4 ms·
Perhaps I should clarify. I am not claiming that there is a superior educational philosophy. I am only claiming that in most modern educational institutions, co
by relaytheurgency 12y ago
Perhaps I should clarify. I am not claiming that there is a superior educational philosophy. I am only claiming that in most modern educational institutions, constructivism is the practiced philosophy of education and is taught to all teachers. These institutes often also hold a belief in the idea of learning modalities and, contrary to the foundations of constructivism, preach these ideas quite blindly without regard to their flimsy evidence or poor performance when put into practice.
- jfarmer 12y agoI was agreeing with you while simultaneously pointing out that you, like the folks you're criticizing, are conflating a constructivist model of learning with a handful of specific approach to teaching derived (mistakenly, IMO) from that model. Just don't throw the constructivist baby out with the bathwater. :) As a counterpoint, the Logo programming language[1] is an example of a well-executed pedagogical approach informed by constructivist thinking. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_%28programming_language%29
- relaytheurgency 12y agoYes, exactly. One can criticize a consequence of a thing without criticizing the thing itself. I did not actually criticize constructivism anywhere. One might criticize, for instance, certain aspects of US economic practice which are derived from capitalism without actually criticizing the economic theory of capitalism. It is possible (probable) that educational institutes, like governments, are merely misusing theory. I don't know why there needs to be any counterpoints, I did not criticize constructivism.