This article is well timed for us Aspire folks, as we have our Constructivist-Direct Instruction debate pending for next Monday in Ed Psych, and this opinion article is decidedly Direct Instruction oriented. The author (who, by the way, is not a teacher) speaks very strongly against the "fad" of Differentiated Instruction, siting the lack of classroom based research and inefficiency feedback from educators he spoke with. When you take pure constructivism from an extreme approach, it is certainly inefficient - teachers attempting multiple lesson plans for each classroom, chaotic assignment structure, unbalanced testing. I must apply my personal life motto to this ideal: "everything in moderation." Sure, if you try to create lessons for each student learning type, with different worksheets and tests to boot, your life beyond the classroom ceases to exist, swamped with extra work. But I do believe that using a constructivist, differentiated instruction approach is not only possible, but enriching when used in moderation.
You don't need multiple plans - but you should incorporate flexible methods in your curriculum. For example, as a science teacher, when teaching a unit on the periodic table of elements, the direct instruction approach would be to present the table, set students to memorization, then have a test. Using the differentiated instructionalist approach, the teacher could begin with a box of varying materials, have the students organize them based on properties and qualities (oranges are round, medium sized; grapefruits are round, larger sized, etc), then present the similarities to the period table's structure. The teacher could then have students fill in a table themselves based on the elements' properties (have them collaborate in small groups) and later compare with the actual table to see how they did. The lesson is streamlined, but includes multiple learning types so all students' ability levels and learning styles are included.
Differentiated Instruction is easily possible, it just requires some creativity on the teacher's part. With the Internet as a resource, even teachers who aren't necessarily naturally creative can locate exciting activities to incorporate into their lesson plans.
So, you raise an exemplary question:
ReplyDeleteCan one be a constructivist if the outcome is predicated in advance?
Great stuff.
R
ReplyDeleteGood ideas, re the science teacher. I'll give them a try.
Neil, I'm a little confused. Could you explain your statement as it related to Robins post.
Steve said something similar when we had a discussion last week.
Mike, consider these two statements:
ReplyDelete1. Constructivism helps my student learn exactly what I want them to learn.
2. I am afraid of using constructivism because my students might learn something that I had not intended.
Which aligns more closely with how you understand constructivism?
(Thanks for the rental space, Robin)