2.

3 Constructivist Theories
Constructivism is ‘an approach to learning that holds that people actively
construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the
experiences of the learner’ (Elliott et al., 2000, p. 256).
In elaborating constructivists’ ideas Arends (1998) states that constructivism
believes in personal construction of meaning by the learner through experience, and
that meaning is influenced by the interaction of prior knowledge and new events.
Principles of Constructivism
1. Knowledge is constructed, rather than innate, or passively absorbed
Constructivism's central idea is that human learning is constructed, that
learners build new knowledge upon the foundation of previous learning.
This prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge an
individual will construct from new learning experiences (Phillips, 1995).
2. Learning is an active process
The second notion is that learning is an active rather than a passive process.
The passive view of teaching views the learner as ‘an empty vessel’ to
be filled with knowledge, whereas constructivism states that learners
construct meaning only through active engagement with the world
(such as experiments or real-world problem solving).
Information may be passively received, but understanding cannot be,
for it must come from making meaningful connections between prior
knowledge, new knowledge, and the processes involved in learning.
3. All knowledge is socially constructed
Learning is a social activity - it is something we do together, in
interaction with each other, rather than an abstract concept (Dewey,
1938).
For example, Vygotsky (1978), believed that community plays a central
role in the process of "making meaning." For Vygotsky, the
environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and
what they think about.
Thus, all teaching and learning is a matter of sharing and negotiating
socially constituted knowledge.
For example, Vygotsky (1978) states cognitive development stems from
social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal
development as children and their partner's co-construct knowledge.
 4. All knowledge is personal
Each individual learner has a distinctive point of view, based on existing
knowledge and values.
This means that same lesson, teaching or activity may result in different
learning by each pupil, as their subjective interpretations differ.
This principle appears to contradict the view the knowledge is socially
constructed.
5. Learning exists in the mind
The constructivist theory posits that knowledge can only exist within the
human mind, and that it does not have to match any real world reality
(Driscoll, 2000).
Learners will be constantly trying to develop their own individual mental
model of the real world from their perceptions of that world.
As they perceive each new experience, learners will continually update
their own mental models to reflect the new information, and will,
therefore, construct their own interpretation of reality.

Traditional Classroom vs. Constructivist Classroom

Traditional Classroom Constructivist Classroom

Strict adherence to a fixed Pursuit of student questions and interests
curriculum is highly valued. is valued.

Learning is based on repetition. Learning is interactive, building on what

the student already knows.

Teacher-centered. Student-centered.

Traditional Classroom Constructivist Classroom

Teachers disseminate information to Teachers have a dialogue with students,
students; students are recipients of helping students construct their own
knowledge (passive learning). knowledge (active learning).
 Teacher's role is directive, rooted in Teacher's role is interactive, rooted in
authority. negotiation.

Students work primarily alone Students work primarily in groups

(competitive). (cooperative).

Constructivist Approaches to Teaching

Constructivist learning theory underpins a variety of student-centered teaching
methods and techniques which contrast with traditional education, whereby
knowledge is simply passively transmitted by teachers to students.
What is the role of the teacher in a constructivist classroom?
The primary responsibility of the teacher is to create a collaborative problem-
solving environment where students become active participants in their own
learning.
From this perspective, a teacher acts as a facilitator of learning rather than an
instructor.
The teacher makes sure he/she understands the students' preexisting
conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them (Oliver,
2000).
Scaffolding is a key feature of effective teaching, where the adult continually
adjusts the level of his or her help in response to the learner's level of performance.
In the classroom, scaffolding can include modeling a skill, providing hints or
cues, and adapting material or activity (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).
What are the features of a constructivist classroom?
Tam (2000) lists the following four basic characteristics of constructivist
learning environments, which must be considered when implementing constructivist
teaching strategies:
1) Knowledge will be shared between teachers and students.
2) Teachers and students will share authority.
3) The teacher's role is one of a facilitator or guide.
4) Learning groups will consist of small numbers of heterogeneous students.
a. Experiential Learning Theory
 David Kolb published his learning styles model in 1984 from which he
developed his learning style inventory.
Kolb's experiential learning theory works on two levels: a four-stage cycle of
learning and four separate learning styles. Much of Kolb’s theory is concerned with
the learner’s internal cognitive processes.
Kolb states that learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can
be applied flexibly in a range of situations. In Kolb’s theory, the impetus for the
development of new concepts is provided by new experiences.
“Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38).
The Experiential Learning Cycle
Kolb's experiential learning style theory is typically represented by a four-stage
learning cycle in which the learner 'touches all the bases':

1. Concrete Experience - a new experience or situation is encountered, or a

reinterpretation of existing experience.
2. Reflective Observation of the New Experience - of particular importance are
any inconsistencies between experience and understanding.
3. Abstract Conceptualization reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a
modification of an existing abstract concept (the person has learned from their
experience).
4. Active Experimentation - the learner applies their idea(s) to the world around
them to see what happens.
 Effective learning is seen when a person progresses through a cycle of four
stages: of (1) having a concrete experience followed by (2) observation of and
reflection on that experience which leads to (3) the formation of abstract concepts
(analysis) and generalizations (conclusions) which are then (4) used to test a
hypothesis in future situations, resulting in new experiences.

Kolb (1984) views learning as an integrated process with each stage being
mutually supportive of and feeding into the next. It is possible to enter the cycle at
any stage and follow it through its logical sequence.
However, effective learning only occurs when a learner can execute all four
stages of the model. Therefore, no one stage of the cycle is effective as a learning
procedure on its own.
Learning Styles
Kolb's learning theory (1984) sets out four distinct learning styles, which are
based on a four-stage learning cycle (see above). Kolb explains that different people
naturally prefer a certain single different learning style.
Various factors influence a person's preferred style. For example, social
environment, educational experiences, or the basic cognitive structure of the
individual.
Whatever influences the choice of style, the learning style preference itself is
actually the product of two pairs of variables, or two separate 'choices' that we make,
which Kolb presented as lines of an axis, each with 'conflicting' modes at either end.
A typical presentation of Kolb's two continuums is that the east-west axis is
called the Processing Continuum (how we approach a task), and the north-south axis
is called the Perception Continuum (our emotional response, or how we think or feel
about it).
 Kolb believed that we cannot perform both variables on a single axis at the
same time (e.g., think and feel). Our learning style is a product of these two choice
decisions.
It's often easier to see the construction of Kolb's learning styles in terms of a
two by-two matrix. Each learning style represents a combination of two preferred
styles.
The matrix also highlights Kolb's terminology for the four learning styles;
diverging, assimilating, and converging, accommodating:

Active
Experimentation (Doing)
Reflective Observation (Watching)

Concrete Experience Accommodating Diverging (CE/RO)

(Feeling) (CE/AE)

Abstract Converging Assimilating (AC/RO)

Conceptualization (AC/AE)
(Thinking)

Learning Styles Descriptions

Knowing a person's (and your own) learning style enables learning to be
orientated according to the preferred method.
 That said, everyone responds to and needs the stimulus of all types of learning
styles to one extent or another - it's a matter of using emphasis that fits best with the
given situation and a person's learning style preferences.
Here are brief descriptions of the four Kolb learning styles:
Diverging (feeling and watching - CE/RO)
These people are able to look at things from different perspectives. They are
sensitive. They prefer to watch rather than do, tending to gather information and use
imagination to solve problems. They are best at viewing concrete situations from
several different viewpoints.
Kolb called this style 'diverging' because these people perform better in
situations that require ideas-generation, for example, brainstorming. People with a
diverging learning style have broad cultural interests and like to gather information.
They are interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, and tend
to be strong in the arts. People with the diverging style prefer to work in groups, to
listen with an open mind and to receive personal feedback.

Assimilating (watching and thinking - AC/RO)

The assimilating learning preference involves a concise, logical approach.
Ideas and concepts are more important than people.
These people require good clear explanation rather than a practical
opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it
in a clear, logical format.
People with an assimilating learning style are less focused on people and
more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. People with this style are more
attracted to logically sound theories than approaches based on practical value.
This learning style is important for effectiveness in information and science
careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures,
exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.

Converging (doing and thinking - AC/AE)

People with a converging learning style can solve problems and will use their
learning to find solutions to practical issues. They prefer technical tasks, and are less
concerned with people and interpersonal aspects.
People with a converging learning style are best at finding practical uses for
ideas and theories. They can solve problems and make decisions by finding
solutions to questions and problems.
 People with a converging learning style are more attracted to technical tasks
and problems than social or interpersonal issues. A converging learning style
enables specialist and technology abilities.
People with a converging style like to experiment with new ideas, to simulate,
and to work with practical applications.

Accommodating (doing and feeling - CE/AE)

The Accommodating learning style is 'hands-on,' and relies on intuition rather
than logic. These people use other people's analysis, and prefer to take a practical,
experiential approach. They are attracted to new challenges and experiences, and to
carrying out plans.
They commonly act on 'gut' instinct rather than logical analysis. People with an
accommodating learning style will tend to rely on others for information than carry out
their own analysis. This learning style is prevalent within the general population.

Educational Implications
Both Kolb's (1984) learning stages and cycle could be used by teachers to
critically evaluate the learning provision typically available to students, and to
develop more appropriate learning opportunities.
Educators should ensure that activities are designed and carried out in ways
that offer each learner the chance to engage in the manner that suits them best.

b. Van Hiele Model

The van Hiele theory describes how young people learn geometry. It
postulates five levels of geometric thinking which are labeled visualization, analysis,
abstraction, formal deduction and rigor. Each level uses its own language and
symbols. Students or pupils pass through the levels “step by step”. This hierarchical
order helps them to achieve better understanding and results. It is focused on
possibilities how to apply this theory on Czech mathematical education.
Introduction
Pierre van Hiele and his wife Dina van Hiele-Geldof were Dutch researchers
and teachers. They had personal experience with difficulties which their students had
in learning geometry. Therefore, they dealt with these problems in detail. The theory
originated in their theses at the University of Utrecht in 1957. Pierre van Hiele
devoted his lifetime to their theory, Dina died shortly after completing her thesis.
Research based on the theory was carried out in the Soviet Union in the
1960s. Using its results, a very successful new geometry curriculum was designed in
the Soviet Union. American researchers did several large studies on the van Hiele
theory in the late
1970s [Usiskin, 1982 and Senk, 1985]. These studies influenced American NCTM
Standards and Common Core State Standards.
Van Hiele Theory
The theory has three aspects: the existence of levels, the properties of the
levels, and the progress from one level to the next level.
Van Hiele Levels
According to the theory, there are five levels of thinking or understanding in
geometry:
• Level 0 Visualization
• Level 1 Analysis
• Level 2 Abstraction
• Level 3 Deduction
• Level 4 Rigor

Level 0 Visualization (Basic visualization or Recognition)

At this level pupils use visual perception and nonverbal thinking. They
recognize geometric figures by their shape as “a whole” and compare the figures
with their prototypes or everyday things (“it looks like door”), categorize them (“it is / it
is not a…”). They use simple language. They do not identify the properties of
geometric figures.

Level 1 Analysis (Description)

At this level pupils (students) start analyzing and naming properties of
geometric figures. They do not see relationships between properties, they think all
properties are important (= there is no difference between necessary and sufficient
properties). They do not see a need for proof of facts discovered empirically. They
can measure, fold and cut paper, use geometric software etc.
Level 2 Abstraction (Informal deduction or Ordering or Relational)
At this level pupils or students perceive relationships between properties and
figures. They create meaningful definitions. They are able to give simple arguments to
justify their reasoning. They can draw logical maps and diagrams. They use sketches
and grid paper.

Pierre van Hiele wrote: “My experience as a teacher of geometry convinces

me that all too often, students have not yet achieved this level of informal deduction.
Consequently, they are not successful in their study of the kind of geometry that
Euclid created, which involves formal deduction.”
Level 3 Deduction (Formal deduction)
At this level students can give deductive geometric proofs. They are able to
differentiate between necessary and sufficient conditions. They identify which
properties are implied by others. They understand the role of definitions, theorems,
axioms and proofs.
Level 4 Rigor
At this level students understand the way how mathematical systems are established.
They are able to use all types of proofs. They comprehend Euclidean and non-
Euclidean geometry. They are able to describe the effect of adding or removing an
axiom on a given geometric system.

Properties of Levels
The levels have five important characteristics:
Fixed sequence (order)
 A student cannot be at level N without having gone through level (N−1).
Therefore, the student must go through the levels in order.
Adjacency
At each level, what was intrinsic in the preceding level becomes extrinsic in the
current level.
Distinction
Each level has its own linguistic symbols and its own network of relationships
connecting those symbols. The meaning of a linguistic symbol is more than its explicit
definition; it includes the experiences which the speaker associates with the given
symbol. What may be “correct” at one level is not necessarily correct at another
level.
Separation
Two persons at different levels cannot understand each other. The teacher
speaks a different “language” to the student at a lower level. The van Hieles thought
this property was one of the main reasons for failure in geometry.
Attainment
The learning process leading to complete understanding at the next level has
five phases – information, guided orientation, explanation, free orientation,
integration, which are approximately not strictly sequential.

c. Radical Constructivism
Information is not simply transferred from one person to another, and passed
from teacher to student. The learning experience is down to the individual building
knowledge and their subjective interpretation of this experience.
The individual constructs knowledge, understanding and links this with their
own experiences and ideas – the constructivism part. von Glasersfeld (1989) writes
“understanding is not a matter of passively receiving but of actively building up”.
Assimilation is using new experiences to already existing schema, knowledge
and experiences (von Glasersfeld, 2013). So according to von Glasersfeld,
conceptually today’s education will soon be yesterday’s experience to construct and
build on.

Theoretical Aspect
Radical constructivism provides an epistemological (theory of knowledge)
approach where the cognizing individual creates meaning and understanding through
active learning (von Glasersfeld, 2013). This radical constructive learning theory is
based on one’s own experience and interpretation, “What we make of experience
constitutes the only world we consciously live in” (Von Glasersfeld, 2013, p. 1). The
complexity of Glasersfeld’s theory, which emphasises the subjectivity of the
individual, and their reality and organisation of the world is a very challenging
epistemological concept.
References:
Arends, R. I. (1998). Resource handbook. Learning to teach (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Baldwin, D. (2016). Constructivism. In Power and International Relations: A
Conceptual Approach (pp. 139-154). Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Retrieved June 3, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q1xsp6.9
Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for
constructivist classrooms, ASCD. NDT Resource Center database.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Davis, R., Maher, C., & Noddings, N. (1990). Introduction. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 1-210. doi:10.2307/749908
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. Driscoll,
M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn& Bacon
Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield Cook, J. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational
psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
College.
Ernest, P. (1994). Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies and
pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(1994), 2.
Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford review of education, 27(1), 23-35.
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning
environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional
design, 11-24.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, MA:
McBer.
Kolb, D.A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences, in: A.W. Chickering
(Ed.) The Modern American College (pp. 232–255). San Francisco, LA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C.
Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process (pp. 33–57). New York: Wiley.
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational psychology:
readings on human behavior in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McLeod, S. A. (2017, October 24). Kolb - learning styles. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
McLeod, S. A. (2019, July 17). Constructivism as a theory for teaching and learning.
Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html
Miller, A. (2013). Constructivism. In Speculative Grace: Bruno Latour and Object-
Oriented Theology (pp. 72-76). New York: Fordham University Press.
doi:10.2307/j.ctt13x0cck.24
Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivism learning on the web.
Educational Technology, 40 (6)
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of
constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications
for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2).
Teaching Guide for GSIs. Learning: Theory and Research (2016). Retrieved from
http://gsi.berkeley.edu/media/Learning.pdf
Von Glasersfeld, E. V. (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology.
Epistemology and education, 1-24.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1994). A radical constructivist view of basic mathematical
concepts. Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematics
education, 5-7.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). Chapter 2: An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some
Like It Radical. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 19-
210. doi:10.2307/749910
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.