Stories & Grievances
Constructivism Does Not Work
Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education
Throughout District 2 (Tony Alvarado's 'miracle')in Manhattan several years ago and now all across
the United States, school administrators are changing the nature of teaching and learning. A small
group of very wealthy (read"powerful") people are implementing programs that are based upon the assumption that each child needs to construct his/her own learning experience in order to understand what he/she is supposed to learn. Teachers donot tell students anything, but must guide them in seeing something useful for themselves.
In "Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education" we read that this form of learning does not work. So why are so many school administrators, and Principals so determined to implement constructivist policies?
p. 12:
"When, for whatever reason, students cannot construct the knowledge for themselves, they need some instruction. The argument that knowledge must be constructed is very similar to the earlier arguments that discovery learning is superior to direct instruction. In point of fact, there is very little positive evidence for discovery learning and it is often inferior (e.g., Charney, Reder & Kusbit, 1990). Discovery learning, even when successful in acquiring the desired construct, may take a great deal of valuable time that could have been spent practicing this construct if it had been instructed.
Because most of the learning in discovery learning only takes place after the construct has been
found, when the search is lengthy or unsuccessful, motivation commonly flags. As Ausubel (1968) wrote,
summarizing the findings from the research on discovery learning twenty-five years ago:
'actual examination of the research literature allegedly supportive
of learning by discovery reveals that valid evidence of this nature
is virtually nonexistent. It appears that the various enthusiasts of
the discovery method have been supporting each other research-wise by
taking in each other's laundry, so to speak, that is, by citing each
other's opinions and assertions as evidence and by generalizing
wildly from equivocal and even negative findings.' (p. 497-498)"
The report, in PDF form.
the United States, school administrators are changing the nature of teaching and learning. A small
group of very wealthy (read"powerful") people are implementing programs that are based upon the assumption that each child needs to construct his/her own learning experience in order to understand what he/she is supposed to learn. Teachers donot tell students anything, but must guide them in seeing something useful for themselves.
In "Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education" we read that this form of learning does not work. So why are so many school administrators, and Principals so determined to implement constructivist policies?
p. 12:
"When, for whatever reason, students cannot construct the knowledge for themselves, they need some instruction. The argument that knowledge must be constructed is very similar to the earlier arguments that discovery learning is superior to direct instruction. In point of fact, there is very little positive evidence for discovery learning and it is often inferior (e.g., Charney, Reder & Kusbit, 1990). Discovery learning, even when successful in acquiring the desired construct, may take a great deal of valuable time that could have been spent practicing this construct if it had been instructed.
Because most of the learning in discovery learning only takes place after the construct has been
found, when the search is lengthy or unsuccessful, motivation commonly flags. As Ausubel (1968) wrote,
summarizing the findings from the research on discovery learning twenty-five years ago:
'actual examination of the research literature allegedly supportive
of learning by discovery reveals that valid evidence of this nature
is virtually nonexistent. It appears that the various enthusiasts of
the discovery method have been supporting each other research-wise by
taking in each other's laundry, so to speak, that is, by citing each
other's opinions and assertions as evidence and by generalizing
wildly from equivocal and even negative findings.' (p. 497-498)"
The report, in PDF form.