What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: The Praxis of Constructivism in the Nigerian Classroom Real
Select a size
The Praxis of Constructivism in the Nigerian Classroom: Beyond the Dictates of Theory to the Realities of Practice
Oyebode Stephen OYETORO † (email@example.com)
PhD Scholar and Teaching Assistant
Department of Arts and Social Science Education, Faculty of Education Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Yetunde Adedoyin AJIBADE
Professor of Language Education
Adebayo Joseph OBADIORA, PhD.
† This is the author to whom all correspondences should be addressed
This paper identified the trend towards constructivism, a theory of learning, in most research on instructional effectiveness and the recent reference to it as a theory of teaching (constructivist pedagogy). It provided an overview of the two widely accepted forms of constructivism- social constructivism and psychological constructivism. The implications of constructivism for the teaching and learning process were also highlighted. Lastly, concerns for its adoption and translation into practice in the Nigerian classroom environment, with its attendant malady, form the crux of this paper.
The need to improve the learning outcomes of students in the Nigerian educational system has led to the introduction of diverse instructional strategies, approaches and techniques for use with the Nigerian school child. This is evident in the diverse studies by educationists which comprise sociologists, psychologists and curriculum experts. Some of these strategies, approaches and techniques include mastery learning strategy, collaborative and cooperative learning strategy with its variants such as think-pair-share; conceptual change strategy, video-mediated instruction, social-mediated instruction, tiered assignment and community contact lessons. Most of these studies, with varying levels of significance and effect size, favour these approaches. Noticeably, these strategies, approaches and techniques have their roots in constructivism. Hence, there seems to be adoption of and shift towards this construct in the methods, strategies, approaches and techniques postulated for use in the Nigerian classroom. Notwithstanding the positive findings and the trend towards constructivism, translating it into classroom use is not without challenges. This paper does not intend to extensively review literature on constructivism as this has been done by various scholars but seeks to examine the problems and issues that border on the implementation of constructivist strategies for improved teaching and learning under the prevailing educational environment in Nigeria.
The general sense of constructivism is that it is a theory of learning or meaning making; that individuals create their own new understandings on the basis of an interaction between what they already know and believe and ideas, that is knowledge with which they come in contact (Abdal-Haqq, 1998, Reisnick, 1989 in Richardson, 2003). One of the conceptions that is widely held by scholars of constructivism is that it could explain epistemology, a philosophical explanation about the nature of knowledge (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, Fousnot, 2005, Yilmaz, 2008). According to these scholars, constructivism is based on the fundamental assumption that people create knowledge from the interaction between their existing knowledge and beliefs and the new ideas or situations that they encounter. They explained that in this sense, most constructivists support the need to foster interactions between students’ existing knowledge and new experiences. This emphasis, they asserted is perceived to be different from the more traditional “transmission” model, in which teachers try to convey knowledge to students directly. Thompson (2000) however suggested that constructivism is not a theory of learning but a model of knowing and constructivism may be used to build a theory of learning. Richardson (2003) further noted that irrespective of the disposition of researchers such as Thompson, the consideration of constructivism as a learning theory has guided most of the development of constructivist pedagogy. Yet, while the distinction between constructivism as a model of knowing and a theory of learning is subtle, the premise of the use of the term in recent times is as a theory of teaching evident in its use with diverse strategies that are thought to be student-centred. Scholars such as Lai-Chong and Ka-Ming (1995) and Fousnot (2005) have warned against this latter sense of use.
Matthews (2000) identified 18 different forms of educational constructivism in terms of considerations such as methodological, radical, didactic and didactical. In more specific terms, the diverse types that have been identified include contextual, dialectical, empirical, humanistic, information-processing, methodological, moderate, Piagetian, postepistemological, pragmatic, radical, realist, social and socio-historical, simple and individualistic (Good, 1993 & Ernest, 2010). Notwithstanding the diverse forms of constructivism that exist there seems to be a modicum of agreement around a differentiation between two forms of constructivism. These forms are social constructionism or social constructivism and psychological constructivism (also referred to as the situated social constructivist perspective and developmental theories respectively). Phillips (2000) described these two forms of constructivism as radically different poles that serve to delineate the whole domain of constructivism. However, not all agree that these conceptions of constructivism are two completely separate and competing approaches. For instance, Doolittle (1999) explicated that constructivism is a continuum. In fact, the two forms are beginning to come together with a focus on the social aspects of the classrooms. Yet, Richardson (2003) maintained lucidly that there is a difference in the lenses used to view constructivism-the first being sociological, the second, pedagogical. These two lenses are briefly expounded on below.
Social constructionism or social constructivism
Social constructivism is a theory which explains that bodies of knowledge or disciplines that have been built up are human constructs, and that the form that knowledge has taken in these fields has been determined by such things as politics, ideologies, values, the exertion of power and the preservation of status, religious beliefs, and economic self-interest (Phillips, 2000). This approach centres on the ways in which power, the economy, political and social factors affect the ways in which groups of people form understandings and formal knowledge about their world. These bodies of knowledge are not considered to be objective representations of the external world. This type of constructivism puts its major emphasis on the social construction of knowledge and rejects the individualistic orientation of Piagetian theory. Within the sociocultural perspective, knowledge is seen as constructed by an individual’s interaction with a social milieu in which he or she is situated, resulting in a change in both the individual and the milieu (Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Gergen, 1995). It is thus possible for an individual to reside in many milieus from a classroom milieu through a much more general cultural milieu. The central idea is that social constructivists believe that knowledge has a social component and cannot be considered to be generated by an individual acting independently of his or her social context (Gergen, 1995). Consequently, recognition of the social and cultural influences on constructed knowledge is a primary emphasis. Furthermore, because individual social and cultural contexts differ, the meanings people make may be unique to themselves or their cultures, potentially resulting in as many meanings as there are meaning makers. Universal meanings across individuals are not emphasized.
Critics of this perspective have pointed to the chaos that might be inherent in a multiplicity of potential meanings. While the social constructivists’ concern with particular contextual or cultural factors that shape meaning enhances their recognition of differences across meanings, it limits their recognition of the universal forms that bring order to an infinite variety of meanings (Airasian & Walsh, 1997).
Psychological Constructivism or Developmental Theories
This approach relates to a developmental or learning theory that suggests that individual learners actively construct meaning around phenomena, and that these constructions are idiosyncratic, depending in part on the learner’s background knowledge. The development of meaning may take place within a social group that affords its individual members the opportunity to share and provide warrant for these meanings. If the individuals within the group come to an agreement about the nature and warrant of a description of a phenomenon or its relationship to others, these meanings become formal knowledge (Phillips, 2000).
Piaget’s developmental theories, represent a more traditional constructivist framework. Their major emphasis is on describing the universal forms or structures of knowledge (e.g. prelogical, concrete and abstract operations) that guide the making of meaning. These universal cognitive structures are assumed to be developmentally organized, so that prelogical thinking occurs prior to concrete logical thinking in a developmental sequence. Within this framework, the individual student is considered to be the meaning maker, with the development of the individual’s personal knowledge being the main goal of learning (Airasian and Walsh, 1997).
Critics of developmental theories of cognition point out that this perspective does not take into account how issues such as the cultural and the political nature of schooling and the race, class, and gender backgrounds of teachers and students, as well as their prior learning histories, influence the kinds of meaning that are made in the classroom (Vadeboncoeur, 1997, Airasian & Walsh, 1997, Richardson, 2003). Hence, cognitive-developmental theories, it is claimed, divorce meaning making from affect by isolating universal forms of knowledge and thus limiting consideration of the sociocultural and contextual influences on the construction of knowledge.
The difference between these two versions of constructivism finds expression in tensions endemic to the act of teaching. Airasian and Walsh thus emphasized that the particular version of constructivism one adopts- developmental or social constructivist- has important implications for classroom practices, for the definition of knowledge, for the relative emphasis on individual versus social learning, for the role of the teacher, and for the definition of successful instruction.
Richardson (2003) however observed that the difference between the social and psychological approaches is one of focus. In both approaches, there is an assumption that meaning or knowledge is actively constructed in the human mind. Social constructivism focuses on how the development of that formal knowledge has been created or determined within power, economic, social and political forces. This includes both its structure and the epistemological frameworks in which it is embedded. The psychological approach focuses on the ways in which meaning is created within the individual mind, and more recently, how shared meaning is developed within a group process.
Richardson presented five research elements of constructivist pedagogy viz:
attention to the individual and respect for students’ background and developing understanding of and beliefs about elements of the domain (this could also be described as student-centred);
facilitation of group dialogue that explores an element of the domain with the purpose of leading to the creation and shared understanding of a topic;
planned and often unplanned introduction of formal domain knowledge into the conversation through direct instruction, reference to text, exploration of a Web site, or some other means;
provision of opportunities for students to determine, challenge, change or add to existing beliefs and understanding through engagement in tasks that are structured for this purpose; and
development of students’ metawareness of their own understanding and learning processes.
He however added that these elements of constructivist pedagogy are not specific practices. They are imperatives, approaches to teaching toward which one initially aspires and which then become fundamental aspects of the teacher’s praxis. He explicated yet that these elements play out quite differently depending on content domain, age level of the students, students’ experiences as learners prior to coming into the specific classroom, school context, teaching style, etc.
According to Airasian and Walsh (1997), the widespread acceptance of constructivism is premised on three factors which are:
increased teacher discretion over teaching and learning, combined with the classroom orientation and high-level focus of constructivism;
its implicit assumption that all students can and will learn; and
its symbolization of emancipation.
The Praxis of Constructivism
According to Collins Dictionary, Praxis is the practice and practical side of a profession or field of study, as opposed to theory. Cambridge dictionary defines it as the process of using a theory or something one has learnt in a practical way. It is thus the practical application of a theory (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/praxis). The word itself is believed to be from a Medieval Latin prassein meaning to do, deed, action (Collins Dictionary). Praxis could either be good (eupraxia) or bad (dyspraxia) (Wikipedia, 2017). Suffice it to state that the relationship between praxis and theory could be conjectured to be two-way. Praxis informs theory and theory informs praxis. One of the theories that have received widespread attention in the education cycle is constructivism.
Several implications have been drawn from constructivism. Qiong (2010) specified implications that are broadly related to reforms in China’s basic education which were reformation of teaching views; placement of emphasis on cooperation and communication and training; students’ cooperative consciousness, students’ previous knowledge, experiences, thinking mode, learning habits and methods are the start for teaching; teaching should be changed from authoritative conducting to equal association and communication and creation of a better teaching environment. Chen (2003) explicated the implications of constructivism in teaching computer networking which emanated from her own practice with students. She explored group projects, objectification of network typology concepts and the use of construction kits to construct network architecture. A rather extensive list of the implications of constructivism for teaching and learning was highlighted by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2004). They are: teachers act as facilitators, supports, guides and models of learning; learning concerns adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences; learning concerns making connections between information; instruction should be built around more complex problems, not problems with clear, correct answers; context and personal knowledge have high significance, students should help establish the criteria on which their work is assessed; teachers know more shouldn’t let students muddle around; students learning depends on background knowledge-that’s why teaching facts is so necessary (reversed); student interest and effort are more important than textbook content; it is sometimes better for teachers, not students, to decide what activities are to be done; sense making and thinking are most important, not knowing content; experimentation replaces rote learning; teaching utilizes both skill-based and open-ended approaches; motivation to learn is intrinsic rather than extrinsic (done for its own sake rather than for grades, test scores or rewards); learners often produce unique and personal knowledge; naïve beliefs are used as the starting point for further discussion, exploration and evaluation for development, rather than being discounted as ‘wrong’; learning for transfer is important; learners learn best through finding and generating their own knowledge; discovery and guided discovery learning are important; exploration and active learning are important; learning is collaborative, not just individual; higher order thinking is significant; classrooms become multidimensional, with different activities at different levels taking place simultaneously. Several other implications, similar to the ones highlighted above, have been insinuated by Brooks & Brooks (1993), Lai-Chong & Ka-Ming (1995) Matthews (2000) and Jones & Brader-Araje (2002).
As alluring as the theory of constructivism as a theory of learning is (at least as could be gleaned from the implications highlighted above), a set of cautions was put forward by Airasian and Walsh (1997). The cautions include that educators should:
recognise the clear cut distinction between an epistemology of learning and a well-thought-out and manageable instructional approach for implementing it;
not fall into the trap of believing that constructivist instructional techniques provide the sole means by which students can construct meaning;
not assume that a constructivist orientation will make the same demands on teaching time as a non-constructivist orientation; and
not believe that the opposite of “one-right-answer” reductionism is “anything goes” constructivism.
Some other challenges that are left unresolved if constructivist pedagogy is to be used with school children as identified by Richardson (2003) are:
What does constructivist teaching do for students that is different from their learning within a traditional transmission model? This is because in practice, direct instruction and lectures which are elements of the transmission model may still be a part of the constructivist classroom.
What constitute the elements of effective and ineffective constructivist teaching since constructivism is a theory of learning and not a theory of teaching?
What depth of subject matter knowledge is necessary for elementary school teachers who teach a wide array of subjects compared to their secondary school counterparts who major in a particular content since research has indicated the importance of deep and strong subject matter in the constructivist classroom?
What is the consideration to be given cultural differences in the implementation of constructivist strategies in the classroom?
Additional questions that could be asked as considerations are given for the praxis of constructivism are: firstly, what considerations are to be given to how constructivism is to be practiced by poorly motivated teachers in a depressed economy? It appears constructivism is an ideal theory that assumes all is always well with all actors and elements in the teaching-learning situation. The present realities in Nigeria’s educational system where half pay offer to teachers is now rampant across the states while allowances are rarely paid to them should lead to enquiries on the applicability of the theory to the nation’s educational system. Terwel (1999) also expressed concerns about this and he stated that constructivism is not a robust concept: it seems to flourish under more or less ideal educational circumstances.
Secondly, what provisions exist to make constructivism cater and amend itself to recent innovations and changes which occur frequently than hitherto in the nation’s teaching-learning environment? Or could it be assumed that constructivism benefits all educational innovations, explosions and extensions in knowledge as much as allowed for by the meaning of constructivism and the supposed ideals on which it is based? This question basically calls for caution in the trend towards making constructivism a one size fits all theory of teaching.
Barring circumstantial or concrete evidences of a theory that is bad ab initio, the process of translating a theory to practice could be affected by myriads of factors. These factors relate to the actors who act upon the theory and the diverse frameworks/environments (i.e. Political, Environmental, Social, Technological, Legal and Economical) that impact the process.
Specific Issues and Challenges in the Translation of Constructivism into Classroom Realities in Nigeria’s Educational System
Within the ambit of the aforesaid general issues and challenges of adapting and adopting constructivism, a theory of learning as a theory of teaching, the specific issues and challenges perceived to be faced in its unalloyed introduction and use in the Nigerian classroom include:
Fixed time schedule in schools- Schools in Nigeria have the practice of scheduling a particular time and duration to subjects with little or no flexibility to allow for other activities that are incidental to learning. Teachers thus plan their teaching activities within the stipulated time most often to avoid sanctions from the school management and other supervisory agencies. This is a bane to the practice of constructivism in the nation’s educational system.
Overloaded curricula that most often tend towards specialization earlier in the education spectrum than the provision of a generic broad based education to learners. Too many cooks have always spoiled the broth. Too many subjects with no focus and less application to the situation-in-life of the students for which they are designed will always leave the students confused rather than grow with the ability to think through and make meaning of school engagements.
Emphasis on content coverage and passing of examinations than on the creation of worthwhile experiences for the students. Construction of meaning from school engagements and diverse experiences offered under the auspices of the school should be the object if constructivism is to be a philosophy guiding teaching and school activities. However, the society places premium on number of credit passes; teachers as a result teach to cover so many topics so that students can considerably pass prescribed examinations.
Content coverage and students’ performance in external examinations as an indirect measure of teacher effectiveness. Few of the criteria for effectiveness in teaching are the extent to which the curriculum has been taught the students and the extent to which students pass prescribed examinations in the subject area. The aftermath of this is that the quality of instruction is highly jeopardized as teachers rush through the contents in order to avoid been branded ineffective (Falaye, 2005). More so since teachers are taken to be responsible for lag in these indices, most teachers would rather teach to cover contents and aid students’ possession of admission grades than teach for meaning making.
Poor school and home learning environment. Constructivism clearly assumes that the environment of the child is challenging enough to permit learning to occur at any time. The reverse is usually the case as the environment where most Nigerian children live and learn is boring and is capable of stiffening creativity rather than promoting it.
Inadequate consideration of constructivism and constructivist strategies in the undergraduate, graduate and continuing professional teacher education curriculum. Constructivism and other relevant emergent educational theories are often taught in curriculum and instruction and continuing professional teacher education courses at a relatively superficial level which would not allow for the internalization of the ethos of these theories by teachers in training. The 2 units with its attendant low lecture periods usually ascribed to these courses is a prima facie evidence. Akinbote (2001) also gave credence to this, though in relation to teachers at the primary school level, by asserting that teachers are not sufficiently equipped in both the pedagogical and content knowledge of what they are to teach in school.
Poor yet differing students’ entry behaviour. The complexity of the learner as a biological phenomenon and the unpredictability of his/her behavioural pattern compound the process of instructional decision making (Oloyede & Adeleke, 2010). Yet, the differential rate of progress among them has been identified by Huitt (1996) in Falaye (2005) as a serious shortcoming of mastery learning strategy which is one of the many offshoots of constructivism. These conditions of complexity and differences are yet exacerbated by the poor entry behaviour of the learners which could be adduced to the poor home and school environment that surrounds them. In order to remedy this, teachers may be required to bring all the students in a constructivist-strategy-driven class to relatively near cognitive level in order to make transition from one learning entity to the other successful. This indeed is an arduous task that may not be possible and practicable.
Poor teacher motivation and attitude to work due largely to both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Little should be expected from teachers who are ill-motivated on the adoption of innovations in teaching. Hence, efforts which include extensive considerations of the provisions of the ILO/UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers (1966) and UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997) should be made to increase the motivation of these teachers so that their propensity towards innovation adoption can increase.
Apathy of teachers and school management towards teaching innovations and Continuing Professional Development Programmes (CPDP). What is in it for us? This is the question most teachers in training and school managers ask when CPDPs that focus on disseminating innovations in teaching are instituted for them to benefit from. In actual fact if there be no tangible incentives attached to such programmes, attendance at them may be low.
Weak professional teacher support system that seeks to maximize the gains teachers make of innovations. Professional organisations such as the Teacher Registration Council of Nigeria (TRCN), Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN), Association of Business Educators of Nigeria (ABEN), Reading Association of Nigeria and Educational Media Association of Nigeria (EMTAN), etc. ought to provide real platforms for teachers to learn about innovations in the praxis of constructivism and such other theories. These organisations are also expected to facilitate continuing support for teachers in clusters till they are masters of these innovations. This is however not the case as they mostly organize conferences whose focus is the presentation of papers with little import for teachers’ development.
Inadequate considerations for innovation diffusion and implementation in the nation’s educational system. Theories that have great import for educational and instructional practices are not adequately accessed before they are adapted for widespread usage in the nation’s educational system. One of these theories is constructivism. The effect of this is that some innovations from this theory that have no pragmatic value for the nation’s educational system are diffused and adopted without consideration for their modification as called for by the nation’s educational idiosyncrasies.
Poor funding of the education sector. Providing meaningful instruction to learners involves carrying out multifarious (classroom) activities which may involve incurring moderate or high expenses. These activities become non-executable in the face of dwindling resource allocation to schools and economic recessions with attendant increase in prices of educational materials.
Lack of internet facilities in majority of schools and classrooms in Nigeria. Though this is an offshoot of poor funding, emphasis needs to be laid on it as there is an increasing recognition of the role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the mediation and facilitation of human learning. The internet plays a crucial role in ensuring that teachers and learners exchange relevant information in the synchronous and asynchronous mode such as will enhance active construction of meaning which is the focus of constructivism. However, the asynchronous mode may be favoured due to the bandwidth which is usually too low to allow for synchronous exchange of data and information among the teachers and learners.
Multiple perceptions and relative lack of consensus on how constructivism is to be practiced among scholars and curriculum implementers in different subject areas and fields of study. In the words of Taber (2011), constructivism is clearly many things to many people. Exegeses of the major challenges posed by the multiple perceptions of constructivism have been expounded on among other scholars by Phillips (1995), Lai-Chong and Ka-Ming (1995), Brown (2005), Fosnot (2005), Yilmaz (2008) and Panasuk and Lewis (2012). Hence, scholars in the education field bring diverse and sometimes confusing paradigms to play on how constructivist strategies should be translated to classroom realities. This is also a bane on the progress and success that would have been recorded of constructivism in the nation’s educational system.
Teachers’ work overload. Several teachers teach more than the ideal 16 hours per week and may yet be requested to attend to administrative duties too. Yet others have to combine different classes in a defined learning space while providing for differences in students’ cognitive ability, background, learning speed, etc. These conditions could be considered detrimental to the adoption and practice of constructivist principles and strategies by in-service teachers.
Given the paradigm shift towards constructivism as a theory of teaching, this paper examined the challenges that might be faced in its adoption and use in the Nigerian classroom. It could thus be concluded that turning this theory into realities within the Nigerian educational system requires a consideration of these challenges and a conscious effort to abate them by all concerned in the business of education else there may be inveterate, unexamined and mistaken reliance on the theory which has been argued against by scholars such as Schwab (1970) as cited in Terwel (1999).
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. Collins Dictionary. (n.d). Praxis. Last Accessed on 2nd Febraury, 2017 from ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education from https://www. ericdigests.org/1999-3/theory.htm
Akinbote, O. (2001). The Nigerian primary school teacher: angels of instruction or devils of destruction? Nigerian Journal of Educational Philosophy 1, 35-40.
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, T. H. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring future learning paradigms. Education Today (2). Thames, New Zealand: Aries Publishing Company.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus. (n.d). Praxis. Last Accessed on 19th January, 2017 from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/praxis
Chen, C. (2003). A constructivist approach to teaching: Implications in teaching computer networking. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal 21 (2), 17-21.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2004). A guide to teaching practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Collins Dictionary. (n.d). Praxis. Last Accessed on 19th January, 2017. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/praxis
Doolittle, P. (1999). Constructivism and online education. Retrieved on 5th February from http://pdf.semanticscholar.org
Ernest, P. (2010). Reflections on theories of learning. In B. Sriraman, & L. English (Eds.). Theories of mathematics education (pp. 39-47). Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Falaye, F.V. (2005). Learning for mastery in the Nigerian classroom setting: The problems of translating theory into practice. Studies in Curriculum 4 (9), 114-124.
Fousnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism revisited: Implications and reflections. The Constructivist 16 (1), 1-17.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 17-39). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Good, R. (1993). Editorial-The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30 (9), 1015.
ILO/UNESCO (2008). The ILO/UNESCO recommendation concerning the status of teachers (1966) and The UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997). Paris, France: ILO/UNESCO.
Jones, M. G. & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5 (2), 1-10.
Lai-Chong, L & Ka-Ming, W. (1995). Implications and problems of constructivism for instructional design. Education Journal, 23 (2), 73-104.
Matthews, M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics. In D. Phillips (Ed.). Constructivism in education (pp. 161-192).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.). Praxis. Last Accessed on 19th January, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/praxis
Oloyede, E. O. & Adeleke, M. A. (2010). Understanding the learners. In O. J. Ehindero, O. O. Dibu-Ojerinde, Y. A. Ajibade (Eds.), Curriculum and the teaching process (pp. 23-30). Accra North, Ghana: Damas Educational Services.
Panasuk, R. M. & Lewis, S. (2012). Constructivism: constructing meaning or making sense? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2 (20), 1-11.
Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership (November),6-11. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Phillips, D. C. (1995).The good, the bad and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher 24 (7), 5-12.
Phillips, D. C. (Ed.) (2000). Constructivism in education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record 105 (9), 1623-1640.
Qiong, J. (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.
Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational theory (pp.39-61). NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Terwel, J. (1999). Curriculum and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies 31 (2), 195-199.
Thompson, P. (2000). Radical constructivism: Reflections and directions. In L. P. Steffe, P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfelt (pp. 412-448). London: Falmer Press.
Vadeboncoeur, J. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A historical context for constructivism in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 15-37). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Wikipedia (n.d.). Praxis. Last Accessed on 20th January, 2017. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(process)
Yilmaz, K.(2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Educational Horizons, Spring 2008, 161-172.
This paper can be cited as the Oyetoro, O.S., Ajibade, Y. A. and Obadiora, A. J. (2016). The praxis of constructivism in the Nigerian classroom: Beyond the dictates of theory to the realities of practice. Journal of Media, Educational Technology and Communication, 3(1), 50-58.