Abstract：By analyzing different constructivist perspectives， this paper tries to establish a constructivist framework to transform the classroom teaching process. Moreover， based on notions in constructivism and the new National Curriculum Standards in China， it clarifies that teachers should work as a “developer” with students rather than a “supervisor”.
　　Key words: constructivist； classroom teaching； construct； Vygotsky
　　
　　I.INTRODUCTION
　　
　　The teacher-centered instruction was perpetuated in China’s classroom teaching，many students do not have problem-solving capabilities or abilities to tackle difficulties out of classroom or examination papers. Since the New National Curriculum Standards were established in China in 2001，which advocates employing task-based learning， cooperative learning， etc， to develop and nurture students’ comprehensive abilities， many educators have been reflecting the way to change classroom activities. The objective of this paper is to examine and explore the theories and practices of constructivism， constructivist classroom teaching activities， and to suggest how teachers in China might revise their ideas and classroom practices to assist students’ academic achievement， while also fostering their abilities to be more adaptable， innovative， and self-enterprising citizens.
　　
　　II.AFRAMEWORK OF CONSTRUCTIVIST CLASSROOM BITS AND PIECES FROM MANY PERSPECTIVES
　　
　　Teacher-centered instruction involves the ideas with the epistemological assumptions of the objectivist tradition. Objectivism is the view that knowledge of the world comes about through an individual’s experience of it. As this experience grows broader and deeper， knowledge is represented in the individual’s mind as an ever-closer approximation of how the world really is. In a sense， then， knowledge is thought to exist independently of learners， and learning consists of transferring that knowledge from outside to within the learner (Driscoll， 2000).
　　In contrast to the objectivist view， constructivist theory rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences (2000). Based on work in psychology， philosophy， and anthropology， the theory describes knowledge as temporary， developmental， non-objective， internally constructed， and socially and culturally mediated. Knowledge is facts and principles accumulated by mankind in the course of time， so to speak， it has to be renewed and developed with the each passing day. Learning from this perspective is viewed as a self-regulatory process of struggling with the conflict between existing personal models of the world and discrepant new insights， constructing new representations and models of reality as a human meaning-making venture with culturally developed tools and symbols， and further negotiating such meaning through cooperative social activity， discourse， and debate (Fosnot， 1996).
　　My integrated framework of the teaching process in a constructivist classroom is composed of three parts: the nature of knowledge， adaptation and organization， interaction and reflection.
　　Environment and experience are two crucial aspects to determine if a teacher wants to approach teaching and education from the constructivist position. Too often teaching techniques and procedures spring from the naive assumption that what teachers themselves perceive and infer from their perceptions is ready-made， acting as knowledge dispensers， for the students who have the willing to pick up. If teachers construerepresentationsasconstitutedby correspond ences， they are tempted to postulate that those corresp ondences are impressed into a passive mind， like form
　　s into wax， or light transduced in the retina. This over
　　looks the way teachers segment the flow of their experiences， and the way they link the pieces they have isolated， is and necessarily remains an essential
　　ly subjective matter. Concentrating on a more educatio
　　nal description of constructivism， constructing is intimately connected with experience. Students come into a classroom with their own experiences and a cognitive structure established on those experiences. This refers to the simple fact that what has been learned or experienced previously will have some impact on what is perceived in later situations. These pre-conceived structures are valid， invalid， or incomplete. The learner will revise and reformulate his or her existing structure only if new information or experiences are related to knowledge already in memory. Inferences， elaborations， and relationships between old perceptions and new ideas must be personally drawn by the student in order for the new idea to become an integrated， useful part of his or her memory. In short， the learner must actively construct new information onto his or her existing mental framework for meaningful learning to occur (Hanley， 1994). Therefore， when we intend to stimulate and enhance students’ learning， teachers cannot afford to forget that “cognition organizes and makes sense of one’s experience， and is not a process to render an accurate representation of an external reality” (Doolittle & Hicks， 2003， p. 78).
　　


　　 For Jean Piaget (1896-1980)， he referred to the development and revision of metal models as a process of schema assimilation and accommodation. The term schema represents a group of common and coherent concepts. Piaget believed that humans desire a state of cognitive balance or equilibration. When the child experiences cognitive conflict， a discrepancy between what the child believes the state of the world to be and what he or she is experiencing， adaptation is achieved through assimilation or accommodation. Assimilation involves incorporating new information into previously existing structures or schema (Solso， 1995). For example， a child encounters a Dalmatian for the first time and incorporates Dalmatians into his or her existing schema for “dogs”. Accommodation involves the formation of new mental structures or schema when new information does not fit into existing structures (1995). Another example is a child encounters a skunk for the first time and learns that it is different from “dogs” and “cats”， he or she must create new representation for “skunks”. Obviously， accommodation influences assimilation and vice versa. An inadequate attempt to assimilate some new events into existing schemes or operations may result in some adjustment of those schemes on operations (thus accommodating the event). Such accommodation， however， affects subsequent assimilation， which will now proceed in accord with the new structure (Driscoll， 2000).
　　Learning is the product of self-organization. Piaget’s dictum “intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself” was a challenge to direct the attention of psychologist to the question of how the rational mind organizes experiences and then designs a model of this process. Knowledge is never acquired passively， because novelty cannot be handled except through assimilation to a cognitive structure the experiencing subject already obtains. Indeed， the subject does not perceive an experience as novel until it generates a perturbation relative equilibrium. In this context， it is necessary to emphasize that the most frequent source of perturbations for the developing cognitive subject is interaction with others. This is the reason why constructivist teachers of science and mathematics have been promoting “group learning”， a practice that lets two or three students discuss approaches to assigned problems， with little or no interference from the teacher (Glasersfeld， 1989).
　　


　　“…Leaning in most settings is a communal activity， a sharing of the culture” (Bruner， 1986， p.127). Or to paraphrase Lev Vyogotsky (1896-1934) and situated cognition theorists， the higher mental processing humans develop through social interactions. Because constructivists hold to these beliefs about learning and thinking， they stress interaction as a critical feature in the learning environment. Interaction enables insights and solutions to arise synergistically (Brown， Collins & Duguid， 1989) that would not otherwise come about. Another important function of interaction in learning environments is to provide a means for individuals to understand other points of view other then their own. Cunningham (1992)， for example， argued that dialogue in a social setting is required for students to challenge the individual’s egocentric thinking. Responding to Cunningham’s standpoint， the Language Department and Hypermedia Group (1992a， 1992b) describes instruction as a matter of a nurturing process by which learners develop and defend individual perspectives， while recognizing those of others.When students interact， conflicts among their ideas，conclusions，theories， information， perspectives， opinions， and preferences are inevitable，students acquire conceptual clarification by communication with their partners. The results of interaction of conflicting view points lead to assimilation and accommodation. Having examined the theoretical background on interaction，I am moving toward to present two empirical evidences that justify interactive activities are more motivated and effective in classroom teaching.
　　The Tower of Hanoi is the name of a traditional game which is a criterion measure of performance by the number of moves it takes to solve the problem. Glachan and Light (1982) conducted a study concerned with establishing whether performance on The Tower of Hanoi would lead to better post-test tasks. 28 children participated， 12 being assigned to the individual condition， the remainder being arbitrarily paired together.
　　Pre-test and post-test score distributions for individual and paired conditions are shown in Figure 1. It is clear that the paired condition produced more gains from pre- to post-test， with seven- and nine- move strategies being the most prevalent. The improvement in terms of number of moves shown by subjects in the paired condition was statistically significant， while that shown by subjects in the individual condition was not.
　　Another analysis designed by Ben-Ari and Kedem-Friedrich (2000)， was based upon studying in 36 classrooms of 1017 pupils， 8- to 11- year olds. The following chart (Figure 2) divided the performing groups according to two categories: (a) no interaction， which included non-interactive individual behaviors like reading and writing； (b) verbal interaction， which included all the behaviors that involved verbal communication like discussing， clarifying， raising suggestions， asking， and answering questions (2000).
　　The “supervisor” teaching role includes intervening in students’work， hovering， taking disciplinary measures and providing information. The “developer” roles， includes asking relevant questions， encouraging new ideas and experiences， reasoning and h-order thinking， and inspiring children to generalize (Ben-Ari & Kedem-Friedirich， 2000). Cognitive ability was measured using the respected MAN test (Glanz， 1974) that measures abstract verbal thinking. The test includes nine subscales that assess specific cognitive abilities: synonyms， antonyms， essence， categorization， classification， relationships， conclusions， definitions， and comprehension. The reliability coefficient for the entire scale was very high (Cronbach α = 0.94) which enabled calculating a total score calculated for each pupil (2000).
　　
　　In their study， the model tested can verify two hypotheses: (1) there is a positive relationship between social interaction， thus indirectly affects cognitive change. (2) The “developer” role of the teacher was positively related to social-verbal interaction of pupils (0.45)， while the “supervisor” role was even negatively related (-0.36). Since only the verbal interaction had a significant positive effect on cognitive change (0.38)， it was the use of the “developer” role that had an indirect positive influence on cognitive growth.
　　 Focusing on understanding as occurring through social influence， Vygotsky’s theories accentuate instruction in development.In Vygotsky’s experiments， he studied the difference between the child’s reasoning when working independently contrasted with when working with an adult. He revealed the gap between a child’s “actual development level as determined by independent problem solving” and the higher level of “potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in interaction with more capable peer” (Driscoll， 2000). This gap he calls the zone of proximal development. The more capable partner provides skills and understandings during joint problem solving that are within the child’s zone of proximal development and would not be present for the child without the social interaction. Furthermore， the zone of proximal development does not exist independently of the actual process. Knowledge is co-constructed through interactions and is negotiated “in this manner， children’s schemes are socialized at the point of communicative contact through a normal process of the child’s actions meeting resistance when the objects they affect， react and provide reciprocal effect” (Youniss & Damon， 1992， p. 271).
　　 Duran and Gauvain (1991) found that 5-year-old novices who interacted with same-age experts performed significantly better in latter individual planning than children who did not interact prior to performing the same task. This result is consistent with the zone of proximal development that suggests that cognitive gains are achieved when children interact with children who are more expert than themselves. Results indicate that greater responsibility and involvement during joint problem solving are related to better cognitive outcomes as well.
　　 Yet grouping children does not guarantee interaction， “the social interactions they encounter could lead to developmental delays or abnormal development as well as to normal or accelerated development” (Driscoll， 2000). Glachan and Light (1982) noted that 90% of the moves in their unstructured interactions were determined solely by one child. Azmitia (1986) found interactions dominated by one child were more common than cooperative interactions on her construction tasks. Additionally， Vygotsky’s theory “requires not only a different in level of expertise but an understanding on the part of the more advanced partner of the requirements of the less advanced child， for information presented at a level too far in advance of the child would not be helpful” (Tudge & Rogoff， 1989， p.24). All abovementioned involves the teacher’s role and assignments， which will be discussed in the next section.
　　 Students acquire knowledge， they deepen their understanding of it， and they use it in problem-solving situation. But if knowledge is to be fully understood and widely applicable in and out of the classroom， students need to decontextualize it. This requires reflection， one of the most important features of cognitive growth， but most neglected. Reflection refers to understanding what one knows， or metacognition. Gardner (1993) asserts that reflecting is not an obvious element of constructivism. He delineates reflecting as the ability to step back from work， to monitor goals， to assess what progress has been made， to evaluate how the course can be corrected， how to make use of knowledge to solve problems. “Equally important， the student can come to internalize these reflective practices， so that he is able to evaluate his work even in the absence of outside agent” (1993， p.116). It is one thing to use knowledge to solve a problem， but it is another to become aware of the strategy one employed that led to the solution. Being aware of one’s own knowledge results in self-control and autonomous behavior. It permits students to set targets and make plans to achieve them.
　　Interactions that cause students to reflect are those that require them to step outside of themselves and look back on what they have done. There are a number of examples of this key element. With young children， teachers can encourage children to construct the zoo through use of their knowledge of animals attained from experiences in the field trip at the zoo. At the middle school level， essay or project writing is an effective technique for spurring metacogniton. It brings to the surface understandings that are often relegated to the background during the heat of problem-solving. Informing what one knows to others is also a conjunctive means for evoking reflection.
　　
　　III. TEACHER’S ROLE IN CLASSROOM TEACHING ACTIVITIES
　　
　　In order to adopt the constructivist way of thinking， some of the hinged concepts underlying classroom teaching activities have to be transformed. The nature of knowledge， the theoretical notions concerning the processes of learning， as well as the interaction with others changes when they are seen from the constructivist perspectives.
　　 In constructivist classroom， teaching should not embark upon the presentation of sacred knowledge， but rather by creating opportunities. Students’ previous experiences determine that the role of the teacher is to organize information around conceptual clusters of problems， questions and discrepant situations in order to engage the students’ interests. Teachers assist the students in developing and embedding new insights and connecting them with their previous learning in complex， realistic， and relevant environments. For this purpose， one of the prerequisites is that teachers believe the students can think.
　　In a constructivist approach， teacher must acknowledge social interaction as an integral part of learning， particularly the formation of concepts is really based upon abstract thoughts. Verbalization involves reviewing what is to be verbalized. This review is a form of thinking that often brings out inconsistencies and gaps in individual’s chain of ideas in that it is paramount to initiate interaction when there is a problem to solve.
　　 Teaching as a “developer” has positive influence on students than a “supervisor” in Ben-Ari and Kedem-Friedrich’s study (2000). It implies that a teacher may become a more effective helper， not by showing the “right” way， but by attracting attention to a neglected or counter-productive factor in the students’ procedure. If students’ interaction is misled， the teacher should guide or challenge their notions， which can infer the directions of the interaction.
　　In fashioning students’ tasks， the tasks must be within the zone of proximal development. Teachers must view proximal zone tasks as challenging academic tasks for students. The value of proximal zone tasks is that they are theorized to be very useful in helping learners to attend to， comprehend and learn what is expected as well as what they desire to learn. For anything， that is to be learned， tasks that are outside one’s proximal zone are less likely to be useful to learners than are tasks within it (Mayer， Casteel & Stahl， 2001-2002). When assigning the tasks， a teacher must articulate the task specifically， particularly to the primary school students in order to guarantee every student can participate in the interaction. If the task places high demands or is beyond students’ processing potentially， the teacher can help divide up the labor， or appoint more students in one group.
　　When students show their work， it is not a good idea to say that something is “wrong”； however one may be able to prove such a judgment. Students seldom produce a solution by chance. They have worked at it， and， if the result they believe to be right at a given moment is not the one the teacher is thinking of， their efforts must nevertheless be recognized. Neglecting to do so is the surest way of extinguishing any spark of motivation they may have. It is not surprising if they then lose any interest in handling new tasks (Glasersfeld， 2001).
　　
　　IV. CONCLUSION
　　
　　Much content of what has to be taught is fairly remote from the students ’ daily lives and interests. The motivation to learn springs from a variety of sources， but they are rarely ready and flowing when the teacher begins to teach. A teacher should be open-minded and always welcome the opportunity to work with students on a problem to which he or she does not know， not by pushing a better way to solve the problem， but by using arguments within the students’ horizon that show why some of their suggestions are inappropriate and unlikely to succeed. At the heart of any good teaching and learning experience is a critical relationship， that is， a relationship in which teachers and students alike seek to question each other’s propositions， to reinterpret them， to adapt them and even reject them， but not to discount them. From this perspective， teaching is also a learning process.
　　 All in all， what constructivism suggests to Chinese educators is that an educators’ job is to help or guide students to initiate， build up， create， construct， or invent their notions or concepts， test whether the notions or concepts are viable in the reality or activities， and revise them continually. This will produce advanced analytical thinking and productive learners in the real world.
　　
　　REFERENCES
　　[1]Azmitia， M. (1986). Interactive Problem Solving in Preschool Children: When are Two Heads Better than One? Unpublished doctoral dissertation， University of Minnesota， Minneapolis， MN.
　　[2]Ben-Ari， Rachel.， & Kedem-Friedrich. (2000， March). Restructuring Heterogeneous Classes for Cognitive Development: Social Interactive Perspective. Instructional Science. 28(2)， 153-167.
　　[3]Brown ， J. S.， Collins， A.， & Duguid， P. (1989， January/February). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher. 18， 32-42.
　　[4]Bruner， J. S. (1986). Actual Minds， Possible Worlds. Cambridge， Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
　　[5]Cunningham， D. J. (1992). Beyond Educational Psychology: Steps toward an Educational Semiotic. Educational Psychology Review. 4， 165-194.
　　[6]Doolittle， P. E.， & Hicks， D. (2003， Winter). Constructivism as a Theoretical Foundation for the Use of Technology in Social Sciences. Theory and Research in Social Education. 31(1)， 72-104.
　　[7]Driscoll， M. P. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston， London， Toronto， Sydney， Tokyo and Singapore: Allyn and Bacon.
　　[8]Duran， R.， & Gauvain， M. (1991). The Role of Age Versus Expertise in Peer Collaboration during Joint Planning. Unpublished manuscript， Claremont Mckenna College， Claremont， CA.
　　[9]Fosnot， C. T. (1996). (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory， Perspectives， and Practice. New York and London: Teachers College， Columbia University.
　　[10]Gardner， H. (1993). Multiple Intelligence: The Theory in Practice. New York: Harper Collins.
　　[11]Glachan， M.， & Light， P. (1982). Peer Interaction and learning: Can Two Wrongs Make a Right? In Butterworth， G.， & Light， P. (Ed.)， Social Cognition: Studies of the Development of Understanding (pp.238-262). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
　　[12]Glantz， J. (1974). Logic Processes in Psychological Light. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
　　[13]Glasersfeld， E. v. (1989). Cognition， Construction of Knowledge， and Teaching. In Matthews， M. R. (Ed.)， Constructivism in Science Education: A Philosophical Examination (pp.11-30). Dordrecht， Boston， London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
　　[14]Glasersfeld， E. v. (1995). Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London， Washington， D.C. : Falmer Press.
　　[15]Glasersfeld， E. v. (2001， June). Radical Constructivism and Teaching. Prospect. XXXI (2)， 161-173.
　　[16]Hanley， S. (1994). On Constructivism. Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Available: http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt.
　　[17]Language Development and Hypermedia Group. (1992a， February). “Open” Software Design: A Case Study. Educational Technology. 32， 43-55.
　　[18]Language Development and Hypermedia Group. (1992b). Bubble Dialogue: A New Tool for Instruction and Assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development. 40， 59-67..
　　[19]Meyers， D. M.， Casteel， J. D.， & Stahl， R. J. (2001-2002， Fall/Winter) Academic Bargaining in Middle- and High School Social Studies Classrooms with Implications for Teachers， Administrators and Others Desiring to Improve Student Academic Achievement. The International Journal of Social Education. 16(2)， 36-56.
　　[20]Solso， R. L. (1995). Cognitive Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
　　[21]Tudge， J.， & Rogoff， B. (1989). Peer Influence on Cognitive Development: Piagetian and Vygotskian Perspective. In Bornstein， M. H. & Bruner， J. S. (Ed.)， Interaction in Human Development. Hillsdale， New Jersey: Erlbaum.
　　[22]Youniss， J.， & Damon， W. (1992). Social Construction in Piaget’s Theory. In Beilin， H. & Pufall， P. B. (Ed.)， Piaget’s Theory: Prospects and Possibilities (pp. 267-286). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.