Terwel, J.

VU Research Portal

VU Research PortalConstructivism and its implication for curriculum theory and practiceTerwel, J.published inJournal of Curriculum Studies1999DOI (link to publisher)10.1080/002202799183223Link to publication in VU Research Portalcitation for published version (APA)Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implication for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 31(2), 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183223General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.E-mail address:vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nlDownload date: 21. May. 2021Constructivism and its implications for curriculumtheory and practiceJAN TERWELUnder the banner of constructivism, aworld-wide change in the orientation to schoollearning has taken place. In the context of the constructivist movement an importantquestion is how curriculum studies should view such concepts as d̀evelopment’ andìmplementation’. If students and teachers together construct or enact their owncurricula, what are the consequences in terms of curriculum theory and practice?What is the state of practice with respect to teaching and learning from aconstructivist point of view?Constructiv ism and situationismThe constructivist movement has it roots in a long-standing philosophicaltradition (VonGlasersfeld1991). Althoughconstructivismin educationcanbe seen as arecent branch of the cognitive sciences, there is, nevertheless, adirect linktothe pragmatismof Charles S. Peirce, WilliamJames and JohnDewey. In Dewey’s l̀aboratory school’ , instruction became c̀ontinualreconstruction, moving from the child’s present experience out into thatrepresented by the organized bodies of truth that we call studies’ (Dewey;cited in Boyd 1966: 406). Similar types of schools can be found in WesternEurope, e.g. those based on the ideas of Maria Montessori (1870± 1952),the Belgian psychologist Ovide Decroly (1871± 1932), the French reformeducator Celestin Freinet (1896± 1966) and the German educator, PeterPetersen (1884± 1952). The philosophy behind the establishment of suchschools goes backtothebeginningof this century, whenwhat was knownasthe p̀rogressive movement’ in the US and r̀eform pedagogy’ in WesternEuropean countries gained in¯ uence in teaching and learning.The constructivist movement in recent cognitive psychology has re-emphasized the active role students play in acquiring knowledge and thesocial construction of knowledge has been an important principle in socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky 1978, Wertsch 1985). Situationism emphasizesthe requirement that authentic learning should take place in meaningfulcontexts, in what are called c̀ommunities of practice’ (Lave 1988).Although there are theoretical di erences between the Western-orientedp̀rogressive movement’ and r̀eform pedagogy’ on the one hand and Eastj. curriculum studies, 1999, vol. 31, no. 2, 195± 199Jan Terwel is professor of education at the University of Amsterdam, Graduate School ofTeachingand Learning, Wibautstaat 4, 1091 GMAmsterdam, and professor of educationalpsychology at the Vrije University Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Vander Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.0022± 0272/99 $12 0́0 Ñ 1999 Taylor & Francis LtdEuropean s̀ocio-cultural theory’ on the other, they share suchkey conceptsas r̀econstruction’.In the US several curriculahave been designed based on constructivistideas: the `Adventures of Jasper Woodbury’ (Cognition and TechnologyGroup at Vanderbilt 1994), `CSILE’ (Scardamalia et al. 1989), and `Com-munity of learners’ (Brown and Campione 1994). Subsequently, theseinitiatives were combined in the programme, S̀chools for thought’ (Scar-damaliaet al. 1994, Lamon 1995). All these projects contain characteristicsof constructivism and situationism. Knowledge-acquisition is active andstrategic, focused on many factors, including problems of understanding,diversity of expertise, learning styles and interests, curriculumas ènacted’between students and teachers, and collaboration and re¯ ection in a c̀om-munity of inquiry’ . The results of these programmes seem promising inthat they lead to an increasing growth in knowledge, a higher degree ofcritical thinking, greater reading and writing skills, as well as improvedskills in argumentation.But what can curriculum studies expect from constructivist theory?The actual implementation of constructivist ideas from the `progressivemovement’ and r̀eform pedagogy’ was limited. However, during the lastdecade `new’ theoretical bases for constructive and situated learning haveemerged, with the result that we nowseemtoknowagreat deal more aboutchildren’s learning processes than before.Constructiv ism: mistaken reliance on theory?In a major address in 1969, Joseph Schwab (1970; see also Jackson 1992,Walker 1990, 1992) argued eloquently and powerfully against ìnveterate,unexamined, and mistaken reliance on theory’ . He criticized the adoptionof theories from outside the ® eld of education, and the use of theseborrowed theories, as principles from which right aims and proceduresfor schools and classrooms might be deduced.Schwab made a powerful case, which no one has yet challenged,showing that, in principle, no single theory can provide an adequatefoundation for educational practice. To provide educational practice withasolid underpinning of ideas, educators need tocreate what Schwab calleda `polyfocal conspectus’ , which unites elements from multiple theories,along with heuristics drawn from experience, into a coherent basis foraction.Are educational researchers again taking the road Schwab criticized intheir eager embrace of constructivist ideas? The theories of such construc-tivist icons as Vygotsky, Leont’ev, Bruner, Geertz, Piaget and Dewey haveachieved a prominent place in thinking about the design of educationalprogrammes. The design experiments of such educational researchers asBrown and Campione, Scardamalia and Bereiter, and the Cognition andTechnology Group at Vanderbilt University seem to be rigorous, prin-cipled applications of these ideas. The substantial results these designexperiments have achieved in the education of children not generallysuccessful in school haveattractedagreat deal of attention. Many educators196 jan terweland researchers attribute the results of these design experiments to con-structivist ideas, and see in constructivism the key to reforming contem-poraryeducation. Onclose examination, however, constructivist theoreticalinnovations play aminor role in the designexperiments. Wecanaskif thosewhorely on constructivist theories as thebasis for educational reformare indanger of repeating the serious mistake Schwab identi® ed ± the ìnvete-rately theoretical’ nature of the starting point.1Constructiv ist theory and social interactionAs a consequence of many years of study, researchers now know thatlearning through interaction is a promising option. Under certain con-ditions and for certain purposes, forms of co-operative learning haveproved to be motivating and e ective. But much of constructivism haslead to a misplaced emphasis on the amount of face-to-face interaction incontrast to the quality of interactions (including extended and mediated aswell as face-to-face interactions). Thus, in recent years more attention hasbeen paid to the quality of interaction processes in which students areinvolved (Perrenet and Terwel 1997a, b). These studies have shown thatlearning depends in part on the nature of student participation in inter-action processes. Students learn more by giving elaborated help to othersand less fromreceiving low-level elaboration by others. Within the c̀lass asa community of inquiry’, students become interdependent. This interde-pendence develops over time in more or less ® xed patterns. Some studentsare active, others are passive; some contribute in aconstructive way, othersare destructive. It is often the same student whotakes the lead, being activeand dominant, while others are passive and submissive. With regard tosocial interaction, here too constructivism is an inspiring theory, but assuch it does not o er any practical guidelines for the creation of commu-nities of inquiry and the avoidance of ine ective interaction patterns.In other words, Schwab’s argument seems as valid for constructivismas it has for other theories. In principle, no single theory can provide anadequate foundation for the design of curricula. Educators need multipleperspectives, multiple research ® ndings and, especially, practical experi-ences and extensive deliberations to change classes into c̀ommunities ofinquiry’.Constructiv ism: how theory confronts realitie sMost Dutch teachers still teach in a traditional teacher-led way. Nation-wide, there still remains a big gap between the constructivist ideasexpressed in the Dutch National Curriculum and actual practice in cur-riculum and teaching. The National Curriculum is far ahead of schoolreality ± a situation not restricted to The Netherlands. Policy makers,innovators and researchers rely heavily on constructivist theories as thebasis for curriculuminnovation. They are in danger, of course, of repeatingthe mistake of reliance on theory.constructivism: curriculum theory, practice and research 197Constructivism undoubtedly has a valuable contribution to make tocurriculum theory and practice. However, constructivism is not a robustconcept: it seems to ¯ ourish only under more or less ideal educationalcircumstances. Some important questions derive from this understanding.If knowledge-construction and curriculum creation take place betweenteachers and students in the classroom, then what are the conditionsunder which this process can succeed (Snyder et al. 1992)? What are thepossible dangers in allowing teachers and students to construct their ownknowledge, knowing that they may get disconnected from the subject-matter ® elds, and fromresearchers in the ® elds of learning and instruction?Although the ideaof the classroomas acommunity of inquiry is attractive,there needs tobe aclose connection toknowledge-producing communities.In the light of such issues (and given current practice), there is thedistinct possibility that radical constructivism in education will fail toovercome the enemies of all acquisition of true knowledge: prejudices,naõÈ ve concepts, misconceptions, subjectivism, solipsism and uncommittedrelativism. The solution Seixas (1993) proposes is to give teachers theopportunity toparticipate actively in educational research and, in doing so,to establish connections between isolated c̀ommunities of practice’. Seixasseems to look for a practical solution that is more or less in line withSchwab’s: establishing connections between theory and practice, andputting deliberation at the very heart of curriculum development andimplementation.As this suggests, the c̀onstructivist’ and s̀ituated learning’ movemento ers a signi® cant challenge for curriculum theory, practice, and research.Time, e ort, and deliberation will be needed before any constructivistcurriculum practice can be envisaged on a national scale. However,research in the Netherlands, especially the intervention studies into sec-ondary mathematics education as described in the following paper byRoelofs and Terwel (1998), do show promising outcomes. These studies,as well as the accompanying study by Van Oers and Wardekker (1998) intoprimary education, indicate that teachers in mathematics and language arecapable not only of guiding students in the process of reconstruction butalso of fostering forms of authentic learning in primary and secondaryeducation, provided they have an appropriate preparation, and e ectivecollaboration is establishedbetween teachers, subject-matter specialists andresearchers around a well-designed curriculum.AcknowledgementI wish to thank Decker Walker from Stanford University who read thispaper in draft form and o ered helpful comments.Notes1. From a cognitive information-processing view, Anderson et al. (1996) have analysed theconcepts of c̀onstructivism’ and s̀ituated learning’ as currently advocated by many198 jan terweltheorists. They question the validity of constructivism and regard the popularity of theseideas as a r̀egressive move that ignores or disputes much of what has been demonstratedempirically’. They reject the claims for curriculum making based on constructivist theory.ReferencesANDERSON, J. R., REDER, L. M. and SIMON, H. A. (1996) Situated learning and education.Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5± 11.BOYD, W. (1966) The History of Western Education, 8th edn, revised by E. J. King (London:Adam &Charles).BROWN, A. L. and CAMPIONE, J. C. (1994) Guided discovery in acommunity of learners. InK. McGilly (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and ClassroomPractice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 229± 270.COGNITIONAND TECHNOLOGY GROUP AT VANDERBILT (1994) From visual word problems tolearning communities: changing conceptions of cognitive theory and classroompractice. In K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory andClassroom Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 157± 200.JACKSON, P. W. (1992) Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. W.Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 3± 40.LAMON, M. (1995) Schools for thought: transformingclassrooms intolearningcommunities.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco.LAVE, J. (1988) The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. IRL Report88-00087, Institute for Research on Learning, Palo Alto, CA.PERRENET, J. C. and TERWEL, J. (1997a) Learning together in multicultural groups: acurriculum innovation, Curriculum and Teaching, 12 (1), 31± 44.PERRENET, J. C. and TERWEL, J. (1997b) Interaction patterns in cooperative groups: Thee ects of gender, ethnicity and ability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago. ERIC ED 407 398.ROELOFS, E. and TERWEL, J. (1998) Constructivism and authentic pedagogy: state of the artand recent developments in the Dutch national curriculum in secondary education.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (2), 201± 227.SCARDAMALIA, M., BEREITER, C. and LAMON, M. (1994) The CSILEproject: trying tobringthe classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom Lessons: IntegratingCognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 201± 228.SCARDAMALIA, M., BEREITER, C., MCLEAN, R. S., SWALLOW, J. and WOODRUFF, E. (1989)Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of EducationalComputing Research, 5 (1), 51± 68.SEIXAS, P. (1993) The community of inquiry as abasis for knowledge and learning: the caseof history. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (2), 305± 324.SCHWAB, J. J. (1970) The Practical: A Language for Curriculum (Washington, DC: NationalEducational Association).SNYDER, J., BOLIN, F. and ZUMWALT, K. (1992) Curriculum implementation. In P. W.Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 402± 435.VAN OERS, B. and WARDEKKER, W. (1998) On becoming an authentic learner: semioticactivity in the early grades. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (2), 229± 249.Von GLASERSFELD, E. (ed.) (1991) Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education(Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer).VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press).WALKER, D. F. (1990) Fundamentals of Curriculum (San Diego, CA: Harcourt BraceJovanovich).WALKER, D. F. (1992) Methodological issues incurriculumresearch. InP. W. Jackson (ed.),Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 98± 118.WERTSCH, J. V. (1985) Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press).constructivism: curriculum theory, practice and research 199

English

Constructivism and its implication for curriculum theory and practice

NARCIS 

DSpace at VU

Constructivism and its implications for curriculum
theory and practice
JAN TERWEL
Under the banner of constructivism, aworld-wide change in the orientation to school
learning has taken place. In the context of the constructivist movement an important
question is how curriculum studies should view such concepts as d`evelopment’ and
i`mplementation’. If students and teachers together construct or enact their own
curricula, what are the consequences in terms of curriculum theory and practice?
What is the state of practice with respect to teaching and learning from a
constructivist point of view?
Constructiv ism and situationism
The constructivist movement has it roots in a long-standing philosophical
tradition (VonGlasersfeld1991). Althoughconstructivismin educationcan
be seen as arecent branchof the cognitive sciences, there is, nevertheless, a
direct linktothe pragmatismof Charles S. Peirce, WilliamJames and John
Dewey. In Dewey’s l`aboratory school’ , instruction became c`ontinual
reconstruction, moving from the child’s present experience out into that
represented by the organized bodies of truth that we call studies’ (Dewey;
cited in Boyd 1966: 406). Similar types of schools can be found inWestern
Europe, e.g. those based on the ideas of Maria Montessori (1870± 1952),
the Belgian psychologist Ovide Decroly (1871± 1932), the French reform
educator Celestin Freinet (1896± 1966) and the German educator, Peter
Petersen (1884± 1952). The philosophy behind the establishment of such
schools goes backtothebeginningof this century, whenwhatwasknownas
the p`rogressive movement’ in the US and r`eform pedagogy’ in Western
European countries gained in¯ uence in teaching and learning.
The constructivist movement in recent cognitive psychology has re-
emphasized the active role students play in acquiring knowledge and the
social construction of knowledge has been an important principle in socio-
cultural theory (Vygotsky 1978, Wertsch 1985). Situationism emphasizes
the requirement that authentic learning should take place in meaningful
contexts, in what are called c`ommunities of practice’ (Lave 1988).
Although there are theoretical di erences between the Western-oriented
p`rogressive movement’ and r`eform pedagogy’ on the one hand and East
j. curriculum studies, 1999, vol. 31, no. 2, 195± 199
Jan Terwel is professor of education at the University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of
TeachingandLearning, Wibautstaat 4, 1091GMAmsterdam, andprofessor of educational
psychology at the Vrije University Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychology andEducation, Van
der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
0022± 0272/99 $12 0´0 Ñ 1999 Taylor &Francis Ltd
European s`ocio-cultural theory’ on the other, they share suchkey concepts
as r`econstruction’.
In the US several curriculahave been designed based on constructivist
ideas: the `Adventures of Jasper Woodbury’ (Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt 1994), `CSILE’ (Scardamalia et al. 1989), and `Com-
munity of learners’ (Brown and Campione 1994). Subsequently, these
initiatives were combined in the programme, S`chools for thought’ (Scar-
damaliaet al. 1994, Lamon 1995). All these projects contain characteristics
of constructivism and situationism. Knowledge-acquisition is active and
strategic, focused on many factors, including problems of understanding,
diversity of expertise, learning styles and interests, curriculumas e`nacted’
between students and teachers, and collaboration and re¯ ection in a c`om-
munity of inquiry’ . The results of these programmes seem promising in
that they lead to an increasing growth in knowledge, a higher degree of
critical thinking, greater reading and writing skills, as well as improved
skills in argumentation.
But what can curriculum studies expect from constructivist theory?
The actual implementation of constructivist ideas from the `progressive
movement’ and r`eform pedagogy’ was limited. However, during the last
decade `new’ theoretical bases for constructive and situated learning have
emerged, with the result that wenowseemtoknowagreat deal more about
children’s learning processes than before.
Constructiv ism: mistaken reliance on theory?
In amajor address in 1969, Joseph Schwab (1970; see also Jackson 1992,
Walker 1990, 1992) argued eloquently and powerfully against i`nveterate,
unexamined, and mistaken reliance on theory’ . He criticized the adoption
of theories from outside the ® eld of education, and the use of these
borrowed theories, as principles from which right aims and procedures
for schools and classrooms might be deduced.
Schwab made a powerful case, which no one has yet challenged,
showing that, in principle, no single theory can provide an adequate
foundation for educational practice. To provide educational practice with
asolid underpinning of ideas, educators need tocreate what Schwab called
a `polyfocal conspectus’ , which unites elements from multiple theories,
along with heuristics drawn from experience, into a coherent basis for
action.
Are educational researchers again taking the road Schwab criticized in
their eager embrace of constructivist ideas? The theories of such construc-
tivist icons as Vygotsky, Leont’ev, Bruner, Geertz, Piaget andDewey have
achieved a prominent place in thinking about the design of educational
programmes. The design experiments of such educational researchers as
Brown and Campione, Scardamalia and Bereiter, and the Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt University seem to be rigorous, prin-
cipled applications of these ideas. The substantial results these design
experiments have achieved in the education of children not generally
successful in school haveattractedagreat deal of attention. Many educators
196 jan terwel
and researchers attribute the results of these design experiments to con-
structivist ideas, and see in constructivism the key to reforming contem-
poraryeducation. Onclose examination, however, constructivist theoretical
innovations play aminor role in the designexperiments. Wecanaskif those
whorely on constructivist theories as thebasis for educational reformare in
danger of repeating the serious mistake Schwab identi® ed ± the i`nvete-
rately theoretical’ nature of the starting point.1
Constructiv ist theory and social interaction
As a consequence of many years of study, researchers now know that
learning through interaction is a promising option. Under certain con-
ditions and for certain purposes, forms of co-operative learning have
proved to be motivating and e ective. But much of constructivism has
lead to a misplaced emphasis on the amount of face-to-face interaction in
contrast to the quality of interactions (including extended andmediated as
well as face-to-face interactions). Thus, in recent years more attention has
been paid to the quality of interaction processes in which students are
involved (Perrenet and Terwel 1997a, b). These studies have shown that
learning depends in part on the nature of student participation in inter-
action processes. Students learn more by giving elaborated help to others
and less fromreceiving low-level elaborationbyothers. Within the c`lass as
a community of inquiry’, students become interdependent. This interde-
pendence develops over time inmore or less ® xed patterns. Some students
are active, others are passive; some contribute in aconstructive way, others
are destructive. It is often the same studentwhotakes the lead, being active
and dominant, while others are passive and submissive. With regard to
social interaction, here too constructivism is an inspiring theory, but as
such it does not o er any practical guidelines for the creation of commu-
nities of inquiry and the avoidance of ine ective interaction patterns.
In other words, Schwab’s argument seems as valid for constructivism
as it has for other theories. In principle, no single theory can provide an
adequate foundation for the design of curricula. Educators need multiple
perspectives, multiple research ® ndings and, especially, practical experi-
ences and extensive deliberations to change classes into c`ommunities of
inquiry’.
Constructiv ism: how theory confronts realitie s
Most Dutch teachers still teach in a traditional teacher-led way. Nation-
wide, there still remains a big gap between the constructivist ideas
expressed in the Dutch National Curriculum and actual practice in cur-
riculum and teaching. The National Curriculum is far ahead of school
reality ± a situation not restricted to The Netherlands. Policy makers,
innovators and researchers rely heavily on constructivist theories as the
basis for curriculuminnovation. Theyare in danger, of course, of repeating
the mistake of reliance on theory.
constructivism: curriculum theory, practice and research 197
Constructivism undoubtedly has a valuable contribution to make to
curriculum theory and practice. However, constructivism is not a robust
concept: it seems to ¯ ourish only under more or less ideal educational
circumstances. Some important questions derive from this understanding.
If knowledge-construction and curriculum creation take place between
teachers and students in the classroom, then what are the conditions
under which this process can succeed (Snyder et al. 1992)? What are the
possible dangers in allowing teachers and students to construct their own
knowledge, knowing that they may get disconnected from the subject-
matter ® elds, and fromresearchers in the ® elds of learning and instruction?
Although the ideaof the classroomas acommunity of inquiry is attractive,
there needs tobe aclose connection toknowledge-producing communities.
In the light of such issues (and given current practice), there is the
distinct possibility that radical constructivism in education will fail to
overcome the enemies of all acquisition of true knowledge: prejudices,
naõÈ ve concepts, misconceptions, subjectivism, solipsism and uncommitted
relativism. The solution Seixas (1993) proposes is to give teachers the
opportunity toparticipate actively in educational research and, in doing so,
to establish connections between isolated c`ommunities of practice’. Seixas
seems to look for a practical solution that is more or less in line with
Schwab’s: establishing connections between theory and practice, and
putting deliberation at the very heart of curriculum development and
implementation.
As this suggests, the c`onstructivist’ and s`ituated learning’ movement
o ers a signi® cant challenge for curriculum theory, practice, and research.
Time, e ort, and deliberation will be needed before any constructivist
curriculum practice can be envisaged on a national scale. However,
research in the Netherlands, especially the intervention studies into sec-
ondary mathematics education as described in the following paper by
Roelofs and Terwel (1998), do show promising outcomes. These studies,
as well as the accompanying study byVanOers andWardekker (1998) into
primary education, indicate that teachers in mathematics and language are
capable not only of guiding students in the process of reconstruction but
also of fostering forms of authentic learning in primary and secondary
education, provided they have an appropriate preparation, and e ective
collaboration is establishedbetween teachers, subject-matter specialists and
researchers around awell-designed curriculum.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Decker Walker from Stanford University who read this
paper in draft form and o ered helpful comments.
Notes
1. From a cognitive information-processing view, Anderson et al. (1996) have analysed the
concepts of c`onstructivism’ and s`ituated learning’ as currently advocated by many
198 jan terwel
theorists. They question the validity of constructivism and regard the popularity of these
ideas as a r`egressive move that ignores or disputes much of what has been demonstrated
empirically’. They reject the claims for curriculummaking based on constructivist theory.
References
ANDERSON, J. R., REDER, L.M. and SIMON, H. A. (1996) Situated learning and education.
Educational Researcher, 25 (4), 5± 11.
BOYD,W. (1966) TheHistory of Western Education, 8th edn, revisedbyE. J. King (London:
Adam&Charles).
BROWN, A. L. andCAMPIONE, J. C. (1994)Guideddiscovery in acommunity of learners. In
K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom
Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 229± 270.
COGNITIONANDTECHNOLOGY GROUPATVANDERBILT (1994) Fromvisual word problems to
learning communities: changing conceptions of cognitive theory and classroom
practice. In K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and
Classroom Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 157± 200.
JACKSON, P. W. (1992) Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. W.
Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 3± 40.
LAMON,M. (1995) Schools for thought: transformingclassrooms intolearningcommunities.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
LAVE, J. (1988) The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. IRL Report
88-00087, Institute for Research on Learning, PaloAlto, CA.
PERRENET, J. C. and TERWEL, J. (1997a) Learning together in multicultural groups: a
curriculum innovation, Curriculum and Teaching, 12 (1), 31± 44.
PERRENET, J. C. and TERWEL, J. (1997b) Interaction patterns in cooperative groups: The
e ects of gender, ethnicity and ability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago. ERIC ED 407 398.
ROELOFS, E. andTERWEL, J. (1998) Constructivismand authentic pedagogy: state of the art
and recent developments in the Dutch national curriculum in secondary education.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (2), 201± 227.
SCARDAMALIA,M., BEREITER,C. andLAMON,M. (1994) TheCSILEproject: trying tobring
the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating
Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 201± 228.
SCARDAMALIA, M., BEREITER, C., MCLEAN, R. S., SWALLOW, J. andWOODRUFF, E. (1989)
Computer-supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational
ComputingResearch, 5 (1), 51± 68.
SEIXAS, P. (1993) The community of inquiry as abasis for knowledge and learning: the case
of history. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (2), 305± 324.
SCHWAB, J. J. (1970) The Practical: A Language for Curriculum (Washington, DC: National
Educational Association).
SNYDER, J., BOLIN, F. and ZUMWALT, K. (1992) Curriculum implementation. In P. W.
Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (NewYork: Macmillan), 402± 435.
VAN OERS, B. and WARDEKKER, W. (1998) On becoming an authentic learner: semiotic
activity in the early grades. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (2), 229± 249.
Von GLASERSFELD, E. (ed.) (1991) Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education
(Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer).
VYGOTSKY,L. S. (1978)Mind in Society: TheDevelopment of Higher Psychological Processes,
ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
WALKER, D. F. (1990) Fundamentals of Curriculum (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich).
WALKER,D.F. (1992)Methodological issues incurriculumresearch. InP. W. Jackson (ed.),
Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 98± 118.
WERTSCH, J. V. (1985) Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
constructivism: curriculum theory, practice and research 199


https://research.vu.nl/files/1323873/JCS1999TerwelConstructivisme.pdf

Constructivism and its implication for curriculum theory and practice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

VU Research Portal

NARCIS

DSpace at VU