Constructivism

Constructivism was originally generated from the works of various educational theorists, most notably, Piaget (1970), Vygotsky (1962, 1978), Bruner (1962, 1979) and Papert (1980, 1993). Piaget’s theory mainly concentrates on the active role of the individual in learning. Learners add new concepts to prior knowledge to construct their own

68

understanding (Jones & Brader-Araje, 2002; Henson, 2003). Unlike Piaget’s notion, Vygotsky's Social Development Theory focuses on the importance of social interaction in the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978). As regards Bruner’s theories, there are agreements between the author with both Piaget and Vygotsky. However, similarities that can be seen between Bruner and Vygotsky are that both focus on the social environment of learners, more than Piaget does (McLeod, 2008). Seymour Papert developed an educational theory called constructionism that was inspired by Piaget’s constructivist and experiential learning ideas (Cakir, 2008).

Constructivism, in practice, can be divided into two sub-trends, including cognitive constructivism (also known as personal constructivism, individual constructivism, radical constructivism) and social constructivism (or, sometimes called realist constructivism) (Elmborg, 2002). Specifically, cognitive constructivism primarily concentrates on the mental construction of learners’ minds. Meanwhile, social constructivism, is strongly influenced by Vygotsky's works, mainly focuses on the social nature of knowledge formation and emphasises on the knowledge development of the learner in communities, such as teachers, peers, friends and society in general (Kang & Byun, 2001; Elmborg, 2002). According to Carleo (2016), collaborative work or peer interaction positively affects students’ knowledge construction.

Constructivism is based on cognitive learning psychology (P. Thomas, 2010). The constructivist view of learning puts its emphasis on active knowledge construction by gaining understanding, self-regulation, goal-orientation and accumulation rather than memorising and recalling facts (T. Mayes & de Freitas, 2013). Learners construct their knowledge through their current and prior knowledge or what they can do (Piaget, 1970; Stake, 1995; Gabler & Schroeder, 2003; Kuhlthau, 2004; T. Mayes & de Freitas, 2004; Kuhlthau et al., 2007; Singer & Moscovici, 2008; T. Mayes & de Freitas, 2013). This approach enables learners to build their own knowledge “through active engagement and purposeful interaction in real world, authentic problem solving, critical thinking, and knowledge creation” (Oakleaf, 2008, p. 240) instead of fully receiving information from their teachers (Elmborg, 2002; Fosnot, 2005; K. Chu, 2009; S. Chu et al., 2011). As a result, individuals become active learners who are constructors of knowledge rather than recipients of knowledge (Lwehabura, 2007; Beetham & Sharpe, 2013a). Fosnot (2005) emphasises that this approach does not encourage breaking down concepts into discrete

69

subskills and teaching them out of context. Instead, the constructivist school regards learning as a “holistic experience incorporating many ways of thinking” and considers cognitive development as an essential element in learning (Kuhlthau et al., 2007, p. 27). Therefore, the modes of the constructivist approach, such as inquiry-based learning and project-based learning, promote a learner-centred learning environment (Kanuka & Anderson, 1999; Alexander & Boud, 2001; P. Thomas, 2010) which is increasingly being used to replace the old teacher-centred learning (Bundy, 2004; S. Chu, 2012). For inquiry- based learning, students are encouraged to involve aggressively in learning activities by generating queries (Harada & Yoshina, 2004a). Meanwhile, project-based learning assists learners in exploring issues in more depth without pre-defined answers (Harada, Kirio, & Yamamoto, 2008). This could be the reason to explain why the constructivist approach to teaching and learning has received the support of so many educational researchers (Lamon, 2003; Oakleaf, 2008). However, in a recent work, T. Mayes and de Freitas (2013, p. 21) argue that constructivism is not only based on the cognitive perspective, but it also stems from the associationist tradition and situative position, because it concentrates on “learning-by-doing”, the role of feedback and “authentic tasks.”

The constructivist approach requires students to search for meaning actively, and teachers undertake the role of a facilitator of learning (Alexander & Boud, 2001; K. Chu, 2009; S. Chu et al., 2011; T. Mayes & de Freitas, 2013). Searching for meaning actively or exploring information freely creates favourable conditions for the development of critical inquiry (River Parishes Community College, 2009). Therefore, the effective use of information is necessary (Bundy, 2004). For that reason, it is needed to equip students with a high level of IL to help them become effective information seekers and knowledge constructors (S. Chu, 2012). From what has been discussed above, it can be said that the constructivist approach creates an appropriate environment for the development of IL (Sparrow, Sparrow, & Swan, 2000; Virkus, 2003; Hepworth, 2006; Andretta, 2007) and lifelong learning (Andretta, 2005). Constructivism is especially relevant to IL skills sessions wherein the trainer needs to engage with students and build upon what they already understand. In contrast, IL helps students develop capabilities required by their schools, such as independent learning, critical thinking and reflection (Secker & Coonan, 2013). With regard to the role of teachers in students’ learning, Vygotsky (1987) suggests that teachers need to provide instructions for their students’ exploration through scaffolding. The scaffolding approach allows learners to take advantage of the diversity of

70

the supports and tools in their learning environment in order to develop their skills and understanding (D. Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976; Guzdial, 1994; Halttunen & Järvelin, 2005). ‘Scaffolding’ can be conducted by providing questions, demonstrations and hypotheses (Moran, 2007). It can be said that teachers are seen as people who help students discover and construct knowledge by solving practical problems, talking with them and asking questions.

Many studies have applied the constructivist approach to explore students’ learning, such as Blumenfeld et al. (1991), Krajcik et al. (1998), Harada and Yoshina (2004a), Derry, Hmelo-Silver, Nagarajan, Chernobilsky, and Beitzel (2006), Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007), H. Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog, and Paas (2007) and S. Chu et al. (2011). There are numerous studies showing the close relationship between the constructivist approach and technology, such as Patricia and Peter (2000), Dalgarno (2001), Nanjappa and Grant (2003), Bitter and Pierson (2005), Gagliardi (2007), Overbay, Patterson, Vasu, and Grable (2010), Boles (2011) and Kaya (2015). They reveal that technology plays an indispensable role in implementing the constructivist approach in teaching and learning. Unlike the behaviourist approach, which believes learning can be measured and observed, constructivism requires the combination of multiple criteria and standards to evaluate individuals’ learning, such as observation, dialogue or using problem-solving transfer tests (P. Thomas, 2010).