209 International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Heal th 2017 4(5): 209-212 [603158]

~ 209 ~ International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Heal th 2017; 4(5): 209-212

P-ISSN: 2394 -1685
E-ISSN: 2394 -1693
Impact Factor (ISRA): 5.38
IJPESH 2017; 4(5): 209-212
© 2017 IJPESH
www.kheljournal.com
Received: 01-07-2017
Accepted: 02-08-2017

Sunita Sharma
Assistant Professor , Vaish Arya
Shikshan Mahila Mahavidyalaya ,
Bahadurgarh , Haryana, India

Divya Bansal
Assistant Professor , Vaish Arya
Shikshan Mahila Mahavidyalaya ,
Bahadurgarh , Haryana, India

Correspondence
Sunita Sharma
Assistant Professor , Vaish Arya
Shikshan Mahila Mahavidyalaya ,
Bahadurgarh , Haryana, India

Constructivism as paradigm for teaching and learning

Sunita Sharma and Divya Bansal

Abstract
Constructivism is basically a theory based on observation and scientific study – about how people learn.
In the classroom, the constructivist view of learning can point towards a number of different teaching
practices. In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques to
create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their
understanding is changing . Constructivist teachers encourage students to constantly assess how the
activity is helping them to gain understanding by questioning themselves and their strategies. Students in
the constructivist classroom ideally become “expert learners”. This gives them ever broadening tools to
keep le arning . With a well – planned classroom environment, the students learns “HOW TO LEARN”. If
our efforts in reforming education for all students are to succeed, then we must focus on students. To
date, a focus on student – centered learning may well be the most important contribution of
constructivism. This paper will focus on constructivism as par adigm for teaching and learning .

Keywords: constructivism, paradigm, teaching and learning

Introduction
Education involves the process of the development and learning of the child on multiple
dimensions, facilitated by the teacher, who is guided by a curriculum. Effective education is a
process where the teacher, children and the schools involved and partici pated actively.
However our present education system e mphasizes on preparing students for tests and don’t
foster deep learning and is in the midst of a crisis of quality -starting from primary schools to
universities, the dominant view is that our students are not learning as much as they ideally
should and wh at is more worrisome is that rote learning and memorization seems to be the
dominant mode at all levels. Traditional teaching approach (lecture method) commonly
adopted by teachers in Indian schools involves coverage of the context and rote memorization
on the part of the students and does not involve students in creative thinking and participation
in the creative part of activities. Most of the time, during teaching learning process, instruction
remains unilateral which is considered to be an orthodox acti vity. The upcoming trends in
education changed the present scenario and adopted the constructivist approach which is moral
and more focused on innovative activities and knowledge acquisition and therefore, the
academic results of the students of constructi vist classrooms are better than traditional
classrooms.

Need of constructivism
The present article concentrates on providing an alternative pedagogy based on the principles
of constructivism theory given by Piaget, Vygotsky and other theoreticians including
psychologists and sociologists. If we accept constructivist theory, then we have to give up
platonic and all subsequent realistic views of epistemology. We have to recognize that there is
no such thing as knowledge “ out there”, independent of the knower but only knowledge we
construct for ourselves as we learn is the true knowledge. If we believe that knowledge
consists of learning about the real world “out there”, then the power of organizing and
presenting the knowledge is passed on to the teach er who ultimately passes this on to the
learner. In the process of disseminating knowledge to learners the teacher may use activities
and opportunities to experiment but here the teacher is helping the learner to understand the
world but don’t ask the learner to construct his/her own world.

~ 210 ~
International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health
Traditional and Constructivist Instructional
Methodologies
The traditional classroom often looks like a one -person show
with a largely uninvolved learner. Tra ditional classes are
usually dominated by direct and unilateral instruction.
Traditional approach followers assume that there is a fixed
body of knowledge that the student must come to know.
Students are expected to blindly accept the information they
are given without questioning the instructor (Stofflett, 1998).
The teacher seeks to transfer thoughts and meanings to the
passive student leaving little room for student -initiated
questions, independent thought or interaction between
students (VAST, 1998). Ev en the in activities based subjects,
although activities are done in a group but do not encourage
discussion or exploration of the concepts involved. This tends
to overlook the critical thinking and unifying concepts
essential to true science literacy and appreciation (Yore,
2001). This teacher -centered method of teaching also assumes
that all students have the same level of background
knowledge in the subject matter and are able to absorb the
material at the same pace (Lord, 1999). In contrast,
constructiv ist or student -centered learning poses a question to
the students, who then work together in small groups to
discover one or more solutions (Yager, 1991). Students play
an active role in carrying out experiments and reaching their
own conclusions. Teachers assist the students in developing
new insights and connecting them with previous knowledge,
but leave the discovery and discussion to the student groups
(VAST, 1998). Questions are posed to the class and student
teams work together to discuss and reach ag reement on their
answers, which are then shared with the entire class. Students
are able to develop their own understanding of the subject
matter based on previous knowledge, and can correct any
misconceptions they have. Both teaching styles can lead to
successful learning but it has been shown that students in the
constructivist environmental demonstrated more enthusiasm
and interest in the subject matter. In fact, repeated research
has found that teacher -centered lessons can be less or non –
productive, and in some cases, detrimental to the students’
learning process (Zoller, 2000). Many teachers are hesitant to
try the constructivist model, because it requires additional
planning and a relaxation of the traditional rules of the
classroom (Scheurman, 1998).

Characteristics of Constructivist Teaching
One of the primary goals of using constructivist teaching is
that students learn how to learn by giving them the training to
take initiative for their own learning experiences.
According to Audrey Gray, the cha racteristics of a
constructivist classroom are as follows:
 The learners are actively involved
 The environment is democratic
 The activities are interactive and student -centered
 The teacher facilitates a process of learning in which
students are encouraged t o be responsible and
autonomous.
Furthermore, in the constructivist classroom, students work
primarily in groups and learning and knowledge are
interactive and dynamic. There is a great focus and emphasis
on social and communication skills, as well as collaboration
and exchange of ideas. This is contrary to the traditional
classroom in which students work primarily alone, learning is
achieved through repetition, and the subjects are strictly
adhered to and are guided by a textbook. Some activit ies
encouraged in constructivist classrooms are:  Experimentation: students individually perform an
experiment and then come together as a class to discuss
the results.
 Research projects: students research a topic and can
present their findings to the class.
 Field trips. This allows students to put the concepts and
ideas discussed in class in a real -world context. Field
trips would often be followed by class discussions.
 Films. These provide visual context and thus bring
another sense into the le arning experience.
 Class discussions. This technique is used in all of the
methods described above. It is one of the most important
distinctions of constructivist teaching methods.
Constructivist approaches can also be used in online learning.
For example, tools such as discussion forums, wikis and blogs
can enable learners to actively construct knowledge.
Because existing knowledge schemata are explicitly
acknowledged as a starting point for new learning,
constructivist approaches tend to validate individual and
cultural differences and diversity.

Role of teachers
In the constructivist classroom, the teacher’s role is to prompt
and facilitate discussion. Thus, the teacher’s main fo cus
should be on guiding students by asking questions that will
lead them to develop their own conclusions on the subject.

Challenges for Constructivist, Pre -service Teacher
Education
As teacher educators, we cannot ignore the challenges. The
reality of constructivist teacher education is that it functions
in a university setting and this traditional context provides
challenges for teacher educators and teachers (Rainer &
Guyton, 1999; Beck & Kosnik, 2006). While studies reviewed
did not directly address the factors that constrained their
work, authors made recommendations based on their
experience. Condon et al . (1993) found that “simply
accommodating innovation in the existing institutional
structure will not provide the long -term support necessary for
lasting change.” Two authors (Condon, et al ., 1993; Chen,
2001) recommended areas that need to be challenged if this
work is to continue, including, traditional teacher and student
roles, rewards, resources, policies, and the history of isolation
in higher education. Teacher educators who advocate for a
different kind of preparation cannot overlook their own
pedagogy, particularly related to authority in the classroom
(Duran et al., 2004; Fosnot, 1996; Mayer -Smith & Mitchell,
1997); instructors must unders tand and be able to implement
constructivist pedagogy. These authors’ recommendations
imply that if visions such as those advocated by constructivist
educators are to become reality, we need to rethink the nature
of teacher education efforts (e.g., to incl ude the six mediatory
experiences) as well as study the challenges inherent in
change.

Paradigm shifts in education over recent decades
The paradigm shifts that we experienced in the 20th century
are well known. Some of the prominent paradigm shifts that
have taken place in education are discussed briefly.

• Reproductive learning vs productive learning
Learners’ achievements were measured against their ability to
reproduce subject content – in other words, how well they
could memorise and reproduce the content that the teacher
‘transferred’ to them. With the emphasis on productive

~ 211 ~
International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health
learning, it is rather about the application of knowledge and
skills, in other words, what the learners can do after
completing the learning process. Achievement is measured
against the productive contribution a learner can make,
instead of what the learner can reproduce.

• Behaviourism vs constructivism
According to a behaviouristic view of learning, a learning
result is indicated by a change in the behaviour of a learner
(Skin ner, 1938; Venezky & Osin, 1991). According to a
constructivist view, learning is seen as the construction of
meanings by the learner (Cunningham, 1991; Duffy &
Jonassen, 1991) [10]. Neither of these views can be regarded as
exclusively right or wrong. It is, however, important to know
that constructivism is presently accepted as the most relevant
view of learning and that education policies, education
models and education practices focus on constructivism.

• Teacher -centred vs learner -centred
In the past, educat ion activities focussed on the strong points,
preferences and teaching style of the teacher. That which
would work best for the teacher, determined the design of the
learning environment and the nature of activities. Teacher –
centeredness is also characteri sed by a view that the teacher is
the primary source of knowledge for learners. In a learner –
centred environment, the focus is on the strong points,
preferences and learning style(s) of the learner(s). The
learning environment is designed according to the needs and
possibilities of the particular learner group.

• Teaching -centred vs learning -centred
[At this stage, it is important to indicate that the term
education be seen as the macro term which includes the
concepts teaching and learning (education = te aching +
learning).] Education activities in the past, were planned and
executed from a teaching perspective. A teacher would plan a
teaching session (lecture) based on what the best teaching
methods would be to transfer the concerned subject content to
the learners. The focus was on how to teach. In the new
paradigm, education activities are planned and executed from
a learning perspective. The emphasis is now on the learning
activity and learning process of the learner. So the focus is on
how the learning , which should take place, can be optimised.
“In general, there must be a conversion from a teaching to a
learning culture.” (Arnold in Peters, 1999)

• Teaching vs learning facilitation
Teaching or instruction, as an activity of the teacher, is seen
as an activity that relates to the ‘transfer of content’ (an
objectivist view) within a teaching -centred education
paradigm. The presentation/delivery of a lecture or paper falls
into this category. The principle of learning facilitation
follows a learning -centred education paradigm. Learning
facilitation has to do with the teacher’s activities, which focus
on optimising the learner’s learning process. Just as the word
indicates, the emphasis is on the facilitation of learning.
Teachers cannot be re garded as the only source of knowledge
and cannot focus on the traditional ‘transfer of content’ any
longer. They need to focus on the facilitation of learning.
“Instructional staff no longer are the fountainhead of
information since the technology can provide students with
access to an infinite amount of and array of data and
information. The role of the instructor, therefore, changes to
one of learning facilitator. The instructor assists students to
access information, to synthesize and interpret it and t o place it in a context – in short to transform information into
knowledge.” (Kershaw & Safford, 1998:294)

• Content -based vs outcomes -based
A content -driven approach to education is characterised by
curriculation and education activities that focus on s ubject
content. The emphasis is on the content that learners should
master and a learner receives a qualification based on the
nature, amount and level (difficulty) of subject content he/she
has mastered. An outcomes -based approach to education
focuses on the learning outcomes to be reached by the
learners. A typical process for curricula in an outcomes -based
model is characterised by the formulation and selection of
learning outcomes that a learner should reach – that which the
learner must be able to do o n completion of the learning
process. The selection of subject content is based on the
relevance thereof to enable the learner to reach the learning
outcomes.

• Content -based evaluation vs outcomes -based assessment
Content -based evaluation follows a reproductive view of
learning where a learner’s achievement is measured by the
quantity and quality of content that are reproduced. On the
contrary, outcomes -based assessment refers to a productive
view of learning where a learner’s achievement is measured
by the mastery learning outcomes.

Implications of constructivism for teaching and learning
Central to the tenet of constructivism is that learning is an
active process. Information may be imposed, but
understanding cannot be, for it must come from within .
Constructivism requires a teacher to act as a facilitator whose
main function is to help students become active participants in
their learning and make meaningful connections between
prior knowledge, new knowledge,and the processes involved
in learning. Brooks and Brooks (1993) [4] summarize a large
segment of the literature ondescriptions of „constructivist
teachers‟. They conceive of a constructivistteacher as
someone who will:
 Encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative;
 Use a wide variety of materials, including raw data,
primary sources, and interactive materials and encourage
students to use them;
 Inquire about students‟ understandings of concepts
before sharing his/her own understanding of those
concepts;
 Encourage students to engage in dialogue with the
teacher and with one another;
 Encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open –
ended questions and encourage students to ask questions
to each other and seek elaboration of students‟ initial
responses;
 Engage students in exp eriences that show contradictions
to initial understandings and then encourage discussion;
 Provide time for students to construct relationships and
create metaphors;
 Assess students‟ understanding through application and
performance of open -structure d tasks.
Hence, from a constructivist perspective, the primary
responsibility of theteacher is to create and maintain a
collaborative problem -solving environment,where students
are allowed to construct their own knowledge, and the
teacheracts as a facilit ator and guide.

~ 212 ~
International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health
Conclusion
The focus of education needs to be shifted from placing
content in students’ knowledge building. If the focus of
studying could be turned from filling one’s mind to producing
knowledge products, students wouldn’t need to concentrate on
memorization and cramming for examinations. These
knowledge products could be in form of essays, term papers,
project reports, research papers, videos, posters, slides,
portfolios, or whatever products that students might create. In
classroo m instruction there is a need of integration of formal,
theoretical, practical and self -regulative knowledge. However,
in a traditional type of curriculum these different types of
knowledge have been treated separately. One of the most
important challenges to pedagogy is developing curricula and
teaching methods so that true
integration of formal, theoretical knowledge and more
informal, practical, and self -regulative knowledge may be
achieved. The aspect of assessment cannot be left untouched
while talking of constructivism as constructivist learning
requires an entirely different approach to assessment, an
approach that is qualitative in nature. Authentic assessment
based on real -life tasks and performance assessment requiring
students to complete certain learning assignments represent
this type of assessment. The emphasis is on students' learning
process and on their meaning making as much as (or even
more than) on the final product.

References
1. Bednar AK, Cunningham DJ, Duffy TM, Perry JD.
Theory into practice : How do we link? In T. M. Duffy &
D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology
of instruction . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates . 1992 , 17-34.
2. Bereiter C. Constructivism, socioculturalis m, and
Popper's World 3. Educational Researcher . 1994 ;
23(7):21-23.
3. Bruner JS. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational
Review . 1961 ; 31(1):21-32.
4. Brooks JG, Brooks MG. In Search of Understanding: the
Case for Constructivist Cla ssrooms . Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Curriculum Development . 1993 .
5. Caine RN, Caine G. Making connections: Teaching and
the human brain . Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development . 1991 .
6. Dewey J. The quest for certainty . New York: Minton .
1929 .
7. Driscoll, Marcy . Psychology of Learning for Instruction .
Boston: Allyn & Bacon . 2000 .
8. Duffy TM, Jonassen DH. (Eds.), Constructivism and the
technology of instruction . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates . 17- 34.
9. Honebein PC. Seven goals for the design of constructivist
learning environments. in Constructivist Learning
Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design .
Brent G. Wilson (Ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Educat ional
Technology Publications . 1996 , 11-24.
10. Jonassen D. Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a
new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology ,
Research and Development . 1991 ; 39(3) :5-13.
11. Jonassen DH. Toward a Constructivist Design Model .
Educational Technology . 1994 , 34-37.
12. Oliver KM. Methods for developing constructivism
learning on the web, Educational Technology . 2000 ,
40(6).
13. Phillips DC. The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher . 1995 ;
24(7):5-12.
14. Piaget J. The psychogenesis of knowledge and its
epistemological significance. In M. Piatelli -Palmarini
(Ed.), Language and learning . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press . 1980 , 23-34.
15. Skinner BF. Science and human behavior , New York:
The Macmillan Company . 1953 .
16. Tam M. Constructivism, Instructional Design, and
Technology: Implica tions for Transforming Distance
Learning. Educational Technology and Society . 2000 ,
3(2).
17. vonGlasersfeld E. A constructivist approach to teaching.
In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in
education . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
1995 , 3-15.
18. Vygotsky LS. Thought and language . Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press . 1962 .