Running Head: the USE of CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY in a SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 3

Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 1

The Use of Constructivist Theory in a Social Studies Classroom

Carly Hill

Boise State University Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 2

Abstract

The social studies classroom is one where the goal of a teacher should be to improve students’ critical thinking skills along with learning about the content matter of the subject they are studying. Constructivist theory, in particular, is useful in this context because it allows teachers to teach the content as well as teach students the ability to analyze and critique information.

These skills are essential to learn in order to help students become citizens within the democracy they live in and an exceptional way to do that is by giving students the ability to construct their own meaning out of the lessons in class as they interact with classmates and the teacher. This paper will give an outline of constructivist theory, how it is used in social studies classrooms, and what the implications are for further use in the content area. Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 3

The Use of Constructivist Theory in a Social Studies Classroom

Currently, social studies teachers are mixed on what teaching styles they utilize in their

classrooms. Depending on the content and the particular teaching style of the teacher, a

lesson could revolve around a worksheet where students find answers in a textbook or they

are asked to do research on a local building and then blog about the history of the building.

While one theory is simply not the answer for every social studies teacher, constructivism

does offer a different approach to the content where students are challenged to think for

themselves and form their own beliefs. According to the National Council for Social Studies

(NCSS), social studies instruction has taken a backseat to other subjects that are focused on

because of standardized testing (2008). Social studies is essential to students’ school

experience as this is where they gain critical thinking skills that they will utilize as active

participants in their democracy (“A Vision of Powerful Teaching”, 2008). To understand

constructivist theory an overview will be given of the origins of it, examples of what is in a

constructivist classroom will be explained, as well as how it can be used in the social studies

classroom. Finally, criticisms of the theory will be given because educators should be

mindful of these if they decide to implement this approach in their own classroom.

Origin of Constructivist Theory

Constructivism finds its foundation as a response to behaviorism and cognitive theory (Land &

Hannafin, 2000). In behaviorism, learning takes place when a subject responses favorably and is reinforced for that correct behavior (Jonassen, 1991). To behaviorists, the inner workings of the mind are not necessarily a concern; rather they are looking more for the external reaction of the learner (Jonassen, 1991). Cognitive theory is viewed as a response to behaviorism where theorists expanded the view of how learning takes place with more focus on the internal Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 4 workings of the mind when learning takes place (Jonassen, 1991). Cognitive theory focuses on how learners acquire the knowledge they have and how they represent that knowledge in their own minds with a focus on connecting images with information (Jonassen, 1991). Constructivist theory is a reaction to cognitive theory in that it goes a step further with proposing that learners construct their own learning and they do so through interacting with others through trial and error experimentation (Schunk, 2008). Theorists who subscribe to this put forth the idea that there are many viewpoints on how the world can be seen so that there is not always one easy answer to every question (Schunk, 2008).

There are some basic assumptions of constructivist theory that guide how this theory should be used in a classroom. As stated before, learners construct their own knowledge through trial and error based on what they know from past experience which lends itself to active participation with whatever a student might be studying (Brandon & Hall, 2010). This means that a constructivist class is one where students are the focus, not necessarily the teacher who should act more as a guide for students.

As constructivism has evolved, there have been two theorists that have influenced how it should be used in the classroom (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Piaget’s theory of the four stages of development contributes directly to cognitive constructivism where students are viewed as “little scientists” who learn by forming hypotheses and then testing them (Powell & Kalina, 2009).

The four stages of development begins with the sensorimotor stage when a child is newborn to two years old where students discover the world around them by developing their language and advancing in their physical abilities (Powell & Kalina, 2009). In the preoperational stage, which is when children are between the ages of two and seven, they begin to ask questions about the world around them and build symbols for different objects in their environment (Powell & Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 5

Kalina, 2009). Between the ages of seven and eleven, children are in the concrete operational stage where they build up their logical reasoning skills which leads them to the last stage of development, the formal operational stage (Powell & Kalina, 2009). This stage starts at eleven and continues all the way into adulthood and this is when children begin to use higher levels of thinking and conceptual ideas to solve problems (Powell & Kalina, 2009). In Piaget’s theory, he discusses the idea of assimilation and accommodation which is what learners go through as they are trying to achieve equilibration (as cited in Powell & Kalina, 2009). Equilibration happens when learners shift from one stage to another and this occurs when they experience uneasiness as they are trying to make sense of the information they are being given (Powell & Kalina, 2009).

This causes the student to have to shift their thinking to become more comfortable and is referred to as accommodation (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Assimilation occurs when they take that new knowledge they learned through shifting their thinking and continue to use it to solve new problems they may come across (Powell & Kalina, 2009). The role of the teacher here is to guide students in this process of attaining information and constantly checking for understanding to gauge how quickly they are grasping the material.

Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism looks at how students learn socially in an environment and how students react to it internally. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a critical part of his theory and focuses on how students learn by interaction with peers (Powell

& Kalina, 2009). Students will only achieve learning in this zone if a teacher or peers are there to help this student to act as a scaffold through this process and get them to the next level of thinking (as cited in Powell & Kalina, 2009). Not only do learners rely on their peers to learn in a cooperative fashion according to Vygotsky, they also must rely on their reflective inner speech to sort out the information that they come in contact with (as cited in Powell & Kalina, 2009). Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 6

This inner speech helps take the learning that is exhibited externally and instill it internally so that the information can be called upon again by the student in another situation.

A Constructivist Classroom

A classroom that utilizes the constructivist theory has certain characteristics that are recognizable and cause the activities within it to run a bit differently than others. According to Schunk, some of the key features of constructivist classroom are that it revolves around big concepts, justifies why content is relevant, assessments are authentic and occur throughout the unit, teachers act as guides rather than directors of the classroom, and there is a focus on learning the material rather than on performance (2008). In order for students to truly learn what is being taught in a constructivist classroom, learning must take place at a more in-depth level than just using the textbook and worksheets that come along with it (Schunk, 2008). A social studies classroom that is centered around constructivist theory encourages students to construct their own meaning out of the information that is put before them and challenges them to solve problems that they might see within the historical or societal problem they are looking at (Yilmaz, 2008). Students must be challenged by being asked questions that are not answered by just “yes” and “no”, rather there should be an active dialogue between students and teachers where there is learning that takes place at a deeper level. These should take place through class discussions where students challenge one another’s ideas and push each other to a higher level of thinking. Students are also encouraged to complete projects together so that they can build relationships with each other as they accountable not only to themselves, but group members as well (Applefield, Huber, &

Moallem, 2000). Adams suggests that in a constructivist classroom teachers are not teaching to the test, but are having students construct most of their own knowledge by working collaboratively, helping each other solve problems while not solely having to lean on the Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 7 teacher’s assistance (2006). This also moves the burden off of the teacher to have all the answers and puts shifting it onto the students to find solutions, therefore encouraging them to think deeper into the topic at hand. School teachers are pressed for time in this standardized testing environment that they function in, but this should not be a reason why constructivism is overlooked (Adams, 2006).

Examples of Constructivist Strategies for the Social Studies Classroom

As discussed previously, one of the main features of a constructivist classroom is collaborative learning and a strategy that uses this is Fostering a Community of Learners (FCL) (Minthrop,

2004). This method encourages students to engage in inquiry-based activities where they teach and support each other through the jigsaw strategy to create collaborative, culminating projects throughout the year (Minthrop, 2004). Jigsawing is when students are broken into groups and are given a large topic, such as the Revolutionary War and the causes and effect of it, then each group member is responsible for learning about their subject and teaching the other members of the group or other members of the class. Not only do students take a more hands-on approach with the material in the jigsaw method, but they also teach their peers which is a very effective way of learning.

Mintrop’s assessment of this method in his study of four 8th grade US History teachers found that teachers commonly view FCL as an “activity” rather than implementing it their class as a strategy they would use all the time (2004). In his study, he asked teachers he was working with again and again what their big idea was for the unit and what they wanted students to gain from it (2004). This was another struggle he identified as it was hard to get teachers to narrow down what the big ideas were in their history classes that students could connect information with and as a result, it was also hard for students to grasp those big ideas (2004). Ultimately, the Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 8 teachers who tried to use this method in their class failed mainly because they could not distance themselves from the idea that this was just another activity for students to work through, but they were positive about FCL and using it again when as they were now more familiar with it

(Mintrop, 2004). If social studies teachers are willing to break from the norm of teacher-directed lessons and rote memorization of dates and events, then FCL might be a more effective way to have students learn about history.

Another tool that should be used to support a constructivist classroom is technology.

There have been various tools used effectively and there are many that are there to be utilized by any social studies teachers, even if they do not have a large technology budget at their school.

One such tool that is in many classrooms around the United States is the interactive whiteboard

(IWB) and it has been show to increase interaction while teaching and is a great way to bring about collaboration as students can manipulate different objects on the IWB (Deany, Chapman,

& Hennessy, 2009).

In their study of London secondary schools, Deany, Chapman, & Hennessy found that teachers responded favorably to the different tools that can be used within the IWB software, particularly being able to save student writing from one day to visit the next day (2009). They also noted that students were excited to be able to go up and write something on the board and be able to make comments or add to something else that a student wrote (2009). This caused the classes that the researchers looked at to build a collaborative spirit by helping each other solve different problems in history that they were studying (Deany, Chapman, & Hennessy, 2009). For example, students were working through a lesson about the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the teacher presented to the students what the basic plan of the British Navy and then had them reflect on what they thought of the plan, encouraged them to discuss the plan with a neighbor, Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 9 and then finally write the different ideas that they had about the plan on the IWB (Deany,

Chapman, & Hennessy, 2009). Another feature that can be utilized is putting up a primary source photograph or painting and having student comment on it or pose questions about what the image tells them about the time in history (Deany, Chapman, & Hennessy, 2009). The example used in the study is when the teacher presented the students with a picture of a young

Queen Elizabeth I and the students were to write down what they thought that portrait told them about her (Deany, Chapman, & Hennessy, 2009). This allowed the students to begin brainstorming about what she represented and how even a portrait can be used to determine how a leader might rule a country. By using the IWB, students can take this image and make it their own by writing questions, comments, or things that they might see within a picture for a class or small group discussion they might have.

There are many Web 2.0 tools that are on the internet that can be used by a social studies teachers to challenge students to think more in-depth into a topic and push them to do deep research into it. Wikis particularly lend themselves to this kind of project because students can collaborate by leaving comments for one another, get timely feedback from the teacher, work on it at home or at school because it is on the internet and is accessible in more than one place, and finally, there are many sites out there that host wikis for free.

Heafner & Friedman carried out a study of two secondary social studies teachers who were teaching a lesson on World War II utilizing wikis (2008). In their research, two teachers’ classrooms were studied; one teacher who used wikis and the other who did not. (2008). The teacher who used wikis, allowed students to pick from one of eight pages that focused on the key themes of World War II and they were: causes of the war, United States entry, home front,

Holocaust, war in Europe, war in the Pacific, and outcomes (Heafner & Friedman, 2008). Once Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 10 they picked their topic to complete their wiki on, students used a collection of primary sources compiled by the researchers and the internet to help them write on their topic (Heafner &

Friedman, 2008). Overall, this method of using wikis is still recommended by the authors because it appeared that students retained the information and could connect different events of

World War II together, whereas the class that learned in the teacher-directed classroom could only cite facts in isolation (Heafner & Friedman, 2008). This further illustrates that constructivism integrated with technology is useful as it helps students connect events together, as history should be viewed, rather as separate, insular events. Another way that a teacher could take this further is by not only having student write about the event, but they could enrich their wiki by creating a video using YouTube or adding voice using site like Vocarro which allows to student to record their thoughts.

Criticisms of Constructivism

While constructivism has been shown how effective it can be used in the classroom if supported in the correct manner, there are some criticisms and warnings that teachers who want to implement this theory should be aware of. According to Land & Hannafin, two things that a teacher needs to be aware of and correct if it occurs is that students learn the content that is intended and that they do not walk away from the lesson with misconceptions (2000). This can be avoided if a teacher is particularly attentive to the class and does not just let the class go through the lesson without some guidance. Even though constructivism encourages student- directed classrooms, that does not mean a teacher can go on auto-pilot, they must be the expert guide who are questioning students to check for understanding.

Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark also point out that in constructivist classrooms, students may spend too much of their working memory focusing on the unstructured environment rather than Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 11 on concept attainment (2006). This can be avoided if teachers are willing to have the conversation with their students about how the learning environment will be different than other classes and training students in common procedures that guide the classroom to make it run more smoothly. It could also be the case that a teacher does have a class that might not be able to be student-driven, but should be a direct instruction classroom and that is a decision a teacher will have to make based on the needs of each particular class.

Conclusion

Constructivism, if implemented correctly, is a method of teaching that lends itself well to the social studies content area. It encourages students to become critical thinkers who take information and interpret it into something new. Building this skill in the classroom will help these students become active participants in their community and help them understand how to sort through all the different sources of information that they have access to in this technological age. Technology is a tool that can be used to create a constructivist classroom where students can construct their understanding by using Web 2.0 features that they will use through their entire lives. Social studies teachers should not be fearful of constructivism or the use of technology, rather they should embrace both as they create a rich learning environment and make the content area essential during a time when standardized testing is causing schools to not focus as much on these kinds of classes.

References Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 12

Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructionism: Theories and practicalities. Education

3(13), 243-257. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com.libproxy.

boisestate.edu/smpp/content~db=all~content=a755294441.

Allemen, J. & Brophy, J. (1999). The changing nature and purpose of assessment in the social

studies classroom. Social Education 63(6), 334-337. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ617117&ERICExtSearch_SearchTy

pe_0=no&accno=EJ617117.

Applefield, J., Huber R., & Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice:

Toward a better understanding. The High School Journal 84(2), 35-53. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/stable/40364404.

Brandon, A. & All, A. (2010). Constructivism theory analysis and application to curricula.

Nursing Education, 31(2), 89-92. Retrieved from

http://nln.allenpress.com/doi/abs/10.1043/1536-5026-31.2.89?journalCode=nhcp.

Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional

technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational

Communications and Technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Macmillan.

Crawford, S., Hicks, D., & Doherty, N. (2009). Worth the WAIT: Engaging social studies

students with art in a digital age. Social Education, 73(3), 136-139. Retrieved from

http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/gtx/infomark.do?

&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&docId=A19

8931343&source=gale&srcprod=AONE&userGroupName=bois91825&version=1.0. Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 13

Deaney, R., Chapman, A., & Hennessy, S. (2009). A case-study of one teacher’s use of an

interactive whiteboard system to support knowledge co-construction in the history

classroom. Curriculum Journal 20(4), 365-387. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170903424898.

Heafner, T. & Friedman, A. (2008). Wikis and constructivism in secondary social studies:

fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in Schools, 25(3-4), 288-302. Retrieved

from http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?

hid=105&sid=8de7561c-918f-4f6a-bd88-abbaa46fd86e%40sessionmgr104&vid=2.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. Retrieved

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction

does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based

experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Land, S. & Hannafin M. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In Jonassen, D. H. &

Land, S. M. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25-55),

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mintrop, H. (2004). Fostering constructivist communities of learners in amalgamated multi-

discipline of social studies. Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 141-158. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=f12f6ec2-e850-47ed-8e35-43abfafd950e%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=108. Running head: THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY IN A SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM 14

National Council for the Social Studies. (2008). A vision of powerful teaching and learning in

the social studies: Building understanding and civic efficacy. Retrieved April 21, 2011,

from http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/powerful.

Powell, K. & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an

effective classroom. Education 130(2), 241-250. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Constructivist theory. In Learning theories: An educational perspective

(5th ed). (pp. 235-277). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers’ views of learner-centered instruction. European

Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 35-53. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=ef459464-

4d70a0dba6dcdcaa22b5%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2Z

Q%3d%3d#db=tfh&AN=30075962.