When is Constructivism Most Appropriate in Relation to Childhood Development?

Jesse W. Franzen

Presented to

Professor Trent Atkins

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

C & I 652 Issues in Curriculum and Instruction

School of Education

The University of Montana at Missoula

November 19, 2009

When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

Introduction

Constructivism is regarded by many schools of higher education as the philosophy for

teaching and learning. Granted the philosophy sounds wonderful and answers so many questions

in the education world about learning, teaching, curriculum, student motivation, social

interaction, and real-world application of knowledge, but how does it jive with developmental

models? Is constructivism the best philosophy for all ages, from birth to death? Can we teach in

the same structural manner at the collegiate level as we do first grade? The answer is complex to

say the least. Reviewing current cognitive brain research, developmental modeling, and best

teaching practices is no small task, and to combine it into one tight answer is a near

impossibility. Yet, Neuroconstructivism, a relatively new and emerging conceptual theory of

learning and development, states that learning occurs in a feed-back loop, where there must be

direct-instruction and time for students to create knowledge (so both the traditional/behavioral

and constructivist philosophies). With this, it will always be in context of their own life, and this

too is to be applied at all levels of learning.

Background

Constructivism is a theory of teaching and learning founded on anecdotal and scientific

data. In its basic form, the theory is that people create their own knowledge and view of the

world based on experience and reflection of those experiences. “When we encounter something

new, we have to reconcile it with our previous ideas and experience, maybe changing what we

believe, or maybe discarding the new information as irrelevant. In any case, we are active

creators of our own knowledge” (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004.). To stir this

process, we have to ask questions and try to find the answers, and then evaluate what we now

believe. Constructivism changes the traditional view of how students learn and how teachers

2
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

teach them. It modifies the roles from students being repositories of knowledge and the teacher

being the pitcher, to the teacher being the facilitator of knowledge in order to help student

“construct knowledge rather than to reproduce a series of facts,” (Educational Broadcasting

Corporation, 2004), which is another way of helping students discover the world for themselves

– instead of it being spoon-fed to them.

With this discovery of knowledge, Constructivism contends students will have a broader,

deeper, and more meaningful understanding of the world around them, and to boot, they'll

become life-long learners. Milbrant, Felts, Richards, & Abghari observe similar in their article,

“. . . [S]elf-determination or choice is a powerful motivational force in learning that

simultaneously enhances both achievement and attitudes about learning” (2004, p 19.). Yet,

teachers have a hard time releasing control, especially when the results are never guaranteed and

pressure of standardized tests pushes towards direct instruction of specific shared content

knowledge. Because “. . . [E]ducators typically have a great deal of control over the content they

choose to teach in order to meet district or state curriculum mandates, [but] they have much less

control over what students actually learn (Brooks & Grennon Brooks, 1999)” (Milbrant, Felts,

Richards, & Abghari, 2004, p 20.). If Constructivism were proven to be the best model of

learning, then shouldn't good teaching then be based around it? If so, would it not then follow,

that testing scores should increase? So the question remains, is Constructivism the best way for

students to learn.

Constructivism didn't sprout from dry earth, it was cultivated by philosophers, educators,

behaviorists, and scientists over a great period of time. Looking back, Constructivism “has roots

in classical antiquity, going back to Socrates's dialogues with his followers, in which he asked

directed questions that led his students to realize for themselves the weaknesses in their thinking”

3
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

(Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). Even now, we use the Socratic method of

teaching, learning, and planning new learning experiences. Flash-forward to this past century,

we find the Progressive Movement, founded by Piaget and Dewey, where they create the detailed

theories of childhood development in relation to education. Specifically, “Piaget believed that

humans learn through the construction of one logical structure after another” (Educational

Broadcasting Corporation, 2004), Dewey called for education to be based in experience, the real-

world. A short time later, “Vygotsky introduced the social aspect of learning into

constructivism. . . . / [, while] Bruner initiated curriculum change based on the notion that

learning is an active, social process. . .” (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). Stir

together, boil for a generation, and wha-la, we now have the basics of Constructivism. Still

though, this definition is just one in a range of ithought, in which there is no specific best-

practices in teaching based on Constructivism in relation to developmental age.

Analysis

In recent years there has been explosion in cognitive research, due to fMRI's and

computational brain mapping. Currently, by far it is the fastest growing science right now, the

Program for Imagining and Cognitive Sciences calls it the “new frontier” of science (2009). The

newest information is coming out faster than society can absorb it, so the current research doesn't

reflect what is being utilized, mostly because of the time for learning and implementation and

there has yet to be a plateau to look back upon. Yet, what is being learned about human

cognition, should be driving how people are taught in the classroom. Teachers should work with

the brain, not against it. Constructivism is based on anecdotal observations along with the

current science of the 1970's, and has been upheld since then. Yet, there has been little reflection

between current science and pedagogy. From the current research on brain mapping and other

4
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

scientific cognitive strategies, Neurocontructivism is being touted as the latest, over-arching

theory of learning.

Cognitive research.

In the area of cognition, there has been some significant development in the

Connectionist view. The new ideas center around the two-way street of neural pathways, the

brain says what to do, but also, the body tells the brain what to do. This bidirectional neural

structure, facilitates “certain types of learning, and learning shapes structures of the developing

brain” (Westermann, Sirois, Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006, pp 226). Also under partial fire is

Piaget's schemes of the active mind, where it states that the pragmatic mind forces both the

model of the mind and too, the body interacting with its environment, instead of simply and

passively perceiving it through its senses (Bickhard, 2004, p 95). The Connectionist view seems

to level it out in a certain sense, and has been proven successful in computational models in such

areas as the “acquisition of English personal pronouns” (Quartz & Sejnowski, 1997). The

Connectionists view “the developmental trend is a gradual journey from complete ignorance to

mastery of the task,” which is a relatively easy to model with a computer (Quinlan, van der

Maas, Jansen, Booij, & Rendell, 2006, p 453). Yet, admittedly in the same article they state,

“On the other hand there is the rule-based view” (Quinlan, van der Maas, Jansen, Booij, &

Rendell, 2006, p 453). This contradiction of ideas is the hallmark of the debate on how the mind

works. Is it the environment or structure that best models the brain's development. The

contradiction, of course, will lead us directly in the middle of these views.

At the same time, there are the Constructivists, whom are very successful at modeling the

developmental stages because they explain the structure piece of the puzzle as being“inserted

gradually and in response to a model’s experience with the learning task” (Westermann, Sirois,

5
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006, pp 229). This models begins with minimal structure, which focuses

attention on the general understanding, which then allows the person to work on the specifics

within the task (Westermann, Sirois, Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006, pp 229). As the person grows,

so too does the architecture of the brain, and in contrast, the body may develop the structure

without the person knowing, which was found in cognitive modeling testing (Westermann,

Sirois, Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006, pp 229). Yet, still unstated is at what age these new

structures become available and what are they dependent on – the trigger per se? Could it be

physical development, environment, or early mental stimulation? Even though the model works,

there lies little hard cognitive evidence to back it up. From the current evidence, we do know that

“[s]tructural change in the brain is not arbitrary or uniform but depends on interacting genetic

and environmental factors” (Westermann, Sirois, Shultz, & Mareschal, 2006, p 230). With this

simple bit of knowledge, there have been other scientists working on a new model, a model that

combines the Connetivists, Developmentalists, and essentially modifying Constructivist model,

and thus creating Neuroconstructivism.

Neuroconstructivism.

Neuroconstructivism is a new model that bridges the gap between Connetivit theories

where there is an innate hard-wired structure of the mind and the Developmentalists who believe

in the stages of life, where ability appears after enough environmental stimulus.

Neuroconstructivists “argue against innate modularity of the mind. Instead, emphasis is put on

innate domain relevant biases. These bias are understood as aiding learning and directing

attention. Module-like structure are therefore the product of both experience and these innate

biases” ("Neuroconstructivism," 2009), and thus, bridging the gap between theories.

6
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

“Neuroconstructivism emphasizes the interrelation between brain development and

cognitive development” (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Johnson, & Mareschal, 2008,

pp 322-323.) Constructivists view learning as a progressive increase in the complexity of how

we view the world, with that view based on the experiences we had in the past, which were much

more simple. “This increase in representational complexity is realized in the brain by a

progressive elaboration of cortical structures” (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Johnson,

& Mareschal, 2008, pp 322-323.). Effectively how Neuroconstructivism is different, is because

they focus on the relationship between how we elaborate on our prior knowledge and the natural

development of new cognitive abilities. The assertion is that acquired complex knowledge

“arise[s] as a natural consequence of the processes of adaptation typical of complex biological

systems like the brain” (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Johnson, & Mareschal, 2008, pp

322-323.), which implies that the we create new cognitive abilities, not just using what we

already have in a more efficient manner (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Johnson, &

Mareschal, 2008, pp 322-323.).

As the brain develops, and there can be multiple correct interpretation of how and why

the brain and body are interacting at each individual stage, there is no theory of connection

betweeen the stages. Neuroconstructivism changes that, because they believe those previously

viewed levels of independence, are in fact dependant upon other functions of the body and brain.

So, instead of being focused on consistency within independent stages, Neuroconstructivism

focuses on parsimony. “If a phenomenon can be explained at different levels using a unitary

framework, then this is preferable to an alternative where different and inconsistent

interpretations are used at each level” (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Johnson, &

Mareschal, 2008, p 323.). Therefore, in order to make Neuroconstructivism work as an over-

7
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

arching theory, the brain must be viewed as “embedded in its environment, and not divorced

from it” (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas, Westermann, Johnson, & Mareschal, 2008, p 324.). The

central tenant here is that everything brain related is context driven. A brain develops with its

environment, and there is no case where it can be study outside of it, so all learning is relative.

The learning is built upon what is already known, but also within a framework of what the body

allows as it grows, and thus, truly creating individuals.

To learn, you need both Behavioral and Constructivist models, for example, in

Neuroconstructivism, you need both feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms, meaning the brain

telling what needs to be done and the environment telling the brain what must be done, because

without both, there is no loop and the system fails. For example in infants, “[t]he central role of

auditory perception for babbling has been emphasized by research on deaf infants (Oller & Eilers

1988), who babble later than hearing infants and produce different sounds. These effects are long

lasting and can negatively effect later speech (Wallace et al. 1998)” (Sirois, Spratling, Thomas,

Westermann, Johnson, & Mareschal, 2008, p 327.). This is one example among many shows the

importance of the brain function within the environment, where their must be a struck balance.

If one tells the other too much, the other will push back to find the middle until all is properly

functioning.

Pedagogy.

Even after discovering this new and blended theory of learning, Neuroconstructivism,

good teaching is much the same as it was under the umbrella of Constructivism. As most

teaching institutions instruct in the Constructivist manner, which is a break from the

Traditionalist theory, new teachers need to understand that:

8
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

“[a] social constructivist approach to teaching and learning entails the use of

language as a social and cultural tool to promote and build on learners’ cognitive

development. Use of language provides ways of assigning meaning to what

individuals encounter visually, and through the use of language, they either

broaden or enhance the interpretations of what is seen (Weade and Ernst 2001).”

(Akar & Yildirim, 2009, p 401)

Armed with the correct way of speaking in the classroom, and teaching in a manner that is

problem based on constructed solutions, teachers will be more effective at helping students learn.

Yet, the learning will not be wholly evident, because of the spiral of knowledge. What they

learned in the past will instruct how they construct new information in the now, which in turn

will apply in the future. As the students grow, so too does their mind and their ability to

understand more complex issues, which isn't to say that a young student cannot understand a

complex issue, nor should be sheltered from it. Her particular interpretation of complex

information will simply be complex and understood at her particular level of understanding,

which will in turn help her make more complex information and thoughts in the future.

The basic tenants of Constructivism in regards to teaching still hold true for the learners.

In a problem solving approach, there are three principal epistemological processes to be aware of

to optimize learning for the students. The first is modeling, which is where the teacher

demonstrates to the pupil “how and why certain activities need to be performed for the

completion of a task and its objectives” (Kumar, 2006). Of course, depending on one's

curriculum, this can be accomplished in a variety of manners. The second approach is that of

coaching, where the teacher assigns work based upon the modeled task and then she helps at

times when students need “encouragement, diagnosis, directions, and feedback” (Kumar, 2006).

9
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

Lastly, the educator must scaffold the the task to the learner and know when to readjust the task

to match the students' level of performance. This role of teacher/educator is what has become

known as the facilitator, because she must fill all these roles at once and systematically prepare

what the students will learn next based upon what they now know (Kumar, 2006).

Besides the three epistemological processes it is important to note that when teaching in a

Constructivist fashion, instruction needs to be linked to students' prior experience. If one makes

this connection, one is more likely to create positive student affect. Instructions for such tasks

“must be structured to take into account the cognitive demands of different disciplinary fields

and the structural nature of declarative and procedural knowledge representations” (Kumar,

2006). This means then that in a Neuroconstructivist classroom, there isn't just project-based

learning, nor free-reign research, it can and does contain those polar ways of instruction, but too,

it must include some direct instruction, the modeling aspect must not be overlooked. Students

have prior knowledge, but they too need new knowledge, researched play can constitute some of

that new learning, but by far and away the most focused and intense new knowledge, in a limited

time-frame, comes from direct-instruction.

Conclusion

Teaching in the Constructivist manner, under the new Neuroconstructivist learning

theory, still hails true as the best model for teaching and further puts in the nail in the coffin of

the aging Traditionalist model. Surprisingly, current research pushes the Constructivist model on

all ages of learners. Both college students and infants can learn best in this model of instruction,

granted a Constructivist teaching model for college and infants will look much different. For the

infant, their will be more modeling, more direct instruction, because the young child has little

background knowledge. Once some knowledge is established, more information is fed into the

10
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

system and processed by the child, and so on until less and less direction instruction is needed,

and therefore more and more experiential-based learning is needed create a depth and breadth of

knowledge. Still, and as it should be, questions remain: What does it look like at each grade

level, should there then be grade levels, what should a Neuroconstructivist school system look

like, how can you measure acquisition of knowledge, and what specifically is necessary for

students to be directly taught in school and what should be left for them to discover on their

own? Even without this new understanding of learning, these are old questions in the education

world, questions mostly answered by Constructivists theories, but still are not to be wholly

answered in the near future. Yet, with new cognitive research about how people learn, we as

educators are making progress toward easier and more fulfilling learning for our students.

11
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

Bibliography

Akar, H. & Yildirim, A. (2009). Change in teacher candidates' metaphorical images about

classroom management in a social constructivist learning environment. Teaching in

Higher Education, 14:4, 401- 415

Carson, J. (2009). from Objectivism and education: A response to David Elkind's 'the problem

with constructivism'. In J. W. Noll, Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues.

Boston: McGraw Hilll Higher Education.

Columbia University Medical Center Program for Imaging and Cognitive Sciences. (2009).

About our Center. Retrieved from http://www.fmri.org/lab.htm

Bickhard, M.H. (2004). A Challenge to constructivism: internal and external sources of

constructive constraint. Human Development, 47, 94-99.

Demetriow, A. (2000). From neural constructivism to cognitive constructivism: The steps to be

taken. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5).

Elkind, D. (2009). from The problem with constructivism. In J. W. Noll, Taking sides: Clashing

views on educational issues. Boston: McGraw Hilll Higher Education.

Educational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and

learning. Retrieved from

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html

Karmiloff-Smith, A . (2009). Nativism versus neuroconstructivism: rethinking the study of

developmental disorders. Developmental Psychology 45(1).

Kumar, M. (2006). Constructivist epistemology in action. Journal of Educational Thought,

40(3), 247-261.

12
When is Constructivism Most Appropriate

Lockman, J.J. (2001). An embodied theory of cognitive development: Within reach?.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1).

Milbrant, M.K., Felts, J., Richards, B., & Abghari, N. (2004). Teaching-to-learn: a constructivist

approach to shared responsibility. Art Education, 57(5), 19-33.

(2009). Neuroconstructivism. Wikipedia. Retrieved (2009, November 17) from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroconstructivism

Quartz, S.R. & Sejnowski, T.J. (1997). The nural basis of cognitive development: A

constructivist manifesto. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20: 537-556 Cambridge

University Press. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/

Quinlan, P.T., van der Maas, H.L.J., Jansen, B.R.J., Booij, O., & Rendell, M. (2006). Re-thinking

stages of cognitive development: an appraisal of connectionist models of the balance

scale task. Cognition, 103, 413-459.

Shulman, L.S. & Sherin, M.G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners:

disciplinaryperspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies,36:2,135-140.

Sirois, S., Spratling, M., Thomas, M.S.C., Westermann, G., Johnson, M.H., & Mareschal, D.

(2008). Pre´cis of neuroconstructivism: how the brain constructs cognition. Behavioral

and Brain Sciences, 31, 321-356.

Westermann, G., Sirois, S., Shultz, T.R., & Mareschal, D. (2006). Modeling developmental

cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(5), 226-233.

13