Does Constructivism Exist? (John Dewey)
Regular Edspresso readers know "John Dewey" is working towards certification as a math teacher. Click for his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth columns. As always, he prefers to remain anonymous. -ed.
Greetings for the New Year to my many fans and paparazzi who gave me a ticker tape parade down the main street of my town for my performance in my Math Teaching Methods class. In the afterglow of celebration and in between semesters I am getting reading for my next class: Human Development and Learning. I am a bit concerned about one aspect of the course as described in the syllabus:
“The course examines the processes and theories that provide a basis for understanding the learning process. Particular attention is given to constructivist theories and practices of learning, the role of symbolic competence as a mediator of learning, understanding, and knowing, and the facilitation of critical thinking and problem solving.”
OK, it may be another long haul, but I am happy to say that my stint in ed school so far has taught me superior vomiting suppression skills.
The issue of constructivism is a perplexing one. For example, Jay Mathews, the Washington Post reporter who writes the “Class Struggle” column, addressed this in his book of the same name. Calling John Dewey a “squishy brained dreamer,” he states, “I have yet to observe a teacher who is not putting considerable emphasis on specific information and skills…If you know of a study that shows that Dewey’s principles are actually practiced in any serious way in many American classrooms, I would like to see it, because it conflicts with what I have found.”
Mathews’ statement indeed seemed to be the case when, during our last session with Mr. NCTM, we each reported on our observations of actual math classes—we had to log in 15 hours of field observations as part of the course. We all reported on classes that were traditional desks-in-a-row, teacher-at-the-board in front, and lessons derived from the textbook.
Mr. NCTM was disappointed. So was our one and only future constructivist of the class. Like others in the class, he teaches under a provisional license. Not only did he not see any constructivist-type lessons, he did not have the time to conduct any such inquiry-based lessons in his own classes. “I keep thinking that there are more things I can do to make math interesting for my students,” he said sadly. “I think I should talk to other teachers and get some constructivist lessons going by collaborating. But at the end of the day, I’m so exhausted I can’t think about collaborating. In fact, I don’t want to talk to anyone.” This left him no choice, he lamented, but “to resort to the text book. And then you curse yourself.”
Thus, being forced to rely on textbooks—viewed only as sources of low-level algorithmic type exercises per Dr. Cangelosi (see here)—as the curriculum caused the budding class constructivist great Weltschmerz.
In my case, I observed classes for gifted students, taught in the traditional manner, using Dolciani’s “Algebra: Structure and Method” as the text. The middle school I visited is known for producing students who qualify for a very prestigious math and science high school, entrance into which requires getting a good score on an entrance exam. Most of the graduates of that high school end up in math, the sciences or engineering—a high percentage at MIT. My observations were that students seemed to find the “low-level” textbook problems challenging. Judging by their success in high school and beyond, such work did not seem to hinder development of their “higher order thinking skills”. When I made my presentation I stated that students were guided to discover key concepts, but I could tell Mr. NCTM was disappointed.
Such disappointment—and Jay Mathews’ confident statement—did make me wonder if constructivism exists only as a theory in ed school. Do we really have nothing to worry about? I knew this couldn’t be true; it was evident that Mr. NCTM had practiced such techniques and has seen others use them.
I think Mr. Mathews is partly right and perhaps for the reasons lamented by my woe-be-gone constructivist classmate. How one defines “constructivism” is another matter; some may make a case that no “true constructivist” teaching has ever been seen. Let’s just call it inquiry-based unguided discovery for now. What I think is happening is that the NCTM has embodied the inquiry-based life sought out by ed school/Dewey apostles, and embedded them in their standards. The textbooks that have grown out of them (thanks to NSF funding) force classrooms to adhere to the constructivist non-think ethic whether they like it or not.
Thus, in the K-6 and middle school settings in which programs like Investigations in Number, Data and Space, Everyday Math, and Connected Math Program are used, you will see what Mr. NCTM was expecting us to report on. In high school, unless texts such as IMP and Core Plus are used, you will not see much constructivist teaching. In the area where I live, the middle and high school NSF-funded programs are not used, which may account for our not observing the Magical Mystery Tour so sought out by ed schools.
Another reason not to believe that this theory is not in practice is that I hear from many people about students being given problems for which they have not been given prior knowledge or information in order to solve. Or about “student-centered learning”. In fact, I just read about the latter from none other than Jay Mathews in an article he wrote about the history of Montessori schools. In it, he talks about the “Montessori emphasis on putting students rather than teachers in charge of learning” which sounds suspiciously like constructivism. He talks about how Montessori schools are creeping into the mainstream including primary grade public schools. The tenor of the article is a bit different than what he said earlier about “squishy brained” John Dewey.
Perhaps it’s time to help out Mr. Mathews. He sounds confused; let’s help him. Jay makes his email known and recently did so in his most recent column. It is [email protected]. Why don’t you honor his request to hear about schools that use Dewey’s principles? It would help future constructivists feel better too.
In ceaseless unguided inquiry, I remain,
Faithfully Yours,
John Dewey
Comments
Join the conversation
Bravo for you. Keep calling it the way you see it!
I just want you to know I laughed right outloud when I read your comment, “I am happy to say that my stint in ed school so far has taught me superior vomiting suppression skills.”
Bravo for calling it what it is and what a person with a brain has to do to get through ed classes!
Yes, that’s right I don’t think anybody has a brain who takes ed stuff seriously.
I’m reading about Constructivism in EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 06/07, a friend of mind is getting certified, and all I can say is that ya might need more than just the superior vomiting suppression skills to get through some of these articles.
BTW I attened a solid grad school (NYU)and as a requirement of my fellowship was required to take Ed courses. Damn near got myself thrown out of the program for scarcastically disagreeing with the Professor.(I had to apologize!!) That was thirty five years ago! Today I think education departments have gone down hill since then.
I loved teaching and still do (as an adjunct in a Community college) but I couldn’t stand anything dealing with ed. departments. And after 13 years on the secondary level I took my retirement plan (of peanuts) and went into counseling full time. Best decision I ever made.
I wish you luck in your future career –
Maya
Let me see if I understand the gist of the arguments here between various people including a high school math teacher who doesn’t mind constructivism “once in a while”, and Jay Mathews of the Washington Post:
The curriculum doesn’t matter, since no program is all things to all children or teachers, and good teachers never hold true to only one program, they always mix and match materials and programs.
Since there’s so little hard evidence much less definitive research on what really gets taught with what programs (in and outside the classroom) at the elementary level (or any level) we can all stay comfortably wedded to our differing opinions on what is reality and what is myth and what is ideology
Unless and until teachers in large numbers speak up – those who remain ignorant including powerful members of the press may stay so.
Until such time, I remain, faithfully yours,
Elizabeth Carson
Executive Director, NYCHOLD
Westchester County, New York? The first person I asked when I saw this message (New Rochelle) answered “no.”
Here in Westchester, I don’t a single school that is not using one of the NSF-funded textbooks.
Not one!
Thank you, Mr. Mathews for your comment and for visiting us here in lowly blog-land from the airy reaches of the Washington Post. I fear I did not make myself very clear. Constructivism IS alive and well in classrooms which use materials informed by such philosophy. The Dewey/ed school philosophy infused the NCTM standards, which were then embraced by the NSF which funded the development of math texts/programs which embodied such principles. Look at any classroom which uses Everyday Mathematics, Investigations in Number, Data and Space, CMP, Core Plus, or IMP. My point was that when teachers are given decent textbooks, the constructivism practiced is on the other end of the spectrum as alluded to in the last paragraph of my comment.
…except where the constructivism is enforced with a “constructivist curriculum”
Minus that, teachers who learn constructivist techniques will hardly do more than I do, add them in here and there, where they seem to fit. Frankly, the occasional activity, the occasional discovery lesson, they can be memorable. So what if we spent 35 minutes instead of 10 on establishing some geometric relationship, as long as 1) the result sticks better, and 2) it is an occasional, rather than regular, change in routine.
I liked this posting a great deal, since it spelled my name right and spoke the truth: I am often confused, particularly on this matter. To date, however, I have not received a single email with any real world constructivist examples in response to the ghostly John Dewey’s kind suggestion. (Montessori would certainly qualify as constructivist, and I should have said that in the piece cited.) You might check out the new David Labaree book, which argues that we need not fear constructivism in ed schools because, as far as he the ed school professor can see, their constructivist lessons have not survived in schools ruled by traditionalist teachers and by new teachers’ memories of their being taught as children in a traditional way.
Left to their own devices, teachers will for the most part rely on traditional methods of teaching. Constructivism in its various manifestations comes into play when teachers are forced to use texts and programs that have been developed and informed by the constructivist philosophy. These include many of the NSF-funded curricula such as Everyday Math, Investigations, and CMP. These are for the lower grades. For high school, the NSF-funded, constructivist-based programs are IMP, Core Plus, ARISE and MMOW. Since there is more use of such constructivist-based programs in the lower grades than high school, there is therefore less constructivist type classrooms in high school. Where I reside, middle and high schools don’t use such materials which may account for why none of us witnessed any such lessons.
Both Cangelosi in his text book and Mr. NCTM in class urge for constructivist type lessons in addition to the traditional ones. There was some naysaying in the textbook and from Mr. NCTM on traditional based lessons; Cangelosi in fact alludes to these in a manner to suggest they are a “necessary evil” in order to gain the practice on those low-level algorithmic skills. The subtext of such admonition is that “higher order thinking skills” are what teachers should aim for, and that constructivist lessons are designed for that.
As I have indicated in previous columns, the cnstructivist lessons we have talked about or seen in videos do not really supplement anything. And in fact, whatever is questionably accomplished in the 45 minutes or so of such lesson could be accomplished more effectively in about 15 to 20 minutes using direct instruction techniques.
There is some dispute about what constructivism really means, with the gray area being that even in direct instructional methods, teachers exhort students to answer questions, and make leaps. The difference is that sufficient information is given so that students can use that to establish a pattern and make the next step. Starting from scratch and constructing knowledge out of whole cloth, (such as the lesson I discussed for finding the formula for the interior angles of a complex polygon), is inefficient and largely ineffective.
“The trouble comes when these roles are reversed and constructivist stuff is the primary material as is almost the rule now.”
As is almost the rule? Maybe 20% of districts. Maybe. Probably less than that at the secondary level where teachers are quicker to object to loss of content. (Unfortunately they are disproportionately pushed into the larger districts that were doing lousy.)
But no, not it’s not almost the rule. Not in this state (NY) and not, afaik, in CT or NJ.
“We take a traditional curriculum and add lots of “interesting stuff” (discovery lessons, connections, even games, lots of off-topic problem solving) as it fits. In fact, we use the Structure and Method books that get a mention above.”
That sounds great: Constructivist stuff used to supplement. That should be its role.
The trouble comes when these roles are reversed and constructivist stuff is the primary material as is almost the rule now. Then airily declaring oneself above labels becomes a luxury.
We take a traditional curriculum and add lots of “interesting stuff” (discovery lessons, connections, even games, lots of off-topic problem solving) as it fits. In fact, we use the Structure and Method books that get a mention above.
There’s nothing wrong with the constructivist stuff, lots of it is great — where it belongs, when it belongs, while being careful not to sacrifice the structure and content of a traditional course.
People who identify as “constructivist” or “anti-constructivist,”I don’t know. I think experienced teachers are more concerned with teaching than with the label. And frankly, those who throw around the labels, as badges of pride, or as epithets, tend to be newer teachers or professors (ed or otherwise) without much (or any) experience in school classrooms.
Thanks for the clarification from the Montessori parent. I stand corrected, and would like to hear from others who are familiar with the Montessori method as well.
The Montessori model is hardly constructivist. Students are not permitted to use materials until they have been given a very direct lesson in how the materials are used. Montessori is student-centered in that each student progresses through the curriculum at their own pace, mastering one lesson before moving to the next. Students are also given freedom to structure their work time. While they must complete their daily work plan, they may elect to start with math or geography or anything else. Teachers act as facilitators, ensuring that students understand the lessons and cover all the subject areas. Student-centered, yes, but by no means constructivist.
Two things, Michael.
-In response to your comment elsewhere that I “lacked the intellectual honesty to post the critique [you] sent of this column”: if you’re talking to me as opposed to John Dewey, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have searched my junk mail folder to see if you got caught by the spam filter by accident, and found nothing from you. I have searched the blog’s comment archives, and I can’t find a single unpublished comment from you. If you would like to respond to Mr. Dewey in a separate article, feel free to e-mail me your remarks and I’ll definitely take a look at them.
-I don’t mind spirited or heated discussion in our comment threads, but we don’t pay for bandwidth for people to engage in profanity. Keep it clean, or the block is on.
“What a pompous, ignorant a**” (rest of your pointless diatribe deleted).
Aren’t you an intelligent soul, and so very good at putting forth an intelligent argument, too. You must be a humanities or ed major.
What a pompous, ignorant a**. You don’t understand the slightest thing about what constructivism is (a theory of learning, not of teachinng), you conflate it with every other progressive idea in education you dislike, and you continue to write a blog in which you are a hero, while the “poor” professors who you are stuck with don’t know a thing about education. Why bother to complete your certification? You should be raised to the highest level of the educational pantheon simply based on your own bloated egotism. Or why not do yourself and several generations of students a favor and go right to Fox News: you can be the Ann Coulter of education, though I bet your legs aren’t as good.