Education

ISSN: 0300-4279 (Print) 1475-7575 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Exploring social constructivism: theories and

practicalities

Paul Adams

To cite this article: Paul Adams (2006) Exploring social constructivism: theories and
practicalities, Education, 34:3, 243-257, DOI: 10.1080/03004270600898893

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898893

Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 50374

View related articles

Citing articles: 49 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rett20
Education 3–13
Vol. 34, No. 3, October 2006, pp. 243 – 257

Exploring social constructivism:

theories and practicalities

Paul Adams*
Centre for Educational Studies, University of Hull, UK

In the drive to improve standards, the collection and dissemination of numerical data still directs
much contemporary educational policy. However, recent publications and debates seemingly
attempt to reorient discussion from performance to learning. In support, constructivism is often
referenced as a contributor in this endeavour. However, constructivism is not a single unified theory
either of knowledge or pedagogy. This article identifies one version of constructivist thinking, social
constructivism, both in terms of its underlying epistemology (theory of knowledge) and related
pedagogy. Contemporary educational theories are then outlined to demonstrate that many practical
solutions and theoretical ideas now presented as ‘good learning and teaching’ have much in
common with social constructivist thinking. Finally, the article concludes by identifying two issues
that require further discussion and debate if pedagogy of a social constructivist nature is to be
considered.

Introduction
For some time, educational policy over and above that required for exam success has
been at best sidelined and at worst ignored; tests and other forms of objectively
measuring educational quality have held sway (Easen & Bolden, 2005). Successive
governments have used ever-increasing resources and centralized powers to attempt
to raise standards by the manipulation of school curricula and teacher behaviour
(Silcock, 2003). In this vein, learning at Key Stage 2 (via a simplistic belief in its
association with performance) is measured by controlling for context, task and time
whilst pupils undertake a series of predetermined and moderated tasks, marked
against clear and agreed criteria; in short, Standard Attainment Tests (SATs).
Subsequently, pupil performance is evaluated, attainment judged and standards
commented upon.
Although the rhetoric speaks of assessing pupil learning, the practice is the
moderation of a form of behaviour judged to be associated with learning (Easen &
Bolden, 2005); mental activities and processes are indirectly observed through the
prism of actions and reactions, which in turn are seen to provide reliable information
about the type, scale and quality of learning. In many ways this is unsurprising:

*Centre for Educational Studies, Loten House, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6
7RX, UK. Email: p.adams@hull.ac.uk

ISSN 0300-4279 (print)/ISSN 1475-7575 (online)/06/030243–15

ª 2006 ASPE
DOI: 10.1080/03004270600898893
244 P. Adams

in many social situations evaluations based upon actions often provide the mainstay
of interpretation. However, when considering learning, to use such observations to
comment upon anything other than specific, context-bound performance misses two
fundamental points: learning, or at least aspects of it, occurs in the mind; and
behaviour is not a priori a reliable indicator of cognitive processes. That which a pupil
demonstrates through ‘performance’ is but a surface manifestation of possible
underlying competences (Easen & Bolden, 2005, p. 53). Although it might occur
that success or failure in the test situation accurately indicates cognitive development,
it might also be conjectured that such performance is nothing more than an indication
of the child’s ability to read the requirements of the test. What is interesting (and
troubling) is the way that performance as judged by test results can be modified
without much attendance to underlying cognitive development. Here, teaching trains
pupils to understand the intricacies of the exam question and thus become adept at
reading what is required to glean maximum marks. Teaching for procedural or
conceptual understanding becomes at best sidelined; at worst, ignored.
This surely poses questions as to whether short-term gains in attainment scores are
being achieved at the expense of a commitment to learning in the long term
(MacGilchrist, 2003, p. 61). Certainly, Pollard and Triggs note that ‘a significant
proportion of pupils seem to have become instrumentally concerned with ‘‘playing
the system’’, with superficial learning and trying to avoid boredom’ (2000, p. 297).
However, given that if they are not to depress a school’s league table position,
children must and should succeed in a linear fashion and reach prescribed targets
(Silcock, 2003), this may not come as too much of a surprise.
It would appear therefore that regular testing within such performance paradigms is
in danger of closing down learning opportunities for young people now and in the
future (MacGilchrist, 2003, p. 63). However, output-oriented conceptions of educa-
tion have always been resisted. Indeed, Woods and Jeffrey (2002) note the ways in
which teachers actively rein in, mediate or mollify the stultifying effects of perfor-
mativity culture. For many teachers, discussion about learning and not performance
is that which provides the staple, professional diet. In such discussions, deliberation
and debate about what learning is and how best to promote it take centre stage.
The first casualty in such discussions is any notion that the connection between
learning and performance is simplistic (MacGilchrist, 2003). Secondly, common
themes seem to become distilled, which when examined concur both with informal
and formal theorizing. In turn, these themes promote learning as an active process of
meaning-making (Silcock, 2003); describe effective learners as those able to engage in
the process of meta-learning (the ability to make sense of one’s experience of
learning); acknowledge the role for emotions in learning (Goleman, 1996); and locate
learning as the product of socio-cultural contexts (compare Vygotsky, 1978).
Although educational interventions or initiatives all too often remain measured in
terms of national test results, these emergent themes seem firmly rooted in a desire to
develop the quality of pupils’ learning. For example, implicit to the idea of meta-
learning is the belief that learners need to learn about learning and reflecting
and begin to make sense of their own learning experiences and those of others
 Exploring social constructivism 245

(Biggs & Moore, 1993; Ertmer & Newby, 1996). Rather than attempt to teach how to
rapidly converge on ‘the correct answer’, meta-learning encourages pupils to examine
thought processes, thereby avoiding overly simplistic acceptance and/or the adoption
of ‘fact’; the thinking with which pupils engage is seen as vital to the learning process.

Learning as social construction

These discussions about learning liberate; they permit teachers to move beyond
standards and performance and concentrate on that which should be at the heart of the
educational process: learning and learners. Additionally, such deliberations encourage
teachers to analyse pedagogy from the point of view of the learner. Historically, such
analysis originated from behaviourist positions: the ‘human-as-machine’ analogy,
whereby learners can be programmed and reprogrammed. Behaviourist principles
consider the learner to be a tabula rasa, filled with transmission-based teaching that
improves stimulus–response connections, thereby communicating and instilling a set of
predetermined and agreed facts (Reeves, 1992). In such cases, learning is seen to occur
as a result of adaptation: a process of making associations that leads to alterations in
displayed behaviour. Behaviourism’s egalitarian nature might well acknowledge the
role for the environment in determining the scale and effect of learning but conversely
ignores deliberation about cognition, preferring instead to describe differences in
learning as being attributable solely to the reactions individuals display.
Although behaviourism might still gain regard in some behaviour management
publications and strategies (Porter, 2000), increasingly those involved in education are
adopting the idea that learners shape their own minds through their own actions within
given socio-cultural settings; in orientation, learning as construction. Significant here
is that pupils understand the tasks they face and believe that they have the capacity and
intellectual tools to undertake them. Constructivist learning orientations seek to
understand how pupils create their knowledge constructs and what these mean for
understanding influences on thought processes. The fluid nature of constructivist
learning requires teachers to adopt the view that each learner will construct knowledge
differently and that these differences stem from the various ways that individuals
acquire, select, interpret and organize information (Adams, 2006).
These ideas, although presented under the umbrella term ‘constructivism’,
describe not a coherent set of proposals or features, but rather a series of ideas that
can be thought of as sharing some family resemblance: learning as an active process of
constructing knowledge to make sense of the world (Adams, 2003, 2006). In the
literature, a variety of constructivist theories abound (see for example Crowther,
1997; Kanuka & Anderson, 1999). Although these positions differ in their emphasis
there is commonality between them (Ernest, 1995): for all, the nature of the learning
environment is one of experimentation and dialogue, where knowledge is seen within
the context of problems to be discussed and solved.
One position, social constructivism, posits that learner construction of
knowledge is the product of social interaction, interpretation and understanding
(Vygotsky, 1962). As the creation of knowledge cannot be separated from the social
246 P. Adams

environment in which it is formed, learning is viewed as a process of active knowledge

construction (Woolfolk, 1993) within and from social forms and processes.
Furthermore, due to the mediatory features of language and other forms of
communication, knowledge constructs are formed first on an inter-psychological level
(between people) before becoming internalized or existing intra-psychologically
(Daniels, 2001). Thus, consensus between individuals is held to be the ultimate
criterion upon which to judge the veracity of knowledge and not some form of
‘objective truth test’. In this sense, learning becomes the development of personal
meaning more able to predict socially agreeable interpretations. As Heylighen (1993,
p. 2) explains, social constructivism ‘sees consensus between different subjects as the
ultimate criterion to judge knowledge. ‘‘Truth’’ or ‘‘reality’’ will be accorded only to
those constructions on which most people of a social group agree.’
One result is that this view requires alternative conceptions of failure. Students who
previously might be judged to have failed to understand can alternatively be said to
have inadequately synthesized information in order to relay a socially acceptable
interpretation (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1991). Thus,
problems reside not in a lack of absolute rightness, but rather in personal
interpretation having less accurate predictive validity within the mediated social
environment. It is then but a step to note that in order for learning to effectively occur,
students must be enabled to access those social elements of learning that support the
development of personal interpretation (Hein, 1991). Through an appreciation of
thought processes, cognitive conflict and socially appropriate predictive ability,
learning ceases to be judged as the acceptance of fact with associated problems of
‘wrongness’, and becomes personal interpretation, question creation and the
appreciation of validity as defined by socially recognizable and appropriate forms
(Adams, 2006). The aim of learning is thus to become aware of the realities of others
and their relationship with and to one’s own. As the knowledge constructed is an
indication of how the world might be, a variety of theoretical possibilities are
acceptable, not because of their rightness but because of their ability to predict.
Due to the interpersonal requirements within the social constructivist position, a
key element is an ability to decode attendant language (Vygotsky, 1986, cited in
Goodman & Goodman, 1990; Kanuka & Anderson, 1999) so that negotiated, social
interaction within prevailing personal-to-social constructs might be enabled. Implicit
within the social constructivist position therefore is the need to focus on the learner
and not the subject matter to be taught, whilst simultaneously recognizing that there
is no knowledge independent of the meaning attributed to experience by the learner
within the learning community (Hein, 1991).

Social constructivist pedagogy

The above discussion alludes to principles by which social constructivist learning
environments might begin to be designed. What is required is a way to translate this
pedagogic theory into practice; however, such a translation must have a high degree of
generality. In support, there are many theories of instruction written from a social
 Exploring social constructivism 247

constructivist perspective that might be interrogated as a means to begin to identify

common principles and processes (e.g. Wheatley, 1991; Yager, 1991; Saunders,
1992). What emerges from such writings and other literature (e.g. Hein, 1991; Tam,
2000) are a number of principles. Such principles should not be taken as a list to be
checked off one by one until all are met; rather, they provide the means by which
practice might be referenced.

1. Focus on learning not performance.

2. View learners as active co-constructors of meaning and knowledge.
3. Establish a teacher–pupil relationship built upon the idea of guidance not
instruction.
4. Seek to engage learners in tasks seen as ends in themselves and consequently as
having implicit worth.
5. Promote assessment as an active process of uncovering and acknowledging
shared understanding.

A focus on learning not performance

As previously suggested, a performance orientation adopts an overly simplistic causal
link between outcomes on standardized tests and the quality of pupil learning. In
turn, such beliefs can engender ‘teaching to the test’; predictions about the form and
content of exam papers are made and teaching methods subsequently skewed in an
attempt to maximize marks. However, such orientations often leave teachers feeling
frustrated and constrained, unable to satisfy their desire to be creative and take risks,
seeking instead to operate via ‘contingent pragmatism’, that is, the adoption of
survival techniques (Moore et al., 2002). In such cases teaching becomes compliant
with central imperatives in an effort to secure a favourable standing within the
education marketplace. Such target-driven orientations celebrate successful perfor-
mance as indicated by favourable test results as the ultimate aim for education
(Shepard, 2000; Willinsky, 2005). The measures of success used lead to an
overemphasis on repetitive short-termism aimed at maximizing test performance.
One notable outcome of this is a concentration on those pupils who are able to
make a difference (e.g. at Key Stage 2, those who might improve their SATs score
from a level 3 to the required ‘average’, level 4), for such pupils are seen as crucial in
the attempt to extend further a school’s league table position. Unfortunately, such
views trap schools into a cycle of non-creativity; as institutions they are more akin to
frightened organizations where people work hard and try new initiatives but are
discouraged from taking risks due to the pervasive climate of fear (Watkins, 1999,
p. 74). Furthermore, such high-stakes accountability cultures teach students that
externally driven rewards and punishment should be those which engender effort
(Shepard, 2000). What is never asked is whether the measures used actually represent
valid, worthwhile or meaningful outputs (Ball, 1999, p. 204).
At the heart of these performativity orientations lies the need to ensure that pupils
exhibit behaviours that can be credentialized (i.e. graded and celebrated) through
248 P. Adams

anonymous, externally moderated marking procedures. Pressure thus exists to orient

teaching as the most efficient way to get information from the teacher and into the
minds of the students so that they might acquire the knowledge and skills required to
perform well. The associated orientation of learning is one of knowledge reception by
pupils from the teacher, via carefully constructed, teacher-centred activities designed
to support correct acquisition and favourable demonstration. Learning unfortunately
becomes lost within the morass of deliberation about input and output, in what has
been called a ‘black box’ view (Ball, 1999). As Shepard notes:

Under intense political pressure, test scores are likely to go up without a corresponding
improvement in student learning. In fact, distortions in what and how students are taught
may actually decrease students’ conceptual understanding. (2000, p. 9)

Additionally, a performance orientation removes the locus of control from pupils;

teachers become the focus for success. Such refocusing is evident in the way that
English government policy repeatedly locates the problems of ‘underachievement’
squarely at the door of teachers (Tomlinson, 2001; Willinsky, 2005). Such
attributions, in addition to celebrating professional compliance, reorient learners as
passive recipients, dependent on those around them for success, required to prove
competence through successful performance.
Although research suggests that pupils attribute success to a number of factors
(Weiner, 1996; Weeden & Winter, 1999), a concern for improving one’s performance
is more likely to engender feelings of ‘learned helplessness’ (Dweck, 1999),
whereupon difficulty is avoided, repetition favoured and ability doubted. Conse-
quently, pupils cease to persevere in the face of difficulty (MacGilchrist, 2003). In an
era of high-stakes accountability, effort is increasingly being articulated by its
relationship with responses to externally administered rewards and punishments
(Shepard, 2000).
Conversely, a ‘learning orientation’ (Watkins, 2001) keeps the locus of control
squarely with the pupil. Here, effort is seen to bring reward; an increase in achieve-
ment as measured through personal progress against previous positions. In this
orientation, learners describe themselves in terms of deepening understanding and
derive satisfaction from perseverance and success in difficult tasks (Dweck, 1999;
Watkins, 2001). This orientation is supported by the social constructivist paradigm,
which explicitly and implicitly acknowledges the contingent and fluctuating nature
of learning.

Learners are active co-constructors of meaning and knowledge

Implicit and therefore vital within social constructivist principles is the concept of
mind. In contrast to the black box, behaviourist view of learning, social
constructivism requires attention to learning as mindful activity; that is to say, as
occurring in the mind. Drawing upon related cognitive theory, social constructivism
posits that existing knowledge structures and beliefs support or militate against new
 Exploring social constructivism 249

learning (Shepard, 2000). Additionally it readily incorporates social and cultural

factors as essential to the formulation of understanding.
Social constructivist theory emphasizes the role for others in the individual
construction of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978); learning, in this paradigm, is a primarily
social process (Shepard, 2000). Explicit here is the belief that individuals bring
implicit theories and perspectives derived from the cultural milieu (Sutherland et al.,
2004), and that inter-psychological aspects of knowledge creation themselves assist in
the formulation of this very cultural context. Thus, whilst teachers have an important
role in developing and arranging contrasts in order to stimulate discussion and
thought, pupils are also so judged; the view that pupil learning is merely a reaction to
culture is seen as untenable. Instead, social constructivist theory views learning as
dual-agentic: learner and teacher engage to co-construct the socio-cultural realm;
their decisions ‘scaffold’ each other (Silcock, 2003). The discursive nature of social
constructivist learning environments emphasizes the need for children to be given
time to talk, with the teacher’s role that of listener and observer.
The Assessment Reform Group (1999, p. 8) notes that teachers should observe and
listen to how pupils describe their work and their reasoning through the use of
suitably phrased, open-ended questions, and set tasks that require pupils to use skills
and apply ideas which employ a variety of communicative methods, such as role-play,
concept mapping, drawing and the use of artefacts. Moreover, such interactions
provide opportunities for learners to scaffold their own understanding through the
immediacy of shared interrogation both with and by peers and staff (Torrance &
Pryor, 1998). Indeed, Black and Wiliam (1998) conclude that collaborative discourse
leads to opportunities to self-reflect, with concomitant gains in learning. What all this
provides for are spaces and instances of and for active co-construction of meaning
and understanding. The mutually reinforcing nature of open-ended, exploratory talk
provides mechanisms and opportunities for individual reflexivity within a context that
actively desires and operates to mediate knowledge construction into the social space.
The most obvious reform required then is the devising of more open-ended tasks that
require students to think critically, solve complex problems and apply their
knowledge in and to their own world (Shepard, 2000).
However, the idea of co-construction should not be confined to teacher–pupil
interaction alone. Behaviourist learning and teaching interactions often led to a
culture of pupil dependence on teachers; pupils did as they were told and had good
surface understanding, but little sense of purpose (Weeden & Winter, 1999). To
avoid such dependency, social constructivist approaches acknowledge the need for
pupil–pupil interaction. The exploitation of peer approaches to learning provides
possible answers to the problems of encouraging and enabling primary-age pupils
to take gradually more control over their own learning. Additionally, such
approaches are useful in creating the ‘common knowledge’ that Easen and Bolden
(2005, p. 55) maintain is required if pupils are to recontextualize the everyday,
common-sense knowledge of the home, which thrives on naı̈ve or idiosyncratic
theorizing, into the school environment, where formal theories and sense-making
abound.
250 P. Adams

Teachers as learning guides not instructors

The logical conclusion of a behaviourist pedagogical paradigm is that classes should
be dominated by teacher exposition, agreed texts and methods of instruction that best
assist students in negotiating summative assessments designed to evaluate perfor-
mance. This position does not necessarily preclude pupil involvement and discussion
but ultimately the purpose and direction of interaction is preset. Rather than using
debate and discussion as a means to elucidate and unpack personal ideas and
theories, such activities become a means whereby teachers highlight and correct
‘misunderstandings’ and ‘inconsequential knowledge’.
As a counterpoint, the social constructivist-oriented teacher is positioned as an
organizer and potential source of information (Hanley, 1994; Crowther, 1997). Their
role is as facilitator (Copley, 1992), working to provide students with opportunities
and incentives to construct knowledge and understanding. What alters is the way
teaching and teacher identity are conceptualized. In a practical sense this
reconceptualization focuses thinking on activities that provide pupil-world, case-
based learning to enable authentic, context-oriented, reflective practice within a
collaborative and social environment (Jonassen, 1994; Rice & Wilson, 1999). Most
contentiously, the constructivist environment advocates the gradual transference of
power to give the learning agenda to the learner. In effect what is required is a
paradigm shift: the abandonment of the familiar to embrace the new (Brooks &
Brooks, 1993).
However, social constructivism does not remove the need for the teacher; rather it
redirects teacher activity towards the provision of a safe environment in which student
knowledge construction and social mediation are paramount. Such orientations
require teachers to understand the requirements and stages through which students
travel on their journey towards understanding, which in turn might successfully
mediate into the socio-cultural space. In short, the process of scaffolding the learning
journey is the key teacher requisite (Vygotsky, 1978; Omrod, 1995).

Learners should be engaged in tasks seen as ends in themselves and consequently

as having implicit worth
As Silcock (2003, p. 50) states:

A ‘true’ education is exactly that where learners grasp what is worthwhile for its own sake
rather than as means to other ends (such as passing tests or hitting learning targets).

Implicit in this are two beliefs. First, the teacher’s role is fundamentally different from
that lauded in the behaviourist paradigm, most specifically during teacher–pupil
interaction at the point of celebrating learning. Unfortunately, all too often in primary
education extrinsic reward provides the mainstay of motivational techniques.
Paradoxically, the use of such reward systems (e.g. stickers, smiley faces) can
actually undermine interest and demotivate (Black & Wiliam, 1998); it does nothing
 Exploring social constructivism 251

to close the gap between learning and understanding how to do better. There is
nothing in the reward or its conferral that gives the learner an understanding of
intricate cognitive change, neither do they connect meaningfully with the learning
process.
Secondly, there is therefore a need to consider transference of control from teacher
to pupil. The aforementioned problems with extrinsic reward systems denote a need
to separate such rewards from the celebration of successful learning. Whereas
behaviourist techniques for behaviour management at times may be both successful
and necessary (even though such theories are predicated on particular views of the
learner, teacher and indeed education, a discussion all of its own), their role in
supporting pupil self-control for learning is at best minimal. Certainly, reward
systems can and do achieve increases in the frequency and quality of pupil behaviour,
including working with peers (Porter, 2000). However, mindful commitment is not
required (Desforges, 1993, 1997); that is, a commitment to the learning in hand, due
to purpose and a deep sense of self-awareness. A sense of purpose and the way a task
situates a pupil are that which provide meaning, meaning which in turn provides
motivation. However, motivation in this sense should not be taken to simply mean
feelings of intrinsic worth; rather it should signal that pupils can persist even when a
real desire to intellectually engage is not present. Mindful commitment recognizes
that interest alone is not enough to engender persistence (Silcock, 2003, p. 49).
The above creates a new set of challenges. Although teachers cannot learn on
behalf of the pupil, nor can they in all honesty make someone learn, they can do
certain things to help. The idea of ‘common knowledge’ has been previously
mentioned in relation to bridging the gap between the worlds of home and school
(Easen & Bolden, 2005). This idea along with mindful commitment present an
interesting opportunity to engage with social constructivist thinking. The significance
of socio-cultural issues offered as part of learning in the idea of ‘common knowledge’
sits neatly with the underlying basis for social constructivism. Providing pupil-world
perspectives on learning situations not only makes school learning authentic but also
turns the knowledge and skills gained back in on themselves. Research demonstrates
(Bereiter, 2001) that school learning which connects to a learner’s wider, personal
agenda is more likely to transfer between home and school. Thus, by providing a
socio-cultural context for tasks that is wider than school, those aspects of school
learning that are transferable due to their occurring as part of the social milieu
become not only embedded in the processes of school learning, but also alter the
cultural context of the classroom; in effect learning shapes school into something
tangible rather than ephemeral and obscure.
Practically, these points draw attention to two aspects. First, when designing
learning opportunities, the question needs to be asked: ‘How is this meaningful for
my students given their life-world?’ The requirement to reflect on that which has been
personally constructed within the social world can only carry meaning if it can be
related to personal reference points. When supporting pupils in their efforts to
construct knowledge and meaning, opportunities must be provided that require the
deconstruction of views within the social realm. Thus, rather than being asked what
252 P. Adams

they think and why, learners must be encouraged to explain what they think, why, and
how such changes seem to fit with the requirements of the socio-cultural context.
Secondly, design of learning opportunities and methods for demonstrating and
mediating knowledge into the socio-cultural space should rest at least partly with
pupils. Asking pupils what they wish to consider and how they wish to investigate and
present their work engenders feelings of importance and worthiness.

Assessment as an active process of uncovering and acknowledging

shared understanding
Traditionally, assessment, learning and teaching have been seen as three related but
separate aspects of education (Graue, 1993). Moreover, teachers generally
subordinate assessment to instruction (Torrance & Pryor, 1998). Such views echo
the aforementioned behaviourist ideals: as learning (the act of acquisition) occurs
sequentially and hierarchically, tests should be used to ensure mastery has been
achieved. In this guise, learning is seen as synonymous with good grades which are, in
turn, seen to be good forms of extrinsic motivation (Shepard, 2000). However, social
constructivist perspectives require much more than a mere reorientation of the
interrelationship between teaching, learning and assessment; at their heart they see
the latter as embedded within the learning and teaching process. As Shepard (2000,
p. 8) notes, ‘good assessment tasks are interchangeable with good instructional tasks’.
Assessment thus needs to be reconstrued from the means by which reward might be
conferred to a source of insight and help for all involved in the learning and teaching
interaction. Within a social constructivist perspective, assessment seeks to consider
how and why pupil positions do not successfully mediate into the social domain; that
is, how and why pupil responses do not ‘fit’ with current socially agreed
interpretations. In support, contemporary assessment theory identifies a number of
factors more likely to both develop the quality of pupil learning and reinforce the view
that assessment, as distinct from testing, is an aspect of the learning and teaching
process rather than an adjunct.
Increasingly calls are being made to distinguish between the assessment of learning
(testing) and assessment for learning. In the latter sense, social constructivism offers
suitable insights into describing and constructing theories and processes. The inter-
psychological basis for knowledge construction requires a dynamic learner–teacher
interaction and provides possible insights into three assessment issues. First, and
drawing on Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (the
difference between that which a learner can do independently and that which can be
achieved with the support of a more significant other), whilst it should be obvious that
support from a significant other provides rich opportunities for teaching, the
redesignation of assessment as a dynamic, integral and ongoing part also of learning
bolsters links between all three. Specifically, by providing assistance during teaching
episodes which are in themselves viewed as assessment opportunities, teachers not
only teach, they gain insights into what has been constructed and how this might be
extended and modified. The social constructivist view of knowledge as constructed
 Exploring social constructivism 253

inter-psychologically creates a forum for dynamic and ongoing development.

Moreover, the ZPD opens up possibilities for peer assessment, whereby pupil
communities of practice provide opportunities for and requirements to share thought
processes. Such ways of drawing on the distributed expertise of all in the class
(Sutherland et al., 2004) offer a rich seam of learning opportunities.
Secondly, the conversational requirement of inter-psychological knowledge
creation utilizes pupils’ implicit theories and perspectives as the basis upon which
further learning is to be built. ‘Instructional conversations’ (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988), as interactive, dialogic enterprises, uncover that which has hitherto remained
fully or partially hidden so that constructed ideas and beliefs might be pondered for
complexity, meaning and implication. Assessment in such forms provides a
touchstone upon which those engaged in dialogue might agree on that which
successfully predicts and that which requires further development and thought.
Thirdly, and following on from the above two points, simply assigning to
assessment the role of the attribution of right and wrong requires the identification
and correction of student errors. Conversely, assessment as learning and teaching
provides a number of opportunities for feedback and ‘feeding forward’. In this vein,
errors might be ignored when inconsequential, or forestalled by offering hints or
asking leading questions (Shepard, 2000). Quintessentially, the teacher provides
support and guidance whilst diagnosing student interpretation to inform and direct
further action (Driver et al., 1994). Care must be taken, however, for if pupils
perceive that teacher questioning is not genuine (i.e. to all intents and purposes a
‘test’), they may become less concerned with sharing their learning strategies and
thought processes and more concerned with anticipating and meeting the teacher’s
need for a correct answer.
Although in the behaviourist paradigm the above methods might well be seen as
good teaching techniques, they would have no place in the assessment period of a
tripartite teaching–learning–assessment cycle. To counter this, perhaps further
thought should be given to reconceptualizing assessment in divergent terms
(Torrance & Pryor, 1998), in which it is seen to provide information about what
the learner knows, understands or can do, rather than merely seeking clarification
about whether such learning might have occurred. From a theoretical perspective,
divergent assessment is social constructivist in its orientation, accomplished as it is
jointly from an intention to illuminate that which can be done with support (i.e. in the
ZPD). Practically, divergent assessment is non-judgemental, yields insights into
understanding and prompts meta-cognition. More importantly, it recognizes the
need to involve pupils in self- and peer assessment through the use of discursive and
collaborative learning and teaching strategies.

Conclusion
This article has attempted to shed light both theoretically and practically on a theory
of learning: social constructivism, a term which has pervaded the annals of
educational theory for some time. However, whilst it seems to offer a number of
254 P. Adams

intriguing possibilities for teaching practice and associated practices, it requires

further deliberation and thought for two reasons.
First, social constructivism specifically speaks of an underlying epistemological
basis. Indeed, the pedagogical position promoted by social constructivism reaffirms
an intricate relationship between learning and teaching and epistemology. Related
teaching practices are in effect a response to social constructivism as a theory of
knowledge. However, this is itself a potentially major issue: in decrying realist
interpretations, social constructivist epistemology locates knowledge, not as an
objective, context-devoid discovery, but rather as a contextually-driven intrapersonal
creation.
Whilst it might seem less problematic to judge knowledge in such terms at the post-
doctoral level, during primary school education to talk of knowledge as receiving
‘validity’ due to its ability to predict seems rather odd. Yet if we examine this further
we can see that such a position is not entirely problematic. All primary teachers will be
able to discuss a time when a pupil explained a new concept or idea in a way that,
objectively speaking, was not ‘correct’, but which nevertheless gave a deep insight into
how that pupil comprehended and relayed their knowledge. In such circumstances
teachers will agree that the knowledge forms so articulated are evidence of
understanding and learning. However, it is interesting that such responses seem to
become less frequent and acceptable as pupils age. Whilst this might be due to, for
example, altering conceptions of childhood, it cannot be denied that educational
policy is also responsible. The competitive environment which is now prevalent in
contemporary primary education seeks to validate pupil progress through the
adoption of simplistic cause-and-effect models of learning. In an effort to stay ahead
of other schools and achieve higher league table status, teaching is all too often
reduced to a mechanistic ritual designed to ensure that pupils are able to perform on
externally driven tests. In this vein, social constructivist epistemology has problems:
how can attempts at ‘objective truth testing’ (SATs) fit with a belief that knowledge is
not absolute but rather that the veracity of statements is less to do with internal
structure and cohesion and more to do with the socio-cultural realm in which they are
expressed?
Secondly, social constructivist pedagogy requires a reappraisal of the learner–
teacher relationship. Notwithstanding the previous discussion, moves to reorient
teacher–pupil interactions cut against a history that judges the former as knowledge-
able and in charge and the latter as adults-in-waiting. Thus, in effect the very
construction of pupil and teacher identity is challenged. Even so, what should be clear
from this article is that whilst this relationship does indeed need to alter, teachers still
teach and learners still learn. In support, concepts such as the Zone of Proximal
Development specifically describe a role for the ‘significant other’.
In an attempt to gain support for social constructivism as an epistemology upon
which pedagogy might be built, this article has drawn attention to current educational
theorizing whilst at the same time indicating how it is supportive of the general ideas
and principles promoted within the paradigm in question. In this way it is hoped that
educationalists will begin to question some of the taken-for-granted epistemological
 Exploring social constructivism 255

assumptions that seemingly underpin performance-driven educational policy.

Perhaps what has been stimulated is discussion (the intention): an invitation to
debate.

Notes on contributor
Paul Adams is a lecturer at the Centre for Educational Studies at the University
of Hull. His special interests are in Personal, Social and Health Education,
citizenship, moral education and pastoral care.

References
Adams, P. (2003) Thinking skills and constructivism, Teaching Thinking, 10, Spring, 50–54.
Adams, P. (2006) Demystifying constructivism: the role for the teacher in new-technology
exploiting learning situations, in: L. Tan Wee Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds) Handbook of
research in technology at the K–12 level (Hershey, Idea Group), 493–514.
Assessment Reform Group (1999) Assessment for learning: beyond the black box (Cambridge,
University of Cambridge School of Education).
Ball, S. J. (1999) Labour, learning and the economy: a ‘policy sociology’ perspective, Cambridge
Journal of Education, 29(2), 195–206.
Bereiter, C. (2001) Situated cognition and how to overcome it, in: J. Collins & D. Cook (Eds)
Understanding learning: influences and outcomes (London, Paul Chapman/Open University
Press), 71–83.
Biggs, J. B. & Moore, P. J. (1993) The process of learning (3rd edn) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice
Hall).
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box (London, School of Education, King’s College).
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993) In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms
(Alexandria, VA, American Society for Curriculum Development).
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991) Some thoughts about constructivism and
instructional design, in: T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds) Constructivism and the technology
of instruction: a conversation (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 115–120.
Copley, J. (1992) The integration of teacher education and technology: a constructivist model,
in: D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds) Technology and teacher education
(Charlottesville, VA, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education), 617–622.
Crowther, D. T. (1997) Editorial, Electronic Journal of Science Education, 2, 2. Available online at:
http://www.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejsev2n2ed.html (accessed 17 January 2004).
Daniels, H. (2001) Vygotsky and pedagogy (London: Routledge Falmer).
Desforges, C. (1993) Children’s learning: has it improved?, Education 3–13, 21(3), 3–10.
Desforges, C. (1997) Children’s application of knowledge, paper presented at the 9th Annual
Association for the Study of Primary Education Conference, Dartington Hall, Dartington, Devon.
Driver, R., Aasoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994) Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom, Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Dweck, C. (1999) Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality and development (Philadelphia,
Psychology Press).
Easen, P. & Bolden, D. (2005) Location, location, location: what do league tables really tell us
about primary schools?, Education 3–13, 33(3), 49–56.
Ernest, P. (1995) The one and the many, in: L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds) Constructivism in education
(Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum), 459–486.
Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1996) The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated and reflective,
Instructional Science, 24, 1–24.
256 P. Adams

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ (London, Bloomsbury).
Goodman, Y. M. & Goodman, K. S. (1990) Vygotsky in a whole language perspective,
in: L. C. Moll (Ed.) Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 223–250.
Graue, M. E. (1993) Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment, Educational
Assessment, 1, 293–309.
Hanley, S. (1994) On constructivism. Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation.
Available online at: http://www.towson.edu/csme/mctp/Essays/Constructivism.txt (accessed
12 February 2004).
Hein, G. E. (1991) Constructivist learning theory, the museum and the needs of people, paper
presented at CECA (International Committee of Museum Educators) Conference, Jerusalem,
Israel, 15–22 October.
Heylighen, F. (1993) Epistemology: introduction, Principia Cybernetica. Available online at: http://
www.pespmc.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html (accessed 2 March 2004).
Jonassen, D. H. (1994) Thinking technology, Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.
Kanuka, H. & Anderson, T. (1999) Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning:
constructing order out of the chaos in the literature, Radical Pedagogy, 1, 2. Available online
at: http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html (accessed 9 August
2006).
MacGilchrist, B. (2003) Primary learners of the future: laying the foundations for lifelong learning
in the primary school, Education 3–13, 31(1), 58–65.
Moore, A., Edwards, G., Halpin, D. & George, R. (2002) Compliance, resistance and pragmatism:
the (re)construction of schoolteacher identities in a period of intensive educational reform,
British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 551–565.
Omrod, J. (1995) Educational psychology: principles and applications (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice
Hall).
Pollard, A. & Triggs, P. with Broadfoot, P., McNess, E. & Osborn, M. (2000) What pupils say:
changing policy and practice in primary education (London, Continuum).
Porter, L. (2000) Behaviour in schools: theory and practice for teachers (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
Reeves, T. (1992) Effective dimensions of interactive learning systems, keynote address to the
Information Technology for Training and Education Conference, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, 5–9 September.
Rice, M. L. & Wilson, E. K. (1999) How technology aids constructivism in the social studies classroom.
Available online at: http://www.global.umi.com/pqdweb (accessed 2 February 2003).
Saunders, W. (1992) The constructivist perspective: implications and teaching strategies for
science, School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136–141.
Shepard, L. A. (2000) The role of assessment in a learning culture, Educational Researcher, 29(7),
4–14.
Silcock, P. (2003) Accelerated learning: a revolution in teaching method?, Education 3–13, 31(1),
48–52.
Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, N., Gall, M., Matthewman, S.,
Olivero, F., Taylor, A., Triggs, P., Wishart, J. & John, P. (2004) Transforming teaching and
learning: embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 20, 413–425.
Tam, M. (2000) Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: implications for transform-
ing distance learning, Educational Technology and Society, 3(2), 50–60.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning and schooling in social
context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Tomlinson, S. (2001) Education in a post-welfare society (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. (1998) Investigating formative assessment: teaching, learning and assessment in
the classroom (Buckingham: Open University Press).
 Exploring social constructivism 257

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962) Thought and language (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed. and Trans.) (Cambridge, MA, MIT
Press).
Watkins, C. (1999) Personal–social education: beyond the National Curriculum, British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 27(1), 71–84.
Watkins, C. (2001) Learning about learning enhances performance, National School Improvement
Network (NSIN) bulletin, 13, 1–7.
Weeden, P. & Winter, J. with Broadfoot, P., Hinett, K., McNess, E., Tidmarsh, C., Triggs, P. &
Wilmut, J. (1999) Learners’ expectations of assessment for learning nationally. Report for the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (London, QCA).
Weiner, B. (1996) An attributional theory of motivation and emotion (New York, Springer).
Wheatley, G. H. (1991) Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning, Science
Education, 75(1), 9–21.
Willinsky, J. (2005) Just say know? Schooling the knowledge society, Educational Theory, 55(1), 97–
111.
Woods, P. & Jeffrey, B. (2002) The reconstruction of primary teachers’ identities, British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 23(1), 89–106.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1993) Educational psychology (Boston, Allyn and Bacon).
Yager, R. (1991) The constructivist learning model: towards real reform in science education,
The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.