Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

Constructivist Pedagogy:
Virginia Richardson
University of Michigan

Elizabeth Collins

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review the critique of Constructivist Pedagogy written by
Virginia Richardson entitled Constructivist Pedagogy. In this paper I will review the Theory and
History of Constructivist Pedagogy, as well as current interest in Constructivist pedagogy. The
last topic covered will be the unresolved issues of constructivist theories of learning and
teaching. This includes teacher subject matter knowledge, cultural differences, Student learning,
and Effectiveness of Constructivist Teaching. The paper will be closed with a personal reflection
and conclusion.

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

Theory and History

Virginia Richardson starts her critique of Constructivist Pedagogy with a short section on
its history. Here Richardson brings to attention that current interest and writing in constructivist
teaching leave many issues unresolved. These issues relate, in part, to the difficulty in translating
a theory of learning into a theory or practice of teaching (pg.1623) She goes on to say that this
conversion making a learning theory a practice of teaching is always a difficult one.
Beyond this, Richardson discussed what the actual theory of constructivist pedagogy is. It
is where an individual creates new understandings based off of what they already know and
believe as well as the new ideas and knowledge that they come into contact with. From here she
covers information from resource, Constructivism in Education, Phillips (200). This edited NSSe
yearbook provided important perspective into the view of how one can look at constructivism in
the classroom.
The first is through, social constructivism. This view of constructivism focuses on how
the different factors of ones life such as politics, ideaologies and religious beliefs affect the way
people form understandings and formal knowledge about their world. The second approach is
called psychological constructivism. In this approach the focus is centered on the ways in which
meaning is created and shared. After explaining these approaches, Richardson compares the two
giving a summarized version of what they entail. She brings the section on the Theory of
Constructivist Pedagogy to a close by informing the reader that most constructivist pedagogy
takes place within the second approach, psychological. (pg.1624)

Current Interest in Constructivist Pedagogy

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

The next section of Richardsons critique covers the descriptions of current interest in the
topic. She does this by bringing up the studies of Wood, Nelson, and Warfield (2001), Freedman
(1994) and several others to present how constructivist pedagogy was presented. Importantly
identified were the following characteristics of this type of pedagogy.
The Constructivist pedagogy presented in these and other representationa of the process involve
the following characteristics:
1. attention to the individual pedagogy and respect for students background and
developing understandings of beliefs about elements of the domain. Student centered.
2. Facilitation of group dialogue that explores an element of the domain with the purpose
of leading to the creation and shared understanding of a topic;
3. planned and often unplanned introduction of formal domain knowledge into the
conversation through direct instruction, reference to text, exploration of a Web site, or some
other means.
4. provision of opportunities for students to determine, challenge, change or add to
existing beliefs and understandings through engagement in tasks that are structured for this
purpose and
5. development of students met awareness of their own understandings and learning
processes. (pg.1626)
Here Richardson mentions that these elements are useful but are not specific practices to
be used in a classroom, eluding to problems with the theory. She defines constructivist pedagogy
as, The creation of classroom environments, activities, and methods that are grounded in a
constructivist theory of learning, with goals that focus on individual students developing deep

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

understanding in the subject matter of interest and habits of mind that aid in future learning.
(pg.1627) The growing interest according to Richardson, moving the teaching of the Theory
itself from lecture style to a facilitator of individual and group learning. This was done to be
more consistent to what practices were being covered as content.

Unresolved Issues
At this point Richardson moves on to talk about the many issues with this theory.
Student Learning and Effective Teaching
For the next two subsections of her critique, Richardson reviews the issues of this theory
having to do with student learning and the effectiveness of constructivist teaching. The
first concern here is, What does constructivist teaching do for students that is different

from

their learning within a traditional transmission model? (pg.1627) Richardson then expresses her
opinion of what she believes constructivist teaching foes for students as giving them the,
Opportunity to develop deep understandings of the material, internalize it, understand the nature
of knowledge development, and develop complex cognitive maps that connect together bodies of
knowledge and understandings. (pg.1627)
This is great but one of the other problems with this theory is the inability to prove that it
works like it should. Basically this style of teaching wont achieve what standardized test
required by most states are intended to prove and test. This theory as great as its sounds, is
according to Richardson, a theory of learning not teaching. There is a lack of knowledge of what
effective constructivist teaching is because it is not completely clear what the theory calls for in
regard to teaching. According to Richardson it is important to remember that constructivist
pedagogy is not an end in itself.

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

Teaching Subject Matter Knowledge and Cultural Differences

Richardson opens the next two subsection of unresolved problems with a suggest from
Wineburg and Wilson (1991) on the topic they suggest that the representation of a subject matter
domain within a classroom is affected by the teachers own understanding of the subject matter in
combination with his or her understanding of how students are taking it up. (pg.1631) She goes
on to say that there is much research to back up the statement the teachers need to know their
content well. There needs to be a deep understanding of the content, like a high school english
teacher knows english, in order for instruction to be the most productive. Without a good
knowledge of what is being taught, students may have misconceptions that cannot be corrected,
the teacher wont be able to provide help in areas where they might have been able to with a
deeper understanding. Now, for elementary teachers, Richardson goes on to question weather or
not needing to have a deep understanding of all content an elementary teacher would have to
teach is a reasonable requirement. After posing the question of weather or not it is reasonable.
The author questions if we should focus simply on creating and encouraging skills, ways of
thinking and habits of mind that transfer across subject matter.
Richardson then moves on to give two examples of how cultural differences are a
problem of this theory. She compares two different schools that she observed over a long period
of time to show that what one culture thinks to be a constructivist teaching focus may not be the
same thing in another culture.

Conclusions
This inconsistency discussed above proves that there is not enough information on
exactly what is defined as constructivist teaching to provide a guide for it to actually be used. I

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

very much enjoyed reading this critique as I was given the opportunity to learn more about this
potential style of teaching. I think that with more research and hard data to show which
approaches work the best here it would be a theory I could possibly use in my own classroom in
the future. I know that personally I learn better from a teaching style that is student centered
modeled after the constructivist theory as opposed to a teacher centered student approach. In
conclusion, I believe that The Constructivist approach to teaching is a potential good one but it is
not always the best choice for every student.

Running Head: Constructivist Pedagogy

References
Richardson, V. (n.d.). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 1623-1640.