“Constructivism is a theory
of learning, and it is also a theory of knowing. It is an epistemological concept that draws
from a variety of fields, including philosophy, psychology, and science”
(Walker & Lambert, 1995 p. 1). Constructivism
"has become de rigueur in educational circles and ... stems from a long and
respected tradition in cognitive psychology, especially the writings of Dewey,
Vygotsky, and Piaget" (Danielson, 1996, p. 23). Ernst von Glasersfeld's basic principles of
radical constructivism are the following:
1. Knowledge is not passively received either
through the senses or by way of communication, but it is actively built up by
the cognising subject.
2. The function of cognition is adaptive and
serves the subject's organization of the experiential world, not the discovery
of an objective ontological reality.
(von Glasersfeld, 1988, p. 83)
His principles are built on the ideas of Jean
Piaget, who applied the biological concept of adaptation to epistemology (von
Glasersfeld, 1996). Von Glasersfeld
(1993, p. 24) refers to his ideas as "postepistemological" because
his radical constructivism posits a different relationship between knowledge
and the external world than does traditional epistemology.
Theories about conceptual
change have been built on constructivist principles. Conceptual change can be subdivided into
differentiation in which new concepts emerge from more general concepts, class
extension in which existing concepts become cases of another subsuming concept,
and re-conceptualization in which nature of and relationship between concepts
changes significantly (Dykstra, Boyle and Monarch, 1992). After dissatisfaction with existing
conceptions, requirements for conceptual change are that the new conception be
intelligible, plausible, and fruitful (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog,
1982). The status of a conception is
increased as more of these three conditions are met (Hewson, 1996).
A constructivist view does
not lead to a simple, uncontested set of rules for pedagogical practice. General agreement is that students need
interaction with the physical world and with their peers to stimulate
meaning-making. The teacher elicits
students’ initial beliefs about the subject to be studied and about the nature
of learning. The teacher sets up
situations that will cause dissatisfaction with existing ideas. Realizing that students' expectations affect
their observations and that multiple approaches to problem solving are
acceptable, the teacher monitors students' understandings, requests from them
evidence and justification, provides constraints for their thinking, and gives
them opportunities to represent their knowledge in a variety of ways. The teacher's role also includes introducing,
when necessary, new ways of thinking about phenomena and working with
symbols. Then the teacher guides and
supports students as they make sense of these ideas and tools for themselves in
cooperation with their classmates (Driver, 1995; Driver, Asoko, Leach,
Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Duit, 1995; Fosnot, 1996; Lewin, 1995; Rubin,
1995; Tobin & Tippins, 1993; von Glasersfeld, 1995).
Constructivist approaches to
teaching and cooperative learning techniques can be thought of as having both
personal and interpersonal components.
Each person constructs his or her own mental frameworks and conceptions
using preferred learning styles.
However, this is seldom done in isolation. The cognitive developmental perspective
emphasizes that participants should engage in discussion in which cognitive
conflict is resolved and inadequate reasoning is modified. Language passing back and forth between
individuals in written and oral forms is viewed as indispensable for the
development of understanding (Belenky et al, 1986; Driver, 1995; von
Glasersfeld, 1995). The social
interdependence perspective has the assumption that the way social
interdependence is structured determines how individuals interact. This, in turn, determines what is
accomplished by the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Intrinsic motivation is generated by
interpersonal factors and joint aspirations.
At the same time that students become more aware of and take more
responsibility for their own thinking, they increase their understanding and
appreciation of other people’s thinking.
REFERENCES
Belenky,
M. F., Clinchy, B. M, Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986).
Women's ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Danielson,
C. (1996). Enhancing
professional practice: A framework for
teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Driver,
R. (1995). Constructivist approaches in science
teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale
(Eds.), Constructivism in education
(pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Driver,
R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994).
Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational
Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Duit,
R. (1995). The constructivist view: A Fashionable and
fruitful paradigm for science education research and practice. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.
271-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Dykstra,
D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A.
(1992). Studying conceptual
change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6), 615-652.
Fosnot,
C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of
learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and
practice (pp. 8-33). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Hewson,
P. W. (1996). Teaching for conceptual change. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J.
Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and
learning in science and mathematics (pp. 131-140). New York, NY: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
Johnson,
D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning
together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Lewin,
P. (1995). The social already inhabits the epistemic: A
discussion of Driver; Wood, Cobb, & Yackel; and von Glasersfeld. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp.
423-432). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 271-285.
Posner,
G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982).
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual
change. Science Education, 66(2),
211-227.
Rubin,
D. (1995). Constructivism, sexual harassment, and
presupposition: A (very) loose response
to Duit, Saxe, and Spivey. In L. P.
Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism
in education (pp. 355-366). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tobin,
K., & Tippins. D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and
learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science
education (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
von
Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3-7). New York, NY: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
von
Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical
constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.
von
Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical
constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science
education (pp. 23-38). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
von
Glasersfeld, E. (1988). The reluctance to change a way of
thinking. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 83-90
Walker,
D., & Lambert, L. (1995). Learning and leading theory: A century in the
making. In L Lambert, D. Walker, D. P.
Zimmerman, J. E. Cooper, M. D. Lambert, M. E. Gardner, & P. J. Ford Slack, The constructivist leader (pp.
1-27). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University.