Two important practical points follow: the first is that learners construct new knowledge and understanding using what they already know. There is no empty vessel into which new knowledge is poured: as a result, students come to learning situations with knowledge constructed from previous experience, and that prior knowledge influences the new knowledge they will construct from any future learning experiences. To use the vernacular, learners do it for themselves—it is not something that is done to them (note that constructivism is a view of learning rather than a view of teaching, although certain views of what teaching should be are likely to follow from constructivism).
be challenged—how could it be otherwise, if we are talking about ‘my knowledge’, ‘my interpretation’ or ‘my meaning’? But the idea of constructivism becomes more contentious and radical if it is taken a stage further. If it is argued that all knowledge is ‘in the mind’ or is constructed by the learner then the debate really begins. Would this rule out the idea of shared knowledge and understanding? What about the notion of a ‘body of knowledge’ that has been accumulated over a period of time, e.g. ‘scientific knowledge’?
The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, for example, talked about a kind of ‘third world’ of accumulated knowledge stored in books, libraries and now the Internet, which has some sort of existence outside the human mind. Some versions of radical constructivism can certainly be contested, especially if they lead to a kind of ‘anything goes’ view of knowledge. This is often termed ‘epistemic relativism’. Its basic idea is that any way of knowing is as good as any other—no one form of knowing about the world should be ‘privileged’ above another. Science is no better than astrology.
Equally, one person’s or one group’s knowledge of the world (and their way of knowing and their epistemology) are not superior to that of another person or group. Francis Wheen, who wrote polemically and cynically about ‘how mumbo jumbo is taking over’, sums up ‘epistemic relativism’ with the statement: ‘The world is just a socially constructed “text” about which you can say just about anything you want, provided you say it murkily enough’ (Wheen, 2004).
However, a constructivist approach to learning need not imply a constructivist approach to epistemology (see Solomon, 1994). One of the radical constructivists, Von Glasersfeld (1984), talked in his later writing of constructivism as a theory of knowing rather than knowledge. And the opposite position—the so-called ‘realist’ view—that knowledge is independent of the learner and that knowledge is either true or false depending on whether it corresponds with reality is easily pulled apart. It depends on a naïve view of reality (the idea that something exists ‘out there’, independently); and a correspondence theory of ‘truth’, i.e. that knowledge is only true if it ‘corresponds with’ external reality.
This theory of truth begs the question: how can we know if our knowledge corresponds with reality? Thus, a kind of infinite regress is set up. My own view is that all knowledge must have been constructed by somebody or more realistically by a group of people. Knowledge is not some sort of entity that it is out there, waiting to be collected or discovered (like picking apples). However, this does not imply epistemic relativism, i.e. that all knowledge is of equal worth.
Constructivism in the classroom
One of the key messages for the classroom from constructivist thinking is the (now seemingly obvious) statement that learning requires some mental activity on the part of the learner. Physical activity on its own is not sufficient for ‘active learning’—the learner must be mentally active too—evidence of the first (behavioural activity) does not always imply the presence of the second. For learning to be active, it must lead to restructuring of the learner’s mind (see Piaget on accommodation). This is in contrast to the view of the mind as a tabula rasa onto which knowledge is imprinted. Two other points about learning are, in my view, centrally important for the classroom teacher:
- New learning depends on the existing knowledge of the learner; meaningful learning must start from this. This implies that teachers need to use some strategy to find out where children are, i.e. eliciting prior knowledge.
- New learning involves learners in constructing meaning. Knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, not passively received from the environment or the teacher.
