"The two principles, freedom and discipline, are not antagonists, but should be so adjusted in the child’s life that they correspond to a natural sway, to and fro, of the developing personality."
~Alfred North Whitehead
Our whole American culture seems to be in two separate camps over so many issues, amplified by the instantaneous national news media. In the education field, there is the instructivist/constructivist divide, each side totally sure that they possess the final truth. Statistics are skewed to whatever a particular group wants to represent. Examples are cherry-picked in order to prove a point. Rather than discuss and collaborate, there is finger-pointing and one-sided presentations.
Statement: Sanctimonious, self-righteous behavior is part of the problem. There is a need for real and well-thought-out conversations with those with whom we disagree.
We have to be careful with sound bites. Let's take one that's close to home and has had a long run: "It's all about the learning." I sense that the slogan has been very valuable in pointing out the emphasis on engaging student learning, but the problem - as I see it - is that the slogan has not been examined completely. I suspect there just might be some confusion. What does it actually mean? Slogans will only take us so far. It is time for clarity.
Of course, we all know that technology is not just hardware and software. It is also human ideas and inventions of all sorts. It is a structure or form which allows us to create and construct. Sometimes there is confusion in distinguishing the difference between didactic teaching and directed teaching. Teaching applications is seen by some as didactic teaching in a traditional "sage-on-the-stage" manner. A very narrow view, in my humble opinion.
To me, the idea that it is an either/or decision is incorrect. It is a completely false dichotomy. Instructivism and constructivism need each other. The issue is whether a tool is taught with application to real problems . . . or not. Basic skills need to be learned somehow, whether that be "just-in-case" or "just-in-time". My personal preference is "just-in-time" but I don't question that the skills are necessary.
If I have a music teacher who teaches me only notes and scales on my clarinet and never allows me the opportunity to create and perform, then that is not a good use of "technology." But if am able to make use of the skills, drills, and wisdom that the teacher gave me. . . to strut my stuff, then we have success.
On the other hand, suppose the football coach doesn't teach me the tools and disciplines necessary to play good football. Do you suppose we will have a chance of winning the game?
If we have a computer lab where the teacher only teaches computer parts and programs, etc., with no connection to solving real problems, then we have a problem. If, however, the teacher teaches the tools and at the same time engages the kids with possibilities and has them create products that relate to their lives, then we have good stuff happening.
Teaching tools opens up opportunities to create. Instructivism and constructivism can co-exist . . . in fact must both be part of a good pedagogy. Creation without form leads to chaos. Form without freedom leads to boredom and apathy.
Final assertion: Good teachers use some combination of both. Better that we disagree on the best combination and the relative placement in the lesson plan and/or curriculum than the actual need for both.
Here are some links:
Constructivism Resources
http://region6.mainelearns.org/Constructivism.htmlInstructivism Resources
http://region6.mainelearns.org/instructivism.html
Constructivism, Instructivism, and Related SitesGrappling's Technology & Learning Spectrum
http://www.bjpconsulting.com/files/MAPPSpectrum.pdfAgree? Disagree? Your thoughts? :)
