information and 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 in many social spheres. Importantly, the
democratization of the Information Society also depends on all students
developing these abilities.
In addition, in current societies there is a growing demand for
dialogue as a way to negotiate different aspects of life, and as a means
to build coexistence in different social spaces. This phenomenon has
been described as the “dialogic turn” of societies (Flecha, Gómez &
Puigvert, 2001). Violence arises when dialogue is prevented, this
augmenting inequalities. Thus, the incorporation of dialogue in the
construction of better alternatives in society is a requirement to ensure
equal rights and a better life for all. The transformation of school
education in the light of dialogic needs and parameters is the subject of
the next sections of this article.
  The dialogic turn of society has also found expression in learning
theories. In this sense, some scholars talk about a dialogic turn of
educational psychology (Racionero & Padrós, 2011). This turn implies,
on the one hand, placing interaction and dialogue at the center of current
explanations of human learning, and design interactive learning
environments that respond to how people learn in dialogic societies.
134 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

Theoretical ground of dialogic learning environments

An essential view of theories of dialogic teaching and learning is that
mind and cognition develops in social interaction. Vygotsky (1996)
contributes to the understanding that the mind is formed socially,
assuming a movement that is initially interpersonal, and later becomes
intrapersonal. The process of development of each individual takes
place through his relationships with others in his surroundings, with the
more experienced adults in the culture assuming a leading role. Under
the influence of Vygotsky, Bruner (2001) defines culture as “a set of
tools with techniques and procedures to understand his world and deal
with it” (p. 98), or “a way of dealing with human problems: with human
transactions of all types represented by symbols” (p. 99). In providing
this definition, Bruner can be considered one of the leading theoreticians
of the concept of the social mind (Correia, 2003). For him,
communication between individuals in a process of interaction
mobilizes and produces knowledge, because “by making use of
language to achieve their ends, children have more than mastery of a
communication code; they negotiate procedures and meanings and when
they do this, they are learning the path of culture as well as the path of
language” (Alves et. al., 2007, p. 328). Rogoff (1990, 1995, 1998) has
been also central in explaining the role of culture in development; for
her, individual and culture are seen to be in a state of constant
development, dynamically linked and inseparable (Costa & Lira, 2002).
  If intersubjectivity is the basis for the construction of subjectivity and
intelligence, then, interaction is a factor driving development. But are all
types of interactions equally effective in driving learning? What kind of
interaction leads to deeper knowledge construction?
  Habermas (1987) helps us answer this question. It is in the interaction
between different individuals that share unquestionable knowledge
which belongs to the life world and is taken for granted how knowledge
becomes problematized, enabling individuals to think about and
examine it, and then make deliberate choices about its pertinence. Thus,
when their basic knowledge is questioned, individuals feel themselves
challenged, a process that links knowledge creation and interaction to
identity development.
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 135

  Each individual is constituted life worlds, whose knowledge he

constitutes and reproduces, but that is called into question when such
knowledge is removed from the general consensus, a situation only
generated by the interaction between different individuals or by
situations that call what is taken for granted into question. When this
occurs, two paths are possible: conflict – if dialogue between the
individuals cannot be established because there is no will to reach
understanding or communicative consensus – or communicative action,
producing new intersubjective knowledge that allows for joint action in
the shared world. Mind, knowledge and action in the world are thus
permanently constituted in the processes of communicative action
(Habermas, 1987).
  The deep relation between knowledge, its context of production, and
its intended use is emphasized by both Habermas (1987) and Freire
(1970, 1997). However, while Habermas is more concerned with the
rational use that is made of knowledge and of techniques and
technologies, Freire focuses more on the question of purpose of the
production. Freire (1970) offers a critical perspective on knowledge to
be produced, taught and learned, based on for and against what and who
such knowledge is created. Habermas (1987) deposits elements of
criticality in the presence of the greatest possible diversity of people
upon analyzing the efficacy and correctness of the application of
concepts, techniques and technologies to different contexts. The
discussion between different individuals, assuming communicative
rationality in the process of argumentation permeated by pretension of
truth, appropriateness and authenticity is the way to achieve deeper
understandings of reality and the result of reaching a state of
intersubjectivity.
  The concept of intersubjectivity is central to both these theoreticians.
Habermas (1987) and Freire (1997) formulated theories that
ontologically understood the individual and the system/s as inseparable.
This perspective is compatible with psychological theories that consider
mind and intelligence as social, understanding the processes of learning
and subjectivity as intersubjective. Habermas (1987) expresses this
inseparability in the theoretical formulation of the relation between life
world and system. Freire (1997) expresses the dialectics between
individuals and systems by conceptualizing objectivity and subjectivity
136 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

in dialectic relationship, or the link consciousness-world as inseparable.

  In Freire (2003), the concept of “unity in diversity” is central and
embodies the notion that dialogue and unity among different people,
unity in the diversity of their origins and life projects, are necessary to
enable individuals to fight for decent living conditions and to respect
different ways of being. The opposite is what produces inequalities
(Freire, 1970). This analysis shows how society and culture are present
in the constitution of identities. Note that Freire (2003) draws attention
to the fact that multiculturalism is not a “natural” process, but a product
of colonialism, domination, and wars. Hence, to be experienced as a
source of knowledge and human enrichment, a political decision must
be made about how to achieve coexistence and the protection of those
that are different (Mello, 2009a). For Habermas (1987), the coexistence
of different cultures, not just side by side but also with one another,
requires communication between them. The author claims the need for
deliberative democracy to ensure the rights of citizens with different
cultural backgrounds to live under the same rights.
  The concept of dialogic learning (Flecha, 2000; Aubert et. al., 2008)
is strongly underpinned by the aforementioned theories, and joins the
most important interactionist and dialogic contributions from
psychology, anthropology, sociology, pedagogy, etc to explain how
people learn best in current dialogic societies. Dialogic learning takes
place when a series of principles, seven, develop in social interaction,
namely: egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation,
instrumental dimension, creation of meaning, solidarity and equality of
differences.
  Egalitarian dialogue assumes that the statements and propositions of
each participant are considered given the value of their contributions
and not depending on their status in relation to age, profession, gender,
social class, educational level, etc. This makes possible, for example,
that the guide of a non-expert adult becomes acknowledged in the
classroom as central to enhance all children’s school learning (Tellado
& Sava, 2010). Additionally, in environments designed upon the notion
of dialogic learning, participants are often allowed to use their cultural
intelligence (Flecha, 2000), that is, the set of academic, practical, and
communicative abilities, to engage in knowledge construction. But this
occurs in learning environments where three conditions are favored and
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 137

met: a) interactive self-confidence, b) cultural transfer (of non-academic

abilities to academic settings), and c) dialogic creativity (new
knowledge resulting from dialogue that capitalizes on everyone’s
abilities).
  Importantly, by sharing different points of view and ways of solving
problems through dialogue guided by validity claims, , transformation
occurs at two levels: intrapsychological and interpsychologial.
Intrapsychological because though dialogue existing knowledge gets
transformed and expanded. Interpsychological because what is shared
mentally is the result of the addition of every person’s knowledge in
dialogue with the knowledge of the others, which generates a new state
of mind. Overall, dialogic learning is aimed at transformation, personal
and socio-cultural, and not to adaptation.
  Transformation requires emphasis on the instrumental dimension of
dialogue as a means for knowledge making. Such instrumental
dimension refers to those aspects of school knowledge which are
required to trespass the doors of socio-economic access to the
Information Society (Apple & Beane, 2007). Also, in a society where
social change is constant, it is easier to see more processes of loss of
meaning (Habermas, 1987). Participation in dialogic learning emerges
as an important instrument for the creation of meaning (Elboj &
Puigvert, 2004). Faced with multiple possible choices of how to live, it
is difficult to design a single project for all groups or people, and it is
difficult for the school to know which values to foster. But usually
dominant groups impose their views and discourses, also in schools, and
this generates crises of meaning. However, in dialogues where different
points of view emerge and are acknowledged on the ground of
argumentation, individuals come to know more possibilities and thus
choose more freely and critically. Such process creates more oppor-
tunities for gaining greater coherence between dreams and actual life.
This in turn relates to the principle of solidarity. In dialogic learning
environments participants share their knowledge for the benefit of all
members of the group.
Egalitarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, the
instrumental dimension, creation of meaning and solidarity are also
accompanied by the principle of equality of differences or, as Freire
(2003) posed it, “unity in diversity”. This principle breaks with the
138 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

inertia that cultural relativism imposes on people from different cultural

groups, turning traditions into a mold to which their members must
conform (perpetuating not only the relations of power and dominance
within their own cultures but also the relations of power of the dominant
culture upon the others). Through dialogic learning, each person builds
new understandings about life and the world and reflects about his or
her culture and that of others, thus gaining greater freedom to choose his
way of living and relating to others, as well as creating respect for
different modes of living (Giddens, 1995).
  The seven principles of dialogic learning are related among them,
despite each exists on its own as well. In each, meaning, life
experiences, emotion, cognition, culture, and other elements come
together, involving different people with whom students interact. This,
again, differentiates dialogic learning from prior conceptions of teaching
and learning. From the perspective of dialogic learning, the network of
interactions and relationships that is formed around each student should
be seen as a powerful learning generator of learning, which is no longer
stable and merely triangular, as it was conceptualized in the
constructivism approach. Students’ developmental trajectories are
embedded in complex networks that must be understood and taken into
account in schools’ organization, including that of the classroom, as a
space that fosters intersubjectivity. Such constellation of spaces for
students’ learning and development that dialogic learning environments
need to take into account can be represented as follows:
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 139

Figure 3. Contexts of interaction, learning and development. 3

Interactive groups: dialogic classroom organization

Interactive Groups is an inclusive and dialogic type of classroom
organization and student grouping (INCLUD-ED Consortium, 2009)
that illustrates how the dialogic turn of societies has reached the
classroom. When a classroom is organized in interactive groups,
teachers create three or four small groups of students depending on the
total number of students in the class. The criterion for group
composition always is for the maximum heterogeneity in terms of
mastery level, ability, culture, race, ethnicity, language, gender, life
styles, etc. While meeting this criterion, the grouping is conceptually
driven, with teachers making ongoing changes depending on subject
areas, lessons within every subject, social relations among students, and
suggestions from volunteers. Family and community members
participate in the classroom promoting dialogue and solidarity in the
140 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

groups with the objective that all students reach the highest learning
teachers create three or four small groups of students depending on the
total number of students in the class. The criterion for group
composition always is for the maximum heterogeneity in terms of
mastery level, ability, culture, race, ethnicity, language, gender, life
styles, etc. While meeting this criterion, the grouping is conceptually
driven, with teachers making ongoing changes depending on subject
areas, lessons within every subject, social relations among students, and
suggestions from volunteers. Family and community members
participate in the classroom promoting dialogue and solidarity in the
groups with the objective that all students reach the highest learning
objectives. One community volunteer is placed in each group. This
allows for the classroom teacher to manage the whole classroom
dynamics while the students are working, or she or he can become an
extra support in one of the groups. The activities in each group are
approximately 20 minutes long, and after that time, each group moves to
the next table and works on a different activity with a different adult. In
some classrooms, it is the adult who moves rather than the students. The
tasks in the groups are short and usually there is a thematic connection
between them, with each focused on a different dimension of the lesson
topic.
  In the groups, students help each other and engage in dialogues to
deepen the understanding of the content knowledge they are working
on. The teacher is in charge of the classroom management, solves
volunteers’ and students’ questions when necessary, and sometimes
provides extra help for struggling students.
  Schools involved in the Learning Communities project (Mello,
2009b), a project of educational and social transformation, apply a
series of Successful Educational Actions (SEAs), among which we find
the Interactive Groups. All these schools have shown to raise the
academic achievement of their students as well as to improve social
relations organizing the classrooms into interactive groups (INCLUD-
ED 2006-2011). There are more than a hundred schools working as
Learning Communities in Spain, and there are also schools as learning
communities in Brazil and Paraguay. In this article, the organization and
learning processes in interactive groups are explored through the case of
three Brazilian schools.
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 141

Method
Participants
Three municipal primary schools in medium-sized towns in the interior
of the state of São Paulo, which had been transformed into Learning
Communities, participated in a survey carried out from 2007 to 2009 to
determine the impact of the educational project on their practices
(Mello, 2009b). The study was conducted with the participation of 34
professionals (teachers, coordinators and principals), 10 volunteers
(women of various educational levels, ages and cultural backgrounds),
and 50 students (9 and 10-year-old girls and boys from different cultural
backgrounds).
Procedure
Based on the communicative methodology of research (Gómez,
Puigvert & Flecha, 2011), interviews were held with all the participants
individually and in focus groups. The interviews (I) explored the
participants’ experiences, analyses and points of view regarding the
processes and outcomes of learning and interaction in interactive
groups. Transcripts of the interviews were coded by school (S1, S2 and
S3), by category of the participant (professional – P –, student – s –, or
volunteer – v –) and by number of participants (professionals: 1-34;
students: 1-50, and volunteers: 1-10). In the two sessions of the focus
groups (FG_1 and FG_2), conducted with each category of participants,
the focus of the discussion was how interactive groups contribute to
learning and to improve the relations of coexistence in the classroom.
Finally, the paragraphs of each transcript of the interviews and the focus
groups were numbered (§1-98) and, following the communicative
methodology, they were assigned to two analytical dimensions:
transformative (t.e.) and exclusionary (e.f.).
142 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

Results
In terms of simple frequencies, the analysis of all paragraphs (a total of
681, distributed as follows: 250 from students, 348 from professionals
and 83 from volunteers) led to the identification of 581 paragraphs
about transformative dimensions of learning or living together in
interactive groups, while 89 paragraphs indicated exclusionary
dimensions.
With respect to the transformative dimensions, four categories
emerged: improvement in instrumental learning (s.: 128; p.: 195; v.: 59),
improvement in respectful coexistence (s: 91; p:122; v: 14), learning
while teaching and teaching while learning (s: 29; p: 2; v: 10), and
changes in self-concept (s; 4; p: 0; v: 0). As for the exclusionary
dimensions, two themes emerged: insufficient number of volunteers (s:
2; p.: 18; v.:0), and inappropriate behavior of some adolescents in their
role of volunteer (s.: 0; p.: 9; v.: 1).
The analysis of the data collected through the discussion groups, led
to 791 paragraphs, distributed as follows: 112 from students, 535 from
professionals, and 145 from volunteers. In terms of simple frequencies,
the analysis of the paragraphs, led to the identification of 663 fragments
about transformative dimensions on learning or living together in the
classroom, and 128 indicated exclusionary dimensions. With regard to
transformative dimensions, the 4 categories that emerged in the
interviews were the same as those from the analysis of the interviews:
improvement in instrumental learning (s.: 86; p.: 149; v.: 121),
improvement in respectful coexistence (s: 24; p: 343 ; v: 21), learning
while teaching and teaching while learning (s: 7; p: 16; v: 0 ), and
changes in self-concept (s: 0; p: 0; v: 2). As for the exclusionary
dimensions, the same two themes that emerged in the interviews arose
here too: insufficient number of volunteers (s: 2; p.: 18; v.:0), and
inappropriate behavior of some adolescents in their role of volunteer (s.:
0; p.: 9; v.: 1).
Interactive groups have two main objectives: to accelerate learning
and to improve relations of coexistence in the classroom. As the data
analyzed shows, both objectives are strongly emphasized by the
participants, who added two other benefits related to the guide by a an
adult who is more experienced in the culture of reference: the partici-
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 143

pants’ improved self-concept, and the possibility of teaching and

learning at the same time. Exclusionary dimensions had to do with the
need for more volunteers to promote supportive interactions in the
interactive groups.
To illustrate the qualitative part of the results of the study, in what
follows, we highlight a series of excerpts from interviews with different
categories of participants regarding the transformative dimensions that
interactive groups bring to classroom insteractions. In the following
quotation, a teacher highlights how interactive groups enhance learning
processes and academic performance and, as a result, ultimately,
students’ learning is accelerated:
When I first started working with the interactive group activity, I
already felt the difference in the classroom. I could see that the
students were faster in performing a given activity. I noticed that the
activities proposed through the interactive groups accelerated the
students’ learning. (S2-I-p13, §21 ).
The characteristics of interactive groups make possible that students
who otherwise would be left behind, in interactive groups engage in the
same learning processes as higher achievers do and end up reaching the
same curricular objectives. This perception is possible thanks to the
support that students receive by peers and volunteers in every group:
I have students who do not produce in some group or individual
activities, but in the interactive group – I don’t know if it’s because
there’s someone there that helps a lot – it isn’t is a presence of
coercion, but a helpful presence, which is there to really help! So
their interaction with the group is really cool! (S1-I-p1, §1).
The same teacher completes her statement by pointing out the
remarkable increase in the pace of children’s learning. In interactive
groups children work more and complete learning activities that in a
regular classroom usually take the double period of time:
144 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

For example, the activity that I taught, which I knew took half an
hour, the children now perform in ten minutes. Sometimes I couldn’t
believe they were able to do everything. (S1-I-p1, §2)
In addition, in the interactive group, individual learning is seen as a
responsibility of the whole group. Therefore, when one student finds
some difficulty in understanding the content knowledge, everyone gets
committed to help him or her. In this process, teaching and learning take
place simultaneously:
The idea of group work is that the activity has been completed when
everyone has succeeded, when everyone has finished it, and not when
only one has done so, that’s when they begin to understand the
mechanism of the interactive group, right? And they begin to succeed
in carrying out the activity. That’s when they begin to feel capable.
And as they increase their pace, they become more and more capable!
At this point, they wait the group day eagerly, because they know
that, on that day, they will do everything with the others. (S2-I-p4,§7)
As shown in the quotation above, as a student reaches the curricular
objectives and is aware of her or his success thanks to the interactive
groups, he or she improves his or her academic self-concept, and starts
believing that it is possible to do it and to do it successfully with the
help of peers and adults. But the gains are for everyone. In interactive
groups, everyone benefits from the interaction because learning is
intersubjective but also because interactions build upon the existing
diversity among all participants. In this regard, the evidence collected
shows that the higher the group’s internal diversity, the greater and
deeper the learning of every individual that is part of it, from both the
intellectual and the human and social standpoint. Benefiting from
Vygotsky’s (1978) theoretical formulation about learning occurring
through the mediation of more experienced individuals of the culture, in
the Interactive Group, the volunteer himself contributes cultural
diversity and instrumental knowledge, and also benefits from the
interactions with the students. For example, some volunteers develop
more motivation to learn contents of the school curriculum as they later
teach that knowledge to the students, despite that is not required from
volunteers:
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 145

I relearned what I was forgetting, because you also learn by teaching.

I would consult the books in the school’s library collection, and
whenever there was something I didn’t know I would stay there until
I learned it so that I could pass it on to the students. (S2-GF1-v1, §3)
The responsibility for learning is shared by everyone in the classroom,
but with different roles. It is up to the teacher, the professional with
pedagogical knowledge, to assume the commitment of planning the
content and activities to be worked on in interactive groups, to explain
to the volunteers the activities in the groups, and guide them and solve
their questions when it is necessary. The classroom teacher is the one
who ensures the correct development of the whole classroom dynamics,
encouraging mutual support and respect among the children, youths
and/or adults. A fundamental point of which the volunteer takes care of
is the way in which the activity is carried out jointly, so that when any
student experiences difficulty in solving a given activity, the others also
focus on helping him. This encourages role exchanges, in which
students can both teach their classmates and learn from them, thereby
learning, through egalitarian dialogue, to share efforts and act with
solidarity (Elboj et. al., 2001). Children perceive this solidarity in the
volunteers, appreciate their unique support, and acknowledge their
positive influence in students’ learning:
Each volunteer teaches in a different way, and they all help us to learn
things that we often did not know. We like volunteers because they
help us carry out the activities and because they want us to be
smarter. (S3_I_s35, §2).
Teacher also see as strength for children’s learning the fact that
volunteers bring to the classroom new abilities, new knowledge, and
new role models. The following quotation illustrates how for teachers
diversity among adults in interactive groups is a source of instrumental
learning:
I think the interactive group is important for students because it
ensures the presence of other people in the classroom. The presence
of more people allows for a certain degree of diversity in the
classroom. The idea that only the teacher teaches is out. Thus,
146 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

children learn new things with new people, because each one has his
particular way, a language, and a different way of teaching.
(S3_I_p31,§22).
Also, according to teachers, the presence of more and diverse adults in
the classroom also creates opportunities for the development of
interactive confidence grounded in solidarity bonds, also necessary for
learning:
The students quickly create bonds with volunteers. They miss a
volunteer when he doesn’t come or stops coming. When, for whatever
reason, the interactive group is not held, they miss it. The students
learn to trust these people. (S3_I_p31,§23)

Conclusions
In the Information Society, where both the production of knowledge
and its impact on the forms of production and reproduction of human
life assume the form of networks among individuals, groups, and
institutions, learning takes place intensely in different locations and in
the interaction among different people. Given these social changes
that have increased the use of communication as a means for solving
problems together, the psychological theories that see the formation
of the mind in social, historical and cultural processes are more
appropriate to support the development of successful school practices
(Bruner, 1960, 1983, 1990; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Wertsch, 1991,
2002; Rogoff, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2003; Valsiner, 2000; Muller &
Perret-Clermont, 1999).
In this regard, one of the most influential approaches in teaching
and learning is Dialogic Learning (Flecha, 2000; Freire, 1970; Wells,
2001), which builds upon the strengths of previous theories of
learning but surpasses them in merging the most important dialogic
contributions from different disciples in view of reaching a deeper
understanding of how people create knowledge together. Among
other central differences with Piagetian and Ausubelian perspectives,
in the dialogic learning perspective, the main aspect to take into
account when designing instruction is not prior knowledge but where
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 147

we want to bring the students, their zone of potential development

(Vygotsky, 1978). Also, in dialogic learning, we move from interaction
based on the constructivist triangle (Piaget, 1966, 1987a), which
advanced with respect to previous models of teacher-student vertical
relationship regarding knowledge (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1972) to
interactions with multiple others. In line with Vygotskian theory, in
order to achieve the potential level of development, learning
environments need to be reorganized to foster interaction among peers
with different level of competence and with more adults. Interactive
Groups is a learning environment which responds to these needs.
The results of the research discussed here (Mello, 2009b) reveal that
participation in interactive groups guided by adults and youth from the
community, who join the classroom to promote interaction among
diverse peers regarding curricular activities, favors instrumental
learning, improves respectful coexistence in the classroom, strengthens
the academic self-concept of the participants, as well as creates the
conditions for learning and teaching simultaneously. These results are
consistent with other research on processes of dialogic learning in
interactive groups (Racionero, 2011) and its outcomes in comparison to
non-inclusive and non-dialogic classrooms (INCLUD-ED Consortium,
2009).
Overall, the review of the literature and the findings about the
perceptions on learning in interactive groups inform us about the need
and benefits for transforming school learning environments to make
them align with the current tendencies and claims regarding how people
learn and develop. While cooperative classrooms represented a step in
this regard in relation to more traditional classroom organizations, other
learning environments more in line with new learning realities, such as
interactive groups, move a step further by means of diversifying
interactions with adults from the community and benefiting from their
unique contributions as guides of children’s meaning making processes.
On the ground of these findings, schools should open their doors, and
that of their classrooms, to make social tendencies reform learning
environments using the evidence of existing research about successful
learning environments to ultimately improve all children’s learning and
achievement.
148 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

Notes
1 This figure illustrates the conductist perspective of interaction in the classroom.
2 This figure illustrates the Ausbelian perspective of interaction in the classroom.
3 Source: Aubert et. al. (2008). Dialogic learning in the information society, p. 88 .
Barcelona: Hipatia.

References
Abbey, E. (2006). Perceptual uncertainty of cultural life: becoming
reality. In Valsiner, J.; Rosa, A. R. (Eds.). Handbook of
sociocultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Alves, A.C.S; Dias, M.G.B & Sobral, A.B.C. (2007). Faz-de-conta e
Teoria da Mente. Psicologia em Estudo, Maringá, 12( 2), 325-334.
Apple, M.W., & Beane, J. (Eds.) (2007). Democratic schools: Lesson in
powerful education (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Aubert, A., Flecha, A., García, C., Flecha, R., & Racionero, S. (2008).
Aprendizaje dialógico en la sociedad de la información .
Barcelona: Hipatia.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ausubel, D.P.; Novak, J.D. e Hanesian, H. (1980). Psicologia
educacional. Rio de Janeiro: Interamericana.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process ofeducation. Cambridge, Mass.;
London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1983). In search ofmind: essays in autobiography. New
York, NY: Harper and Row.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts ofmeaning. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (2001). A cultura da educação. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Castells, M. (1999). A sociedade em rede. Vol. I. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e
Terra.
Clôt, Y. (1999). Avec Vygotsky. Paris: La Dispute.
Cole, M. & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought. A psychological
introduction. New York: John Wiley.
Correia, M.F.B. (2003). A constituição social da mente. Estudos de
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 149

Psicologia, 8(3), 505-513.

Costa E. V. & Lyra, M.C.D.P. (2002). Como a Mente se Torna Social
para Barbara Rogoff? A Questão da Centralidade do Sujeito.
Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 15(3), 637-647.
CREA. (2006-2011). Strategies for inclusion and social cohesion in
Europe from Education . 6th Framework Programme, European
Commission.
Elboj, C., Puigdellívol, I., Soler, M., & Valls, R. (2002). Comunidades
de aprendizaje. Transformar la educación . Barcelona: Graó.
Elboj, C., & Puigvert, L. (2004). Interaction among ‘other women’:
Personal and social meaning. Journal ofSocial Work Practice, 18
(3), 351-364.
Ferreiro, E. (2001). Com todas as letras. São Paulo: Cortez.
Flavell, J. H. (1988). A psicologia do desenvolvimento de Jean Piaget.
São Paulo: Livraria Pioneira Editora.
Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing Words. Lanham, M.D: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Flecha, R., Gómez, J., & Puigvert, L. (2003). Contemporary
Sociological Theory. New York: Peter Lang.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy ofthe oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1997). A la sombra de este árbol. Barcelona: El Roure
Ciencia.
Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogia da esperança – um reencontro com a
pedagogia do oprimido . Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha R. (2011). Critical Communicative
Methodology: Informing real social transformation through
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235-245.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory ofcommunicative action. Vol. II.
Lifeworld and system: A critique offunctionalist reason. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1999). La inclusión del otro. Barcelona: Paidós.
Ianni, O. (2004). A era do globalismo. Rio de Janeiro.
INCLUD-ED Consortium. (2009). Actions for success in schools in
Europe. Brussels: European Comission.
Lawrence, J.& Valsiner, J. (2003). Making personal sense. An account of
basic internalisation and externalisation processes. Theory &
Psychology, 13 (6), 723-752.
150 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

Lima, E. (1990). O conhecimento psicológico e suas relações com a

educação. Em Aberto, 9 (48), 2-24.
Mello, R. R. (2009a). Diálogo y escuela en Brasil: Comunidades de
aprendizaje. Cultura y Educación, 21 (2), 171-282.
Mello, R.R. (2009b). Comunidades de Aprendizagem: aposta na
qualidade da aprendizagem, na igualdade de diferenças e na
democratização da gestão da escola. São Paulo: FAPESP & CNPq.
Muller, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1999). Negotiating identities and
meanings in the transmission of knowledge: analysis of
interactions in the context of a knowledge exchange network. In:
Bliss, J., Säljö, R., Light, P. (Ed). Learning sites, social and
technological resources for learning, (pp. 47-60). Earli:
Pergamon.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping tracking: How schools structure inequality.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1976). Vers une approche des relations entre
l’enfant, l’école et la vie à travers l’etude de la communication,
Cahiers de la Section des Sciences de l'Education Université de
Genève 2, 3-13.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980). Social interaction and cognitive
development in children . London: Academic Press.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L. (1981). Conflict and
cooperation on opportunities for learning. In Robinson, W. P.
(Ed.). Communication in development, (203-233). London:
Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1966): Nécessité et signification des recherches comparatives
en psychologie génétique. International Journal ofPsychology, 1 ,
3-13.
Piaget, J. (1987a). Seis estudos de psicologia. Rio de Janeiro: Forense-
Universitária.
Pontecorvo, C. (2004). Thinking with others: the social dimensions of
learning in families and schools. In: Perret-Clermont, A.-N. et al.
(Ed.). Joining society: social interactions and learning in
adolescence and youth . (pp. 227-240). New York/Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Racionero, S., & Padrós, M. (2010). The Dialogic Turn in Educational
Psychology, Revista dePsicodidáctica, 15(2), 143-162.
 IJEP – International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1 (2) 151

Racionero-Plaza, S. (2011). Dialogic Learning in Interactive Groups.

Interactions that foster learning and socio-cultural transformation
in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Defended at
the University ofWisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
Rochex, J.-Y. (1999). Le sens de l’experience scolaire. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes:
Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and
apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio & A. Alvarez (Ed.),
Sociocultural studies ofmind, (pp. 139-163). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Universtity Press.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon,
D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Ed), Handbook ofchild psychology:
Cognition, perception and language, (pp. 679-744). New York:
Wiley, 2.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature ofhuman development. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., Goodman T. C., & Bartlett, L. (2001). Learning together:
Children and adults in a school community. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rosenthal, T. L. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1972). Modeling by
exemplification and investigation in training conservation.
Development Psychology, 6(3), 392-401.
Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology ofliteracy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. Cambridge. MA:
Harvard University Press.
Tellado, I., & Sava, S. (2010). The role on nonexpert adult guidance in
the dialogic construction of knowledge. Journal of
Psychodidactics, 15(2), 163-176.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins ofhuman cognition.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Valencia, R., & Suzuky, L. (2001). Intelligence testing and minority
students: Foundations, performance factors, and assessment
issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London/Thousand
152 Roseli R. de Mello - From Constructivism to Dialogism

Oaks: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1996). Teoria e método em Psicologia. São Paulo:
Martins Fontes.
Vygotsky L. S., Luria, A.R. & Leontiev, A. N. (1988). Linguagem,
desenvolvimento e aprendizagem . São Paulo: Editora da
Universidade de São Paulo.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice
and theory ofeducation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices ofthe mind. A sociocultural approach to
mediated action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Voices ofcollective remembering. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Zittoun, T.; Mirza, N. M. & Perret-Clermont, A. (2007). Quando a
cultura é considerada nas pesquisas em psicologia do
desenvolvimento. Educar, Curitiba, 30, 65-76.

Roseli Rodrigues de Mello is Associate Professor in the

Department ofTheories and Pedagogical Practices at the Federal
University of Sao Carlos, Brazil. She is also director of NIASE
(Nucle Investigação e Ação Social e Educativa).
Contact Address: Rod. Washington Luis, 235 - São Carlos, Brazil
(13565-905). E-mail: [email protected]
596208
research-article2015
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244015596208SAGE OpenMensah

Article

SAGE Open

Exploring Constructivist
July-September 2015: 1–14
© The Author(s) 2015
DOI: 10.1177/2158244015596208
Perspectives in the College Classroom sgo.sagepub.com

Emmanuel Mensah1

Abstract
The study used Explanatory Sequential Design (ESD) of Mixed-Methods to investigate college students’ and instructors’
perspectives of constructivist learning environment (CLE). Students, including graduates and undergraduates from a
Midwestern university, rated their preference for personal relevance, collaboration, negotiation, and autonomy as key
learning experiences embodied in CLE. Results indicated that undergraduates were more likely than graduate students to
prefer collaboration and negotiation experiences. Expanding on the results of students’ quantitative ratings, students’ and
instructors’ perspectives of collaboration were explored. Eight participants (four students and four instructors) participated
in one-on-one interview sessions. Themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis showed that the differences in students’
preference for collaboration related to students’ perceptions of unequal opportunities to collaborate, perceived benefits, and
diverse backgrounds and orientations. In addition, conditions necessary for effective collaboration in the college environment
were explored. Thematic analysis produced three themes: understanding collaboration process; monitoring, assessment, and
evaluation system; and group composition. Implications for practice in the college classroom have been discussed.

Keywords
constructivism, objectivism, knowledge construction, college students, learning

Introduction transformational learning framework; and Baxter Magolda’s,

1999, self-authorship and learning partnership models, etc.)
Postmodernity and its epistemological implications for illuminate frameworks that demonstrate a shift from the tradi-
knowledge and its acquisition have informed a range of tional notion of knowledge acquisition to the conception of the
learning theories that provide frameworks for enhancing stu- construction of multiple realities. The instructional implications
dents’ active engagement. Constructivist frameworks of of these models appear consistent with the assumptions inherent
learning, along this trajectory, have become significant in in constructivism (Jonassen, 1991), with emphasis on students’
most pedagogical decisions across different levels of educa- responsibilities and initiatives in determining learning goals and
tion. The constructivist paradigm posits that all knowledge the regulation efforts toward achieving such goals (Mara, 2005).
and meaning are contingent upon human practices and expe- Creating CLEs requires instructors to meaningfully inte-
riences (Crotty, 1998). In the college classroom, instructors grate their understanding of students’ conceptions and pref-
and students’ conceptions of constructivism shape the peda- erences in such a learner-centered environment (Kember,
gogical landscape by framing their respective understanding 2001; Mara, 2005). In addition, a consideration of instruc-
of the nature of truth and their role expectations. tors’ own epistemological beliefs, conceptions, and percep-
A growing body of literature aligns the constructivist learn- tions about CLEs is critical, given the extent to which they
ing environment (CLE) with the promotion of active student act as facilitators in such a learning environment. Although
engagement anchored in a range of experiences, including several researchers (e.g., Loyens et al., 2008, 2009; Mara,
metacognitive activities, collaborative learning, problem-based 2005; Swan, 2005; Wang, 2009) have investigated various
activities, higher order thinking, and authentic learning experi- conceptions of CLE in the college environment, less is
ences (Gijbels, van de Watering, Dochy, & van den Bossche,
2006; Jonassen, 1994; Jonassen, Peck, & Wilson, 1999; Loyens,
Rikers, & Schmidt, 2008; Sherman & Kurshan, 2005; 1
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA
Tenenbaum, Naidu, Jegede, & Austin, 2001). Within the higher
Corresponding Author:
education context, a myriad of theoretical traditions (e.g., Emmanuel Mensah, University of North Dakota, 3904 University Avenue,
Perry’s, 1970, intellectual development model; Knowles’s, Room # 18, Grand Forks, ND 58202-7189, USA.
1980, andragogy-theory of adult learning; Mezirow’s, 2000, Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
2 SAGE Open

known about students’ perceptions of constructivism in the The constructivist tradition. Constructivism speculates that
context of their own preferred learning experiences. To knowledge does not exist independent of the learner, but
expand researchers’ understanding of constructivism in the constructed by the learner (Moallem, 2001). Constructiv-
college environment, the study investigated college instruc- ism offers a more contemporary perspective that learning is
tors’ perceptions of CLE and students’ preferred learning an active process and that the learner is an active agent in
experiences embodied in such contexts. the process of knowledge acquisition. Thus, students
actively participate in the meaning-making process so that
“ . . . the knowledge they construct is not inert, but rather
Conceptual Framework
usable in new and different situations” (Jonassen, David-
Learning Paradigms son, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995, p. 11). Within the
individual learners’ minds are the schemata that interpret
Varying philosophical perspectives have drawn increased events, objects, and perspectives based on their own cogni-
attention to contrasted beliefs about the nature of knowledge tive and social experiences (Jonassen et al., 1995). While
and truth. These disagreements are generally extrapolated proponents of constructivism share the view of the exis-
from researchers’ epistemological and ontological positions tence of the real world, however, they argue that learners
regarding what knowledge is and how it can be acquired cannot fully understand the real world in a single way but
(Jonassen, 1999; Vrasidas, 2000). While some researchers in multiple ways (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002; Piaget,
reject the dichotomy of these philosophical traditions into 1970; von Glasersfeld, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Consistent
positions (Cronjé, 2006; Jonassen, 1999; Renkl, 2009), oth- with this claim, constructivists emphasize that classroom
ers conceptualize them as learning paradigms that fall on a experiences should encourage multiple perspectives (Jona-
continuum (Carswell, 2001; Vrasidas, 2000), with the objec- ssen et al., 1995; Vrasidas, 2000).
tivist and the constructivist traditions marking the opposite Dewey (1938), Piaget (1970), Vygotsky (1978), and
ends of that continuum. For the purpose of the study, the Bruner (1996) are few examples of the pioneering works that
researcher focused on the objectivist and the constructivist have laid the foundations for contemporary understanding of
learning paradigms. constructivism. Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theories
and the social constructivist perspectives of Lev Vygotsky
The objectivist tradition.  The objectivist tradition is rooted have had the widest influence on the emerging and the con-
in the philosophical belief that an objective reality exists temporary perspectives on constructivism. A review of
outside the mind of the individual (Lakoff, 1987; Swan, Piaget (1964, 1972), Vygotsky (1978, 1981), and other con-
2005; Vrasidas, 2000). Instructors who ascribe to this temporary scholarships (e.g., Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Knight
underlying epistemological position use external stimuli & Sutton, 2004; Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993) reveals a num-
to change the behavioral and the cognitive structures of ber of differences between the cognitive development and
learners toward mastering the content of the learning task the social constructivist perspectives. Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s
(Fosnot & Perry, 2005). Consistent with the objectivist theoretical positions knit together significant intellectual
tradition, instructional strategies focus on transferring the foundations beyond their mere categorizations (Tudge &
“objective knowledge” to the learner through strands of Winterhoff, 1993). Consistent with this view, the research-
activities perceived to be independent of the learner (Jona- er’s theoretical position was guided by both the tenets of the
ssen, 1999; Vrasidas, 2000). Vrasidas (2000) argued that cognitive development theory, as well as the social construc-
most traditional methods of learning and teaching ascribed tivist perspectives.
to the behavioristic and cognitive theories share philo-
sophical assumptions that are fundamental in objectivism.
These methods emphasize the role of memorization of
Cognitive Development Theory
facts, replication of content and structure, and the pre- The study of cognition regarding the nature of knowledge
scription of a series of steps that learners have to follow in and knowing became an important area for Piaget at the time
the process of knowledge acquisition (Jonassen, 1991). when behaviorists’ ideas about learning were widespread
Students acquire knowledge by learning a defined body of (Swan, 2005). From behaviorists’ point of view, learning
knowledge within instructor-prescribed boundaries, while means a systematic change in human behavior in response to
instructors’ role is to identify the course objectives physical stimuli. With this fundamental understanding, edu-
required of students and then systematically arrange the cators use reinforcement, practice, and external motivation
content to reach those objectives (Carwile, 2007). While to influence the behavior patterns of learners (Fosnot &
the objectivist cast focuses more on documenting changes Perry, 2005). Opposite to this perspective, Piaget (1964,
in students’ behavior and cognitive schemes, with limited 1970) drew attention to the changes that occur within the
emphasis on meaning-making (Vrasidas, 2000), its useful- internal mechanisms of cognition and how such changes can
ness in the context of student learning is significant influence the process of meaning-making. Piaget (1964)
(Jonassen, 1999). maintained that
Mensah 3

[T]o know an object is to act on it . . . [T]o know is to modify, to Tudge and Winterhoff (1993) argued that the zone is cre-
transform the object, and to understand the process of this ated in the course of social interaction. For Vygotsky, the
transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the nature and the form of historical developments in any given
object is constructed. (p. 20) culture influence a number of experiences, including think-
ing, literacy, numeracy, and art which are also embedded in
Knowledge development, according to Piaget (1964), is that culture (Tudge & Hogan, 1997).
underpinned by what he termed “operational structures” (p. 20).
He specified these structures as follows: sensory-motor stage
(infancy), pre-operational stage (toddler and early childhood), Knowledge Construction in the College
concrete operations (elementary and early adolescence), and Environment
formal operations (adolescence and adulthood). Therefore, to
The mechanism of meaning-making by students is a dynamic
understand the process of knowledge development is “to under-
process mediated by multiple experiences and structures in a
stand the formation, elaboration, organization, and functioning
given learning context (Jonassen et al., 1995). The consider-
of these structures” (Piaget, 1964, p. 20). Transitions across
ation of Piaget’s cognitive development theory and Vygotsky’s
these stages are marked with qualitative changes in successive
social constructivist perspectives highlights frameworks that
order (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993). According to Piaget (1964),
conceptualize learning as a dynamic activity situated in a unique
these changes are mediated by a host of factors, including matu-
physical, cognitive, social, and a cultural context. Students con-
ration, experience, social, or linguistic transmission, and what
struct knowledge through their active engagement in their phys-
he called equilibration. Piaget (1964) used the term equilibra-
ical, social, cultural, and mental environments (Swan, 2005;
tion to explain the process of self-regulation toward achieving a
Wang, 2009). Specifically, the intersection of these two theoreti-
balance between two intrinsic polar behaviors of assimilation
cal dimensions accentuates the role of individuals’ cognitive
and accommodation. Thus, according to Piaget, to know an
structures, as well as the social and the cultural milieu in the
object or an event involves active processes of assimilation and
process of meaning-making (Fosnot & Perry, 2005).
accommodation. The former relates to how learners translate
incoming information into a form that they can understand, and
The cognitive context.  Piaget’s model of cognitive develop-
the latter denotes how individuals adjust their current knowl-
mental progression informs a frame of understanding that
edge structures in response to new experience (Tudge &
learning as a developmental process is an interplay between
Winterhoff, 1993).
the structures of the mind and the knowledge that students
construct. Learners build their knowledge structures by dis-
Social Constructivism Theory covering and transforming information, checking new infor-
Social constructivism provides a frame that shifts emphasis mation against old, and by revising rules when they no longer
from the individual construction of knowledge to a view of col- apply (Loyens et al., 2008). Students make sense of their
lectively constructed meaning (Sivan, 1986). Although Piaget own experiences by building and adjusting their knowledge
theoretically related development and knowledge to the inter- structures that collect and organize perceptions and reflec-
nal changes, Vygotsky (1978) focused on the external changes, tions (Swan, 2005). Even though Piaget’s theory was origi-
with an emphasis on cultural contexts mediated by language nally developed to explain the cognitive organization of how
and other symbolic systems. According to Vygotsky (1978), children and young adolescents come to know and construct
the means by which culture and knowledge are transmitted new perspectives of their environment (Fosnot & Perry,
influence the way learners think, act, and the meaning that they 2005), its pedagogical relevance has been extended to the
make. Social constructivist theorists posit that “ . . . culture pro- college classroom. Specifically, the cognitive development
vides the context in which the tools and signs (e.g. language perspectives of Piaget remain significant foundations of the
and numbers) and knowledge (a body of affective and cogni- neo-Piagetian perspectives (Labouvie-Vief, 1992; Suther-
tive information available to an individual) are shaped” (Sivan, land, 1999). The extension of Piaget’s ideas in the study of
1986, p. 214). Language is viewed as a tool of thought and adult cognitive development has shown that young and older
cognitive activity. For Vygotsky (1978), development and students demonstrate varying functional and optimal levels
learning are not achieved by learners in an equal measure; of cognition in their abstraction of ideas and their ability to
therefore, there is always a qualitative gap between these access at optimal levels (Knight & Sutton, 2004).
dynamic processes, which he terms this gap the zone of proxi- Perry’s (1970) scheme of intellectual development
mal development. Thus, the zone of proximal development describes nine progressive stages through which college stu-
dents navigate during their intellectual development. Perry’s
. . . is the distance between the actual development level as scheme has informed a number empirical and theoretical
determined by independent problem solving and the level of works and educators’ understanding about how college stu-
potential development as determined through problem solving dents’ epistemological beliefs in the meaning-making pro-
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more peers . . . cess shift from a dualistic view to an understanding that one
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 33) can approach a situation from different perspectives, and to
4 SAGE Open

the development of a personal opinion, acknowledging that Mara (2005) was one of the few inquiries that used a
all knowledge and ideas are relative (Loyens et al., 2009). qualitative method to examine the impact of the design of
However, several other researchers (e.g., Baxter Magolda, CLEs on college instructors’ epistemological belief sys-
1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1997) have tems and how instructors’ epistemologies might be
observed that Perry’s scheme is limited in accounting for a affected by engaging in CLE design. Based on the themes
broader demographic representation of students because it that emerged from the data analysis, Mara concluded that
was developed based on interviews with students of Harvard instructors who were in a zone of “readiness” for intel-
University who are predominantly of White middle-class. lectual growth could experience epistemological growth
Kember (2001) examined students’ beliefs about the process from this experience. However, Mara’s study does not
of teaching and learning in the college classroom by draw- address how the instructors’ epistemological beliefs influ-
ing from the assumptions that students bring to class a set of ence their understanding and their pedagogical decisions
beliefs about the nature of knowledge, a conception of learn- in the CLE.
ing, and a belief about how teaching should take place.
Kember argued that these beliefs constitute a major factor in The social context. The social dimension of learning has
the degree to which students are able to cope with learning. become an important component in different learning envi-
While the study concludes that the set of beliefs about ronments, including online and face-to-face experiences
knowledge, learning, and teaching is a fundamental factor in (Moallem, 2003). In the adult learning environment,
determining how well students cope with learning, it failed Vygotsky’s social constructivist framework draws attention
to address how these beliefs and conceptions of students are to the mediating role of the sociocultural context in which
incorporated into the instructional decisions. teaching and learning are situated. Specifically, Vygotsky’s
Several other researchers (see Harrington & Enochs, constructivist perspectives illuminate frameworks that help
2009; Loyens et al., 2008, 2009; Tenenbaum et al., 2001) to explain how learners’ construction of knowledge is influ-
investigated students’ conceptions of the CLE using quanti- enced by the sociocultural landscape of the learning environ-
tative scales. For instance, Loyens et al. (2009) investigated ment. From Vygotsky’s perspectives, knowledge is the
students’ conceptions of constructivist learning using quan- outcome of the mechanism of individuals’ social, as well as
titative measures of students’ knowledge construction, cultural, experiences. Drawing from this perspective,
cooperative learning, self-regulation, use of authentic prob- researchers consider learning as a social process in which
lems, self-perceived inability to learn, and motivation to learners collaboratively construct knowledge through inter-
learn. In this cross-sectional study, the researchers found a active processes of information sharing, active participation,
significant difference in the questionnaire’s scores between negotiation, and modification (Gunawardena, Lowe, &
Year 1 and Year 2 (but not between Year 2 and Year 3) Abderson, 1997; Swan, 2005; Wang, 2009).
regarding students’ conceptions about knowledge construc- Social learning takes the form of group projects, whole
tion, self-regulation, and the use of authentic problems, but class discussions, collaboration, and cooperative learning
not for cooperative learning and motivation to learn. Based experiences (Wang, 2009). Although constructivists differ on
on the results, the authors concluded that differences in stu- how peer learning, including collaborative learning, contrib-
dents’ conception of knowledge construction, self-regula- utes to knowledge acquisition, they seem to speculate a
tion, and the use of authentic problems can be observed shared understanding that social design of CLE facilitates
between students who enter a new learning program and construction of social relationships, social negotiation, and
students who already have 1 year experience in higher edu- social interactions (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996;
cation. Similarly, Tenenbaum et al. (2001) used a quantita- Loyens et al., 2008). Collaborative and cooperative learning
tive survey to investigate the presence of constructivist experiences allow students to construct a shared understand-
principles in the face to-face and in open and distance ing by negotiating appropriate meaning and solutions to
learning (ODL) environments within higher education. learning tasks (Jonassen et al., 1995). Osterholt and Barratt’s
Their results indicated seven components of constructivist (2010) examined the use of collaborative learning as a tool to
teaching and learning: arguments, discussions, and debates; address social and emotional inhibitors that have the poten-
conceptual conflicts and dilemmas; sharing ideas with oth- tial to impede beginning college students’ successes. The
ers; materials and measures targeted toward solutions; authors found that central to creating a collaborative-facili-
reflections and concept investigation; meeting student tated environment are the instructors’ knowledge and com-
needs; and making meaning and real-life examples. petencies to guide, model, and provide critical thinking
Although the generalized results of these studies have opportunities for students as they learn and apply collabora-
added to the growing literature in the field, they fail to pro- tive skills. Notwithstanding, Osterholt and Barratt’s scope of
vide in-depth understanding about how the background the study was limited to beginning college students, failing
experiences of students affect their conceptions of CLE and to account for broader demographic dynamics.
what learning experiences students might prefer in such a McDuff (2012) compared students’ comments, reflec-
learner-facilitated learning environment. tions, and evaluations in traditional and collaborative
Mensah 5

learning classes and reported increased student active Sample

engagement and interest in the collaborative learning
environment, compared with the traditional classroom The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 150
environment. Chapman and van Auken (2001) used a undergraduate (75%) and 50 graduate (25%) students drawn
path-analysis model to examine the role of college instruc- from a Midwestern university. Participants included 165
tors in influencing students’ attitudes, perceived benefits, (82.5%) females and 35 (17.5%) males. Their median age
and work and grade equity concerns regarding group was 20 years (range = 18-64). More than half of the partici-
activities. The authors found that students were more pants were White (75%), followed by Black/African
likely to have positive attitudes about group work if they American (15%), Hispanic/Latino (5%), American Indian/
had instructors who discussed group management issues Alaska Native (2.5%), and Asian/Asian American (2.5%).
(e.g., group dynamics) and used methods to evaluate indi- They were enrolled in different programs, including edu-
vidual performance within the group (e.g., peer evalua- cation (106), nursing (30), occupation therapy (36), and
tions). However, because both studies used quantitative communication disorders (28) during fall 2014.
measures to investigate students’ attitudes and percep-
tions, they provide limited depth of understanding about Procedure
how educators can use their understanding of group
dynamics to provide enough accommodation for different Participants were given paper and survey designed to col-
learning styles when assigning group projects. lect demographics and perceptual information on students’
In sum, extant literature demonstrates that different preferred learning experiences. The survey was adminis-
aspects of students’ and instructors’ conceptions of the tered in six different classroom settings during regular
CLE have been studied in the college environment. While class sessions. In some cases, the instructors teaching the
several conclusions drawn from these studies have pro- courses administered the survey. However, to minimize
vided a breath of knowledge, they do not fully address the the potential for students to feel coerced to participate in
multidimensional nature of the CLE (Jonassen et al., 1995; the survey, participation was voluntary and completely
Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997). Thus, knowledge about anonymous. Instructors were blinded to the identity of the
students’ perceptions of their preferred learning experi- participants. In addition, no conditions such as earning
ences in a CLE is limited. The consideration of this gap extra credit were attached to participation. In all cases,
informed the scope of the current study. participants had the same instructions, and they returned
the completed survey to either the researcher or the
instructor. Participants independently completed the ques-
Method tionnaire, which took approximately 8 min. Of the 220
The study used Explanatory Sequential Design (ESD) to surveys that were administered, a total of 200 were com-
investigate college students’ and instructors’ perceptions pleted for a response rate of 89%.
of CLE. Consistent with the design, data were collected
in two phases. First, the researcher collected and ana- Measures
lyzed results of quantitative data (Quantitative phase) and
then followed-up with an in-depth qualitative study for Using Piaget’s cognitive theory, Vygotsky’ social construc-
possible explanations to the quantitative results tivism, and conceptual perspectives (Jonassen et al., 1995;
(Qualitative phase; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010). Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1993, 1997) as lens, 20 items were
Specifically, the researcher used the follow-up explana- designed to measure students’ preference for personal rele-
tion model where the qualitative phase expanded on the vance, collaboration, negotiation, and autonomy in their
quantitative results to offer a better understanding of the learning experiences. However, the constructs were named
outcome (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010; Ivankova, after performing principal components analysis (PCA). The
Creswell, & Stick, 2006). four constructs constituted the dependent variables, and stu-
dents’ level of education which was dichotomized into two
levels (graduate and undergraduate) represented the inde-
Quantitative Phase pendent variable.
The purpose of the quantitative phase of the study was to
investigate college students’ preferred learning experiences Personal relevance.  The measure of personal relevance scale
embodied in the CLE. Specifically, the first phase of the dealt with students’ perceived preference for opportunities to
study was guided by the following research question: relate learning experiences to their own personal and learn-
ing needs. Five items were included in this construct, with
Research Question 1: Do graduate and undergraduate each item measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (strongly
students differ in their perspectives of their preferred disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6). Internal consistency
learning experiences in constructivist contexts? (Cronbach’s α) of this scale was .70.
6 SAGE Open

Collaboration. The collaboration construct measured stu- that the sample was normally distributed, and there were no
dents’ perceived preference for opportunities to work with extreme outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Overall, par-
other students to accomplish group tasks (Johnson, John- ticipants’ preference patterns were above the mean score.
son, & Stanne, 2000). This construct consisted of four This indicated that students’ preference for autonomy, per-
items measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (strongly sonal relevance, negotiation, and collaboration in their
disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6). Internal consistency of learning experiences were generally high. Descriptive sta-
this scale was .85. tistics (Tables 1 and 2) show mean scores and standard devi-
ations for individual items and the factors.
Negotiation.  The negotiation scale assessed the perception of PCA with factor loadings which yielding four factors
students’ preference for opportunities to interact and negoti- (autonomy, negotiation, collaboration, and personal rele-
ate meaning and build consensus by explaining and modify- vance) is shown by Table 3. The inter-correlation coeffi-
ing their ideas in contexts of other students’ ideas (Taylor cients were positive and showed statistically significant
et al., 1993). The scale was determined by three items mea- relationships among all factors. However, collaboration
sured on 6-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree = 1, and negotiation factors demonstrated the strongest corre-
strongly agree = 6). Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of lation (r = .42, p < .001). All correlations were significant
this scale was .65. at α = .01 level. Correlation matrix has been reported with
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients in Table 4.
Autonomy. The measure of autonomy related to students’ Results of the Univariate T analysis indicated that gradu-
preference for opportunities to exercise some degree of con- ate and undergraduate students significantly differed in
trol over their learning experiences and to think indepen- terms of their preferences for collaboration and negotia-
dently of instructors and other students (Taylor et al., 1993). tion. Specifically, undergraduate students reported signifi-
Five items measured the scale of student autonomy. Partici- cantly higher levels of preference for collaboration and
pants rated each item on 6-point Likert-type scale (strongly negotiation, with relatively small effect sizes. The results
disagree = 1, strongly agree = 6). Internal consistency (Cron- (see Table 5) suggested the extent of shared commonali-
bach’s α) of this scale was .74. ties between the concepts of negotiation and collabora-
tion. The results of the quantitative phase motivated the
Data Analysis exploration of perceptions that might explain the prefer-
ential differences between graduate and undergraduate
Descriptive statistics were performed to explore variations students in terms of collaboration and negotiation learning
and the overall distribution of study variables. Two nega- experiences. A consideration of an expansion on the quan-
tively worded items were reverse coded. To analyze the con- titative results allowed the researcher to explore other
struct validity, PCA was conducted using maximum conditions or factors that might be important in making
likelihood extraction with varimax rotation (Pallant, 2011). collaboration effective in the college classroom. These
This gave a four-factor structure that explained 44.9% of the conclusions informed the qualitative phase of the study.
systematic covariance among the items. These factors
reflected different dimensions of constructivism and using Qualitative Phase
theoretical and conceptual understandings, they were named
as personal relevance, collaboration, negotiation, and auton- Purpose and research questions.  With the qualitative phase,
omy. Included items had loadings >0.30 on the factor and the follow-up explanation model was used to explain and
were considered relevant in the conceptual category. Only expand on the quantitative results (Creswell & Plano
factors with eigenvalues >1 were retained. The internal con- Clark, 2010; Ivankova et al., 2006). The purpose of the
sistency reliability of each scale was determined, and qualitative phase was to explore students’ differential
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were reported. Three items preference patterns toward social learning. Specifically,
not fitting any of the four factors were dropped and excluded as collaboration being an umbrella term (Smith & Mac-
from further analysis. Pearson correlation matrix was per- Gregor, 1999), shares conceptual commonalities with
formed to determine the extent to which the subscales co- negotiation (Osterholt & Barratt, 2010). Based on this
varied. To assess the association between the independent understanding, the second phase of the study focused on
variable (level of education) and the factors, Univariate T collaboration. This phase explored how differences in
tests were performed. Mean values were presented and sta- graduate and undergraduate students’ preferences for col-
tistical significance was determined at p < .05. laborative experiences were a reflection of both student
and instructor perspectives and classroom experiences.
The study also explored conditions that were essential for
Results creating collaborative learning experience in the college
Examination of histograms and box plots, as well as skew- environment. Specifically, the study was guided by two
ness (−1.0 to +1.0) and kurtosis (−1 to 0) values, indicated main research questions.
Mensah 7

Table 1.  Student Preference for Autonomy, Personal Relevance, Negotiation, and Collaboration in Their Learning Experiences
(6 = Strongly Agree, 1 = Strongly Disagree) Mean and Standard Deviation.

Survey questions M SD
Autonomy
1.  I prefer lessons that provide opportunities for me to exercise control over my own 4.5 0.9
learning experiences.
2.  I rather prefer that instructors allow students to construct their own understanding. 4.1 0.9
3.  I would rather prefer to learn to follow instructors’ methods of investigating problems.a 4.5 1.0
4.  I prefer to set my own learning goals in the classroom. 4.4 0.8
5.  I like it when I have to determine my own learning pace. 4.6 1.0
Personal relevance
1.  I prefer lessons that offer practically relevant information. 5.3 0.8
2.  I prefer lessons that relate ideas to real-life situations. 4.9 0.9
3.  I understand new concepts better when they relate to my background experience. 5.1 0.8
4.  I prefer to acquire knowledge that is useful in everyday life. 5.0 0.8
5.  I do not like to learn things that are irrelevant to my everyday routines. 5.3 0.8
Negotiation
1.  I prefer having other students explain concepts to me than professors. 2.9 1.1
2.  I like it when other students challenge my ideas. 4.1 0.9
3.  I prefer to know the perspectives of other students in my class. 4.0 1.2
Collaboration
1.  I prefer lessons that are driven by group discussions. 4.4 1.2
2.  I learn better when engaged in group activities with other students. 4.2 1.4
3.  Group activities make me a better learner than individualized activities. 3.9 1.4
4.  I would rather prefer individual-based inquiries than group activities.a 3.4 1.3
a
Item that was reverse coded.

Table 2.  Mean and Standard Deviation of the Dependent and Table 3.  Factor Loadings for the Constructivist Learning
Independent Variables. Experiences Survey.

Variables M SD Personal
Item Autonomy relevance Negotiation Collaboration
1. Age undergraduates 20.1 2.0
2. Age graduates 30.1 10.6 a_8 .59  
3. Autonomy 22.4 3.2 a_19 .54  
4. Personal relevance 25.7 2.8 a_22 .77  
5. Negotiation 11.0 2.5 a_24 .50  
6. Collaboration 15.8 4.3 a_29 .71  
pr_q3 .46  
Note. Descriptive statistics (Table 1) show two levels of the independent pr_12 .63  
variables and the four factors that were used as dependent variables in
pr_15 .75  
the Univariate T tests analyses.
pr_25 .62  
pr_26 .55  
Research Question 2: How are college students’ prefer- ng_14 .76  
ential differences in collaboration reflected in students’ ng_16 .45  
and instructors’ perceptions of collaboration? ng_20 .64  
Research Question 3: What conditions are necessary for cl_7 .55
creating collaborative learning environment in the college cl_11 .87
classroom? cl_18 .85
cl_21r .82
% variance 11.3 8.8 5.0 11.2
Participants Eigenvalue 5.4 2.5 1.4 3.0
The participants were college students and instructors from a Note. N = 200 college students. The factor loadings produced four factors
Midwestern university. Student participants had enrolled in (autonomy, negotiation, collaboration, and personal relevance). Three
various courses during the fall 2014 semester. Instructor items were dropped.
8 SAGE Open

Table 4.  Correlation of Subscale Constructs and Measures of among variables, and common patterns that were emerging.
Internal Consistency. A consistent study of the common patterns and the relation-
Subscale constructs 1 2 3 4 α ships that had emerged allowed for further organization of
the data into categories and themes. The researcher made
1. Collaboration — .85 some assertions based on the themes that emerged with com-
2. Personal relevance .20** — .70 posite descriptions of the phenomena (Creswell, 2013). The
3. Negotiation .42** .29** — .63 researcher triangulated qualitative data with the quantitative
4. Autonomy .30** .36** .33** — .74 data which allowed for a broader understanding and also
**p < .05, two-tailed. informed accurate and a complete account of the data col-
lected (Maxwell, 2005). Thus, the qualitative findings were
corroborated with the quantitative results.
participants taught courses during the fall 2014 semester. In
all, eight participants (four students and four instructors) vol-
unteered to participate in the qualitative phase. Table 6 pro- Findings
vides a summary of participants’ background information.
Students’ and Instructors’ Perspectives of
Collaboration
Procedure
First, the researcher explored how the differences in college
The selection of student participants was open to instructors students’ preference for collaboration reflected in the way
and students. However, consistent with the framework of the students and instructors perceived collaboration. Second, the
ESD, the researcher purposefully selected students and researcher explored conditions that might allow for effective
instructors who might provide useful discussions to the con- collaboration in the college classroom. With the first part,
cept of collaboration (Maxwell, 2005). There were no spe- three main themes emerged from the analysis of the qualita-
cific exclusionary criteria for participant selection, except tive data: opportunities for collaboration, perceived useful-
that participants had to be either currently teaching (instruc- ness, and students’ background and orientations.
tor participant) or enrolled in at least one course during the
fall 2014 (student participant). These courses included both
Opportunities for collaboration. The findings indicated that
online and face-to-face. Student participants who partici-
undergraduate and graduate students seemed to have different
pated in the quantitative survey volunteered to participate in
range of opportunities to engage in collaborative activities.
a follow-up qualitative study. Email correspondences with
Nick who taught both graduate and undergraduate courses dis-
prospective participants, including instructors, were used at
closed that undergraduates have more opportunities to work in
all stages of the recruitment process.
small groups. However, it was found that graduate students’
level of engagement in collaboration was relatively lesser than,
Data Collection perhaps, expected. As Gifty, a graduate student, indicated:
All the eight participants were engaged in two sessions of I think collaboration learning is important in graduate education
one-on-one interview, lasting approximately 45 min at each and should be used more often than it is being used because a lot
session. Participants were asked semi-structured questions of people come from different backgrounds with different ideas,
with follow-up questions. All interview sessions were audio- different work experiences, and sharing that really helps other
recorded which allowed the researcher to take notes and students who may not have had the experience to work in certain
guided participants into areas of more depth. All participants places . . . but it is not being used as much.
were assigned pseudonyms. This was to identity participants’
quotes and comments for appropriate referencing. Using phe- A different dimension to this finding was the indication
nomenological lens (Charmaz, 2011), the researcher aimed at that graduate students seemed to have different level of
learning about participants’ understanding of collaboration expectations for collaboration learning. The findings also
from their own perspectives, without any preconceived struc- showed that graduate students expected varied ways of col-
ture or concepts imposed on participants’ perspectives. laboration. “I have always been grouped with someone so
there has always been collaborative thing going on which is
good, but I want something different and unique in collabora-
Data Analysis tion and not the same old way of group work,” Charity shared.
The researcher began the data analysis process with the tran-
scription of all tape-recorded data from both faculty and stu- Perceived usefulness. Both students and instructors perceived
dent interviews. The researcher studied the transcripts and collaboration as an important learning experience for social
generated initial codes. The researcher further organized and and community skill development, building relationships and
examined the codes to identify similar phrases, relationships networking, establishing a system of support, and encouraging
Mensah 9

Table 5.  The Comparisons Between Undergraduates and Graduates.

Undergraduate Graduate

Construct category Larger number means higher preference for . . . M M p d

Personal relevance personalized learning experiences. 25.9 25.2 .14 0.01
Autonomy exercising degree of control. 23.1 22.9 .20 0.01
Negotiation negotiating with other students to modify understanding. 12.0 11.2 .01 0.03**
Collaboration engaging in group activities. 16.3 14.4 .01 0.04**

**p < .05.

Table 6.  Instructor and Student Participants’ Background Information.

Participants Sex Race Age Status Program/teach Year of teaching/program

1. Nick Male Caucasian 48 Instructor Undergraduate 8 years
2. Joel Male Hispanic 31 Instructor Graduate 3 years
3. Nash Male Caucasian 36 Instructor Undergraduate 2 years
4. Tasha Female Caucasian 42 Instructor Undergraduate 15 years
5. Gift Female African 35 Student Graduate 2 years
6. Dan Male Caucasian 20 Student Undergraduate 2 years
7. Dove Female Caucasian 19 Student Undergraduate 1 year
8. Charity Female African 34 Student Graduate 3 years

multiple perspectives. Dove indicated, “When you interact I like opportunities to collaborate outside in order to seek help in areas
with others and keep going back and forth with other people that I struggle. As an adult learner, I really love working with some
when you are struggling and find something and you ask for people, not all of them but with people that I can work with . . .
help you realize that collaboration gets you in a long way.”
While in their perspectives, undergraduates viewed collabora- Tasha, an instructor, disclosed:
tion as way of making up for their weaknesses and building
upon their strengths, graduate students in the current study . . . with collaborative groupings, you go round and observe
and you see students who never speak in class. They never raise
appeared to consider collaboration as a means of building aca-
their hand and say anything in a large group but will say
demic and social networks beyond coursework experiences.
something in a small group.
Charity cited,
In sharing her experiences, Charity cited:
I see collaborative learning as a way for me to work with others
and establish network relationships. You learn personal issues
Some people don’t want to take your ideas into consideration.
about people. It is not all about the coursework but it is also
They think what they wrote or what they brought up, that is it,
about learning about the person you are working with.
that is what has to be taken into consideration and if you try to
not criticize but critique it in a good way, they feel you are
Students’ background and orientations. The findings, again,
putting them down in some ways.
showed that students bring their own cultural background
and orientations in prescribing their preference for collabora-
tive learning experiences. For instance, Nash emphasized: Conditions Necessary for Effective Collaborative
Experiences in the College Classroom
Some of the students just want to work individually and then
collaborate in discussions. They don’t want to do the work
The second part of the qualitative phase explored conditions
collaboratively. I think it is a perfect thing to have but I think necessary for creating effective collaborative learning experi-
with some students, they need their space. They just want to ences in a college classroom. Three themes emerged from the
work in a little corner and come back and share with the class. analysis: understanding collaboration process; monitoring,
They don’t want to rely on other people to help them. It is a nice assessment, and evaluation system; and group composition.
thing in general, but to some people, they just don’t want it.
Understanding collaboration process.  The findings of the cur-
Graduate students in the current study appeared skeptical rent study demonstrated the need for both instructors and
about not just the opportunity but whom they actually work students to understand what and how it means for students to
with. Gifty indicated: collaborate. Nash explained:
10 SAGE Open

I think first of all, you have to know what collaboration is. I and student participants as key issues in terms of student
think they just use the word referring to working with other groupings. For instance, Charity expressed, “ . . . as a stu-
people but they don’t understand the intricacies of it and I still dent, I still prefer the professor to form the groups because I
don’t get it. It is not just splitting up some work for students to think professors know who works well with whom.”
do, it is not just getting them in groups.

What it meant to collaborate among students was to, Discussions and Implications
according to Joel, “have students give off their energies as Most contemporary classroom pedagogical decisions across
they interact toward a common goal and try to help each different levels and multiple disciplines are ascribed to the
other, instead of taking some parts moving away and coming constructivist traditions. This relates to the conception that
together. They have to keep working together and keep inter- CLE drives students’ knowledge construction through their
acting.” Understanding the process of collaboration, accord- active engagement in deep and meaningful learning experi-
ing to participants, also meant encouraging students to use ences (Jonassen et al., 1999; Rikers, Gog, & Paas, 2008). The
their strengths and help each other with their weaknesses. idea that higher education seeks to provide students with
This included ensuring the “togetherness of students.” In opportunities to experiment with new ideas, new relationships,
sharing her experiences, Dove indicated that their collabora- and new roles (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002) makes
tive effort often paid off well because they were able to work constructivist frameworks particularly important in the college
together as a group. classroom. Because limited studies have examined the prefer-
ential patterns of college students in terms of their learning
Monitoring, assessment, and evaluation systems.  One other key experiences, less is known about how they perceive their own
issue with collaboration in the college classroom the current roles in an environment that is supposed to empower them.
study found was how to effectively monitor, assess, and eval- The current study used an ESD to investigate college students’
uate individuals’ level of engagement as well as group preferred learning experiences embedded in the CLE and
efforts. “I think one important issue is how to assess students whether students’ experiences differed with their level of edu-
as they work together. Some people have certain traits and cation (quantitative phase). On the factors that students’ pref-
some can also combine a set of skills and I may not have time erences differed, those differences were explored as reflected
to assess all that,” Nash disclosed. Students as well as instruc- in instructors and students’ perceptions and experiences.
tors appeared to hold different assumptions about how to
monitor and reward individual and group efforts. In sharing
College Students’ Preferred Learning Experiences
his experiences, for instance, Nich said:
Embedded in a CLE
I had assignment recently for undergraduate science class where Although there is lack of consensus on the dimensional lim-
they did a research whether it is quantitative or qualitative, and its of CLE (Rikers et al., 2008), researchers have studied dif-
they did it with their partners. But I felt some of them were just
ferent dimensions that reflect diverse learning perspectives.
following their partners, they just tended in one report with both
The basic assumption of constructivism is that knowledge is
names. When they shared in class one of them did most of the
talking, I could tell. actively constructed by learners. Researchers have used
dimensions of arguments, discussions, debates, conceptual
However, Dan, an undergraduate student, shared a con- conflicts and dilemmas, sharing ideas with others, reflec-
trasted view by stating; tions, concept investigation, and real-life examples to assess
the extent to which college students perceive their learning
I think it is difficult to assess or evaluate our efforts fairly environment as constructivist oriented (Gijbels et al., 2006;
because the fact that someone is not talking does not mean he or Tenenbaum et al., 2001). In the current study, college stu-
she did not do the work. Someone talking does not also mean he dents’ preference for constructivist learning experiences
or she did most of the work. We might not know the story behind were investigated using multidimensional scales of personal
how the work unfolded and if students don’t report other relevance, student autonomy, collaboration, and student
students, the instructor may think all worked well in the group. negotiation. The evidence from the current study indicated
that undergraduates were more likely than graduate students
Group composition.  Both student and instructor participants to prefer collaborative learning experiences and negotiation.
perceived group composition as an important factor in imple- In a previous study, Loyens et al. (2008) found no significant
menting collaborative experiences in the college classroom. differences among first, second, and third year students’ con-
Gifty disclosed, “I always want to work with students but ceptions on cooperative learning. In the current study, col-
only with people that I think we can work together so that I laboration scale assessed students’ perceived preference for
can get my stuff done.” The individual uniqueness in the opportunities to work together with other students to accom-
group, the group dynamics, the strengths and weakness of stu- plish shared learning goals (Johnson et al., 2000). Negotiation
dents, and student choices were identified by both instructor scale assessed the perception of students’ preference for
Mensah 11

opportunities to interact and negotiate meaning, thereby, 1999). Varying collaborative experiences can also appeal to
building consensus by explaining and modifying their ideas the multiple and diverse learning needs of students. These
in the contexts of other students’ ideas (Taylor et al., 1993). can be done through different group activity models such as
Conceptually, collaboration and negotiation share instruc- writing fellows, cooperative learning, peer teaching, simula-
tional commonalities in terms of purpose and the overall out- tions, writing groups, and supplemental designs (Smith &
come but might have different structures and processes MacGregor, 1999). In each case, instructors can provide
through which they are carried out. This was statistically structures to guide students’ interactions and allow adequate
supported with a significant inter-correlation coefficient feedbacks from students to inform the process.
between collaboration and negotiation. They both constitute
different forms of student social learning. Thus, creating col-
Essential Conditions for Creating Effective
laborative learning environment might increase the chances
for students to negotiate ideas and deal with individuals’ Collaboration in the College Classroom
prejudices and misconceptions. The significance of this find- Expanding on the quantitative results, the researcher explored
ing relates to students’ decisions to seek opportunities to conditions that might be essential in designing effective col-
interact and construct new understanding with other students, laborative activities in the college classroom. The findings
either in small or large groups. With graduate education showed three main conditions: understanding collaboration
seeking to provide students with advanced knowledge and process; monitoring, assessment, and evaluation systems;
skills to develop innovative and critical thinking skills and group composition. Previous studies have discussed
(Wendler et al., 2010), it was expected that graduate students understanding (McDuff, 2012; Osterholt & Barratt, 2010;
would rather prefer more opportunities to explore the social Smith & MacGregor, 1999) assessment (Pombo, Loureiro, &
milieu within the CLE. An exploration of participants’ per- Moreira, 2010) and groupings (Oakley, Brent, Felder, &
spectives on collaboration within the qualitative phase found Elhajj, 2004; Osterholt & Barratt, 2010) aspects of
that these preferential differences reflected instructors and collaboration.
students’ perceived opportunities for collaboration, benefits
of collaboration, and students’ background and orientations. Understanding collaboration process. Students’ preference to
Both students and instructors in the current study consid- negotiate with other students to modify their ideas closely
ered collaboration as both social and intellectual space to related to students’ preference for collaboration experiences.
modify understandings, encourage multiple and diverse per- The findings were consistent with the observation that as stu-
spectives, and build relationships. However, different range dents become more and more confident in their paired activi-
of opportunities seems to exist for both category of students, ties, they transition into larger group sizes to learn the
with undergraduates more likely to have adequate opportuni- importance of negotiating more than one perspective (Oster-
ties to engage in small-group activities. Also, students holt & Barratt, 2010). Students may negotiate many perspec-
appeared to have different range of expectations, with gradu- tives to reach a mutual consensus to produce a collaborative
ate students preferring more varied approach to collaboration, outcome (Osterholt & Barratt, 2010). Collaboration and nego-
while maintaining the core tenor of working together as a tiation, as conceptually related, help advance the value for
team. When students’ expectations are aligned with the broad multiple perspectives in knowledge construction. Both stu-
classroom goals, such expectations tend to govern their pref- dents’ and instructors’ level of understanding of the process of
erences and their approach to learning (Buckley, Novicevic, collaboration was found to be critical if collaboration in the
Halbesleben, & Harvey, 2004). Therefore, if graduate stu- college classroom can be effective. The term collaboration
dents observe repetitive patterns of less perceived usefulness has often and loosely been used to mean any form of group
of collaboration in terms of their own intellectual and social (small or large) activities. With this basic understanding, atten-
growth, they may prefer to rely on their individual acuteness. tion is drawn to the final product more than the processes that
If higher education can foster students’ skills to communicate, students have go through as they try to work toward achieving
think and reason effectively, make judgments about the accu- their mutual goals. Smith and MacGregor (1999) had defined
racy of large volumes of information, solve complex prob- collaborative learning as an umbrella term encapsulating vari-
lems, and work collaboratively in diverse teams (Pellegrino, ety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual
Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001), expanding the space for intel- effort by students who work in groups and mutually search for
lectual and social synergy is critical. understanding and meaning of an assigned task.
Graduate students tend have broad learning needs that Students in the current study held different expectations
relate to building research efficacies, synthesizing complex as they collaborate with other students. Some instructor and
ideas, and communicating ideas. Their ability to master these student participants perceived that some students take collab-
complex attitudes and skills is more likely to occur in a learn- orative activities as avenues to relieve themselves of course-
ing environment where enormous opportunities exist for stu- work pressure, thereby adopting relatively passive roles.
dents to work in groups and mutually seek meaning and However, others use it to advance their understanding and deal
understanding to complex problems (Smith & MacGregor, with their misconceptions. These contrasted expectations held
12 SAGE Open

by students undermine the essence of working together as a distinct groups undermine the unique strength of social con-
group. Students tend to complete different parts of the assign- struction of knowledge. The advantage of instructor-formed
ment individually and arrange for the final product (Pombo groups over student-formed groups is that instructors are
et al., 2010). As argued, it is important for students to begin able to form groups whose members are diverse academi-
to understand the limitations of “singular, personal experi- cally, culturally, and socially. Groups of such nature might
ences” that can lead to “ego-centric” thinking (Paul & Elder, help to curtail possible isolations. In all these, the instructor
2010). The framework of collaboration should be constructed might need to have a considerable depth of understanding
on a deep understanding informed by a set of guiding prin- about the contextual relevance of the entire process of
ciples (McDuff, 2012). In implication, the structure and collaboration.
interactive process of collaboration should be constructed on
shared and agreeable rules, norms, ethics, and principles.
Limitations and Direction for Future Research
Effective monitoring, assessment, and evaluative framework. The The strength of the current study lied in its ability, using a
findings of the current study indicated that effective monitor- single study, to address multidimensional questions related
ing, assessment, and evaluative criteria to determine both to CLE. The results of the current study indicate that collabo-
group and individual efforts are essential features of effec- ration as a central tenet of constructivism is an essential
tive collaboration. The findings were consistent with previ- learning experience that fosters student classroom engage-
ous studies (Pombo et al., 2010). Drawing out clear criteria ment. It provides contexts for integrating, testing, and evalu-
for determining and rewarding both individual and group ating student diverse sociocultural beliefs and perspectives
efforts should be central in maintaining fairness, orderliness, into the framework of knowledge construction (Jonassen
and the sense of responsibility among team members. During et al., 1995). However, the generalizability of the results
small-group activities, some students have the tendency to should be done with context, given that the data were drawn
go off track which can divert attention and efforts. Therefore, from a cross section of a study population from a single insti-
monitoring systems should determine a broad collective and tution which was predominantly White Caucasians and also
individual collaborative competencies and traits found within the majority of participants being education majors. Again,
and between groups. In addition, providing structure that while the study illuminates important issues about CLE, the
specifies roles, sets timelines, and determines feedback crite- dimensions captured (collaboration, autonomy, negotiation,
ria might help to reduce group infractions and disagreements personal relevance) were not broad enough to provide a com-
that have the potential to undermine individual efforts. Fos- prehensive understanding of CLE. Therefore, the conclu-
tering peer feedback, either individually based or group- sions of the current study need to be examined in light of
based, can be useful in informing the systemic structure of further studies informed by a range of learning experiences
the collaboration process. embodied in constructivism. Also, as the instrument used to
measure college students’ preferred learning experiences in a
Effective group composition.  Effective grouping in collabora- CLE was a new instrument, future studies can increase the
tion learning experiences, from participants’ perspectives, is range of the individual items to improve the variability
one of the key factors that mediate collaboration. The finding within each factor.
was consistent with previous research (Oakley et al., 2004).
Ongoing discussions suggest contrasted positions on stu- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
dent-formed groups and instructor-formed groups. However, The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
current research evidence supports instructor-formed groups to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
(Oakley et al., 2004; Obaya, 1999). Consistent with the cur-
rent study, student participants were more likely to prefer Funding
instructor-formed groups than those constituted by students’
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
themselves. Collaboration experiences are used, among authorship of this article.
other things, to model to students the realities of the social
complexities that await them in their prospective careers. References
Metaphorically, as workers, they would not get to choose
their managers, supervisors, and even their coworkers. Col- Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college:
Gender related patterns in students’ intellectual development.
laborative activities are, therefore, expected to mirror the
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
complex experiences in the larger society. Also, the dynam- Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning
ics of the classroom population in terms of students’ cultural and self-authorship: Constructive developmental pedagogy.
backgrounds, ethnicity, sex, learning styles, strengths, and Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
weakness need to be considered in forming groups. Homoge- Belenky, M., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M.
neous groups where “strong students” group themselves, and (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self,
“weak students” in another group or minority and majority in voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mensah 13

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. E. (2000). Cooperative
Harvard University Press. learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis: University of
Buckley, M. R., Novicevic, M. M., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Minnesota Press.
Harvey, M. (2004). Course management and students’ expec- Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we
tations: Theory-based considerations. International Journal of need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology
Educational Management, 18, 138-144. Research & Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Carswell, J. (2001). A constructivist approach to online teaching and Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a construc-
learning. Virginia Community College System, 12(1), 68-73. tivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34-37.
Carwile, J. (2007). A constructivist approach to online teaching and Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environ-
learning. Inquiry, 12(1), 68-73. ments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and
Chapman, K. J., & van Auken, S. (2001). Creating positive group models: A new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. II (pp.
project experiences: An examination of the role of the instruc- 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
tor on students’ perceptions of group projects. Journal of Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, C., Campbell, J., & Haag,
Marketing Education, 22, 117-127. B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated com-
Charmaz, K. (2011). Constructivist grounded theory analy- munication in distance education. The American Journal of
sis of losing and regaining a valued self. In F. J. Wertz, K. Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Charmaz, L. J. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, & E. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with
McSpadden (Eds.), Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River,
Phenomenological psychology (pp. 165-200). New York, NY: NJ: Merrill.
Guilford Press. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of con-
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design structivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning.
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1-10.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and con- Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of
ducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study. Higher
CA: SAGE. Education, 26, 205-221.
Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectiv- Knight, R., & Sutton, L. (2004). Neo-Piagetian theory and research:
ism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning Enhancing pedagogical practice for educators of adults. London
sciences. Educational Technology Research & Development, Review of Education, 2(1), 47-60.
54, 387-416. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education:
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago, IL: Follett.
and perspective in the research process. Crows Nest, Australia: Labouvie-Vief, G. (1992). A neo-Piagetian perspective on adult
Allen & Unwin. cognitive development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berge
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 239-252). New York,
Macmillan. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. (2005). Constructivism: A psychologi- Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL:
cal theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: University of Chicago Press.
Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-38). New York, NY: Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J.P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008).
Teachers College, Columbia University. Relationships between students’ conceptions of constructiv-
Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & van den Bossche, P. ist learning and their regulation and processing strategies.
(2006). New learning environments and constructivism: The Instructional Science, 36, 445-462.
students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34, 213-226. Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J.P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009).
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition Students’ conceptions of constructivist learning in different
and learning. In R. C. Calfee & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), program years and different learning environments. British
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 501-514.
NY: Macmillan. Mara, R. (2005). Teacher beliefs: The impact of the design of con-
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Abderson, T. (1997). Analysis structivist learning environments on instructor epistemologies.
of global online debate and the development of an interactive Learning Environments Research, 8, 135-155.
analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive
in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Research, 17, 397-431. McDuff, E. (2012). Collaborative learning in an undergraduate
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity theory course: An assessment of goals and outcomes. Teaching
and higher education: Theory and impact on educational out- Sociology, 40, 166-176.
comes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-366. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts
Harrington, R. A., & Enochs, L. (2009). Accounting for preservice of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.),
teachers’ constructivist learning environment experiences. Learning as transformation (pp. 3-34). San Francisco, CA:
Learning Environments Research: An International Journal, Jossey-Bass.
12, 45-65. Moallem, M. (2001). Applying constructivist and objectivist learn-
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using ing theories in the design of a web-based course: Implications
mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to for practice. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3). Retrieved
practice. Field Methods, 18, 3-20. from http://www.ifets.info/others/journals/4_3/moallem.html
14 SAGE Open

Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collab- Center on Post secondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment,
orative design model. Educational Technology Research & Pennsylvania State University.
Development, 51(4), 85-103. Sutherland, P. (1999). The application of Piagetian and neo-Piaget-
Oakley, B., Brent, R., Felder, R. M., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning stu- ian ideas to further and higher education. International Journal
dent groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered of Lifelong Education, 18, 286-294.
Learning, 2(1), 9-34. Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learn-
Obaya, A. (1999). Getting cooperative learning. Science Education ing online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of
International, 10(2), 25-27. quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 13-30).
Osterholt, D. A., & Barratt, K. (2010). Ideas for practice: A col- Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
laborative look to the classroom. Journal of Developmental Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statis-
Education, 34(2), 26-35. tics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Pallant, J. F. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1993, April). Monitoring
to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper
Allen & Unwin. presented at the annual convention of the National Science
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2010). Critical thinking: Ethical reasoning Teachers Association, Kansas City, MO.
as essential to fairminded critical thinking, part III. Journal of Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring
Developmental Education, 33(3), 34-35. constructivist classroom learning environments. International
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293-302.
what students know: The science and design of educational Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001).
assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and dis-
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development tance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning
in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Instruction, 11, 87-111.
and Winston. Tudge, J. R. H., & Hogan, D. (1997, April 3-6). Collaboration from a
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. E. Vygotskian perspective. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of
Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered (pp. 7-20). (Reprinted the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
in Readings on the development of children, by M. Gauvainand Tudge, J. R. H., & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and
& M. Cole, Eds., New York, NY: W.H. Freeman) Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), and cognitive development. Human Development, 36, 61-81.
Carmichael’s handbook of child psychology (pp. 703-732). von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching.
New York, NY: Wiley. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education
Piaget, J. (1972). Development and learning. In C. S. Lavatelli & F. (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stendler (Eds.), Readings in child behavior and development Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism:
(pp. 7-20). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation
in distance education. International Journal of Educational
Pombo, L., Loureiro, M. J., & Moreira, A. (2010). Assessing col-
Telecommunications, 6, 339-362.
laborative work in a higher education blended learning con-
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
text: Strategies and students’ perceptions. Educational Media
University Press.
International, 47, 217-229.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In
Renkl, A. (2009). Why constructivists should not talk about con-
J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychol-
structivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens
ogy (pp. 134-144). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science, 37, 495-498.
Wang, Q. (2009). Designing a web-based constructivist learning
Rikers, R. M. J.P., Gog, T. V., & Paas, F. (2008). The effects of con-
environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17, 1-13.
structivist learning environments: A commentary. Instructional
Wendler, C., Bridgeman, B., Cline, F., Millett, C., Rock, J., Bell,
Science, 36, 463-467. N., & McAllister, P. (2010). The path forward: The future
Sherman, T. M., & Kurshan, B. L. (2005). Constructing learn- of graduate education in the United States. Princeton, NJ:
ing: Using technology to support teaching for understanding. Educational Testing Service.
Learning & Leading With Technology, 32(5), 10-13.
Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory.
Educational Psychologist, 21, 209-233. Author Biography
Smith, B., & MacGregor, J. (1999). What is collaborative learn- Emmanuel Mensah has PhD in educational foundations and
ing? In A. Goodsell, M. Mahler, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. research from The University of North Dakota. His research inter-
MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for ests include critical pedagogies, participatory education, and episte-
higher education (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National mological beliefs underpinning college teaching and learning.
832703
research-article20192019
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244019832703SAGE OpenJung

Literature Review – Original Research

SAGE Open

The Evolution of Social Constructivism

January-March 2019: 1­–10
© The Author(s) 2019
DOI: 10.1177/2158244019832703
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832703

in Political Science: Past to Present journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Hoyoon Jung1

Abstract
This article aims to illuminate how social constructivism has evolved as a mainstream international relation (IR) paradigm
within a short period of time. To be specific, I navigated core tenets of constructivism in terms of its ontology, epistemology,
and methodology, respectively. I also explored the growing body of constructivist empirical research and ensuing theoretical
refinement as well as the strengths and weaknesses of a constructivist approach. Through these discussions, this article
argues that constructivist approaches, since its emergence, have hugely contributed to the development of the study of IRs,
providing novel insights and distinct ways of understanding of social and international reality with its own added value, by
focusing on the role of ideas, identity, and norms in shaping state preferences and world politics.

Keywords
constructivism, identity, idea, international relations, norms

How constructivism has become one of the most compelling rationalists–constructivists debate had gradually become the
approaches in rivalry with dominant rationalist and material- principal line of contestation (Price & Reus-Smit, 1998), as
ist theories in the study of international relations (IR)? In this the 1990s have witnessed the rise of a constructivist approach
article, I suggest that constructivist approaches, since its in the study of IR. According to Price and Reus-Smit (1998),
emergence, have truly provided important and distinctive the reorientation of critical international theory, which
theoretical and empirical insights in explaining global poli- resulted in the “constructivist turn in IR,” was prompted by
tics. The principal aim of this study is in this context to three mutually reinforcing factors. First was “the response by
explore the rise of constructivism within the field of IR in the neoliberals and neorealists to the criticism leveled by critical
midst of the interparadigm debate and to explain the over- theorists.” As Keohane already noted, many admitted the
arching theoretical underpinnings of constructivism— potential of the reflectivist critical international theorists as a
including its main ontological, epistemological, and new provider of alternative insights into the intersubjective
methodological tenets. I also review a wide array of con- bases of IR. The second factor was the demise of the Cold
structivist empirical works that have significantly contrib- War, which demonstrated “the failure of the dominant ratio-
uted to the theoretical development and refinement for more nalist theories” in explaining such a dramatic international
than two decades. I finally evaluate some notable strengths change. The third was a generational change of IR scholars
and weaknesses of constructivist approaches. who have been hugely enlightened by the insights of Third
Debate critical theories (Price & Reus-Smit, 1998).
Adler (1997) articulates that constructivism is the view
The Emergence of Constructivist IR that “the manner in which the material world shapes and is
Theory shaped by human action and interaction depends on dynamic
The Constructivist Turn in IR and Important normative and epistemic interpretations of the material
world” (p. 322). Likewise, constructivism is conceived as,
Tenets of Constructivism according to Guzzini (2000), a “metatheoretical commit-
The main axis of the interparadigm debate—so called, the ment” on the basis of three important tenets: as an
Third great debate—during the 1980s in the field of IR had
been between rationalists and early critical international the- 1
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, USA
orists. In this regard, Robert Keohane noted the emergence
Corresponding Author:
and the validity of a new approach in his 1988 address at the Hoyoon Jung, Political Science Department, University of Hawai‘i at
ISA Annual Conference, calling it “reflectivist” (Keohane, Mānoa, 2424 Maile Way, Saunders 640, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
1988; Weber, 2014; Wendt, 1992). In this process, the Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open

epistemological claim, knowledge is socially constructed; as international system—enemy, rival, and friend, respectively.
an ontological claim, social reality is constructed; finally, as In other words, there actually exist different “anarchies,”
a reflexive claim, knowledge and reality are mutually consti- which vary greatly depending on the roles that dominate the
tutive (Cited in Pouliot, 2007, p. 361). Constructivists have system. The emphasis on the mutual constitution of agents
focused on the examination of nonmaterial factors such as and structure also destabilized the taken-for-granted black
norms, ideas, knowledge, and culture, stressing in particular box, treating identity and interest of agents as an important
the role played by “collectively held or intersubjective ideas empirical question (Checkel, 1998; Hopf, 1998; Wendt,
and understanding on social life” in IRs (Finnemore & 1992). These constructivist claims thus challenge the meth-
Sikkink, 2001, p. 393). In addition, Ruggie (1998, p. 856) odological individualism, which underpins neorealism and
describes constructivism as “human consciousness and its neoliberalism’s agent-centered view (Checkel, 1998).
role in international life.” At the most general level, con- According to Finnemore and Sikkink (2001), the main
structivism is an approach to social analysis based on the analytical competitors of constructivism can be singled out
following basic assumptions: (a) human interaction is not into two kinds: (a) “materialist theories, which see political
shaped by material factors, but primarily by ideational ones; behavior as determined by the physical world alone” and (b)
(b) the most significant ideational factors in this context are “individualist theories, which treat collective understandings
“intersubjective” beliefs as shared collective understanding; as simply epiphenomena of individual action and deny that
and (c) these beliefs construct the actors’ identities and inter- they have causal power or ontological status.” Similarly,
ests (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001, p. 393). Accordingly, the Fearson and Wendt (2005) argue that the debate between
importance and added value of constructivism in the study of rationalism and constructivism can be principally framed in
IR lie particularly in its emphasis on both the “ontological disagreement with metaphysical positions (ontology) and
reality of intersubjective knowledge” and the “epistemologi- empirical descriptions of the world. Whereas rationalism is
cal and methodological implications of this reality.” In sum, based on individual ontology, constructivism assumes a
constructivists firmly believe that IRs are made up of social holist ontology in which wholes cannot be reducible to inter-
facts, which can exist only by human agreement (Adler, acting parts. Moreover, they disagree on whether preferences
1997). or interests of agents are exogenously given or endogenous
Unlike neorealism or neoliberalism, Constructivism in IR to a social interaction; while rationalism follows homo eco-
is “not a substantive theory of politics” per se (Adler, 1997, nomicus, which is based fundamentally on the logic of con-
p. 323). Rather, it is a “theoretically informed approach to the sequences, constructivists maintain that actors are homo
study of IR” (Ruggie, 1998, p. 880). In other words, con- sociologicus, which takes the logic of appropriateness
structivism is a social theory, which “makes claims about the (Fearson & Wendt, 2005). The emergence of constructivism,
nature of social life and social change” (Finnemore & marked as the social theoretic turn in IR, has created room
Sikkink, 2001, p. 393). Contradicting neorealist and neolib- for treating identity and interest as well as norms as promis-
eral precepts that have been particularly concerned with the ing dependant or explanatory variables in the study of global
examination of “how the behavior of agents generates out- politics (Weber, 2014).
comes” (Wendt, 1992, 1999, p. 391), constructivism takes “a
sociological perspective on world politics, emphasizing the Many Constructivisms? The Variants of
importance of normative as well as material structures, and
the role of identity in the constitution of interests and action”
Constructivism
(Price & Reus-Smit, 1998, p. 259). Whereas some scholars, for example, Price and Reus-Smit
Contra neorealism and neoliberalism, constructivist (1998), suggest that the categorization within constructivism
approaches emphasize, again, the reflexivity of society and in IR is unnecessary by asserting that conventional construc-
the self, assuming that agents and structures are mutually tivism has to be seen as an intellectual outgrowth of critical
constituted (Checkel, 1998; Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001; theory—and that it does not violate principal epistemologi-
Hopf, 1998; Price & Reus-Smit, 1998 ; Wendt, 1999). This cal, methodological, and normative tenets of critical interna-
ontological tenet has provided the new constructivist inter- tional theory—many IR scholars have claimed that the
pretation of anarchy that fundamentally refutes the neorealist distinction can be made depending on theoretical and episte-
postulation—anarchy as systems of self-help. Wendt (1999) mological differences (Farrell, 2002; Fearson & Wendt,
asserts that there can exist multiple logics in anarchic struc- 2005; Hopf, 1998; Weber, 2014).
tures, arguing that “anarchy as such is an empty vessel and First, Hopf (1998) categorizes constructivism into conven-
has no intrinsic logic; anarchies only acquire logics as a tional and critical variants. While admitting that constructiv-
function of the structure of what we put inside them” (Wendt, ism shares some foundational elements of critical theory, Hopf
1999, p. 249). In his analysis, Wendt claims that there are (1998) suggests that “to the degree that constructivism creates
three different cultures of anarchy as in imagined commu- theoretical and epistemological distance between itself and its
nity, naemly Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian, respectively. origins in critical theory, it becomes conventional constructiv-
In each culture, a dissimilar structure of roles dominates the ism” (p. 181). Although conventional constructivists aim to
Jung 3

produce new knowledge and insights based on “minimal foun- constructivism’s core assumption (Finnemore & Sikkink,
dationalism” by accepting that a contingent universalism may 2001). Constructivist approach is primarily a process-cen-
be necessary and possible, critical constructivists pursue tered one based on “the dialectical constitution of knowledge
human emancipation and enlightenment by unmasking natu- and reality” (Pouliot, 2007, p. 364). Constructivist scholars
ralized order and asymmetrical power relations in our social are, therefore, basically skeptical about claims to “all-
world (Hopf, 1998, pp. 183-185). Hopf in this context argues encompassing truth,”—what Price and Reus-Smit (1998)
that conventional constructivism operates between main- call “Big-T”; rather, they are more concerned with “small-t”
stream IR and critical theories, in that while conventional con- contingent claims. Such partial claims still constitute causal
structivists deny the mainstream position that “world is so explanation in a way different to that which realists and liber-
homogeneous that universally valid generalizations can be als understand causality (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001,
expected to come of theorizing about it,” they at the same time pp. 394-395). Likewise, Adler (2005) maintains that con-
reject the critical constructivist presumption that “world poli- structivists share an epistemology “in which interpretation is
tics is so heterogeneous that we should presume to look for an intrinsic part of the social sciences and emphasizes con-
only the unique and the differentiating” (Hopf, 1998, p. 199). tingent generalizations.” For him “contingent generaliza-
By the same token, Adler (1997) maintains that constructiv- tions do not freeze understanding; rather, they open up our
ism—specifically conventional constructivism—can play an understanding of the social world” (Adler, 2005, pp. 10-11).
important role as the middle ground between rationalists (neo- Similarly, according to Finnemore and Sikkink (2001), con-
realists and neoliberals) and adherents of interpretive episte- structivists recognize that “all research involves interpreta-
mologies (such as postmodernists and critical theorists). tion, and thus there is no neutral stance from which they can
Meanwhile, Fearson and Wendt (2005) divide construc- gather objective knowledge about the world, but they differ
tivism into three distinct strands—positivist, interpretivist, about how this interpretation should be one and what kinds
and postmodern—depending on their epistemological posi- of explanation it yields” (p. 395).
tions. According to them, these three constructivisms answer It is important to recognize that modern, or so-called con-
differently to the following two epistemological questions: ventional, constructivists follow similar methodological
“Whether knowledge claims about social life can be given tasks of rationalist or utilitarian camps; gathering evidence,
any warrant other than the discursive power of the putative assessing it and arbitrating among explanations. They rely on
knower (relativism issue)”; and “Whether causal explana- several sources similarly that other social scientists widely
tions are appropriate in social inquiry (the naturalism issue).” utilizes to extract reliable and relevant evidence (Finnemore
Although a positivist position answers yes to both questions, & Sikkink, 2001), whereas postmodern or critical construc-
an interpretivist answers yes and no, respectively, and post- tivists are concerned more with “discourse” that has recently
modern constructivists answer no to both (Fearson & Wendt, arisen a key theoretical concept in the social sciences. By
2005). Fearon and Wendt thus conclude that one cannot challenging the “scientism” of mainstream IR, studies of dis-
speak of “constructivism” in the singular because epistemo- course about the knowledge/power nexus have become one
logical dissimilarities between them are fundamentally deep. of the fast thriving and vibrant areas across the academic dis-
Despite the sharp differences between several variants ciplines (Milliken, 1999, pp. 225-226). For example, in her
within constructivism, they do share notable theoretical fun- study of international aid, Nair (2013) analyzes how endur-
damentals in general. First, constructivists have common ing asymmetric power relations between international aid
interests in examining how practices of social life and the donors and recipients have been discursively constructed.
objects are “constructed” (Fearson & Wendt, 2005). In other According to her, “representations about what aid does, its
words, they seek to “denaturalize” the social world; they aim modalities and dispensations” contributes to the reproduc-
to reveal how practices and identities that people usually take tion of hegemonic aid discourse that reestablishes hegemonic
for granted as exogenously given are rather the product of authority of the donor over the recipient (Nair, 2013, p. 630).
social construction by human agency. Second, they also As such, there is no single constructivist research design
commonly emphasize the significance of mutual constitution or methods. Constructivists choose the methods and analyti-
of agents and structure, believing that intersubjective reality cal tools best suited to their particular research questions,
and meanings are paramount data to grasp social world, taking advantage of process tracing, interviews, participant
when these data are appropriately “contextualized” (Hopf, observation, structured focused comparison, genealogy, dis-
1998) Third, all kinds of constructivist variants are based pri- course analysis, content analysis, and many others to capture
marily upon a methodological holist research strategy rather intersubjective meanings (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001).
than methodological individualist perspective (Fearson &
Wendt, 2005). Empirical and Theoretical
Development of Constructivism
Methodological Tenets of Constructivist Approach
Constructivism’s empirical research program has been
The methods and methodology of constructivism that enables largely shaped by its core assumptions in various ways
to capture the intersubjective meanings have been shaped by (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001). Thanks to the huge
4 SAGE Open

contribution made by growing constructivist empirical As we all might know, sociological institutionalism is not
works, “the once controversial statement that norms matter is equivalent to constructivism in IR; however, they are much
accepted by the most diehard neorealists” (Checkel, 1997, similar in some significant aspects. First and foremost, in
p. 473). The constructivist approach has thus become one of both perspectives, “actors are treated not as unanalyzed ‘giv-
the most influential and compelling perspectives in main- ens’ but as entities constructed and motivated by enveloping
stream IR. In this section, I will examine the theoretical frames.” Put simply, “the nature, purposes, behavior, and
development and refinement guided by constructivist empir- meaning of actors are subject to redefinition and transforma-
ical works over more than two decades. tion as the frames themselves change” (Boli & Thomas,
1997, p. 172). Moreover, in contrast to the rationalist
approach such as realism and liberalism—which assume
Sociological Institutionalism/World Polity Theory
individualist ontology “in which wholes are reducible to
Prior to the rise of constructivism as a promising paradigm in interacting parts,” constructivism and sociological institu-
IR, the sociological institutionalists—so-called neoinstitu- tionalism share a holist ontology “in which parts exist only in
tionalists or world polity theorists—had offered new per- relation to wholes” (Fearson & Wendt, 2005, p. 53).
spective on “how ‘world culture’ reconfigured state policies Although it seems that they resemble each other, they also
in many different policy arenas” (Finnemore & Sikkink, differ in some ways. First, many of the world polity theorists
2001, pp. 396-397). The core argument of this Stanford take advantage of quantitative methods to clarify overall
School of thought was that “the modern world society causes characteristics of cultural and normative structures and the
the diffusion of common institutional models and patterns of changes in them over time. However, this approach is less
legitimacy among nation states” (Burawoy, 2000, p. 2). convincing to understand why and how these changes occur.
World polity approach, therefore, emphasizes an omniscient Constructivists can effectively fill this gap, utilizing a vast
role of world society models, according to Meyer, Boli, array of methods to capture intersubjective meanings
Thomas, and Ramirez (1997, pp. 144, 173), which “shapes (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Also, in contrast to the socio-
nation-state identities, structures, and behavior via world- logical institutionalist emphasis on “structure at the expense
wide cultural and associational processes.” In this regard, of agency” (Finnemore, 1996, p. 342), constructivists—
Boli and Thomas (1997) state that especially agentic constructivists—stress the mutual consti-
tution of structure and agency. In this regard, Finnemore and
For a century and more, the world has constituted a singular Sikkink (1998, p. 397) insist that sociological institutional-
polity. By this we mean that the world has been conceptualized ists often look “dangerously biased,” in that “these scholars
as a unitary social system, increasingly integrated by networks sometimes overlook the fact that international norms have to
of exchange, competition, and cooperation, such that actors come from somewhere and may not identify feedback effects
have found it “natural” to view the whole world as their arena of from local agents onto global structures.”
action and discourse. (p. 172)

In other words, the rise of isomorphism among the con- The Role of Strategic Agency
temporary nation-state particularly in terms of institutional Recent constructivist researches have kept its distance from
models and legitimate authority stems from a singular world the crucial tenets of sociological institutionalism, especially
polity alongside globalization. Therefore, for sociological by offering new insights concerning “the role of strategic
institutionalists, the structure takes precedence over agents; agency” (Kim & Sharman, 2014, p. 444). These agentic con-
“it creates actors but it is not created by them” (Finnemore, structivist works have primarily focused on the purposive
1996, p. 333). exertion of individuals and groups who attempt to change
For example, in their study of “cross-national acquisition existing norms and rules in the sphere of politics or generate
of women’s suffrage rights” from 1890 to 1990, Ramirez, new norms and persuade a mass of norm leaders (states) to
Soysal, and Shanahan (1997, p. 743) demonstrate that the embrace new norms. In this norm entrepreneurship litera-
universalization of women’s suffrage among many nation- ture, an attempt has been made to explain how these activists
states was primarily enabled and largely facilitated by the operate and what might contribute to their success. These are
“existence, development, diffusion, and influence of a more not easily elucidated by dominant utilitarian approaches;
inclusive world model of political citizenship” rather than constructivist approaches can be niche alternatives
national political factors. Similarly, Kim and Sharman (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998; 2001).
(2014), through their empirical studies, argue that the recent As an illustration, Price’s (1998) work on how nonstate
rise and diffusion of individual accountability norms for both actors—which he terms “transnational civil society”—­
leaders’ human rights crimes and corruption are a product of generate international norms prohibiting antipersonnel land
“an overarching modernist world culture privileging indi- mines and teach states is particularly noteworthy. Price sug-
vidual rights and responsibilities, as well as rational-legal gests how the constructivist approaches effectively shed light
authority” (Kim & Sharman 2014, p. 417). on the security issue area, which has been conventionally
Jung 5

regarded as the realm of the high politics. Similarly, high- scholars have rather identified that international norms often
lighting the increasingly crucial role of nonstate actors in have different impacts on different agents. Therefore, captur-
world politics, Keck and Sikkink (1999) distinguish these ing and explaining these differences have become a central
activists whose formation was motivated by principled ideas task of constructivist research (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001).
or values from economic actors/firms and What Hass terms In this regard, Checkel’s (1997, 1999) works have pro-
epistemic communities (Haas, 1992). Keck and Sikkink foundly contributed to the literature on cross-national varia-
(1998, 1999) call them transnational advocacy networks, tion of international norms’ effects. By arguing that there is
which embrace those actors working internationally on an significant variance in mechanisms by which international
issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common norms are socialized and internalized within each domestic
discourse, and dense exchanges of information and services. political arena, he maintains that the effects of international
They refer to transnational “networks” rather than civil soci- norms reach deeper; they not only constrain societal actors as
ety or coalition to stress the “structured and structuring neoliberals argue, but also constitute identities and interests
dimension in the actions of these complex agents” (Keck & of actors at the domestic level (Checkel, 1997).
Sikkink, 1999, p. 90). The emergence of transnational advo- Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) examine how norms affect
cacy networks, according to Keck and Sikkink (1999), is a political change, by introducing the path-breaking theory of
new and transformative phenomenon in many aspects. They norm “life cycle,” which articulates the evolution of norms
specifically comment that in three stages—norm emergence, norm cascade, and inter-
nalization. They argue that different actors, different motives,
What is novel in these networks is the ability of non-traditional and different dominant mechanisms engage in different
international actors to mobilize information strategically to help stages. Cortell and Davis (1996) also argue that domestic
create new issues and categories, and to persuade, pressurize, political actors’ appropriation of international norms and
and gain leverage over much more powerful organizations and rules can influence the state policy choice. Based on the case
governments. Activists in networks try not only to influence
study of U.S. policy choices in the realm of economy and
policy outcomes, but to transform the terms and nature of the
debate. They are not always successful in their efforts, but they
security, they underline the role of domestic structural con-
are increasingly important players in policy debates at the texts as an intervening variable in determining the degree to
regional and international level. (pp. 89-90) which domestic actors’ appeal to international norms affect
the state preferences. Acharya (2004) navigates how transna-
In their other volume Activists beyond borders, Keck and tional norms have an impact on institutional change in
Sikkink (1998)—by examining the cases of human rights ASEAN. By paying particular attention on norm localization
advocacy networks in Latin America, environmental advo- dynamics, he suggests that normative contestation between
cacy networks in Third World such as Brazil and Malaysia emerging global norms and preexisting regional norms can
and relatively novel emergence of advocacy networks on be settled by norm localization in which norm-takers’ con-
violence against women—asserts that these advocacy net- gruence-building is a key in this process. In this way, these
works have had an influence not only on the preferences of scholars have created intersectional research agenda between
their own countries, but also on the preferences of other IR and comparative politics (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001).
states and other nonstate actors such as activist groups and
individuals by means of persuasion, socialization, and pres- Norms, International Policy Diffusion, and Social
sure. In comparison with earlier focus of women’s network
Hierarchies
on female circumcision, women’s suffrage and discrimina-
tion issues, such a newly arisen issue networks have been Despite the rise of empirical research on norms in the study
rapidly developed once they frame violence against women of IR, ranking dynamics of norms has been significantly
as a violation of human rights (Carpenter, 2005, 2006; Keck overlooked in existing literature. Towns’s (2010, 2012)
& Sikkink, 1998), either through online/virtual space thought-provoking works on norms and social hierarchies
(Carpenter & Jose, 2012) or real-space counterparts. nicely fill this gap. Towns (2012) argues that

in setting out standards of behavior, norms also draw on and

Bringing International Norms Back Into Domestic generate social hierarchies. In defining what is normal and
Politics desirable, norms set the terms for what is abnormal and undesirable
behavior and provide the means for ranking those states that do
Owing to the devotion of constructivist IR scholarship that not meet a norm as deficient and inferior. (p. 180)
has demonstrated the significance of norms in world politics
over more than two decades, it is no longer controversial to Through the empirical case study of the international diffu-
allege that norms matter (Towns, 2012). Unlike the theoreti- sion of legal sex quotas from Latin America, Towns (2012)
cal tenet of sociological institutionalism, which focuses maintains that “new policy measures may emerge from
exclusively on one-directional causality, constructivist ‘below’ as peripheral states attempt to improve their
6 SAGE Open

standing” (pp. 182-183). In other words, states in lower sources, simply for the state to “enable to make a decision or
ranking in international society are often eager to become to act in a particular situation” (Weldes, 1996, p. 281).
leaders in certain norm diffusion processes with intent to Accordingly, the representations created by state officials
raise its rank within a given order or as a means of rejecting “make clear both to those officials themselves and to others
an existing order. This argument can also offer an persuasive who and what we are, who and what our enemies are, in what
account of why core states attempt to diffuse new policies; ways we are threatened by them, and how we might best deal
that is, they do so to maintain their international standing with those threats” (Weldes, 1996, p. 283).
and to be admired (Towns, 2012). An increasing engagement of critical constructivists in
security studies has been noteworthy as well. According to
Cho (2009), the key differences between conventional and
Constructivism and Security Studies
critical constructivism is that “identities are often regarded
Power and politics, which has traditionally been a realm of as explanatory variables for certain security phenomena in
realist research program, has been facing a stiff challenge by conventional constructivism, but in critical constructivism
the development of an alternative paradigm—constructivist the identities themselves are to be explained to make sense of
approach—to the subject. This ideational turn in security the cultural productions of insecurities” (pp. 96-97). In this
studies are concerned mainly with “the impact of norms on regard, in Weldes’s (1999) other volume Culture of Insecurity,
international security” (Farrell, 2002, p. 49). For example, she points out that “insecurities, rather than being natural
Walling (2013) shows social constructivist approach to the facts, are social and cultural productions,” and this insecurity
issue of humanitarian intervention of the U.N. Security is itself “the product of processes of identity construction in
Council. Shedding light on how violation of human rights which the self and the other, or multiple others, are consti-
has become one of the major threats to international security tuted.” In other words, “identity and insecurity are produced
and, therefore, how humanitarian intervention has become and reproduced in a mutually constitutive process” (Weldes,
justified as international human rights norms become increas- 1999, pp. 10-11, 59). Weldes empirically traces the produc-
ingly legitimate, the author maintains that “interests are tion of insecurity during the Cuban Missile crisis and claims
shaped by normative values” (Walling, 2013, p. 15). that the crisis in 1962 was a product of social construction
Criticizing an incomplete explanation of rationalist approach that dominant masculinist U.S. Cold War identity was
to humanitarian intervention that assumes material interest reasserted.
and power as a pivotal driver, Walling demonstrates that con-
structivist accounts of norms and ideas also matter signifi-
cantly in the area of security studies where rationalism has
State Identities, Interests, and Its Behavior
traditionally predominated. Similarly, Finnemore (2004) elu- One of the most innovative scholarly contributions of con-
cidates the historical changes of military intervention and structivism to the field of IR would be the following argu-
points out that the old notion of realpolitik cannot explain ment, established by several empirical works, that states
such transformations. States sometimes use force for differ- identity shapes its interests, preferences, and behaviors. As
ent purposes, according to her, just as the case of humanitar- Hopf (1998) points out, “in telling you who you are, identi-
ian intervention shows. As Finnemore argues, what have ties strongly imply a particular set of interests or preferences
really changed over time are the social purposes of interven- with respect to choices of action in particular domains, and
tion, and that the utility of the use of force depends increas- with respect to particular actors. The identity of a state
ingly on its legitimacy. Other scholars have put ideological implies its preferences and consequent actions” (p. 175).
variables at the center of security issues. In his book Being credited for placing identity issues at the heart of con-
Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, Haas (2005) structivist theorizing, Wendt (1992) and Katzenstein (1996)
shows the ideological distance among actors—the degree of are considered pioneers in this area. However, they differ
ideological similarities and differences—plays a crucial role greatly in terms of the weighted influence of international
in leaders’ perception of threat and shaping national versus domestic attributes on constituting state identities;
interests. while Wendt’s systemic constructivism puts particular
In contrast to the realist position that regards national emphasis on international factors, Katzenstein focuses pri-
interests as “objects that have merely to be observed or dis- marily on domestic environments as a key source of shaping
covered,” Weldes (1996, p. 280) conceptualizes the national state identities (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001).
interests as “social constructions,” which are “created as As mentioned several times, rationalist approaches such
meaningful objects out of the intersubjective and culturally as neorealism and neoliberalism treat the agents’ identities
established meanings with which the world, particularly the and interests as exogenously given (Ruggie, 1998). According
international system and the place of the state in it, is under- to Wendt, however, they are rather endogenous to interac-
stood.” According to her, national interests are constructed by tion. Drawing on sociological structurationist and symbolic
the state itself, mainly by state officials and elites, through interactionist perspective, Wendt develops constructivist
representations drawing on a variety of cultural and linguistic theory “in which identities and interests are the dependent
Jung 7

variable” in contrast to the liberal claim that “international scholarly topic of research, they truly share a similar onto-
institutions can transform state identities and interests” logical claim, the linguistic construction of reality, which
(Wendt, 1992, p. 394). Wendt asserts that “identities are the might offer a prospective bridge between constructivism and
basis of interests” and “actors do not have a portfolio of poststructuralism (Pouliot, 2004).
interests that they carry around independent of social con- Drawing on American philosopher Searle’s (1969, 1995)
text; instead, they define their interests in the process of language and speech act theories, Nicholas Onuf—who first
defining situation” (Wendt, 1992, p. 398). In Katzenstein’s introduced the term “constructivism” to the field of IR—
volume (1996), however, identity is closely associated with argues that “talking is undoubtedly the most important way
domestic attributes. That is to say, identity is commonly that we go about making the world what it is” (Onuf, 1989,
articulated as “varying constructions of statehood” and p. 59). His basic presupposition in mind underlying his argu-
“varying national ideologies of collective distinctiveness and ment is that “people always construct, or constitute, social
purpose” across countries; therefore, these variations in turn reality, even as their being, which can only be social, is con-
constitute state interests which have a further influence on structed for them” (Onuf, 2013, p. 1). For him, a principal
state policy. means of social construction is language. Onuf (2003) fur-
ther argues that when it comes to constructivist analysis of
language and agency, “language makes us who we are”
The Role of International Institutions
(p. 27). Similarly, Mattern’s (2004) landmark book Ordering
Although a majority of scholars of IRs might agree that inter- International Politics shows us the quintessence of how lan-
national institutions matter, less consensus has been made on guage-power nexus has had an impact on international iden-
how they have exact effects (Checkel, 2005). Some construc- tity and order. Through an empirical examination of the Suez
tivist scholars have focused on “the role of international Crisis in 1956, Mattern explores how Anglo-American iden-
organizations in disseminating new international norms and tity was fastened and, therefore, international order was
models of political organization” (Finnemore & Sikkink, maintained through the use of “representational force.” In
2001, p. 401). Although the traditional regime theorists have sum, she argues that “fastening identity through representa-
dealt with the issue of international organization and norms, tional force forces order back upon disorder” (Mattern, 2004,
their exact focus was on how norms and a convergence of p. 70).
expectations produce international organization, but not on Some scholars are influenced heavily by the Habermasian
whether the reverse case might be possible (e.g., Krasner, critical theory. Particularly noteworthy is Risse’s (2000)
1982). In this regard, Finnemore (1993) suggests that inter- work, which suggests the “logic of arguing” as a distinct and
national organizations do produce and promote new norms, new mode of social interaction. Risse distinguishes three
and even “teach” states, unlike the regimes literature gener- logics of social action—a logic of consequentialism rooted
ally assumes. Others have explored the issue of international in rational choice theory, a logic of appropriateness empha-
institutions and socialization, focusing particularly on the sized by social constructivists, and a logic of arguing devel-
ways in which international institution plays a socializing oped from the insights of the German-speaking IR
role. For example, Checkel (2005) illuminates a social con- community. According to him,
structivist perspective on socializing role of institution in
Europe. Whereas rationalist approaches traditionally grasp Arguing implies that actors try to challenge the validity claims
socialization as a result of agents’ strategic calculation such inherent in any causal or normative statement and to seek a
as sanctions or material incentives followed by a logic of communicative consensus about their understanding of a
consequences (Schimmelfennig, 2005), constructivists sees situation as well as justifications for the principles and norms
guiding their action. . . Argumentative and deliberative behavior
socialization in the context of a logic of appropriateness.
is as goal oriented as strategic interaction, but the goal is not to
Checkel (2005, p. 812) further argues that—based partly on attain one’s fixed preferences, but to seek a reasoned consensus.
Habermasian communicative action theory—“normative Actors’ interests, preferences, and the perceptions of the
suasion” primarily through “talking” between agents within situation are no longer fixed, but subject to discursive challenges.
institutions or organizations plays a pivotal role in socializa- Where argumentative rationality prevails, actors do not seek to
tion. For him, international institutions are thus important maximize or to satisfy their given interests and preferences, but
venue for socialization. to challenge and to justify the validity claims inherent in them—
and they are prepared to change their views of the world or even
their interests in light of the better argument. (Risse, 2000, p. 7)
The Role of Language, Speech Act, and Argument
Following Wittgenstein, Searle and Habermas, other con- Therefore, for Risse (2000), “arguing and deliberating
structivists have examined the role of “language,” “speech,” about the validity claims” are innate in “any communicative
and “argument” as a key mechanism of social construction statement about identities, interests, and the state of the
(Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001). Although each of the scholars world” (p. 33). Risse illustrates in his empirical case study
of this variant of constructivism has an interest in different the role and power of argument in the processes of domestic
8 SAGE Open

implementation of international human rights norms. interests,” that is, politics is not just material, but is truly
Similarly, as already examined in the section above, social (Price, 2006, p. 255). In other words, norms are not
Checkel’s (2005) work on socializing role of institutions in merely confined to regulative or restrictive roles, but possess
Europe and the role of “talking” in such process can be also productive and constitutive effects as well (Price, 2006);
understood in the same context. In his another study on con- also, (b) added values of constructivism would be its empha-
structivist compliance studies, Checkel (2001) tries to puzzle sis on the “ontological reality of intersubjective knowledge”
out the following question: “why do actors comply with and on the “epistemological and methodological implica-
social norms?” Through the case study of state compliance tions of this reality” (Adler, 1997, p. 323).
with citizenship norm in Germany and Ukraine, he suggests On the contrary, there are some weaknesses in this
that norm compliance can be explicated by a process encom- approach as well. Hopf (1998) in this context, points out that
passing both rationalist instrumental choice and constructiv- constructivism “does not specify the existence, let alone pre-
ist social learning (Checkel, 2001). Acknowledging the cise nature of its main causal/constitutive elements: identi-
validity of rationalist approach to norm compliance studies, ties, norms, values and social structure” (p. 189). In addition,
Checkel also points out that actors sometimes comply with constructivism invites some degree of criticism often
norms “by learning new interests through non-instrumental” assumed as inherent weakness, which can be labeled as
(Checkel, 2001, p. 564). “selection bias.” According to Finnemore and Sikkink
(1998), one of the consistent complaints about constructiv-
ism made by competitor theorists has been its exclusive
Constructivism and Foreign Policy Analysis
focus on good and nice norms such as human rights, environ-
In recent years, there have been scholarly endeavors to bridge ment protection, climate change, women’s right, and many
constructivist perspective to the study of foreign policy analy- others even after constructivism was acknowledged as a
sis. According to Houghton (2007), foreign policy analysis legitimate research approach in IR. In other words, this bias
had been treated as “free-floating enterprise,” which is not toward admirable norms has caused less attention to be paid
logically connected to a realist or liberalist paradigm in the toward xenophobic nationalism, racism, and the spread of
field of IR. He, however, suggests that a dialogue with con- homophobia and so forth, which have nonetheless become
structivist approaches—especially the cognitive psychological an important research theme of our time.
approach to the study of foreign policy decision-making—can
be one of the most promising logical bases, which connect
Conclusion
them.
Asserting that conventional approaches to foreign policy In this article, I have sought to illuminate how constructivist
are optimized to answer the question of “why particular deci- approach has evolved as a mainstream IR within a short
sions and actions were made” but are not appropriate to period of time. To be specific, I navigated core tenets of con-
examine the “how the subjects, objects, and interpretive dis- structivism in terms of its ontology, epistemology, and meth-
positions were socially constructed such that certain practices odology, respectively. I also explored the growing body of
were made possible” question (In short, the “how-possible” constructivist empirical research and ensuing theoretical
question), Doty (1993, p. 298) also proposed the post-positiv- refinement as well as the strengths and weaknesses of a con-
ist critical approaches to foreign policy analysis can resolve structivist approach. Through these discussions, it would not
that problem. In this regard, she suggests the discourse ana- be an exaggeration to say that constructivism has hugely
lytical method to address this issue that assumes reality as a contributed to the development of the study of IR as well,
linguistic construction and puts forward a critical analysis of providing novel insights and distinct ways of understanding
how foreign policy practices—especially the distinction of social and international reality with its own added value—
between “us” and “them”—are socially constructed. by focusing on the role of ideas, identity, and norms in shap-
ing state preferences and world politics. According to the
Ivory Tower Survey conducted by Foreign Policy, IR schol-
The Strengths and Weaknesses of ars with an attachment to the constructivist approach (22%)
Constructivist Approaches outnumbered either the liberal (21%) or realist (16%) camp
At the general level, it is widely recognized that constructiv- for the first time in the year 2011.1 “From prospect to pros-
ism is strong, precisely where other approaches are generally perity” might be the best indication of the evolution and the
weak, and vice versa. In relation to rival approaches, such as development of constructivist approach over the past two
realism and liberalism, the comparative advantage of con- decades in IR.
structivism—as examined in the second chapter—can be
summed up straightforwardly as (a) contrary to realists, Declaration of Conflicting Interests
social constructivists in IR provides an alternative under- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
standing that “norms and ideas also constitute power and to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Jung 9

Funding Doty, R. L. (1993). Foreign policy as social construction: A post-

positivist analysis of U.S. counterinsurgency policy in the
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
Philippines. International Studies Quarterly, 37, 297-320.
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Farrell, T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a
research program. International Studies Review, 4(1), 49-72.
Note Fearson, J., & Wendt, A. (2005). Rationalism v. constructivism:
1. Available at https://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/ A skeptical view. In W. Carlesnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons
trip/ivory_tower_survey_2012.pdf (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 52-72).
London, England: Sage.
Finnemore, M. (1993). International organizations as teachers of
ORCID iD
norms: The United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural
Hoyoon Jung https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8752-9035 organization and science policy. International Organization,
47, 565-597.
Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights
References
from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization,
Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm 50, 325-347.
localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. Finnemore, M. (2004). The purpose of intervention: Changing
International Organization, 58, 239-275. beliefs about the use of force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in Press.
world politics. European Journal of International Relations, Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics
3, 319-363. and political change. International Organization, 52, 887-917.
Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian international relations: The epis- Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The construc-
temic foundations of international relations. New York, NY: tivist research program in international relations and compara-
Routledge. tive politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391-416.
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1997). World culture in the world pol- Guzzini, S. (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in interna-
ity: A century of international non-governmental organization. tional relations. European Journal of International Relations,
American Sociological Review, 62, 171-190. 6, 147-182.
Burawoy, M. (2000). Global ethnography: Forces, connections, Haas, M. L. (2005). Ideological origins of great power politics.
and imaginations in a postmodern world. Berkeley: University Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
of California Press. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and
Carpenter, R. C. (2005). “Women, children and other vulnerable international policy coordination. International Organization,
groups”: Gender, strategic frames and the protection of civil- 46(1), 1-35.
ians as a transnational issue. International Studies Quarterly, Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international
49, 295-334. relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200.
Carpenter, R. C. (2006). Recognizing gender-based violence Houghton, D. P. (2007). Reinvigorating the study of foreign policy
against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security decision making: Toward a constructivist approach. Foreign
Dialogue, 37, 83-103. Policy Analysis, 3(1), 24-45.
Carpenter, R. C., & Jose, B. (2012). Transnational issue networks in Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). The culture of national security: Norms
real and virtual space: The case of women, peace and security. and identity in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia
Global Networks, 12, 525-543. University Press.
Checkel, J. T. (1997). International norms and domestic politics: Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders:
Bridging the rationalist—Constructivist divide. European Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY:
Journal of International Relations, 3, 473-495. Cornell University Press.
Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructive turn in international rela- Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy net-
tions theory. World Politics, 50, 324-348. works in international and regional politics. International
Checkel, J. T. (1999). Norms, institutions, and national identity Social Science Journal, 51, 89-101.
in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43, Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches.
83-114. International Studies Quarterly, 32, 379-396.
Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European Kim, H. J., & Sharman, J. C. (2014). Accounts and accountability:
identity change. International Organization, 55, 553-588. Corruption, human rights, and individual accountability norms.
Checkel, J. T. (2005). International institutions and socializa- International Organization, 68, 417-448.
tion in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences:
Organization, 59, 801-826. Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization,
Cho, Y. C. (2009). Conventional and critical constructivist 36, 185-205.
approaches to national security: An analytical survey. Korean Mattern, J. B. (2004). Ordering international politics: Identity, cri-
Journal of International Relations, 49(3), 75-102. sis and representational force. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cortell, A. P., & Davis, J. W. (1996). How do international insti- Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997).
tutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules World society and the nation-state. American Journal of
and norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 451-478. Sociology, 103, 144-181.
10 SAGE Open

Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in international rela- and sustained compliance in Central and Eastern Europe.
tions. European Journal of International Relations, 5, 225-254. International Organization, 59, 827-860.
Nair, S. (2013). Governance, representation and international aid. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of lan-
Third World Quarterly, 34, 630-652. guage. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
Onuf, N. (2003). Parsing personal identity: Self, other, agent. In Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York,
F. Debrix (Ed.), Language, agency and politics in a constructed NY: Penguin Books.
world (pp. 26-49). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Towns, A. E. (2010). Women and states: Norms and hierarchies in
Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of our making. Columbia: University of international society. New York, NY: Cambridge University
South Carolina Press. Press.
Onuf, N. G. (2013). World of our making. Abingdon, UK: Towns, A. E. (2012). Norms and social hierarchies: Understanding
Routledge. international policy diffusion “from below.” International
Pouliot, V. (2004). The essence of constructivism. Journal of Organization, 66, 179-209.
International Relations and Development, 7, 319-336. Walling, C. B. (2013). All necessary measures: The United Nations
Pouliot, V. (2007). “Sobjectivism”: Toward a constructivist meth- and humanitarian intervention. Philadelphia: University of
odology. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 359-384. Pennsylvania Press.
Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil soci- Weber, M. (2014). Between “isses” and “oughts”: IR construc-
ety targets land mines. International Organization, 52, 613-644. tivism, critical theory, and the challenge of political phi-
Price, R. M. (2006). Detecting ideas and their effects. In R. E. losophy. European Journal of International Relations, 20,
Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), The oxford handbook of contex- 516-543.
tual political analysis (pp. 252-265). Oxford, UK: Oxford Weldes, J. (1996). Constructing national interests. European
University Press. Journal of International Relations, 2, 275-318.
Price, R. M., & Reus-Smit, C. (1998). Dangerous liaisons? Weldes, J. (1999). Cultures of insecurity: States, communities,
Constructivism and critical international theory. European and the production of danger. Minneapolis: University of
Journal of International Relations, 4, 259-294. Minnesota Press.
Ramirez, F. O., Soysal, Y., & Shanahan, S. (1997). The chang- Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social
ing logic of political citizenship: Cross-national acquisition of construction of power politics. International Organization, 46,
women’s suffrage rights, 1890 to 1990. American Sociological 391-425.
Review, 62, 735-745. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. New
Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s argue!” Communicative action in world York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
politics. International Organization, 54, 1-39.
Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together?
Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. Author Biography
International Organization, 52, 855-885. Hoyoon Jung is PhD student in political science at the university of
Schimmelfennig, F. (2005). Strategic calculation and international Hawaii at Manoa. His research focuses on the politics of national
socialization: Membership incentives, party constellations, identity in Brazil.
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- The Cognitive Mechanism of the Number
Exploring constructivism learning theory using Systems
Zheng Jie and Luo Ruifeng
mobile game - Design on ‘FunPhy: Fun Physics’
Educational Game Apps using Agile
EXtreme Programming
To cite this article: L M Padirayon et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 482 012004 Noora Qotrun Nada, Umi Khotimatus
Saadah, Ahmad Khoirul Anam et al.

- Fortune Run: A Mobile Game Showcasing

Cultural Celebration in Malaysia
Chong Yong Khong, Rahayu A Hamid,
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Noorhaniza Wahid et al.

Recent citations
- Fahri Özsungur

This content was downloaded from IP address 73.185.243.221 on 08/11/2021 at 02:54

The International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 482 (2019) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012004

Exploring constructivism learning theory using mobile game

L M Padirayon1, M V Pagudpud2 and J S D Cruz3

1
Cagayan State University, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, Philippines
2
Quirino State University, Cabarroguis, Quirino, Philippines
3
University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City, Philippines

[email protected]

Abstract. Experience as our way of constructing our understanding of the world we live in is
what constructivism theory advocates. In this study, the Decimal FunPro, a mobile game
application which is designed to learn number systems was used to explore the occurrence of
constructivist learning theory by employing clustering algorithm on the dataset by means of
RapidMiner instrument. The performance of the students in using the mobile game shows that
during the first tries from the different game categories, students spent more time finishing the
activity as compared to the other trials. This means that the students learned from the first
trials. A t-test was also conducted to define the significant transformation between the post-test
and pre-test. The result showed that there is a significant difference between the posttest as
well as the pre-test signifying that students acquired knowledge in number systems when they
used the mobile game application. With the evidence stated, it can be concluded that using the
Decimal FunPro mobile game application reveals that students can build new knowledge based
on prior experience.

1. Introduction
Academic interest evolved and is being adopted today in different approaches. With the escalating
demand for high quality education and the emergence of smart mobile phones technologies,
educational institutions are taking other forms of learning. Laptops, personal digital assistants, and
mobile devices are becoming learning instruments posting great help inside the classes [1].
On the other hand, a clear learning theory improves significance to lesson study, as the different
theories of learning serve as foundation in managing values for the teachers when employing academic
plans, lesson studies, and assessments [2]. Playing with a yo-yo in the years before the digital age is
like observing a youngster with a smartphone in their hand nowadays [3]. Behaviorist, constructivist,
positioned, combined, relaxed and enduring learning, and learning and teaching sustenance have
momentarily recognized six main theories and ranges of knowledge related to learning with portable
technologies [4][5]. Students are stimulated to be dynamic builders of information when students with
difficulties are encouraged to be answered to some extent than bringing them straight information.
Empowering the learners to be rooted in the good framework over mobile devices and offer them with
quick assistant [6] can improve learning.
As mobile technologies are becoming more persistent, the greatest challenge is to determine how to
use mobile technologies to transform learning into a continuous component of daily life to the point
where it is not recognized as learning at all[7]. One good example of this is the use of a mobile learning
application called Decimal Binary Fun Pro. This mobile application is very engaging and challenging

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 482 (2019) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012004

for learners learning binary to decimal conversion and vice versa. The said mobile application activates
the logical thinking of the learner and trains the brain in converting binary to decimal numbers. The
application is used to learn binary coding and decoding. It will help computer science students to do
faster binary conversions.
In learning, constructivist paradigm says that an individual construct his own understanding and
knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences [8]. The
constructivism emphasizes on the situation and content in need in mobile learning such as queries for
investigation and tricky answered and decision-making applications, as well as teamwork and active
collaboration in mobile learning like communication via mobile phones or contact among learners. The
Decimal Binary Fun Pro gamified mobile application was used in the classrooms and this study
investigates that learners aggressively concept their knowledge and figure out problems related to
binary and decimal number systems interactively. It sought to substantiate that learners build or
construct new knowledge created in their prior learning. Specifically, it required explanations on the
learner’s accomplishments by clustering the learners and by comparing their pre-test and post-tests.

2. METHODOLOGY
The study is experimental. The approach employ in this study is defined in this section.
2.1. The Decimal Fun Pro Mobile Game
Decimal Binary Fun Pro gamified mobile application used in this study for one of the main beliefs of
the constructivist is that student develops and builds understanding from their own personal
experiences. Students bring their own past experiences in the binary system into their Intro to
Computer Subject with binary system topic, use it to enhance their learning in a binary system by
gaining more knowledge and build upon their previous knowledge. Constructivist learning theory
enables the Decimal Binary Fun Pro gamified mobile application to prove on the student’s ability in a
binary system to be self-directed and draw their decisions [9]. Likewise, students finally learn more
when they have to explore the binary system in Decimal Binary Fun Pro gamified mobile application
rather than being told how to solve. When students can use what they are learning in real world
situations, it sinks in and stays with them for a longer period of time
Decimal Binary fun pro game is an interesting game wherever players require placing one of the
zeros in the grid to arrive a correct illustration of the decimal number assumed at the end of row and
column. The game has three categories, the 4x4, 6x6 and the 8x8. The accomplishment is measured in
seconds. It indicates how fast a player finishes the game. Figure 1 shows the screenshots of the game.

Figure 1. The Decimal Fun Pro Mobile Game

2.2. Data Gathering
The target group was students of Quirino State University and Cagayan State University who were
enrolled in Computer 101 – Computer Fundamentals class because the course contains the topic

2
The International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 482 (2019) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012004

regarding decimal and binary number systems. A 30 item pre-test was intended and given to the
learners. The pre-test includes items which ask students to convert binary numbers to decimal numbers
and vice versa. After checking, the result of the pre-test was recorded. After the pre-test, a series of
lectures about number systems were given to the students. At the same time, the mobile game Fun-pro
mobile game was downloaded and installed to the mobile devices of the students. Board works and
exercises were given to the students after the lecture. This time, there are fewer board works and
practices given compared to the classes in the previous years. A quiz was given after the lectures to
gauge the knowledge acquired from the lectures. After that, students were taught about using the
mobile game and the rules to follow. They were also instructed to record game information. Each of
the students was given 3 hours as laboratory time in using the mobile game. During the laboratory
time, the students played the different categories of the mobile game, the 4 x 4, the 6 x 6 and the 8 x 8
categories. Each of the categories was played five times. The researchers observed the students and
recorded notable acts that can be used in the analysis of the experiences of the students. A post-test
was given to each of the learners after the given laboratory exercises. The result was recorded.

2.3. Data Set

The dataset gathered 52 examples with 19 features. The succeeding is the features included:
 Pre-test (1) – scores from the first test given to the students before introducing the topic.
 Pre-test (2) – scores this is the quiz given to the students used the mobile application.
 4 x 4 (1) – time spent during the first try in the 4 x 4 category.
 4 x 4 (2) – time spent during the second try in the 4 x 4 category.
 4 x 4 (3) – time spent during the third try in the 4 x 4 category.
 4 x 4 (4) – time spent during the fourth try in the 4 x 4 category.
 4 x 4 (5) – time spent during the fifth try in the 4 x 4 category.
 6 x 6 (1) – time spent during the first try in the 6 x 6 category.
 6 x 6 (2) – time spent during the second try in the 6 x 6 category.
 6 x 6 (3) – time spent during the third try in the 6 x 6 category.
 6 x 6 (4) – time spent during the fourth try in the 6 x 6 category.
 6 x 6 (5) – time spent during the fifth try in the 6 x 6 category.
 8 x 8 (1) – time spent during the first try in the 8 x 8 category.
 8 x 8 (2) – time spent during the second try in the 8 x 8 category.
 8 x 8 (3) – time spent during the third try in the 8 x 8 category.
 8 x 8 (4) – time spent during the fourth try in the 8 x 8 category.
 8 x 8 (5) – time spent during the fifth try in the 8 x 8 category.
 Post-test – score on the test given after using the mobile game.

Table 1. Sample Dataset

Actual values ranging from 1 to 100 are recorded the times recorded are floating values measured
in seconds as shown in table 1.

3
The International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 482 (2019) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012004

2.4. Data Analysis

To prove that students can build new knowledge based on previous knowledge, the following data
analyses were conducted:
2.4.1. Clustering Techniques
One of the primary methods frequently used in studying datasets is clustering where individual cluster
formed is a group of data objects that are similar to another place within the same cluster but different
objects in another cluster [10]. This study used a clustering analysis to segment students into groups
based on their scores and fun-pro time achievement. There are numerous present clustering algorithms
which possibly produce the entire dissimilar segments on the similar set of data. Various groups of
data set based on the standard of getting the most out of the intra-class similarity and reducing the
inter-class similarity where clustering algorithm partitioned employed. In this study, the clustering
algorithms are assessed using internal validity measures to select which of the algorithms is utmost
suitable for the fun-pro dataset. Three clustering algorithms were emphasized to the internal evaluation
which comprises k-means, k-medoids, and expectation maximization (EM) clustering.
The procedure for clustering and assessing the clustering algorithms with RapidMiner is given in
figure 2.

Figure 2. RapidMiner process for clustering and evaluating the clustering algorithm

The operator ‘Retrieve FunPro Data Set’ is an operator used to get the repository where the FunPro
dataset was saved. This allowed the RapidMiner to access the data and automatically converted it into
complete metadata which helped as the output of the operator. Also, the ‘Loop Parameters’ operator
was defined to execute a loop process of evaluation of the different algorithm used. The ‘Loop
Parameters’ operator comprises a ‘Clustering (Subprocess)’ and ‘Silhouette Index’ as inner operators
as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3. K-means Clustering Centroid Plot

Result shows that K-means provided the best model as related to the other clustering algorithms
tested. Cluster 0, cluster 1 and cluster 2 formed by the k-means algorithm were composed of 32, 14

4
The International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 482 (2019) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012004

and 6 students correspondingly as the larger value of the silhouette index specifies a better clustering
model. Likewise, the centroid plot formed through the k-means algorithm, where k = 3 is shown in
figure 5. Centroid plot is used to review the clustering outputs. It can be concluded from the figure that
the students who belong to Cluster 0 (blue line) with 32(62%) for number of instances are the
AVERAGE LEARNERS, as performance compared to the other two clusters for they ranked second
on both Pre-test(2) and Post-test, spent longer time finishing the activities using the mobile application
compared to cluster 2.
Besides, cluster 1 (green line) are students as the TOP LEARNERS with 14(27%) number of
instances compared to with other clusters. They spent lesser time finishing each category in the mobile
app, and they scored best in their post-test. In contrast, Cluster 2 (red line) characterizes the students as
POOR LEARNERS with 6(11%) number of instances. They spent more time finishing the activities
given using the FunPro game with these students, and they scored lowest during the post-test. It can
also be inferred from the figure that during the first tries from the different categories, students spent
more time finishing the activity as compared to the other trials. Table 3 shows the output of the t-test.

Table 2. Type of Learners Based on the Clustering Result

Cluster Number of Type of

Instances Learners Behaviour
Number
- They ranked second on both Pre-test(2) and Post-test
Average
0 32(62%)
Learners
- Spent longer time finishing the activities using the
mobile application compared to cluster 2
- Highest score in the Pre-test(2) as compared to the
other clusters
Top - Highest score in the Post-test as compared to the other
1 14(27%)
Learners clusters
- Lowest time spent in completing all the mobile
application activities as compared to the other clusters
- They spent more time finishing the activities given
using the FunPro game with these students, and they
Poorest scored lowest during the post-test. It can also be
2 6(11%)
Learners. inferred from the figure that during the first tries from
the different categories, students spent more time
finishing the activity as compared to the other trials

Table 3. t-test result

Samples of Paired Statistics

Mean N Standard
Deviation
Pair Pre-test (2) 77.852564 52 9.8149354
Post test 87.724359 52 8.3952834
Paired Samples Test
Pair 1 Mean t Sig. (2-
tailed)
Pre test (2) – Post - - 0.000
test 9.8717949 13.130

Based on the result, the mean of the post-test is greater than the mean of the pre-test. A t-test was
conducted to check for the significant difference between the post-test and the pre-test. Table 4 shows

5
The International Conference on Information Technology and Digital Applications IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 482 (2019) 012004 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/482/1/012004

the result of the t-test where the p-value computed is .000 which is lesser than 0.05, and the computed
t=13.13 is greater than t critical = 2.008. This means that there is a significant difference between the
post-test and pre-test.

3. CONCLUSION
This study focuses on the exploration of the constructivist learning theory in the Decimal FunPro
mobile game application by applying clustering algorithm on the dataset using RapidMiner tool to
derive with the clusters of students. By using an internal validation measure which is the silhouette
index measure, the output presented that the K-means algorithm, using k = 3, as long as the best
clustering model to cluster students requiring a value of 0.253. Three groups were made having 32
students in the cluster 0, 14 students in cluster 1 and six students in cluster 2. The performance of the
students in using the game shows that during the first tries from the different game categories, students
spent more time finishing the activity as compared to the other trials. This means that the students
learned from the first trials. A significant difference between the post-test and pre-test as the t-test
result shows. The post-test is higher than the pre-test indicating that the students acquired knowledge
in number systems when they used the mobile game application. Having the said evidence, it can be
concluded that using the Decimal FunPro mobile game application reveals that students can build new
knowledge based on previous knowledge.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their deepest and sincerest thanks to the developer of the FUN PRO
game to the individuals who extended their hands of kindness for the completion of the study.
Above all, the Father Almighty, for showering His everlasting grace and love that made the
researchers face and accept all the obstacles and challenges of life.

References
[1] Sung Y T, Chang K E and Liu T C 2016 The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching
and learning about students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis
Comp. & Edu. vol 94 pp 252-75
[2] Pang M F and Ling L M 2011 Learning study: Helping teachers to use theory, develop
professionally, and produce new knowledge to be shared Instructional Sci. vol 40 Issue 3 pp
589–606 DOI 10.1007/s11251-011-9191-4
[3] Nielsen Company 2017 Mobile kids: the parent, the child, and the smartphone Nielsen’s Fourth-
Quarter 2016 Mobile Kids Report (©The Nielsen Company)
[4] Futurelab N, Naismith L, Lonsdale P, Vavoula G and Sharples M 2004 Literature Review in
Mobile Technologies and Learning ISBN: 0-9548594-1-3 (Futurelab © 2004)
[5] Bruner J S, et al. 1966 Studies in Cognitive Growth Harvard Book List (edited) 1971 #314
(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
[6] Kirriemuir J and Mcfarlane A 2004 Literature Review in Games and Learning (Futurelab
Series)
[7] De Simone G C 2016 Mobile learning: extreme outcomes of everywhere, anytime 12th Int. Con.
Mobile Learning pp 139-43
[8] Olusegun B S 2015 Constructivism learning theory: a paradigm for teaching and learning IOSR
J. of Res. & Method in Edu. (IOSR-JRME) e-ISSN: 2320–7388 p-ISSN: 2320–737X Vol 5
Issue 6 Ver. I (Nov-Dec 2015) pp 66-70 www.iosrjournals.org
[9] Karagiorgi Y and Symeou L 2005 Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential
and limitations J. of Edu. Technol. & Society vol 8 no 1 (January 2005) pp 17-27
[10] Shuler C 2009 Informatique[cs]/environnements informatiques pour l'apprentissage humain
Sciences de l'Homme et Société / Education HAL Id : hal-00696254, version 1

6
 Available online at http://www.journalijdr.com

ISSN: 2230-9926 International Journal of Development Research

Vol. 08, Issue, 07, pp. 21437-21441, July, 2018

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLEORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

CONSTRUCTIVISM LEARNING AND FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

*Dewani Goloi and Kamisah Osman
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: The very common feature of constructivism learning and formative assessment in science
Received 19th April, 2018 education is their emphasis on learning process rather than the final product. Students will have
Received in revised form many opportunities to engage in the learning process by integrating their intellectual, emotional,
03rd May, 2018 and spiritual intelligences with everyday life situations. Both constructivism learning and
Accepted 19th June, 2018 formative assessment involve interaction of learning adaptation processes and learning
Published online 30th July, 2018 experiences that continuously supplement information to formulate or synthesize new knowledge.
Constructivism learning enables students to acquire knowledge by actively engaging in building
Key Words: that knowledge based on experiences, existing knowledge and reflection. The knowledge is
Constructivism, regarded as dynamic phenomenon because the interpretation of something can change based on
Formative Assessment, the self-interpretation given to the environmental phenomenon. Similarly, formative assessment
Learning Process, reinforces student learning and provides continuous improvement in student’s achievement in the
Continuous Improvement.
classroom. The similarities between constructivism learning and formative assessments in science
subjects can be categorised into eight categories; the incorporation of learning with the pupils’
culture; emphasis on inquiry and reflection approaches; exploration; authentic learning based on
experience; strengthening critical thinking; awareness of the importance of learning science;
informal learning, and; teachers recognize students’ potential.

Copyright © 2018, Dewani Goloi and Kamisah Osman. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Citation: Dewani Goloi and Kamisah Osman, 2018. “Constructivism learning and formative assessment in science education”, International Journal of
Development Research, 8, (07), 21437-21441.

Formative assessment is to reinforce student learning and

INTRODUCTION improve dramatic student achievement if it is practiced
continuously in the classroom.
The focus on learning process in constructivist practice
(Hayatdavoudi and Ansari 2011) is in line with the formative Emphasis on the Journey of Knowledge Acquisition
assessment expressed by Fogarty (1998) and Hedge (2010)
that students will have many opportunities to engage in the In constructivism learning, as well as in formative assessment,
learning process. Both approaches encourage students to the journey of acquiring knowledge is as important as the
integrate intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, knowledge itself. Baron (2016) shows that students learn better
existing spiritual intelligence with everyday life situations when they can build their own knowledge through
(daily experience). Any attempt to understand formative constructivism activities. Constructivism is more likely to be
assessment must be based on the impression of learning from a assessed for learning and as learning such as used in formative
constructivist perspective or experience (Staunton and Dann assessments. While behaviourism and cognitivism focus on the
2016). Constructivist assessment instruments are also found in measurement of objectives objectively, constructivists tend to
parallel with formative assessment instruments involving assess subjective student work (Bereiter and Scardamalia
activities such as problem solving, portfolio, project, 1992). Among the key features of constructivism learning are,
composition, performances based on authentic assessment, this learning enables students to acquire knowledge by actively
drama, interviews, group discussions, and investigations. engaging in building that knowledge and in this regard are
perceptions, experiences, existing that knowledge and
*Corresponding author: Dewani Goloi reflection. Constructivism learning also involves interaction of
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia learning adaptation processes and learning experiences
21438 Dewani Goloi and Kamisah Osman, Constructivism learning and formative assessment in science education

continuously to supplement information to formulate or personal beliefs of teachers on Islamic-religion can describe
synthesize new knowledge. Knowledge should be regarded as their beliefs about the nature of science and its uses. Taskin
dynamic not a static phenomenon because the interpretation of (2014) outlines the perceptions of four Muslim students on
something can change based on the self-interpretation given to Islam and its impact on their approach to teaching and learning
the environmental phenomenon. science. Taskin (2014) stated that there was misinterpretation
and abuse of constructivism as well as the notion of scientific
Similarly, formative assessment is used to monitor student’s theory as a way to deny the theory of evolution.
learning to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by Misunderstandings and abuse of constructivism occur because
instructors or teachers to improve their teaching and used by there is a belief that the interaction between science and
students to improve their learning. religion in daily life is considered part of the cultural
atmosphere in Islamic countries, as well as the notion that
Constructivism and Formative Assessment in Science reality can only be found in the Qur'an.
Education
Inquiry and reflection approach: According to Staunton and
According to Taber (2010) constructivism is a broad-based Dann (2016) the most important thing for a teacher is to find
perspective in the study of science education and has been out whether a student has understood the full learning. This
used as the official guide of pedagogy among science teachers can be detected by asking deep questions to get into the minds
in England. Constructivist learning practices are in line with of the students. This in-depth question needs to be done
the nature of the formative evaluation expressed by Stiggins continuously and not in the form of recalled questions
(2005) stating that formative evaluations enable learning to be (Staunton and Dann 2016). This ongoing question will
guided according to the student's ability level. Qarareh (2016) encourage dialogue sessions that eventually generate high-
study found that using constructivist learning models level thinking. Kingir et al. (2013) found that, in a classroom
succeeded in improving student achievement and scientific environment that supports autonomy and pupil control, pupils
thinking in teaching science. Qarareh (2016) suggests that tend to develop higher interests in the assignment, employ
additional attention should be given to using constructivist more self-regulatory strategies, and perform higher academic
learning models in science courses, and conduct further studies performance. In order to create the learning environment,
on the effects of constructivism learning models on various teachers can design open inquiry activities that can provide
learning outcomes. This is in line with the findings of Creghan students with the opportunity to take responsibility, make
and Creghan (2013) that one of the key to improving student reflections based on their own views and solve challenging
achievement score is to 'modify' formative evaluations based tasks (Kingir et al., 2013).
on investigative and constructivism processes throughout the
5E Teaching Model phase: engage, explore, explain, elaborate, Collaborative activities: Rahman (2012) shows that the use of
and evaluate. constructivist teaching approaches (POEs) encourage teachers
to change their teaching perceptions based on traditional
Knapp's (2013) study found that West Virginia science approaches (didactic). Rahman (2012) notes that the practice
teachers were often reported using constructivist teaching of science teachers in using POEs and collaborative activities
practices and demonstrating a moderate level of teaching enables them to share, further developing their capacity to
effectiveness. Lew (2010) also examines the perspective of develop personal insights into their own practice of teaching.
constructivist practice among teachers. Lew (2010) found that Fung andLui (2017) stated that pupils showed better scientific
experienced teachers (ETS) outperformed new teachers learning progression with their involvement in cooperative
(NTSs) in general in the use of constructivist teaching learning and debate sessions that apply the Vygotsky proximal
practices studied. As a result of the literary references, we proximal zone development framework. Learning in a group is
categorized the relevance of formative assessments with also found to be effective if the teacher acts as a student driver
constructivism learning in science subjects into eight during the construction of conceptual knowledge. Turcotte and
categories, namely the incorporation of learning with pupil Hamel (2016) found that collaborative online scaffolding using
culture, emphasis on inquiry and reflection approaches, online scaffolds can help students understand and practice
exploration, authentic learning based on experience, scientific authentication inquiries.
strengthening critical thinking, awareness of the importance of
learning science, informal learning and teachers recognize Exploration:Winning (2012) found that students appreciate
students. learning through exploration and collaboration with peers in
the pursuit of learning science. Cetin-Dindar (2016) also noted
Merging learning with culture and student values: Giron that, science educators should give more emphasis on the
(2012) notes that constructivism maintains a more meaningful linkages and exploration of science in schools with real life to
direction when it is relevant, social and interactive. Since increase student motivation to learn science. Technology also
formative assessment involves constructive teaching and provides students with opportunities to explore learning tasks
learning, the incorporation of student culture with formative that are beyond their habits (Machado 2012). Additionally,
assessments can produce a very effective learning outcome. new technology movements such as laptops, mobile phones
Yap (2014) notes that the awareness of teachers to integrate and tablets, provide students with learning opportunities
science, ethics and morale is evolving to develop sophisticated anytime, anywhere (Machado 2012). The technologyin game-
science epistemology, including the appreciation of social based learning provide students with opportunities real-life
contexts in terms of ethical thinking. This effort enables contexts in online formats (Routledge 2009). Technological
students to integrate ideas about their scientific issues and their skills themselves are seen as a necessity for progress in the
own values, beliefs and ethics. Mansour (2011) explores the current and future societies. By combining constructivist
view of Egyptian science teachers on religion and science in approaches to learning and technology, students acquire more
the context of Islam. Mansour (2011) concludes that the than one useful skill.
21439 International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 08, Issue, 07, pp. 21437-21441, July, 2018

Strengthening critical thinking: Based on the theory of Ketelhut et al. (2013) states that current science assessments
constructivism and reasoning strategy, Chaipichit et al. (2015) usually produce a series of fact-based questions separately, not
has developed a science learning model to reinforce critical fully representing the complexity of science-building in the
thinking among school children. This strategy is in line with real world. This should be changed to a more authentic model
formative assessment for Chaipichit et al. (2015) examines of practice of science. Therefore, Ketelhut et al. (2013)
issues related to the management of science learning, problems suggests that good scientific assessments should consist of
encountered, and further develop a learning management several key factors: integration of science content with
model to address the problem. It was found that teachers who scientific inquiries, questions in the form of constructs, grading
implemented the constructivist learning model agreed that the efficiency and validity and statistical reliability. Gilbert et al.
model used could reinforce the students' critical thinking at the (2014) using the learning program through real / internship
highest level. experience among university students. The intervention also
provides the effect of active learning at a high level. Rivera
Authentic learning based on experience: According to Maulucci et al. (2014) explored the experience of six
Reeves and Okey (1996), formative assessments in secondary school students in an authentic science inquiry
constructivism focus on the processes experienced by students program. The findings of Rivera Maulucci et al. (2014)
in the process of knowledge creation. Each student is suggests that an authentic science inquiry project is able to
considered different in terms of advantages, weaknesses, provide students with academic excellence, provide students
existing knowledge and experience. Assessment focuses on the opportunity to acquire skills, have the potential to
how a student is able to learn new material by associating it challenge students' knowledge of science, enhance student /
with existing knowledge to establish lasting relationships in student engagement with science, and improve student
the minds of the students. Through this relationship, pupils are achievement in science.
assessed based on their ability to apply learning to the real-life
context. Herrington and Oliver (2000) provide nine features of Awareness of Science interests: Karahan and Roehrig (2015)
an authentic learning environment: suggests that student awareness towards the environment and
support for activist needs has improved on a different scale
 Provides a valid context reflecting the way that (personal, community, global) across the learning process of
knowledge will be used in real life. constructivism. The constructivist science module can indeed
 Providing authentic activity. encourage students to become more aware of modern
 Provides access to expert presentations and process biotechnology, although encouraging more critical attitude
modeling. towards modern biotechnology should be more attentive (Klop
 Provides various roles and perspectives. et al., 2010). Brophy and Alleman (1998) stated that the three
 Support for co-operation of knowledge. curriculum goals (understanding, appreciation, and life
 Reflects to allow abstractions to be formed. applying) are contained in the core of constructivist teaching
 Providing articulation to enable implicit knowledge to and should serve as guides in the assessment methodology.
be made clear. Aydin (2013) recognizes the role of constructivist students in
 Guiding and scaffolding by teachers in critical the acquisition of chemical education in the Québec region of
moments. Canada. In the learning of constructivists, students (1) control
the learning process (2) students act in selecting, developing
 Provides for authentic assessment of learning in the
and actively learning process (3) students performing
task.
responsibilities in constructive learning environment (4)
students constructing their minds for knowledge acquisition
Glackin's study (2016) suggests that teachers who successfully
and 5) students communicate and discuss issues with other
teach outside the classroom generally have social
students and teachers. Bayne (2012) uses learning methods in
constructivism and appreciate authentic scientific
constructivist environments (CLES) to identify the learning
opportunities. On the other hand, less successful teachers in
experience of grade 9 (14 years) in New York. Bayne (2012)
classroom teaching have the beliefs of traditional learning and
found that CLES provides students with the opportunity to
consider outside classroom learning as an innovation and the
understand ontology and help to create / access appropriate
potential for fun (Glakin 2016). Prins et al. (2016) states that
resources which in turn leads to success in science classes.
one of the challenges of science education is to integrate the
According to Scholtz (2007), meaningful assessments (such as
activity, content, and apparatus tools meaningfully. To address
formative assessment) should reflect the profession, career or
the challenges of science education is the transformation of
practical practice assessed, while at the same time providing
authentic science practice into the context of learning, in line
opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge and
with the theory of socio-cultural activities. By practicing
skills. Shepard (2000) explains this meaningful assessment as
authentic scientific activities, students can relate learning
a performance-based assessment, where teachers combine the
content to the use of apparatus on a logical basis and relevant
assessment of pupil knowledge, peer feedback and self-
(Prins et al., 2016). Abramovich and Loria (2015) examines
assessment by pupils as a social process will result in the
the impact of Education for Conservation Authentication
intellectual development of intellectual students, knowledge
(EFS) on new teachers in the real-life environment of science
building and identity building.
and technology (among families, communities and working
environments). The findings of the Abramovich and Loria
study (2015) show that the Education for Sustainability (EFS) Informal Learning: Wallace and Brooks (2015) study reports
course clearly improves teacher awareness of the environment that the lack of time to teach science in a traditional class in
and responsive teachers (responding) with greater the US has led some science teachers to conduct science
responsibility. teaching in an informal environment using constructivism
approaches. The constructivism approach is found to enhance
peer co-operation and enhance the close relationship between
21440 Dewani Goloi and Kamisah Osman, Constructivism learning and formative assessment in science education

teachers and children. The interaction enhances teachers' Conclusion

understanding of diverse student learning needs (Wallace and
Brooks 2015). Allen's study (2008) finds that the Constructivism and formative assessment focus on the
constructivist-provisiona list approach has undesirable effects processes experienced by students in the process of knowledge
(note: provisionalism is the current thought that may affect creation on their own pace and abilities. The final product of
future knowledge). The intended effect is (1) promoting education is not the most important aspect of constructivism
positivist set-up when conducting science-based work in learning nor formative assessment; teachers should focus on
schools. This positivist set up triggers a confirmation of bias the process and experiences that a student needs to go through
attitude; and (2) creating an epistemological confusion in order to achieve the ultimate educational goal. In doing so,
(knowledge field) that tends towards positivism that will each student must be considered different in terms of
continue to higher education and subsequent levels. advantages, weaknesses, existing knowledge and experiences.
Formative assessment on how a student is able to learn new
Teachers Recognize Students’ Potentials: Scholtz (2007) material constructively by associating it with existing
notes that constructivist assessment requires educators to knowledge will establish lasting relationships in their minds.
spend a lot of time recognizing each student potentials Through this relationship, students are facilitated and assessed
individually to determine the learning process, strengths, based on their ability to apply learning to the real-world
weaknesses, existing knowledge, and so on. In doing so, the context. Thus, the future educators should be taught the theory
conflict that arises with this observation, sometimes a and practice of constructivism and how to integrate this
subjective form of assessment when parents or administrators pedagogical skill with formative assessment in the classroom.
disagree with the assessment (Scholtz 2007). The
constructivist (formative) assessment expressed by Sholtz REFERENCES
(2007) supports Lucy's argument (2007) that in formative
assessment, teachers need to help individual students to reach Abramovich, Anat, Loria, Yahavit. 2015. The Long-Term
their own band or standard without comparing with other Impact of an Education for Sustainability Course on Israeli
students. Similarly, constructivist assessment takes into Science and Technology Teachers' Pro-Environment
account the differences between pupils. On the other hand, Awareness, Commitment and Behaviour. Australian
there are many worldviews through the eyes of the students. Journal of Environmental Education, v31 n2 p264-279 Dec
This view is derived through personal experience and social 2015
interaction (Kamiiand Lewis 1990). Likewise, the way that Aydin, Abdullah. 2013. Learner Acquisition and Its
teachers interpret the world or build knowledge is very Relationship with Constructivist Learner Roles in a
different from students. Secondary Education Chemistry Curriculum in
Québec/Canada. International Education Studies, v6 n7
In implementing a constructivist approach, teachers play a role p88-99 2013
in evaluating the learning process of thinking and to evaluate Baron, Lorraine M. 2016. Formative Assessment at Work in
current learning comprehension. This assessment is used not as the Classroom. Mathematics Teacher, v110 n1 p46-52 Aug
a tool to compare pupils or criticisms, but as a tool to 2016
understand how individual students think and take on the Bayne, Gillian U. 2012. Capturing Essential Understandings of
course of knowledge creation. Brooks and Brooks (1993) the Urban Science Learning Environment. Learning
provide 12 list of principles that teachers need to use in Environments Research, v15 n2 p231-250 Jul 2012.
constructivist classes to maximize these results: Brooks and Brooks, 1993. Assessment in a constructivist
classroom. North Central Regional Educational
 Promote and accept student autonomy and initiatives. Laboratory.
 Using raw data and primary sources together with Cetin-Dindar, Ayla. 2016. Student Motivation in
manipulative, interactive, and physical materials. Constructivist Learning Environment. EURASIA Journal of
 Use cognitive terms such as "classify", "analyze," Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, v12 n2
"predict," and "create" when designing tasks. p233-247 Feb 2016
 Enables pupils to guide teaching, divert teaching Chaipichit, Dudduan; Jantharajit, Nirat; Chookhampaeng,
strategies, and alter learning content. Sumalee. 2015. Development of Learning Management
 Ask about students' understanding of the concept before Model Based on Constructivist Theory and Reasoning
sharing their own understanding of the concept. Strategies for Enhancing the Critical Thinking of
 Encourage students to engage in dialogue with teachers Secondary Students. Educational Research and Reviews,
and each other. v10 n16 p2324-2330 Aug 2015
 Encourage student inquiries by asking questions that Creghan, Kathleen Adair; Creghan, Casey. Assessing for
require deep thinking, open-ended questions and Achievement. Science and Children, v51 n3 p29-35 Nov
encouraging students to ask each other. 2013
 Requires a pupil to describe the answer given. Fogarty, R. 1998. Problem Based Learning. United States of
 Involve students in an experience that may have America: Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
contradicts their early hypothesis and then discusses the Fung, Dennis; Lui, Wai-Mei. 2016. Individual to
discussion. Collaborative: Guided Group Work and the Role of
Teachers in Junior Secondary Science Classrooms.
 Spend time waiting after asking questions.
International Journal of Science Education, v38 n7 p1057-
 Give time to students to build relationships and create
1076 2016.
metaphors.
Gilbert, Brandi L., Banks, Julianna; Houser, John H. W.,
 Nurturing the students' natural curiosity through the Rhodes, Simon J., Lees, N. Douglas. 2014. Student
frequent use of learning cycle models. Development in an Experiential Learning Program. Journal
21441 International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 08, Issue, 07, pp. 21437-21441, July, 2018

of College Student Development, v55 n7 p707-713 Oct Prins, Gjalt T., Bulte, Astrid M. W., Pilot, Albert. 2016. An
2014 Activity-Based Instructional Framework for Transforming
Giron, Tilia. 2012. Student Culture and Classroom Assessment Authentic Modeling Practices into Meaningful Contexts for
Practices ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Learning in Science Education. Science Education, v100
University of New Mexico n6 p1092-1123 Nov 2016.
Glackin, Melissa. 2016. "Risky Fun" or "Authentic Science"? Qarareh, Ahmed O. 2016. The Effect of Using the
How Teachers' Beliefs Influence Their Practice during a Constructivist Learning Model in Teaching Science on the
Professional Development Programme on Outdoor Achievement and Scientific Thinking of 8th Grade
Learning. International Journal of Science Education, v38 Students. International Education Studies, v9 n7 p178-196
n3 p409-433 2016 2016.
Hayatdavoudi, J. and Ansari, D.N. 2011. Alternative Rahman, S. M. Hafizur. 2012. Influence of Professional
Assessment in the Post-Method Era: Pedagogic Learning Community (PLC) on Learning a Constructivist
Implications. Higher Education of Social Science Teaching Approach (POE): A Case of Secondary Science
Hedge, T. 2010. Teaching and Learning in the Language Teachers in Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Classroom. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press Learning and Teaching, v13 n1 Article 3 Jun 2012.
Herrington, J., and Oliver, R. 2000. An instructional design Reeves, T., and Okey, J. 1996. Constructivist learning
framework for authentic learning environments. environments: Case studies in instructional design. (pp.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 191-202). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
48(3), 23-48. Publications, Inc.
Kamii, Constance dan Lewis, Barbara. 1990. Constructivist Rivera Maulucci, María S., Brown, Bryan A., Grey, Salina
Learning and Teaching. http://pirate.shu.edu/ ~muellemf/ T., Sullivan, Shayna. 2014. Urban Middle School
3006/Constructivist%20Learning%20and%20Teaching.ht Students' Reflections on Authentic Science Inquiry.
m Journal of Research in Science Teaching, v51 n9 p1119-
Karahan, Engin; Roehrig, Gillian. 2015. Constructing Media 1149 Nov 2014.
Artifacts in a Social Constructivist Environment to Routledge, H. 2009. Game-based learning in the classroom
Enhance Students' Environmental Awareness and and how it can work!. (pp. 274-286). Premier Reference
Activism. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Source. http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.
v24 n1 p103-118 Feb 2015 aspx?id=18800
Ketelhut, Diane; Nelson, Brian; Schifter, Catherine Schifter Scholtz, A. 2007. An analysis of the impact of an authentic
Kim, Younsu. 2013. Improving Science Assessments by assessment strategy on student prestasice in a technology-
Situating Them in a Virtual Environment Educational mediated constructivist classroom: A study revisited.
Science. 2013, 3, 172-192 International Journal of Education and Development using
Kingir, Sevgi; Tas, Yasemin; Gok, Gulsum; Vural, Semra Information and Communication Technology, 3(4), 42-53.
Sungur. 2013. Relationships among Constructivist Staunton, Mike; Dann, Chris. 2016. Formative Assessment:
Learning Environment Perceptions, Motivational Beliefs, Improvement, Immediacy and the Edge for Learning.
Self-Regulation and Science Achievement. Research in International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, v11 n1
Science and Technological Education, v31 n3 p205-226 p22-34 2016
2013 Taber, Keith S. 2010. Paying Lip-Service to Research? The
Klop, Tanja; Severiens, Sabine E., Knippels, Marie-Christine Adoption of a Constructivist Perspective to Inform Science
P. J., van Mil, Marc H. W., Ten Dam, Geert T. M. 2010. Teaching in the English Curriculum Context Curriculum
Effects of a Science Education Module on Attitudes Journal, v21 n1 p25-45 Mar 2010
towards Modern Biotechnology of Secondary School Taskin, Özgür. 2014. An Exploratory Examination of Islamic
Students. International Journal of Science Education, v32 Values in Science Education: Islamization of Science
n9 p1127-1150 Jun 2010. Teaching and Learning via Constructivism. Cultural
Knapp, Amanda Kristen. 2013. A Study of Secondary Science Studies of Science Education, v9 n4 p855-875 Dec 2014
Teacher Efficacy and Level of Constructivist Instructional Turcotte, Sandrine; Hamel, Christine. 2016. Using Scaffold
Practice Implementation in West Virginia Science Supports to Improve Student Practice and Understanding of
Classrooms. ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation, Marshall an Authentic Inquiry Process in Science. Canadian Journal
University. of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, v16
Lew, Lee Yuen. 2010. The Use of Constructivist Teaching n1 p77-91 2016.
Practices by Four New Secondary School Science Wallace, Carolyn S., Brooks, Lori. 2015. Learning to Teach
Teachers: A Comparison of New Teachers and Elementary Science in an Experiential, Informal Context:
Experienced Constructivist Teachers. Science Educator, Culture, Learning, and Identity. Science Education, v99 n1
v19 n2 p10-21 Fall 2010 p174-198 Jan 2015
Machado, J. 2012. Developing 21st learning environments: Wild, Andrew. 2015. Relationships between High School
Changing Ideas of Time and Space for Learning. The Chemistry Students' Perceptions of a Constructivist
Creative Educator, 20-21. Learning Environment and Their STEM Career
Mansour, Nasser. 2011. Science Teachers' Views of Science Expectations. International Journal of Science Education,
and Religion vs. the Islamic Perspective: Conflicting or v37 n14 p2284-2305 2015
Compatible? Science Education, v95 n2 p281-309 Mar Winning, Rosalie Anne. 2012. Exploring the Middle School
2011. Science Achievement Gap: Influences of Curriculum,
Ong, Eng Tek; Ruthven, Kenneth. 2010. The Distinctiveness Instruction and Students' Perceptions ProQuest LLC, Ed.D.
and Effectiveness of Science Teaching in the Malaysian Dissertation, College of Saint Elizabeth.
"Smart School". Research in Science and Technological
Education, v28 n1 p25-41 Apr 2010.

*******
International Studies Review (2018) 20, 255–263

ANALYTICAL ESSAY

Agential Constructivism and Change

in World Politics

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

J. ANDREW GRANT
Queen’s University

Keywords: constructivism, norms, conflict diamonds, change,

agency, social media, international order

“Dear, dear! How queer everything is to-day! And yesterday things went on just as
usual. I wonder if I’ve been changed in the night? Let me think: was I the same when
I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if
I’m not the same, the next question is, ‘Who in the world am I?’ Ah, that’s the great
puzzle!” (Carroll 1898 [1920], 19).

Introduction
Like Alice, speaking out loud as she seeks to figure out the jarring changes in her
physical stature and make sense of her new environment in Lewis Carroll’s classic
literary work Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, so too are international relations (IR)
scholars and observers trying to comprehend recent and ongoing changes in the
global political order. I concur with Paul (2017, 2) that we are living in “a time of
major changes in world politics. These are driven by, among other things, the rise
of new powers, deepened economic globalization, and the emergence of violent
transnational forces.” These three vectors of change make the world “feel” a little
different with each passing year, but, as Alice intimates, it is exceedingly difficult
to grasp the ephemeral architecture of the emerging global order. Concomitantly,
some drivers of change have been either overlooked—and so they appear to be
“new” to many observers—or unanticipated. For instance, African state and non-
state actors are gaining overdue recognition as drivers of change by making, break-
ing, and remaking transnational norms. Not long ago, China was cast as a “new”
driver of change in world politics. China’s “rise” and growing engagement in in-
ternational affairs is now well-documented, and new developments are scrutinized.
The United States was expected to abdicate its role as a driver of change after Don-
ald Trump assumed the presidency of the country in January 2017. However, few—if
any—observers anticipated the actual pace, scope, and depth to which the Trump

Acknowledgements: Funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada supported the
fieldwork for this article. I thank T.V. Paul and the two anonymous referees for their insightful comments, which im-
proved the article. I also thank Amanda Murdie, Laura Sjoberg, Kelly Kadera, Tom Volgy, and Mark Boyer for their
institutional support.

Grant, J. Andrew. (2018) Agential Constructivism and Change in World Politics. International Studies Review,
doi: 10.1093/isr/viy021
© The Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association. This is an
Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited
256 Agential Constructivism and Change

administration has upended the norms of diplomacy, international trade negotia-

tions, and the conduct of foreign policy more broadly.
The norm “breaking and remaking” forces of Trump’s actions rely in part on his
use of social media (i.e., Twitter), for it enhances agency and attempts to elude the
constraints of structure in world politics. Even the attendant social networks fed by
social media are diffuse in terms of structure. Furthermore, social media and so-
cial networks are means through which the traditional concept of the state is being
reinvented—and norm disruption is occurring. Witness the contemporary methods
through which governments are increasingly interacting with citizens, civil society,
corporations, and traditional media. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media plat-
forms have rapidly become a staple of government communications—India under

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a good example—not to mention the fine-grained
analyses of user data of the constituent social networks. A growing number of states
are starting to bypass traditional mechanisms of communicating their intentions in
international affairs, such as diplomatic channels and intergovernmental forums, in
order to interact with one another. In 2017, the United States became the epitome
of such change. Trump regularly takes to Twitter and chastises China over its trade
policy with the United States, as well as China’s perceived lack of influence in terms
of curtailing North Korea’s nuclear weapons ambitions.1
While Trump has certainly disrupted myriad norms, the changing nature of
the current global political order has provided the opportunity for such maverick
behavior—an opportunity exploited by other world leaders, such as Vladimir Putin,
Xi Jinping, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, among others. While voluminous studies
on Trump’s disruption of old norms and creation of new norms are sure to appear
in the coming years, this article contends that such transnational norm dynamics
began occurring before Trump came to office and were initiated in areas outside the
Global North. African actors—both state and nonstate varieties—have been more
than mere “norm takers” in recent years. Breaking free of the structural constraints
of neocolonialism, African actors have established, promoted, contested, modified,
and resisted various transnational norms—thereby imbedding themselves in the
processes of international change. The conflict-free diamond norm is an evocative
example of how African actors have exerted agency in the establishment and sub-
sequent attempts to change a particular transnational norm. Before proceeding to
this central case study, I begin by developing the concept of “agential constructivism”2
in the below section. Agential constructivism is a rationalist variant of constructivism
that is particularly apposite in providing the conceptual framing for understanding
not only how norms influence state (and nonstate) behavior but also how these
actors influence the dynamics of transnational norms.

Agential Constructivism
Constructivism offers important insights into how ideas and identities inform so-
cial relations, networks, and institutions (Wendt 1992, 1999; Finnemore 1996; Hopf
1998; Guzzini 2000; Carpenter 2003; Clunan 2009; Rublee 2009; Onuf 2013; Sjoberg
1
For example, these types of tweets appeared while US diplomats were in the midst of negotiating the terms of
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution (2371) with their Chinese counterparts. UNSC resolution 2371
(2017), which was brought to the full Security Council in early August 2017 and adopted unanimously shortly thereafter,
imposes a ban on key North Korean mineral and seafood exports, a travel ban and asset freeze on nine North Korean
officials, a ban on new investments in and joint ventures with North Korean firms, and an asset freeze of the country’s
leading foreign exchange bank. A few days later, Trump re-tweeted a video clip of his televised remark that “North
Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met, with fire and fury, like the world has never
seen.”
2
Inspiration for this form of constructivism is based on my reading of Guzzini (2005), Sikkink (2011), Fiaz (2014),
and Lantis (2016). In Grant (2018), I expand upon the themes of the present article, as well as offer comparative
analyses of other conflict-prone minerals, such as those covered by the International Conference on the Great Lakes
Region’s Regional Certification Mechanism.
 J. ANDREW GRANT 257

2017). Constructivism also emphasizes the salience of norms in world politics, as

well as how their dynamics influence state and nonstate actors (and vice versa).
However, agential constructivism places less emphasis on the type of structural in-
equalities that are sometimes advanced by reflexivist/interpretivist scholars of con-
structivism. Structural variants of constructivism often restrict agency by anchoring
actors to their current (or past) position in the structure of the international sys-
tem. This promotes a form of stasis wherein state and nonstate actors from the
Global North are expected to dominate their counterparts from the Global South.
This concept of stasis can be extended to historical economic and political sys-
tems (e.g., the brutality and exploitation of colonialism), the global economy (e.g.,
large transnational corporations versus local entrepreneurs), and civil society (e.g.,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

transnational Northern NGOs versus local Southern NGOs). While scholars should
not ignore these structural inequalities, placing too much weight on structure risks
generating erroneous assumptions about contemporary world politics, such as the
restrictive and outdated view that actors from the Global South are merely norm-
takers rather than norm-makers.
Agential constructivism helps observers gain a more accurate sense of trends in
world politics by questioning assumptions about structure and opening up opportu-
nities for agency—especially for seemingly less powerful actors. Agential construc-
tivism also recognizes that rational actors affect and shape the legal, political, in-
stitutional, and social environments in which they operate. Though rationalist in
approach, agential constructivism neither claims to be free of researcher bias nor
assumes perfect access to information or complete objectivity. Moreover, as noted
above, this perspective does not discard the role of structure—institutions and envi-
ronments both constitute and provide the contours for the interactions of transna-
tional actors. Rather, agential constructivism provides more of an opening for epis-
temological and ontological engagement with innovative governance arrangements
among state and nonstate actors, as well as for normative change.
Agential constructivism also recognizes that material factors are important drivers
of interests and are intertwined—along with identities and social factors—with the
generation and evolution of norms. These material forces go beyond military re-
sources and include economic considerations in conjunction with identity politics
and social dynamics. The diamond sector is a good example of economic resources
that marry material factors with identities and socialized symbolism. Even after the
fall of the Soviet Union, Russia considers its rough diamond sector to be of national
security importance. The global demand for diamond jewelry—a market worth $80
billion per year—is driven by shared symbols and identities related to love and com-
mitment, socialized via ubiquitous advertising campaigns over several decades. Put
differently, ideational and material factors influence the establishment and evolu-
tion of norms. Although institutions as collectives can serve as change-fomenting
norm entrepreneurs (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) or change-resisting norm an-
tipreneurs (Bloomfield 2016), these norm agents can also be notable individuals
(e.g., leaders of states or government ministries); international institutions (e.g.,
the UN, the World Bank); nonstate actors (e.g., firms and business associations);
and networks of transnational civil society organizations. Increasingly, actors from
the Global South are being recognized as norm “makers” and “shapers” (Acharya
2014; Jinnah 2017). As elucidated in the next section, African state and nonstate
actors exert agency and pursue strategies via norm generation, sometimes shaping
them for “good” (Aning and Edu-Afful 2016), and sometimes for “ill” (Grant and
Hamilton 2016). The results of these norm dynamics may provide broader public
benefits or narrow private benefits, respectively. Agential constructivism is an ap-
propriate analytical perspective for the present study because it offers a way to assess
norm dynamics, the role of state and nonstate actors, and nonstructural origins of
change in the case of the establishment, evolution, and contestation of the conflict-
free diamond norm.
258 Agential Constructivism and Change

African Agency and the Conflict-Free Diamond Norm

The conflict-free diamond norm is a standard of expected behavior whereby di-
amond traders, middlemen, exporters, importers, wholesalers, jewelry stores, and
consumers do not purchase diamonds that are mined in war zones.3 This transna-
tional norm coalesced as a result of a series of global negotiations known as the
Kimberley Process, which were initiated and largely hosted by African states and
which also included African business interests and African civil society organizations
(Grant and Taylor 2004; Grant 2013a, 2013b, 2017). The combination of growing
public awareness and the attention generated by these reports in industry and pol-
icy circles induced South Africa to convene a stakeholder meeting in Kimberley, in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

May 2000, in order to respond to the trade of what was being referred to as “blood
diamonds” or “conflict diamonds.” Namibia and Botswana actively supported South
Africa’s decision to hold the meeting, which included industry, civil society, and rep-
resentatives from nearly forty diamond-producing and diamond-trading countries.
At this inaugural meeting, South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana did not set out with
a deliberate strategy to establish a conflict-free—or “anti-conflict”—diamond norm.
Although these countries wanted the civil wars and the associated bloodshed to end,
part of the motivation that spurred action was the threat posed to the all-important
diamond sectors within these particular countries by the fear of a potential con-
sumer boycott against the gems. At the time of the first Kimberley Process meeting,
Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia were the first-, third-, and fifth-largest pro-
ducers of rough diamonds by value, respectively. Debswana, a fifty-fifty joint-venture
between the government of Botswana and De Beers, earned a profit of $1.67 billion
in 2000 (Hazleton 2002, 3). Hence, material factors in the form of the economic
significance of diamonds to national economies were a major consideration in the
establishment of the conflict-free diamond norm.
In June 2000, the participants met again in Luanda, Angola, and the consensus
among attendees was that the entire global diamond trade should be conflict-free.
This can be identified as the starting point (or “norm emergence”4 ) for the conflict-
free diamond norm, as certain segments of the diamond industry had previously
denied that conflict diamonds existed. Thirteen meetings were held from 2000
to 2002—many in African countries—that aimed to develop a global regulatory
framework that would prevent rough diamonds from funding violence. Phumzile
Mlambo-Ngcuka, South Africa’s minister of minerals and energy, played an integral
role in nurturing the conflict-free diamond norm during these meetings, over the
course of roughly thirty months. Relying on a combination of personal contacts and
networks, she invited the various delegations (a mix of African and non-African state
and nonstate actors) to the meetings and was not deterred by the acrimonious dis-
putes between civil society and industry delegates that would occasionally arise. She
also lobbied to have the conflict diamond issue appear in the proceedings of the
G-8 meetings in Okinawa, Japan, in July 2000, and ensured that recommendations
from what became known as the “Kimberley Process” were submitted for consid-
eration by the UN and Word Trade Organization (Smillie 2010, 178–80). In turn,
the G-8 and UN issued a declaration and resolutions supporting the efforts of the
Kimberley Process to prohibit the trade of conflict diamonds. The UN Security
Council imposed sanctions on countries deemed to be trading in conflict diamonds.
The World Trade Organization provided a waiver that, despite being an example
of a restriction of trade, greater national regulations relating to the exportation
and importation of rough diamonds would be permitted. Having consequential in-
ternational organizations declare support in resolutions and provide institutional
3
The “conflict-free diamond” norm and the “anti-conflict diamond” norm (Grant 2013a, 2013b) are essentially the
same and, therefore, can be employed interchangeably.
4
The concepts of “norm emergence,” “tipping point”/”norm cascade,” and “norm internationalization” are in-
formed by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) and their work on the “life cycle” of norms.
 J. ANDREW GRANT 259

backing in the form of sanctions and waivers at this early stage provided a vital
boost to the development of the transnational conflict-free diamond norm and gave
it global reach.
In November 2002, the conflict-free diamond norm coalesced and reached its
“tipping point of support” when the aforementioned representatives from states,
industry, and civil society were able to distill the views presented at their previ-
ous dozen meetings, articulate the feedback from international forums, and agree
on a global regulatory document that would prohibit the trade of conflict dia-
monds. This document—the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme—came into
effect in January 2003 and represented the conflict-free diamond “norm cascade”
and launched the “internalization” of the conflict-free diamond norm. The num-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

ber of state participants seeking to uphold the conflict-free diamond norm via
membership in the Kimberley Process quickly rose to more than 99 percent of all
diamond-producing and diamond-trading countries worldwide. Nonmaterial fac-
tors also helped the conflict-free diamond norm reach its tipping point via adop-
tion by states and industry actors (such as De Beers and Rio Tinto)—a process that
was encouraged by NGO actors (such as Sierra Leone’s Network Movement for Jus-
tice and Development), given the focus on human security concerns by civil society
stakeholders. In this context, social psychology helps us understand how norms are
linked to values (Rublee 2009, 44). The greater the alignment between a particular
norm and a particular value, the greater the probability that actors adhere to the
norm in question. Since several decades of marketing have associated diamonds—
and diamond jewelry in particular—with positive values such as love and commit-
ment, little persuasion was needed to convince states, firms, and NGOs to work
together in promoting those values in contrast to the violence and bloodshed asso-
ciated with civil wars.
Despite producing a conflict-free diamond norm, efforts within the Kimberley
Process to expand the definition of conflict diamonds to include human rights lan-
guage have been blocked over the years by China, India, Zimbabwe, and other KP
member-states. The official definition of a conflict diamond is a vital component
of the conflict-free norm. The long-standing (and UN-recognized) definition fa-
vors the protection of sovereignty,5 which seeks to thwart antigovernment armed
groups attempting to use diamond proceeds to usurp governments (e.g., in the
Central African Republic in the mid-2010s). However, protecting sovereignty is a
minimalist liberal value—and one that is readily embraced by illiberal governments
around the globe. This contestation of the conflict-free diamond norm is best de-
picted by the “Zimbabwe crisis.” From mid-2006 thru 2008, a “diamond rush” in
Zimbabwe’s Marange region drew thousands of artisanal small-scale miners, and
the heavy-handed response by government security forces resulted in human rights
abuses ranging from beatings to rapes to deaths. Once the human rights abuses
subsided, the police and then the military implemented an informal, yet brutally
enforced, arrangement whereby the miners had to pay fees or a portion of rough
diamonds mined in order to gain access to the mining areas. Restrictions on media
and civil society organizations, such as the Center for Research and Development
and the Zimbabwe Environmental Lawyers Association, delayed the wider dissem-
ination of news of the Marange violence. The Zimbabwean government rebuffed
reports that human rights abuses had occurred in the region. South Africa used
back-channels to reach out to Zimbabwe and coax the government to accept a
visit by a Kimberley Process Review Mission in July 2009. The delegation visited
Marange and other parts of Zimbabwe, and observed “‘credible indications of sig-
nificant noncompliance with the minimum requirements of the Kimberley Pro-
cess Certification Scheme’ and ‘evidence of government involvement in human
rights abuses, smuggling, and lax controls that compromised the entire chain of
5
See KPCS (2003).
260 Agential Constructivism and Change

production’” (Partnership Africa Canada 2010, 4). The Kimberley Process Civil So-
ciety Coalition, Canada, the United States, and a number of other members pressed
for a suspension of Zimbabwe’s membership. South Africa and Namibia advanced
an alternative: providing technical assistance in order to bring Zimbabwe into com-
pliance with the KPCS. Kimberley Process decision-making operates according to
consensus—which, evoking Adler and Pouliot’s (2011) conception of “international
practice,” is akin to granting members de facto veto power—and hence negotia-
tions turned to forging a compromise. Zimbabwe would no longer be able to ex-
port rough diamonds worth hundreds of millions of dollars until a solution was
devised. Yet, the country was not formally suspended by the Kimberley Process. By
the time of the 2012 Kimberley Process Plenary meetings, the Zimbabwean govern-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

ment had finally persuaded enough members that it met the threshold of minimum
compliance—an assessment that was affirmed by a Zimbabwean representative of
the Civil Society Coalition. This outcome meant that Zimbabwe could resume ex-
porting diamonds. Although the position that human rights abuses were no longer
occurring circa 2012 was implicit in the Zimbabwean civil society representatives’
decision to permit the arrangement to proceed, the human rights issue was not
explicitly acknowledged by the Zimbabwean government.
The “Zimbabwe crisis” encapsulates the role of African actors and the contes-
tation of constitutive norms surrounding the conflict-free diamond norm.6 Zim-
babwe changed from being a supporter of the founding norms of the Kimber-
ley Process to becoming a norm antipreneur, who worked behind the scenes
to avoid being suspended by the Kimberley Process (e.g., escaping the fate of
Congo-Brazzaville in 2004 [Grant 2013a, 330–1]) and blocked efforts to expand
the definition of conflict diamonds. The calls for (and resistance to) expand-
ing the conflict-free diamond norm have ramifications beyond the Zimbabwean
case. That is, the inclusion of broader liberal values in the form of human rights
protections would also deem diamonds that originate from mining areas sub-
ject to government-approved violence to be conflict diamonds and, therefore,
subject to UNSC sanctions, suspension from the Kimberley Process, and exclu-
sion from the global diamond trade. Government security personnel have or-
chestrated violent crack-downs and expulsions of artisanal diamond miners in
Angola and Congo-Kinshasa in the past, and similar conditions exist in Brazil and
other diamond-producing countries around the globe.
Because agential constructivism draws attention to the material aspects of the
triumvirate of material-identities-social factors that affect norm dynamics—and the
role of nonstate actors (in conjunction with state actors)—it is well-equipped to
account for international change. Put differently, material factors are perpetually
changing—with knock-on effects on norm gestation, tipping point, and internaliza-
tion. Analyzing the conflict-free diamond norm through an agential constructivist
approach is particularly illustrative of the material factors that shape the lifespan
of a norm. New discoveries of diamond reserves—worth hundreds of millions or
even billions of dollars—can spark a heavy-handed state response to governing the
extraction of such valuable gems. Nonstate actors, such as mining firms, are not
immune to the allure of the profits that might be gained by working in illiberal
states. Agential constructivism builds upon the influential work of Finnemore and
Sikkink (1998) on norm life-cycles, while expanding the parameters for change
at the norm internalization stage. This theoretical innovation helps address the
“taken-for-granted” quality of norm internalization that can be critiqued for assum-
ing a relatively static and consistent influence on the behavior of state actors as well
as lasting conformity to the norm in question.

6
Munier (2016) provides an insightful assessment of “Zimbabwe-Kimberley Process” relations. The contributors to
Grant, Compaoré, and Mitchell (2015) analyze several comparable cases of African state and nonstate actors and their
responses to governance crises in various natural resource sectors, ranging from oil and biofuels to mining and forestry
to water and fisheries.
 J. ANDREW GRANT 261

Conclusion
She got up and went to the table to measure herself by it, and found that, as nearly as
she could guess, she was now about two feet high, and was going on shrinking rapidly:
she soon found out that the cause of this was the fan that she was holding, and she
dropped it hastily, just in time to save herself from shrinking away altogether. “That
was a narrow escape!” said Alice, a good deal frightened at the sudden change, but very
glad to find herself still in existence. (Carroll 1898 [1920], 22, emphasis added).

Change in international affairs can be a gradual process, such as China’s rise

since the 1980s or Germany’s rise from the 1890s to the 1910s. Change can also
occur at a moderate pace, normally over the course of a multiyear war (e.g., World

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

War I and World War II) but also through other means and over shorter periods,
such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union over
little more than two years. Change—especially if it is sudden or fairly rapid and
precipitated by momentous events that have an overwhelming impact on order in
the international system (e.g., al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on the United States on
11 September 2001)—can be disorienting for international actors. Like Alice, it
can take some time to discern the cause of such change (in her case, the fan in
her hand). Mutatis mutandis, IR scholars face a similar challenge in being able to
identify the cause of changing transnational norms and understand the forces of
change in the global political order.
Change can be peaceful; change can be violent. And, change can be neither. Of
particular salience to norms, change can be transformative in a progressive sense,
but it can also be regressive. In a similar vein, agential constructivism does not ad-
vocate for a particular type of norm: a norm can be liberal or illiberal, progressive
or regressive. Regardless of the type of change or its pace, a norm can have a trans-
formative effect on global order—which is an insight that agential constructivism
shares with other strands of constructivism. That is, transnational and local actors
alike constitute and influence their cognitive environments. While other strands of
constructivism have a more maximalist structuralist take on the cognitive environ-
ments of state and nonstate actors, agential constructivism adopts a more minimal-
ist emphasis on structure. To be sure, agential constructivism is neither rejecting
the notion that the legacy of colonialism still influences North-South relations nor
discarding the importance of the structure of the international system. Rather, in
the current era of no clear hegemonic power, the dynamics of the conflict-free dia-
mond norm suggest that actors from the Global South—both state and nonstate—
are making headway in terms of obviating the deleterious ties of neocolonialism
and charting their own courses within international and intergovernmental orga-
nizations, markets, and transnational governance initiatives at the global, regional,
national, and local levels.
Agential constructivism is a versatile perspective that can be applied to a wide
variety of global governance literatures within the study of IR. Furthermore, agen-
tial constructivism draws attention to the ways in which state and nonstate ac-
tors respond to—as well as help generate and disseminate—norms. Through its
rationalist tenets, agential constructivism has also helped illuminate non-Western
agency, namely the agency of African state and nonstate actors in global governance.
African actors—state, civil society, and industry—have had a significant influence
on the constitutive norms dynamics within the Kimberley Process and the conflict-
free diamond norm. These actors have served as norm entrepreneurs and leaders,
in the early phases of the norm’s creation, and as norm shapers—and even norm
antipreneurs—after the norm had emerged. The conflict-free diamond norm also
reinforces the insight that the “emergence” point is not the final phase in the de-
velopment of a norm, for changes to the constitutive elements of a particular norm
continue via efforts of expansion, restriction, or contestation—and sometimes in
directions that might not produce better public goods or support more liberal
262 Agential Constructivism and Change

values. Agential constructivism is a useful analytical lens that helps shed light on
these norm dynamics and changes produced by state and nonstate actors in world
politics, including norm entrepreneurs and antipreneurs.

References
ACHARYA, AMITAV. 2014. “Who Are the Norm Makers? The Asian-African Conference in Bandung and the
Evolution of Norms.” Global Governance 20 (3): 405–17.
ADLER, EMANUEL, AND VINCENT POULIOT. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3 (1): 1–36.
ANING, KWESI, AND FIIFI EDU-AFFUL. 2016. “African Agency in R2P: Interventions by African Union and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

ECOWAS in Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, and Libya.” International Studies Review 18 (1): 120–33.
BLOOMFIELD, ALAN. 2016. “Norm Antipreneurs and Theorising Resistance to Normative Change.” Review
of International Studies 42 (2): 310–33.
CARPENTER, CHARLI R. 2003. “Stirring Gender into the Mainstream: Constructivism, Feminism and the
Uses of IR Theory.” International Studies Review 5 (2): 297–302.
CARROLL, LEWIS. (1898–1920). Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. New York: Macmillan.
CLUNAN, ANNE L. 2009. The Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
FIAZ, NAZYA. 2014. “Constructivism Meets Critical Realism: Explaining Pakistan’s State Practice in the
Aftermath of 9/11.” European Journal of International Relations 20 (2): 491–515.
FINNEMORE, MARTHA. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
FINNEMORE, MARTHA, AND KATHRYN SIKKINK. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.”
International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.
GRANT, J. ANDREW. 2013a. “Consensus Dynamics and Global Governance Frameworks: Insights
from the Kimberley Process on Conflict Diamonds.” Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 19 (3):
323–39.
——. 2013b. “Commonwealth Cousins Combating Conflict Diamonds: An Examination of South African
and Canadian Contributions to the Kimberley Process.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 51 (2):
210–33.
——. 2017. “The Kimberley Process on Conflict Diamonds, New Regionalisms, and the Dynamics of
(Re/De)Territorialization.” In The New Politics of Regionalism: Perspectives from Africa, Latin America and
Asia-Pacific, edited by Ulf Engel, Heidrun Zinecker, Frank Mattheis, Antje Dietze and Thomas Plötze,
146–58. London: Routledge.
——. 2018. “Eliminating Conflict Diamonds and Other Conflict-Prone Minerals.” In African Actors in
International Security: Shaping Contemporary Norms, edited by Katharina P. Coleman and Thomas K.
Tieku, 51–71. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
GRANT, J. ANDREW, W. R. NADÈGE COMPAORÉ, AND MATTHEW I. MITCHELL, eds. 2015. New Approaches to the
Governance of Natural Resources: Insights from Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
GRANT, J. ANDREW, AND SPENCER HAMILTON. 2016. “Norm Dynamics and International Organisations: South
Africa in the African Union and International Criminal Court.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics
54 (2): 161–85.
GRANT, J. ANDREW, AND IAN TAYLOR. 2004. “Global Governance and Conflict Diamonds: The Kimberley
Process and the Quest for Clean Gems.” The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International
Affairs 93 (375): 385–401.
GUZZINI, STEFANO. 2000. “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations.” European Journal
of International Relations 6 (2): 147–82.
——. 2005. “The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies
33 (3): 495–521.
HAZLETON, RALPH. 2002. Diamonds: Forever or For Good—The Economic Impact of Diamonds in Southern Africa.
Ottawa: PAC.
HOPF, TED. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security
23 (1): 171–200.
JINNAH, SIKINA. 2017. “Makers, Takers, Shakers, Shapers: Emerging Economies and Normative Engage-
ment in Climate Governance.” Global Governance 23 (2): 285–306.
KIMBERLEY PROCESS CERTIFICATION SCHEME. 2003. Core Document. Kimberley Process.
LANTIS, JEFFREY S. 2016. “Nonproliferation and Norm Discourse: An Agentic Constructivist Model of US
Nuclear Export Policy Changes.” Politics & Policy 44 (2): 220–60.
MUNIER, NATHAN. 2016. “The One Who Controls the Diamond Wears the Crown! The Politicization of the
Kimberley Process in Zimbabwe.” Resources Policy 47: 171–7.
 J. ANDREW GRANT 263

ONUF, NICHOLAS GREENWOOD. 2013. Making Sense, Making Worlds: Constructivism in Social Theory and Interna-
tional Relations. London: Routledge.
PARTNERSHIP AFRICA CANADA. 2010. Diamonds and Clubs: The Militarized Control of Diamonds and Power in
Zimbabwe. Ottawa: PAC.
PAUL, T.V. 2017. “Recasting Statecraft: International Relations and Strategies of Peaceful Change.” Inter-
national Studies Quarterly 61 (1): 1–13.
RUBLEE, MARIA ROST. 2009. Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint. Athens: University of
Georgia Press.
SIKKINK, KATHRYN. 2011. The Justice Cascade: Human Rights Prosecutions and Change in World Politics. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company.
SJOBERG, LAURA. 2017. “Queering IR Constructivism.” In The Art of World-Making: Nicholas Greenwood Onuf
and His Critics, edited by Harry D. Gould, 68–77. London: Routledge.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/2/255/5001652 by guest on 08 November 2021

SMILLIE, IAN. 2010. Blood on the Stone: Greed, Corruption and War in the Global Diamond Trade. London:
Anthem Press/IDRC.
WENDT, ALEXANDER. 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.”
International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.
——. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

Application of Theory of Social Constructivism in Teaching

Arabic Teachers to Apply Higher Order Thinking Skill
Najlaa Shazana Mohamad & Taj Rijal Muhamad Romli
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i2/10130 DOI:10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i2/10103

Received: 04 April 2021, Revised: 30 April 2021, Accepted: 21 May 2021

Published Online: 04 June 2021

In-Text Citation: (Mohamad & Romli, 2021)

To Cite this Article: Mohamad, N. S., & Romli, T. R. M. (2021). Application of Theory of Social Constructivism in
Teaching Arabic Teachers to Apply Higher Order Thinking Skill. International Journal of Academic Research in
Progressive Education and Development, 10(2), 483–491.

Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)

Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen
at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Vol. 10(2) 2021, Pg. 483 - 491

http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARPED JOURNAL HOMEPAGE

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics

483
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

Application of Theory of Social Constructivism in

Teaching Arabic Teachers to Apply Higher Order
Thinking Skill
Najlaa Shazana Mohamad & Taj Rijal Muhamad Romli
Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, 35900 Tg. Malim,
Perak Malaysia

Abstract
Theory of Social Constructivism is a theory that introduced by Vygotsky's emphasis on social
interactions that give the impression of a positive impact on a person's mastery of
language. Arabic is an additional language in school that studied by students in
Malaysia. Through the Malaysian Education Development Plan (2013 – 2025), a revision to the
curriculum has been implemented where the Integrated Secondary School Curriculum has been
changed to the Standard Secondary School Curriculum. In this Standard Secondary School
Curriculum, Higher Order Thinking Skill is an element that needs to be given direct emphasis. This
reform is a big challenge for Arabic language teachers who have been emphasizing the teaching
of language knowledge more than language skills themselves. Therefore, this theory of social
constructivism can be seen to be applied to apply HOTS in the teaching of Arabic language
teachers more effectively.
Keywords: Theory of Social Constructivism, Arabic language Teachers, Arabic Language, Higher
Order Thinking Skill (HOTS), Standard Secondary School Curriculum

Introduction
The teaching of teachers in the modernization era is now gaining due attention from various
parties, especially the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE). Various reforms implemented by
the ministry in an effort to improve the education system in Malaysia. Teachers are the main
asset of the country to generate quality educational progress. The result of these quality teachers
can not only produce students who are excellent, glorious and distinguished in learning, but also
in terms of morals and personality of the students themselves. Therefore, in order to realize the
aspirations of this government, teachers need to play a key role in driving this effort to achieve
outstanding success. Arabic language teachers are also not left behind in tracing the current
progress of this education. Various theories applied by teachers to ensure that teaching can be
delivered effectively. However, the theory of social constructivism is a relevant and suitable

484
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

theory to be applied in the teaching of Arabic. The theory of social constructivism is a theory
introduced by Lev Yvgotsky in 1978. This theory emphasizes on social interaction among students
to improve student achievement and mastery in a language. This is very much in line with the
teaching of Arabic in Standard Secondary School Curriculum where social interaction is the main
goal of a student's success in mastering the Arabic language. This means that students can
interact in Arabic with teachers, fellow students and school staff is that has managed to achieve
the desired goal by the Curriculum Development Center, Ministry of Education (MOE).

Theory Of Social Constructivism

Social Constructivism Theory is a theory introduced by Lev Vygotsky (1896 - 1935), a Russian-
born psychologist who believed that social and cultural aspects play a role in the development of
one's language so as to help improve one's cognitive development (IGA Lokita, 2016). Teaching
Arabic is not much different from teaching other languages because it requires good cognitive
development. According to Vygotsky, language proficiency will shape a person's cognitive
level. The better one's language proficiency, the more knowledge that can be understood and in
turn the higher one's cognitive level (IGA Lokita, 2016). This Theory of Social Constructivism is the
basis of various teaching strategies and techniques used by Arabic language teachers in teaching
in the classroom. However, Arabic language teachers themselves are not aware of the practical
importance of using this theory in their teaching. This is in line with the view of Greeson,
2006 who argued that most teachers actually do not know much about the concepts and
theories of teaching and how to implement these theories in their teaching. Therefore, the
purpose of this article is to explore in detail about the implementation of social constructivism
theory in the teaching of Arabic language teachers.

Higher Order Thinking Skill

Higher Order Thinking Skill (HOTS) is an element emphasized in the Integrated Secondary School
Curriculum in line with the Malaysian Education Development Plan (2013 – 2025). In this plan,
the Ministry of Education Malaysia outlines aspects of HOTS should be emphasized directly in
21st century teaching. Therefore, all teachers need to respond to the ministry's call to ensure
that HOTS can be applied in teaching, especially Arabic language teaching. Although in fact this
HOTS has been in Malaysia for a long time, but it is not fully applied. Therefore, Standard
Secondary School Curriculum gives serious focus and concentration on this HOTS in teaching. The
cognitive level of HOTS in Arabic represents 4 levels of thinking, namely application, analysis,
evaluation and creation. This cognitive level corresponds to Bloom's cognitive level of the 1956
Anderson revision.

485
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

O HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILL R

R E
I LOWER ORDER THINKING SKILL V
G I
I S
N ASSESSMENT CREATE I
A O
L SYNTESIZE ASSESSMENT N
ANALYSE ANALYSE
T T
APPLICATION APPLICATION
A A
X UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND X
O O
N KNOWLEDGE REMEMBER N
O O
M M
Y Y
Table 1.1: Thinking Level Hierarchy
(Adapted from Higher Order Thinking Skill in School Applications, 2014)

The main focus of the HOTS element in the teaching of Arabic is that teachers teach language
skills to students rather than teaching Arabic knowledge itself. The four main skills in Arabic are
listening, reading, writing and speaking skills. Arabic language teachers need to give priority to
the teaching of four language skills in addition to applying Arabic language knowledge such as
grammar and vocabulary indirectly in teaching. In addition, effective teacher teaching methods
and techniques are very important in ensuring that the application of HOTS can be carried out
continuously and with quality. HOTS cannot be carried out suddenly or with just one application
because careful preparation and preparation must be done by a teacher before starting the
teaching session . The steps to implement HOTS in Arabic language teaching start with the
selection of the use of induction set at the beginning of the lesson, teaching aids during the
teaching, as well as the process of evaluation and assessment at the end of the lesson. Teachers
should make proper planning to make the teaching process running effectively. Each Arabic
language skill can be applied with HOTS depending on the teaching topic, teaching techniques
and learning environment. However, listening skills need to be combined with several other
skills to ensure that HOTS can be applied. For example, listening skills are combined with
speaking and writing skills.

Application of the Theory of Social Constructivism by Vygotsky

According to Omrord, 2007, the theory of social constructivism emphasizes assisted
discovery learning. This means that language learning is acquired through interaction and
communication in the environment and learning will be easier to obtain when it involves the
social and cultural aspects of a person (Poedjiadi, 1999). Arabic language teachers who

486
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

understand the concept of this theory will teach Arabic through the emphasis on the use of Arabic
in the daily interaction of students whether interacting with friends, interacting with teachers,
parents and the surrounding community. This is in line with the theory of social constructivism
which emphasizes internal and external aspects in the learning and social environment. The role
of the environment is important in this theory because according to this theory, the process of
individual and social development occurs because understanding is formed from the knowledge
in the environment (Anggraeni, 2017). In addition, the cognitive development of an individual is
due to the emphasis on aspects of social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978).
There are two important concepts in the theory of Constructivism by Vygotsky which is Zone of
Proximal Develo pment (ZPD) and scaffolding. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the level
of development of a person under the guidance of older people or through the help of peers and
scaffolding is the assistance given to the student completely then gradually reduced so that the
student is able to perform a task on his own (Slavin, 1997). According to Moll & Greenberg,
(1990), scaffolding is when a student is able to understand something through the interactions
that take place around that are based on the origin of the student. Thus, social resources outside
one's self influence the development and improvement of one's level of thinking (IGA Lokita,
2016). This is very much in line with Vygotsky's view that one plays an active role in organizing
one's own knowledge. In teaching Arabic, this is in line with the goals outlined in the Curriculum
and Assessment Standard Document (DSKP) which has been compiled by the Curriculum
Development Division that a student can master Arabic well when able to interact well with
individuals around the student. Arabic language application can only be implemented when
students master the four main skills in Arabic, namely listening skills, reading and writing and
then achieve the ultimate goal of being able to speak in Arabic in any situation and situation
(DSKP, 2015). To ensure that this can be implemented, teachers need to examine each planning
and appropriate measures so that the goals of this curriculum can be implemented optimally.
1. Arabic language teachers need to pay more attention to groups of students who cannot
perform the tasks given by the teacher alone. For example, teachers provide materials that can
help students understand the topic of teaching, teachers teach using examples of words and
sentences that are easier to understand so that students can master four Arabic language skills
namely listening, reading, writing and speaking.
2. To improve the quality of student learning, Arabic language teachers need to appoint young
teachers among students who meet the criteria as young teachers who can help their peers in
the classroom. In addition, Arabic language teachers from other classes can also help as adults
who guide students. Education and guidance from older people and classmates can improve the
quality of learning of students and help in solving difficulties that occur throughout learning (IGA
Lokita, 2016). In addition, according to Berggren, (2015), teachers can apply teaching based on
the views of peers, especially in writing skills. For example, the teacher gives questions based on
the passage and the student writes the answer in front of the class. Next, the teacher asked the
other students to check the answers given by their friend earlier. This in turn can test students'
knowledge of answering questions as well as evaluate the answers that have been written by
their own peers.
3. Among the application of concepts in Vygotsky's theory is cooperative learning (IGA Lokita,
2016). Students can improve their knowledge in a knowledge by communicating with classmates

487
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

through group work. For example, the teacher assigns students to each group to put the existing
words into a sentence and then produce a short story essay. In this case, students need to work
together to find the appropriate words from each group in order to put it into one complete
sentence and then be able to produce a short story.

Theory of Social Constructivism and Higher Order Thinking Skill

Theory of Social Constructivism and Higher Order Thinking Skill are closely related to each
other. The characteristics of teaching and the role of teachers based on the theory of social
constructivism will make it easier for teachers to apply HOTS in Arabic language teaching. Among
the roles of teachers that underline in this theory is that teachers function as mentors and
facilitators in the teaching and learning process. Teachers give the best path guidance that
students can choose, but students are free and have the right to make decisions. Teachers also
play a role in facilitating the learning process of students by providing thoughtful opinions and
ideas, but students can also have the right to give their own views even if they differ from the
views of teachers. Teachers are always open to students and always encourage students to think
rationally and critically. Teachers are also not quick to punish but even the best mentor to
students and ready to correct students' mistakes. Teachers as facilitators also mean teachers as
triggers and providers to a comfortable and fun thinking learning environment (Rajendran,
2017). The practice of HOTS teaching in the concept of Vygotsky's proximal development zone
helps students acquire knowledge by bringing cultural knowledge to students so as to be able to
build new concepts and knowledge management so as to overcome the problem of teaching
planning a teacher (Rajendran, 2017). In addition, the teacher-based teaching method
of this theory is that teachers practice cooperative learning methods,
collaborative learning, project- based learning and game-based learning. The role of teachers
and teacher teaching methods in the theory of social constructivism is actually directed
towards HOTS that meets the four highest levels of cognitive namely application, analysis,
evaluation and creation. Information on the cognitive level of HOTS can be seen through the
table below:

488
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

LEVEL HOTS DESCRIPTION LEVEL OF STUDENT DESCRIPTION

MASTERY IN
ARABIC
APPLY Use knowledge, skills 3 Pupils can use knowledge
and values in to apply a skill in a
different situations situation
to implement
something
ANALYZE Analyze the 4 Pupils perform a skill in a
information into civilized manner, that is, in
small parts to accordance with
understand in depth procedures and
and the relationship systematically
between the parts
EVALUATE Make judgments and 5
Pupils perform a skill in a
decisions using civilized manner, that is, in
knowledge, accordance with
experience, procedures / in
skills, values and an educational system ,
justify information consistent and positive
CREATE Produce creative and 6 Pupils implement a skill in
innovative ideas or a civilized manner, that is,
products or methods in accordance with
procedures /
systematically, consistent
and be positive, creative
and innovative and can be
emulated
Table 1.1: Level of HOTS and Level of Pupil Mastery in Arabic Language Subject
(Adaptation from Curriculum and Assessment Standard Documents Arabic Form 1, 2015)

Closing
In conclusion, the Theory of Social Constructivism has a positive impact on the teaching of
teachers, especially to Arabic language teachers. This theory is very closely related to the way or
method of teachers to implement HOTS in teaching Arabic because the features of this theory
are very much in line with the concept of HOTS. This theory not only has an impact on students,
but also teachers should apply this theory best in teaching, especially related to teaching
methods that can improve students' HOTS in Arabic subjects. The cognitive level of HOTS
represents the level of application, evaluation, analysis and creation. Therefore, when teachers
apply the elements of HOTS in every Arabic language skill by applying the Theory of Social
Constructivism, then the process of applying this HOTS will be easier and systematic. The goal of
the Curricul development Section for this Arabic language subject is that students are able to

489
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

interact in social discourse. Therefore, Arabic language teachers should give priority to
interacting using Arabic with teachers, classmates, administrators and school staff as a whole.

Acknowledgement
Dr Taj Rijal bin Muhamad Romli ( supervisor ), Faculty of Language and Communication
(Translating Malay Compound Into Arabic Based On Arabic Theory and Arabization
Method ) of Sultan Idris Education University and International Conference on Advanced
Social Research in Education, Management and Society (ICASREMS2021).

Corresponding Author
Taj Rijal Muhamad Romli
Faculty of Language and Communication, Sultan Idris Education University, 35900 Tg. Malim,
Perak
Email: [email protected]

References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching
and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston,
MA: Person Educational Group.
Anggraeni, A. I. (2017). Building Employee Career Resilience in Organizations: A Review of Social
Constructivist Theory. Feb. Unsoed, 7 (September), 649–656. Retrieved
from http://jp.feb.unsoed.ac.id
Berggren, J. (2015).Learning from giving feedback: a study of secondary-level students ELT
Journal, 69 (1): 58-70.
Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Education
Curriculum Standard Document (DSKP). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education
Malaysia Curriculum Development Division.
Geerson, E. B. (2006). An Overview of Vyqotsky's Language and Thought for EFL
teachers. Language Institute Journal, 3: 41-61.
Malaysia Education Ministry. (2013). Malaysian Education Development
Plan (PPPM). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Malaysia Education Ministry. (2014). High Level Thinking Skills Applications In
Schools. Curriculum Development Division.
Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating Zones of Possibilities: Combining Social context for
Instruction. In L, C, Moll Vygotsky and Education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Poedjiadi, A. (1999). Introduction to the Philosophy of Knowledge for Educators. Bandung:
Publisher Yayasan Cendrawasih.
Rajendran, N. (2017). Teaching and Mastery of High Theory Thinking Skills Theory &
Practice. Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI).
Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ormrod, J. E. (2007). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners (sixth edition). New york:
Prentice Hall.

490
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development
Vol. 1 0 , No. 2, 2021, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 6 -6348 © 2021 HRMARS

Utami, IGALP. (2016). Constructivism Theory and Sociocultural Theory: Applications in

Teaching English. Prasi, 11 (01), 4–11. Retrieved from
https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/PRASI/article/download/10964/7022
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind In Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

491
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2016, 12(5), 1425-1442
doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.1522a

Mobile Inverted
Constructivism: Education of
Interaction Technology in
Social Media
Jia-Xiang Chai & Kuo-Kuang Fan
Guangdong Literature & Art Vocational College, Guangdong, CHINA
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, TAIWAN

Received 30 September 2015Revised 26 December 2015 Accepted 29 December 2015

The combination of social media and invert teaching is a new path to inverting
interation technology education and reconstructing the curriculum of context. In this
paper, based on the theory of constructivism learning, a model named Mobile Inverted
Constructivism (MIC) is provided. Moreover, in view of the functional quality of social
media in China, the Mobile Inverted Constructivism system (MICs) is designed on the
platforms of WeChat and Baidu Post Bar. Through a interaction design course, examines
the teaching effect of MIC model. The statistical software SAS9.3 was used to analyze the
experimental data. Experimental results show that in the classes where the MIC model is
applied, students are better motivated to learn and make creative achievements than
those restrained by traditional classroom teaching, and the MICs is more acceptable to
the digital natives. In the future, the MIC model will be further improved, to better
embody the “culture of sharing”.

Keywords: mobile inverted constructivism, interaction technology, social media, creative

archievement

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, Chinese educators have been inspired by MOOCs, which

originated from the United States and then swept the world. From primary to higher
education, the inverted classroom and micro-video teaching have become the focus
of teaching reform. (Wang, 2015) However, after the initial curiosity and excitement,
educators found that invert teaching and micro-video teaching also have limitations.
For example, in invert teaching, information technology is the major medium for
knowledge transfer in class, which requires teachers and students to be highly
qualified, and schools to boast better hardware; micro-video learning is not quite
suitable for practice courses, and it takes time and energy to make videos. As a
result, though large quantities of manpower and financial resources were invested,

Correspondence: Jia-xiang Chai,

Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, Douliou, Yunlin 64002, Taiwan.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2016 by the author/s; licensee iSER, Ankara, TURKEY. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited.

ISSN: 1305-8223 http://iserjournals.com/journals/ejmste

J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

these models still could not be widely accepted and

adopted. (Li, 2014) Therefore, more and more State of the literature
people begin to reflect on whether the inverted  The interaction technology education based
classroom could bring about a real revolution in on the constructivism learning theory and the
classroom teaching and whether it could fit in with practice of invert teaching is the inherent
the classroom teaching of different disciplines. practice process of interaction design majors'
(Bösner, Pickert, & Stibane, 2015) self-reflection and self-criticism, as well as
For interaction technology education, such as their reconstruction of the design curriculum.
the courses of interaction design and vision design  The constructivism of knowledge and
emphasizing professional practice, design studios experience, shaped to the cognitive behavior
are advocated in teaching. (Kennon, 2014; David, of design which acquired information from
2014) Compared with the studies on pedagogy at the social media, lead the cognitive behavior
home and abroad, the philosophy and organization of design become the feature of digital native
pattern of interaction technology education are designers.
similar to those of invert teaching, which stresses  The fluency, wide and usefulness of mobile
the student-oriented concept and advocates the social media technology become the new
mechanism of mini-class (with not more than 30 model which reducing the technical demand
students) teaching and teacher-student interaction. of invert teaching.
(Chen, 2015) Therefore, this paper will focus on the
discussion about whether invert teaching could fit Contribution of this paper to the literature
in with the field of education of interaction  This study established a Mobile Inverted
technology with the development of the mobile Constructivism model (MIC model), through
Internet technology, and what kinds of mobile which students are motivated to hold the
Internet technology would be easily accepted in the microphone (MIC) and become the
implementation of interaction design courses. protagonists in the classroom.
The information technology driven by the  The MIC model combined with the functional
mobile Internet has changed the way of our social quality of social media in China, designed on
communication, as well as the way we learn. the platforms of WeChat and Baidu Post Bar.
Familiarity and comfort level with social media is Th6e MICs is easy to operate, dose not require
well suited for the co-creation of learning artefacts operators to grasp professional skills.
in online environments. (David, 2014) In  Meanwhile, through the interaction design
consideration of the ways digital natives learn, the course, this study examined the teaching
fluency and wide use of social media technology effect of the MIC model (changes in design
and the rich information, we believe that the cognition and creative achievements) and
combination of social media and invert teaching studied the acceptability of the MICs.
will be a new model for inverting education of
interaction technology and reconstructing the
curriculum of context. Therefore, we put forward a Mobile Inverted Constructivism
model (MIC model), through which students are motivated to hold the microphone
(MIC) and become the protagonists in the classroom. In this model, combined with
the functional quality of social media in China, a Mobile Inverted Constructivism
system (MICs) is designed on the platforms of WeChat and Baidu Post Bar. The MICs
is easy to operate, and does not require operators to grasp professional skills. Thus,
it can relieve the situation that the invert teaching and micro-video teaching require
excellent hardware condition of schools and highly qualified teachers and students.
In addition, through the interaction design course, we examine the teaching effect of
the MIC model (changes in design cognition and creative achievements) and study
the acceptability of the MICs.

1426 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

LITERATURE REVIEW

Constructivist learning and Invert teaching

Constructivism is a viewpoint of learning theory that argues learners do not
passively accept knowledge delivered by other sources but generate knowledge by
constructing their own learning. (Greene, 2005) Thus, it emphasizes that learners
guided, coached and supervised by teachers learn to study independently. The
formation of the constructivism theory is attributed to Jean Piaget (1973), a Swiss
psychologist, who suggested that teachers play the role of organizers and creators of
problem situations in teaching, and let students take the initiative to find or
reconstruct the content to be learned, rather than simply put students and
equipment together. In addition, he argued that peer collaboration could make
learning dynamic. “Situation”, “collaboration”, “dialog” and “meaning construction”
are the four elements of the constructivist learning environment.
Based on constructivism, invert teaching is learner-oriented, in which learners
take the initiative to learn, and teachers must keep observing the students and
provide relevant feedback. (FLN, 2014) J. Wesley Baker (2000) famously described
the evolution of the classroom teacher from “the sage on the stage” to “the guide on
the side”. Baker presented his paper “The classroom flip: Using web course
management tools to become the guide by the side” at the 11th International
Conference on College Teaching and Learning in which he advocated the use of
online programs to present instructional material online as homework, allowing
students to spend class time on active learning activities and collaboration with
peers. (Baker, 2000). As shown in the Figure 1.

Figure 1. Sequence of elements in the student-centered pedagogy (NYU, 2015)

In the interaction technology paradigm, knowledge and understanding of a

problem domain and its solution are achieved in the building and application of the
designed artifact (Alan, Salvatore, & Jinsoo, 2004). Learning interaction technology
design is a developmental process, in which the methods for effectively solving
design problems will evolve with the increase of knowledge and experience (Curry,
2014). Constructivism learning is deeply rooted in interaction technology education.
(David, 2014) In the development of mobile Internet technology, the combination
with invert teaching is the learning experience of interaction design majors in
solving design problems, reflecting on their own design processes and improving
creativity. The interaction technology education based on the constructivism
learning theory and the practice of invert teaching is the inherent practice process of
interaction design majors' self-reflection and self-criticism, as well as their
reconstruction of the design curriculum. The study can be helpful to the
development of education of interaction technology methods and creative ideas.
Social media and learning
The social media platform is an extension of Web2.0 technology, resulting in a
great change in our online interaction behavior. (Jones & Gelb, 2010) Through
investigation, Pew Research Center (2013) found the social media such as Facebook,

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1427
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

Twitter and Blog actually conducive to students' learning and performance. On the
social network sites such as Facebook and Myspace on Web2.0, users can interact by
using text, images or video messages. The social media is featured by proactive
contact and reminder, interconnection between social groups, and diversified apps
such as multimedia apps. For example, the openness of Facebook creates more
diversified opportunities for learning, and learning in any form can be combined
with interaction through this social network site. (Lin & Wu, 2010) In the field of
education, the use of social media technology not only expands the space of learning
and promotes intercommunication, but also can reduce the technical barriers
between platforms. (Chen, 2015)
According to cognitive theory and interaction design activities, it is emphasized
in the learning of interaction design to develop and accumulate knowledge and
experience. One way is to collect information, which is an important step in design
activities. Information collection can help designers explore design tasks, and get
inspiration for creation from the use of existing products or information. (Kruger &
Cross, 2006) The cognitive behavior of creative design is similar to the behavior of
network link operation (David, 2014), and the former is shaped through the
construction of knowledge and experience. Today, uncountable information has
been filtered and transmitted by the nodes in the social media network, making it a
veritable information hub (Li, 2014). Growing up with the design media, those born
in the 1980s and 1990s tend to acquire information from the social media. Their
cognitive behavior in interaction design seems to have become a feature of digital
native designers.
The social media of China
The mainstream social media platforms in China are different from those in other
regions of the world, and the way and behavior of Chinese netizens also vary. As
shown in Digital, Social & Mobile in China in 2015 issued by We Are Social, a group
combining social media with digital and marketing skills, WeChat promotes the use
of social media on mobile devices in China, and Baidu Post Bar is a network
community established by the largest search engine Baidu in China centering on the
specific interests of users, which are relevant to what users search on Baidu. The
“Survey Report on the Generation Born in the 1990s” of Baidu in 2014 shows that
this generation of China is worthy of the name of digital natives. They each follow 24
interest bars on average, and are the mainstream users of Baidu Post Bar.
The literature above is one of the reasons for the selection of WeChat and Baidu
Post Bar in the design of the MICs, and constructivism learning and interaction
technology design learning provide a theoretical basis for the MIC model.

MOBILE INVERTED CONSTRUCTIVISM MODEL

The MIC model can be divided into MICs and student-centered inverted
classroom.
MICs (mobile inverted constructivism system)
The MICs is the information technology platform for invert teaching based on the
combination of WeChat and Baidu Post Bar. With mobile phones as media, the MICs
mainly uses the relevant functions of WeChat to apply for opening an official account
for a course, and set it skipping to the course bar (specially opened for the course on
Baidu Post Bar) through asynchronous broadcasting in the official account. As an
instant messaging window, a class group is established by using the group chatting
function of WeChat.
The course official account provides services for users mainly through the
messaging and the web page in the account. After students add the course official

1428 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

Figure 2. MIC modle

account like contacts, messaging becomes the basis for the interaction between the
official account and students, and provides teachers and students with the
messaging services in different scenarios. The web page in the official account
provides complex operation scenarios for the account, such as web page
authorization for obtaining users’ basic information and JS-SDK of WeChat (The
original function toolkit of WeChat).

The MIC Approach

The operation flow of the MIC model: the construction and delivery of the
curriculum follow the student-centered teaching sequence. The MICs inversely
constructs the mechanism (as shown in the Figure 2) of the curriculum for
interaction technology courses based on the accessibility of mobile phones at any
time and any place and the convenient network connection. The detailed procedures
are shown below:
(1) Before class: gain familiar with the teaching materials and make preparations
for the class
The official account of the course can send messages simultaneously to all the
students once a day and the messages can be in the forms of text, images and text,
video and audio and so on, to provide interaction design and technology information
(audio, images and video, etc.). It can passively respond to students’ messages
within 5 seconds, and can directly send messages to users with specific content
templates when it is necessary to send service notices (for example, successful
service reservation notices) to students.
With regard to the complex operation scenarios on the web page in the official
account, the developer (for example, a teacher using the official account after
application) can implement many functions on the background of the WeChat
official account, by using JS-SDK of WeChat to shoot videos and broadcast audios,
monitor the moments, upload local photos and take pictures. The mobile Web2.0

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1429
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

community interaction can be realized by obtaining a user OpenID through web

page authorization and then getting access to the course bar.
(2) During class: practice exercise
During class, students have practice exercise of interaction design, and develop
ideas by using the specific interaction technology design information posted by the
official account. The reason for using the interaction technology design information
specially pushed by teachers in design conception is that cognitive scientists found
the best design ideas come from conceptually closer sources of inspiration (Chan &
Schunn, 2011; Dunbar, 1997).
(3) After class: review the constructed knowledge, and get immediate feedback
The course bar is a major section for students to communicate after class, hand in
homework, mutually evaluate design schemes and publish and share interaction
technology design information. The official account is mainly opened for the Q&A
between teachers and students, for the convenience of students to review after class.
The advantages of the MICs
The MICs integrates the mobile Internet access function of cellphones, instant
communication function of WeChat, the messaging function of official accounts and
the BBS interaction function of Web2.0.
The functional advantages of MIC
(1) Teachers' microphone after class
When students have interaction design activities before and after class, the MICs
is just like the teacher's microphone. Students can discuss with the teacher and
classmates about what makes them confused by using the group chatting function of
WeChat, or directly send a message to the official account, which can be received by
the teacher through the official account assistant, and get an instant response. The
group-messaging function of the official account makes the important message
delivered by the teacher seen at a glance.
(2) A portable disk of interaction design course materials
When having classes in a classroom without computers, students can find
inspiration for interaction design exercise from the materials provided by the
teacher through MICs and those uploaded by their classmates, which become a
database. In this way, design fixation can be reduced, and students' creative thinking
ability can be improved in class. Design fixation is usually caused by the shortage of
design materials for reference in traditional classroom teaching.
(3) Reduction of technical barriers and popularization
The combination of WeChat and Baidu Post Bar reduces the original technical
barriers between the platforms, and the way of switching by asynchronous
broadcasting shortens the response time for switching from the course official
account to the course bar. Students’ WeChat OpenID can be obtained by web page
search, making the MICs more fluent.
Based on the habit of students born in the 1990s to use social media in China,
they also meet the students' needs and cognitive habit, and do not require additional
installation or operation instructions due to the needs of the course.
The course bar allows login from WeChat official account, as well as the web
version of Baidu Post Bar on the computer.
(4) The system is stable and does not require teachers to grasp development
skills.
Both WeChat and Baidu Post Bar boast technical stability in the system. It does
not require the teachers directly operating the course official account platform to
grasp development skills.
(5) The MICs data information

1430 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

The public platform of WeChat and the management platform of bar leader on
Baidu Post Bar both provide the function of learning about and analyzing the basic
data of the platforms. This allows teachers to check the condition of students' using
the MICs on the background, thus to be more targeted in compiling information,
adjust the orientation of information content pushing and improve the quality of the
MICs content operation.
The advantages in teaching
(1) In class, teachers can spend more time interacting with students.
(2) The MICs provides students with an open space for sharing and learning.

CASE STUDY: UNDERGRADUATE INTERACTION DESIGN COURSE

The case study focuses on the interaction design course in the second semester of
the sophomore, which lasted for 5 weeks, with 8 class hours per week.
Course Overview
 Develop an eye for seeing, and a language for talking about, interaction
design
 Become familiar with human interface guidelines, principles of usability and
fundamental interaction design details
 Practice evaluating if and how interactions can be improved
 Develop a portfolio to demonstrate your interaction design prowess
Generally, teaching materials ordered by schools or compiled by teachers in
charge of the course are used in traditional interaction design courses. 16 class
hours are for class teaching, and 24 class hours are for practical operation.
The MIC model was adopted for the class as the object of the research; the
teaching material compiled by the teacher in charge was used as textbook; in the
course, students played a major role of teaching, while the teacher gave guidance
and made supplements.
Participants
The participants were the freshmen majoring in visual communication in a
university in Guangdong of China, 4 classes in total. When enrolled, they were
divided into different classes by random draw. They had finished Fundamentals
course, such as UX Research & Strategy, before the interaction design course.
The experimental group: Class A (31 students) and Class B (29 students), using
course MICs and the invert teaching strategy.
The control group: Class C (28 students) and Class D (29 students), using
traditional teaching strategies.
The same teacher is arranged for the teaching of the 4 classes. The experimental
group and control group share the same teaching content, homework content and
requirements, and teaching schedule.
Course MICs architecture
Set the customized menu on the background of WeChat official account. The
primary menu can be composed of no more than three blocks, and the secondary
menu includes no more than five blocks. (As show in the Figures 3 & 4).
Course materials compose the primary menu of the first block in the customized
menu of the course official account, under which the secondary menu is established,
including user's mental model and cognition, visual interaction design and
information design, designing experiments. The materials used in preview before
mobile invert teaching classes are stored in this block.

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1431
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

Figure 3. The WeChat public platform of the course

Figure 4. WeChat official account messages, internet forum (course post bar)

The primary menu of the second block is homework requirements, under which
design patterns, information architecture, user flows, sketching and wireframes.
This block is used for setting after-class requirements.
In the third block, the primary menu is micro-BBS. When clicked, it will skip to
the course login page of the course bar (doctorchoi bar) on Baidu Post Bar, where
students can interact with classmates and the teacher. The bar leader is the teacher,
and students can voluntarily apply for becoming subordinate bar leaders, to manage
the internet forum (the course post bar) of the course together.
WeChat official account messages, group messaging: push daily interaction
technology news, 1-4 articles, in the forms of videos, images and text and so on.
Methodology and research model
We take into consideration that many factors may influence how students can
learn well in interaction technology education, such as students' cognition of the

1432 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

course, the quality of the curriculum framework design, learning environment and
motivation. To explore whether invert teaching is suitable for the field of interaction
technology, we apply the MIC model in interaction design courses. Based on the
constructivist learning theory, we start from the perspective of cognitive
development, and acquire the data related to students' design cognition changes,
learning motivation and creative achievements in the MIC model with the method of
experimental design, and make analysis.
In addition, on the basis of TAM, quantitative research is made on students’
acceptance of MICs, to see the relationship between the MICs and students’ learning
motivation and creative achievements.
Students’ design cognition types
The theoretical basis of this study: The cognitive development theory is the
source of constructivist learning theory. In the study of design cognition, reports
show: design cognition and creativity have reported that high and low creativity
outcomes are affected by design cognition types during the design process（Atman
et al., 1999; Christiaans & Dorst, 1992; Kruger & Cross, 2006）. Kruger and Cross
(2006) applied protocol analysis to iden- tify the design strategies of nine industrial
designers. The results suggested that design strategies can be categorised into four
types: problem-driven, informa- tion-driven, solution-driven, and knowledge-driven
design. Problem-driven design emphasises defining a problem and finding a solution
as soon as possible. Information-driven design emphasises gathering information
from external sources as the basis for developing solutions. Solution-driven design
emphasises generating solutions without spending time defining a problem.
Knowledge-driven design emphasises using prior structured and personal
knowledge to develop a solution. These strategies can be regarded as distinctive
design cognition types.
Interaction design majors of different years vary in design cognition types.
Studies have shown that interaction design majors in their freshman or sophomore
year tend to use information-driven design cognition; solution-driven strategy can
obviously forecast creative achievements; internal motivation is in a significant
positive correlation with problem-driven, information-driven, solution-driven and
knowledge-driven cognition. (Lu, 2015)
Therefore, it is assumed that the design cognitive types of students in the
experimental group and the control group would be significantly different before
and after class.
In this study, the creative design cognition type scale was used (Lu, 2015). As
students have the design courses and acquire a deeper understanding of design,
their design cognition types will also change. In other words, they change with time
and course learning. According to the degree of difference in the design cognition
types of the students in the experimental group and control group before the course,
it is discussed and proved that the MIC model can change design cognition types
through the course. The change of design cognition types can improve creative
achievements and have an influence on interaction technology education.
Hand out questionnaires: questionnaires were handed out twice, before and after
the interaction design course respectively, to test the students' design cognition
types.
The acceptability of MICs
To find the technical acceptability of MICs in inverted interaction design
classroom and its influence on students’ creative achievements, a research model
was built based on literature discussion, in combination with TAM (Technology
Acceptance Model) and the theory of creative achievements (Carson, Peterson, and

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1433
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

Figure 5. MICs Research Framework

Higgins, 2005), as shown in the figure 5. In this study, the predictor of the design
students’ outcome was creative achievements. Amabile, Hill, Hennessey and Tighe
(1994) found in research that people’s motivation could affect creative
achievements. (Amabile, 1983) To measure creative achievements, the creative
achievement questionnaire developed by Carson, Peterson, and Higgins (2005) was
employed in this study. The scale is based on the theory of constructivism. The
research variables included learners’ perceived easiness to use, perceived
usefulness, learning motivation of the system acceptance and creative achievement.
Four hypotheses are proposed.
H1: Learners’ perceived easiness to use can positively forecast their perceived
usefulness.
H2: Learners’ perceived easiness to use can positively forecast the learning
motivation.
H3: Learners’ perceived usefulness can positively forecast the learning
motivation.
H4: Learning motivation can positively forecast the creative achievement.
Questionnaire design
The questionnaires for this study are divided into the questionnaire on students'
creative cognition types and that on MICs acceptability.
The questionnaire on design cognition types developed by Lu (2015) was used. It
was comprised by four types containing of problem-driven, information-driven,
solution-driven and knowledge-driven. The questionnaire on the acceptability of the
MICs was developed by the perceived ease-of-use (PEU) scale and perceived
usefulness (PU) scale of TAM, and the learning motivation scale of the Meaningful
Learning Model was used for the survey on learning motivation. (Huang, et al.,
2011). The Creativity Achievement Questionnaire developed by Carson, Peterson,
and Higgins (2005) was used.
The survey questions and items were defined based on relevant literature and
expert opinions, and the trial survey was also carried out by experts. The total 31
items (shown in Appendix A) were measured by a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
‘‘strongly disagree = 1’’ to ‘‘strongly agree = 7’’. Afterwards, the questionnaire copies
were handed out for pretest to students in the university where the experiment
participants came from. Thus, the validity of the questionnaires can definitely be
guaranteed.
The questionnaire on students' creative cognition types
In this study, the questionnaire on design cognition types developed by Lu
(2015) was used. To ensure the face validity (Holden, 2010) and the authenticity of
the questionnaire, we borrowed the instructions of 2015 Imagine CUP in our design
cognition questionnaire.
The results were measured by the 7-point Likert scale. The statistical software
SAS9.3 was used to analyze the experimental data.

1434 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism
Table 1. Reliability and factor analysis
Constructs and items Shapiro-Wilk P-value KMO Loading>0.7 Cronbach’s α
problem-driven(PD) 0.97652 0.0006 0.76 0.79
PD1 0.938654 < 0.0001 0.77 0.72 0.77
PD2 0.87833 < 0.0001 0.74 0.84 0.69
PD3 0.906304 <0.0001 0.77 0.82 0.71
PD4 0.89644 <0.0001 0.76 0.74 0.76
information-driven(ID) 0.982712 0.0056 0.71 0.82
ID1 0.877336 <0.0001 0.81 0.77 0.78
ID2 0.929472 <0.0001 0.7 0.72 0.8
ID3 0.900343 <0.0001 0.81 0.73 0.79
ID4 0.939698 <0.0001 0.66 0.83 0.76
ID5 0.857632 <0.0001 0.62 0.75 0.79
solution-driven(SD) 0.937089 <0.0001 0.71 0.86
SD1 0.881932 <0.0001 0.73 0.87 0.83
SD2 0.906 <0.0001 0.65 0.92 0.75
SD3 0.884377 <0.0001 0.76 0.86 0.85
knowledge-driven(KD) 0.979174 0.0015 0.84 0.87
KD1 0.92355 <0.0001 0.84 0.78 0.85
KD2 0.923348 <0.0001 0.86 0.8 0.85
KD3 0.910302 <0.0001 0.83 0.8 0.84
KD4 0.918495 <0.0001 0.85 0.84 0.83
KD5 0.913491 <0.0001 0.81 0.82 0.84

In the analysis of the 4 design cognition types, the variables in the questionnaire
were first analyzed, including assumption testing, test of appropriate, the reliability
and validity testing of the factors, factor loading and factor score. The experimental
data is in normal distribution, through Linearity Homogenous.
Henry Kaiser (1970) introduced an Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) of
factor analytic data matrices. According to MSA, the appropriateness of experiment
data was tested. Based on Kaiser's (1974) point of view, if KMO<0.5, it is not suitable
for factor analysis; if the MSA of each factor of the experiment data>0.5, and the MAS
of each variable>0.5, it is suitable for factor analysis. The factor loading, KMO and
reliability of all items are shown in Table 1.
The Questionnaire on the Acceptability of the MICs
This study practically collects questionnaire data about the effectiveness of
implementation of MICs and the procedure of questionnaire forming. The definition
of measuring aspect and the items are based on literature and expert opinions,
which are used for creating a formal questionnaire.
The evaluation was conducted by a questionnaire survey which comprised 3
parts of perceived easiness to use, perceived usefulness and learning motivation and
1 part of creative achievement. The questionnaire was designed to find out about
the learner acceptance of this system. The perceived ease-of-use (PEU) scale and
perceived usefulness (PU) scale of TAM were used in the survey on perceived
easiness to use and perceived usefulness (Zhuang, 2008), and the learning
motivation scale of the Meaningful Learning Model was used for the survey on
learning motivation. (Huang, et al., 2011) In addition, for the remaining part of the
questionnaire on creative achievements, the Creativity Achievement Questionnaire
developed by Carson, Peterson, and Higgins (2005) was used. Some text of the scales
is modified slightly to meet the demand for relevance to the text and course content
compiled of the case studied in this paper. The final measurement contains 4
questions. The results were measured by the 7-point Likert scale. Academic experts
reviewed the content validity of the questionnaire. Items less discrimination were

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1435
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

deleted and those with ambiguous wording were revised. The statistical software
SAS9.3 was used to analyze the experimental data.
The factor analysis includes assumption testing, test of appropriateness,
reliability and validity test of each factor, factor loading and factor score. The
experimental data is in normal distribution, through Linearity Homogenous.
According to MSA, the appropriateness of experiment data was tested. Based on
Kaiser's (1974) point of view, if KMO<0.5, it is not suitable for factor analysis; if the
MSA of each factor of the experiment data>0.5, and the MAS of each variable>0.5, it
is suitable for factor analysis. The factor loading and reliability of all items are
shown in Table 2.
Data analysis
The analysis of students' design cognition types
In the analysis of students' design cognition types, Ttest results show that the 4
design cognition types of the students in the experimental group and control group
are not significantly different before class, which means that the students are similar
Table 2. Reliability and factor analysis
Constructs and items Shapiro-Wilk P-value KMO loading>0.7 Cronbach’s α
Perceived usefulness 0.88384 <0.0001 0.78 0.92
PU1 0.844855 <0.0001 0.74 0.9 0.9
PU2 0.80286 <0.0001 0.72 0.95 0.87
PU3 0.820432 <0.0001 0.88 0.9 0.9
PU4 0.826077 <0.0001 0.78 0.86 0.92
Perceived ease-of-use 0.864929 <0.0001 0.74 0.89
PEU1 0.848447 <0.0001 0.78 0.89 0.86
PEU2 0.826278 <0.0001 0.7 0.92 0.81
PEU3 0.857184 <0.0001 0.74 0.9 0.84
Learning Motivation 0.931909 0.0024 0.7 0.86
LM1 0.879636 <0.0001 0.65 0.92 0.75
LM2 0.874249 <0.0001 0.75 0.86 0.84
LM3 0.759909 <0.0001 0.73 0.87 0.83
Creative Achievement 0.92534 0.0013 0.75 0.81
CA1 0.875798 <0.0001 0.72 0.83 0.75
CA2 0.853964 <0.0001 0.7 0.86 0.72
CA3 0.848334 <0.0001 0.84 0.7 0.81
CA4 0.836542 <0.0001 0.8 0.8 0.76

Table 3. Ttest results on the experimental group and control group after class
PD ID SD KD
Class N Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t|
Pre- A\B 60 5.8165 1.0717 6.2849 1.3271 11.9838 2.9073 5.5145 1.3929
test
0.2204 0.4595 0.4507 0.747
C\D 58 5.5717 1.0867 6.1274 0.9382 12.4412 3.6295 5.5841 0.8819
Post- A\B 60 7.2847 0.9816 7.6594 1.1298 14.8306 3.1436 6.8916 1.1298
test
<0.0001 0.0014 0.0098 0.772
C\D 58 6.5665 0.7302 7.0363 0.9287 13.4413 2.5672 6.8373 0.8813
Note: Pr<0.05

Table 4. Ttest results of the experimental group before and after class
PD ID SD KD
Class Test N Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t|
Pre-test 60 5.8165 1.0717 6.2849 1.3271 11.9838 2.9073 5.5145 1.3929
A\B Post-
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
60 7.2847 0.9816 7.6594 1.1298 14.8306 3.1436 6.8916 1.1298
test
Note: Pr<0.05

1436 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

in this aspect, and it is suitable to make inference about the influence of the MIC
model on interaction design courses.
The Ttest results on the experimental group and control group after class show
that the knowledge-driven cognition of the two groups are not significantly
different, but the students' problem-driven, information-driven and solution-driven
cognition vary a lot (As show in Table3).
From the Ttest results of the experimental group before and after class, the 4
design cognition types are all found to differ significantly from one another. (As
show in Table4)
From the Ttest results of the control group before and after class, only the
solution-driven cognition is found not to be significantly different (As show in
Table5).
Inference: by teaching with the MIC model, the most significant change can be
achieved in the solution-driven cognition of Class A and B in the experimental group,
and a more significant change can also be seen in the problem-driven and
information-driven cognition of Class C and D in the control group. According to the
literature in section 3.3.1, students’ solution-driven cognition and creative
achievement are in positive correlation, so it can be inferred that the experimental
group performs better than the control group in creative achievements. Based on
this inference, the Ttest conducted on the creative achievement of the experimental
group and the control group shows that the creative achievement differs
significantly.
It can be seen that the MIC mode is applicable to the field of interaction
technology education.
Analysis of learning motivations and creative achievements
The learning motivation of the creative achievements was a dependent variable,
and perceived simple device operation and perceived usefulness were independent
variables used for determining if one could forecast the other.
H1 explained the perceived usefulness with variance explained by 45.82%. The
adjusted R2 showed the explanatory power of 43.88%.
In H2, Perceived easiness to use was also selected to explain the learning
motivation of the creative achievement with variance explained by 28.53%. The
adjusted R2 appeared the explanatory power of 25.97%.
Perceived usefulness was selected as a variable in H3 which explained the
learning motivation of the creative achievement with variance explained by 40.81%.
The adjusted R2 was the explanatory power of 38.70%.
H4 explained the learning achievement with the variance explained 18.61%. The
adjusted R2 was the explanatory power of 15.71%.
According to Overall Model Test (F test):
y=β1X1 + β2X2 +…+ βiXi H0:β1= β2 =……= βi ≠0, when the value of p<0.05, the
regression equation proves to be accept.
H1, P<0.001; H2, P=0.0008; H3, P<0.0001; H4, P=0.0018. Therefore, the
hypotheses mentioned above all prove to be accept.

Table 5. Ttest results of the control group before and after class
PD ID SD KD
Class Test N Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t| Mean SD Pr>|t|
Pre-test 58 5.5717 1.0867 6.1274 0.9382 12.4412 3.6295 5.5841 0.8819
C\D Post-
<.0001 <.0001 0.0897 <.0001
58 6.5665 0.7302 7.0363 0.9287 13.4413 2.5672 6.8373 0.8813
test
Note: Pr<0.05

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1437
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

Table 6. Summary of multiple regression model

Hypotheses Paths Pr > |t| beta Support
H1 Perceived ease-of-use →Perceived usefulness <.0001 0.77620*** Yes
H2 Perceived ease-of-use →Learning motivation 0.0002 0.67185*** Yes
H3 Perceived usefulness→Learning motivation 0.0006 0.62756*** Yes
H4 Learning motivation →Creative Achievement <.0001 0.76394*** Yes
Note *** denote P<0.001

For regression coefficient test, the regression equations of H1, H2, H3 and H4
were obtained from the estimated parameter values gradually selected, namely
H1 PREDV1: 2.82366+ 0.57785*IV2
H2 PREDV2: 3.64198+ 0.46449*IV2
H3 PREDV3: 2.27302+ 0.66246*IV1
H4 PREDV4: 2.93912+ 0.51488*DV1
After the regression equations were obtained, Pearson Correlation was employed
to conduct multiple regression cross validaty testing for prediction accuracy and the
criteria recommended by Cohen (1988) were used to test the relationship strength
between the predicted and actual values (As show in Table 6).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In the context of mobile Internet development, based on the theory of

constructivism learning, invert teaching, social media learning, an MIC model is
presented in this paper, which can be a new model combining social media and
invert teaching. Through empirical study, we demonstrated MIC as a new way of
inverting interaction technology education and reconstructing the content of
interaction education.
Besides, in the MIC model, according to the habit of using social media of the
generation born in the 1990s in China, we combined the platforms of WeChat and
Baidu Post Bar, and designed a new invert teaching platform for interaction
technology education—MICs. It is easy to operate without high requirements of
technical skills, and can be widely used, which is a contribution of this study. During
the interaction design course lasting for 5 weeks, the teacher found from
observation that MICs could not only be used as a new platform of invert teaching,
but also become virtual class that digital natives are most dependent on when
learning the course. Compared with the instant communication in the course official
account, students prefer switching and logging into the course bar. It is because they
regard the course bar as different from common virtual class. In other words, they
prefer the open community where the members are acquaintances on the platform
of web2.0 for strangers. Such a behavior characteristic of them also makes us reflect
on a better development orientation of the MICs in the future—“culture of sharing”.
Through social media technology, the culture of sharing can form a vital space full of
wisdom and interest, benefiting everyone.
The purpose of this paper is to realize the combination of education of interaction
technology and invert teaching in the context of social media. The MIC model is
presented, which enables interaction design majors to take up the microphone and
become protagonists in the classroom. In this model, combined with the functional
quality of social media in China, a Mobile Inverted Constructivism system (MICs) is
designed on the platforms of WeChat and Baidu Post Bar. The MICs is easy to
operate, and does not require operators to have professional skills. Thus, it can
relieve the situation that the inverted classroom and micro-video teaching require
excellent hardware condition of schools and highly qualified teachers and students.

1438 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

From the experiment results of the interaction design courses, these findings can be
summarized into the following points, providing references for other educators.
(1) The Chinese digital natives born in the 1990s are strongly featured by the use
of the Internet, especially the mobile Internet. They can get familiar with MICs very
quickly, which thus can stimulate students’ learning motivation and creative
achievement.
(2) The social media in China boasts unique characteristics, and the selection of
proper mobile social platforms can make the MICs even better.
(3) Though repeated comparison of the experimental group and the control
group, the MIC model can promote the solution-driven design cognition type, which
can forecast creative achievements and learning motivations.
(4) The research framework built with TAM as its core is very important. Results
show that perceived easiness to use can forecast perceived usefulness. The
accessibility of the MICs can facilitate learning and perceived usefulness. In addition,
perceived easiness to use and perceived usefulness can forecast motivation.
Prediction shows that these two variables will influence learners’ motivations. In
other words, creative achievements can be predicted through the MIC model and
based on its usefulness in learning.
(5) Students’ role has changed and they also participate in the building of the
interaction design course. In the MIC model, teachers have to pay more attention to
students’ learning in the virtual environment, and limit and reduce design resources.
Managing the MICs jointly with students after class, teachers can save time spent in
such management. In addition, students organize themselves. The success of the
learning space is shared, which depends on the student-driven goals, and is a core
aspect of triggering students’ motivation in constructivist learning.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH PROSPECTS

Currently, the research mainly analyzes the MIC model from an empirical
perspective, which inverts the interaction design teaching and reconstructs the
teaching content of interaction design courses in social media. In the experimental
process, as the researcher didn’t participate fully in the learning process of students,
the data sources for the MIC and the MICs are only restricted to questionnaire data.
In the research, the subjective factors such as students’ emotion and family
backgrounds were not taken into consideration. In addition, due to the constraint of
paper length, students’ design cognition types described in the MIC have not been
further discussed in detail by using the theories of constructivist learning and
cognitive development. In future studies, it is hoped to better improve the MIC
model based on the invert teaching combined with social media and by taking digital
natives’ learning characteristics and knowledge sharing into consideration, to
further embody “the culture of sharing”.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference
inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational drivers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Atman, C., Chimka, J., Bursic, K., & Nachtman, H. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior
engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131-152.
Baker, J. (2000). The 'classroom flip': Using web course management tools to become the
guide by the side. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers from the 11th International
Conference on College Teaching and Learning, 9-17. Jacksonville, FL US: Florida
Community College at Jacksonville.
Bösner, S., Pickert, J., & Stibane, T. (2015). Teaching differential diagnosis in primary care
using an inverted classroom approach: student satisfaction and gain in skills and

© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1439
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

knowledge. Bösner et al. BMC Medical Education (2015) , 15-63. doi: 10.1186/s12909-
015-0346-x.
Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of
the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50.
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C. D., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and
pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: ideation perfor- mance based on analogical
distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133,
081004.
change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An
investigation of conceptual structures and processes, 461-493, Washington, D.C.
Chen, Y. (2015). Action Research of InDesign and Layout Course for Graduate Students with
Flipped Classroom: Facebook Platform as an Example ( Master's thesis ). Available from
Airitilibrary database.
Cheng, P., Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2014). A new strategy to reduce design fixation:
Presenting partial photographs to designers. Design Studies, 35 (2014) , 374-391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.004.
Christiaans, H. H. C. M. (2002). Creativity as design criterion. Creativity Research Journal,
14(1), 41-54.
Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engi- neering: a
protocol study. In D. L. Taylor, & D. A. Stauffer (Eds.), Design theory and methodology
(DTM92). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Chung, H. S., & Fan. K. K.,(2014). Design and Evaluation of Learning Motivation, and
Achievement on Mobile Knowledge Sharing System for Game Design Course
Acceptance, Journal of Internet Technology, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 1197-1208, Dec., 2014.
http://jit.ndhu.edu.tw/
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Curry, T. (2014). A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as
teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies, 35 (2014) , 632-646.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.003
David, G.(2014, Dec). SOCIAL MEDIA, CONSTRUCTIVISM AND DESIGN STUDIO: LESSONS
LEARNED. The DesignEd Asia Conference.
http://www.designedasia.com/2014/Full_Papers/2014/19_Social%20Media%20Cons
tructivism%20and%20Design%20Studio.pdf.
Dunbar, K. N. (1997). How scientists think: on-line creativity and conceptual
Flipped Learning Network (2014) The four pillars of F-L-I-P. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from
http://fln.schoolwires.net/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP_han
dout_FNL_Web.pdf, doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4987-3.ch007.
Greene, M. (2005). A constructivist perspective in teaching and learning in the language arts.
C. Twomey Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theories, perspectives, and practice (pp. 99-
109) (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Holden, R. B. (2010). Face validity. In I. B. Weiner, & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The corsini
encyclopedia of psychology (4th ed.). 637-638, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Huang, Y. M., Chiu, P. S., Liu, T. C., & Chen, T. S. (2011). The design and implementation of a
meaningful learning-based evaluation method for ubiquitous learning. Computers &
Education, 57(4), 2291-2302.
Jones, M. & Gelb, D. (2010) Course Co-Creation vs. Course Management: Wikis as a Potential
Alternative to Traditional Learning Management Systems. T. Kidd & I. Chan (Ed.) Wired
for Learning: An Educators Guide to Web 2.0, eds. 179-194, Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publications.
Kaiser, H. F., (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kennon, M. S.,(2014). Becoming Oneself. Personality and Social Psychology Review, (2014),
Vol.18 (4), pp.349-365. doi: 10.1177/1088868314538549
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P. & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). "Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media". Business
Horizons 54: 241–251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and
outcomes. Design Studies, 27, 527-548.

1440 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
 Mobile inverted constructivism

Li, M. (2014). MOOC development opportunities and comprehensively improve the quality of
higher education, Journal of Education Research, 5, 68-74.
Lin, C. Y., & Wu, C.,(2015). A Study on the Influence of Facebook Learning Communities on
Knowledge Construction in Digital Art Creation, Journal of Design Science, (2015), Vol.
18(1), 123-145.
Lu, C. C.（2015）.The relationship between student design cognition types and creative
design outcomes. Design Studies, 36 (2015).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.002
New York University (2015). The flipped class demystified. Retrieved June 27, 2015, from
https://www.nyu.edu/faculty/teaching-and-learning-resources/instructional-
technology-support/instructional-design-assessment/flipped-classes/the-flipped-
class-demystified.html.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. 301- 409. New York:
Grossman Publishers.
Smith, K. M. (2014). Conditions influencing the development of design expertise: As
identified in interior design student accounts, Design Studies, 36 (2015), 77-98,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.09.001
Wang, B. H.(2015, April 1). Explore educational logic “flip”. China Education Daily. Retrieved
from http://paper.jyb.cn/zgjyb/html/2015-04/01/content_433163.htm?div=-1
Zhuang, Z. J,(2008). The cognition and users satisfaction relationship of instant message
software.



© 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442 1441
J.-X. Chai & K.-K Fan

APPENDIX A
Constructs and items
Students' Creative Cognition Types （Lu，2015）
problem-driven(PD)
PD1: I list the problems that must be resolved through design to adhere to the design goals and direction.
PD2: I thoroughly formulate my design goals and direction.
PD3: My ideas result from the design goal and direction that I establish.
PD4:I focus on the design goal and direction during the overall design process.
information-driven(ID)
ID1: I ask questions if the problems in the design task are unclear.
ID2: I spend a substantial amount of time gathering information.
ID3: I consider how to gather and organise information.
ID4: I try to identify problems that must be resolved through design from substantial amount of information.
ID5: I set the design goal and direction according to the design task and information gathered.
solution-driven(SD)
SD1: I always generate more design ideas than others do.
SD2: I can generate design ideas in a short amount of time.
SD3: I can generate various design ideas to provide diversity.
knowledge-driven(KD)
KD1: I remember to consider similar design.
KD2: I review my design knowledge to examine the problem that must be resolved through design.
KD3: I believe that my design knowledge assists me in developing design ideas.
KD4: I develop design ideas based on similar designs I remember.
KD5: I depend on prior design experience to generate design ideas.

Acceptability of the MICs

Perceived usefulness (PU) (Zhuang, 2008; Huang, et al., 2011; Su and Fan, 2014;）
PU1: I think that MICs is helpful to my learning.
PU2: I think that MICs can help me better understand the learning contents.
PU3: I think that using MICs in the course of and instruction is a good choice.
PU4: I think that the mobile device provided by MICs is good for learning.
Perceived ease-of-use (PEU) (Zhuang, 2008; Huang, et al., 2011; Su and Fan, 2014;）
PEU1: I think that MICs is easy to use.
PEU2: I think that MICs is convenient to use.
PEU3: I think that MICs is easy to understand.
Learning Motivation (LM) (Zhuang, 2008; Su and Fan, 2014)
LM1: I think that MICs can enhance my learning intention.
LM2: I will continue to use MICs in learning in the future.
LM3: I think that MICs provides a good learning approach.
Creative Achievement (CA) (Carson, Peterson, and Higgins, 2005)

CA1: I have taken lessons in this area.

CA2: People or teachers have commented on my talent in this area.
CA3: I have sold a piece of my work.
CA4: I have won a prize or prizes at a juried design show.

1442 © 2016 by the author/s, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. & Tech. Ed., 12(5), 1425-1442
Constructivism (philosophy of education)
Constructivism is a theory in education that recognizes learners construct new
understandings and knowledge, integrating with what they already know. This
includes knowledge gained prior to entering school.[3] It is associated with various
philosophical positions, particularly in epistemology as well as ontology, politics, and
ethics.[4] The origin of the theory is also linked to Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive
development.

Contents Jean Piaget constructed the theory

of cognitive development which
Background describes how children represent and
reason about the world.[1][2]
History
Individual
Constructivist learning intervention
The nature of the learner
The importance of the background and culture of the learner
Responsibility for learning
The Harkness discussion method
The motivation for learning
The role of the instructor
Instructors as facilitators
Learning is an active process
Good relationship between instructor and student
Collaboration among learners
The importance of context
The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter
Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole
Engaging and challenging the student
The structuredness of the learning process
In adult learning
Pedagogies based on constructivism
Supportive research and evidence
Criticism
A rebuttal to the criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
Criticism of discovery-based teaching techniques
The math wars and discovery-based teaching techniques
Importance of structure in constructivist learning environments
Confusion between constructivist and maturationist views
Radical constructivism
Relational constructivism
Social constructivism
Communal constructivism
Influence on computer science and robotics
See also
References
Further reading
External links
Background
Constructivism in education has roots in epistemology, which - in philosophy - is a theory of knowledge, which is concerned
with the logical categories of knowledge and its justificational basis.[5] Epistemology also focuses on both the warranting of the
subjective knowledge of a single knower and conventional knowledge. In constructivism, hence, it is recognized that the
learner has prior knowledge and experiences, which are often determined by their social and cultural environment. Learning is
therefore done by students' “constructing” knowledge out of their experiences. While the Behaviorist school of learning may
help understand what students are doing, educators also need to know what students are thinking, and how to enrich what
students are thinking.[6] There are scholars who state that the constructivist view emerged as a reaction to the so-called
"transmission model of education", including the realist philosophy that it is based on.[3]

Constructivism can be traced back to educational psychology in the work of Jean Piaget (1896–1980) identified with Piaget's
theory of cognitive development. Piaget focused on how humans make meaning in relation to the interaction between their
experiences and their ideas. His views tended to focus on human development in relation to what is occurring with an
individual as distinct from development influenced by other persons.[7] Lev Vygotsky's (1896-1934) theory of social
constructivism emphasized the importance of sociocultural learning; how interactions with adults, more capable peers, and
cognitive tools are internalized by learners to form mental constructs through the zone of proximal development. Expanding
upon Vygotsky's theory Jerome Bruner and other educational psychologists developed the important concept of instructional
scaffolding, whereby the social or informational environment offers supports (or scaffolds) for learning that are gradually
withdrawn as they become internalized.[6]

Views more focused on human development in the context of the social world include the sociocultural or socio-historical
perspective of Lev Vygotsky and the situated cognition perspectives of Mikhail Bakhtin, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger;[8]
Brown, Collins and Duguid;[9] Newman, Griffin and Cole,[10] and Barbara Rogoff.[11]

The concept of constructivism has influenced a number of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, education and the
history of science.[12] During its infancy, constructivism examined the interaction between human experiences and their
reflexes or behavior-patterns. Piaget called these systems of knowledge "schemes."

Schemes are not to be confused with schema, a term that comes from schema theory, which is from information-processing
perspectives on human cognition. Whereas Piaget's schemes are content-free, schemata (the plural of schema) are concepts; for
example, most humans have a schema for "grandmother", "egg", or "magnet."

Constructivism does not refer to a specific pedagogy, although it is often confused with constructionism, an educational theory
developed by Seymour Papert, inspired by constructivist and experiential learning ideas of Piaget.

Piaget's theory of constructivist learning has had wide-ranging impact on learning theories and teaching methods in education,
and is an underlying theme of education reform movements. Research support for constructivist teaching techniques has been
mixed, with some studies in support and others contradicting constructivist results.

History
Earlier educational philosophies did not place much value on what would become constructivist ideas; children's play and
exploration were seen as aimless and of little importance. Jean Piaget did not agree with these traditional views; he saw play as
an important and necessary part of the student's cognitive development and provided scientific evidence for his views. Today,
constructivist theories are influential throughout the formal and informal learning sectors. In museum education, constructivist
theories inform exhibit design. One good example of constructivist learning in a non-formal setting is the Investigate Centre at
The Natural History Museum, London. Here visitors are encouraged to explore a collection of real natural history specimens, to
practice some scientific skills and make discoveries for themselves. Writers who influenced constructivism include:

John Dewey (1859–1952)

Maria Montessori (1870–1952)
Władysław Strzemiński (1893–1952)
Jean Piaget (1896–1980)
Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934)
Heinz von Foerster (1911–2002)
George Kelly (1905–1967)
Jerome Bruner (1915–2016)
Herbert Simon (1916–2001)
 Paul Watzlawick (1921–2007)
Ernst von Glasersfeld (1917–2010)
Edgar Morin (born 1921)
Humberto Maturana (1928–2021)

Individual
The formalization of constructivism from a within-the-human perspective is generally attributed to Jean Piaget, who articulated
mechanisms by which information from the environment and ideas from the individual interact and result in internalized
structures developed by learners. He identified processes of assimilation and accommodation that are key in this interaction as
individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences.

When individuals assimilate new information, they incorporate it into an already existing framework without changing that
framework. This may occur when individuals' experiences are aligned with their internal representations of the world, but may
also occur as a failure to change a faulty understanding; for example, they may not notice events, may misunderstand input
from others, or may decide that an event is a fluke and is therefore unimportant as information about the world. In contrast,
when individuals' experiences contradict their internal representations, they may change their perceptions of the experiences to
fit their internal representations.

According to the theory, accommodation is the process of reframing one's mental representation of the external world to fit new
experiences. Accommodation can be understood as the mechanism by which failure leads to learning: when we act on the
expectation that the world operates in one way and it violates our expectations, we often fail, but by accommodating this new
experience and reframing our model of the way the world works, we learn from the experience of failure, or others' failure.

It is important to note that constructivism is not a particular pedagogy. In fact, constructivism is a theory describing how
learning happens, regardless of whether learners are using their experiences to understand a lecture or following the instructions
for building a model airplane. In both cases, the theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct knowledge out of their
experiences.

However, constructivism is often associated with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning, or learning by doing.
There are many critics of "learning by doing" (a.k.a. "discovery learning") as an instructional strategy (e.g. see the criticisms
below).[13][14] While there is much enthusiasm for constructivism as a design strategy, according to Tobias and Duffy "... to us
it would appear that constructivism remains more of a philosophical framework than a theory that either allows us to precisely
describe instruction or prescribe design strategies."[14]: 4

Constructivist learning intervention

The nature of the learner

Social constructivism not only acknowledges the uniqueness and complexity of the learner, but actually encourages, utilizes and
rewards it as an integral part of the learning process.[15]

The importance of the background and culture of the learner

Social constructivisms or socioculturalism encourage the learner or learners to arrive at his or her version of the truth, influenced
by his or her background, culture or embedded worldview. Historical developments and symbol systems, such as language,
logic, and mathematical systems, are inherited by the learner as a member of a particular culture and these are learned
throughout the learner's life. This also stresses the importance of the nature of the learner's social interaction with
knowledgeable members of the society. Without the social interaction with other more knowledgeable people, it is impossible to
acquire social meaning of important symbol systems and learn how to utilize them. Young children develop their thinking
abilities by interacting with other children, adults and the physical world. From the social constructivist viewpoint, it is thus
important to take into account the background and culture of the learner throughout the learning process, as this background
also helps to shape the knowledge and truth that the learner creates, discovers and attains in the learning process.[15]

Responsibility for learning

Furthermore, it is argued that the responsibility of learning should reside increasingly with the student. Social constructivism
thus emphasizes the importance of the student being actively involved in the learning process, unlike previous educational
viewpoints where the responsibility rested with the instructor to teach and where the learner played a passive, receptive role.
Von Glasersfeld (1989) emphasized that learners construct their own understanding and that they do not simply mirror and
reflect what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to find regularity and order in the events of the world even in the
absence of full or complete information.[16]

The Harkness discussion method

It is called the "Harkness" discussion method because it was developed at Phillips Exeter Academy with funds donated in the
1930s by Edward Harkness. This is also named after the Harkness table and involves students seated in a circle, motivating and
controlling their own discussion. The teacher acts as little as possible. Perhaps the teacher's only function is to observe,
although he/she might begin or shift or even direct a discussion. The students get it rolling, direct it, and focus it. They act as a
team, cooperatively, to make it work. They all participate, but not in a competitive way. Rather, they all share in the
responsibility and the goals, much as any members share in any team sport. Although the goals of any discussion will change
depending upon what's under discussion, some goals will always be the same: to illuminate the subject, to unravel its mysteries,
to interpret and share and learn from other points of view, to piece together the puzzle using everyone's contribution. Discussion
skills are important. Everyone must be aware of how to get this discussion rolling and keep it rolling and interesting. Just as in
any sport, a number of skills are necessary to work on and use at appropriate times. Everyone is expected to contribute by using
these skills.

The motivation for learning

Another crucial assumption regarding the nature of the student concerns the level and source of motivation for learning.
According to Von Glasersfeld, sustaining motivation to learn is strongly dependent on the student's confidence of potential for
learning.[16] These feelings of competence and belief in potential to solve new problems, are derived from first-hand experience
of mastery of problems in the past and are much more than any external acknowledgment and motivation.[17] This links up
with Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" where students are challenged in close proximity to, yet slightly above, their
current level of development. By experiencing the successful completion of challenging tasks, students gain confidence and
motivation to embark on more complex challenges.[18]

The role of the instructor

Instructors as facilitators

According to the social constructivist approach, instructors have to adapt to the role of facilitators and not teachers.[19] Whereas
a teacher gives a didactic lecture that covers the subject matter, a facilitator helps the student to get to his or her own
understanding of the content. In the former scenario the learner plays a passive role and in the latter scenario the student plays
an active role in the learning process. The emphasis thus turns away from the instructor and the content, and towards the
student.[20] This dramatic change of role implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally different set of skills than that of a
teacher.[21] A teacher tells, a facilitator asks; a teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator supports from the back; a teacher
gives answers according to a set curriculum, a facilitator provides guidelines and creates the environment for the learner to
arrive at his or her own conclusions; a teacher mostly gives a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the
learners.[22] A facilitator should also be able to adapt the learning experience 'in mid-air' by taking the initiative to steer the
learning experience to where the learners want to create value.

The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the student's thinking.[23] While it is advocated to
give the student ownership of the problem and solution process, it is not the case that any activity or any solution is adequate.
The critical goal is to support the student in becoming an effective thinker. This can be achieved by assuming multiple roles,
such as consultant and coach.

A few strategies for cooperative learning include:

Reciprocal Questioning: students work together to ask and answer questions

Jigsaw Classroom: students become "experts" on one part of a group project and teach it to the others in their
group
Structured Controversies: Students work together to research a particular controversy[24]
Learning is an active process

Social constructivism, strongly influenced by Vygotsky's (1978) work, suggests that knowledge is first constructed in a social
context and is then appropriated by individuals.[25] According to social constructivists, the process of sharing individual
perspectives — called collaborative elaboration — results in learners constructing understanding together that wouldn't be
possible alone.[26][27]

Social constructivist scholars view learning as an active process where students should learn to discover principles, concepts
and facts for themselves, hence the importance of encouraging guesswork and intuitive thinking in students.[9][28]

Other constructivist scholars agree with this and emphasize that individuals make meanings through the interactions with each
other and with the environment they live in.[29] Knowledge is thus a product of humans and is socially and culturally
constructed.[17][30] McMahon (1997) agrees that learning is a social process. He further stated that learning is not a process that
only takes place inside our minds, nor is it a passive development of our behaviors that is shaped by external forces. Rather,
meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social activities.[31]

Vygotsky (1978) also highlighted the convergence of the social and practical elements in learning by saying that the most
significant moment in the course of intellectual development occurs when speech and practical activity, two previously
completely independent lines of development, converge. Through practical activity a child constructs meaning on an intra-
personal level, while speech connects this meaning with the interpersonal world shared by the child and her/his culture.[18]

Good relationship between instructor and student

A further characteristic of the role of the facilitator in the social constructivist viewpoint, is that the instructor and the students
are equally involved in learning from each other as well.[32] This means that the learning experience is both subjective and
objective and requires that the instructor's culture, values and background become an essential part of the interplay between
students and tasks in the shaping of meaning. Students compare their version of thought with that of the instructor and fellow
students to get to a new, socially tested version of context. The task or problem is thus the interface between the instructor and
the student.[31] This creates a dynamic interaction between task, instructor and student. This entails that students and instructors
should develop an awareness of each other's viewpoints and then look to their own beliefs, standards and values, thus being
both subjective and objective at the same time.[33]

Some studies argue for the importance of mentoring in the process of learning.[9][34] The social constructivist model thus
emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the student and the instructor in the learning process.

Some learning approaches that could harbour this interactive learning include reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration, cognitive
apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, web quests, Anchored Instruction and other approaches that involve learning with
others.

Collaboration among learners

Learners with different skills and backgrounds should collaborate in tasks and discussions to arrive at a shared understanding of
the truth in a specific field.[35]

Some social constructivist models also stress the need for collaboration among learners, in direct contradiction to traditional
competitive approaches.[35] One Vygotskian notion that has significant implications for peer collaboration, is that of the zone of
proximal development. Defined as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem-
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers, it differs from the fixed biological nature of Piaget's stages of development. Through a process of
'scaffolding' a learner can be extended beyond the limitations of physical maturation to the extent that the development process
lags behind the learning process.[18]

If students have to present and train new contents with their classmates, a non-linear process of collective knowledge-
construction will be set up.

The importance of context

The social constructivist paradigm views the context in which the learning occurs as central to the learning itself.[31]
Underlying the notion of the learner as an active processor is "the assumption that there is no one set of generalised learning
laws with each law applying to all domains".[23]: 208 Decontextualised knowledge does not give us the skills to apply our
understandings to authentic tasks because we are not working with the concept in the complex environment and experiencing
the complex interrelationships in that environment that determine how and when the concept is used.[35] One social
constructivist notion is that of authentic or situated learning, where the student takes part in activities directly relevant to the
application of learning and that take place within a culture similar to the applied setting.[9] Cognitive apprenticeship has been
proposed as an effective constructivist model of learning that attempts to "enculturate students into authentic practices through
activity and social interaction in a way similar to that evident, and evidently successful, in craft apprenticeship".[28]: 25

Holt and Willard-Holt (2000) emphasize the concept of dynamic assessment, which is a way of assessing the true potential of
learners that differs significantly from conventional tests. Here, the essentially interactive nature of learning is extended to the
process of assessment. Rather than viewing assessment as a process carried out by one person, such as an instructor, it is seen as
a two-way process involving interaction between both instructor and learner. The role of the assessor becomes one of entering
into dialogue with the persons being assessed to find out their current level of performance on any task and sharing with them
possible ways in which that performance might be improved on a subsequent occasion. Thus, assessment and learning are seen
as inextricably linked and not separate processes.[32]

According to this viewpoint, instructors should see assessment as a continuous and interactive process that measures the
achievement of the learner, the quality of the learning experience and courseware. The feedback created by the assessment
process serves as a direct foundation for further development.

The selection, scope, and sequencing of the subject matter

Knowledge should be discovered as an integrated whole

Knowledge should not be divided into different subjects or compartments, but should be discovered as an integrated
whole.[23][31]

This also again underlines the importance of the context in which learning is presented.[9] The world, in which the learner
needs to operate, does not approach one in the form of different subjects, but as a complex myriad of facts, problems,
dimensions, and perceptions.[28]

Engaging and challenging the student

Learners should constantly be challenged with tasks that refer to skills and knowledge just beyond their current level of
mastery. This captures their motivation and builds on previous successes to enhance student confidence.[21] This is in line with
Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, which can be described as the distance between the actual developmental level (as
determined by independent problem-solving) and the level of potential development (as determined through problem-solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers).[18]

Vygotsky (1978) further claimed that instruction is good only when it proceeds ahead of development. Then it awakens and
rouses to life an entire set of functions in the stage of maturing, which lie in the zone of proximal development. It is in this way
that instruction plays an extremely important role in development.[18]

To fully engage and challenge the student, the task and learning environment should reflect the complexity of the environment
that the student should be able to function in at the end of learning. Students must not only have ownership of the learning or
problem-solving process, but of the problem itself.[36]

Where the sequencing of subject matter is concerned, it is the constructivist viewpoint that the foundations of any subject may
be taught to anybody at any stage in some form.[35] This means that instructors should first introduce the basic ideas that form
topics or subject areas, and then revisit and build upon these repeatedly. This notion has been extensively used in curricula.

It is important for instructors to realize that although a curriculum may be set down for them, it inevitably becomes shaped by
them into something personal that reflects their own belief systems, their thoughts and feelings about both the content of their
instruction and their students.[22] Thus, the learning experience becomes a shared enterprise. The emotions and life contexts of
those involved in the learning process must therefore be considered as an integral part of learning. The goal of the student is
central in considering why to learn.[9][28]

The structuredness of the learning process

It is important to achieve the right balance between the degree of structure and flexibility that is built into the learning process.
Savery (1994) contends that the more structured the learning environment, the harder it is for the learners to construct meaning
based on their conceptual understandings. A facilitator should structure the learning experience just enough to make sure that
the students get clear guidance and parameters within which to achieve the learning objectives, yet the learning experience
should be open and free enough to allow for the learners to discover, enjoy, interact and arrive at their own, socially verified
version of truth.[33]

In adult learning

Constructivist ideas have been used to inform adult education. Current trends in higher education push for more "active
learning" teaching approaches which are often based on constructivist views.

Approaches based on constructivism stress the importance of mechanisms for mutual planning, diagnosis of learner needs and
interests, cooperative learning climate, sequential activities for achieving the objectives, formulation of learning objectives based
on the diagnosed needs and interests. While adult learning often stresses the importance of personal relevance of the content,
involvement of the learner in the process, and deeper understanding of underlying concepts, all of these are principles that may
benefit learners of all ages as even children connect their every day experiences to what they learn.

Pedagogies based on constructivism

Various approaches in pedagogy derive from constructivist theory. They usually suggest that learning is accomplished best
using a hands-on approach. Learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what will happen, and are left to make
their own inferences, discoveries and conclusions.

Supportive research and evidence

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn cite several studies supporting the success of the constructivist problem-based and inquiry
learning methods. For example, they describe a project called GenScope, an inquiry-based science software application.
Students using the GenScope software showed significant gains over the control groups, with the largest gains shown in
students from basic courses.[37]

Hmelo-Silver et al. also cite a large study by Geier on the effectiveness of inquiry-based science for middle school students, as
demonstrated by their performance on high-stakes standardized tests. The improvement was 14% for the first cohort of students
and 13% for the second cohort. This study also found that inquiry-based teaching methods greatly reduced the achievement gap
for African-American students.[37]

Guthrie et al. (2004) compared three instructional methods for third-grade reading: a traditional approach, a strategies
instruction only approach, and an approach with strategies instruction and constructivist motivation techniques including
student choices, collaboration, and hands-on activities. The constructivist approach, called CORI (Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction), resulted in better student reading comprehension, cognitive strategies, and motivation.[38]

Jong Suk Kim found that using constructivist teaching methods for 6th graders resulted in better student achievement than
traditional teaching methods. This study also found that students preferred constructivist methods over traditional ones.
However, Kim did not find any difference in student self-concept or learning strategies between those taught by constructivist
or traditional methods.[39]

Doğru and Kalender compared science classrooms using traditional teacher-centered approaches to those using student-
centered, constructivist methods. In their initial test of student performance immediately following the lessons, they found no
significant difference between traditional and constructivist methods. However, in the follow-up assessment 15 days later,
students who learned through constructivist methods showed better retention of knowledge than those who learned through
traditional methods.[40]

Criticism
Several cognitive psychologists and educators have questioned the central claims of constructivism. It is argued that
constructivist theories are misleading or contradict known findings.[13][41][42][43][44] Matthews (1993) attempts to sketch the
influence of constructivism in current mathematics and science education, aiming to indicate how pervasive Aristotle's
empiricist epistemology is within it and what problems constructivism faces on that account.[45]
In the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development it is maintained that learning at any age depends upon the processing
and representational resources available at this particular age. That is, it is maintained that if the requirements of the concept to
be understood exceeds the available processing efficiency and working memory resources then the concept is by definition not
learnable. This attitude toward learning impedes the learning from understanding essential theoretical concepts or, in other
words, reasoning.[46] Therefore, no matter how active a child is during learning, to learn the child must operate in a learning
environment that meets the developmental and individual learning constraints that are characteristic for the child's age and this
child's possible deviations from her age's norm. If this condition is not met, construction goes astray.[47][48]

Several educators have also questioned the effectiveness of this approach toward instructional design, especially as it applies to
the development of instruction for novices.[13][49] While some constructivists argue that "learning by doing" enhances learning,
critics of this instructional strategy argue that little empirical evidence exists to support this statement given novice
learners.[13][49] Sweller and his colleagues argue that novices do not possess the underlying mental models, or "schemas"
necessary for "learning by doing".[50] Indeed, Mayer (2004) reviewed the literature and found that fifty years of empirical data
do not support using the constructivist teaching technique of pure discovery; in those situations requiring discovery, he argues
for the use of guided discovery instead.[49]

Mayer (2004) argues that not all teaching techniques based on constructivism are efficient or effective for all learners,
suggesting many educators misapply constructivism to use teaching techniques that require learners to be behaviorally active.
He describes this inappropriate use of constructivism as the "constructivist teaching fallacy". "I refer to this interpretation as the
constructivist teaching fallacy because it equates active learning with active teaching."[49]: 15 Instead Mayer proposes learners
should be "cognitively active" during learning and that instructors use "guided practice."

In contrast, Kirschner et al. (2006)[13] describe constructivist teaching methods as "unguided methods of instruction." They
suggest more structured learning activities for learners with little to no prior knowledge. Slezak states that constructivism "is an
example of fashionable but thoroughly problematic doctrines that can have little benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher
education."[51] Similar views have been stated by Meyer,[52] Boden, Quale and others.

Kirschner et al. group a number of learning theories together (Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based
learning) and stated that highly scaffolded constructivist methods like problem-based learning and inquiry learning are
ineffective.[13] Kirschner et al. described several research studies that were favorable to problem-based learning given learners
were provided some level of guidance and support.[13]

A rebuttal to the criticisms of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark

While there are critics of the Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark[13] article, Sweller and his associates have written in their articles
about:

1. instructional designs for producing procedural learning (learning as behavior change);[50]

2. their grouping of seemingly disparate learning theories[13] and;
3. a continuum of guidance beginning with worked examples that may be followed by practice, or transitioned to
practice[53] (Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and Staley, 2002)

Kirschner et al. (2006) describe worked examples as an instructional design solution for procedural learning.[13] Clark,
Nguyen, and Sweller (2006) describe this as a very effective, empirically validated method of teaching learners procedural skill
acquisition. Evidence for learning by studying worked-examples, is known as the worked-example effect and has been found
to be useful in many domains (e.g. music, chess, athletics)[54] concept mapping,[55] geometry,[56] physics, mathematics, or
programming.[57]

Kirschner et al. (2006)[13] describe why they group a series of seemingly disparate learning theories (Discovery, Problem-
Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based learning). The reasoning for this grouping is because each learning theory promotes the
same constructivist teaching technique—"learning by doing." While they argue "learning by doing" is useful for more
knowledgeable learners, they argue this teaching technique is not useful for novices. Mayer states that it promotes behavioral
activity too early in the learning process, when learners should be cognitively active.[49]

In addition, Sweller and his associates describe a continuum of guidance, starting with worked examples to slowly fade
guidance. This continuum of faded guidance has been tested empirically to produce a series of learning effects: the worked-
example effect,[58] the guidance fading effect,[59] and the expertise-reversal effect.[53]

Criticism of discovery-based teaching techniques

 After a half century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, there appears no body of
research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly
supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of
novice to intermediate learners. Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while
learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches. Not only is unguided instruction
normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when students acquire
misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge

— Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,
Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching by Kirschner, Sweller, Clark[13]

Mayer (2004) argues against discovery-based teaching techniques and provides an extensive review to support this argument.
Mayer's arguments are against pure discovery, and are not specifically aimed at constructivism: "Nothing in this article should
be construed as arguing against the view of learning as knowledge construction or against using hands-on inquiry or group
discussion that promotes the process of knowledge construction in learners. The main conclusion I draw from the three research
literatures I have reviewed is that it would be a mistake to interpret the current constructivist view of learning as a rationale for
reviving pure discovery as a method of instruction."[49]

Mayer's concern is how one applies discovery-based teaching techniques. He provides empirical research as evidence that
discovery-based teaching techniques are inadequate. Here he cites this literature and makes his point "For example, a recent
replication is research showing that students learn to become better at solving mathematics problems when they study worked-
out examples rather than when they solely engage in hands-on problem solving.[60] Today's proponents of discovery methods,
who claim to draw their support from constructivist philosophy, are making inroads into educational practice. Yet a
dispassionate review of the relevant research literature shows that discovery-based practice is not as effective as guided
discovery."[49]: 18

Mayer's point is that people often misuse constructivism to promote pure discovery-based teaching techniques. He proposes that
the instructional design recommendations of constructivism are too often aimed at discovery-based practice.[49] Sweller (1988)
found evidence that practice by novices during early schema acquisition, distracts these learners with unnecessary search-based
activity, when the learner's attention should be focused on understanding (acquiring schemas).[50]

The study by Kirschner et al. from which the quote at the beginning of this section was taken has been widely cited and is
important for showing the limits of minimally-guided instruction.[61] Hmelo-Silver et al. responded,[62] pointing out that
Kirschner et al. conflated constructivist teaching techniques such as inquiry learning with "discovery learning". (See the
preceding two sections of this article.) This would agree with Mayer's viewpoint that even though constructivism as a theory
and teaching techniques incorporating guidance are likely valid applications of this theory, nevertheless a tradition of
misunderstanding has led to some question "pure discovery" techniques.

The math wars and discovery-based teaching techniques

The math wars controversy in the United States is an example of the type of heated debate that sometimes follows the
implementation of constructivist-inspired curricula in schools. In the 1990s, mathematics textbooks based on new standards
largely informed by constructivism were developed and promoted with government support. Although constructivist theory
does not require eliminating instruction entirely, some textbooks seemed to recommend this extreme. Some parents and
mathematicians protested the design of textbooks that omitted or de-emphasized instruction of standard mathematical methods.
Supporters responded that the methods were to be eventually discovered under direction by the teacher, but since this was
missing or unclear, many insisted the textbooks were designed to deliberately eliminate instruction of standard methods. In one
commonly adopted text, the standard formula for the area of a circle is to be derived in the classroom, but not actually printed in
the student textbook as is explained by the developers of CMP: "The student role of formulating, representing, clarifying,
communicating, and reflecting on ideas leads to an increase in learning. If the format of the texts included many worked
examples, the student role would then become merely reproducing these examples with small modifications."[63]

Similarly, this approach has been applied to reading with whole language and inquiry-based science that emphasizes the
importance of devising rather than just performing hands-on experiments as early as the elementary grades (traditionally done
by research scientists), rather than studying facts. In other areas of curriculum such as social studies and writing are relying
more on "higher order thinking skills" rather than memorization of dates, grammar or spelling rules or reciting correct answers.
Advocates of this approach counter that the constructivism does not require going to extremes, that in fact teachable moments
should regularly infuse the experience with the more traditional teaching. The primary differentiation from the traditional
approach being that the engagement of the students in their learning makes them more receptive to learning things at an
appropriate time, rather than on a preset schedule.
Importance of structure in constructivist learning environments

During the 1990s, several theorists began to study the cognitive load of novices (those with little or no prior knowledge of the
subject matter) during problem solving. Cognitive load theory was applied in several contexts.[64][65][66][67][58][68] Based on
the results of their research, these authors do not support the idea of allowing novices to interact with ill-structured learning
environments. Ill-structured learning environments rely on the learner to discover problem solutions. Jonassen (1997) also
suggested that novices be taught with "well-structured" learning environments.[69]

Jonassen (1997) also proposed well-designed, well-structured learning environments provide scaffolding for problem-solving.
Finally, both Sweller and Jonassen support problem-solving scenarios for more advanced learners.[69][70]

Sweller and his associates even suggest well-structured learning environments, like those provided by worked examples, are
not effective for those with more experience—this was later described as the "expertise reversal effect".[53] Cognitive load
theorists suggest worked examples initially, with a gradual introduction of problem solving scenarios; this is described as the
"guidance fading effect"[59][71] Each of these ideas provides more evidence for Anderson's ACT-R framework.[72] This ACT-
R framework suggests learning can begin with studying examples.

Finally Mayer states: "Thus, the contribution of psychology is to help move educational reform efforts from the fuzzy and
unproductive world of educational ideology—which sometimes hides under the banner of various versions of constructivism—
to the sharp and productive world of theory-based research on how people learn."[49]: 18

Confusion between constructivist and maturationist views

Many people confuse constructivist with maturationist views. The constructivist (or cognitive-developmental) stream "is based
on the idea that the dialectic or interactionist process of development and learning through the student's active construction
should be facilitated and promoted by adults".[73] Whereas, "The romantic maturationist stream is based on the idea that the
student's naturally occurring development should be allowed to flower without adult interventions in a permissive
environment."[73] In other words, adults play an active role in guiding learning in constructivism, while they are expected to
allow children to guide themselves in maturationism.

Radical constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld developed radical constructivism by coupling Piaget's theory of learning and philosophical viewpoint
about the nature of knowledge with Kant's rejection of an objective reality independent of human perception or reason. Radical
constructivism does not view knowledge as an attempt to generate ideas that match an independent, objective reality.[74]
Instead, theories and knowledge about the world, as generated by our senses and reason, either fit within the constraints of
whatever reality may exist and, thus, are viable or do not and are not viable.[75] As a theory of education, radical constructivism
emphasizes the experiences of the learner, differences between learners and the importance of uncertainty.[76]

Relational constructivism
Björn Kraus' relational constructivism can be perceived as a relational consequence of radical constructivism. In contrast to
social constructivism, it picks up the epistemological threads and maintains the radical constructivist idea that humans cannot
overcome their limited conditions of reception. Despite the subjectivity of human constructions of reality, relational
constructivism focuses on the relational conditions that apply to human perceptional processes.[77]

Social constructivism
In recent decades, constructivist theorists have extended the traditional focus on individual learning to address collaborative and
social dimensions of learning. It is possible to see social constructivism as a bringing together of aspects of the work of Piaget
with that of Bruner and Vygotsky.[78]

Communal constructivism
The concept Communal constructivism was developed by Leask and Younie[79] in 1995 through their research on the
European SchoolNet[80] which demonstrated the value of experts collaborating to push the boundaries of knowledge i.e.
communal construction of new knowledge between experts rather than social construction of knowledge as described by
Vygotsky where there is a learner to teacher scaffolding relationship. "Communal constructivism" as a concept applies to those
situations in which there is currently no expert knowledge or research to underpin knowledge in an area. "Communal
constructivism" refers specifically to the process of experts working together to create, record and publish new knowledge in
emerging areas. In the seminal European SchoolNet research where for the first time academics were testing out how the
internet could support classroom practice and pedagogy, experts from a number of countries set up test situations to generate
and understand new possibilities for educational practice.

Bryn Holmes in 2001 applied this to student learning as described in an early paper, "in this model, students will not simply
pass through a course like water through a sieve but instead leave their own imprint in the learning process."[81]

Influence on computer science and robotics

Constructivism has influenced the course of programming and computer science. Some famous programming languages have
been created, wholly or in part, for educational use, to support the constructionist theory of Seymour Papert. These languages
have been dynamically typed, and reflective. Logo and its successor Scratch are the best known of them. Constructivism has
also informed the design of interactive machine learning systems,[82] whereas Radical Constructivism has been explored as a
paradigm to design experiments in rehabilitation robotics, more precisely in prosthetics.[83]

See also
Autodidactism
Constructivist epistemology
Critical pedagogy
Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT)
Educational psychology
Learning styles
Learning theory (education)
Reform mathematics
Situated cognition
Socratic method
Teaching for social justice
Vocational education

References
1. White, Fiona Ann; Hayes, Brett Kenneth; Livesey, David James (2016). Developmental Psychology: From
Infancy to Adulthood (4th ed.). Melbourne, Vic.: Pearson Australia. ISBN 9781486018277. OCLC 904034548
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/904034548).
2. Bjorklund, David F. (1 November 2018). "A Metatheory for Cognitive Development (or "Piaget is Dead"
Revisited)" (http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/cdev.13019). Child Development. 89 (6): 2288–2302.
doi:10.1111/cdev.13019 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fcdev.13019). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2021
0814082708/https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.13019) from the original on 14 August
2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
3. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2006). Philosophy, Science, Education and Culture. Springer Science & Business
Media. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4020-3770-2.
4. Matthews, Michael (1998). Constructivism in Science Education: A Philosophical Examination. Dordrecht:
Springer Science & Business Media. pp. x. ISBN 9780792349242.
5. Steffe, Leslie P.; Gale, Jerry (2012). Constructivism in Education. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-47608-2.
6. Seifert, Kelvin & Sutton, Rosemary. Educational Psychology: Second Edition (http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2011/04/Educational-Psychology.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170829003228/h
ttps://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Educational-Psychology.pdf) 2017-08-29 at the
Wayback Machine. Global Text Project, 2009, pp. 33–37.
7. Piaget, J., Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge (New York: Grossman, 1971).
8. Lave, Jean; Wenger, Etienne (27 September 1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-42374-8.
9. Brown, J.S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. (1989). "Situated cognition and the culture of learning" (http://www.dtic.mil/
get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA204690). Educational Researcher. 18 (1): 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189x018001032). hdl:2142/17979 (https://hdl.handle.net/2142%2F17979).
S2CID 9824073 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9824073).
10. Newman, Denis; Griffin, Peg; Cole, Michael (28 April 1989). The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive
Change in School. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-38942-6.
11. Rogoff, Barbara (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. Oxford University
Press.
12. Eddy, Matthew Daniel (2004). "Fallible or Inerrant? A Belated review of the "Constructivist Bible" " (https://ww
w.academia.edu/3426767). British Journal for the History of Science. 37: 93–8.
doi:10.1017/s0007087403005338 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0007087403005338). Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20210814082647/https://www.academia.edu/3426767) from the original on 2021-08-14.
Retrieved 2021-08-14.
13. Kirschner, P. A.; Sweller, J.; Clark, R. E. (2006). "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an
analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching" (htt
ps://research.ou.nl/en/publications/f52dc05c-2fdf-4ec6-888a-1ffa9af85100). Educational Psychologist. 41 (2):
75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15326985ep4102_1). hdl:1820/8951 (h
ttps://hdl.handle.net/1820%2F8951). S2CID 17067829 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17067829).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082733/https://research.ou.nl/en/publications/why-minimal-gu
idance-during-instruction-does-not-work-an-analysis) from the original on 2021-08-14. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
14. Tobias, S.; Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?. New York: Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 9780415994231.
15. Wertsch, James V. (1997). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.
OCLC 489891986 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/489891986).
16. Von Glasersfeld, Ernst (1998). "Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching" (https://files.eric.ed.gov/f
ulltext/ED294754.pdf) (PDF). Constructivism in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 11–30. ISBN 978-
0-7923-4924-2. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170516193107/http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED2947
54.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2017-05-16. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
17. Prawat, Richard S.; Floden, Robert E. (1 January 1994). "Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of
learning" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243777968). Educational Psychologist. 29 (1): 37–48.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2901_4 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15326985ep2901_4). ISSN 0046-1520 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/0046-1520). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082711/https://www.re
searchgate.net/publication/243777968_Philosophical_perspectives_on_constructivist_views_of_learning)
from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
18. Vygotsky, L. S.; Cole, Michael (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (http
s://archive.org/details/mindinsocietydev00vygo). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-57629-2.
19. Bauersfeld, 1995
20. Gamoran, Adam; Secada, Walter G.; Marrett, Cora B. (2000). "The Organizational Context of Teaching and
Learning" (http://content.schweitzer-online.de/static/catalog_manager/live/media_files/representation/zd_std_
orig__zd_schw_orig/001/428/476/9780387325170_content_pdf_2.pdf) (PDF). In Hallinan, M.T. (ed.).
Handbook of the Sociology of Education. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston,
MA. pp. 37–63. ISBN 978-0-387-32517-0. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180131081103/http://conte
nt.schweitzer-online.de/static/catalog_manager/live/media_files/representation/zd_std_orig__zd_schw_orig/0
01/428/476/9780387325170_content_pdf_2.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2018-01-31. Retrieved
2021-08-14.
21. Brownstein, Bonnie (22 December 2001). "Collaboration: the foundation of learning in the future". Education.
122 (2).
22. Rhodes, Lynn K.; Bellamy, G. Thomas (1 January 1999). "Choices and Consequences in the Renewal of
Teacher Education". Journal of Teacher Education. 50 (1): 17–26. doi:10.1177/002248719905000103 (https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F002248719905000103). ISSN 0022-4871 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-4871).
S2CID 143182193 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143182193).
23. Di Vesta, Francis J. (1987). "The Cognitive Movement and Education". Historical Foundations of Educational
Psychology. Perspectives on Individual Differences. Boston: Springer. pp. 203–233. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-
3620-2_11 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4899-3620-2_11). ISBN 978-1-4899-3622-6.
24. Woolfolk 2010
25. Bruning, Roger H.; Schraw, Gregory J.; Ronning, Royce R. (1999). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction
(3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. ISBN 978-0-13-716606-0.
26. Meter, Peggy Van; Stevens, Robert J. (1 January 2000). "The Role of Theory in the Study of Peer
Collaboration". The Journal of Experimental Education. 69 (1): 113–127. doi:10.1080/00220970009600652 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1080%2F00220970009600652). ISSN 0022-0973 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0973).
S2CID 143292199 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143292199).
27. Greeno, James G; Collins, Allan M; Resnick, Lauren B (1996). "Cognition and learning". Handbook of
Educational Psychology. 77: 15–46.
28. Ackerman, Phillip L. (1 March 1996). "A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality,
interests, and knowledge". Intelligence. 22 (2): 227–257. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1 (https://doi.org/
10.1016%2FS0160-2896%2896%2990016-1). ISSN 0160-2896 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0160-2896).
29. Hsu, Liwei (2013). "English as a foreign language learners' perception of mobile assisted language learning: a
cross-national study". Computer Assisted Language Learning. Taylor & Francis online. 26 (3): 197–213.
doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.649485 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F09588221.2011.649485). S2CID 62711257
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:62711257).
30. Ernest 1991.
31. McMahon 1997.
32. Holt, Dan G.; Willard-Holt, Colleen (1 November 2000). "Let's Get Real™: Students Solving Authentic
Corporate Problems". Phi Delta Kappan. 82 (3): 243–246. doi:10.1177/003172170008200315 (https://doi.org/
10.1177%2F003172170008200315). ISSN 0031-7217 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0031-7217).
S2CID 143466659 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143466659).
33. Savery, Lawson K. (1 June 1994). "The Influence of the Perceived Styles of Leadership on a Group of Workers
on their Attitudes to Work". Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 15 (4): 12–18.
doi:10.1108/01437739410059863 (https://doi.org/10.1108%2F01437739410059863). ISSN 0143-7739 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/0143-7739).
34. Archee, Ray; Hill Duin, DA (1995). The World Wide Web and Distance Education: Congergenece or
Cacophony? (https://books.google.com/books?id=jZiM77RkNBMC&pg=PA348). AUUG Conference
Proceedings. AUUG, Inc. pp. 348–356. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210814082711/https://books.
google.com/books?id=jZiM77RkNBMC&pg=PA348) from the original on 2021-08-14. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
35. Duffy, Thomas; Jonassen, eds. (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-1272-5.
36. Derry 1999.
37. Hmelo-Silver; Duncan; Chinn (2007). "Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning:
A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101223152831/http://ww
w.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf) (PDF). Educational Psychologist. 42 (2): 99–107.
doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00461520701263368). S2CID 1360735 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1360735). Archived from the original (http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publicatio
ns/hmelo_ep07.pdf) (PDF) on 2010-12-23. Retrieved 2007-12-27.
38. Guthrie; et al. (2004). "Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060525225834/http://www.cori.umd.edu/research/publicat
ions/2004-guthrie-wigfield-etal.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Educational Psychology. 96 (3): 403–423.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.96.3.403). Archived from the original
(http://www.cori.umd.edu/research/publications/2004-guthrie-wigfield-etal.pdf) (PDF) on 2006-05-25.
Retrieved 2007-12-29.
39. Kim (2005). "The Effects of a Constructivist Teaching Approach on Student Academic Achievement, Self-
Concept, and Learning Strategies" (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/00000
19b/80/2a/5a/af.pdf) (PDF). Asia Pacific Education Review. 6 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1007/bf03024963 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2Fbf03024963). S2CID 13864166 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13864166). Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20090306105314/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage
_01/0000019b/80/2a/5a/af.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2009-03-06. Retrieved 2007-12-16.
40. Doğru; Kalender (2007). "Applying the Subject 'Cell' Through Constructivist Approach during Science
Lessons and the Teacher's View" (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000001
9b/80/2d/77/67.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 2 (1): 3–13. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20090306105335/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019
b/80/2d/77/67.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2009-03-06. Retrieved 2007-12-16.
41. Anderson, John R.; Reder, Lynne M.; Simon, Herbert A. (1998). Applications and misapplications of cognitive
psychology in mathematics education (http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html). Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20110908220818/http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html) from the original on 2011-
09-08. Retrieved 2007-02-04.
42. Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education (http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/matthews.html)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20091118172926/http://wwwcsi.unian.it/educa/inglese/matthews.html)
2009-11-18 at the Wayback Machine, Michael R. Matthews
43. Research Link / Caution: Constructivism Ahead (http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el199911_holloway.html)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20060427051821/http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el199911_holloway.ht
ml) 2006-04-27 at the Wayback Machine Holloway, Educational Leadership, 57 (3). November 1999.
44. Vygotsky's philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.p
df) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210809085130/https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854992.pdf)
2021-08-09 at the Wayback Machine Liu & Matthews, International Education Journal, 2005, 6 (3), 386–99.
45. "Journal of Science Education and Technology" (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00694598). Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20210814082724/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00694598) from the
original on 2021-08-14. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
46. Raymond Hubbard; J. Scott Armstrong (2005). "Why We Don't Really Know What "Statistical Significance"
Means: A Major Educational Failure*" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100620221122/http://marketing.wharton.
upenn.edu/documents/research/Warmaudit31%205.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (http://marketing.wh
arton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Warmaudit31%205.pdf) (PDF) on 2010-06-20.
47. Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, K. F. M. van Lieshout (Eds.), Life-
span developmental psychology (pp. 179–269). London: Wiley.
48. Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., & Efklides, A. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development:
Implications and applications to education. London: Routledge
49. Mayer (2004). "Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20150215142158/http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/vtt/MayerThreeStrikesAP04.pdf) (PDF). American
Psychologist. 59 (1): 14–19. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.372.2476 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=1
0.1.1.372.2476). doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.59.1.14).
PMID 14736316 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14736316). Archived from the original (http://projects.ict.usc.
edu/itw/vtt/MayerThreeStrikesAP04.pdf) (PDF) on 2015-02-15. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
50. Sweller, J (June 1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2
F0364-0213%2888%2990023-7). Cognitive Science. 12 (2): 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2F0364-0213%2888%2990023-7). ISSN 0364-0213 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0364
-0213).
51. Slezak, Peter (2010). "Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite". Constructivist
Foundations. 6 (1). ISSN 1782-348X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1782-348X).
52. Meyer, D. L. (2009). "The Poverty of Constructivism". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 41 (3): 332–341.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00457.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1469-5812.2008.00457.x).
S2CID 144604333 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144604333).
53. Kalyuga, S.; Ayres, P.; Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. (2003). "The expertise reversal effect" (http://ro.uow.edu.au/edu
papers/136). Educational Psychologist. 38 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 (https://doi.org/10.1
207%2FS15326985EP3801_4). S2CID 10519654 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:10519654).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151110051829/http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/136/) from the original
on 2015-11-10. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
54. Atkinson, R. K.; Derry, S. J.; Renkl, A.; Wortham, D. W. (2000). "Learning from examples: Instructional
principles from the worked examples research". Review of Educational Research. 70 (2): 181–214.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.115.1348 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.115.1348).
doi:10.3102/00346543070002181 (https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543070002181). S2CID 2956761 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2956761).
55. Hilbert, T. S.; Renkl, A. (2007). "Learning how to Learn by Concept Mapping: A Worked-Example Effect".
Paper Presentation at the 12th Biennial Conference EARLI 2007 in Budapest, Hungary.
56. Tarmizi, R. A.; Sweller, J. (1988). "Guidance during mathematical problem solving" (https://unsworks.unsw.ed
u.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:70660/SOURCE01?view=true). Journal of Educational Psychology. 80 (4):
424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.80.4.424). Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20201104210709/https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:70660/SOUR
CE01?view=true) from the original on 2020-11-04. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
57. Gerjets, P.; Scheiter, K.; Catrambone, R. (2004). "Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic
cognitive load: molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures" (https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/
hal-00197417/file/Gerjets-Peter-2004b.pdf) (PDF). Instructional Science. 32 (1): 33–58.
doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021809.10236.71 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FB%3ATRUC.0000021809.10236.71).
S2CID 16755228 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16755228). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
20210227232936/https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00197417/file/Gerjets-Peter-2004b.pdf) (PDF) from
the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
58. Sweller, J.; Cooper, G. A. (1985). "The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning
algebra". Cognition and Instruction. 2 (1): 59–89. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 (https://doi.org/10.1207%2
Fs1532690xci0201_3).
59. Renkl, A.; Atkinson, R. K.; Maier, U. H.; Staley, R. (2002). "From example study to problem solving: Smooth
transitions help learning". Journal of Experimental Education. 70 (4): 293–315. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.464.2351 (htt
ps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.464.2351). doi:10.1080/00220970209599510 (https://
doi.org/10.1080%2F00220970209599510). S2CID 21032460 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2103
2460).
60. Sweller, John (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Australian education review. Camberwell:
ACER Press. ISBN 978-0-86431-312-6.
61. Nilson, Linda Burzotta (2010). Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. San
Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. p. 176. ISBN 9780470401040.
62. Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E.; Ravit Golan Duncan; Clark A. Chinn (2007). "Scaffolding and Achievement in
Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)". Educational
Psychologist. 42 (2): 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00461520701263
368). S2CID 1360735 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1360735).
63. "CMP2 Parent Website FAQ" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090622080110/http://connectedmath.msu.edu/pa
rents/faq.html#q15). Archived from the original (http://connectedmath.msu.edu/parents/faq.html#q15) on 2009-
06-22. Retrieved 2009-01-08.
64. Paas, Fred G. (1992). "Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A
cognitive-load approach". Journal of Educational Psychology. 84 (4): 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.84.4.429 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.84.4.429). ISSN 1939-2176 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/1939-2176).
65. Moreno, Roxana; Mayer, Richard E. (1999). "Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality
and contiguity" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170809223719/http://visuallearningresearch.wiki.educ.msu.ed
u/file/view/Moreno%20%26%20Mayer%201999.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Educational Psychology. 91 (2): 358–
368. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.458.4719 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.458.4719).
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.91.2.358). ISSN 0022-0663 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0663). Archived from the original (http://visuallearningresearch.wiki.educ.msu.edu/f
ile/view/Moreno%20%26%20Mayer%201999.pdf) (PDF) on 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2020-02-13.
66. Mousavi, Seyed Yaghoub; Low, Renae; Sweller, John (1995). "Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory
and visual presentation modes". Journal of Educational Psychology. 87 (2): 319–334.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.471.2089 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.471.2089).
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.87.2.319). ISSN 0022-0663 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/issn/0022-0663).
67. Chandler, Paul; Sweller, John (June 1992). "The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction".
British Journal of Educational Psychology. 62 (2): 233–246. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x (https://d
oi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x). ISSN 0007-0998 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0007-0998).
S2CID 40723362 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:40723362).
68. Cooper, Graham; Sweller, John (1987). "Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical
problem-solving transfer". Journal of Educational Psychology. 79 (4): 347–362. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.79.4.347 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.79.4.347). ISSN 0022-0663 (https://www.worldcat.org/is
sn/0022-0663).
69. Jonassen, David H. (March 1997). "Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-
solving learning outcomes". Educational Technology Research and Development. 45 (1): 65–94.
doi:10.1007/BF02299613 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02299613). ISSN 1042-1629 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/1042-1629). S2CID 18701133 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18701133).
70. Luga, Ayres, Chandler, and Sweller, 2003.
71. Sweller, J (2003). "Evolution of human cognitive architecture" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/bookseri
es/00797421/43). In Ross, Brian (ed.). Psychology of Learning and Motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.
ISBN 978-0-12-543343-3. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170814124222/http://www.sciencedirect.c
om/science/bookseries/00797421/43) from the original on 2017-08-14. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
72. Clark, R. E. & Elen, J., (2006). When less is more: Research and theory insights about instruction for complex
learning. In R. E. Clark & J. Elen (Eds.) Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Research and
Theory. London: Elsevier. 283-295.
73. DeVries, Rheta, ed. (2002). Developing constructivist early childhood curriculum: practical principles and
activities. Early childhood education series. New York: Teachers College Press. ISBN 978-0-8077-4121-4.
74. Glasersfeld, E. v. (1995). Radical constructivism : a way of knowing and learning. London ; Washington, D.C. :
Falmer Press
75. Ernst von Glasersfeld, a. (1990). Chapter 2: An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical.
Journal For Research In Mathematics Education. Monograph, 19. doi:10.2307/749910 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F749910)
76. Gash, H. (2014). Constructing Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 9(3), 302-310.
77. See Björn Kraus: The Life We Live and the Life We Experience: Introducing the Epistemological Difference
between “Lifeworld” (Lebenswelt) and “Life Conditions” (Lebenslage) Social Work and Society. International
Online Journal. Vol. 13, No. 2 2015, http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438 Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20190413211413/http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/438) 2019-04-13 at the Wayback Machine;
Björn Kraus: Plädoyer für den Relationalen Konstruktivismus und eine Relationale Soziale Arbeit. in Forum
Sozial (2017) 1 pp. 29-35, http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/51948 Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20200801010411/https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/51948) 2020-08-01 at the Wayback
Machine
78. Wood, David (1998). How Children Think and Learn (https://archive.org/details/howchildrenthink0000wood/pa
ge/39). Understanding children's worlds (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 39 (https://archive.org/details/ho
wchildrenthink0000wood/page/39). ISBN 978-0-631-20007-9.
79. Leask, M., and Younie, S. (2001a) 'Communal Constructivist Theory: pedagogy of information and
communications technology & internationalisation of the curriculum', Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, Vol. 10, Nos 1 & 2, pp117 –134
80. Younie, S.; Leask, M. (2001b). "The European SchoolNet: An online community for European teachers? A
valuable professional resource?" (http://www.editlib.org/p/94352/). Teacher Development. 5 (2): 157–172.
doi:10.1080/13664530100200140 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13664530100200140). S2CID 145109452 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145109452). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160815122924/htt
p://www.editlib.org/p/94352/) from the original on 2016-08-15. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
81. Holmes, Bryan; Tangney, Brendan; FitzGibbon, Ann; Savage, Tim; Mehan, Siobhan. "Communal
Constructivism: Students constructing learning for as well as with others" (https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/
tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf) (PDF). Trinity College. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
210227232934/https://www.scss.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf) (PDF) from
the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-08-14.
82. Sarkar, Advait (2016-01-01). "Constructivist Design for Interactive Machine Learning". Proceedings of the
2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '16.
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI
EA '16. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 1467–1475. doi:10.1145/2851581.2892547 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2
F2851581.2892547). ISBN 9781450340823. S2CID 1949678 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1949
678).
83. Nowak, Markus; Castellini, Claudio; Massironi, Carlo (2018). "Applying Radical Constructivism to machine
learning: a pilot study in assistive robotics" (http://constructivist.info/13/2/250.nowak). Constructivist
Foundations. 13 (2): 250–262. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190221000106/https://constructivist.inf
o/13/2/250.nowak) from the original on 21 February 2019. Retrieved 20 February 2019.

Further reading
Anderson, John R.; Reder, Lynne M.; Simon, Herbert A.; Ericsson, K. Anders; Glaser, Robert (1998). "Radical
Constructivism and Cognitive Psychology" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180205130035/http://www.univie.a
c.at/constructivism/archive/fulltexts/4127.html). Brookings Papers on Education Policy (1): 227–278.
ISSN 1096-2719 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1096-2719). JSTOR 20067198 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20
067198). Archived from the original (http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/archive/fulltexts/4127.html) on
2018-02-05. Retrieved 2020-02-13.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). "The act of discovery". Harvard Educational Review. 31 (1): 21–32.
Bransford, J.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/6160 (https://doi.org/10.17226%2F6160).
ISBN 978-0-309-06557-3.
Clark, R. C.; Zuckerman, P. (1999). "Multimedia Learning Systems: Design Principles". In Stolovitch, H. D.;
Keeps, E. J. (eds.). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. pp. 564–
588). ISBN 978-0787911089.
Clark, R.C.; Nguyen, F. & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage
Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 978-0-7879-7728-3.
de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215-229) (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780521547512). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521547512.
de Jong, T.; van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). "Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of
conceptual Domains" (https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190680/file/deJong-Ton-1998b.pdf) (PDF).
Review of Educational Research. 68 (2): 179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179 (https://doi.org/10.310
2%2F00346543068002179). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210227232933/https://telearn.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-00190680/file/deJong-Ton-1998b.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved
2021-08-14.
Dalgarno, B. (1996) Constructivist computer assisted learning: theory and technique, ASCILITE Conference,
2–4 December 1996, retrieved from
https://web.archive.org/web/20140902003411/http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide96/papers/21.html
Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning how to Learn by Concept Mapping: A Worked-Example Effect. Oral
presentation at the 12th Biennial Conference EARLI 2007 in Budapest, Hungary
Jeffery, G. (ed) (2005) The creative college: building a successful learning culture in the arts, Stoke-on-Trent:
Trentham Books.
 Jonassen, D., Mayes, T., & McAleese, R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of
technology in higher education. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for
constructive learning (pp. 231–247). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Leutner, D. (1993). "Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: effects of adaptive and
non-adaptive instructional support". Learning and Instruction. 3 (2): 113–132. doi:10.1016/0959-
4752(93)90011-N (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0959-4752%2893%2990011-N).
Piaget, Jean. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.
Jean Piaget (1967). Logique et Connaissance scientifique, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade.
Tuovinen, J. E. & Sweller, J. (1999). "A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and
worked examples". Journal of Educational Psychology. 91 (2): 334–341. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.334 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.91.2.334). S2CID 54592195 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54
592195).
Rivers, R. H.; Vockell, E. (1987). "Computer simulations to Simulate scientific problems solving". Journal of
Research in Science Teaching. 24 (5): 403–416. Bibcode:1987JRScT..24..403R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/1987JRScT..24..403R). doi:10.1002/tea.3660240504 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Ftea.3660240504).

External links
A journey into Constructivism (http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html) by Martin Dougiamas, 1998-
11.
Cognitively Guided Instruction reviewed on the Promising Practices Network (http://www.promisingpractices.n
et/program.asp?programid=114)
Sample Online Activity Objects Designed with Constructivist Approach (http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com)
(2007)
Liberal Exchange learning resources offering a constructivist approach to learning English as a
second/foreign language (http://www.liberalexchange.org) (2009)
Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2018). "Connecting cognitive development and constructivism." (http://www.edpsycinterac
tive.org/papers/2018-03-lutz-huitt-brilliant-star-cognitive-development.pdf) In W. Huitt (Ed.), Becoming a
Brilliant Star: Twelve core ideas supporting holistic education (pp. 45-63). IngramSpark.
Definition of Constructivism by Martin Ryder (https://web.archive.org/web/20140527064759/http://carbon.ucde
nver.edu/~mryder/savage.html#def_constructivism) (a footnote to the book chapter The Cyborg and the Noble
Savage (https://web.archive.org/web/20140527064759/http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/savage.html)
where Ryder discusses One Laptop Per Child's XO laptop from a constructivist educator's point of view)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education)&oldid=1038717463"

This page was last edited on 14 August 2021, at 08:27 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.