This article constitutes a critique from the inside of constructivist pedagogy. It begins with a short history of constructivist pedagogy and its relationship to constructivist learning theory. It then addresses four issues in the ways in which constructivist pedagogy are being approached in research and practice. The first issue recommends more of a research focus on student learning in classrooms that engage in constructivist pedagogy. The second leads to the suggestion of theory development that provides an understanding and descriptions of more and less effective constructivist teaching. The third centers on the necessarily deep subject matter knowledge required of teachers who adopt constructivist pedagogy; and the difficulty this requirement imposes on elementary teachers who must deal with many subject matter areas. And the fourth issue raises the possibility that the vision of constructivist pedagogy, as presently recommended, if not mandated, locally and nationally, is strongly ideological and may impose, inappropriately, a dominant view of pedagogy on those who wish to operate differently.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtwellN. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading and learning with adolescents.Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
2.
BallD., & BassH. (2000). Making believe: The collective construction of public mathematical knowledge in the elementary classroom. In PhillipsD. (Ed.), Constructivism in education (pp. 193–224). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BarrR. (2001). Research on the teaching of reading. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 390–415). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4.
BeachK. (1999). Consequential transitions: A socio-cultural expedition beyond transfer in education. In Iran-Nejad, & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 101–140). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
5.
BransfordJ. D., & SchwartzD. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In Iran-Nejad, & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
6.
BrophyJ. (Ed.). (2002). Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints.Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, Ltd.
7.
Chow-HoyT. (2001). An inquiry into school context and the teaching of the virtues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 655–682.
8.
CobbP., WoodT., NichollsJ., TrigattiB., & PerlwitzM. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29.
9.
CohenD. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–344.
10.
DelpitL. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379–385.
11.
DelpitL. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other peoples’ children. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379–385.
12.
DettermanD., & SternbergR. (Eds.). (1993). Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13.
DysonA. H. (1999). Transforming transfer: Unruly children, contrary texts, and the persistence of the pedagogical order. In Iran-NejadA., & PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 141–172). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
14.
EisenhartM., FinkelE., & MarionS. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.
15.
FenstermacherG. D., & RichardsonV. (2000). On making determinations of quality in teaching.Washington, DC: Board of Institutional Comparative Studies, national Academy of Science.
16.
FenstermacherG. D., & RichardsonV. (in press). An inquiry into the moral dimensions of teaching. In PoulsonL., & WallaceM. (Eds.), Learning to read critically in teaching and learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
FosnotC. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach to teaching.New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
FreedmanS. W. (1994). Exchanging writing, exchanging cultures.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
GergenK. J. (1994). Realities and relationships.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
20.
GoodmanK. (1996). On reading.Richmond Hill, CA: Scholastic Canada Ltd.
21.
GoodmanY. (1996). Notes from a kidwatcher: Selected writings of Yetta M. Goodman.Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
22.
GreenoJ. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.
23.
Holt-ReynoldsD. (2000). What does the teacher do? Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’ beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 21–32.
24.
HoweK., & BervJ. (2000). Constructing constructivism, epistemological and pedagogical. In PhillipsD. (Ed.), Constructivism in education (pp. 19–40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching problems and problems of teaching.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
LeeO. (1999). Science knowledge, worldviews, and information sources in social and cultural contexts: Making sense after a natural disaster. American Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 187–220.
27.
LeinhardtG. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location of contrast. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 333–357). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
28.
MacKinnonA., & Scarff-Seatter (1997). Constructivism: Contradictions and confusions in teacher education. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 38–56). London: Falmer.
29.
MatthewsM. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics. In PhillipsD. (Ed.), Constructivism in education (pp. 161–192). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
MayerR., & WittrockM. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In BerlinerD., & CalfeeR. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.
31.
McDiarmidG. W. (1990). The liberal arts: Will more result in better subject matter understanding?Theory Into Practice, 29(1), 21–29.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
33.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
34.
PetermanF. P. (1991, March). An experienced teacher's changing beliefs about teaching and learning. In RichardsonV., & TobinK.. (Chairs), The emerging role of constructivism in changes in teachers’ beliefs. Symposium conducted at the meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
35.
PetermanF. P. (1992, April). Confronting my personal beliefs about constructivism and teacher education: An autobiographical narrative. In RichardsonV., & TobinK. (Chairs), Changing beliefs and learning to teach: Constructivist perspectives on teacher education. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
36.
PetermanF. P., & ComeauxM. (1993, April). Constructivism and the classroom ecology. In RichardsonV., TobinK., & von GlasersfeldE. (Chairpersons), Reconstructing constructivism: A conversation about constructivism, teacher education, and the classroom ecology. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
37.
PhillipsD. (Ed.) (2000). Constructivism in education.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
ResnickL. B. (1989). Introduction. In ResnickL. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
RichardsonV. (Ed.) (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings.London: Falmer.
40.
RichardsonV., CasonovaU., PlacierP., & GuilfoyleK. (1989). School children at risk.New York: Falmer.
41.
RichardsonV., & RatzlaffC. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of the moral dimensions of their classrooms.Seattle, WA: American Educational Research Association.
42.
SalomonG., & PerkinsD. (1987). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Researcher, 24(2), 138–145.
43.
SfardA. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
44.
ShulmanJ. (1992). Case methods in teacher education.New York: Teachers College Press.
45.
ShulmanL., & QuinlanK. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In BerlinerD., & CalfeeR. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399–437). New York: Simon & Schuster.
46.
SosniakL. (1999). Professional and subject matter knowledge for teacher education. In GriffinG. (Ed.), The education of teachers (pp. 185–204). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
ThompsonP. (2000). Radical constructivism: Reflections and directions. In SteffeL. P., & ThompsonP. W. (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfelt (pp. 412–448). London: Falmer Press.
48.
TobinK. (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
WhiteR. (2001). The revolution in research on science teaching. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 457–471). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
50.
WilsonS. T. (2001). Research on history teaching. In RichardsonV. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 527–544). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
51.
WilsonS., & WineburgS. (1993). Wrinkles in time and place: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 729–769.
52.
WineburgS., & WilsonS. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of history. In BrophyJ. (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Volume 2. Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 305–348). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
