7/30/2019 phylosopy

1/4

This article was downloaded by: [aqil rusli]On: 18 December 2011, At: 18:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching and Learning in MedicinePubl icat i on detai ls, including inst ruct ions for authors and subscr ipt ion inform ation:h t t p : / / w w w . t an df o nl i ne . co m / l oi / h t l m 20

Constructivism: The View of Knowledge That EndedPhilosophy or a Theory of Learning and Inst ruct ion?Jerry A. Col l iver

Availabl e onli ne: 20 Nov 2009

To cite this art icle: Jerry A. Coll iver (2002): Constructivism: The View of Knowledge That Ended Philosophy or a Theory of

Learning and Inst ruct ion?, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 14:1, 49-51

To link to t his art icle: ht t p:/ / dx.doi . org/ 10.1207/ S15328015TLM1401_11

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1401_11http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htlm20

7/30/2019 phylosopy

2/4

PERSPECTIVES

Constructivism: The View of Knowledge That Ended

Philosophy or a Theory of Learning and Instruction?Jerry A. Colliver

Statistics and Research Consulting

Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Springfield, Illinois, USA

Background: Constructivism is referred to in twovery differentways in education in-

cluding medical education: to refer to a view of knowledge and to refer to a theory of

learning and hence instruction.

Summary and Conclusions: This proposal (a) distinguishes between these two us-

ages of constructivism and (b) concludes that constructivism is not a theory of learn-

ing and thus as such has little to offer that might be of value to medical education.

Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 14(1), 4951 Copyright 2002 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Constructivism is referred to often in educational

writings and conversationincluding those in medical

education. But the term is used in two different ways,

to refer to two very different thingseven in the same

contextand yet the equivocation seems to go unno-

ticed. On the one hand, constructivism refers to a revo-

lutionary view of knowledge; on the other, to a theory

of learning and hence instruction. The former1 isa pro-

found insight that has resolved the problem of knowl-

edge that plagued philosophy for over two millennia;

the latter2 is a spinoff that muddles the distinction be-tween knowledge (in the sense of the body of human

knowledge and how it is verifiedor shown to betrue)

and learning (in the sense of an individual learner and

the principles, theories, methods, and technologies that

characterize and facilitate the learning process). The

purposes of this article are (a) to distinguish between

these two usages of constructivism and (b) to consider

whether constructivism has anything to offer as a the-

ory of learning and instruction that might be of value to

medical education.

Constructivism

Constructivism refers to the view that knowledge is

a human, social inventiona construction.3 Prior to

constructivism, realism was the predominant theory of

knowledge. The realist view is that knowledge and re-

ality are separate and that knowledge is a picture or

representation of reality.4 Modern science was based

on the realist view. But, the increasing abstractness of

scientific knowledge made the realist theory of corre-

spondenceharder andharder to maintain.Thus, writers

spanning the 20th Centuryfrom Wittgenstein to

Rortyhave concluded that knowledge consists sim-

ply of languageour knowledge claimsand that

knowledge is a linguistic construction. We may think

and hope that our claims accurately represent reality,

but there is no way to get outside of language to prove

that they really do. Thus, realism, in contrast toconstructivism, is a metaphysical positionmeta-

physical in the sense that realism entails the assump-

tions that there is something out there, not directly

accessible to us, hidden from us and that our knowl-

edge claims can accurately depict this shadowy

realmreality.

Constructivism, on the other hand, is not a meta-

physical view, but merely the humble admission that

human knowledge consists simply of our claims, our

constructions. The constructivist view is pragmatic:

we can only determine whether our language claims

work, whether they allow us to achieve our ends,

whether they have the desired pragmatic conse-quences, and most basically whether they allow us to

predict and control.5 The constructivist view is that

knowledge claims are justifiedif we agree that they

are useful in reaching our practical goalsrather than

verified by proving that they correspond to reality.

49

Thispaper was presentedas an InvitedAddress to theConstructivist Special Interest Group at theAmerican Educational Research Association

Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, April, 2000.

Correspondence may be sent to Jerry A. Colliver, Statistics and Research Consulting, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, P.O.

Box 19623, Springfield, IL 627949623, USA. E-mail: colliver@siumed.edu

7/30/2019 phylosopy

3/4

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is

concerned with bridging the gap between knowledge

and reality, with verifying that our knowledge claims

accurately represent reality, with showing that our

claims are truea tough job considering we have no

direct access to reality.

Thus, epistemology has played a central role in

philosophy, given the predominance of the realistview in modern science. But with the emergence of

constructivism, the importance of epistemology has

declinedsome say epistemology is dead.6

Constructivism is often described in educational cir-

cles as an alternative epistemology,2 but strictly

speaking, constructivism is not an epistemology, be-

cause its premise is that there is no way to show the

correspondence of knowledge to reality, to show that

our claims are true. Constructions are not representa-

tions of a metaphysical reality, but simply claims that

are hoped to provide a basis for actions that achieve

our aims and reap the desired outcomes. Thus,

constructivism sidesteps the problems dealt with bytraditional epistemology. Interestingly, because of the

centrality of epistemological issues in philosophy,

some writers speculate that constructivism spells the

end of philosophy.6

Constructivism and

Educational Practice

So what are the implications of the constructivist

view of knowledge for educational practice? To begin

with, constructivism most certainly should be taught.

In all disciplines, subjects, and topics, students shouldbe made aware that the knowledge they are learning is

a human social construction. At least, they should be

told that this is the current perspective on knowledge

with reminders sprinkled liberally throughout. As stu-

dents and teachers become immersed in their readings

and discussions, there is a natural tendency to act as if

this is the way it isso from time to time reminders

should be given that the it refers to the construction,

not reality. At certain points in the curriculum,

constructivismper se should be the focus, addressed in

the broader context of epistemology and realism. In

this context, the role of power in the construction of

knowledge should be emphasized.7 Constructivism in

effect reverses the adage knowledge is power to say

that power is knowledge. The point is that knowl-

edge is determined by social and political factors in ad-

dition to logic and reason, and even logic and reason

are determined by social and political factorsfurther

undercutting the idea of knowledge as an accurate rep-

resentation of reality.

In addition to teaching constructivism directly and

reminding students of the constructed nature of the

knowledge they are studying in different domains,

constructivism has important implications for curric-

ulum development and design. Constructivism shifts

the view of knowledge from ahistorical, eternal

truthswhich would seem to focus curricula on cur-

rent knowledge, the truth, the realto historical, cul-

tural inventionsthat are changing and evolving,

making the meaning of current knowledge more de-

pendent on where we have been. The implication isthat curricula should focus more on the develop-

ment of knowledgea sort of history of us and our

thinkingto help us better understand where and

who we are. Most of the teaching of constructivism

would likely be pre medical education; although

even in medical education, some thought about the

nature of knowledge would seem to be indicated with

the increasing emphasis on evidence-based clinical

practice.8

Constructivism as Learning Theory

The problem with constructivism in education2 is

that it blurs the distinction between epistemology and

learning. Constructivists in education promote a set

of mandates that favor one view of knowledge

(constructivism) over another (realism) and act as

if these are principles of learning/instruction that

capture the underlying learning process (how we

learn) with implications for instruction (how we

should teach to optimize learning). For example,

constructivists say instruction should promote learn-

ing that involves world making rather than world

mirroring, creating rather than finding, focusing on

activities rather than on things and substances2as iflearning would be improved if the former of each of

these dichotomies were employed in instruction. The

presumption is that somehow our view of the nature

of human knowledge (constructivism versus realism)

in someway determines the nature of the learning

process (how we learn). But the principles of learning

would seem to be the same regardless of whether we

think knowledge is a construction or a representation

of reality. The students task is the same, to learn and

understand information, whether that information is a

construction or a representation. In either case, the

information is a construction, the difference is

whether we think it represents reality or not. The

constructivist view of knowledge most definitely

should be taught as noted above, because it is the cur-

rent view of knowledge that seems to resolve the di-

lemmas caused by realist thinking, but not because it

has been shown to facilitate the learning process.

Teaching the constructivist view is not the same thing

as devising instructional methods and techniques that

emphasize making, creating, action!

At best, the presumed learning theory is simply a

metaphor that exploits the rough synonymity of con-

50

COLLIVER

7/30/2019 phylosopy

4/4

struct and learn. Construct is used to impart a

sense of overt activity to learn. One of the few pre-

dictions from this theory/metaphor that can be tested

in a practical setting concerns the effect of peer group

discussion. The reasoning is loose, going from the

view that knowledge is a human, social construction to

the conclusion that instruction should involve social

interaction, namely group discussionfrom apost-epistemologic view of knowledge to a learn-

ing/instruction directive.

However, research that tests this weak prediction

shows littleor no effectof group discussion. For exam-

ple, cooperative learning consists of a number of teach-

ing approaches in which students in small groups work

together to help each other learn material presented by

the teacher. A review of the research literature, though,

showed only weak effects of cooperative learning

compared to individual seat work, individual study,

and individual drill.9 Student Team Learning methods,

one of the most researched methods, showed only a

mean effect size ofd= +.21 based on 25 studies thatused standardized outcome measures. For all 77 stud-

ies reviewed, involving a variety of cooperative-learn-

ing methods, the mean effect size for all outcome

measures (local and standardized) was only d= +.26.

Roughly, this means that only about 8% to 10% more

of the cooperative-learning students were above the

control group mean (about 58% to 60% above mean

versus 50%). In medical education, problem-based

learning (PBL) is said to be grounded in constructivist

theories of learning, whereby students actively con-

struct learning in small groups guided by a tutor.10,11

However, four reviews of PBL research provided no

convincing evidence that PBL improves basic knowl-edge and clinical skills.1215 One review concluded

that the results generally support the superiority of the

PBL approach, but even that review reported only

weighted mean effect sizes that ranged from d= (.28

for the National Board of Medical Examiners I

(NBME I) to d = (.09 for other measures of basic

knowledge to d= +.08 for NBME II to d= +.28 for

clinical performance.13 Even these small effects are

possibly overestimates given the operation of self se-

lection which typically favors PBL.

The learning theory also maintains that conceptual

learning requires the monitoring and assessment of a

students conceptualization as a whole and not just a

few particularly salient aspects that stand out from the

whole or are easily measured. This is hardly a contro-

versial point. But it would seem to be true regardless of

whether knowledge (the conceptualization) is seen as a

representation of reality or a human, social construc-

tion. Also, the theorys assertion that a students back-

ground is important in the construction of learning

seems obvious and it seems consistent with either view

of knowledge. These are typical of the theorys pre-

dictions for practice: the effect of group discussion,

the need for holistic appraisal of a students conceptu-

alization, and the importance of background in new

learningand they do little to convince one of the

value of the theory.

Conclusion

In brief, is constructivism a profound insight intothe nature of human knowledge? Yes! Should it be

taught? Yes! Is it a theory of learning? No! The

constructivist metaphor provides a fleeting insight into

the learning process, but it is not a theory of learning. It

confuses epistemology and learning, and it would

seem to offer little of value to medical education.

References

1. Rorty R. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998.

2. Steffe LP, Gale J. Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.

3. Toulmin S. The construal of reality: Criticisms in modern andpostmodern science. In WJT Mitchell (Ed.), The Politics of In-

terpretation (pp. 99117). Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press, 1983.

4. Rorty R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1979.

5. Colliver JA. Constructivism with a dose of pragmatism: A cure

for what ailseducational research. Advances in HealthSciences

Education August 1999;4(2);187190.

6. Baynes K, Bohman J, McCarthy TA. (Eds.) After Philosophy:

End or Transformation? Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT

Press, 1987.

7. Foucault M. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in

the Age of Reason. New York; Vintage Books, 1965.

8. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evi-

dence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. NewYork: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.

9. SlavinRE.Cooperative Learning:Theory,Research,and Prac-

tice (2nd ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.

10. Gijselaers WH. Connecting problem-based practices with edu-

cational theory. In L Wilkerson and WH Gijselaers (Eds.)

Bringing Problem-based Learning to Higher Education (pp.

1322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

11. StageFK, MullerPA, KinzieJ, Simmons A. Creating Learning

Centered Classrooms: What Does Learning Theory Have to

Say? Washington, DC: The George Washington University,

1998.

12. Albanese MA, Mitchell S. Problem-based Learning: A review

of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Aca-

demic Medicine 1993;68:5281.

13. Vernon DTA, Blake RL. Does Problem-based Learning Work?

A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine

1993;68:550563.

14. Berkson L. Problem-based Learning: Have the expectations

been met? Academic Medicine 1993;68:S79S88.

15. Colliver JA. The effectiveness of problem-based learning

curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine

2000;75:259266.

Received 15 August 2000

Final revision received 24 January 2001

51

CONSTRUCTIVISM