tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post2289452631932348951..comments2024-03-26T04:19:38.862-07:00Comments on kitchen table math, the sequel: constructivism doesn't work, part 1: little scientistsCatherine Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-89702494182160673852009-03-29T15:27:00.000-07:002009-03-29T15:27:00.000-07:00Wow, Paul, that is a compelling & concise diag...Wow, Paul, that is a compelling & concise diagnosis of everything that is wrong with education in the United States today. I would love to see you elaborate on your five horses, because you have the makings of an argument that can chip away at the status quo.rgetzel86https://www.blogger.com/profile/08123577317712597277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-41569543865953684952009-03-29T09:48:00.000-07:002009-03-29T09:48:00.000-07:00It's instructive to put constructivism in context...It's instructive to put constructivism in context. I put it smack dab in the middle of; Spiraling Curricula, Curricula Bloat, ** Constructivism **, Inclusion/Immersion, and Grade Level Placement. I'll call these the five horsemen of the apocalypse.<BR/><BR/>Horse #1, Spiraling Curricula (the Trojan horse), lays the natural hierarchy of a subject on it's side, preferring to teach everything in a strand as a set of increasingly complex parallel universes that never need to be mastered. We spend, on average, 6 years on concepts that other countries dispense with in 3. <BR/><BR/>Once you install horse #1 you observe that, without mastery, every stovepipe in the spiral is easier to achieve success in (because you don't really measure it anymore). This leads to the evolution of horse #2, Curricula Bloat, where you get to fill your newly invented extra time, with bloated concept development (2-3 times more concepts per year than is common in the TIMMS countries that surpass us).<BR/><BR/>Horses #3 and #4, Inclusion/Immersion and Grade Level Placement, differ in motivation but produce the same noxious result, an enormous range of student capabilities in a single classroom, with an attendant reduction in the number and type of teachers that address them. And finally with horses 1,2,4, and 5 teamed up you're ready for the lead horse, horse #3,Constructivism.<BR/><BR/>With an exquisitely complex spiral, delivering an overwhelming number of concepts to a highly diverse population grouped by virtue of their hat size, there is no other choice but to have the kids teach each other. Horse #3 is inevitable.<BR/><BR/>Every argument you hear for constructivist philosophy is no more than rationalization, devised to make palatable, the misbegotten notion that kids can teach themselves the things that mankind learned over thousands of years, driven by the need to address the maelstrom created by the four horsemen that accompany it. Once you figure out where it comes from you're better able to appreciate why it's so popular. Unfortunately, it's very hard to change the direction of the lead horse when the rest of the team is not cooperating and these horses all tend to be discussed in isolation, where they can be made to sound plausible. Together though, they are undeniably toxic.<BR/><BR/>And yes I know there are only four horsemen but I'm invoking my 21st century skills to invent my own literary reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-31175313940634729192009-03-28T14:09:00.000-07:002009-03-28T14:09:00.000-07:00rocky - good question!rocky - good question!Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-84395287790111998942009-03-28T14:08:00.000-07:002009-03-28T14:08:00.000-07:00Please add "arrogance" and "jerks" to your tags to...<I>Please add "arrogance" and "jerks" to your tags to be consistent with our indexing.</I><BR/><BR/>doneCatherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-68260620771680412502009-03-27T17:56:00.000-07:002009-03-27T17:56:00.000-07:00Isn't a big part of the attractiveness of the coll...Isn't a big part of the attractiveness of the collaborative, project based, inquiry approach (apart from NSF grant incentives) that it doesn't require subject matter knowledge from the teacher?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-39129076010444205152009-03-27T17:07:00.000-07:002009-03-27T17:07:00.000-07:00Where are those giants' shoulders when you need th...Where are those giants' shoulders when you need them?<BR/><BR/>--rockyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7691251033406320222.post-526839481840058432009-03-27T15:45:00.000-07:002009-03-27T15:45:00.000-07:00Please add "arrogance" and "jerks" to your tags to...Please add "arrogance" and "jerks" to your tags to be consistent with our indexing.<BR/><BR/>From Kirshner, Sweller and Clark: "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not<BR/>Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,<BR/>Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and<BR/>Inquiry-Based Teaching" in Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86; 2006.<BR/><BR/><I>Despite this clear distinction between learning a discipline<BR/>and practicing a discipline,many curriculum developers, educational<BR/>technologists, and educators seem to confuse the teaching of a discipline as inquiry (i.e., a curricular emphasis on the research processes within a science) with the teaching of the discipline by inquiry (i.e., using the research process of the discipline as a pedagogy or for learning). The basis of this<BR/>confusion may lie in what Hurd (1969) called the rationale of<BR/>the scientist,whichholds that a course of instruction inscience<BR/>should be a mirror image of a science discipline, with regard<BR/>to both its conceptual structure and its patterns of inquiry.<BR/><BR/>"The theories and methods of modern science should be reflected<BR/>in the classroom. In teaching a science, classroom operations<BR/>should be in harmony with its investigatory processes<BR/>and supportive of the conceptual, the intuitive, and the<BR/>theoretical structure of its knowledge. (p. 16)"<BR/><BR/>This rationale assumes<BR/><BR/>"that the attainment of certain attitudes, the fostering of interest in science, the acquisition of laboratory skills, the learning of scientific knowledge, and the understanding of the nature of science were all to be approached through the methodology of science, which was, in general, seen in inductive<BR/>terms." (Hodson, 1988, p. 22)<BR/><BR/>The major fallacy of this rationale is that it makes no distinction between the behaviors andmethods of a researcherwhois<BR/>an expert practicing a profession and those students who are<BR/>new to the discipline and who are, thus, essentially novices.</I>Barry Garelickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01281266848110087415noreply@blogger.com