Constructivist teaching : mythical or plausible?

Abstract

Irrespective of the branch of constructivism they advocate, many constructivists argue that constructivism is a theory of learning, not of teaching, and therefore one cannot speak of such a thing as ‘constructivist teaching’ (CT). Others equate CT with a student-centred teaching methodology such as teaching for inquiry-based learning. From a radical constructivist perspective, I argue that both of these views are only partially true. The former seems to disregard the fact that teaching and learning are so interlinked that it may be virtually impossible for a teacher who strongly believes in the constructivist notion of learning not to reflect some of that belief in her/his teaching approach. The latter does not seem to acknowledge that even the most traditional and teacher-directed teaching may bring about learning, and that if learning occurs, it happens through the active construction of knowledge in the minds of the learners. Drawing on a local case study of a group of six low-performing Year 7 students (i.e., 11-year-olds) to whom I taught mathematics, I show that CT is a possibility in any classroom where the teacher is sensitive to the constructivist notion of learning. The framework I used to investigate the data was the MathematicsNegotiation-Learner (M-N-L) framework. I devised this framework to help me to define CT and analyse the extent to which I maintain it in my lessons.