Constructivist Learning Environments (Constructivism)

Learning environments predicated upon constructivist principles exhibit a marked divergence from conventional scholastic settings (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). This present disquisition delineates the salient characteristics intrinsic to constructivist learning environments.

Learning within a constructivist setting doth not simply permit students to act upon whim. Rather, constructivist environments ought to furnish rich experiences, thusly encouraging learning.

Constructivist schoolrooms diverge from traditional schoolrooms in several aspects (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). In traditional classes, basic skills are accentuated. The curriculum is presented in diminutive portions, employing textbooks and workbooks. Teachers disseminate information to students didactically and seek correct answers to queries. Assessment of student learning is distinct from teaching and is usually executed via examinations. Students oft labour alone.

In constructivist schoolrooms, the curriculum doth focus upon grand concepts. Activities typically involve primary sources of data and manipulative materials. Teachers interact with students by soliciting their queries and points of view. Assessment is authentic; it is interwoven with teaching and encompasseth teacher observations and student portfolios. Students oft labour in groups. The crux is to structure the learning environment such that students may effectively construct new knowledge and skills (Schuh, 2003).

Certain guiding principles of constructivist learning environments are listed in block 'Guiding principles of constructivist learning environments' (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). One principle is that teachers ought to pose problems of emerging relevance to students, where relevance is pre-existent or emerges through teacher mediation. Thus, a teacher might structure a lesson around queries that challenge students’ preconceptions. This taketh time, which meaneth that other critical content may not be covered. Relevance is not established by threatening to test students, but rather by stimulating their interest and helping them discover how the problem affecteth their lives.

Guiding principles of constructivist learning environments, (Brooks & Brooks, 1999):

• Pose problems of emerging relevance to students.
• Structure learning around primary concepts.
• Seek and value students’ points of view.
• Adapt curriculum to address students’ suppositions.
• Assess student learning in the context of teaching.

A second principle is that learning ought to be structured around primary concepts. This signifies that teachers design activities around conceptual clusters of queries and problems, so that ideas are presented holistically rather than in isolation (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). Being able to see the whole assisteth in understanding the parts.

Holistic teaching doth not necessitate sacrificing content, but it doth involve structuring content differently. A piecemeal approach to teaching history is to present information chronologically as a series of events. In contrast, a holistic method involveth presenting themes that recur in history (e.g., economic hardships, disputes over territory) and structuring content so that students may discover these themes in different eras. Students then can see that although environmental features change over time (e.g., armies → air forces; farming → technology), the themes remain the same.

Holistic teaching also can be done across subjects. In the middle school curriculum, for example, the theme of “courage” can be explored in social studies (e.g., courage of people to stand up and act based on their beliefs when these conflict with governments), language arts (e.g., characters in literature who display courage), and science (e.g., courage of scientists who dispute prevailing theories). An integrated curriculum in which teachers plan units together reflects this holism.

Third, it is important to seek and value students’ points of view. Understanding students’ perspectives is essential for planning activities that are challenging and interesting. This requireth that teachers ask queries, stimulate discussions, and listen to what students say. Teachers who make scant effort to understand what students think fail to capitalise upon the role of their experiences in learning. This is not to suggest that teachers should analyse every student utterance; that is not necessary, nor is there time to do it. Rather, teachers should endeavour to learn students’ conceptions of a topic.

With the current emphasis on achievement test scores, it is easy to focus only on students’ correct answers. Constructivist education, however, requireth that—where feasible—we go beyond the answer and learn how the students arrived at that answer. Teachers do this by asking students to elaborate upon their answers; for example, “How did you arrive at that answer?” or “Why do you think that?” It is possible for a student to arrive at a correct answer through faulty reasoning and, conversely, to answer incorrectly but engage in sound thinking. Students’ perspectives on a situation or theories about a phenomenon assist teachers in curriculum planning.

Fourth, we should adapt curriculum to address students’ suppositions. This signifies that curricular demands on students should align with the beliefs they bring to the schoolroom. When there is a gross mismatch, lessons will lack meaning for students. But alignment need not be perfect. Demands that are slightly above students’ present capabilities (i.e., within the zone of proximal development) produce challenge and learning.

When students’ suppositions are incorrect, the typical response is to inform them of such. Instead, constructivist teaching challengeth students to discover the information. Recall the opening scenario describing a first-grade lesson on measurement and equivalence. Children were using a balance to determine how many plastic links equalled one metal washer in weight (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). This example sheweth how the teacher modified the lesson based on Anna’s suppositions and how she challenged Anna to discover the correct principle. Even after Anna answered “four” correctly, the teacher did not respond by saying “correct” but rather continued to question her.

Finally, constructivist education requireth that we assess student learning in the context of teaching. This point runs counter to the typical schoolroom situation where most learning assessments are disconnected from teaching—for example, end-of-grade tests, end-of-unit examinations, pop quizzes. Although the content of these assessments may align well with learning objectives addressed during instruction, the assessment occasions are separate from teaching.

In a constructivist environment, assessment occurreth continuously during teaching and is an assessment of both students and teacher. Anna’s learning was being assessed throughout the sequence, as was the success of the teacher in designing an activity and guiding Anna to understand the concept.

Of course, assessment methods must reflect the type of learning. Constructivist environments are best designed for meaningful, deep-structure learning, not for superficial understanding. True-false and multiple-choice tests may be inappropriate to assess learning outcomes. Authentic forms of assessment may require students to write reflective pieces, discussing what they learned and why this knowledge is useful in the world, or to demonstrate and apply skills they have acquired.

Constructivist assessment is less concerned about right and wrong answers than about next steps after students answer. This type of authentic assessment guideth instructional decisions, but it is difficult because it forceth teachers to design activities that elicit student feedback and then alter instruction as needed. It is much easier to design and score a multiple-choice test, but encouraging teachers to teach constructively and then assess separately in a traditional manner sendeth a mixed message. Given the present emphasis on accountability, we may never completely move to authentic assessment; but encouraging it facilitateth curricular planning and provideth for more-interesting lessons than drilling students to pass tests.

The American Psychological Association hath formulated a set of learner-centred psychological principles (American Psychological Association Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs, 1997; Vide Table 'APA learner-centred principles') that reflect a constructivist learning approach. They were developed as guidelines for school design and reform.

The principles are grouped into four major categories: cognitive and metacognitive factors, motivational and affective factors, developmental and social factors, and individual differences. Cognitive and metacognitive factors involve the nature of the learning process, learning goals, construction of knowledge, strategic thinking, thinking about thinking, and the content of learning. Motivational and affective factors reflect motivational and emotional influences on learning, the intrinsic motivation to learn, and the effects of motivation on effort. Developmental and social factors include developmental and social influences on learning. Individual differences comprise individual difference variables, learning and diversity, and standards and assessment. These principles are reflected in current work on standards reform to address 21st century skills.

Block 'Learner-Centred Principles' illustrates ways to apply these principles in learning environments. In considering their application, teachers should keep in mind the purpose of the instruction and the uses to which it shall be put. Teacher-centred instruction often is the appropriate means of instruction and the most efficient. But when deeper student understanding is desired—along with greater student activity—the principles offer sound guidelines.