HOME Calendar of Events What is Constructivism? Summer Conference Captivating Classes With Constructivism Applying Standards-Based Constructivism Quote & Strategy ...of the Week Newsletter Archive Standards Based Lessons Online Courses JPACTe Parent Involvement Special Education Technology In Support of Student Centered Learning About Us Related Links Participant Quotes   "We were expecting to gain a few tidbits on teaching, but we left with strategies that have the potential to change the culture and attitude of our school forever." ...4 Teachers from Brooklyn College Academy, grades 9 - 10 "Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to share in this awesome learning experience." ...Math Teacher, Cape Coral, Florida "This conference was the best educational experience I've had since I left college. I've been to seminars, clinics, and all kinds of workshops, but this conference was more value than anything I've experienced. In the past week, I reflected more on my teaching practices than I've ever done since I began my career." ...Teacher of Middle School Science, St. Lawrence County, New York "I was awed by your effort to make each person at the conference feel valued." ...Middle School Teacher, ELA, State of Delaware "We had an amazing experience at the conference!" ...Social Studies Teachers, New York City, New York "I want to say how much I enjoyed the week. The level of learning just continues to rise every year!" ...Staff Developer, Milwaukee, Wisconsin "Our team became a cohesive group of educators that truly have the kids at heart. We are going to really try to get together on a regular basis to discuss and encourage each other with things learned at this conference." ...Elementary Teacher, St. Lawrence County, New York

Constructivist theory is about facilitating the learner to go beyond simple recall (memorization) toward understanding, application and competence. Constructivist theory indicates that understanding, application, and competence cannot be achieved without actively engaging the learner.

There can be lecture and assigned readings in a constructivist process, but they must be part of a larger picture that involves challenging the learner to apply the knowledge and to discover meanings and understandings that the learner will need to reconcile with prior knowledge and perceptions.

While there are certain teacher behaviors that are more frequently observed in a constructivist classroom, it is not true that the simple act of demonstrating a constructivist behavior makes a person a constructivist teacher. The fact that I may allow sufficient wait-time (suggested by Brooks and Brooks as a behavior associated with constructivist teaching), in and of itself, while positive, does not mean I am engaging students in a constructivist lesson.
 

 
Reality Check Question

Is defining "Constructivism" as simple as saying it is interactive, experiential learning, or is it more complex than that?

People tend to go to two extremes in trying to understand the term constructivism: (1) complex explanations; (2) over-simplification. The overly simplistic explanation is that "constructivism" requires interaction and lecture has no place in a "constructivist" classroom. This is not only simplistic; it is also incorrect.

On the other hand, as part of a more complex explanation, we get a picture of the threads that weave together to create a constructivist classroom. We rely on articulations by respected authors. We look at graphics that tell us in a constructivist classroom, seats are probably grouped in circles in contrast to the rows of chairs and desks in a traditional classroom, and we are told that a constructivist classroom is student-centered, not teacher- centered, and a constructivist classroom encourages student activity, not the passivity that results from listening to an endless string of lectures. While certain arrangements of chairs and desks, and the use of certain teaching strategies often characterize a "constructivist" classroom, it is not correct that, at any given point in time, a "constructivist" classroom cannot have chairs in neat rows, or have the teacher in front of the room speaking.

Characterizations of what to expect in a "constructivist" classroom may be helpful, but they fail to enable us to classify a particular classroom as "constructivist," or a particular teacher (or parent) as "constructivist."

As we have indicated Constructivism requires engagement. Without engagement there is no understanding. Without understanding there are severe limitations on the ability to apply knowledge competently. Will Rogers used to say, "All I know is what I read in the papers." So why was what he concluded from what he read so interesting to people who read the same papers? Was it how he applied the knowledge? What is it, then, that makes a lesson constructivist? What is it that entitles a teacher to lay claim to being a constructivist teacher? Perhaps the answer lies in an analysis of critical thinking skills (sometimes referred to as "Higher Level Thinking" Skills).

When you look at a lesson that is highly inter-active, and yet your gut tells you it is not constructivist, the reason is usually that it is not challenging students to do much more than recall factual information. For instance, the game of telephone is inter-active; each participant has to pass along a message from the previous person. But does this require much more than a good memory and an ability to hear? A constructivist lesson challenges students to address one of the higher level thinking skills between Comprehension and Evaluation (in other words, to go beyond simple "recall" of information):

• Recall
• Comprehension
• Application
• Analysis
• Synthesis
• Evaluation

If a lesson is constructivist, it challenges students to apply each of these components of the taxonomy.

If a lesson is constructivist, the teacher is probably employing some of the twelve constructivist behaviors, suggested by Brooks and Brooks*, as a means toward requiring students to utilize higher level thinking skills. However, it is not correct to label any strategy – whether it be interaction or a lengthy lecture – as either constructivist or not constructivist.

A lecture is a strategy; group work is a strategy; but constructivism is a theory, not a strategy (Brooks & Brooks, 1993*). It is a theory about learning and knowledge. Theories and strategies are like apples and barrels; they can be utilized together, when appropriate, but not every time that you have a barrel is it appropriate to fill it with apples.

Strategies that can be integrated into a constructivist classroom include reflection, portfolios, authentic tasks, lectures, performance assessments, assigned readings, and probing questions.

Whether a classroom is constructivist, or whether a teacher should be identified as a constructivist teacher depends on how strategies are used, when they are used and the purpose for which they are utilized. Therefore, it is not correct to say that anything interactive is constructivist, nor is it correct to say that any lecture or assigned readings are not constructivist.

If a teacher assigns students to read ten pages and respond to the questions at the end of the chapter, this is probably not a constructivist approach. However, that same assignment could be part of a constructivist process if the assignment to read a chapter and respond to the questions is part of a student-driven process of building knowledge to develop understanding for the purpose of application. In fact, the assignment to read a chapter and respond to questions will be even more profitable as a learning activity if it is part of a task the students perceive as authentic because this will motivate students to undertake the assignment and will create a context for understanding and applying the knowledge imparted in the chapter.

Is a constructivist lesson inter-active? An example of an inter-active lesson that is decidedly NOT CONSTRUCTIVIST would be as follows: students are read a short story, then are placed in small groups and asked to agree on the names of three characters from the story. Inter-active? Yes; Constructivist? No!

Wouldn’t "The Wizard of Oz" have been a different story if Dorothy had never left the farm? What if Glinda had visited Dorothy in Kansas and had explained why Dorothy should be grateful to be in Kansas and why she should be appreciative of all the people and surroundings that were available to her? Would Dorothy have listened for 46 minutes, nodded understandingly, and then said, "Thank you, good witch of the North, now I understand why I am so fortunate, everything I could ever want is right here in my own backyard?" Yeah, right. As Glinda says in response to a question from Scarecrow, "Dorothy had to learn it for herself."

Yet, how often do we expect students to listen to a few gems of wisdom from our lips and be able to apply the information we impart with the kind of understanding and competence that can only be gained through active engagement?

* "The Case for Constructivist Classrooms," Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks, ASCD, 0-87120-211-5