Chanelle LaCross
Seminar II - Dr. Baldwin
Due: Tuesday, November 4th 2003

Constructivist Critical Analysis
(Task 4-A)

      Constructivism is an inquiry-based theory of education which came about through actual scientific studies of how people learn. The basis of constructivism is that knowledge is not just facts you memorize, but it is understandings which we construct through real-life experiences. They say that when we are confronted with new knowledge, we do one of three things with it. We either use the knowledge to disprove prior conceptions, use the knowledge to build more complex understandings of something we already knew or we simply disregard the new knowledge as completely worthless. In a constructivist classroom, the student is in charge of their learning and the teachers serve more as facilitators, asking questions and leading his/her students toward their own discovery.

      Constructivism is different than traditional education in many ways. The first and most controversial difference is the absence of formal testing. Constructivists believe that students learn through their eight multiple intelligences (musical, mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic) and therefore, hold strong to the belief that some students are simply not good test-takers and just because a student fails a test does not mean that they did not understand the material. Rather than administer standardized tests, a constructivist teacher would assess their students' comprehension through other means such as presentations, projects, experiments, etc. Another major difference is the role of a teacher in a constructivist classroom compared to that of a traditional teacher. In a traditional classroom, the teacher is the source of all knowledge. What s/he says is the law. Most class time is spent memorizing facts and formulas and the rest is devoted to drilling exercises to get students into a routine of using all those facts/formulas that have been engraved so deeply into their minds. On the flip side, a constructivist teacher's main goal is to engage their students as active learners in the classroom. Constructivists try hard to relate what is going on in their classroom, to what is going on out in the real world and more importantly, in the students' environment. S/he tries to lead students in the direction of discovery by asking questions. Often, they will draw connections between the new material and past experiences that his/her students may have had. I believe that the main objective of constructivist teaching is to rekindle the students' natural curiosity about the world, by attempting to make learning fun and interesting again.

       Constructivism is still 'new' in the world of education and there are many critics of the theory. Some claim that constructivism and other 'progressive' theories of education are only effective for students from 'privileged' backgrounds; arguing that students form disadvantaged homes lack the resources necessary to make constructivism work. Personally, I don't understand why, in education, people are so quick to divide students according to their financial status. Household income has absolutely nothing to do with a student's intelligence and I wish it was not such an important factor. Some critics also believe that the collaborative/social nature of constructivism can easily lead to 'group think'. Group think is basically a psychological theory that in a setting where an entire group is agreeing to one thing, the individual is likely to bite their own tongue, deny their own beliefs and proceed with the group. The presence of the other people creates a sense of peer pressure on the individual to conform. Now, this is a valid argument. Group projects are a major part of a constructivist classroom and as we all know, some students are more social than others. The shier students are very likely to be withdrawn from the activity and over-powered by the rest of his/her group.

       Personally, I like the ideals of constructivism, but I am not completely convinced that it is an effective method of teaching. I see too many places where it could fail. First is their absence of formal testing. As much as I agree that tests are not the only (or most accurate) way to assess student comprehension, I do understand that standardized tests are a fact of life. If a student wants to apply to colleges, they have to take the SAT's and once they get into college, they have to take a placement exam. I don't see these standardized tests going away anytime soon, so I think it is best that we prepare our students for what lies ahead. Constructivists bring up a good point when they say that students learn best through real-life experiences. The idea of assigning more group work, projects and presentations is great. It allows students to express their learning through all different aspects of their eight multiple intelligences and it is fun. But, I think it is best to use such assignments as a means of reinforcing material that you have already taught. Face it, projects take time and in the classroom, time is precious! To teach every single lesson in your entire curriculum with a project or activity like this would really waste a lot of that valuable time.