The Great Constructivist Confusion

How a theory of learning became a dogma of teaching

Ambiguity Around Constructivism

The statement “learning is constructive” is almost uncontroversial within cognitive science.

In most cases, we do not simply absorb information and learn new things. We also have to actively interpret it, connect it to prior knowledge, reorganize memory, and build increasingly sophisticated mental representations. Learning is, by its very nature, a constructive cognitive process. Few cognitive scientists would disagree.

But then something subtle has happened for a few decades.

A descriptive claim about how learning occurs has quietly become a prescriptive and even normative claim about how teachers should teach.

The reasoning often proceeds like this:

• Learning is constructive.

• Therefore knowledge cannot be transmitted.

• Therefore explicit teaching is ineffective.

• Therefore teachers should minimize or even avoid explicit/direct instruction.

• Therefore teachers should not teach, but just facilitate and let students create their “own” knowledge.

None of those conclusions logically follow from the original premise (Learning is constructive).

Because the moment we move from “how people learn” to “how teachers should teach,” we have changed the question entirely.

The second requires its own evidence because it has turned into an ideological prescription in the world of progressive education (isn’t that ironic?).

---

Before I move on, let me back up for those who might be unfamiliar with what’s going on here. First, what Constructivism is and why there’s a controversy among educators.

Here’s a well-established definition:

“Constructivism is a theory of learning that explains how learners actively construct mental representations (schemas) by integrating new information with their existing knowledge.” (Some definitions add: through personal experience and interaction in the environment.)

In simple words, the theory says that we take in new information from outside, connect it with our prior knowledge inside our memory, and construct new understanding or meaning.

So far, there is little controversy.

The controversy begins when this descriptive account of how learning happens is quietly transformed into a prescription for how teachers should teach and should not teach.

That distinction is exactly what Douglas H. Clements (1997) warns educators not to confuse.

As he argues, constructivism is fundamentally a theory of learning; not a theory of instruction. Constructivism explains what happens inside the learner’s mind during learning. By itself, however, it does not determine whether lectures, demonstrations, observation, worked examples, guided practice, inquiry, experiments, or discussion are the most effective instructional methods. Those are empirical questions that require separate evidence.

(Unfortunately, this -ism hasn’t stopped from being a dogma.)

---

Three Different Meanings of “Constructing Knowledge”

Whenever someone tells me, “Students construct their own knowledge”, I want to ask a different question: What exactly are they constructing?

Because the word knowledge is doing at least three very different jobs.

Educational discussions and debates often treat them as though they were interchangeable. But, they are not.

1. Are students constructing their own knowledge?

If the claim is that students are inventing mathematics, chemistry, grammar, or physics for themselves, then the claim quickly becomes implausible.

Students do not construct the fact that water is H₂O. They do not construct the quadratic formula. They do not construct the periodic table.

These are products of centuries of collective inquiry and vast shared knowledge.

Schools exist precisely because every generation does not have to rediscover civilization from scratch.

2. Are students constructing personal understanding?

Now we are talking about something entirely different.

A student connects Newton’s Laws to riding a bicycle. Another connects evolution to ecology. Nothing new has been added to humanity’s knowledge. Instead, established knowledge is becoming meaningful to the learner.

This is, without a doubt, a part of learning.

3. Are students constructing mental schemas?

This is where modern cognitive science places the constructive process. Nope, teachers cannot upload schemas into another person’s brain. No teacher can directly transfer understanding.

But that does not mean teachers transfer nothing.

Teachers transmit knowledge through explanations. Demonstrations. Worked examples. Questions. Corrective feedback. Guided practice.

Students actively interpret those inputs, reorganize memory, strengthen retrieval pathways, and gradually construct increasingly sophisticated schemas.

The construction happens inside the learner. But the raw materials are largely supplied (or transferred) by the teacher through instruction.

The Distinction that Changes Everything

Here’s the truth: Students do not construct public knowledge. They construct private understanding of public knowledge.

Those are fundamentally different things.

Let’s consider geometry. The theorem that the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180° already exists. A student neither invents nor negotiates that theorem.

What the student constructs is an internal representation:

• how it connects to prior knowledge,

• when it applies,

• where it fails,

• and how to use it for reasoning.

Or consider chess. The rules are not constructed. Legal moves are not constructed. Checkmate is not constructed. Those are learned through instruction, observation, books, coaching, and practice. What the learner constructs is an increasingly sophisticated mental model of the game.

The same distinction applies across almost every academic discipline.

---

The Deliberate False Dichotomy

One of the most persistent myths in education is the assumption that explicit instruction somehow stops learning from being constructive.

Well, it doesn’t.

Students continue constructing meaning while listening to lectures. They continue constructing while reading. While observing demonstrations. While practicing. While discussing. While receiving feedback.

Learning always remains constructive regardless of the instructional method.

The question is not whether students construct knowledge or not. They always do.

The real question is:

Under what instructional conditions are students most likely to construct accurate, durable, and transferable knowledge?

That is an empirical question. Not an ideological one.

This is why I reject the common conclusion that because learning is constructive, teaching must therefore be “constructivist.” That is a false dichotomy.

Teaching and learning are entirely two different processes.

Teaching concerns what the instructor does. Learning concerns what happens inside the learner.

These are not competing explanations. They are complementary.

Teaching supplies information. Learning organizes it.
Teaching provides explanations. Learning constructs meaning.
Teaching provides worked examples. Learning builds schemas.
Teaching provides feedback. Learning reorganizes memory.

Students cannot learn without actively constructing understanding. But it does not follow that teachers “should” avoid explicit instruction.

Construction is a necessary property of learning. It is not, by itself, a prescription for teaching.

---

Conclusion

Schools exist because much of our culturally accumulated, biologically secondary knowledge is unlikely to be acquired efficiently or accurately if teachers don’t teach (and just facilitate).

Learning is constructive. Teaching is instructional. These two statements are not opponents. They describe different parts of the same causal process.

For students to learn, teachers must teach.

---

Summary of my core argument:

The ambiguity around “constructivism” is not that learning is constructive. The ambiguity is that educators quietly switch between different meanings of “constructing knowledge” and between “theories of learning” and “prescriptions for teaching”.

—

A Few References:

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Facilitating meaningful verbal learning in the classroom. The Arithmetic Teacher, 15(2), 126-132.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press.

Clements, D. H. (1997). In my opinion:(Mis?) Constructing constructivism. Teaching children mathematics, 4(4), 198-200.

Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American educator, 36(1), 6-11.

Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics education. Educational psychologist, 23(2), 87-103.

Fisher, J. (2024). Long live the transmission model. Text Savvy.

Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational psychologist, 43(4), 179-195.

Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2024). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?. American psychologist, 59(1), 14.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American educator, 36(1), 12.