Dharmendra Dubay, from Trinidad and Tobago, currently working in Canadian International School, Bangalore, explains that Constructivism is a way of teaching that helps students learn by doing, discussing, and discovering ideas on their own. Lessons should connect with what students like and are good at, while teachers, with clear plans, activities, and support, guide them when needed. This way, students share ideas, learn from their mistakes, and gain a deeper understanding of the topics.
The term constructivism has been widely discussed in education and is closely linked to several renowned educationists, particularly John Dewey. Dewey was the one who first proposed that students should be allowed to understand and figure out things on their own, rather than just memorizing content. He emphasized that learning is more effective when traditional subject matter is integrated with the student’s strengths, prior experiences, and interests. This idea remains extremely relevant today, as educators search for ways to make learning meaningful and engaging.
In this approach, the teacher’s role is not to deliver lessons as a one-way transfer of knowledge but to guide students according to their needs. I often call this guidance metacognitive scaffolding. The term metacognition was introduced into education by John Flavell, and in simple terms, it means “thinking about thinking.” It is about helping students reflect on their own thought processes, understand how they learn, and make decisions to improve their learning outcomes.
Constructivism emphasises that students are active participants in learning. They do not come to the classroom as empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge. Instead, they bring ideas, questions, and prior experiences that shape the way they understand new concepts. Teachers facilitate learning by providing guidance, encouraging discussion, and supporting exploration, which allows students to construct knowledge meaningfully. This has significant implications for lesson planning, classroom interactions, and assessment strategies.
When learners are given a task, the conversations they have among themselves are often as insightful as the final product. Many times, if we pay close attention, we can see how students are reasoning, questioning, and negotiating solutions. For instance, a group working on a chemistry model might say, “I think the bond angle should be different” or “Maybe if we rotate this part, it will fit better.” These small discussions show that students are actively thinking, testing ideas, and reflecting on their learning.
Mistakes are an integral part of this process. When students encounter errors, they rarely stop there. Instead, they discuss, analyse, and try new approaches. As teachers, we may feel the urge to intervene immediately, but sometimes the best support is simply observing and letting them work through challenges on their own. This approach helps students develop resilience, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Over the years, I have noticed that students who are initially hesitant often become more confident through these conversations. One quiet student in my class, for example, surprised everyone by suggesting a creative modification to a molecular model. Moments like these highlight how constructivist learning allows hidden talents to surface and encourages every student to contribute to collective understanding.
For constructivist approaches to succeed, careful lesson planning is essential. Activities must be designed to encourage students to discuss, analyse, and identify key features of a concept. Students also need preparation and prior knowledge before they engage in the task. Simply handing them a science kit or a set of instructions rarely works. Without understanding the why behind an activity, students may follow steps mechanically but fail to engage with the concepts. Planning is not just about content coverage; it also involves deciding on timing, prompts, and the type of support to provide. Many activities may extend over several days, requiring ongoing guidance. For instance, during a multi-day chemistry activity, I realised that students needed regular checkpoints to stay on track. Without these, discussions sometimes wandered, or students became unsure about the next step. By planning and anticipating possible difficulties, teachers can provide support just when it is needed, without taking away the students’ opportunity to explore.
Science is particularly suited to metacognitive scaffolding because it is hands-on, inquiry-driven, and conceptually rich. Researchers such as Mills have explored how to incorporate scaffolding effectively, although many educators were practising similar strategies long before it was formalised. Mills et al. provided an excellent example. Students were required to create a stop-motion animation illustrating how the Earth, once a single landmass, broke into plates that slowly drift apart. This did not require advanced technology; students used photocopies of images, cut them into shapes representing plates, and gradually moved them to simulate tectonic shifts. If devices like phones and tablets are available, then they can make this into a digital format with voiceover and annotations.
Through this exercise, students discovered that tectonic plates do not move rapidly; they shift slowly because they float on molten material. My role was not to provide the answers but to ask questions like, “What happens if these plates collide?” or “How does this movement affect the surrounding land?” By prompting reflection, I allowed students to refine their animations independently. They learned not only the scientific concept but also patience, attention to detail, and analytical thinking. Many students later commented that creating the animation helped them “see” the Earth’s movements in a way diagrams could never convey. These reflections reinforced the value of constructivist approaches, showing that learning is deeper when students are actively involved.
Think, create, discover
Not every activity needs technology or complex tools. For example, when teaching molecular structures such as BrF₃ or CIF. I give students simple materials like sticks, clay, and toothpicks. Inevitably, their first attempts are often incorrect. Instead of correcting them immediately, I offer prompts: “Does this bond angle seem right?” or “What happens if we rotate this part?” Students then discuss, test, and rebuild their models collaboratively. They compare approaches, debate solutions, and gradually arrive at the correct structures. This process encourages critical thinking, teamwork, and reflection. Digital resources like PhET Simulations complement these activities, providing an additional layer of understanding.
In biology, traditional drawing exercises are now supplemented with digital and physical modelling. Students can take photographs of real flowers, label them, and create slides to explain processes such as pollination. Using a toy bee and a model flower, they demonstrate pollen transfer and insect interactions. Such hands-on, discussion-based approaches help students understand the concepts more vividly than memorisation alone. Activities like these exemplify the principle of “Think, create, discover.” They make learning active, memorable, and meaningful. Students often leave these lessons more engaged, confident, and eager to explore further.
Students often struggle with complex topics, such as meiosis, genetic variation, and crossing over. Even with abundant resources, they may fail to make correct connections. Engaging with concepts at multiple levels — symbolic, model, and microscopic — is essential. For example, teaching the properties of water involves experiments and connecting observations to molecular explanations. Since students cannot directly see molecules or DNA, animations and simulations provide a bridge. Metacognitive scaffolding comes into play with prompts such as, “Why does ice float?” or “How does this molecular arrangement explain the observation?” These questions encourage students to reflect on their learning, helping them construct a deeper understanding. I recall a student who initially struggled with the concept of hydrogen bonding. After engaging in guided discussion and hands-on modelling, the student explained the phenomenon correctly, even using the animation as a reference. Moments like this demonstrate the importance of scaffolding and guided reflection in learning complex scientific concepts.
Chemistry made creative
Chemistry is often considered abstract and challenging. Principles such as Le Chatelier’s Principle are usually taught through memorisation. However, I found that creative, activity-based exploration can yield a better understanding. At the Canadian International School, Bangalore, I divided students into two groups. One group was taught the principle directly, while the other created an animation to explore the effects of heat on chemical reactions without prior instruction. Surprisingly, the second group developed strong conceptual understanding independently. They were able to explain why reactions shift with temperature changes and identify patterns in energy barriers. This experience showed me that students do not always need direct instruction to understand complex principles. Constructivist learning, combined with metacognitive scaffolding, allows them to arrive at understanding through exploration and reflection. It fosters curiosity and independent thinking, qualities that are essential for lifelong learning.
Constructivist methods are not limited to science alone. In mathematics, for example, students can explore geometry by creating 3D models of shapes and discussing properties such as angles, symmetry, and surface area. When students build a model, test its stability, and reflect on how its dimensions affect strength, they are engaging in hands-on learning that is far more memorable than solving equations on paper alone. In language learning, students can participate in role-play activities or debate sessions that allow them to explore vocabulary and grammar in context. Rather than memorising lists of words, they learn through meaningful use, reflection, and discussion. In history, students can simulate historical events or debate policy decisions, which encourages them to analyse perspectives, make connections, and form evidence-based arguments.
Quality versus quantity
Students frequently report that activities, models, and animations help them understand concepts better. Yet, exam pressure creates a dilemma: teachers feel compelled to cover the syllabus quickly, leaving little room for constructivist methods. This raises an important question: should education prioritise quantity — covering more topics — or quality — ensuring deep understanding? For instance, rather than asking students to write essays on pollination, giving them models and role-play exercises encourages active engagement. They can demonstrate how insects interact with flowers, how pollen is transferred, and the importance of these processes in ecosystems. Large class sizes often make such approaches challenging. Ideally, smaller groups with additional assistants would allow each student to participate fully. Reflection, discussion, and hands-on practice take time but yield deeper learning and retention.
Shaping minds, not just scores
Ultimately, education should aim to shape minds, not merely produce scores. Many teachers attempt creative, constructivist methods at the start of the academic year, only to revert to traditional teaching as exams approach. This is not because they do not value these methods, but because time and systemic constraints limit their ability to implement them fully. To achieve meaningful change, all stakeholders — teachers, students, parents, exam boards, and education ministries — must collaborate. Assessment systems should evaluate creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving, not only memorisation. When students are encouraged to explore, experiment, and reflect, learning becomes far more meaningful and enduring.
Constructivist teaching requires teachers to reflect constantly on their practice. Asking questions such as: “Are my students actively constructing knowledge?” or “Am I guiding them enough without taking over?” helps refine teaching methods. I often keep a journal to record observations of student interactions, noting moments of creativity, collaboration, and discovery. Reflecting on lessons allows teachers to identify which scaffolding techniques work best, where students struggle, and how to adjust future activities. This reflection is vital because constructivism is not a rigid methodology; it requires flexibility and responsiveness to the unique dynamics of each classroom.
Constructivism and metacognitive scaffolding emphasise that students learn best when they are active participants. Whether creating stop-motion animations of tectonic plates, building molecular models, or demonstrating pollination with toy bees, students engage more deeply when given space to explore and guided prompts at the right moments. Challenges such as exams, time constraints, and large classes are real, but careful planning, creativity, and reflection allow teachers to facilitate deeper understanding. Constructivism fosters curiosity, problem-solving skills, collaboration, and independent thinking. Education should focus on developing capable, reflective minds rather than merely preparing students for exams. By supporting students in thinking, creating, and discovering, teachers shape not only their knowledge but also their confidence, creativity, and lifelong learning skills. This is the true promise of constructivist education: learning that is meaningful, engaging, and enduring.
Contact details
Dharmendra Dubay
Secondary Science Teacher, Canadian International School, Bangalore
Phone Number: 7349252651
Email: dubaysaspx@gmail.com