The purpose of this special issue of The Journal of Special Education is to bring together thoughtful considerations of the strengths, potential limitations, and issues represented by the constructivist approach for students with disabilities and those at risk for school failure. In this article, we present major principles of constructivism for teaching and learning. Three idealized constructivist paradigms – endogenous constructivism, exogenous constructivism, and dialectical constructivism – are described. Finally, major issues related to constructivism are explored, including the possibility of integrative stances.

The paper’s goal is to provide an overview of electronic assessment’s evolution, within the context of a developing e-pedagogy, by investigating the changes over time in how e-pedagogy is described. A historical review of behaviorist and constructivist learning theories first identifies elements common to each pedagogy. Using an analogy with genetic markers, these elements (instruction, teaching, learning, assessment, and testing) are combined with specific electronic resources and functions (computer assisted/aided, computer-based, web-based, e-, and online) to form what the paper identifies as e-markers such as computer-assisted learning, web-based instruction, or e-assessment. These e-markers, in turn, provide the basis for tracing the history of e-pedagogy from the years 1975 to 2012. A meta-narrative approach, adapted to address the paper’s goal, then utilizes e-marker frequency distributions resulting from abstract searches of the literature to trace the development of e-assessment as part of an evolving e-pedagogy. In particular, the narrative suggests a behaviorist learning environment as the initial e-pedagogy model which, as a result of technology providing a greater variety of tools, subsequently gave way to the present constructivist learning environment. Application of the Rogers Diffusion of Innovation Theory provides a means to assess the future of a constructivist e-learning environment by investigating its relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The paper concludes that a more rigorous constructivist theory of teaching and learning is necessary if constructivist e-learning environments are to gain greater institutional acceptance. Relevance: In tracing the evolution of e-assessment, the article provides a historical basis for the development and justification of using constructionist learning environments for electronic assessment. In doing so, the article identifies those areas where constructivism in e-assessment has succeeded and those where further work is needed.

The constructivist approach is seen to be useful notably in science, mathematics and tertiary education. An account of non-radical constructivism is advanced and applied to classroom teaching and learning, and teaching strategies derived from the application of constructivist principles are identified and evaluated. It is suggested that many traditional classrooms are places of over-control, and certain traditional teaching methods may actually hinder students’ potential to procreate human knowledge. Constructivism represents a fundamental challenge to many aspects of educational praxis, and may change significantly the ways by which young people are mass educated.

Key words: educational philòsophy, learning, learning theories, mathematics education, science education, teaching methods

Open peer commentary on the article “Heterarchical Reflexive Conversational Teaching and Learning as a Vehicle for Ethical Engineering Curriculum Design” by Philip Baron. Upshot: I question the scope of curriculum design as proposed by the target article in relation to radical constructivist learning theory and terminology. In addition, I provide contextualization and clarification regarding the relationships between learning, teaching and design.

This chapter sets out to provide conceptual clarity around these two epistemological stances by comparing constructivism with constructionism in relation to three particular categories – (1) their origins and epistemological premises, (2) their ontologies, and (3) their purposes. It then proceeds to articulate some implications concerning the use of each epistemology to contribute to research in the field of education and to the notion of globalisation more generally. It notes in particular the positive contribution of constructionism in bringing about educational reforms and in taking a critical view towards the taken-for-granted notion of globalisation discourses. It shows how constructionism can make a positive contribution to research agendas that seek to bring about educational reform to improve the quality of teaching and learning and contribute to the betterment of societies precisely because it questions the very notions of globalisation, competitive market forces and the universalising of markets and production. Constructionist pedagogies may then be discerned and implemented as the result of the correct alignment of the theoretical perspective, research methodology and data collecting strategies with the constructionist epistemology. In making the important distinction between constructivism and constructionism, this chapter makes a significant contribution to the refinement of theories of knowledge, and to their usage in qualitative research in education to bring about improved learning and teaching to contribute positively to the betterment of societies in a globalised world.

Key words: constructivism, constructionism, epistemology, education reforms, globalisation.

Open peer commentary on the article “Enactive Metaphorizing in the Mathematical Experience” by Daniela Díaz-Rojas, Jorge Soto-Andrade & Ronnie Videla-Reyes. Abstract: Teaching and learning mathematics through enactive metaphorizing necessarily rests on interactions of teachers and learners. In this commentary, I illustrate that supporting learners’ enactive metaphorizing may begin with teachers creating space for learner activity and having experience with enactive metaphorizing, but will require much more from teachers and teacher educators.

This article offers a re-description of the concept of learning context. Drawing on Niklas Luhmann and Gregory Bateson, it suggests an alternative to situated, social learning and activity theory. The conclusion is that the learning context designates an individual’s reconstruction of the environment through contingent handling of differences and that the individual emerges as a learner through the actual construction. The selection of differences is influenced by the learner’s actual knowledge, the nature of the environment and the current horizon of meaning in which the current adaptive perspective becomes a significant factor. The re-description contributes to didactics through renewed understanding of the participants’ backgrounds in teaching and learning. Relevance: The paper focuses on learning context as individuals’ mental construction, on the distinction between teaching as context for learning and learning contexts, and on re-description of participants’ backgrounds as temporary horizons of meaning.

The paper will explore the conceptual underpinnings of constructivism as a learning theory in connection with PBL as an approach to teaching. Terms such as “student-centred learning” and teaching methods such as “group-work” are commonly represented as constructivist and presented in juxtaposition with a transmission view of teaching and learning. This paper will investigate the origins of these notions in constructivism, drawing on different learning theorists, and the possibilities for constructivism as a referent to analyse teaching and learning in the PBL context. Firstly, the discussion will centre on constructivism as a theory and how it has influenced teaching approaches commonly adopted in PBL settings. Secondly, constructivism as a practice will be discussed. Finally, the implications of constructivism in the PBL setting will be discussed.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Cybernetic Approach to Contextual Teaching and Learning��� by Philip Baron. Upshot: I present a new concept, the “In-sight Quotient,” which encourages learners to go deeper into the subconscious structure of learning. This enables them to manage the quality of their own individual learning experience. The lecturer becomes no longer a teacher but a “neuro-programmer.”

In their response to my (1996) article, Steffe and Thompson argued that I have taken an early position of Vygotsky’s and that his later work is subsumed in and developed by von Glasersfeld. I argue that the two theories, Vygotsky’s and radical constructivism, are, on the contrary, quite distinct and that this distinction, when seen as a dichotomy, is productive. I suggest that radical constructivists draw on a weak image of the role of social life. I argue that a thick notion of social leads to a complexity of sociocultural theories concerning the teaching and learning of mathematics, a perspective that is firmly located in the debates surrounding cultural theory of the last 2 decades.