kitchen table math, the sequel: making meaning

Thursday, June 21, 2007

making meaning




Here at ktm-2, we've been behind the curve.

We've been thinking constuctivism was about constructing knowledge.

It's not.

Constructivism is about constructing meaning.



  • D.C. Philips: Thus, von Glasersfeld's epistemology.... leads him ....to argue that each individual science and mathematics student is responsible for building his or her own set of understandings of these disciplines;....teachers cannot assume that all students
    have the same set of understandings, or that their own ways of understanding are shared by their students. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: the Many Faces of Constructivism (pdf file) by D.C. Phillips Educational Researcher, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 5-12

  • According to [constructivist] theory, learning occurs only when students make an effort to construct their own understanding out of a problem situation. Constructivist-Compatible Beliefs and Practices among U.S. Teachers (pdf file) by Jason L. Ravitz, Henry Jay Becker, Yan Tien Wong Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations U. California Irvine July 2000

Naturally all this stuff is driving parents crazy, especially seeing as how constructivist educators have stopped teaching for mastery but have carried right on testing for it. Well, everywhere except Scarsdale, that is.

Unfortunately, our plight doesn't elicit much interest from policy wonks and education journalists, most of whom* apparently believe that a quarter century of constructivist training in our schools of education has little to do with the achievement gap. (Interesting, isn't it, how it never seems to be progressive educators who make any headway narrowing the gap...I wonder why that is?)

So naturally I've been enjoying the spectacle of eduwonk getting the constructivist treatment:

OK, I am increasingly convinced that there is a reading crisis in our schools. On his blog, Fred Klonsky, a teachers' union head in Illinois, writes about the article(s) that Rick Hess and I have done on the competition - equity tension. But he ascribes a conclusion to us that is not in the article...and then he further tries to muddy the issue when called on it. Klonsky says that what he did is "make meaning" of what we wrote. Oh brother, try just reading what it says. It's an article, not a work of political philosophy.


That was Tuesday, June 19.

Today is Thursday, and eduwonk hasn't recovered:

....one lame, pseudo post-modern BS, attempt to spin out of this, “make meaning” from it as though this is a political theory seminar and we’re debating Montaigne....

yeeeaaahhhh

Let's have more of that!



update from Linda Seebach:

When I was a graduate student in mathematics (decades ago, that was) a significant part of the first-year courses was intended to develop students' intuitive understanding of the unfamiliar and abstract object that populate the mathematical universe, and you'd better believe that the professors expected all of us to acquire "the same set of understandings" they themselves had.


constructivist lollapalooza (thank you, instructivist)


* with a few notable exceptions (see: Linda Seebach, Debra Saunders, Andrew Wolf)

12 comments:

Tracy W said...

teachers cannot assume that all students have the same set of understandings, or that their own ways of understanding are shared by their students.

This sounds somehow reminiscent of something that Engelmann might write.

Of course Engelmann would then go on to describe how to explicitly teach sutdents the same set of understandings.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the kind words, Catherine.

When I was a graduate student in mathematics (decades ago, that was) a significant part of the first-year courses was intended to develop students' intuitive understanding of the unfamiliar and abstract object that populate the mathematical universe, and you'd better believe that the professors expected all of us to acquire "the same set of understandings" they themselves had.

Instructivist said...

"According to [constructivist] theory, learning occurs only when students make an effort to construct their own understanding out of a problem situation."

Educationists are in the habit of dressing up the most trivial and mundane things in grandiloquent lingo. It may turn out that "constructivism" means nothing more than making an effort to get a handle on something. Big deal!

Here you can gorge on the term. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/constructivism.html

Catherine Johnson said...

Albert Bandura??

What is Albert Bandura doing on that list?

LynnG said...

I've been reading through our director of curriculum's annual report. In one of her main bullet items she states that this year we:
"continue shift from program based instruction to standards based in all content areas"

I have no idea what this means. If I were standing in the middle of a classroom, what would be different in a "program based" model to a "standards based" model.

Catherine Johnson said...

Is instructivist around?

He may know.

If she means state standards, she may be saying that instead of teaching a particular textbook or program that had been taught at the school, they're shifting to teaching to the state standards.

Ever since Thinking Out Loud sent me the email about schools being deliberately vague about placement criteria I see these things differently.

Now when I see obscure language & obscure practices I assume the point, conscious or not but probably conscious, is to be obscure.

Catherine Johnson said...

This makes me understand that the reason I instinctively trust Siegfried Engelmann is the clarity of his speech and prose.

With bureaucracies that may be the single criteria you need to make a judgment concerning quality and trust.

Can an administrator tell you what he/she is doing in plain language - and is he/she willing to do so?

Instructivist said...

"continue shift from program based instruction to standards based in all content areas"

The purpose of this phrase is probably a challenge to make meaning.

My view is that the term "standard" was hijacked by educationists, redefined and neutralized. It now stands for some vague, content-free visions. So, shifting to "standards-based education" simply means moving away from substance (known as content).

VickyS said...

My view is that the term "standard" was hijacked by educationists, redefined and neutralized. It now stands for some vague, content-free visions. So, shifting to "standards-based education" simply means moving away from substance (known as content).

Yes, just like in my neck of the woods "performance-based assessment" means subjective, student-centered project-based demonstrations of "learning."

This language issue is all so reminiscent of my years as a parent of kids in a Waldorf school. Terms that I thought I knew the meaning of meant something entirely different to the initiated.

My older son just got done reading Animal Farm as part of our homeschooling year. Quite apropos.

VickyS said...

Make friends in high places with the Educational Jargon Generator.

Catherine Johnson said...

I just got a new copy of Animal Farm & 1984!

Plus Fahrenheit 451 arrived yesterday.

Catherine Johnson said...

Christopher has entered his read sci fi allegories about repressive government phase & I have re-entered mine.