An alarming title, but please note that I neither necessarily agree with constructivism nor disagree with it. I am working through my graduate courses and finding lots of alternate perspectives. Our recent readings have taken us through authors that appear to be openly against constructivism. Below are what I posted to our Blackboard discussion board. These are by no means a definitive statement, just my stream-of-consciousness ramblings as I try to work this out myself.
I work very hard not to blindly accept anything, but to search out the truth through intellectual means, reading, critically analyzing, seeking counsel, etc. This is just my present thoughts on the process.
Begin potentially pointless ramblings…
EDET 652 – Thoughts on the readings for class #3
A theme that is clearly running throughout the articles this week is the idea that the instructional method is what should be considered, not the delivery method.
Clark (1994) hits the ground running with the introductory statement from which the above was captured, “learning is influenced more by the content and instructional strategy in a medium then by the type of medium”. That statement alone has caused me to think a great deal about my own teaching. As the instructor of a foreign language course I have to find new and exciting ways to keep the content fresh and make the “sales pitch” required of me so keep student interest in foreign language at a higher level. To that end, I have been known to utilize downloaded video clips from Discovery Education’s unitedstreaming(r). I am careful to screen the clips before showing them, and at times split the clips into shorter segments and interlace them throughout a larger lesson presentation. This helps keep class moving at a quicker pace as well as prevents feelings of monotony. I have noticed that the videos serve much more to support instruction that has already happened as opposed to introduce new content. Could this be due to the fact that the learning is actually occurring in the context of guided instruction and does not occur so much in the context of multimedia presentation? I am beginning to wonder…
The rest of the Clark (1994) article supported the “method versus medium” argument, and I moved onto the Kirschner, et al article. I quickly hit a snag when I read the statement, “learning, in turn, is defined as a change in long-term memory”. I take slight issue with this statement in that I would not define learning in quite such narrow terms. Websters’ defines learning in the form “learn” as “to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learning) whereas Princeton defines it as “the cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge”, (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=learning) focusing more on the process than the information. Princeton’s definition seems to lend support to the idea that learning consists of what happens during instruction rather than the result of instruction. Do both of these (the listening to instruction and the result of instruction) result in a change in long-term memory? Possibly. I suppose that depends on the quality of the instruction. Nonetheless, Kirschner et al’s argument seems to depend on this narrow definition of learning as the cornerstone of their rejection of constructivist principles.
I should note that I am certainly no radical constructivist by any means. A lot of constructivism seems to fawn after the slippery slope of “engagement” more than the desire to infuse students with knowledge. I disagree with the radical constructivist approach of handing students a box with magnets, string, etc and expecting them to “discover” anything. Students need guidance, more than just in instruction, but in the context of relationship. Minimal guidance, limited coaching, “guide on the side” mentalities can easily fail by blurring the line between appropriate behavior and interaction between student and teacher.
It is clear that cognitivism has the favor of those involved in the writings we have read thus far and the instruction we have received. I do not disagree with cognitivism, only desire to expand my extremely limited knowledge. Not having a background in education, I find myself unequipped to analyze these writings critically and fear that I may be blindly accepting them without the thorough thought needed to reach synthesis.
Can anyone provide me with an alternate perspective? Where is the research supporting constructivism?
