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