Constructivism

The Constructivist theory of learning is a perspective that focuses on how students actively create knowledge based on their existing cognitive framework (Seifert & Sutton, 2009). Opposing the argument that students are a tabula rasa, constructivism gives great attention to prior knowledge already present in the students and to the role of students and relevant information during the knowledge construction process. This theory states, “Reality is an individual matter and hence learning is a factor of experiences and previous knowledge” (Pritchard & Woollard, 2011, p.4). Pritchard and Woollard used this statement as justifications of why two students attend the same lesson demonstrate different learning outcomes. Particularly, the prior knowledge about the subject, how tasks and instructional activities were interpreted (the thinking), and how activities during the lesson were carried out (including psychological factors) are factors that determine the output of learning. Thus, the individual experience, the thinking, and the environment are central to the learning process.

Constructivism has two different but complementary forms: radical and social (Ernest, 1994; Liu & Matthews, 2005; Pritchard & Woollard, 2011). While both support the active role of the individual in constructing knowledge out of the experience, there is

43

a profound distinction on the role of socio-cultural context and hence on how learning takes place (Nair, 2010).

2.2.1.1. Radical constructivism

Radical constructivists view knowledge as an entirely individual construct, learning as an individual-oriented mental process, and students as independent investigators (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). For the radical constructivist Von Glasersfeld, establishing knowledge is an independent issue. Thus, knowledge is a reality that an individual creates based on her/his experience and it is located in the mind. Students are considered as independent investigators of knowledge based on their experience with no concern about the knowledge exterior to their coverage (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). It is also characterized by its emphasis on students and “discovery-oriented” knowledge construction. The interactions with the surrounding community serve only as motivation for the cognitive argument (Liu & Matthews, 2005).

Radical constructivism has got recognition due to its contribution to shifting the view of learning from teachers‟ centre to student focused and recognizing students‟ learning style preferences (Ernest, 1994). As a result, it changed students‟ role from being passive receivers to being construct meaning for their own. In this context, students are also responsible for construction errors and encountered difficulties (ibid). Nevertheless, its idiosyncratic nature exposed it to criticisms. Particularly, its ignorance of the cultural components of the world and the social interactions are taken as limitations (Ernest, 1994; Thomas, 1994). Thomas in his critics entitled, “Abandonment of Knowledge” and “Social Constructivism,” describes that while the former refers to ignorance of the knowledge out of the individual and in surrounding the later refers to the ignorance of the social interaction and its contribution to the sustainability of the constructed knowledge (including parents, friends, and teacher‟s role). It is also described as confused due to the attempt to incorporate a social view of knowledge into it while it is said to be idiosyncratic (Ernest, 1994).

2.2.1.2. Social constructivism

For social constructivist, social and cultural interactions are means for knowledge creation. Thus, learning is a social process which is largely context and situation

44

laden (Liu & Matthews, 2005). An individual student is a member of a community of students‟ and should have to collaborate among fellow students and appreciate different perspectives. Social constructivism views learning as “changes in thinking” that takes place because of guidance and interaction with others and the student as assisted performer (ibid). Accordingly, learning occurs through appropriate guidance and resources from those having the knowledge and experience to do so, teachers in the case of formal classroom learning.

The recognition for the foundation and development of social constructivism, also called socio-cultural theory goes to the work of Vygotsky, Piaget, Bruner, and Bandura (Pritchard & Woollard, 2011). Specially, Vygotsky‟s idea of “the zone of proximal development” describes the gap between an individual‟s potential to learn independently and the scale-up of that potential to a higher level when the learning is supported by a capable adult or collaborates with peer groups (Seifert & Sutton, 2009, p.36). Such support to scaffold students‟ potential to a higher level is said to be “instructional scaffolding” (ibid).

Although social constructivism has got popularity since it recognizes both individual and private meanings of knowledge and widely implemented in formal and non- formal classrooms, it is also not free of criticism (Ernest, 1994). From a theoretical and practical point of view, its socio-cultural perspective can limit diversity in the classroom. In particular, if the assistance provider is not competent, she/he either limits the potential to progress or misguide the students. As a result, students become dependent on the social environment for performance assessment rather than an independent investigator and self-controller (Confrey, 1995).

From a philosophical point of view, both radical constructivists and social constructivists claim that an individual constructs her/his own world-view and can do that reconstruct based on pre-existing structure and newly acquired experience. However, the construction process for the former it is individual, and for the later it is both individual and shared, and hence, culture and context have roles (Pritchard & Woollard, 2011). Moreover, social constructivists emphasize that reality cannot manifest without the societal argument. Thus, knowledge is a product of social

45

interaction and learning is a socially mediated process for advancing mental processes (Ernest, 1994). Regardless of the differences mentioned above, there is a significant comparison among most constructivists in both camps with regard to the role of students‟ position, individual experience, learning tasks, and social interaction for knowledge construction (Liu & Matthews, 2005).