Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T01:23:05.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When all is Said and Done, More is Said than Done: Research Examining Constructivist Instruction for Students with Special Needs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Mark Apps  and
Mark Carter
Mark Apps
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre
Mark Carter*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre
*
Mark Carter, Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University NSW 2109 E-mail: mark.carter@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constructivist literature has become increasingly prominent in the area of special education. The nature of constructivism and its relevance and limitations for students with special needs is discussed, as is the importance of appropriate research in determining the efficacy of instructional interventions. A search of the literature into the efficacy of constructivism for students with special needs in K-12 settings revealed a predominance of descriptive and discussion-based research and very limited experimental research. The limited existing experimental research indicates that constructivist instructional approaches may have circumscribed applications in special education. Specifically, they may be appropriate to applications for students with learning difficulties in areas such as science education. Nevertheless, there are major methodological and interpretative problems that undermine confidence in the existing body of research. These problems include an absence of adequate procedural reliability data, interventions that often involve teaching single or very small groups of students, and conditions that do not approximate regular classrooms. There is also evidence suggesting that constructivist approaches may be inappropriate and ineffective for students with intellectual disabilities. The need for considerable caution and extensive further research in this area is evident, in light of the ready adoption of constructivism in schools and the increase of constructivist literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , 2006 , pp. 21 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Airasian, P.W., & Walsh, M.E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444–449.Google Scholar
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bay, M., Staver, J.R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 555–570.Google Scholar
Becker, W.C., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D.R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruction. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Carnine, D. (1999). Campaigns for moving research into practice. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 2-6, 35.Google Scholar
Carr, A.A., Jonassen, D. H., Litzinger, M.E., & Marra, R.M. (1998). Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systematic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy. Educational Technology, 38, 5–15.Google Scholar
Dixon, R., & Camine, D. (1994). Ideologies, practices, and their implications for special education. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 356–367.Google Scholar
Ellis, E.S. (1993). Integrative strategy instruction: A potential model for teaching content area subjects to adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 358–383.Google Scholar
Ellis, L.A. (2005). Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research on teaching students with learning difficulties. Camberwell, Australia: ACER.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Camine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 183–192.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 23–35.Google Scholar
Gersten, R. (2001). Sorting out the roles of research in the improvement of practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallenback, M.J. (1996). The cognitive strategy in writing: Welcome relief for adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 107–119.Google Scholar
Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 233–247.Google Scholar
Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1996). Constructivism and students with special needs: Issues in the classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 134–137.Google Scholar
Heward, W.L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 186–205.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology, Research & Development, 39, 5–14.Google Scholar
Kameenui, E.J., & Camine, D.W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1999). Efficacy of special education and related services. Washington, DC: AAMR.Google Scholar
Kroesbergen, E.H., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2002). Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science, 30, 361–378.Google Scholar
Kroesbergen, E.H., Van Luit, J.E.H., & Maas, C.J.M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, T. R. (1998). How to build a better mousetrap: Changing the way science is taught through constructivism. Contemporary Education, 69, 134–136.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Boon, R., & Butcher Carter, K. (2001). Correlates of inquiry learning in science: Constructing concepts of density and buoyancy. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 31, 199–211.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Mantzicopoulos, P., Sturgeon, A., Goodwin, L., & Chung, S. (1998). “A place where living things affect and depend on each other”: Qualitative and quantitative outcomes associated with inclusive science teaching. Science Education, 82, 163–179.Google Scholar
Mclnerney, D.M. (2005). Educational Psychology-theory, research, and teaching: A 25-year retrospective. Educational Psycholgy, 25, 585–99.Google Scholar
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L.A., & Miller, S.P. (1996). Constructivistic math instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 147–156.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Scheurman, G. (1998). From behaviorist to constructivist teaching. Social Education, 62, 6–9.Google Scholar
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1994). The construction of scientific knowledge by students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1995). Reflections on “scientific reasoning of students with mild mental retardation: Investigating preconceptions and conceptual change”. Exceptionality, 5, 249–257.Google Scholar
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Bakken, J.P., & Brigham, F.J. (1993). Reading versus doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 1–15.Google Scholar
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Sullivan, G.S. (1994). Promoting relational thinking: Elaborative interrogation for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 450–457.Google Scholar
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Sullivan, G.S., & Hesser, L.S. (1993). Improving reasoning and recall: The differential effects of elaborative interrogation and mnemonic elaboration. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 233–240.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. Journal of Special Education, 28, 259–74.Google Scholar
Sullivan, G.S., Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (1995). Reasoning and remembering: Coaching students with learning disabilities to think. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 310–322.Google Scholar
Warren, S.F., & Voder, P.J. (1994). Communication and language intervention: Why a constructivist approach is insufficient Journal of Special Education, 28, 248–58.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K. & Carter, M. (1996). Reconstructing behaviour analysis in education: A revised behavioural interactionist perspective for special education. Educational Psychology, 16, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.P. (1998). Improving the comprehension of disabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 213–238.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., & Noell, J. (1992). Science instruction at the secondary level: Implications for students with learning disabilities. In Camine, D., & Kameenui, E. (Eds.), Higher order thinking: Designing curriculum for mainstream students (pp. 39–58). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar