The authors argue that constructivists talking about constructivist learning environments is not necessarily a paradox¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2009 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? Because constructivism as a learning theory has implications for practice, the perspective adopted is crucial, so talking about constructivist learning environments is not a paradox. → David Gijbels 2009
Evidence¶
David Gijbels 2009¶
David Gijbels, Sofie M. M. Loyens. (2009). Constructivist learning (environments) and how to avoid another tower of Babel: reply to Renkl. Instructional Science, 37, 499–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9100-2
q1 · i? · theoretical · r2
This is a conceptual argument in a reply to a commentary, not an empirical study; the article offers no data for it. The authors define constructivism as 'a theory about how we learn, grounded in philosophy with implications for instruction' and argue from that definition.
"we do not regard it as a paradox that constructivists talk about con- structivist learning environments, since they are focusing on the implications of a learning theory"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Empirical studies of constructivist learning environments do not always show the expected learning outcomes — related
- The authors argue meaningful learning is possible outside environments labeled constructivist, including lectures — related
- Collingwood's ideas about how historical knowledge is produced offer teachers sound reasons for using constructivist approaches in their classrooms — related
- Connectivism is an iteration of architectonic/constructivist thought rather than a new theory of learning — related
- Cognitive constructivism has strong empirical support and suggests new directions for science education, and must be distinguished from metaphysical constructivism — related
- Structural relations exist between students' conceptions of constructivist learning and their regulation and processing strategies, and doubting students risk inadequate regulation — related
- In a constructivist learning environment, students' perceptions of assessment shifted toward deeper demands but their actual learning approaches did not, and surface approaches increased — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-paradox-constructivist-learning-environments |
title |
The authors argue that constructivists talking about constructivist learning environments is not necessarily a paradox |
description |
The authors argue that constructivists talking about constructivist learning environments is not necessarily a paradox |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2009 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — david-gijbels-2009 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.