Use alternative labels such as new learning environments instead of constructivist learning environments to avoid false expectations¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 2 studies (1 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q2 · 0 of 2 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article recommends avoiding the term constructivist learning environment because it can 'create false expectations on a prescriptive level'. It endorses alternative labels such as 'new learning environments or learning environments that foster meaningful learning', noting some special issue authors already used the concept of new learning environments and that this link with constructivism is less straightforward and more appropriate for the research questions they advocate.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A shared understanding that the term constructivist learning environment may raise false expectations; labels should be adopted to reduce prescriptive misreadings

Constraints¶

• The term 'new' makes the link with constructivist theory less straightforward; the label names mainly (but not exclusively) constructivist-rooted environments

Target Learners¶

• higher education students

Target Learning Goals¶

• communicating clearly about learning environments in educational research

Claims¶

• The authors argue meaningful learning is possible outside environments labeled constructivist, including lectures [+W]
• Empirical studies of constructivist learning environments do not always show the expected learning outcomes [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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