Constructivism: Assumptions and Perspectives

A number of researchers and practitioners have cast aspersions upon sundry assumptions prevalent within cognitive psychology concerning the nature of learning and instruction, positing that such assumptions furnish an incomplete explication of students' comprehension and acquisition of knowledge. The contentious assumptions are thus (Greeno, 1989):

• The seat of mentation lies within the mind, rather than in interaction with persons and contextual circumstances.
• The processes of learning and cogitation exhibit a relative uniformity across individuals; further, certain situations are more conducive to the cultivation of higher-order thought than others.
• Cogitation derives primarily from knowledge and skills engendered within formal instructional settings, as opposed to general conceptual competencies accruing from one's experiential encounters and innate capabilities.

Constructivists demur from these assumptions, given the extant evidence suggesting that cogitation transpires within specific situations and that cognitions are, to a significant degree, constructed by individuals as a function of their experiential interactions within these situations (Bredo, 1997). Constructivist accounts of learning and development foreground the contributions of individuals to the learned material. Social constructivist models, moreover, underscore the signal importance of social interactions in the acquisition of skills and knowledge. It behoves us, therefore, to examine in greater detail the essence of constructivism, its underlying assumptions, and its multifarious forms.

What Is Constructivism?

Unlike other theories broached in this discourse, there exists a palpable want of consistency regarding the very meaning of constructivism (Harlow, Cummings, & Aberasturi, 2006). To speak with precision, constructivism is not a theory per se, but rather an epistemology, or philosophical disquisition upon the nature of learning (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2008; Simpson, 2002). As aforementioned in this course of study, a theory constitutes a scientifically valid explanation for the phenomena of learning. Theories allow for the generation and testing of hypotheses. Constructivism doth not propound the existence of learning principles ripe for discovery and verification, but rather that learners themselves fashion their own learning. Readers desirous of exploring the historical and philosophical underpinnings of constructivism are directed to the works of Bredo (1997) and Packer and Goicoechea (2000).

Nonetheless, constructivism doth make general predictions that may be subjected to testing. Albeit these predictions be general and thus open to diverse interpretations (i.e., what, pray tell, doth it signify that learners construct their own learning?), they could yet serve as the focus of scholarly inquiry.

Constructivist theorists reject utterly the notion that scientific truths exist, awaiting merely discovery and verification. They contend that no statement may be assumed as veridical, but rather should be viewed with a reasonable modicum of doubt. The world may be mentally constructed in manifold ways, ergo no single theory doth possess a monopoly on truth. This holds even for constructivism itself: many varieties exist, and no one version should be presumed more correct than any other (Derry, 1996; Simpson, 2002).

Rather than viewing knowledge as unvarnished truth, constructivists construe it as a working hypothesis, subject to revision. Knowledge is not imposed from without, but rather formed within. A person’s constructions hold true for that person, though not necessarily for any other. This is owing to the fact that individuals produce knowledge based upon their beliefs and experiences within particular situations (Cobb & Bowers, 1999), which naturally differ from person to person. All knowledge, then, is subjective and personal, being a product of our cognitions (Simpson, 2002). Learning is thus situated within specific contexts (Bredo, 2006).

Assumptions

Constructivism doth highlight the interaction of persons and situations in the acquisition and refinement of skills and knowledge (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). It stands in contrast to conditioning theories, which stress the influence of the environment upon the person, as well as to information processing theories, which locate the seat of learning within the mind, with scant regard for the context in which it transpires. It shares with social cognitive theory the assumption that persons, behaviours, and environments interact in reciprocal fashion (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

A key assumption of constructivism is that individuals are active learners, developing knowledge for themselves (Geary, 1995). To comprehend material fully, learners must needs discover the basic principles, as Anna did in the opening lesson. Constructivists differ in the degree to which they ascribe this function entirely to the learners themselves. Some aver that mental structures come to reflect reality, whilst others (radical constructivists) maintain that the individual’s mental world is the sole reality. Constructivists likewise differ in the extent to which they attribute the construction of knowledge to social interactions with teachers, peers, parents, and sundry others (Bredo, 1997).

Many of the principles, concepts, and ideas discussed herein reflect the tenets of constructivism, including cognitive processing, expectations, values, and perceptions of self and others (Derry, 1996). Thus, albeit constructivism may appear a recent arrival upon the learning scene, its basic premise—that learners construct understandings—underlies many established learning principles. This constitutes the epistemological aspect of constructivism. Certain constructivist ideas are not as fully developed as those of other theories broached in this discourse, yet constructivism hath exerted a palpable influence upon theory and research in learning and development.

Constructivism hath also influenced educational thinking regarding curriculum and instruction. It underpins the emphasis upon the integrated curriculum, wherein students study a given topic from multiple perspectives. For example, in studying hot-air balloons, students might read about them, write about them, learn new vocabulary words, visit one (a hands-on experience), study the scientific principles involved, draw pictures of them, and learn songs about them. Constructivist ideas are likewise found in many professional standards and inform the design of curriculum and instruction, such as the learner-centred principles developed by the American Psychological Association (discussed anon).

Another constructivist assumption is that teachers ought not to teach in the traditional fashion of delivering instruction to a passive group of students. Rather, they should structure situations such that learners become actively involved with content through manipulation of materials and social interaction. The manner in which the teacher structured the lesson enabled Anna to construct her understanding. Activities include observing phenomena, collecting data, generating and testing hypotheses, and working collaboratively with others. Classes visit sites outside of the classroom. Teachers from different disciplines plan the curriculum together. Students are taught to be self-regulated and take an active role in their learning by setting goals, monitoring and evaluating progress, and going beyond basic requirements by exploring personal interests (Bruning et al., 2004; Geary, 1995).

Constructivism, it must be avowed, doth not present a monolithic viewpoint, but rather a divergence of perspectives, as elucidated in Table 'Perspectives on constructivism' (Bruning et al., 2004; Moshman, 1982; Phillips, 1995). Exogenous constructivism doth allude to the tenet that the acquisition of knowledge representeth a reconstruction of structures extant in the external world. This perspective doth posit a substantial influence of the external world upon the construction of knowledge, evinced through experiences, tutelage, and exposure to exemplars. Knowledge attaineth accuracy to the extent that it reflecteth this reality. Contemporary theories of information processing, such as schemas, productions, and memory networks, are reflective of this very notion.

In contradistinction, endogenous constructivism doth emphasise the coordination of cognitive actions (Bruning et al., 2004). Mental structures are created from earlier structures, and not directly from environmental information; therefore, knowledge is not a mirror of the external world acquired through experiences, tutelage, or social interactions. Knowledge doth develop through the cognitive activity of abstraction and followeth a generally predictable sequence. Piaget’s (1970) theory of cognitive development (discussed later) doth fit this framework.

Between these extremes lieth dialectical constructivism, which holdeth that knowledge doth derive from interactions between persons and their environments. Constructions are neither invariably bound to the external world nor wholly the result of the workings of the mind; rather, they doth reflect the outcomes of mental contradictions that result from interactions with the environment. This perspective hath become closely aligned with many contemporary theories. For example, it is compatible with Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and with many motivational theories. It is also referred to as cognitive constructivism (Derry, 1996). The developmental theories of Bruner and Vygotsky (discussed later) also emphasise the influence of the social environment.

Each of these perspectives hath merit and is potentially useful for research and teaching. Exogenous views are appropriate when we are interested in determining how accurately learners perceive the structure of knowledge within a domain. The endogenous perspective is relevant to explore how learners develop from novices through greater levels of competence. The dialectical view is useful for designing interventions to challenge children’s thinking and for research aimed at exploring the effectiveness of social influences such as exposure to exemplars and peer collaboration.

A cardinal tenet of constructivism doth hold that cognitive processes (embracing ratiocination and erudition) are situate, that is, localised within physical and social milieus (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Greeno et al., 1998). Situated cognition (or situated learning) doth involve relations 'twixt a person and a situation; cognitive processes reside not solely within one's mind (Greeno, 1989).

The notion of person-situation interaction is far from novel. Most contemporaneous theories of learning and development do presuppose that beliefs and knowledge are formed as individuals interact within sundry situations. This emphasis stands in contrast to the classical information processing model, which doth highlight the processing and movement of information through mental structures (e.g., sensory registers, WM, LTM). Information processing doth diminish the importance of situations once environmental inputs are received. Research in a variety of disciplines—including cognitive psychology, social cognitive learning, and content domains (e.g., reading, mathematics)—doth reveal this to be a view of limited scope, and that thinking doth involve an extended reciprocal relation with the context (Bandura, 1986; Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Derry, 1996; Greeno, 1989).

Research doth underscore the import of exploring situated cognition as a means of comprehending the development of competence in domains such as literacy, mathematics (as we observe in the introductory scenario), and science (Cobb, 1994; Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Lampert, 1990). Situated cognition is likewise pertinent to motivation. As with learning, motivation is not an entirely internal state, as posited by classical views, nor wholly dependent upon the environment, as predicted by reinforcement theories. Rather, motivation doth hinge upon cognitive activity in interaction with sociocultural and instructional factors, which do encompass language and forms of assistance, such as scaffolding (Sivan, 1986).

Situated cognition doth address the intuitive notion that manifold processes interact to engender learning. We are cognisant that motivation and instruction are linked: judicious instruction can elevate motivation for learning, and motivated learners do seek effective instructional environments (Schunk, 1995). A further benefit of the situated cognition perspective is that it doth lead researchers to explore cognition in authentic learning contexts such as schools, workplaces, and domestic settings, many of which involve tutelage or apprenticeships.

Research concerning the efficacy of situated learning is of recent vintage, yet the results are promising. Griffin (1995) did compare traditional (in-class) instruction on map skills with a situated learning approach, wherein college students received practice in the veritable environments depicted upon the maps. The situated learning group did perform better on a map-skill assessment. Albeit Griffin did discover no benefit of situated learning on transfer, the results of situated learning studies should be highly generalisable to analogous contexts.

The situated idea is likewise pertinent to how learning doth transpire (Greeno et al., 1998). Students exposed to a certain procedure for learning a subject do experience situated cognition for that method; in other words, that is how this content is learned. For example, should students repeatedly receive mathematics instruction taught in a didactic fashion by a pedagogue explaining and demonstrating, followed by their engaging in independent problem-solving at their desks, then mathematics learning is apt to become situated in this context. The same students might encounter difficulty adjusting to a new teacher who favours the employment of guided discovery (as enacted by the teacher in the opening lesson) by collaborative peer groups.

The instructional implication is that teaching methods ought to reflect the outcomes we desire in our learners. If we are striving to impart inquiry skills, the instruction must incorporate inquiry activities. The method and the content must be properly situated. Situated cognition doth harmonise well with the constructivist notion that context is an inherent part of learning. Especially in subject domains, this idea increasingly hath been demonstrated to be valid. Nonetheless, extending the idea of situated learning too far may prove erroneous. As Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1996) did demonstrate, there is ample empirical evidence for contextual independence of learning and transfer of learning between contexts. We require further information on which types of learning proceed best when they are firmly linked to contexts, and when it is more judicious to impart broader skills and demonstrate how they can be applied in disparate contexts.

Considering the recent advent of constructivism, researches delving into its assumptions concerning learning are yet in their nascent stages. A further impediment to ascertaining the contributions of constructivism lies in its lack of a unified structure proffering specific hypotheses ripe for testing. Bereiter (1994) rightly observed that the assertion that “students construct their own knowledge” defies falsification, being, in effect, a truism applicable to all cognitive learning theories. Cognitive theories conceive of the mind as a repository of beliefs, values, expectations, schemata, and so forth; thus, any plausible explication of how these thoughts and sentiments take residence in the mind must necessarily posit that they are formed therein. For instance, social cognitive theory underscores the significance of expectations (e.g., self-efficacy, outcome) and goals; these beliefs and cognitions do not spring from naught but are, rather, constructed by the learners themselves.

Constructivism must, in due course, be judged not on the veracity or falsity of its premises, but rather on a thorough determination of the process by which students construct knowledge, and how social, developmental, and instructional factors may exert their influence upon this process. Further research is requisite to ascertain when situational influences wield greater sway over mental processes. A notable disadvantage inherent in many manifestations of constructivism resides in its pronounced emphasis on relativism (Phillips, 1995), or the notion that all forms of knowledge are justifiable merely by virtue of having been constructed by learners, particularly if they stand in defiance of societal consensus. Educators, in good conscience, cannot countenance this premise, for education demands the inculcation of values such as honesty, fairness, and responsibility in our students, regardless of whether societal constituencies deem them of import.

Furthermore, nature may constrain our thinking to a greater degree than we are wont to concede. Research intimates that certain mathematical competencies—such as one-to-one correspondence and the capacity to count—are not constructed but are, in large measure, genetically determined (Geary, 1995; Gelman & Gallistel, 1978). Far from being relative, some forms of knowledge may possess a universal and endogenous character. The acquisition of other competencies (e.g., multiplying, word processing) necessitates environmental input. Constructivism—with its penchant for minimal instructional guidance—may underestimate the significance of human cognitive structures. Instructional methods that are better aligned with this cognitive structure may, in actuality, yield superior learning outcomes (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Continued research shall serve to delineate the scope of constructivist processes within the sequence of competency acquisition and to elucidate how these processes evolve as a function of development (Muller, Sokol, & Overton, 1998).

Constructivism bears significant implications for both instruction and curriculum design (Phillips, 1995). The most straightforward recommendations advocate for the active involvement of students in their own learning and the provision of experiences that challenge their thinking, compelling them to re-arrange their beliefs. Constructivism also underpins the current emphasis on reflective teaching (to be discussed later in this lesson). Social constructivist viewpoints (e.g., Vygotsky’s) emphasize the utility of social group learning and peer collaboration (Ratner, Foley, & Gimpert, 2002). As students model for and observe one another, they not only impart skills but also cultivate a heightened sense of self-efficacy for learning (Schunk, 1995). 'Constructivism and Teaching' provides examples of constructivist applications. We shall now proceed to a more thorough examination of constructivism and its applications to human learning.