The Self and The Other: A Critical Evaluation of Constructivist Thought

Introduction

Constructivism has several meanings depending on how it is viewed. Constructivism is defined differently across and within psychology, philosophy, education, the arts, and architecture. Central to all constructivist theories are the tenants that a) humans play an active role in their development, b) cognition is an adaptive process that functions to make behaviour more viable in a particular environment, c) cognition makes meaning from experience, and d) knowledge has roots in biological constructions and social, cultural, and language-based interactions (Doolittle & Hicks, 2003). Constructivism can be seen as a meta-theory: it is concerned not with knowledge per se, focusing instead on the process by which knowledge comes into existence, and how this process facilitates people making sense of experience (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999 as cited in Paria, 2015). For this essay, I will limit myself to constructivism as it relates to psychological development.

The Evolution of Constructivism

Dissatisfaction with behaviourism’s emphasis on observable behaviour gave rise to the constructivist perspective. Beginning when psychologists began to pay more attention to internal mental processes, the constructivist view has developed significantly over the past century. A review of the academic literature reveals a variety of viewpoints that can be categorized into three separate sub-disciplines: cognitive (or personal) constructivism (CC), radical constructivism (RC), and social constructivism (SC) (Raskin, 2002). Each form of constructivism varies in the degree to which they support the central constructivist tenants. For instance, while CC acknowledges that sociocultural and language-based interactions have an impact on cognition and development, it places a strong focus on the importance of individual experience in the developmental process. For this reason, it is helpful to consider constructivism as a continuum rather than a monolithic theory.

CC is considered to be first articulated by Jean Piaget, who proposed that learning (and therefore, development) is a dynamic process consisting of successive, invariant stages of intellectual growth (Beilin, 1992). Core to Piaget’s theory is equilibration. Disequilibration occurs when knowledge does not fit into existing knowledge structures or schemas. Humans find equilibration by integrating novel information into existing knowledge structures through the process of assimilation, or by forming new knowledge structures to account for previously unknown stimuli through accommodation. Through the lens of CC, development stems from a process of individual discovery, where humans construct knowledge independently of others. Piaget’s theory of development played a part in laying the groundwork for the constructivist position that individuals take an active role in their development.

While retaining the belief that individuals play an active role in their development, SC differs from CC in important ways. Fundamental assumptions of SC are a) that human being rationalises their experience by creating a model of the social world, and b) the belief that language is critical to the process of knowledge construction and individual development (Paria, 2015). Strongly influenced by Lev Vygotsky (1978), SC suggests that development first occurs through knowledge construction in a social context and is then internalised and used by individuals; society and culture are inextricably linked with learning and development. Individual development occurs primarily in what Vygotsky termed the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

RC departs from the constructivist theories discussed above by taking a more extreme view of individual development. Led by von Glasersfeld (1984), RC sees constructions that help them navigate life regardless of whether they correspond to objective reality. Drawing heavily on Piaget and Darwin’s work, RC asserts that knowledge construction is adaptive rather than accurate: individuals develop by constructing knowledge that helps them in their environment, rather than a closer approximation of what is actually in the environment. Individuals are never capable of knowing reality directly, instead brushing up against it when their constructions fail: the failure of one’s internalised mental schema, rather than direct impact with the external reality leads to accommodation, learning, & development. Through this lens, individuals develop within a framework of social interactions but ultimately remain isolated from their own private, self-constructed world (Raskin, 2002). So far this paper has focused on the general themes of constructivist thought. The following section will critique the constructivist claim that humans play an active role in their own development.

Critiques of Constructivism

While constructivism theorists differ on the process through which knowledge is constructed, they all agree that individuals acquire knowledge through active engagement with the world around them. The key problem with this position is that it ignores that learning and development can occur reactively: subliminal learning, pre-cognitive recognition, and implicit learning are significant factors in human development and adaption (Claxton, 1997; Reber, 1993 as cited in Fox, 2001). The effectiveness of behavioural conditioning for learning has been exemplified in education. In multiple natural classroom-based studies, children who displayed behavioural problems were grouped. Instructors trained on the rules of good classroom conduct reinforce behaviours that were compatible with learning and development, ignoring those that were not. Results consistently showed that when teacher approval was contingent upon their appropriate behaviour, such behaviour increased significantly (Becker et al 1967; Litoe & Pumroy, 1975).

Research exploring the consequences of early childhood neglect provides another illustration of the relevance of reactive learning in development. Nelson et al. (2007) contrasted the cognitive growth of abandoned children raised in institutions with that of abandoned children raised in institutions but later put in foster care. Children were randomly assigned to continued institutional care or foster care and their cognitive development was tracked over 4.5 years. Results showed that children who remained in institutional care had significantly worse developmental outcomes than those who were put in foster care. One explanation may be the reduced caregiver-to-child ratio common in institutional care, which can result in decreased sensory, cognitive and linguistic stimulation and less engaged caregiving practices. Children raised in institutions have also demonstrated delays or abnormalities in a number of developmental dimensions, including intelligence (as measured by IQ), attachment, language, or socio-emotional development (Morison & Ellwood, 2000; Zeanah et al., 2003). While not ruling out the constructivist claim that children play an active role in their development, the combination of these results provides support for the premise that adaptive responding plays a role in human development.

Conclusion

This paper set out to critically examine the constructivist claim that humans play an active role in their development. Constructivism began as a response to behaviorism’s emphasis on observable behavior, which ignores the mental processes of the individual. While constructivism has taken many shapes, they all share the belief that humans play an active role in their own development. However, constructivist theory fails to resolve the contradiction that learning and development can happen implicit and reactively. If understanding and promoting human development is a priority, future studies should seek to minimize bias toward their theories by focusing on what facilitates human development rather than what fits neatly into their theory.

References

Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R., & Thomas, D. R. (1967). The Contingent Use of Teacher Attention and Praise in Reducing Classroom Behavior Problems. The Journal of Special Education, 1(3), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246696700100307

Beilin, H. (1992). Piaget’s enduring contribution to developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 28, 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.191

Claxton, G. (1999). Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less. Harper Perennial.

Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a Theoretical Foundation for the Use of Technology in Social Studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2003.10473216

Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 23–35.

Litoe, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(3), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341

Morison, S. J., & Ellwood, A.-L. (2000). Resiliency in the Aftermath of Deprivation: A Second Look at the Development of Romanian Orphanage Children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(4), 717–737.

Nelson, C. A., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A., Marshall, P. J., Smyke, A. T., & Guthrie, D. (2007). Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Science (New York, N.Y.), 318(5858), 1937–1940. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1143921

Paria, K. (2015). Review of Constructivism and Social Constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9–16.

Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. In Studies in meaning: Exploring constructivist psychology (pp. 1–25). Pace University Press.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). Chapter 2: An Exposition of Constructivism: Why Some Like It Radical. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 4, 19–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/749910

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (New edition). Harvard University Press.

Zeanah, C. H., Nelson, C. A., Fox, N. A., Smyke, A. T., Marshall, P., Parker, S. W., & Koga, S. (2003). Designing research to study the effects of institutionalization on brain and behavioral development: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Development and Psychopathology, 15(4), 885–907. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579403000452