Limitations in the Implementation of Constructivism in the Classroom: A Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70577/tq4vj065Keywords:
constructivism, teaching strategies, active learning, student autonomy, teacher guidance, basic education.Abstract
Constructivism conceives learning as a process in which students actively participate in the construction of knowledge; however, its implementation in the classroom may be conditioned by pedagogical and contextual factors. This study aimed to analyze the main limitations affecting the implementation of the constructivist approach in Social Studies teaching in the ninth grade of General Basic Education at Unidad Educativa Andino, located in Ambato, Ecuador. A mixed-method, descriptive, non-experimental, cross-sectional case study was conducted. Participants included 32 students from class A and the teacher responsible for the subject. Data were collected through a student survey, structured classroom observation, and a semi-structured teacher interview. The results showed the presence of practices related to the activation of prior knowledge, student participation, reflection, and teacher guidance. However, limitations were identified mainly regarding available classroom time, student autonomy, and collaborative work. The triangulation of the three sources suggests that implementing constructivist practices does not depend solely on incorporating participatory activities but also on providing appropriate levels of teacher guidance and considering the specific conditions of the classroom.
Downloads
References
Ashman, G. (2021). The power of explicit teaching and direct instruction. Corwin.
Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “construct” according to constructivism in science education? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477–2496.
Barman, P., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2015). Effectiveness of constructivist teaching method: An experimental study. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(1), 69–76.
Carretero, M. (1993). Constructivismo y educación. Editorial Luis Vives.
Castellaro, M. A. (2012). Definiciones teóricas y áreas de investigación propuestas desde el constructivismo en publicaciones latinoamericanas de psicología y educación de la última década. Liberabit, 18(2), 131–146.
Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 159–183). Routledge.
Coll, C. (1996). Constructivismo y educación escolar: Ni hablamos siempre de lo mismo ni lo hacemos siempre desde la misma perspectiva epistemológica. Anuario de Psicología, 69, 153–178.
De Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Koedinger, K. R., Krajcik, J. S., Kyza, E. A., Linn, M. C., Pedaste, M., Scheiter, K., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence—The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 39, 100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536
Díaz-Barriga Arceo, F., & Hernández Rojas, G. (2011). Estrategias docentes para un aprendizaje significativo: Una interpretación constructivista. McGraw-Hill.
Feldman, D., & Diuk, B. (2021). Políticas de enseñanza y desigualdad: Entre los formatos pedagógicos y las finalidades educativas. Revista Educativa, 24, 1–29.
Feldman, D., Gori, A., & Diuk, B. (2021). La relación entre los enfoques didácticos y la condición social de los estudiantes: Un problema clave en el debate educativo actual. Itinerarios Educativos, 1(14), 77–88.
Golding, C. (2011). The many faces of constructivist discussion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 467–483.
Gori, A., Diuk, B., & Feldman, D. (2023). La enseñanza explícita en la discusión didáctica actual. Estudios Pedagógicos, 48(4), 377–396.
Guerrero, J. (2023). Reflexiones sobre implicaciones del conductismo, constructivismo y cognitivismo. Revista Escuela, Familia y Comunidad, 2(1), 25–36.
Guevara Alban, G. P., Verdesoto Arguello, A. E., & Castro Molina, N. E. (2020). Metodologías de investigación educativa (descriptivas, experimentales, participativas y de investigación-acción). RECIMUNDO, 4(3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.26820/recimundo/4.(3).julio.2020.163-173
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305–326.
Mantuano, M., Caviedes, E., Ladines, K., Rogel, D., & Yuqui, C. (2021). Análisis del conductismo, cognitivismo, constructivismo y su interrelación con el conectivismo en la educación postpandemia. South Florida Journal of Development, 2(5), 6850–6863. https://doi.org/10.46932/sfjdv2n5-038
Martínez Rizo, F. (2021). Aprendizaje, enseñanza, conocimiento: Tres acepciones del constructivismo. Implicaciones para la docencia. Perfiles Educativos, 43(174), 170–185.
Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2017). The quest for high-level knowledge in schools: Revisiting the concepts of classification and framing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 261–282.
Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20, 411–423.
Ortíz Granja, D. (2015). El constructivismo como teoría y método de enseñanza. Sophia: Colección de Filosofía de la Educación, 19(2), 93–110.
Sáez López, J. M. (2012). La práctica pedagógica de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación y su relación con los enfoques constructivistas. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 10(1), 58–73.
Schwartz, D. L., Lindgren, R., & Lewis, S. (2009). Constructivism in an age of non-constructivist assessments. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 34–61). Routledge.
Sweller, J., Zhang, L., Ashman, G., Cobern, W. W., & Kirschner, P. A. (2024). Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) article “Let’s talk evidence—The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction.” Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Routledge.
Young, M., & Muller, J. (Eds.). (2016). Curriculum and the specialization of knowledge: Studies in the sociology of education. Routledge.
Zhang, L., & Sweller, J. (2024). Instructional sequences in science teaching: Considering element interactivity when sequencing inquiry-based investigation activities and explicit instruction. European Journal of Psychology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00799-5.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Diana María Castro Salazar , Sulay Adriana Miranda Guaman, Karla Estefanía Cuesta Chávez, Steven Arturo Torres Burgos (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
