{"id":7468,"date":"2024-02-18T08:00:26","date_gmt":"2024-02-18T13:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/blog\/?p=7468"},"modified":"2024-02-10T11:20:50","modified_gmt":"2024-02-10T16:20:50","slug":"constructivism-or-constructivism-part-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/constructivism-or-constructivism-part-i\/","title":{"rendered":"Constructivism, or Constructivism? Part I"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you want to launch a feisty debate in your next faculty meeting, stand up and ask “who here supports\u00a0‘constructivism’?”<\/p>\n

This question all but guarantees heated discussion, because …<\/p>\n

… MANY people identify strongly with one side or another (“I definately DO!” “Well, I certainly\u00a0DON’T!!”)<\/p>\n

and<\/p>\n

… people on one side often think ill of people on the other (“How can you possibly hold that immoral position?”).<\/p>\n

We’re talking Hadfields and McCoys here.<\/p>\n

Typically,\u00a0this blog would look to research to resolve such a debate. Alas the debate resists a research-based answer, because we can easily find research supporting both positions<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a><\/p>\n

Whether you’re championing PBL or direct instruction or inquiry learning or Direct Instruction or guiding from the side or a knowledge-rich curriculum, you’ve got research to bolster your claim.<\/p>\n

Is there any way out of this tangle? Will we always disagree?<\/p>\n

A Fresh Place to Start?<\/h2>\n

In many fields, basic definitions<\/strong> can be helpfully straightforward.<\/p>\n

If I’m a carpenter, I can tell you what a “nail” is. In fact, I can show you several. They’re\u00a0right there<\/em>.<\/p>\n

If I’m a surgeon, I can tell you what a “pancreas” is. I can tap it with my scalpel. It’s right there.<\/p>\n

When a mechanic repairs my car, she can show me the “rust” on my “carburetor.” See? Right there.<\/p>\n

And so forth.<\/p>\n

In psychology and education research, alas, basic definitions get really tricky.<\/p>\n

How,\u00a0exactly<\/em>, do I define “attention”? Or, “engagement”? Or, heck, how do I define “learning”?<\/p>\n

If I can’t define these core concepts, then I can’t develop a precise way to measure them. And research relies on precise measurements…<\/p>\n

For that reason, we might start reexamining our Hadfield\/McCoy fued about “constructivism” by looking at basic definitions.<\/p>\n

What, exactly, does the word “constructivism” mean?<\/p>\n

Take Two<\/h2>\n

This\u00a0potentially pedantic question turns out to have helpful results.<\/p>\n

We’ve got (at least) two fundamentally different ways<\/a><\/strong> of thinking about constructivism.<\/p>\n

First<\/strong>: physical + social activity = mental change.<\/em><\/p>\n

If students are up and DOING carefully designed activities\u00a0— if they’re moving about and (preferably) interacting with other students — this combination of physical and social work leads to the construction of new mental models.<\/p>\n

This kind of “active” classroom work — unlike the “passive” classrooms where students sit and listen to a teacher explain — results in learning.<\/p>\n

In other words: we can tell by looking at the students in the classroom whether or not “constructivist teaching” is happening.<\/p>\n

Second<\/strong>:\u00a0mental change = mental change<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This second definition focuses on\u00a0learning<\/em> more than on\u00a0teaching<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It says: OF COURSE students learn by constructing their own mental models. (Unlike The Matrix<\/em>, reality does not allow us to download mental models into our students.)<\/p>\n

If students have learned, they have constructed. ALL LEARNING is by definition constructivist.<\/p>\n

So they core question is:\u00a0what teaching methods produce that result?<\/em><\/p>\n

If, say, a lecture results in learning, then a lecture is “constructivist.”<\/p>\n

If a jigsaw activity<\/a> results in learning, then it too is “constructivist.”<\/p>\n

In other words: we\u00a0can’t<\/em> tell by looking at the students whether or not constructivist teaching is happening.<\/p>\n

Instead, we can tell only<\/em> if we determine how much they learned. If they learned, they constructed.\u00a0Voila: constructivism.<\/p>\n

Rethinking Strong Claims<\/h2>\n

This definitional muddle might explain some of the\u00a0“are you a constructivist” debate.<\/p>\n

According to the first<\/em> definition, I’m a constructivist teacher if I teach in particular ways: my students are up and about, working and talking with each other and — as much as possible — finding their own way through a particular concept.<\/p>\n

According to the\u00a0second<\/em> definition, I’m a constructivist teacher if my students learn.<\/p>\n

In other words: EVERYONE wants to be a constructivist according to the second definition. The first definition, however, prompts the feud.<\/p>\n

Champions<\/em> of the first definition believe those methods result in the\u00a0second\u00a0result. That is: “physical + social” constructivism (“guide on the side”) should result in more learning.<\/p>\n

Critics<\/em> of the\u00a0first definition believe that “sage on the stage” teaching results in more learning — more construction of mental models.<\/p>\n

Once we separate these two ways of thinking about “constructivism,” we can ask:<\/p>\n

“How might we use this distinction\u00a0in research? Can we determine which approach — saging or guiding — results in more construction of new mental models?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’ve found a study that\u00a0tries to do just that. I’ll summarize it in next week’s blog post…<\/p>\n

\n

Fischer, E., & H\u00e4nze, M. (2019). Back from \u201cguide on the side\u201d to \u201csage on the stage\u201d? Effects of teacher-guided and student-activating teaching methods on student learning in higher education.\u00a0International Journal of Educational Research<\/i>,\u00a095<\/i>, 26-35.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you want to launch a feisty debate in your next faculty meeting, stand up and ask “who here supports\u00a0‘constructivism’?” This question all but guarantees heated discussion, because … … MANY people identify strongly with one side or another (“I definately DO!” “Well, I certainly\u00a0DON’T!!”) and … people on one side often think ill of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":7472,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[113],"class_list":["post-7468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-constructivism-direct-instruction"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7468"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7468\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7474,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7468\/revisions\/7474"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7472"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}