Produced with Scholar
Icon for An Introduction to Constructivism: Its Theoretical Roots and Impact on Contemporary Education

An Introduction to Constructivism: Its Theoretical Roots and Impact on Contemporary Education

Paper

Abstract

With roots in Piaget, Kant, Dewey, Freire and others, constructivism has had a large influence on teaching and learning design over the past three decades. Broadly defined, constructivism is the idea that learners make meaning and construct knowledge by reflecting on and interpreting their own and others’ experiences. In contrast to constructivism, transmissive or traditional learning is one in which a teacher transmits facts to passive students who are later asked to recall the information through quizzes and tests. On the other hand, constructivism leads to transformative learning. Knowledge is not received but created by the learners, as they continually interpret and act on their experiences. Constructivism emerged in part from the belief that education cannot be separated from the realities of society and that learners are only transformed when active assimilation is embedded in the learning process. Critics hold that constructivism creates a risk that learners will create their own realities separate from objective truths. Advocates state that this approach leads to more engaged students and better student outcomes. In recent years, the influence of constructivism continues to be seen in teaching pedagogy, classroom layout and educational technology design. Constructivism has contributed to the increasing emphasis on student-centered learning, active learning, experiential learning and holistic student success.

Keywords

Constructivism, Piaget, Dewey, student success, student-centered learning, construct knowledge, learning design and leadership

Author Biography

Andrew Allen is the Assistant Dean of Strategic Engagement and Experiential Learning at the Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Andrew is pursuing a Doctor of Education (EdD) in Learning Design and Leadership at the University of Illinois. Andrew’s career and research interests focus on re-designing higher education to make it more hands-on, more real-world and more experiential, with the belief that this will lead to better learning and career outcomes for students.

Abstract

With roots in Piaget, Kant, Dewey, Freire and others, constructivism has had a large influence on teaching and learning design over the past three decades. Broadly defined, constructivism is the idea that learners make meaning and construct knowledge by reflecting on and interpreting their own and others’ experiences. In contrast to constructivism, transmissive or traditional learning is one in which a teacher transmits facts to passive students who are later asked to recall the information through quizzes and tests. On the other hand, constructivism leads to transformative learning. Knowledge is not received but created by the learners, as they continually interpret and act on their experiences. Constructivism emerged in part from the belief that education cannot be separated from the realities of society and that learners are only transformed when active assimilation is embedded in the learning process. Critics hold that constructivism creates a risk that learners will create their own realities separate from objective truths. Advocates state that this approach leads to more engaged students and better student outcomes. In recent years, the influence of constructivism continues to be seen in teaching pedagogy, classroom layout and educational technology design. Constructivism has contributed to the increasing emphasis on student-centered learning, active learning, experiential learning and holistic student success.

Keywords

constructivism; transformative learning; student-centered learning; active learning; experiential learning; student success, learning design and leadership

Introduction

Constructivism learning theory holds that learners construct knowledge as they reflect on and interpret their own experiences. The influence of constructivism is seen in educational practices and policies today throughout primary and secondary education. Schrader (2015) stated that “Constructivism as a meaning-making philosophy that informs pedagogical practices dominated the past several decades of educational practice” (p. 1). According to Krahenbuhl (2016), “Constructivism is undoubtedly one of the most influential philosophies in education in the twenty-first century” (p. 1). If these statements are true, then this theory does indeed warrant a closer look. This literature review seeks to define constructivism, trace its roots, and highlight evidence of constructivist pedagogy in the classroom today. This literature review will also highlight critiques and shortcomings of constructivism theory.

What is constructivism?

According to Krahenbuhl (2016), constructivism “is an epistemological view of knowledge, arguing that knowledge is derived in a meaning-making process through which learners construct individual interpretations of their experiences and thus, construct meaning in their minds” (p. 4). Tomljenovic and Tatalovic Vorkapic (2020) contrast the "transmissive" or "traditional" approach to learning, which involves students passively receiving facts presented by their teacher, with "transformational" learning built on cognitivist and constructivist theories, which promote "the student’s active participation through exploratory, problem-based learning" (p. 13). Jones and Brader-Araje (2002) share that across the many definitions of constructivism, the common aspect is that constructivism emphasizes that the learner is actively involved in meaning-making. It is a shift from “knowledge as a product to knowledge as a process” where “knowledge isn’t something that exists outside the learner” (p. 3).

Tracing its Roots

While Tomljenovic and Tatalovic Vorkapic (2020) refer to constructivist theory as contemporary, elements of this theory are found in the work of psychologists and researchers from the early, mid and late 20th century. According to Bufkin and Bryde (1996), constructivism has roots in Piaget’s beliefs in how children learn. Piaget (1964) stated that "Knowledge is not a copy of reality. To know an object, to know an event, is not simply to look at it and make a mental copy or image of it. To know an object is to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the process of transformation, and as a consequence to understand the way the object is constructed" (p. 176). Similarly, Phillips (1995) emphasized that knowledge is neither wholly innate nor wholly acquired “through some sort of direct perception or absorption” (p. 5). Phillips argues that knowledge, by and large, is constructed. Even the way knowledge is obtained is due to how it has been constructed by others into categories such as biology, physics and sociology – labels and constructs that were determined by people, not categories that were already in our heads at birth.

Through his research, Piaget (1964) found that experiencing and acting upon objects and physical reality (Figure 1) are factors in developing cognitive structures. He connected active learning, that is - acting on objects and realities - with learning and knowing. He stated that "Learning is possible only when there is active assimilation" and "…without this activity there is no possible didactic or pedagogy which significantly transforms the subject" (Piaget, 1964, p. 185).

Figure 1. Children Learning Through a Hands-on Activity

https://jmcinset.com/active-learning-classroom

Constructivism also traces its origins to Paulo Freire. In his work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) criticizes educators who feel their role is to fill students with information that is “detached from reality” and “completely alien to the existential experience of the students” (p. 71). Freire (1970) believed education and learning are inseparable from the learner’s realities and life context. He emphasized that educators and learners should be transformed together through mutual learning and discovery (Freire, 1970). Another early influencer on constructivism, Maria Montessori, came to conclusions about education from her work observing children. She stated, “The child has shown us the basic principle underlying the process of education, which he has expressed in the words “Teach me to do things by myself!” (Montessori, 2007, p. 17). Montessori emphasized the need for children to learn on their own, through play and autonomy (Montessori, 2007).

Phillips (1995) identified multiple thinkers whose work influenced and connected with constructivist theory, and highlighted some of their relevant research: 

  • Ernst von Glaserfeld believed that knowledge is connected to reality, objects that are as real as the learner and that exist independent of the learner or the teacher
  • Immanuel Kant believed that knowledge begins with experience but that all knowledge is not a result of our experience. Some knowledge is constructed from even our own impressions, making it difficult to tell the difference between knowledge we have created and knowledge itself
  • Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter focused on how society and politics impacts knowledge
  • Thomas Kuhn emphasized that scientific communities have had a meaningful impact on knowledge and knowledge construction
  • Jean Piaget, seen by some as having a huge influence on constructivism, asserted that knowledge does not just come from observations, but it requires structure given to it by a learner
  • John Dewey argued that some try to separate knowledge from practical activity. He critiqued traditional education of his time, where the physical classroom was structured only for listening, as opposed to participation and activity

Constructivism Framework

Kanuka and Anderson (1999) conducted a review of the literature related to educational technology and constructivism. They developed a framework to represent the "epistemological constructivism positions” (Figure 2). Their intent was "to bring order out of the chaos - and often conflicting information - in the literature on constructivism learning theories" (p. 13). Their framework involves four positions and two dimensions on constructivism. The first dimension considers to what extent reality is objective and separate from the learner or to what extent it is subjective and based on the learners’ realities. The second dimension identifies to what extent knowledge is constructed from social, cultural or contextual sources or to what extent it is constructed individually. The four positions include cognitive constructivism, radical constructivism, situated constructivism and co-constructivism.

While existing literature reveals different positions on constructivist theory (Figure 2), Western Governor's University (2020) summarizes the general idea of constructivism with this explanation: “Constructivism is based on the idea that people actively construct or make their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by your experiences as a learner. Basically, learners use their previous knowledge as a foundation and build on it with new things that they learn. So everyone's individual experiences make their learning unique to them” (para. 1).

Figure 3: Constructivism Dimensions and Positions: Epistemological Constructivism Positions

(Kanuka & Anderson, 1999)

While there are different positions and extremes on constructivist theory, as noted in the image above, Western Governor's University (2020) attempted to summarize the general idea of constructivism with this explanation: “Constructivism is based on the idea that people actively construct or make their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by your experiences as a learner. Basically, learners use their previous knowledge as a foundation and build on it with new things that they learn. So everyone's individual experiences make their learning unique to them” (para.1).

Influence of constructivism on teaching & learning today

According to Krahenbuhl (2016), “Constructivism is the dominant pedagogical theory in contemporary educational circles” (2016, p. 2). Similarly, Schrader (2015) stated that “Constructivism as a meaning-making philosophy that informs pedagogical practices dominated the past several decades of educational practice” (p. 1). Phillips (1995) reinforces this idea stating, “I hold that there is a very broad and loose sense in which all of us these days are constructivists” (p. 5). Jones and Brader-Araje (2002) posit that constructivism, with its emphasis on social context and a community of learners was a major shift away from individual learning and foreshadow that “this legacy of constructivism will likely prove to be a lasting and meaningful shift in the structure of schooling” (p. 7). Since that time, the usage of active learning (Figure 2a) – an umbrella term with roots in constructivism theory (Lombardi et al., 2021) – has continued to grow. Manduca et al. (2017) conducted a national survey with geoscience faculty in 2004, 2009 and 2012 and supplemented the survey with classroom observations. The results of this study revealed a movement away from lecture-style teaching and an increase in teaching that involved active learning (Manduca, 2017). As Lombardi et al. state, the “construct of active learning permeates undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics” (p. 8).

The influence of constructivism on the modern classroom is evidenced today in at least two key areas, as revealed by the literature reviewed: (1) teaching and learning practices commonly used today and, (2) the growth and usage of educational technologies that facilitate constructivist pedagogy.

Figure 2a. Active Learning in the Classroom

https://collegecareerconsulting.com/college-admissions-competitions-encourage-discovery-increase-chances-of-college-acceptances/

Teaching and Learning Practices

Phillips (1995) emphasizes the need for knowledge to be constructed, for educators to find ways to help learners gain their own knowledge and for education to happen in social settings. Bufkin and Bryde (1996) refer to constructivism as “active learning” (p. 58). They emphasize that the constructivist approach to education promotes "choicemaking, use of a student driven curriculum to meet individual needs, development of critical thinking skills, incorporation of active learning, and alternative forms of evaluation" (Bufkin & Bryde, 1996, p. 59).

The University at Buffalo contrasts teaching practices from the “traditional” classroom with teaching practices evident in a constructivist classroom (Table 1).

Table 1. Contrast between the traditional and the constructivist classroom

University at Buffalo, 2022

In conjunction with teaching practices are that of assessments. Liang and Akiba (2015) posit one reason teaching practices are incorporating more constructivist pedagogy may be because teacher assessment policy influences them to do so. Specifically, they stated that, “Standards-based reforms also require teachers to make a transition from traditional teacher-centered didactic instruction to student-centered constructivist instruction” (p. 382). They found evidence of a positive correlation between constructivist-based teaching and improved student achievement in math. They also highlight a case in the state of Missouri where teachers were explicitly evaluated based on several types of constructivist learning activities employed in their classroom.

Related to teaching practices is the physical structure of classrooms and learning spaces. Jones and Brader-Araje (2002) report that social constructivism has led to the change in classroom layout, from the individual study carrels to group learning spaces, flexible seating arrangements, science stations and mathematics centers. More recently, Rands and Gansemer-Topf (2017) connected the concept of classroom design with student engagement. In their study, they found that the active learning classroom (ALC), featuring a more flexible, open classroom design where seating is not fixed and tables and workspaces are not stationary, led to increased student engagement (Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017). Specifically, they found that with this design, students felt more connected with their instructor and peers and experienced a greater feeling of community. This design “made students feel valued as co-constructors of knowledge” and they saw the professor as a facilitator of learning (Rands & Gansemer-Topf, 2017, p. 29). As highlighted throughout this paper, co-construction of knowledge and the teacher as a facilitator are both key tenets of constructivism. In their study of the active learning classroom, Cotner et al. (2013) found similar results to Rands and Gansemer-Topf. They compared student performance between two groups of students – one group that took class in a traditional classroom and the other that took class in an active learning classroom. Both student groups took the same biology course, using the same syllabus, exams and instructor. They used student ACT scores to set a baseline for predicted student performance and found that students in the classroom with the active learning layout performed better than expected and those in the traditional classroom underperformed compared to expectations (Cotner et al., 2013). The active learning classroom used in this study included features such as round tables instead of individual desks, laptop connections at the tables, whiteboard space, several microphones and a large overhead projector. In addition to increased student performance, Cotner et al. (2013) found that students in the active learning classroom felt more engagement and felt better alignment between the classroom and the course.

Education Technology

The availability and usage of educational technologies has grown significantly over the past several years. According to Fortune Business Insights, the edtech market has grown and is projected to continue to grow tremendously (Global Newswire, 2022) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Growth and Projections of the Edtech Market

www.fortunebusinessinsights.com

Even more relevant for this literature review than the growth of the edtech market is the nature of these new technologies and their purpose in the classroom. Education technologies today have the potential to improve student engagement and learning by enabling constructivist pedagogy, particularly in the areas of active learning, social learning, knowledge creation and student meaning-making. Zhai et al. (2019) examined the application of a constructivist learning solution leveraging mobile technology. Specifically, this study aimed to determine the frequency of and functions (Table 2) accessed on the mobile devices of 803 10th grade physics students.

Table 2. Mobile Technology Functions and Uses in the Classroom

Zhai et al., 2019

In addition to system data, pre and post-surveys and tests associated with their interest in physics and their achievement outcomes were conducted, and Zhai found a positive correlation between using technology that promoted constructivist pedagogy and student achievement. Student achievement increased as students used technologies that promoted student agency in initiating and leading learning.

As revealed by the literature reviewed, examples of educational technologies that promote constructivist pedagogy include Google Jamboard (Ahshan, 2022), Yellowdig (Martin et al., 2017), and Kahoot! (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Google Jamboard is an online collaborative space where students can create and share information and annotate others’ work through text, images video and other media. In a study about active student engagement (ASE) techniques used in the classroom, Ahshan (2022) examines the impact of educational technologies on the student experience. The study follows the instructor of an online class on Circuit Analysis over the course of three semesters. In the course, the instructor implemented several ASE techniques, which include interactive teaching and active learning strategies, student interaction, social presence and a customized instructional design. The instructor also utilized various educational technologies, including Google Jamboard. In each semester, the instructor conducted several surveys to ascertain the students’ perception of the ASE techniques and the technologies utilized. In the results, the study found that students who used Google Jamboard in a virtual learning environment felt it was effective for interactive teaching and learning in online class sessions and that it improved their interactions and social presence.

Yellowdig is a platform that allows for one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many conversations and peer learning through discussion boards and social media-like features. Students ask questions, teach each other, respond to prompts and co-create knowledge together. Martin et al. (2017) conducted a study with students in four marketing courses and found that Yellowdig allows instructors to provide formative assessment and enables students to co-create content and benefit from social learning. They also found that the number of times students provided feedback to other students in the platform was a significant predictor of course grades (Martin et al., 2017).

Kahoot! is a game-based platform that allows teachers and students to create, share and complete quizzes and learning games. Kahoot! is a popular platform, with 50 million monthly users. Wang and Tahir (2020) conducted a literature review of 93 studies about the Kahoot! platform. From their analysis, they found that Kahoot! can have a positive effect on learning in both K-12 and higher education. They concluded that the use of Kahoot! can improve teacher-student and student-student interactions and can make students more favorable to participate in class. Wang and Tahir observed in their review of the literature that Kahoot! can have a positive effect on student motivation, engagement, satisfaction, and confidence.

The findings from the three studies referred to in the preceding paragraphs resulted in several key student outcomes aligned with constructivist learning theory, including students became co-constructors of knowledge; learning was interactive between students and teachers and between students and students; students were actively participating in the learning process utilizing and sharing their knowledge with others; and the teacher was no longer the soul or even primary source of knowledge. According to Holmes (2019), the constructivist approach to learning emphasizes the need for the learner to be an active participant and to be actively responsible for constructing their knowledge. In addition, he claims the teacher acts as a “facilitator or guide and co-producer of meaning” (p. 8). The emergence of these and many other educational technologies that promote active learning, knowledge creation, and social learning provide evidence of the influence of constructivist learning theory on education and teaching practices today, as outlined in the literature reviewed.

Limitations and Critiques

As noted in this literature review, constructivism has greatly influenced modern educational practices, yet this approach is not without its critics and critiques. Constructivism isn’t the only, or always the best, approach to learning. For example, Simpson (2002) posits that constructivism is not the only way to teach and educate learners and that learners have a diverse array of learning styles and preferences. “No single strategy exists that will achieve success with all students. If constructivism obscures this perspective, then the results for teaching and learning could be negative” (Simpson, 2002, p. 351). While constructivist proponents argue against using drill and incentives in the learning process, Matthews (2003) has demonstrated through research and experience that positive reinforcement, direct instructional models and decontextualized learning are effective, especially in certain circumstances and for certain types of learners.

Simpson (2002) claims that constructivist theory, with its emphasis on personal and individual realities, is incompatible with the concept of absolute and objective truths. Krahenbuhl (2016) claims constructivism, with a focus on learning from one’s own experience, can lead to the learner creating their own reality, rather than basing learning on standard or widely recognized truths. Additionally, he posits if the previous experience of the learner includes incorrect ideas and then a teacher creates an environment where students are asked to refer to previous experiences to learn, this teaching may only extend the learner’s incorrect ideas. Similarly, Phillips (1995) warns against leaning too much on constructivism, where it is possible to create knowledge outside of reality. He states that we “must recognize – and not just pay lip service to – the fact that nature exerts considerable constraint over our knowledge-constructing activities and allows us to detect (and eject) our errors about it” (Phillips, 1995, p. 12). Schauble (1997) points out that just because learning is not passive absorption does not necessarily mean that all learning should happen through discovery. Schauble states that this idea, “when taken to an extreme, seems to mean that the history of western civilization must be reinvented by each child anew in the course of education” (Schauble, 1997).

Clark and Mayer (2008) claim while learning can be fun and engaging, not all fun or engaging activities lead to learning. Specifically, they state,

Our message here is a simple one: physical activity does not equate to mental activity, and it is mental, not behavioral, activity that leads to learning. Specifically, engaging in online games, immersive simulations, or various forms of collaborative learning is not a guarantee of learning. Conversely, more passive environments, including text readings or lectures, do not preclude learning. Instead, it is the learner’s cognitive processing that leads to learning. (p. 5)

On a similar theme, Schauble (1997) argues that not all forms of engagement are valuable from a learning perspective. The assumption is made, but not necessarily confirmed, that because educational activities are “hands-on,” they are educationally fruitful (Schauble, 1997).

Conclusion

Constructivism has had a large influence on today’s teaching and learning practices. With roots in thinkers such as Piaget, Dewey, Kant and others, constructivism, with its emphasis on connecting learning to reality, learning from experience and constructing knowledge in concert with others has wide appeal among educators and learners.

Constructivist theory highlights the importance of providing learners with opportunities to co-create knowledge, use their agency and find ways to relate learning material to themselves. Constructivism has a basis in the now common notions of student-centered learning and active learning (Holmes, 2019), as well as in experiential learning and student engagement. Constructivism is not the only or always the best approach to learning, especially if it promotes student discovery without being grounded in truth. But constructivism has the potential to increase student motivation, deepen the learning and lead to transformation of the learner.

The educator’s role then, is to ensure students are grounded in theory and then help them compare their personal experience to the theory to construct new knowledge. This new knowledge might include learning how to apply the theory in real-world scenarios or it might include evolving the theory to better explain the students' experiences. Helping students navigate the dissonance between theory and application and then constructing new knowledge based on that navigation, is at the heart of effective education.

References

Ahshan, R. (2022). Students’ perception and satisfaction on technology-enhanced active student engagement in remote reaching and learning. 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2022, 1055-1061, doi: 10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766628.

Berner, M. (2015, May 15). Colleges strive to meet demand for a more hands-on education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/colleges-strive-to-meet-demand-for-a-more-hands-on-education/?resetPassword=true&email=andrewgallen%40gmail.com&success=true&bc_nonce=fzbuag6x3bxjboadoqhff&cid=gen_sign_in

Bufkin, L. J., & Bryde, S. (1996). Implementing a constructivist approach in higher education with early childhood educators. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 17(2), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102960170207

Clark, R., Mayer, R. (2008). Learning by viewing versus learning by doing: Evidence-based guidelines for principled learning environments. Performance Improvement, 47(9), 5-13. DOI: 10.1002/pfi.20028

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc.

Global Newswire (2022). With 17.8% CAGR, EdTech and Smart Classroom Market Size Worth USD 319.65 Billion in 2029. Global Newswire. https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/05/02/2433414/0/en/With-17-8-CAGR-EdTech-and-Smart-Classroom-Market-Size-Worth-USD-319-65-Billion-in-2029.html

Holmes, A. (2019). Constructivist learning in university undergraduate programmes. Has constructivism been fully embraced? Is there clear evidence that constructivist principles have been applied to all aspects of contemporary university undergraduate study? Shanlax international journal of education, 8(1), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i1.819

Jones and Brader-Araje (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3).

Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: Constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy (1). http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue1_2/02kanuka1_2.html

Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311

Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2015). Teacher evaluation, performance-related pay, and constructivist instruction. Educational Policy, 29(2), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813492379

Manduca, C., Iverson, E., Luxenberg, M., Macdonald, R., McConnell, D., Mogk, D., Tewksbury, B. (2017). Improving undergraduate STEM education: The efficacy of discipline-based professional development. Science Advances, 3(2), 1-15. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.160019

Martin, M. C., Martin, M. J., Feldstein, A. (2017). Using Yellowdig in marketing courses: An analysis of individual contributions and social interactions in online classroom communities and their impact on student learning and engagement. Global Journal of Business Pedagogy, 1(1), 55-73.

Matthews, W. (2003). Constructivism in the classroom: Epistemology, history and empirical evidence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 51-64.

Montessori, M. (2007). The education of the individual, reprinted from Education and peace (1949). Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company

Phillips, D. C. (n.d.). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Piaget, J. (1964). PART 1 Cognitive development in children: Piaget, development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.

Schauble, L. (1997). A little constructive criticism of constructivism: comments on D.C. Phillip’s “How, why, what, when, and where: perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education”. Issues in Education, 3(2).

Schrader, D. E. (2015). Constructivism and learning in the age of social media: Changing minds and learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2015(144), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20160

Simpson, T. (2002) Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum, 66(4), 347-354, DOI: 10.1080/00131720208984854

Tomljenovic, Z., Vorkapic, S. (2020). Constructivism in visual arts classes. CEPS Journal, 10(4), 13-32. doi:10.26529/cepsj.913

University at Buffalo (2022). Constructivism. University at Buffalo – Curriculum, Assessment and Teaching Transformation. https://www.buffalo.edu/catt/develop/theory/constructivism.html#:~:text=Constructivism%20is%20the%20theory%20that,%2Dexisting%20knowledge%20(schemas).

Wang, A., Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computers and Education, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818

Western Governor’s University, (2020, May 27). What is constructivism? Western Governor’s University. https://www.wgu.edu/blog/what-constructivism2005.html

Zhai, X., Li, M., Chen, S. (2019). Examining the uses of student-led, teacher-led, and collaborative functions of mobile technology and their impacts on physics achievement and interest. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 310-320.

Copyright Notice

The Journal of Learning Design and Leadership publishes pre-prints and post-prints with open access. Authors retain copyright to the article and users are allowed to view articles included in The Journal of Learning Design and Leadership free of charge.