Daria Doering

Daria Doering

12/9/02

 

REFLECTIONS ON CONSTRUCTIVISM

 

Before writing this piece, I read a fascinating article called “Instructional Design and Learning Theory,” by Brenda Mergel (available online at http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm#The%20Basics%20of%20Constructivism)   It’s another paper that compares educational theory to a hard science, in this case physics.  The article first described the main features of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.  Mergel then compared the evolution of learning theory – from behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism – to the development of atomic theory, which passed through the stages of 1) theorizing the existence of the atom, 2) understanding its inner parts and workings, and 3) quantum theory.  Finally she considered in which cases it would be appropriate for instructional designers to use different learning theories.  She quoted researchers who seemed to have arrived at the same conclusion I have: that constructivism may be appropriate for older or more advanced learners.

 

After reading this article, I ended up thinking that as far as understanding the ins and outs of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, my mind doesn’t seem to work that way.  What I do understand is hierarchies, all of which form a similar pattern.

My own bent, and the educational philosophy followed by many homeschoolers, is classical education.  One of the major tenets of classical education concerns the trivium: the grammar, logic (or dialectic) and rhetoric stages.  It is believed that children in elementary school (or “grammar school”) are in the grammar stage.  The focus at this age should be the child’s absorption of as much information as possible, through stories, memorization and other means.  This is done in the most enjoyable ways possible – stories, activities, chants, and so on.  But the goal of memorization and retention of content is never lost sight of.

In the logic stage, around middle school, the child starts to focus on the “why’s” of each field, and wondering how different fields fit together.  The focus for education turns to causes and effects, the organization of knowledge, and how it all relates.

Finally in the rhetoric stage, or high school age, the older teenager has a great need for self-expression.  Articulate expression of the student’s point of view through debate, writing, the arts and other means should figure prominently in schooling.

Similarly, it is thought that each subject has its own trivium.  The subject’s grammar consists of the facts, vocabulary and stories.  Its logic consists of underlying reasons, cause-and-effect, and history.  Finally the subject’s rhetoric consists of whatever differing viewpoints exist.

I can easily relate behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism to the classical trivium.  You could relate behaviorism to the grammar stage, and the need to learn content, and practice it to automaticity.  You could relate cognitivism to the logic stage, and the need to start looker deeper into cause and effect.  Constructivism could be related to the rhetoric stage, and the emphasis on multiple viewpoints.

 

I can also relate the learning theories to Bloom’s taxonomy.  Behaviorism would relate to the lower order skill of knowledge; cognitivism to comprehension; and constructivism to the higher-order skills of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation; or something along those lines.

 

Another related subject I often think about, and have also come to see in terms of a hierarchy, is motivation and discipline.  Many people see a “rewards and punishment” philosophy as in opposition to an “intrinsic motivation” philosophy.  To me, they are all needed.

In all of life, and also in the Old Testament of the Bible, punishment is the bottom line.  If we commit a crime, we go to jail.  If we are jerks, we are socially ostracized.  If we screw up, unpleasant “natural consequences” will probably happen.  That is the lowest level.  If that reality is present in the lives of all adults, how could we possibly erase it from the world of schools?

The next level up is rewards.  We all do a job and are rewarded with a paycheck.  There are numerous competitions in every field, and the best competitors are rewarded.  In relationships, if we are decent and generous, hopefully we are rewarded with friends and a satisfying family life.

The highest level is intrinsic motivation.  On that level, we learn for the joy of learning, and we are good because virtue is its own reward.  This is obviously the level to shoot for.

There are probably a couple of sub-levels here, too.  Maybe there is the level of accountability, where even if we’re not being “rewarded,” we’re acting out of a sense of duty and conscience.  It’s similar to “imperfect contrition” as described by the Catholic church, or only caring about doing wrong because of possible consequences.

On a higher level, we would be acting out of joy, perhaps experiencing nirvana, and feeling perfect contrition, or reluctance to hurt God by our sins.

Again, I could liken the levels of punishments and rewards to behaviorism (and reinforcement), perhaps the level of duty to cognitivism, and the “nirvana level” to constructivism.

 

That leads us to the problems inherent in constructivism, The obvious one is that it’s a pretty rarified level.  At any rate, I’ve grouped my disagreements with constructivism into several categories:

 

Disagreements with the tenets of constructivism:

 

1) “Learners construct their own meaning”

I believe in absolutes, and perhaps we can collaborate to help each other gain understanding of the truth.  But I believe that independent truth exists, and it’s our job to find it.  That’s research.  As far as research having value or not regardless of its source, that’s true, and I’m glad the research community apparently has enough integrity to recognize that.

As far as I’m concerned, if you’re smart, you work to gain an understanding of the truth.  If you’re foolish, you attempt to “construct” your own truth.  I guess I have a simple mind, and that’s all I know.  I’ve always worked to find the truth, not “construct my own meaning.”  I’m not brilliant enough to construct anything.  However, hopefully I can learn more and more information, learn to discriminate what is true and what isn’t, and put some of it together in a new way.  To me, truth and greatness are fairly fixed quantities, which get slowly added to; and the rest of us mortals struggle for understanding.

Another drawback is that constructivism can foster a values-neutral atmosphere.  Sure, we can all construct our personal interpretations of the world.  The problem is: Are they correct?  Are they good?  Will they lead to love and harmony or nuclear war?

2) “Meaning is negotiated socially”

True enough, but is that anything to be happy about?  That’s a large part of the problem with the world, often called “peer pressure,” “the madness of crowds,” etc.  To me, the social context of our society and of the families of troubled children is so overwhelmingly negative that it’s one of the main battles a teacher has to fight.  It hopefully is possible to construct a more positive social context in school, especially with character education, but it’s not easy.  Christians would come out and talk about “battling for the soul” of children.   We need to get away from negative peer pressure, either to where kids are thinking for themselves, or responding to positive peer pressure.

 

3) Learning is open-ended, and depends more upon the interests of the learner than a set curricula; assessment is authentic, through means other than test.

This can lead to lack of accountability, and can also be seen as an attack on academic standards.  I think both of these are very real dangers.  It reminds me of modern art.  Do any of us have any respect for “abstract artists” who can’t do realistic drawing and painting?  I don’t; in fact I consider it a fraud.  However, their work seems to be accepted if not glorified in the art world.  I wonder if it will last.  In fact, I think art should be judged within categories.  There’s no comparison between the skill level required for realistic art and abstract art.  I also don’t believe in “self-expression art” being taught in schools; at least not exclusively.

 

 

Misuses I’ve seen of applications of constructivism:

To begin with, I think there is a distinction to be made between the theory of constructivism, and how it is generally applied: through student-centered teaching methodologies such as cooperative learning, thematic instruction, discovery learning, and so on.  Actually, I don’t know how strong the connection is between the constructivist theory and these applications.  But that’s too much for me to figure out right now, so I’m going along with it.

 

1)    Applying “discovery learning” to little kids.  Frankly, I don’t know how much value there is in “discovery learning” at all.  I can tell you from experience that it’s a sad sight to see this approach used with beginning learners, as I did during my daughter’s short-lived tenure at a radical constructivist school.  The children were frustrated, off-task and not learning.  I think the research is beginning to converge on the idea that explicit instruction is necessary for beginning learners and foundational skills such as reading and math.  These need to be practiced to automaticity.

Following from that point, I think it needs to be recognized that “negotiating personal meaning” is an advanced skill; not a beginning skill.  To practice constructivist learning, learners need self-reflective skills, social skills, and an ability to interpret reality (authentic situations).  These are all quite advanced skills; many of which I am still working on at a pretty basic level myself.  I was trained extensively in self-reflection, by a family obsessed with psychology, but I can seldom interpret a social situation, artistic or literary piece without assistance.  My husband helps me a lot with that.

 

2)    Cooperative learning.  At this point, I am down on cooperative learning, and even collaboration, because I think they are so extensively misused.  The misuses I see are that some students in cooperative situations get away with doing no work, and that more proficient students are forced to tutor less proficient students.  This amounts to involuntary servitude, and the more proficient students often refuse to do it, which leads to failure of the method.

I think cooperative work has value, but the proficiency levels of the students can be important.  I think the trend in education is toward homogeneous groupings for foundational skills such as reading and math, and heterogeneous grouping for social learning and subjects that are less core.  On the other hand, we might see radical ability grouping, such as doing away with all grade levels, and grouping students solely on the basis of ability in every subject.

Additionally, the purpose of the collaboration is key.  What I do like is the concept of “community.”  In fact, the action research we read about was almost all situations in which individual teachers were conducting their own research, and simply “sharing the journey” together.  Their collaboration was basically a support group, more than helping each other with their research.  This is a type of collaboration I see great value in, where everyone is standing on his own feet and acting independently.  The group process is being used for emotional and intellectual support, but not doing anyone’s work for him.

 

Other difficulties inherent in constructivism:

1)    Transitioning difficulties.  When students are schooled in traditional classrooms, it is difficult for them to switch to a mode that requires more original and individual thinking, and more intrinsic motivation.  When kids transition from school to homeschool, it usually takes from months to years to transition to more individually motivated modes of learning.

Constructivist teaching, since it is more open-ended, relies quite a bit on intrinsic motivation.  This may or may not be present, especially among those who have gone to traditional schools all their lives.  This is especially true among those in public schools, who are exposed to the worst and most anti-education aspects of society (TV) and each other.

 

2)    Which students should it be applied to?  Constructivism is basically an “unstructured” approach.  When is this appropriate?  I can accept that constructivism might be appropriate for older or more advanced students.  There are some students in any class who are hard workers, can think, and perhaps are leaders.  To my mind, they have proven themselves, and should have more freedom.

On the other hand, there will be students who are behind, academically, socially or morally.  Many homeschoolers would take the approach of working on character first, as the most important foundational skill, and have children do a lot of chores and community service work.

Schools for behaviorally challenged children almost all work on the concept of strict levels, and students earning greater degrees of freedom through appropriate behavior.  This tells us clearly that children with challenges need more structure; not less.

Additionally there is the problem that there is not necessarily any relationship between chronological age and maturity.  People who work with disturbed children emphasize that it is necessary to treat them in terms of their maturity level, not their actual age.

 

3)    On a related note, all of us have some areas that we’re strong in, and other areas that we’re weak in.  For myself, I have a tendency to not bother with some of the more mundane areas of life, which can lead to major problems.  Case in point: getting my seven-year-old to brush her teeth, amid her struggles to not comply.  Recently I realized that the “easier” something is, the more likely one may be to blow it off.  I realized that all of us in the family needed sticker charts, to encourage us to deal with whatever is most difficult for us.  Those may be advanced things, or very rudimentary things.

I think that for all of us, at whatever general level of competence we’re at, we need to drop down to the lowest level of motivating ourselves for anything that’s hard for us.  Within our family, we’re challenged when it comes to brushing teeth and picking up the house.  So I’ve made sticker charts for those mundane activities.  (Of course whether they’re working is highly debatable.)

 

Legitimate uses of constructivist theory:

I see constructivist theory as giving legitimacy to individual differences, along with the theories of multiple intelligences and learning styles, and I think there’s value in that.

I can appreciate constructivism as an alternative educational approach for students who can’t or don’t fit in with a more traditional classroom, either because of emotional problems, just being “different,” or whatever.

I can see constructivism as a basis for individual interpretations of literature or art, and as a corollary for the rhetoric stage.  Although the whole point of rhetoric, in classical education, is to search for the truth and hone one’s position; not to accept sloppy thinking on anyone’s part.

I can also appreciate a constructivist approach used with college students, who are adults.  But I have a big problem with education students being taught constructivism and student-centered teaching methods as the only method to deal with little kids.

I think constructivist theory is useful to have in the mind of the teacher as “another little voice.”  Or to use a quote within a quote, which I know I’m not supposed to do, “Constructivism is a ‘learning theory’ more than a ‘teaching approach.’”  (Wilkinson, 1995 in Mergel, 1998).

 

In conclusion, I know this paper is on a very rudimentary and disorganized level and these arguments are full of holes, but I was at least trying to draw some distinctions and make some parallels.  I honestly don’t know what the answer is, but I also don’t think the “conversation” is being conducted very well.  People are afraid to say anything politically incorrect.

When people refer to schools of education as overly liberal, this is what they mean, and I completely agree.  I don’t hear anyone speaking out against multicultural education, student-centered learning, and progressive education; all of which I have major disagreements with, and I’m far from the only one.  I also don’t regard the Christian right as “crazies.”  I think they are correct on many counts.

The real issue is: how can you give people freedom, while also holding them accountable?  What people have earned some freedom?  This has probably been one of the major philosophical questions throughout history.  This whole issue brings in large philosophical questions to which there are no easy answers.  But it is scary when nobody is saying what they think, and/or have largely been brainwashed to a certain viewpoint.