Constructivism and Teaching Mathematics in the Classroom

There is much debate today as to when constructivism first began, what exactly is included in a constructivist classroom and how to run these classes smoothly. In a constructivist classroom there needs to be an open environment, one in which children feel free to express themselves in new and creative ways. This is important and one of the main reasons why play and experimentation is so important. We all learn through our environments; therefore, what better way to learn than through direct interaction with the environment.

The same goes for the math classroom. Exposing children to manipulatives and other items which will help them during math class (although sometimes frowned upon) is an excellent, and pretty standard, constructivist practice - but there has to be a distinction as to why one is using or doing so. In the article “Middle School Mathematics Reform: Form Versus Spirit,” Gary Tsuruda (1990) states that in the traditional way of teaching, students that are exposed to manipulatives only once or so and this is not enough to help students. Manipulatives can be used to help with almost every topic in mathematics, but their effectivness will be determined by the way in which the teacher incorporates them into his or her lesson.

Although on the otherhand, one might ask is constructivism really as beneficial as some people think? According to one study done by Insook Chung at Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, Indiana, the difference between two schools of instruction and learning (constructivist vs. Traditonalist) was non-existant. In fact, it showed that students really had little difference while being taught multiplication in a traditional or constructivist method. For us, this raised the question of does constructivism really make a difference or was the constructivist classroom created properly? As, Gary Tsuruda states, a classroom can have the look of a constructivist classroom, but does not have to run like so. For example, the desk can be put into groups our, yet no students have to work together ( Tsuruda, Pg. 6). Clements (1997) raises similar issues when he discusses the teachers who practice "constructivism on fridays."

The fact of the matter is that constructivism is a philosophy, a practice and an atmosphere. Students have to be shown that they are permitted to help each other and are able to work together to solve problems ( Tsuruda, Pg. 6). In our experience through our observation days, we have come into contact with all kinds of new and motivating ways to promote independent learning for students. One example that comes to mind is allowing students the opportunity to express their answers in different ways and not be condemned for doing so. This is constructivist learning at its finest. Pentominoes are a great way for children to discover new ways to express their answers. This involved students creating different shapes out of blocks, which taught the concepts of shapes and patterns, while not restricting children to simply read a text book.

There is more support for constructivist learning now, more than ever before. This is especially true since there has been more studies done in the past decade that study and promote the effects and benefits it has for students and all learners. One thing that comes to mind is Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. This has had a big impact on the way some people teach there class. This concept also ties in with the idea of constructing knowledge. Because if students are permitted to complete tasks in ways that help them learn and process information more efficiently then are we not doing our job as teachers? This is the challenge, but as educators we must try and overcome to the best of our abilities.