RADICAL AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND THE

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS

AMBROSE HANS G. AGGABAO1

ABSTRACT
This study compared the effectiveness of three teaching approaches on achievement as well as retention of
learning of students. It focused on comparing new teaching approaches that were designed based on constructivist
learning philosophies (social and radical constructivism) to current tradition of teaching. Social constructivism
used the interactive small-group learning while Radical constructivism used the individualized self-engagement
approach. Both were supported with instructional materials and instructional protocol consistent with constructivist
philosophies.

The study followed the Equivalent-Groups-Pretest-Posttest Experimental Design. The experiment was
conducted using 92 freshmen math students of the Teachers College in 2005 now College of Teacher Education.
Results of the study showed significant differences among mean gain scores on both achievement and retention
measures. Radical constructivist approach showed significant advantage over the other two approaches, while the
social constructivist approach showed better gain scores than the current, traditional teaching approach.

Keywords: Radical constructivism, social constructivism, performance of students in Mathematics

Introduction

Relevant to the Philippine Commission on Educational Reform’s (PCER) five

recommended reforms in science and mathematics education (SME), this paper presents a study
that feeds into the improvement of teacher training, curriculum, as well as the development of
instructional materials and instructional procedures consistent with constructivist philosophies
that has pushed reform efforts in science and math education among first world countries.

Constructivist learning theory was considered pivotal and one of the most intriguing
reform efforts in science education during the last two decades (Yager, 1996).

____________________
1
Associate Professor II, College of Teacher Education and Executive Officer, Isabela State University,
Cabagan, Isabela.

62
It is built on the notion that learners are not passive subjects to whom information may be
transferred, but are actively engaged in knowledge construction. It is a theory of knowing
(Ritchie, Tobin and Hook, 1997) that emphasizes knowledge as actively constructed by learners
through their own lenses of experiences (Yager, 1996; English and Halford, 1995; Steffe &
Kieren, 1994). Its philosophical stance argues that truth of knowledge
claims is seen on the basis of viability which refers to the coherence and consistency between
learner’s prior and existing experience and the new constructed knowledge (Jones, 1995).

The foregoing theories may be best understood by a situation where an abstract graph
was presented to groups of learners from whom three major interpretations were observed –
while sharing similarities these were very different from each other in terms of contexts and
positions where stark and substantial differences were observed among them. This revealed that
indeed, learning content or knowledge is not very neat as may have been believed traditionally.
Rather, it suggests a scenario where three elements may be used to evaluate the quality of
learning that happens in a teaching and learning situation as follows: the content to be learned;
the teacher’s construction of the content as it is taught; and the learner’s interpretation of the
content as it is shared to them. This meant that learning episode should offer opportunities for the
teacher-student learning community to hone their ideas and knowledge structures against each
member of the community (Ritchie et. al, 1997) the goal of which is to enlarge as much what
they share in common while admitting their differences.

While constructivist epistemologies agree on the basic tenets of constructivism, two

competing forms have pervaded the literature along this line – social constructivism and radical
constructivism. Heylighen (1995) observed that there are two acceptability evaluation in
constructivist literature. These are coherence and consensus. Coherence refers to the agreement
between and among the various cognitive structures or thoughts within an individual, while
consensus is the agreement of the various cognitive structures or thoughts between and among
individuals. The latter belong to the social constructivist view while the former to the radical
constructivist view.

Social constructivism appears to claim that learning happens best in learning groups
suggesting a teaching model where group work must extensively be utilized. On the other hand,
radical constructivism insists that while there is no question that learning is enriched in group
situations, learning itself must finally come to agreement with individual’s existing knowledge
structures. As such, it is believed that learning can occur in an equally enriched level or even
better, when individual learners are provided varying learning situations or opportunities for
themselves to test their knowledge structures not only through groups, but more importantly
through individual reflections and self-assessments.

63
The Research Problem

From the foregoing situations the following research questions were sought and
answered:

Do the following teaching approaches have differential effects on the achievement and
retention of students in mathematics?

a) Radical Constructivist Teaching Approach

b) Social Constructivist Teaching Approach
c) Traditional Approach

Significance of the Study

Results of this study offer information about constructivist teaching approaches

effectiveness in teaching mathematics at the classroom levels and thus provide a vital guide for
teachers, administrators, as well as instructional system builders. These groups will be guided
accordingly as to design, methods, and arrangement of contents of learning materials consistent
with the demands of constructivist classroom arrangements that enhances active learning
engagement that eventually promote deeper learning and understanding of mathematics
knowledge, values, and skills.

Results of this study will also be very useful among researchers in the mathematics
education field as it offers the promise of widening their appreciation of the implication of
constructivist models from a purely cognitive orientation to a combination of both cognitive and
affective factors especially as it relates to building arrangement for learning among communities
of learners.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Related Literature

Constructivism is a set of interrelated doctrines and philosophies about learning. The

concept may be traced from the works of a number of philosophers whose ideas have been
recognized with strong associations with the current constructivist orientations. Vico for instance
claimed, “human beings can know only what they themselves made”; and Kant wrote, “Human
reason can grasp only what she herself has produced according to her own design”. Piaget also
wrote, “Children develop their own understanding of their environment from their own
experiences and from manipulating their environments as they adapt to it” (Steffe and Kieren,

64
1994). Summing up, constructivism is the notion that learners construct their own knowledge out
of their own experiences.

From these classical ideas, constructivism emerged and was seen as a pivotal reform
initiative in science and mathematics education in the west and has been described as the most
appropriate learning theory (Yager, 1996).

Constructivism suggests that knowledge is not passively received either through the
senses or any means of communication by learners, but is actively constructed by them
(Heylighen, 1997; English and Halford, 1995; Shoenfeld, 1992; and Cobb, Yackel, and Wood,
1992). Rather than passive absorbers of information, learners are viewed as actively engaged in
meaning-making, activating prior knowledge to bear or fit with new situations, and if warranted,
adopting such knowledge structures (Steffe and Gale, 1995). According to this theory it is not
possible to pass on knowledge from one person to another person, hence the roles teachers play
in instruction is one of a facilitator, an architect who constantly provides students with learning
situations from where they can derive or abstract knowledge from (Jones, 1996).

Literature shows that debates within constructivism as reflected lively exchanges of ideas
within the field and contained in thousands of articles and papers during the fourth quarter of the
20th century hang on four philosophical principles that have been termed as the tenets of
constructivism (Doolittle, 1999). These philosophical principles are:

a) Knowledge is not passively accumulated, but is a result of the active cognizing by the
individual from experience;

b) The process of cognition is adaptive that serves the individual’s search for viability;

c) Knowledge is not a mirror of external reality; and

d) Knowledge resides in rich social, cultural, and language-based contexts.

Various types of constructivism emerged along the continuum whose classification is

dependent on the extent to which it satisfies the four philosophies that may be placed in a
continuum that emphasizes individual subjective knowledge construction on the one end to the
more objective socially shared knowledge construction at the other end. Between these extreme
ends lie two generally competing philosophies—radical and social constructivism. These are the
two most common perspectives in science and mathematics education (Jones, 1996; Mathews,
2000). Their differences are basically rooted to their differing criteria in selecting the so called
right construction.

65
Radical constructivism

Radical constructivism proposes that knowledge results from personal experiences of the
learner within his environment. Heylighen (1997) attach the so-called viability criteria of
coherence and to radical constructivism. Coherence in this context refer to the agreement among
thought patterns within individual as new experiences and their prior knowledge are brought to
bear upon each other. Radical constructivist maintain that the individual is the primary actor in
the process of meaning making and thus to the learning process. They must get themselves
personally involved and actively engaged in the learning tasks.

In other words, radical constructivism views knowledge that is constructed as personal

and uniquely determined by each individual. It contends that while the individual shares and
participates to negotiate and admit information from others as part of the learning environment,
what is ultimately constructed and internalized is not something that is necessarily culturally
negotiated (i.e., consensus among community of learners). There cannot be a single reality for all
(i.e. discovery of an ontological reality) that appears to be constant across people and cognizing
agents (von Glasersfeld, 1991). An interpretation of the foregoing suggests a learning
arrangement where individual learners is in constant interaction with learning environments –
books, information, co-learners, and actively seeking answers to seemingly inconsistent
structures until viability is attained. This entails a more individualistic setting in a learning
environment.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism views knowledge as a cultural product. It proposes that knowledge

is best borne from social interaction. Viability of knowledge claims are judged based on the
extent to which consensus is achieved from the various conceptions and experiences of members
in a culture (Heylighen, 1997). Proponents of social constructivism argue that knowledge is
constructed not only from personal experiences, but from social interaction with others (Jones,
1996). They argue that knowledge is interwoven with culture and society (Ernest, 1992) and
emphasizes social construction of reality.

Ernest (1996) puts that social constructivism argues that apart from the radical’s premise
of subjective knowledge, personal theories that result from the “organization of the overall
thoughts of the learner must be compatible with and limited by the physical and social world of
the learner.” Social constructivists’ views strongly support instructional arrangement anchored
on social interactions and meaning negotiations that can be best achieved through small group
approaches. This line of thought is perfectly exemplified by Yager (1991), a leading social
constructivist, when he claimed that “constructivist teachers of science promote group learning
where two or more learners discuss approaches to a given problem.”

66
 Constructivist teaching approaches as illustrated by the foregoing literature seem to
suggest a restructuring of the typical classroom instruction involving whole class discussions,
pre-determined sets of actions that emphasize mechanical compliance to teachers’ prescriptions.
It suggests a shift to a more learner-centered instruction that has strong implications, not only on
the cognitive, but also on the motivational and affective factors underlying learner’s dispositions
in classroom situations

Simon (1995) describes a teaching cycle as consisting of hypothetical trajectories in the

sense that it only contains anticipated learning activity that is changed as teachers interact and
learn more about the learners. Sacro (1996) on the other hand, in appreciation of Simon (1995)
and Steffe and D’Ambrosio (1995), implemented a constructivist teaching model and examined
the effects of constructivist teaching approaches to the problem solving strategies and
performance of students in statistics. Her findings support the superiority of this constructivist
teaching approach over traditional teaching. Similar advantage was observed by Bentillo (1996)
and Santos (2005). These studies suggest that constructivism is not only advantageous in
cognitive learning, but also, in the areas of affective learning.

The foregoing literature presents an ample basis for the efficiency of constructivist
teaching approaches over traditional ones in both areas of achievement and motivation.
However, studies along these lines appear to reflect a generic constructivist orientation. There
seems to be no available research comparing constructivist teaching models that adhere to the
classification in the constructivist continuum earlier mentioned. Many have seemed to have
worked on constructivism in bits and pieces, but if philosophy has to bear on our teaching
practice, it is imperative that the implication of the epistemological bases of the various forms of
constructivism be put to test.

Conceptual Framework

The literature strongly supports the relationships among the variables under study as is
illustrated in the diagram below (Figure 1). It suggests that teaching approaches will have to bear
on achievement and retention measures of learning. By achievement is meant the inclusion of
conceptual understanding, problem solving skills, and procedural knowledge development.
Retention on the other hand is meant the retention of learning as indicated by students’ gain
scores between the immediate posttest and the delayed posttest. Achievement on the other hand
reflected the gain scores between pretesting and immediate post test.

This framework reflects the gist of the literature so far discussed above and offers the
expectation of reflecting significant differences based on the literature available for this study.

67
 Teaching Approaches Achievement
1. Radical Constructivist
2. Social Constructivist
3. Traditional

Retention

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework

Research Hypotheses

From the foregoing literature and conceptual framework, the following hypotheses were
tested:

1. Students exposed to constructivist teaching approaches have higher achievement mean

gain scores than those exposed to traditional teaching.

2. Students exposed to the radical constructivist teaching approach have higher

achievement mean gain scores than those exposed to the social constructivist teaching approach.

3. Students exposed to constructivist teaching approach have higher retention mean gain
scores than those exposed to the traditional teaching approach.

4. Students exposed to the radical constructivist teaching approach have higher retention
mean gain scores than those exposed to the social constructivist approach.

68
Methodology

Research Design

The study employed the Three Parallel Group Pre and Post Test Experimental Design. In
particular, three groups were used in the study – one served as the control group (Traditional
Group) while the other two were used as treatment groups (Radical and Social Constructivist).
This design is illustrated below (Figure 2) where R means random selection and assignment of
subjects, G stands for group, Oi1 (i=1,2,3) are the pretest results; Xi (i=1,2,3) are the three
teaching approaches; Oi2 (i=1,2,3) represents achievement measures; and Oi3 (i=1,2;3) are the
three delayed observations (retention scores).

R G1 O11 X1 O12 O13

R G2 O21 X2 O22 O23

R G3 O31 X3 O32 O33

Figure 2. Experimental Design

Sample

Ninety-two freshmen students enrolled in basic mathematics course at ISU Cabagan were
used in the study. They were randomly selected and assigned into three groups. The treatments
were then randomly assigned to the three groups. Equivalence of groups were sought on the
following measures: math prior knowledge using the pre-test, reading comprehension scores,
previous math grade, and their college entrance examination grades. Analysis of variance
revealed no significant differences among groups at 95% confidence. Originally, there were 96
students selected, but before the experiment began, four subjects have already dropped out.
Fortunately, the drop outs were evenly distributed that made a 31-31-30 groupings of the 92
students left.

Instruments

Two parallel versions of the Math Achievement Test (MAT) were constructed by the
researcher following generally acceptable procedure of test construction. Only items with
acceptable indices (difficulty, discrimination, and effective distracters) were accepted.
Equivalence of the two versions was made by employing the same test items with the other one
having a different item arrangement. One version was used for the pre-test and the other for the

69
immediate and delayed posttests. This test contained 40-item multiple choice test with a KR-20
reliability coefficient of 0.87.

Six modules were prepared by the researcher covering six topics in basic mathematics.
Each of the six modules was developed and pre-tested using similar groups of students the
previous semester.

Data Collection Procedure

Before the start of the experiment, the groups were pre-tested using the First Version of
the MAT. The training of students in the treatment groups about constructivist learning processes
were made to built students confidence in a changed classroom environment. One for the radical
(Individualized instruction) and another group for the social constructivist learning processes
(small group instruction). The treatments were then formally begun covering topics and
instructions in the six modules. Immediately after completing the six modules, the immediate
posttest was administered. After 30 days, the students were made to take the test again that
coincided and served as their final examination during the semester. The result of this test served
as the delayed posttest measures necessary to provide information about their retention of
learning

Data Analysis Procedure

1. One-way Analysis of Variance was used to compare the pretest scores in order to
establish equivalence of the four experimental groups. The same method was used to determine
equivalence of groups using their reading comprehension, previous math grade, and mathematics
score in their entrance examination. The analysis showed no significant differences in their pre-
test scores which did not warrant additional statistical treatment to correct initial differences.

2. Similarly, the one-way analysis of variance procedure was used to determine the
differential effects of teaching approach on achievement and retention of students.

3. The Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was used to compare differences between
means.

Results and Discussion

Results of the study showed the following:

70
Teaching Approach and Achievement

Mean achievement of students by teaching approach are shown in Table 1. Radical

constructivist teaching approach showed the highest mean achievement scores of 11.32 followed
by the social constructivist group at 9.58. The lowest mean was that of the traditional group.
Analysis of variance procedures revealed significant differences among means at above 99
percent level of confidence. The Duncan Multiple Range Test revealed that the radical
constructivist group performed better than the social and traditional groups while the social
constructivist group performed better than the traditional group.

Teaching Approach and Achievement

Mean retention scores of students by teaching approach are shown in Table 2. The means
show the differences in means of the radical group at 19.00 from those of the other groups – the
social and the traditional groups with means of 14.71 and 12.70, respectively. DMRT showed
that the radical group performed much better than the two other groups. Similarly, the social
constructivist group scored better than the traditional group.

The foregoing results of the study confirm the hypothesis that constructivist teaching
approach is more effective than the traditional approach. This is consistent with literature: Sacro
(1995) and Bentillo (1996), although implementing a generic constructivist teaching approach,
have shown that constructivist teaching approach is more effective than traditional approaches.
On the other hand, there has not been any study, which compared the efficiencies of the two
constructivist teaching approach as compared in this study. The result of this study then provides
initial confirmation to the advantage of radical constructivist teaching approach which may be
explained by the following conditions.

Strong individual responsibility and accountability of students over their own learning
results in the radical constructivist setting which may have triggered or induced sustained effort
among students to get themselves engaged and exert personal effort to doing and understanding
learning materials. On the other hand students under social constructivist approach may have
experienced less intense demand for personal for responsibility over their own learning. Added
to this is the possibility of passive participation among some members of the small groups used
in this setting. This passive behavior has always been observed in small group work when not
enough individual accountability over their own learning is effected in them. This observation
generally happens even in small group work.

Moreover, in the same study, Aggabao (2006) have shown that students in radical
constructivist settings exhibited significantly stronger and positive interest and value belief about
mathematics and have provided strong challenge on their mathematics self-efficacy which may
have motivated students under this setting to expend greater and more focused effort in learning

71
the materials. Also, the results showed initial evidence that while interaction in the context of
constructivist literature is important to the learning process, social interaction may not be the
only key to better performance. Rather, unlike the social constructivist focus on social
interaction, interaction with a variety of materials and situations including but not limited to
mentors, modules, instruments, probe questions, and peers contribute collectively and positively
to the learning experiences of the students.

Conclusions

Based on the foregoing discussions of results the following conclusions were made:

1. Teaching approaches have differential effects on achievement of students in

mathematics. Specifically, constructivist teaching approaches have superior effect on
achievement than traditional teaching approach. Moreover, the radical constructivist teaching
approach showed better effects on achievement than social constructivist approach.

2. Teaching approaches have differential effects on learning retention of students in

mathematics. Specifically, social constructivist teaching approaches have superior effects on
retention than those of the traditional group. Moreover, the radical constructivist group has
superior effect on retention than that of the social constructivist group.

Recommendations

Given the differential effects of constructivist teaching approaches on achievement and

retention, it is worthy to replicate this study and expand its concern to include exploration on the
factors that made radical constructivist classroom more effective than its social constructivist
counterpart. Literature supports that classroom teaching approaches impact on motivational
beliefs of students and thus, studies that will explore the effect of social constructivist
approaches on motivational beliefs as a possible explanation may now be considered.
On the other hand, given the multiple dimensions of achievement and hence retention of
each achievement dimension, it is recommended to explore and compare the efficiency of
constructivist approaches on these dimensions. Specifically, these dimensions are conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and problem solving.

72
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bentillo, E. N. (1996). Microcomputer based laboratory, constructivist teaching, and students

understanding of force and motion. Unpublished Dissertation, University of the
Philippines College of Education. Diliman, Quezon City.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1995). A constructivist alternative to the representational
view of the mind in mathematics education. Journal of Research in Mathematics
Education, 23, 2-33.
Edcom Report. (1991). Report of the Congressional Committee on Education. Manila: National
Printing Office, p. 12.

English, L. & Halford, G. (1995). Mathematics Education Models and Processes. USA:
Lawrence Earlbaum.
Ernest, P. (1992). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics: Radical constructivism
rehabilitated? Available at: http://www.ex.ac.uk/
Glasersfeld von, E. (1991). Radical constructivism in mathematics education [Online].
Available at: http://www.ex.ac.uk/
Heylighen, F. (1995). Epistemological constructivism. [Online]. Available
at:http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be.construct.htm.
http://www.edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/workshops/tohe1999.
Jones, G. (1996). The constructivist leader. In Rhoton, J. & Bower, P. (Eds), Issues in Science
Education (pp. 140-141). USA: National Science Teachers Association.
Mathews, M. R. (2000). Constructivism in science and mathematics education. [Online].
Available at: http://www.csi.unian.it/educa.
PCER. (2000). Presidential Commission for Educational Reform. Philippine Congress.
Ritchie S., Tobin, K. & Hook, K. S. (1997). Teaching referents and the warrants to test the
viability of student’s mental models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 223-
238.
Sacro, C. P. (1996). Constructivist teaching: Effects on students problem solving strategies and
performance in statistics. Unpublished dissertation, University of the Philippines College
of Education. Diliman, Quezon City.
Santos, M. G. M. (2005). Achievement motivation and task performance in collaborative-open,
reflective-evaluation learning. Unpublished dissertation, University of the Philippines
College of Education. Diliman, Quezon City.

73