Summarize Constructivism Theory

Provide a detailed description of Constructivism Theory. Include who was originator of the theory and when the theory was established. Identify Piaget’s version of the theory. Describe the theory’s components. Must be 6 pages in length. In the attachments is a great article to use. All references must be PDF studies within the last 5 years.

Answer these questions:

1.Social constructivism is a useful way to understand the lived experiences of psychologists in therapy sessions because…

2. The motivations for engaging with social media are explored through a constructivism lens by…

3. Constructivist theories applied to an inquiry into how participants confront and reconcile privacy challenges is useful because

4. How mental health professionals make decisions in response to ill-defined problems is clarified by aspects of social constructivist theories such as

Caffarella, R. S., & Merriam, S. B. (1999). Perspectives on adult learning: Framing our research. In A. N, EDITOR (Ed.), 40th Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. PAGE-PAGE). CITY: Northern Illinois University

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social

Media: Changing Minds and Learning Communities

Article  in  New Directions for Teaching and Learning · December 2015

DOI: 10.1002/tl.20160




1 author:

Dawn E Schrader

Cornell University



All content following this page was uploaded by Dawn E Schrader on 02 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2 Social media provide new means and opportunities for learningthat are consistent with major tenets of both social and cognitiveconstructivism, and extend the process of learning and meaning construction to more diverse communities and universally accessible shared activities that are jointly and concurrently engaged in by both peers and experts.

Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social Media: Changing Minds and Learning Communities

Dawn E. Schrader

Constructivism as a meaning-making philosophy that informs pedagogi- cal practices dominated the past several decades of educational practice. At its base, various forms of constructivism hold that meaning making and learning are created through active engagement with knowledge and in so- cial interaction. With rapidly evolving new media and technological tools, the next major iteration of the constructivist learning paradigm is how to use new media to promote learning. Constructivist theoretical concepts blend beautifully with technological affordances provided by social media. From both an individual and community perspective, learning is enhanced through media that connect people through communities otherwise un- available or unreachable without it. Education as a field of study, and as a process of learning and teaching, would do well to take advantage of the current technological revolution and challenge long-standing teaching and learning paradigms.

Overview of Constructivism and Social Constructivism

Constructivist theories of learning traditionally refer to how the mind con- structs knowledge and are typically rooted in the tradition of genetic epis- temology of Jean Piaget. This tradition of constructivism focuses on the knower’s reflexive and reflective abstraction of interactions with objects and others in the environment. In comparison, and some argue in contrast, con- structivist theories based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective describe joint construction of meaning through community activity and distinctly

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 144, Winter 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library ( • DOI: 10.1002/tl.20160 23


locate the knower in the traditions, tools, symbols, artifacts, and language of the learning community. In looking closely at the processes and products from constructivist and sociocultural constructivist views, they share more commonalities than divergences.

Piagetian-Based Constructivism. Constructivism traditionally is considered to focus on how people make meaning of or construct knowl- edge when interacting with content knowledge and the active processes of this interaction. This can happen both individually as a single “epistemic knowing agent”—as Piaget referred to the knower, learner, and constructor of knowledge—or in a group of peers or more expert others. For Piagetian constructivists the focus is on the knower and on peer relations, equalizing power and relationships to create optimal challenge and support for inves- tigating knowledge. The process of construction of meaning, of learning, and of knowledge development involves active engagement with the objects and people in the environment, a sense-making reminiscent of the child as a philosopher or a scientist (Dewey 1933; Papert 1999; Kohlberg 1968). James Mark Baldwin’s fundamental conceptualizations of knowledge cre- ation on which Piaget so heavily relied were grounded prominently in the dynamic interaction between the person and the social and physical envi- ronment. Baldwin states, “The individual is found to be a social product, a complex result, having its genetic conditions in actual social life. Individu- als act together, not alone—collectively, not singly” (Baldwin 1909, 211).

Piagetian-based constructivism uses the process of assimilation, ac- commodation, and equilibration—borrowed from evolutionary biology— as the mechanism by which increasingly complex understandings are cre- ated. This is also called “intellectual adaptation” and involves the “fit” between a knower’s current understandings, knowing system, view, or lens (all terms used interchangeably by Piagetian-based theorists) through which she interprets the world and her engaged experience.

Sociocultural Constructivism. In comparison, literature on Vygotsky-based sociocultural constructivism focuses on the social and cultural environment, artifacts, tools, temporal elements, and engagement with both peers and—importantly—with more expert others to both explain how meaning making takes place and how learning occurs. Like Piagetian constructivism, the motivation for learning and constructing/ reconstructing knowledge is intrinsic to the learner. Vygotsky states that “learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function” (1978, 90). That is, in both constructivist views, the motivation to learn is inherent to and within the human psychology of the knower, albeit socioculturalists prioritize culturally evolving social influences as formational in individual psychology and do not embrace the genetic epistemological framework that privileges the individual.

For sociocultural constructivism, culture is the prime determinant of individual learning and development. As such, the surrounding culture



provides the processes or means of human thought. Through this process of intellectual adaptation, culture teaches what and how to think. Thus, the ‘figure’ in the figure–ground relationship between person and culture in the creation of knowledge is the culture.

Like Piaget, Vygotsky’s sociocultural constructivism reflects dialecti- cal process whereby learning occurs through problem-solving experiences. For sociocultural constructivists, this activity is shared with an other or others, usually more expert, and involves language and collaborative dia- logue. Through such guided learning, the process of knowing takes place. Knowledge construction then, rather than occurring through assimila- tion, accommodation, and equilibration as with Piaget’s constructivism, occurs through the internalization of language to understand the actions and/or instructions provided by the more expert other in order to use that information to understand, guide, regulate, and/or inform performance (Vygotsky 1962). It is that internalized speech that becomes knowledge. Vygotsky states, “Inner speech is not the interior aspect of external speech— it is a function in itself. It still remains speech, i.e., thought connected with words. But while in external speech thought is embodied in words, in in- ner speech words die as they bring forth thought. Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings” (149).

Furthering the comparison between the processes of learning described by these forms of constructivism is how such learning and growth occur. In cognitive constructivism, the cognitive learning process is through reflexive and reflective abstraction located within the knower as an individual epis- temic knowing agent; in sociocultural constructivism how growth occurs is explained in terms of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is the difference between what the knower can do on her own and what can be done with assistance. For Piagetian constructivism, the difference between one’s current knowing system and experiences of not-knowing in an activity is explained as disequilibration. This disequilibration begets the assimilation and accommodation process as the knower activates (uncon- sciously or not) reconstruction of a new, equilibrated cognitive knowing system to reconcile the performance and knowledge disparity. In Vygot- sky’s sociocultural constructivism, the disparities in knowing and learning are scaffolded by the expert other(s) who dialogically share their processes of activity to allow the knower to appropriate the better (more complex) knowing system. In both these constructivist explanations of processes, there is an incorporation of another knowing system and/or information into the learner’s knowing system (assimilation/appropriation) as well as a reconstruction of thought and a new understanding (accommodation/ intellectual adaptation).

John Dewey (1916), a pragmatic constructivist educator and philoso- pher contemporaneous with Piaget and Vygotsky, offers a similar perspec- tive stating, “Every individual has grown up, and always must grow up, in a social medium. His [sic] responses grow intelligent, or gain meaning,



simply because he lives and acts in a medium of accepted meanings and values” (344).

Both Piaget and Vygotsky emphasize the reflective necessity of knowl- edge construction, as does Dewey (1933), and locate education in a pro- cess of social interaction and daily living. Constructivism is a philosophy, even more than a pedagogical practice. In “My Pedagogical Creed” Dewey states,

Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social end. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living. (1897, 78)

Vygotsky’s characterization of internalization is described as proceed- ing from the interpersonal to the intrapersonal and involves temporal sep- aration of the social and individual aspects of the activity. Rogoff’s (1995) idea of participatory appropriation involves a temporal simultaneity in the social and individual processes, but it is implied that reflection is done in action and not post hoc.

Rogoff’s sociocultural constructivist approach is particularly useful for understanding the dynamic between the personal, interpersonal, and com- munity interactions. She describes three “planes” in which people learn through apprenticeship, guided participation, and participatory appropria- tion, respectively. Her focus is on everyday life activity, which she contrasts to Vygotsky’s interests, which I think is a false contrast. Jean Lave (1988; Lave and Wenger 1991) focuses on everyday cognition from a sociocultural constructivist viewpoint as well from a Vygotskyan perspective. This focus on everyday-ness is what may link constructivist theories to today’s emer- gent technological focus. Technology brings everyday life and interactions into the classroom and insinuates processes afforded by social media into the activities that constructivist theories purport support learning, knowl- edge construction and development.

In essence, it seems Paul Cobb (1994, 2005) had it right when he said,

I question assumptions that initiate this apparent forced choice between con- structivist and sociocultural perspectives. I contend that the two perspectives are complementary. Also, claims that either perspective captures the essence of people and communities should be rejected for pragmatic justifications . . . I argue that the sociocultural perspective informs theories of the conditions for the possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the constructivist perspective focus on what students learn and the processes by which they do so. (Cobb 1994, 13)



Situated Cognition

Situated cognitive theories state that knowing cannot be separated from the context; it exists in situ, embedded in activity, people, culture, and language across physical and social space and time. Situated cognition is a construc- tivist theory, drawn from various fields such as anthropology, philosophy and critical theory (e.g., Bakhtin 1981; Heidegger 1968; Lave and Wenger 1991). Indeed Rogoff (1995) cites Bakhurst as saying, “The study of mind, of culture, and of language (in all its diversity) are internally related: that is, it will be impossible to render any one of these domains intelligible with- out essential reference to the others” (39). Those interested in constructivist situated learning (Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger 1991) state that education ought to find tasks and activities “situated” in the situations of the real world and highlight the importance of using relevant situations for learning. Rogoff locates her work loosely within this paradigm, although she infers that knowledge transfers across time and situation.

A critique against constructivism by the situated cognitivists is that constructivism is a philosophical construct and they thus caution against making claims about the generalizability of knowledge gained in one con- text to its application in another (Anderson, Reder, and Simon 1996). This perspective advocates the use of apprenticeship and “authentic” problems that are “ill defined” (that is, having no one right logical conclusive answer) and are located in the complex social environments and modalities that re- flect those that will be used in the future. Taken together with Rogoff and continued work on constructivism, some of which is located in this volume, I would argue that meaning-making construction processes are relevantly similar.

As such, I propose here that constructivism—both cognitive and sociocultural—apprehended together by common shared components, blends with the affordances that social media provides to connect learners in today’s and tomorrow’s technological world. Specifically, the Internet and the availability and use of both hard and soft technologies by individuals af- fect learning and social life. These media create opportunities for commu- nity (interaction and creation) and possibilities for learning that are broader than the pioneers of constructivist theories could have imagined. Remark- ably, learning affordances through social media use are certainly within con- structivist theorists’ collective vision of the process and products of teaching and learning.

Constructivism in a Mediated World

New media, and social media in particular, provide affordances for learn- ing, knowledge development, meaning making, and mind changing. Both the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives of constructivism address the



conditions, potentialities, and processes for doing so (Cobb 2005). Today’s learners live in a technologically mediated world. I use several meanings of “mediated,” sometimes with simultaneous meaning as each sense of the word is conflated with another. The first sense refers to when the media itself, the noun, is the intermediary for learning, as with the technology of computers, applications (apps) and programs, and the Internet.

Another sense of the word mediated is epistemic in nature; that media shapes and moderates our perspective on the world and the way in which we live with the knowledge in it, that is, the way we see knowledge and the way we see ourselves. For example, we actively participate in worldwide events though commentary, tweeting on Twitter, posting on Facebook, tex- ting, sending Instagrams, and otherwise contributing our knowledge and perspective to potentially millions of people in a shared world community.

Constructivism and Social Media. Media shape how learners, espe- cially the millennials onward, learn and how they know. Nielsen polled the millennial generation about their uniqueness because they are the “first to come of age with cable TV, the Internet and cell phones” and have it “essen- tially baked into every millennial’s DNA.” Millennials ranked “Technology Use” first (24 percent), followed by “Music/Pop Culture” (11 percent) as most characteristic of them as a generation. An impressive 83 percent re- port they sleep with their smartphones, 74 percent report technology makes their lives easier, and 54 percent report closer relationships with friends and family due to new technology. Millennials check in socially between 20 and 21 hours each month (Nielsen 2014); a number that in my own observa- tions in daily life in a college environment seems a vast underreport. With that intensity of social engagement, these cultural tools and the “conversa- tions” that go on within them are important in how people make meaning of and construct knowledge in the world.

Social media provides interactions that create opportunities for the evo- lution of knowledge. This section highlights the theoretical concepts within cognitive and sociocultural constructivism that relate specifically to new and social media use and how such use promotes learning and stimulates the evolution of meaning making. The cognitive equilibration processes of assimilation and accommodation of new experiences to one’s knowing system, or the sociocultural appropriation of new skills, evolve through opportunities to interact in social networks online or mediated through computer and/or mobile technologies. Knowledge occurs through shared activity, through community engagement, dialogue, and communication in a community of shared activity. Students learn to both think and ex- plore within and outside of their own perspective or mindset. They also learn to take perspectives of others in important ways that influence social- emotional learning—competencies that are attracting significant current at- tention in the United States (Gehlbach 2010).

Extending this idea, an amazing affordance of social media is related to the transcendence of classroom boundaries and the social components



of new media use. Social media use creates new and larger communities of learners, reaching a broader spectrum and more diverse collaborators in the learning process. This may include those with physical and cognitive disabilities and a plethora of personalities and interaction styles. In tradi- tional classrooms care must be taken to attend to those less outspoken, the bullied, the shy, the less popular, or less socially integrated, that is, the non- participants and excluded others. Interpersonal skills are important com- ponents of learning and sociocultural adaptation and can be appropriated via social media use. These skills include social compliance, cooperation, and the development of positive, effective relationships (Gehlbach 2010). Students with less developed social skills or who may possess socially nor- matively objectionable or awkward interpersonal skills and be less socially integrated face challenges in the classroom, may perceive school more nega- tively, have lower achievement goals, and may frustrate teachers and friends (Raver, Garner, and Smith-Donald 2007; Shin and Ryan 2014).

Thus, with technology, the classroom is broader and participation more equalized. The moral implications of participation among equals are more likely to be achieved via computer and technologically mediated social networking. Each person has equal access (if possessing the technol- ogy) to participation. Technology potentiates active diverse communities of learners who may be judged more on the content of their contributions than on the color of their skin, socioeconomic status, or other feature, which Kegan (1982) refers to as “recruitability” of the person. These media may obscure or moderate the negative social skills or may render them less normatively objectionable and thus fail to interfere with positive social and academic learning goals. According to Mbati (2013) there is a dearth of research on experiences of the use of online social media, but her meta-ethnographic analysis found that “discussion forums are ideal for the stimulation of constructivism and observational learning.” In other words, technologically mediated social interaction may counter the well-known gender, race, and expectancy effects of performance in classrooms (e.g., Dweck 1986; Weiner 1985).

Social media platforms engage all participants in the education process to share activities in a virtual synchronous or nonsynchronous time and space. The processes and products of social interaction that are evidenced in digital forms and spaces can be drawn together to create confluence. This conflu- ence potentiates more creative, accurate, inclusive learning than could have occurred without social media’s ability to bring together a diversity of minds and mindsets in shared activity, thus affording abundant opportunities for learning as well as shifts in epistemological perspective about the nature of knowledge creation itself. It is this kind of learning that is at once peda- gogically engaging and paradigm shifting—both for individuals and for the field of education.

In sum, social media benefits constructivist philosophies and prac- tices. It makes use of everyday cognition by virtue of it being used



every day by millennials for every conceivable type of social interaction. It uses the technological tools, language, and cultural artifacts so essen- tial to sociocultural appropriation yet simultaneously engages learners cre- atively in the teaching-learning process as they are and they become more expert with the tools and create new cultural artifacts that are afforded by the available technologies. The process of learning and development in this technologically engaged community of knowers is dynamic; at the same time it is cognitive, emotional, and social. The natural curiosity in- herent in both cognitive and sociocultural constructivist theories is kept active as the social media and technologies themselves change, as do the knowers’ interactions with them and use of them with larger and more diverse communities. Thus, the social dimensions of learning—the inter- personal and community planes—are large, pervasive, and are mutually affected by individuals as they take opportunities to present themselves (Goffman 1959)—their personhood/experiences and their constructed knowledge perspectives—to literally the entire world, albeit virtually. Jean Piaget’s concept of possibility and the hope for stimulated creativity derived from situated cognition in diverse learning communities is augmented by the use of social media.

Social Media and Constructivist Goals and Practices

As described previously, cognitive and sociocultural constructivist per- spectives are two sides of the same coin; they are indissociable from one another—just as Piaget (1981) claimed are intelligence and affectivity. So- cial media is a process by which learners and teachers can co-construct the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively know and communicate the self, to interact positively and ethically in social relationships, and to co-construct knowledge necessary for the world of work. Use of social me- dia in education has been shown to aid in the development of that which is already incorporated in educational goals: the development of care and concern for others, prosocial behavior, problem solving, and making ethical and responsible decisions (Jones and Bouffard 2012).

Some educators and students may limit social media in their learning activities (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, and Peck 2001). One explanation is the fail- ure of technology itself, but additionally, teachers and students alike may feel insecure about technological competence or may wish to avoid, or may actually fear, the connection between the abstract or academic world of knowing and their personal world of sociality. But social media are sim- ply another means by which the daily social interactions of caring, re- sponse, and responsibilities toward each other take place in the teaching- learning context. Parker Palmer (1998) states that fears “let us know we are on the brink of real learning” (39). Social media in educational con- texts allow deeper interactions among more, and a more diverse set, of



educational participants—teachers and learners—so that the dimensional- ity of the teacher-student-context-knowledge dynamic interactions is visi- ble and large.

Continuing with constructivist concepts that inform how social me- dia fits with learning, Churcher, Downs, and Tewksbury (2014) note that “the very heart of social media is the ability to generate connections” (34). This aspect of social media use addresses community-level learning and appropriation. Through “friends” and dialogues online, a “community of practice” forms for educational learning purposes. Learners can collaborate in order to articulate its common goals and act to achieve them, follow- ing ideas put forward by Lave and Wenger (1991). The use of collabora- tively constructed and mutually observed videos can be a means of achiev- ing observational learning (Craig, Chi, and Van Lehn 2009, 179–189). For example, Churcher, Downs, and Tewksbury (2014) use Vygotsky’s (1978) conceptualization of social constructivism within a Facebook community of practice and a wiki-based student-generated exam. Likewise, social me- dia can be used for group work, peer teaching, sharing documents, group editing, and other collaborative, novice-expert or peer-to-peer learning activities.

On the interpersonal plane, the class community is learning to relate to one another. By posting respectful, helpful feedback, students are learning interpersonal skills as well as content knowledge. Such shared discourse in the classroom community can be furthered on discussion boards, and commentary during class can be furthered using social networking apps, cell phones or even iclickers. This type of interaction helps create shared meaning and personal connections to peers, the teacher, and the subject matter under study. Not much time is required to develop interpersonal co- constructed meanings. Twitter is a great example. Twitter’s 140 character maximum microblogs can be instantly sent to others. Interestingly, over time, a language has developed that people now commonly use in ‘tweets’ to maximize information sent within the limited character count. Social me- dia facilitates interpersonal co-constructions of knowledge and information and a construction of shared meaning and activity as students engage in daily interactions in and out of classrooms.

The effects on the individual plane are also seen in constructivist class- rooms that use social media. Cognitive and social epistemic co-construction and joint activity allow people to better understand how and what they themselves know, how to learn, and how to teach others. The interpersonal connections may be distal or virtually or in reality face to face. The pre- sentation of self, the communication of one’s current way of knowing, and the achievement of desired learning goals are important in learning. Edu- cational contexts and practices must treat social media as both a process of teaching and learning and a community of shared activity of joint meaning construction.



Educational Challenge: Changing Minds and Learning Communities

Constructivist learning in a digital age: is it really any different from learning in any other age? That is, technology has been changing the way we think, know, work, interact, and socialize for decades. Collins and Halverson state, “The genesis of our current schooling system occurred in response to a similar technological and economic tumult—the industrial revolution. Our current model of schooling grew out of the technologies and social prac- tices of the industrial revolution” (2010, 18). Even during the Industrial Revolution, John Dewey (1916) challenged education to be different due to the changing times; people have been challenged to construct new mean- ings from new technological affordances that have enhanced their lives. These technologies brought with them opportunities for changes in the way people learn: the way they learn about others, they experience the impact of others’ presence/absence in the activities of their everyday lives. The tech- nologies changed industry and with it the way people conduct business and think about work—from the delineation of the parameters of the work- day to the knowledge necessary to operate the new “machines.” There is no doubt that what Dewey said a hundred years ago during the last major technological revolution—the industrial revolution—still holds for today’s social and new media revolution.

Constructivism is the psychological foundation and explains the nec- essary theoretical scaffolding necessary to construct new meaning in edu- cation created by the abundant and novel building blocks of technology.

What is different in this technological revolution that includes social media is that we now have far more opportunities to interpersonally in- teract with a variety of people from a diversity of that grounds. We can converse with people from different socioeconomic statuses, from different cultural backgrounds, and from different parts of the world without even leaving our desk chairs. Millennials not only know how to use technol- ogy, social media, and digital media; they are new creators of knowledge within those processes and are active contributors to the co-construction of knowledge across the globe. Seymour Papert states, “Meaning-construction happens particularly well when learners are engaged in building external and sharable artifacts” (1996, 4), and knowers today use social media, in- cluding Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, wikis, discussion sites, blogs, and other means to contribute artifacts of their current culture, language forms, and thinking systems that interact collaboratively to further knowledge co-construction across cultures, languages, and communities.

Social constructivism has a fundamental claim that we, and our un- derstandings of the world—including knowledge within it—are mutually co-constructed. Baviskar, Hartle, and Whitney identified four essential fea- tures of constructivism based on a comprehensive review of the literature: 1. eliciting prior knowledge to determine what is known and not known,



2. creating cognitive dissonance in order to be aware of the differences be- tween old and new knowledge; 3. applying new knowledge in new contexts along with feedback from peers and more expert others; and 4. reflecting on learning in order to express, explain and evaluate what was learned (Baviskar, Hartle, and Whitney 2009, 544–545). This present chapter ad- dresses these components from both the cognitive constructivist and the sociocultural constructive perspectives of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s seminal theorizing.

When Piaget first imagined the conception of “possibilities” and Vygot- sky envisioned collaborative constructive discourse as critical to learning, they could not have imagined that the world of so many languages, cultural perspectives, abilities, problems, and tools would be available to so many. Nor could they have imagined the epistemic shift where all people partici- pate in knowledge dissemination and creation to the degree to which they now can on the Internet through blogging, wikis, and social media. The future of education must include changing the classroom, educational pro- cesses and activities, and student and teacher roles. Social media allows even more opportunities to change minds and learning contexts. The classroom will not be as primary in our future as in the past—with learning occurring “on the go” via mobile technologies such as cell phones, tablets, Google Glasses, smart watches . . . and who knows what else will be developed. Such cyberspace learning is already happening in MOOCs—Massive Open Online Courses—now gaining popularity. These and other “immersive mul- timedia” and computer aided support (CAS) software make learning mul- tidimensional and ubiquitous (Passey 2014). Teacher roles shift with new media use. Teacher as expert is shifted to teacher as one of many knowledge sources. Teachers become creators and coordinators of learning communi- ties (Collins and Halverson 2010). Students are experts for one another as they construct knowledge through dynamic interpersonal and community interactions and reflective thinking

New media and technology and especially social media are the new mediators of learning, as learners together develop and share expertise and knowledge co-constructed via the affordances of these media. Not only is new knowledge constructed, but also the relationship to knowledge itself is transformed and new epistemologies and paradigms of intellectual engage- ment are made possible. Social media is the new context and process of teaching, learning, and changing minds. Piaget stated, “The principal [sic] goal of education in the schools should be creating new ways of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and women who are creative, inventive, and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything they are offered” (Duckworth 1964, 499). New and social media augment cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning, not so much by expanding the theories, but by expanding their reach, affording more communities to be joined together in constructivist learning.




Anderson, J. R., L. M. Reder, and H. A. Simon. (1996). “Situated Learning and Educa- tion.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 25, No. 4. (May, 1996), pp. 5–11.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.), Austin.

Baldwin, J. M. 1909. “The Influence of Darwin on Theory of Knowledge and Phi- losophy.” Psychological Review 16 (3): 207–218. /Baldwin/Baldwin_1909.html.

Baviskar, S. N., R. T. Hartle, and T. Whitney. 2009. “Essential Criteria to Characterize Constructivist Teaching: Derived from a Review of Literature and Applied to Five Constructivist-Teaching Method Articles.” International Journal of Science Education 31 (4): 541–550.

Churcher, K. M. A., E. Downs, and D. Tewksbury. 2014. “‘Friending’ Vygotsky: A Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building Through Classroom So- cial Media Use.” Journal of Effective Teaching 14 (1): 33–50. /articles/Vol14_1/Churcher.pdf.

Cobb, P. 1994. “Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development.” Educational Researcher 23 (7): 13–20.

Cobb, P. 2005. “Where Is the Mind?” In Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice, edited by C Fosnot, 39–57. New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, A., and R. Halverson. 2010. “The Second Educational Revolution: Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (1): 18–27.

Craig, S. D., M. T. H. Chi, and K. VanLehn. 2009. “Improving Classroom Learning by Collaboratively Observing Human Tutoring Videos While Problem Polving.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (4): 779–789.

Cuban, L., H. Kirkpatrick, and C. Peck. 2001. “High Access and Low Use of Tech- nologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox.” Amer- ican Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 813–834.∼peck /CubanKirkpatrickPec.pdf.

Dewey, J. 1897. “My Pedagogic Creed.” School Journal 54, no. 3: 77–80. http://www

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Duckworth, E. 1964. “Piaget rediscovered.” The Arithmetic Teacher. Vol. 11, No. 7

(November 1964), pp. 496–499. Published by: National Council of Teachers of Math- ematics. Stable URL:

Dweck, C. S. 1986. “Motivational Processes Affecting Learning.” American Psychologist 41 (10): 1040–1048.

Gehlbach, H. 2010. “The Social Side of School: Why Teachers Need Social Psychology.” Educational Psychology Review 22 (3): 349–362.

Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Heidegger, M. 1968. What is called thinking? (Vol. 8, p. 208). New York: Harper & Row. Jones, S. M., and S. M. Bouffard. 2012. Social and Emotional Learning in Schools: From

Programs to Strategies. Social Policy Report, vol. 26, no. 4. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.

Kegan, R. 1982. The Evolving Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kohlberg, L. 1968. “The Child as a Moral Philosopher.” Psychology Today, Vol. 2, no. 4,

pp. 24–30. Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life

(Learning in Doing). Cambridge: MA Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.



Mbati, L. 2013. “Online Social Media Applications for Constructivism and Observational Learning.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 14 (5).

Nielsen. 2014. “Millennials: Technology = Social Connection.” /content/corporate/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials-technology-social-connecti on.html.

Palmer, P. J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Papert, S. 1996. “A Word for Learning.” In Constructivism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital World, edited by Y. Kafai and M. Resnick, 9–24. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Papert, S. 1999. “Papert on Piaget.” Time Magazine, March 29. /articles/Papertonpiaget.html.

Passey, D. 2014. Inclusive technology enhanced learning : overcoming cognitive, physical, emotional, and geographic challenges. New York: Routledge.

Piaget, J. 1981. Intelligence and Affectivity: Their Relationship During Child Development. Translated and edited by T. A. Brown and C. E. Kaegi. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Raver, C. C., P. W. Garner, and R. Smith-Donald. 2007. “The Roles of Emotion Reg- ulation and Emotion Knowledge for Children’s Academic Readiness: Are the Links Causal?” In Kindergarten Transition and Early School Success, edited by R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox, and K. L. Snow, 121–147. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Rogoff, B. 1995. “Observing Sociocultural Activity on Three Planes: Participatory Appro- priation, Guided Participation, and Apprenticeship.” In Sociocultural Studies of Mind, edited by J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, and A. Alvarez, 139–164. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shin, H., and A. M. Ryan. 2014. “Friendship Networks and Achievement Goals: An GExamination of Selection and Influence Processes and Variations by ender.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43 (9): 1453–1464.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weiner, B. 1985. “An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion.”

Psychological Review 92 (4): 548–573.

DAWN E. SCHRADER is associate professor of communication ethics and moral psychology at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.


View publication statsView publication stats

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.