Today I read an article by Maureen and Dr. Alana (2003) entitled “Analyzing Constructive Learning: How and When to use it Effectively in Classroom Instruction”. The authors strongly suggest constructivist learning only works when you have the “right” learner, instructor and subject-matter. They believe the success of the theory is vested in whether or not students’ have prior knowledge of the subject matter and self-regulation. I don’t agree with this view. A student shouldn’t necessarily have prior knowledge in the specific subject matter, other knowledge and experience helps shape a students view. For example, in the Commerce curriculum, a student’s cultural experiences help shape what factors they believe influence people to buy. In consumer protection, students may have been exposed to an internet scam (or know someone that may have). Secondly, even if a student has no prior subject matter knowledge, constructing knowledge allows students to make the information gained personally relevant and fit into their individual schema. For example, we’re adding blogs, wikis, social networking, virtual worlds, and numerous other technologies to current teaching practices because students are digitally savvy and acquiring information through such means will motivate them to construct knowledge. In the Commerce syllabus, by having students conduct their own internet searches on “unemployment”, summarise in their own words, discuss the impact and consequences of unemployment, then the learners would be participating in active discovery and acquiring knowledge with deeper understanding.
Finally, a students self-regulation is necessary for all forms of learning, even instructional, so this the criticism that student’s require self-regulation shouldn’t be limited to constructivist theory.
