Epistemological and Pedagogical Concerns of Constructionism: Relating to the Educational Practices
Arbind K. Jha
RBS College of Education, Rewari, India.
DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.32027   PDF    HTML     6,722 Downloads   11,955 Views   Citations


Today’s world may be defined as the world of constructs and all constructs can be categorised into either Mental or Social. Social constructs are creative urge and constructs of Constructionists. Constructionists, focus on knowledge as power, believing that “cultural specifications” exert a real influence on people’s lives and takes a stand on the subjugating effect of discourses. In the case of education, perhaps the pivotal concept is that of knowledge itself. Constructionists assert that knowledge is not only constructed by an individual’s interaction with his/her own world (or experiences) but also co-created by his/her interaction with other individuals within a specific social community. This implies that both cognitive and social processes are involved in knowledge construction and expansion through the process of reflecting on and sharing their own experiences and others’ experiences or ideas as well. Constructionism is also a theory about the pedagogical value of active learning, in a practice that includes a teaching model of mediation as opposed to instruction. Given the socio-historical nature of knowledge, social constructionist curricular practices therefore centre on the collective construction and transmission of meaning, learning and knowledge in recognition that they are shaped by the historic conventions of culture and language. The primary educational challenge of the present century is to replace the traditional focus on the individual student with concerted investments in relational process. It emphasizes on from isolated to relational rationality and from dead curricula to cultural curricula where there is no walls of the classroom as an artificial barrier between educational and cultural processes. This paper studied the Constructionism theory and attempted to interrogate and develop the theoretical and practical propositions of how the epistemological and pedagogical concerns of Constructionism relate to the concepts and practices of education in contemporary world and more specifically how the implementation of Constructionist perspective will bring about desirable changes.

Share and Cite:

Jha, A. (2012). Epistemological and Pedagogical Concerns of Constructionism: Relating to the Educational Practices. Creative Education, 3, 171-178. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.32027.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Ashworth, P. (2003). The origins of qualitative psychology. In J. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[2] Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966) The social construction of reality: Treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
[3] Bernstein, B. (1980). Towards a theory of educational transmissions: Class, codes and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[4] Brufee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
[5] Bruner, J. S. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
[6] Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
[7] Eijkman, H. (2003b). Reframing the first-year experience: The critical role of “recognition work” in achieving curricular justice. UltiBASE. http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/
[8] Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. New York: Humanities.
[9] Friere, P. (1978) The pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[10] Garfinkel, H. (2003). Socially negotiating knowledge. In: M. Gergen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social construction: A reader (pp. 11-14). London: Sage.
[11] Gee, J. P. (1997). Meaning in discourses: Coordinating and being coordinated. In S. Muspratt, & A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies (pp. 273-302). St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
[12] Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction and what is literacy? Journal of Education, 171, 5-25.
[13] Gee, J. P. (1991). Social linguistics: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.
[14] Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.3.266
[15] Gergen, K. J., & Kaye, J. (1992) Beyond narrative in the negotiation of human meaning. In S. McNamee, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[16] Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[17] Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University.
[18] Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[19] Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24, 697-707. doi:10.1081/PAD-100104770
[20] Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage.
[21] Gergen, K. (2001a). Construction in contention: Toward consequential resolutions. Theory and Psychology, 11, 419-432. doi:10.1177/0959354301113007
[22] Gergen, K. (2001b). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56, 803-813. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803
[23] Gergen, K. J. (2001). Construction in contention: Toward consequential resolutions. Theory & Psychology, 11, 419-432. doi:10.1177/0959354301113007
[24] Gergen, K. J. (2003). Knowledge as socially constructed. In: M. Gergen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social construction: A reader (pp. 15-17). London: Sage.
[25] Gergen, K. J. (2006). Therapeutic realities. Chagrin Falls: Taos Institute Publications.
[26] Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being, beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press.
[27] Gergen, K. J. (2011). The self as social construction. Psychological Studies, 56, 108-116. doi:10.1007/s12646-011-0066-1
[28] Graumann, C. F., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.) (1996). Historical dimensions of psychological discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[29] Harris, S. R. (2010) What is constructionism? Navigating its use in sociology. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publisher
[30] Hoffman, L. (1992) A reflexive stance for family therapy. In S. McNamee, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[31] Hruby, G. G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and new realism perspectives in social constructionism: Implications for literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 48-62. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.1.3
[32] Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality. London: Routledge.
[33] Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983). The ethnographer study of scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In K. D. M. Knorr-Cetina (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. Bevery Hills, CA: Sage:.
[34] Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[35] Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2000). Strategies, tactics and the politics of literacy: Genres and classroom practices in a context of change. 3rd National Conference on Academic Texts, Puebla, 15 April 2000.
[36] Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1989). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Prncton, NJ: Princton University Press.
[37] Laurillard, D. (1996). Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
[38] Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609268
[39] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[40] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. California: Sage Publications.
[41] Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, ed., Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 118-137.
[42] Rorty, R. (1999a). Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Penguin.
[43] Rorty, R. (1999b). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Beverly Hills, CA: Cambridge University Press.
[44] Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualityative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In: N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 292-331). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[45] Spink, M. J. (2004). Discursive practices and creation of meaning in everyday life: Theoretical and methodological approaches. S?o Paulo, SP: Cortez.
[46] Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L S Vygotsky. New York: Plenum
[47] Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
[48] Wood, G. (2004). A view from the field: NCLB?s effects on classrooms and schools. In D. Meier, A. Kohn, L. Darling-Hammond, T. R. Sizer, & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the no child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 33-50). Boston: Beacon Press.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.