Many aspects of the school depicted in the Simpson’s episode “Bart the Genius” exemplify the extreme oversimplification of constructivism that Airasian and Walsh discuss in their article. These oversimplifications can include no prescribed curriculum, unstructured learning, and students doing and learning what they want when they want. The guidance counselor refers to Bart’s new school as “a school without walls or rules.” Airasian and Walsh (1997) would be critical of this depiction of constructivism. They caution teachers; “do not believe that the opposite of ‘one right answer’ reductionism is ‘anything goes’ constructivism” (p. 488). While this dichotomous depiction of traditional versus constructivist education helps to draw a distinction between the two school environments in this episode, the true relationship between constructivism and education is much more complicated. Allowing a student to make up his or her own meaning does not necessarily mean that all learning is unstructured.
While the overall depiction is oversimplified, there are some examples of constructivism’s more practical applications in this episode as well. The instructor-led discussion of free will shows the constructivist approach of each student demonstrating their own understanding of free will and the concept of paradox. The teacher identifying herself as a “learning coordinator” also defines the constructivist role of the teacher as “to guide, not tell” (Arasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 448). Throughout the episode, the teacher is not providing the immediate reinforcement that we found in Skinner’s behaviorist approach; instead, she is merely providing a venue for the students to construct their own understanding. This is illustrated in the discussion mentioned above as well as the chemistry lesson where Bart is left to create his own solutions. He quickly learns (and will probably not soon forget) what happens when you mix an acid and a base.
Earlier in the episode, Bart is asked to visualize a math problem on his aptitude test. We see a very lively illustration of this math problem in Bart’s head, which demonstrates how Bart is thinking about the problem. This provides a good example for teachers of how some students may process their math problems. It is pretty obvious within a short period of time that Bart is not making sense of all the numbers in the problem, indicating that this type of problem is clearly outside of his actual development level. This information would be helpful to the instructor in trying to gauge whether or not this type of problem is within Bart’s zone of proximal development. This also illustrates the ability to “tell when children were seeing things differently” (Duckworth, 1996, p. 4). If this example had come up in the context of a class instead of a test, Bart’s teacher may have been able to better ascertain his level of understanding through his descriptions or depictions of the math problem.
For me, this is an area where a constructivist approach is especially helpful in the classroom. Having students explain a concept in their own words not only provides a means for assessing their level of understanding, but I think that it also promotes a deeper understanding of the material itself. Understanding a reading passage is one thing; being able to explain it in a way that those who have not read the passage are able to understand and connect to it is another, and requires a different level of understanding for the student.
References:
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E., (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.
Duckworth, E. (1996). "The Having of Wonderful Ideas" and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment