Author: Miroslav Filip
Constructivist education (CE) has been developed for decades. For its emphasis on learner’s activity, creativity and democratic spirit, CE has been praised as a candidate for what modern education should look like. On the contrary, it has also been criticised by others for excessive looseness and low effectiveness.
In Czechia, CE can be found in various forms in schools that call themselves „community schools“ or „innovative schools“ and the like. Features of CE can also be found in schools with “project-based” and “discovery-based” teaching. Due to their more individualized approach and respectful treatment of children and parents, they are sought-after alternatives to traditional primary and secondary schools. Despite these benefits, many parents who send their children to such schools fear that by the 5th grade of primary school at the latest, the more relaxed and less stressful teaching style will lead to poorer academic performance that will hinder their child’s further education, especially when transitioning to another school. (I wonder what experiences with these schools there are in other countries.)
So, does CE lead to worse learning? Although there are hundreds of studies of effectiveness of constructivist educational approaches, it seems to me that their conclusions have been only rarely summarised and contrasted with each other across different research paradigms (exception here) and communicated in a comprehensive way to broader audience. (The last comprehensive review of empirical studies, written by Rheta DeVries, is from 2002).
As a consequence, in my view, debates about modern education refer to systematic research only rarely and selectively; rather, they are (mostly) based on the individual conviction of educators, academics, officials or influencers, (sometimes) parents and (occasionally) children or students. Still, there is a question about what we can learn from the broad empirical evidence about effectiveness of CE and how CE can inform modern education.
What is constructivist education?
The concept of CE is quite broad; individual approaches and methods of CE differ in their emphasis on its keystones. There are essentially three keystones: activity – autonomy – social dimension.
Activity
When a teacher employs a constructivist approach, he or she does not present content (foreign language, linear function, Renaissance style, human emotion, conflict resolution in the classroom, etc.) in a ready-made form with the expectation that the child or student will acquire the material in this particular form and be able to use or expand on the knowledge. Rather, the teacher acts indirectly, as a guide – guiding the child to reach understanding through his or her own activity, in his or her own way. Constructivist education is based on the assumption that the often more laborious path of discovery leads to a better understanding and application of what has been learned. It thus facilitates the process of „figuring it out on one’s own,“ or alternatively, „figuring it out together.“
Autonomy
If a person is to engage in an activity to discover, understand, or learn something, he or she must be willing to adopt such an active approach. Instead of the usual motives for learning that come from external sources (grades, praise, avoiding failure, learning something due to tradition or habit), CE facilitates the (natural?) human inclination to explore the new and the need to understand the world and people. The experiences of meaningfulness themselves are a significant motivator in learning. Their inseparable counterpart is also negative experiences – an unresolved problem, a dead-end – which can also motivate. CE thus develops autonomy: independence and control over one’s own learning. In comparison with regular education, a child in CE learns to organize and manage what and how he or she learns. Hence the emphasis on elements and techniques that develop autonomy and reflective abilities – for example, various ways of self-assessment, planning, and the like.
Social dimension
Alongside the keystones of activity and autonomy, CE places emphasis on the influence of the group. If CE aims for the child to actively and independently make sense of material, the group provides additional opportunities to fulfil this principle – the guide doesn’t have to be a teacher; children can be guides to each other. Sharing how each member of the group understands a particular problem, discussions and mutual feedback are concrete examples of what this „mutual guidance“ can look like.
For CE to harness this social dimension, it is necessary to cultivate an open and respectful atmosphere within the school community. For example, an activity where children clarify a problem to each other in their own words within groups (thus supporting the moment of „figuring it out on one’s own/together“) may be challenging to implement when some participants in the discussion fear that they do not understand the subject matter well enough and may embarrass themselves in front of others.
From a broader perspective, life within the school community brings daily experiences and stimuli that contribute to learning and development on various levels. This includes aspects such as moral development (what is right to do, what principles to follow, what others approve or disapprove of, what causes to stand up for), the development of social cognition (interpreting the behaviour and psychology of others as well as oneself), and the development of personality and identity (who I am, in what ways I am similar or different, the difference between how I see myself and how others see me).
Is constructivist education effective?
Studies on the effectiveness of constructivist education have been conducted, with the oldest dating back to the 1930s (an older overview can be found here). Here, I will focus on more recent studies. As we will see, a significant portion of these studies specifically target the first keystone of CE – activity.
Results of research I: Constructivist teaching as free exploration
As mentioned, educational approaches that stimulate independent activity in children, work with exploration, experience and guidance, and that downplay the role of the lecturer can be „constructivist“ in the broad sense of the term.
In 2010, a widely discussed study challenged all of these notions at once. The authors argued that the human mind is naturally limited; for example, we have limited working memory capacity – we can only hold a few pieces of information in our consciousness at once. Therefore, in teaching, it is necessary to deliver information in a clear, controlled, structured manner, preferably directly (i.e., presenting the material directly, providing examples, and only then practicing knowledge). On the contrary, allowing a child freely to explore the subject matter inevitably leads to them being overwhelmed, to be unable to distinguish what is important, to waste time, and often to misunderstand the subject matter. Various studies (a review of them here or here) indeed show that this type of constructivist teaching based on free exploration lags behind in effectiveness compared to „traditional“ teaching (direct, structured).
Results of research II: Constructivist teaching as structured guidance
However, this study also faced criticism because it only pertains to one branch of constructivist teaching methods – those that delegate most of the activity and initiative to the child or student, while minimising interventions in „natural“ or „free“ exploration (hence the term „minimal guidance“ – these are methods that provide a minimum of information on how to approach the content, what the child should do at the moment, and where to focus attention). In contrast, there are constructivist approaches that deliberately facilitate the process of „figuring it out on one’s own/together“ but guide the child with more detailed instructions, in a structured, step-by-step manner. Constructivist teaching has the metaphorical term „scaffolding“ for this approach – well-used cues or instructions (questions, individual or group activities, learning environments) help the students build their knowledge step by step („tier by tier“). Optimal are instructions (tasks, examples, activities, etc.) that function as challenges – they are neither too simple (which will not lead to much learning and can be boring) nor too difficult (where the child may get lost or only grasp it on a superficial level).
A review study summarising research that compared teaching based on free exploration, structured guidance, and direct instruction showed that it is precisely the type of constructivist teaching based on structured guidance that is effective. However, these conclusions do not necessarily mean that free exploration has no place in education – for example, this study indicates that it is beneficial to allow space for exploratory activities, brainstorming, or exploration at the beginning of a new topic.
Example of structured guidance – the Hejny Method of teaching mathematics
For specific reasons, in this section I comment on a study of the effectiveness of the Hejny Method (HM) of teaching mathematics. The HM draws on the principles postulated, among others, by Jean Piaget. It consists of a series of structured activities (sensorimotor activities, puzzles of specific types, etc.) and exposure to specific learning environments that should facilitate building schemata underlying mathematics and logic. In previous years, the HM has been introduced in some schools in Czechia, which strongly polarised teachers, academics and parents into pro-HM and anti-HM camps. Only recently the first systematic study on the effectiveness of the HM has been published. Although reading this would be primarily interesting for Czech readers, I am going to show what such a study can and cannot reveal about a constructivist teaching method. The study compares dozens of primary school classes using the HM with hundreds of classes where mathematics was taught in a traditional manner. The performance in mathematics tests was slightly better on average for the HM, but the difference was not very high. According to the study, the socioeconomic background of the children had a greater impact on their performance in mathematics. The study also examined attitudes towards mathematics. Even though children taught by the HM were expected to have a better relationship with mathematics, the study essentially found no differences compared to children in regular mathematics education. This result is somewhat disappointing because the HM did not fulfil key expectations of a constructivist-oriented method, which should stimulate a natural interest in learning – a point that will be revisited in further discussion.
Motivation, social relationships and school climate
The referenced studies in the previous text typically considered only the first keystone of constructivist teaching (activity). Specifically, constructivism was defined based on the method of instruction during teaching: free exploration (with minimal instructions) and structured guidance (e.g. scaffolding) are two types of instruction that aim to support a child’s activity in learning something new. However, when taking into account the other two keystones (autonomy and social dimension), the question of the effectiveness of constructivist teaching becomes more complex.
Studies focused on the effectiveness of constructivist instruction usually do not address how children or school classes develop autonomy and the social dimension. It is essential to consider whether children taught with a constructivist method have prior experience with a teaching style other than traditional and whether they have ever experienced independence and responsibility in learning. It is also important to assess whether they are accustomed to being able to (co)decide on what they do in school. If the school atmosphere is based on not discussing anything, with the main feedback happening through grading without regard for content and meaningfulness (so that grades become the goal in themselves) and with a fear of making errors, this system goes against the principles of constructivist teaching. Personal and group exploration of „what it is about“ or „how it can be explained/solved“ requires concentration and time, naturally involving trial and error.
Some studies also support this perspective (overview, for example, here): it is not suitable to directly apply a constructivist approach if children are more accustomed to „learning“ something from a textbook or a teacher’s lecture. They may not immediately see the purpose of activities that stimulate the moment of „figuring it out on one’s own,“ or they may be demotivated by the fact that a certain topic (historical event, mathematical problem) can have multiple explanations or solutions. This brings us back to the study on the effectiveness of the Hejny Method. The study did not examine what teaching looks like in subjects other than mathematics. It is likely that in many observed classes where mathematics was taught using the HM, other subjects were taught more traditionally. Due to this inconsistency, the constructivist method may not have yielded good results, especially concerning maintaining interest in the subject and motivating students to further explore mathematics.
Society and culture – Influence of values and shared ideas about education
A smaller number of studies go even further and focus on the broader sociocultural context in which education is embedded. For instance, this study demonstrates that values and ideas about education typical for a particular community or social status, play a significant role. There is a difference between schools where the constructivist approach with its principles (such as democracy, respect, collaboration, emphasis on meaningfulness) is accepted not only by the school but also by parents and the broader community, and another situation where the constructivist approach is more in conflict with the values and expectations of families or the school (e.g. with an emphasis on rule adherence regardless of whether and how they are meaningful for children, or with a focus on performance in narrowly focused tests).
What the studies say about constructivist education?
Research on the effectiveness of CE works with its various broad interpretations, leading to diverse results or possibly leading to the trivial conclusion that „everything is related to everything.“ However, some findings occur repeatedly and can be generalised.
- Constructivist education, in terms of supporting free exploration and diminishing the role of the guide, typically lags behind more structured guidance or direct presentation of material. This does not necessarily mean that free exploration inevitably leads to worse results. This opens the topic of balancing instruction limitation and detailed structuring of education, as well as how to utilise and strengthen children’s ability to independently manage their own learning without a plethora of instructions.
- Constructivist education, in terms of structured guidance, on average, leads to similar or better results than traditional direct methods. Therefore, the notion that constructivist education is ineffective or non-functional is not true.
- When examining effectiveness, it is necessary to consider a broader perspective, taking into account the overall atmosphere in the school or ideas about education. These may be compatible or in conflict with the constructivist approach. Communicating and clarifying values and expectations related to education among parents, children, and the school are essential steps when introducing constructivist methods into teaching.
- Finally, this implies that if constructivism were to inspire 21st-century education, it cannot be limited to incorporating its elements or methods into existing schools (e.g., by strengthening discovery and project-based teaching, etc.). Without a discussion and a review of traditional notions about the purpose of education, the role of educators and students, and ultimately the definition of a „successful“ or „unsuccessful“ student, educational innovations will have a limited reach and sporadic impact.
(This article had been originally published in Czech version on the blog site of the Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences.)