See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259582393

Constructivism in Mathematics Education: A Historical and Personal

Perspective

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

4 3,049

2 authors, including:

Thomas J. Faulkenberry
Tarleton State University
56 PUBLICATIONS 245 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mental representations of fractions View project

Bayesian methods for mathematical cognition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas J. Faulkenberry on 07 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Constructivism in Mathematics Education: A Historical and Personal Perspective
by
Eileen Durand Faulkenberry and Thomas J. Faulkenberry
Texas A&M University – Commerce

INTRODUCTION examples of classroom events that demonstrate the student-

In this paper, we discuss the historical roots and the centered constructivist approach.
practical uses of constructivism in the mathematics classroom.
Constructivism is the popular, yet mildly controversial belief Example 1 – Alphabitia
that students construct their own knowledge through self- When we teach mathematics courses for elementary teachers,
modification of cognitive structures. This self-modification one of the topics that our students encounter in alternative bases
is a largely unconscious, yet goal-directed, process by which for numeration. A classic activity for investigating this topic is
the student reacts to a cognitive disturbance by changing how Tom Bassarear’s Alphabitia activity (Bassarear, 2005). In this
he or she thinks about a concept to accommodate the novel activity, the students play the role of archaeologists who “dig
piece of information, thus relieving the cognitive disturbance. up” the ancient civilization of Alphabitia. From some artifacts
Essentially, this means that when the student encounters a they determine that the Alphabitians used a numeration system
hard problem, the student (ideally) reacts by thinking about it that consisted of only the symbols A, B, C, D, and 0. The task
until it makes sense. This challenges the classic behaviorist for the student archaeologists is to figure out exactly how the
model where a student is presented with stimuli (problems, Alphabitians were able to represent numbers with only these
exercises, etc.) and shown how to achieve a certain response. symbols. Of course, those readers with experience in base-
The behaviorist model requires some sort of external reward. 5 arithmetic will immediately see a way to do this, but our
In contrast, the main tenet of constructivism is that no external students almost always are initially baffled. We spend about a
reward is necessary; rather, the “comfort” of the newly modified week trying different systems until we eventually converge on
cognitive structure is rewarding in itself. the canonical base-5 positional place value system. It is a long
Constructivism is a part of several psychological theories. road for the students, but their satisfaction with their ability to
The historical roots of constructivism as a psychological theory construct something “brand new” is priceless.
are most commonly traced to the work of Jean Piaget, although
there are some elements of Piaget’s constructivism that come Equilibration
from the early Gestalt psychologists. This activity is good on many fronts, but it is especially good
As collegiate mathematics education teachers and since it quickly confronts the student with a novel situation that
researchers, we have much experience with constructivism as they have to mentally organize. This cognitive organization
both a research paradigm and a teaching method. The success process is called equilibration. Equilibration is the process by
of constructivism, both as a pedagogical technique and as a which a learner attempts to organize a new piece of information
psychological theory, provides converging evidence of its by placing it into his or her current cognitive structure and
utility. We now discuss these two facets in detail. modifying that cognitive structure accordingly. Equilibration is
closely related to the Gestalt concept of harmonious equilibrium,
CONSTRUCTIVISM AS PEDAGOGY where consciousness tends to move away from “uncomfortable”
The view of constructivism as a psychological theory stimuli toward a more “comfortable” state. Equilibration is
tells us much about how students learn mathematics. Using central to Piaget’s constructivism, as evidenced by his claim
this information, many teachers have begun to think about that it is the organizing principle of cognitive development
exactly how they conduct their mathematics classrooms. The (Dubinsky & Lewin, 1986). Piaget’s notion of equilibration
standard model for mathematics teaching has long been the is a cyclic process. If an encountered piece of knowledge is
lecture, as exemplified in Krantz (1999, p. 12), where he says, novel in the sense that it doesn’t fit with the learner’s current
“Lectures have been used to good effect for more than 3000 cognitive framework, the learner’s cognitive system is now out
years.” While no one will probably deny that they have seen of equilibrium. This is called disequilibration.
some very effective lectures in their educational experience, In the Alphabitia activity above, the students immediately
the modern thought is that a good majority of lectures tend to undergo disequilibration when presented with the problem of
be rather ineffective, especially in the mathematics classroom. reinventing a numeration system. The purpose of spending a
As Dubinsky (1999) points out, how do we really know what week on the activity is to allow time for the students to modify
the classroom style of Newton was like? There seems to be no their existing cognitive structures to assimilate or accommodate
historical documentation pointing to the exact teaching style of this new material.
these great mathematicians.
The use of constructivism in the mathematics classroom Example 2: Alphabitia continued
has many variations. The one thing that these variations have Once the initial activity of Alphabitia is completed,
in common, however, is the central role of the student in the the students are satisfied with their ability to construct new
learning process. In the following, we will present some representations for numbers. However, their knowledge is still

The Texas Science Teacher April 2006 17

quite limited at this point, as evidenced when the extension When a student first learns about functions, the student
to the activity is given. In the extension, we ask the students is undoubtedly reminded that a function is a “machine” or
to then find a way to add and subtract these new Alphabitian formula that transforms a number that one “plugs in” to give
numerals. Once again, the students are faced with a novel a new number. In other words, the function is something the
situation that they don’t yet know how to handle. So, more student performs actions on to get an answer. After the student
time is spent with the students working in groups until they find does a few problems and begins to reflect on these actions, the
a way to accommodate this new problem. student should begin to see the function as a complete process of
actions; i.e., first, plug in the number, then simplify the algebraic
Reflective Abstraction expression to get the result. This cognitive transformation is
Notice that the students once again need to accommodate a called interiorization. See Figure 1 for an illustration.
new piece of information. This time, however, their cognitive It is worth noting at this point that the process conception
structures are working on a higher level than before. This of function is the conceptual level that most college algebra
cognitive reconstruction is called reflective abstraction, as it students attain after a one-semester course. Once these students
involves reflecting the existing cognitive structures to a higher move on to calculus, however, they need to be able to take a
plane of thought and applying these structures to new stimuli. derivative of a function. A derivative is nothing more than a
This is sometimes called “generalization” or “extension.” A higher-level function that takes functions as inputs. Since, at a
more extreme version of reflective abstraction can be found in conceptual level, a functional input needs to be an object, the
the next example. concept of function that the calculus student possesses must go
beyond the process conception of function; that is, the dynamic
Example 3: Alphabitia concluded process of function must be encapsulated to become a static
After two weeks of work on the Alphabitian numeration object. When the student realizes that a function is an object,
system, our students have gone from an unfamiliar numeration just like a number, the student can then try to extend number
system to adding and
subtracting in this new
“Function” as object
numeration system. Of
course, the students have
actually just computed a
group structure. As such, Encapsulation
the numeration system nn
is no longer just a set of
isolated processes; rather, “Function” as process
it has become a complete
system. Once the students
are able to view Alphabitia
as a system, they have
Interiorization
undergone the most radical
cognitive reconstruction:
encapsulation. “Function” as formula
Encapsulation
Encapsulation is the
most interesting (and extreme) form of reflective abstraction Figure 1. Illustration of interiorization.
(for mathematics education). In encapsulation, implicit
processes are coalesced into a whole unit, on which more
actions and processes can be performed. In other words, relationships to function relationships, which include being
encapsulation is the conversion of a dynamic process to a static able to use a function as an input to another function like the
object (Dubinsky, 1991). derivative.
Example: An APOS Analysis of the Concept of Function
Example: Calculus
APOS Theory (Asiala, et al., 1996) is a psychological
Another example of the APOS cycle is found in studying
and educational theory of how students learn mathematics.
the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. For a beginning
The acronym APOS represents Action, Process, Object, &
calculus student, an integral is often viewed as a process for
Schema; a cycle of conceptual levels that a mathematics
computing the area underneath a curve; for example,
student progresses through when building a set of (cognitive)
2
1
° x dx
organizing principles (a schema) about a particular topic. We
illustrate the APOS cycle by considering how students typically
1
learn the concept of function.
is equal to the area underneath the curve
f (x)  1
x from

18 _Teacher
The Texas Science April 2006
_
 x  1 to x  2 . This conception is at the action and process PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CONSTRUCTIVISM
level. A few weeks later, however, the student encounters the We conclude by outlining two approaches to constructivism
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, of which a certain form in the mathematics classroom: one is a formal approach
deals with functions defined as integrals, such as the familiar developed by Ed Dubinsky, and the other is our personal
_ _ x
1
amalgamation of these techniques.
ln(x)  °t dt .
THE ACE TEACHING CYCLE
1
The ACE Teaching cycle was developed by Ed Dubinsky
Students often have trouble with a representation of this and is outlined very nicely in Asiala, et al. (1996). The acronym
type. This is most likely because an integral such as the former ACE represents the three components of the cycle: activities,
one is computed using a process, whereas in the latter, the
_ integral is part of the function definition. What seems to be
class discussion, and exercises. In the activity portion of the
cycle, the students work in groups (often in the computer lab
lacking is the encapsulation of this area process to an object if appropriate) on tasks that are specially designed to help the
that can have its parameters vary (Dubinsky, 1991). students develop the correct cognitive constructions suggested
Recent research in mathematics education has indicated by the constructivist model; that is, to help the students
that successful mathematics performance occurs whenever encapsulate processes into objects. These activities may last
students are able to encapsulate dynamic processes into static for more than one class period. At the end of the activity, the
objects. The ability to encapsulate processes into objects is groups come together for a class discussion period, where the
generally considered to be very difficult (Sfard, 1991). As instructor leads discussion among the groups. The purpose of
an example, consider how students think about the equality this discussion is to provide a medium for the students to begin
0.99999....=1. Many students believe this to actually not be the process of reflective abstraction. The role of the instructor
true, although it is a well-known result that can be found in many is to help the students successfully tie things together. Finally,
mathematics textbooks. The difficulty seems to be stemming out-of-class exercises are assigned for the students to work on
from the students’ inability to encapsulate the dynamic process in teams. The exercises are used to help the students reinforce
of “repeating the 9’s indefinitely” to a static object – the limit their conceptual framework of the mathematics being studied.
of the infinite process (Weller, et al., 2004). This style of teaching does not lend itself well to a standard
textbook, however. One extreme solution has been proposed by
CONSTRUCTIVISM AS A PARADIGM FOR RESEARCH Asiala, et al. (1996), whose solution is to write new textbooks
IN MATHEMATICAL UNDERSTANDING that support this teaching cycle. Realistically, this is not
“Understanding” is a concept that is part of everyone’s possible for most instructors, so each instructor must find his
folkloric knowledge about teaching, but it is also a term or her own technique for using a textbook to support this form
that tends to lack an operational definition. Up until 1978, a of instruction. Some find it necessary to abandon the textbook
student’s mathematical understanding was equated with the completely, where others supplement the textbook with other
student’s (algorithmic) knowledge of mathematics (Meel, materials. As an example, we will now present our method of
2003). After 1978, understanding came to be realized as more constructivist teaching that has worked well for both of us.
organic than algorithmic knowledge, and several categories of
understanding were proposed. Richard Skemp (1976) was one OUR PERSONAL STYLE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST
of the first researchers of mathematics education who started TEACHING
to use knowledge from cognitive psychology to inform what In our mathematics classrooms, the students are frequently
was going on in the mathematics classroom. While his theory presented with a problem situation to solve. This involves
of understanding was not purely constructivist (in the sense finding rich mathematical tasks such as the Alphabitia activity.
of Piaget), it did certainly contain elements of constructivism. The instructor gives a brief introduction to the problem; then
For example, Skemp’s levels of understanding each contained the students work in small groups. The introduction is not to
a reflective subcategory, which was akin to Piaget’s reflective provide direction in the solving of the problem but to make
abstraction. sure all the students understand the nature of the problem.
Following Skemp’s lead, many researchers in mathematics The instructor then observes the small groups, often asking
education have proposed theories of mathematical questions to guide thinking, but not giving solutions. As the
understanding that explicitly use ideas from constructivism. instructor observes the group, she assesses which students are
Examples include the concept image and concept definition learning the material and which students are still struggling.
model of Tall and Vinner (1981), the multiple representations She notes innovative student-invented strategies and solutions
model of Kaput (1989), and the growth of understanding in order to facilitate the whole group discussion.
model of Pirie and Kieren (1994). See Meel (2003) for a more Once the students have had the opportunity to solve the
complete description of these models. Constructivist models problem, individuals or groups are asked to present their
are not limited to undergraduate mathematics, however, as strategies and solutions to the class. It is through these
these models may inadvertently suggest. Kamii (2000) has discussions that those students who were still struggling can
done extensive work with young children and their conceptions gain insight that they can apply as they try to solve the problem.
of arithmetic using a constructivist model. Since the students often approach problems differently as

The Texas Science Teacher April 2006 19

they are constructing their knowledge, several strategies such as homework and tests. However, the homework and
are presented and each are discussed within the whole class. test questions are based on conceptual understanding of the
These discussions and reflections also provide the medium for topics rather than rote manipulations of symbols to arrive at an
the students to engage in reflective abstraction. In addition answer. For instance, instead of having students find the slope
to helping the students construct their own knowledge, this given a linear equation, we will give them data which can be
approach also allows the students to expand their problem- modeled by a linear function, ask them to find the function,
solving abilities, to improve their ability to reason, to better then ask for the slope. The main difference is that we then ask
their mathematical communication abilities, to create them to determine the meaning of the slope in the context of the
connections with prior knowledge within mathematics and in problem. The focus of the questions is on the idea of slope as a
other contexts, and to flexibly move between representations rate of change and how that affects a linear relationship rather
of mathematical concepts. than finding the slope of the line between two given points.
Many people who are new to constructivism do not We do lecture, but rarely, and never over 15 minutes. Our
realize that the role of the teacher changes dramatically. In students are the ones at the board showing their strategies and
our classrooms, the focus shifts from a one-way transmission solutions, answering their peers’ questions and justifying their
of knowledge to a discourse in which the students interact with solutions. Those listening to the solution then evaluate the
their peers and the new information in an attempt to ease a solution and the justification, asking questions when something
cognitive disturbance. The teacher, no longer the sole source is unclear. We often use manipulatives or dynamic software to
of new information, becomes a guide as the students work explore concepts and then discuss their observations. These
to construct their new knowledge. It is the teacher’s job to discussions lead to the more intricate subtleties of the concept
structure the learning situations, to assess student progress, far better than a straight lecture ever could. Since the students
and modify as needed. The teacher becomes a partner in the are engaged and actively participating in the discourse, they
learning process. are much more likely to construct and integrate these subtleties
In order to facilitate mathematical learning, the teacher into their knowledge.
must create tasks to engage the students in their learning Through a classroom environment such as this, our students
process. These tasks must be relevant to the students in order have learned that “Why?” is the most important question
to maximize motivation. The tasks must also be worthwhile— they can ask because it leads to greater understanding of any
there must exist a reason to solve this problem. Therefore most topic. They are focused more on the “why” than the “how.”
of the tasks are based on real-world situations. These rich As the student answers the question of “why,” they can create
mathematical tasks must allow the students an opportunity to the process to solve the problem, which answers the question
make and test conjectures. The students need an opportunity “how,” because they understand the mathematical concepts
to analyze their solution strategies as well as those of their underpinning the solution.
classmates. Many of these tasks consist of an opportunity to
explore the concept concretely through hands-on activities, CONCLUSION
using materials such as manipulatives. The activities lead the Research has indicated that successful learning involves
students from the concrete representations to the more abstract actively rebuilding cognitive structures to accommodate
qualities of the concepts through questions requiring higher new pieces of information as they are encountered. This
level thinking skills, mathematical reasoning, and multiple evolutionary, dynamic form of learning is called constructivism,
representations. and it has proven to be a personally successful theory to guide
This form of teaching places a greater load on the teacher. teaching for both of us. While constructivism takes on many
It is admittedly so much easier to instruct students by giving different forms, the essential core beliefs of constructivism in
them the information rather than creating tasks and asking mathematics education can be summarized as follows:
questions to guide them to create the knowledge on their own. 1. Mathematical knowledge is actively constructed through a
However, the students do not retain material as well, nor do process called reflective abstraction.
they have a solid understanding of the underpinnings of the 2. Cognition is evolutionary: cognitive structures adapt to
content, if they are simply passively accepting information. disturbances from novel stimuli in order to accommodate
The knowledge is not theirs, but the teacher’s. They can work the stimuli in an ordered fashion.
a problem they have seen before, but they are unable to apply 3. Constructivism as a teaching practice is difficult to maintain
their knowledge to new situations. If the students have struggled in its purest form, but it is a beneficial style of pedagogy
to assimilate the new knowledge into their content base, they that puts the student, rather than the teacher, at the center
are much more likely to be able to retrieve this information of the learning process.
and to apply it in new and different ways because they have a
greater understanding of the concept and its foundations since REFERENCES
they built it themselves. Asiala, M., Brown, A., Devries, D. J., Dubinsky, E., Mathews,
One must note that it is very difficult to maintain a pure D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and
constructivist classroom. Therefore, we have both adopted a curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics
blended approach. This approach is predominantly guided by education. In J. Kaput, A. H. Schoenfeld, & E. Dubinsky
constructivism, but there are some more traditional aspects, (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education II (pp.

20 The Texas Science Teacher April 2006

 1-32). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Bassarear, T. (2005). Mathematics for Elementary School
Teachers: Explorations (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin Company
Beth, E. W. & Piaget, J. (1966). Mathematical epistemology
and psychology. (W. Mays, Trans.). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced
mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced
mathematical thinking (pp. 231-250). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Dubinsky, E. (1999). Reflections on Krantz’s How to Teach
Mathematics: A different view. In S. Krantz (Ed.). How to
Teach Mathematics (2nd ed.) (pp. 197-213). Providence,
RI: American Mathematical Society.
Dubinsky, E. & Lewin, P. (1986). Reflective abstraction and
mathematics education: The genetic decomposition of
induction and compactness. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 5, 55-92.
Kamii, C. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic:
Implications of Piaget’s Theory (2nd ed.). New York:
Teacher’s College Press.
Kaput, J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol
systems of algebra. In C. Kieran & S. Wagner (Eds.), A
research agenda for the learning and teaching of algebra
(pp. 167-194). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Krantz, S. (Ed.). (1999). How to teach mathematics (2nd ed.).
Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Meel, D. E. (2003). Models and theories of mathematical
understanding: Comparing Pirie and Kieren’s model of the
growth of mathematical understanding and APOS theory.
In A. Selden, E. Dubinsky, G. Harel, & F. Hitt (Eds.),
Research in collegiate mathematics education V (pp. 132-
181). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Pirie, S. & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical
understanding: How can we characterize it and how can
we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26,
165-190.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical
conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as
different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 22, 1-36.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental
understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.
Tall,D. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept
definition in mathematics with special reference to limits
and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12,
151-169.
Weller, K., Brown, A., Dubinsky, E., McDonald, M., &
Stenger, C. (2004). Intimations of infinity. Notices of the
American

The Texas Science Teacher April 2006 21

View publication stats