Category: Constructivism

Constructivism is a unique learning theory, which clarifies how people may gain knowledge and learn in different ways. Constructivism is used as a teaching methodology and therefore, is related to education as it has a direct connection. Constructivism theory proposes that individuals construct and gain knowledge through their own experiences.

Many authors have different philosophies when it comes to learning about constructivism. Dewey (1929), Bruner (1961), Vygotsky (1962) and Piaget (1980), have all proposed several different ideas of the constructivist theory within their research. Though during this task, Bruner’s theory of instrumental constructivism will be focused on. Bruner’s theory of instrumental constructivism has a major influence on learning theories and different types of teaching methods. Bruner states “Our pedagogical objective… is to accustom teachers to thinking in more general terms about the intellectual life of children.” (Bruner, 1966, p. 100). The theory is a key element in the improvement of education.

Jerome Seymour Bruner (October 1, 1915 – June 5, 2016) was an American psychologist who developed theories on perception, learning, memory and other aspects of cognition in young children. Bruner had two critical ideas going through his mind. One was that the straightforward cognitive process involved ‘hypothesis testing’ and the other idea was that these hypotheses were produced from a mental model.

Hypothesis testing is something that scientists would do, though Bruner’s idea was radical. He suggested that everyone, including young children did not just react to the stimuli presented to them, but were already trying to make sense of the world and to bring it under control. In Bruner’s perspective, the mind was not seen as receptacle for impressions but was seen as an active agent. Locke’s ‘tabula rasa’, (the mind as a blank state) added on that, rather the mind had some form of ‘structure’, this was seen to others as a cognitive map though, Bruner originated to think the contents of the mind as a ‘mental model’. Bruner quoted “I was becoming much more attracted to studies of the ‘models’ we use for sorting out the world perceptually and conceptually” (Bruner, 1980, p.110).

Bruner did not see knowledge as a list of facts, instead he saw knowledge as an organised network of concepts with casual links to other concepts which then led to a structure of ‘coding schemes’ that allowed one to go beyond the information provided (Bruner, 1957). Bruner contrasted coding with assumptions about learning and overlearning. Memory and transfer were accomplished, though not by remembering, but through rearranging structures.

The result of cognitive development is thinking and is both structural and social. The intellectual mind is created from experience ‘generic coding systems that permit one to go beyond the data to new and possibly fruitful predictions’ (Bruner, 1957, p. 234). Therefore, when children are in the process of growing they must obtain a way of representing the regular occurrence of things in their environment. This was important to Bruner, as the outcomes of learning did not just include problem-solving methods invented in the past through culture, but one must have the ability to invent these things.

The increase in intellectual growth in humans is now increasing at a rapid rate due to the emergence of new technologies. Growth of the mind is not monotonic, rather it moves forward rapidly as innovations are implemented. (Bruner, 1954, p. 13).

Bruner was influenced by Piaget’s work. He agreed that biological grouping triggers cognitive development, and that children are constantly exploring their surroundings to make sense of it. In Bruner’s research on ‘the cognitive development of children’ (1966), Bruner proposed three modes of representation and those were; enactive representation, (action-based) Iconic representation, (image-based) and Symbolic representation (language-based).

The ‘enactive’ mode of representation (0-18 months), corresponds with the sensorimotor stage of Piaget, representing an object or interpreting the actions of adults using the same or similar ability. This mode uses the same actions involved with the object. For example, throwing a ball or tasting an apple. This stage is where the five senses are mostly used. Consequently, enactive was seen as a mode of representation that allowed expectations of what is likely to happen in the environment and to anticipate the problems of their own actions.

At a later stage, the ‘iconic’ mode of representation (from 18 months), starts to take place. This stage is where knowledge becomes a composite construction of past experiences. Piaget called this stage ‘pre-operational concepts.’ Piaget ran a series of tests on school children and they were shown a beaker which was half-filled with water and then observed as water was poured into a taller beaker. Then the children were asked: ‘is there the same amount of water or is there now more or less water?’ until children are around the age of six years, they tend to respond by saying there is more water in the taller beaker ‘because it is higher.’ Though, later on when they become conservers they say, ‘it is the same as you just poured the same amount in a different beaker.’ Bruner described pre-operational children as being bound by iconic representations, meaning that representing an object by means of picture-like appearances shows the use of sensory images being associated with the real situation they exemplify. According to Donald, (1991) such representational systems are seen as ‘mimetic’ and show imitation and a hands-on approach, therefore are not seen as linguistic neither logical. They are articulated through social play and gestures for example, children tend to use their hands a lot to indicate the height of the water when they say that the taller beaker has more water.

The ‘symbolic’ mode of representation (6-7 years) is where, children in early years schools begin to represent the world and each other. Piaget called this ‘concrete operational thought’. Bruner realised that at the symbolic stage of development, children succeed on tasks such as, recognising the conversation of quantity and they realise that actions may be alterable. A perfect example is where, Bruner and Kenny (1966) conducted a test to see what age children start to use symbolic mode of representation. The method was that, children aged 3-7 shown a board divided into 9 squares. On each square was a plastic beaker. Beakers of different sizes and widths, tallest at back and widest on left, each child had to look at the beakers. The reproduction test was that the beakers were mixed up and they were asked to put them back to how they were. The transposition/manipulation of the test was that the beakers were mixed up and they were asked to put them back in a mirror image of the original arrangement.

The overall outcome of the test was that most of the five-year olds correctly completed the reproduction test though, a few under seven could only complete the transposition task. The reproduction task was designed to use iconic mode of representation, as the child forms a mental image and duplicates it, however the transportation task could not be completed due to not looking like the original arrangement.

On average children begin to acquire the symbolic mode around the age of 6-7. The task required the ability to transmute the visual information cognitively. Children were using verbal language (symbolic mode) to guide their thinking and were dependant on rules such as ‘the thin one goes on the right’ etc.

In order for cognitive development, one must interact with another person through the use of verbal language. Bruner agrees with Vygotsky that, language serves to mediate between environmental stimuli and the individual’s response. Bruner (1971) suggested that the change from iconic to symbolic mode of representation may be cultural rather than progressive. Bruner suggested that modern cultured societies might train children to forsake iconic modes of representation and use more of a symbolic mode. The theory was encouraged by Levy-Bruhl (1923). His theory suggested that in certain traditional societies, the idea of primitive thought was seen as ‘magical’. Bruner (1971) had a similar perspective. He reported that most young children are misled by the appearance of display for example, ‘taller means more’ though, some uneducated children will tend to say, it’s not similar because ‘you poured it’. In Senegalese societies, pouring was seen as a magical change in the water.

Bruner’s thoughts on curriculum development started to increase attention in what actually happens in the instructional process of education (Bruner, 1966, p. 182). He also looked for pedagogical moves available towards the teacher. This type of model was known as ‘scaffolding’. Scaffolding was the application of an engineering model towards pedagogical training. Scaffolding relates to Vygotsky’s model of ZPD (Zone of proximal development). ZPD is a measured space, whereas scaffolding is the process through, which the measured space is moved. So, in this case, what a mother does to help the child across the ZPD is known as the scaffolding part.

Bruner (1978) believed that in order for learning to occur, social interactional frameworks must be provided. For example, parental involvement and engagement with the child, will allow the child to develop linguistic learning and cultural learning skills. Routines such as, reading books together or conversations at meal times, can suggest that a structure is given to the parent and child, which leads to the parent raising his/her expectations of the child’s performance. Bruner argued, it is within these formats that children learn how to use language and this was through linguistic performance.

One of the key issues being raised in education today is whether language influences the development of thought or whether thought influences the development of language. The argument between thought and language relates to Piaget’s and Bruner’s ideas. Piaget mentions that it is the operative structural characteristic which triggers the development of language and not the other way around. However, Bruner argues that the child becomes ‘operational’ due to knowledge which promotes the development of cognitive structure, though are bought under control by organisational ideologies, which relates to the rules of language; allowing the child to use language to change his/her experience.

Bruner raised a point about teachers and when It comes to providing feedback to children. Teachers should provide feedback that is focused towards intrinsic motivation. Bruner states that the learner must “experience success and failure not as reward and punishment, but as information (Bruner 1961, p.26).

Bruner’s theory of cognitive development of children in early school years had been criticised by Piaget. Bruner’s view was that children construct their own understandings and that the growth of the understandings is stage-like. whereas, Piaget’s view was that, knowledge grows in distinguishable stages. Piaget saw growth as a biological and led him to distinguish four stages of development – sensory-motor intelligence, pre-concrete operational intelligence, concrete operational intelligence and formal operational intelligence. These stages were used to describe cognition, for infancy, pre-school, elementary and high school years. Bruner was influenced by Piaget’s ideas and then came along, Bruner’s modes of representation which, he labelled as enactive, iconic, and symbolic modes of representation. Both theorists had very similar ideas in the stages of cognitive growth, however, a critical issue was that ‘what advanced children from one stage to the next’. This is where Bruner disagrees with Piaget; this was due to Piaget seeing cognitive change as natural, internal reforms in the effort to uphold equilibrium, Bruner saw them as the importance of learning to deal with cultural forms and cultural modes of representation. Bruner expressed his disagreement on Piaget. He wrote:

“The world is a quiet place for Piaget’s growing child. He is virtually alone in it… He begins his journey egocentrically… others give him a little help. The social reciprocity of infant and mother plays a very small role in Piaget’s account of development” (1983a, p. 138).

Lev Vygotsky’s theories link very closely with Piaget and Bruner. Vygotsky theory was that cognitive development is limited to a certain amount at any age. According to Vygotsky, children observe actions in a social environment and then determine whether these actions are appropriate; then stores the knowledge for future use. The link between Bruner and Vygotsky is that there is no separation between the cognitive and social aspects of development. Bruner agrees that learning is active and requires learners to develop using their current knowledge. The only difference between Bruner and Vygotsky is that, Bruner believed that students learn better if they gain the information themselves; this is through active participation and the teacher giving support at the correct time. Whereas, Vygotsky believed that problems happen when teachers give too much to the student to do independently. Vygotsky believed that students learned better through the interactions with people.

Jerome Seymore Bruner is an interesting theorist as he uses both cognitive and social constructivism throughout his work of intellectual constructivism; agreeing and disagreeing with both Vygotsky and Piaget in some respect. Both Bruner and Vygotsky follow Piaget’s cognitive approach in some form though all three theorists have varying perspectives. Mostly focusing on Bruner, he believes that students learn better if they go through self-directed learning and only getting support from the teacher at the right time, provides a better and positive learning environment.

Thinkers of international relations continue to create new views on the subject. As is typical in most fields of study, theories have gained significance in explaining the phenomenon surrounding global cooperation. While this is the case, it is imperative to highlight the fact that the opinions that these individuals hold differ depending on perspective. At the center of these dialogues, is the most critical aspect of international relations. At a time when the world is mundane, there are those that believe that this behavior is inconsequential in international relations. Consequently, social constructivism and neorealism models attempt to explain this concept. Thus, this essay demonstrates that social issues matter the most in international relations.

Constructivism Theory

Notably, this thought emerged from the conclusion of the Cold War in the 1990s. Accordingly, existing theories like liberalism and realism could not justify the occurrence of the devastating debacle that brought havoc on the world. However, the constructivist approach holds that the world is a social unit (McGlinchey, Walters and Scheinpflug 2017, p.36). In applying constructivism, theorists argued that the occurrence of the Cold War was because of the actions of individual people, as opposed to nations. Thus, constructivism extends beyond materiality to incorporate personal views and perceptions.

It would be unfair to explore this theory without going back to one of its founders, Nicholas Onuf. According to Peltonen (2017, p.3), Onuf suggested that a word or the world only makes sense because the human mind can interpret it as a social event and natural occurrence. Of course, this undermines any significance of material reality. Instead, it highlights a real situation whereby humans are in-charge of their social constructions, regardless of whether they choose to live by them.

Peltonen (2017, p. 3) proceeds to explain that constructivism advocates for a specific way of reasoning. Here, the use of logic cannot reliably provide solutions in all contexts. While that is the case, people need to decide on courses of action in life. Similarly, international relations follow this pattern. As Baylis, Smith, and Owen (2017, p.5) note, constructivism invokes elements of agency and structure, which influence each other. By following this logic in international relations, people’s ability to act (agency) is controlled by materials and their social meanings. Primarily, Hollis and Smith (2019, p.1) reiterate that the material world is shaped and influenced by the way human beings act, based on their interpretation thereof. Considering that people are central to the world, the argument that their epistemic and normative perceptions of materials affect the globe could not be further from reality.

The constructivism theory is central to power and politics, which are tenets of international relations. As Jung (2019, p.6) reveals, constructivism brings on board values and norms in international security. As an illustration, humanitarian efforts by the United Nations Security Council and other global agencies are interests derived from normative values (Walling 2013, p.15). Accordingly, constructivism introduces values, ideas, and norms that apply to international relations.

Jung (2018, p.6) proceeds to emphasize that states derive their identities, behavior, and interests from their social nature. Note that identity is a constructivist issue. As nations develop unique identities, so do their preferences and interests. Accordingly, these attributes emerge from social interactions with other countries. Thus, governments act in line with their identity and interests. Usually, a small nation is distinct from a large state. The same applies to the way they behave in the global arena.

Closely linked to identity are social norms. As presented in the constructivist school of thought, these are acceptable behaviors in a given state (Brown, Nardin, and Rengger, 2002). Often, international institutions create and spread norms that exemplify appropriate conduct (Jung 2018, p. 6). While spreading patterns, international also contribute to socialization whereby various cultural identities can interact and pursue their interests.

If anything, international relations are shaped by such social factors as identity, values, preferences, and interests. According to constructivist thought, these concerns arise from the way nations interact. Materials are secondary to their social interpretations (Wiener 2007, p.6).

For example, a nation’s foreign policy and actions depend on the way it perceives other players from a social context. The United States is more cautious about Iran’s nuclear energy than it cares about the United Kingdom. The explanation for this situation is that the U.S. and Iran have an unsustainable view of each other. For the United States, Iran’s nuclear plants represent danger, whereas the UK is a friendly force. Consequently, whatever materials symbolize, socially determines the levels of interactions.

Neorealism Theory

Kenneth Waltz is credited for introducing the neorealism model in international relations. Also known as structural realism, this theory submits that international relations depend on the nature of existing structures as opposed to human actions (McGlinchey, Walters and Scheinpflug 2017, p.17). In this concern, Waltz removed the human character in the issues of international relations. Notably, this model supports the notion that the social aspects are more fundamental than material for global interactions.

According to Baylis, Smith and Owen (2017, p.4), neorealism emerges from realism, especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union following the Civil War. In essence, this view holds that structures determine international politics. The proponents of neorealism contend that powers dominate global politics. Consequently, the presence of these powers created rules and behavior that other nations followed. Thus, Baylis, Smith and Owen (2017, p.4) maintain the potency of supreme countries in controlling international relations.

Notably, the sovereignty of nations, as neorealist propel it, implies that states have the power to act in ways that fulfill their interest. The most evident issue that the model reinforces is that nations have social status. As they struggle for power, countries invoke an age-old phenomenon of survival for the fittest. Of course, it highlights a social case whereby nations strive to outdo each other or become better in the geopolitical context. National interest is akin to a personal desire for something. That is the premise of international relations.

Presently, nations conflict globally. As an instance, China and the United States have a suffocating trade war. While there may be other explanations for this situation, the role of the social factors cannot be ignored. As Baylis, Smith, and Owen (2017, p.4) realized, neorealism creates two central global powers. Now, this two are China and the U.S. The geopolitical structures affect the behavior of these nations. Necessarily, their behavior, a social construct, is expressed in their relationship.

Burchill, Linklater and Devetak (2013, p.13) speak to the effect that neorealism is one of the most debated views of international relations. True to this opinion, George and Devetak (2017, p.4) ideate that global politics are not defined by force but by the different approaches states apply in addressing these issues. In Waltz’s argument, international relations are characteristic of the principles of anarchy and hierarchy. In hierarchical systems, there is clarity in terms of authority, whereas anarchy is a state of lawlessness. Precisely, these situations present a social context in which a supreme authority takes charge of a population and dictates laws and critical policies.

Interestingly, Sullivan (2006, p.119) argues that the forms of power determine how nations relate. In this regard, the power balance that creates equality has a high chance of creating conflict than one that leads to inequality. Such is the reality of international relations. That nations, as structural units hardly pursue equality. When equity emerges in these relations, the possibility of disagreement emerges. Arguably, this echoes the idea that structures influence global politics. As an illustration, the developing nation will not have the guts to challenge a developed one. Thus, there would be peace because of power and control.

Keohane (1986, p.1) notes that theories like neorealism contribute to international relations in practice. Mainly, Waltz and his neorealist perspective explain why the Soviet Union split. Besides, the model recommends the application of strategic alliances and accommodation to gain power in global disputes. Although the union could be political, its mere presence illuminates the notion that social relations are more essential than materialistic exploits. Even in current conflicts, the neorealist thinker recommends the application of socialization approaches. Arguably, these techniques will broker peace and development globally.

References

1. Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. 2017. The globalization of world politics. 7th ed. Oxford: OUP.
2. Brown, C., Nardin, T., and Rengger, N. 2019. International relations in political thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Burchill, S., Linklater, A., and Devetak, R. 2013. Theories of international relations. 4th ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. George, J. and Devetak, R. 2017. An introduction to international relations. 3rd ed. Singapore: Cambridge University Press.
5. Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. Explaining and understanding international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Jung, H. 2019. The Evolution of Social Constructivism in Political Science: Past to Present. SAGE Open, 9(1), pp.1-10.
7. Keohane, R. (1986). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. McGlinchey, S., Walters, R. and Scheinpflug, C. 2017. International relations theory. Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing, pp.15-21.
9. Peltonen, H. 2017. A tale of two cognitions: The Evolution of Social Constructivism in International Relations. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 60(1), pp.1-18.
10. Sullivan, M. 2006. Theories of international relations: transition vs. persistence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Walling, C. 2013. All necessary measures: The United Nations and humanitarian intervention.. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
12. Wiener, A. 2007. Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises. SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 1-27.

Introduction

There are a lot of different learning methods. Behaviorist, cognitive constructivist, and social constructivist are the three main forms of learning theories. The concepts of child development concentrate on how children evolve and grow in their childhood. Everyone has a personal development experience, but it is sometimes hard to understand how and why people grow, learn, and act as they do. This paper’s motivation is to examine three theories, constructivism, social constructivism and interactionism. Also, reflect on my encounters as a student and an educator with language and literacy learning.

Compare and Contrast Theories

Constructivism, social constructivism, and interactionist are theories aimed to improve teaching and the learning process. The theories consider the students’ previous knowledge in determining what should be taught. The theories share many of the same explanations and involves how children and adults learn and acquire languages. A combination of these theories is still used in today’s classroom to teach more effectively.

The learning theory of constructivism arises from the evolution of cognitivism, transforming it into a new theory of education. Constructivists think individuals learn best when they consciously create their sense of new content presented to them (Clark, 2018; Jia, 2010). Learners process or create new knowledge by applying it as a guide to their perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. The learning, therefore, can be real. When students enter a classroom, they enter with experiences from their daily life and universal issues. Teaching should therefore take the previous knowledge and experience of students as the point of growth of new knowledge and incorporate students to generate new information from the former.

The constructivist viewpoint of Piaget is focused on radical constructivism, focusing on the human mechanisms of thought, combined with social interaction. Piaget suggests that individuals need to adapt to their surroundings and explains two adaptation, assimilation and accommodation processes. Accommodation involves reframing the new experiences into the adequately present mental point of confinement. Assimilation makes it possible for an individual to incorporate new experiences in the old ones (Blake, 2008). In other words, the instructor is the educational environment planner, the learning guide for students, and the instructional advisor. The teacher organizes and directs the entire process of teaching.

On the other hand, social constructivism encourages that because of social interaction and language use, all knowledge develops, and consequently is a mutual encounter as opposed to an individual one (Lynch, 2016). The learning process requires the learner to participate actively in creative activities and self-organization. Teachers should enable their students to ask their own questions, develop their own theories, and test them for viability. Instructors should promote, instead of reducing or preventing, mistakes arising from the ideas of the learners. Students will be forced to perform open-ended inquiries by their instructors, interacting with practical and concrete examples to solve problems. This allows the learner to explore possibilities that are either supportive or conflicting (Lynch, 2016).

Social communication plays significant role in student learning. Students, as well as adults, gain from one another through social collaboration. Vygotsky believed that social interactions allowed students to find deeper meaning in new information that was provided to them (Clark, 2018). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a concept in the theory of social development developed by Vygotsky. The ZPD is characterized as the distance between the level of actual understanding and the higher level of potential development resulting from social interactions with other individuals (Blake, 2008; Clark, 2018). It is within the ZPD where learning occurs. Scaffolding is provided by the instructor or a more competent peer when there is encouragement and guidance. Scaffolding is achieved by discussion, assistance with an activity or task that offers appropriate assistance and encouragement for the learner.

In the main language point of view, interactionist, in opposition to constructivism and social constructivism, believes that nature is important and nurtures in the process of children’s language acquisition. The children develop more vocabulary through meaningful conversations with the help of instructors. Instructors often question, reply, challenge and contradict in meaningful conversations to build the complexity of the children on the language. As children make progress in developing the meaning of the language, they are encouraged to learn and use the vocabulary in the right context. Social collaboration is one of the keys to creating language skills for children. The approach to managing their language acquisition is the social environment. Interactionist also focuses on the process of acquiring second language between native and non-native speakers or learners of the first and second languages (Mulyani, 2019). The communication between the two sides would allow the learner of the second language to learn the language.

My Personal Experience with Literacy and Language Learning

My initial recall of education and language learning appears to behaviorism as the theory utilized at that time. I attended a small elementary school with a minimal number of students in class. Rewards and prizes were given to students if the assignments were complete, but there was really no choice about completing the assignments, you had to, or you were in trouble. Stickers, sweet treats, bonus points, or seeing your work posted in class were considered prizes or acknowledgement for the work completed in class or homework. Discipline was tough such as students sat in rows so you cannot talk, raised hands to speak, received a paddling, was placed in a corner facing the wall, hit in the hand with a ruler or sent to the office for major discipline.

I really do not recall the reading program utilized in elementary besides reading Dick and Jane series and reading short stories from the reading textbook and answering comprehension questions. The teacher would introduce the vocabulary words and students define them. The teacher introduced the story and students would read the story aloud in class and answer questions at the end of the story and discuss the answers. Homework consisted of studying the vocabulary words and comprehension questions, and practice reading the story nightly for fluency. I also do not recall differentiation in class.

The program I recall from my experience with literacy learning was spelling, phonics, and English. Spelling, phonics, and English were taught as separate subjects from reading. Phonetics was embedded in the spelling textbook. As early as Kindergarten, alphabets and the sounds of the alphabets were taught. Phonetic sounds were taught all through elementary school. Spelling words were written three times each along with complete sentences as well. Each day spelling focused on a specific skill and phonics was one. Sounding out the words helped me to pronounce words correctly.

In my learning, the behaviorist approach used were effective because I learned how to read and comprehend what I read. The reinforcement of rewards enhanced me to continue to learn to strive for better grades weekly. The feedback from recognition boosted my self-esteem and maximized my learning. The structure of class and routines were effective behavioral approaches in instruction and practice.

Theories in my Classroom

I am currently an English Language Arts (ELA) and Social Studies Master Teacher at a middle school. So, I do not have a personal classroom, however, I do utilize two of the teachers’ class to field test strategies or just to team teach. Cluster meeting are weekly with the teachers to present and model the strategies I field tested in the classrooms. The classes I instruct with the teachers are comprised of majority African American students that struggles with reading. The procedures I fuse into the classes and cluster meetings suit the requirement and learning styles of all of the students and teachers.

Both ELA and Social Studies curriculum used by the state are scripted. So, planning consists of annotating lesson plans to ensure the lessons are taught with integrity for student achievement. After annotating lesson plans, a vast majority of the lessons require students to turn and talk with a partner or have whole class and small group discussions. Therefore, social constructivism and constructivism are implemented in the classroom. For instance, students are prompted with a question to discuss throughout which prepare them for writing prompt at the lesson in ELA or Social Studies. After reading and discussing, the students will take the information they learned from each other and produce a writing that will display what they learned. Through discussion, students are developing new knowledge and thinking critically by working with others.

With literacy being a problem at my school, motivating the students is important. This is when cognitive-behavioral approach come into play. This approach enables me to ensure students are active in their learning. In order for me to see any progress with the students, they set a goal to increase their comprehension using a computer program called iReady. Rewards are given to the students who reach the goal set.

All things considered, I believe social constructivist learning is the most beneficial to enhance student learning. Thinking and problem solving are two of the critical attributes my students struggle with. When students can build on their prior knowledge to construct new learning it becomes more relevant and meaningful for the students. The students become lifelong learners and build thinking and problem-solving skills as they learn from others to promote deeper learning.

References

1. Blake, B. R. (2008). Incorporating Piaget ’ s and Vygotsky ’ s Theories in Classrooms. 1, 59–67. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education.
2. Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning Theories: Constructivism. Radiologic Technology, 90(2), 180–182.
3. Jia, Q. (2010). A Brief Study on the Implication of Constructivism Teaching Theory on Classroom Teaching Reform in Basic Education. International Education Studies, 3(2), 197–199.
4. Lynch, M. (2016, November 19). Social Constructivism in Education. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from The Edvocate website: https://www.theedadvocate.org/social-constructivism-in-education/
5. Mulyani, P. K. (2019). Innatist and Interactionist Learning Approaches of Elementary School Students’ Language Acquisition. Humaniora; Yogyakarta, 31(1), 14–20. http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.22146/jh.v31i1.33457

If there is no one in a position of power in the world how can that lead to total peace? By its definition, international anarchy refers to the world not having anyone in any position of power or not having any kind of authority or world government. This means that if the world would be in a state of anarchy, then no country and its citizens would have to follow any strict rules or laws and it would not have any rules. Many people started to question if the state of anarchy would actually be useful or if it would even work. This aspect of anarchy began to be questioned by people for the reason that since no one would be forced to follow any kind of rules or laws they wanted to know if this concept would ultimately lead to the total peace of the world and countries having a good relationship with each other. Even though it is not possible to overcome anarchy with realism it could instead be mitigated with the help of the other two of the three most important schools of thought which are liberalism and constructivism.

Realism is one of the most important out of all the schools of thought there is. Differently from the other two schools of thought, this school of thought proposes that the state is the most crucial factor and it is what realists focus on and care about protecting the most. This means that the main goal that realism has is to make sure that the survival of the state is put first before anything else at all times. Even though realism could be the best school of thought to help mitigate anarchy since it is so focused on the survival of the state it is not the correct school of thought in order to mitigate and overcome anarchy because realism states that anarchy cannot be overcome or mitigated. The difference between self-help and anarchy is that self-help is a theory that comes from the concept of anarchy and it believes that they should not have to depend on anyone or any other country to be able to achieve complete safety, they should only have to rely on themselves to get what they want and to achieve complete safety for themselves. On the other hand, anarchists believe in no authority or any kind of government. Even though these two have a very similar meaning and both do not want authority or do not depend on something or someone else they are not the same. Anarchy does not depend on someone to rule a government and self-help does not depend on someone to help them in their survival.

The other two schools of thought that would be helpful in mitigating anarchy are liberalism and constructivism. Constructivism would be helpful in order to mitigate anarchy because this school of thought’s theory is that rules are constantly being implemented throughout time and that they have not always existed since the beginning of time. This means that constructivism would work in mitigating anarchy because since anarchy believes in having no rules in a world government then mitigating it would mean implementing rules and constructivism would do exactly that, which means that a world government with no rules would be over because constructivism would implement those rules. Liberalism is the other school of thought that would also be helpful in mitigating anarchy because this school of thought’s main priority is to focus on the government and the state. One of the differences that liberalism has from realism is that liberalism is not as violent when it comes to the survival of the state, also that liberalism also focuses on interdependence, and lastly, that liberalism does not state that anarchy cannot be overcome or mitigated.

Even though all three main schools of thought are crucial to the different types of governments the two schools of thought that would be the most helpful in order to mitigate anarchy would be liberalism and constructivism. Regardless of realism being one of the most dominant schools of thought, it is not the most capable in the case of having to mitigate or overcoming anarchy in the world even though this school of thought puts the state or government first in many aspects it is not capable of the reason that realism states that anarchy cannot be overcome or mitigate. This means that liberalism and constructivism would be the most capable in order to mitigate anarchy because liberalism cares about the survival of the state and constructivism believes in implying rules meaning that if the case of having to mitigate anarchy would be needed this would be the best option in order to do so because they both do the opposite of what anarchy wants to do. Liberalism cares about having a government and a position of power and constructivism cares about implementing rules and having people follow them.

International Relations

Political events have always been quite complex and just one theoretical approach cannot explain why they occur their impacts or their consequences. The only way to have a better understanding is by putting together all the theories and seeing the wider picture. That is the reason why Liberalism and Constructivism are the theories that better explain contemporary global politics, as they are the ones that take into account more reasons and approaches to why political affairs are the way they are today. Neoliberalism shares the ideas contained in Realism, another mainstream theory that is part of our past and to a certain extent of our present, whilst giving something different and more actual that Realism does not. Constructivism gives the tools to understand how all theories have emerged and how new ones will. It also challenges the assumptions mainstream theories have about the world, by doing so constructivism, opposing the rest of the theories as it does not tell us how the world ought to look, it leaves the room open for change.

Liberalism

Liberalism is one of the mainstream theories in IR. It has a very well-structured set of ideas that define and limit what Liberalism is. Liberalism has an optimistic view of human nature and believes in human progress through cooperation. Liberalism recognizes the existence of non-state actors that have an influence in international affairs but states are the main actors and the ones that have to guarantee the well-being of their citizens.

We can say that Liberalism is the theory of cooperation, peace, and competition. Liberals’ theories say that states put their national interests first but they cooperate with other states because of the gains that by doing so, they receive. This cooperation according to the interdependence liberalism theory and in particular to commercial liberalism is an economic one and this creates a certain need to the point that one needs the other to exist and that is the reason why those states will avoid any kind of conflict as the consequences it can have in their respective economies are great. However, Keohane and Nye(1977) in what they called ‘complex interdependence’ say that it is not just economic but also political reasons in one country that have an impact on one and the others that bring cooperation.

However, liberals also believe that the international system is anarchical and that states want to have as much power as possible. For them, this power can be obtained through economic competition. The combination of cooperation and competition is what brings peace.

The other two main theories in liberalism are called republican liberalism and institutional liberalism. For the former theory, democracy is a type of government that all nation-states should aim for and as is argued by Doyle(1983) in his “democratic peace theory”, democracies are naturally peaceful and they only engage in conflict with non-democratic states. For the latter, there is an international order that can be achieved through the creation of transnational organizations that connect states and that are able to organize the international arena to address the issues that go beyond one state’s borders.

Critical theories: constructivism.

This theory does not provide a defined vision of what states pursue or who their actors are hence it does not give a specific world order but it offers the conceptual framework to understand world politics and other IR theories as well. Constructivism is a theory that emerged in the 1980s and it has roots in critical and postmodernism theory, it is now considered a mainstream theory because some of its theorists have adopted mainstream assumptions such as Wendt but others still keep Constructivism as a Critical Theory if we determine it according to the classification made by Robert Cox(2008). For him, all critical theories have in common two elements: they put into question the assumptions made about the world by mainstream theories and that challenge those assumptions. Constructivism challenges all notions of mainstream theories and non-mainstream theories under the principle of social construction and by challenging one of the most accepted ideas in IR, it is already putting into question mainstream theories and the rest as well.

Constructivism challenges world politics precisely because of its lack of definition of how the world should be, it is not a normative approach and it leaves a blanket space for different agents to challenge each normative concept they face and to fill it in with a perspective more convenient to their current situation.

According to Flockhart (2016), constructivism has four main elements that constitute a process in the formulation of identity. The importance of social construction in the creation of reality, its focus on ideas and identity, and the relevance of agents and structures as social actors. If there is something constructivism takes for granted is that every concept or object that we have given meaning has required human interaction for its formulation and it is then a social construction. There is in the first moment an agent that associates meaning to an object and this becomes a social fact through repetition and practice. There is a moment when this concept has been multiple times associated with meaning through practice that a process of externalization and habitualization begins until the concept becomes an objective reality and the idea separates from the agent who created it. From this point, it is through the establishment of institutions that reinforce this practice or create rules to regulate it, and because of routine that identity is built and a structure is designed.

Comparison.

The process of the creation of identity is crucial as we understand how theories have and will emerge. As identity is created around an original idea by an agent, this agent and this idea can help us understand what is valuable for each agent and each agent represents a group of people. It does not rely on something abstract as the state but on one person with one idea that ends up becoming an identity, this is how we can explain why realism and liberalism have lost their importance because those identities evolve and the mainstream theories do not take into account space and time, this means they are a-historical and consider the world has always been the same. By doing so, they consider it will always be the same. It is through Constructivism that we are capable of understanding the crucial role of identity in the international system as agents behave according to what they consider they are.

Liberalism is a so-called problem-solving theory as it has a defined way of seeing the world and it takes actions in accordance with its assumptions about how the world is. Critical Theories take into account exploitative relations that have been maintained over time.

It is through this importance of identity that Constructivism explains that the world is divided by Critical Theories, it differentiates from Liberalism which is not a number of states that defines IR but exploitative relations because of race, class, or gender that goes beyond borders.

Global Governance.

Global Governance can be defined in different ways depending on the lenses we are seeing it through. What it is can be answered in a different way by Liberals or by Constructivists. First, we can see how it serves to create an international order, and ultimately, it is a bringer of prosperity. In the second, we can see how global governance is the creation of a one and only identity that cannot last much time due to the change of identities over time. We will study the approach of each theory to Global Governance through the example of the European Union(EU).

For Weiss(2013), Global Governance is an attempt to resolve issues that affect globally but also those that one state alone cannot solve on its own. Some examples can be security or climate change. Weiss created a division between organizations and institutions, as he considers those as the main actors in Global Governance. Organizations are material entities with a physical location and institutions are social conventions. This is very important because it not only recognizes organizations related to the state or the market but it also recognizes institutions and those are the ones that shape the values of The Civil Society. For Weiss Governance is a ‘range of formal and informal values, rules, norms, practices, and organizations that provide [a] better order’(2013:62). They are those institutions in charge of providing government services alike but without governing. This means it recognizes not just formal but also informal entities to address global issues.

Civil Society and globalization are two key elements in global governance that limit the states. Civil Society can be defined as a third sector separate from the state and the market, then it includes all people. Globalization is the interconnection of all people around the globe. This interconnection has resulted in a more or less possible free movement of people. This free movement and technology have made people capable of knowing what is happening somewhere else in the world. Globalization has blurred the lines of borders and in doing so, it has contested the sovereignty of states as a defined territory is one of its main characteristics. Civil Society also contests it as this creates an identity of global citizenship and the knowledge and responsibility to address issues happening somewhere else. Globalization increases the power of Civil Society as we are each day more connected. This has two consequences, the creation of one identity where we can see which the most influential nations are and the emergence of social movements that have created a consciousness of gender, race, and class.

However, Global Governance does not only exist to solve an issue, as Weiss argues, but also to have a stronger position. The EU is the best example of a liberal attempt at global governance. Liberalism considers cooperation and competition very useful tool that serves national interests and brings prosperity to those that cooperate. That is why an institution such as the European Union is a very strong entity in IR. If we analyze it according to the main theories in liberalism we can find the three main theories embodied by this organization. If we see it through Interdependence liberalism we see that free trade and the free movement of people between their borders have made each member economically dependent on the rest. We can also see through the republican liberalism theory that democracies are peaceful as their members are and this can be the reason why one member does not fight against each other we can see through institutional liberalism the creation of this organization to overcome anarchy and to create an international order.

The EU is the best example to see the value of identity and how it has changed. World War I and World War II had a global impact but it was primarily one European nation against another. The shift from the dichotomy of the enemy to a friend can be explained not just by liberals through economic dependency or having in common being democracies as we can find members with different kinds of democracies. It can also be explained thanks to the process of how identities are formed and the implementation of European values. This was created first by a group of people who believed in this idea, when states started to join, this idea was separated by the group who proposed it and it has been through the creation of organizations that a European feeling has been enforced. Those organizations promote a set of values and through the rule of law, they dictate what being a member means. This is the reason why to become a member states have to meet a set of requirements and those which cannot achieve them are not able to join as has been the case of Turkey and those which already are and do not behave in accordance with their rules and norms are sanctioned as it has been the case with Hungary and Poland.

Constructivism in international relations is one of the new concepts in the field and falls at the heels of the theories of realism, liberalism, and Marxism (economic structuralism) that exist in international relations. Constructivism is challenging realistic and liberal anarchy assumptions and the international system. Constructivism, as we shall see, focuses on ideas of norms, structural development, the relationship between actors and such structures, and how identity influences actions and behavior between and between actors (Reus-Smit, 2005: 188).

Constructivists often focus on the concept of anarchy, but on the anarchic model, we are moving away from prior positions. Constructivism, emphasizes the construction of what states are and what they want socially and relatively (Hurd, 2008). In a socially constructed world, the nature of patterns, relationships of cause and effect, and even states themselves depend on the systems of interpretation and behaviors that make them up (Kratochwil, 1989). As one of the leading thinkers on constructivism, Alexander Wendt (1992), in his seminal essay ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, says “Self-help and Power Politics do not derive from anarchy whether logically or causally, and if we find ourselves in a world of self-help, this is due to nature, not structure”. The variables of interest to scholars such as military power, trade relations, international institutions, or domestic preferences are not relevant in the Constructivist account because they are materialistic facts about the world, not because they have certain social meanings (Wendt 2000).

Within world politics, a contrary approach to ‘social construction’ is the stance known as ‘materialism,’ which implies that material structures (bombs, men’s power, etc.) have a direct impact on results that are not influenced by the ideas that people bring to them. So, Constructivism is basically an alternative to Materialism.

Constructivism focuses on how concepts, norms, values, and identities are formed and developed, how they evolve, and how they alter the perception and reaction of states to their situation (Ia-forum.org, 2019). When defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, (1) ‘Concept’ means A generic argument or general concept from specific instances. (2) ‘Norms’ is defined as A rule of right action binding on group members to direct, monitor or govern good and reasonable behavior. (3) ‘Values’ can be understood as: Anything intrinsically valuable or desirable (such as a concept or a quality). Lastly, (4) ‘Identities’ is considered as Anything intrinsically valuable or desirable (such as a concept or a quality).

The above definitions are examples of the ‘non-material’ factors under the Constructivism theory. Why is this important? Constructivism opposed the hypothesis of the intensity of governmental issues, particularly the predominant impression of the danger and struggle in worldwide legislative issues, and picked a completely unique methodology in considering the development of the risk through their basic spotlight on the social elements of global legislative issues, along these lines, it remembers them as socially built components during the time spent personality arrangement affected by the standards and shared estimations of society.

Constructivism focuses on the social context in which international relations exist. Constructivists discuss questions of identity and belief. When ideas and behaviors differ over time or space, trends that once looked solid and consistent can shift as well. Sovereignty, for instance, is a social institution in the sense that a state can only be sovereign if it is regarded by individuals and other states as a private agent with rights and obligations over territory and people. As constructivists demonstrate in international relations, states frequently act differently based on each other’s nationality, interests, culture, and relationship.

My critics and opinions based on the idea of Constructivism includes, the sense of logic and also a little bit based on facts. The world is constantly changing and evolving and so is humanity. As we know, Constructivism has no permanent set of rules and thinking because it is mostly about the construction of a state (etc. ) based on how the nation is socially constructed. I prefer to think as a Constructivist in shaping a state’s behavior because the state itself is made up of its citizens and residents. How can we not include them (citizens) in shaping a state’s behavior? The citizens (residents of a state) are the most important main component of the state!

To think in a Constructivist way is to push aside all the material factors that are important to other scholars which include power, military, economics (etc.) in the ideologies such as Realism and Liberalism. I totally agree if the Constructivism ideology is used as a way of shaping a state’s behavior because the nation makes the state strong, no matter how rich they are, or how advanced and developed they are (the state). For example, if a state has advanced weapons for armies, but no one to fight for the country, the state is still considered weak (because of lacking men power) and if a state makes a profit from the trading of economics, but the citizens are slowly migrating to other states, it is still considered a weak state.

To shape a state’s behavior using the idea of Constructivism is to consider the fact that decisions and agreements tend to change a lot (depending on the context and events). Because it is based on how society changes and evolves, Constructivism is a good approach for shaping a state’s behavior as it does not prioritize material factors as they could disappear in a split second, so using a ‘non-material’ approach could secure a stare’s behavior.

References

1. Hurd, I. (2008). [online] Faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu. Available at: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ihu355/Home_files/17-Smit-Snidal-c17.pdf
2. Ia-forum.org. (2019). Constructivism in International Relations – International Affairs Forum. [online] Available at: https://www.ia-forum.org/Content/ViewInternal_Document.cfm?contenttype_id=0&ContentID=8773
3. Internationalrelations.org. (2019). Constructivism in International Relations. [online] Available at: https://internationalrelations.org/constructivism_in_international_relations/
4. Princeton.edu. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf

Sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman introduced the theory of social constructionism in 1966 in the book ‘The Social Construction of Reality’. Three separate intellectual movements came together to form the basis of social constructionism in the late 1960s. The second was a literary and rhetorical impetus to the deconstruction of language and how it affects our knowledge of reality. Furthermore, the third is a criticism of scientific practice. It was led by Thomas Kuhn, who argued that scientific discoveries are influenced by and, therefore, represent the specific communities in which they are created, and no objective reality.

The Theory’s Purport and Development

Social constructionism, or in other words, the social construction of reality, is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication that explores the development of a co-constructed understanding of the world. Social constructionism can be determined as a perspective that believes that a significant part of human life exists because it exists due to social and interpersonal influences. Although genetically inherited factors and social factors act simultaneously, social constructionism does not deny the influence of genetic inheritance. However, it decides to focus on the study of social influences on community and individual life. Topics that are the interest of social constructionism are related to what anthropologists call culture, and sociologists call society: general social aspects of everything psychological. There are several versions of social constructionism in which different authors make different accents.

Two social constructionism’s distinctive features comprise the rejection of assumptions about the nature of the mind and the theory of causality, and the emphasis on the complexity and interconnection of many aspects of individuals in their communities. Social constructivism casts doubt on most of our shared knowledge about ourselves and the world in which we live, and this means that it does not just propose a new analysis of subjects such as ‘personality’ or ‘attitude’, which can be inserted into our existing system of understanding. The structure itself must change and with it our understanding of every aspect of social and psychological life. Constructivism assumes that each individual mentally constructs a world of experience via cognitive processes, while social constructionism has a social, not individual orientation.

The thing that there is no single position of social constructionism has become more evident than ever, and that positions that have never been identified or identified as social constructionism are sometimes indicated in this way, adds confusion. Like the term ‘postmodernism’, social constructionism is not the only goal (for its critics) or a separate movement (for its enthusiasts). The British sociologist Dave Elder-Vass in the book ‘The Reality of Social Construction’ considers the development of social constructionism as one result of postmodernism’s heritage. He writes: “Perhaps the most widespread and influential product of this process [coming to terms with the legacy of postmodernism] is social constructionism, which has been booming [within the domain of social theory] since the 1980s” (Elder-Vass, 2012). Social constructionism emphasizes the importance of social relations in the formation of knowledge and explains how these relations function to construct knowledge. Social construction specialists argue that knowledge creation is the product of our daily interactions with each other, and knowledge is created through our conversations. Constructivist orientation claims that there is no ultimate universal reality; our reality is the result of a shared learning process (Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). Language, a fundamental aspect of the process of knowledge production, is considered not as a description and idea of ​​the world, but as a way of constructing it, as a form of social action. The language derives its meaning from its use in context. The constructionist approach emphasizes the ability to create realities with the help of language in its various forms of representation, stimulating the process of continuous creation.

Social Constructionism and Media

The picture of reality that is displayed (designed, created) by the media is fragmented, one-sided, and without an alternative, often contradicting the real problems and difficulties that people face in modern society. The problems of the ‘small’ media are regularly omitted, but if they decide to mention them, these are usually meaningless things related to the attitude and behavior of their governments and ‘owners’. The problem is that a person can hardly find and find out the truth because there is no access to alternative sources of information related to the sphere of government of powerful corporations, in which the chains are usually the largest and most influential media. Alternative sources are necessary if we want to know the true essence of the problem, that is, a hidden dimension of a phenomenon, process, or relationship. The media mainly serve large corporations, with the help of which they form the top of the power structure and dominate the private economy (as opposed to the state), which, in turn, together represents a large tyrannical structure of the global power pyramid that creates reality and imposes it. For example, a newspaper belonging to one of the global potentials selects and processes certain information and makes sure that only certain things are made public. The socializing role of the elite educational system teaches that certain things are undesirable to talk about, and specific thoughts that are unacceptable, and if the person does not adapt to this, he will find himself outside the system that protects and guides. For example, The New York Times is one corporation that cares about how best to sell its products. This product is represented by privileged people who need to be sold on the market, and market advertisers operate on the market, i.e., other corporations. Whether on television, in newspapers, or in any other media, they sell the audience to other corporations. A state that cannot control people by force (because it imitates democracy) controls their thoughts. A way to control people’s thoughts, ideas, and attitudes is to create the illusion of ongoing discussion (dialogue), but it is necessary to ensure that the discussion remains within particular (given and constructed) limits. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that both sides in the discussion make certain assumptions, which are necessarily a specific advertising system. The question is, who are the leaders of this propaganda? The leaders are a privileged, educated elite (journalists, political, military and economic analysts, scientists, institute leaders, and public relations specialists), which has the task of creating a certificate that ensures effective management with the consent of the public, the masses, citizens and all other consumers of media products.

Social Constructionism in Personal Life

Sometimes we think, is this real? However, the essential question is: what makes something real? In most cases, the things we experience in this world are just constructions.

We have opinions about everything, and we see the world through this lens. Social constructionism is a theory according to which knowledge and many aspects of the world around us are unreal in themselves. They exist just because we give them a reality through social consent. Things like nations, books, and even money do not exist in the absence of human society. Nations are groups of people who have a common language or history. Books are paper with doodles. Moreover, money is just pieces of paper and metal that have no value other than the one we assigned to them. The concept of self can also be considered a social construct. Our identity is the result of interaction with other people and our reaction to the expectations of society.

There are two streams of social constructionism: weak and strong. Weak social constructionism suggests that social constructs depend on gross facts, which are the most fundamental and not based on any other facts. Crude facts are hard to understand because it is so strange to think of something that cannot be explained by something else. For example, take the computer screen the person is looking at. The movement of subatomic particles comprised of quarks can explain the screen works due to changes in voltage, and so on. None of these facts are rude. A gross fact is what explains the quarks or what explains the explanation of quarks. These gross facts are separated from institutional facts, which are created by social agreements and are based on other pieces of evidence. So, for instance, money depends on the paper that we have given value. Strong social constructionism, on the other hand, argues that all reality depends on social habits and language, that all knowledge is a social construct, and that there are no gross facts. Therefore, it would be said that we created the idea of ​​quarks and everything that we use to explain it. There are no facts that only exist. The primary criticism of social constructionism is that it does not take into account the influence of natural phenomena on society. Furthermore, at least for strong social constructionism, it is even painful for him to explain these phenomena, since they do not depend on the speed or action of a person. Strong social constructionism explains reality only by human thoughts, not by gross facts.

We can see how Jesus and his followers initially interacted as an active initiation and participation in the social construction of the church through the institutionalization process of Berger and Luckmann. Therefore, Jesus is the key actor in the foundational narrative of the church and the Christian faith. A religious person models behavior and thoughts about the religious activities of ancestors such as prophets, apostles, and other charismatic individuals. In this way, religious communities position themselves for future visions and missions, closely related to narratives rooted in hidden underlying myths.

References

1. Berger, P. L., and Thomas Luckman, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday: Anchor.
2. Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
3. Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
4. Chomsky, N. (2003). Media, Propaganda, and the System. Zagreb: The Society for the Promotion of Literature on the New Media, 17.
5. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New Implications for Instructional Technology. Educational Technology, 31(5), 7-12.
6. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The Reality of Social Construction. Cambridge, University Press.
7. Gergen, K. J. (2011). The Self as Social Construction. Psychological Studies. 56. 108-116. doi:10.1007/s12646-011-0066-1.
8. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and Relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Gergen, K.J. (1985). Theory of the Self: Impasse and Evolution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York, Academic Press.
10. Henderikus, S. (2001). Introduction: Social Constructionism and its Critics. Theory & Psychology – THEOR PSYCHOL. 11. 291-296. doi:10.1177/0959354301113001.
11. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Payne, M. (1999). Social Construction in Social Work and Social Action. In Jokinen, A., Juhila, K., & Pösö T. (eds.), Constructing social work practices. Brookfield, VA: Ashgate Publishing Company, 25- 65.
13. Young, R & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and Social Constructionism in the Career Field. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 64(3), 373- 388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005.

ABSTRACT

Constructivism is both a theory of construction of knowledge and learning philosophy. Its proponents include Piaget, Vygotsky and Glaserfeld. The constructivist approach is new trend in teaching of mathematics by many enthusiastic pedagogues and teachers in many countries. Constructivist pedagogy does not consist of a single teaching strategy. Instead, it has several features that should be attended to simultaneously in a classroom. It has been asserted that for a successful constructivist strategy the teaching has not only to be student centered and the teacher a mere facilitator, but the teacher has the added responsibility to create a conducive classroom environment. Research has established that constructive methods of mathematics teaching have been much more successful than the traditional methods. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge i.e., epistemology and a theory of learning. It is not a particular pedagogy. Constructivists believe that human beings are active information receivers. They use their existing experience to construct understanding that makes sense to them. Humans assimilate and accommodate new knowledge and build their own understanding knowledge is viewed as personal an subjective. Reality resides in the mind of each person. Learning is based on the previous experience and knowledge. Thus, multiple interpretations of an event are possible and multiple answers to a question are source of creativity in learners. It is held by constructivists that learner need time to reflect on their experiences in relation to what they already know. After some time, they reach consensus about what specific experience means to them.

Constructivism views learning as a process of constructing meaningful representations of external reality through experiences. Construction of internal representation of knowledge is depends on the degree to which learners integrate new idea with the previous one.

It is significant to note that in constructivist view knowledge constructing takes place in working memory. How the teacher has constructed the content and the activities as well for guiding the learner’s construction of idea is a key component in this context.

CONSTRUCTIVISM IS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEW OF LEARNING RATHER THAN TEACHING

Students’ previous knowledge and their active participation in problem solving and critical thinking all play a vital role in the formation of knowledge. One of the most important goals of constructivism is to develop students’ “critical thinking skills”, which is possible only in a conducive learning environment in the class. The teacher may have to improvise the day’s lesson or change the sequence of activities, depending on the needs of the students or due to any other unexpected development. Such flexibility is said to be a valuable quality of a positive learning environment. The following are the some of the important features of a constructivist learning environment:

• Learners are encouraged to become active presenter than passive listeners.
• Learning environment should encourage interpersonal discussion and dialogue.
• Learners should be challenged by ideas and problems that generate inner cognitive conflicts.

Constructivist learning environment emphasize authentic tasks in a meaningful context rather than abstract instruction out of context. The classroom climate of constructivist approach gives an importance to construction of knowledge rather than the reproduction of knowledge

The complexity of the real world is establishes through multiple representations. Students should be given sufficient time for reflection for constructing relationship and for discussion.

MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM AND CONSTRUCTIVISM

There is no single constructivist strategy for instruction in the class. Different pedagogies and researches have highlighted various elements in varying degrees for the benefit of classroom instructors. Even so, there are several common themes which can be described here. Education is a student-centered process and the teacher is only facilitator. Learning depends on shared and imbibe experience with peers and teachers. Collaboration and cooperation is a major teaching method. Students actively explore and use hands on experience. The constructivist views knowledge as being formulated in a social context. It is an active social process. Learners cannot construct understanding alone; they do it collaboratively through interactions. Learning is an active process hence the learner should be encouraged for imagination and intuitive learning.

To solve the problem in the hand the “thinking” should be focused so in constructivist learning ‘thinking’ effectively is focused to greater extent. The ‘Understanding’ is another objective followed the knowledge construction. So proper understanding of knowledge is leads to correct thinking hence understanding should be clear. In metcognition the learners’ thinks of his/her own thinking style that is purposeful thoughtfulness. A motivated and thinking learner tries to check his errors and tries to find why he failed in his earlier attempt. Such a learner’s knowledge would be deep and durable. As Yager says, “one only knows something if one can explain it”(Yager, 1999). One the other hand, a novice learner does not check for quality in his work and thus he fails to make amends to his earlier errors.

THE CONSTRUCTIVIST MATHEMATI CS CLASSROOM AND ROLE OF TEACHER

Towards the higher goals: Mathematicas content teaching is the narrower goal as compare to creating mathematical learning environments.

The content areas of mathematics addressed in our schools do offer a solid foundation, while there can be disputes over what gets taught at which grade and over the level of detail included in a specific theme, there is broad agreement that the content areas (arithmetic, algebra, geometry, mensuration, trigonometry, data analysis) cover essential ground.

What can be leveled as a major criticism against our extant curriculum and pedagogy is its failure with regard to mathematical processes. We mean a whole range of processes here: formal problem solving, use of heuristics, estimation and approximation, optimization, use of patterns, visualization, representation, reasoning and proof, making connections, mathematical communication. Giving importance to these processes constitutes the difference between doing mathematics and swallowing mathematics, between mathematisation of thinking and memorizing formulas, between trival mathematics and important mathematics, between working towards traditional teaching and constructivism teaching.

In school mathematics, certainly emphasis does need to be attached to factual idea, procedural fluency and conceptual understanding. New idea is to be constructed from experience and prior knowledge using conceptual elements. However, invariably emphasis on procedure gains ascendancy at the cost of conceptual understanding as well as construction of idea based on experience. This can be seen as a central cause for the fear of mathematics in children.

On the other side, the emphasis on exploratory problem solving, activities and the processes referred to above constitute learning environments that invite participation, engage children and offer a sense of success. Transforming our classrooms into constructivism based approach paradigm and designing mathematics curricula that enable such a transformation is to be accorded the highest priority. i.e.,

1. Processes,
2. Mathematics that people use,
3. Use of technology i.e., technology innovation and learning.

A teacher is not a ultimate. He does not lecture. He is a facilitator or mentor. He helps the learner. The facilitator has to create proper environment in the class so that the students are motivated, challenged and think deeply to arrive at his own conclusion.

As a facilitator, the teacher has to support the learners to becoming effective thinkers. The facilitator and the learners, both learn from each other. Students should be encouraged to arrive at their own version of truth and then compare it with that of the instructor as well as with that of their peer. Teachers have only to observe in the beginning of a session and assess the progress. They should pose questions to create right environment. They should intervene if any ‘conflict’ arises or if the process of learning is going astray. An important task for a constructivist mathematics teacher is to create a “learning friendly environment” which facilitates students thinking and motivate them to explore. An authentic planning environment is obtained if real-life complexities and a real-world situation is simulated. A mathematics teacher creates congenial learning environment when learning goals are negotiated through consensus and discuss with students.

Direct instructions are not appropriate. Learning should take place by “active involvement of the students by doing”, by generating their own ideas. In a well-planned classroom environment students learn how to learn. Learning is like a spiral. Students reflect on their previous experience and integrate new experience.

The constructivist environment in a mathematics classroom will be created by adopting the following:

Provide experience with the knowledge construction process

The teacher presents a topic to the learners and guide them to explore the topic through experimentation. The learners are encouraged to construct a research question and teacher helps them to answer the research question constructed by them through scaffolding.

Experience in and appreciation for multiple perspectives

All learners are different to each other in their way of thinking and so the need arises to look at a problem from multiple perspectives and provide the opportunities to learners to experiment and discuss their alternative ways of thinking. Here, the students are encouraged to work in groups. Finally, all the groups can share their opinions on the topic with each other.

Provide social and emotional learning

The social and emotional aspects of learning will be taught to the students in an integrated manner. The five aspects of social and emotional learning which could be covered in the teaching are as follows: self-awareness, managing feelings, motivation, empathy and social skills.

Use multiple modes of representation

The multiple modes of representation also assist the goal of experiencing multiple perspectives. Use of multiple media to enrich the learning environment provides the learners to view the topic being discussed in the class from multiple dimensions.

The teacher should prepare a list of media available and supporting the topic. The teacher should also decide the use of media in supporting the authentic nature of the task.

A combination of the following learning strategies can be used by the mathematics teachers to create constructivist learning environment

• Use of multimedia/teaching aids
• supporting system
• Case studies
• Role playing
• Narrating
• Group discussions/Group activities (reciprocal Learning).
• Deep interrogation.
• Project based learning
• Use of learning strategies for social and emotional learning of students.

Teachers can use various strategies to promote and strengthen “think about their thinking”. Eggen.P and Kauchak. D (2007) have suggested the following strategies for the purpose.

1. Teachers should posses some provocative questions to students and also encourage them to frame their own questions on the problem at hand.
2. PQ4R strategy: PQ4R is an acronym for Preview, Questions, Read, Reflect, Recite and Review.
3. IDEAL strategy: IDEAL is an acronym for Identify, Define, Explore, Act and Look.
4. KWL strategy: Teachers should teach the students to be aware of 1). What they already Know, 2). What they want to Learn, and 3). What they have eventually Learnt.

So from the above discussion, constructivism based paradigm shift in teaching-learning process (i.e., in mathematics classroom).

From To

• Objectivist learning theory Constructivist learning theory.
• Teacher centered Student centered
• Teacher as expert, information

Giver Teacher as facilitator, guide, coach

• Teacher as knowledge transmitter Learner as knowledge constructor
• Teacher in control Learner in control
• Focus on whole class room teaching Focus on individual and group learning.

CONCLUSION

In the NCF 2005 and 2009 it is clearly mentioned that the consrstructivism approach is the best strategy over the behaviouristic approach. The childcenterd education is the new paradigm shift in education ,so it will be perfectly fulfilled by constructivism based approach. The teacher training in this regard is must other wise this pedagogic approach will be get failed. Off course it consume time so patience will be play the key role in the success of adaptation of constructivism to teach Mathematics in the classrooms.

References

1. Bhatia, R.P (2009) ’Features and Effectiveness of E-learning Tools”, Perspectives in Education, 25(3).
2. Caprio, M. W (1994), Easing into constructivism, connecting meaningful learning with student experience, Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 210-212.
3. Chambers, P. (2010), Teaching Mathematics: Developing as a Reflective Secondary Teacher, Sage, New Delhi.
4. Dewey, J.(1933),How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process, Chieago: Henry Regnery.
5. Etuk , E.N. et.al. (2011), Constructivist Instructional Strategy. In Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy,, Vol5, No1, 2011.
6. Mathews, M. R (2000), Editorial of the Monographic issue on Constructivism, Epistemology and the Learning of Science, Science & Education, 9(3).
7. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986), Thought and Language. Cambridge Massachustts, MIT Press.

Social construction begins with asking what makes something real. Experiences that human beings face throughout their lives construct the way they become opinionated and how they experience the world. At the heart of the concept lies the notion that knowledge and many aspects of the world around us are not real. They only exist because humans give them the power to exist through social agreements such as books, nations, and money. Even when talking about oneself, humans can build how they want to behave in society and create their views by either internalizing concepts or by primary and secondary socialization. Nature then is an unstable concept. Raymond William (1989) describes it as “perhaps the most complex in the [English] language”.

Social constructionism is divided into two approaches: the discursive approach and the material approach. The discursive approach is most distinctive in its foregrounding of the epistemic position of both the researcher and what is researched. It is focused on how we think about nature and what our thinking reflects on various issues happening around the world. On the other hand, the material approach focuses on how humans create nature around them. Social constructivists see the world through cultural filters that change over time, space, and meaning. Let’s now discuss why social constructionism of nature is important.

Sara Jude published an article called ‘The Social Construction of Africa’s Lion Kings’. The West portrayed lions as courageous and superior in the movie ‘The Lion King’. However, in Africa she found lions to be predators as they destroyed a village’s livestock and killed a boy. This shows how the West viewed indigenous African peoples’ fear to be incompatible with nature. Thus, showing that the meanings we attach to words like environment, wilderness, and nature are more relative to our cultures than to the reality of what exists. She concluded the blog by saying that through understanding the social construction of nature we can build ways to examine how our perspectives differ through cultural filters, guiding them in constructing approaches that are more mutually beneficial to all.

David Demeritt’s paper ‘What Is the ‘Social Construction of Nature’? A Typology and Sympathetic Critique’ aims to attain a clarification of what is meant by the social construction of nature which can then be used to understand nature, knowledge, and the world. He further talks about construction as a refutation and philosophical critique, where the first one can be linked to the ideas of realism, and for the latter, he talks about the dualism that helped him differentiate true concepts of nature from untrue ones. He concludes the essay by talking about how by understanding the social construction of nature humans can realize their power to shape nature through their concepts and material practices that can aid them in constructing nature.

William Cronon’s work ‘The Trouble with Wilderness or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature’ argues that human beings need to change the way they think about wilderness and that no direct link exists between wilderness and nature. He claims that “if we allow ourselves to believe that nature be wild then our very presence in nature represents its fall”. He illustrated a new urban cultural invention where he does not want wilderness to be the landscape that has been preserved artificially to show unity with nature. When talking about Western culture, he pleads with readers to recognize the surroundings they live in as natural and believes that only when we stop thinking of wilderness as “a dualistic vision in which the human is entirely outside the natural”, we will find solutions to our environmental problems.

Debates over the social construction of nature have been going on for a long time and will continue for years to come. The discussion has tried to show an understanding of how different aspects of nature such as cultural filters, power to change, and separating from nature influence human thinking and aid in the construction of nature.

Communication is a core element in teaching and learning a foreign language as it is an important tool. It is quite impossible to interact without communication. In order to learn a foreign language communication is really crucial, useful, and noteworthy. In this perspective competence over the years English language learning and teaching has become widely popular all over the world to learn a foreign language because English has gained the prestige of becoming a global language in the era of globalization. English is also considered as Lingua Franca to all the people of the world for specific reasons such as educational purposes, business purposes technological purposes, etc. Jenkins (2000) and Barbara Seidlhofer (2002) have mentioned different types of English for interaction among non-native English speakers and native speakers who speak for expanding English language all over the world. A number of methods and techniques are prevailing to communicate in foreign languages. It is hard and impossible to find a proper method to teach and learn a language. Among all the methods the communication teaching method is the best for achieving a foreign language because it is a real method for having the importance of interaction among the language learners.

Communicative Language teaching originated in teaching English as a foreign language. According to Savignan (1991), CLT originated in both sides of Atlantics for example Europe and USA. Being dissatisfied with the prevailing approaches to teaching and learning language researchers and linguists try to find out a new approach that will meet the demands of the language learners. The main purpose of language is to communicate and from this perspective, the CLT emerged in language teaching. The traditional methods focus on the form or structure of the language while the communicative approach gives importance to communication known as the core aim of language learning (Richards,2006). He also further says that human beings learn language only for communication. In CLT the learners use the target language in real-life situations and ‘according to the functions being taught’ (Richards, 2006). In the opinion of Larsen (2003), CLT class is conducted for communication with the target language according to the situation such as buying an air ticket, going to the supermarket, and collecting information. CLT class does not give emphasis on linguistics issues like forms and structures of the language rather the importance is given to social communication through learning and teaching. According to Hewing (2000), In the communicative language class, the focus is on the meaning. Furthermore, the meaning and the context of the situation are given priority at the time of teaching and learning in the CLT class for proper communication (Baepler,2003). CLT method emerged replacing the traditional methods for instance Grammar- translation and audio-lingual method which are based on behaviorism and structuralism (Brown,2001) and here’ learning a language considered as a habit formation that is quite mechanical’ (Richards,2006). According to Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983), the CLT method is completely opposite to the traditional methods that focus on forms and grammatical structures. CLT gives emphasis on communication and it is the transfer from traditional methods to CLT. In the grammar-translation method, the words are taught in an isolated way while contextualization is given priority in CLT classrooms (Brown,2001). To teach language CLT has influenced the model of theory which has been appreciated by many educators, researchers, and linguists (Barney and Sun,1989 and Ellis,1996). According to Littlewood (1981), CLT focuses not only on functional but also structural aspects of language and combines all of these for communication. In communicative language teaching the focus is given to proficiency in communication not the structures of language (Candlin,1981 and Widdowsin,1978). Communicative language teaching is not traditional rather it is a progressive and hybrid method to teach language (wright, 2000).In communicative language teaching fluency and accuracy are the most vital parts (Brown, 1994). The more innovative approach can play a vital role in teaching grammar besides traditional ways by giving less focus on methods. CLT is the combination of form-focused exercises with meaning-focused experience (Savignon,2002). Communicative methods give importance to the four skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing and it does not focus on the single skills (Celce-Murcia, 1991). According to Savignon (2002), CLT does not emphasize only oral communication directly. In the communicative classroom, the teachers play the role of facilitators to the learners, manage all the activities in the classroom, advise the learners and they also engage with learners in communicative activities (Littlewood 1981; Breen and Candlin 1980).

Communicative competence refers to the ability of a speaker to use language appropriately according to the context of the situation. The term first was used by Hymes in 1972 and it was suggested by Noam Chomsky in 1965. Communicative competence means the capability of the learners to exchange communicative information successfully. Language learners are able to use language not only in the classroom but also outside the world. He also says that competent language users know very well how and where to use language (Hymes, 1972). The idea of Hymes was upgraded by Canale and Swain in 1980. The blending of grammatical knowledge and sociolinguistic competence builds up the interaction and relationship (Canale and Swain, 1980). According to the theory of Canale and Swain (1980), there are three sections of communicative competence such as sociolinguistic, grammatical, and strategic competence. Sociolinguistics means understanding and producing the language based on the context of social situations. The structures, forms, and words are learned in the grammatical competence. Strategic competence indicates the ability to use language for proper communication. In communicative competence, the four beliefs are coined by Macaro (1997) for example the importance of listening and speaking ignoring reading and writing, less value in current information than gathering new information for communication, the students’ engagement in active learning, and the focus on meaningful situation instead of full sentences. Communicative competence has some challenges. Though communicative competence is very familiar in the world, a lot of language teachers have faced challenges in achieving and goal (Sano et al.1984). To gain competence there are many arguments against this language program which has been designed to teach foreign languages (Huda,1999; Alptekin,2002). Being teacher-centered, the students will not be able to improve their communicative skills as they get less time for practicing (Cuban,1993; Ellis,2003; Rico, 2008; Yilmaz, 2009). In second language acquisition, the comprehensible input, output, interaction, and negotiation of meaning play a vital and influential role. Input hypothesis(Krashen,1980,1983, 1985) and the interaction of modification of input hypothesis (Long, 1980,1983a,1985) sway the second language acquisition. Second language acquisition and comprehension are co-related along with different inputs, for example, motherese (e.g., Snow and Ferguson,1977), the talk of the foreigners (e.g., Long,1980), the talk of the teachers (Chaudron,1988), and premodified input (e.g., Parker and Chaudron, 1987; Ross, Long and Yano, 1991), the research on the negotiated interaction (e.g., Long, 1980,1983a; Pica et al.,1987). According to Krashen (1985), the input hypothesis is related to acquisition and human beings can acquire the language properly with the help of this input which is beyond the current level of the learners (i l). The learners can understand the meaning and comprehension though they do not acquire (i l) the structure and form of the language ( Krashen, 1983). According to Krashen (1985), people can acquire language only one way such as understanding a message or receiving comprehensible input. The two kinds of modifications are evident between native speakers and non-native speakers for instance modified input and modified interaction. Modified input is used by non-native speakers in the case of linguistic forms to make them better understand while the interaction of modification refers to the discourse between native speakers and non-native speakers. The modified interaction is more important than modified input in the field of comprehensible input (Long, 1981,1983b). The negotiated meaning helps the learners understand the meaning of the discourse by repeating the interaction between native and non-native speakers. So the comprehensible input results from negotiated meaning (Pica,1987). On the other hand, in the opinion of Swain (1985) and White (1987), for second language acquisition comprehensible input is not necessary. Aston (1986) and Faerch and Kasper (1986) have raised questions about comprehensible input. Aston has also mentioned that the negotiated meaning may not be fruitful in the discourse of native speakers and non-native speakers.

To solve the problem of traditional learning and teaching Vygotsky, Perkins, and Piaget have mentioned the term constructivism theory which explains the role of teaching, learning, learners, and teachers. In spite of having familiarity in the present moment, constructivism is an old theory from the age of Socrates who mentioned that learners and teachers can exchange information and build up the dominant knowledge through question-answer (Hilav,1990, cited in Erden,2001). According to the thoughts of Gruber and Voneche (1977), The origin of constructivism has come from Piaget’s ‘constructivism ‘(1967), and Bruner’s (1996) constructivism which narrates the learning of discovery. Perkins (1992) has said that the roots of constructivism have emerged from psychology and philosophy within a hundred years. Constructivism means the learning system of constructing meaning and it refers to the experience of people (Merriam and Caffarella,1999). Mvududu and Thiel-Burgess (2012) refer that the constructivist approach helps the understanding level of the children and enhances their thinking stage. The teachers can realize the depth of knowledge of the learners and assist them to use their knowledge for practical purpose and the learners can gain knowledge about the course materials which increase their learning process. According to Kanselaar (2002), Constructivism has main two parts and social constructivism is one of them. Cooper(1993) mentions the transformation of knowledge from behaviorism to cognitivism and constructivism such as the subject of psychology. This transferring process has swayed the learning and teaching method incredibly. Phillips (2000) has suggested a lot of changes in constructivism that are educational. In the view of Hoover (1969) with the help of existing knowledge the learners build their comprehension in the learning process. On the contrary, the new or acquired knowledge is influenced by the past gained knowledge. The learners learn by following the active process mentioned as the negotiated understanding that they acquire in new learning circumstances. Cook (1992) supports the system negotiation in the course curriculum and the learners work a lot to find the answers to the questions. Learning comes from hard work. Through the negotiation of curriculum, the learners can actively participate in the educational activities to get their original benefit from the learning path (Bruner,1992). According to Christie (2005), A learner can demonstrate his or her real world through an active process in constructivism known as the theory of learning. From this theory of learning the learners gain knowledge emerging from experience and the solution of the problems which they face. Collaboration, experience, assessment, and real tasks can be the crucial part of this learning process. The learning approach is learner-centered in which the teachers apply their teaching method by observing the experience level of their learners (Hare, 2005). Piaget (1973) states that children can develop their learning through construction and reconstruction as they go through several stages to enhance their knowledge.

The theory of social constructivism refers to the knowledge related to the society where human beings dwell and extract knowledge and understanding from social phenomena. Human beings construct their knowledge, understanding, and reality from the social world by facing experience (Leads-Hurwitz, 2009). Vygotsky (1978) expresses that human beings gradually develop growth from the social level to the individual. Moreover, Derry (1999) and McMahon (1997) say that the cultural and contextual understanding happening in society and knowledge construction have significant roles in social constructivism. Kim (2001) has mentioned three probable estimations of social construction for example reality learning and knowledge. The reality comes through the interaction of human beings who live in society. Kukla(2000) notes that the wealth and asset of the world is the effort of the human beings who produce this. Human beings produce constructed knowledge culturally and socially (Ernest, 1999; Gredler,1997; Prat and Floden, 1994, cited in Kim,2001). Learning in human beings occurs in the system of society and both the individual and external forces assist in construction ( McMahon,1997). According to Smith (2010), Social construction has two forms such as weak and strong. Vygotsky (1978) who has swayed the theory of social constructivism proposes the construction of knowledge from the context of society and the members of the society use this knowledge (Bruning,1999; M. Cole,1991; Eggan and Kauchak, 2004). The sharing of knowledge individually in the case of perspectives is known as collaborative elaboration (Meter and Stevens, 2000). Woolfolk (2010) demonstrates some tactics for assisting the learning process for instance jigsaw classroom, controversial structures, and reciprocal questioning. The learners can enhance their knowledge, perceptions, thoughts, and assumptions by active participation in social constructivism (Brown,1989; Ackerman (1996). Besides, Vygotsky (1978) thinks about the gradual continuation of the learning process shifting from existing knowledge to better. He mentions the Zone of proximal development (ZPD) which originates from social interaction and he has termed ZPD as the distance between the real progressive level as determined by independent problem-solving and the potential development level as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978).

Social constructivism theory emphasizes the necessity for collaboration with the learners and guides living in the society (Lave and Wenger, 1991; McMahon1997). In the opinion of Wertsch (1997), social constructivism gives importance to both of complex and unique recognition and inspires the learners. He also says that children can improve their knowledge by social interaction with adults, other children, and the real world where they are living. In this approach, the teachers play the role of facilitators to co-operate with the learners (Bauersfeld, 1995). The learning process has transferred from teacher-centered to learner-centered in the classroom (Barr and Tagg, 1995). Hayward (1905) and the work of Dewey (1956) have contributed a lot to the learner-centered classroom (O’Sullivan,2003). A number of terms are included with learner-centered learning for instance experiential learning (Burnard,1999), self-directed learning, and flexible learning (Taylor,2000. Carl Rogers who is termed the pioneer of learner-centered education has associated this learning process with the education theory (Burnard and Rogoff,1999). The work of Malcolm Knowles and Piaget has a close connection with the learner-centered approach (Burnard,1999). According to Rogers (1983a), The traditional learning approach which is teacher-centered and the passive role of the learners has shifted to learners-centered in which the students play the active role in the learning and teaching process because the students feel bored and monotonous. Kember (1997) has said their own creativity and they are active in the learning process and the teachers work as a facilitator who is not presenter. Burnard (1999) has given preference, to the belief of Rogers who has mentioned the constructed knowledge of the students about the world. The teacher-centered learning gives importance to the role and authority of the teachers who impart knowledge to the learners so the learners can achieve their learning and learning approach (Harden and Crosby, 2000). Donnelly and Fitzmaurice (2005) have given emphasis on the needs of the learners in curriculum design. According to Lea et al(2003), The learner-centered learning approach is fruitful for the learners. In the learner-centered classroom, the learners are the main body and at the heart of the classroom. The students learn according to their demand and it is considered as progressive as they do not learn what they already know about the topic. In this learning approach, they can save the resources such as humans and education (Edwards,2001).

To sum up, it can be said that communication is essential for interaction with learners. If the learners have better communication skills, they will perform better in completing the tasks. Actually, the success of the learners depends on the interaction and the language teachers make the environment for the learners to engage them for better performances (Mashburn et al., 2008). The prime objective of learning a foreign language is to communicate successfully. According to Brown (1994), Communicative language teaching is an integrated skill that is theoretical based deals with the nature of language and language teaching and learning. Above all, it is truly evident that the need for communication for foreign language teaching and learning such as English has increased and spread widely for global demand among the language users.