Editing Social constructivism (section)

==Education==
Social constructivism has been studied by many educational psychologists, who are concerned with its implications for teaching and learning. Social constructivism extends constructivism by incorporating the role of other actors and culture in development. In this sense it can also be contrasted with [[social learning theory]] by stressing interaction over observation. For more on the psychological dimensions of social constructivism, see the work of A. Sullivan Palincsar.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345|title=Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning|year=1998|last1=Palincsar|first1=A. Sullivan|journal=[[Annual Review of Psychology]]|volume=49|pages=345–375|pmid=15012472|s2cid=40335935 }}</ref> Psychological tools are one of the key concepts in [[Lev Vygotsky]]'s sociocultural perspective.

Studies on increasing the use of student discussion in the classroom both support and are grounded in theories of social constructivism. There is a full range of advantages that results from the implementation of discussion in the classroom. Participating in group discussion allows students to generalize and transfer their knowledge of classroom learning and builds a strong foundation for communicating ideas orally.<ref name="Reznitskaya, et al. (2007)">Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., and Kuo, L.J. (2007). Teaching and Learning Argumentation. Elementary School Journal, 107: 449–472.</ref> Many studies argue that discussion plays a vital role in increasing student ability to test their ideas, synthesize the ideas of others, and build deeper understanding of what they are learning.<ref name="Reznitskaya, et al. (2007)" /><ref name="Weber, et al. (2008)">K. Weber, C. Maher, A. Powell, and H. Lee (2008). Learning opportunities from group discussions: Warrants become the objects of debate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 247-261.</ref><ref name="Corden">Corden, R.E. (2001). Group discussion and the importance of a shared perspective: Learning from collaborative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 347-367.</ref><ref name="Nystrand">Nystrand, M. (1996). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.</ref> Large and small group discussion also affords students opportunities to exercise self-regulation, [[self-determination]], and a desire to persevere with tasks.<ref name="Corden" /><ref name="Matsumara, et al (2008)">Matsumura, L.C., Slater, S.C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction and curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 108(4), 294-312.</ref> Additionally, discussion increases student motivation, collaborative skills, and the ability to problem solve.<ref name="Nystrand" /><ref name="Matsumara, et al (2008)" /><ref name="Dyson">{{cite book|last=Dyson|first=A. H.|year=2004|title=Writing and the sea of voices: Oral language in, around, and about writing. In R.B. Ruddell, & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 146–162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.}}</ref> Increasing students’ opportunity to talk with one another and discuss their ideas increases their ability to support their thinking, develop reasoning skills, and to argue their opinions persuasively and respectfully.<ref name="Reznitskaya, et al. (2007)" /> Furthermore, the feeling of community and collaboration in classrooms increases through offering more chances for students to talk together.<ref name="Weber, et al. (2008)" /><ref>Barab, S., Dodge, T. Thomas, M.K., Jackson, C. & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the social agendas they carry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 263-305.</ref><ref>Hale, M.S. & City, E.A. (2002). “But how do you do that?”: Decision making for the seminar facilitator. In J. Holden & J.S. Schmit. Inquiry and the literary text: Constructing discussions in the English classroom / Classroom practices in teaching English, volume 32. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.</ref>

Studies have found that students are not regularly accustomed to participating in academic discourse.<ref name="Corden" /><ref name="Nystrand" /> [[Martin Nystrand]] argues that teachers rarely choose classroom discussion as an instructional format. The results of Nystrand’s (1996) three-year study focusing on 2400 students in 60 different classrooms indicate that the typical classroom teacher spends under three minutes an hour allowing students to talk about ideas with one another and the teacher.<ref name="Nystrand" /> Even within those three minutes of discussion, most talk is not true discussion because it depends upon teacher-directed questions with predetermined answers.<ref name="Corden" /><ref name="Nystrand" /> Multiple observations indicate that students in low socioeconomic schools and lower track classrooms are allowed even fewer opportunities for discussion.<ref name="Weber, et al. (2008)" /><ref name="Corden" /><ref name="Nystrand" /> Discussion and interactive discourse promote learning because they afford students the opportunity to use language as a demonstration of their independent thoughts. Discussion elicits sustained responses from students that encourage [[meaning-making]] through negotiating with the ideas of others. This type of learning “promotes retention and in-depth processing associated with the cognitive manipulation of information”.<ref name="Nystrand" />

One recent branch of work exploring social constructivist perspectives on learning focuses on the role of social technologies and social media in facilitating the generation of socially constructed knowledge and understanding in online environments.<ref>Dougiamas, M. (1998, November). [https://web.archive.org/web/20131211222257/http://go.webassistant.com/wa/upload/users/u1000057/webpage_20553.html A journey into Constructivism].</ref>

===Academic writing===
In a constructivist approach, the focus is on the sociocultural conventions of academic discourse such as citing evidence, hedging and boosting claims, interpreting the literature to back one's own claims, and addressing counter claims.  These conventions are inherent to a constructivist approach as they place value on the communicative, interpersonal nature of academic writing with a strong focus on how the reader receives the message. The act of citing others’ work is more than accurate attribution; it is an important exercise in critical thinking in the construction of an authorial self.<ref name="McKinley" /><ref name="Dyson" />