.

- CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Constructivist Learning
by Dimitrios Thansoulas

-1

Only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem at hand, seeking and finding his own solution
(not in isolation but in correspondence with the teacher and other pupils) does one learn.
John Dewey, How We Think, 1910

As a philosophy of learning, constructivism can be traced to the eighteenth century and the work of
the philosopher Giambattista Vico, who maintained that humans can understand only what they
have themselves constructed. A great many philosophers and educationalists have worked with
these ideas, but the first major contemporaries to develop a clear idea of what constructivism
consists in were Jean Piaget and John Dewey, to name but a few. Part of the discussion that ensues
grapples with the major tenets of their philosophies, with a view to shedding light on constructivism
and its vital contribution to learning. As a revealing gloss on this issue, it could be said that
constructivism takes an interdisciplinary perspective, inasmuch as it draws upon a diversity of
psychological, sociological, philosophical, and critical educational theories. In view of this,
constructivism is an overarching theory that does not intend to demolish but to reconstruct past and
present teaching and learning theories, its concern lying in shedding light on the learner as an
important agent in the learning process, rather than in wresting the power from the teacher.

Within the constructivist paradigm, the accent is on the learner rather than the teacher. It is the
learner who interacts with his or her environment and thus gains an understanding of its features
and characteristics. The learner constructs his own conceptualisations and finds his own solutions to
problems, mastering autonomy and independence. According to constructivism, learning is the
result of individual mental construction, whereby the learner learns by dint of matching new against
given information and establishing meaningful connections, rather than by internalising mere
factoids to be regurgitated later on. In constructivist thinking, learning is inescapably affected by the
context and the beliefs and attitudes of the learner. Here, learners are given more latitude in
becoming effective problem solvers, identifying and evaluating problems, as well as deciphering
ways in which to transfer their learning to these problems.

If a student is able to perform in a problem solving situation, a meaningful learning should then
occur because he has constructed an interpretation of how things work using preexisting structures.
This is the theory behind Constructivism. By creating a personal interpretation of external ideas and
experiences, constructivism allows students the ability to understand how ideas can relate to each
other and preexisting knowledge (Janet Drapikowski, personal communication).
The constructivist classroom presents the learner with opportunities for "autopoietic" learning (here,
I deploy the meaning of Francisco Varela's term in a context different to the original one) with a
view to helping learners to build on prior knowledge and understand how to construct new
knowledge from authentic experience-certainly a view in keeping with Rogers' experiential learning
(Rogers, 1969, 1994). C. Rogers, one of the exponents of experiential learning-the tenets of which
are inextricably related to, and congruent with, those of constructivism-made the distinction
between cognitive learning, which he deemed meretricious, and experiential learning, which he
considered significant. For him, the qualities of experiential learning include:
· personal involvement;
· learner-initiation;
· evaluation by learner; and
· pervasive effects on learner (see the web document:
http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04f.htm)

Rogers' humanistic approach to learning is also conducive to personal change and growth, and can
facilitate learning, provided that
· the student participates completely in the learning process and has control over its nature and
direction;
· it is primarily based upon direct confrontation with practical, social, personal or research
problems; and,
· self-evaluation is the principal method of assessing progress or success.
(ibid.)

Interestingly, contrasting this approach with the typical behaviourist classroom, where students are
merely passive "receptacles" of information from the teacher and the textbook, is rather revealing.
We will come to that later on in the study. At this juncture, it is important to briefly discuss the
theories of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Jerome Bruner that have certainly influenced our stance
toward the nature of learning and, concomitantly, teaching. For Dewey, knowledge emerges only
from situations in which learners have to draw them out of meaningful experiences (see Democracy
and Education, 1916 and Experience and Education, 1938). Further, these situations have to be
embedded in a social context, such as a classroom, where students can take part in manipulating
materials and, thus, forming a community of learners who construct their knowledge together.
Students cannot learn by means of rote memorisation; they can only learn by "directed living,"
whereby concrete activities are combined with theory. The obvious implication of Dewey's theory
is that students must be engaged in meaningful activities that induce them to apply the concepts
they are trying to learn.

2.-

Piaget's constructivism is premised on his view of the psychological development of children.

Within his theory, the basis of learning is discovery: 'To understand is to discover, or reconstruct by
rediscovery, and such conditions must be complied with if in the future individuals are to be formed
who are capable of production and creativity and not simply repetition' (Piaget, 1973). According to
Piaget, children go through stages in which they accept ideas they may later discard as wrong.
Understanding, therefore, is built up step by step through active participation and involvement.
However, applying Piaget's theory is not so straightforward a task as it may sound.
(see http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/
501const.htm)

According to Bruner, learning is a social process, whereby students construct new concepts based
on current knowledge. The student selects information, constructs hypotheses, and makes decisions,
with the aim of integrating new experiences into his existing mental constructs. It is cognitive
structures that provide meaning and organization to experiences and allow learners to transcend the
boundaries of the information given. For him, learner independence, fostered through encouraging
students to discover new principles of their own accord, lies at the heart of effective education.
Moreover, curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that students can build upon what
they have already learned. In short, the principles that permeate Bruner's theory are the following
(see Bruner, 1973):
· Instruction must be commensurate with the experiences that make the student willing and able to
learn (readiness).
· Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily understood by the student (spiral
organization).

· Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation (going beyond the information given).
It could be argued that constructivism emphasizes the importance of the world knowledge, beliefs,
and skills an individual brings to bear on learning. Viewing the construction of new knowledge as a
combination of prior learning matched against new information, and readiness to learn, this theory
opens up new perspectives, leading individuals to informed choices about what to accept and how
to fit it into their existing schemata, as well as what to reject. Recapitulating the main principles of
constructivism, we could say that it emphasises learning and not teaching, encourages learner
autonomy and personal involvement in learning, looks to learners as incumbents of significant roles
and as agents exercising will and purpose, fosters learners' natural curiosity, and also takes account
of learners' affect, in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and motivation. In addition, within
constructivist theory, context is accorded significance, as it renders situations and events
meaningful and relevant, and provides learners with the opportunity to construct new knowledge
from authentic experience. After all,

Learning is contextual: we do not learn isolated facts and theories in some abstract ethereal land of
the mind separate from the rest of our lives: we learn in relationship to what else we know, what we
believe, our prejudices and our fears. On reflection, it becomes clear that this point is actually a
corollary of the idea that learning is active and social. We cannot divorce our learning from our
lives (Hein, 1991, see www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html.)
What is more, by providing opportunities for independent thinking, constructivism allows students
to take responsibility for their own learning, by framing questions and then analyzing them.
Reaching beyond simple factual information, learners are induced to establish connections between
ideas and thus to predict, justify, and defend their ideas (adapted from In Search of Understanding:
The Case for Constructivist Classrooms by Jacqueline G. Brooks and Martin G. Brooks,
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993).
Having expatiated upon the main tenets of constructivism, let us now content ourselves with
juxtaposing constructivism with other theories, objectivist theories that is, and, more specifically,
contiguity theory. Byrnes (1996) and Arseneau and Rodenburg (1998) contrast objectivist and
constructivist approaches to teaching and learning.

Objectivist View Constructivist View

Knowledge exists outside of Knowledge has personal
individuals and can be meaning. It is created by
transferred from teachers to individual students.
students.
Students learn what they hear Learners construct their own
and what they read. If a teacher knowledge by looking for
explains abstract concepts well, meaning and order; they
students will learn those interpret what they hear, read,
concepts. and see based on their previous
learning and habits. Students
who do not have appropriate
backgrounds will be unable to
accurately "hear" or "see" what
is before them.
Learning is successful when Learning is successful when
students can repeat what was students can demonstrate
taught. conceptual understanding.

-3

Amongst the din of shifting paradigms, a theory that used to dominate the field but is not well-
known is contiguity theory, an exponent of which is E. Guthrie. The classic experimental paradigm
for contiguity theory is cats learning to escape from a puzzle box (Guthrie & Horton, 1946). Guthrie
used a glass box which allowed him to photograph the movements of cats. These photographs
showed that cats learned to repeat the same movements associated with the preceding escape from
the box. In this vein, improvement comes about when irrelevant movements are unlearned or not
included in successive associations. Drawing upon behaviouristic principles, contiguity theory sets
out to show that, in order for conditioning to occur, the organism must actively respond; inasmuch
as learning involves the conditioning of specific behaviours, instruction boils down to presenting
very specific tasks; exposure to variations in stimulus patterns is necessary in order to produce a
generalized response; and the last response in a stimulus-response situation should be correct since
it is this one that will be associated (see http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04b.htm).

Within a positivistic tradition, so to speak, under which come the theories of behaviourism,
contiguity theory, and many others, the learner was, and still is, seen as relatively passive, 'simply
absorbing information transmitted by a didactic teacher' (Long, 2000: 6). In the universe created by
these paradigms, the powerless learner is "worlds apart" from the omniscient and powerful teacher,
whose main concern is to 'deliver a standard curriculum and to evaluate stable underlying
differences between children' (ibid.). Against this background, the cognitive paradigm of
constructivism has been instrumental in shifting the locus of responsibility for learning from the
teacher to the learner, who is no longer seen as passive or powerless. The student is viewed as an
individual who is active in constructing new knowledge and understanding, while the teacher is
seen as a facilitator rather than a "dictator" of learning. Yet, despite its "democratic" nature, many
contemporary philosophers and educationalists have tried to demolish or vitiate some of its
principles. Such a discussion is outside the remit of this study, of course. We will only briefly
mention George Hein (1991, see http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/
constructivistlearning.html), who voices some reservations about constructivist learning.
For Hein, constructivism, although it appears radical on an everyday level, 'is a position which has
been frequently adopted ever since people began to ponder epistemology' (ibid.). According to him,
if we align ourselves with constructivist theory, which means we are willing to follow in the
footsteps of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky, among others, then we have to run counter to Platonic
views of epistemology. We have to recognize that knowledge is not "out there," independent of the
knower, but knowledge is what we construct for ourselves as we learn. Besides, we have to concede
that learning is not tantamount to understanding the "true" nature of things, nor is it (as Plato
suggested) akin to remembering perfect ideas, 'but rather a personal and social construction of
meaning out of the bewildering array of sensations which have no order or structure besides the
explanations…which we fabricate for them' (ibid.).

It goes without saying that learners represent a rich array of different backgrounds and ways of
thinking and feeling. If the classroom can become a neutral zone where students can exchange their
personal views and critically evaluate those of others, each student can build understanding based
on empirical evidence. We have no intention of positing methods and techniques for creating a
"constructivist classroom." After all, classrooms are, and should be, amenable and sensitive to a
whole lot of approaches to teaching and learning, and a slavish adherence to the letter rather than
the spirit of education is bound to prove detrimental. It should be borne in mind that the theory of
constructivism, with which we have been concerned, is not yet another "educational decree." Like
philosophy, constructivism can lead to its own de-construction, in the sense that it forges the very
structures and associations that could possibly demolish it. It is a meta-theory, in that it fosters a
meta-critical awareness. A constructivist orientation to learning is unique because at its heart lies
the individual learner in toto, rather than dimly perceived "apparitions" of her essence.
Constructivism is a modern version of human anatomy, in the sense that it is based on, and provides
insights into, brain mechanisms, mental structures, and willingness to learn.

References

Arseneau, R., & Rodenburg, D. (1998). The Developmental Perspective:

Cultivating Ways of Thinking. In D. D. Pratt (Ed.). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and
Higher Education. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Brooks, G. J. and Brooks, G. M. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The Case
for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.
Byrnes, J. P. (1996). Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional
Contexts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dewey, John. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, John. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.
Drapikowski, J. personal communication
Francisco Varela, co-author with Humberto D. Maturana of Autopoiesis and
Cognition: The Realization of the Living (1980)
Guthrie, E.R. & Horton, G.P. (1946). Cats in a Puzzle Box. New York:Rinehart.
(http://www.educationau.edu.au/archives/cp/04b.htm).
Hein, G. (1991).
(http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivist
learning.html).
Long, M. (2000). The Psychology of Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Piaget, Jean. (1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman.
(http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/
501const.htm)
Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH:
Merrill/MacMillan

© Copyright 2000-2002 by Developing Teachers.com