Institute For Christian Teaching
Department
of Education
General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Austin
C. Archer
Department
of Education and Psychology
Walla
Walla College
College
Place, Washington, USA
351-98
Institute for Christian Teaching
12501
Old Columbia Pike
Silver
Spring, MD 20904 USA
Prepared
for the
23rd International Faith and
Learning Seminar
University
of Eastern Africa, Baraton, Kenya
November,
1998
About six years ago, I made my first foray into the Internet. The World Wide Web was hardly what it is today. In fact, it barely existed among a small number of academics at research universities. The popular tools on the Internet at that time were Gopher, Usenet (or newsgroups) and Listserve (email lists). I joined a Listserve group sponsored by my professional association, and entered a discussion which had apparently just begun on something called "situated cognition". I must admit that although I had left graduate school only four years earlier, and had finally completed my degree in instructional psychology only recently, I was not acquainted with the term. So I was curious about this new idea. I was not entirely prepared for what followed.
I was stunned by the vigor
of the discussion, and the strong feelings engendered by the network traffic on
this issue. Within a few days, there
were over 100 responses in my mailbox on this topic, which had by now expanded
to related terms such as situated learning and Constructivism – another term
that I was only slightly more aware of.
It was apparent to me that this subject generated much heat. I wanted to know whether there was any light
as well. And so began my investigation
into Constructivism.
A few months after my
initial introduction to Constructivism, I was privileged to attend a NATO
Advanced Studies Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland. The subject was to be the use of technology in learning and
instruction. It soon became evident to
the participants that we were at a revival meeting and Constructivism was the
gospel. There was little effort to
justify that view of the world. It was
assumed that it was the only one that made sense. It was then that I realized how a worldview could shape
instruction without any critical analysis of the worldview itself.
I was forced to ask: What is
the empirical basis of Constructivism?
What is its philosophical foundation? How does it relate to a Christian
worldview? How can Christian teachers
and learning researchers relate to this movement?
This essay will explore the issue of Constructivism both in terms of its theoretical underpinnings and its pedagogical applications. I will begin with a discussion of the philosophical foundations of Constructivism as a framework for teaching and learning. I will then discuss the empirical support for a constructivist framework and its application to learning and teaching. Finally I will discuss a Christian response.
What is Constructivism?
One of the difficulties in
defining Constructivism is that the term embraces a variety of loosely
associated ideas. The term has been
used to describe a constellation of approaches and applications in teaching and
learning. In his very useful review of
the subject, O'Connor (1998) has identified three streams of thought that can
be identified as Constructivist. Let me
first summarize these three positions.
Social
Constructivism
Social Constructivism is
derived from the recent work of sociologists of knowledge seeking to understand
how knowledge is created in a society.
The position of this group is, firstly, that knowledge is the result not
merely of an individual or individuals acting separately, but of individuals
acting within a group. Secondly, this
knowledge does not exist independently, nor does it in any sense pre-exist
knowers. Rather, the collective itself
constructs knowledge. Proponents of
this view suggest that even scientific facts may not be exempt from this
process of construction. Facts are
socially constructed in that the discovery and presentation of these facts are
dependent on agreements among people on how to construe knowledge and how to
report it.
Therefore, though reality
itself may have independent existence, its presentation as "knowledge"
depends on an agreed upon story of how these facts are connected and construed.
This view allows that reality exists outside of our constructions, but insists
that we are, to use O'Connor's term, "epistemologically challenged". Objectivity, then, is no more than shared
agreement among persons regarding allowable constructions.
Individual
Constructivism
A second stream of thought
in the constructivist movement was based primarily on the influence of Jean
Piaget, and is more individual in its orientation. Yet it transcends Piaget.
Piaget presents the learner
as an active participant in the learning process, building (constructing, if
you will) knowledge incrementally by the processes of assimilation and
accommodation, mediated by the drive to equilibrate or to find a balance
between the environmental stimuli on the one hand and emerging mental
structures on the other. This is a
dynamic process in which knowledge is constantly being constructed and
reconstructed as the learners' mental representations more and more closely
depict the real world.
A basic implication of this
view is that knowledge cannot be "given", that learners are
constantly acting on data they receive, assimilating from and accommodating to
their environment, creating new knowledge structures or "schemes",
and building on preexisting schemes.
These schemes are unique, built on the learners' idiosyncratic
experiences, and bringing to bear the learners' expectations and
misconceptions. These misconceptions
are often not corrected, but are rather infused into more elaborate schemes,
and so on.
Proponents of this view have
gone beyond Piaget. More radical
constructivists of this variety would reject the view that knowledge represents
some independent reality. Whether or
not an absolute independent reality exists, we are unable directly to know
it. Further, because each learner's
knowledge structure is unique, there is doubt as to how and whether we can
truly communicate. In short, what the
teacher thinks is being communicated may not be identical to what is received
(constructed) by the learner, especially if the world of the teacher and that
of the learner do not overlap significantly.
Socio-cultural Constructivism
Lev Vygotsky, the Soviet
psychologist of the 1930s was not recognized in the West until decades after
his death. His writings have recently
become very influential among educators, and the third stream of
Constructivism, though often going beyond his ideas, is primarily indebted to
his influence. In this view, knowledge
is embedded not in the individual (as in the Piagetian view) or in the
collective (the social constructivist view) but in the interaction between the
individual and the collective.
There is, as Confrey (1995)
suggests, an individual element to Vygotsky's approach. He sees the child's cultural development as
both inter-psychological (between teacher and learner) and intra-psychological
(within the learner him/herself). Yet
Vygotsky seems to do more than merely describe how individual learning is aided
by social interaction. O'Connor (1998)
suggests a more radical stance in which Vygotsky proposes that higher cognitive
functions such as logic, scientific reasoning, argument and memory become
primarily collective "inter-mental" activities, and only secondarily
or derivatively can they be viewed as being possessed by the individual (p.
39).
Later work in this tradition
places learning outside the individual's head and in the participatory activity
itself. It is in this sense that
learning is said to be "situated" in the activity where the learning
is taking place (Lave, 1991). Proponents of situated cognition and its related
concepts are dependent on the views of theorists such as Leont'ev, who, with
Vygotsky saw learning as embedded in culture, as well as Dewey's (1916) views
of learning as a form of action, and the ideas, which emerged from the Woods
Hole Conference (Bruner, 1971). More
recent work (e.g., Lave, 1991; Greeno, 1989; the Cognition and Technology Group
at Vanderbilt, 1990) has also been influential.
Another aspect of this
approach to learning is encapsulated in what Vygotsky calls the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD). This is
defined as:
The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Here again, interpretations
may vary from being based on individual learning to more radical positions
where the potential development, when achieved, is no longer in the individual
but in the context of the collaborative situation (Brown, Collins & Duguid,
1989).
Assumptions of
Constructivism
Constructivist approaches to learning, whether they are of the Social, Individual, or Socio-cultural variety, seem to share a few basic assumptions relevant to learning. These are best shown by placing them in contrast to a more traditional "objectivist" epistemology as Duffy and Jonassen (1992) do. Following them, we could summarize the objectivist assumptions in the following points:
a.
The world is completely
and correctly structured in terms of entities, attributes and relations.
b.
Experience plays little
or no part in this structuring.
c.
The goal of
understanding is to come to know the entities, attributes and relations by
which the world is structured.
d.
The goal of instruction
is to help the learner attain a correct understanding of this structure.
e.
Knowledge is independent
of instruction and can be assessed independently.
By
contrast, the constructivist assumes that:
a.
The world is real, but
b.
Structure is not a part
of this reality. Rather, meaning is
imposed on the world by our experience.
c.
There are many ways to
structure the world, thus many meanings or perspectives may be generated on the
same data.
d.
None of the meanings are
inherently correct.
e.
Meaning is rooted in
experience.
This view of learning has
aptly been summarized as follows: "Learning is a constructive process in
which the learner is building an internal representation of knowledge, a
personal interpretation of experience" (Bednar, et al., 1992, pp. 21, 22).
Implications
for Teaching
The principles of
Constructivism have been applied in the classroom in a number of ways. In some instances, methods that are already
in use have been embraced and included into the constructivist framework. These include student-centered approaches
such as discovery and project methods, which place more value on the student's
unique experiences. Other approaches
focus on social interaction implied by the ZPD. Reciprocal teaching and various cooperative-learning techniques
fall into this category.
A number of innovative
approaches have been developed as applications of situated cognition. It should be recalled that situated
cognition describes the view that thinking and learning are inseparable from
the context (or situation) of the activity in which the learning is taking
place. Thus the best and most usable forms of knowledge are gained in the
context of their intended use.
This puts in question the
kinds of learning traditionally carried out in schools, since the culture of
the school is dissimilar from that of ordinary life. It seeks to explain the common inability of students to transfer
knowledge learned in school to situations outside the school culture. This knowledge, it is argued, remains inert
(Whitehead, 1929). Although it may be
recalled when explicitly required (in an examination, for example), it is not
spontaneously used in problem solving situations in the real world when such
use would be appropriate.
One approach to learning
based on this argument is cognitive
apprenticeship. In this approach,
deliberate use is made of the social and physical context in which the
knowledge is to be used. Anchored instruction is another
practical derivative of situated cognition.
This method makes use of videodisc technology in order to provide the
problem solving environments in which instruction is situated.
Any application of situated
cognition requires that the learning situation be authentic. Two levels of
authenticity can be identified. First,
the objects and data used in learning should be the same as those used in the
real world. Thus, if students are
learning about the weather, real data from a weather station must be
utilized. Second, authenticity refers
to the tasks themselves, that is, the students must be engaged in tasks similar
to the real world. The conversation in the class cannot be contrived, but must
closely reflect the real problem-solving situation. The sorts of decisions to be made and the problems to be solved
must mirror the real world.
All of the teaching
approaches labeled as "Constructivist" or "situated", have
in common the assumptions described above.
In addition, Brooks and Brooks (1993) outline five principles, which
guide Constructivist teaching. They
suggest, firstly, that Constructivist teachers pose problems of emerging
relevance to students. Though they are
not arguing that all problems posed by the teacher be seen by students as relevant
from the outset, they argue that relevance can emerge in a process of mediation
with the student.
A second principle of
Constructivist pedagogy is one that values holism in the questions posed and
ideas presented. A common approach is
for small discrete facts to be presented to the students who then must make
sense of these facts, and build them into a whole, integrated concept. The preferable approach, they argue, is for
concepts to be presented as wholes, which the students, on their initiative can
then break up into parts that they can see and understand. This reference to student initiative
anticipates the third and fourth principles, which place emphasis on seeking
and valuing the point of view of the student, and adapting the curriculum to address
student suppositions. Both of these
principles highlight the assumption that meaning is rooted in the unique
experience of individual, whether teacher or student.
The final principle proposes
that learning is best assessed in the context of teaching. This principle discourages the attitude that
answers be labeled as "right" or "wrong". Doing so, it is argued, ruins creativity,
and short-circuits the process by which the teacher can foster the construction
of new knowledge on the part of the student.
To many, these principles of
pedagogy seem intuitively to conform to good teaching practice. To others, they may appear to encapsulate
precisely the relativism and lack of rigor that seem to be what is wrong with education
in our current culture. How can this
conflict be adjudicated? The rational
approach would be to seek evidence to support the principles proposed or
justify the assumptions made. It is
reasonable to ask whether evidence exists to support the Constructivist
approach.
Methodological
Issues
One of the difficulties of
answering the question regarding evidence is that criteria of support are not
universal. Rather, the criteria are
embedded within the worldview of the particular theory. In order fairly to evaluate a theory, the
evaluator and the theory to be evaluated must have common benchmarks.
Yet, as was demonstrated
above, the epistemological assumptions of Constructivism are in conflict with
those of Objectivism – the traditional framework of the scientific method. Constructivist views, by contrast are more
consonant with a post-modern world-view.
Such a world-view has its own approach to evidence – a naturalistic
research methodology such as that proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1995). This approach is qualitative rather than
quantitative, interpretivist rather than objective, open to multiple
perspectives rather than a single reality, seeking a truth rather than the
truth. Thus we have the case of each
camp making up the rules by which their perspective is to be judged. This makes it difficult for the two camps
even to communicate in the same research language.
Empirical
evidence
If we leave aside this
methodological problem, we can still ask whether by Objectivist criteria we can
find empirical evidence to support a Constructivist learning theory.
A fundamental claim of
Constructivists, on which the whole structure of Constructivism is built, is
the assertion that the learner, not transmitted to him or her, constructs
knowledge. Several lines of research
have lent support to this claim. I will
mention only two here.
Elizabeth Loftus and others
have examined the nature of memory as it is demonstrated in eyewitness
testimony. In a program of experimental
research spanning more than 25 years, Loftus (1975) and her colleagues have
demonstrated that the memory (or knowledge) of an event is influenced by a
variety of factors including the wording of questions asked of the witness, the
witness' biases, expectations and prior experience. Further, the acquisition of knowledge of an event may be
influenced prior to or after the particular events, prior to or after initial
questioning.
To use specific examples,
questions about how "frequently" headaches occurred received
significantly higher answers than questions using the word "occasionally". How fast a car was traveling when it "bumped"
into another was reported to be significantly lower than when the same car in
the same event was said to "smash" into the other. In other studies of this genre, nonexistent
barns were clearly remembered and placed in landscapes, nonexistent street
signs were placed on street corners, nonexistent children were observed
entering a school bus, nonexistent experiences of being lost in a shopping mall
were remembered. In each case, the
knowledge was not an objective recording of the events, but rather a subjective
reconstruction influenced by the situation of encoding or recall.
Another piece of research
also demonstrates how a construction model better explains memories of events. Neisser (1981) compared the testimony of
John Dean, then Counsel to President Nixon, with the tape recordings of events
in the Oval Office during the Watergate Scandal in the early 1970s. These data are significant, because Dean
presumably tried to tell the truth and was complemented during the hearings for
his detailed answers demonstrating "photographic memory". But Dean was not aware that there existed
independent corroboration for his testimony in the form of contemporaneous
secret tape recordings.
Neisser's examination of
this case study shows that although many of the details of Dean's testimony
were accurate, he often reconstructed events to conform with what he expected,
hoped he had done, or knew to be the usual practice. What is also noteworthy is that accuracy of testimony bore no
relation to Dean's confidence in that testimony.
Other evidence on the
persistence of misconceptions, and the performance of children in math in given
situations (see for example Lave, 1991) also seem to lend support to the basic
tenets of Constructivism.
Conflict: Epistemology v. empirical evidence
An analysis of the basic
assumptions of Constructivism presents for the Christian some challenges. There is the denial of objective truth. Although all but the most radical positions
admit the existence of a reality, this reality has no inherent structure. Whatever structure we find in reality is
imposed by our experience. And since
our experiences are varied, there can be no single correct view of
reality. Reality has no single
independent meaning, only meanings imposed by varied experiencing beings.
This is incompatible with
the Christian view that God created all of reality and he did so with a
purpose, thus infusing independent structure into the real universe. Thus, not only is reality structured, that
structure is singularly meaningful. Any
experience, then, must be in reference to an objective set of facts (i.e.,
entities, attributes and relations) that make up the structure of the universe.
Yet, as I demonstrated
above, evidence exists to support the fact that differing experiences do
provide for different constructions of reality. There are multiple ways of experiencing the same facts. While the assumptions of Constructivism seem
contrary to a Christian worldview, the data seem to support those assumptions.
An additional difficulty is
that many of the methods implied by the constructivist approach seem consonant
with the teachings of Christ. Christ's
method often involved questioning rather than telling, the cognitive
apprenticeship, of learning by doing the activity, learning by discovery, and
an adaptability to the uniqueness of the student. The evidence presents us with a potential problem. How can an approach based on faulty
assumptions still be true?
An inherent weakness of postmodern assertions in general is what appears to be the self-contradiction of its basic position. Can it be said in truth that reality contains no inherent truth? As Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1995) put it, "radical constructivists cannot argue for any agenda if they deny a consensus as to values. The very act of arguing for a position is to engage in a value-loaded instructional behavior". More particularly, Constructivism (ironically) suffers from the absoluteness of its claims. As Anderson, et al (1995, 1996) clearly outline, most of the claims made by constructivists regarding ideal conditions of learning may be partially true, but often fail because of the radical nature of the claims, and the misconceptions that they display. (For a more extended critique of post-modern world-view from a Christian perspective, see Land (1998)).
Yet the conflict identified
above still must be addressed. How can we account for the empirical
evidence? And can we validate
Constructivist approaches? A Christian
approach must assert clearly that God created a real structured world. A Constructivism that recognizes that basic
fact can be proposed based on the following:
a.
We are fallen creatures
who can only see a portion of the picture.
We see "through a glass darkly".
b.
We were created unique
beings, with different perspectives and different experiences, thus this dark
vision is different for each of us. We
construct reality differently, not because reality has no inherent structure,
but because we each have an incomplete and distorted perspective.
c.
It is naive to expect
any objective view of reality to be entirely accurate.
d.
We cannot take the
radical view that objective reality is nonexistent, though it may be somewhat
inaccessible.
e.
Most important for the
Christian, one day we shall come to know "even as we are known". This helps us to rise above radical
Constructivism.
f.
Even as we remain
imperfect, we have insights into that perfect knowledge in Scripture.
Thus the practice of Constructivist teaching is not
exclusively dependent on post-modern assumptions, but can be supported by
Christian assumptions as well.
Conclusion
Constructivism is a
theoretical framework that has gained prominence in education in recent
years. It is clear that this framework
is based on premises not acceptable within a Christian worldview. However the methods implied by this
framework are in most cases consonant with good Christian teaching. Although the Christian teacher cannot accept
the assumptions, there are modified premises, which are consistent with the
Christian worldview This may explain why a framework apparently so contrary to
Christian thought may still produce an acceptable approach to teaching.
In addition, it is important
to separate philosophical assumptions from empirical observations. Empirical results may be predicted by more
than one set of assumptions. The fact
that particular assumptions support empirical data is not proof of those
assumptions. Accordingly, although
teachers should be aware of the assumptions underlying a set of practices, a
pragmatic approach is recommended.
Teachers should use whatever methods they find which enhance learning,
so long as principles of justice and fairness are maintained.
References
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L.
M., & Simon, H. A. (1995). Applications
and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education.
Unpublished manuscript. (Accessible at http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~mm4b/misapplied.html)
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L.
M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5 - 11.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham,
D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into Practice: How do we link?
In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism
and the technology of teaching: A Conversation (pp. 17 - 34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Brooks, G. B. & Brooks,
M. G. (1993). In search of understanding:
The case for Constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A.,
& Duguid, P.(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32 - 42.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to
situated cognition. Educational
Researcher,19 (3), 2 - 10.
Confrey, J.(1995). How
compatible are radical constructivism, Sociocultural approaches, and social
constructivism? In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The
Free Press.
Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen,
D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional
technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H.
Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the
technology of teaching: A Conversation (pp. 1 -16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations,
mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing: the impact
of Herbert P. Simon (pp.285-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Land, G. (1998). Post
modernism: A Christian Reflection. A paper presented at the 22nd
International Faith and Learning Seminar, Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, Austria.
Lave, J.(1991). Situating
learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, S. D.
Teasley (Eds), Perspectives on socially
shared cognition. (Pp. 37-75). Boston: Kulwer.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E.
(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New
York: Sage.
Loftus, E. F.(1975) Leading
questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 560-572.
Neisser, U. (1981). John
Deans memory: A case study. Cognition, 9,
1-22.
O'Connor, M.C. (1998). Can
we trace the "efficacy of Social Constructivism"? In P. D. Pearson
& A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of
Research in Education, Vol. 23 (pp. 25-71). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Osbourne, J. F. (1996).
Beyond Constructivism. Science Education,
80, 53-82
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Whitehead, A. N (1929). The aims of education. New York:
Macmillan.