The Future of Constructivist Education

Abstract

We make the case that there is an urgent need to revitalize the reach of constructivist education into both K-12 public schools and higher education. After considering the current state of the theory and practice of constructivist education, we argue that disparities between theory and practice arise from the divergent conceptual frameworks constructivist theorists and educators hold. To examine this, core aspects of the approach centering on process, agency, and holism are examined, juxtaposing constructivist theory to ostensibly constructivist classroom practices. Disparities between theory and practice arise from the complexity of constructivist theory and difficulties practitioners face in understanding and using it. Drawing on differences between relational-developmental process accounts versus educators’ more split-mechanistic framings, we suggest entry points to addressing the chasm between theory and common practice, including the need to explicitly consider how the theory has been elaborated and how it has been presented in order to change the educational dialogue.

Teacher Candidates’ Epistemic Reflexivity about Elementary Science Instruction

“…The effort to support engagement in re exivity allowed candidates to think through and serve up components of NOSK and permitted the teacher agency to set aims and align processes for teaching. Agency is an important component in a constructivist notion of inquiry (Kritt & Budwig, 2022).…”

Conceptual Commitments of Constructivism in an Age when Truth Matters

“…Their proposal that an atypical balance of assimilation and accommodation lies at the core of autism provides an alternative view of autistic symptoms and suggests ways in which intervention practices can support agency in, and the thriving of, autistic individuals. Kritt and Budwig (2022) (this issue), in turn, discuss how curricular planning is negatively affected by misplaced normative assumptions about developmental stages, reflected in an insensitivity to individual and group differences. They argue that organizational normative practices intended to enhance development may in fact constrain those who do not necessarily adhere to dominant dis-courses, meanings, and practices.…”

“…Furthermore, different views of autism with different implications for intervention have emerged over time, raising the question of how societal ideas about autism influence and change our research and interventions. Kritt and Budwig (2022) (this issue) demonstrate how changing societal values and policies influence educational practices and lead to either a more process-or product-centered emphasis in assessing educational outcomes. Also focused on education, in this case, of young children, Duckworth et al (2022) (this issue) look closely at transformations over time in how children come to know and understand their worlds through active exploration and the conflicts and surprises it engenders.…”