ABSTRACT
Constructivism is a theory of knowledge growth and life-long development built on a philosophy of pragmatism (Dewey, 1916). In the context of formal education, it is frequently used as pedagogical label for sense-making activities including discovery, inquiry, exploration, and hands-on learning (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). It is often set in opposition to behaviorist methods, where external reinforcements regulate learning, as well as direct instruction, where students are told or shown what to do. Constructivism writ large has fared relatively well in education. Lillard and Else-Quest (2006), for example, found that Montessori education leads to better academic and social skills. Russell, Hancock, and McCullough (2007) found that participation in undergraduate research experiences, regardless of specific mentoring styles, increased student interest in pursuing advanced degrees in science. However, constructivism writ small-constructivism applied to single lessons or instructional units-has not fared as well. Klahr and Nigam (2004), for example, demonstrated that explicitly telling young children the control of variables strategy led to improved learning compared to having the children simply conduct experiments without guidance. Similar findings have led some scholars to the conclusion that constructivist pedagogies are inconsistent with cognitive architecture because they withhold information that can be readily told or demonstrated (e.g., Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). This conclusion cannot be completely warranted, given what we know, for example, about the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Given pairs of synonyms, people will remember a word better if they explicitly have to generate missing information, as in the case of FAST: R_P_D versus reading FAST: RAPID. Nevertheless, their analysis does lend itself to the question, “Wouldn’t it be more efficient to simply tell students what they are supposed to do and know?” Some of the discrepancy between the outcomes of constructivism writ large and constructivism writ small has to do with the nature of the assessments that are used to evaluate pedagogical effectiveness. Constructivist pedagogies writ
small are often evaluated through non-constructivist means. Students receive tests that measure how well they developed their efficiency at remembering facts, executing skills, and solving similar problems. These assessments present something of a mismatch to larger constructivist goals. Dewey (1916) stated, “the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education . . . the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth” (p. 117). Given this, a constructivist-tailored assessment should examine students’ abilities and dispositions to construct new knowledge, not just execute old knowledge. This approach would be consistent with the assessments of constructivism writ large, which often indirectly measures students’ ongoing abilities to construct knowledge, for example, by examining cumulative effects or by seeing whether students are more inclined to engage new content and new situations both in and out of school (Boaler, 2002). This chapter shifts the application of constructivism away from instruction and places it instead in the realm of assessment. We begin by noting that constructivism is a sweeping theory so broad that it is difficult for it to dictate specific instructional design decisions. We are not alone in this observation. Mayer (2004) expresses faith in constructivism as a theory of knowledge attainment, but states that “a doctrine based approach to constructivism does not lead to fruitful educational practice” (p. 17). While this may be accurate, we argue that constructivism’s breadth is quite valuable when used to assess educational outcomes. Constructivism is a broad vision of learning; it is not just an approach to instruction. It enables us to consider students’ abilities to create new knowledge when they are outside of instruction and we no longer have control over precise instructional variables. By shifting the focus to assessment, we can ask the question, “What experiences prepare students to construct knowledge in the future and in the wild?”. This question is important because learning should not end once students leave the classroom and lose a teacher’s direct guidance. By creating constructivist assessments, it will be possible to identify the elements of instruction-constructivist or otherwise-that facilitate the development of continued learning. We justify this shift in focus by presenting three related lines of research. The first demonstrates the significance of constructivist assessments by showing that constructivist-inspired activities prepare students to construct knowledge from direct instruction later. The second line of work shows the value of constructivist assessments for detecting the special benefits of constructivist-inspired instruction. The third line of work demonstrates that targeting constructivist outcomes is compatible with promoting the efficiency outcomes favored by direct instruction, but that direct instruction may not always be compatible with constructivist outcomes. We conclude by tentatively working backward-given constructivist outcome measures, it is possible to start determining which elements of instruction lead to those outcomes.
