36249 -2pages within 6hrs

Chapter 8 Week 3 Module

Chapter 8 Constructivism

Ms. Rahn, a sixth-grade middle school science teacher, is sitting at a table with four students. They are about to perform an experiment on the physical properties of matter called the “mystery substance experiment.” On the table are the following materials: mixing bowl, 16 ounces of cornstarch, measuring cup, bottles of water, spoon, scissors, plate, and paper towels.

Ms. Rahn:	Okay, we’re ready to begin. Jenna, empty the box of cornstarch into the bowl. Can you tell me, what do you notice about the cornstarch? What does it look like?
Trevor:	It’s soft and powdery.
Ali:	It’s whiteish.
Ms. Rahn:	Touch it with your fingers. What does it feel like? Does it have an odor?
Matt:	It’s soft, sort of flaky like. No odor.
Ms. Rahn:	Yes, all of those things. Okay now, Trevor, fill the measuring cup with one cup of water and slowly pour it into the bowl. Put your hand inside the bowl and mix it up. What does it feel like?
Trevor:	Clumpy, wet, gooey.
Ms. Rahn:	What does it look like?
Ali:	Like a paste or something like that.
Ms. Rahn:	Yes, it does. Now reach down into the bowl and grab a bunch of it. Let it rest in your hand. What happens to it?
Matt:	It’s dripping down.
Ms. Rahn:	Pick up a handful and squeeze it. What does it feel like?
Jenna:	It gets hard, but it’s still gooey.
Ms. Rahn:	What happens to the liquid oozing out?
Ali:	It’s dripping down through my fingers.
Ms. Rahn:	Grab another handful and give it a squeeze. Let it rest in your hand. As some falls between your fingers, have your partner try cutting it with a scissors. Can you cut it?
Trevor:	Yes! That’s so weird!
Ms. Rahn:	Take a spoonful and drop it onto the plate. Touch it. What does it feel like?
Ali:	Hard! Like silly putty.
Ms. Rahn:	Tip the plate sideways. What happens?
Jenna:	It’s dripping like water. But it doesn’t feel wet!
Ms. Rahn:	Poke it with your finger. What happens?
Matt:	It goes in but it doesn’t stick to my finger.
Ms. Rahn:	Now go back to the bowl. Push your fingers slowly through until you touch the bottom of the bowl. What do you notice?
Jenna:	It gets thicker as you go deeper. It feels hard.
Ms. Rahn:	So what is this substance? Is it a solid or a liquid?
Ali:	It’s a solid. It’s hard.
Matt:	No, it’s a liquid because when you lift it, it drips and gooey stuff comes out.
Ms. Rahn:	Could it be both a liquid and a solid?
Trevor:	I think it is.

Constructivism  is a psychological and philosophical perspective contending that individuals form or construct much of what they learn and understand (O’Donnell,  2012 ). A major influence on constructivism is theory and research in human development, especially the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky (discussed in this chapter). The emphasis that these theories place on the role of knowledge construction is central to constructivism.

Over the past several years, constructivism increasingly has been applied to learning and teaching. The history of learning theory reveals a shift away from environmental influences and toward human factors as explanations for learning. Cognitive theorists and researchers ( Chapters 4 – 7 ) disputed the claim of behaviorism ( Chapter 3 ) that stimuli, responses, and consequences were adequate to explain learning. Cognitive theories place great emphasis on learners’ information processing as a central cause of learning. Despite the elegance of cognitive learning theories, some researchers believe that these theories fail to capture the complexity of human learning. This point is underscored by the fact that some cognitive perspectives use behavioral terminology such as the “automaticity” of performance and “forming connections” between items in memory.

Many contemporary learning researchers have shifted toward a stronger focus on learners. Rather than talk about how knowledge is acquired, they speak of how it is constructed. Although these researchers differ in their emphasis on factors that affect learning and learners’ cognitive processes, the theoretical perspectives they espouse may be loosely grouped and referred to as  constructivism . Learners’ constructions of understandings are evident in the opening vignette.

This chapter begins by providing an overview of constructivism including a description of its key assumptions and the different types of constructivist theories. The theories of Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky are described next, with emphasis on those aspects relevant to learning. The critical roles of private speech and socially mediated learning are explained. The chapter concludes with a discussion of constructivist learning environments and instructional applications that reflect principles of constructivism.

When you finish studying this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

· ■ Discuss the major assumptions and various types of constructivism.

· ■ Summarize the major processes in Piaget’s theory that are involved in learning and some implications for instruction.

· ■ Discuss the types of knowledge representation proposed by Bruner and what is meant by the “spiral curriculum.”

· ■ Explain the key principles of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and implications for teaching in the zone of proximal development.

· ■ Explain how private speech can affect learning and the benefits of socially mediated learning.

· ■ List the key features of constructivist learning environments and the major components of the APA learner-centered principles.

· ■ Explain how teachers can become more reflective and thereby enhance student achievement.

· ■ Describe how discovery learning, inquiry teaching, and discussions and debates can be structured to reflect constructivist principles.

ASSUMPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Many researchers and practitioners question some of classic information processing theory’s assumptions about learning and instruction because they believe that these assumptions do not completely explain students’ learning and understanding. These questionable assumptions of the classic view are as follows (Greeno,  1989 ):

· ■ Thinking resides in the mind rather than in interaction with persons and situations.

· ■ Processes of learning and thinking are relatively uniform across persons, and some situations foster higher-order thinking better than others.

· ■ Thinking derives from knowledge and skills developed in formal instructional settings more than on general conceptual competencies that result from one’s experiences and innate abilities.

Constructivists do not accept these assumptions because of evidence that thinking takes place in situations and that cognitions are largely constructed by individuals as a function of their experiences in these situations (Bredo,  1997 ). Constructivist accounts of learning and development highlight the contributions of individuals to what is learned.  Social constructivist  models further emphasize the importance of social interactions in acquisition of skills and knowledge. Let us examine further what constructivism is, its assumptions, and its forms.

Overview

What Is Constructivism?

There is a lack of consensus about the meaning of constructivism (Harlow, Cummings, & Aberasturi,  2006 ). Strictly speaking, constructivism is not a theory but rather an  epistemology , or philosophical explanation about the nature of learning (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel,  2008 ; Simpson,  2002 ). A theory is a scientifically valid explanation for learning ( Chapter 1 ). Theories allow for hypotheses to be generated and tested. Constructivism does not propound that learning principles exist and are to be discovered and tested, but rather that learners create their own learning. Readers who are interested in exploring the historical and philosophical roots of constructivism are referred to Bredo ( 1997 ) and Packer and Goicoechea ( 2000 ).

Nonetheless, constructivism makes general predictions that can be tested. Although these predictions are general and open to different interpretations (i.e., what does it mean that learners construct their own learning?), they can be the focus of research.

Constructivist theorists reject the notion that scientific truths exist and await discovery and verification. They argue that no statement can be assumed as true but rather should be viewed with reasonable doubt. The world can be mentally constructed in many different ways, so no theory has a lock on the truth. This is true even for constructivism: There are many varieties, and no one version should be assumed to be more correct than any other (Simpson,  2002 ).

Rather than viewing knowledge as truth, constructivists construe it as a working hypothesis. Knowledge is not imposed from outside people but rather formed inside them. A person’s constructions are true to that person but not necessarily to anyone else. This is because people produce knowledge based on their beliefs and experiences in situations (Cobb & Bowers,  1999 ), which differ from person to person. All knowledge, then, is subjective and personal and a product of our cognitions (Simpson,  2002 ). Learning is situated in contexts (Bredo,  2006 ).

Assumptions.

Constructivism highlights the interaction of persons and situations in the acquisition and refinement of skills and knowledge (Cobb & Bowers,  1999 ). Constructivism contrasts with conditioning theories that stress the influence of the environment on the person as well as with information processing theories that place the locus of learning within the mind with less attention to the context in which it occurs. Constructivism shares with social cognitive theory the assumption that persons, behaviors, and environments interact in reciprocal fashion (Bandura,  1986 ,  1997 ).

A key assumption of constructivism is that people are active learners and develop knowledge for themselves (Simpson,  2002 ). To understand material well, learners must discover the basic principles, as the students in the opening vignette were striving to do. Constructivists differ in the extent to which they ascribe this function entirely to learners. Some believe that mental structures come to reflect reality, whereas others (radical constructivists) believe that the individual’s mental world is the only reality. Constructivists also differ in how much they ascribe the construction of knowledge to social interactions with teachers, peers, parents, and others (Bredo,  1997 ).

Many of the principles, concepts, and ideas discussed in this text reflect the idea of constructivism, including cognitive processing, expectations, values, and perceptions of self and others. Thus, although constructivism seems to be a recent arrival on the learning scene, its basic premise that learners construct understandings underlies many learning principles. This is the epistemological aspect of constructivism. Some constructivist ideas are not as well developed as those of other theories discussed in this text, but constructivism has affected theory and research in learning and development.

Constructivism also has influenced educational thinking about curriculum and instruction. It underlies the emphasis on the integrated curriculum in which students study a topic from multiple perspectives. For example, in studying hot-air balloons, students might read about them, write about them, learn new vocabulary words, visit one (hands-on experience), study the scientific principles involved, draw pictures of them, and learn songs about them. Constructivist ideas also are found in many professional standards and affect the design of curriculum and instruction, such as the learner-centered principles developed by the American Psychological Association (discussed later).

Another constructivist assumption is that teachers should not teach in the traditional sense of delivering instruction to a group of students. Rather, they should structure situations such that learners become actively involved with content through manipulation of materials and social interaction. How the teacher in the opening vignette structured the lesson allowed students to construct their understandings of what was happening. Activities include observing phenomena, collecting data, generating and testing hypotheses, and working collaboratively with others. Classes visit sites outside of the classroom. Teachers from different disciplines plan the curriculum together. Students are taught to be self-regulated learners by setting goals, monitoring and evaluating progress, and going beyond basic requirements by exploring interests (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby,  2011 ).

Perspectives

Table 8.1 Perspectives on constructivism.

Perspective	Premises
Exogenous	The acquisition of knowledge represents a reconstruction of the external world. The world influences beliefs through experiences, exposure to models, and teaching. Knowledge is accurate to the extent it reflects external reality.
Endogenous	Knowledge derives from previously acquired knowledge and not directly from environmental interactions. Knowledge is not a mirror of the external world; rather, it develops through cognitive abstraction.
Dialectical	Knowledge derives from interactions between persons and their environments. Constructions are not invariably tied to the external world nor wholly the workings of the mind. Rather, knowledge reflects the outcomes of mental contradictions that result from one’s interactions with the environment.

Constructivism is not a single viewpoint but rather has different perspectives ( Table 8.1 ; Bruning et al.,  2011 ; Phillips,  1995 ).  Exogenous constructivism  refers to the idea that the acquisition of knowledge represents a reconstruction of structures that exist in the external world. This view posits a strong influence of the external world on knowledge construction, such as by experiences, teaching, and exposure to models. Knowledge is accurate to the extent it reflects that reality. Contemporary information processing theories reflect this notion (e.g., schemas, productions, memory networks;  Chapter 5 ).

In contrast,  endogenous constructivism  emphasizes the coordination of cognitive actions (Bruning et al.,  2011 ). Mental structures are created from earlier structures, not directly from environmental information; therefore, knowledge is not a mirror of the external world acquired through experiences, teaching, or social interactions. Knowledge develops through the cognitive activity of abstraction and follows a generally predictable sequence. Piaget’s ( 1970 ) theory of cognitive development (discussed later) fits this framework.

Between these extremes lies  dialectical constructivism  (or  cognitive constructivism ), which holds that knowledge derives from interactions between persons and their environments. Constructions are not invariably bound to the external world nor are they wholly the result of the workings of the mind; rather, they reflect the outcomes of mental contradictions that result from interactions with the environment. This perspective has become closely aligned with many contemporary theories. For example, it is compatible with Bandura’s ( 1986 ) social cognitive theory ( Chapter 4 ) and with many motivation theories ( Chapter 9 ). The developmental theories of Bruner and Vygotsky (discussed later) also emphasize the influence of the social environment.

Each of these perspectives has merit and is potentially useful for research and teaching. Exogenous views are appropriate when we are interested in determining how accurately learners perceive the structure of knowledge within a domain. The endogenous perspective is relevant to explore how learners develop from novices through greater levels of competence ( Chapter 7 ). The dialectical view is useful for designing interventions to challenge children’s thinking and for research aimed at exploring the effectiveness of social influences such as exposure to models and peer collaboration.

Situated Cognition

A core premise of constructivism is that cognitive processes (including thinking and learning) are situated (located) in physical and social contexts (Anderson, Reder, & Simon,  1996 ; Cobb & Bowers,  1999 ; Greeno & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group,  1998 ).  Situated cognition  (or  situated learning ) involves relations between a person and a situation; cognitive processes do not reside solely in one’s mind (Greeno,  1989 ).

The idea of person–situation interaction is not new. Most contemporary theories of learning and development assume that beliefs and knowledge are formed as people interact in situations. This emphasis contrasts with the classical information processing model that highlights the processing and movement of information through mental structures (e.g., sensory registers, working memory [WM], long-term memory [LTM];  Chapter 5 ). Information processing downplays the importance of situations once environmental inputs are received. Research in a variety of disciplines—including cognitive psychology, social cognitive learning, and content domains (e.g., reading, mathematics)—shows this to be a limited view and that thinking involves an extended reciprocal relation with the context (Bandura,  1986 ; Cobb & Bowers,  1999 ; Greeno,  1989 ).

Research highlights the importance of exploring situated cognition as a means of understanding the development of competence in domains such as literacy, mathematics (as we see in the opening scenario), and science (Cobb,  1994 ; Cobb & Bowers,  1999 ; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott,  1994 ;  Chapter 7 ). Situated cognition also is relevant to motivation ( Chapter 9 ). As with learning, motivation is not an entirely internal state as posited by classical views or wholly dependent on the environment as predicted by  reinforcement theories  ( Chapter 3 ). Rather, motivation depends on cognitive activity in interaction with sociocultural and instructional factors, which include language and forms of assistance such as scaffolding (Sivan,  1986 ).

Situated cognition addresses the intuitive notion that many processes interact to produce learning. We know that motivation and instruction are linked: Good instruction can raise motivation for learning, and motivated learners seek effective instructional environments (Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ). A situated cognition perspective also leads researchers to explore cognition in authentic learning contexts such as schools, workplaces, and homes, many of which involve mentoring or apprenticeships.

Researchers have found that situated learning is effective. Griffin ( 1995 ), for example, compared traditional (in-class) instruction on map skills with a situated learning approach in which college students received practice in the actual environments depicted on the maps. The situated learning group performed better on a map-skill assessment. Although Griffin found no benefit of situated learning on transfer, the results of situated learning studies should be highly generalizable to similar contexts.

Situated cognition also is relevant to beliefs about how learning occurs (Greeno & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group,  1998 ). Students exposed to a certain procedure for learning a subject experience situated cognition for that method; in other words, that is how this content is learned. For example, if students repeatedly receive mathematics instruction taught in didactic fashion by a teacher explaining and demonstrating, followed by their engaging in independent problem solving at their desks, then mathematics learning is apt to become situated in this context. The same students might have difficulty adjusting to a new teacher who favors using guided discovery (as done by the teacher in the opening lesson) by collaborative peer groups.

The instructional implication is that teaching methods should reflect the outcomes we desire in our learners. If we are trying to teach them inquiry skills, the instruction must incorporate inquiry activities. The method and the content must be properly situated.

Situated cognition fits well with the constructivist idea that context is an inherent part of learning. Nonetheless, extending the idea of situated learning too far may be erroneous. As Anderson, Reder, and Simon ( 1996 ) showed, there is plenty of empirical evidence for contextual independence of learning and transfer of learning between contexts. We need more information on which types of learning proceed best when they are firmly linked to contexts and when it is better to teach broader skills and show how they can be applied in different contexts.

Contributions and Implications

It is difficult to determine the contributions of constructivism because it is not a unified approach that offers specific hypotheses to be tested. Bereiter ( 1994 ) noted that the claim that “students construct their own knowledge” is not falsifiable but rather is true of all cognitive learning theories. Cognitive theories view the mind as a repository of beliefs, values, expectations, schemata, and so forth, so any feasible explanation of how those thoughts and feelings come to reside in the mind must assume that they are formed there. For example, social cognitive theory emphasizes the roles of expectations (e.g., self-efficacy, outcome) and goals; these beliefs and cognitions do not arise from nowhere but, rather, are constructed by learners.

Constructivism eventually must be evaluated not on whether its premises are true or false. Rather, it seems imperative to determine the process whereby students construct knowledge and how social, developmental, and instructional factors may influence that process. Research also is needed on when situational influences have greater effects on mental processes. A drawback of many forms of constructivism is the emphasis on  relativism  (Phillips,  1995 ), or the idea that all forms of knowledge are justifiable because they are constructed by learners, especially if they reflect societal consensus. Educators cannot accept this premise in good conscience because education demands that we inculcate certain values (e.g., honesty, fairness, responsibility) in our students regardless of whether some societal constituencies do not deem them important.

Furthermore, nature may constrain our thinking more than we wish to admit. Research suggests that some mathematical competencies—such as one-to-one correspondence and being able to count—are not constructed but rather largely genetically driven (Geary,  1995 ). Far from being relative, some forms of knowledge may be universally endogenous. Acquisition of other competencies (e.g., multiplying, word processing) requires environmental input. Constructivism—with its emphasis on minimal instructional guidance—may downplay the importance of human cognitive structures. Instructional methods that map better onto this cognitive structure may actually produce better learning (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark,  2006 ). Researchers will determine the scope of constructivist processes in the sequence of competency acquisition and how these processes change as a function of development (Muller, Sokol, & Overton,  1998 ).

Constructivism has important implications for instruction and curriculum design (Phillips,  1995 ). The most straightforward recommendations are to involve students actively in their learning and to provide experiences that challenge their thinking and force them to rearrange their beliefs. Constructivism also underlies the current emphasis on  reflective teaching  (discussed later in this chapter). Social constructivist views (e.g., Vygotsky’s) stress that social group learning and peer collaboration are useful (Ratner, Foley, & Gimpert,  2002 ). As students model for and observe each other, they not only teach skills but also experience higher self-efficacy for learning (Schunk,  1995 ).  Application 8.1  gives constructivist applications. We now turn to a more in-depth examination of constructivism and its applications to human learning.

PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development reflects the fundamental ideas of constructivism. Piaget’s theory is complex; a complete summary is beyond the scope of this text. Interested readers should consult other sources (Brainerd,  2003 ; Furth,  1970 ; Ginsburg & Opper,  1988 ; Phillips,  1969 ; Piaget,  1952 ,  1970 ; Piaget & Inhelder,  1969 ; Wadsworth,  1996 ). This section presents a concise overview of the major points relevant to constructivism and learning. Although Piaget’s theory currently is not a leading theory of cognitive development, it remains important and has several useful implications for instruction and learning.

APPLICATION 8.1 Constructivism and Teaching

Constructivism emphasizes integrated curricula and having teachers use materials in such a way that learners become actively involved. Mr. Rotaub implements various constructivist ideas in his fourth-grade classroom using integrated units. In the fall he presents a unit on pumpkins. In social studies children learn where pumpkins are grown and about the products made from pumpkins. They also study the uses of pumpkins in history and the benefits of pumpkins to early settlers.

He takes his class on a field trip to a pumpkin farm, where they learn how pumpkins are grown. Each student selects a pumpkin and brings it back to class. The pumpkin becomes a valuable learning tool. In mathematics the students estimate the size and weight of their pumpkins and then measure and weigh them. They establish class graphs by comparing all the pumpkins by size, weight, shape, and color. The children also estimate the number of seeds they think one pumpkin has, and then they count the seeds when he cuts it open. For art they design a shape for the carving of a pumpkin, and then he carves it. In language arts they write a story about pumpkins. They also write a thank-you letter to the pumpkin farm. For spelling, he uses words that they have used in the study of pumpkins. These examples illustrate how the study of pumpkins is integrated across the curriculum.

Developmental Processes

Equilibration.

According to Piaget, cognitive development depends on four factors: biological maturation, experience with the physical environment, experience with the social environment, and equilibration. The first three are self-explanatory, but their effects depend on the fourth.  Equilibration  refers to a biological drive to produce an optimal state of equilibrium (or  adaptation ) between cognitive structures and the environment (Duncan,  1995 ). Equilibration is the central factor and the motivating force behind cognitive development. It coordinates the actions of the other three factors and makes internal mental structures and external environmental reality consistent with each other.

To illustrate the role of equilibration, consider 6-year-old Allison riding in a car with her father. They are going 65 mph, and about 100 yards in front of them is a car. They have been following this car for some time, and the distance between them stays the same. Her dad points to the car and asks Allison, “Which car is going faster, our car or that car, or are we going the same speed?” Allison replies that the other car is going faster. When her dad asks why, she replies, “Because it’s in front of us.” If her dad then said, “We’re actually going the same speed,” this would create a conflict for Allison. She believes the other car is going faster, but she has received conflicting environmental input.

To resolve this conflict, Allison can use one of the two component processes of equilibration: assimilation and accommodation.  Assimilation  refers to fitting external reality to the existing cognitive structure. When we interpret, construe, and frame, we alter the nature of reality to make it fit our cognitive structure. To assimilate the information, Allison might alter reality by believing that her dad is teasing her or that perhaps at that moment the two cars were going the same speed but that the other car had been going faster beforehand.

Accommodation  refers to changing internal structures to provide consistency with external reality. We accommodate when we adjust our ideas to make sense of reality. To accommodate her belief system (structures) to the new information, she might believe her dad without understanding why or she might change her belief system to include the idea that all cars in front of them are going the same speed as they are.

Assimilation and accommodation are complementary processes. As reality is assimilated, structures are accommodated.

Stages.

Piaget concluded from his research that children’s cognitive development passed through a fixed sequence. The pattern of operations that children can perform may be thought of as a level or stage. Each level or stage is defined by how children view the world. Piaget’s and other stage theories make certain assumptions:

· ■ Stages are discrete, qualitatively different, and separate. Progression from one stage to another is not a matter of gradual blending or continuous merging.

· ■ The development of cognitive structures is dependent on preceding development.

· ■ Although the order of structure development is invariant, the age at which one may be in a particular stage will vary from person to person. Stages should not be equated with ages.

Table 8.2  shows how Piaget characterized his stage progression. Much has been written on these stages, and an extensive research literature exists on each. The stages are only briefly described here; interested readers should consult other sources (Brainerd,  2003 ; Meece,  2002 ; Wadsworth,  1996 ).

Table 8.2 Piaget’s stages of cognitive development.

Stage	Approximate Age Range (Years)
Sensorimotor	Birth to 2
Preoperational	2 to 7
Concrete operational	7 to 11
Formal operational	11 to adult

In the  sensorimotor  stage, children’s actions are spontaneous and represent an attempt to understand the world. Understanding is rooted in present action; for example, a ball is for throwing and a bottle for sucking. The period is characterized by rapid change; a 2-year-old is cognitively far different from an infant. Children actively equilibrate, albeit at a primitive level. Cognitive structures are constructed and altered, and the motivation to do this is internal. The notion of  effectance motivation  ( mastery motivation ;  Chapter 9 ) is relevant to sensorimotor children. By the end of the sensorimotor period, children have attained sufficient cognitive development to progress to new conceptual-symbolic thinking characteristic of the preoperational stage (Wadsworth,  1996 ).

Preoperational  children are able to imagine the future and reflect on the past, although they remain heavily perceptually oriented in the present. They are apt to believe that 10 coins spread out in a row are more than 10 coins in a pile. They also are unable to think in more than one dimension at a time; thus, if they focus on length, they are apt to think a longer object (a yardstick) is bigger than a shorter one (a brick) even though the shorter one is wider and deeper. Preoperational children demonstrate  irreversibility ; that is, once things are done, they cannot be changed (e.g., the box flattened cannot be remade into a box). They have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. Cartoon characters appear as real as people. The period is one of rapid language development. Another characteristic is that children become less  egocentric : They realize that others may think and feel differently than they do.

The  concrete operational  stage is characterized by remarkable cognitive growth and is a formative one in schooling, because it is when children’s language and basic skills acquisition accelerate dramatically. Children begin to show some abstract thinking, although it typically is defined by properties or actions (e.g., honesty is returning money to the person who lost it). Concrete operational children display less egocentric thought, and language increasingly becomes social.  Reversibility  in thinking is acquired along with classification and seriation—concepts essential for the acquisition of mathematical skills. Concrete operational thinking no longer is dominated by perception; children draw on their experiences and are not always swayed by what they perceive.

The  formal operational  stage extends concrete operational thought. No longer is thought focused exclusively on tangibles; children are able to think about hypothetical situations. Reasoning capabilities improve, and children can think about multiple dimensions and abstract properties. Egocentrism emerges in adolescents’ comparing reality to the ideal; thus, they often show idealistic thinking.

Piaget’s stages have been criticized on many grounds. One problem is that children often grasp ideas and are able to perform operations earlier than Piaget found. Another problem is that cognitive development across domains typically is uneven; rarely does a child think in stage-typical ways across all topics (e.g., mathematics, science, history). This also is true for adults; the same topic may be understood quite differently. For example, some adults may think of baseball in preoperational terms (“Hit the ball and run”), others might think of it concrete operationally (“What do I do in different situations?”), and some can reason using formal operational thought (e.g., “Explain why a curveball curves”). As a general framework, however, the stages describe the thought patterns that tend to co-occur, which is useful knowledge for educators, parents, and others who work with children.

Mechanisms of Learning.

Equilibration is an internal process (Duncan,  1995 ). As such, cognitive development can occur only when disequilibrium or cognitive conflict exists. An event must occur that produces a disturbance in the child’s cognitive structures so that the child’s beliefs do not match the observed reality. Equilibration seeks to resolve the conflict through assimilation and accommodation.

Piaget felt that development would proceed naturally through regular interactions with the physical and social environments. The impetus for developmental change is internal. Environmental factors are extrinsic; they can influence development but not direct it. This point has profound implications for education because it suggests that teaching may have little impact on development. Teachers can arrange the environment to cause conflict, but how any particular child resolves the conflict is not predictable.

Learning occurs, then, when children experience cognitive conflict and engage in assimilation or accommodation to construct or alter internal structures. Importantly, however, the conflict should not be too great because this will not trigger equilibration. Learning will be optimal when the conflict is small and especially when children are in transition between stages. Information must be partially understood (assimilated) before it can promote structural change (accommodation). Environmental stimulation to facilitate change should have negligible effect unless the critical stage transitions have begun so that the conflict can be successfully resolved via equilibration. Thus, learning is limited by developmental level (Brainerd,  2003 ).

The research evidence on cognitive conflict is not overwhelmingly supportive of Piaget’s position (Zimmerman & Blom,  1983a ,  1983b ; Zimmerman & Whitehurst,  1979 ). Rosenthal and Zimmerman ( 1978 ) summarized data from several research studies showing that preoperational children can master concrete operational tasks through teaching involving verbal explanations and modeled demonstrations. According to the theory, this should not happen unless the children are in stage transition, at which time cognitive conflict would be at a reasonable level.

The stagelike changes in children’s thinking seem to be linked to more gradual changes in attention and cognitive processing (Meece,  2002 ). Children may not demonstrate Piagetian stage understanding for various reasons, including not attending to the relevant stimuli, improperly encoding information, not relating information to prior knowledge, or using ineffective means to retrieve information (Siegler,  1991 ). When children are taught to use cognitive processes more effectively, they often can perform tasks at higher cognitive levels.

Piaget’s theory is constructivist because it assumes that children construct and then impose their concepts on the world to make sense of it. These concepts are not inborn; rather, children acquire them through their normal experiences. Information from the physical and social environments is not automatically received but rather is processed according to the child’s prevailing mental structures. Children make sense of their environments and construct reality based on their capabilities at the present time. With experience, these basic concepts develop into more sophisticated views.

Implications for Instruction

Piaget contended that cognitive development could not be taught, although research evidence shows that it can be accelerated (Zimmerman & Whitehurst,  1979 ). The theory and research have implications for instruction ( Table 8.3 ).

Table 8.3 Implications of Piaget’s theory for education.

· ■ Understand cognitive development. · ■ Keep students active. · ■ Create incongruity. · ■ Provide social interaction.

Understand Cognitive Development.

Teachers will benefit when they understand at what levels their students are functioning. All students in a class should not be expected to operate at the same level. Many Piagetian tasks are easy to administer (Wadsworth,  1996 ). Teachers can try to ascertain levels and gear their teaching accordingly. Students who seem to be in stage transition may benefit from teaching at the next higher level, because the conflict will not be too great for them.

Keep Students Active.

Piaget decried passive learning. Children need rich environments that allow for active exploration and hands-on activities. This arrangement facilitates active construction of knowledge.

Create Incongruity.

Development occurs only when environmental inputs do not match students’ cognitive structures. Material should not be readily assimilated but not too difficult to preclude accommodation. Incongruity also can be created by allowing students to solve problems and arrive at wrong answers. Nothing in Piaget’s theory says that children always have to succeed; teacher feedback indicating incorrect answers can promote disequilibrium.

Provide Social Interaction.

Although Piaget’s theory contends that development can proceed without social interaction, the social environment is nonetheless a key source for cognitive development. Activities that provide social interactions are useful. Learning that others have different points of view can help children become less egocentric.  Application 8.2  discusses ways that teachers can help to foster cognitive development.

APPLICATION 8.2 Piaget and Education

At all grades teachers should evaluate the developmental levels of their students prior to planning lessons. Teachers need to know how their students are thinking so they can introduce cognitive conflict at a reasonable level, where students can resolve it through assimilation and accommodation. Teachers at the early elementary levels, for example, are apt to have students who operate at both the preoperational and concrete operational levels, which means that one lesson will not suffice for any particular unit. Furthermore, because some children will grasp operations more quickly than others, teachers need to build enrichment activities into their lessons.

Teachers at later elementary and middle grades levels include lesson components that require basic understanding and also those that necessitate abstract reasoning. For example, they may incorporate activities that require factual answers, as well as activities that have no right or wrong answers but that require students to think abstractly and construct their ideas through reasoned judgments based on data. For students who are not fully operating at the formal operational level, the components requiring abstract reasoning may produce desired cognitive conflict and enhance a higher level of thinking. For students who already are operating at a formal operational level, the reasoning activities will continue to challenge them.

We now turn to Bruner’s theory of cognitive growth. This theory and Piaget’s are constructivist because they posit that people form or construct much of what they learn and understand.

BRUNER’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE GROWTH

Jerome Bruner’s theory of cognitive growth does not link changes in development with cognitive structures as Piaget’s does (Lutkehaus & Greenfield,  2003 ). Rather, Bruner’s theory highlights the various ways that children represent knowledge. The theory has implications for teaching and learning.

Knowledge Representation

According to Bruner ( 1964 ), “The development of human intellectual functioning from infancy to such perfection as it may reach is shaped by a series of technological advances in the use of mind” (p. 1). These technological advances depend on increasing language facility and exposure to systematic instruction (Bruner,  1966 ). As children develop, their actions are constrained less by immediate stimuli. Cognitive processes (e.g., thoughts, beliefs) mediate the relationship between stimulus and response so that learners can maintain the same response in a changing environment or perform different responses in the same environment, depending on what they consider adaptive.

People represent knowledge in three ways, which emerge in a developmental sequence: enactive, iconic, and symbolic (Bruner,  1964 ; Bruner, Olver, & Greenfield,  1966 ). These modes are not structures, but rather involve different forms of cognitive processing (i.e., functions;  Table 8.4 ).

Enactive representation  involves motor responses, or ways to manipulate the environment. Actions such as riding a bicycle and tying a knot are represented largely in muscular actions. Stimuli are defined by the actions that prompt them. Among toddlers, a ball (stimulus) is represented as something to throw and bounce (actions).

Table 8.4 Bruner’s modes of knowledge representation.

Mode	Type of Representation
Enactive	Motor responses; ways to manipulate objects and aspects of the environment
Iconic	Action-free mental images; visual properties of objects and events that can be altered
Symbolic	Symbol systems (e.g., language and mathematical notation); remote and arbitrary

Iconic representation  refers to action-free mental images. Children acquire the capability to think about objects that are not physically present. They mentally transform objects and think about their properties separately from what actions can be performed with the objects. Iconic representation allows one to recognize objects.

Symbolic representation  uses symbol systems (e.g., language, mathematical notation) to encode knowledge. Such systems allow one to understand abstract concepts (e.g., the x variable in 3x − 5 = 10) and to alter symbolic information as a result of verbal instruction. Symbolic systems represent knowledge with remote and arbitrary features. The word “Philadelphia” looks no more like the city than a nonsense syllable (Bruner,  1964 ).

The symbolic mode is the last to develop and quickly becomes the preferred mode, although people maintain the capability to represent knowledge in the enactive and iconic modes. One might experience the feel of a tennis ball, form a mental picture of it, and describe it in words. The primary advantage of the symbolic mode is that it allows learners to represent and transform knowledge with greater flexibility and power than is possible with the other modes (Bruner,  1964 ).

Spiral Curriculum

That knowledge can be represented in different ways suggests that teachers should vary instruction depending on learners’ developmental levels. Before children can comprehend abstract mathematical notation, they can be exposed to mathematical concepts and operations represented enactively (with blocks) and iconically (in pictures). Bruner emphasized teaching as a means of prompting cognitive development. To say that a particular concept cannot be taught because students will not understand it really is saying that students will not understand the concept the way teachers plan to teach it. Instruction needs to be differentiated to match children’s cognitive capabilities.

Bruner ( 1960 ) is well known for his proposition that any content can be taught in meaningful fashion to learners of any age:

·  Experience over the past decade points to the fact that our schools may be wasting precious years by postponing the teaching of many important subjects on the ground that they are too difficult…. The foundations of any subject may be taught to anybody at any age in some form…. The basic ideas that lie at the heart of all science and mathematics and the basic themes that give form to life and literature are as simple as they are powerful. To be in command of these basic ideas, to use them effectively, requires a continual deepening of one’s understanding of them that comes from learning to use them in progressively more complex forms. It is only when such basic ideas are put in formalized terms as equations or elaborated verbal concepts that they are out of reach of the young child, if he has not first understood them intuitively and had a chance to try them out on his own. (pp. 12–13)

Bruner’s proposition has been misinterpreted to mean that learners of any age can be taught anything, which is not true. Bruner recommended that content be revisited: Concepts initially should be taught in a simple fashion so children can understand them and represented in a more complex fashion with development. Such revisiting creates a  spiral curriculum : We return to teaching the same concepts but the learning is different (e.g., more complex or nuanced). In literature, children may be able to understand intuitively the concepts of “comedy” and “tragedy” (e.g., “comedies are funny and tragedies are sad”) even though they cannot verbally describe them in literary terms. With development, students will read, analyze, and write papers on comedies and tragedies. Students should address topics at increasing levels of complexity as they move through the curriculum, rather than encountering a topic only once.

APPLICATION 8.3 Modes of Knowledge Representation

Bruner’s theory elaborates ways that students can represent knowledge and recommends revisiting learning through a spiral curriculum. A good application is found in mathematics. Before students can comprehend abstract mathematical notation, teachers must ensure that students understand the concepts enactively and iconically. Ms. Braxton, a third-grade teacher, works with second- and fourth-grade teachers as she prepares her math units for the year. She wants to ensure that students understand previous concepts before tackling new ones, and she introduces ideas that will be further developed during the next year. When introducing multiplication, she first reviews with her third graders addition and counting by multipliers (e.g., 2, 4, 6, 8; 4, 8, 12, 16). Then she has the students work with manipulatives (enactive representation), and she provides visual (iconic) representation of multiplication. Eventually she presents problems in symbolic mode (e.g., 4 × 2 = ?).

Ms. Cannon, a ninth-grade English teacher, examines curriculum guides and meets with middle school teachers to determine what material has been covered. As she develops units, she starts the first lesson with a review of the material that students studied previously and asks students to share what they can recall. Once she evaluates the mastery level of the students, she is able to build on the unit and add new material. She strives to employ all modes of knowledge representation in her teaching: enactive—role playing, dramatization; iconic—pictures, videos; symbolic—print materials, websites.

Bruner’s theory is constructivist because it assumes that at any age learners assign meaning to stimuli and events based on their cognitive capabilities and experiences with the social and physical environments. Bruner’s modes of representation bear some similarity to the operations that students engage in during Piaget’s stages (i.e., sensorimotor—enactive, concrete operational—iconic, formal operational—symbolic), although Bruner’s is not a stage theory. Bruner’s theory also allows for concepts to be mentally represented in multiple modes simultaneously: An adolescent knows how to throw a basketball, can visualize its appearance, and can compute its circumference with the formula c = πd.  Application 8.3  gives some examples of Bruner’s ideas applied to teaching and learning.

VYGOTSKY’S SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY

Vygotsky’s theory, like Piaget’s, is constructivist; however, Vygotsky’s places more emphasis on the social environment as a facilitator of development and learning (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ). The background of the theory is discussed, along with its key assumptions and principles.

Background

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, who was born in Russia in 1896, studied various subjects in school, including psychology, philosophy, and literature, and received a law degree from Moscow Imperial University in 1917. Following graduation, he returned to his hometown of Gomel, which was beset with problems stemming from German occupation, famine, and civil war. Two of his brothers died, and he contracted tuberculosis—the disease that eventually killed him. He taught courses in psychology and literature, wrote literary criticism, and edited a journal. He also worked at a teacher training institution, where he founded a psychology laboratory and wrote an educational psychology book (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ).

A critical event occurred in 1924 at the Second All-Russian Congress of Psychoneurology in Leningrad. Prevailing psychological theory at that time neglected subjective experiences in favor of Pavlov’s conditioned reflexes and behaviorism’s emphasis on environmental influences. Vygotsky presented a paper (“The Methods of Reflexological and Psychological Investigation”) in which he criticized the dominant views and spoke on the relation of conditioned reflexes to human consciousness and behavior. Pavlov’s experiments with dogs ( Chapter 3 ) and Köhler’s studies with apes ( Chapter 7 ) erased many distinctions between animals and humans.

Vygotsky contended that, unlike animals that react only to the environment, humans have the adaptive capacity to alter the environment for their own purposes. His speech made such an impression on one listener—Alexander Luria (discussed later in this chapter)—that he was invited to join the prestigious Institute of Experimental Psychology in Moscow. He helped to establish the Institute of Defektology, whose purpose was to determine ways to help handicapped individuals. Until his death in 1934, he wrote extensively on the social mediation of learning and the role of consciousness, often in collaboration with colleagues Luria and Leontiev (Rohrkemper,  1989 ).

Understanding Vygotsky’s position requires keeping in mind that he was a Marxist and that his views represented an attempt to apply marxist ideas of social change to language and development (Rohrkemper,  1989 ). After the 1917 Russian Revolution, an urgency among the new leaders produced rapid change in the populace. Vygotsky’s strong sociocultural theoretical orientation fit well with the revolution’s goals of changing the culture to a socialist system.

Vygotsky had some access to Western society (e.g., writers such as Piaget; Bredo,  1997 ; Tudge & Winterhoff,  1993 ), but little of what he wrote was published during his lifetime or for some years following his death (Gredler,  2009 ). A negative political climate prevailed in the former Soviet Union; among other things, the Communist Party curtailed psychological testing and publications. Vygotsky espoused revisionist thinking (Bruner,  1984 ). He moved from a Pavlovian view of psychology focusing on reflexes to a cultural–historical perspective that stressed language and social interaction (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ). Some of his writings were at odds with Stalin’s views and because of that were not published. References to his work were banned in the Soviet Union until the 1980s (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ). In recent years, Vygotsky’s writings have been increasingly translated and circulated, which has expanded their impact on such disciplines as education, psychology, and linguistics.

Basic Principles

One of Vygotsky’s central contributions to psychological thought was his emphasis on socially meaningful activity as an important influence on human consciousness (Bredo,  1997 ; Gredler,  2012 ; Kozulin,  1986 ; Tudge & Winterhoff,  1993 ). Vygotsky attempted to explain human thought in new ways. He rejected introspection ( Chapter 1 ) and raised many of the same objections as the behaviorists. He wanted to abandon explaining states of consciousness by referring to the concept of consciousness; similarly, he rejected behavioral explanations of action in terms of prior actions. Rather than discarding consciousness (which the behaviorists did) or the role of the environment (which the introspectionists did), he sought a middle ground of taking environmental influence into account through its effect on consciousness.

Vygotsky’s theory stresses the interaction of interpersonal (social), cultural–historical, and individual factors as the key to human development (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ). Interactions with persons in the environment (e.g., apprenticeships, collaborations) stimulate developmental processes and foster cognitive growth. But interactions are not useful in a traditional sense of providing children with information. Rather, children transform their experiences based on their knowledge and characteristics and reorganize their mental structures.

The cultural–historical aspects of Vygotsky’s theory illuminate the point that learning and development cannot be dissociated from their context. The way that learners interact with their worlds—with the persons, objects, and institutions in it—transforms their thinking. The meanings of concepts change as they are linked with the world (Gredler,  2009 ). Thus, “school” is not simply a word or a physical structure but also an institution that seeks to promote learning and citizenship.

There also are individual, or inherited, factors that affect development. Vygotsky was interested in children with mental and physical disabilities. He believed that their inherited characteristics produced learning trajectories different from those of children without such challenges.

Of these three influences, the one that has received the most attention—at least among Western researchers and practitioners—is the interpersonal. Vygotsky considered the social environment critical for learning and thought that social interactions transformed learning experiences. Social activity is a phenomenon that helps explain changes in consciousness and establishes a psychological theory that unifies behavior and mind (Kozulin,  1986 ; Wertsch,  1985 ).

The social environment influences cognition through its  tools —that is, its cultural objects (e.g., cars, machines) and its language and social institutions (e.g., schools, churches). Social interactions help to coordinate the three influences on development. Cognitive change results from using cultural tools in social interactions and from internalizing and mentally transforming these interactions (Bruning et al.,  2011 ). Vygotsky’s position is a form of dialectical (cognitive) constructivism because it emphasizes the interaction between persons and their environments.  Mediation  is the key mechanism in development and learning:

·  All human psychological processes (higher mental processes) are mediated by such psychological tools as language, signs, and symbols. Adults teach these tools to children in the course of their joint (collaborative) activity. After children internalize these tools they function as mediators of the children’s more advanced psychological processes. (Karpov & Haywood,  1998 , p. 27)

Vygotsky’s most controversial contention was that all higher mental functions originated in the social environment (Vygotsky,  1962 ). This is a powerful claim, but it has a good degree of truth to it. The most influential process involved is language. Vygotsky thought that a critical component of psychological development was mastering the external process of transmitting cultural development and thinking through symbols such as language, counting, and writing. Once this process was mastered, the next step involved using these symbols to influence and self-regulate thoughts and actions. Self-regulation uses the important function of private speech (discussed later in this chapter).

In spite of this impressive theorizing, Vygotsky’s claim appears to be too strong. Research evidence shows that young children mentally figure out much knowledge about the way the world operates long before they have an opportunity to learn from the culture in which they live (Bereiter,  1994 ). Children also seem biologically predisposed to acquire certain concepts (e.g., understanding that adding increases quantity), which does not depend on the environment (Geary,  1995 ). Although social learning affects knowledge construction, the claim that all learning derives from the social environment seems overstated. Nonetheless, we know that learners’ cultures are critical and need to be considered in explaining learning and development. A summary of major points in Vygotsky’s ( 1978 ) theory appears in  Table 8.5  (Meece,  2002 ).

Table 8.5 Key points in Vygotsky’s theory.

· ■ Social interactions are critical; knowledge is coconstructed between two or more people. · ■ Self-regulation is developed through internalization (developing an internal representation) of actions and mental operations that occur in social interactions. · ■ Human development occurs through the cultural transmission of tools (language, symbols). · ■ Language is the most critical tool. Language develops from social speech, to private speech, to covert (inner) speech. · ■ The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is the difference between what children can do on their own and what they can do with assistance from others. Interactions with adults and peers in the ZPD promote cognitive development.

Zone of Proximal Development

A key concept in Vygotsky’s theory is the  zone of proximal development (ZPD) , 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). The ZPD represents the amount of learning possible by a student given the proper instructional conditions (Puntambekar & Hübscher,  2005 ). It is largely a test of a student’s developmental readiness or intellectual level in a specific domain. The ZPD shows how learning and development are related (Bredo,  1997 ; Campione, Brown, Ferrara, & Bryant,  1984 ), and it can be viewed as an alternative to the conception of intelligence (Belmont,  1989 ). In the ZPD, a teacher and learner (adult/child, tutor/tutee, model/observer, master/apprentice, expert/novice) work together on a task that the learner could not perform independently because of the difficulty level (Gredler,  2012 ). The ZPD reflects the Marxist idea of collective activity, in which those who know more or are more skilled share that knowledge and skill to accomplish a task with those who know less (Bruner,  1984 ).

Cognitive change occurs in the ZPD as teacher and learner share cultural tools, and this culturally mediated interaction produces cognitive change when it is internalized in the learner (Cobb,  1994 ). Working in the ZPD requires a good deal of guided participation (Rogoff,  1986 ); however, children do not acquire cultural knowledge passively from these interactions, nor is what they learn necessarily an automatic or accurate reflection of events. Rather, learners bring their own understandings to social interactions and construct meanings by integrating those understandings with their experiences in the context. The learning often is sudden, in the Gestalt sense of insight ( Chapter 7 ), rather than reflecting a gradual accretion of knowledge (Wertsch,  1984 ).

For example, assume that a teacher (Trudy) and a child (Laura) will work on a task (making a picture of mom, dad, and Laura doing something together at home). Laura brings to the task her understandings of what the people and the home look like and of the types of things they might work on, combined with knowledge of how to draw and make pictures. Trudy brings the same understandings plus knowledge of conditions necessary to work on various tasks. Suppose they decide to make a picture of the three working in the yard. Laura might draw a picture of dad cutting grass, mom trimming shrubs, and Laura raking the lawn. If Laura were to draw herself in front of dad, Trudy would explain that Laura must be behind dad to rake up the grass left behind by dad’s cutting. During the interaction, Laura modifies her beliefs about working in the yard based on her current understanding and on the new knowledge she constructs.

Despite the importance of the ZPD, the overarching emphasis it has received in Western cultures has served to distort its meaning and downplay the complexity of Vygotsky’s theory (Gredler,  2012 ).

·  Moreover, the concept itself has too often been viewed in a rather limited way that emphasized the interpersonal at the expense of the individual and cultural-historical levels and treats the concept in a unidirectional fashion. As if the concept were synonymous with “scaffolding,” too many authors have focused on the role of the more competent other, particularly the teacher, whose role is to provide assistance just in advance of the child’s current thinking…. The concept thus has become equated with what sensitive teachers might do with their children and has lost much of the complexity with which it was imbued by Vygotsky, missing both what the child brings to the interaction and the broader setting (cultural and historical) in which the interaction takes place. (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 , p. 211)

The influence of the cultural-historical setting is seen clearly in Vygotsky’s belief that schooling was important not because it was where children were scaffolded but, rather, because it allowed them to develop greater awareness of themselves, their language, and their role in the world order. Participating in the cultural world transforms mental functioning rather than simply accelerating processes that would have developed anyway. Broadly speaking, the ZPD refers to new forms of awareness that occur as people interact with their societies’ social institutions. The culture affects the course of one’s mental development. It is unfortunate that in most discussions of the ZPD, it is conceived so narrowly (Gredler,  2012 ); namely, as an expert teacher providing learning opportunities for a student (although that is part of it).

Applications

Vygotsky’s ideas lend themselves to many educational applications (Karpov & Haywood,  1998 ; Moll,  2001 ). The field of self-regulated learning ( Chapter 10 ) has been strongly influenced by the theory. Self-regulated learning requires metacognitive processes such as planning, checking, and evaluating. This section and  Application 8.4  discuss other examples.

APPLICATION 8.4 Applying Vygotsky’s Theory

Vygotsky postulated that one’s interactions with the environment assist learning. The experiences one brings to a learning situation can greatly influence the outcome.

Ice skating coaches may work with advanced students who have learned a great deal about ice skating and how they perform on the ice. Students bring with them their concepts of balance, speed, movement, and body control based on their experiences skating. Coaches take the strengths and weaknesses of these students and help them learn to alter various movements to improve their performances. For example, a skater who has trouble completing a triple axel toe loop has the height and speed needed to complete the jump, but the coach notices that she turns her toe at an angle during the spin that alters the smooth completion of the loop. After the coach points this out to the skater and helps her learn to alter that movement, she is able to successfully complete the jump.

Veterinary students who have grown up on farms and have experienced births, illnesses, and care of various types of animals bring valuable knowledge to their training. Veterinary instructors can use these prior experiences to enhance students’ learning. In teaching students how to treat an injured hoof of a cow or horse, the instructor might call on some of these students to discuss what they have observed and then build on that knowledge by explaining the latest and most effective methods of treatment.

Helping students acquire cognitive mediators (e.g., signs, symbols) through the social environment can be accomplished in many ways. A common application involves the concept of  instructional scaffolding , which refers to the process of controlling task elements that are beyond the learners’ capabilities so that they can focus on and master those features of the task that they can grasp quickly (Puntambekar & Hübscher,  2005 ). To use an analogy of scaffolding employed in construction projects, instructional scaffolding has five major functions: provide support, function as a tool, extend the range of the learner, permit the attainment of tasks not otherwise possible, and use selectively only as needed.

In a learning situation, a teacher initially might take the lead, after which the teacher and the learners share responsibility. As learners become more competent, the teacher gradually withdraws the scaffolding so learners can perform independently (Campione et al.,  1984 ). The key is to ensure that the scaffolding keeps learners in the ZPD, which is raised as they develop capabilities. Students are challenged to learn within the bounds of the ZPD. We see in the opening lesson how Ali and the others were able to learn given the proper instructional support.

It is critical to understand that scaffolding is not a formal part of Vygotsky’s theory (Puntambekar & Hübscher,  2005 ). The term was coined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross ( 1976 ). It does, however, fit nicely within the ZPD.  Scaffolding  is part of Bandura’s ( 1986 ) participant modeling technique ( Chapter 4 ), in which a teacher initially models a skill, provides support, and gradually reduces aid as learners develop the skill. The notion also bears some relation to shaping ( Chapter 3 ), as instructional supports are used to guide learners through various stages of skill acquisition.

Scaffolding is appropriate when a teacher wants to provide students with some information or to complete parts of tasks for them so that they can concentrate on the part of the task they are attempting to master. A teacher assisting children with organizing sentences in a paragraph to express ideas in a logical order initially might give them the sentences with word meanings and spellings so that these needs would not interfere with their primary task. As they became more competent in sequencing ideas, the teacher might have students compose their own paragraphs while still assisting with word meanings and spellings. Eventually students will assume responsibility for these functions. In short, the teacher creates a ZPD and provides the scaffolding for students to be successful (Moll,  2001 ).

Another application that reflects Vygotsky’s ideas is  reciprocal teaching  ( Chapter 7 ). Reciprocal teaching involves an interactive dialogue between a teacher and small group of students. Initially the teacher models the activities, after which teacher and students take turns being the teacher. If students are learning to ask questions during reading comprehension, the instructional sequence might include the teacher modeling a question-asking strategy for determining level of understanding. From a Vygotskian perspective, reciprocal teaching comprises social interaction and scaffolding as students gradually develop skills.

An important application area is  peer collaboration , which reflects the notion of collective activity (Bruner,  1984 ; Ratner et al.,  2002 ; see section on peer-assisted learning later in this chapter). When peers work on tasks cooperatively, the shared social interactions can serve an instructional function. Research shows that cooperative groups are most effective when each student has assigned responsibilities and all must attain competence before any are allowed to progress (Slavin,  1995 ). Peer groups are commonly used for learning in fields such as mathematics, science, and language arts (Cobb,  1994 ; Cohen,  1994 ; DiPardo & Freedman,  1988 ; Geary,  1995 ; O’Donnell,  2006 ), which attests to the recognized impact of the social environment during learning.

An application relevant to Vygotsky’s theory and to situated cognition is social guidance through  apprenticeships  (Radziszewska & Rogoff,  1991 ; Rogoff,  1990 ). In apprenticeships, novices work closely with experts in joint work-related activities. Apprenticeships fit well with the ZPD because they occur in cultural institutions (e.g., schools, agencies) and thus help to transform learners’ cognitive development. On the job, apprentices operate within a ZPD because they often work on tasks beyond their capabilities. By working with experts, novices develop a shared understanding of important processes and integrate this with their current understandings. Apprenticeships represent a type of dialectical constructivism that depends heavily on social interactions.

Apprenticeships are used in many areas of education (Bailey,  1993 ). Student teachers work with cooperating teachers in schools and, once on the job, often are paired with experienced teachers for mentoring. Students conduct research with and are mentored by professors (Mullen,  2005 ). Counselor trainees serve internships under the direct guidance of a supervisor. On-the-job training programs use the apprentice model as students acquire skills while in the actual work setting and interacting with others. Future research should evaluate the factors that influence the success of apprenticeships as a means of fostering skill acquisition in students of various ages.

Many theorists contend that constructivism (and Vygotsky’s theory in particular) represents a viable model for explaining how mathematics is learned (Ball, Lubienski, & Mewborn,  2001 ; Cobb,  1994 ; Lampert,  1990 ). Mathematical knowledge is not passively absorbed from the environment, but rather is constructed by individuals as a consequence of their interactions. This construction process also includes children’s inventing of procedures that incorporate implicit rules.

The following unusual example illustrates rule-based procedural invention. Some time ago I was working with a teacher to identify children in her class who might benefit from additional instruction in long division. She named several students and said that Tim also might qualify, but she was not sure. Some days he worked his problems correctly, whereas other days his work was incorrect and made no sense. I gave him problems to solve and asked him to verbalize while working because I was interested in what children thought about while they solved problems. This is what Tim said: “The problem is 17 divided into 436. I start on the side of the problem closest to the door…” I then knew why on some days his work was accurate and on other days it was not. It depended on which side of his body was closest to the door!

The process of constructing knowledge begins in the preschool years (Resnick,  1989 ). Geary ( 1995 ) distinguished biologically primary (biologically based) from biologically secondary (culturally taught) abilities. Biologically primary abilities are grounded in neurobiological systems that have evolved in particular ecological and social niches and that serve functions related to survival or reproduction. They should be seen cross-culturally, whereas biologically secondary abilities should show greater cultural specificity (e.g., as a function of schooling). Furthermore, many of the former should be seen in very young children. Indeed, counting is a natural activity that preschoolers do without direct teaching (Resnick,  1985 ). Even infants may be sensitive to different properties of numbers (Geary,  1995 ).

Mathematical competence also depends on sociocultural influence (Cobb,  1994 ). Vygotsky ( 1978 ) stressed the role of competent other persons in the ZPD. The sociocultural influence is incorporated through such activities as peer teaching, instructional scaffolding, and apprenticeships.

Research supports the idea that social interactions are beneficial. Rittle-Johnson and Star ( 2007 ) found that seventh graders’ mathematical proficiency was enhanced when they were allowed to compare solution methods with partners. Results of a literature review by Springer, Stanne, and Donovan ( 1999 ) showed that small-group learning significantly raised college students’ achievement in mathematics and science. Kramarski and Mevarech ( 2003 ) found that combining cooperative learning with metacognitive instruction (e.g., reflect on relevant concepts, decide on appropriate strategies to use) raised eighth graders’ mathematical reasoning more than either procedure alone. In addition to these benefits of cooperative learning (Stein & Carnine,  1999 ), the literature on peer and cross-age tutoring in mathematics reveals that it is effective in raising children’s achievement (Robinson, Schofield, & Steers-Wentzell,  2005 ).

Despite its popularity and potential for application, it is difficult to evaluate the contributions of Vygotsky’s ( 1978 ,  1987 ) theory to human development and learning (Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ). Researchers and practitioners have tended to focus on the ZPD without placing it in a larger theoretical context that is centered around cultural influence. When applications of Vygotsky’s theory are discussed, they often are not part of the theory, but rather seem to fit with it. When Wood et al. ( 1976 ) introduced the term  scaffolding , for example, they presented it as a way for teachers to structure learning environments. As such, it has little relation to the dynamic ZPD that Vygotsky wrote about. Although  reciprocal teaching also is not a Vygotskian concept, the term captures much better this sense of dynamic, multidirectional interaction.

Debate over the theory often has focused on “Piaget versus Vygotsky,” contrasting their presumably discrepant positions on the course of human development, although on many points they do not differ (Duncan,  1995 ). While such debates may illuminate differences and provide testable research hypotheses, they are not helpful to educational practitioners seeking ways to help children learn.

Possibly the most significant implication of Vygotsky’s theory for education is that the cultural–historical context is relevant to all forms of learning because learning does not occur in isolation. Student–teacher interactions are part of that context. Research has identified, for example, different interaction styles between Hawaiian, Anglo, and Navajo children (Tharp,  1989 ; Tharp & Gallimore,  1988 ). Whereas the Hawaiian culture encourages collaborative activity and more than one student talking at once, Navajo children are less acculturated to working in groups and more likely to wait to talk until the speaker is finished. Thus, the same instructional style would not be equally beneficial for all cultures. This point is especially noteworthy given the large influx of English language learners in U.S. schools. Being able to differentiate instruction to fit children’s learning preferences is a key 21st-century skill.

PRIVATE SPEECH AND SOCIALLY MEDIATED LEARNING

A central premise of constructivism is that learning involves transforming and internalizing the social environment. This section discusses the pivotal roles of private speech and socially mediated learning.

Private Speech

Private speech  refers to the set of speech phenomena that has a self-regulatory function but is not socially communicative (Fuson,  1979 ). Various theories—including constructivism, cognitive-developmental, and social cognitive—establish a strong link between private speech and the development of self-regulation (Berk,  1986 ; Frauenglass & Diaz,  1985 ).

The historical impetus derives in part from work by Pavlov ( 1927 ). Recall from  Chapter 3  that Pavlov distinguished the  first signal system  (perceptual) from the second (linguistic). Pavlov realized that principles of animal conditioning do not completely generalize to humans; human conditioning often occurs quickly with one or a few pairings of conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus, in contrast to the multiple pairings required with animals. Pavlov believed that conditioning differences between humans and animals are largely due to the human capacity for language and thought. Stimuli may not produce conditioning automatically; people interpret stimuli in light of their prior experiences. Although Pavlov did not conduct research on the second signal system, subsequent investigations have validated his beliefs that human conditioning is complex and language plays a mediating role.

The Soviet psychologist Luria ( 1961 ) focused on the child’s transition from the first to the second signal system. Luria postulated three stages in the development of verbal control of motor behavior. Initially, the speech of others is primarily responsible for directing the child’s behavior (ages 1½ to 2½). During the second stage (ages 3 to 4), the child’s overt verbalizations initiate motor behaviors but do not necessarily inhibit them. In the third stage, the child’s private speech becomes capable of initiating, directing, and inhibiting motor behaviors (ages 4½ to 5½). Luria believed this private, self-regulatory speech directs behavior through neurophysiological mechanisms.

The mediating and self-directing role of the second signal system is embodied in Vygotsky’s theory. Vygotsky ( 1962 ) believed private speech helps develop thought by organizing behavior. Children employ private speech to understand situations and surmount difficulties. Private speech occurs in conjunction with children’s interactions in the social environment. As children’s language facility develops, words spoken by others acquire meaning independent of their phonological and syntactical qualities. Children internalize word meanings and use them to direct their behaviors.

Vygotsky hypothesized that private speech follows a curvilinear developmental pattern: Overt verbalization (thinking aloud) increases until ages 6 to 7, after which it declines and becomes primarily covert (internal) by ages 8 to 10. However, overt verbalization can occur at any age when people encounter problems or difficulties. Research shows that although the amount of private speech decreases from approximately ages 4 or 5 to 8, the proportion of private speech that is self-regulating and goal directed increases with age (Winsler, Carlton, & Barry,  2000 ). In many research investigations, the actual amount of private speech is small, and many children do not verbalize at all. Thus, the developmental pattern of private speech seems more complex than originally hypothesized by Vygotsky.

Verbalization and Achievement

Verbalization of rules, procedures, and strategies can improve student learning. Although Meichenbaum’s ( 1977 ,  1986 )  self-instructional training  procedure ( Chapter 4 ) is not rooted in constructivism, it re-creates the overt-to-covert developmental progression of private speech. Types of statements modeled are problem definition (“What is it I have to do?”), focusing of attention (“I need to pay attention to what I’m doing”), planning and response guidance (“I need to work carefully”),  self-reinforcement  (“I’m doing fine”),  self-evaluation  (“Am I doing things in the right order?”), and  coping  (“I need to try again when I don’t get it right”). Teachers can use self-instructional training to teach learners cognitive and motor skills, and it can result in creating a positive task outlook and fostering perseverance in the face of difficulties (Meichenbaum & Asarnow,  1979 ). The procedure need not be scripted; learners can construct their own verbalizations.

Verbalization seems beneficial for students who often experience difficulties and perform in a deficient manner. Positive results have been obtained with children who do not spontaneously rehearse material to be learned, impulsive learners, students with learning disabilities and mental retardation, and learners who require remedial experiences (Schunk,  1986 ). Verbalization helps students with learning problems work at tasks systematically (Hallahan, Kneedler, & Lloyd,  1983 ). It forces students to attend to tasks and rehearse content to be learned. Verbalization does not seem to facilitate learning when students can handle task demands adequately without verbalizing. Because verbalization constitutes an additional task, it might interfere with learning by distracting children from the task at hand.

Berk ( 1986 ) studied first and third graders’ spontaneous private speech. Task-relevant overt speech was negatively related, and faded verbalization (whispers, lip movements, muttering) was positively related to mathematical performance. These results were obtained for first graders of high intelligence and third graders of average intelligence; among third graders of high intelligence, overt and faded speech showed no relationship to achievement. For the latter students, internalized self-guiding speech apparently is the most effective. Daugherty and White ( 2008 ) found that private speech related positively to indexes of creativity among Head Start and low socioeconomic status preschoolers.

Keeney, Cannizzo, and Flavell ( 1967 ) pretested 6- and 7-year-olds on a serial recall task and identified those who failed to rehearse prior to recall. After these children learned how to rehearse, their recall matched that of spontaneous rehearsers. Meichenbaum and Asarnow ( 1979 ) identified kindergartners who did not spontaneously rehearse on a serial recall test. Some were trained to use a rehearsal strategy similar to that of Keeney et al., whereas others received self-instructional training. Both treatments facilitated recall relative to a control condition, but the self-instructional treatment was more effective.

Schunk ( 1982b ) instructed students who lacked division skills. Some students verbalized explicit statements (e.g., “check,” “multiply,” “copy”), others constructed their own verbalizations, a third group verbalized the statements and their own verbalizations, and students in a fourth condition did not verbalize. Self-constructed verbalizations—alone or combined with the statements—led to the highest division skill.

In summary, verbalization is more likely to promote student achievement if it is relevant to the task and does not interfere with performance. Higher proportions of task-relevant statements produce better learning (Schunk & Gunn,  1986 ). Private speech follows an overt-to-covert developmental cycle, and speech becomes internalized earlier in students with higher intelligence (Berk,  1986 ; Frauenglass & Diaz,  1985 ). Private speech relates positively to creativity. Allowing students to construct their verbalizations—possibly in conjunction with verbalizing steps in a strategy—is more beneficial than limiting verbalizing to specific statements. To facilitate transfer and maintenance, overt verbalization should eventually be faded to whispering or lip movements and then to a covert level. Internalization is a key feature of self-regulated learning (Schunk,  1999 ;  Chapter 10 ).

These benefits of verbalization do not mean that all students ought to verbalize while learning. That practice would result in a loud classroom and would distract many students! Rather, verbalization could be incorporated into instruction for students having difficulties learning. A teacher or classroom aide could work with such students individually or in groups to avoid disrupting the work of other class members.  Application 8.5  discusses ways to integrate verbalization into learning.

APPLICATION 8.5 Self-Verbalization

A teacher might use self-verbalization (self-talk) in a special education resource room or in a regular classroom to assist students having difficulty attending to material and mastering skills. When introducing long division, a teacher might use verbalization to help children who cannot remember the steps to complete the procedure. Children can verbalize and apply the following steps:

· ■ Will (number) go into (number)?

· ■ Divide.

· ■ Multiply: (number) × (number) = (number).

· ■ Write down the answer.

· ■ Subtract: (number) − (number) = (number).

· ■ Bring down the next number.

· ■ Repeat steps.

Use of self-talk helps students stay on task and builds their self-efficacy to work systematically. Once they begin to grasp the content, it is to their advantage to fade verbalizations to a covert (silent) level so they can work more rapidly.

Self-verbalization also can help students who are learning sport skills and strategies. They might verbalize what is happening and what moves they should make. A tennis coach, for example, might encourage students to use self-talk during practice matches: “high ball—overhand return,” “low ball—underhand return,” “cross ball—backhand return.”

Aerobic and dance instructors could use self-talk during practice. A ballet teacher might have young students repeat “paint a rainbow” for a flowing arm movement, and “walk on eggs” to get them to move lightly on their toes. Participants in aerobic exercise classes also might verbalize movements (e.g., “bend and stretch,” “slide right and around”) as they perform them.

Socially Mediated Learning

Many forms of constructivism, and Vygotsky’s theory in particular, stress the idea that learning is a socially mediated process. This focus is not unique to constructivism; many other learning theories emphasize social processes as having a significant impact on learning. Bandura’s ( 1986 ,  1997 ) social cognitive theory ( Chapter 4 ), for example, highlights the reciprocal relations among learners and social environmental influences, and much research has shown that social modeling is a powerful influence on learning (Rosenthal & Zimmerman,  1978 ; Schunk,  1987 ). In Vygotsky’s theory, however, social mediation of learning is the central construct (Karpov & Haywood,  1998 ; Moll,  2001 ; Tudge & Scrimsher,  2003 ). All learning is mediated by tools such as language, symbols, and signs. Children acquire these tools during their social interactions with others. They internalize these tools and then use them as mediators of more advanced learning (i.e., higher cognitive processes such as concept learning and problem solving).

As an example, let us examine how social mediation influences concept acquisition. Young children acquire concepts spontaneously by observing their worlds and formulating hypotheses. For example, they hear the noise that cars make and the noise that trucks make, and they may believe that bigger objects make more noise. They have difficulty accommodating discrepant observations (e.g., a motorcycle is smaller than a car or truck but may make more noise than either).

Through social interactions, children are taught concepts by others (e.g., teachers, parents, older siblings). This often occurs directly, as when teachers teach children the difference between squares, rectangles, triangles, and circles. Children use the tools of language and symbols to internalize these concepts.

It is, of course, possible to learn on one’s own without social interactions. For example, Wirkala and Kuhn ( 2011 ) investigated problem-based learning among middle school students. Some learners worked individually, whereas others participated in small groups. The results showed that problem-based learning led to higher achievement compared with a lecture-discussion condition, but the problem-based learning individual and group conditions did not differ. Thus, the opportunity for socially mediated learning did not lead to greater benefits.

But even such independent learning is, in a constructivist sense, socially mediated, because it involves the tools (i.e., language, signs, symbols) that have been acquired through previous social interactions. Further, a certain amount of labeling is needed. Children may learn a concept but not have a name for it (“What do you call a thing that looks like ———?”). The label involves language and likely will be supplied by another person.

A central premise of contemporary learning theories that reflects constructivism is that people construct  implicit theories  about their environments and revise those theories as they encounter new evidence. Beginning at an early age, children construct theories of their minds and those of others, along with their understanding of the physical and biological worlds (Gopnik & Wellman,  2012 ). Children’s learning and thinking occur in the context of these implicit theories.

Social interactions are critical for children’s cognitive development. Children may not simply build propositional networks based on experience. Their understandings are situated in their theories of the world and include beliefs about the usefulness and importance of knowledge, how it relates to what else they know, and in what situations it may be appropriate. Cultural tools are essential for promoting the development of children’s implicit theories and understandings.

Tools are useful not only for learning but also for teaching. Children teach one another things they have learned. Vygotsky ( 1962 ,  1978 ) believed that by being used for social purposes, tools exert powerful influences on others.

These points suggest that preparation is needed for children to effectively construct knowledge. The teaching of the basic tools to learn can be direct. There is no need for students to construct the obvious or what they can be easily taught. Constructed discoveries are the result of basic learning, not their cause (Karpov & Haywood,  1998 ). Teachers should prepare students to learn by teaching them the tools and then providing opportunities for learning. Applications of socially mediated learning are discussed in  Application 8.6 .

APPLICATION 8.6 Socially Mediated Learning

Socially mediated learning is appropriate for students of all ages. Teacher education faculty members know that success in teaching depends in part on understanding the cultures of the communities served by schools. Dr. Mayer obtains consent from the schools where her students are placed and from the parents, and she assigns each student to be a “buddy” of a schoolchild. As part of their placements, her students spend extra time with their buddies—for example, working one-to-one, eating lunch with them, riding home on the school bus with them, and visiting them in their homes. She pairs her students, and the members of each dyad meet regularly to discuss the culture of their assigned buddies, such as what their buddies like about school, what their parents or guardians do, and characteristics of the neighborhoods where their buddies live. She meets regularly with each dyad to discuss the implications of the cultural variables for school learning. Through social interactions with buddies, Dr. Mayer, and other class members, the students develop a better understanding of the role of culture in schooling.

Historical events typically are open to multiple interpretations. As part of a unit on post–World War II changes in American life, Ms. Schmitz organizes students into five teams. Each team is assigned a topic: medicine, transportation, education, technology, suburbs. Teams prepare a presentation on why their topic represents a significant advance in American life. Students on each team work together to prepare the presentation, and each member presents part of it. After the presentations are finished, Ms. Schmitz leads a discussion with the class. She tries to get them to see how advances are interrelated: for example, technology influences medicine, transportation, and education; more automobiles and roads lead to growth in suburbs; and better education results in preventive medicine. Social mediation through discussions and presentations helps students gain a deeper understanding of changes in American life.

Peer-Assisted Learning

Peer-assisted learning methods fit well with constructivism. Peer-assisted learning refers to instructional approaches in which peers serve as active agents in the learning process (Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller,  2003 ). Methods emphasizing peer-assisted learning include peer tutoring ( Chapter 4 and this section), reciprocal teaching ( Chapter 7 ), and cooperative learning (covered in this section; Palincsar & Brown,  1984 ; Slavin,  1995 ; Strain, Kerr, & Ragland,  1981 ).

Peer-assisted learning has been shown to promote achievement. In their review of the literature, Rohrbeck et al. ( 2003 ) found that peer-assisted learning was most effective with younger (first through third graders), urban, low-income, and minority children. These are promising results, given the risk to academic achievement associated with urban, low-income, and minority students. Rohrbeck et al. did not find significant differences due to content area (e.g., reading, mathematics). In addition to the learning benefits, peer-assisted learning also can foster academic and social motivation for learning (Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo,  2006 ; Rohrbeck et al.,  2003 ). Peers who stress academic learning convey its importance, which then can motivate others in the social environment.

As with other instructional models, teachers need to consider the desired learning outcomes in determining whether peer-assisted learning should be used. Some types of lessons (e.g., those emphasizing inquiry skills) would seem to be ideally suited for this approach, and especially if the development of social outcomes also is an objective.

Peer Tutoring.

Peer tutoring  captures many of the principles of constructivist teaching. Students are active in the learning process; tutor and tutee freely participate. The one-to-one context may encourage tutees to ask questions that they might be reluctant to ask in a large class. There is evidence that peer tutoring can lead to greater achievement gains than traditional instruction (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons,  1997 ).

Peer tutoring also encourages cooperation among students and helps to diversify the class structure. A teacher might split the class into small groups and tutoring groups while continuing to work with a different group. The content of the tutoring is tailored to the specific needs of the tutee.

Teachers likely will need to instruct peer tutors to ensure that they possess the requisite academic and tutoring skills. It also should be clear what the tutoring session is expected to accomplish. A specific goal is preferable to a general one—thus, “Work with Mike to help him understand how to regroup from the 10s column,” rather than “Work with Mike to help him get better in subtraction.”

Cooperative Learning.

Cooperative learning  is a form of socially mediated learning that is frequently used in classrooms (Slavin,  1994 ,  1995 ), but when not properly structured can lead to poorer learning compared with whole-class instruction. In cooperative learning the objective is to develop in students the ability to work collaboratively with others. The task should be one that is too extensive for a single student to complete in a timely fashion. The task also should lend itself well to a group, such as by having components that can be completed by individual students who then merge their individual work into a final product.

There are certain principles that help cooperative groups be successful. One is to form groups with students who are likely to work together well and who can develop and practice cooperative skills. This does not necessarily mean allowing students to choose groups, since they may select their friends, and some students may be left without a group. It also does not necessarily mean heterogeneous groupings, where different ability levels are represented. Although that strategy often is recommended, research shows that high-achieving peers do not always benefit from being grouped with lower achievers (Hogan & Tudge,  1999 ), and the self-efficacy of lower achievers will not necessarily improve by watching higher achievers succeed (Schunk & Pajares,  2009 ). Whatever the means of grouping, teachers should ensure that each group can succeed with reasonable effort.

Groups also need guidance on what they are to accomplish—what is the expected product—as well as the expected mode of behavior. The task should be one that requires interdependence; no group member should be able to accomplish most of the entire task single-handedly. Ideally, the task also will allow for different approaches. For example, to address the topic of “Pirates in America,” a group of middle school students might give a presentation, use posters, conduct a skit, and involve class members in a treasure hunt.

Finally, it is important to ensure that each group member is accountable. If grades are given, it is necessary for group members to document what their overall contributions were to the group. A group in which only two of six members do most of the work but everyone receives an “A” is likely to breed resentment.

Two variations of cooperative learning are the jigsaw method and STAD (student-teams-achievement divisions). In the jigsaw method, teams work on material that is subdivided into parts. After each team studies the material, each team member takes responsibility for one part. The team members from each group meet together to discuss their part, after which they return to their teams to help other team members learn more about their part (Slavin,  1994 ). This jigsaw method combines many desirable features of cooperative learning, including group work, individual responsibility, and clear goals.

STAD groups study material after it has been presented by the teacher (Slavin,  1994 ). Group members practice and study together but are tested individually. Each member’s score contributes to the overall group score; but, because scores are based on improvement, each group member is motivated to improve—that is, individual improvements raise the overall group score. Although STAD is a form of cooperative learning, it seems best suited for material with well-defined objectives or problems with clear answers—for example, mathematical computations and social studies facts. Given its emphasis on improvement, STAD will not work as well where conceptual understanding is involved because student gains may not occur quickly.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Learning environments created to reflect constructivist principles look quite different from traditional classrooms (Brooks & Brooks,  1999 ). Learning in a constructivist setting is not allowing students to do whatever they want; rather, constructivist environments should create rich experiences that encourage learning. This section describes key features of constructivist learning environments including reflective teaching.

Key Features

Constructivist classrooms have several distinctive features that differ from those of traditional classrooms (Brooks & Brooks,  1999 ). In traditional classes, basic skills are emphasized. The curriculum is presented in small parts (e.g., units, lessons). Teachers disseminate information to students didactically and seek answers to questions. Assessment of student learning is distinct from teaching and usually done through testing. Students often work alone.

In constructivist classrooms, the curriculum focuses on big concepts. Activities typically involve primary sources of data and manipulative materials. Teachers interact with students by seeking their questions and points of view. Assessment is authentic; it is interwoven with teaching and includes teacher observations and student portfolios. Students often work in groups. The key is to structure the learning environment such that students can effectively construct new knowledge and skills (Schuh,  2003 ).

Some guiding principles of constructivist learning environments are shown in  Table 8.6  (Brooks & Brooks,  1999 ). One principle is that teachers should pose problems of emerging relevance to students, where relevance is preexisting or emerges through teacher mediation. Thus, a teacher might structure a lesson around questions that challenge students’ preconceptions. This takes time, which means that other critical content may not be covered. Relevance is not established by threatening to test students, but rather by stimulating their interest and helping them discover how the problem affects their lives.

A second principle is that learning should be structured around primary concepts. This means that teachers design activities around conceptual clusters of questions and problems so that ideas are presented holistically rather than in isolation (Brooks & Brooks,  1999 ). Being able to see the whole helps to understand the parts.

Holistic teaching does not require sacrificing content, but it does involve structuring content differently. A piecemeal approach to teaching history is to present information chronologically as a series of events. In contrast, a holistic method involves presenting themes that recur in history (e.g., economic hardships, disputes over territory) and structuring content so that students can discover these themes in different eras. Students then can see that although environmental features change over time (e.g., armies → air forces; farming → manufacturing), the themes remain the same.

Table 8.6 Guiding principles of constructivist learning environments.

· ■ Pose problems of emerging relevance to students. · ■ Structure learning around primary concepts. · ■ Seek and value students’ points of view. · ■ Adapt curriculum to address students’ suppositions. · ■ Assess student learning in the context of teaching.

Holistic teaching also can be done across subjects. In the middle school curriculum, for example, the theme of “courage” can be explored in social studies (e.g., courage of people to stand up and act based on their beliefs when these conflict with governments), language arts (e.g., characters in literature who display courage), and science (e.g., courage of scientists who dispute prevailing theories). An integrated curriculum in which teachers plan units together reflects this holism.

Third, it is important to seek and value students’ points of view. Understanding students’ perspectives is essential for planning activities that are challenging and interesting. This requires that teachers ask questions, stimulate discussions, and listen to what students say. Teachers who make little effort to understand what students think fail to capitalize on the role of their experiences in learning. This is not to suggest that teachers should analyze every student utterance; that is not necessary, nor is there time to do it. Rather, teachers should try to learn students’ conceptions of a topic.

With the current emphasis on achievement test scores, it is easy to focus only on students’ correct answers. Constructivist education, however, requires that—where feasible—we go beyond the answer and learn how the students arrived at that answer. Teachers do this by asking students to elaborate on their answers; for example, “How did you arrive at that answer?” or “Why do you think that?” It is possible for a student to arrive at a correct answer through faulty reasoning and, conversely, to answer incorrectly but engage in sound thinking. Students’ perspectives on a situation or theories about a phenomenon help teachers in curriculum planning.

Fourth, we should adapt curriculum to address students’ suppositions. This means that curricular demands on students should align with the beliefs they bring to the classroom. When there is a gross mismatch, lessons will lack meaning for students. But alignment need not be perfect. Demands that are slightly above students’ present capabilities (i.e., within the zone of proximal development) produce challenge and learning.

When students’ suppositions are incorrect, the typical response is to inform them of such. Instead, constructivist teaching challenges students to discover the information. Recall the opening vignette describing the mystery substance experiment. Students were baffled by the substance, which seemed at the same time both a liquid and solid. The teacher did not give them answers but rather challenged them to think about the substance and construct their understanding of it. By the end of the vignette, students still are not clear what the substance is, which suggests that more experimentation and discussion will follow.

Finally, constructivist education requires that we assess student learning in the context of teaching. This point runs counter to the typical classroom situation where most learning assessments are disconnected from teaching—for example, end-of-grade tests, end-of-unit exams, pop quizzes. Although the content of these assessments may align well with learning objectives addressed during instruction, the assessment occasions are separate from teaching.

In a constructivist environment, assessment occurs continuously during teaching and is an assessment of both students and teacher. In the opening vignette, the teacher assesses students’ thinking throughout the experiment, as well as her own success in designing an activity and guiding the students to construct their understandings.

Of course, assessment methods must reflect the type of learning ( Chapter 1 ). Constructivist environments are best designed for meaningful, deep-structure learning, not for superficial understanding. True-false and multiple-choice tests may be inappropriate to assess learning outcomes. Authentic forms of assessment may require students to write reflective pieces, discussing what they learned and why this knowledge is useful in the world, or to demonstrate and apply skills they have acquired.

Constructivist assessment is less concerned about right and wrong answers than about next steps after students answer. This type of authentic assessment guides instructional decisions, but it is difficult because it forces teachers to design activities that elicit student feedback and then alter instruction as needed. It is much easier to design and score a multiple-choice test, but encouraging teachers to teach constructively and then assess separately in a traditional manner sends a mixed message. Given the present emphasis on accountability, we may never completely move to authentic assessment; but encouraging it facilitates curricular planning and provides for more interesting lessons than drilling students to pass a test.

APA Learner-Centered Principles

The American Psychological Association formulated a set of learner-centered psychological principles (American Psychological Association Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs,  1997 ;  Table 8.7 ) that reflect a constructivist learning approach. They were developed as guidelines for school design and reform.

The principles are grouped into four major categories: cognitive and metacognitive factors, motivational and affective factors, developmental and social factors, and individual differences. Cognitive and metacognitive factors involve the nature of the learning process, learning goals, construction of knowledge, strategic thinking, thinking about thinking, and the content of learning. Motivational and affective factors reflect motivational and emotional influences on learning, the intrinsic motivation to learn, and the effects of motivation on effort. Developmental and social factors include developmental and social influences on learning. Individual differences comprise individual difference variables, learning and diversity, and standards and assessment. These principles are reflected in current work on standards reform to address 21st-century skills.

Application 8.7  illustrates ways to apply these principles in learning environments. In considering their application, teachers should keep in mind the purpose of the instruction and the uses to which it will be put. Teacher-centered instruction often is the appropriate means of instruction and the most efficient. But when deeper student understanding is desired—along with greater student activity—the principles offer sound guidelines.

Reflective Teaching

Reflective teaching  is based on thoughtful decision making that takes into account knowledge about students, the context, psychological processes, learning and motivation, and knowledge about oneself. Although reflective teaching is not part of a constructivist perspective on learning, its premises are based on the assumptions of constructivism (Armstrong & Savage,  2002 ).

Components.

Reflective teaching stands in stark contrast to traditional teaching in which a teacher prepares a lesson, presents it to a class, gives students assignments and feedback, and evaluates their learning. Reflective teaching assumes that teaching cannot be reduced to one method to use with all students. Each teacher brings a unique set of experiences to teaching. How teachers interpret situations will differ depending on their experiences and perceptions. Professional development requires that teachers reflect on their beliefs and theories about students, content, context, and learning and check the validity of these beliefs and theories against reality.

Table 8.7 APA learner-centered principles.

Cognitive and Metacognitive Factors · 1. Nature of the learning process. The learning of complex subject matter is most effective when it is an intentional process of constructing meaning from information and experience. · 2. Goals of the learning process. The successful learner, over time and with support and instructional guidance, can create meaningful, coherent representations of knowledge. · 3. Construction of knowledge. The successful learner can link new information with existing knowledge in meaningful ways. · 4. Strategic thinking. The successful learner can create and use a repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to achieve complex learning goals. · 5. Thinking about thinking. Higher-order strategies for selecting and monitoring mental operations facilitate creative and critical thinking. · 6. Context of learning. Learning is influenced by environmental factors, including culture, technology, and instructional practices. Motivational and Affective Factors · 7. Motivational and emotional influences on learning. What and how much is learned is influenced by the learner’s motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn, is influenced by the individual’s emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals, and habits of thinking. · 8. Intrinsic motivation to learn. The learner’s creativity, higher-order thinking, and natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks of optimal novelty and difficulty, tasks that are relevant to personal interests, and tasks that provide for personal choice and control. · 9. Effects of motivation on effort. Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills requires extended learner effort and guided practice. Without learners’ motivation to learn, the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely without coercion. Development and Social Factors · 10. Developmental influences on learning. As individuals develop, there are different opportunities and constraints for learning. Learning is most effective when differential development within and across physical, intellectual, emotional, and social domains is taken into account. · 11. Social influences on learning. Learning is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others. Individual Differences Factors · 12. Individual differences in learning. Learners have different strategies, approaches, and capabilities for learning that are a function of prior experience and heredity. · 13. Learning and diversity. Learning is most effective when differences in learners’ linguistic, cultural, and social backgrounds are taken into account. · 14. Standards and assessment. Setting appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing the learner as well as learning progress—including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment—are integral parts of the learning process.

Source: From “Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign.” Copyright ©1997 by the American Psychological Association. Reproduced with permission. No further reproduction or distribution is permitted without written permission from the American Psychological Association. The full document may be viewed at  http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/ea/learner-centered.pdf . The “Learner-Centered Psychological Principles” is a historical document which was derived from a 1990 APA presidential task force and was revised in 1997.

APPLICATION 8.7 Learner-Centered Principles

Mr. Donavan applies the APA learner-centered principles in his economics classes. He knows that many students are not intrinsically motivated to learn economics, so he builds into the curriculum strategies to enhance interest. He makes use of videos, field trips, and role playing to link economics better with real-world experiences. Mr. Donavan also does not want students to simply memorize content but rather learn to think critically. He teaches them a strategy to analyze events that includes key questions such as, What preceded the event? How might it have turned out differently? and How did this event influence future developments? Because he likes to focus on themes (e.g., economic development & policy), he has students apply these themes throughout the school year to different events.

Dr. Raimond is familiar with the APA principles and incorporates them into his teaching of educational psychology. He knows that students must have a good understanding of developmental, social, and individual difference variables if they are to be successful teachers. For their field placements, he ensures that students work in a variety of settings. Thus, students are assigned at different times to classes with younger and older students. He also ensures that students have the opportunity to work in classes where there is diversity in ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds of students and with teachers whose methods use social interactions (e.g., cooperative learning, tutoring). Dr. Raimond understands the importance of students’ reflections on their experiences. They write journals on the field placement experiences and share these in class. He helps students understand how to link these experiences to topics they study in the course (e.g., development, motivation, learning).

Henderson ( 1996 ) listed four components of reflective teaching that involve decision making ( Table 8.8 ). Teaching decisions must be sensitive to the context, which includes the school, content, students’ backgrounds, time of the year, educational expectations, and the like. Fluid planning means that instructional plans must be flexible and change as conditions warrant. When students do not understand a lesson, it makes little sense to reteach it in the same way. Rather, the plan must be modified to aid student understanding.

Henderson’s model puts emphasis on teachers’ personal knowledge. They should be aware of why they do what they do and be keen observers of situations. They must reflect on and process a wide variety of information about situations. Their decisions are strengthened by professional development. Teachers must have a strong knowledge base from which to draw in order to engage in flexible planning and tailor lessons to student and contextual differences.

Table 8.8 Components of reflective teaching decisions.

· ■ Sensitive to the context · ■ Guided by fluid planning · ■ Informed by professional and personal knowledge that is critically examined · ■ Enhanced by formal and informal professional growth opportunities

Reflective teachers are active persons who seek solutions to problems rather than wait for others to tell them what to do. They persist until they find the best solution rather than settle for one that is less than satisfactory. They are ethical and put students’ needs above their own; they ask what is best for students rather than what is best for them. Reflective teachers also thoughtfully consider evidence by mentally reviewing classroom events and revising their practices to better serve students’ needs. In summary, reflective teachers (Armstrong & Savage,  2002 ):

· ■ Use context considerations

· ■ Use personal knowledge

· ■ Use professional knowledge

· ■ Make fluid plans

· ■ Commit to formal and informal professional growth opportunities

We can see assumptions of constructivism that underlie these points. Constructivism places heavy emphasis on the context of learning because learning is situated. People construct knowledge about themselves (e.g., their capabilities, interests, attitudes) and about their profession from their experiences. Teaching is not a lockstep function that proceeds immutably once a lesson is designed. And finally, there is no “graduation” from teaching. Conditions always are changing, and teachers must stay at the forefront in terms of content, psychological knowledge of learning and motivation, and student individual differences.

Becoming a Reflective Teacher.

Being a reflective teacher is a skill, and like other skills it requires instruction and practice. The following suggestions are useful in developing this skill.

Being a reflective teacher requires good personal knowledge. Teachers have beliefs about their teaching competencies including subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and student capabilities. To develop personal knowledge, teachers reflect on and assess these beliefs. Self-questioning is helpful. For example, teachers might ask themselves: “What do I know about the subjects I teach?” “How confident am I that I can teach these subjects so that students can acquire skills?” “How confident am I that I can establish an effective classroom climate that facilitates learning?” “What do I believe about how students can learn?” “Do I hold biases (e.g., that students from some ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds cannot learn as well as other students)?”

Personal knowledge is important because it forms the basis from which to seek improvement. For example, teachers who feel they are not well skilled in using technology to teach social studies can seek professional development to aid them. If they find that they have biases, they can employ strategies so that their beliefs do not cause negative effects. Thus, if they believe that some students cannot learn as well as others, they can seek ways to help the former students learn better.

Being a reflective teacher also requires professional knowledge. Effective teachers are well skilled in their disciplines, understand classroom management techniques, and have knowledge about human development. Teachers who reflect on their professional knowledge and recognize deficiencies can correct them, such as by taking university courses or participating in staff development sessions on those topics.

Like other professionals, teachers must keep abreast of current developments in their fields. They can do this by belonging to professional organizations, attending conferences, subscribing to journals and periodicals, and discussing issues with colleagues.

Third, reflective teaching means planning and assessing. When reflective teachers plan, they do so with the goal of reaching all students. Many good ideas for lesson plans can be garnered from colleagues and practitioner journals. When students have difficulty grasping content presented in a certain way, reflective teachers consider other methods for attaining the same objective.

Assessment works together with planning. Reflective teachers ask how they will assess students’ learning outcomes. To gain knowledge of assessment methods, teachers may need to take courses or participate in staff development. The authentic methods that are in vogue now offer many possibilities for assessing outcomes, but teachers may need to consult with assessment experts and receive training on their use.

INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS

The educational literature is replete with examples of instructional applications that reflect constructivist principles. Some are summarized in this section.

The task facing teachers who attempt to implement constructivist principles can be challenging. Many are unprepared to teach in a constructivist fashion (Elkind,  2004 ), especially if their preparation programs have not stressed it. There also are factors associated with schools and school systems that work against constructivism (Windschitl,  2002 ). For example, school administrators and teachers are held accountable for students’ scores on standardized tests. These tests typically emphasize basic skills and downgrade the importance of deeper conceptual understanding. School cultures also may work against constructivism, especially if teachers have been teaching in the same fashion for many years and have standard curricula and lessons. Parents, too, may not be fully supportive of teachers using less direction in the classroom in favor of time for students to construct their understandings.

Despite these potential problems, there are many ways that teachers can incorporate constructivist teaching into their instruction and especially for topics that lend themselves well to it (e.g., discussion issues where there is no clearly correct answer). Three applications discussed here are discovery learning, inquiry teaching, and discussions and debates.

Discovery Learning

The Process of Discovery.

Discovery learning  refers to obtaining knowledge for oneself (Bruner,  1961 ). Discovery involves constructing and testing hypotheses rather than simply reading or listening to teacher presentations. Discovery is a type of  inductive reasoning , because students move from studying specific examples to formulating general rules, concepts, and principles. Discovery learning also is referred to as problem-based, inquiry, experiential, and constructivist learning (Kirschner et al.,  2006 ).

Discovery is a form of problem solving (Klahr & Simon,  1999 ;  Chapter 7 ); it is not simply letting students do what they want. Although discovery is a minimally guided instructional approach, it involves direction; teachers arrange activities in which students search, manipulate, explore, and investigate. The opening scenario represents a discovery situation. Students learn new knowledge relevant to the domain and such general problem-solving skills as formulating rules, testing hypotheses, and gathering information (Bruner,  1961 ).

Although some discoveries may be accidents that happen to lucky people, in fact most are planned and predictable. Consider how Pasteur developed the cholera vaccine (Root-Bernstein,  1988 ). Pasteur went on vacation during the summer of 1879. He had been conducting research on chicken cholera and left out germ cultures when he departed for 2 months.

·  Upon his return, he found that the cultures, though still active, had become avirulent; they no longer could sicken a chicken. So he developed a new set of cultures from a natural outbreak of the disease and resumed his work. Yet he found … that the hens he had exposed to the weakened germ culture still failed to develop cholera. Only then did it dawn on Pasteur that he had inadvertently immunized them. (p. 26)

This exemplifies most discoveries, which are not flukes but rather a natural (albeit possibly unforeseen) consequence of systematic inquiry by the discoverer. Discoverers cultivate their discoveries by expecting the unexpected. Pasteur did not leave the germ cultures unattended but rather in the care of his collaborator, Roux. When Pasteur returned from vacation, he inoculated chickens with the germs, and they did not become sick.

·  For some time, the strains that failed to kill chickens were also too weak to immunize them. But by March of 1880, Pasteur had developed two cultures with the properties of vaccines. The trick … was to use a mildly acidic medium … and to leave the germ culture sitting in it … He produced an attenuated organism capable of inducing an immune response in chickens. The discovery … was not an accident at all; Pasteur had posed a question—Is it possible to immunize an animal with a weakened infectious agent?—and then systematically searched for the answer. (Root-Bernstein,  1988 , p. 29)

To discover knowledge, students require background knowledge ( Chapter 5 ). Once students possess prerequisite knowledge, careful structuring of material allows them to discover important principles.

Teaching for Discovery.

Teaching for discovery requires presenting questions, problems, or puzzling situations to resolve and encouraging learners to make intuitive guesses when they are uncertain. In leading a class discussion, teachers could ask questions that have no readily available answers and tell students that their answers will not be graded, which forces students to construct their understandings. Discoveries are not limited to activities within school. During a unit on ecology, students could discover why animals of a given species live in certain areas and not in others. Students might seek answers in classroom workstations, in the school media center, and on or off the school grounds. Teachers provide structure by posing questions and giving suggestions on how to search for answers. Greater teacher structure is beneficial when students are not familiar with the discovery procedure or require extensive background knowledge. Other examples are given in  Application 8.8 .

APPLICATION 8.8 Discovery Learning

Learning becomes more meaningful when students explore their learning environments rather than listen passively to teachers. An elementary teacher used guided discovery to help her children learn animal groups (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles). Rather than providing students with the basic animal groups and examples for each, she asked students to provide the names of types of animals. Then she helped students classify the animals by examining their similarities and differences. Category labels were assigned once classifications are made. This approach is guided to ensure that classifications are proper, but students are active contributors as they discover the similarities and differences among animals.

A high school chemistry teacher might use “mystery” liquids and have students discover the elements in each. The students could proceed through a series of tests designed to determine if certain substances are present in a sample. By using the experimental process, students learn about the reactions of substances to certain chemicals and also how to determine the contents of their substances.

A university professor uses other problem-based learning activities in his class. He creates different classroom scenarios that describe situations involving student learning and behaviors, as well as teacher actions. He divides his students into small groups and asks them to work through each scenario and discover which learning principles best describe the situations presented.

Discovery is not appropriate for all types of learning. Discovery can impede learning when students have no prior experience with the material or background information (Tuovinen & Sweller,  1999 ). Teaching for discovery learning may not be appropriate with well-structured content that is easily presented. Students could discover which historical events occurred in which years, but this is trivial learning. If they arrived at the wrong answers, time would be wasted in reteaching the content. Discovery seems more appropriate when the learning process is important, such as with problem-solving activities that motivate students to learn and acquire the requisite skills. However, establishing discovery situations (e.g., growing plants) often takes time, and experiments might not work.

As a type of minimally guided instruction, discovery learning can enhance students’ problem solving and self-regulated learning (Hmelo-Silver,  2004 ), but it has drawn criticism. Mayer ( 2004 ) reviewed research from the 1950s to the 1980s that compared pure discovery learning (i.e., unguided, problem-based learning) with guided instruction. The research showed that guided instruction produced superior learning. In a subsequent review, Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, and Tenenbaum ( 2011 ) found that explicit instruction promoted learning outcomes better than unassisted discovery.

Notice that these criticisms pertain to minimally guided instruction. Alfieri et al. ( 2011 ) also found in their review that assisted (guided) discovery was generally more effective than other forms of instruction. In guided discovery, teachers arrange the situation such that learners are not left to their own devices but rather receive support. Guided discovery also makes good use of the social environment—a key feature of constructivism. Supports (scaffolding) for learning can be minimized when learners have developed some skills and therefore can guide themselves. In deciding whether to use discovery, teachers should take into account the learning objectives (e.g., acquire knowledge or learn problem-solving skills), time available, and cognitive capacities of the students.

Inquiry Teaching

Inquiry teaching  is a form of discovery learning, although it can be structured to have greater teacher direction. In an inquiry model based on the Socratic teaching method (Collins,  1977 ; Collins & Stevens,  1983 ), the goals are to have students reason, derive general principles, and apply them to new situations. Appropriate learning outcomes include formulating and testing hypotheses, differentiating necessary from sufficient conditions, making predictions, and determining when making predictions requires more information.

In implementing the model, the teacher repeatedly questions the student. Questions are guided by rules such as “Ask about a known case,” “Pick a counterexample for an insufficient factor,” “Pose a misleading question,” and “Question a prediction made without enough information” (Collins,  1977 ). Rule-generated questions help students formulate general principles and apply them to specific problems.

The following is a sample dialogue between teacher (T) and student (S) on the topic of population density (Collins,  1977 ):

T:	In Northern Africa, is there a large population density?
S:	In Northern Africa? I think there is.
T:	Well, there is in the Nile valley, but elsewhere there is not. Do you have any idea why not?
S:	Because it’s not good for cultivating purposes?
T:	It’s not good for agriculture?
S:	Yeah.
T:	And do you know why?
S:	Why?
T:	Why is the farming at a disadvantage?
S:	Because it’s dry.
T:	Right. (p. 353)

Although this instructional approach was designed for one-to-one tutoring, with some modifications it seems appropriate with small groups of students. One issue is that persons who serve as tutors require extensive training to pose appropriate questions in response to a student’s level of thinking. Also, good content-area knowledge is a prerequisite for problem-solving skills. Students who lack a decent understanding of basic knowledge are not likely to function well under an inquiry system designed to teach reasoning and application of principles. Other student characteristics (e.g., age, abilities) also may predict success under this model. As with other constructivist methods, teachers must consider the student outcomes and the likelihood that students can successfully engage in the inquiry process.

Discussions and Debates

Class discussions are useful when the objective is to acquire greater conceptual understanding or multiple sides of a topic. The topic being discussed is one for which there is no clear right answer but rather involves a complex or controversial issue. Students enter the discussion with some knowledge of the topic and are expected to gain understanding as a result of the discussion.

Discussions lend themselves to various disciplines, such as history, literature, science, and economics. Regardless of the topic, it is critical that a class atmosphere be created that is conducive to free discussion. Students likely will have to be given rules for the discussion (e.g., do not interrupt someone who is speaking, keep arguments to the topic being discussed, do not personally attack other students). If the teacher is the facilitator of the discussion, then he or she must support multiple viewpoints, encourage students to share, and remind students of the rules when they are violated. Teachers also can ask students to elaborate on their opinions (e.g., “Tell us why you think that.”).

When class size is large, small-group discussions may be preferable to whole-class ones. Students reluctant to speak in a large group may feel less inhibited in a smaller one. Teachers can train students to be facilitators of small-group discussions.

A variation of the discussion is the debate, in which students selectively argue sides of an issue. This requires preparation by the groups and, likely, some practice if they will be giving short presentations on their sides. Teachers enforce rules of the debate and ensure that all team members participate. A larger discussion with the class can follow, which allows for points to be reinforced or new points brought up.

SUMMARY

Constructivism is an epistemology, or philosophical explanation about the nature of learning. Constructivist theorists reject the idea that scientific truths exist and await discovery and verification. Knowledge is not imposed from outside people but rather formed inside them. Constructivist theories vary from those that postulate complete self-construction, through those that hypothesize socially mediated constructions, to those that argue that constructions match reality. Constructivism requires that we structure teaching and learning experiences to challenge students’ thinking so that they will be able to construct new knowledge. A core premise is that cognitive processes are situated (located) within physical and social contexts. The concept of situated cognition highlights these relations between persons and situations.

Piaget’s theory is constructivist and postulates that children pass through a series of qualitatively different stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. The chief developmental mechanism is equilibration, which helps to resolve cognitive conflicts by changing the nature of reality to fit existing structures (assimilation) or changing structures to incorporate reality (accommodation).

Bruner’s theory of cognitive growth discusses the ways that learners represent knowledge: enactively, iconically, and symbolically. He advocated the spiral curriculum, in which subject matter is periodically revisited with increasing cognitive development and student understanding.

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes the social environment as a facilitator of development and learning. The social environment influences cognition through its tools—cultural objects, language, symbols, and social institutions. Cognitive change results from using these tools in social interactions and from internalizing and transforming these interactions. A key concept is the zone of proximal development, which represents the amount of learning possible by a student given proper instructional conditions. It is difficult to evaluate the contributions of Vygotsky’s theory to learning because most research is recent and many educational applications that fit with the theory are not part of it. Applications that reflect Vygotsky’s ideas are instructional scaffolding, reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration, and apprenticeships.

Private speech has a self-regulatory function, but is not socially communicative. Vygotsky believed that private speech develops thought by organizing behavior. Children employ private speech to understand situations and surmount difficulties. Private speech becomes covert with development, although overt verbalization can occur at any age. Verbalization can promote student achievement if it is relevant to the task and does not interfere with performance.

Vygotsky’s theory contends that learning is a socially mediated process. Children learn many concepts during social interactions with others. Structuring learning environments to promote these interactions facilitates learning. Peer-assisted learning, which is a type of socially mediated learning, refers to instructional approaches in which peers serve as active agents in the learning.

The goal of constructivist learning environments is to provide rich experiences that encourage students to learn. Constructivist classrooms teach big concepts using much student activity, social interaction, and authentic assessments. Students’ ideas are avidly sought, and, compared with traditional classes, there is less emphasis on superficial learning and more emphasis on deeper understanding. The APA learner-centered principles, which address various factors (cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, affective, developmental, social, and individual differences), reflect a constructivist learning approach. Reflective teaching is thoughtful decision making that considers such factors as students, contexts, psychological processes, learning, motivation, and self-knowledge. Becoming a reflective teacher requires developing personal and professional knowledge, planning strategies, and assessment skills.

Some instructional methods that fit well with constructivism are discovery learning, inquiry teaching, and discussions and debates. Discovery learning allows students to obtain knowledge for themselves through problem solving. Discovery requires that teachers arrange activities such that students can form and test hypotheses. It is not simply letting students do what they want. Inquiry teaching is a form of discovery learning that may follow Socratic principles with much teacher questioning of students. Discussions and debates are useful when the objective is to acquire greater conceptual understanding or multiple viewpoints of a topic. A summary of learning issues relevant to constructivism appears in  Table 8.9 .

Table 8.9 Summary of learning issues.

How Does Learning Occur? Constructivism contends that learners form or construct their own understandings of knowledge and skills. Perspectives on constructivism differ as to how much influence environmental and social factors have on learners’ constructions. Piaget’s theory stresses equilibration, or the process of making internal cognitive structures and external reality consistent. Vygotsky’s theory places a heavy emphasis on the role of social factors in learning. How Does Memory Function? Constructivism has not dealt explicitly with memory. Its basic principles suggest that learners are more apt to remember information if their constructions are personally meaningful to them. What Is the Role of Motivation? The focus of constructivism has been on learning rather than motivation, although some educators have written about motivation. Constructivists hold that learners construct motivational beliefs in the same fashion as they construct beliefs about learning. Learners also construct beliefs about their learning capabilities and other factors that affect learning. How Does Transfer Occur? As with memory, transfer has not been a central issue in constructivist research. The same idea applies, however: to the extent that learners’ constructions are personally meaningful to them and linked with other ideas, transfer should be facilitated. How Does Self-Regulated Learning Operate? Self-regulated learning involves the coordination of mental functions—memory, planning, synthesis, evaluation, and so forth. Learners use the tools of their culture (e.g., language, symbols) to construct meanings. The key is for self-regulatory processes to be internalized. Learners’ initial self-regulatory activities may be patterned after those of others, but as learners construct their own they become idiosyncratic. What Are the Implications for Instruction? The teacher’s central task is to structure the learning environment so that learners can construct understandings. To this end, teachers need to provide the instructional support (scaffolding) that will assist learners to maximize their learning in their zone of proximal development. The teacher’s role is to provide a supportive environment and facilitate learning.

FURTHER READING

Brainerd, C. J. (2003). Jean Piaget, learning research, and American education. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 251–287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gredler, M. E. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom: Is it too late? Educational Psychology Review, 24, 113–131.

Karpov, Y. V., & Haywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation: Implications for instruction. American Psychologist, 53, 27–36.

Lutkehaus, N. C., & Greenfield, P. (2003). From The process of education to The culture of education: An intellectual biography of Jerome Bruner’s contributions to education. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 409–429). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tudge, J. R. H., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207–228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.