Social Constructivism

Scott Whitsitt

Ball State University

Submitted: June 25, 2010

Instructor: Dr. Wilfridah Mucherah

The theory of cognitive development known as Social Constructivism was

introduced by Lev S. Vygotsky in early 1930s Russia. The root of the theory is the idea that

knowledge is not an external entity and that individuals construct their own framework of

knowledge through which they organize and understand their perceptions of the world

around them. Vygotsky further contends that children are not capable of building this

framework entirely on their own but require the constructive assistance of adults and

more-skilled peers through social interaction he termed mediation (Ivic, 1994). Vygotsky

tells us that a child’s development is inextricably bound to his or her social interaction and,

indeed, that “Absolutely everything in the behavior of the child is merged and rooted in

social relations (Ivic, 1994).” For Vygotsky, “social relations” consist of interactions with

not only other humans but also with cultural constructs such as art, literature, science,

language, ritual and so forth (Santrock, 2009). Vygotsky held that sociability is genetic and

that “the child’s relations with reality are from the start social relations, so that the

newborn baby could be said to be in the highest degree a social being.” He acknowledged

biology’s role in cognitive development but believed that it is limited to genetic potential

that can only be realized with the support of social interaction (Ivic, 1994).

As part of his theory, Vygotsky provides a model he names the Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) to describe the role of social interaction in a child’s cognitive

development. The model is considered one of Vygotsky’s most important contributions to

developmental psychology and is the basis of some currently influential approaches to

education such as scaffolding and dynamic assessment. The ZPD consists of a vertical

range of developmental progress for a given child. The lower limit of the range represents

the level of development or knowledge that a child is able to achieve on their own and
Social Constructivism page 3

without proper guidance. The upper limit represents the level of achievement that the

child is capable of reaching if provided good instruction and guidance (Santrock, 2009).

Social Constructivism, as conceived by Vygotsky, addresses some ideas more

completely than others. As such, the theory has been subject to criticism over the years.

Some complain that Vygotsky was not sufficiently specific about age-related dynamics and

that he did not adequately describe how changes in the child’s socio-emotional capacity

affect development. Others point out that extremes in the theory’s application could be

counterproductive and possibly harmful. For instance, a child whose teacher is too helpful

for too long may not build a proper internal knowledge framework and become dependent

upon external supports (Santrock, 2009).

The implications of Social Constructivism for education range from curriculum

design to one-on-one interaction with students. For example, it is important for teachers to

be aware of students’ previous conceptions and knowledge in order to guide students in

building on the foundation they have already constructed and to identify misconceptions

that weaken their foundation. Another idea that follows from theory is the value of

metacognition. When students think about their thinking, they can become responsible for

their own learning. By using multiple representations to explain concepts, the student

obtains additional ways to cross-reference new and existing knowledge. Science and math

provide ample opportunity to leverage this strategy. Another ramification of Social

Constructivism is the need to be cognizant of pertinent social contexts as well as the

difference between teachers’ and learners’ goals (Ishii, 2003).

Because of the impact of cultural constructs on cognitive development, special effort

must be made to highlight the relevance of new knowledge and, thereby, encourage
Social Constructivism page 4

students to explore. Constructivism also calls for a focus on facilitating true understanding

of primary concepts so that students may use them to strengthen and expand their

knowledge framework. This requires proper assessment of student learning and

subsequent curriculum adaptations (Ishii, 2003).

With respect to applications of Social Constructivism to teaching science, specifically

physics, I point out the popular Constructing Physics Understanding (CPU) curriculum

which claims ZPD as its foundation and emphasizes inquiry through group interaction.

(Mamolo & Rebello, 2007). In addition, I have used concept mapping professionally for a

number of years and I anticipate using it more fully as a physics teacher. The is Cmap Tools

system offers a means of developing graphical concept maps and adds the infrastructure to

do so collaboratively. An example of a physics concept map borrowed from a high school

physics teacher in Massachusetts is presented in Figure 1 (Gorman, n.d.).

Figure 1: Example of a physics concept map

Scaffolding, which is clearly based upon Social Constructivism, appears to be a

pervasive idea in education today. From a personal standpoint, the idea of a teacher

providing a temporary framework, a scaffold, for a student and removing portions of it as

that student builds the permanent structure resonates with me. I consider it an apt

metaphor for the learning process and I am encouraged to find such widespread

acceptance of the approach (Lipscomb, Swanson, & West, 2004).

An aspect of Vygotsky’s work that is not directly related to Social Constructivism but

which intrigues me and supports my personal view of cognition is his study of the

relationship between thought and language (Harlow & Otero, 2006). I have always

suspected that I was not the first person to suggest that one’s ability to understand the

world and share that understanding is dependent upon that person’s vocabulary and, in the

process of researching this paper, I found validation for my perspective. I suggest,

however, that the vocabulary of thought is not limited to spoken and written language.

Rather, it embraces all the means by which we communicate ideas: images, sounds, poetry

and mathematics. As a teacher, I believe my role is to help my students think more

critically, more expansively and more effectively. I believe that one of the most effective

ways to do this is to give my students the words they need to succeed.

Gorman, J. (n.d.). CMAP Tools. Whitinsville, MA: Northbridge High School. Retrieved from

http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1220315892994_1836910950_20361/Physics%

20Organizer%20-%20Home%20Page.cmap

Harlow, D. B., & Otero, V. K. (2006). Talking to Learn Physics and Learning to Talk Physics.

AIP Conference Proceedings, 818(1), 53-56. doi:10.1063/1.2177021

Ishii, D. K. (2003). Constructivist Views of Learning in Science and Mathematics. ERIC

Digest. doi:ED482722 2003-00-00

Ivic, I. (1994). Lev A. Vygotsky (1896-1934). Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative

education, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 24(3), 471-485.

Lipscomb, L., Swanson, J., & West, A. (2004). Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching

and Technology. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Mamolo, C. B., & Rebello, N. S. (2007). Learning and Dynamic Transfer Using the

‘Constructing Physics Understanding’ (CPU) Curriculum: A Case Study. AIP

Conference Proceedings, 883(1), 77-80. doi:10.1063/1.2508695

Santrock, J. (2009). Adolescence (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social

Sciences/Languages.