Running Head: CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS

CLASSROOM

Implications of Constructivist Learning Theory in the Mathematics

Classroom
Melissa L Griswold
mlwysong@memphis.edu
April 12, 2016
Dr. Martindale, IDT 7074

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Abstract
The constructivist learning theory has been promoted as a way to teach
students content and help them form a deeper level of understanding through
critical thinking and real world application. Constructivist is a learning theory and is
not a way to teach. This literature review aims to discover if the constructivist
theory is being implemented into the mathematics classroom effectively, and if it is
not, how to improve this. I also discuss how combining the constructivist theory and
technology has effected the mathematics classroom. Some of the problems faced
are a lack of adequate professional development for pre-service and in-service
teachers, teacher resources including time and money, and a rooted belief in
traditional mathematics education. Technology can also benefit from professional
development and additional resources.
Key words: constructivism, problem based learning, inquiry based
learning, instructional technology, instructional design, mathematics
pedagogy

Introduction
Constructivism is the theory that we generate knowledge as we experience
situations and interpret them. We are actively seeking and making meaning from all
of our life experiences. Richardson (1997) states that constructivism is a
descriptive theory of learning (this is the way people learn or develop); it is not a
prescriptive theory of learning (this is the way people should learn) (p. 3.) As new
conflicting experiences occur, previous thought is altered to make sense of the new

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

information (Driscoll, 1994). The knowledge that is constructed by an individual
might conflict with reality and cannot be assumed to accurately reflect reality.
Instead it will represent their personal reality of their current world view (Lebow).
Driscoll states that knowledge should be construed as the best construction of
humankinds experience of its world (p. 388). Constructivists believe that the
knowledge must then be tested against the knowledge and reasoning of others, for
instance an individuals parents, teachers, and peers. Constructivists also believe
that learning is done best through context. Both learning and the context should be
applicable and meaningful.
The constructivist theory has recently been used in the mathematics
classroom as it promotes students to reach a deep level of understanding by using
critical thinking skills. The rise in popularity of constructivism within the last two to
three decades can be contributed to the dissatisfaction of students understanding
of reading, writing, and mathematics upon graduation from high school (Alsharif,
2014). The constructivist theory is very different from traditional teaching methods,
and teachers understanding and application of the constructivist theory in the
classroom is lacking. This research is centered on how the constructivist theory is
implemented in the mathematics classroom. I aim to answer two questions. Is the
constructivist theory being implemented effectively in the mathematics classroom
and how can this be improved? How is the use of technology affecting the
constructivist classroom? I will compare aspects of the traditional and constructivist
classroom, as well as discuss some of the positives and negatives of using
constructivism. In order to effectively implement the constructivist theory in the
classroom, there is a need for professional development of current and pre-service

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

teachers. I will also highlight several ways constructivism can be effectively
implemented, and also how to use technology in the constructivist classroom.

Discussion
The Constructivist Classroom
While traditional classrooms focus on direct instruction, repetition, and
students playing a passive role in their learning, the constructivist classroom is very
much the opposite. Typical constructivist goals include solving complex problems,
acquiring content knowledge through complex domains, critical thinking,
collaborating, reasoning, reflection, and developing personal inquiry skills.
Constructivism can be a powerful alternative to direct instruction. Alsharif explains
the differences between traditional education and the constructivist model stating,
Teachers do not need to feed students information; teachers should
encourage students to use their own thought processes to construct
knowledge and solve problems. The key to learning, in a constructivist model,
is for the learner to find multiple ways to link new knowledge or meaning to
previous cognitive experiences. (p. 2)
Driscoll (1994) states that constructivists believe that learners should identify and
purse their own learning goals (p. 391). Allowing learners to have personal
autonomy to decide what they want to learn will allow them to learn more and on a
deeper level. This shift in teaching is to a more student-centered approach while
the teacher is there to help facilitate learning by asking meaningful questions to
promote critical thinking. Students work in groups, contrary to the traditional
classroom where they primarily work alone.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Figure 1: Traditional vs. Constructivist Classroom

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub1.html

There is not one right way to implement constructivism into a classroom. Some of
the more popular methods are problem based learning (PBL) and inquiry based
learning (IBL).

Theoretical Frameworks
Problem based learning (PBL) is an example of applying the constructivist
learning theory to a classroom environment. It was developed in the early 1970s for
medical education, and has been refined over the years. Similar to other
collaborative methods, students work in groups to solve a real problem by using a
variety of resources to derive possible solutions. When generating the problems,
problems must raise the concepts and principles relevant to content domain and
be real (Savory et. al.). The goal is to develop thinking and problem solving skills
while simulating a real world environment that students might encounter in order to
best transfer and apply their knowledge. Driscoll states that,

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

The emphasis in PBL is to provide a problem-solving process that students
may use systematically to identify the nature of the problem, assign tasks to
be completed, reason through the problem as data and resources are
gathered and consulted, arrive at a solution, and then assess the adequacy of
the solution. (p. 405)
The teachers roles is to serve as a designer, organizer, and the facilitator of
learning. Students are to work cooperatively in groups and find the problem, form a
plan to solve, and use critical thinking skills to solve the problem. Students must
take ownership of their learning and how they interpret their own personal beliefs
and knowledge. Pecore (2012) concludes that students will become less reliant of
teachers and text, and become more reliant on their own research, judgement, and
common sense to form their content knowledge.
Inquiry Based Learning. There are numerous inquiry based learning
models that all have subtle differences between them, but they all are similar in
what occurs during inquiry instruction and learning. Marshall and Horton (2011)
discuss the key tenets being that students should questions their personal
background knowledge and understanding and there is significant importance that
students are to develop a deep conceptual understanding of the content. Jaworski
(2006) combines constructivism, inquiry based learning, and mathematics stating
that through inquiry learners can go beyond the use and application of algorithms
and rules, develop understandings of general relationships in mathematics, and
deal with problematic aspects of the abstraction and formalism that is central to
mathematics (p. 199). In constructivism, inquiry is seen as a tool for an individuals
growth in cognitive development. Teachers should use inquiry as a tool to help
develop and implement tasks, problems, simulations, etc. in classroom. While there

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

have been curriculums designed around an inquiry based approach, such as
Connected Math and Math-Thematics, Marshall et. al. credits the quality of the
teacher is the biggest factor in improving student achievement.
Marshall et al. (2011) observed 102 middle grades mathematics and sciences
teachers to analyze the amount of time teachers spent on inquiry and the cognitive
level at which students were learning. They observed four components that most
inquiry models adopt: engage, explore, explain, and extend. Students are expected
to be actively involved during the explore and explain stages. Teachers should be
the facilitators and helping to probe, question, and help students draw conclusions.
Lessons earned a proficient rating or higher if students were allowed to explore
concepts before given an explanation. Only 46 teachers earned a proficient or
above rating, where 56 teachers were rated developing or below. The teachers
receiving a proficient rating or above spent more time on facilitating exploration and
less time on noninquiry forms of instruction than teachers that earned a developing
or below rating. The time spent on the exploration part of the lesson ranged from
47.8 to 52.2% of the lesson. The cognitive level of the two groups of students was
also significantly different. Teachers that earned a higher rating used high order
cognitive thinking skills 57% of their time, contrary to only 23.2% of time for
teachers that earned a lower rating. This was found to be true regardless of grade
level or content area.

Applying the Constructivist Theory in Mathematics Education

Hierbert and Grouws (as cited in Alsharif, 2014, pg. 2) stated that particularly
with mathematics, theories of teaching are not as clearly articulated as theories of
learning are. They state that although theories of learning provide some guidance

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

for research on teaching, they do not translate directly into theories of teaching
(Alsharif, pg. 2). While constructivism is not a theory of teaching, it reminds
educators that learning should be at the center of all instruction and practice.
Ernest (1994) says that
If we really want to teach arithmetic, we have to pay a great deal of
attention to the mental operations of our students. Teaching has to be
concerned with understanding rather than performance and the rote-learning
of, say, the multiplication table, or training the mechanical performance of
algorithms because training is suit-able only for animals whom one does not
credit with a thinking mind. (p.7)
The use of critical thinking skills in mathematics involves the use of prior
knowledge, mathematical reasoning, and cognitive strategies to generalize, prove
or evaluate the lesser-known mathematical situations effectively (Widyatiningtyas,
2015).
OShea and Leavy (2013) echo these thoughts on constructivism being a
theory of knowledge and not a theory of teaching. It offers ideas of how we learn,
but not how to teach. OShea et. al. states that the true role of a mathematician is
to solve problems. In order for students to become mathematicians, they must
make discoveries and conjectures as well as test and prove theories. They can do
this by engaging in solving real problems. In mathematics, problem solving cannot
be seen as only receiving and learning knowledge, but also by applying that
knowledge. All of these are fundamental principles of the constructivist theory. The
Primary Mathematics Curriculum developed in Ireland is inspired by Piagetian
thinking. It incorporates social elements and constructivist ideas. It promotes

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

students working in small groups and collaborating with others. It also focuses on
the process of solving a problem rather than the end result in order to develop
thinking and learning strategies. Five teachers from various upper levels of primary
school volunteered to be in the study. They all had varying years of experience. The
structure of the study consisted of professional development, classroom-based
teaching, and reflection through interviews, observation, and focus groups. The
professional development focused on examining constructivist principles and
applying them in lessons by observing video recorded lessons. They discussed
concerns of implementing the constructivist theory. Finally they formed a framework
to help teach problem-solving lessons. The framework included, a) Starting points
in the mathematics lesson are to be real to the students. b) Students are
encouraged to explain their thinking. c) Students are encouraged to find different
solutions to the problem. d) Students are encouraged to comment on the problemsolving activity (p. 8). Following the professional development, a research visited
teachers classrooms to observe and provide any support for four months. They
discussed the problems they had chosen to incorporate in their lessons. The
researchers also suggested using Polyas four-stage problem solving method as
well: understand the problem, devise a plan, carry out the plan, and look back (p.
9). Emily was very successful in implementing the constructivist theory. She
encouraged the use of Polyas problem solving method, students to reflect on the
problems, identify important information, explain your solution, and to use multiple
problem solving methods. Joe and Susan had a more didactic, direct approach to
instruction and where therefor not as successful. Students were not given the
opportunity to think for themselves, work collaboratively, and form different
problem solving methods. Teachers did not ask higher order thinking questions.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

When you try to implement two conflicting forms of teaching together,
constructivist and traditionalist, it will not be as successful.
Widyatinintyas (2015) conducted a study comparing the quality of critical
thinking skills of students who are exposed to problem based learning against those
who are taught through conventional learning in a mathematics classroom. For the
study, he observed two high schools in Kotamadya Bandung. This city was chosen
because it reflected the same population characteristics as those in other major
cities. One school was ranked as being high level and one was ranked at the
moderate level. From these schools, he selected two sophomore classes, one for the
experimental class and the other to serve as the control group, each having 35
students. High schoolers were chosen because they have a diverse academic
knowledge and background. The researcher served as the teacher for both classes.
Data that was analyzed included quantitative data analyzing students prior
mathematical ability and their ability to use mathematical critical thinking skills. The
data showed that there were significant differences in the critical thinking skills of
students who learned through PBL and students who learned through conventional
methods. Students who were taught through PBL had better mathematical critical
thinking skills than those students who were taught through conventional methods.
It did not have any effect on students prior mathematical ability.

Incorporating Technology in Constructivist Designed Math

Lessons
While technology can be very helpful in teaching, Alagic (2003) reminds us
that it will be ultimately the mathematics teacher and not the technological tools
that are the key to success in a mathematical learning environment. The use of

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

technology in mathematical teaching should help to support learning and facilitate
conceptual development, exploration, reasoning, and problem-solving (Alagic,
2003, p. 383). The following guidelines presented by Flick and Bell (as cited in
Alagic, 2003, p. 384) outline how Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)
should be integrated into mathematical instruction: (a) be introduced in the
context of mathematics content, (b) address worthwhile mathematics with
appropriate pedagogy, and (c) make scientific views more accessible. ICT should
also be used to make connections between the relationship of technology and
mathematics. The successful integration of technology, using the above guidelines,
will require professional development focusing on both concepts and pedagogy.
Some examples of incorporating technology effectively include: performing
calculations, collecting and analyzing data, representing data, and creating models
and simulations. The real power of the technology will be reached when students
use technology as a cognitive tool to build on their own understanding.
As technology advanced, it transformed the way that we communicate,
socialize, and conduct business. It also greatly affected the way students learn and
teachers teach (Mustafa and Er, 2013.). Technology allows teachers to personalize
the learning experiences of students by designing simulations, animations,
scaffolded and guided practice sets, and Open Course Ware (Mustafa et. al, p.
1443). Technology is primarily used to present information in various ways, and the
student does not play an active role in their learning. Through the constructivist
approach, technology is used as a way to interact in a problem-based environment
and allows students to take ownership of their learning. In order to ensure that
technology is integrated effectively, teachers must not only have extensive content
knowledge, but also of instructional technology. In-service training is thought to be a

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

key factor in this success. Becker (as cited by Mustafa et. al, 2015, p. 1444) argued
that in order for computers and technology to be implemented effectively, the
following criteria must be met:
a) Teachers are personally comfortable and at least moderately skilled in
using computers themselves, b) Schools daily class schedule permits
allowing time for students to use computers as part of class assignments, c)
Enough equipment is available and it is convenient to permit computer
activities to flow seamlessly alongside other learning tasks, and d) Teachers
personal philosophies support a student-centered, constructivist pedagogy
that incorporates collaborative projects defined partly by student interest.
Teachers can incorporate critical thinking through challenging projects and guided
discussion. These could be done collaboratively with students and instructors
through an online environment. Students can be engaged while they are both in and
out of school. They can partake in real world activities through simulations with
students locally and internationally. Teachers new role is integrating technology
into the curriculum so that learners build on their own experiences, construct their
own meanings, create products, and solve problems successfully (Mustafa, 2015).

Problems and Controversies

Effectively Implementing the Constructivist Theory in the
Mathematics Classroom
Pierie and Kieran (as cited by OShea et. al., 2013, p. 21) explain that creating a
constructivist classroom is a significant task. It is much more involved than a
textbook and worksheets. At first glance the theory appears simple, but it has

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

implications on teaching. This theory of learning must be translated as a theory of
teaching. In the OShea (2013) study, while teachers were excited to learn about the
constructivist theory and found it beneficial, their traditional beliefs on
mathematical instruction could not be outweighed and therefor it was not as
successful as it could have been. When speaking on teacher challenges he found
that The most profound challenges that emerged for teachers are to make personal
sense of constructivism, to re-orientate the culture of the classroom to
accommodate constructivist philosophy and to deal with conservatism that works
against teaching for understanding (p. 24).
Pecore (2012) conducted a study on teachers ability to implement PBL after first
participating in a professional development workshop. Each of the teachers had
some beliefs in the positive benefits of a constructivist classroom before attending
the workshop. The workshop was meant to help the teachers in their own
understanding of PBL and to improve their skills on how to implement PBL in the
classroom. Pecore justified the need for the professional development, stating:
Reform-based inquiry teaching methods can run counter to the classroom
culture teachers develop over years of teaching. For this reason, PBL poses
several challenges for both teachers and students likely to be uncomfortable
with different roles and responsibilities required for an open-ended classroom
culture. Thus, it is imperative that PBL workshops provide effective
professional development that addresses necessary classroom culture
components of reform-based instruction (p. 8).
During the workshop teachers observed and designed PBL lessons. They discussed
challenges that the teachers might face while implementing PBL, the importance of

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

student and teacher roles, and how to design the lesson in a real world context.
After the workshop, the teachers were given codes to watch examples of PBL
lessons online. The teachers were then observed on how effectively they
incorporated PBL and constructivist principles into their lessons. The teachers
adopted PBL to varying degrees in their classroom ranging from incorporating parts
of PBL to entire acceptance and use of PBL. The teachers stated felt that their areas
of weakness and concerns were with maintaining the pacing of curriculum, lack of
student motivation, limited instructional time, lack of classroom culture, and week
questioning techniques.
Despite the efforts of many educators to promote the use of PBL in the
classroom, few teachers are actually using these approaches. Those that approve of
PBL but still choose not to use it often cite that implementing PBL is challenging. In
order to successfully incorporate technology into a PBL lesson, the teacher must
first anticipate possible challenges and be prepared with a solution. There are not a
lot of commercial items available to use as lessons. Planning open-ended learning
activities takes longer than preparing for a traditional lesson. This could be because
you have to anticipate what the learning needs will be rather than directing them.
When you try to add technology into a PBL lesson or unit, challenges can be
amplified or new challenges can appear.
Grady, Watkins, and Montalvo (2012) conducted a study on the curriculum
program, Everyday Mathematics compared to a traditional curriculum in a rural
school system in grades K - 6. Everyday Mathematics is a curriculum designed by
the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project and is based on constructivist
principles. Three northern Illinois rural schools were examined, two schools used a
textbook series with a traditional approach and one school used the Everyday

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Mathematics textbook. One of the traditional schools also used Mountain Math to
review prior instruction to support daily lessons. The study compared the Illinois
Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) of the schools during 2006 and 2007. It contains
a variety of questions and tests students on number sense, measurement, algebra,
geometry, and probability. When comparing student results, the Everyday
Mathematics had the lowest average scores between the three schools during both
years. This was consistent when looking at ethnicity, gender, and special education
status. In 2006 the traditional school that did not use Mountain Math had the
highest average, but in 2007 the traditional school that did incorporate the use of
Mountain Math had the highest average. In 2006 the difference between Everyday
Mathematics and the highest school was a difference of 5.55 points, and in 2007
there was a difference of 5.75 points. While they did score lower on assessments,
Grady et. al. did not determine these to be significantly lower. They did note that
these findings were different than previous research that showed the students that
used the Everyday Mathematics curriculum outperformed their peers that were
taught through traditional means. Wood and Sellers (as cited by Grady et. al, 2012,
p. 45) that found fourth graders that received two years of Everyday Mathematics
instruction outperformed their peers. Wait (as cited by Grady et. al, 2012, p. 45)
studied two groups of 3rd 5th grade students from a large, ubran Texas district and
found the same results of the Everyday Mathematics students outperforming the
traditionally taught students. Grady et. al. noted that their study was limited by
implementation and bias of teachers, professional development of teachers, and a
buy in factor by teachers that they say is vital to the successful implementation of
Everyday Mathematics.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Challenges Faced while Incorporating Technology

Many teachers feel uncomfortable with or intimidated by technology to begin
with. Trying to incorporate technology in the constructivist classroom on top of this
could seem almost impossible to inexperienced teachers. High quality training and
sufficient resources are vital in changing these preconceived ideas. Alagic (2003)
reasons that in order for teachers to build on their confidence of using technology
they need successful experiences and continuous training in pedagogy and
technology. Mathematics teachers also need to experience and do mathematics in a
technology driven environment. He continues by saying, Empowering teachers
through the use of technology in mathematics exploration, open-ended problemsolving, interpreting mathematics, developing conceptual understandings and
communicating about mathematics is in the heart of professional development and
teacher education (p. 396).
Ertmer (as cited by Mustafa et. al, 2015, p. 1444) categorized technology
integration challenges into two major categories: first and second order barriers.
First-order barriers are challenges that are external to teachers such as lack of
resources, institution, subject culture, and assessment. Technology is developing at
such a rapid pace that schools do not have the funding to purchase new technology.
In many countries, access to internet for students and teachers is limited or nonexistent. Second-order barriers are teachers personal attitudes, beliefs, knowledge,
and skills. Mustafa (2015) credits professional development as a way to improve
teacher beliefs and abilities but that the professional development on how to
implement technology effectively is still being developed, and many teachers lack
basic computer skills. Because of these lack of computer skills technology is used
for low-level tasks and communication rather than designing learner-centered,

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

critical thinking activities. In order to create technology-enhanced, learner-centered
classrooms, Mustafa says that it is necessary to understand how teachers perceive
both learner-centered instruction and technology, barriers teachers face while
creating a technology-enhanced, learner-centered classroom, and what support
teachers need in order to accomplish this.

Solutions
Professional Development of Pre-service and In-service
Teachers
Professional development of teachers is credited as having the biggest
impact on effectively implementing constructivist ideas into the classroom. Juvova,
Chudy, Neumeister, Plischke, and Kvintova (2015) states that a teachers preconceived ideas
and notions will determine how they teach. In order for them to teach well, they
need an extensive knowledge base, and it is essential to grow this knowledge base.
Juvova et. al. says that practical teaching can only result from a thoroughly
mastered theory of education. It can no longer be accepted that it is possible to
obtain adequate pedagogical competence without prior thorough theoretical
pedagogical psychological as well as personal and professional training. Once in
practice, it is too late to achieve the above mentioned (p. 348). Pecore continues
that if teachers are provided with more and better opportunities for field and
classroom experiences, reflection, challenging oneself in a safe environment, and
applying knowledge about teaching and learning their ideas on implementing
constructivism in the classroom could change (p. 4).

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Ertmer, Glazewski, Jones, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Goktas, Collins, and Kocaman
(2009) conducted a qualitative study of five middle school teachers from the same
school, each teaching a different subject who had successfully implemented PBL
into their classroom and had overcome obstacles and challenges while doing so.
They conducted individual and focus group interviews and well as classroom
observations. They focused on how they were successful in planning, implementing,
and assessing student understanding while using PBL. To better handle issues with
planning teachers used a variety of techniques including backwards-planning to
anticipate questions, problems, and answers, working out the problem before hand
to identify important areas, and conducting research for various web resources
(Ertmer et al., 2009). While this does take time, the benefits of having a more
successful lesson outweigh this factor. Teachers suggested to keep the lesson small
as to not overwhelm not only the teacher, but the students as well. To help with
implementation, the teachers stressed the importance of being able to let go and
allow students to take responsibility for their own learning (p. 11), a key
constructivist principle. Grouping students purposefully will help in small group
discussions. Problem based learning can be difficult for students that have learning
disabilities or do not have the necessary background knowledge. It can be effective
to incorporate these students in other groups, but they can get left behind quickly. If
you group them together, be aware that this group will need additional scaffolding.
Sometimes the teachers will provide alternate assignments that are not as rigorous
but still teach the same concepts. Other ways that they helped combat issues with
implementing PBL included: mini lessons, creating class websites with relative links,
rubrics with clearly defined expectations, and daily check-ins with students (Ertmer
et al., 2009). After all of the issues you could face while implementing PBL, why

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

should you persist in using it? The teachers all agreed that you are able to meet
academic standards, promotes cross-curricular instruction, engages students, and
overall because it is good for the kids.
Simon (1989) conducted a five-stage experimental design to help inservice
teachers develop a constructivist view at Mt. Holyoke College. In this paper, he only
discussed the first and second stages. The first and second stages were a two-week
summer institute followed by a one academic year of follow up. During the institute
they teachers participated in the role of a student and analyzed video tapes of
student learning. They worked on how to form probing questions and designing
lessons based on constructivist principles. The teachers were then followed up by
staff members from the summer institute during the following school year. The staff
member observed mathematics lessons, and they met together to discuss the
lessons, evaluate learning, and discuss next steps. Simon incorporated teacher
professional development, implementation, and reflection into the study citing that
they are key components of a successful teacher education program. Successful
implementation does not take place all at once, but after practice it will become
more routine and effective. The institute is also meant to help change teachers
preconceived ideas of constructivism. Teachers evaluated the program based on a
1-5 rating scale. All questions had an average of at least 4, except for one about
having anxiety towards the program which had a low average. Teachers stated that
the program: helped them be more effective teacher, had been an effective use of
their time, they had more joy of teaching math, having a positive effect in other
content areas, and that the follow up program was helpful. The high ratings were
also consistent with short-answer questions.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Pedagogy
Mathematical Teaching Cycle. Simon (1995) states that while
constructivism has allowed mathematics educators to understand how students
learn, it does not offer ways to teach mathematics. Although constructivism has
provided mathematics educators with useful ways to understand learning and
learners, the task of reconstructing mathematics pedagogy on the basis of a
constructivist view of learning is a considerable challenge, on that the mathematics
education community has only begun to tackle (Simon, 1995, p. 114). While small
group collaboration, real world situations, and manipulatives can be valuable tools
for teachers, these alone are not sufficient enough to produce learning situations
that will encourage conceptual growth. Simon formed the Mathematics Teaching
Cycle to represent the cyclical interrelationship between teacher knowledge,
thinking, decision making, and activity (p. 135). It forms a way for teachers to
make decision in terms of the content and activities while being formed around a
constructivist perspective. The learning goal provides a hypothetical direction in
which the learning will take place. This allows teachers to choose an instructional
design based on how they think the lesson will proceed. This hypothetical learning
trajectory and its constant modification are the central piece of the model. A
teachers knowledge should evolve simultaneously with the growth of students
knowledge, and the teachers change in knowledge creates change in the
hypothetical learning trajectory (Simon, 1995).

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Figure 2: Mathematical Teaching Cycle. Source: Simon, 1995, p. 136

Persuasive Pedagogy. Hennessey, Higley, and Chestnut (2011) offer a

theoretical framework for mathematics educators called persuasive pedagogy as an
alternative to the constructivist theory. This framework details the teaching of
mathematics in a way that more closely matches pedagogy used by advanced and
effective mathematics teachers. It also promotes constructivist practices by
incorporating problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, prior
knowledge, and multiple representations (Hennessey et. al, 2011, 189). Problem
solving will allow for application and learning of the mathematical content.
Reasoning and proof affords students the opportunity to develop and evaluate
conjectures about mathematics. Persuasion allows students to connect and build
on prior knowledge, form multiple representations, and increases retention and
application (Hennessey et. al, 2015). In the constructivist theory, students form new
knowledge based on their previous understanding and experiences. Sometimes this
information is incorrect and students form misconceptions. The constructivist theory
does not approach these misconceptions directly. Hennessey states that one
reason persuasive pedagogy has value in the mathematics classroom is that the

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

practices of justification, argumentation, and discussion are fundamental aspects of
this teaching pedagogy that not only confront student misconceptions, but also
student beliefs about knowledge (p. 189). Persuasive pedagogy has students
analyze different perspectives, discussing what both the students and teacher
understand about a topic, and forming a conclusion based on this discussion.
Persuasive pedagogy begins with stating students current and prior understanding
of a topic. The teacher uses discussion and questioning techniques to discuss the
students beliefs to help them determine if they are right or wrong. They form an
opinion of the correct answer together. By using this process, it is believed that
students will remember and retain the information at a deeper level. A teachers
ability to lead a discussion and prompt students with deep thinking questions is vital
to this pedagogy (Hennessey et al.)

Conclusions
This literature review was meant to answer two questions: 1) how the
constructivist theory is implemented in the mathematics classroom and how it could
be improved, and 2) how is the use of technology affecting the constructivist
classroom. Teachers that are well versed on the constructivist theory and how to
apply it to the classroom will be better at effectively implementing the theory than
those that are not. Professional development during college for pre-service teachers
will help give them support and understanding before they transition to the
classroom. In-service teachers will need ongoing professional development,
preferably through a combination of professional development, implementation, and
reflection in order to successfully implement the constructivist theory. It will not
happen immediately, but through continued practice and reflection it will become

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

easier to implement. Professional development on how to use technology effectively
in the constructivist classroom will also be beneficial. It is important to use
technology to foster critical thinking and problem solving instead of as a means for
information presentation.
Limitations to this literature review include grade level, content, and
longitudinal studies. This review only summarizes the constructivist effect in the K12 mathematics classroom. It also is limited to research done in one calendar year.
Student understanding would probably be more impacted if they were consistently
exposed to teaching practices of the constructivist theory, and even more so
starting in elementary school. I only found one longitudinal study on the
constructivist classroom regarding fostering early adolescent motivation by Kim
Stroet. It was not included because it did not relate to the mathematics classroom.
Because of this limitation of longitudinal studies, I would recommend future
research be devoted to the impact that the constructivist method has on student
understanding after continuous exposure to this teaching philosophy. This would be
hard to conduct unless one school promoted a constructivist philosophy with all of
the teachers because you would have to measure the same students at different
grade levels. I would also recommend to study how the constructivist theory could
be implemented in an online learning environment. In regards to PBL, Ertmer
suggests research on why teachers choose PBL and why they choose to stop using
PBL. Continuing research on providing effective professional development will help
teachers who use constructivist approaches or are interested in incorporating them
into their classroom become effective teachers.

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

References
Alagic, M. (2003). Technology in the mathematics classroom: conceptual orientation. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 381-399. Retrieved from:
http://www.learntechlib.org/p/14520/
Alsharif, K. (2014). How do Teachers Interpret the Term Constructivism as a
Teaching Approach in the Riyadh Primary Schools Context? Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 1009-1018. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.170.
Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814035940
Chua, B.L. & Wu, Y. (2005). Designing Technology-based Mathematics Lessons: A Pedagogical
Framework. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(4), 387-402.
Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved
from: http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ724785&site=eds-live
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Ernest, P. (1993). Constructivism, the Psychology of Learning, and the Nature of
Mathematics: Some Critical Issues. Science And Education, 2(1), 87-93.
Retrieved from: http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ478375&site=eds-live

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Ertmer, P. A., Glazewski, K. D., Jones, D., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Goktas, Y., Collins, K., & Kocaman,
A. (2009). Facilitating technology-enhanced problem-based learning (PBL) in the middle school
classroom: an examination of how and why teachers adapt. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 20(1), 35-54. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262269911_
Facilitating_Technology-Enhanced_Problem-based_Learning_PBL_in_the_Middle_School_
Classroom_An_Examination_of_How_and_Why_Teachers_Adapt
Grady, M., Watkins, S., & Montalvo, G. (2012). The Effect of Constructivist
Mathematics on Achievement in Rural Schools. The Rural Educator, 33(3).
Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ987623.pdf
Hennessey, M. N., Higley, K., & Chesnut, S. R. (2011). Persuasive Pedagogy: A New
Paradigm for Mathematics Education. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2),
187-204. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9190-7 Retrieved from:
http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eft&AN=74638580&site=eds-live
Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and Practice in Mathematics Teaching Development: Critical Inquiry as a
Mode of Learning in Teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education J Math Teacher Educ,
9(2), 187-211. doi:10.1007/s10857-005-1223-z. Retrieved from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.463.329&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Juvova, A., Chudy, S., Neumeister, P., Plischke, J., & Kvintova, J. (2015). Reflection of constructivist
theories in current educational practice. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(5), 345349. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?
accno=EJ1062318

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Lebow, D.. (1993). Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five
Principles toward a New Mindset. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 41(3), 416. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.memphis.edu/stable/30218384
Marshall, J. C., & Horton, R. M. (2011). The relationship of teacher-facilitated, inquiry-based instruction
to student higher-order thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 111(3), 93-101. Retrieved
from: http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?url=http://search. ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ915573&site=eds-live
Mustafa, E., & Fatma, E. N. (2013). Instructional technology as a tool in creating constructivist
classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1441-1445. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813035052
OShea, J., & Leavy, A. M. (2013). Teaching mathematical problem-solving from an emergent
constructivist perspective: The experiences of Irish primary teachers. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 16(4), 293-318. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257583684_Teaching_mathematical_problemsolving_from_an_emergent_constructivist_perspective_The_experiences_of_Irish_primary_teach
ers
Pecore, J. L. (2012). Beyond Beliefs: Teachers Adapting Problem-based Learning to
Preexisting Systems of Practice. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, 7(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1359. Retrieved from:
http://ezproxy.memphis.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eft&AN=90663288&site=eds-live

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new
understandings. London: Falmer.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem Based Learning: An instructional model
and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 1-19.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ512183
Simon, M. A. (1989). The impact of intensive classroom followup in a constructivist mathematics teacher
education program. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/?
q=The+Impact+of+Intensive+Classroom+Followup+in+a+Constructivist+Mathematics+Teacher
+Education+Program.&id=ED313351
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 114-145. Retrieved from:
http://mathcurriculumreview.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/67005807/Simon(1995).pdf
Widyatiningtyas, R., Kusumah, Y. S., Sumarmo, U., & Sabandar, J. (2015). The impact of problem based
learning approach to senior high school students' mathematics critical thinking ability. Indonesian
Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(2), 30-38. Retrieved from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1079642