Implications of Constructivist Approaches in the Classrooms: The Role of the Teachers

Main Article Content

Vaishali .
Pradeep Kumar Misra


There is popular expectation at the level of society and educational policy makers that teachers’ must adopt different approaches in classrooms to prepare learners to meet the needs of 21st century. In this context, it is expected from the teachers to be aware of emerging approaches in learning and use them appropriately in classroom conditions. Constructivist approach of learning is one such emerging approach. Constructivist approaches are slightly different from the conventional approaches of teaching and learning. These approaches emphasize that the role of teacher must be changed from the ‘sage on stage’ to ‘guide from the side’. In fact, it is expected that a teacher equipped with constructivist approaches can encourage the learners to take active part in teaching learning process and foster their critical thinking, creativity and problem solving abilities. Extending these arguments, the present paper describes constructivism and associated pedagogical skills, enlists different constructivist approaches, and discusses the role of the teachers in implications of constructivist approaches in the classrooms.

Constructivism, constructivist approaches, learners, classroom implications, teachers

Article Details

How to Cite
., V., & Misra, P. K. (2020). Implications of Constructivist Approaches in the Classrooms: The Role of the Teachers. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 7(4), 17-25.
Original Research Article


Phillips D. Constructivism in education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2000.

Powell KC, Kalina CJ. Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education. 2009; 130(2):241-50.

Vaishali, Misra PK. Promoting use of constructivism in science education: Needed initiatives. In Sharma SV, Editor, Science Education. Ajmer, India: Regional Institute of Education. 2018;184-190.

Richardson V. Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record. 2003;105(9): 1623–1640.

Taber KS. Chemistry lessons for universities: A review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education. 2000;4(2):63-72.

Sridevi KV. Constructivism in science education. New Delhi, India: Discovery; 2008.

Singh S, Yaduvanshi S. Constructivism in science education: Why and how. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015;5(3).

Chochran SM. Policy, practice and politics in teacher education. California, CA: Sage; 2006.

Ramsey RD. Lead, follow or get out of the way. California, CA: Crowing Press; 1999.

Sharma A. Constructivism in education and learning: A critical review. IPEM Journal for Innovations in Teacher Education. 2017;2:39-41.

Naylor S, Keogh B. Constructivism in classroom: Theory into practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 1999;10:93-106.

Fosnot CT. Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College; 1996.

Steffe LP, Gale J. Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum; 1995.

Dewey J. Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1938.

Hegel GW. The phenomenology of mind (J. B. Baillie, Translated). London: Allen Unwin; 1949.

Kant E. Critique of pure reason. New York, NY: Dutton; 1946.

VonGlasersfeld E. An introduction to radical constructivism. In Watzlawick P, Editor. The Invented Reality. New York, NY: Norton. 1984;17-40.

VonGlasersfeld E. A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe LP, Gale J, Editors. Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1995;3-16.

VonGlasersfeld E. Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In Fosnot CT. Editor, Constructivism: Theory, perspective and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 1996;3-7.

Vaishali, Misra PK. Teaching teachers to use constructivist approaches: A proposal. i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology. 2019;14(4):56-63.

Chibani WA, Hajal P. Investigating the teachers’ perception and application of different constructivist learning approaches in the American context and the technology use in classrooms: A multiple case study. Paper Presented at the ICICTE Conference, Rhodes, Greece; 2017.

Chibani P. Towards a conceptual framework for effective Mathematics teaching in Lebanon: A multiple case-study. Lebanon: Saint Joseph University; 2017.

Ayaz MF, Sekerci H. The effects of the constructivist learning approach on student’s academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2015;14(4): 143-156.

Johnson LM. Elementary school students’ learning preferences and the classroom learning environment: Implications for educational practice and policy. Journal of Negro Education. 2006;75(3):506-518.

Rushton S, Juola-Rushton A. Classroom learning environment, brain research and the no child left behind initiative: 6 years later. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2008;36(1):87-92.

Wang P. Teachers’ implementation of constructivist teaching: Does career motivation make a difference? Indiana University of Pennsylvania Knowledge Repository; 2016.

Ernest P. Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies and pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education. 1994;2.

Brooks JG, Brooks MG. In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1999.

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

Duit R. The constructivist view in science education – what it has to offer and what should not be expected. Science Teaching Investigation. 1996;1(1):40-75.

Sharma S. Constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. New Delhi, India: NCERT; 2006.

Jaoude SB. Modern developments in science education. Lebano: American University of Beirut; 2011.

Gentner D, Holyoak K. Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist. 1997;52:32-34.

Friend R. Summing it up. Science Teacher. 2002;69:40-43.

Parker JP. Teaching & learning in community. Sage Journals. 1997;2(5).

Novak JD. Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps(tm) as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.

Killen R. Programming and assessment for quality teaching and learning. Australia: Cengage Learning; 2005.

Jonassen DH. Thinking technology: Towards a constructivist design modal. Educational Technology. 1994;34(4):34-37.

Fetherston T. Becoming an effective teacher. Melbourne, Australia: Thomson Learning; 2006.

Brooks JG, Brooks MG. In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms (1st Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development; 1993.

Jonassen DH. Designing constructivist learning environments. In Reigeluth CM, Editor. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1999;215-39.

Laffey J, Tupper T, Musser D, Wedman J. A computer-mediated support system for project-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1998;46(1):73-86.

Wood D, Middleton D. A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology. 1975;66(2):181–191.

Ernest P. The one and the many. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivisin Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1995;459-486.

Titus NE. A review of literature investigating co-teaching influences in teacher education programs. Pennsylvania Teacher Educator. 2013;12: 11-23.

Yip DY. Identification of misconceptions in novice biology teachers and remedial strategies for improving biology learning. International Journal of Science Education. 1998;20(4):461-477.