Social Constructivism

As a high school student I did not regularly pay much attention to the different learning strategies that, I am now aware, my teachers utilised. As an Education student I am now learning more about the various learning theories and their implications for the classroom. Some of these learning theories are summarised in the table below. Learning theories and the classroom activities they support are a source of interest to me, however I am inclined to think that the focus of teacher education programs should perhaps lie more in the practice of teaching rather than the learning theory behind it.


One learning theory that has gained much traction in recent years is constructivism. Constructivism is a learning theory that purports that knowledge is based on the interplay between an individual’s existing knowledge and new knowledge and experiences; this implies that teaching should focus on developing students’ thinking (Yilmaz, 2008). The idea of social constructivism focuses on the ways in which society influences the formation of knowledge (Yilmaz, 2008). My reading on constructivism has caused me to view this ‘learning theory’ as more of a theory of knowledge rather than something that has pedagogical implications. Ken Rowe espouses a similar viewpoint when he states that the theory behind constructivism implies that the students being taught already have the knowledge and skills required in order to engage effectively in this style of knowledge production and learning (Rowe, 2006). As Rowe goes on to acknowledge, in order to gain these skills students will need to have had some instructional education in the traditional sense (2006).


As a student at high school I was privileged to have wonderful teachers who engaged me in each of my subjects. Now that I reflect upon my high school experience I realise that they used a number of different learning theories. Perhaps this is the best approach to teaching; the amalgamation of different approaches in order to create one that best suits your teaching style and class. It would appear that no one teaching style suits all teachers just as no one teaching style suits all classes, thus teachers should be flexible in their approach to teaching and be prepared to change their preferred learning theory based on their students. Yilmaz argues for the acceptance of constructivism as a pedagogically sound teaching strategy whilst Rowe states that direct instructional approaches are best (2008 & 2006). I would argue that the exclusive adoption of either one of these would be detrimental to one’s students. After all, the primary object of teaching is teaching and, provided it’s effective, does it really matter what form it takes?


Naturally, learning theories are always going to have a place in teacher training programs. It is as important in education as in other fields to have an understanding of the theory behind the practice. These learning theories, however, should not be taught as the 'be all and end all' of teaching. Rather, they should be provided as background knowledge on which teachers can base and begin to form their own approach to teaching. Teachers should be trained in a range of different skills that will benefit their teaching, not just told to select a learning theory, be it constructivism or direct instruction, and stick with it.




Works Cited

Yilmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its Theoretical Underpinnings, Variations and Implications for Classroom Instruction. educational HORIZONS, 86(3), 161-172. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ798521

Rowe, K. (2006). “Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning difficulties: Constructivism as a legitimate theory of learning AND of teaching?” Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/10

Connectivism Table [Image] (2010). Retrieved from http://creason830.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/connectivism-table/