Cognitive and Social Constructivism

Widely acknowledged as the most influential figure within the constructivist paradigm is Piaget, whose theory of cognitive development proposes that children intuitively employ a different mode of learning from those consciously employed by adults, in that they construct their understanding through a process of experience, assimilation and accommodation, and

develop structures (or schemata) through their play and explorations (Piaget & Cook 1952).

This highlights the importance of the learner perspective, the need to bridge the cognitive gap between the adult teacher and the child who have fundamentally different thought processes, and the recognition of play as an exploratory and developmental component of learning:

The prevalence of play among children is therefore to be explained not by specific causes peculiar to the realm of play, but by the fact that the characteristics of all behaviours and all thought are less in equilibrium in the early stages of mental development than in the adult stage.

(Piaget 1962, p.147)

It is through this dynamic process that the individual maintains a state of cognitive

equilibrium between new experiences and environments and those understandings previously acquired:

Equilibration is not a sequential process of assimilation, then conflict, then accommodation; it is not linear. Nor is assimilation a process of ‘taking in

information’ as it has sometimes been described. Equilibration is instead, a non-linear, dynamic ‘dance’ of progressive equilibria, adaptation and organization, growth and change. It results from ‘coupling’ with our surround.

17 This contradicts the traditional curriculum model of information as sequentially transmitted artefact, and of the learner as passive ‘blank slate’. The nature of how the learner receives information is influenced by experience, both prior and during the immediate educational process, a factor which shapes the information as well as the learner. Within constructivist theory, knowledge is generally defined as a cognitive and social process yielding an idiosyncratic representation of a new experience or environment; it is the active process of gaining information rather than the abstract end-product (Cunningham & Duffy 1996, p.2; Perkins 1999, pp.7-8; Rieber 1992, p.94; Scott 2006, p.17; Webster 2011, p.6). In educational practice, this has led to a revision of the student-teacher classroom dynamic; the learner must be both active and reflective, and it is the role of the educator to mediate this process through maintenance of the environment and pertinent inquiry (Von Glaserfield 1995; 1996, p.7; Holt-Reynolds 2000; Honebein 1996; Richardson 1997). These ideas are further substantiated by Bruner’s theory of discovery learning (1961), which states that effective learning takes place when knowledge is arrived at independently, leading to a realisation and individual cognitive interpretation on the part of the learner.

While the earliest constructivist theories focused exclusively on the cognitive processes of the learner, a new perspective emerged with theorists such as Vygotsky, who believed that it is through interaction with society and culture that an individual forms a context of understanding for their experiences, thus emphasising the importance of social structures in learning. Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (1978, p.86) distinguishes between what the learner can and cannot do unaided by assistive structures, or ‘scaffolding’

(Wood et al., 1976), making completion of a task significantly more accessible. The

distinction is often made between the camps of cognitive and social constructivism within

academic discussion (Cobb 1996; Palincsar 1998; Powell & Kalina 2009) including criticism of the apparent mutual conflict of these ideas (Phillips 1995). It has been suggested that both interpretations constitute manifestations of the same didactic process, whereby the individual interacts with a changing environment (Scott 2011, p.192) and that the separation of these ideas is pedantic and dualist (Liu & Matthews 2005, p.389). For the purposes of this discussion, it will be useful to establish common ground between these two camps.

In both cognitive and social constructivism, the learning environment is defined as the situation or setting in which the learner constructs knowledge, through interaction with peers or some other external stimuli. To further consolidate these perspectives, Jonassen (1994, p.35) suggests that there are characteristics shared by both cognitive and social constructivist learning environments:

18

1. Providing multiple representations of reality, reflecting the complexity of real life-

experiences.

2. Emphasising the construction over the reproduction of knowledge.

3. Emphasising meaningful and authentic tasks over abstract knowledge.

4. Emphasising open-ended real-world environments over predetermined sequences of

instruction.

5. Encouraging reflection on concrete experience.

6. ‘[Enabling] context- and content- dependent knowledge construction.’

7. Supporting‘collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation, not

competition among learners for recognition.’

This example of a constructivist framework situated in practice reflects Kolb’s theory of experiential learning (1984), conceived as a four- stage cycle of active experience and reflection (Figure 2.2). Concrete experiences with real-world contexts (in this case, multiple realisations of such) and a process of meaningful reflection are the means by which the learner synthesises new knowledge from environment. The final point is of key importance, highlighting the mechanism by which the learner also influences their environment as well as adapting to it. It is for this reason that collaboration rather than competition is widely viewed as preferable within constructivist models of learning environment; by influencing peers rather than acting against them, the learner has the capacity to challenge and change their zone of proximal development, so equilibrium is maintained not just by the learner but by the environment itself. In modern perspectives on practice, the role of the teacher is to negotiate and manage this environment to ensure that all students access opportunities for experience, reflection and discovery (see Holt-Reynolds 2000; Powell & Kalina 2009, pp.247-8).

19