Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

Constructivist Pedagogy Luke Findley Franciscan University of Steubenville

Constructivist Pedagogy In her educational critique, entitled Constructivist Pedagogy (2003), Virginia Richardson reviews the vast theories of the constructivist philosophy. She states that

there are many forms of educational constructivism and explains how the recent writings of Phillips (2000) represent constructivism as a construct and movement that is massively complex (Richardson 2003, p. 1624). Richardson describes two forms of constructivism, social constructivism and psychological constructivism, declaring, the two forms are beginning to come together with a focus on the social aspects of classrooms (Richardson 2003, p. 1624). She suggests that psychological constructivism has received greater attention due to its centralized focus on the individual student within a subject specific context. Richardson then outlines five characteristics of constructivist pedagogy for this representation; characteristics she sees as elements, not specific practices. In her opinion, these characteristics are imperatives, approaches to teaching toward which one initially aspires and which then become fundamental aspects of the teachers praxis (Richardson 2003, p. 1626). Richardson then makes a vital argument against teacher knowledge in the constructivist pedagogy. Here she emphasizes the essential necessity of depth within a teachers subject knowledge. She claims that a students responsibility to his or her learning process is no substitute for a lack of teacher expertise. Richardson (2003) indicates that most research in constructivist pedagogy has explored student learning. Constructivism is thus seen as a students ability to learn, as opposed to the traditional principle, that which recognizes a teachers ability to teach. Pointing to the inquiry approach used by Ball and Bass (2000), she advocates for additional research to examine student learning. Looking ahead, Richardson outlines

Constructivist Pedagogy

three critical areas for future research in constructivist pedagogy. First is the relationship between a teachers beliefs as they relate to the their student goals, and how these translate into a teachers classroom translation of the curriculum. Second is the area of actual constructivist teaching. Little research has been done in this extent and theory development is thus in subsequent decay. Finally, Richardson stresses the need for cultural critique of this pedagogy, which may, in her belief, take us beyond constructivist pedagogy (Richardson 2003, p. 1636). She suggests that future research pay close attention to ideological bias inherent in constructivism (Richardson 2003, p. 1635). Personally, I see many benefits to the constructivist method. In constructivist theory, it is assumed that learners have to construct their own knowledge, individually and collectively. Each learner has a unique collection of conceptions and skills with which he or she must construct knowledge to solve problems presented by the environment. The role of the teacher and other learners is to provide the setting, pose challenges, and offer the support that will encourage positive construction. Since students lack the experience of experts in the field, we as teachers hold a great responsibility for guiding student activity. We must model behavior and provide examples that will transform student discussions into meaningful communication about subject matter.

Constructivism rightly emphasizes the processes by which children create and develop their ideas. We must work to create curriculums that not only match but also challenge childrens understanding so to further develop academic success. Also, when children collaborate in cooperative groups, they share the process of constructing their ideas with

Constructivist Pedagogy

others. This collective construction provides the opportunity for children to further reflect and elaborate.

Constructivism, most basically, refers to the idea that all learners construct knowledge for themselves. As he or she learns, each learner constructs meaning both individually and socially. Constructing is learning, there is no other kind. The dramatic consequences of this view are twofold. First, we must focus on the learner in thinking about learning. The lesson or subject becomes irrelevant. Second, there is no knowledge independent of the meaning attributed to the experience constructed by the learner. Most educators have accepted the idea that learners need to be active, that in order to participate in learning we need to engage the learner in doing something, in hands-on involvement, in participatory exhibits and programs. But the more important point, I believe, is the idea that the actions that we develop for our students engage the mind as well as the hand. Not all experiences are educative. This does not mean that they necessarily have to be complex, but they do need to allow the students to think as they act. Physical involvement is a necessary condition for learning for children, and even desirable for adults in many situations, but it is not sufficient. All hands-on activities must also pass the test of being minds-on, they must provide something to think about as well as something to touch. Finally, as Resnick (1989) suggests, the general sense of constructivism is that it is a theory of learning or meaning making, that individuals create their own new understandings on the basis of an interaction between what they already know and believe (Richardson 2003, pp. 16231624).

Constructivist Pedagogy References

Richardson, Virginia (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105 (9), 1623-1640.