A recent discussion on Linda Moran’s beyondterc Yahoo group explored the idea that constructivist math is anti-boy.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/beyondterc/
As I read some of the comments it helped me understand why constructivist teaching is not optimal for both my kids – a 15 year-old boy and a 9-year old girl. It made me wonder, is constructivism anti-boy? Or, is it just anti-kids?
My son is a fast learner and typically wants "just the facts". He's often been bored in math, and I can see why. While the teacher may be engaged in discussing endless variations of a given concept and everybody gets to share their views, my son just wants to get on with it.
My daughter is a slower learner, easily distracted and very verbal. Since I successfully after-schooled her using Saxon I have seen that she does well with a logical presentation of material that sequentially builds upon previous lessons. It's curious, but the constructivist tendency (requirement?) to verbalize everything seems to act as a distraction to her learning by encouraging her to go off on tangents unrelated to the lesson. And spiraling simply offers many opportunities for her to superficially touch upon the subject matter without ever really mastering it.
The more I’m learning about direct instruction the more it makes so much sense.
BTW, our school is not currently using a constructivist text but I've observed many of the principles in practice.
Constructivism is such a buzz word, that I doubt most practionioners know what it really means. My feeling is that most teachers have confused it with "individulized instruction" and "motivation".
ReplyDeleteIn other words, teachers think that if they can present a concept in a wide variety of ways (verbally, written, hands-on, etc..) that the concept will suddenly become interesting to the learners and at the same time they will just "catch on" to it.
Ken has the best summary of the arguments against the "learning styles" pedagogy.