The Shape Activity: Social Constructivism in the Psychology Classroom

Abstract

Social constructivist principles and ideas are among those most cited in both educational and psychological circles today, and many current scholars and reformers ground their work in social constructivist theories. Yet the basic principles of social constructivism are notoriously difficult for students to understand and grapple with. This article describes a small group classroom activity using colored shapes that offers a concrete way to introduce these principles to students and provide them with opportunities for subsequent scaffolded discussion and reflection. Typical small group solutions are identified and discussed, along with data on student response to the activity, based on anonymous surveys from 18 undergraduate classes.

Keywords

social constructivism undergraduate education teaching of psychology classroom activity small group learning

Since the initial publication of Berger and Luckmann’s (1967) The Social Construction of Reality, followed by Gergen’s (1985) Social Constructivism in Modern Psychology, social constructivist¹ theories grounded in the pioneering work of Vygotsky (1978, 1987–1999) have become increasingly significant in psychology. Perhaps first and still most prominent in educational (Berliner & Calfee, 1996; Palincsar, 1998) and developmental psychology (Parke & Clarke, 2003), the influence of social constructivism has since spread throughout the psychological disciplines including the psychology of gender (Gergen & Davis, 1997), cognitive psychology (Frawley, 1997), social psychology (Jost & Kruglanski, 2002), vocational psychology (Young & Collin, 2004), cultural psychology (Markus & Hamadani, 2010), counseling psychology (Cottone, 2013), organizational psychology (Nica & Potkovaru, 2014), and abnormal psychology (Gelo, Vilei, Maddux, & Gennaro, 2015). Thus, understanding the basic tenets of social constructivist thought is essential for students of psychology, whether in introductory classes or upper-level classes offered in these more specialized fields.

Yet the foundational ideas of social constructivism can be particularly difficult for many undergraduates to grasp (Connor-Greene, 2006; Mintrop, 2001). This may be due in part to the lack of exposure to social constructivist ideas or methods in their education up to this point (Harris & Alexander, 1998; Lambert, 2012), but is also because many are in their late teens or early 20s and still in the “dualism” or “black-and-white” stage of epistemological development. As Perry (1968) described, at this stage, they still believe that most questions have singular, sure answers, and that knowledge is “simple, certain, and handed down by authority” (Schommer & Walker, 1995, p. 425). Unfortunately, disrupting students’ dualistic convictions often leaves them adrift in a sea of laissez-faire relativism (Perry). They reason that if there is no single right answer, then all answers must be equally good, a singularly unhelpful stance for students either in their everyday lives or in their future careers.

We need to help our students understand that, while there may be many useful ways to look at most complex questions and many good ways to do science, conduct therapy, or raise and teach children, there are also some remarkably bad ones, and that different ideas and solutions often work better or worse in different situations. In addition, they need to understand that, while each person’s constructed knowledge is unique, social groups of people also hold much knowledge in common; our knowledge is constructed through social interactions within specific social and societal contexts, impacted by a myriad of factors, including gender and power relationships, and mediated by the tools and knowledge of the multiple cultures to which each of us belongs. Not only will these understandings prepare them to study modern trends and ideas in psychology, but teaching these basic concepts of social constructivist psychology is one of the best ways we can help our students move beyond “black-and-white” reasoning without falling prey to futile relativism.

Not surprisingly, at least to social constructivists, I and many others (e.g., Moradi & Yoder, 2001) have found that simply explaining these ideas to students, however, clearly and carefully, with both conviction and practical examples, is not very effective. Most of them will dutifully record in their ever-present notebooks (paper or digital) everything in the lectures and PowerPoints and may even memorize a list of “principles of social constructivism” from their textbooks, but because they have not had the chance to wrestle with these ideas, to talk about them and use them—in short, to socially construct them—they never make them their own. The activity shared in this article is designed to give students the opportunity to do exactly this: to experience social construction in a small group of peers using simple materials and assigned, familiar “contexts,” and to reflect in groups and as a whole class on how and why they constructed as they did.

Description of Activity

Students are divided into six small groups. Each group is handed an envelope containing the following nine shapes cut out of tag board (or any fairly stiff and durable paper) in three different colors; these shapes are specifically designed to produce discussion around multiple possible solutions to the task that will be posed to each group:

one large green isosceles right triangle;

one small blue isosceles right triangle;

one medium yellow right triangle, with a small X on one side;

one large yellow circle;

one small blue circle, with a small X on one side;

one large blue square;

one medium green square;

one small yellow rectangle (color B); and

one large green rectangle with a small X on one side.

I typically make the “large” shapes about 2″ on a side/diameter, with the medium about 1.5″ and the small only 1″, but any similarly distinguishable, proportional sizes will work. Likewise, any three relatively contrasting colors may be used, as long as the above coordination of colors and shapes is preserved. Thus, for example, the large triangle, large rectangle, and medium square may be green or red or purple or whatever, so long as they are the same color.

There are directions on the outside of each envelope, which students are told will be different for different groups. In actuality, there are only three sets of instructions, each received by two groups that are carefully spaced away from each other in the room.

Directions 1: You are in a geometry class. The teacher has asked you to sort the enclosed shapes into three appropriate groups.

Directions 2: You are in a physical education class. Please figure out a way to use the enclosed shapes to sort students fairly into three teams and select a captain for each team.

Directions 3: You are in an art class and have been asked to use the enclosed shapes to construct an attractive, balanced collage.

Groups are encouraged to take at least 15 min to do these tasks, to investigate multiple alternatives, and to come up with a solution that they all feel is a “good” solution to the task. As they finish, each group is given the following questions to discuss and told to be prepared to share their group’s solution and responses with the rest of the class.

Explain how your group decided to organize/use the pieces you were given.

What characteristics were most salient or important in your decisions on how to place/use each piece? Why were these characteristics most important?

Did everyone agree right away about how to organize/use the pieces?

If not, what alternatives were suggested? How did you come to agree on your final plan? Did different group members take different roles in this process?

If so, can you think of any other reasonable way(s) to organize/use these pieces?

After all groups have had a chance to finish and discuss, the class reconvenes as a whole. The instructor first asks each of the geometry groups to share their results and the answers to their group questions, then the physical education groups, and finally the art groups. The instructor’s role in this whole group “debriefing” is crucial, as he or she points out similarities and differences in group results and processes and the multiplicity of valid solutions to tasks but also the possibility of invalid solutions, as described in the section below.

Results and Discussion

Typical Group Solutions and Opportunities for Discussion

The two geometry groups often come up with the same solution—they put all the triangles in one group, the circles in another, and the squares and rectangles (quadrilaterals) in the third. The term “quadrilaterals” is more likely to be used by groups that contain math majors or aficionados, which encourages discussion about the role of expert knowledge and specialized vocabulary in social construction. Occasionally, however, one geometry group will sort by color instead of shape because they are uncomfortable with the uneven number of pieces in each shape-based group and sorting by color results in three equal groups, though such a goal is not mentioned in the instructions. This allows discussion of how people often read unintended meanings into texts based on schemas drawn from prior experiences (i.e., that “groups” should be equal). Geometry groups often find their task quite quick and easy.

The physcial education groups usually come up with one of two basic solution types. Some decide to assign teams randomly, by handing out shapes from a pile or having students draw them out of a hat; groups adopting this solution almost always assign teams by color because using shapes will not result in an even number of students on each team. Other groups consider the shapes as representations of the students themselves. They work carefully to sort the shapes into “fair” teams, with relatively equal numbers of big and little shapes (often seen as representing student size or athletic prowess) and/or of different colored shapes (again often seen as symbolizing athletic ability or even ethnicity) on each team. Heated debates often emerge about what is “really fair” between advocates of the random sorting method and the carefully balanced-for-fairness method, which opens up a discussion about how people interpret words differently, often based on different prior experiences. However, physical education groups always put three students on each team, which helps to demonstrate that, while there is no single “fair” way to sort the teams, there are still some ways we would all agree are “unfair” (e.g., teams of one, one, and seven). In either solution strategy, groups may choose to designate captains by using the X’s on three shapes or by the triangles. Groups choosing the second strategy may also choose to designate all students represented by a certain color as captains, or perhaps those represented by the largest shapes (on the theory that these are the best athletes) or even the smallest shapes (on the theory that the smallest/least skilled kids never get to be captains). Such diverse responses demonstrate the possibility of multiple, equally valid, socially constructed solutions to a given problem.

The two art groups, of course, never come up with the same collage. These two groups usually take the longest to finish their tasks, engaging in lengthy discussion about what is a “real collage” and what is “attractive” and “balanced,” based mostly on students’ enculturated tastes in art and experiences in elementary art classes, again demonstrating people’s dependence on prior experience when assigning meanings and values to words and concepts. Sometimes, especially if there is an art major in the group, there are even status-based arguments put forward about what constitutes “real art” (often more abstract and less-ordered compositions) versus “childish” or “simplistic” compositions (often very symmetric or even pictorial).

Comparisons across geometry, physical education, and art-based groups facilitate discussion of how purpose shapes perception; for example, color is often unremarked by geometry groups, and only sometimes noticed by physical education groups, but always by art groups, while the Xs on three of the pieces are usually ignored by geometry and art groups but often salient to physical education groups. Such cross-group comparisons also bring out the ways in which differing areas of knowledge are more (geometry) or less (art) convergent and how positioning and authority (based in expertise, gender, assertiveness, and even social status) can affect group processes and constructions.

Student Self-Reported Learning From This Activity

Since this activity was designed and has usually been used as part of a complete instructional unit on social constructivism, it has not been feasible to measure subsequent gains in students’ tested knowledge attributable to this activity alone, separate from the many other sources of knowledge typically contained in such units (e.g., lectures, textbooks, articles). However, self-report data on effectiveness have been collected in 18 undergraduate introductory classes in educational psychology, each comprised of 20–25 mostly first- and second-year students. Directly after the activity, these students completed an anonymous survey asking them to rate how well this activity had helped them understand each of seven foundational social constructivist ideas presented in the unit. Four of the 18 classes were taught by me and 14 were taught by graduate teaching assistants (TAs) who functioned as independent instructors of record. Student responses are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness of the Shape Activity.

Foundational Idea	Author-Taught Classes (N = 4) μ (SD)	TA-Taught Classes (N = 14) μ (SD)	All Classes (N = 18) μ (SD)
People’s purposes in constructing influence what will be constructed.	2.19 (.17)	2.25 (.31)	2.23 (.28)
Different people will interpret words differently, due to prior experience and background knowledge.	1.60 (.24)	1.90 (.26)	1.84 (.28)
The characteristics of the materials given influence possible constructions.	1.76 (.36)	1.96 (.25)	1.91 (.28)
The understood purpose of construction determines which characteristics of the given materials “matter.”	2.24 (.16)	2.14 (.28)	2.16 (.26)
Even though some constructions would be clearly wrong for certain purposes, there are numerous “right” constructions; that is, the same materials can be used in a variety of ways to achieve the same purpose.	1.59 (.26)	1.81 (.23)	1.76 (.25)
Through conversation, a group of people can develop ideas and constructions that no one person had previously thought of; in other words, the knowledge of the whole group becomes more than the sum of its parts.	1.78 (.09)	1.87 (.28)	1.78 (.25)
Power relationships (based on gender, culture, knowledge, temperament, etc.) influence final group constructions.	2.55 (.13)	2.49 (.32)	2.51 (.29)

Note. Ratings were on a 1–5 Likert-type scale, with 1 = very helpful, 2 = quite helpful, 3 = somewhat helpful, 4 = neutral, 5 = confusing. In response to the question “How well did this activity help you understand each of the following social constructivist ideas?”

As shown in Table 1, mean responses to every statement in each of the 18 classes were all better than 3.00, indicating that students in all classes found the exercise at minimum “somewhat helpful” in understanding all seven ideas. Overall means tended to hover on either side of 2, indicating that most students perceived the exercise as “quite helpful.” In addition, there were no notable differences in responses from classes that I taught versus those taught by graduate TAs. Since most of the TAs in our department have little or no teaching experience prior to teaching this introductory class, this result suggests that even novice instructors should be able to use this exercise effectively.

The least understood idea, at least by self-report, seemed to be that power relationships (based on gender, culture, knowledge, temperament, etc.) influence final group constructions. In my experience, this issue rarely surfaces during the whole class facilitated discussion, even when related prompts and questions are offered. This may be because this is primarily an intragroup, rather than an intergroup, phenomenon or, more likely, because students are understandably reluctant to assert in front of the whole class that someone else dominated their small group discussion or that other people’s voices were not heard. I suspect the same reticence impacts the small group discussions, even though the third discussion question (see above) is specifically intended to bring out such issues. It may be that this final small group discussion question needs to be more specific or perhaps this activity is not the best vehicle for discussing this idea. Students might be more comfortable recognizing and discussing such barriers to interaction in discussing past small group experiences, or even in observed video clips, more removed from immediate shared experience.

Conclusion

Social constructivist principles and ideas are among those most cited in both educational and psychological circles today; many current scholars and reformers ground their work in social constructivist theories. Yet these ideas are notoriously difficult to understand and grapple with. This activity offers a concrete way to introduce these ideas to students and provides them with opportunities for scaffolded experience, discussion, and reflection. It thus not only helps them understand these ideas better but gives them the chance to experience social construction and constructivist learning for themselves. Because it draws upon educational contexts with which most students will be familiar, it can be used without extensive preparatory work in a wide variety of psychology classes. If desired, the final discussion questions can be adapted or added to in more specialized classes in order to emphasize social constructivist ideas most germane to, for example, gender or cultural psychology or organizational psychology. Finally, although the data presented here are specifically from undergraduate classes, because the activity is multilevel by design and the depth of reflection is guided by the instructor’s purposes and the students’ understandings, I have also used this activity effectively in master’s and even doctoral-level psychology classes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Berger

P. L.

Luckmann

(1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Berliner

D. C.

Calfee

R. C.

(1996). Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Connor-Greene

P. A.

(2006). Interdisciplinary critical inquiry: Teaching about the social construction of madness. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 6–13.

Cottone

R. R.

(2013). A paradigm shift in counseling philosophy. Counseling Today, 56, 54–57.

Efran

J. S.

McNamee

Warren

Raskin

J. D.

(2014). Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism: A dialogue. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 27, 1–13.

Frawley

(1997). Vygotsky and cognitive science: Language and the unification of the social and computational mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gelo

O. C. G.

Vilei

Maddux

J. E.

Gennaro

(2015). Psychopathology as social construction: The case of Anorexia Nervosa. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 28, 105–125.

Gergen

K. J.

(1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.

Gergen

M. M.

Davis

S. N.

(1997). Toward a new psychology of gender: A reader. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Harris

K. R.

Alexander

P. A.

(1998). Integrated, constructivist education: Challenge and reality. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 115–127.

11.

Hruby

G. G.

(2002). Social constructivism and social constructionism. In Guzzetti

(Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia of history, theory, and practice. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

12.

Jost

J. T.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(2002). The estrangement of social constructionism and experimental social psychology: History of the rift and prospects for reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 168–187.

13.

Lambert (2012). Twilight of the lecture. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved December 30, 2016, from http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/twilight-of-the-lecture

14.

Markus

H. R.

Hamedani

M. G.

(2010). Sociocultural psychology. In Kitayama

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

15.

Mintrop

(2001). Educating students to teach in a constructivist way—can it all be done? Teachers College Record, 103, 207–239.

16.

Moradi

Yoder

J. D.

(2001). Demonstrating social constructionism in psychology courses: The “Who am I?” exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 201–203.

17.

Nica

Potcovaru

A. M.

(2014). The social construction of organizational reality. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 2, 56–61.

18.

Palincsar

A. S.

(1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

19.

Papert

(1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.

20.

Parke

R. D.

Clarke-Stewart

K.A.

(2003). Developmental psychology. In Freedhiem

D. K.

Weiner

I. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology, volume 1: history of psychology (pp. 205–222). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

21.

Perry

W. G.

(1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Raskin

J. D.

(2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. American Communication Journal, 5, 1–26.

23.

Schommer

Walker

(1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 424–432.

24.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

25.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1987–1999). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vols. 1–6). Rieber

R. W.

Carton

A. S.

Wollock

(Eds.). New York, NY: Springer.

26.

Young

R. A.

Collin

(2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 373–388.