Constructivist Learning Environments Nathan Kieffer Peer Reviewed by Craig Giesy

Abstract
This paper examines constructivism and its implications for creating learning environments. Social and radical constructivism are first presented in order to represent the diversity of the field. Issues and challenges for constructivism as an informing theory of learning environments are then examined. Finally, a set of commonly recognized features of constructivist learning environments are presented and discussed.

Introduction
Constructivism has become an influential epistemology in the field of educational technology over the last two decades. While there multiple varieties of constructivism, broad generalizations can be made among them all. Learning is generally understood as the active process by which an individual constructs knowledge from experience (Adams, 2006). One important principle of constructivism is that knowledge is constructed by individuals based on the interactions of their experience with previously constructed knowledge and experiences (von Glasersfeld, 1984). One implication of this position is that each individual may construct a unique conception of reality (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Even further, constructivism holds that instruction is not possible because it cannot be certain what an individual will construct or what an individual will learn (Bopry, 1999 ). Clearly, this may affect what is needed for a learning environment to be successful. This paper will attempt to describe the implications of constructivist epistemology for the creation of learning environments. In order to do this it will first be necessary to establish a definition of constructivism. Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005) identify two broad categories of constructivist theory, radical constructivism and social constructivism, which will be described in some detail. Challenges and issues associated with a constructivist approach to creation of learning environments will also be examined. Scholars have attempted to develop a constructivist approach to creating learning environments and this paper will present some characteristics which are mentioned frequently in the literature. This will be followed by discussion of possible ways in which these common characteristics can be implemented in classrooms.

Constructing Constructivism
Although there are many flavors of constructivism, a simple taxonomy of constructivist

philosophies can be described, dividing schools of though into two broad categories. Indeed, as Earnst states, cited by Karagiorgi and Symeou, there are as many varieties of constructivism as there are researchers (2005). For the purposes of this paper, I am presenting only two varieties: radical constructivism and social constructivism. Constructivism can certainly be broken down into a more detailed and precise taxonomy, but using these two allows enough sense of the diversity of thought. These two types of constructivism were chosen because they represent a convenient dichotomy within constructivist theory.

Radical Constructivism
Radical constructivism can be contrasted with objectivism or what von Glasersfeld, who is a prominent radical constructivist, calls metaphysical realism (1984). Whereas objectivism maintains that something can be considered true knowledge if it corresponds to an independent, external, objective reality, constructivism asserts that knowledge is created by the process of putting order to our individual experiences of the world (von Glasersfeld, 1984). An important aspect of this process is that new knowledge constructs are built from the raw material of the sum total of all of our previous experiences. Von Glasersfeld explains the nature of the relationship between knowledge and reality as consisting of those constructs that prove viable in our interactions with the environment (von Glasersfeld, 1984). He draws an analogy between the process of establishing viability and Darwinian natural selection whereby the environment does not prescribe effective adaptations; it merely eliminates those adaptations which do not facilitate their own perpetuation--those that are ineffective at coping with the constraints of the environment such as it is (von Glasersfeld, 1984). The same holds for our constructed knowledge; those constructs which lack power to explain or predict the environment are cast off as false or as having little value. It is clear from this definition that there is no objective correspondence between what we hold as true knowledge and objects in the world.

Social Constructivism
Social constructivism draws influence from the activity theory of Vygotsky (Adams, 2006). Activity theory states that learning is mediated by tools such as language, symbols, and cultural constructs (DeVane & Squire, 2012). This means that the knowledge we are capable of acquiring is shaped by the tools we use in the processing of information. Our use of these tools is situated in social interaction and the knowledge we derive is therefore a product of and situated in those social processes. Adams states that because our knowledge is mediated in this way, it takes shape as an inter-personal construct before it becomes knowledge possessed by individual (2006). Whereas radical constructivism explains the truth of knowledge in terms of its viability, social construction of knowledge is a process of negotiating consensus among participating members of a social organization (Adams, 2006). The mind itself emerges as a result of social interactions mediated by language. Garrison, citing Dewey, states that meanings or knowledge in their most basic form originate in the natural mutterings between two people and a third object (1997). Language then becomes the key to socially negotiated meanings and knowledge is created in that negotiation. As with radical constructivism, this definition doesn't require that there be a one to one correspondence between what is regarded as true knowledge and objects in the real world.

Constructivism in practice: Issues and Challenges

Despite the variety of types of constructivism, a number of prevailing implications of the theory emerge across the continuum. In this section of the paper, commonly identified issues and challenges regarding constructivism as an underpinning theory of constructivist learning environments will be examined.

The Impossibility of Instructional Objectives

Many scholars have considered constructivism as an underpinning theory of learning environments and a common set of implications can be created from their research. The impossibility of specification of instructional objectives was a recurring conclusion found in the literature. Because meaning is constructed by individuals, according to the radical constructivists, or negotiated in social context, according to social constructivists, it is not possible for instructional objectives to be specified and planned for. Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005) classify pre-specification of knowledge as among the most problematic issues constructivism must address. Winn (1992) notes that the evident autonomy of learners makes it difficult to plan instruction. This position has two consequences. First, since it is not possible to specify learning objectives, design theorists have suggested a new focus on learning over instructing. Adams (2006) emphasizes maintaining the locus of control on the students. Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005) suggest that the goal of instruction is not to teach a particular version of history, but to teach someone to think like a historian. This clearly illustrates the experiential nature of knowledge construction and it focuses on the potential and responsibility of individual learners to build their own meaning. The second consequence involves the nature of assessment in constructivist learning environments. This issue will be described in the next section.

Rethinking Assessment
When there is no standard set of learning goals, how does one go about assessing learning consistently? The literature suggests increased learner involvement in goal setting as a first step in addressing this issue. Winn argues that constructivism requires much higher learner responsibility in setting goals (1992). Jonassen suggests that objectives might perhaps serve as a negotiating tool that learners and teachers could use to assist in setting individual goals (1991). The learners, in this

arrangement, would be responsible for self-assessment with the teacher acting as a guide in the learners' reflection process. Karagiorgi and Symeou echo this, suggesting learners would be better served by shifting focus to increasing their ability to reflect on their own learning (2005).

The Role of the Teacher

Rethinking the assessment process entails rethinking the role of the teacher in a constructivist learning environment. With learners taking a more active role in their own assessment, the responsibility for their own learning also falls on them. In order to be consistent with constructivist thought, it is required that the teacher be repurposed from an expert vessel and transporter of knowledge to something more like a guide or advisor. Many writers suggest conceiving of the teacher in this way. Li, for example, suggests a shift in focus from direct teaching of information to directing attention and affecting interpretations (2010). This can be done by implementing constraints on the learning process and directing it toward a range of acceptable outcomes. Winn also sees the teacher in more of a support role, with the overall focus on learning rather than teaching (1992). Bopry described the duty of the teacher as determining the range of acceptable performance, funneling learners toward a range of performance appropriate to the social environment (1999).

Accountability and Authority of Knowledge

In a learning environment where the learners are in control of content, objective setting, and assessment, it is challenging to establish accountability and authority of knowledge (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Li also questioned how the validity of learned knowledge can be established when much of the social negotiation of consensus is shaped by the dominant culture (2010). Bopry (1999) and Li (2010), both proponents of enactivist constructivism, identify an implication of their theory which may address the issues of authority and accountability. Proscription is suggested as

a way of funneling learner effort toward a range of socially acceptable performance (Bopry, 1999). She draws a parallel between learning in a formal setting and learning in a cultural setting. It is impractical to prescribe a set of experiences that define membership in a community of practice, however, by proscribing activities that are incompatible with the values of the group those values may be maintained (Bopry, 1999). In a similar vein, Li proposes that constraints may be included in learning environments that will direct efforts of learners toward productive knowledge (2010). Both note that proscription allows for diversity of perspectives within the established constraints (Bopry, 1999; Li 2010)

Common Features of Constructivist Learning Environments

In the final section, this paper will present findings from a limited review of articles focusing on common features of constructivist learning environments. Although there are surely more characteristics that could be found from a broader survey of literature, this paper presents and discusses five qualities that can be found in constructivist learning environments: use of a student-centered approach, use of collaborative activities, provision of authentic learning problems, provision of a problem solving space, and examination of multiple perspective.

Student-Centered
Many authors discussed the use of student-centered learning environments as being consistent with a constructivist approach. The environment should help in establishing learner ownership over the learning problem (Jonassen, 1995). Once this has been established, learners will be more invested in the activity and therefore disposed to actively engaging in the learning process. Willis and Wright emphasized fostering learner initiative in the learning activity (2000). They recommend that a set of domain-relevant information should be accessible from within the environment, allowing the learners to direct the course of their learning (Willis & Wright, 2000).

Learner control of their own learning process is clearly consistent with the constructivist position that all knowledge is constructed as a result of our experiences and pre-existing knowledge constructs. Since the determination of viability of the knowledge acquired is determined internally, attempting to directly instruct cannot achieve predictable results.

Collaborative
Social constructivism's emphasis on socially situated learning demands an element of collaboration in learning environments. All articles reviewed mentioned this requirement (Adams, 2006; Jonassen, 1995; Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005; Willis & Wright, 2000). Adams recognized learners as active co-constructors of knowledge and meaning (2006) requiring opportunities to collaborate in learning activities. This requirement can be addressed by providing a set of collaborative tools the learners can use to share the knowledge that they are co-constructing within the learning environment (Jonassen, 1995).

Authentic Learning Problems

The nature of the learning problems presented in constructivist learning environments was also a commonly discussed aspect. In addition to including recommendations that learners work collaboratively, the literature suggests that they collaborate on authentic, real-world problems. Constructivist learning environments should be problem-driven with learning problems chosen by examining what expert practitioners in the domain do (Jonassen, 1995). Specific domain-content would then be the raw material for the problem-solving process. Focusing on real-world problems creates a situation in which the learning tasks can be implicitly valuable (Adams, 2006). An implicitly valuable learning task can help to foster learner buy-in and encourage individual initiative.

Problem Manipulation Space

Micro-worlds can provide a safe, controlled environment in which learners can explore principles and relationships using specifically design tool kits. Jonassen calls this the problem manipulation space (1995). Karagiorgi and Symeou (2005) also suggest the use of micro-worlds and exploratory tool kits as a way for teachers to scaffold learner exploration within their zone of proximal development, though their suggestion must be context dependent; they also state that the learning environment should be authentic and not implement artificial constraints. A micro-world necessarily uses artificial constraints to control the experience and facilitate exploration.

Multiple Perspectives
Constructivism has a clear requirement that learners compare experience with preexisting knowledge and experience. This process creates opportunities for learners to refine existing knowledge. This necessitates acknowledging the multiple perspectives of learners, including their prior knowledge and misconceptions. The key is to create opportunities for learners to confront their misconceptions. These confrontations are the mechanisms which drive the cognitive restructuring necessary for learning to occur (Karagiorgi & Seymeou, 2005). Jonassen addresses this by emphasizing the use of additional cases related to the main learning problems (1995). Additional perspectives can mitigate gaps in student experience and provide scaffolding for the student to attempt to solve problems beyond their current capability (Jonassen, 1995). Both of these approaches create opportunities for students to compare their experience to something beyond it and thereby construct new knowledge.

Discussion
Creating a constructivist learning environment which includes use of a student-centered approach, use of collaborative activities, provision of authentic learning problems, provision of a problem solving

space, and examination of multiple perspective has become more feasible with the arrival of information and communications technology. Using learning management systems and internet research tools it is possible for teachers to tailor learning experiences to the needs and co-created goals of their students. The flexibility, power, and accessibility of mass quantities of information and real-world data make it possible for teachers to craft custom learning materials and to engage learners in this process. Indeed, exposure to the amount of information available to them makes it imperative that learners be given opportunities, tools, and support which facilitate them creating their own understanding of the world.

Summary
The aim of learning, as Adams states it is to become aware of the realities of others and their relationship with and to one's own (2006). Since the focus of constructivism, both social and radical, is on the creation of knowledge from the raw material of experience and our own prior knowledge, constructivist learning environments must take a much more student-centered approach. Each individual student brings their own set of experiences into the learning environment and leaves with something different from every other learner. In order to accommodate the necessarily social situation of learning they must also must provide opportunities for learners to collaboratively construct new knowledge. Comparing our own experiences to new experiences is the process that drives learning and in order for that process to have value, it must be based on real-world problems. The value can be enriched even further by providing and encouraging multiple perspectives on a learning problem and providing the space and tools necessary for learners to actively manipulate the problem.

Conclusion
This paper examined constructivism as a underpinning theory of and approach to the creation of learning environments. It presented radical and social constructivism as example members of a family of

theories that is extremely diverse. Issues and challenges in creating constructivist learning environments were then presented and discussed. A set of features common to constructivist learning environments were assembled from a limited review of literature. Finally, implementation of constructivist learning environments was discussed.

References
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: theories and practicalities. Education 3-13, 34(3), 243257. doi:10.1080/03004270600898893 Bopry, J. (1999). The warrant for constructivist practice within educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 526. doi:10.1007/BF02299594 DeVane, B., & Squire, K.D. (2012). Activity theory in the learning technologies. In Jonassen, D., & Land, S. Eds., Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 241-266). New York: Routledge. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 1727. von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. Retrieved from http://www.cesipc.it/materiali/articoli/vG1.html Winn, W. (1992). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(9), 3840.