Constructivism is a theory that, at its most basic, says that as people develop and have different experiences, they CONSTRUCT their own understandings of what they experience. Knowledge is built as new experiences and the information they provide is reconclied with the knowledge that has already been obtained. We either assimilate the new information with something it aligns with and/or builds upon that we have previously learned or we adapt our understanding to fit a new completely new concept.

Piaget is in a way, from my basic understanding, the "father" of constructivism. He developed the idea that learning happens in developmental stages. However, when it comes to constructivism, I think the rigidly defined stages of early constructivist theory (Piaget) is limiting. I am more inclined to be drawn toward Bruner's theories about the concepts of learners constructing their own knowledge.

Bruner (1960) opposed Piaget's notion of readiness. He argued that schools waste time trying to match the complexity of subject material to a child's cognitive stage of development. This means students are held back by teachers as certain topics are deemed too difficult to understand and must be taught when the teacher believes the child has reached the appropriate state of cognitive maturity. In 1960, Bruner published The Process of Education, and with it regected Piaget's idea of 'readiness.' Instead while Bruner agreed that children should be active participants in their own learning, children of varying ages are able to process what many people would think is too complex if it is done in an organic way: "We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development" (Bruner, 1960).

This idea, while it faces great pushback, makes a lot of sense at its core findamental theory and based on my classroom experience. INVOLVE students, building their INTERESTS (and make it interesting), and allow them time and space to discuss and assimilate or accomodate the knowledge. It truly can be done. For example, in my own teaching career, I have taught the fuctions of an eye (including rods, cones, flipped images, pupil relationship to incoming light, and retinas) to a group of motivated kindergarteners. I have taught basic algebraic concepts to second graders to better illustrate a word problem. I have discussed political ideology with fifth graders, that went out and informed themselves on the topic. I have had elementary students teaching themselves chemistry and calculus-- for fun-- and doing so successfully. I have taught coding to kids kindergarten through fifth grade (and soon to be through eighth grade as my job changes next year). Even my early childhood students with seemingly very limited development and age were learning and using sign language in the classroom and at home. And i'm not the only one-- studies have shown that students can do this as well as discussed in the article Year-Olds Can Learn Calculus. 

I want to be clear: this does not mean to continually push, push, push students to learn all high level material at a ridiculous rate (like some of my gifted students' parents think), but instead to allow and invite students to learn at a faster rate in certain areas when it fits their development, their interest, and the situation.

While I do think that there are processes children need to go through in order to learn, I also think that rigidly defining stages and limiting what students are exposed to in order to fit a certain stage is not the correct way to encourage learning. 'Readiness' can mean many different things for different learners. It doesn't mean that they don't struggle with it, but rather that they are capable of working through the material in a natural way and in way that makes sense for them-- and are encouraged to do so.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.