A BOLD STEP FORWARD: JUXTAPOSITION OF

THE CONSTRUCTIVIST AND FREESCHOOLING

LEARNING MODEL

V ictoria O liaku C hiatula

Valparaiso University

This article discusses the juxtaposition o f learning within the parallel

structure o f the constructivist and freeschooling models of education.
To begin, characteristics describing the constructivist-learning model
are provided, followed by a summary of the major components o f the
freeschooling-leaming model. Finally, the parallel structure between
constructivist learning and the ffeeschooling-leaming model is out­
lined, concluding with considerations toward a bold step forward.
Keywords: constructivist-learning model, freeschooling-leaming model

Introduction em pow ered to m ake choices about how

E ducation necessitates a bold step forw ard
tow ards innovative learning practices. This
article exam ines the juxtaposition o f learning
w ithin the parallel structure o f the construc­
tivist- and ffeeschooling-leam ing m odels o f
education. This parallel structure provides an
opportunity for inquiry and further reflection
on the nature o f learning and the different
roles w ithin this process. H enceforth, this
article will: (1) describe characteristics o f the
constructivist-learning m odel, (2) sum m arize
elem ents o f the freeschooling-leam ing m od­
el, (3) provide a parallel structure betw een
the constructivist-learning and ffeeschool­
in g-leam ing m odels, and (4) conclude w ith
considerations tow ard a b old step forw ard for
learning practice.
Constructivist-Learning Model
T he constructivist-learning m odel is a m a­
jo r ffam ew ork guiding educational practice. A
core idea o f constructivist learning is that:
... every learner has a unique per­
spective... [therefore] students are
and w hat they w ill learn [and a shift oc­
curs from] having all learners learning
the sam e thing, [to] allow ing different
learners to learn different things. (Kara-
giorgi & Symeou, 2005, p. 18)
In the literature, constructivism as a p h i­
losophy reflects variations an d degrees o f
learning. H ow ever, as a learning m odel o f
education, constructivist learning generally
em bodies six attributes. T hey are:
Learners construct their own meaning—
learning is an active process w hereby
learners exercise a h igh degree o f social
ffeedom to explore th eir ow n interests
and construct their ow n m eaning by
interacting w ith the environm ent, p artic­
ipating in problem -solving, an d engaging
in critical thinking w ithin m eaningful
contexts.
New learning builds on prior knowledge—
learners m ake connections betw een old
know ledge and new inform ation through
a process o f com paring, questioning,
challenging, an d investigating.

303
304 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3
Adults are learning facilitators—the adult’s
role is one of a facilitator/coach in the
learning process.
Social interaction enhances learning—the
social setting provides learners with the
opportunity to compare and share their
ideas with others.
Meaningful learning develops through
“authentic” tasks— activities are within
a meaningful context that is designed to
stimulate real-world, case-based learning
environments, instead of a predetermined
sequence of instruction.
Reflective Practice—the learner is given
time to reflect on what he or she has
discovered for purposes o f collabora­
tion, discourse, and building connections
(Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Christie, 2005;
Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger,
2004; Draper, 2002; Fosnot, 1996; Grant,
1998; Honebein, 1996; Jonassen, 1994,
1999, 2000; Murphy, 1997; Noddings,
1993; Ward, 2001; Van De Walle, Karp,
& Bay-Williams, 2014).
Table 1 lists each o f the six attributes with­
in a constructivist-learning model, a general
description of each, and a summary of the
roles of the learner and facilitator within the
learning process.
Thus, within a constructivist-learning
model, emphasis is on the learner through
an active, self-directed process. The learner
exercises a high degree of freedom to explore
his or her own interests while interacting with
the environment and engaging in authentic,
real-life tasks. The adult role is one of a facili­
tator/coach in the learning process (Noddings,
1993; Fosnot, 1996, p. 10; Murphy, 1997,
pp. 11-14; Grant, 1998; Ward, 2001; Draper,
2002, p. 521). The freeschooling-leaming
model parallels similar characteristics with
constructivist learning. The next section out­
lines important elements of the freeschool­
ing-leaming model, after which the parallel
structure between the constructivist-learning
and freeschooling-leaming model follows.
Freeschooling-Learning Model
Freeschooling-leaming proponents (Lister,
1974; Neil, 1960; Readhead, 1996; Reimer,
1971; Mercogliano, 1999; Miller, 2002;
Morrison, 2005) argue that learning is the
constmction of knowledge or meaning through
activities that stem from an individual’s
choices and interests, a process called
individualization (Morrison, 2005, p. 25).
The freeschooling-leaming model stresses
individualized, rather than group instruction.
There are no set curricula; resources from
the surrounding community are integrated
and used. Play, creativity, and the natural
are valued highly (Mercogliano, 1999). This
model is based on the belief that no specific
curriculum is necessary to prepare children
for adult life. Instead, the freeschooling-
leaming model emphasizes learning as a
natural byproduct of all human activity. The
focus o f the freeschooling-leaming model is
on the learner as a unique individual innately
driven to learn and explore when given the
freedom to do so. According to Miller (2002),
freeschoolers believe:
... that learning should be intimate,
spontaneous, and joyful—specifically
not controlled by textbooks, curricula,
instructional methods, or hierarchical
authority, and they [represent] a shared
desire to make learning relevant and
responsive to the lively social and po­
litical issues of the day. (p. 3)
As a result, freedom of choice and self-di­
rected learning are two essential concepts that
frame the freeschooling-leaming model. The
learner exercises freedom of choice in the
learning process; that is, the learner chooses
what, how, when, and with whom he or she
wants to study. The leaner is motivated by his
or her interests and proceeds from one step to
another at an individual rate of development.
 Juxtaposition of the Constructivist and Freeschooling Learning Model / 305

Table 1. Constructivist-Learning Model

Characteristics Description Learner’s Role Facilitator’s Role

Learners construct Learning is construct­ Raises questions, and Supports learners’ construction of
their own meaning ed through an active generates hypotheses knowledge
process and models

Focuses on the development of

Learning is shaped by Uses prior knowledge conceptual understanding through
New learning builds
the learner’s own inter­ to develop the meaning open-ended investigations within
on prior knowledge
ests and experiences o f new experiences authentic learning environments

Learning is developed Applies knowledge of

Adults are learning via coaching, moderat­ content within authen­
facilitators ing, suggesting Generates activities and tasks
tic tasks

Learning is within the Supports collaborative construction

Social interaction context o f collaboration Collaborates among o f knowledge through social negoti­
enhances learning and the sharing o f ideas peers ation for recognition, not competi­
with others tion among learners

Emphasizes hands-on, real-world

Engages in real-world
learning experiences with interdisciplin­
Meaningful learning Learning is within au­ ary integration and field-related
through authentic Provides multiple
thentic tasks, experienc­ experiences
tasks modes o f representation
es, and settings Uses errors to inform learners of
and perspective on
content progress toward understanding and
transforms them into ideas

Encourages and provides reflection

Learning is a reflective Monitors own thinking time for collaboration, discourse,
practice encouraging col­ Appreciates different and building connections
Reflective Practice
laborative discourse and perspectives Seeks and values learners’ points
conversation o f view

Note: Adapted from: Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Christie, 2005; Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004;
Draper, 2002; Fosnot, 1996; Grant, 1998; Honebein, 1996; Jonassen 1994, 1999, 2000; Murphy, 1997;
Noddings, 1993; Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2014; Ward, 2001.

The leaner decides what to do with his or her
time and learns as a byproduct of ordinary
experience, rather than adopting a predeter­
mined educational syllabus or standardized
instruction in classes following a prescriptive
curriculum tMercogliano. 1999; Miller, 2002;
Morrison, 2005; Readhead, 1996).
There are five characteristics of the free-
schooling educational model. The character­
istics are: (1) De-emphasis o f classes—There
is no curriculum or set of required courses.
The learner’s interests guide day-to-day ac­
tivities; (2) Age mixing—The learner is not
separated into age groups, rather he or she
is allowed to mix freely and interact with
those younger and older; (3) Self-directed
learning—The learner is free to spend time
however he or she wishes; (4) Democratic
governance—A democratic governance mod­
el is used between the facilitator and learner
306 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

for decision-making and conflict resolution,
with each having an equal vote and input re­
gardless of age; (5) Evaluation—The learner
is not assessed, evaluated, graded, or other­
wise compared with others, rather he or she
can ask fellow learners or the facilitator for
feedback on his or her performance (Lefty
Parent, 2011; Mercogliano, 1999; Readhead,
1996). Table 2 highlights the five elements of
the freeschooling-leaming model.
Both the constructivist-learning and free­
schooling-leaming model offer flexibility,
creativity, self-reliance, and freedom of choice
for the learner. A parallel structure of learn­
ing exists with these models. A freeschool-
ing-leaming model shifts learning to reflect
the construction o f knowledge through a pro­
cess of individualization (Morrison, 2005, p.
25); i.e., a process whereby the construction of
knowledge or meaning stems from an individ-
ual’s choices and interests. Therefore, there is
greater emphasis on personal autonomy and
independence, which leads to self-directed
learning. The community and adults serve as
facilitators and resources. These ideals are
also evident within a constructivist-learning
model. Applying constructivism to learning
places the emphasis on the learners’ active
engagement in real-world learning tasks that
are designed to promote thoughtful reflection
and discussion. The learning facilitator gives
general guidance and support, as learners
solve problems, inquire, experiment, design,
and construct in order to gain deep under­
standing. Learning in both models allows for
the interaction of learners’ lived experiences.
Furthermore, both models embrace the inte­
gration and application of learning within the
real-world context. Table 3 summarizes the
parallel structure between the constructivist-
and freeschooling-leaming models.
The parallel structure of the constructiv­
ist-learning and freeschooling-leaming model
is useful in that it provides a framework for
expanding educative discourse about learn­
ing and the various roles within this process.
First, construction of knowledge stems from
the learner’s interests. Second, the learner,
who is self-directed, is guided by his or her
own pace and has the freedom to make choic­
es within the learning process. Third, the
learner actively engages within meaningful
contexts and applies real-world learning tasks
designed to promote thoughtful reflection and

Table 2 Freeschooling-Learning Model

Characteristics
De-emphasis of Classes
Age-Mixing
Description
There is no curriculum or set of required courses
Learner’s interest guides day-to-day activities
Age-mixing is emphasized
Learners are not separated into age groups, rather they are allowed to mix freely,
interacting with those younger and older than themselves

Self-Directed Learning with The learner is free to spend time however he or she wishes and has access to
Resources and Needed educational resources

Democratic Governance
Evaluation
A democratic governance model is used between the facilitator and learner for
decision-making and conflict resolution, with each having an equal vote and input,
regardless o f age
Learners are not assessed, evaluated, graded, or otherwise compared with one
another; rather, they can ask fellow learners or the facilitator for feedback on how
they are doing

Note: Adapted from: (Readhead, 1996, p. 110; Mercogliano, 1999; Lefty Parent, 2011, p. 3).
 Juxtaposition of the Constructivist and Freeschooling Learning Model / 307

Table 3. Constructivist-Learning and Freeschooling-Learning Parallel Structure

Parallel Structure Constructivist-Learning F rceschooli ng-Lca rning

Knowledge is constructed by the learn­

Learning is constructed Knowledge is constructed by the learner
er through an active process shaped by
through an active process through the process o f individualization
experience
Learning is self-directed The learner is self-directed and learns at
and entails freedom of The learner maintains his/her own voice
and interests in the learning process his or her own pace without any predeter­
choice mined structure and/or guided curricula

The learner is engaged in authentic, The learner’s interests guide day-to-day

Learning is embedded activities and they spend time how they
within meaningful social real-world tasks with collaborative dis­
wish
context course among peers and is encouraged
towards reflection and conversation Learning is in collaboration with others
through age-mixing

Adults serve as facilitators, resources, and

Learning is supported with models
a facilitative adult role Adults are facilitators/coaches The democratic governance model is used
between the facilitator and learner, with
each having an equal vote and input

discussion. Finally, adults serve as resources
in a facilitative role that gives guidance and
support. As society continues to change rapid­
ly, effective learning demands transformative
practices within a multiplicity of educational
models designed to accommodate various
learner capacities and interests.
Conclusion: Considerations Towards a
Bold Step Forward
This article has demonstrated a parallel
structure between the constructivist-learning
and ffeeschooling-leaming model of edu­
cation. Juxtaposed, both provide innovative
learning environments and a platform towards
a bold step forward with greater emphasis on
creating an innovative model that allows for
more flexibility, creativity, self-reliance, and
freedom o f choice within the learning pro­
cess. This parallel structure stresses learning
opportunities that promote the learner to be
proactive, transformative, and innovative.
First, it instills the learner’s autonomy in
educational choices by starting with embrac­
ing one’s individual way, natural curiosity,
and interests as the direction and context of
learning. Second, it provides learning pro­
cesses that are: a) fostered within an envi­
ronment that is individualized, flexible, and
adaptive to the learners’ pace and interests,
b) embedded within authentic, meaningful
tasks presented within the learner’s real-life
experiences, and c) shared, inclusive, and
collaboratively builds a community of trust
and embraces various perspectives. Third, it
uses supportive environments that provide
the context for learning, allowing for growth,
development, and reflection.
To conclude, the juxtaposition of learning
within the parallel structure o f the construc­
tivist and freeschooling models o f education
is a bold step forward towards transforma­
tive learning practices. Within this parallel
structure, the nature and process o f learning
is fluid and adaptive, fostering decision-mak­
ing proactive processes that allow the learner
to use his or her own interests to self-direct
how one learns, not only to self-improve, but
more importantly, to innovate and transform
the community and make an impact on the
global world.
308 / Education Vol. 135 No. 3

References Morrison, K..A. (2005). Do free schools promote chaos?

Encounter, 7S(1), 25-34.
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search o f un­ Murphy, E. (1997). Constructivism from philosophy to
derstanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. practice. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/full-
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and text/ED444966.pdf
Curriculum Development. Neil, A.S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to
Christie, A. (2005). Constructivism and its implication child rearing. New York, NY: Hart Publishing Com­
for educators. Retrieved from http://alicechristie. pany, Inc.
com/edtech/leaming/constructivism/index.htm Noddings, N. (1993). Constructivism and caring. In R.D.
Cooperstein, S.E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Davis & C.A. Maher (Eds.), School mathematics,
Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to and the world o f reality (pp. 35-50). Boston, MA:
learning. Emerald, 32(2), 141-148. Retrieved from Allyn & Bacon.
http://www.unc.edu/~bwilder/inlsl 11/11 lbeyondac- Readhead, Z. (1996). Summerhill school. In M. Hem
tiveleamingWED.pdf (Ed.), Deschooling our lives (pp. 108-112). Gabriola
Draper, R J. (2002). School mathematics reform, con­ Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
structivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruc­ Reimer, E. (1971). School is dead. Alternatives in educa­
tion in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal tion. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
o f Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520-529. Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, S., & Bay-Williams, J.M.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological (2014). Elementary and middle school mathematics:
theory of learning. In C.T. Fosnot (Ed.), Construc­ Teaching developmentally (8“' ed.). Boston, MA:
tivism, theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 8-33). Pearson Education, Inc.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ward, C. D. (2001). Under construction: On becoming a
Grant, S.G. (1998). Reforming reading, writing, and constructivist in view of the standards. Mathematics
mathematics: Teachers ’responses and the prospects Teacher (National Council of Teachers of Mathemat­
fo r systemic reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ics), pp. 94-96.
Honebein, P.C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of
constructivist learning environments. In B.G. Wil­
son (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments:
Case studies in instructional design (pp. 11-24).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology. Education­
al Technology, 34(4), 34-37.
___________. (1999). Designing constructivist learning
environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instruction­
al-design theories and models, vol. II (pp. 215-239).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
___________. (2000). Toward a design theory of prob­
lem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48, 63-85.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating con­
structivism into instructional design: Potential and
limitations Educational Technology <6 Society, <S(1),
17-27.
Lefty Parent. (2011). What is a democratic free school?
Retrieved from http://www.leftyparcnt.com
Lister, I. (1974). Deschooling: A reader. London: Cam­
bridge University Press.
Mercogliano, C. (1999). A profile of the Albany Free
School. Paths o f Learning, 7(1). 8-13.
Miller, R. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education
and democracy after the 1960s. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.