RESEARCH STARTERS

ACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Constructivism
Educational Theory > Constructivism

Table of Contents Overview

Abstract
Keywords
Overview
Piaget & Cognitive Constructivism
Lev Vygotsky & Social Constructivism
Further Insights
Viewpoints
Terms & Concepts
Bibliography
Suggested Reading
Abstract
The following article provides a summary of the theory of learn-
ing known as constructivism. Constructivism has received a
great deal of recent attention in the educational literature, and as
a result, has been defined in multiple ways. So many different
definitions currently exist some scholars believe constructivism
has been emptied of meaning altogether. The following will
attempt to bring some clarity back to the theory by focusing on
two different strands of constructivism; cognitive constructivism,
as outlined in the work of Jean Piaget, and social constructiv-
ism, as outlined in the work of Lev Vygotsky. Implications for
teaching are introduced, as well as an example of a constructiv-
ist classroom activity. The summary also introduces the larger
epistemological debate surrounding constructivism.
In recent years, constructivism has become one of the most often
cited theories of learning in the educational literature (Null,
2004). Its popularity has achieved such heights that it has been
referred to by various scholars as fashionable, faddish, and even
by some, as a religion (Prouix, 2006). The frequent discussion
of constructivism isn’t a problem per se, but it has created some
confusion regarding its exact meaning. As Harlow, Cummings,
and Aberasturi (2006) acknowledge, “constructivism has taken
on as many different definitions as the number of people attempt-
ing to define it” (p. 41). As a result, they argue, it has also been
“emptied of meaning.” Others concur, suggesting that “the edu-
cational literature…is littered with [such] a range of definitions”
that constructivism has become “almost…indefinable” (Null,
2004, p. 180).
Perhaps more solid ground can be established by first recogniz-
ing the philosophical foundations of constructivism. Although a
relatively recent development in education, the issues addressed
are ones that have been debated for thousands of years. At the
core, constructivism is about epistemology, a branch of philoso-
phy that studies the nature of knowledge – what it is that we
know, and how we know what we know. Although oversimpli-
fied, philosophers have generally fallen into two camps; those
who believe knowledge is an approximation of an independent
reality – a reality separate from the knower and representative
of the ultimate Truth – and those who believe that knowledge
is created by human minds. Constructivists fall in the second
camp, arguing that knowledge is constructed by individuals
through their experience, and is not necessarily representative
of ‘the real world.’
The notion of knowledge as a construction helps bring some
clarity to this elusive concept, as does the recognition of one of
its main pioneers. Although constructivism has roots in ancient
philosophy, and its ideas have been extended by many modern
day learning theorists, Piaget is most often credited with its devel-
opment. As Prouix (2006) states, “Even if many other authors

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
 Constructivism
Keywords
Accommodation
Adaptation
Assimilation
Cognitive Constructivism
Disequilibrium
Objectivity
Piaget, Jean
Social Constructivism
Vygotsky, Lev
Zone of Proximal Development
have contributed to numerous aspects of the theory in a tacit or
indirect way (e.g., Dewey, Kant, Rousseau, Vico, etc.) the main
pioneer of constructivism is without question Jean Piaget” (p.
2). The following summary, therefore, will focus largely on the
work of Piaget. In addition, the theoretical work of Vygotsky
will be introduced. Vygotsky’s social constructivism is often
contrasted with Piaget’s cognitive constructivism, but the fol-
lowing will focus on the way in which these two strands are
complementary.
Piaget & Cognitive Constructivism
In order to understand the significance of Piaget’s contribution,
we must first place it within the context of the epistemological
debate referenced in the introduction. For the past several cen-
turies, those who believe that knowledge is an approximation of
an independent reality representative of the ultimate Truth have
held sway in the philosophical courts. For equally as long, how-
ever, skeptics have argued that we cannot know the truth of our
knowledge, because “we would need access to the world that
does not involve our experiencing it” (von Glasersfeld, 1990, as
cited in Prouix, 1996, p. 5). Despite what von Glasersfeld calls
“logically irrefutable arguments” on the part of the skeptics, they
were always summarily dismissed by pointing to the achieve-
ments of human knowledge – in ancient times, the prediction of
eclipses, for example, and in more recent times, the accomplish-
ments of modern technology. “In the face of such successes,”
von Glasersfeld (2006) argues, “it would, indeed, be ridiculous
to question the validity of knowledge” (p. 3).
What Piaget’s theory does, however, is “make it possible to
accept the skeptics’ logical conclusion without diminishing the
obvious value of knowledge” (von Glasersfeld, 1996, p. 4).
More specifically, Piaget introduced the concept of adaptation
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.
to epistemology. Having trained first as a biologist, Piaget stud-
ied the relationship between mollusks and their environment; the
ability to adapt, he concluded, was simply the ability to survive
in a given environment. Knowledge, then, is not important to the
extent that it represents an external reality, but is important to the
extent that it is viable. “Simply put, the notion of viability means
that an action, operation, conceptual structure, or even a theory,
is considered ‘viable’ as long as it is useful in accomplishing
the task or in achieving a goal that one has set for oneself” (von
Glasersfeld, 1998, as cited in Prouix, 2006, p. 5). In other words,
“truth” is what works.
The question of what knowledge is, from a constructivist per-
spective, has now been answered to some extent – it’s not a
representation of external reality or objective truth, but rather
is ‘truthful’ to the extent it is viable and adaptive – but the exact
mechanisms by which knowledge is constructed have not yet
been explained. As Harlow, Cummings, and Aberasturi (2006)
argue, those who overuse the term in the literature often ignore
the ‘how’ of constructivism. In other words, educators often
pay lip service to the idea that people make meaning, but fail to
understand the processes by which this occurs. Even teachers
with the best intentions sometimes forget that cognitive con-
flict, for example, is essential for new knowledge construction.
We’ll turn to Piaget’s concepts of assimilation, accommodation,
and disequilibrium for a better understanding of the underlying
mechanisms.
According to Piaget, all learning is motivated by a desire to main-
tain a state of equilibrium (Prouix, 2006). When an individual
is confronted by information or an experience that contradicts
his or her prior knowledge, the learner is motivated to modify or
adapt prior knowledge in order to return to equilibrium. There-
fore, those things that cause disequilibrium – sometimes referred
to a perturbations or cognitive conflicts – play a critical role in
the learning process. “It is often through struggling to resolve
the disequilibration caused by perturbations that one comes to a
resolution that deepens and revises one’s world-view” (Prouix,
2006, p. 5). As Fosnot (1996) argues, in order to fully understand
the concept of equilibration, one should understand its dynamic
nature - “it is a dynamic ‘dance’…of growth and change’ (p. 14).
The dance occurs between two polar tendencies – our tendency
to assimilate information and our tendency to accommodate
information.
Assimilation occurs when new experiences or information ‘fit’
into our existing mental structures. Stated differently, “con-
structivism asserts that our previous experiences serve as the
lenses through which we read the world” (Prouix, 2006, p. 5).
Therefore, assimilation is largely an unconscious process, one in
which we make new experiences fit into what we already know.
Accommodation, on the other hand, takes place in the face of
perturbations. When new knowledge or experiences contradict
what was previously known, the learner must modify her exist-
ing cognitive structures, the new knowledge/experience, or both.
According to Prouix (2006) “the learner tries to deliberately adapt
– or accommodate – what is already known (previous knowledge)
to a new experience that interrupts or contradicts established
Page 2
 Constructivism
interpretations…” (p. 5). In general, the mind tends to assimi-
late; only when we have to accommodate does learning occur.
Although the basic structure of Piaget’s theory of knowing has
been put forth, it’s worth noting a few other points of empha-
sis. First and foremost, for Piaget and other constructivists in
general, learning is always an active process. Importantly how-
ever, ‘active’ implies both physical and mental activity; that is,
active in the sense of creating new mental structures and not just
active in the sense of physically moving one’s body. As Prouix
(2006) explains, “The word ‘active’ should then not be read in
the literal sense because it has a broader meaning in constructiv-
ism. The idea that the learners have to be active does not imply
that they have to construct a model physically with their hands,
but instead that they develop their structures of knowledge – by
reflecting, analyzing, questioning themselves, working on prob-
lems, and so on” (p. 5)
Secondly, Piaget’s theory highlights the significant role of prior
knowledge in the learning process, and the implications this has
for teaching as well (Prouix, 2006). Students are not blank slates,
and everything they experience in a classroom is interpreted in
light of what they already know. As a result, teachers should
recognize that learners possess knowledge already, and use that
source of knowledge to build new understandings. Simply trans-
mitting information to students – as traditional teachers do in a
lecture-based classroom – does not acknowledge the learner as
either active, or as an individual with pre-established cognitive
structures.
As the two previous points imply, constructivists conceive of the
classroom as learner-centered as opposed to teacher-centered.
Learner-centered does not suggest, however, that students are
free to create any meaning, to construct any knowledge. In other
words, constructivists are often charged with promoting relativ-
ism, a charge they dismiss with reference to the concept of fit
and viability. “Constructivism, with its concept of viability and
‘fitting’ does not imply that anything goes but merely that theo-
ries or explanations construed have to fit and be compatible with
experiences lived” (Prouix, 2006, p. 5). In other words, knowl-
edge that is useful is ‘more truthful’ than knowledge that is not.
Lev Vygotsky & Social Constructivism
Much of the current literature suggests that different strands of
constructivism – mainly, cognitive constructivism as outlined by
Piaget and social constructivism as outlined by Vygtosky – are
at odds with one another (Cobb, 1996; Fosnot, 1996). “Thus
there is currently a dispute over whether…learning is primar-
ily a process of active cognitive reorganization or a process of
enculturation into a community of practice” (Cobb, 1996, p. 35).
Others argue, however, that Piaget recognized the importance
of social interaction in learning, even if he focused on it less
than Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996). Thus the two theories are com-
plementary more than they are competitive, and learning should
be understood as a cognitive and a social process, not either-or
(Cobb, 1996).
Thus, although much of Vygotsky’s work overlapped with Piag-
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.
et’s, he did in fact focus more heavily on the role of culture,
language and social interaction in the construction of knowledge.
Like Piaget, he believed learning to be developmental, but he
made a distinction between what he viewed as the construction
of spontaneous concepts (also known as pseudoconcepts) and
the construction of scientific concepts (Fosnot, 1996). Sponta-
neous concepts, he believed, were developed by children during
their everyday activities, in the course of everyday life; these
pseudoconcepts were similar to those studied by Piaget. On the
other hand, scientific concepts, he suggested, originate in more
formal settings – like the classroom – and represent culturally-
agreed upon concepts. On their own, children would be unlikely
to develop scientific concepts, but with the help of adults and
older children, they can master ideas and thought processes that
extend their knowledge. The ‘space’ where children extend their
current knowledge with adult assistance has become known as
the Zone of Proximal Development.
Vygotsky is undoubtedly best known for the zone of proximal
development, but two other concepts are also worthy of mention.
Like Piaget, Vygotsky studied the language of preschoolers, but
what Piaget concluded was ‘egocentric’ speech, Vygotsky con-
cluded was social from the very beginning. He argued that inner
speech was the mechanism by which “culturally prescribed forms
of language and reasoning find their individualized realization”
(as cited in Fosnot, 1996, p. 19). Vygotsky also concluded that
inner speech plays an important role in the development of spon-
taneous concepts, and in particular, the attempts by children to
communicate the concept to others.
Finally, Vygotsky was most interested in the role of other people
in the development and learning processes of children. He
emphasized the cooperative nature of the learning task to such
an extent, for example, that “he viewed tests or school tasks that
only looked at the child’s individual problem solving as inad-
equate, arguing instead that the progress in concept formation
achieved by the child in cooperation with an adult was a much
more viable way to look at the capabilities of learners” (Fosnot,
1996, p. 19). He referred to cooperation as the dialogical nature
of learning; others have since extended this idea through the
notion of ‘scaffolding.’ Scaffolding is best exemplified by an
infant/mother interaction, during which the mother at times imi-
tates the baby, and other times, varies her response to further
develop the child’s response (Fosnot, 1996).
Further Insights
One of the important distinctions theorists make about construc-
tivism is that it is a theory of learning – and is even, at times,
called a theory of knowing – and is not a theory of teaching. As
a result, constructivism doesn’t tell teachers what they should
do, but rather provides a general framework within which they
can work with students. As Prouix (2006) explains, “It is argued
that constructivism brings a proscriptive discourse on teaching,
one that sets boundaries in which to work, but does not prescribe
teaching actions” (p. 5). von Glasersfeld elaborates, “It means
that constructivism…cannot tell teachers very much about what
they should do, but it can specify a number of things which they
certainly should not do” (as cited in Prouix, 2006, p. 5). Within
Page 3
 Constructivism
the realm of what they should do, he further argues, the possibili-
ties are limitless.
Therefore, providing a specific example of constructivist
teaching in the classroom might be the best way to introduce
its application to the classroom. Before we proceed with the
example, however, it might be worthwhile to outline what Prouix
(2006) refers to as “implications” for teaching (as opposed to
directives), as well as some pitfalls to be avoided. For example,
constructivist teaching does not suggest that teachers should stop
explaining information; while teachers are encouraged to create
disequilibrium – or perturbations – for their students, this should
not occur at the expense of explanation and elaboration. As
Prouix (1996) argues, “constructivism is not saying that teachers
should not explain, it only renders problematic the assumption
that by ‘telling’ or explaining the learners will automatically
understand” (p. 5). He further suggests that constructivism does
not imply students are always right or that students will always
learn on their own without guidance from teachers. Finally, he
encourages teachers to acknowledge the importance of prior
knowledge in the learning process, as well as the role of ‘mis-
takes.’ “Mistakes inform the learning process enormously and
enable a better understanding of the domain…” Mistakes should
not, he continues, be viewed as “humiliating blunders” never “to
be repeated again” (Prouix, 2006, p. 5).
Fosnot (1996), in her edited book, “Constructivism: Theory, Per-
spectives, and Practice,” devotes several chapters to examples of
constructivist teaching in the classroom. The following example
is taken from the chapter on constructivist perspectives in math-
ematics, and serves as a summary of what is outlined in greater
detail by Schifter (1996). Schifter (1996) describes a lesson on
measurement designed by a first-grade teacher; the teacher uses
masking tape to outline the shape of a boat on the classroom
floor, and asks her students how they would go about measuring
it, in order to report its size to the King. After several days of
allowing her students to search for answers, the class decided
to report the measurement of the boat in terms of the length of
Zeb’s (a classmate) foot. The teacher describes:
On the third day of our exploration, I asked the children why
they thought it was important to develop a standard form of
measurement (or in words understandable to a first grader, mea-
surement that would always be the same size) such as using only
‘Zeb’s foot’ to measure everything. Through the discussions
over the past several days, the children were able to internal-
ize and verbalize the need or important for everyone to measure
using the same instrument. They saw the confusion of using dif-
ferent hands, bodies, or feet because of the inconsistency of size”
(Schifter, 1996, p. 76).
The example highlights several characteristics of constructivist
teaching. First and foremost, rather than telling the class exactly
how to perform a task (e.g., measurement), the teacher poses it
in the form of a problem and allows the class to come to its own
solution. In other words, the teacher allowed the students to
construct their own meanings. Secondly, the example highlights
the importance of perturbations; the teacher’s role wasn’t neces-
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.
sarily to allay confusion, but even at times to further elicit it.
In addition, the example demonstrates the role of social interac-
tion in the learning process; the students made progress toward
a solution by building upon each other’s responses. And finally,
the example emphasizes the role of prior knowledge in learning
situations; student’s drew upon their previous experiences with
‘measurement’ and, in this case, modified their existing under-
standings in order to incorporate what they learned through this
exercise.
Viewpoints
As stated in the introduction, constructivism is a frequent topic of
conversation in the educational literature, and has been defined
in multiple ways. Limiting this summary to cognitive and social
constructivism does not do justice to the many forms in which
it exists. Von Glasersfeld, for example, while drawing heavily
on the work of Piaget, has developed his own form of radical
constructivism. Jerome Bruner (1990) has extended the work of
Vygotsky and other social constructivists in focusing on the role
of culture in learning. Similarly, this summary has only briefly
touched upon the educational and philosophical foundations of
constructivism; Null (2004), for example, traces constructiv-
ist thought back to Rousseau and G. Stanley Hall. Others have
emphasized the contribution of John Dewey.
Despite its current popularity, there are many who oppose
constructivism and its approach to teaching and learning. Con-
structivism, after all, addresses questions about knowledge and
knowing that have been debated for over two thousand years;
the debates are likely to continue. Alexander (2006), for exam-
ple, discusses the “new skirmishes in the methodology wars,”
which have recently resurfaced after positivists and construc-
tivists had supposedly agreed to ‘peacefully coexist’ (p. 206).
Although some (Alexander, 2006; Johnson, 2005) propose a
middle ground, or what Alexander (2006) refers to as “a view
from somewhere” that provides a place for both positivists and
constructivists, it’s likely that educators and philosophers will
continue to have differences of opinion.
Terms & Concepts
Accommodation: According to Piaget’s theory of knowing,
humans attempt to maintain a state of equilibrium by either
assimilating new information and experiences or accommodat-
ing them. Accommodation takes place when new information
contradicts what was previously known, so that the learner must
modify cognitive structures, modify the new information, or
both.
Adaptation: Piaget transferred the concept of adaptation from
his studies in biology to the studying of human learning. He
defined adaptation as the ability to survive in one’s environment;
with regard to knowledge, he believed knowledge is ‘true’ to
the extent that it’s useful and adaptive, rather than the extent to
which it mirrors an objective, independent reality.
Assimilation: According to Piaget’s theory of knowing, humans
Page 4
 Constructivism
attempt to maintain a state of equilibrium by either assimilat-
ing new information and experiences or accommodating them.
Assimilation takes place when new information is consistent
with what was previously known, so that it can be ‘taken in’
without modifying existing cognitive structures.
Cognitive Constructivism: Although there are many branches
of constructivism, cognitive constructivism and social construc-
tivism are considered two of the primary strands. Cognitive
constructivism is based on the work of Piaget, and defines
learning in terms of changes in cognitive structures. Although
cognitive and social constructivism are often considered to be at
odds, more recently scholars have recognized the ways in which
they are complementary.
Disequilibrium: According to Piaget, learning is motivated
by an individual’s desire to maintain a state of equilibrium.
Disequilibrium occurs when new information or experience con-
flicts with what was previously known, requiring the individual
to modify or adapt in some way.
Scaffolding: An outgrowth of Vygotsky’s social constructivism.
Representative of the cooperative, dialogical nature of learning,
scaffolding occurs in dyads. For example, when a mother imi-
tates the gestures and sounds of an infant, but sometimes varies
her response in order to elicit new responses from the child, she
is engaged in scaffolding.
Social Constructivism: Although there are many branches
of constructivism, cognitive constructivism and social con-
structivism are considered two of the primary strands. Social
constructivism is based on the work of Vygotksy, and defines
learning in terms of social interaction, language, and culture.
Although cognitive and social constructivism are often consid-
ered to be at odds, more recently scholars have recognized the
ways in which they are complementary.
Zone of Proximal Development: One of the primary concepts
of Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism. According to
Piaget, children are able to extend their current knowledge to a
greater extent by working with adults and older children. The
‘space’ in which they are challenged to extend themselves has
become known as the zone of proximal development.
Bibliography
Alexander, H.A. (2006). A view from somewhere: Explaining
the paradigms of educational research. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 40(2), 205-221. Retrieved
June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education
Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21492094&site=ehost-live
Cardellini, L. (2006). The foundations of radical con-
structivism: An interview with Ernst von Glasersfeld.
Foundations of Chemistry, 8(2), 177-187. Retrieved June
10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search
Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=aph&AN=22437372&site=ehost-live
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved
Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.
Cobb, P. (1996). Where is the mind? A coordination of socio-
cultural and cognitive constructivist perspectives. In C.
T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and
practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Elkind, D. (2005). Response to objectivism and education.
Educational Forum, 69(4), 328-334. Retrieved June 10,
2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=17685721&site=ehost-live
Fostnot, C.T.. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological
theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism:
Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Harlow, S., Cummings, R., & Aberasturi, S. (2006). Karl
Popper and Jean Piaget: A rationale for constructivism.
Educational Forum, 71(1), 41-48. Retrieved June 10,
2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct
=true&db=ehh&AN=22991047&site=ehost-live
Johnson, M. (2005). Instructionism and constructivism:
Reconciling two very good ideas. Retrieved June 10,
2007 from Education Resource Information Center http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_
storage_01/0000000b/80/31/ba/07.pdf
Moford, J. (2007). Perspectives constructivism: Implications
for postsecondary music education and beyond. Journal
of Music Teacher Education, 16(2), 75-83. Retrieved
June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education
Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25148461&site=ehost-live
Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical
and practical perspectives on a popular advocacy.
Educational Forum, 68, 180-188. Retrieved June 10,
2007 from Education Resource Information Center. http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_
storage_01/0000000b/80/31/3f/04.pdf
Prouix, J. (2006). Constructivism: A re-equilibration and
clarification of concepts, and some potential implications
for teaching and pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, 7(1), 5.
Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21174718&sit
e=ehost-live
von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of construc-
tivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory,
perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Page 5
 Constructivism Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.

Suggested Reading
Brown, T.H. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring
future learning paradigms. Education Today, 2, 14-30.
Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database
Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17160280&sit
e=ehost-live
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Flynn, P., Mesibov, D., Vermette, P., & Smith, R. (2004).
Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step
guide for motivating middle and high school students.
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Meltzer, E. (2006). Constructivism and objectivism:
Additional Questions. Educational Forum, 70(3), 200-
201. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCO Online
Database Education Research Complete. http://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=207
86243&site=ehost-live

Pass, S. (2004). Parallel paths to constructivism: Jean Piaget

Flynn, P., Mesibov, D., Vermette, P., & Smith, R. (2004).
and Lev Vygotsky. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Applying standards-based constructivism: A two-step
Publishing.
guide for motivating elementary students. Larchmont,
NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.

Jennifer Kretchmar earned her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  She cur-
rently works as a Research Associate in undergraduate admissions.

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 6