Ways of Engaging Students Through Constructivism

Educators are constantly challenged to maintain students’ interest and generate a desire to learn. Engagement is critical to children’s academic success. Lack of motivation can affect a learner’s attitude toward school, increase behaviors, and decrease academic output (Alam, 2013; Lunenburg, 2011; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Powell & Kalina, 2009; Vos, der Meijden, & Denessen E. 2011). Teachers’ activities and instruction can be central to a learner’s attitude toward school. Traditional pedagogical approaches are often counterproductive to positive didactic outcomes. This includes the banking model of education where teachers deposit knowledge into their students (Freire, 2005). Constructivists, such as Piaget, propose that children learn optimally in a student-centered environment that supports inquiry and problem solving (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Constance & Ewing, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Powell & Kalina, 2009; Škrabánková, 2011; Tiilikainen, Karjalainen, Toom, Lepola, & Husu, 2019; Ültanir, 2012). Based on Piagetian theory, constructivism combats students’ disengagement by offering active learning opportunities that generate greater academic interest for children and youth. The purpose of this paper is to support this claim by investigating the intent of constructivist theory within its historical framework, examining constructivism’s educational benefits and applications to contemporary pedagogy, and analyzing its perceived criticisms and limitations.

Constructivism can be subdivided into two distinct perspectives: cognitive and social (Butz, 2018). Piaget is credited with first conceiving of cognitive constructivism (Butz, 2018; Lunenburg, 2011; Powell & Kalina, 1999; Tiilikainen et al., 2019). A Swiss biologist and psychologist, Piaget developed an epistemological model based on four cognitive stages that are generally accepted by scholars (Powell & Kalina 1999). Children and youth experience disequilibrium within each stage. They must resolve this dissonance by assimilating and accommodating new information into their schemata before moving on to the next stage. Piaget contended that this process invokes humans to actively create their own meaning, based on personal experiences and how they incorporate new information (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). The traditional banking model of education is a passive construct wherein teachers transmit knowledge directly to the student who is presumed to absorb the material. Although banking education meets the needs of certain learners, many disengage (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Constructivism asserts that content cannot be transmitted intact from teacher to student (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007). Therefore, constructivist theory reacts to the banking model of education that Freire (2005) opposed, and creates a paradigm shift in education. It implores teachers to facilitate learning within the educational environment, as opposed to merely imparting information. Students in such classrooms construct their own knowledge, rather than relying on mere transmission. Consequently, constructivist learning theory engenders a host of positive outcomes (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Constance & Ewing, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Hyslop-Margisosn & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Powell & Kalina, 2009; Škrabánková, 2011; Tiilikainen et al., 2019; Ültanir, 2012; Vos et al., 2011).

Constructivism provides numerous advantages within a classroom context. Notably, constructivist learning theory yields cognitive and affective benefits to students. It propels students to attend lessons, emphasizes active participation, and fosters engagement (Butz, 2018; Hyslop-Margisosn & Strobel, 2007, Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). Furthermore, through constructivist practices, teachers meet the diverse needs of all learners (Butz, 2018). When educators step back and allow students to derive their own meaning through Piagetian-based inquiry and active learning strategies, children’s engagement increases (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). Tiilikainen et al. (2019) conclude that constructivist learning theory allows teachers to enact a variety of roles to enhance student learning. As opposed to teacher-directed learning, constructivism provides multiple opportunities for learners to acquire content, under the guidance and facilitation of their teachers. This advantages all students, as individuals make personal connections to content using their previous knowledge, background, and experiences (Butz, 2018, Omaotayo & Adeleke, 2017). When children interact within a constructivist environment, critical and higher-order thinking skills are developed (Lunenburg, 2011). Powell and Kalina (2009) advocate that ideal classrooms for relevant, meaningful student learning are those that enact constructivist tools, practices, and strategies. In fact, the authors assert that constructivism is considered “in many schools as the best method for teaching and learning” (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 241). This is likely because of the strong link between achievement and interest. Simply, the greater interest a student demonstrates in a subject, the more effort they will exert (Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Powell & Kalina, 2009). Engagement in all subjects can be invoked through constructivist practices, as these apply to contemporary pedagogical environments.

Constructivist theory can serve today’s complex classroom communities through a variety of applications to all curricula areas. Notably, its classroom implications are multifaceted and representative of epistemological viewpoints in everything from gifted to primary classrooms, in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011; Škrabánková, 2011; Tiilikainen et al., 2019). Studies show that constructivism is foundational to student success within the core subject areas, such as language and mathematics (Lunenburg, 2011; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). Using methodologies first proffered by Piaget, teachers capably protract agency within their students, whose autonomy, empowerment, and problem-solving are elicited. For instance, Omotayo and Adeleke (2017) found favorable outcomes when constructivist learning was utilized in secondary school mathematics instruction. Specifically, a 5E approach was undertaken, wherein youth explored mathematical ideologies through engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, and evaluation. By exploring material independently and with classmates, children displayed increased understanding and an eagerness to apply learning to novel situations. Students responded positively to concepts, demonstrated increased interest in subject matter, and improved in terms of overall academic achievement (Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). The Ontario Kindergarten Program is another area where stakeholders benefit from constructivist methodologies (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016). Research by Powell and Kalina (2009) elucidates the benefits of discovery learning benefits both teachers and students. The play-based approach that forms the backbone of Ontario’s Kindergarten Program facilitates an effective and dynamic learning atmosphere where independent cognition prevails. The kindergarten classroom serves as a repository for constructivist learning, with children acting as “little scientists” within its environs, as Piaget envisioned (Powell & Kalina, 2009). However, in addition to core subjects and kindergarten programs, one of the most integral findings expounds upon how constructivism transfers to content areas. This includes subjects such as the arts, science, social studies, history, geography, and physical education (Butz, 2018). In fact, this latter subject area denotes significant expansion of Piaget’s intentions for learning, to emerge within content subjects. Traditionally, physical education explores concepts through movement and skill-building. It is germane to the constructivist theory that students have the freedom to explore and encounter novel concepts through inquiry and problem solving (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Vos et al., 2011). Essentially, cognitive constructivism is an entity that can be used by teachers in every subject area to reach all students (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Although there is an abundance of scholarly work that praises the positive effects of constructivist principles, criticism remains. These largely exist as fallacies; however, they are worthy of interrogation.

First, critics contend that Piaget’s own children were initially the subjects for his theoretical claims. This argument has largely been resolved, as Piagetian precepts concerning are generally accepted as valid (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Although the authors state that other scholars have adjusted and modified Piaget’s original constructivist ideologies, his fundamental precepts remain. Another limitation attributed to constructivism is a commitment on the part of educators. Many appear intrigued by its power and promise, yet hesitate to employ related strategies, such as inquiry-based learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Academics suggest that this is, at least in part, due to a disruption in the traditional teacher-student hierarchal relationship (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011). Lunenburg (2011) offers five underpinnings for the practical use of constructivism in the classroom. These principles, such as integrating students’ viewpoints and deconstructing concepts from whole to part are elements that benefit all learning situations (Lunenburg). Brooks and Brooks (1993) also seek to simplify cognition through inquiry-based learning to reassure teachers that constructivism is not merely an opportunity for children to direct curriculum. Conversely, the author's framework includes twelve descriptors that enable youth to drive curriculum, under the steady guidance of teachers. Such didactic techniques encompass ideals that include Socratic questioning methodologies, facilitating students’ innate curiosity, and allotting appropriate wait time while students debate, or use independent cognition and inquiry (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Thus, although the role of the teacher is reframed, it is not diminished (Tiilikainen et al., 2019). In addition, since constructivism is built on cognition, pundits opposed to constructivism may cite differences in student abilities as a further limitation. For instance, children with developmental delays may be perceived as unable to succeed within a constructivist classroom. Hyslop-Margison & Strobel (2007) concur that individual cognition is foundational to learning. They also assert that understanding is developed through a learner’s schemata. It could be argued that those without significant background experiences cannot make deep personal connections that result in the cognitive disequilibrium necessary to assimilate and accommodate new learning (Powell & Kalina, 1999). Yet, these viewpoints narrow learning and omit the premise of differentiated instruction, as individualized learning. Students inherently pass through cognitive stages at different rates, and this fact reinforces the fact that all children can learn within the context of constructivism at their own pace (Butz, 2018). Piaget’s sensorimotor stage begins at age zero. Children are capable of applying their own knowledge – whatever that may entail – to new learning situations at any developmental level (Powell & Kalina, 1999). Constructivism offers active learning tasks for a range of abilities, depending on one’s cognitive developmental level (Tiikinainen et al., 2011). Two final criticisms regarding constructivist learning theory relate to radical perspectives that focus on relativism and sectarianism. Critics of Piaget’s theory state that students are permitted to profer erroneous assumptions about their learning; however, this is an implicit misunderstanding. Hyslop-Margison and Strobel (2007) remind skeptics that constructivism is not designed to encourage students to believe that their knowledge constitutes truth or accuracy. This is supported in the literature (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Authorities also denote disregard for all other teaching methodologies, such as lectures, as a limitation of inquiry-based learning. However, constructivism does not attempt to be the singular teaching strategy of merit, acknowledging that there is room for a variety of other practices within the classroom (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007). Each criticism and limitation can be discounted by teachers who use their potential to employ effective and constructive didactic practices to foster student engagement and learning (Butz, 2018; Lunenburg, 2011).

As demonstrated, Piaget’s cognitive constructivist learning theory offers a range of possibilities for students, teachers, and contemporary classrooms. Research demonstrates benefits in a host of subject areas and across the globe, including the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Nigeria, the United States, and Canada (Constance & Ewing, 1996; Fosnot & Perrry, 1995; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016; Škrabánková, 2011; Tiilikainen et al., 2019; Ültanir, 2012; Vos et al., 2011). Positive outcomes result from its student-centered, inquiry-based, active learning underpinnings (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Powell & Kalina, 2009). This includes improved cognitive and academic achievement, as well as increased affective outcomes, such as interest, participation, engagement, and motivation (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011; Omatayo & Adeleke, 2017). Implications for teaching and learning are significant and promising; however, systemic reform to include dynamic constructivist methodologies must occur (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Powell & Kalina, 2009). Rather than enacting dominant authority status, teachers must ensure that students are fully vested in their own learning, by offering rich, authentic, and meaningful opportunities for discovery (Powell & Kalina, 2009). This will result in students who are inspired and capable of reaching their full potential. In this regard, the educational and societal implications are limitless.