Perspectives / The C Word

It would be interesting to know whether respondents would have answered differently if the wording had not suggested that "giving knowledge to students" used to be the main function of schools and that critical thinking did not concern itself with detailed knowledge.

None of the above captures what most advocates of constructivism mean, however. As David Perkins (p. 6) tells us, "No one can live in the world of education long without becoming aware that constructivism is more than one thing." This can be frustrating for educators, who need to explain a complex practice to a public used to hearing arguments formulated in either-or statements.

What exactly is this constructivism that the greatest thinkers in our profession this century—John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky—have elucidated? ASCD's The Language of Learning defines it as "an approach to teaching based on research about how people learn. Many researchers say that each individual 'constructs' knowledge instead of receiving it from others." The definition goes on to describe "active, hands-on learning during which students are encouraged to think and explain their reasoning."

Martin Brooks and Jacqueline Grennon Brooks (p. 18) define constructivism as "a theory of learning that describes the central role that learners' mental schemes play in their cognitive growth." They articulate the teaching practices considered constructivist: Teachers seek and value students' points of view, structure lessons to challenge students' suppositions, recognize that students must see relevance in the curriculum, plan lessons around big ideas, and assess student learning in the context of daily classroom investigations.

This issue explores how educators are interpreting and applying constructivism. Research Link author John Holloway (p. 85) warns that the phrase "constructing meaning" may some day be problematic. As neuroscientists shed light on what happens inside the brain when learning is taking place, we may need to discard the word construct in favor of one with a different connotation. But we do know quite a lot about the learning process now. We know, for example, that individuals are more likely to retain knowledge that they learn through active problem solving; and that learning is often a social process, enriched by the insights of others. We know, too, that learning involves making connections and that those connections depend on what the individual brings to learning—prior knowledge and past experience.

Teachers also know from experience what kind of learning most engages their students, who belong to the Information Generation. Constructivist teaching respects those learners, perhaps better reflecting the kind of teaching that students do for themselves on the Internet and through experience.

None of the authors in this issue suggests that constructivism is easy. They put to rest the suggestion that the practice prompts students to "construct" faulty information. On the contrary, they show that the more difficult the content, the more likely a constructivist approach will prove useful in attaining genuine understanding. Perkins also reminds us that "The complications [of constructivism] make it important to deploy constructivist techniques wisely in the right place for the right purposes."

The C word that stands for constructivism stands also for its challenges to both students and teachers and for the courage that it takes to practice it.

References

NPR Coverage. Morning edition. (Sept. 7, 1999). (On-line). Available: http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/education.front.html

McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The language of learning: A guide to education terms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.