Introduction
Constructivism and social constructivism are important learning theories for various stages of a child’s development. Constructivism is a theory that involves the use of the learner’s cognitive abilities. It explains that when learning, several processes take place in the mind of a learner. Learning is simply the idea of reorganizing the mind to assimilate new experiences. This occurs when an individual learns about their environment and understands it. After gaining knowledge about their environment, learners create rules and mental formulas to make sense of their experiences.
Social constructivism, on the other hand, is a theory developed by Vygotsky (1962). It explains that learners cannot rely solely on their minds to learn; there must be an aspect of social influence. Vygotsky found that children who were tested on exercises alone did not perform well, but those who were influenced by parents performed better. Therefore, adults are fundamental in a child’s learning because they help them redefine their thinking and become more active. According to Vygotsky (1999), it is essential to stretch students and not limit them to their own activities.
These two theories depict several contrasts and comparisons, especially in the styles and methods of learning. From a children’s learning point of view, one of the comparisons that these two theories have is that they are both vital for the accommodation and assimilation of phenomena by the child. Despite using different methods to assimilate information – through the use of mind in constructivism and social factors in social constructivism – both aid children to accommodate and assimilate important facts about learning.
In the former case, children form schemas in their minds by observing their environment, while in the latter case, they look at their parents or teachers and try to imitate them. Through both methods, children learn fundamental issues related to their studies (Boud and Feletti, 2005).
Another comparison between the two theories is that both encourage thoughtful reflection on experiences in their learning environments. When using constructivism, a child can examine an issue and use their mental abilities to distinguish whether it is good or bad based on facts. However, if the child is exposed to a parent or teacher, they may believe that the right thing to do is what these social factors have demonstrated due to the experience and age of these individuals.
The two fundamental theories of learning depict a similarity in that they view concepts from a meaningful point of view rather than an abstract one. In constructivism, the child accommodates what they have seen in the real environment and learns from it. On the other hand, a child who learns from assimilating social factors such as influence from teachers and parents often looks at what these social factors do and develops learning through them. Both of these factors reflect real-life situations rather than abstract scenarios.
Despite the similarities between these two theories, they also have some differences. One contrast can be seen in how they depict the learner when it comes to child development. Constructivism theory portrays the learner as unique, using their own schemas to internalize knowledge. On the other hand, social constructivists explain that children need external influences from their environment – such as teachers, peers and parents – in order to actively learn. For social constructivists, the social environment is an integral part of a child’s learning process.
Another contrast is the importance of the learner’s background and culture in the learning environment. Social constructivists assert that a learner’s background and culture are vital issues that they bring to class (Collins & Duguid, 2000). Therefore, a good background is necessary for optimal learning. The background includes language systems, mathematical systems, and logic inherited from past learners. These theories also emphasize the significance of learned and knowledgeable members of society as influences on children.
In contrast, constructivism theory posits that an individual’s environment does not influence their learning. This theory does not consider an individual’s background or culture as factors shaping their internalization of learned knowledge; rather, it emphasizes an individual’s perception of their environment as crucial.
The responsibility of learning is another issue that creates contrast between constructivism and social constructivism learning theories. In the case of social constructivism, learners are said to be active because they often work in groups, and their actions need to be visible. Therefore, it’s essential for learners to develop ways to actively participate in their own learning. On the other hand, constructivism depicts learners as passive and gaining knowledge by assimilating it on their own. They explain that learners develop understanding independently without comparing themselves with others in society or class.
According to the constructivist approach, instructors do not play a very vital role in learning because they are not to be emulated by the child. This theory explains that the instructor acts only as a teacher who brings content to the child, but it is up to the child to internalize that content by deciding for themselves. The teacher acts as a lecturer who covers subject matter. In contrast, social constructivism theory depicts instructors as facilitators and not teachers. This is because a facilitator helps learners understand what they are being taught rather than simply bringing concepts into class.
The social constructivist theory views the entire learning process as being related to the context of the learning itself (Kim, 2005). Therefore, the context is considered to be the most important element in the learning setup and has a significant influence on a child’s learning. According to this theory, activities that a child engages in within their learning environment are essential since they depict practical forms of learning. On the other hand, constructivism theory explains that whether or not a child engages in play, their mind plays a central role in their process of learning.
Assessment is another fundamental issue in any learning activity (Renkil & Wortham, 2000). These two theories contrast each other regarding assessment methods. The social constructivist theory emphasizes that instructors play an important role in assessment while constructivism does not acknowledge this importance since instructors are merely individuals who administer tests which can take various forms such as written assessments.
Conclusion.
The Constructivist Theory and the Social Constructivist Theory are both important theories that have shaped education styles and learning environments. Although they share similarities, there are also several differences between them. Many educational setups have adopted the use of both theories to create a harmonious relationship.
Reference:
Renkil, A. & Wortham, D. (2000). Instructional Principles in a Learning Environment: Review Of.
Educational research
Boud, D. and Feletti, G. (2005) explored the similarities between social constructivism and constructivism theories.
N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press.
Brown, A.; Cocking, R. (2007). How Children Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience
The school environment in Washington is discussed in the National Academies Press.
Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (2000) explored the relationship between cognitive learning and culture in education.
Research PLC.
Cooper, G. and Sweller, J. (2004) studied the effects of schema acquisition in the educational setting in their journal article.
Of Educational Psychology
Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (1992) explored the use of constructivism in classroom instruction.
Conversation, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayes, T. and McAleese, R. (1993) presented a constructivist approach to the uses of social characters in the classroom.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Kim (2005) studied the effects of constructivist teaching on children in a classroom setting in Asia.
Pacific Education Review
Vygotsky, L.S. (1999) explored the development of mental processes in children in his book Mind and Society”.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wood, D. (2002). How Children Learn and Think in the Classroom, 2nd Edition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
