July 23, 2007

Notes: Constructivism

Constructivism is based on the premise that we all construct our own perspective of the world, through individual experiences and schema. Constructivism focuses on preparing the learner to problem solve in ambiguous situations.

(Schuman, 1996) after Mergel

Two common threads of constructivism:
Learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge
Instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge

Constructivism rarely leads to one unified approach, a myriad of views and interpretations take manifold approaches to practice. Von Glasserfeld, (1997) describes it as "a vast and woolly area in contemporary psychology, epistemology, and education" (p. 204).

Phillips (1997) says, “One thing is clear: ‘Constructivism’ is the label or name given to a broad position that has now attained the status of political correctness; it is a position widely espoused in the contemporary educational research literature, and as early as the beginning of this decade five hundred articles with constructivist ideas as a focus were found” (p. 152).

At least three variants of constructivism can be inferred from the current literature. Constructivism is viewed:
- as a perspective on individual development (often referred to as psychological constructivists [Phillips, 1995, 1997]; developmental constructivism and cognitive constructivism; Piaget, 1972),
- as a perspective on social transformation (often referred to as social constructivism;
Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986), and
- as a perspective on emancipation (referred to variously as sociological, socio-cultural, socio-historical, or emancipatory constructivism; Counts, 1932; O'Loughlin, 1992).

(2006) pg 8

"Emancipatory constructivism is based on Vygotsky's complete multilevel methodology: therefore, all four levels of development -- micro genesis, ontogenesis, phylogenesis, and cultural and historical development -- are analyzed together and in relation to each other" (Vadeboncoeur, 1977, p. 29). The approach values behaviours, qualities, and characteristics that reflect the culture and, at the same time, evaluates the impact of power and privilege on cognitive forms. This approach ventures further away than either of the others from biological determinism toward cultural determinism. Emancipatory constructivism values the role of reflection, critical thinking, and social discourse in exposing relationships of exploitation and oppression, both of the individual and of ways of thinking. Learners are encouraged to explore and understand their own situation and their own participation in maintaining or overturning power relationships. Emancipatory constructivism values inclusiveness of many voices in knowledge construction and devalues the transmission model of pedagogy (Vadeboncoeur, 1977). In this approach, formal knowledge is dissected and inspected. The approach views formal knowledge not as an educational end, but as an educational tool that is useful in guiding social discourse toward shared understanding (Richardson, 1997). Scepticism is a fundamental tenet, and learners are encouraged to question and explore. Of the three variants of constructivism described here, this one is most consistent with the existential, post-modern view, suggesting that there is no single objective Truth that can be discovered through reason. (See also Bereiter, 1994b; Cobb, 1994; Cobb & Yorkel, 1996; Confrey, 1995.)

(2006) pg 10


Duffy and Cunningham (1996: 171) view the dual premises of cognitive constructivism and socio-cultural constructivism as two contradictory views. Preferring then to focus on elements that allows for a cognitive approach to instructional design as their framework for problem-based learning displays:

Processes are applied to a problem (the problem being the stimulus for authentic activity)

Task analysis
Problem generation from syllabus content
The learning sequence of collaborative and self-directed learning
The definition of the facilitator’s role as challenger
The assessment grounded in the context of the problem
(after Laurillard 2003: 67)

No comments: