Applying Constructivism in Neurodiverse Classrooms

Seoyoon Eunie Choi (CRG-NJ, Cresskill, New Jersey 07627, USA)
Sun Lee (CRG-NJ, Cresskill, New Jersey 07627, USA)

Article ID: 3876


Cognitive development theories differ on how young students can meaningfully process new information and retain that information for future knowledge-building through scaffolding within their zone of proximal development. More traditional theories like the cognitive load theory adhere to the rote memorization approach by categorizing students as passive learners and the teachers as initiators who provide information in a structured, often rigid format, to be stored and retrieved for future application using their working memory. In contrast, the more progressive theories, like constructivism, are premised on the belief that students should proactively initiate their own learning while teachers act more as facilitators. The current trend in government policy under ESSA is to embrace the latter approach in the classroom, which is also more inclusive of all types of students, especially neurodiverse students. Moreover, teachers can utilize the wider range of assistive technology tools to accommodate and support their students’ unique learning styles.


Learning; Constructivism; Cognitive load theory; Zone of proximal development; Assistive technology

Full Text:



[1] Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762- 797.

[2] Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 Years Later. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 261-292. https://

[3] Geary, D. (2002). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and Individual Differences. 12. 317-345.

[4] Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective sixth edition. Pearson.

[5] Zimmerman, B. (2002) Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41:2, 64-70. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2.

[6] Upu, H. (2014). Constructivism versus cognitive load theory: In search for an effective mathematics teaching [submitted]. Proceeding of International Conference On Research, Implementation And Education Of Mathematics And Sciences 2014. http://eprints.

[7] Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67-90.

[8] Esquivel, G. B., & Hodes, T. G. (2003). Creativity, development, and personality. J. Houtz (Ed.), Perspectives on creativity. The educational psychology of creativity (p. 135-165). Hampton Press.

[9] Wertsch, J. V., & Sohmer, R. (1995). Vygotsky on learning and development. Human development, 38(6), 332-337.

[10] Mahan, K. (2020). The comprehending teacher: Scaffolding in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The Language Learning Journal. DOI:10.1080/09571736.2019.1705879.

[11] Le Cornu, R., & Peters, J. (2005). Towards constructivist classrooms: the role of the reflective teacher. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6(1).

[12] Steele, M. M. (2005). Teaching students with learning disabilities: Constructivism or behaviorism? Current Issues in Education, 8. index.php/cieatasu/article/download/1607/650.

[13] Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41:2, 75-86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

[14] Akpan, J., & Beard, L. (2016). Using Constructivist teaching strategies to enhance academic outcomes of students with special needs. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 392-398.

[15] Armstrong, T. (2015, April). The myth of the normal brain: Embracing neurodiversity. Journal of Ethics.

[16] The understood team. (2020, November 19). Four benefits of inclusive classrooms. https://www. treatments-approaches/educational-strategies/4-benefits-of-inclusive-classrooms.

[17] Fosco, W. D., Kofler, M. J., Groves, N. B., Chan, E. S., & Raiker, J. S. (2020). Which ‘working’components of working memory aren’t working in youth with ADHD?. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 48(5), 647-660.Hughes, J. A. (2020).

[18] Does the heterogeneity of autism undermine the neurodiversity paradigm? Bioethics, 00, 1-14. https://doi. org/10.1111/bioe.12780.

[19] Rosen, P. (2020, Oct. 22). Working memory: What it is and how it works. learning-thinking-differences/child-learning-disabilities/executive-functioning-issues/working-memorywhat-it-is-and-how-it-works.

[20] Awh, E., Vogel, E. K., & Oh, S. H. (2006). Interactions between attention and working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1), 201-208.

[21] Swanson, H. & Siegel, L. (2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Issues in Education. 7. 1-48.

[22] Forgrave, K. E. (2002). Assistive technology: Empowering students with learning disabilities. The Clearing House, 75(3), 122-126.

[23] Diamond, A. D. E. L. E. (2016). Why improving and assessing executive functions early in life is critical.

[24] Fairfax County Public Schools. (n.d.). https://

[25] Phromphithak, C. (2015). The Effect of Using KnowWant-Learn Strategy on Students ‘Achievement and Attitude in Learning Mathematics of 10th Grade Students. The International Conferenceion Language, Education, Humanities & Innovation, 21-22.

[26] LibGuides: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder/ Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD/ADD): Home.

[27] Brown, E. (2017, June 19). Fifteen assistive technologies for ADHD in HS/college and workplace. technology/.

[28] Rentenbach, B., Prislovsky, L., & Gabriel, R. (2017, May 1). Valuing differences: Neurodiversity in the classroom.



  • There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright © 2021 Author(s)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.