Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: constructivism



On Sun, 8 Jun 1997 Donald E. Simanek posted a message about constructivism.
Let me also comment on that message; and ask some questions at the end.

1)
But, one thing we have learned is that *any* method of instruction suits
some students well and serves others badly. We have the dilemma of who to
serve. The majority? The most needy? Those with the most potential for
excellence?

Who should decide and impose the policy on this important issue? During
the first year of my teaching the department chairman told me that students
complained I was teaching above their heads and assumed too much about
their background. We are not Columbia University or Princeton, he said, and
I was left to believe that more prestigious schools have different policies
about prerequisites. This was nearly 30 years ago and we used to graduate
about 15 physicists each year. The situation deteriorated to about two or
three graduates per year and our physics program is now in the department
of mathematics. According to the last issue of Physics Today (June 1997,
page 74) this situation is typical.

2)
Having such a long history in instruction, there are obviously some good
and useful insights and strategies in constructivist education. But,
considering the fact that all methods of instruction have an unacceptably
high failure rate, we have the reasonable suspicion that it isn't the one
and only final answer to the problems of education.

Who said that constructivism is the final answer to our problems? It may
be true that many difficulties result from factors which are not under our
control and that changes in methodology will have very small effects. But
what else can we do?

Several people indicated that positive effects of constructivism have been
demonstrated. How can this be phrased? The worsening of the situation in
traditional classes (in terms of how much students learn) is more rapid in
traditional classes than in constructivist classes. That is a pessimistic
assessment. An optimistic assessment is to say that improvements are faster
when methods developed by Malcom Wells, as outlined by Jane Jackson, are
used instead of traditional "one way teaching". A subjective statement about
general improvement, or general decline, should be backed up, if possible,
by objective evaluations. What do "educational specialists" say about this?

3)
[Constructivism] is a current fad word for a pedagogical technique which
is as old as the classroom. It builds upon the fact that many people more
easily reach understanding of unfamiliar things by progressing gradually
from things already familiar.

So what if "it is as old as the hills"? Falling in love is not a new
invention but young people rediscover it in each generation. And they
experience it as a unique adventure. Why should we discourage those who try
to improve teaching? Yes, they will discover, as we did, that they must
"sift the wheat from the chaff, separate the hype from the reality," and
determine what works and what doesn't.

4)
Another weakness is one which most other pedagogical techniques suffer.
It over-emphasizes one mode of learning while displacing others. It has
the danger of becoming a fad, and most fads are passing fads, to be
replaced by others thought to be "better" but soon to be found to have
strengths and weaknesses comparable to all the others.

Everything can be, and often is, abused. I wish we could discuss specific
abuses instead of making generalized statements like the one above. Can
somebody give a reference for a textbook (not a supplement) written to
support a constructivist way of teaching? Is it true that the majority of
constructivists deemphasize the importance of textbooks? How can "learning
by discovery" be implemented when time and material resources are limited,
or when students are not motivated?
Ludwik Kowalski