















































 
 
  

 

36 
 
 

p-ISSN: 2722-399X;  e-ISSN: 2722-1857 
SiLeT, Vol. 3, No. 1, April 2022: 36-45 

©2022 Studies in Learning  
and Teaching 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
Homepage: https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 
Email: silet@scie-journal.com 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in 
Universities   

*B I Omodan1 
1CAPTD Faculty of Education, Butterworth Campus, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa 

Article Info  ABSTRACT 

Article history: 

Received February 21, 2022  
Revised March 3, 2022 
Accepted March 29, 2022 
Available Online April 30, 2022 

Various indications, including literature, have confirmed that 
university classrooms are still mostly inactive and undemocratic, 
dominated by instructors and lecturers. That is, little or no atmosphere 
is created for the student to be a socially active participant in 
generating knowledge which appears to have affected their sociality 
in the university and their lives after their university education. Some 
university lecturers still use traditional or a systematic colonised way 
of teaching. This study responded by proposing unabridged Social 
Constructivism (SC) to create socially active university students 
towards becoming productive and active citizens. This was done by 
answering a general question: How can SC be projected in the 
university classroom to create active and productive students? This 
study was located within a transformative paradigm in order to 
transform students’ inactiveness in the process of generating 
knowledge. Conceptual analysis was used to design the study. This 
was done within the principle of thematic analysis by arranging SC's 
assumptions into themes and making sense of them. The study thus 
presents that SC possesses the acumen to assist lecturers in ensuring 
that their classrooms are socially active towards student productivity 
both in the schools and in the field of work.  

Keywords: 

Social Constructivism 
University Students 
Classroom Productivity 
Transformation 

 
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet  

INTRODUCTION 
Active participation in university classrooms is characterised by lecturers engaging with 
students, students engaging themselves and their instructors socially, morally and cognitively 
into the learning process. In this study, both lecturer and instructor are used interchangeably to 
mean the same thing. However, a university classroom is supposed to be a source of learning if 
both students and lecturers are involved in an interactive relationship that will benefit from each 
other's expertise. This is essential because socially active classroom members do not just sit back 
in the class session but actively participate in activities such as asking questions that require an 
explanation or clarification, encouraging others, raising opinions, presenting their views either 
through reactions or counter-arguments to other students' input and basically getting engaged 
with their environment. However, in most cases today, university classrooms are inactive 
towards student productivity (Benzo et al., 2016; Pengpid et al., 2015). Therefore, the process of 
generating knowledge in classrooms is not inclined to the plight of the students by making them 
socially and actively informed. This can be attributed to many factors, but the main reason for an 
inactive classroom, according to Gilakjani et al. (2013), is that most instructors lack resources and 
knowledge to create an active environment in the classroom. For clarity sake, socially active 
classrooms are where the instructors can motivate the students to be involved in discussions, 
debates, and other forms of interactive participation with each other or their instructors (Zepke, 
2015). At the same time, the socially inactive classroom does not participate actively in a 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1586183902
http://u.lipi.go.id/1587708325
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
mailto:silet@scie-journal.com
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

37 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

discussion, debate or even ask for clarifications from their instructor(s) when need be (Deliens et 
al., 2015).  

One could then argue that there is a clear distinction between socially active and inactive 
classroom members as the former's primary interest is learning while the latter's priority is 
passing through the course.  For this reason, more emphasis is focused on why todays’ university 
classrooms still have an iota of inactiveness. The existence of the latter, that is, inactive classroom 
participants, can be linked to a lack of utilisation and understanding of effective teaching and 
learning components like motivation, appropriate skills, and knowledge necessary to interact 
with the course material (Gilboy et al., 2015; Saeed & Zyngier, 2012), which renders students 
inactive in the classroom. It may also reduce their zeal to seek knowledge and thereby affect their 
critical thinking, inquisitive, interactive, and participatory skills. This is especially true for 
socially inactive students who feel that they have no control over or no motivation towards the 
subject under discussion/instruction. Hence, they become silent in the process of knowledge 
construction. This argument complements that of Siebenaler (1997) that an inactive classroom is 
significant to students’ dissatisfaction with classrooms activities and affect the potential bond 
between students and their instructors.  

This article joins the host of other literature to argue that inactive classrooms affect classroom 
productivity which could be measured by students’ participatory skills, academic performance, 
overall productivity, students-teacher relationships, the ability of students to manage their 
diversities, and the knowledge of their individual differences (Adha et al., 2018; Bernstein‐
Yamashiro & Noam, 2013; Gurin et al., 2002; Weaver et al., 2018). This further confirms that poor 
classroom productivity resulting from teaching and learning practices undermine student 
achievement. Furthermore, poor teaching practices are also more likely to lead to poor 
productivities among classroom stakeholders (Adeyemo, 2012). When a lecturer has little 
knowledge of the appropriate teaching styles for classroom situations or has a low level of 
commitment to teaching and is poorly prepared, it will lead to nothing but unpleasant 
productivity. Teaching practices here means the belief or style lecturers use in teaching their 
students. Turner et al. (2009) tagged this as teacher’s beliefs. In their argument, teachers who 
believe that all children are capable learners will create classrooms where students are 
encouraged to ask questions and seek out new challenges, whereas those with negative academic 
beliefs will tend to give out much busy work or use a grading system that does not encourage 
students to take risks and learn from mistakes. The latter constitutes one of the reasons for the 
lack of productive classrooms in the universities.   

Findings from Akbari and Allvar (2010) about teachers’ efficacy showed that the use or not 
the use of appropriate teaching styles and teachers’ reflectivity are significant to students' 
academic achievement. The extent to which teachers display classroom efficacies and mastery of 
teaching and learning that is productive to students will go a long way to assist students in 
succeeding. It has also been established that poor teachers’ teaching methods, unconducive 
students’ environment, and teachers’ professionalism influence students’ academic performance 
(Asikhia, 2010). This is to argue that when the lecturer is unsure or possesses low knowledge of 
the method of appropriate teaching style, unable to create good teaching and classroom 
atmosphere with professional knowledge, may affect the student’s productivity, which decreases 
classroom productivity thereafter. This is also supported by the finding of Banerjee (2016) that 
the lack of a positive environment and social support for students in the classroom deprives 
students of their performance and overall achievement. This kind of environment may make the 
students perceive their lecturer negatively, and such negative perception of teachers by the 
students, according to (Graber, 2009) can affect students’ academic performance negatively. 
Based on this, the study proposed that, for a university classroom to be active and participatory 
to meet its expected end, the place of Social Constructivism (SC) is imminent. This is because it is 
a theory that views the process of knowledge production from sociological perspectives through 
human relationships, interactions and togetherness (Omodan & Tsotetsi, 2020). This theory will 
be unpacked in the latter part of the article.   

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

38 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Research Question 

In other to respond to the above problem, the following research question was answered 
analytically and argumentatively: 

• How can SC be projected in the university classroom as a strategy to create active and 
productive students? 

Research Objectives 

In order to answer the above research question, the following research objectives were presented 
to guide the process.  

• The study presented Social Constructivism as a potential philosophy of classroom 

productivity. 

• The study also examines the assumptions of Social Constructivism and its relevance to 

classroom productivity.  

RESEARCH METHOD 
This study is argumentative in nature and situated with the purview of the Transformative 
Paradigm (TP). In research, the research paradigm is seen as the researcher’s worldview 
(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006), first conceptualised by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 as a philosophical way 
of thinking (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017). That is, one could argue that the research paradigm is the 
school of thought and or the researchers’ belief towards particular research and the process of 
conducting such research. Among many paradigms, such as positivism, post-positivism, 
interpretivism, and transformative paradigm, this study adopted the latter. The transformative 
paradigm is appropriate because it aims to transform students' classroom predicament towards 
productivity. The paradigm is majorly to promote freedom for the marginalised, colonised and 
subjugated people into the world of being (Heimtun & Morgan, 2012). In this study, the perpetual 
traditional and or anti participatory classroom practices in a university classroom is challenged 
by proffering solutions that could alleviate the problem. By so doing, I presented Social 
Constructivism as an alternative to transform university classrooms towards transformation. This 
was done with the help of conceptual analysis as a design that guided the process of making 
sense of the argument. Conceptual analysis is an argumentative process of making sense or a case 
based on the potency of a particular concept or meaning. This agrees with the definition of Furner 
(2004) that conceptual analysis enables the use of exploratory and evaluation where the concept 
and evidence are analysed, perhaps, through argument and critical thinking. Therefore, the 
assumptions of the SC as presented in this study were subjected to argumentative evaluation and 
analysis to make sense of the concepts. However, the theoretical assumptions of the theory (SC) 
alongside how it can ameliorate classroom productivity were presented thematically and point 
by point. Thematic analysis was relevant because it enables the presentation to be arranged in the 
form of themes (Guest et al., 2011) derived from the theory and then targeted the “assumptions”. 
These are shown below.  

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
This section presents the theoretical understanding of Social Constructivism, its assumptions, 
relevance, and how it could be implemented in the classroom. This was done by presenting the 
theory, followed by its relevance to the pedagogical process and its assumptions vis-à-vis the 
practical application of the assumptions.  
 
Presentation of Theory: Social Constructivism 
The Social Constructivism (SC) theory was first introduced by Jean Piaget, a Swiss developmental 
psychologist (Amineh & Asl, 2015; Brau, 2020; Pass, 2004). SC was coined to explain the process 
of knowledge production with the belief that knowledge is produced by social forces conditioned 
by history and culture; thus, it cannot be taken as a fixed or objective representation of reality 
(Kukla, 2013; Lynch, 2019). This theory is widely used in Social Studies since it focuses on culture 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

39 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

and history, which play important roles in shaping individual interpretations of socially 
constructed concepts (McKinley, 2015; Van Hover & Hicks, 2017). Piaget believed that to 
understand knowledge, one must go beyond the product and investigate how it has been created. 
Hence, social constructivists view human relationships, interactions and togetherness as 
necessary factors in producing knowledge. This implies that learning is an active process where 
learners are involved in doing things with others who are more experienced/more 
knowledgeable than them. In a related argument positioned by Doolittle (2014), knowledge is 
viewed as something that emerges through social interactions or activities. Therefore, social 
constructivist educators believe every individual has different ways of learning depending on 
their culture and togetherness with others, which challenge traditional education because they 
tend to focus on the relationship between teachers and students to create learning experiences 
that are meaningful to learners. Based on this, one can argue that within the purview of SC, 
knowledge is co-constructed through interactions with others in a given social setting, thus 
creating meaning for individuals participating in these interactions.  

In the argument of Bunge (2000), SC is against individualism because of its principle of 
information sharing among two or more people as important in defining knowledge. This is a 
practical challenge to empiricism (i.e., what one sees should dictate what one knows) since Social 
Constructionists claim that knowledge is not objective but rather constructed by culture and 
history. SC also challenges objectivism (objective truth exists independent of people) (Hazelrigg, 
1986) since Social Constructionists believe interactions between people construct knowledge. This 
is also a practical challenge to traditional pedagogy where learners are seen as neutral receivers 
of knowledge, where learning should be structured to make sense, where learning should have 
an end, and where the teacher is the primary source of knowledge. As against the tenet of a 
traditionalist, social constructivists claim that what you know is not something that's given but 
rather something that you create, a personal construct of a shared reality. That is, they see learning 
as an active process where learners constantly remake knowledge through interactions with 
others.  

This theory is advantageous over traditional classrooms because it views students as active 
participants in the classroom who share different ways of learning and because it also believes 
everyone has different worldviews based on their experiences and togetherness with others, 
which leads to different ways of understanding knowledge. Based on this, I can also argue that 
the potency of this theory has introduced spices into the way general education is being viewed. 
When the SC lens is used, education is seen as a social activity that involves mutual sharing 
among people instead of focusing on concepts and ideas, which encourages students to share 
their perspectives because this will enable them to see other people's views and knowledge 
construct. This paradigm shift is based on the idea that people construct knowledge from those 
experiences and their interactions with others. Findings also confirm that SC is effective in the 
classroom as it helps students understand better what they are studying and how they can apply 
those concepts outside of the classroom (Atwater, 1996; Schreiber & Valle, 2013). This also 
corroborates the argument of Kalpana (2014) that SC provides an opportunity for learners to be 
actively involved in learning instead of being passive receivers of information.  

In addition, one could argue that it encourages collaboration by allowing several possibilities 
for learning activities such as recognising patterns, relating ideas, drawing inferences and 
brainstorming. Perhaps, this is why CS was recommended as an effective approach to teaching 
because it emphasises the learner's point of view and accommodates many different learning 
styles (Kalina & Powell, 2009; Kim, 2001). It also enables students to express their opinions about 
what they are learning, which builds knowledge that comes from the experience of each 
individual (Kearney & Treagust, 2001). From the above exploration of the SC, one can deduce the 
existence of many assumptions: participatory classroom, group problem solving, unity and 
human relationship, and diversity management. These four assumptions are discussed below as 
the principle of SC based on the argument made above.    
 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

40 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Assumptions of Social Constructivism 

• Participatory classroom: from all indications in the above exploration, one could see that the 

SC-oriented process of knowledge generation is participatory. SC promotes participation 

among the people or the stakeholders in generating new knowledge. This is not only because 

of its principle of information sharing classroom participants (Bunge, 2000), but also 

cherished interaction, collaboration and team spirit among the people. The argument of 

Churcher (2014) also confirms that SC is participatory in nature and could produce robust 

knowledge that complements an adage that says “two heads are better than one”. This also 

corroborates the presentation of Muro and Jeffrey (2008) that CS enables the production of 

new knowledge to be possible through people’s togetherness and participation.  

• Group problem solving: from the above theoretical analysis, one could also argue that the 

principle and focus of SC are to motivate people’s interest to find solutions to problems 

jointly. That is, implementation of a concerted usage of SC is synonymous with problem-

solving skills. This is also in consonance with the argument of Kalina and Powell (2009) that 

CS enables students to think critically and provide solutions to their problems. The idea here 

is that people’s sociality enables them to freely interact, work together, and find solutions to 

problems. In such a situation, there is no individuality but collectivity, and the problem of 

one becomes the problem of all. In the same vein, it also assists people to solve their conflicts 

towards finding solutions to their common problems (Schreiber & Valle, 2013).  

• Unity and human relationships: From the above analysis, one can argue that unity and 

human relationships are at the centre of SC. It is a philosophical view that postulates that 

human beings can control social reality through their own mental activity. Social realities are 

the subject of ideas, objects, relationships and arrangements of behaviour between 

individuals. This aligns with the argument that people are actively involved in creating their 

perceived reality (Adoni & Mane, 1984; Knoblauch & Wilke, 2016) which is an element that 

creates unity of purpose among people. This assumption also takes solace from symbolic 

interactionism, which claims that focusing only on what goes into an individual's mind 

misses much of what is important in human relationships. In this view, social reality is 

created through unity of purpose shared by interacting individuals.  

Diversity management: From the above theoretical analysis, I believe that social constructivism 
enables people to understand themselves and become aware of their differences.   That is, the 
goal of social constructivism is to create and or provide individuals with tools they can use to 
help them better understand themselves, people around them and their community via 
collaboration and togetherness in the process of generating new knowledge. The idea here is that 
when people work together, doing things together, interacting together, thinking together will 
increase their love for one another, helping them understand and manage themselves, including 
their potential conflict. This complements the fact that working with different people can help 
people think in new ways about themselves and others, leading to insights that might otherwise 
remain hidden. 
 
Analysis of the assumptions and classroom productivity  
This section presents the discussion of CS assumptions as correlates of classrooms productivity 
which has been earlier described as participatory skill, students’ academic performance and 
overall productivity, students-teacher relationships, the ability of students to manage their 
diversities, and the knowledge of their individual differences. This discussion is done under the 
following sub-headings: Participatory classroom and classroom productivity, group problem 
solving and classroom productivity, unity and human relationships and classroom productivity, 
diversity management and classroom productivity.  

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

41 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

• Participatory classroom and classroom productivity: From the above theoretical argument, 

the study presents a participatory classroom as one of the teaching and learning approaches 

that could enhance classroom productivity. When classroom activities are participatory and 

allow the students to be actively involved in generating knowledge, it will promote their 

critical thinking skills and enhance their collaborative ways of doing things. This  agrees with 

Zubiri-Esnaola et al. (2020) findings that participatory classrooms increase students’ 

collaboration towards generating new knowledge. In the same vein, the finding of Coldwell 

et al. (2008) also confirm that lack of participatory classrooms is significant in the negative 

direction to the students’ academic performance. On the other hand, consistent participation 

in classes has been found as the major characteristics of top performer students in universities 

(Voghoei et al., 2019).  Abubakar et al. (2017) also support this by saying that collaborative 

engagement among students and between students and lecturers promotes students’ 

success. Therefore, a participatory classroom laced with SC is an instrument for classroom 

productivity in the university system.  

• Group problem-solving and classroom productivity: Based on the above theoretical 

analysis, I deduced that group problem solving as one of the assumptions of the SC is 

beneficial to classroom productivity. This is because the unity involved in the process of 

providing solutions to a particular problem makes a robust achievement among the students. 

This aligns with Telzrow et al. (2000) that problem-solving components are significant to 

positive students’ outcomes. This is also supported by the fining of Gupta (2004) that when 

students cooperatively work in a group to find a solution to a particular problem, it increases 

students’ teamwork, communication, problem-solving skill and retention rate. Furthermore, 

when students work together in pairs, it increases cooperative learning towards performance 

and enables them to learn how to share responsibilities, which encourages the transfer of 

knowledge from one another (Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000; Suliwa et al., 2021; Viyayanti & 

Dwikoranto, 2021). That is, when the idea of group problem solving from the purview of SC 

is implemented in the university classroom, it will promote overall classroom productivity.  

• Unity and human relationships and classroom productivity: Based on the above theoretical 

analysis, one can further argue that good relationships facilitate unity among students. This 

argument is taken from SC's principle, which postulated shared ways of doing things. That 

is, SC is premised on togetherness in the process of generating new knowledge (Dag, 2016). 

Hence, the unity among students, vis-à-vis student on student or student on lecturer 

relationships, has been found to enhance students’ performance and overall classroom 

achievement (Arum, 2011; Aspelin, 2012; Omodan & Tsotetsi, 2018; Topor et al., 2010). 

Therefore, university classrooms are bound to be productive when professional relationships 

and unity among the classroom stakeholders are created. 

• Diversity management and classroom productivity: Based on the above analysis, one can 

deduce that SC creates democratic classrooms because it encourages interactions, opinions, 

and arguments to be freely given among colleagues. My argument is to create an avenue for 

all the participants to understand themselves and their diversities and learn how to many 

their differences. This is in consonance with Guo et al. (2014) that students learn to manage 

their diversities when they get involved in themselves towards a particular purpose. This is 

to further argue that when university classrooms are made to recognise individual students 

and their unique differences, it will enhance their knowledge of diversities and how to 

manage their diversities towards ensuring overall classroom productivity.  

 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

42 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

CONCLUSION  
Students respond to the perceived inactive classrooms by proposing social constructivism as an 
imminent alternative classroom practice that could promote classroom productivity in 
universities. This was argued within the lens of transformative paradigm to enable the end 
product of the article to transform classroom productivity. Based on the theoretical presentation, 
and analysis of the assumptions alongside their implication on classroom productivity, the study 
concludes that adequate implementation of SC and its four cardinal assumptions are the factors 
that could enhance productivity in university classrooms. Therefore, the following 
recommendations were made: University lecturers alongside students should ensure the use of a 
participatory teaching-learning process to ensure transformative classrooms. Secondly, 
classrooms should be structured to accommodate grouping in solving problems that are assumed 
to be productive to the students critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Thirdly, professional 
relationships towards the unity of purpose must be created in the classrooms, and lastly, since 
the classroom consists of diverse students from various backgrounds, the classrooms must be 
made to cater for students diversities by making the student aware of their diversities and how 
to manage them.  

REFERENCES  
Abubakar, A. M., Abubakar, Y., & Itse, J. D. (2017). Students’ engagement in relation to academic 

performance. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 8(1), 5-9.  
Adeyemo, S. A. (2012). The relationship between effective classroom management and students’ 

academic achievement. European Journal of Educational Studies, 4(3), 367-381. 
Adha, M., Yanzi, H., & Nurmalisa, Y. (2018). The improvement of student intelectual and 

participatory skill through project citizen model in civic education classroom. International 
Journal Pedagogy of Social Studies, 3(1), 39-49. 

Adoni, H., & Mane, S. (1984). Media and the social construction of reality: Toward an integration 
of theory and research. Communication Research, 11(3), 323-340. 
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009365084011003001 

Akbari, R., & Allvar, N. K. (2010). L2 teacher characteristics as predictors of students' academic 
achievement. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 13(4), 1-22. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898204.pdf 

Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of 
Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16. 

Arum, R. (2011). Improve relationships to improve student performance. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 
8-13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172171109300203 

Asikhia, O. A. (2010). Students and teachers’ perception of the causes of poor academic 
performance in Ogun State secondary schools [Nigeria]: Implications for counselling for 
national development. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(2), 229-242. 

Aspelin, J. (2012). How do relationships influence student achievement? Understanding student 
performance from a general, social psychological standpoint. International Studies in Sociology 
of Education, 22(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2012.680327 

Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education 
research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National 
Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821-837. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8%3C821::AID-TEA1%3E3.0.CO;2-Y 

Banerjee, P. A. (2016). A systematic review of factors linked to the poor academic performance of 
disadvantaged students in science and maths in schools. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1178441. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1178441 

Benzo, R. M., Gremaud, A. L., Jerome, M., & Carr, L. J. (2016). Learning to stand: The acceptability 
and feasibility of introducing standing desks into college classrooms. International Journal of 
Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(8), 823. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080823 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009365084011003001
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ898204.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172171109300203
https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2012.680327
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8%3C821::AID-TEA1%3E3.0.CO;2-Y
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1178441
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13080823


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

43 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Bernstein‐Yamashiro, B., & Noam, G. G. (2013). Teacher‐student relationships: A growing field 
of study. New Directions for Youth Development, 2013(137), 15-26. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20045 

Brau, B. (2020). Constructivism: The students' guide to learning design and research. 
https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide/constructivism 

Bunge, M. (2000). Ten modes of individualism—none of which works—and their alternatives. 
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 30(3), 384-406. 
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004839310003000303 

Churcher, K. (2014). "Friending" Vygotsky: A social constructivist pedagogy of knowledge 
building through classroom social media use. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 33-50. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060440 

Coldwell, J., Craig, A., Paterson, T., & Mustard, J. (2008). Online students: Relationships between 
participation, demographics and academic performance. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 6(1), 
19-30. 

DAĞ, N. (2016). Consideration on class communication and state of togetherness in class within 
the framework of constructivism. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 17(2), 315-328. 

Deliens, T., Deforche, B., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Clarys, P. (2015). Determinants of physical 
activity and sedentary behaviour in university students: A qualitative study using focus 
group discussions. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1553-
4 

Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Complex constructivism: A theoretical model of complexity and cognition. 
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 485-498. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060852 

Furner, J. (2004). Conceptual analysis: A method for understanding information as evidence, and 
evidence as information. Archival Science, 4(3-4), 233-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-
005-2594-8 

Gilakjani, A. P., Leong, L. M., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Teachers' use of technology and 
constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science, 5(4), 49-63. 
https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2013.04.07 

Gilboy, M. B., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the 
flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109-114. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008 

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage publications. 
Graber, C. R. (2009). Factors that are predictive of student achievement outcomes and an analysis of these 

factors in high-poverty schools versus low-poverty schools. Lindenwood University. 
Guo, S., Cockburn-Wootten, C., & Munshi, D. (2014). Negotiating diversity: Fostering 

collaborative interpretations of case studies. Business and Professional Communication 
Quarterly, 77(2), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490614530464 

Gupta, M. L. (2004). Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical 
sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 63-73. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000158162 

Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and 
impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367. 
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.01151786u134n051 

Hazelrigg, L. E. (1986). Is there a choice between “Constructionism” and “Objectivism”?. Social 
Problems, 33(6), s1-s13. https://doi.org/10.2307/800671 

Heimtun, B., & Morgan, N. (2012). Proposing paradigm peace: Mixed methods in feminist 
tourism research. Tourist Studies, 12(3), 287-304. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n708 

Kalina, C., & Powell, K. C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an 
effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250. 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20045
https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide/constructivism
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004839310003000303
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060440
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1553-4
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1553-4
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060852
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-2594-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-005-2594-8
https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2013.04.07
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329490614530464
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293032000158162
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.01151786u134n051
https://doi.org/10.2307/800671
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n708


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

44 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Kalpana, T. (2014). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning: A conceptual 
framework. International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 27-29. 

Kearney, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Constructivism as a referent in the design and development 
of a computer program using interactive digital video to enhance learning in physics. 
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 64-79. 
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1773 

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 
1(1), 16. 

Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in 
educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41. 
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26 

Knoblauch, H., & Wilke, R. (2016). The common denominator: The reception and impact of Berger 
and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality. Human Studies, 39(1), 51-69. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3 

Kukla, A. (2013). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203130995 

Lynch, M. E. (2019). The Sociology of Science and Social Constructivism. In The Routledge 
Handbook of Social Epistemology (pp. 220-229). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717937 

Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. 
Issues In Educational Research, 16, 1-15. 

Mahenthiran, S. & Rouse, P. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and 
satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(6), 255-264. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540010348043 

Mamas, C., Daly, A. J., & Schaelli, G. H. (2019). Socially responsive classrooms for students with 
special educational needs and disabilities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 23, 100334. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100334 

McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical 
framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(3), 184-207. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1060558 

Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in 
participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and 
Management, 51(3), 325-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190 

Omodan B. I. & Tsotetsi C. T. (2020). Decolonisation of knowledge construction in university 
classrooms: The place of social constructivism. Journal of Gender, Information and Development 
in Africa, 9(2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.31920/2634-3622/2020/9n2a10  

Omodan, B. I. & Tsotetsi, C. T. (2018). Student-teacher relationships as panacea for students' 
academic performance in Nigeria secondary schools: An attachment perspective. Journal of 
Social Studies Education Research, 9 (4), 82-101. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1199100.pdf 

Pass, S. (2004). Parallel paths to constructivism: Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. IAP. 
Pengpid, S., Peltzer, K., Kassean, H. K., Tsala, J. P. T., Sychareun, V., & Müller-Riemenschneider, 

F. (2015). Physical inactivity and associated factors among university students in 23 low-, 
middle-and high-income countries. International Journal of Public Health, 60(5), 539-549. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-015-0680-0 

Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative 
case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252-267. 
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1081372 

Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group 
classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411. 
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496413488422 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1773
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-016-9387-3
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203130995
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717937
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540010348043
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100334
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1060558
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190
https://doi.org/10.31920/2634-3622/2020/9n2a10
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1199100.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-015-0680-0
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1081372
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496413488422


The Potency of Social constructivism on Classroom Productivity in Universities 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97 

 

45 
 

 

Studies in Learning and Teaching 
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT 

 

Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group 
classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411. 
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496413488422 

Siebenaler, D. J. (1997). Analysis of teacher-student interactions in the piano lessons of adults and 
children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 6-20. 
https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3345462 

Suliwa, Widodo, W., & Munasir. (2021). Influence of LKPD to facilitate cooperative group 
investigation in improving students’ science process skills. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 
2(3), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.85 

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving 
implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 
443-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2000.12086029 

Topor, D. R., Keane, S. P., Shelton, T. L., & Calkins, S. D. (2010). Parent involvement and student 
academic performance: A multiple mediational analysis. Journal of Prevention & Intervention 
in the Community, 38(3), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2010.486297 

Turner J. C., Christensen A., Meyer D. K. (2009) Teachers' Beliefs about Student Learning and 
Motivation. In: Saha L. J., Dworkin A. G. (eds.) International Handbook of Research on Teachers 
and Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 21. Springer. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_23 

Van Hover, S., & Hicks, D. (2017). Social constructivism and student learning in social studies. 
The Wiley Handbook of Social Studies Research, 270-318. 

Viyayanti, & Dwikoranto. (2021). Make a match techniques in cooperative learning: innovations 
to improve student learning outcomes, student learning activities and teacher performance. 
Studies in Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74 

Voghoei, S., Tonekaboni, N. H., Yazdansepas, D., & Arabnia, H. R. (2019, December). University 
online courses: Correlation between students' participation rate and academic performance. 
In 2019 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) 
(pp. 772-777). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI49370.2019.00147 

Weaver, R. G., Webster, C. A., Beets, M. W., Brazendale, K., Chandler, J., Schisler, L., & Aziz, M. 
(2018). Initial outcomes of a participatory-based, competency-building approach to 
increasing physical education teachers’ physical activity promotion and students’ physical 
activity: A pilot study. Health Education & Behavior, 45(3), 359-370. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117731600 

Zepke, N. (2015). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher 
Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1311-1323. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024635 

Zubiri-Esnaola, H., Vidu, A., Rios-Gonzalez, O., & Morla-Folch, T. (2020). Inclusivity, 
participation and collaboration: Learning in interactive groups. Educational Research, 62(2), 
162-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1755605 

Author (s): 

*Bunmi Isaiah Omodan (Corresponding Author) 
CAPTD, Faculty of Education, Butterworth Campus, 
Walter Sisulu University, 
Republic of South Africa. 
Email: bomodan@wsu.ac.za  

 

https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v3i1.97
https://scie-journal.com/index.php/SiLeT
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496413488422
https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3345462
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.85
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2000.12086029
https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2010.486297
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_23
https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i2.74
https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI49370.2019.00147
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117731600
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024635
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1755605
mailto:bomodan@wsu.ac.za

