• Question: I have a few questions regarding constructivism and how the learning process takes places. I think I read somewhere that constructivism strives to replace behaviourism (this is also somewhat stated here: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/theories.htm) by using a more humanistic approach. But I don't understand how the process of learning works in constructivism. First, let's define learning: in this case it's the process of storing information so that it can be easily retrieved later on. So, behaviourism is pretty straighforward on that issue: you repeat some input (memorizing with flashcards or repetitive practice, think Karate or the Suzuki Method to learn an Instrument). This can be verified in experiments and also be tested on animals (Pavlov's dog). It also goes well along with the idea of neural networks forming in the brain and reinforcement of these networks by repeated stimulation. So how does constructivism explain this? Yesterday in chat it was mentioned that I learn by e.g. mixing colours that this produces other colours. How does my brain learn this? If I make that observation, how does it store the information? Why is it stored? I understand that some people claim that the ideas are construed actively in the brain, setting up according neural connections (this making it allegedly a better process than the unconcious behaviouristic process). Why is it not needed anymore to repeat the process to store that information? Is there evidence that neural connections can be formed at will? And why does this work so well for easy processes like mixing a colour, but not so well with e.g. setting up equations? As an example for that: you can certainly get to understand how to set up the Lagrange's trigonometric identities, you can use it to do calculations - but the next day it's usually impossible to reproduce those formulas. You can start again by retracing the steps you did yesterday and soon it will be perfectly clear again, yet it's quite time consuming (although not as time consuming as it was initially). However, to be able to reproduce that more quickly you have to repeat that process a few times - which would be again learning in the sense of behaviourism, exactly what constructivism dismisses as overcome. Or is this somehow also explained in the context of constructivism?

    Asked by specialsymbol to Alice, Anna R, Chris J, Matt D on 30 Apr 2015.
    • Photo: Chris Jarrold

      Chris Jarrold answered on 30 Apr 2015:

      Personally I wouldn’t say constructivism is a humanistic approach, though to be honest I don’t really know what that means. All theories would accept that learning takes place by the formation of connections in the brain; where they differ in this case is in terms of where they think ‘knowledge’ comes from.

      Behaviourism would say that knowledge comes from the environment – the potential to learn all that we need to know is in the world, and if we have in place general learning principles we will pick this information up.

      Nativism (not mentioned in your question, but basically the view that things are innate or inbuilt) would say the knowledge comes from within the child – more accurately these days people would claim that the capability to learn in different areas (language being a good example) is inbuilt (there from birth) and ‘special’, being different from other areas of expertise.

      Constructivists would say that knowledge is ‘constructed’ by the child through their interactions with the environment. Under this view there are inbuilt processes that prompt this interaction on the child’s part, and which govern how new information is integrated with existing knowledge. So the environment on its own isn’t enough (unlike behaviourism), but equally there isn’t really any inbuilt knowledge or structuring of types of knowledge to begin with (so unlike a very strong version of nativism)

Comments