MCTP
Maryland Collaborative
for Teacher Preparation
NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DUE 9255745
ON CONSTRUCTIVISM
Susan Hanley
Graduate Assistant
Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation
The University of Maryland at College Park
2349 Computer and Space Sciences Building
College Park, MD 20746-2461
Phone: (301) 405-1255
(c) Copyright 1994, Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation
Certainly we are all aware of the bleak report card that our
nation's schools have received from various educational research
organizations. In comparison to school children from other
countries, American children lag far behind in achievements tests,
especially those in the math and science areas (Raizen and
Michelsohn, 1994). Unfortunately, the situation is even worse than
it appears. Studies show that even students who score well on
standardized tests often are unable to successfully integrate or
contrast memorized facts and formulae with real-life applications
outside the school room (Yager, 1991). L.B. Resnick (1987) has
commented that practical knowledge (common sense) and school
knowledge are becoming mutually exclusive; many students see little
connection between what they learn in the classroom with real life.
Additionally, the traditional teaching method of teacher as
sole information-giver to passive students appears outdated. In a
Berkeley (Angelo, 1991) study on undergraduates in a large lecture
hall setting, it was found that only 20 % of the students retained
what the instructor discussed after the lecture. They were too busy
taking notes to internalize the information. Also, after a lecture
has passed eight minutes, only 15 % of the students are paying
attention. Futhermore, Project 2061 (1990, p. xvii ) charges that
the "present curricula in science and mathematics are overstuffed and
undernourished. They emphasize the learning of answers more than the
exploration of questions, memory at the expense of critical thought,
bits and pieces of information instead of understanding in context,
recitation over argument, reading in lieu of doing. They fail to
encourage students to work together, to share ideas and information
freely with each other, or to use modern instruments to extend their
intellectual capabilities."
One proposed solution for this problem is to prepare students
to become good adaptive learners. That is, students should be able
to apply what they learn in school to the various and unpredictable
situations that they might encounter over the course of their
worklives. Obviously, the traditional teacher-as-information-giver,
textbook guided classroom has failed to bring about the desired
outcome of producing thinking students. A much-heralded alternative
is to change the focus of the classroom from teacher dominated to
student-centered using a constructivist approach.
Constructivism is not a new concept. It has its roots in
philosophy and has been applied to sociology and anthropology, as
well as cognitive psychology and education. Perhaps the first
constructivist philosopher, Giambatista Vico commented in a treatise
in 1710 that "one only knows something if one can explain it "
(Yager, 1991). Immanual Kant further elaborated this idea by
asserting that human beings are not passive recipients of
information. Learners actively take knowledge, connect it to
previously assimilated knowledge and make it theirs by constructing
their own interpretation (Cheek, 1992).
Focusing on a more educational description of constructivism,
meaning is intimately connected with experience. Students come into
a classroom with their own experiences and a cognitive structure
based on those experiences. These preconceived structures are either
valid, invalid or incomplete. The learner will reformulate his/her
existing structures only if new information or experiences are
connected to knowledge already in memory. Inferences, elaborations
and relationships between old perceptions and new ideas must be
personally drawn by the student in order for the new idea to become
an integrated, useful part of his/her memory. Memorized facts or
information that has not been connected with the learner's prior
experiences will be quickly forgotten. In short, the learner must
actively construct new information onto his/her existing mental
framework for meaningful learning to occur.
What are the underpinnings for a constructivist learning
setting and how do they differ from a classroom based on the
traditional model (sometimes referred to as the objectivist model)?
The current American classroom, whether grade school or college
level, tends to resemble a one-person show with a captive but often
comatose audience. Classes are usually driven by "teacher-talk" and
depend heavily on textbooks for the structure of the course. There
is the idea that there is a fixed world of knowledge that the student
must come to know. Information is divided into parts and built into
a whole concept. Teachers serve as pipelines and seek to transfer
their thoughts and meanings to the passive student. There is little
room for student-initiated questions, independent thought or
interaction between students. The goal of the learner is to
regurgitate the accepted explanation or methodology expostulated by
the teacher (Caprio, 1994).
In a constructivist setting, knowledge is not objective;
mathematics and science are viewed as systems with models that
describe how the world might be rather than how it is. These models
derive their validity not from their accuracy in describing the real
world, but from the accuracy of any predictions which might be based
on them (Postlewaite, 1993). The role of the teacher is to organize
information around conceptual clusters of problems, questions and
discrepant situations in order to engage the student's interest.
Teachers assist the students in developing new insights and
connecting them with their previous learning. Ideas are presented
holistically as broad concepts and then broken down into parts. The
activities are student centered and students are encouraged to ask
their own questions, carry out their own experiments, make their own
analogies and come to their own conclusions.
The next part of this paper focuses on guidelines for
becoming a constructivist teacher and methodologies for creating a
constructivist classroom. Becoming a constructivist teacher may
prove a difficult transformation since most instructors were prepared
for teaching in the traditional, objectivist manner. It "requires a
paradigm shift" and "requires the willing abandonment of familiar
perspectives and practices and the adoption of new ones" (Brooks and
Brooks, 1993, p. 25). The following represent a summary of some
suggested characteristics of a constructivist teacher (Brooks and
Brooks, 1993):
1. Become one of many resources that the student may learn
from, not the primary source of information.
2. Engage students in experiences that challenge previous
conceptions of their existing knowledge.
3. Allow student respones to drive lessons and seek
elaboration of students' initial responses. Allow student
some thinking time after posing questions.
4. Encourage the spirit of questioning by asking thoughtful,
open-ended questions. Encourage encourage thoughtful
discussion among students.
5. Use cognitive terminology such as "classify," "analyze",
and "create" when framing tasks.
6. Encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative. Be
willing to let go of classroom control.
7. Use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative,
interactive physical materials.
8. Don't separate knowing from the process of finding out.
9. Insist on clear expression from students. When students
can communicate their understanding, then they have
truly learned.
A teacher may structure a lesson in the following format
which was condensed from current constructivist literature and is not
intended to be a rigid set of rules. The first objective in a
constructivist lesson is to engage student interest on a topic that
has a broad concept. This may be accomplished by doing a
demonstration, presenting data or showing a short film. Ask
open-ended questions that probe the students preconceptions on the
topic. Next, present some information or data that does not fit with
their existing understanding. Let the students take the bull by the
horns. Have students break into small groups to formulate their own
hypotheses and experiments that will reconcile their previous
understanding with the discrepant information. The role of the
teacher during the small group interaction time is to circulate
around the classroom to be a resource or to ask probing questions
that aid the students in coming to an understanding of the principle
being studied. After sufficient time for experimentation, the small
groups share their ideas and conclusions with the rest of the class,
which will try to come to a consensus about what they learned.
Appendix I contains more ideas for employing a constructivist
teaching approach.
Assessment can be done traditionally using a standard paper
and pencil test, but there are other suggestions for evaluation.
Each small group can study/review together for an evaluation but one
person is chosen at random from a group to take the quiz for the
entire group. The idea is that peer interaction is paramount when
learners are constructing meaning for themselves, hence what one
individual in the group has learned should be the same as that
learned by another individual (Lord, 1994). The teacher could also
evaluate each small group as a unit to assess what they have learned.
Clearly, a lesson based on constructivism differs greatly
from the traditional "teacher-as-lecturer" class type. The
effectiveness of the constructivist method has been evaluated and a
few studies will be summarized. In one evaluation (Caprio, 1994),
the constructivist approach was employed and compared to the
traditional lecture-lab format for the second semester of a
two-semester anatomy and physiology sequence in a community college.
The two student groups were matched for academic ability and
prerequisites. Both courses were night classes and most of the
students were hoping to major in health-career programs. The
testing instrument was the first exam. The same exam was given to
both sets of students at midterm. A drawback to the study was that
the two groups were studied seven years apart. The results showed
that better exam grades were obtained by students taught by the
constructivist methodology. The average exam score for the
constructivist group was 69.7% (N = 44) while that taught by the
traditional lecture-lab method was 60.8 % (N = 40). A t-test showed
that the grade difference was significant (p > 0.99).
Caprio also offered many personal insights on his perception
of student learning. The students in the constructivist group seemed
more confident of their learning and he gave them more material for
independent learning. The investigator found that this was necessary
since constructive teaching methods are more time-consuming. This
was done only with secondary topics. The students in the
constructivist class seemed to like class better, had more energy
and took more responsibility for their learning.
Another (Carey, 1989) constructivist study probed the nature
of student views on scientific inquiry. Despite instruction in the
scientific method in the traditional mode, many students do not
understand the nature or purpose of scientific inquiry. Science is
seen as a random activity that has little meaning in real life.
Grade 7 students were rated by interviews on a scale of 1 to 3 about
their conception of how science is investigated before and after a
constructivist style learning unit on the topic. Prior to the unit,
most students fell in the Level 1 category. Level 1 students view
science as a way of understanding facts about the world. After the
learning unit, most of the students had moved to a Level 2
understanding; they saw scientific inquiry as being guided by
questions and ideas. The also understood the difference between an
idea and an experiment. Level 3 understanding was achieved only by a
few students. At this level, the student understands the cyclic,
cumulative nature of science and recognizes the goal of science as
the construction of deeper explanations of the universe.
In summary, contructivist teaching offers a bold departure
from traditional objectivist classroom strategies. The goal is for
the learner to play an active role in assimilating knowledge onto
his/her existing mental framework. The ability of students to apply
their school-learned knowledge to the real world is valued over
memorizing bits and pieces of knowledge that may seem unrelated to
them. The constructivist approach requires the teacher to
relinquish his/her role as sole information-dispenser and instead to
continually analyze his/her curriculum planning and instructional
methodologies. Perhaps the best quality for a constructivist
teacher to have is the "instantaneous and intuitive vision of the
pupil's mind as it gropes and fumble to grasp a new idea" (Brooks and
Brooks, 1993, p. 20). Clearly, the constructivist approach opens new
avenues for learning as well as challenges for the teacher trying to
implement it.
Appendix I
More ideas on implementing a constructivist format.
A. The following procedures for teachers are suggested by Yager
(1991):
1. Seek out and use student questions and ideas to guide
lessons and whole instructional units.
2. Accept and encourage student initiation of ideas.
3. Promote student leadership, collaboration, location of
information and taking actions as a result of the learning
process.
4. Use student thinking, experiences and interests to drive
lessons.
5. Encourage the use of alternative sources for information
both from written materials and experts.
6. Encourage students to suggest causes for event and
situations and encourage them to predict consequences.
7. Seek out student ideas before presenting teacher ideas or
before studying ideas from textbooks or other sources.
8. Encourage students to challenge each other's
conceptualizations and ideas.
9. Encourage adequate time for reflection and analysis;
respect and use all ideas that students generate.
10.Encourage self-analysis, collection of real evidence to
support ideas and reformulation of ideas in light of new
knowledge.
11.Use student identification of problems with local
interest and impact as organizers for the course.
12.Use local resources (human and material) as original
sources of information that can be used in problem
resolution.
13.Involve students in seeking information that can be
applied in solving real-life problems.
14.Extend learning beyond the class period, classroom and
the school.
15.Focus on the impact of science on each individual student.
16.Refrain from viewing science content as something that
merely exists for students to master on tests.
17.Emphasize career awareness--especially as related to
science and technology.
B. Also offered by Yager (1991) are these strategies for
implementing a constructivist lesson.
1. Starting the Observe surroundings for points to question.
lesson Ask questions.
Consider possible responses to questions.
Note unexpected phenomena.
Identify situations where student
perceptions vary.
2. Continuing Engage in focused play.
the lesson Brainstorm possible alternatives.
Look for information.
Experiment with materials.
Observe a specific phenomena .
Design a model.
Collect and organize data.
Employ problem-solving strategies.
Select appropriate resources.
Students discuss solutions with others.
Students design and conduct experiments.
Students evaluate and debate choices.
Students identify risks and consequences.
Define parameters of an investigation.
3. Proposing Communicate information and ideas.
explanations & Construct and explain a model.
solutions Construct a new explanation.
Review and critique solutions.
Utilize peer evaluation.
Assemble appropriate closure.
Integrate a solution with existing
knowledge and experiences
4. Taking action Make decisions
Apply knowledge and skills.
Transfer knowledge and skills.
Share information and ideas.
Ask new questions.
Develop products and promote ideas.
Use models and ideas to illicit
discussions and acceptance by others.
C. The following is a checklist that a teacher can utilize to
determine the degree of constructivist learning in their classroom
vs. a more traditional, objectivist approach (Yager, 1991, p. 56).
More Objectivist More Constructivist
Teacher DENTIFIES THE ISSUE/TOPIC Student
No ISSUE IS SEEN AS RELEVANT Yes
Teacher ASKS THE QUESTIONS Student
Teacher IDENTIFIES WRITTEN AND HUMAN RESOURCES Student
Teacher LOCATES WRITTEN RESOURCES Student
Teacher CONTACTS NEEDED HUMAN RESOURCES Student
Teacher PLANS INVESTIGATION AND ACTIVITIES Student
No VARIED EVALUATION TECHNIQUES USED Yes
No STUDENTS PRACTICE SELF-EVALUATION Yes
No CONCEPTS AND SKILLS APPLIED TO NEW SITUATIONS Yes
No STUDENTS TAKE ACTION(S) Yes
No SCIENCE CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES EMERGE Yes
BECAUSE THEY ARE NEEDED
No EXTENSIONS OF LEARNING OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL Yes
IN EVIDENCE
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061.
(1990). Science for All Americans New York: Oxford University
Press.
Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G. (1993). Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Caprio, M.W. (1994). Easing into constructivism, connecting
meaningful learning with student experience. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 23 (4), 210-212.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1981). 'An
experiment is when you try it and see if it works': a study of
grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of
scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education,
11, 514-529.
Cheek, D.W. (1992). Thinking Constructively About Science,
Technology and Society Education. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Lord, T.R. (1994). Using constructivism to enhance student
learning in college biology. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 23 (6), 346-348.
Postlethwaite, K. (1993). Differentiated Science Teaching.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Raizen, S.A. and Michelsohn, A.M. (1994). The Future of Science in
Elementary Schools. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational
Researcher, 16, 13-20.
Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real
reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58 (6) ,
52-57.