Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Sandhya N. Baviskar , R. Todd Hartle & Tiffany Whitney (2009) Essential
Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied
to five constructivistteaching method articles, International Journal of Science Education, 31:4,
541-550
Download by: [The University of British Columbia Library] Date: 06 November 2017, At: 10:00
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 31, No. 4, 1 March 2009, pp. 541550
RESEARCH REPORT
Constructivism is an important theory of learning that is used to guide the development of new
teaching methods, particularly in science education. However, because it is a theory of learning
and not of teaching, constructivism is often either misused or misunderstood. Here we describe the
four essential features of constructivism: eliciting prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance,
application of new knowledge with feedback, and reflection on learning. We then use the criteria
we developed to evaluate five representative published articles that claim to describe and test
constructivist teaching methods. Of these five articles, we demonstrate that three do not adhere to
the constructivist criteria, whereas two provide strong examples of how constructivism can be
employed as a teaching method. We suggest that application of the four essential criteria will be a
useful tool for all professional educators who plan to implement or evaluate constructivist teaching
methods.
Introduction
Constructivism is an important and driving theory of learning in modern education.
However, the difficulty in defining and implementing constructivism as a practical
methodology has created misconceptions because lesson plans that claim to be
constructivist do not have all the elements that are required by constructivism and
also often include elements that deviate from constructivist theory. The goal of this
*Corresponding author. Department of Biological Sciences, Gale Life Science Center, Idaho State
University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007, USA. Email: bavisand@isu.edu
that require certain elements such as group work (Lord, 1994). Although group
activity may be necessary for the described teaching method, it may not be essen-
tial for the method to be considered constructivist, but often this element is
mistakenly considered one of the essential elements of constructivism. Other
articles provide rich descriptions and examples of constructivist practice without
stressing the elements that make them constructivist (Vermette et al., 2001). These
descriptions could be useful to practitioners looking for teaching tips, but do not
reveal the essence of constructivism.
There is also confusion between personal constructivism, the theory of individual
learning, and social constructivism, a theory concerning the origins of knowledge in
a culture. Social constructivism states that cultures or groups construct their
knowledge bases through the discourse and interactions among their members
rather than through the discoveries of individuals or the dictation of authorities
(Marin, Benarroch, & Jimenez-Gomez, 2000; Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002).
Many educators assume that if their students are working in groups, the lesson
must be constructivist because social constructivism states that knowledge is
negotiated through interactions. However, social constructivism does not say
anything about how an individual acquires the knowledge for passing a college
biology course. The personal constructivist theory that is the topic of this paper
(also called psychological or cognitive constructivism) does not say that learning
occurs only in groups or even that learning necessarily occurs best in groups.
Consequently, group work may be a constructivist educational tool, or it may not
be, depending entirely on the implementation.
Constructivism is a theory of learning and not a theory of curriculum design
(Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Richardson, 2003). Therefore, when a lesson is said to
be constructivist, it does not necessarily follow a specific formula. Instead a
constructivist lesson is one that is designed and implemented in a way that creates
the greatest opportunities for students to learn, regardless of the techniques used.
Implementation of the theory is the crux of constructivism. Large lecture halls are
often held up as the antithesis of constructivism. However, if an instructor needs to
transmit a large amount of information to a large group of expert learners, and the
lesson is properly implemented, a lecture is probably the most efficient constructiv-
ist tool possible (Richardson, 2003). In this paper, we have distilled the required
characteristics of constructivism and formalized them into four criteria required to
designate a methodology as constructivist.
Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 543
Novak & Gowin, 1986; Sewell, 2002). In order to make any changes to the knowledge
construct permanent, the learner must be able to apply the changed construct to novel
situations, receive feedback about the validity of the construct from other sources, and
establish further connections to other elements in the construct.
The fact that constructivism is learner oriented is essential to any constructivist
lesson plan or curriculum (Richardson 2003; Vermette et al., 2001; Yager, 1991). It
is not considered one of the four criteria because it is a basic and pervasive concept.
The constructivist teachers role is to create a context where the learner is motivated
to learn, which includes providing content and resources, posing relevant problems
and questions at appropriate times (Wheatley, 1991, p. 14; Windschitl, 2002,
p. 137), and linking these resources and questions to the students prior knowledge.
There are four critical elements that must be addressed in the activities, struc-
ture, content, or context of a lesson for it to be considered constructivist. The first
criterion is eliciting prior knowledge. Constructivism presupposes that all knowledge
is acquired in relation to the prior knowledge of the learner (Naylor & Keogh,
1999; Sewell, 2002; Vermette et al., 2001; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). If the
educator does not have a mechanism for eliciting the prior knowledge of the
students, the new knowledge cannot be gainfully presented in a way that can be
incorporated into the learners construct. Likewise, if the learners attention is not
drawn to their prior knowledge, the learner will either ignore or incorrectly incor-
porate the new knowledge.
Prior knowledge can be elicited in different ways: formal pre-tests, asking informal
questions, formal interviews with students, or setting up activities such as concept-
mapping that require basic knowledge to be applied. The key element in the criterion
of eliciting prior knowledge is to make sure that the activity assesses the learners prior
knowledge and relates it to the new knowledge. For example, having successfully
completed a unit on the process of meiosis does not imply that the students under-
stand genetic segregation. Also, merely checking the completion of an activity by
students (e.g., having done assigned readings) will not give sufficient information to
the instructor about their prior knowledge. On the other hand, an activity like having
the students create a concept map of their prior knowledge on a topic is an excellent
method of eliciting prior knowledge. The students are required to present everything
they know about the topic in the form of a network of concepts and the relations
among them. The combination of both eliciting and organizing the information in the
form of a map that resembles the students own cognitive construct allows the
544 S.N. Baviskar et al.
student and the teacher to assess any misconceptions and target the implementation
of the lesson plan accordingly.
The second criterion is creating cognitive dissonance. The learner must be made aware
of a difference between his/her prior knowledge and the new knowledge (Inch, 2002;
Sewell, 2002). Wheatley (1991, p. 15) states that in preparation for a class, a teacher
selects tasks which have a high probability of being problematical for studentstasks
which may cause students to find a problem. If students are presented with new knowl-
edge in a way that assumes they should acquire this knowledge independent of their
prior knowledge, the lesson is deterministic and cannot be considered constructivist.
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia Library] at 10:00 06 November 2017
The third criterion is application of the knowledge with feedback (Vermette et al.,
2001; Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). Misinterpretation or rejection of new knowl-
edge is likely if the learner does not interpret and modify prior knowledge in the
context of new knowledge. Application of the new construct could be in the form of
quizzes, presentations, group discussions, or other activities where the students
compare their individual constructs with their cohorts or with novel situations. In
addition to checking the validity of their constructs, application allows the student to
further define the interconnectedness of the new knowledge to a greater variety of
contexts, which will integrate the new knowledge permanently.
The fourth criterion is reflection on learning. Once the student has acquired the new
knowledge and verified it, the student needs to be made aware of the learning that
has taken place (Windschitl, 2002; Yager, 1991). Constructivist lessons will provide
the student with an opportunity to express what he or she has learned. Reflection
could be attained using traditional assessment techniques such as presentations,
papers, or examinations, if the questions on the examinations fostered reflection on
the learning process (Saunders, 1992). Activities that are more meta-cognitive in
nature might include a reflexive paper, a return to the dissonance creating activity,
or having the student explain a concept to a fellow student (Lord, 1994). Although
the reflection criterion does not necessarily have to be a formal part of the lesson
plan, its presence makes the lesson considerably more constructivist.
type of assessment can only affect constructivist learning if it offers opportunities for
application of new knowledge that was not demonstrated by the author. Authentic
learning contexts may or may not create dissonance or provide opportunity for
application of knowledge depending on their application. Finally, as stated earlier,
group activities are not necessarily constructivist (Richardson, 2003).
The article fails in meeting most of our criteria of constructivist paedagogy. The
teacher neither elicits prior knowledge of the students nor creates any dissonance in
their knowledge structure with the result that the students lost interest in the course
as confirmed by the author (Bostock, 1998, p. 230). The students were allowed to
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia Library] at 10:00 06 November 2017
choose their research topics and create their own web pages in consultation with the
teacher, which is an example of application of knowledge with feedback (the only
constructivist technique we found). The author considers cooperative learning an
important principle of constructivist teaching but admits that the cooperative group
work failed. He reasons that the attendance was thin, and with very little teacher
student and studentstudent interactions the students found it more convenient to
work alone than in groups. Finally, students were required to reflect on their own
learning by maintaining a diary, but only 13% participated.
The author states that the content of the course was not decided by the instructor
alone but was negotiated with the students, which, according to the author, is a
student-centred approach, and hence constructivist. But negotiation on course
content with the students has no relevance to constructivism. In reading this article,
one gets the impression that the author had no control over the implementation of
the course. He admits his failures on various fronts, but draws consolation by saying
it is cheering to think that a partial implementation of constructivist principles
may actually be optimal for the majority of students (Bostock, 1998, p. 236).
author did not use a comprehensive evaluation of the prior knowledge of the students,
or give any evidence that cognitive dissonance occurred in the students. The quizzes
may or may not have given the students an opportunity to apply their new knowledge
and receive feedback, but they certainly were not a mechanism for reflection.
Klionsky (1998) did evaluate the effectiveness of his methods and he does appear
to have promoted an improvement in student performance. He used comparisons of
current quiz and test scores with those of previous years and noted a general
improvement. He also compared course evaluations from the two teaching methods
and found that the students preferred his new method. The new teaching methods
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia Library] at 10:00 06 November 2017
adopted by the author appear to have improved his students learning, but these new
methods were not entirely based on constructivist principles.
Article 4: A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lords
constructivist model put to a test
Burrowes (2003) describes an experiment in which constructivism is tested in the
classroom. She had three major goals: to help students achieve better grades on stan-
dard mid-term examinations, to develop higher level thinking skills, and to modify
their attitude towards biology at this large, urban university. To meet these goals, two
different biology classes with approximately 100 students each were taught using
different methods. One class was taught using a traditional lecture and note-taking
method, and the other was taught using what the author describes as experimental
teaching based on the constructivist learning model.
In the experimental group the author followed Yagers (1991) application of the
constructivist learning model, Bybees (1993) 5E model, which is based on
constructivism, and Lords (Lord, 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001) application of
cooperative learning. She used a short lecture to engage her students and then
had groups to formulate problems or exercises, which she considered the explore
step. The students then explained what they had done. After students explained
their problems and solutions that the author elaborated by addressing any
questions or misconceptions that may have arisen, she then introduced the new
material and referred it back to what was previously discussed.
Burrowes (2003) followed the criteria for constructivist teaching. The combina-
tion of the explore and explain steps satisfied the first criterion of eliciting prior
knowledge. The explain and elaboration steps created dissonance by explicitly
comparing the students new and prior knowledge. The elaboration step satisfied
the third criterion of application of knowledge with feedback. Finally, the fourth
criterion was satisfied by the elaboration and evaluation steps in which the
instructor assisted the students in realizing their recent learning. Overall, the author
met the criteria for constructivist learning. In addition, the author showed that there
was more learning in constructivist classroom than the traditional classroom.
Although we question some of the techniques and statistical analyses used for
comparing the performance of the students of the two classes, she did demonstrate
greater learning in the constructivist classroom.
548 S.N. Baviskar et al.
Conclusion
Our study of the literature on science education has revealed that constructivism
and constructivist concepts are frequently mentioned, but essential elements of
Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching 549
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Rosemary Smith for valuable discussions,
advice, and mentoring throughout the writing process.
Note
1. Ms Baviskar is first author because the idea for a review paper exploring constructivism in
science classrooms launched the original collaboration and because she performed most of the
background and paper selection work. The ideas surrounding the four criteria of constructiv-
ism in the introduction were derived primarily from Mr Hartles background and training in
educational theory and practice. In all other aspects, each of the three authors contributed
equally to this work.
References
Airasian, P.W., & Walsh, M.E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 449.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, G.E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings
in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373407.
Berger, K.S. (1978). The developing person. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bostock, S.J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(3), 225240.
Burrowes, P.A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works:
Lords constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491501.
Bybee, R. (1993). Instructional model for science education in developing biological literacy Colorado
Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
Crowther, D.T. (1999). Cooperating with constructivism. Journal of College Science Teaching,
29(1), 1723.
Huffman, D., Goldberg, F., & Michlin, M. (2003). Using computers to create constructivist
learning environments: Impact on pedagogy and achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathe-
matics and Science Teaching, 22(2), 151168.
Inch, S. (2002). The accidental constructivist a mathematicians discovery. College Teaching, 50(3),
111113.
Jenkins, E.W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the most
dangerous intellectual tendency? Science and Education, 9, 599610.
Klionsky, D.J. (1998). Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 31(4), 246251.
550 S.N. Baviskar et al.
Lord, T.R. (1994). Using constructivism to enhance student learning in college biology. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 23(6), 346348.
Lord, T.R. (1997). Comparing traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology.
Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197217.
Lord, T.R. (1998). Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-
based activities to challenge student teams. The American Biology Teacher, 60(8), 580588.
Lord, T.R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental
science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 2228.
Lord, T.R. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American
Biology Teacher, 63(1), 3038.
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia Library] at 10:00 06 November 2017
Lorsbach, A., & Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. NARST
News, 34(3), 911.
Marin, N., Benarroch, A., & Jimenez-Gomez, E. (2000). What is the relationship between social
constructivism and Piagetian constructivism? An analysis of the characteristics of the ideas
within both theories. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 225238.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (1999). Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of
Science Teachers Education, 10(2), 93106.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D.B. (1986). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 16231640.
Rodriguez, A.J., & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for
understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teachers journey. American Educational
Research Journal, 39(4), 10171045.
Saunders, W. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for
science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136141.
Sewell, A. (2002). Constructivism and student misconceptions. Australian Science Teachers Journal,
48(2), 2428.
Vermette, P., Foote, C., Bird, C., Mesibov, D., Harris-Ewing, S., & Battaglia, C. (2001).
Understanding constructivism(s): A primer for parents and school board members. Education,
122(1), 8793.
Wheatley, G.H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science
Education, 75(1), 921.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiations of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131175.
Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science education. The
Science Teacher, 58(6), 5257.