CONSTRUCTIVIST WONDERS IF THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE THIS WORKS http://forum.swarthmore.edu/nctm.standards.2000/message.taco?discussion=nctm.standards.2000.other&thread=twoustoxspo&n=1 \doc\web\98\09\ncreas.txt This is just great. Even the converted aren't even sure if this stuff works or even isn't harmful on a large untested scale. My response What the NCTM did was basically wreck math for a generation of kids. I'm about this close to pulling my kids from public school because of this garbage. Almost every performance based test with problems inspired by NCTM gives skills ranging from grades 7 to 10 to college, even compared to the states own benchmarks because "problem solving" means just about anything is game. My kid is in 1st grade, and it really ticks me off when instead of teaching then testing to see if he remembered it, he gets some impossible brain teaser which assumes he's been taught nothing about how to solve it and then see if he figures it out. This isn't teaching, it's child abuse when you give a 4th grader a high school level algebra problem and expect kids to "draw a picture" to solve it. I can solve these problems in 4 minutes because I've been taught exactly how to solve them, not because I spent weeks puzzling over "creative" approaches to problem solving. The only thing that was wrong with in-structivism is that that not all kids achieved at the 99th percentile. The fact that the kids at the top 5% were the ones that won the war against the nazis and facism, won the cold war, put a man on the moon, solved the energy crisis and completely dominated the world market for pc processors, software and aerospace, and not everybody has to know this stuff to be competititive. What you're doing is pulling the rug under the kids that used to be your top 5% when when they find they can't even hack remedial college math classes, and you make sure that NOBODY is exposed to the rigorous mathematics that is the path to places like CalTech and MIT, so you won't even have a top 5% that's any good. I came from a Chinese family that went to an average 50% percentile high school in Renton Washington that sent all 7 kids (that's seven) to MIT and Stanford on the basis of the same "faulty" curriculum as all the other kids. The idea is the same as marxism. All students can perform at the highest levels. Eliminate educational performance classes. Nice vision perhaps, but guess what ideology has led to the greatest famines in history, and 110 + million un-natural deaths in the 20th century? Guess what was the cause of an entire generation of Californians unable to read? Whole Language. This is a magnititude of failure never seen with phonics. Similarly, NCTM inspired math is resulting is truly ALL STUDENTS failing, not just the kids at the bottom. You folks need to see that this "revolution" is just as destructive as the red guards that nearly destroyed China and Russia. Even they were not foolish enough to run their education systems like their economic systems. Please, please, for the sake of the children, go back to what works. The only cases where poor minority kids do an outstanding job like Wesley in Houston and Barclay in Baltimore is on the basis of basic skills, not constructivist junk. I'll bet you constructivists can't cite even one example of an inner city predominantly minority school where constructivism has resulted in 80-90th percentile performance comparable to a rigours instructivist program. See http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm for the truth about education deform NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Author: Steve Kramer Date Posted: 7 Apr 98 12:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Sorry to be so verbose, but I there were two issues I thought should be addressed in Standards 2000, and below is the second. (My preveious post was the first issue.) Again, I forwarded this to future@NCTM.org, but would like others' comments. Subject: research behind standards 2000 Status: Folks, At the research presession, I learned that there will be a "research addendum" to the NCTM standards. I have some thoughts I wish to share: Specifically, the "research addendum" needs to address THINGS WE DON'T KNOW, as well as things we know. I recently sent a lengthy piece on a recommended "support for teachers" standard. One thing that became clear as I prepared the piece is that we don't know for sure just what kinds of support teachers need in order to implement the Standards. Somewhere, NCTM needs to admit this kind of thing forthrightly, and lay out a research agenda. Perhaps the "research addendum" is the appropriate place. On a more political issue: we really haven't PROVEN that constructivist instruction (e.g., working FROM engaging problems TO the embedded mathematics) is superior to more direct-instruction. (Probably, it would be more accurate to say "superior for some purposes", and to identify by research specifically what purposes.) We have a learning-based THEORY of how to teach, but the "backlash" folks in California really do have a point in claiming that we need more evidence of success for large-scale constructivist curricula. (The best evidence we have for constructivist teaching seems to be clinical and small-scale studies, mostly done with younger children, and cross-cultural studies, mostly done comparing Japanese and American K-8 classrooms. The "experimental" evidence is only coming out now, and is still often focused in younger grades and on a relatively small scale. Isn't it a "leap of faith" to assume that these ideas will work on a large scale, or that they'll work at all in High School? Isn't it assuming a little bit much that comparison to Japan reveals teaching methods with superior performance, when we have not yet confirmed that other high-scoring countries like Singapore use instructional methods similar to those in Japan, or that better achievement in a different culture can't be attributed to things like peer support for studying mathematics, vs. attributed to instructional differences?) I think forthrightly admitting what we have and haven't proven is important,in order to move the discussion of reforms to one based on evidence instead of ideology. I currently believe in the constructivist theory upon which the Teaching Standards are based. However, I see a desperate need for testing this theory as rigorously as possible--both because I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong, and because we will never get political acceptance of the theory without better evidence. In sum, I think it is critical that somewhere the NCTM standards project address "what we know" and "what we don't know" about teaching and learning. I've listed two issues that desparately need more research: 1)what kinds of support do teachers need to successfully implement the Teaching Standards; 2) Do large-scale implementations of the Standards produce the results we hope for--and if so, is this true for all topic areas, all student populations, and all grade levels? I'm sure others can come up with additional areas that should be addressed. Steve Kramer doctoral student (mathematics education) University of Maryland, College Park Next message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Reply to Steve Kramer Author: Jean Mitchell Date Posted: 29 Aug 98 02:13:40 -0400 (EDT) First I'd like to say I think you're right on in both your suggestions for new standards. Having said that, I just have to add that re: you second research question (or rather set of questions)--I'd lay rather long odds that any attempt to ramp up constructivist teaching methods to a large scale so we could study them on a large scale would result in no or negative results at this stage of the game, partly for the reasons you point out in your call for a standard on teacher support. Teachers don't HAVE that support, and hence aren't going to be able to do a good job of constructivist teaching just because someone decides it's a good idea, hands them a curriculum, and tells them to go to it. The whole process is going to take time, probably rather a lot of it--something we here in the US don't like to ever admit or allow for, but there it is. Teachers have to have the time to construct their own knowledge, too, just as children do in their learning process. Based on that, I think we're a long way from being in a position to be able to answer your questions, even if we turned our research energies onto it immediately. You can't investigate the effects of a phenomenon if you can't reliably produce the phenomenon. Having said that, I will also stick my neck out and say that if we could do the research, one result we'd find is that some children do better with the new methods we are devising and calling constructivist and some would do worse. I.e., not all children would benefit. I say this with confidence based on the universality and pervasiveness of individual differences, and on our lack of perfect knowledge about any form of teaching. The question for me would be what proportion would benefit and what proportion would do worse, and why are the ones who do worse doing so (so that we could find the proper constructivist methods for them, too.) It certainly is in the spirit of good science to admit what we don't know, but it's interesting to think of putting such an admission into a standards document. I wonder what it would do to the politics of the situation. Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Kramer/Constructivism Author: Zeev Wurman Date Posted: 30 Aug 98 03:52:50 -0400 (EDT) On 29 Aug 98, Jean Mitchell wrote re. Reply to Steve Kramer: > "I'd lay rather long odds that > any attempt to ramp up constructivist teaching methods to a large > scale so we could study them on a large scale would result in no or > negative results at this stage of the game, partly for the > reasons you point out in your call for a standard on teacher > support. Teachers don't HAVE that support... ... > Having said that, I will also stick my neck out and say that if we > could do the research, one result we'd find is that some children > do better with the new methods we are devising and calling > constructivist and some would do worse. I am not going to argue with the conclusions, though I disagree with the reasoning of *why* it will not work. Nevertheless, if we accept that reasoning, isn't it a clear indictment against a broad-brush application of constructivism? We *know* we will not be able to provide sufficient support for *all* teachers across the nation. And we know that not all teachers are as excellent as the selected few that run the studies. Doesn't that say clearly that we should not apply constructivism across the board as a public policy, given that the "failure mode" is worse than the current methods, while the benefits are about the same? First, do no harm... Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: constructivism as policy Author: Jean Mitchell Date Posted: 31 Aug 98 17:22:01 -0400 (EDT) On 30 Aug 98, Zeev Wurman wrote re. Re: Reply to Steve Kramer/Constructivism: > > On 29 Aug 98, Jean Mitchell wrote re. Reply to Steve Kramer: > > > "I'd lay rather long odds that > > any attempt to ramp up constructivist teaching methods to a large > > scale so we could study them on a large scale would result in no or > > negative results at this stage of the game, partly for the > > reasons you point out in your call for a standard on teacher > > support. Teachers don't HAVE that support... > ... > > Having said that, I will also stick my neck out and say that if we > > could do the research, one result we'd find is that some children > > do better with the new methods we are devising and calling > > constructivist and some would do worse. > > I am not going to argue with the conclusions, though I disagree with > the reasoning of *why* it will not work. Nevertheless, if we accept > that reasoning, isn't it a clear indictment against a broad-brush > application of constructivism? We *know* we will not be able to > provide sufficient support for *all* teachers across the nation. And > we know that not all teachers are as excellent as the selected few > that run the studies. Doesn't that say clearly that we should not > apply constructivism across the board as a public policy, given that > the "failure mode" is worse than the current methods, while the > benefits are about the same? > > First, do no harm... > A couple of responses come to mind. First, I can't resist pointing out that we have much reason to believe that "traditional", behaviorist-based math ed has done and continues to do much harm, so our choice is not between a known benign system and a risky one. It's between a known flawed system and one with hoped-for benefits and unknown risks. I see no more reason to believe that "the "failure mode" is worse than the current methods" for constructivist methods than to believe that they will be successful with everyone, in light of the known dismal results of traditional methods. (I say this based both on research and on my own 12 years of experience as a high school math teacher.) Second, I certainly believe that imposing a given version of "constructivist" teaching--curriculum and methodology--in a heavy handed way--thou shalt do it this way, never mind why--will not give us the payoff we hope for. But there are other ways for policy to develop. As it is in fact doing in many places around the country. We can encourage teachers to develop their teaching in constructivist directions, we can continue discussions of what that means and why we think it's a good idea in many forums (such as this one), we can change patterns of high-stakes external testing to better discover the consequences of both anything new we try AND of what traditional methods are and are not doing. We can even require teachers to pay attention to all this stuff. What we can't do to any good effect is mandate that they all of a sudden "do it", when many don't have any idea of what that means. Admitting we don't know everything we'd like to is not equivalent to saying we know nothing. We are trying to do something truly new under the sun--but not based only on faith or armchair reasoning. We have some pretty good research-based reasons for trying new stuff, and I think it would be a tragedy for us to cling to the old ways based on the undeniable fact that we don't know exactly what the new ways will bring. Of course we don't--they are new. I see arguments from time to time that we shouldn't change our ways until the new ways can be proven--that is, until we know what the large-scale, long-term effects will be. But how will we ever know that unless we try them on a large scale, and for some moderately long period of time? We're in a bootstrapping operation here, I think, and while we must be vigilant and try to be as sensible as we can as we make our changes, we must also be willing to suffer a bit of ambiguity and give the whole process time to come to fruition. Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Who says constructivism is benign? Author: Gary Boyle-Holmes Date Posted: 17 Oct 98 11:07:36 -0400 (EDT) I am not an advocate of constructivism or an advocate of returning to the "tried and true" methods of mathematics education. I do find it irritating when professionals take ideological stands on issues that cry out for balanced, reasoned approaces. I have seen alot of anecdotal evidence of "harm" inflicted by the new, constructivist curriculums funded by NSF; students unable to get into colleges, students who are unable to perform in college classes, etc.... I am not saying that constructivist approaches are bad, but that maybe an approach that blends the two methods would be worth examining. I find it extremely troubling to see such a wide rift in our profession and such dogmatic defenses of positions. I think that our efforts should be directed at unbiased research of all methods. Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Talk is cheap, but research isn't Author: gary Boyle-Holmes Date Posted: 20 Oct 98 17:25:55 -0400 (EDT) If you're familiar with the various math forums, you must have read the some of the same stories I have. Beyond that, I know of a local school (SW Michigan) that dropped one of the NSF programs because their graduates couldn't hack college math. I also attended a MCTM conference last year and was told by one of the people associated with the same NSF program, that kids ought to be careful about what college/university they choose or they could "have some trouble with the math." The message that initiated this whole discussion was about research. Unfortunately, most of the research that I have seen on the reform mathematics programs is initiated by the authors of the programs. This hardly seems unbiased. You ask me to site references, but without research this is difficult. I am seeking information because I have heard enough bad stories to make me leery. If you know of any unbiased research available about the various NSF programs, I'd like to know about it. Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Science and knowledge Author: Jack Jersawitz Date Posted: 9 Sep 98 03:16:00 -0400 (EDT) Yes indeedy! Let's have a little science with our constructivism. The admission that one is a believer in constructivism is in fact very valuable. Much like believing in science and god. When believers are asked to prove there is a god they point to the surrounding environs and ask "Who created all this. This is the evidence." My response inevitably is that sort of assertion of proof is a non-sequitor. Mybe the devil created it. Now we have someone who "believe[s]" in constructivism but is aware that there is insufficient data to support it. Perhaps he ought to look at the error of belief, of ideology as opposed to science. The scientific method does not begin with sucking an idea (ideology) out of your thumb and then seeking data to support it. Rather it starts with hypotheses drawn from data and tested experimentally. What data led to constructivism? Very good, someone who believes in constructivism but wants, backwards looking, the data to support it. Lots of folks believe in god but no one can supply the data, outside of non-sequitors or faith, to support said belief. Lets start at the other end. Do any data say that a hundred years of traditional math instruction, methodologically was bad? When did this problem of poor education, not just math, arise, or at least enter our consciousness? Let's have a little science here! Or perhaps bring in the Jesuits who at least taught good rigorous critical thinking and turned out, therefore, not a few atheists. Three cheers for our constructivist, but uncomfortable, agnostic. Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: Constructivism a pedagogical method? Author: Howard L. Hansen Date Posted: 18 Oct 98 11:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Since when did Constructivism become a pedagogical method? I thought it was a learning theory (epistemological or post-epistemological) that simply put says that "all knowledge is constructed by the learner." Students construct knowledge whether the input is "traditional" or "situated", whether instruction is direct or discovery or concept-attainment, etc. The only question is which methods help children and adults to construct "strong" edifices which enhance transfer and are robust. There is a great deal of evidence that much of the common instruction which takes place in most mathematics classrooms (what some refer to as traditional--you know, you go in, the teacher goes over the homework, mainly exercises designed to reinforce procedural knowledge and skills, the teacher does 2 or 3 examples of the new skill or procedure and the studetns are assigned 30 or so exercises dealing with that skill and/or a review of past exercises) gets students to construct knowledge which is tenuous and often non-trnsferable. There is some evidence that methodolgies which provide context and meaning for content are more robust. Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: FACTS, DATA, ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA AND CAUSES Author: Jack Jersawitz Date Posted: 21 Oct 98 01:28:02 -0400 (EDT) It becomes clear reading these pages that no one has any actual data as to what happened around what looks to be the '60's that apparently led to scoring degredation, not only in math but all across the board. As a person given to thinking scientifically it is therefore dead wrong to come up with a new, or a new-new, method of teaching anything, much less something as basic and critical as math. Solutions directed at curing apparent failures, when in fact you you have not the data to determine where and what the failure was, or if in fact there was a failure other than one directed at following what probably was a change in the nature of the input material, i.e., living, breathing, students, are, to say the least, completely unscientific and like all idealist notions, likely to lead to great damage. Some of this constructivist stuff, like "students create their own knowlege" is pure idealist crap. Knowlege has a history as do theorys of knowlege and that stuff is not created by anyone alone, much less a student or even students. The other little bit about some sort of innate (Perhaps genetic) math capability, is pure insanity. Scientists start with empiricly gathered data which is then meshed with previous data that has been developed into theories upon which practice has been established, with bad theories, gaging by practice, being modified to more closely resemble what actually is reflected by new data based on practice, or if the theory is really bad, kicking it out completely. Anybody here got any data, not created by folks with a vested interest, or out of testing designed by supporters of constructivism, that this constructivism actually enhances math education? In a previous response I pointed out, or rather sought to illuminate what one "believe[r]" in constructivism was seeking to do, i.e., justify constructivism after the fact, precisely an anti-scientific, pragmatic way of thinking. Jack Jersawitz Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: facts, data and lack of information Author: Victor Steinbok Date Posted: 21 Oct 98 02:43:57 -0400 (EDT) Jack Jersawitz wrote: JJ> As a person given to thinking scientifically it is therefore dead wrong to come up with a new, or a new-new, method of teaching anything, much less something as basic and critical as math. I am glad to see someone whishes to apply scientific thinking to this issue. However, the actual claim here is absurd, since the current teaching methods are strongly rooted in relatively recent theories and we should be "thankful" to Thorndike (1922) for bringing standardized testing into the classroom. "Traditional" teaching has undergone drastic changes roughly every 100 years globally and every 20-25 years over the past century inthe US. JJ> Solutions directed at curing apparent failures, when in fact you you have not the data to determine where and what the failure was, or if in fact there was a failure other than one directed at following what probably was a change in the nature of the input material, i.e., living, breathing, students, are, to say the least, completely unscientific and like all idealist notions, likely to lead to great damage. The failures are not apparent--they are perceptually obvious. There is plenty of documented data on the variety and pervasiveness of failures. The issue is to establish direct and indirect causes in addition to the ones already discovered. JJ> Some of this constructivist stuff, like "students create their own knowlege" is pure idealist crap. How very scientific of you. I often wonder why people with no data or reasoning to back up their opinions scream the loudest about the lack of data in something they object to. A few choice proverbs come to mind. And perhaps a quote or two from Shakespeare. JJ> Knowlege has a history as do theorys of knowlege and that stuff is not created by anyone alone, much less a student or even students. You might want to consult actual research, like Van Lehn's Mind Bugs before making any sweeping claims. JJ> The other little bit about some sort of innate (Perhaps genetic) math capability, is pure insanity. Scientists start with empiricly gathered data which is then meshed with previous data that has been developed into theories upon which practice has been established, with bad theories, gaging by practice, being modified to more closely resemble what actually is reflected by new data based on practice, or if the theory is really bad, kicking it out completely. They also start with their own experiences and learning as a foundation on which to build new theories. You cannot create a new metaphor without a referent. Where would Franklin's ideas of electricity be had he not relied on a familiar metaphor? How could you have a wave/particle nature of light debate if everyone had the same empirical data and theoretical foundations? And how could this ever evolve into wave/particle duality? How could anyone wome up with a non-Euclidean geometry if all the experiences and theories were based on Euclidean notions? Where would these people get their ideas? JJ> Anybody here got any data, not created by folks with a vested interest, or out of testing designed by supporters of constructivism, that this constructivism actually enhances math education? Have you any data that were not created from tests written by supporters of positivism and/or behaviorism? When you do, let's talk. JJ> In a previous response I pointed out, or rather sought to illuminate what one "believe[r]" in constructivism was seeking to do, i.e., justify constructivism after the fact, precisely an anti-scientific, pragmatic way of thinking. Be careful of unsupported accusations of someone else being "unscientific". VS-) Next message on this topic Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu NCTM Standards 2000 Discussion Area NCTM Standards 2000 Discussions Page || Sign up for notification of new postings Search Standards 2000 Discussions Message in Discussion Other Issues on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Subject: FACTS, DATA, ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA AND CAUSES Author: Steve Jystad Date Posted: 22 Oct 98 16:46:28 -0400 (EDT) Jack Jersawitz, in his calm, understated way has written: JJ> 'Some of this constructivist stuff, like "students create their own knowledge" is pure idealist crap. Knowledge has a history as do theor[ie]s of knowledge and that stuff is not created by anyone alone, much less a student or even students.' Perhaps the following distinction is in order: There are two uses of the word 'knowledge' in the above. The first use can be represented in set form as: knowledge = {All things known by an individual student at a given time} The second can be represented as: knowledge = {All things known and/or recorded by humans everywhere} The first form is used in the statement about students constructing their own knowledge. When the word 'knowledge' is used in this way, the basic statement about what constructivism is can be rephrased as: Students create structures in their brains that represent the facts, relationships, communication tools, etc., that they have assimilated from their surroundings. These surroundings, of course, include their instructor's best efforts in the classroom. This, to a scientist seems perfectly reasonable. It mearly suggests that mechanisms in the brain create structures in the brain that allow us to remember, interpret, and organize information, in short, to 'know'. A brief search of research on brain damage victims would bear this out: if a part of a brain gets damaged then part of the operation of the brain, including memory (where we 'know' things) can be affected, or even destroyed. The second form of knowledge appears to be what M. Jersawitz wishes to push onto the definition of constructivism. To this I have one reply: OF COURSE EACH STUDENTS DOES NOT CONSTRUCT ALL OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE! (They do construct some. After all, what is a Ph.D. candidate but a student adding to the sum of human knowledge?) There are, of couse proponents of particular pedigogical methods including those who support newer methods of teaching. Unfortunately, these proponents often claim or imply that thier particular method (including the NCTM Standards) is (IS) constructivism. What they should rather state is that their method will be more effective than other methods at enabling students to construct the desired structures in the students' brains. It is the claim of effectiveness of a particular instructional method that needs to be supported here in education. For support of constructivism, look to well designed and conducted experiments in neuroscience and psychology. Previous message on this topic Back to messages on topic Research: admitting what we DON'T know and NEED TO KNOW Post a reply Post a message on a new topic Suggestion Box || Home || The Collection || Help Desk || Quick Reference || Search The Math Forum webmaster@forum.swarthmore.edu