Salisbury 13

7/18/2019 Salisbury 13

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/salisbury-13 1/12

Salisbury 1

Constructivism: Paving a Path to Knowledge

Joshua A. Salisbury

“This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a 2-year faculty

professional development program conducted by the Center for Faculty Excellence, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 2013

“Whereas in most previous decades teachers were expected to prepare only a small minority for

the most ambitious and intellectual work, they are now expected to prepare virtually all students

for higher-order thinking and performance skills once reserved for only a few.” (Bransford,Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005, p.2)

What is expected of teachers? Today’s teachers are held to high standards and are

expected to produce successful students. A successful student is one who can engage and assess

abstract concepts. Aspiring teachers must accept the challenge to stimulate students’ minds and

raise their level of thinking. The educational realm is currently entertaining two main theories—

the positivist and constructivist frameworks for pedagogy—capable of guiding effective practice.

Occupying contrasting ends of educational thought, the constructivist pedagogy embraces the

idea of discovering knowledge, and conversely, the positivist approach is concerned with

relaying facts to students. Teachers need to encourage students to discover information, and as a

result, students will engage in higher level thinking. Educators should intend to adhere to the

role of a constructivist, to become an active part of the classroom and facilitate an environment

of higher learning. The main goal is to increase students’ capability to think at higher levels, and

thus prepare them for the world. Constructivism encourages higher level thinking and engages

the classroom on a personal level.

Charles Dickens' (1937) character Thomas Gradgrind in his literary work, Hard Times is

an excellent example of a positivist teacher. He relies on relaying his vast arsenal of facts from

himself to his students as the basis for his teaching method: “NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach

these boys and girls nothing but facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, androot out everything else” (Dickens, p. 489). Gradgrind’s intentions are to train students to retain

and recall facts. He works from what today we would call a positivist framework for pedagogy.

Positivists believe that facts are central to education. Hinchey (2005) notes, “Students listen, and

they take notes-often in exactly the same words as the teacher or the used text” (p.49). A

positivist teacher depends on the relaying of previously discovered knowledge to students.



Salisbury 2

Students are subject to the supreme knowledge of one person or a text book. Students, in

positivism, depend on their instructors; thus, all learning solely rests on a single person or group

of persons.

In a positivist classroom, knowledge is the collection of facts. Research, text books, and

experts are the sources of fact that create knowledge; moreover, Hinchey (2004) states that for

the positivist pedagogue, “‘Knowing’ means ‘having information about’” (p.41). To “know” in a

positivist classroom a student must be able to recall and retain facts of credible sources. Hinchey

(2004) describes the role of the educator in the positivist classroom as follows: “The task of

teachers is to become somewhat expert in what is known, and then to pass information along to

their students (p. 41). The students depend on the teacher to transmit the facts to them. In order

to run a successful positivist classroom the teacher must constantly be teaching facts to students,

so they will become familiar with as many ideas as possible.

Paulo Freire refers to the positivist theory as the “banking theory.” Freire (1970) believes

that a positivist teacher deposits his or her knowledge in the form of facts into empty receptacles,

which are students, and “Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are

the depositories and the teacher is the depositor” (Freire, 1970, chapter 2). Positivists are wells

of information whose sole purpose is to relay their information to the students. They base their

success on the amount of data they are able to deposit and whether or not students are able recall

what they have been taught, which lends credit to standardized tests—the SAT, ACT, etc.

Positivists do not rely on practical application of information or the process to obtain it. Students

are expected to record, memorize, and regurgitate facts, and thus, “A positivist classroom is

predictable, orderly, sequential, and managed by the teacher, who is the most important and

knowledgeable person in the room” (Hinchey, p. 50). Positivists rely on lecture and dictation.

Generally speaking, the classroom is set in rows with the teacher standing at the front. The

hierarchy is established with the teacher as master and the students as subjects. Power is wielded

in the form of facts, and the teacher always wins. There is a definite barrier between the students

and the teacher that may not be breached. Ultimately, the goal of a positivist teacher is to create

people who are filled with knowledge and are capable of recalling and reporting his or her facts.

If the students leave the class “knowing” more facts than they did when they entered, the teacher

was a success. However, one must question what “knowing” is: the ability to remember

information for a test or the ability to retain and apply information in future endeavors. The



Salisbury 3

positivist’s initial assessment of effectiveness lays with the former; however, society’s

assessment rest with the former—“what can students do.” Techniques such as group work, class

projects, and creative learning—real life applications—do not have a strong place in the

positivist classroom.

Critical thinking is the limit of the positivist pedagogy. There is little room for students

to explore anything beyond what their teachers are lecturing about. For example, if students are

learning Shakespeare’s play, Romeo and Juliet , the students will not interpret the text. Instead,

the students will learn how the positivist teacher interprets the play, and be able to reiterate it to

the teacher. Therefore, critical thinking is not utilized because the students do not have to think,

they just have to listen. The positivist teacher acquired the facts they teach from other credible

sources. Hinchey (2005) states, “The positivist teacher says a student ‘knows’ a Frost poem

when the student knows what expert critics say it means…” (p. 48). Students do not have the

opportunity to engage in abstract thought. However, there are many different possible and

plausible interpretations to Robert Frost’s poems. In the positivist classroom the only

interpretation is the one that the teacher relays to the students. Students are forced to rely on the

opinions, conclusions, and assumptions of other people. The simple transferring of facts does

not allow the student to engage in abstract thought. The student does not have the opportunity to

make any sort of conclusion on his or her own. Positivist teaching does not provide any

evidence to an answer. Instead, a positivist simply provides the answer, and there is only ever

one: the teacher’s.

Another limit to critical thinking in the positivist pedagogy is the classroom structure.

Positivist teachers place themselves as authoritarian figures at the head of the class. The students

in the class are not treated like students; instead, they are treated like subjects. Their thoughts

are suppressed, and academic obedience is encouraged. In the positivist classroom, the students

are inferior to the instructor. Such teachers prefer not to entertain questions in the classroom.

Hinchey (2005) describes the relationship between the teacher and the student, “Children are

explicitly taught not to question what an adult tells them, and they generally accept

unquestioning obedience as a value long before they are capable of thinking critically about

consequences” (p. 19). Students do not feel comfortable questioning the teacher because they

have been conditioned to believe that the teacher is always correct and all knowing. Critical

thinking is inhibited when students do not ask questions. Questions are generated when students



Salisbury 4

try to gain a deeper understanding of subject knowledge, and in a positivist classroom, this type

of questioning tends not to happen because of the authoritarian stance of the teacher and the fear

students may have of raising questions that he may perceive as calling his authority in to

question. As students move to meta-cognition, their brains stumble across gaps which surface in

the form of questions. If the questions are not examined, the students will only gain familiarity

with a subject, not meaning.

Positivists also face the question of, “Which knowledge is important?” This is a limit to

the positivist pedagogy because students are forced to trust the judgment of others.

Administrators and teachers decided what information is going to be taught in the classroom.

Hinchey (2005) states, “Certain facts are uncovered because some scientist decided to research a

specific area, and certain facts find their way into textbooks because some expert found those

particular facts important” (p. 55). Students do not have the luxury to explore the educational

community. They are forced to adhere to a rigid non-negotiable curriculum. Students are not

able to think for themselves. For example, if a teacher is dissecting a text and focusing on the

attributes of a certain character the student is forced to follow along. But, if during the process

the student becomes interested in another aspect of the text, he or she is not permitted to explore

his or her interests. Critical thinking is stifled when students are not allowed to follow their

interests. In a positivist classroom the teacher decides what is important and students do not

have any say. Curriculum is decided by the ones at the top of the educational hierarchy.

Positivist classrooms are predictable and regimented with little or, no room for flexibility.

On the other end of the educational spectrum lies a completely different epistemology.

Constructivism views knowledge as a learning process as opposed to the positivist ideal of

depositing information. Hinchey (2005) states, “The facts are inert and meaningless until we

attempt to interpret them, until we try to add them up into some coherent picture” (p. 45). To a

constructivist, facts are nothing but a raw material; they are useless until they are refined into

knowledge. Learning is the name for the process of refining facts into knowledge. Simpson

(2002) adds, “Constructivism describes both what ‘knowing’ is and how one ‘comes to know.’

Obviously, how one comes to know has a direct link to teaching and learning” (p. 348). In order

to create a rich learning environment both teachers and students must actively engage in the

practice of learning. Richardson (2003) depicts the process of learning:



Salisbury 5

…constructivist pedagogy is thought of as the creation of classroom environments,

activities, and methods that are grounded in a theory of learning, with goals that focus on

the individual students developing deep understandings in the subject matter of interest

and habits of mind that aid in future learning. (p. 1627)

To a constructivist, “knowledge” is looking at the bigger picture; furthermore, it is learning

different ways to manipulate it. It is taking in information and then converting it into workable

knowledge that can be applied in today’s world. For instance, in regards to the Romeo and

Juliet, a constructivist classroom will encourage the student to discover the meaning of the text

by using previous knowledge and applying the lessons to applicable situations that happen in

life. Perhaps students will recall a similar personal situation in which a parent or authoritative

figure did not approve of a relationship; this recollection, combined with the irony in

Shakespeare’s play will not only teach students how to unpack the text, but also the lessons

discovered will help students navigate life’s difficult situations—relationships, etc. This

practical lesson is the product of students activating prior knowledge and discovering new ideas.

During this process, the teacher must guide the students and challenge them to think harder by

considering new ideas. In short, the student is the most important person in the process of

learning. The positivist hierarchy between the teacher and student is destroyed in a constructivist

classroom when the teacher forfeits the position of master lecturer and actively joins the class.

The destruction of the hierarchy allows the teacher to converse with the student on a personal

level thus increasing their educational experiences. Now that the student and the teacher are at

the same level they are able to begin the process of learning together.

Abdal-Haqq (1998) states that “Constructivism is an epistemology, a learning or

meaning-making theory, which offers an explanation of the nature of knowledge and how human

beings learn” (Eric Digest). This particular theory emphasizes the individual and how he or she

gains knowledge in the classroom, “…constructivism is a theory of learning, not a theory of

teaching” (Abdal-Haqq, Eric Digest, 1998). The emphasis of constructivist theory is on the

individual’s path to cognitive and meta-cognitive development. Students must develop their

sense to gather, synthesize, and understand information in order to be successful in the

classroom. Unlike positivists, constructivists view knowledge as discovered information as

opposed to reiterated facts. Hinchey (2005) states, “The constructivist, then, insists that

‘knowledge’ is constructed by human beings when they assign meaning to data; it is not simply



Salisbury 6

sitting out in the world waiting for use to find it” (p. 46). Constructivist teachers encourage their

students to create their own knowledge by learning information first hand. If students engage

learning on a personal level they increase their chances to both retain and recall it.

A constructivist teacher has a strategic place within the classroom. He or she is not at the

front posing as a dictator. Instead, they take an active role and immerse themselves among the

students in an effort to create a homogenous mixture where all the elements are working together

to achieve a mutual goal, knowledge. Constructivist teachers take their place among students,

and learn with the students. Freire (1970) states, “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-

teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with students, who in turn while being taught

also teaches. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (chapter 2). It is

imperative that the teacher is just as open to learning as the students are. Just because a teacher

is in charge of the class does not mean they cannot learn with the students. The main role of a

constructivist teacher within the classroom is to act as a facilitator who monitors and encourages

learning. Students must find the evidence of the information they are learning in order for them

to assign meaning to it.

Paulo Freire (1970) refers to the constructivist theory as the “problem solving” theory

and calls for a movement that draws away from the positivist approach of saturating students

with facts. A constructivist teacher creates a classroom that focuses on both the student and on

the process of learning. Students need to learn on a personal level: “To genuinely ‘know’ what’s

going on, we have to understand the situations of both parties, how their past experiences shaped

their expectations and actions, and so on” (Hinchey, 2005, p. 45). Now that the students’ and

teachers’ roles are defined and the process of learning is known they can engage learning and

create a successful learning environment. Teachers must draw on the students’ life experiences

in order to better teach. Then, the teacher must break the barrier between students and enter into

the lives of the students in an effort to spark intrinsic motivation to learn. Students must bring

the information to a personal level. It is at this level that information is gained, processed, and

stored. Hinchey (2005) remarks, “If students are not somehow personally engaged in a task that

holds some relevance or interest for them, they are not likely to be able to construct a personal

understanding of the information” (p. 51). The teacher must first find the level that a student is

on and then meet them there so they can learn together. Constructivists must have both amiable

and inviting personalities. Students must feel comfortable with them so they can let down their



Salisbury 7

guard and connect with the teacher. Once a student and teacher connect, there is a much better

chance that the student will personally engage the information and assign meaning to it.

The ability to problem solve is an integral part of learning how to become an officer. The

mission at West Point is to create leaders of character. Leaders that will be expected to use

critical thinking skills on a daily basis to lead soldiers and ultimately, defend a nation. The

constructivist learning theory creates autonomous, critical thinkers that have the ability to solve

complex problems with a high level of success and as few casualties as possible. Whether on

foreign battlefields or at a post in the states, a leader must earn a trust. Moreover, the best

leaders are constructivist themselves. Constructivists are in a perpetual state of learning and

encourage those around him or her to do the same. If a relationship is formed where the leader

learns from the subordinate and vice versa, trust comes naturally. This trust not only happens in

the classroom but also in the “real world,” which is ideally an extension of the classroom.

Fortunately, the real world consists of many different types of people. Constructivism creates

and an environment in which all have the opportunity to learn.

Culture can have the potential to be a challenge in the classroom. Each child is different;

therefore, each child cannot be treated in the same way. Race, socio-economic status, family

income, and religion are all factors that create diversity in the classroom. Tyrone Howard (2003)

addresses the demographics of the potential U.S. classrooms:

In short, U.S. schools will continue to become learning spaces where and increasingly

homogeneous teaching population (mostly white, female, and middle class) will come

into contact with an increasingly heterogeneous student population (primarily students of

color, and from low income backgrounds). (Howard, 2003)

Constructivism is a theory of learning that demands that the teacher reach the student on a

personal level. The challenge arises when the teacher and the student have little, if anything, in

common. Richardson (2003) states, “It [constructivist concept] connects with a small but

powerful literature that expresses concerns about the use of constructivist pedagogy with

minority students, and questions whether this is an imposition of an inappropriate pedagogy on

students who are not part of the dominant culture” (p. 1633). Diversity can challenge the

learning environment. Teachers must work even harder to find a way to connect with those

students who do not share common characteristics. In an effort to be successful with diversity in

the classroom, constructivists must always be in a state of reflection. Howard (2003) states



Salisbury 8

“Critical reflection requires one to seek deeper levels of self-knowledge, and to acknowledge

how one’s own worldview can shape student’s conceptions of self” (p. 198). Teachers have to

be sensitive to their environments and learn to operate within it. They must be constantly

flexible and aware of their surroundings in order to accommodate the students in the class. In

order for a teacher to be successful in the classroom he or she must be able to teach all types of

students and be willing to go that extra mile to find out who they are. When a personal

relationship is formed, the student is much more open to learning.

Another challenge in the constructivist classroom revolves around the teacher’s level of

competence within his or her content area. It is crucial that the teacher knows their subject area

inside and out. Richardson (2003) states, “This requires knowledge of the structure of a

discipline as well as the epistemological framework” (p. 1631). As a constructivist teacher you

must know your content area in a deeper sense. Teachers must know their content area well

enough to teach it from all different angles in order to better inform the students. Richardson

(2003) explains:

Such knowledge helps teachers in the interpretation of how students are understanding

the material, in developing activities that support students in exploring concepts,

hypotheses and beliefs, in guiding a discussion toward a shared understanding, providing

guidance on sources for additional formal knowledge, and, at times, correcting

misconceptions. (p. 1631)

In a constructivist classroom students are going to challenge the teacher’s knowledge. Students

are going to pose questions from various intellectual perceptions that will require teachers to

reassess their methods and find a better technique to reach the students. Teachers must be able to

entertain all points of view and moreover, understand their content area in a way that they are

able to manipulate their teaching method to better enlighten all students.

Terry Simpson (2002) introduces a challenge to constructivism. In a constructivist

classroom, students have the opportunity to perceive ideas in a unique manner when students are

tasked with discovering data. Subjects such as history and science are composed of confirmed

facts that are socially accepted. For example, water freezes at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. If a

student were to discover otherwise, a problem occurs. If a constructivist teacher were to tell the

student that they are wrong it would crossover into the positivist thought of, “I am the teacher;

therefore, I am right.” However, there are ways to cope with this type of situation. Instead of



Salisbury 9

telling students that they are wrong Simpson (2002) suggests, “Rather, teachers should permit

these alternative frameworks and ‘encourage children to clarify and articulate their own

understandings often in group activities from which knowledge can be generated or acquired’”

(p. 350). Constructivists confront this situation with one word, “why”. Constructivist teachers

must have students present the evidence for their findings. Often times students do not fully

assess a situation and as a result they make an impulsive conclusion. A constructivist must

utilize that moment to encourage the student to engage in meta-cognition where they reevaluate

the information that they have collected. If that is not successful, the teacher could encourage

the students to work with other students to examine the problem. It is important that the teacher

finds a way to reach the child. Simpson (2002) adds, “Students may not construct meanings on

their own data, for they know high grades derive from meeting the teacher’s standards and

criteria” (p. 351). It is imperative that the teacher does not reveal the answer; instead, they have

to continue to provide evidence to the student until they are able to figure it out. Lastly, it is also

important that the teacher be open to new ideas. Some disciplines do not have concrete facts.

For example, English is a subject that entertains alternative points of view. If a child is assessing

a text and arrives at a conclusion that he or she is able to back up using appropriate evidence, the

teacher should entertain that theory. In fact, that is exactly what a constructivist teacher is trying

to create. When a student creates his or her own meaning, it is essential that the teacher both

accepts and encourages his or her achievement.

The key to a successful education depends on quality tools the students develop. It is not

necessarily what they know; it is how they are able to operate within the world or how well they

are able to apply it. The basic facts ascertained in the classroom do not provide a strong enough

foundation for a student to reach their fullest potential. Instead, his or her success will be

determined by how well he or she is able assess and learn about the world that surrounds them.

Hinchey (2005) references a Zen parable:

…a young fish asks an elder to define the nature of the sea. The young one complains

that although everyone talks constantly about the sea, he can’t see it and he can’t really

get a clear understanding of what it is. The wise elder notes that the sea is all around the

young one; it is where he was born and where he will die; it is a sort of envelope, and he

can’t see it because he is part of it. (Hinchey, 2005, p. 15)



Salisbury 10

Like the young fish, students are a part of a world that is extremely hard to grasp. As a culture,

society is consumed by everything that surrounds us. In order to be successful, a student must

learn how to live within that environment and assess the situations they encounter.

Constructivist teaching better prepares a student to take on the world. It teaches students to think

for themselves and question the facts that are presented to them. A successful constructivist

teacher shows the students they have both self-confidence and intelligence to be an active

member of society. It is the job of teachers to “over train” their students so that they are ready to

take on anything and everything the world has to offer. The world is in a constant state of

change and it is through constructivist knowledge that our youth will survive. As globalization

continues, a global culture is emerging and students will be caught in the middle. This confusing

tempest demands that people keep up or be left behind. The world is sprinting forward and

students have to choose whether or not they want to participate. If students are properly

informed, they will be able to contend with the forever changing world.

My goal is to become the revolutionary teacher about which Paulo Freire (2005) speaks:

“From the outset, her efforts must coincide with those of the students to engage in critical

thinking and the quest for mutual humanization. His efforts must be imbued with a profound

trust in people and their creative power” (chapter 2). I want to move away from direct

instruction and integrate new and interesting methods into the classroom. Though the final

answer may be important, I will be more interested with the processes which the students use to

arrive at that answer. My job will be to develop a safe, comfortable relationship that will

encourage the students to be able to come to me with their questions. I want to help students

realize why “2+2=4,” and moreover, how sometimes it does not. Objective thought is associated

with higher learning and should be utilized in the classroom. I do not want to produce drones

that regurgitate the information that I have passed on to them. Instead, I want students to

challenge me and the goings on in the classroom. My hope is that students challenge me so that I

may better explain my thought and as a result help them develop their own. Students are my

inspiration. As a teacher I will respect and acknowledge their intelligence. Teachers expect the

best out of their students and conversely, students expect the most out of their teachers. I too

must stay a student so I can better learn with the students. Like the students, a constructivist

teacher must also personally engage the material they are working with so that they can be as

effective as possible.



Salisbury 11

As a constructivist, I aim to encourage students to see the ‘big picture” of the world.

Bloom’s taxonomy has six levels of cognition. A strong constructivist creates a circular pattern

in that it starts at level one - knowledge, and passes though each stage to include levels: two -

comprehension; three - application; four - analysis; five synthesis, and ends with level six -

evaluation. Once level six is achieved, cognition is born. However, it does not stop there Meta-

cognition takes place when the student reevaluates what they have learned and thus creates the

synthesis of knowledge. This epiphany is the point where the student begins to create original

thought and achieve meta-cognition. This process is a vital tool that will aid the student in both

school and the world they are going to be faced with after.

Students are the future. In order to better prepare them for the world teachers must better

prepare themselves. Teaching is one of the greatest responsibilities of our time. Teachers are

tasked to educate the future leaders that will inherit the world after we pass. Many of the tools

needed to survive are found in the classroom. However, the tools are only useful if students

discover how to use them. Knowledge and higher level thinking are among the most useful tools

teachers can offer. Constructivism shows students how to use the tools and effectively

implement them into everyday life. The beauty of constructivism is the fact that it is forever

changing with the world. A constructivist does not dismiss a new idea; instead, he or she

assesses the evidence and determines its validity. The educational realm must stay with the time

and change along with it. As teachers we are responsible for preparing students to embrace the

world. This profession demands a great deal of work and an even deeper demand for both

passion and commitment.



Salisbury 12

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those

who link practice to theory. ERIC Digest.

http://www.erucdigests.org/1993-3/theory.htm

Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & Lepage, P. (2005). Theories of learning and their

roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing

teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp.

1-39). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Dickens, C. (1937). Great Expectations and Hard Times. New York: Barnes &Noble

Inc.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Continuum.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/eduaction/freire/pedagogy

Hinchey, P. (2005). Finding the freedom in the classroom: A practical introduction to

critical theory. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy. Ingredients for the critical teacher

Reflection. Theory into Practice, 42 (3), 195-202.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105 (9),

1623-1640.

Simpson, T.L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum, 66

(Summer 2002), 347-354.

Documents

Salisbury 13