On constructivism
Constructivism is one of the most misunderstood terms in the contemporary debate over education policy, and that's showing through in the discussion on the comments in the post below this one. If you asked ten wonks to define constructivism, you'd get eleven different answers. In order to have a frutiful debate, let's lay out a working definition and then explore its nuances.
Constructivism is a pyschological principle developed by Jean Piaget (1896-1980). While critics throughout the years have challenged Piaget's specific assertions, his broad explanation of cognitive development has stood the test of time. Instead of trying to define constructivism my college-student self, I'll let Snowman & Biehler's 11th edition "Psychology Applied to Teaching" do it for me:
Or, if Piaget may be allowed to speak for himself:
So now we can start actually talking about constructivism; what it is, and what it isn't. What constructivism isn't is a form of pedagogy that takes facts, prior knowledge or teachers out of the equation. Any program that does that (and some do exist) are mangling the idea. It's right there -- in order to construct learning, you must have preexisting knowledge. That means you don't assume children are going to actively participate in learning to read without teaching them the alphabet. Constructivism is not simply group projects all the time. Constructivism, properly understood, is not at loggerheads with lectures; it simply puts the lectures in their correct context.
Constructivism when applied appropriately causes the learner to ingrain the new knowledge into their schemes. This is a permanent, flexible knowledge that stands in stark contrast to the surface knowledge gleaned through direct instruction and rote memorization. When I speak of Authentic Education, it's not synonymous with constructivism, but it is grounded in Piaget -- most deeply the idea that critical thinking skills are best gleaned by heading down this general bend in the road.
Discourse is a lot healthier when everyone's on the same page. I hope this helps clarify the terms of the debate, at least for the purposes of this little corner of cyberspace.
Constructivism is a pyschological principle developed by Jean Piaget (1896-1980). While critics throughout the years have challenged Piaget's specific assertions, his broad explanation of cognitive development has stood the test of time. Instead of trying to define constructivism my college-student self, I'll let Snowman & Biehler's 11th edition "Psychology Applied to Teaching" do it for me:
Piaget believed that people are driven to organize their [mental] schemes in order to achieve the best possible adaptation to their environment. He called this process equilibration. But what motivates people's drive toward equilibration? It is a state of disequilibrium, or a perceived discrepancy between an existing scheme and something new. In other words, when people encounter something that is inconsistent with or contradicts what they already know or believe, this experience produces a disequilibrium that they are driven to eliminate.
[...]
Meaningful learning, then, occurs when people create new ideas, or knowledge (rules and hypotheses that explain things), from existing information (for example, facts, concepts and procedures). [emphasis mine] To solve a problem, we have to search our memory for information that can be used to fashion a solution. Using information can mean experimenting, questioning, reflecting, discovering, inventing, and discussing. This process of creating knowledge to solve a problem and eliminate a disequilibration is referred to by Piagetian psychologists and educators as constructivism.
Or, if Piaget may be allowed to speak for himself:
[G]lobal transformations of the objects of perception, and of the very intelligence which makes them, gradually denote the existence of a sort of law of evolution which can be phrased as follows: assimilation [interpreting an experience so that it fits an existing scheme] and accommodation [changing an existing scheme to incorporate the experience] proceed from a state of chaotic undifferentiation to a state of differentiation with correlative coordination.
So now we can start actually talking about constructivism; what it is, and what it isn't. What constructivism isn't is a form of pedagogy that takes facts, prior knowledge or teachers out of the equation. Any program that does that (and some do exist) are mangling the idea. It's right there -- in order to construct learning, you must have preexisting knowledge. That means you don't assume children are going to actively participate in learning to read without teaching them the alphabet. Constructivism is not simply group projects all the time. Constructivism, properly understood, is not at loggerheads with lectures; it simply puts the lectures in their correct context.
Constructivism when applied appropriately causes the learner to ingrain the new knowledge into their schemes. This is a permanent, flexible knowledge that stands in stark contrast to the surface knowledge gleaned through direct instruction and rote memorization. When I speak of Authentic Education, it's not synonymous with constructivism, but it is grounded in Piaget -- most deeply the idea that critical thinking skills are best gleaned by heading down this general bend in the road.
Discourse is a lot healthier when everyone's on the same page. I hope this helps clarify the terms of the debate, at least for the purposes of this little corner of cyberspace.
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 09, 2005 at 2:31 PM.
|
