The Theories of Knowledge that Underpin My Teaching

Part 1: The Good (Constructivism)

Listen, we all knew this one was coming.  The constructivist perspective is a darling amongst educators.  Constructivists argue that students are active participants in the creation of knowledge, and do so while working through challenging and engaging tasks with their peers (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).  I have always been drawn to the authenticity of constructivist tasks.  They acknowledge the importance of context.  This element is often sorely lacking in mathematics instruction (my primary field).  I shudder every time I hear the mantra that “math is simple because there is always a correct answer.”  Using statistics students in my classroom have pointed out systemic racism in policing, established connections between health outcomes and vaccination rates, and examined price fixing in retail sales.  This type of learning requires a vast amount of preparation on my part as a teacher as facilitating is far more difficult for me than simply lecturing.  Overall I feel that the extra effort is worth it.

“Mr. Newman” by Christopher Michel is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

So why is there suddenly a picture of a sad looking dog inserted into this section? While a constructivist approach to teaching is (in my opinion) efficacious, it is time consuming, difficult, and requires that my students have numerous prerequisite skills.  As Ertmer and Newby (2013) pointed a constructivist approach to instruction is best suited for teaching advanced concepts and ideas, rather than baseline skills.  I find it difficult to engage my students in rich, meaningful tasks when a lot of my time is spent on plugging gaps in basic computational skills.  When I first began teaching I was certain that my classroom would be dominated by project based learning, but as my career has progressed I find myself butting up against some difficult realities.  My classroom is often filled with students struggling with English as an additional language, learning disabilities, depression, and anxiety.  The list of needs is long.  Time is often short.  I hate to admit that sometimes I take the path of least resistance.

Part 2: The Bad (Behaviorism)

“Pug in a blanket” by Matthew Henry is licensed under CC0 1.0.

While I hate to admit I have invested a great deal of time and effort into conditioning my students through response and reward mechanisms.  I came up through the education system at the height of Harry Wong’s influence (If you haven’t read “The First Days of School” here is a very short video link related to the power of procedures), and as such I have always emphasized establishing classroom norms.  I have hand in bins, cell phone holders, warm up exercises at the start of every class, a printed agenda of what will be covered, etc.  I reward those who follow the rules with praise (although I am always careful to give it out sparingly).  Behaviorists believe that learning happens when students respond properly to a given stimulus (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).  It is social programming.  It is fantastic for memorizing facts.  It breeds compliance (there is a lot to unpack in that statement).  It is totally useless at producing any sort of critical thinking, independent thought, or in depth analysis.  On the other hand it makes my life easier as a teacher.  Who doesn’t like a quiet classroom?

I can’t help but shake the feeling that it has become a crutch that I lean on too heavily.  Chaos can be a good thing in the classroom.  Spirited debate is where the students apply learning (see the section above on constructivism).  The older I have become the more I’ve moved away from doing more “out there” projects.  Is it a lack of energy?  A lack of motivation?  Maybe it is laziness.  Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t believe you will ever see Skinner’s teaching machines in my class, but you will see a lot of order.

Part 3: The Ugly (Cognitivism)

Okay, cognitivism isn’t ugly.  But why spoil a great title and literary framing device?  Also it allows me to use this delightfully homely picture of a pug dressed as Wonder Woman.

“2018 Yelloween at Sigh” by Missvain is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Breathtaking.

The structure surrounding most of my day to day teaching is aligned with cognitivist principles.  Cognitivists design and structure their lessons so information can easily be retrieved and comprehended (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).  I spend a great deal of time laying out the scope and sequence of my lessons.  I emphasize connections to previous material through review.  When starting a new unit I try to determine where each individual student is at in terms of skills, experience, and abilities.  Then there is the graphic organizers.  I have an unhealthy obsession with graphic organizers and flowcharts.  It sometimes spills into my everyday life (I once developed a t-chart on a napkin to illustrate why the 1980s Robocop was superior in almost all respects to the 2014 reboot – much to the horror of my friends).  The appeal lies in the idea of knowledge of fitting together like building blocks (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).  However this does centralize knowledge in the teacher, rather than with the students.

To wrap this up I have a question for you:

“How do you balance behaviorist tendencies with constructivist and cognitivist approaches in your own classroom?  How much control is too much control in designing your learning activities?”

Thanks for reading.