I read this and thought that the author or possibly school of thought has a very different interpretation of constructivism than the one I inspired my use of Moodle many years ago
https://docs.moodle.org/33/en/Philosophy#Constructivism
See here
Hi Marcus,
Good question
Re: constructivism - The definition and practical interpretations will vary widely according to who you ask.
Re: direct instruction - The early critiques of instruction by Piaget, Stern, Vygostsky, et al. assumed a style of classroom teaching of the day that was very much in the vein of lecturing, AKA "frontal instruction," even for young children. In my opinion, they were perfectly valid.
I think the part that gets a lot of pundits and teachers into hot water is quotes like this one:
“Practical experience also shows that direct teaching of concepts is impossible and fruitless. A teacher who tries to do this usually accomplishes nothing but empty verbalism, a parrot-like repetition of words by the child, simulating a knowledge of the corresponding concepts but actually covering up a vacuum.” (Vygotsky, 2012, p. 159)
Note that Vygotsky wrote this in the early 20th century when school masters did little more than frontal instruction (2012 is the re-publication date). But teaching has moved on since then and in modern professionalised education systems this no longer applies (most of the time). Today's critics of school teaching often conflate frontal instruction and direct instruction. Direct instruction is more conversational (dialogic), where the teacher seeks to locate a child's zone of proximal development (ZPD)* for a particular concept and attempts to "scaffold" his/her thinking so that s/he can learn how to think and act in new ways. Direct instruction has pretty much become the standard form of teaching, although there is often room for improvement. Isn't there always?
I follow Greg Ashman's blog and I enjoy his critiques of overly zealous teachers and pundits promoting entirely self-regulated learning for children - I share his opinion that it's inappropriate and ineffective. For a concise critique of self-regulated learning, see Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006).
You may also enjoy this critique of over-zealous pundits of self-regulated learning: https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/eminence-based-education-or-the-terror-of-famous-shameless-eduquacks/
The learning sciences and cognitive developmental psychology have since shed more light on how we construct knowledge and some of the more effective ways to support that. I believe that this is the angle that Greg Ashman takes - Note he describes knowledge/concepts as "schemas," which is very much from the learning sciences rather than from constructivism, psycholinguistics, or sociocultural theory.
*ZPD = Is the area between where the child can solve a problem/perform a task unaided (=no scaffolding) and where the child can't solve it/perform it even with the teacher's help (=plenty of scaffolding) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development
References
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R. E. (2006) ‘Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86 [Online]. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012) Thought and Language, Kozulin, A. (ed), MIT Press.
I've been thinking about this since I read it yesterday. And while I agree with the arguments of Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R. E. (2006), I also wonder if perhaps Ashman has oversimplified his argument. I keep thinking of this presentation, which I found very compelling:
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_meyer_math_curriculum_makeover
I came to the conclusion that Kirschner et al and Meyer are actually in more agreement than may seem the case at first.
Meyer argues that students need to be more involved in learning to formulate problems, and he describes a process that might seem like the various iterations of problem-based learning that Kirschner et al refute in their paper. But I think he is actually arguing for including problem formulation in the scaffolding, in the worked examples that Kirschner et al have concluded are so important.
I also think that there are some assumptions made by Kirschner et al (and Ashman) that deserve examination. Curricula are judged according to the paradigm that informs them. Kirschner et al are judging the effectiveness of PBL and its relations by a "Social Efficiency" model -- is it the most efficient way to teach something? But a "Social Reconstructionist" model would ask, "are the participants moving from peripheral to full participation in the activity?" In Meyer's case, he's teaching remedial mathematics, and his students have become convinced that they have nothing to contribute in a mathematical conversation. He invites them to think otherwise, and to believe that their contributions have value and meaning. I am not saying that being able to learn to solve mathematical problems efficiently is not a goal, because of course it is. But being willing to tackle mathematical problems also needs to be an educational goal, I think.
Perhaps we need to keep in mind the working memory limitations that Kirschner et al have described so well when we design inquiry opportunities for our students, and scaffold those inquiry opportunities appropriately. Perhaps we also need to be more conscious of the whole problem-solving process when we construct worked examples for novices.
Just some thoughts....
Hi Elizabeth,
Yes, I think many of the better informed comments on learning are pretty much in agreement but may differ on a few points.
Kirschner frequently makes the point that pupils do need to learn to tackle complex, under-defined tasks (higher-order thinking) - exactly where minimal guidance is necessary - but only when they're sufficiently prepared for it. In order to tackle complex under-defined tasks successfully, students must draw upon domain specific foundational knowledge and coordinate constellations of domain specific skills (AKA competencies). In other words, the knowledge and skills have to be firmly in place (i.e. mastered) before attempting to tackle such tasks so that pupils can focus on the higher-order thinking.
The other aspect of problem-solving that I think is easy to overlook with the research that Kirschner et al are citing is how to identify which type of problem is present. I had good teachers in statistics in graduate school, but it wasn't until I tried to run my own study that I realized that I knew how to perform certain statistical processes, but not how to choose the right processes. This is something I've emphasized in my teaching since then. I think we do our students a disservice not to include this aspect from the beginning of a topic. Not to impose an undue cognitive load, but because this is crucial to being able to apply the learning in true real-world situations later. The empirical research Kirschner et al cite never goes beyond identified classroom-type exams, as far as I can tell.
This is not to say that we should throw students into the deep end of the pool with no lifeguard! But when we model problem-solving for our students, we need to include identifying and specifying a problem as part of the process, and when we ask students to solve problems, we need to give them examples of situations that span the contexts and problems we know they have already experienced, as much as possible, so they can learn to recognize problem contexts... and to recognize when they are facing a new problem that they don't know how to solve, so they can know it's time to look for resources.
In other words, I don't think it makes sense to ask kids to reinvent mathematics, but when we teach multiplication and we get to word problems, we should include addition and subtraction word problems mixed in with the multiplication ones... and I do think it's a good idea to integrate open projects early, with the caveat that we teach students how to identify problems that they can solve with the tools they already have... and how to seek more tools and guidance when needed.
In reply to Elizabeth Dalton
Re: An "interesting" interpretation of constructivism
by Marcus Green -
For me social that article seems too miss out on the social part of social constructivism. It is the interaction between students, the social side where the discuss and asks questions of each other that promotes learning.
Having said that I detested the bits at school where we were supposed to break into groups and discuss the topic at hand. I much preferred a nice lecture where I could drift off into my own little world.