Constructivism and Special Education

Constructivism and Special Education:

Examining Instructional Approaches for Students with Special Needs
Alex Lemon
University of British Columbia

ETEC 530
M. Burkle
July 6, 2014

Constructivism and Special Education

Constructivist instructional strategies can play an important role in effectively

meeting complex student needs addressed within special education. Students with special
needs can benefit from classroom activities that are increasingly student-focused in
constructivist classrooms. In these classrooms a sense of community is established
among learners. Activities are focused on the interests of students. Students take part in
collaboration with other students. (Kauffman, 2008). These are powerful constructivist
strategies that could benefit all learners, including those with special needs. In other
educational contexts, however, students with special needs may benefit more from direct
instruction and other more explicit instructional strategies (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2011;
Westwood, 2002; Beck & Kosnik, 2006). Thoughtful, informed use of technology can
also support constructivist approaches to instruction of students with special needs.
These findings suggest a blend of instructional practices that focus on utilizing the
strengths, needs, interests and prior knowledge of individual students, on creating
opportunities for collaboration, on providing support from direct instruction when
necessary and on making use of technologies supported by research to be effective ways
of supporting students with learning and developmental disabilities (Westwood, 2002).
A Critical Examination of Constructivism and Special Education
Constructivist principles have provided educators with a solid foundation from
which to base their classroom practices. As a special educator, I have found that
informed constructivist instructional approaches are often just as effective in special
education settings as they are in typical classroom settings. There have also been times
when it seems students would benefit more from explicit instruction to provide them with
the requisite background knowledge or skills to became active participants in the learning

Constructivism and Special Education

activities. The danger here as Oldfather & West (1999) point out, is to ensure that the
purpose of direct instruction is not simply to speed up the learning process or to provide
students with the outcome the teacher was looking for. It seems therefore that special
educators can benefit from combining constructivist teaching practices with knowledge
about curricular adaptations and modifications, as well as an understanding of the
complex, individual learning strengths and needs they may encounter (Mamlin, 2012).
Constructivism Currently in Special Education
There are certainly areas in which special educators are relying on constructivist
methodologies in their classrooms. Teachers incorporating constructivism are cognizant
of their students evolving understanding of concepts, are purposeful about their teaching,
and are not afraid to take the lead when students need them to do so (Oldfather & West,
1999, p. 71). Special educators utilize hands-on activities, allowing students to become
engaged and take ownership for their learning and their discoveries (Gregerson,
Kaufman, & Snyder, 2013). Farrell (2012) describes constructivist learning
environments as those that provide more opportunities for exploration. Many special
educators take advantage of hands-on activities and manipulatives to support learning
wherever possible. These learning experiences are based on the notion of learning by
doing that involves meaningful encounters followed by thoughtful, critical reflection
(Gregerson, Kaufman, & Snyder, 2013, p. 40).
Recently, constructivist approaches such as problem and project-based learning
have become instructional methods that special educators are utilizing, particularly for
work with gifted students. These activities involve differentiation and individualization,
as students are involved in examining authentic, real-world scenarios, that involve

Constructivism and Special Education

opportunities for purposeful differentiated instruction and allow students to explore

relevant topics of interest to them (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2011, p. 738). Problem and
project-based learning have been found to increase engagement and active participation
among learners (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2011).
Challenges with Constructivism in Special Education
Challenges also exist in making effective use of constructivist strategies in special
education. Research does not support constructivist approaches for every learning
activity in a special education context. While typically developing math students, for
example, generally benefit from a constructivist inductive approach to instruction,
students that struggle with specific math skills can experience greater benefits from direct
instruction than constructivist discovery-based approaches prior to tackling a math
problem themselves (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2011, p. 437). Westwood (2002) makes a
similar case in support of direct, explicit instruction as part of skills based approaches to
support students struggling with reading skills. Although there appears to be several
methods by which struggling students can effectively learn phonic knowledge and skills
as well as reading comprehension strategies, instructional strategies that incorporate
explicit instruction are strongly supported by research (Westwood, 2002). Westwood
(2002) also suggests that when used appropriately these increasingly direct instructional
approaches can also support successful inclusion of students with special needs in general
education settings.
As instructional methods evolve, so too must assessment practices. An increasing
number of innovative assessment techniques are beginning to emerge that are well suited
to the needs of special education. These include, using computers for assessment,

Constructivism and Special Education

ecological appraisal, assessment of instructional environments, curriculum-based

measurement, portfolio assessment, collaborative problem solving, performance-based
assessment, and neuropsychological appraisal (Mertens & McLaughlin, 1995, p. 122).
Opportunities for Constructivism in Special Education
Dougiamas (1998) suggests that constructivist teaching methods can be more
meaningful for students, involving opportunities to learn from class discussions and
collaboration with other students in which meaningful participation becomes more
important than arriving at a correct answer (p. 8). Educators that prescribe to a
constructivist view of learning, can create class-room environments that are responsive
to the needs, ideas, dreams, and feelings of their students. They involve students in the
construction of curriculum (Oldfather & West, 1999, p. 16). For students with special
needs, the school experience can be a challenging academic and social/emotional
experience to navigate. Working with educators that will support the discovery of their
passions, help them create their own educational path and make direct connections
between learning activities and their lives outside of school, allows students with special
needs to take part in school in a manner, as Vygotsky suggests, that incorporates their
strengths so that special pedagogy does not become completely focused on the disability
and disorder alone (Farrell, 2012, p. 104-105).
Constructivist approaches to instruction can also work with other instructional
approaches to meet the needs of students in special education. Even direct instruction,
commonly associated with transmission pedagogy, can play an important role in
constructivist learning (Beck & Kosnik, 2006, p. 10). Though counterintuitive,
Oldfather and West (1999) suggest that the much maligned concept of rote learning

Constructivism and Special Education

cannot be discounted within a constructivist framework (p. 21). They go on to argue

that it is the situating of the learned concepts within a meaningful context is what
should be considered most important (p. 21). Rote learning, therefore, becomes a
strategy used to support students constructing conceptual understanding (1999).
Constructivism provides a flexible pedagogical framework that incorporates
aspects of individualization and differentiation. These approaches require an emphasis
on process, inquiry, negotiation, as well as a tolerance for ambiguity (Oldfather & West,
1999, p. 82). These are valuable traits for special education to incorporate. Often special
education supports students with unique strengths, needs and interests and must work to
honour these characteristics in an educational setting. In constructivist learning
environments, students can be provided opportunities to construct meanings and to share
these constructions. This gives the teacher opportunity to interpret students
understandings and connect with students meanings to help mediate students learning
(Farrell, 2012, p. 108).
An important role of special education is to support students gaining the
experiences, knowledge and skills they will need throughout their lives. Constructivist
approaches to education can be used to address these areas directly through instruction in
natural environments, learning through collaboration with others and by addressing needs
that are specific to each individual (Mertens & McLaughlin, 1995). Constructivist
teachers can reach into the minds of learners to tap their existing knowledge and build
a basis for them to bridge to the next understanding (Oldfather & West, 1999, p. 16). By
doing this, students benefit from constructing knowledge that is directly connected to

Constructivism and Special Education

concepts they have already constructed. As a result, learning can make direct
connections to the lives of students.
Technology, Constructivism and Special Education
For some individuals with special needs, technology has provided their social
and digital inclusion in society (Mendes, Pereira, & Costa, 2008, p. 271). Individuals
that are visually impaired for example, have been able to make use of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) in ways that allow for communication and
collaboration without the limitations they may experience in face to face encounters
(Mendes, Pereira, & Costa, 2008). This is just one example that illustrates the powerful
potential that technology has to support individuals with special needs. This potential can
also be applied to special education, though Kauffman (2008) cautions that technology on
its own does not necessarily make instruction more effective.
Students enjoy working with computers in general and are more motivated to
learn when doing so (Kauffman, 2008). Technology in constructivist classrooms can be
used to support a range of choices for students, allowing them the chance to make
meaning out of topics that are relevant or of interest to their lives (Farrell, 2012).
Oldfather and West (1999) see this as imperative to constructivist practice, as they believe
educators should be focused on helping students find their passions, discover what they
care about, create their own learning agendas, and most importantly, connect who they
are to what they do in school (p. 15).
Technology can be extremely an effective educational tool, when used for specific
purposes and as part of an informed educational plan. Computers can provide
opportunities for individualized constructivist instruction, in ways that would not

Constructivism and Special Education

otherwise be possible (Kauffman, 2008). Students with special needs can benefit from
the ability to work at their own pace, use personally-owned devices and utilize hardware
and applications that help to mitigate physical or cognitive challenges. Kauffman (2008)
for example, points to strong evidence that suggests word processing applications
improve both the quality and quantity of student writing (p. 215). The application
Kurzweil also allows individuals to take advantage of text-to-speech, graphic organizers
and flexible word processing applications that provide certain students with special needs
a realistic opportunity to become active participants in the learning process. Boardmaker
is another tech tool that supports the construction of knowledge for students with special
needs. Boardmaker provides students with images and words that help students with
communication challenges the opportunity to communicate and construct meaning during
their day-to-day experiences. As technology continues to evolve, even more options will
become available allowing individuals with special needs to take on an increasingly
active, meaningful role in the construction of their own knowledge.
Conclusion
Constructivist views of education can provide special educators with instructional
strategies that will effectively support the learning of students with special needs in many
cases. Students with special needs no doubt benefit from constructivist classroom
structures that support the needs, ideas, dreams, and feelings of their students, involve
students in the construction of curriculum, and support a range of interests and learning
styles (Oldfather & West, 1999, p. 16). These practices allow students to think about
themselves as capable learners who feel that they are capable of success, capable of
overcoming challenges and as a result feel an increased sense of self-worth (Oldfather &

Constructivism and Special Education

West, 1999). This can result in a positive feedback loop that increases the likelihood that
students will continue to be actively engaged in the learning process.
Constructivist approaches, however, are not ideal for supporting learners with
special needs in all circumstances. While many students may benefit from constructivist
approaches to instruction, students that struggle with reading and math concepts, for
example, may benefit from limited application of rote learning or more direct, explicit
instruction from educators to build towards concept mastery (Kauffman & Hallahan,
2011; Westwood, 2002; Beck & Kosnik, 2006). As Beck and Kosnik (2006) and
Oldfather and West (1999) point out, these direct instructional approaches can still play a
role in a largely constructivist approach to teaching and learning.
Technology can also help to support constructivist approaches to supporting
students with special needs. When used as part of a well-thought out educational plan,
specific hardware and applications can help to mitigate barriers that would otherwise
prevent students from becoming meaningful, active participants in a constructivist
learning process.

Constructivism and Special Education

10
References

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. M. (2006). Innovations in teacher education: A social

constructivist approach. Albany: State University of New York Press. Retrieved
from http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/books/9780791481844/
Dougiamas, M. (1998). A journey into constructivism. Retrieved from
http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MOODLE/M981100D
.pdf
Farrell, Michael (2012). New Perspectives in Special Education : Contemporary
philosophical debates. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
Gregerson, M. B., Kaufman, J. C., & Snyder, H. (2013). Teaching creatively and
teaching creativity. New York, NY: Springer.
Kauffman, J. (2008). Special education. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A
reference handbook. (pp. I-405-I-414). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4135/9781412964012.n44
Kauffman, J. & Hallahan, D. (2011). Handbook of special education. New York:
Routledge. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlY
mtfXzM2MTAzOV9fQU41?sid=54b14398-9622-4749-964b414794b72b34@sessionmgr4003&vid=1&format=EB&lpid=lp_v&rid=0
Mamlin, N. (2012). Preparing effective special education teachers. New York: Guilford
Press.
Mendes, A. J., Pereira, I., & Costa, R. (2008). Computers and education: Towards
educational change and innovation. London: Springer. Retrieved from

Constructivism and Special Education

11

http://download.springer.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/static/pdf/434/bok%253A9781-84628-929-3.pdf?
auth66=1404703936_83e4c09998f77ae08500ec71a67c5ca8&ext=.pdf
Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (1995). Research methods in special education.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Retrieved from
http://srmo.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/view/research-methods-in-specialeducation/n2.xml
Oldfather, P., & West, J. (1999). Learning through children's eyes: Social constructivism
and the desire to learn. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/detail?
sid=dc3e71db-e46a-4b83-8e72ac66027eb700%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3
QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=pzh&jid=199902783
Westwood, P. (2002). Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Educational
Needs. London: Routledge. Retrieved from
http://lib.myilibrary.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/Open.aspx?id=3612