Teachers are constantly challenged to maintain student interest and generate a desire to learn. Engagement is critical to children's academic success. Lack of motivation can affect a student's attitude towards school, increase behaviors, and decrease academic performance (Alam, 2013; Lunenburg, 2011; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Powell & Kalina, 2009; Vos, der Meijden , & Denessen E. 2011). . Teachers' activities and instruction can be critical to a student's attitude toward school. Traditional pedagogical approaches are often counterproductive in terms of positive educational outcomes. This includes the banking model of education where teachers deposit knowledge into their students (Freire, 2005). Constructivists, such as Piaget, propose that children learn best in a student-centered environment that supports inquiry and problem solving (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Constance & Ewing, 1996; Fosnot & Perry , 2005; Powell & Kalina, 2009; Škrabánková, 2011; The aim of this article is to support this statement investigating the intent of constructivist theory within its historical framework, examining the educational benefits and applications of constructivism to contemporary pedagogy, and analyzing its criticisms and perceived limitations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Video Games violent should not be banned"? Get an original essay Constructivism can be divided into two distinct perspectives: cognitive and social (Butz, 2018). Piaget is considered the first to conceive of cognitive constructivism (Butz, 2018; Lunenburg, 2011; Powell & Kalina, 1999; Tiilikainen et al., 2019). Swiss biologist and psychologist, Piaget developed an epistemological model based on four cognitive phases generally accepted by scholars (Powell & Kalina 1999). Children and young people experience imbalance at every stage. They must resolve this dissonance by assimilating and accommodating new information into their schemas before moving on to the next phase. Piaget argued that this process invites humans to actively create their own meaning, based on personal experiences and how they incorporate new information (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). The traditional banking model of education is a passive construct in which teachers transmit knowledge directly to the student who is expected to absorb the material. Although banking education meets the needs of some students, many are disinterested (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Constructivism states that content cannot be transmitted intact from teacher to student (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007). Therefore, constructivist theory reacts to the banking model of education that Freire (2005) opposed and creates a paradigm shift in education. It implores teachers to facilitate learning within the educational environment, instead of simply imparting information. Students in these classes construct their own knowledge, rather than relying on mere transmission. Accordingly, constructivist learning theory generates a number of positive outcomes (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Constance & Ewing, 1996; Fosnot & Perry, 2005; Hyslop-Margisosn & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Powell & Kalina, 2009; In particular, constructivist learning theory offers cognitive benefits andaffective to the students. It pushes students to attend classes, emphasizes active participation, and promotes engagement (Butz, 2018; Hyslop-Margisosn & Strobel, 2007, Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). Furthermore, through constructivist practices, teachers meet the diverse needs of all students (Butz, 2018). When educators step back and allow students to derive their own meaning through Piaget-based inquiry and active learning strategies, children's engagement increases (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butz, 2018; Hyslop-Margison & Strobel , 2007; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). . Tiilikainen et al. (2019) conclude that constructivist learning theory allows teachers to play a variety of roles to improve student learning. Unlike teacher-directed learning, constructivism offers multiple opportunities for students to acquire content, under the guidance and facilitation of their teachers. This benefits all students, as individuals make personal connections to content using their prior knowledge, background, and experiences (Butz, 2018, Omaotayo & Adeleke, 2017). When children interact within a constructivist environment, critical and higher order thinking skills develop (Lunenburg, 2011). Powell and Kalina (2009) argue that the ideal classrooms for relevant and meaningful student learning are those that implement constructivist tools, practices and strategies. The authors, in fact, state that constructivism is considered "in many schools as the best method for teaching and learning" (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 241). This is likely due to the strong link between results and interest. Simply, the more interest a student shows in a subject, the more effort he or she will exert (Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017; Powell & Kalina, 2009). Engagement in all subjects can be invoked through constructivist practices, as these apply to contemporary pedagogical environments. Constructivist theory can serve today's complex school communities through a variety of applications across all curriculum areas. Notably, its classroom implications are multifaceted and representative of epistemological viewpoints in everything from gifted to primary classrooms, in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions (Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011; Škrabánková, 2011; Tiilikainen et al., 2019). Studies show that constructivism is critical to student success in core subject areas, such as language and mathematics (Lunenburg, 2011; Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). Using methodologies first offered by Piaget, teachers skillfully extend the agency of their students, whose autonomy, empowerment and problem-solving skills are stimulated. For example, Omotayo and Adeleke (2017) found favorable outcomes when constructivist learning was used in secondary school mathematics teaching. Specifically, a 5E approach was adopted, in which young people explored mathematical ideologies through engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration and evaluation. By exploring the material independently and with classmates, children showed greater understanding and a desire to apply learning to new situations. Students responded positively to the concepts, demonstrated greater interest in the subjects, and improved in overall academic performance (Omotayo & Adeleke, 2017). The Ontario Kindergarten program is another area where stakeholders benefit from constructivist methodologies (Ontario Ministry ofEducation, 2016). Powell and Kalina's (2009) research clarifies the benefits of discovery learning that benefit both teachers and students. The play-based approach that forms the backbone of Ontario's Kindergarten program facilitates an effective and dynamic learning atmosphere in which independent cognition prevails. The preschool classroom serves as a repository for constructivist learning, with children acting as “little scientists” within its surroundings, as Piaget imagined (Powell & Kalina, 2009). However, beyond core subjects and kindergarten curricula, one of the most integral findings explains how constructivism transfers to content areas. This includes subjects such as art, science, social studies, history, geography, and physical education (Butz, 2018). Indeed, this latter thematic area denotes a significant expansion of Piaget's intentions for learning, to emerge within the subjects of content. Traditionally, physical education explores concepts through movement and skill development. It is consistent with constructivist theory that students have the freedom to explore and encounter new concepts through inquiry and problem solving (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Vos et al., 2011). Essentially, cognitive constructivism is an entity that can be used by teachers in any subject area to reach all students (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Although there is an abundance of scholarly work praising the positive effects of constructivist principles, criticisms remain. These exist largely as errors; however, they deserve questioning. First, critics argue that Piaget's children were initially the subjects of his theoretical claims. This issue has largely been resolved, as Piagetian precepts on the matter are generally accepted as valid (Powell & Kalina, 2009). Although the authors state that other scholars have adapted and modified Piaget's original constructivist ideologies, his core precepts remain. Another limit attributed to constructivism is the commitment on the part of educators. Many seem intrigued by its power and promise but are hesitant to employ related strategies, such as inquiry-based learning (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Academics suggest that this is, at least in part, due to a breakdown in the traditional hierarchical teacher-student relationship (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Hyslop-Margison & Strobel, 2007; Lunenburg, 2011). Lunenburg (2011) offers five foundations for the practical use of constructivism in the classroom. These principles, such as integrating student perspectives and deconstructing concepts from whole to parts, are elements that benefit all learning situations (Lunenburg). Brooks and Brooks (1993) also seek to simplify cognition through inquiry-based learning to reassure teachers that constructivism is not simply an opportunity for children to direct the curriculum. Instead, the author's framework includes twelve descriptors that allow young people to drive the curriculum, under the constant guidance of teachers. Such instructional techniques embody ideals that include Socratic questioning methodologies, facilitating students' innate curiosity, and assigning appropriate wait time while students debate or use independent cognition and inquiry (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Therefore, although the role of the teacher has been reformulated, it has not diminished (Tiilikainen et al., 2019). Furthermore, because constructivism is based on cognition, experts opposed to constructivism may cite differences in students' abilities as a further limitation. For example, i.