Many versions of social constructivism (SC) maintain that objects exist only after they enter communicative space. At one level an object's existence is determined through an individual's sensory perception; through communicative acts, both intra- and interpersonally, they are defined and eventually embody meaning. The social process of defining the object (i.e., its construction) enables it to exist in a social context, to have meaning. Given this SC position, the confusion often surrounds just exactly what is being socially constructed: It isn't the physical composition of an object (i.e., its material arrangement) that is brought into existence, but its social composition, the ideas which define that object within a social context. In other words, communication changes how objects are perceived and the range of potential meanings they can embody. The nature of social constructs and what counts as a social construct were largely misunderstood by students in a senior-level communication theory course during the fall of 2010. After an introductory lecture that introduced constructivism as a philosophical perspective with three primary assumptions, students expressed a primary confusion about the nature of reality construction. In particular, student comments indicated confusion about the nature of meaning as materially fixed versus meaning as an activity of humans. In this article, the authors outline an activity which will help students understand the central role of communication in causing an idea to be regarded as true and the role communicative acts play in creating shared interpretation. (Contains 2 tables.)