After reading the Sage Constructivism Chapter in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods article, identify constructivism in your area of study/discipline/interest area. Discuss the implications of constructivism as a framework in education/education research.
Contemporary math ed research has certainly made space for the three trends outlined in the assigned chapter. The Piagetian cognitive constructivism of Constance Kamii, the cognitive apprenticeship model of Alan Schoenfeld, and of course Cathy Fosnot’s “mathematization” (borrowed heavily from the work of Hans Freudenthal) all feature prominently in journals, standards documents, and so on - - but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a constructivist approach to mathematics teaching & learning has taken root in the majority of American math classrooms. (Fosnot and her frequent collaborator Maarten Dolk both feel that the disconnect originates in teacher prep programs, which focus on “episteme” rather than “phronesis.” This is actually super interesting stuff, but I’m getting off topic, as per usual …)
Freudenthal once said, “Mathematics should be thought of as a human activity of … schematizing, structuring, and modeling the world mathematically.” If this sounds strongly constructivist, it should! Cathy's work explores how children “mathematize their world” as they model and make sense of reality, etc. etc. But she also acknowledges the role of the classroom/social environment and even borrows from biological science (look up autopoietic theory - - it’s interesting, but not really my thing). I mention all of this because I’m not convinced that she fits neatly in a “radical constructivist” category. I think she is aware of the complexities and paradoxes brought about by the tension of Self and Other, but she may not really care so much about taking it on as a problem worth pursuing. BTW I’m reading a nice chapter (“Education and Selfhood”) that really REALLY goes there – so it’s on my mind.
Thank you for the articles, Brad, Bob, Dana, and Yinying. Very informative and interesting.
Constructivist research approaches in counselor education and supervision (CES) are on the rise, and have been for about 20 years (A 15‐Year Content Analysis of Three Qualitative Research Traditions; Flynn et al., 2019). This Flynn et al. (2019) article was interesting in that it explored two prestigious CES journals (JCD and CES) and the frequency of constructivist research articles in them, and some descriptive statistics. For example, only 6 of the 83 studies utilizing phenomenological, Grounded Theory, and Consensual Qualitative Research actually stated an ontological or epistemological position, and only 33% contained an implied ontological or epistemological position. I found that interesting, and something to keep in mind in my work as a researcher, including the study I shared with you all which I will be utilizing CQR to explore the research questions. I think it is important to explicitly state these perspectives we are working and learning from for our readers and community.
One implication is the benefit of alignment of the constructivist research framework to clinical work in counseling, which calls for a social, cultural, and relational understanding of our clients. A counselor and client together create a constructed reality in the counseling session. Another implication is the questioning from some in the research community (and those reading and using the articles surely, too) regarding the rigor and reliability of these studies (a side note, the Sage reading explained, it is "dependable" not reliable).
On a less research, and more education/supervision note, I found an article that explores the possible benefits of phenomenology as opposed to constructivism, and I am finding it interesting. Here's a blurb from it to summarize: "None of this is to say that phenomenology is “better” or “more complete” than constructivism because the benefits derived from each are dependent on specific sets of assumptions. For example, if it is assumed that all counseling theories provide equal therapeutic benefit as an inevitable consequence of human diversity and individual uniqueness, then there is nothing to reconsider in the use of a constructivist approach. However, if it is alternatively assumed that this plethora of theories speaks to the lack of understanding of human change processes, then perhaps it is time to seriously reconsider the pedagogical approach. In either case, the benefits of an open and evaluative discourse on the subject of counseling pedagogy can only enhance the collective understanding of how different learning approaches affect counselor training processes." (Wilkinson & Hanna, 2016).
Excited to learn more about constructivism on Tuesday!
When investigating constructivism in world language teaching (which is what I actually do during the day, just in case you were wondering where that topic came from), I found this great list that helped me put it in perspective in relation to different language teaching methods: “The foundation of a constructivist approach as: 1. about constructing knowledge, not receiving it 2. about thinking and analyzing, not accumulating memorizing 3. about understanding and applying, not repeating back 4. being active, not passive. (Marlowe & Page, 2005)“ quoted in http://davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/583d2297ba95a.pdf
For many years, foreign language education consisted of rote memorization and repetition of vocabulary and verb forms. However, a more active constructivist communicative approach is widely considered the “best practice” among language teachers today. By its very nature, language is socially constructed, and Vygotsky’s ideas are used heavily in both L1 and L2 acquisition, even if not cited directly. However, the cognitive/psychological construction of Dewey and Piaget may be less commonly referenced in language acquisition than in other areas of study.
Another interesting note, I just noticed that throughout 21st century learning frameworks (and the infamous 4Cs), critical thinking and creative thinking fit well within the ideas of cognitive constructivism while communication and collaboration reflect socially constructivist ideas. However, the SAGE entry mentioned the “dominating influence of the transformative paradigm”. Perhaps my question is, how do we distinguish between traditional constructivism and the explicit REconstructivism of the transformative agenda?
It is always interesting to delve into these “isms” a bit deeper; for some reason my brain does not seem to fully clamp down on what they entail. My constructed thoughts about constructivism are that knowledge is something we construct for ourselves, that active learning is important, and that knowledge is not objective. This immediately leads me to dissecting the use of theories in counseling, and how each theory encourages a counselor to create knowledge concerning their clients. The working alliance in counseling is one that is built, and is different for every client. This also makes me think of supervisory practices in helping counselors in-training develop their own skills, as theory and working alliances are present in these relationships as well.
I do have a few questions about constructivism as it relates to educational research. The main article we read kept referring to knowledge as “objective,” and warning against “mechanistically” gaining knowledge. I guess I wonder, if the knowledge everyone holds is subjective, and should not be gained through agreed-upon mechanics, how do we know if the knowledge is “correct?” Is that not a value that can be placed on knowledge from a constructivist perspective? If not, how are research findings treated? I also wonder about the idea of “the understanding that results must be authentic” (Constantino, 2018, p. 5). This article touches on how validity and reliability are determined; I will check out the optional readings to get a better grasp.
Our counselor education textbook in our teaching/pedagogy course is explicitly constructivist. It acknowledges that knowledge is created together in classrooms, dependent on culture, students, teachers, environments, etc. I also see constructivism entering the healthcare realm (my area of integrated care) through increased focus on the reality that patients/physicians/healthcare settings create through their interactions, such as patient-provider communication/relationship with impact on outcomes ranging from patient health to physician burnout. I also see a re-definition (co-construction) of what health means at a societal level, namely expanding beyond physical health to acknowledge interdependence among varying facets of health.
After reading this chapter, I was curious to learn more about meta-synthesis. I was surprised and humbled to learn I was approaching this through a positivist lens- that more and bigger meant more Truth! Reading the perspectives of leading metasynthesizers in the field on metasynthesis reminded me that this research enterprise is an interpretation itself with its own limitations. However, counter to the claim that a metasynthesis is no bigger or better than the studies that it consists of, is the idea proposed by one scholar that the "research buck" must stop somewhere, and some one somehow must take the risk to make a generalizable claim that can affect policy. The authors also discuss how much of the metasynthesis seems to be occurring in the health sciences, where folks might be more comfortable with positivists designs. They distinguish between metasummaries (i.e., more positivist with counts of themes, samples, etc.) and metasynthesis (i.e., more constructivst with three types: all same themes, conflicting themes, or integration into new line of thought). The paper (below) was really interesting.
They also highlight the difference between truth seekers and truth makers. Kind of a cool tagline for positivists vs constructivists.
-Rachel
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative health research, 14(10), 1342-1365.
Hi everyone, Preeti here, After reading the Sage chapter on Constructivism, somehow it made me remember a famous statement in ancient Indian philosophy (as written originally in Sanskrit language) एकं सत् विप्राहः बहुधा वदन्ति (Ekam sat viprah bahudhaa vadanti). It means “ though there is one truth exists, the scholars express the truth in various forms.”
My constructed take on constructivism leads me to believe that it is that philosophical perspective which contends that an individual constructs the knowledge based on his or her experience and understanding of reality. As a student researcher, I can see that constructivism is deeply rooted in the modern educational psychology. From Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to Kolb’s theory of experiential learning, constructivism has provided a strong foundational base to educational psychology’s research advancement.
Hi, everyone. Cat here.
ReplyDeleteContemporary math ed research has certainly made space for the three trends outlined in the assigned chapter. The Piagetian cognitive constructivism of Constance Kamii, the cognitive apprenticeship model of Alan Schoenfeld, and of course Cathy Fosnot’s “mathematization” (borrowed heavily from the work of Hans Freudenthal) all feature prominently in journals, standards documents, and so on - - but that doesn’t necessarily mean that a constructivist approach to mathematics teaching & learning has taken root in the majority of American math classrooms. (Fosnot and her frequent collaborator Maarten Dolk both feel that the disconnect originates in teacher prep programs, which focus on “episteme” rather than “phronesis.” This is actually super interesting stuff, but I’m getting off topic, as per usual …)
Freudenthal once said, “Mathematics should be thought of as a human activity of … schematizing, structuring, and modeling the world mathematically.” If this sounds strongly constructivist, it should! Cathy's work explores how children “mathematize their world” as they model and make sense of reality, etc. etc. But she also acknowledges the role of the classroom/social environment and even borrows from biological science (look up autopoietic theory - - it’s interesting, but not really my thing). I mention all of this because I’m not convinced that she fits neatly in a “radical constructivist” category. I think she is aware of the complexities and paradoxes brought about by the tension of Self and Other, but she may not really care so much about taking it on as a problem worth pursuing. BTW I’m reading a nice chapter (“Education and Selfhood”) that really REALLY goes there – so it’s on my mind.
Thank you for the articles, Brad, Bob, Dana, and Yinying. Very informative and interesting.
ReplyDeleteConstructivist research approaches in counselor education and supervision (CES) are on the rise, and have been for about 20 years (A 15‐Year Content Analysis of Three Qualitative Research Traditions; Flynn et al., 2019). This Flynn et al. (2019) article was interesting in that it explored two prestigious CES journals (JCD and CES) and the frequency of constructivist research articles in them, and some descriptive statistics. For example, only 6 of the 83 studies utilizing phenomenological, Grounded Theory, and Consensual Qualitative Research actually stated an ontological or epistemological position, and only 33% contained an implied ontological or epistemological position. I found that interesting, and something to keep in mind in my work as a researcher, including the study I shared with you all which I will be utilizing CQR to explore the research questions. I think it is important to explicitly state these perspectives we are working and learning from for our readers and community.
One implication is the benefit of alignment of the constructivist research framework to clinical work in counseling, which calls for a social, cultural, and relational understanding of our clients. A counselor and client together create a constructed reality in the counseling session. Another implication is the questioning from some in the research community (and those reading and using the articles surely, too) regarding the rigor and reliability of these studies (a side note, the Sage reading explained, it is "dependable" not reliable).
On a less research, and more education/supervision note, I found an article that explores the possible benefits of phenomenology as opposed to constructivism, and I am finding it interesting. Here's a blurb from it to summarize:
"None of this is to say that phenomenology is “better” or “more complete” than constructivism because the benefits derived from each are dependent on specific sets of assumptions. For example, if it is assumed that all counseling theories provide equal therapeutic benefit as an inevitable consequence of human diversity and individual uniqueness, then there is nothing to reconsider in the use of a constructivist approach. However, if it is alternatively assumed that this plethora of theories speaks to the lack of understanding of human change processes, then perhaps it is time to seriously reconsider the pedagogical approach. In either case, the benefits of an open and evaluative discourse on the subject of counseling pedagogy can only enhance the collective understanding of how different learning approaches affect counselor training processes."
(Wilkinson & Hanna, 2016).
Excited to learn more about constructivism on Tuesday!
- Dana Brookover
When investigating constructivism in world language teaching (which is what I actually do during the day, just in case you were wondering where that topic came from), I found this great list that helped me put it in perspective in relation to different language teaching methods:
ReplyDelete“The foundation of a constructivist approach as: 1. about constructing knowledge, not receiving it 2. about thinking and analyzing, not accumulating memorizing 3. about understanding and applying, not repeating back 4. being active, not passive. (Marlowe & Page, 2005)“ quoted in http://davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/583d2297ba95a.pdf
For many years, foreign language education consisted of rote memorization and repetition of vocabulary and verb forms. However, a more active constructivist communicative approach is widely considered the “best practice” among language teachers today. By its very nature, language is socially constructed, and Vygotsky’s ideas are used heavily in both L1 and L2 acquisition, even if not cited directly. However, the cognitive/psychological construction of Dewey and Piaget may be less commonly referenced in language acquisition than in other areas of study.
Another interesting note, I just noticed that throughout 21st century learning frameworks (and the infamous 4Cs), critical thinking and creative thinking fit well within the ideas of cognitive constructivism while communication and collaboration reflect socially constructivist ideas. However, the SAGE entry mentioned the “dominating influence of the transformative paradigm”. Perhaps my question is, how do we distinguish between traditional constructivism and the explicit REconstructivism of the transformative agenda?
It is always interesting to delve into these “isms” a bit deeper; for some reason my brain does not seem to fully clamp down on what they entail. My constructed thoughts about constructivism are that knowledge is something we construct for ourselves, that active learning is important, and that knowledge is not objective. This immediately leads me to dissecting the use of theories in counseling, and how each theory encourages a counselor to create knowledge concerning their clients. The working alliance in counseling is one that is built, and is different for every client. This also makes me think of supervisory practices in helping counselors in-training develop their own skills, as theory and working alliances are present in these relationships as well.
ReplyDeleteI do have a few questions about constructivism as it relates to educational research. The main article we read kept referring to knowledge as “objective,” and warning against “mechanistically” gaining knowledge. I guess I wonder, if the knowledge everyone holds is subjective, and should not be gained through agreed-upon mechanics, how do we know if the knowledge is “correct?” Is that not a value that can be placed on knowledge from a constructivist perspective? If not, how are research findings treated? I also wonder about the idea of “the understanding that results must be authentic” (Constantino, 2018, p. 5). This article touches on how validity and reliability are determined; I will check out the optional readings to get a better grasp.
Excited for the upcoming discussion!
Erin Hanley
Our counselor education textbook in our teaching/pedagogy course is explicitly constructivist. It acknowledges that knowledge is created together in classrooms, dependent on culture, students, teachers, environments, etc. I also see constructivism entering the healthcare realm (my area of integrated care) through increased focus on the reality that patients/physicians/healthcare settings create through their interactions, such as patient-provider communication/relationship with impact on outcomes ranging from patient health to physician burnout. I also see a re-definition (co-construction) of what health means at a societal level, namely expanding beyond physical health to acknowledge interdependence among varying facets of health.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this chapter, I was curious to learn more about meta-synthesis. I was surprised and humbled to learn I was approaching this through a positivist lens- that more and bigger meant more Truth! Reading the perspectives of leading metasynthesizers in the field on metasynthesis reminded me that this research enterprise is an interpretation itself with its own limitations. However, counter to the claim that a metasynthesis is no bigger or better than the studies that it consists of, is the idea proposed by one scholar that the "research buck" must stop somewhere, and some one somehow must take the risk to make a generalizable claim that can affect policy. The authors also discuss how much of the metasynthesis seems to be occurring in the health sciences, where folks might be more comfortable with positivists designs. They distinguish between metasummaries (i.e., more positivist with counts of themes, samples, etc.) and metasynthesis (i.e., more constructivst with three types: all same themes, conflicting themes, or integration into new line of thought). The paper (below) was really interesting.
They also highlight the difference between truth seekers and truth makers. Kind of a cool tagline for positivists vs constructivists.
-Rachel
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative health research, 14(10), 1342-1365.
Hi everyone, Preeti here,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Sage chapter on Constructivism, somehow it made me remember a famous statement in ancient Indian philosophy (as written originally in Sanskrit language) एकं सत् विप्राहः बहुधा वदन्ति (Ekam sat viprah bahudhaa vadanti). It means “ though there is one truth exists, the scholars express the truth in various forms.”
My constructed take on constructivism leads me to believe that it is that philosophical perspective which contends that an individual constructs the knowledge based on his or her experience and understanding of reality. As a student researcher, I can see that constructivism is deeply rooted in the modern educational psychology.
From Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to Kolb’s theory of experiential learning, constructivism has provided a strong foundational base to educational psychology’s research advancement.