Constructivism - LDT EDCI 513

CONSTRUCTIVISM
LEARNING THEORY
Sandra Kay Lee, Paul Miehl, Kristen Hayden Safdie

What is Constructivism?
  Constructivism maintains that learning is an active, social process for
which the learner should take primary responsibility.
  “Constructivism sees learning as a process of constructing or making
something. Constructivism says that people learn by making sense of
the world- they make
meaning out of what they encounter.” Reiser, 2012)
  Constructivism also states that “where possible, reflection,
assessment, and feedback should be
embedded naturally within learning
activities.” (Reiser, 2012)

What is Constructivism?
  The teacher becomes more of a facilitator in
constructivism and the learner assumes responsibility
for learning through active learning. (Tausch, 2013)
If you tell me, I will listen.
If you show me, I will see.
But if you let me experience, I will learn.
— Lao-Tse 500 B.C

“For the things we have to learn before
we can do them, we learn by doing
them.”
— Aristotle
Constructivism’s Major Scholars
and Their Key Claims

“Dewey advocated the learning
process of experiential learning
through real life experience to
construct and conditionalize
knowledge, which is consistent with
the Constructivists.”
(Smith, 2012)
John Dewey
  John Dewey advocated a learning method in
which the student learned through doing.

The Vanderbilt Group
  The Cognitive & Technology Group at Vanderbilt,
led by John Bransford, “pioneered the concept of
“anchored instruction” by developing video disc
lessons presenting a problem requiring a
mathematical solution. (Reiser, 2012)

David Kolb and Roger Fry
  Kolb and Fry maintained that the “learning cycle can begin at any point,
and that it should really be approached as a continuous spiral. The
primary aspects of this learning model supports the constructivist model by
combining experiential learning through socialization, reflection, and testing
in new experiences.” (Smith, 2001)
The Kolb & Fry Model

Other Theories
  “Alan Collins and John Seely Brown developed the “cognitive
apprenticeship” model of instruction based on the master/
apprenticeship learning relationship.
  “Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamelia developed the
“intentional learning environments” model of collaborative
problem solving.”
  “John Dunlap and Scott Grabinger developed the REALs model
using a prescriptive model for design.”
  Howard Barrows developed the
“problem-based learning (PBL) model
to describe team-based inquiry and
problem-solving processes.”
(Reiser, 2012)

Applications of Constructivism in
Learning and Teaching with
Technologies

Impact of Constructivism
  Using a constructivist paradigm, learning emphasizes the process and not
the product. Technology is increasingly being touted as an optimal medium
for the application of constructivist principles to learning. Numerous online
environments and technology-based projects are showing that theory can
effectively guide educational practice. (Murphy, 1997)
  E-learning allows learners to be explorers and search out information,
making connections and constructing knowledge. E- learning enables
context-based, work-based learning with the learner at the center of the
learning experience; students need to take responsibility for the learning.
Online technologies easily allow students to record and reflect upon their
learning. (Patil, 2011).
  E-learning allows learners to acquire knowledge and pass it to others,
apply it to personal as well as social problems. With E-learning the
learners are empowered to acquire and disseminate the relevant
knowledge. Constructivism focuses on learner's control of learning processes
and it narrows the gap between the school world and
real-life society. (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002).

Applications of Constructivism
  Evidence suggests that constructivist teachers are more likely to use
technology in their classrooms in general and integrate technology into their
lessons more often than teachers who follow other philosophies of learning.
  There is a positive correlation between teachers who have student-centered
beliefs about instruction and how often they use technology as a way to
enhance student learning.
  This relationship between technology use and constructivist teaching
practices suggests that constructivist- minded teachers advocate technology
as a worthwhile learning tool in their student-centered classrooms (Judson,
2006).

  The task of the learner is seen as dynamic, and the computer makes
available new learning opportunities. Teachers’ training from a constructivist
perspective represents a basic strategy in reformation of curricular process
of psycho-pedagogic training programs, with results foreseen having a
greater professional impact than that of current practices. (Bunaiasu,
Stefan, Strunga, & Popescu, 2012).
  Technologies, primarily computers, help build knowledge bases, which will
“engage the learners more and result in more meaningful and transferable
knowledge … Learners function as
designers using the technology as
tools for analyzing the world,
accessing information, interpreting
and organizing their personal
knowledge, and representing
what they know to others”
(Nanjappa & Grant, 2003).
Applications of Constructivism

Challenges of Application
  Very often, e‐learning courses are set up following
constructivist design principles. Often, these principles
are difficult to implement because developers must be
able to predict how students perceive the tasks and
whether the tasks motivate the students.
  The main questions are how students learn in e‐learning
environments with “virtual” reality and authentic
problems and how they perceive them.
  Some studies indicate a gap between the two, for
students experience much less authenticity than
developers assume.
(Martens, Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2007).

Merrill’s First Principles Reflected
in Constructivism
The problem solving and application emphases
of constructivism will be demonstrated by
constructivist models on the following slides.

Problem-Centered
Corollaries:
 Show Task
 Task Level
 Problem

Progression
“Learning is promoted when learners
are engaged in solving real-world
problems.”

Problem-Centered
Corollaries:
 Show Task
 Task Level
 Problem

Progression
State objectives or show a worked
example to engage learners.
  Schank’s Goal-Based Scenarios exemplify this
corollary by sending learners on a “mission” to
achieve a pre-determined goal. According to
Schank and his colleagues, “because the tasks’
goal is interesting to the student, the student will
exert more effort in understanding the material
needed to accomplish that goal” (Schank,
1993/1994).

Problem-Centered
Corollaries:
 Show Task
 Task Level
 Problem

Progression
Show tasks in context rather than just
the operations or actions required.
  The Cognition and Technology Group at
Vanderbilt’s anchored instruction approach
engages students are a problem or task level,
ensuring that they are not simply “following the
motions” to complete an exercise. In the
Vanderbilt Group’s Jasper series, students helped
Jasper Woodbury solve problems, searching for
data and solving real-world problems (Hannafin,
1997).

Problem-Centered
Corollaries:
 Show Task
 Task Level
 Problem

Progression
Increase difficulty until the student
can solve a complex problem.
  Van Merriënboer’s Four Component Instructional
Design (4C/ID) model advocates progressing
students from simple to complex problems,
leading to a whole-task practice. By providing
information to students as needed to solve a
problem, the 4C/ID model focuses learning on the
problem rather than the information given (Reiser,
2012).

Application Phase
Corollaries:
 Practice

Consistency
 Diminishing

Coaching
 Varied

Problems
“Learning is promoted when learners
are required to use their new
knowledge or skill to solve
problems.”

Application Phase
Corollaries:
 Practice

Consistency
 Diminishing

Coaching
 Varied

Problems
Practice should be relevant to instructional
goals.
  Cognitive apprenticeship, a theory devised by
Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum, is
a theory based on constructivism that “works to
make thinking visible” (Collins, 1991). In his
overview of constructivism, Brent Wilson warns
that energy can be lost on inefficient activity.
Using cognitive apprenticeship, students are
placing their energy in observing and learning
the cognitive skills used to solve problems. The
directed nature of cognitive apprenticeship lowers
the risk of instruction becoming inefficient.

Application Phase
Withdraw support gradually until
students are completing tasks on
their own.
  In 1999, David Jonassen introduced his model for
designing constructivist learning environments
(CLE). These environments placed an emphasis on
scaffolding, or gradually removing instructor
assistance until a student is performance a task on
her own. According to Jonassen, “the most
important role of the coach is to monitor, analyze,
and regulate the learners’ development of
important skills” (Jonassen, 1999).
Corollaries:
 Practice

Consistency
 Diminishing

Coaching
 Varied

Problems

Application Phase
Provide opportunities for students to
solve varying problems.
  Gardner’s multiple intelligences provides a
theoretical foundation for the importance of
providing students multiple, varied problems to
solve. According to Gardner, “multiple
representations is one component of effective
teaching; the complementary component entails
the provision of many opportunities for
performance, which can reveal to the student and
to others the extent to which the material has
been mastered” (Gardner, 1999).
Corollaries:
 Practice

Consistency
 Diminishing

Coaching
 Varied

Problems

Why is Constructivism the Best
Framework?

Constructivism Enhances Knowledge
“Education has three basic purposes: remembering
knowledge, understanding knowledge, and
applying knowledge and skills in actual contexts.
These are the first three steps of lower-order skills in
Bloom’s taxonomy.”
— David N. Perkins, 1991

“Constructivism does not claim to have made earth-shaking
inventions in the area of education; it merely claims to
provide a solid conceptual basis for some of the things that,
until now, inspired teachers had to do without theoretical
foundation. From the Constructivist perspective, learning is
not a stimulus-response phenomenon.”
— Ernst von Glasersfeld, 1995
Constructivism is Practical

  Brent G. Wilson states that “because constructivism asserts that
learning results from active engagement and meaningful activity,
scientists have validated the effectiveness of constructivism as a
learning theory.” They contend that constructivism allows for results in
“higher order learning outcomes because it focus on problem solving
and critical thinking.” This makes the learner, a thinker who can begin
to synthesize the information to solve real-world problems.
  “Constructivism becomes more than an academic thing and draws on
the whole person and leads to more realistic representations of
expertise.”
  “Constructivist principles should lead to greater relevance to jobs
and the outside world because they are presented with more
complex problems and tasks during the instruction.” This allows the
learner to gradually increase their expertise (Reiser, 2012).
Constructivism is Holistic

  Constructivism incorporates common training
approaches to promote learning:
  Tell
  Show
  Do
  Review
  Constructivism motivating the learner through self-
reflection, while the teacher becomes a guide.
  Learning through self-discovery would seem to be most
effective, because learning occurs through experience.
The adage of “experience is the best teacher” applies!
Constructivism is Inclusive

  The impact of constructivism has extended into national
reform documents that are produced by professional
education groups such as the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics and the National Research
Council. (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002).
  Studies show that students of problem-based learning
are able to provide more accurate description of
problems and their solutions than students in traditional
learning environments (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).
Constructivism is Effective

References
Bunaiasu, C., Stefan, M., Strunga, A. & Popescu, M. (2013). Impact Study Regarding Constructivist Curriculum’s
Management of Teacher Training. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 78, 145-149.
Bynum, W. F. and Porter, R. (2005) Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. Oxford University Press. 21:9.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator:
The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers. 15(3), 6-11,38-46.
Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories
and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp 69-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K.M., Land, S.M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of
constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 45(3), 101-117.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology
Review. 16(3), 235-266.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

References
Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: language, discourse and
meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3).
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about
learning: is there a connection? Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, (14)3, 581-597.
Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential and limitations.
Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2007). New learning design in distance education: the impact on
student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1), 81-93.
Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism: from philosophy to practice. Technology Publications. Retrived from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444966.pdf
Nanjappa, A., & Grant, M. (2003). Constructing on constructivism: the role of technology. Electronic Journal for
the Integration of Technology in Education, 2(1). Retrieved from
http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.htm
Patil, N. (2011). Constructive e-learning – A highway towards global knowledge economy. In The Third Asian
Conference on Education: Learning and Teaching in a Globalised World (pp. 723-735). Osaka, Japan: The
International Academic Forum.

References
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31(5)
18-23.
Reiser, R.A. and Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education Publishing.
Ripple, R.E. and Rockcastle, V.N., (1964). Piaget Rediscovered: A Report on the Conference of Cognitive Studies
and Curriculum Development (pp. 7–20). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Schank, R.C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993-1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences (3)4, 305-345.
Smith, M. K. (2001). "David A. Kolb on experiential learning". The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved
2013-09-03.
Tausch, R., (2013). On becoming an effective teacher: person-centered teaching, psychology, phiolosophy and
dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. London: Routledge.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). (1995).
Constructivism in Education, (pp.3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Constructivism - LDT EDCI 513

In this document