Constructivism in Education:

An overview of contributions to the literature

and to the JPACTe annotated bibliography

Margaret Richardson, Ed. D., SUNY Cortland

Abstract
Constructivism in education has evolved over the past century due to the
contributions of many individuals in the U. S. and abroad. This article
provides an overview of the contributions of theorists, researchers, and
educators most closely associated with its rise in the field of education.
The article also provides an outline and guide to the annotated
bibliography on constructivism in education on the JPACTe website.

Introduction
This article provides an overview of the development of constructivist theory in
education. It traces the roots of constructivism in the areas of educational philosophy,
cognitive theory, research on teaching, the “social curriculum,” professional
development and brain research. The article also provides an annotated bibliography
aligned with these topics.

Defining Constructivism in Education

Constructivism allows us as, as educators, the conceptual tools with which to view our
students and how they learn in a way that is congruent with best practice. Until recently,
“best practice” has been defined by traditional behaviorist definitions focused on student
academic outcomes; constructivist “best” practice is a relatively new focus of research.
“Constructivist best practice” in the past has been defined by practitioners and those
observing them: by teacher anecdotal evidence, clinical observation, the success of
affective and social teaching, and, increasingly, the positive relationship of constructivist
teaching and academic success (Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004).
Constructivism requires that we understand that “(M)eaning is not given to us in our
encounters, but it is given by us, constructed by us, each in our own way, according to
how our understanding is currently organized.” (Duckworth, 1987, p. 112) (emphasis

1
added). “Constructivism” refers to the process by which human beings actively make
sense out of the world around them-- to “understand” (Wiske, 1998). “Understanding” in
a constructivist universe is an individual’s learning process and goal, and it is always
contextualized. “Knowledge,” as facts or items to be remembered, plays a secondary
role to the understanding that is the heart of the constructivist teaching and learning
endeavor (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Constructivism requires that we reflect on all aspects of the teaching in which we

engage; as educators, we are learners ourselves. We must examine our planning, our
use of external standards, the materials we use, the environment in our classroom, our
own attitudes and expectations, and especially, the needs of our students, whether they
be children or teachers (Sparks, 1994).

A Graphic Organizer for Constructivist Theory in Education

The development of constructivism in field of education can be visualized with the
graphic organizer found in Figure 1. It was designed by a team of three researchers at
the 2005 Annual Constructivist Design Conference held at St. Lawrence University in
Canton, NY. (Ahad, Brockhuis, & Richardson, 2005)

2
 Figure 1,
A Graphic Organizer for Constructivism in Education
(Ahad, Brockhuis, & Richardson, 2005)

Philosophy
&
John Dewey

Brain Cognitive
Research Theory
& &
Constructivism Research

Constructivism

Constructivist Teachers
Professional &
Development Teaching
Strategies

Constructivist
Discipline
&
The Social
Curriculum

The contributions of various theorists, researchers, and educators to the development of

constructivism are presented below, aligned with the graphic organizer in Figure 1. In
each case, references to their works are aligned with the Annotated Bibliography that
appears as a companion piece to this article.

3
 Constructivist Philosophy – the Contributions of John Dewey
While constructivist research is still evolving and has yet to be completely accepted by
educators and the public alike, constructivist theory has a rich history, most famously
initiated by John Dewey (Dewey, 1916, 1933, 1938) in his progressive model for
teaching and learning. At the beginning of the 20th century, Dewey created defensible
theory for progressive (ie. learning-centered) education based on pragmatic philosophy,
on the writings of Rousseau, and on the best psychological knowledge of the time. He
saw the need for public schools to be communities and to teach the skills for community
in an increasingly industrial, urban, disaffected society. He also had insight into how
children learn “best” derived from his own experience as an educator, and from his
interactions with outstanding teachers of the day. Best teaching, for Dewey, included
physical activity as a necessary but not sufficient part of learning. “Internal freedom” and
self-control were his goals to be aided by “external freedom.” Dewey did not step away
from acknowledging the ethical nature of public schooling. The following quote from
Butchart & McEwan (1998) might well illustrate a current interpretation of Dewey’s
allegiance to the ethical and democratic mandate of the public schools:

The question is never, “What works?” – all manner of barbarity works, if the end
is orderliness alone. The question is, what works to assure the sorts of civility
and dignity that is essential in the short term for effective learning, and vital in the
long run for democratic life? (page 3)

Dewey identified human learning as a process identical with the scientific process, thus
requiring teachers and students to view education as an active learning process, in a
“minds-on” sense as well as a ”hands-on” sense. In this scientific approach to learning,
he supported rigorous academic pursuit. While Dewey promoted a kind of schooling
that included emotional and social elements, it is of utmost importance to us today, to
heed Dewey’s argument for progressive (and constructivist) educators, to pursue
academic excellence as avidly as did the traditionalists of his day (Dewey, 1938).
Dewey saw teachers as experts in subject matter, and, as the most experienced person

4
in a classroom, deeply committed to designing authentic tasks to promote meaningful
learning. For Dewey, and for us, best teaching must support student engagement, and
promote students’ increasing complexity and integration of subject matter at the same
time as it promotes their growth in respect for self and others, in self-control, and in
responsibility. Particularly in our age of accountability, if constructivism is to
demonstrate its quality, we must not lose sight of cognition and academic growth as
integral parts of constructivism itself.

Cognitive Theory and Constructivism

Compared to constructivist theory, constructivist research has posed unique challenges
to those who would study the finer points of human cognitive, social and emotional life.
In the early 20th century, science supported what was then part of the “progressive”
development of “objective” and normative tests in order to measure each child’s
intelligence and aptitudes. While originally worthy attempts to pay attention to the
individual learner, these tests led to the development of standardized tests designed by
experts in the disciplines. The test format also shaped much of the research on human
activities in the 20th century fueling empirical, positivist science embraced by behavioral
psychologists, and thus, by educators.

Although Piaget and Vygotsky were well known in the latter part of the 20th century, the
empiricist/behaviorist paradigm for the study of human beings held on in the U.S. far
longer than in Europe. The result was that along with the reification of standardized
tests, the early studies of teacher behavior were predictably designed to determine what
teacher behaviors could be linked to student success on standard measures. This
research identified effective teaching as teacher-centered and authoritarian (Brophy &
Good, 1986).

Cognition was the first aspect of active meaning-making to be studied rigorously, most
famously by Jean Piaget, in experiments that identified malleable and developmental

5
aspects of human thought processes. Later research on cognition focused on the
structural development of the growing brain of childhood, and became associated with
information-processing models, or conceptual schema, and how children’s learning in
different disciplines occurs.

During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, a new understanding of the nature of scientific
inquiry caused a radical paradigm shift within the academy. First, this shift was
recognized in the reconceptualization of the structures of the disciplines (Kuhn, 1962).
The heretofore unquestioned scientific process was challenged, and the very nature of
positivist inquiry questioned.

Researchers in mathematics and science education sought to identify problems

learners had in understanding their content, and in doing so, came to acknowledge
diversity in the ways in which humans create knowledge. Difficulties in understanding
were no longer seen as incorrect as much as they were understood to be incomplete
and incorrect knowledge that worked for the learner in his or her everyday world.
Educators were then in the position not of traditional pedagogues but of academics
interested in learning how to present knowledge in ways students could understand and
learn meaningfully. Although early work on cognitive learning came from the sciences,
the fields related to English/Language Arts also became radically re-focused during the
1970s and 80s on individual meaning-making in reading, speaking, and writing through
Whole Language. Social Studies also became increasingly focused on learner
engagement with primary documents, and curriculum designed around meaningful
learning.

Motivation, interest, engagement, deeper understanding of fewer examples, increased

ownership of knowledge, acceptance of students’ prior knowledge, and the sharing of
knowledge all came to be understood as structures that support construction of
meaningful learning. Rote learning, recitation, and memorization were subsumed under

6
the overarching process of meaning-making; they were not forgotten or eliminated, but
rather subsumed in service to the greater educational purpose within each discipline
and for each learner.

The following researchers and theorists, each of whom has made significant
contributions to the development of constructivist theory, are referenced in the
bibliography section on Cognitive Theory and Research:
• Albert Bandura

• Frederic Bartlett

• Jerome Bruner

• William Clancey

• Eliot Eisner

• Kenneth Gergen

• Barbara Jowarski

• Maria Montessori

• Joseph Novak and D.Bob Gowan

• Jean Piaget

• Barbara Rogoff

• Lev Vygotsky

• William Widmaier

The bibliography contains annotations and related writing about each of these authors.

Constructivist Research on Teachers

In the 1950s and 1960s, specialists and educational leaders believed that once
accurate academic curriculum had been written by experts in the discipline, there
should be no problem with implementation. Since they had little to go on as far as
evidence to the contrary, and since many of the curricula were specifically designed to
be “teacher-proof,” implementation of an innovative curriculum seemed foolproof.
Jerome Bruner, in his Process of Education (1960), argued that the structure of the

7
disciplines themselves was enough to guide K-12 education, and that is what should be
taught to teachers, and designed into curricula to guide teachers. Fortunately, or
unfortunately, many innovations were not teacher proof. Hord and Hall (1987) identify
a typical event:

We really thought the new elementary math curriculum was top notch! It
was carefully designed to meet the needs of our students. The materials
were delivered to teachers last August, and they were provided 3 days of
pre-school in-service focused on the new program. Here we are in April,
and the math coordinator reports that teachers don’t seem to be using the
program the way it was intended. How can that be? It’s been in their
classrooms for nearly a whole school year! (page 61)

What to do? In this scenario, it is clear that the authors believe the teachers must be at
fault in some way. However, that insight led nowhere as a guide to better practice. The
next question to be asked was: “What has to be done to make teachers do it right?”
Than answer was that more teacher-proofing might solve the problem. This option is
still being found to be inadequate today (Hall, 1981; personal communication) as
variations in implementation continue to be identified even as implementers assume
they are satisfactorily implementing the same innovation.

Making teachers “do it right” seemingly could not be accomplished through curricular
prescription, even in conjunction with strong research support and administrative
admonition. What did teachers need to do it right? Note that we have shifted here to
take notice of teachers’ needs, although there is the continuing assumption that the
innovation is presumed to be right. However, this little shift in perspective led to a huge
shift in understanding, as teachers became important (not yet valued) participants in
change. Jerome Bruner followed his Process of Education with The Process of
Education Revisited (1971). He identifies the many ways in which the earlier
presumptions about teaching and learning were lacking and inadequate.

8
In the 1970s and 1980s, educational researchers were forced to reconceptualize their
task from the study of “effective” strategies as defined by classroom control and
academic success. Their research questions and methodologies had to be redesigned
to include a paradigm that acknowledged that subject matter is a changing
phenomenon, that students’ vary in skills and understanding, that teachers are
potential (expert) allies, and that the importance of information technology has grown
dramatically. More in-depth study of excellence in teaching needed to be undertaken,
and, finally, the thoughts and feelings teachers came to be included as part of their
classroom expertise. The transition to more constructivist study and more qualitative
methodologies was a difficult one since science was founded on the “objective”
endeavor, concerning itself with what could be observed and quantified.

A new paradigm in the study of education examined the question “Why?” as opposed
to the “Who?,” What?,” “Where?,” or even “How?” of positivist research. Traditional
research needed demonstrable facts and behaviors, and the subtleties of meaning
making – thought and feeling, and the complexities of social interactions – were
overlooked or trivialized by the juggernaut of numerical “truth.” The study of human
beings – and therefore the educational endeavor of teaching and learning – required a
new paradigm in scientific thinking, and new strategies to record the more qualitative
aspects of learning. Educational research needed to be contextualized - to include
information about researcher, those being studied, and the context (the classroom, the
community, the school, etc., in educational research). Strategies such as narrative,
script analysis, interview, and document or artifact analysis became the research tools
of a constructivist research paradigm focused on meaningful knowledge acquisition.

New strategies for instruction and assessment of student learning grew out of the
change in paradigm for teaching based on constructivism. The annotated bibliography
incorporates the following sections:
• The Study of Teachers

9
 • Learning Centered Teaching Strategies

• Collaborative Learning and Teaching

• Constructivist Assessment Strategies

• Constructivist Strategies for Specific Academic Disciplines

Each section contains annotations about the work of many authors who have made
significant contributions to the development of constructivist theory in the past 50
years.

Constructivism and the “Social Curriculum” of Classrooms

To return to our first definition of “constructivism”:

Constructivism” refers to the process by which human beings actively

make sense out of the world around them- to “understand. (Wiske, 1998).

and therefore:

Constructivism requires that we reflect on all aspects of the teaching in

which we engage; as educators, we are learners ourselves. We must
examine our planning, our use of external standards, the materials we
use, the environment in our classroom, our own attitudes and
expectations, and especially, the needs of our students, whether they be
children or teachers. (Sparks, 1994).

If a teacher accepts a constructivist academic learning model for her students, there is
one insight that might naturally follow. As a lifelong learner, the teacher would realize
the necessity of self-reflective practice as key to professional growth, the logical
necessity for her too teach her students to become reflective learners with regard to the
academic disciplines. However, there is a commonly found reality that teachers who
may be well-versed and highly adept at constructivist teaching within the academic
curriculum often resort to traditional, passive learning models for their social curriculum.
If a teacher is familiar with the work of Vygotsky (1934, 1978) however, consideration of
the social curriculum in one’s classroom would dictate that teachers consider the social

10
aspects of the lives of his/her students in their classrooms. In identifying the social
nature of human learning, Vygotsky made it clear to educators that a classroom focused
on academic organization by itself will not assure a safe and caring environment for all
children. Academic learning is constructed within the social environment of a classroom
and school.

The social nature of human learning means that every classroom already has a “social”
curriculum that needs to be identified. Constructivist theory would require that the social
curriculum deserves to be taught and learned (especially for children with absent or
poor role models at home) in the same (constructivist; active) manner as the academic
curricula. In order to make sure beliefs about social interactions in the classroom and
practice coincide, teachers need to reflect upon their own “hidden” affective and social
curriculum as well as their already explicit structures. On-going reflection on personal
beliefs about the teaching and learning of affective, social “subject matter” allows
classroom interactions to be guided by a teacher alert to the needs, learning styles, and
socialization of her students.

In one profound aspect, the subject matter of the social curriculum varies from
academic content. The social curriculum can make no pretence of objectivity. In
examining a social curriculum, we come face to face not with some theoretical “social”
content alone (let us learn the Golden Rule), but with the whole realm of moral and
ethical behavior (are we practicing the Golden Rule?). Once teachers recognize the
dynamics of the social curriculum, and accept the need for the active teaching and
learning of that social curriculum, they will also see that the classroom is a venue rife
with ethical and moral implications. They will find themselves face to face with the
necessity of examining the social curriculum of their classroom with regard to its quality
as reflected in student understanding and internalization of ethical and virtuous attitudes
and actions.

11
As a result of taking constructivist theory seriously educators are obliged to ask: “What
is quality in social learning?” and “How do we integrate this quality into our less than
perfect classrooms?” The first answer must come from the best models we have
available: in a democracy, civic participation in service to a democratic ideal might
provide a worthy goal in a classroom. The second question regarding “how to?’ is much
harder to answer, but answers may be initiated within a constructivist learning model as
a teacher moves from a more teacher-centered to a more student-centered classroom
with the creation of self-control in students, and the teacher’s sharing and passing on of
responsibility to students. The work that goes into this complex development cannot
occur without teachers seeing themselves as constructivist learners who are reflective
and flexible as well as well-informed about subject-matter, their students, and
appropriate pedagogy. Without careful analysis of the social curriculum and critical
reflection upon performance, teachers may end their thinking about discipline with (only)
“what works to bring order” (Butchart, cited in Butchart & McEwan, 1998; Charney,
2002).

It is the educator’s role to “define the kind of society we have in mind” (Dewey, 1916, p.
6 ) leading us to reflection on the meaning of “discipline,” “order,” and “control,”
“democracy,” “ethics,” “self-control,” “caring,” “appreciation of diversity,” “responsibility,”
and “self-esteem based on effort rather than on rewards and punishments.” In reflecting
on them, we must then, bring these concepts to the center of teacher thought,
classroom dialogue, and finally, student action. The very discussion stretches the
purposes of schooling to include self-knowledge, sharing of self, and relationship of self
to the community. The discussion and ensuing actions empower teachers and students.

The recent literature on democratic and constructivist teaching and learning practices
supports an increasingly sophisticated vision for children to grow in democratic, ethical,
and caring ways with a “a critical constructivist approach to classroom relationships…”
that will create “a curriculum of democratic civility.” (Buchart, 1998, 4) Discussion of the

12
relationship between democracy and constructivist teaching and learning has created a
larger educational vision within which constructivist social curriculum finds a natural
home (Apple & Beane, 1995; Hoover & Kindsvatter,1997; Noddings, 2002; Lickona,
2004; Charney, 2002).

The bibliography on the social curriculum contains two sections:

• Constructivism and the Social Curriculum – Theory

• Constructivism and the Social Curriculum – Practice

Each section contains annotations about the work of many authors who have made
significant contributions regarding the social curriculum in the past 50 years.

Constructivism in Modern Professional Development for Teachers

As a direct outgrowth of the constructivist research on teaching, K-12 professional
development programs for teachers today are often grounded in constructivist
epistemology with one purpose being the educating of teachers to teach in constructivist
ways. Constructivist research and practice on teaching, augmented more recently by
brain research, provides a foundation on which much of current professional
development has flourished, where teachers themselves are at the heart of meaningful
change. In particular, scholarship and the publication of journals and texts supported by
ASCD and NSDC have successfully addressed the human aspects of professional
development, often modeling constructivist theory and practice without necessarily
identifying the constructivist roots of their research and practical suggestions.

Much of effective professional development today is distinctly constructivist in nature,

supporting engagement, ownership, and assessment of teacher-learners with attention
paid to developmental levels, teaching skills, feelings/concerns of individual teacher-
learners, and including reflection as part of the learning process. Study groups, action
research, becoming a teacher-leader, curriculum development, and peer coaching all
require active engagement and reflection by staff developers, teacher leaders, and

13
mentors, as well as by teacher learners. On-going support for integration of new
teaching strategies, formative assessment, personal goal-setting, mentoring,
conference attendance, in-service days, may also serve to support meaningful teacher
growth.

According to Sparks (1994) and Guskey (1997), perhaps the most successful constructivist
method of encouraging teacher participation in change is procedurally embedded professional
development. Embedded professional development is characterized as occurring within the
professional context, and requires that educators share what they have learned from their
teaching experiences by “reflecting on the experience, and then generating and sharing new
insights” (Wood & McQuarrie, 1999). This kind of activity is valued because of its context; it
engenders shared learning experiences and creative thought focused on what is known to be
of most importance within that context. Embedded professional development is highly
regarded as being efficacious in ensuring meaningful integration of knowledge and skills.

The bibliography contains annotations about the work of many authors who have made
significant contributions to the professional development of teachers regarding constructivism
in the past 50 years.

Constructivism and Brain Research

Ironically, but necessarily, the most persuasive support for constructivist teaching and
learning finally comes from deep within the traditional scientific paradigm. Recent brain
research (clearly still in its infancy), seems to be validating constructivist beliefs about
how learning occurs. Increasingly sophisticated neurological technologies have allowed
study of brain structure and processes. The physiological evidence for increased or
decreased molecular, electrical, and neuronal activity in different parts of the brain may
be observed as the brain responds to different kinds of mental and emotional activity.
Pictures of brain activity from PET and MRI scans of the physiological activities
occurring in the brain during learning indicate that there is increased meaningful,

14
remembered learning when learners are actively and interactively engaged, when they
are comfortable socially and emotionally, when they are intellectually challenged, and
when they are in enriched learning environments.

From this research educators may extrapolate that best practices might include teacher
design of environments that not only challenge students intellectually, but also involve
learners in their own learning, require reflection, support and promote positive social
growth, and require the development and use of positive emotional skills (Caine &
Caine, 1994). These best teaching practices can already be found operating in the
classrooms of some outstanding teachers who teach for understanding, as well as
social and emotional growth. These educators are also often found in self-
study/research including action research, collaborative study groups, peer coaching,
mentoring activities, and staff developer.

The bibliography contains annotations about the work of many authors who have made
significant contributions regarding brain research and its relationship to constructivist
theory in the past 50 years.

Conclusion and links to an Annotated Bibliography

This article has sought to describe the components of constructivist theory in education
and its applications, offering information to underscore its basic goal – to establish that
constructivism is the predominant theory active in education today. An understanding of
constructivist teaching and learning and the theory that supports it can help teachers to
defend those important aspects of classroom life not directly affected by the state tests.
Because the theory of constructivism is being supported in many ways by research in
laboratory and practical situations, it is incumbent on educators, researchers, and
theorists to embrace its constructs and put them into practice throughout the field of
education. The annotated bibliography represents a useful tool to assist them in doing
so.

15
 References Cited

Editor’s Note: The annotated bibliography that is the subject of this article is available
as a separate link on the JPACTe website menu. All references cited in this article are
listed in the annotated bibliography on the JPACTe website, with the exception of the
following:

Ahad, S., Blokhuis, J., & Richardson, M. (2005) Codifying Constructivist Literature.
Unpublished powerpoint document. Niagara Falls, NY: Niagara University College of
Education.

16