Re: constructivism vs. DI (was trends in research)

["Nancy Patterson" <patterna@gvsu.edu>]

For the record, constructivism is based on the idea that knowledge is constructed, not transmitted.  If direct instruction leads to meaning construction, then it fits into a constructivist model.  In other words, constructivism is not the binary of direct instruction.  However, since most people do not learn just through direct instruction, other instructional approaches must be used as well, with direct instruction probably being diminished in favor of more transactive, hands-on approaches.  Constructivism is not a classroom practice. It is a belief about how humans learn.

Nancy

Nancy Patterson, PhD
Literacy Studies Program Chair
College of Education
Grand Valley State University 
920 Eberhard Center
301 W. Fulton
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
616-331-6226
patterna@gvsu.edu
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/patterna
>>> neaguy@hotmail.com 08/21/05 8:27 PM >>>
Ken,

You make some very significant points.   Particularly about the Eight Year Study
and the Coalition of Essential Schools.   Also, I like how you describe your
teaching, which seems to include a mix of direct instruction and
constructivism.   You recognize that there is reason for the teacher to be in the
classroom with directed activities but that the student needs the opportunity to
connect the ideas with his/her experience, otherwise the information is merely
segmented in a part of the brain, to be tapped only for test time.

By the way, I didn't find George Cunningham's description of the two kinds of
teaching to be very accurate (or useful as an educator in thinking about how to
design learning environments in the classroom), certainly not in describing
constructivism.  

Brian



  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Kenneth Bernstein <kber@earthlink.net>
  Reply-To: arn-l@interversity.org
  To: arn-l@interversity.org
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] constructivism vs. DI (was trends in research)
  Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:50:52 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
  >My classroom is predominantly contructivist in orientation. Pernats know it
  -- I make it clear in the material I send home on the first day, I discuss my
  approach on back to school night.
  >
  >I sometimes drive my students nuts when someone will ask an interesting
  question that I had not prepared to cover and is not in the textbook. My
  reaction is always the same -- that's a good question. Why don't you find out
  the answer and report to calss tomorrow? I always give an extra credit point
  or two when they do. The point is that they CAN and SHOULD take responsibiliy
  or their own learning.
  >
  >
  >I also will give periodic assignments that allow themto explore topics on
  their own. I won't even given them the topic, but will help them in the
  process of formulating a topic question for themselves.
  >
  >Do I use direct instruction on some material? Sure .. especially if in
  exploring one issue that is of great interest to the students it takes more
  time than I planned, then we will more into a period or part of period that
  is more structured to get through some basic factual material. But even there
  I am likely to give them a followup assignment that requires them to explore
  or analyze on thie rownj.
  >
  >I am constantly "on them" to justify the statements they make, to understand
  that making a statement a providing a list of facts does nto an argument
  make. What do those facts mean, and why??
  >
  >For what it is worth, I have been teaching in public school classrooms for
  10 years now, in 3 schools in two states, with four different principals. In
  each school I have been in, I have had the highest or tied for the highest
  scors on mandatory state tests, even though I do not teach to the test. I do
  give the students some exposure to the structure and types of questions on
  the test by using publicly released items (in Maryland) or questions I have
  created on my own or with other faculty (in Virginia -- which is all selected
  response items).
  >
  >I regularly get students whom I have taught as freshmen signing up for my
  junior-senior electives. I have students whom I only tuaght as freshman
  asking me to write their college recommendations. I regularly get younger
  siblings, with parents trying to get me, even though in general we do not
  allow selecting of teachers.
  >
  >I would be interested in seeing Mr. Cunningham's factual basis for the
  sweeping statements he made. I know of one study that addresses the issue,
  albeit not by test scores. The Eight Year Study followed students in
  progressive environments who did NOT take the standard admission tests for
  college, but were admitted based on their schools' evaluation of their
  overall performance. THey did as well if not better than those admitted by
  traditional means.
  >
  >I also note that parents spent a large amount of money to put students in
  private and sectarian (especially Quaker) schools in which a strict Direct
  Instruction approach would be anathema. Those students tend to do very well
  in their post-secondary careers when they come out of such private secondary
  schools. Parents also fight to get their children into Montessori programs,
  which are clearly NOT Direct Instruction.
  >
  >We see communities striving to find a way to get their schools into the
  Coalition of Essential Schools, which certainly does not emphasize Direct
  Instruction.
  >
  >Testing is often a far less accurate measurement of a student's
  understanding of a domain than can be a project with an oral defense. Science
  Fairs and National History Day recognize this. So does the doctoral program
  at most institutes of higher learning -- I will note that my comprehensive
  exams in my doctoral program could NOT have been prepared for merely by
  Direct Instruction, and the preparation and dfense of a dissertation proposal
  requires a grasp of a domain that cannot be shown by a one to three hour test
  that is largely if not exclusively selected response items. Any time a
  student has to explain an answer requires demonstrating a higher degree of
  understanding than merely selecting one out of three to five choices. And in
  the process the student may be able to demonstrate why the expected response
  could be interpreted as inaccurate or incomplete. I have seen far too many
  items on mass produced tests which, as the questions were phrased, had either
  more than one or some cases no correct answer. The tend to reduce information
  down to common understanding that is inaccurate, for example, the persistent
  tendency to describe Brown v Board either as overturning Plessy or as
  outlawing segregation. Neither statement is true. It banned segregation only
  in K-12 schooling on the basis the such racially segregated schools were
  inherently unequal and hence did not meet the separate but equal standard
  imposed by Plessy.
  >
  >To a very large degree, Direct Instruction classrooms do not encourage
  critical thinking. I care not for what arguments might be made about test
  scores, if students are not going to be taught to construct and disassemble
  arguments. As they learn that process, they will -- at least in my classrom -
  begin to understand why they must have a grasp of facts and learn to apply
  them appropriately. That is far more than memorization of key facts.
  >
  >I think my greatest responsibility as a teacher is to help my students learn
  how to learn, to think, to write. In the process they ae also learning a
  great deal of whatever subject we are studying -- US History, World History,
  Government, Religion, Social Issues. More importantly, they are learnjing how
  the subject is structured, how information connects, and how to continue in
  greater depth on their own. As it happens, I can give without too much
  trouble lists in chronological order or Presidents, Monarchs of Britain,
  Emperors of Rome up to Diocletian. So what? My quick recall of such factoids
  could make me a lot of money on Jeopardy, but in and of itself it does not
  demonstrate an understanding. I want my students to understand what we study.
  That may mean we will cover less material as a class, but what we cover they
  will know in detail.
  >
  >And actually, often we cover more. The state of Maryland requires students
  to know the facts of 8 Supreme Court cases. Mine usually know those 8, and at
  least 11 more, becaus they do explorations on their own, first in groups, and
  then as individuals, and rpesent their work to the class. They are required
  to read more than just summaries, but also opinions, including concurring and
  dissenting. That are to be able to explain the reasoning and precedents
  relied on to reach the decision, and point at impact -- constiutional
  amendments, new legislation, other cases that use this as a precedent. Thus
  having learned the principle in Tinker that schools have the responsibility
  to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment they can in part
  understand why the court in TLO ruled that school officials did not have to
  use a probable cause standard in doing a search but merely a reasonable
  suspicion standard.
  >
  >Enough. I am rambling. And I had promised myself I'd stay away from
  educational issues for at least 10 days after I finished the school year --
  that means I am supposed to wait until Monday.
  >
  >I am NOT an educational purist. I have a broad toolbox of techinques and
  approaches that I will use. I have taught classes that need far more
  structure than others, and for them I will provide that structure as a
  scaffolding as I build up their skills and confidence to work more
  independently. Our system standard for instruction is a Madeline Hunter
  inspired approach, called a Directed Teaching Activity (DTA). In the 9 years
  I have taught in this system (one year in Virginia), I have taught that way
  exactly twice. I had one administrator (who only lasted one year in our
  school) insist on seeing such a lesson, so I taught the class in which I was
  being observed that way the day before, so that they wouldn't freak out when
  I was being observed. They wanted to know why anyone would want to teach that
  way, it was so boring. I agree, which is why I don't use it. I get superior
  ratings from my administrators. I have had several principals who regularly
  brought visitors into my class, and when we were being reevaluated by Middle
  States, instead of having two people observe me, I had something like six
  come in to see what I was doing. I am not unique in my school -- we have a
  lot of great and creative teachers, some of whom win awards such as Disney,
  others of whom get showered with gifts from their students and parents. Our
  parents, students, and administrators are happy with teachers such as me. Oh,
  and we have the highest test scores in the county (out of 21 high schools),
  not just for our science and tech students (1/3 of the student body) who are
  admitted by competitive exam, but even our non-gifted students score higher
  than students at other schools, in some cases even better than their gifted
  students.
  >
  >I have no idea what any of this is worth. But I had an hour, so I thought
  I'd share it. But since I am sitting in a Starbucks using a remote email
  program, I do not have a spell-checker, so I apologize in advance for those
  typos I cannot sight-correct.,
  >
  >Kenneth Bernstein
  >Eleanor Roosevelt HS
  >Greenbelt MD
  >
  >Kenneth J. Bernstein
  >-------------------------------------------------------
  >Subscribe ARN-L:
  >http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/subscribe.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get the NEW version of MSN Messenger with Video Conversation - it's FREE!
------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net