Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching: Research-based cautions and qualifications

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

�Tel.: +1 517

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 529–537

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching:Research-based cautions and qualifications

Jere Brophy�

Michigan State University, MI, USA

Abstract

Graham Nuthall was drawn to social constructivist theories but relatively pessimistic about the feasibility of social

constructivist approaches to teaching, except in rather narrowly specified situations. This article summarizes Nuthall’s

views on these issues and the research findings that shaped them, drawing in particular on a chapter in which he spoke to

the issues directly. The author then draws on some of his work to support and elaborate on Nuthall’s conclusions, and

argue for more theory and research on both the affordances and constraints of social constructivist teaching.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Constructivist teaching; Social constructivist teaching; Transmission teaching

I have long appreciated Graham Nuthall’s work,beginning with his earliest process–product con-tributions. However, I was especially taken with thestudies tracing individual students’ learning ofspecific concepts and principles, which he began incollaboration with Adrienne Alton-Lee and con-tinued until his death. This work was unique inproviding access not only to students’ publiccontributions to lessons and discussions but alsotheir side conversations with peers and even theobservations they made to themselves (when theythought out loud). The transcripts and relatedartifacts developed in this work constitute auniquely rich corpus of data, which Graham minedsuccessfully using unique analysis strategies toproduce unique findings.

Graham is usually identified as a researcher onteaching, but his recent work could just as well be

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

e.2006.01.008

353 6470.

ss: [email protected].

described as research on learning. It was groundedin theories describing how learners bring theirexisting schemas to bear in processing new informa-tion and connecting it to their prior knowledge. Heemphasized that the results could range from simpleaccretion (in which a new fact is assimilated withinan existing knowledge structure) to degrees of moresubstantive change (significant modification ofexisting knowledge structures or addition of newones).

He also was very much aware that classroomlearning takes place within a social context. On-going relationships with the teacher and especiallywith peers are of continuing concern to students andfrequently affect not only their social/emotional butalso their cognitive/learning experiences in class-rooms. Some of the more interesting findings toemerge from Graham’s work concern this socialdimension, including demonstrations that studentsoften carry on surreptitious conversations withnearby peers even during whole-class lessons, and

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Brophy / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 529–537530

that about 25% of what students learn aboutacademic concepts and principles is rooted in inputthey receive from a peer rather than the teacher(Nuthall, 2004).

Given his views on classroom learning, it isnot surprising that Graham gravitated towardsocial constructivists’ theories. His own work fitvery well within their depiction of school learning asunderstandings constructed with reference to priorknowledge and negotiated in collaboration withfellow members of the classroom learning commu-nity. However, Graham harbored serious reserva-tions about the feasibility and cost effectiveness ofthe approaches to classroom teaching commonlyrecommended by social constructivists. In thisarticle, I (1) offer some observations and concernsabout the scholarly literature on social constructi-vist approaches to teaching, (2) summarize Gra-ham’s research findings and related guidelines forpractice as they apply to social constructivistteaching, (3) elaborate on Graham’s contributionswith observations and guidelines for practicedrawn from my own research, and (4) return toGraham’s work to highlight it as a model of thekind of research needed to develop our under-standings about the affordances and constraintsof social constructivist and other approaches toteaching.

1. Need for clarifications about social constructivist

teaching

I share many of Graham’s ambivalences aboutsocial constructivism. I find much that is attractivein social constructivist approaches to learning andteaching, especially when they are contrasted withtransmission approaches. Certainly, the stereotypedimage of a teacher scaffolding active discussions andco-construction of understandings within a colla-borative learning community is more attractive thanthe stereotyped image of a teacher lecturing tomostly passive listeners. Furthermore, we all knowthat when transmission teaching is implementedpoorly or simply used too exclusively, it leads tostudent boredom, reliance on rote learning methods,and acquisition of disconnected items of knowledgethat are mostly soon forgotten or retained only ininert forms.

However, there are predictable difficulties withsocial constructivist approaches to teaching as well.Airasian and Walsh (1997), Weinert and Helmke(1995), Windschitl (1999) and others have observed

that these approaches are difficult to implementeffectively. These require teachers to possess a greatdeal of subject-matter knowledge and relatedpedagogical knowledge that will allow them torespond quickly to only partially predictable devel-opments in classroom discourse, and they requirestudents to participate more actively and take morepersonal risks in their learning. It may take a greatdeal of time to get students to the point where theyfunction collaboratively as a learning communityand interact using the desired discourse genres, andeven if they reach this point, limitations in priorknowledge may prevent them from constructing allof the target understandings.

Social constructivist educators usually have muchmore to say about learning than about teaching. Inparticular, they tend to focus on epistemologicalissues (What is the nature of knowledge and how isit constructed and validated?) rather than pedago-gical issues (What approaches to teaching willoptimize the students’ construction of knowledgethat reflects the course’s intended outcomes?).Furthermore, with few exceptions, writing on socialconstructivist teaching has been confined to state-ments of rationales and principles, elaboratedwith examples of classroom implementationsbut without systematic assessment of outcomes.Asked to assess the effects of social constructivistteaching on measurable learning outcomes, O’Con-nor (1998) concluded that this question could notyet be addressed, partly because social constructi-vism is interpreted in many different ways but alsobecause little research speaking to the question wasavailable.

Because their theorizing focuses on epistemologyand learning, most social constructivists are un-comfortable talking about social constructivistteaching, let alone social constructivist teaching‘‘methods.’’ They prefer talking about learning andways to support students’ construction of knowl-edge, and they view such support as highlycontextual and dependent on instructional goals,emergent student discourse or task responses, andother factors. All of this is understandable, but it isunrealistic to expect to be able to educate teachersto implement social constructivist principles withoutsystematizing them into operational models ofteaching. Also, systematic models of social con-structivist teaching, or at least operational descrip-tions of social constructivist principles in action, areneeded to provide a basis for conducting researchon such teaching.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Brophy / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 529–537 531

Some social constructivist educators have putforward such models. Too often, however, theyhave written as if their models should be applieduniversally, without saying much if anything aboutwhen the model would or would not be used or howit might need to be adjusted to different types ofstudents, subjects, or learning activities. Some haveimplied that frontal teaching, skill practice, orindependent work on assignments is inappropriateand should not occur in classrooms (which shouldfocus instead on whole-class discussions and small-group cooperative learning activities). Others haveimplied that anything involving discussion orhands-on activity serves worthwhile curricularpurposes and will induce students to constructsignificant understandings. Concerns about suchclaims have caused leading social constructivists tocriticize much of what has been advocated in thename of social constructivism, clarify that acomplete instructional program will include trans-mission as well as constructivist aspects (Sfard,1998; Staver, 1998; Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998;Wells, 1998), and explain that principles forconstructivist teaching are much more complexand sophisticated than a simple admonition not toequate teaching with telling (Chazan & Ball, 1999;Cobb, 1994; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, &Scott, 1994).

To pursue these issues further, I organized anedited volume (Brophy, 2002) to focus on when andwhy social constructivist approaches to teaching areoptimal and when and why other approaches wouldbe more appropriate. I invited contributors whosework would enable them to focus on socialconstructivist teaching (not just epistemology orlearning), and whom I viewed as sympathetictoward but able to adopt analytic and criticalperspectives on social constructivist teaching prin-ciples. I asked them to write about what socialconstructivist teaching means in the areas ofteaching in which their scholarly work concentrates,to describe the rationales for using these approachesand the forms they take, and to talk about when andhow they would be used optimally and when andwhy they would be irrelevant or counterproductive.

The authors represented a broad range of subjectsand grade levels. They all rooted their teachingprinciples in either sociocultural theory or thenotion of a discipline-based learning community(or both). All presented both a general instructionalmodel and some of the specific tactics used toimplement it, and all considered both discourse and

activities/tasks. All emphasized establishing a learn-ing community in the classroom, although theydiffered in the degree to which they were confidentthat students would acquire these norms and beginto display them consistently. The most optimisticauthors depicted students assuming major respon-sibilities for establishing and carrying out knowl-edge construction agendas, working largelyindependently of the teacher much of the time.The least optimistic authors depicted social con-structivist teaching as time consuming and difficultto implement, and even then, feasible mostly only insmall groups and with close teacher monitoring andfrequent intervention. Graham’s chapter fell intothe latter category. Despite his attraction to socialconstructivist principles, he was the most pessimisticauthor concerning the feasibility and cost effective-ness of these principles as guides to everydayteaching.

2. Graham on social constructivist teaching

Despite this pessimism, Graham’s chapter wasnot simply a critique of social constructivist teach-ing, and certainly not a dismissal of it. Entitled‘‘Social Constructivist Teaching and the Shaping ofStudents’ Knowledge and Thinking’’, the chapterclarified the rationales for using social constructivistapproaches, identified their important characteris-tics, analyzed the ways in which these characteristicswere presumed to shape students’ knowledge andways of thinking, and concluded with suggestionsabout when and how these approaches might beused in classrooms (Nuthall, 2002). He drew fromeight studies of elementary and middle-schoolscience and social studies that involved detailedobservation and recording of the experiences ofindividual students throughout the course of a unit(Nuthall, 1999; Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1993).

All units were taught by experienced teachersusing a mixture of whole-class, small-group, andindividual activities. None of the teachers favored atransmission or textbook-based model of teaching.Some used formally structured tasks with estab-lished routines; others gave students a choice ofalternative activities and allowed them to work outfor themselves how they would accomplish thetasks. Each study involved collecting relativelyconventional thick description data (videotapes,field notes, student work and other artifacts). Inaddition, each student wore a miniature wirelessmicrophone, and observers kept continuous running


records of how selected students used resources andequipment.

Students were pre- and post-tested for knowledgeof the major concepts and principles developed inthe unit, and a combination of student interviewsand microanalysis of transcripts and other data wasused to determine not only what students learnedbut when and how they learned it. ‘‘Concept files’’were created for each student for each concept (orprinciple, etc.) covered in the test. Each filecontained all data from sources that were in anyway related to whether the student learned thatconcept or not. Guided by learning models that hegradually developed and perfected, Graham wasable to use the information in these concept files tomake remarkably accurate (80–85% correct) pre-dictions about whether or not individual studentswould answer individual test items successfully.

In his chapter, Graham talked about developingsubject-matter knowledge at three levels: wordmeanings; conceptual or principled knowledge;and discipline-based ways of thinking about andsolving problems. He also noted that classroomdiscourse plays out at three levels: the public and‘‘official’’ discourse surrounding curriculum contentthat occurs in whole-class and small-group activ-ities; the more private social exchanges that occurbetween peers (usually hidden but picked up inGraham’s studies because the students wore indivi-dual microphones); and the self-talk that occurswithin the subjective experience of individuals(inaccessible, except when they talked to themselvesout loud). Within this context, he then characterizedsocial constructivist teaching, emphasizing that inplace of transmission of information, it usesquestions to structure and scaffold problem-or-iented discussions and coach students’ engagementin activities. Once the students are engaged with achallenging question or problem, the teacher seeksto sustain authentic discussion and debate aboutsignificant ideas, using tactics such as askingquestions sparingly, listening closely to what stu-dents say and responding in ways that connect thediscussion so far and position it to move forward,staying with the same topic for several turns andinvolving more of the students in contributing ideasto it, helping students to clarify their ideas andbecome more explicit and consistent, making surethat they interact respectfully, and revoicing orreformulating their comments to expand them intomore complete statements and to emphasize keyconcepts and causal linkages.

As he described these and other social constructi-vist teaching tactics, Graham also identified somekey assumptions built into their underlying ratio-nales, and then brought to bear findings from hisresearch that call some of these assumptions intoquestion. For example, he noted that socialconstructivists typically talk as if all students wereactive participants in classroom discussions, but infact, it is more common for a subset to be highlyactive and another subset to remain mostly silent.He added that if assessments of students’ learningare based mostly on the statements of the mostactive participants, they will overestimate the levelsof understanding attained by the group as a whole.Also, students’ contributions to discussions oftenmake them appear more knowledgeable than theyreally are (subsequent tests or interviews typicallyreveal confusion or even misconceptions that werenot evident at the time).

Graham also noted that effective classroomdiscussion depends on a base of taken-for-grantedknowledge that can be referred to without explana-tion or elaboration. He then cited his own findingsindicating that mutually shared knowledge isrelatively uncommon unless it relates to an experi-ence that all of the students have recently shared.For example, students typically enter a science orsocial studies unit knowing almost half of what theteacher intends them to learn from the unit (i.e.,they average 40–50% on the pre-test). However, theamount of this prior knowledge that all of thestudents share in common is only about 10–20% atthe beginning of the unit, increasing to only about30–40% by the end.

An additional complication is that some ofwhat students learn and retain about curriculartopics is based on input received from peers ratherthan the teacher and some of it is vague, distorted(overly specific or generalized), or completelyincorrect. These and other observations led Grahamtoward two major conclusions about successfulimplementation of social constructivist teaching.First, such teaching works best when the focus ofdiscussion is on experiences that students haveshared with one another (such as carrying out ascience experiment or constructing a diorama). Inthese situations, the referents of their languageare mutually accessible, so that the activityand language are mutually supportive andshared meaning is not a problem. This is lesslikely to be true when the discussion focuses onmaterial that has been read or reported about


phenomena that students have not mutuallyexperienced.

Second, the aims of social constructive teachingare more achievable in small groups than with thewhole class. Small groups make it more likely thatall participants will share the same goals, meanings,and understandings, and will participate fully ingroup processes. They also make it more possiblefor the teacher to monitor each individual’s under-standings and to intervene as needed.

Proceeding from these conclusions, Graham out-lined seven principles for effective implementationof social constructivist teaching:

1.
Develop an activity framework—a sequence ofactivities that form a coherent learning system.As examples, he cited teachers he had studiedwho encased the primary learning activity withina sequence of instruction, report writing, andconcluding discussion.
2.
Establish an accountability system that willrequire each individual student to demonstratelearning of key concepts and principles.
3.
Develop monitoring procedures to track eachindividual’s carrying out of each activity, beingprepared to intervene with suggestions, model-ing, or other scaffolding if necessary.
4.
Set up a common experience, preferably a small-group cooperative activity that produces thedata or knowledge that will be the focus ofthe discussion. The activity should involveissues that students can identify with and believe,that are worth resolving, and that relate toconcepts or principles that are significant in thediscipline.
5.
Ensure frequent repetition: Students need fre-quent practice in reasoning activities intended tobecome habits of mind, so keep activity struc-tures small and uncomplicated. The proceduralaspects should be routinized so that most time isspent on constructive discussion and debaterather than instructions or figuring out whatto do.
6.
Repeat critical content: Learning developedthrough discussion, especially if it leads tosubstantial changes in understanding, likely willbe forgotten or subsequently distorted unless thenew understandings are revisited on severaloccasions. The most efficient way to accomplishthis is to maximize the connections acrosssubsequent activities and revisit main ideasfrequently.
7.
Train students in group interaction procedures:Provide them with whatever socialization andscaffolding is needed to ensure that they partici-pate assertively but respectfully in discussionsand begin to acquire and use the desireddiscourse genres.
In summary, despite his enthusiasm for socialconstructivist theories of learning, Graham placedstrong qualifications on the classroom feasibility ofsocial constructivist approaches to teaching. Ratherthan viewing such teaching as the default mode, heconceded that it has its place but only under certainrather restrictive conditions (activities based inshared experiences carried out in small-groupsettings). Even then, he assumed that there wouldbe much more structuring and scaffolding by theteacher and much less independent student activitythan most social constructivists depict.

3. Elaborations based on my own work

Like Graham, I conducted process–productresearch in the 1970s but more recently have beenusing close analysis of thick description of instruc-tional units in attempts to infer principles forteaching school subjects for understanding. Thiswork has been motivated by many of the sameconcerns and interests that motivated Graham’s. Itfocuses more on teaching than on learning and doesnot include anything approaching Graham’s con-cept files for tracing developments in individualstudents’ understandings, but it has led to parallelconcerns about social constructivist approaches toteaching.

Done in collaboration with Janet Alleman, thiswork began with development of instructional unitson cultural universals (food, clothing, shelter,transportation, etc.) for use in primary-grade socialstudies (Alleman & Brophy, 2001, 2002, 2003). Theunit plans include a blend of transmission and socialconstructivist elements. The research aspect of thework involves collecting thick description data inthe classroom of Barbara Knighton, who imple-ments the units with her first and second graders.

In our observations of Barbara’s teaching of ourunits (and in previous observations of otherteachers, as well), we frequently encountered evi-dence of a need for qualifications on the feasibi-lity of social constructivist approaches to class-room discourse, especially when students’ cognitive


development and domain expertise are limited. Wehave been trying to move beyond vague notions of‘‘balancing’’ transmission and social constructivistteaching by developing principles specifying whenand why these respective approaches might beconsidered the method of choice; and when, whyand how these approaches might be combined, andtheir mixture adjusted, as lessons and units pro-gress. So far, we have developed the followingconclusions.

First, it appears that transmission techniques arebest used for efficiently communicating canonicalknowledge (initial instruction establishing a knowl-edge base), and social constructivist techniques arebest used for constructing knowledge networks anddeveloping processes and skills (synthesis andapplication). In the early elementary grades whereour research has been focused, this contrast issomewhat muted. Most transmission occurs duringteacher–student interaction segments that include alot of teacher questioning and little or no extendedlecturing, and most opportunities for students toengage in the social construction of knowledge areclosely monitored and highly scaffolded by teachers.Later grades more often feature lesson or activitysegments that are more exclusively either transmis-sion or social construction of knowledge.

An implication of this principle is that socialconstructivist approaches are more feasible forregular use in teaching subjects such as literacyand mathematics, which are relatively short oncontent knowledge but long on proceduralknowledge. For subjects like science and socialstudies, which feature a great deal of content(propositional) knowledge, an emphasis on trans-mission teaching in the early stages of lessons orunits may be required to establish a commonknowledge base before moving on to activitiescalling for processing and applying this knowledge.It is no accident that the most enthusiasticpromoters of social constructivist teaching tend tobe literacy and mathematics people, whereas theskeptics and qualifiers tend to be science and socialstudies people (especially those whose researchincludes formal assessment of students’ attainmentof target understandings).

Another problem that we have noted is thatheavy reliance on social constructivist discoursemodels increases the possibility that the discoursewill stray from the lesson’s intended goals andcontent. Furthermore, even when the discourseremains goal-relevant, progress toward construction

of the intended understandings may be erratic andinclude frequent verbalization of misconceptions.In terms originally introduced by Jacob Kounin(1970) in the context of studying classroom manage-ment, it might be said that such lessons have arough rather than a smooth flow, frequentlyinterrupted or sidetracked momentum, and a poorsignal (valid content)-to-noise (irrelevant or invalidcontent) ratio.

These dangers become acute when teachers faceeither of two conditions that we observe regularly:(1) young learners with as-yet only partially devel-oped skills for learning through speaking andlistening, and undeveloped skills for learningthrough reading and writing and (2) learners ofany age whose prior knowledge (domain expertise)is very low and poorly articulated, due to whichquestions about the topic frequently fail to produceresponses or else elicit irrelevant or invalid state-ments. This commonly occurs in social studieslessons in the early grades, even when the questionsdeal with food, clothing, shelter, or other culturaluniversals with which the students have hadfrequent life experiences.

The problems that we have observed whenteachers overuse social constructivist discoursemodels (or use them ineffectively) have sensitizedus to the need for adaptation of these models whenteaching in the early grades, especially whenaddressing topics about which students have mini-mal prior knowledge. One adjustment that wesuggest is to rely more heavily on transmissiontechniques early in a lesson or unit, to establish acommon base of information that includes cleararticulation of big ideas. Another is to adapt thediscourse model that has been developed withmiddle- and secondary-school classrooms in mindto make it more attuned to the discourse forms andrhythms that predominate in the primary grades(e.g., more frequent but shorter exchanges, withmore teacher scaffolding to help students expressthemselves). Our goal is to incorporate as much ofthe social constructivist ideal as is possible under thecircumstances, but in ways that result in moresmoothly flowing lessons that have more acceptablesignal-to-noise ratios. In this regard, it is importantto plan to either avoid predictable misconceptionsor focus attention on them, especially if they involvebig ideas and are particularly memorable or difficultto eradicate once verbalized.

Attempts to use social constructivist discoursewith young children are often complicated by the


problem of egocentrism. Primary-grade studentsoften use questions posed by the teacher asoccasions for launching stories that they want totell. These stories may have little or nothing to dowith the topic, in which case they distract from thefocus of the lesson. In the case of lengthy anecdotes,they derail lesson momentum completely. BarbaraKnighton minimizes this problem in the learningcommunities that she establishes by socializing herstudents to match their comments and questions tothe current topic and discourse genre. She alsofollows up by making time for one-to-one sharingduring later interactions, such as while eating lunchwith her students.

A core idea of constructivism is that each studentbuilds his or her own unique representation of whatis communicated. However, a student may or maynot create a complete and accurate reconstructionof what the teacher intended to convey, so thatlearning is often incomplete or distorted. Barbarablends transmission and constructivist teaching inways that address these limitations of younglearners, yet encourage them to personalize theirlearning and apply it to their lives outside of school.She provides basic information during whole-classinstruction early in a lesson or unit, and thenfollows up with small-group or partner activitiesthat allow every student to draw on what he or sheknows or has experienced. If necessary, she usesdirect instruction with checking for under-standing at the beginning of the segment, thengradually moves to reflective/interactive discussions.Most of her transmission or direct instruction,however, is communicated using an informal,narrative style, which makes it easier to followand more engaging than the more formal instruc-tion associated with the term ‘‘lecture’’. It alsoincludes frequent opportunities for students to askor respond to questions.

Barbara models the knowledge constructionprocess by using examples from her own life andthe lives of her students to articulate and illustratemajor understandings in ways that legitimatestudents’ feelings and encourage them to share theirinsights. She also frequently laces metacognitiveself-talk into the conversation, to help studentslearn to reflect on how they know things or whatimplications their new learning might have.

Because topic-focused whole-class discussions aredifficult to sustain for long with young learners,Barbara frequently scaffolds her students’ partici-pation in these lessons or shifts to alternative

formats. Her scaffolding may include cueing thestudents to ‘‘listen for’’, ‘‘think about’’, ‘‘listen tothe story and be ready to share’’, ‘‘listen and decidehow you would choose’’, and so on. If studentsstruggle to respond to her questions, she may helpthem to express themselves, thus minimizing inter-ruptions and sidetracks. As she scaffolds students’thinking, she often revoices their contributions toarticulate big ideas more clearly.

Following (or even in between segments of)whole-class lessons, Barbara frequently will arrangefor the students to communicate in small groups(‘‘Talk with your table group to decide what youthink was the most important idea’’) or pairs (‘‘Turnto your partner and share your ideas’’). Even thesesmall-group and paired activities, however, mayneed to be kept short and to be carefully scaffoldedif they are to function as worthwhile learningexperiences for young learners.

One way that our unit plans compensate for thestudents’ limited capacities for sustained knowledgeconstruction in classrooms is to arrange for them toengage in such knowledge construction at homewith their parents or other family members. Ourlessons include daily home assignments calling forstudents to collaborate with their parents in carry-ing out some activity that applies what the studentslearned that day in class. These home assignmentsare not conventional worksheets or other traditional‘‘homework’’. Instead, they call for students toengage in sustained conversations with their parentsas they talk about how the family came to live whereit currently lives, inspect clothing labels to identifywhere their clothes were made, talk about howthe furnace works, or discuss other lesson-basedcontent.

Both the parents and the children tend to findthese interactions enjoyable. In the process, thechildren learn a lot about the goals and decisionmaking that lie behind much of their parents’behavior, and the parents learn that their childrenare more curious and knowledgeable than theyrealized. Discussions that begin in our homeassignments often lead to personal or familyprojects, trips to the library, expansion to othertopics, or other elaborations that provide opportu-nities for both social construction of knowledgeand reinforcement of family ties. We believe thatthe home has great potential for exploitationas a site for extension of knowledge construc-tion begun in the classroom (Alleman & Brophy,1994).


4. Conclusion

Graham Nuthall’s unique findings led him to callfor more teacher presentation of concepts and skillsand tighter structuring and scaffolding of students’activities than most social constructivists envision.They also led him to set narrow parameters inidentifying the contexts in which social constructi-vist teaching is likely to be effective. He emphasizedthe need for shared recent experiences that allstudents understand in common ways to provide abasis for discussion; identified some key character-istics that the discussion should embody; andspecified that the key ideas constructed need to berevisited at least three or four times if these areexpected to become part of the established knowl-edge of all of the students.

My own research and development activitiessuggest additional qualifications on the feasibilityof social constructivist teaching. Rather than repeatthem here, I will return to Graham’s work in orderto highlight some of his findings that he did notemphasize in his chapter but which I believe posespecial challenges for educators who favor socialconstructivist approaches. I refer to his findings thatabout 25% of what students retain from aninstructional unit is acquired via input from peersrather than their teacher; that much of this input isdistorted or incorrect; and that these acquiredmisunderstandings may not only persist but distortother understandings. These findings imply a needto qualify recommendations of certain teachingtactics favored by social constructivists, especiallythe popular idea of introducing a lesson or unit byposing a question or problem, inviting students tosuggest potential answers or solutions, and thenlisting their responses without questioning them(except to clarify) before initiating evaluativediscussion.

There are many advantages to this strategy,cognitive as well as motivational, but it does havethe potential for exposing the class as a whole tonumerous misleading or incorrect ideas. It can beeffective in situations where most of the students’responses are either accurate or reflective ofcommon misconceptions that the teacher wants toelicit and address, but it may be ineffective or evencounterproductive if it yields a low signal-to-noiseratio or opens a lot of doors that the teacher wouldprefer to leave closed. The resulting injection ofundesired content will force the teacher to eitherexpand the lesson beyond its intended time and

scope (which imposes opportunity costs because iteffectively eliminates something else from thecurriculum) or give this content short shrift andrun the risk that alternative conceptions to whichstudents received early exposure will stick in theirminds instead of the target conceptions emphasizedlater.

To date, research and scholarship on socialconstructivist teaching has yielded more questionsthan answers. It seems clear that, to move forwardproductively, we need: (1) more focus on what socialconstructivism implies for teaching, not just episte-mology or learning; (2) progression beyond un-critical acclaim for social constructivist teaching andobsession with contrasting it with transmissionteaching, toward focus on identifying its affor-dances and constraints; (3) translation of thistheorizing into hypotheses about when and whysocial constructivist teaching is or is not appropriateto the situation, and how it might be implementedmost effectively when it is appropriate; and (4) moreresearch, like Graham’s, that pays close attention tointended outcomes and includes systematic assess-ment of the degree to which they have beenattained.

References

Airasian, P., & Walsh, M. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi

Delta Kappan, 78, 444–449.

Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (1994). Taking advantage of out-of-

school learning opportunities for meaningful social studies

learning. Social Studies, 85, 262–267.

Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (2001). Social studies excursions, K-3.

Book One: Powerful units on food, clothing, and shelter.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Book Two: Powerful units on communication, transportation,

and family living. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Book Three: Powerful units on childhood, money, and

government. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2002). Social constructivist teaching: Affor-

dances and constraints. New York: Elsevier.

Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For

the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 2–10.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and socio-

cultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educa-

tional Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.

Driver, B., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P.

(1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.

Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management in class-

rooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Nuthall, G. (1999). Learning how to learn: The evolution of

students’ minds through the social processes and culture of


the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research,

31, 141–256.

Nuthall, G. (2002). Social constructivist teaching and the shaping

of students’ knowledge and thinking. In J. Brophy (Ed.),

Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints

(pp. 43–79). New York: Elsevier.

Nuthall, G. (2004). Relating classroom teaching to student

learning: A critical analysis of why research has failed to

bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review,

74, 273–306.

Nuthall, G., & Alton-Lee, A. (1993). Predicting learning from

student experience of teaching: A theory of student knowl-

edge construction in classrooms. American Educational

Research Journal, 30, 799–840.

O’Connor, M. (1998). Can we trace the ‘‘efficacy of

social constructivism?’’ In P. D. Pearson, & A. Iran-Nejad

(Eds.), Review of research in education, Vol. 23 (pp. 25–71).

Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers

of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

Staver, J. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating

the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 35, 501–520.

Trent, S., Artiles, A., & Englert, C. (1998). From deficit thinking

to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and

practice in special education. In P. D. Pearson, & A. Iran-

Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education, Vol. 23

(pp. 277–307). Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association.

Weinert, F., & Helmke, A. (1995). Learning from wise Mother

Nature or Big Brother Instructor: The wrong choice as seen

from an educational perspective. Educational Psychologist,

30, 135–142.

Wells, G. (1998). Some questions about direct instruction: Why?

To whom? How? and When? Language Arts, 76, 27–35.

Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructi-

vist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 751–755.

Documents

Graham Nuthall and social constructivist teaching: Research-based cautions and qualifications