Behaviourism and Constructivism approaches to Learning

Behaviourism and Constructivism Theories
Student’s Name:
University Affiliation:
Date:
Abstract
The way people describe learning and what they consider regarding the method of learning has key significance for positions in which people need to facilitate alterations in what people understand or practice. The basis for this project is to compare and contrast whether behaviorist ideas or constructivist teaching techniques make a better agreement of the conceptions of mathematics in the learner. This study investigates the value of both teaching techniques and the impact that the approaches have on the general success of the scholar in connection to teaching, educator beliefs, and mathematics syllabus. The behavioral and constructivist approach to learning and teaching mathematics, the approach to learning and teaching, the uncertainty of educators in practice and the students capacity to become active players in their learning. An educator who perceives mathematical processes and is capable of teaching it in a manner that is helpful to their class learning is imperative. Therefore, it is important to find out the underlying principle behind the adjustments in the mathematics teaching concepts teaching. Moreover, this study will also examine the influence that behaviorist and constructivist mathematics education on the accomplishment and interpretations of the scholar and the epistemological frameworks. The study will further investigate the mathematical accomplishment of learners and the influence that instruction of these two approaches have on assessment and evaluate constructivist mathematics program concerning student success.

Key words: Behaviorism, Constructivism, Learning and Teaching Techniques, Mathematics Concepts, Epistemological Frameworks,
Behaviorism and Constructivism Theories
Introduction
Throughout the centuries, Mathematics does confuse, frustrate and frighten scholars of all ages. When a person has a negative occurrence in the subject as a child, that incident can influence his/her approach toward mathematics as a grown-up. Daily activities include mathematic processes if people are deliberately cognizant of it or not. When learners’ posses’ good mathematical, computational skill will assist them build additional skills easily. The existing debate in the education system is established on two diverse approaches to mathematics education, constructivist or behaviorism. Constructivist philosophy or constructivism is determined by Jean Piaget and established on the students’ active engagement in their education procedure. Learners build upon their prior understanding or plan, to support their learning (Tomei, 2010). Skinner determined traditional mathematics teaching, applies a scientific approach to education with rote learning, practices, and recitation as the basis for traditional earning techniques (Skinner, 2003). Direct instruction underlines learning processes, number facts, utilizes practices, and presentation to support and evaluate learning.
Behaviorism
Behaviorism explains, develop and influence behavior. It explains learning by the observable contacts of the learner with the surroundings, without deducing anything that the learner thinks. This approach is established on the stimulus-response framework of Skinner, which tries to relate the concepts of science to the human education study. Learning can be conducted by influencing the situation variables, the behavior, and the effects of the conduct (Informing Science Institute, 2007). Behaviorism was commonly used the theory of learning between 1950’s through the 1970’s, bringing about the application of experiential, quantitative studies of teaching.
Characteristics of Behaviorism
Behaviorism tries to explain and influence behavior. There are important features of behaviorism, which include. Firstly, for behaviorists, the most vital causes of or inspirations for behavior lie external instead of within the person. Secondly, the dualistic interpretation of humanity, which differentiates between cognitive processes and study behavior, is logically unproductive. In people’s daily lives, the cases of explanations for ones behavior are sought in motives within and disposition. When a person does not perform or he/she is aggressive, many tend to believe that something has caused their observable behavior. Thirdly, the scientific study of humanity should be controlled as far as possible to openly recognizable quantities. Fourthly, details concerning human behavior are plain in principle, as ones conduct developed out of basic learning procedures, but in practice, nonetheless, behavior is rather multifaceted. Fifth, man is normally a shallow and inexact viewer of both his and others’ activities. The dualistic interpretation of humanity drives him to suggest all kinds of dubious reasons. Finally, efforts to determine behavior must be led by a detailed behavioral scrutiny. This examination works as a temporary model. If the effort to determine conduct fails, then the scrutiny is mistaken or imperfect and needs to be revised.
Constructivism
The disparity of constructivism from behaviorism lies on the most basic question: where does knowledge originate? Constructivists assert that an individual constructs knowledge by him or herself in the circumstance of some environment. Piaget’s learning theory is frequently cited as a “stage theory” that the mental growth of a young person is described (Informing Science Institute, 2007). This is an indication of his explanation that children show different ways of thinking of different age bracket and that it appears that it is mandatory for them to pass through these stages in the same category. These stages include pre-operational, actual operational and formal operational belief (In Nafukho, In Irby, & IGI Global, 2015). Usually, when children reach adolescence they gradually move into formal operational judgment. Piaget’s work is not very much applicable to study in undergraduate mathematics teaching. However, it might lead to desperation in those cases when observing scholars who have not developed from is not the learning theory that on which Piaget dedicated his life’s work.
In formulating a theory of revolution as a biologist, Piaget describes that a student can develop from one stage of agreement to a higher degree throughout reflective abstraction (In Stabile, & In Ershler, 2015). He also gave levels for this procedure as he discovered intra-operational, inter-operational, and trans-operational phases of thinking in his experimentations with children. The intra-operational phase is qualified by the learner’s focus on the transformational objects in seclusion from other objects and activities. The Inter-operational idea takes place as the learners figure associations between these activities during reflective abstraction. Lastly, in the trans-operational phase, the learner reflects on these interconnections and is competent to change them as objects in a more comprehensive system
The whole theory of learning is integrated into an epistemological model in one of following two fashions. The structure can be established through finding descriptions of scholar’s realization, which communicate to the thinking levels as shown above (Informing Science Institute. 2007). Another model might focus on the progress from one stage to the next, as researchers search for the techniques of transmission. While the standpoints of the models may differ concerning studies, pedagogically they incline to converge. These distinguish that as learners work on acquiring their knowledge, they have to be positioned in situations that permit for the movement from one stage subsequently.
Vygotsky’s work has made increased credit in the mathematics learning community. His theory expresses that the progress of a student’s intellect is as a result of social relations around the world and that verbal communication, social relations, and co-operative movement are all significant facets of this public (Vygotskiĭ, 1987). The learners utilize language to establish cognitive tools in which they have conscious command. The teachers are essential to this theory as he or she must communicate the association between the sign and it’s the importance. Vygotsky distinguished a Zone of Proximal Development to be the indifference among the level of growth of a scholar and her or his point of potential progress such as working with a mentor (adult) (Daniels, 2012). The adult becomes the tool holder in this case, which means having conscious command of the idea, until when the child can internalize any external knowledge.
In this instance, it is very appropriate to remark two comparisons of Vygotsky and Piaget. There is a resemblance of perspectives in the role of the child’s active learning. Certainly, Vygotsky’s idea of the child’s role to internalize information is helpful. Nevertheless, Sutherland refers a long text from Vygotsky talking of his disparities with Piaget’s perspectives on the purpose of speech, their different emphases on the teacher’s role, stating that Piaget does not concentrate particularly on teaching (Daniels, 2012).
Controversies
Recently there has been a change in teaching mathematics from a constructivist view of learning compared to past years leading to the eruption of much controversy. The reluctance of traditional teachers to change the way of teaching mathematics is the main challenge to change to constructivist mathematics. Traditional teachers believe that without sequential teaching children will not develop skills to do any mathematical calculation. They assume that a proper procedure on how to tackle a problem followed by drills and practice must be shown to a child first. However, with the constructivist view of learning a child does not need route memorization to learn mathematics skills.
Through proper guidance, students will be able to come up with ideas on how to solve mathematical problems without being taught. Constructivist mathematics allows children to develop critical thinking skills. Students have time to think critically, develop creativity, and solve mathematical problems in groups through Problem Based Learning in mathematics (Llewellyn, 2014). Constructivist instruction extends the students repertoire of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and corrects specific learning problems (Palmer, 2005). A teacher must ensure that students have the mathematical skills needed throughout their lifetime by learning the importance that teaching approaches concerning the learning.
Learning and Teaching Between Behaviorism and Constructivism
Slovene professional domain contains both Slovene and foreign authors for teachers to find information on executing a specific method in class when necessary. A class range from static to dynamic, from learning target approach to the process ones. In a hierarchic school system, teachers must fulfill certain demands and recommendations. According to Palmer (2005), educators must achieve certain objectives in students, with the set tactics that allow students to complete those targets, but with set knowledge in a specified period. The quality of a teacher’s work and students chances of further studies are tested with examination and are determined by the result. In a constructivist approach to learning and teaching, the role of a teacher changes in that competent teachers are the ones to introduce changes in time and professional basis when needed.
The Behavioral Approach to Learning and Teaching
Children with special needs sometimes require behavioral techniques and cognitive. In today’s world, the professional domain is seen as an ancient theory with no advanced knowledge and cannot develop student’s competencies. They need a proper structure and clear instructions with understandable feedback (Gordon, 2014). Principles of classical and operant conditioning are efficient if one is more familiar with them and only use them for a certain purpose. The idea from the hypothesis that behaviorism is a drill that affects a whole personality does not mean it would not enable development and training of skills.
In classical condition, there is a principle of positive reinforcement in operant conditioning, for example, praise of a teacher, and negative reinforcement like a student develops a new form of behavior, for instance, avoidance. In behavioral approach due to the consequences that cannot be predicted, a principle of punishment is avoided. A principle of extinction is usually applied incorrectly, for example, ignoring acceptable forms of behavior instead of unacceptable. Children learning letters for their first time in school need to develop reactions to suitable prompting. A principle of prompting is used all the time, but it is not common in expert literature from a domain of learning and teaching. It serves as an antecedent stimulus that helps cause the desired response.
Through the hypothesis that most students can master their learning target, given enough time and a suitable class, give as a part of behavioral teaching known as mastery learning. In this case, a teacher divides broad topics into smaller units and examine the level of knowledge in each unit. An explanation is needed where a student does not learn the unit well (Skinner, 2003). Another solution is forming students in groups according to their place of work in a given class. The behavioral method is more applicable where there is low intelligent and increased anxiety. Hence, open situations of learning have set high demands for the construction of new realizations to student’s abilities and are more efficient. Feedback students are directed whether they are on the right path or wrong path. For a teacher to understand a student’s behavior in different situations and be able to help them, they must be more familiar with behavioral approaches to learning and teaching that are significant for education.
The Constructivist Approach to Learning and Teaching
Teaching and learning, according to constructivists, entails knowledge construction from practical learning. It is impossible to claim the availability of one knowledge form in a learning scenario that involves a child exploring and maintaining an active state (Jordan, Carlille, & Stack, 2008). This instant presents both a practical and theoretical problem. Every educator needs to evaluate their students’ prior knowledge to discover their level of thinking and the point at which they need to carry on with the divulgence of new processes with the capacity to influence schemes and, subsequently, structures. Piaget proposes the premeditated development of cognitive conflicts since they elicit active processes of thinking that facilitate the attainment of equilibrium through adaptation in a child. It goes without saying that tasks that are too demanding may be unsolvable to a child because proper structures have not developed in them yet. Nevertheless, Vigotski contends this position by claiming that through help, a child may find solutions to the tasks at hand (Vygotskiĭ, Rieber, 1987). Vigotski groups skills based on problem-solving and come up with three categories. The first category is the group of skills that cannot be performed by a student, the second class consists of those he can perform, and the third category of skills can be performed with help.
To develop the most appropriate strategies, students need to be helped at the onset of learning. Teachers can support students in different ways including giving them hints, urging them on, dividing a task to consist of smaller palatable units among others. Adults supply their children with initial support so that they can build their understanding and once they have acquired independent abilities, the help is withdrawn. As time progresses, a child gains the ability to solve problems without any help, or from Piaget’s standpoint, even assist fellow children. This is referred to as the zone of proximal development as mentioned by Vigotski (Vygotskiĭ, Rieber, 1987). When presented with the proper help, a child will complete an assigned task. Since the issues at hand revolve around teaching and learning as an aspect of development, formative assessments have to be used to gauge knowledge rather than summative means of assessment. In the past decade, the practicality of a portfolio has been tried. As regards assessment in its entirety, a portfolio is a prudently designed collection of the results of a student that gives a depiction of their ability. A development portfolio enables formative assessment where the progress of an individual is gauged by selecting results. In this system, feedback plays a fundamental role, and the student participates actively in the assessment process. To the educator, the selection of the results and reflection signify feedback.
The following questions are construed to enable the dramatic improvement of feedback for educators. These proposals can be adopted as a guide for teachers: What was the most notable error? Why did the students make mistakes? How can I prevent the reoccurrence of the error? What positive element stood out in the student’s work? From an instructor’s standpoint, a portfolio has the disadvantage of an increased quantity of work, however, from a professional perspective, it is the most suited criteria for assessing tasks as every outcome is gauged separately. Here, psychometric traits of consistency and validity must be identified.
The Uncertainty of Educators in Practice
The actual issue with assessments is that it is not as simple as it seems. This is because of the examination regulations that are partial to some extent yet mandatory. Besides, from a legal perspective, this is the only way to assess the work of all teachers in case a grievance arises. Educators are well conscious of the fact that examination and assessment issue to be the same thing. At this point, queries arise: Where is knowledge? Would a professional who is responsible for assessing how credible test questions are appreciated the ones that require complex thinking? How shall a teacher conduct the assessment of such a task?
Errors make up another issue with assessment and examination. The behavioral approach deems them disturbing, but the cognitive constructivist approach considers them to be nearly essential as they signify closeness to the solution. At this point, one begins to address a new set of challenges. These involve construing whether it is in the instructor’s capability to determine the level of development in every student’s thinking and make timely interventions once the erroneous structural development has been identified. Vigotski claims that the development of a child’s cognition is reinforced by how he interacts with individuals who are more skilled and dominate in their cognition such as teachers and parents (Daniels, 2012). At this point, Piaget and Vigotski differ in perspective since Piaget accentuates the ability of peers to trigger certain ways of thinking in a child. Several meaningful interactions occur between them. The developmental approach is another source of hesitation: if students are exposed to behavioral learning and teaching most of their time in school, teachers will have to use a lot of energy to make students in their third and fourth years of high school more active as they have a high tendency to rest.
Students Capacity to become Active Players in their Education
The involvement of family members in the education of a child is critical during the development and learning of children. On the relationship between family involvement and a child’s ability to learn mathematics, there are three prime perspectives that must be considered: meditated learning, social constructivism, and contextualized learning (Charlesworth, 2014).
Epistemological Frameworks
The set of frameworks below is my list of leading mathematics education research authors and they not be interpreted as complete. I provide a brief description of each framework while giving its distinctive characteristics and theoretical background. While no explicit attempt to compare and contrast the frameworks exists, I have grouped them into subsections.
Actions, Processes, and Objects (APOS)
Dubinsky has formed an epistemological framework known as Action-Process Object-Schema or APOS. According to the framework, a mathematical concept moves from being an action (intraoperational) to being a process (inter-operational) through interiorization as a form of reflective abstraction (Rich, & Hodges, 2017). The subsequent process can be summed up into an object (trans-operational). The APOS framework depicts that it is possible for objects that are constructed this way to be de-encapsulated back to process if a need arises. Coordinated processes are used to construct schemas, and it is also possible to thematize actions into objects. The framework issues portrayals of the psychological constructions that lead to a student’s understanding of a particular concept. The portrayals are referred to as genetic decompositions. Instructional treatments are formulated to enable the learner to make the constructions designated in the decomposition of genetics. In general, the treatments involve utilizing cooperative strategies of learning, mathematical programming language on computers, and alternatives to classroom lecturers (English, & Kirshner, 2016).
Sfard also utilizes a framework that endeavors to describe psychological constructions dually: as processes (operationally) and as objects (structurally). According to her, the reflective abstractions required in advancing from process to object include interiorization, condensation, and reification (Attorps, Iiris, 2007). The framework postulates that processes and objects are dual and do not have a dichotomous relation. Thompson also defines conceptual development based on objects and processes (Nunes, Bryant and Watson 2007). He defines the learner’s image of a given concept as a metaphor or figural knowledge. This model is distinguished from schemas and from Vinner’s concept, which focuses on the merging of mental images into groups analogous to conventional vocabulary in mathematics, while this essay attempts to develop the idea of the image while focusing on the dynamics of mental operations. The two image ideas are consistent since they merely have a different focus. According to Thompson’s framework, developing instruction helps in nurturing and extending the mathematical images in students (Attorps, 2007).
Concept Image and Definition
Vinner, alongside Tall and Dreyfus, has illustrated a student’s concept definition and concept image. Concept image denotes the collection of objects, schemas, and processes a student has which are associated with the concept. These can be in the form of misconceptions, mental images, and properties (Attorps, 2007). The discrepancy between this picture and the mathematical definition lies in the emphasis of the framework. Describing a learner’s concept image helps one to restructure it more coherently in a way that is consonant with the definition of the concept. The framework used by Tall is based on the image concept. This entails the use of computer modeling and generic organizers. A generic organizer refers to the environment that facilitates the learner’s ability to handle examples and possibly non-examples of a particular concept in mathematics or a related conceptual system (Attorps, 2007). Pedagogically, the framework makes it possible for a student to develop from a cognitive foundation instead of a mathematical basis.
Multiple Representations
Pea Roy (1987), explores how students understand various concepts in mathematics by making observations of their capacity to exemplify the concept. The five modes of representing mathematical concepts are symbolic, numerical, explanatory, computer, and mental – similar to external mathematical symbolization. Pea Roy (1987) extends the notion of the notational system among students as a design that systematizes their experience in mathematics. In addition, the system of notations is used in representing the mental edifices present in the physical world. The architectural analogy is extended to mean that, as a teacher, one can come up with functional and sophisticated systems of representation, probably with the contexts of a computer for learners. He outlines the presence of three “worlds” social, mental, and material. The location of the mathematics classroom is the consensual world where there is a likely change occurring rapidly. Therefore, learning happens in the relationship between the demonstration and interpretation of mathematics by a student and the shared significance with other people.
Compared to Greeno’s framework, He deliberates the conceptual domain for thinking mathematically. Notably, the frameworks are not unequivocally founded on the three theories given previously. The environmental model view by Greeno also explains that the conceptual domain is taken as an environment consisting of spatial properties. Mental models act together in this environment to accomplish reasoning. This shows the expression of how analogous research is to spatial thinking as a way of looking at Greeno’s point of view.
Problem-solving Ability
Schoenfeld (1985) considers the mathematical understanding of students as a problem-solving ability. He goes ahead to point out four knowledge classes that can influence this ability. ‘Resources’ form the first category and this refers to the foundation the student has of basic knowledge in mathematics. ‘Heuristics’ are also important to the student; they are a group of broad techniques of solving problems. The third is ‘resource control,’ and this involves the selection of the required resources. The final category consists of the ‘belief systems’ which the student bears in the face of a problematic situation. It is important to consider the categories in the attempt to elucidate the mathematical behavior of students.
Probl´ematiqueBalacheff (1990) defines ‘probl´ematique’ as continuous research questions connected with a specific model in theory. The basis of the framework is constructivism, and problem situations are considered as sources of knowledge in mathematics. This epistemological framework also accounts for the teacher’s duty in the lecture hall and the social element of mathematics. Pedagogically, it suggests the employment of a didactical process of putting learners in different situations. These are; formulation, validation, and institutionalization situations for action, communication and decision making. This framework aims at presenting the learner with ‘epistemological impediments’ that must be overcome to reconstruct their knowledge in mathematics. He also talks about the responsibility of the instructor and some social learning aspects in a discussion that involves knowledge transfer and problem situations in that context.
Radical Constructivism
Radical constructivism denotes the eccentric approach to the issues of knowledge and knowing. It begins by assuming that knowledge, in its definition, lies in people’s heads and that there is no alternative to the thinking subject other than constructing what they know based on their own experience. Our perceptions of experience constitute the world we consciously occupy. It can be made to include several elements like self, things, others and so on. However, there is subjectivity in every form of experience, and though there may be many reasons to believe that my experience cannot match another person’s, there is absolutely no way of determining their likeness. Language interpretation is not an exception from experience. Von Glaserfeld’s work is an extension of Piaget’s theory. With the help of Steffe, he has developed an epistemological mathematical research framework based on this view (Von, 1988). His framework entails the use of experiments in teaching and cooperative learning to explore learning among children. The two propose constructing prototypes of the mathematical knowledge in learners based on operations and action schemes.
Critical evaluation of behavioral and constructivist education and teaching
According to critics, teaching theory and behavioral learning are too achievement oriented. The claim is that students focus excessively on the process of learning due to external motivation rather than the actual processes. Motivation from external sources has both pros and cons. If the teacher applauds the student uncritically, chances are high that his results will reduce. Punishment should also be handled with utter delicacy. This is because a classroom consists of the student to whom the response is directed as well as the spectators. Group punishments are a source of concern to both parents and professionals.
Criticism is also applicable to punishments and praises of a person in a group. This can be a problem not only due to the way the punishment or praise is communicated but also the fact that punishment or praise that is oriented to one person disregards the influence of the rest of the group. In my opinion, the problem of using behavioral techniques also lays in the failure to know behavioral theory since the descriptions of certain techniques can be found in handbooks that tend to give quick solutions to instructions.
While selecting a behavioral technique, a person must realize that not all techniques apply to all students. The process of behavioral learning leaves room for a student to be passive since there may be data reproduction. The level of student activity depends on intrapersonal processes and not the actual method. The behavioral theory employs objective techniques and emphasizes the measurement of a person’s achievements. Constructivists stress student activity in class; thus to students, classrooms are pleasant and interesting. Nonetheless, learners who have less regard for behavioral rules can find opportunities to escape the active spaces of education during teamwork.
Constructivism critics warn about inner relationships amongst group members whereby a few students take leadership roles whereas those who are submissive are coerced into consent with the decisions made by the stronger ones. Curiosity and exploring are triggered by authentic tasks. In the current era, however, giving out tasks as homework poses a much greater risk since the task may either be solved or not. Being active in class as a student leads to the development of communication, self-regulation, self-reflection, and reflection processes. Encouragement, scaffolding, and support necessitate feedback.
Criticism can apply to the refutation of knowledge measurement given research evidence that students possess a lower knowledge of competencies than the ones who attend traditional teaching classes. Instructors establish skills that would be more difficult to establish in a traditional-based classroom. Constructivism must start when a child is young. Suppose during later stages the teaching style is not pursued anymore, passivity increases among children.
In education nowadays, a substantial debate continues as to if educators should practice behaviorism, the provision of data via direct teaching or through constructivism, the exercise of being learning facilitators. Constructivism has a standpoint that is currently believed the more admired of the two approaches in learning policies, teaching frameworks and education processes center on constructivism. Certainly, most teachers would concur that neither learning approaches is perfect in its insight of how scholars study and how educators should teach. There are two important conflicts between the methods in determining the function of the classroom instructor. In a teacher-centered class, the educator accepts the task for instruction. In a learner-based class, the learner assumes the task for his/her learning. The behaviorist theory of learning is rooted in the study carried out by Piaget who understood that student’s progress along with a maturational description of their capabilities.
Consequently, the set of the cognitive framework at every development stage determines what the students are capable of doing or cannot achieve. On the other hand, constructivism considers education as an informative, algorithmic, and building progression by which active scholars interconnect with the physical and common world. This approach has demonstrated to have an affirmative result on students’ capacity to progress. Though theorists and teachers will keep on debating on the advantages and weaknesses of both learning approaches, it is significant to consider that there are constant changes in support of educational theories.
Behaviorism and constructivism remain to be applicable in the current world of mathematics education, Implications for Mathematical learning must be defined so that productive, realistic applications can be recognized and enforced to influence education. More frequently teachers are deciding to use a mixture of these two learning approaches in an attempt to best conform to the learning approaches for all scholars. In summary, there seems to be a hypothetical change more regularly than not from behaviorist education patterns to constructivist learning application. Nevertheless, many learning approaches that center on more behaviorist learning methods, and there are points of view supporting their legitimacy as well. The existing learning method with the most support involves more of the application of the two theories since they can be utilized together while teaching Mathematics.
Many factors must be considered when determining which learning approach is more applicable in some practices, including syllabus, evaluation, and resources. Nevertheless, there appears to be a change to more constructivist education patterns or a combination of the two learning approaches, the future in deciding correctly, what needs to be done by teachers remains unclear. There are several vital factors needed along with disputes to both learning approaches. Nevertheless, it is probable that these advances will be examined but implemented in the form of techniques with no standardization.
Conclusion
Knowledge is a value. A student whose learning is motivated by external factors, find it hard to maintain activity in the course of teaching and learning while developing cognition and facilitates satisfaction. The learning theories offer educators/learners with affirmed instructional schemes and techniques for helping education with a basis for reasonable strategy selection. Yet many teachers/learners are working under the limitation of a restricted theoretical setting. The disparity amid the constructivist and behaviorism approach to education develops from different philosophies of knowledge. The teachers with different concept of knowledge are bringing in a modified concept to learning that adopts from the constructivist model. Both are presenting dilemmas that interest teachers in practice more than they concern instigators of changes working indirectly in practice.
Behaviorism explains, develop and influence behavior. It explains learning by the observable contacts of the learner with the surroundings, without deducing anything that the learner thinks. The disparity of constructivism from behaviorism lies on the most basic question: where does knowledge originate? Constructivists assert that an individual construct knowledge by him or herself in the circumstance of some environment. Piaget’s learning theory is frequently cited as a “stage theory” that the mental growth of a young person is described. The whole theory of learning is integrated in an epistemological model in one of following two fashions. The structure can be established through finding descriptions of scholar’s realization, which communicate to the thinking levels as shown above.
Constructivist teaching and learning must start early in the life of a child, and it should be a way of reconnoitering the surroundings and ensuring general development. The perspective that the old methods of instructing learners are bad and that new techniques ought to be introduced is extreme, and most of the time it is rejected by the Slovene teachers. Active instructional methods bring about change; however, every educator has to assess the methods critically to adopt and ones not to adopt. The way a student perceives the role of a teacher is of profound significance as students often act according to how they assess the personality of their teacher and in the view of that, they comprehend feedback.
References
Top of Form
Top of Form
Attorps, Iiris. (2007). Concept definition and concept image : in the case of equations. University of Gävle.Balacheff, N. (1990). Towards a probl´ematique for research on mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 258–272.
Charlesworth, R. (2014). Understanding child development. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Daniels, H. (2012). Vygotsky and sociology. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
English, L. D., & Kirshner, D. (2016). Handbook of international research in mathematics education. New York : Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gordon, K. A. (2014). Early childhood education: Becoming a professional. Los Angeles : SAGE.
In Nafukho, F. M., In Irby, B. J., & IGI Global. (2015). Handbook of research on innovative technology integration in higher education. Hershey, Pennsylvania (701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pa., 17033, USA) : IGI Global.
In Stabile, C., & In Ershler, J. (2015). Constructivism reconsidered in the age of social media. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Informing Science Institute. (2007). Advanced priniples of effective e-learning. Santa Rosa, Calif: Informing Science Press.Jordan, A., Carlille, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers. Open University Press.Llewellyn, D. (2014). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry- and argument-based science standards in grades 3-8. Thousand Oaks, California : Corwin Press.
Nunes T., Bryant P., and Watson W. (2007). Key understandings in mathematics learning. Nuffield Foundation: University of Oxford
Palmer, D. (January 01, 2005). A Motivational View of Constructivist‐informed Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15, 1853-1881.
Pea Roy D. (1987). Cognitive Technologies for Mathematics Education. Educational Communication and Technology New York University
Rich, P. J., & Hodges, C. B. (2017). Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. Cham : Springer International Publishing.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Skinner, B. F. (2003). The technology of teaching. Acton, Mass: Copley Pub.
Tomei, L. A. (2010). Lexicon of online and distance learning. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Von, G. E. (1988). Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching. https://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/papers/118.pdfVygotskiĭ, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press.