Toward A Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Of course, constructivist ideas have existed for a long time, perhaps since the ancient Greeks. Yet a formal discourse that uses the term constructivism, presents the characteristics, and argues for the merits of this approach is a relatively new phenomenon. In this context, it is noteworthy that neither Piaget nor Vygotsky, who are considered constructivists, used this term in their writings. 2. Some of these constructivist theorists are discussed in Brent Davis and Dennis Sumara's (2002) essay “Constructivist Discourses and the Field of Education: Problems and Possibilities;” others are analyzed in Rebecca Oxford's (1997) “Constructivism: Shape-Shifting, Substance, and Teacher Education Applications.” 3. Dewey considered the content knowledge or “scholarship” that teachers possess as not merely theoretical, remote from the practical issues that teachers face. He believed that teachers' practical knowledge can serve as a tremendous resource for enhancing educational theory. See his essay “The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education,” in John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings ([1904] 1974). 4. This statement was made by Joe Kincheloe in a private conversation with the author in 1999. 5. For a discussion of Vygotsky's influence on cooperative learning, see Kenneth A. Brufee's Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Independence, and the Authority of Knowledge, (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1993), 144. 6. I am aware that both Freire's and Dewey's constructivist theories have recently come under attack by Chet Bowers (2005) Bowers, Chet A. 2005. The False Promises of Constructivist Theories of Learning, New York: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar] for failing to appreciate “the complex ways in which culture influences values, ways of thinking, behaviors, built environments, and human/nature relationships” (IX). However, my basic point here is not to defend the value of Freire's and Dewey's individual theories of learning, but rather to begin to develop a pragmatic constructivist discourse based on their theories. My argument does not, in any way, diminish from Bowers' powerful critique of some of the major limitations of Freire's and Dewey's constructivist views in particular, and constructivist theories of learning in general. See his book The False Promises of Constructivist Theories of Learning (2005).