A Dichotomy of Necessary Behaviors and Implementation
of Constructivism in Urban Schools
Eugenia B. Hopper
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte
AUTHOR
BIO:
Eugenia
B. Hopper is an Instructional Coach. As a Ph.D. student at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, her research focuses on teacher preparation and
retention.; email: ehopper@uncc.edu.
Classrooms
are expected to be environments that are conducive for knowledge construction.
Educators are admonished that students should be engaged in learning and
collaborating in a respectful learning community. To
facilitate this process, an accommodating structure must be established in the
classroom. In this
paper I will argue that behaviorism and constructivism are not polar opposites.
In public, urban classrooms, portions of each theoretical framework are needed
to ease the imbalance that takes place in learning, while propelling students
toward constructing meaning based on the sum of their experiences.
Keywords:
behaviorism, constructivism, technology
Introduction
Many
theorists view behaviorism and constructivism as being on opposite sides of the
learning spectrum. The backgrounds and underlying beliefs of these two
theoretical concepts are very different, yet in classrooms both can be
effective (Richardson, 2003). As evidenced in the application of Common Core
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School, 2010) and classroom experience, some educators
see the need to allow students to construct knowledge in experiential ways
based on key concepts that have evolved based on prior learning (Gordon, 2009).
At the same time, educators use operant conditioning as they share content and
manage their classrooms (Skinner, 1969). The technology that is becoming so
synonymous with learning has as its foundation a behaviorist view that focuses
on specified outcomes and observable behaviors pre-determined by a programmer
(Vrasidas, 2000).
With
all of these ideas considered, it seems logical that educators accept that a
well-rounded approach which combines behaviorist and constructivist
theoretical foundations should be implemented in their classroom. There
are key behavior management strategies that are proactive and preventative, as
well as establish structure to facilitate a successful learning environment in
urban schools (Moore & Lewis, 2012). A structure is needed to prevent chaos
and off-task behaviors, yet students need to be free to construct knowledge in
ways that fit their learning styles. As urban students begin to actively engage
in learning, boundaries should be set so that students operate in a respectful
manner that encourages differences in opinion and exploration. Social learning
expectations may be different from urban studentsÕ social-cultural realities
(Moore & Lewis, 2012).
Constructing knowledge involves taking risks and often involves unknown
consequences. The behaviors exemplified within the learning community, should allow for students to feel safe to make mistakes and
refrain from taking offense if another learner disagrees with their hypothesis.
Since knowledge construction takes place primarily within the mind (Richardson,
2003), it becomes necessary for students to articulate their thoughts and their
paths to knowledge when interacting socially.
With
each new learning experience in an urban classroom, it is helpful for students
to be provided with a model or given expectations to fulfill the learning task.
This communication becomes the structure that sustains the learning experience,
much like the skeletal system serves as the structure for the human body. ÒGood
classroom management involves putting structures into place that capitalize on
the social context of the classroom by creating a sense of community and
assisting every student in gaining a sense of belongingÓ (Bloom, 2009, p. 129).
To facilitate knowledge construction, urban students should be equipped with
background knowledge that fits the appropriate academic framework that may be
different from their current cultural or socio-economic framework. If students
are exposed to one way to complete a
task, then they are positioned to build a bridge to their prior knowledge (Moore
& Lewis, 2012) as they attempt to construct meaning for themselves.
In
this paper, it is argued that behaviorism and constructivism are not polar opposites.
In urban classrooms, portions of each theoretical framework are needed to ease
the imbalance that takes place in learning, while propelling students toward
constructing meaning based on the sum of their experiences. First, the
foundations of constructivism and behaviorism will be theoretically explored.
Secondly, a description of the pragmatic use of these two theoretical
foundations in urban classrooms through use of the Common Core curriculum (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School, 2010) and educational uses of technology will be provided. In
conclusion, there will be an illustration and discussion of the alliance
between constructivism and behaviorism as it relates to outcomes in the urban
classroom.
Constructivism
Defined
Constructivism
views Òchildren as builders of their own cognitive tools, as well as of their
external realities. For them, knowledge and the world are both constructed and
constantly reconstructed through personal experienceÓ (Ackermann, 2001, p. 7).
Constructivism Òmaintains
that individuals create or construct their own new understandings or knowledge
through the interaction of what they already believe and the ideas, events, and
activities with which they come into contactÓ (Ultan.r, 2012, p. 195). Thus,
it can be surmised that students examine their environment to arrive at
learning. Several
philosophers and theorists have created a legacy of ideologies related to the
field of education. Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky (Phillips & Soltis, 2004) have
made an enduring impression on constructivist ideology.
Dewey
As
a philosopher, John Dewey introduced the concept of the Òwhole childÓ (Stuckart
& Glanz, 2010). He asserted that a childÕs experience constructing
knowledge is individual and pragmatic. ÒDewey focused on the transactions
between the person and the environmentÓ (Stuckart & Glanz, 2010, p. 5).
Dewey reasoned that intelligence could not be measured by tests, stressed using
personal interest to motivate students to embrace learning, and introduced the
concept of instruction led by student needs or what is known as differentiated
instruction.
ÒThrough
systematic inquiry, students examine problems, and in the process, they create
solutions and new forms of knowledge, infusing content knowledge into their
interests and experiencesÓ (Stuckart & Glanz, 2010, p. 17). This type of
inquiry-based learning should be collaborative, build upon prior knowledge, and
require reconstructing information while in a social context (Stuckart &
Glanz, 2010). Reflection as a part of the learning process is also a proponent
that Dewey supported. Dewey
encouraged teaching socially relevant skills and giving students an opportunity
to use them. Dewey felt that curriculum focused on improving the whole child
was the recipe for success. In this
way, teachers teach the students, not the test to the students. These ideals
are mirrored in the Common Core Curriculum (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School, 2010).
Piaget
Piaget
asserted that children move gradually in their learning from concrete,
observable ways of manipulating ideas to more abstract concepts using symbols
and words (Ediger, 2012). Piaget referenced the concept of developmental stages which are similar to the progression of the life
cycle of animals in order to explain his theory (Phillips & Soltis, 2004).
According to PiagetÕs theory (Phillips & Soltis, 2004), as learning begins
at infancy in the sensorimotor stage, knowledge is constructed by a
learner through interactions with their environment. In his research, Piaget
found that
Òas a result of
handling, dismantling, and generally transforming its surroundings, the child
gradually derived a set of concepts that were fruitful; at the same time the
child started
to ÔinternalizeÕ its actions, that is, it started to build up a scheme or
program of the actions
it was performing upon its environment.Ó (Ultan.r, 2012, p. 199)
This
process of manipulating the environment is part of the preoperational stage of
development. In the preoperational stage, learners are not able to manipulate
ideas in their minds, they must have an environmental
or concrete connection to the idea (Phillips & Soltis, 2004). After many
environmental experiences, learners progress to the concrete operations stage
and are able to link ideas conceptually. In the final stage, formal operations,
thinking is conceptual and the learner participates in abstract problem-solving
as an adult would (Phillips & Soltis, 2004) .
Vygotsky
VygotskyÕs
view of sociocultural constructivism has the strongest correlation to the
alliance of constructivism and behaviorism. Vygotsky stressed the impact of
culture and the social environment on a learnerÕs construction of knowledge.
ÒVygotsky, aware that learning takes place in social settings, was more
interested in the learning potential that a child might have--what the
child might accomplish with guidance of adults or older peersÓ(Phillips &
Soltis, 2004, p. 58). In constructivism Òthe
relationship between knowledge and reality is a result of individual and social
experiencesÓ (Ultan.r, 2012, p. 199).
Vygotsky posited that students operate within their zone of proximal development
(ZPD) and are coaxed through social interactions with peers and more
knowledgeable adults toward knowledge construction beyond their present
position to another level of depth in learning (Dixon-Krauss, 1996). This
progression continues as students progress in
learning. The interaction between learner, expert, and environment were pivotal
to VygotskyÕs argument. The adults provide a ÒscaffoldÓ that supports students
as they construct knowledge based on previous social and cultural experiences
(Dixon-Krauss, 1996).
Behaviorism
Education
Behaviorism
developed from research about how animals learn, are directed by instinct,
navigate their world, and solve problems (Phillips & Soltis, 2004). E. L.
Thorndike and B. F. Skinner used animals, such as cats, rats, and pigeons to
verify their learning theories, just as many scientific theories have been
tested on animals prior to their use with humans. Thorndike distinguished a set
of Òlaws for learningÓ (Phillips & Soltis, 2004) that by experience an
animal creates a quick pathway in their mind when confronted with a situation
that they have experienced previously. Thorndike concluded that a positive
response from a stimulus would cause the inciting action to be repeated,
therefore, making that particular pathway in the mind stronger (Phillips &
Soltis, 2004). The stronger the pathway, the more the behavior is repeated when
the situation presents itself again. The collective pathways in the mind
represent ÒlearnedÓ behaviors (Phillips & Soltis, 2004).
Skinner
found that it was not necessary to reward desired behaviors every time that
they manifest (Phillips & Soltis, 2004). Randomly and frequently rewarding
behavior causes the behaviors to persist (Phillips & Soltis, 2004). Skinner
resolved that punitive punishment in classrooms often resulted in negative
associations with education that pushed students away from the institution
designed to inspire learning (Skinner, 1969). Instead, Skinner (1969) proposed
the use of operant conditioning to reinforce Òsocial contingencesÓ that foster
peer relationships with minimal criticisms and make school more welcoming for
the student. The use of tokens or credit points to reinforce
desired classroom behavior is suggested by Skinner (1969). Students
elicit free choice to determine how the tokens or credit points are redeemed,
thus displaying appropriate behavior is associated as positive and motivates
students to continuously display appropriate classroom behavior. Both Thorndike
and Skinner felt that their theories were applicable to humans. Today, teachers
enact their agreement by giving students stickers and positive praise when
students display positive behaviors that bear repeating.
Constructivism
and the Common Core
The
current trend in education is to establish a common curriculum between states
that highlights the most pertinent skills necessary for youth to be successful
in the workforce. Some states have adapted their current curriculum for this
purpose, while others have instituted The Common Core State Standards (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School, 2010). The standards are an attempt to standardize transferable skills
across the nation that enables students to be competitive in a global economy.
The outcomes of the Common Core curriculum are evidence-based and require that
students use higher-level processing (National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices & Council of Chief State School, 2010). These skills are
applicable assets in the current workforce. Using the Common Core
State Standards to educate students enlists a constructivist approach. The
curriculum is designed to encourage students to build on previous experiences
and use that knowledge for continuous knowledge construction. The knowledge
constructed in one content area can be used to facilitate learning in another.
The learner is always engaged and the environment provided by the teacher is
dependent on the learnerÕs current level of understanding. The Common Core
standards boast that Òby reading texts
in history/social studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a
foundation of knowledge in these fields that will also give them the background
to be better readers in all content areasÓ (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School, 2010, p. 10).
Infused
within this curriculum is the expectation for learners to be proficient in 21st
century technology skills. StudentsÕ instruction is geared toward using Òtechnology and digital
media strategically and capablyÓ (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School, 2010, p.
7).
Technology in Education
Technology
is a major contributing factor in career readiness and is rooted in behaviorist
theory. This is an area that has been neglected in traditional classrooms until
recently. With the onslaught of technological advances beyond and through the
internet such as texting, skyping, Facebooking, and YouTube, students must be
familiar with basic technologies to be career ready and find it appealing to
experience something that is so much a part of their personal lives at school
in a way that helps them to construct valuable knowledge.
Therefore,
educators around the world are crusading to incorporate as much technology as
possible into their daily schedules. Sometimes this takes place in authentic
ways and sometimes it does not. Many educatorsÕ ideas of technology vary and
sometimes students are teaching teachers how to use the technology efficiently.
The
use of games and presentations are two elements of educational technology.
Gaming programs are created with behaviorist attributes, while presentations
are often constructed based on the learnersÕ personal values. Both gaming and presentations are used by students in
efforts to reach proficiency with Common Core standards.
Games
There
is an array of websites available with games and interactive lessons that drill
students on content. Most of them are formatted with behaviorism as the
motivating factor. As participants choose an answer or make a ÒmoveÓ the
computer adapts. If an answer is given correctly, the level of difficulty
increases. If an incorrect answer is chosen, then the level of difficulty is
adjusted to make the experience more successful or gratifying for the
participant. The participant is encouraged to persevere through the process of
completing the game because maximum frustration is avoided. In the end,
participants are ranked according to their performance. These games are used
mainly for learners that need additional Òdrill and practiceÓ because they are
not proficient at a particular skill or if an advanced student needs an
un-facilitated experience with new content. The frequency of the use of games
that follow a behaviorist model in classrooms that are driven by the Common
Core and a constructivist approach creates a unique dynamic that lends itself
to balancing the two camps of constructivism and behaviorism.
Presentations
Another
way that technology manifests in the classroom is in the form of presentations.
Teachers present information to students using Powerpoint presentations, Glogs,
PreziÕs, and at times communicate with their students using online blogs. Glogs
are online posters that can be made interactive with links to websites and videos.
A Prezi is similar to a Powerpoint presentation, yet is not static in its
movement. Ideas can ÒbounceÓ around the screen and links can also be added to
this medium. Blogs are online journals that allow conversations about a given
topic to take place over the internet. These are all
venues to organize information and communicate it to an audience. Each form of
communication is tied to a specified objective constructed by the presenter.
Linearly, the presenter determines the knowledge outcomes.
Since
these mediums are used in the corporate world, it is logical that students are
introduced to these various formats of sharing information to facilitate career
readiness. Although they may not be using the same software as adults, there
are sure to be some programs available that will assist in communicating
relevant information to others in the future and someone will need to be
prepared to program and filter the information to be distributed. The use of
presentations facilitates social interaction in learning as Vygotsky (Phillips & Soltis,
2004) encourages, yet students
are asked to convey their communication based on a specific objective that
should be apparent throughout the presentation. This illustrates the use of
constructivism to create the presentation while expecting behaviorist outcomes.
Pragmatic
Knowledge Construction
In
a social constructivist model, educators
are admonished that students should be engaged in learning and collaborating in
a respectful learning community (Bloom, 2009). As part of the Common Core
Standards, students are expected to defend their arguments and problem-based
learning is encouraged, as evidenced in argumentative writing expectations (Common
Core State Standards, 2010). In order for these outcomes to be exemplified, personal
construction of knowledge as well as organization of content and space is
necessary. Active engagement is a key element to
constructivist knowledge construction (Richardson, 2003). In general,
definitions of constructivism allude to the idea that development of
understanding requires the learner to be actively engaged as they make meaning
of concepts (Ultan.r,
2012). The task of the educator is
not to dispense knowledge but to provide students with opportunities and
incentives to build it upÓ (von Glassersfeld, 2005).
Providing
incentives brings to mind operant conditioning brought to light by Skinner
(1969). A teacher nurtures, along with all the students in a classroom, an
environment that encourages (with praise or tangible incentives) students to
construct their knowledge using resources that are accessible to the learner.
Creating this type of learning environment takes time and expertise from a
teacher. For example, requiring a diverse group of students from several
socio-cultural backgrounds to construct and then come to a consensus of an
epistemological definition of schooling would require both constructivism and
behaviorism.
Some
learners prefer working alone, while others learn best
talking things out with a group, and still others may need to interact with
things in a hands-on way. Students Òlearn in a variety of ways, which include
trying to solve problems on their own, sharing their ideas with their peers,
and asking the teacher to explain issues and concepts that are unclearÓ
(Gordon, 2009, p. 48). All strategies can be valid means of facilitated
knowledge construction. Flexibility based on the needs of students should be
part of a constructivist approach and teaching may require adjustments in
approaches used by the teacher (Gordon, 2009). Flexibility, as well as forward
thinking on the part of the teacher is necessary in managing this process of
learning. The teacher must be prepared to smooth over objections and
disagreements and teach students how to respond positively when they experience
the conceptual imbalance that happens and may make students feel uncomfortable
as though the teacher is not doing their job to clarify concepts in order to
invoke true learning (Gordon, 2009). Modeling student behaviors in this
learning environment that benefits individuals *** and
helps the classroom community progress can be supported by operant conditioning
to dispel behaviors that may hinder the progress of the group (Bloom, 2009). It takes a professional to walk the tight
rope allowing students to construct meaning while exhibiting behaviors that do
not negate the knowledge construction of others. I may learn best by talking
through content, yet talking loudly is not an acceptable behavior in my
learning community because it hinders those around me that need quiet
introspection to formulate their understanding.
The
peer groups of urban students strongly impact their social lives (Moore &
Lewis, 2012). Therefore, it becomes very important for teachers to foster a
classroom community that discourages ridicule of academic mistakes and empowers
students to work together to correct errors. ÒAlong with clear and shared
expectations of behavior, students need to feel comfortable enough in the
classroom to take risksÓ (Bloom, 2009, p. 145). Modeling correct behaviors,
having class discussions to discuss appropriate behaviors, and analyzing
non-examples of appropriate responses to situations help to foster a positive,
proactively disciplined community (Bloom, 2009).
The
Common Core State Standards (2012) stress the use of evidence to support
conclusions. Providing evidence for oneÕs assertions can become increasingly
complicated. As ideas become more abstract and complex, verifying presumptions
within the realm of those ideas become more complicated also. It becomes
necessary to state background knowledge used to come to a conclusion. One new
thought is the conglomeration of several past experiences with a set of
information (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Sharing your ideas involves
sharing your perspective in a way that others can attempt to understand. Even
the student processing information at the highest level may have difficulty
communicating the meta-cognition that has taken place, especially if the
student is an elementary school-aged learner. This expectation takes you beyond
PiagetÕs proposed realm of knowledge construction for young children
(Dixon-Krauss, 1996). Therefore, such communication may begin as a teacher-led
experience. Knowing that the item indicated is an apple and explaining how you
ÒknowÓ it is an apple requires different levels of knowledge construction.
Developing communication skills is a social activity and is key to academic and
social learning in the classroom (Bloom, 2009). It is necessary for students to
have an example of such a task to eventually become independent. The type of behaviors expected, would be
the behaviors modeled.
Organization
of Knowledge
As
urban students move to constructing knowledge in authentic ways like with
project-based learning activities, it becomes necessary for them to plan and
organize their timelines for work completion and the execution of the same
(Newell, 2003). This type of planning and organization takes direct instruction
and may also involve modeling.
Once
organizational strategies are learned, they can be applied to various content
areas. The subject
matter may change but the process of gathering, organizing, and learning new information is
constant. While the product of a project is certainly important, we value the fact
that children Òlearn how to learnÓ and develop tools necessary to learn Òanything about anything.Ó
(Diffily & Sassman, 2002, p. 89)
Leading students toward behaviors and academic
procedures that have traditionally lead to success in a content area provides
students with a basic framework by which they can alter portions of what they
are presented with to fit their personal preferences and knowledge construction
needs. This point is validated when the authors in Moore and Lewis (2012)
Òcontend that too few bridges connect the established scientific content and
culture in what students already experience and understand in their everyday
lives (p.186). Moore and Lewis (2012) also highlight the mathematical needs of
urban students and the importance of real-world connections and applications to
learning mathematical content.
Building content bridges and establishing academic frameworks to serve
as foundations for knowledge construction is applicable for all subjects
(Echevarr’a, Vogt,
& Short, 2010).
Teaching
students ways to engage in knowledge construction in a communal way,
exemplifying ways to communicate thinking, fostering a community that is
supportive of
exploring new ideas in an environment free of ridicule, and
presenting options for organizing space and information that work within an
urban classroom can benefit learners (Bloom, 2009). These behaviors are key to
boosting knowledge construction in urban public schools in a constructivist
fashion (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). It is important for educators to see
the value in replicating these behaviors in their classroom to the benefit of
all learners.
[H2] The
continuum below, like GoldingÕs (2011) Many
Faces of Constructivist Discussion Continuum, characterizes how teacher
input and student independence determine the propensity for constructivist
knowledge construction. The Management Behaviors
vs. Academics Continuum (Table 1) illustrates behaviors that once modeled,
can be implemented in a continuous way to maximize studentsÕ opportunity to
eventually construct knowledge freely. As independence toward
constructivist outcomes increases (academic behaviors), appropriate
domain-specific behaviors tend to be more concrete for the learner. Students
that require the most teacher support for learning participate in direct
instruction. They are mimicking the teacher-relayed behaviors. Those that are
able to freely construct knowledge have internalized how to construct new
knowledge based on prior experiences. Within these two extremes are a continuum
of learning behaviors and academic levels of exploration. These ideas are
exemplified in the chart below. Students that independently construct knowledge
have a greater depth of understanding of appropriate learning behaviors for
knowledge construction and those that still need reinforcement of concepts
participate in more teacher-directed knowledge construction activities.
Students are able to handle more academic knowledge construction freedoms as
they prove that they can consistently accumulate academic knowledge without
teacher intervention. It is necessary to contend that students that operate in
the most extreme lane of the continuum and function randomly, without organization
may find themselves ultimately academically inefficient. Balance between the
two is preferred for optimal learning.
Conclusion
In
the American culture, citizens operate under the premise of freedom of choice
and free enterprise. Despite this freedom, there is still a basic structure
(our rules and laws) that people have to abide by in order to exert this
freedom. Vygotsky explored how social environment and culture impacts an individual
(Phillips & Soltis, 2004). Combing VygotskyÕs emphasis on social learning
and SkinnerÕs ideas about positive reinforcement can lead students to success
in the urban classroom.
Students
can begin to make connections within concepts once a foundation has been
established. They are then able to discuss these concepts in a collaborative
framework because an appropriate structure has been modeled for them.
Therefore, students are able to freely construct knowledge once they have acquired
background knowledge and an appropriate structure. Without this structure, even
though educators expect students to construct knowledge, they are unable to do
more than scratch the surface of academic disciplines. Knowledge construction
in urban classrooms should include the thought processes of constructivism
exemplified by academic behaviors transmitted through the behaviorist
characteristics of direct instruction and modeling.
Ackermann,
E. (2001). PiagetÕs constructivism, PapertÕs constructionism: WhatÕs the difference? Retrieved
from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Bloom, L. A. (2009).
Classroom management: Creating positive
outcomes of all students. Upper
Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Diffily,
D. & Sassman, C. (2002). Project-based learning with young children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996).
Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated
literacy instruction and
assessment. New York, NY: Longman
Publishers
Echevarr’a, J., Vogt, M.,
& Short, D. J. (2010). Making content comprehensible for elementary
English learners: The SIOP Model.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Golding, C. (2011). The many
faces of constructivist discussion. Educational
Philosophy and
Theory, 43(5), 467-483.
Doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00481.x
Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse
of constructivism: Reflections on lessons
from practice. Educational Studies, 45, 39-58. Doi:
10.1080/0013194080254689
Grusec,
J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies
of
Robert
Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental
Psychology, 28(5), 776-786.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.776
Horner, S. L.,
Bhattacharyya, S., & O'Connor, E. A. (2008).
Modeling: It's more than just
imitation.
Childhood Education,
84(4), 219-226.
Landsman, J. & Lewis,
C. (Eds.). (2011). White teachers/diverse classrooms: Creating
inclusive
schools,
building on studentsÕ diversity and providing educational equity (2nd
ed.).
Sterling,
VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Moore,
J.L. & Lewis, C. (Eds.). (2012). African
American students in urban schools: Critical
issues and solutions for achievement. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc.
National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards.
Washington, DC: National Governors
Association Center for
Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Newell, R. J. (2003). Passion for learning: How project-based learning meets the needs of 21st
–
century students. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Phillips, D. C. &
Soltis, J. F. (2004). Perspectives on learning. New
York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Richardson, V. (2003).
Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers
College Record, 105(9), 1623-1640.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingency
management in the classroom. Education, 90(2),
93-100.
Stuckart, D. W. &
Glanz, J. (2010).
Revisiting Dewey: Best practices for educating the whole
child today.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Ultan.r., Emel. (2012). An epistemological glance at the
constructivist approach: Constructivist
learning
in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori. International Journal of Instruction. 5(2), 195-212.
Vanderbilt,
K. L. (2005). Connecting learning: Brain-based strategies for linking prior
knowledge
in the library media center. School
Library Media Activities Monthly, 21(7), 21-23.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1996).
Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.),
Constructivism:
Theory, perspective, and practice (pp. 3-7). New York, NY: Teachers
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus
objectivism: Implications for interaction, course
design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 6(4), 339-362.
Wells, G.
& Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing
knowledge together: Classrooms as
centers of inquiry and literacy.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.