Used in a reasonable way, Constructivism is just a fancy word for the Socratic method, where students talk their way into discovering new insights. Here's the ideal scenario. A group of students, by discussion and argument, with little nudges from a teacher, discover a destination they did not know existed. When educators promote Constructivism, they usually paint this happy picture.



The trouble is, our educators don't know when to stop. In its more common form, the theory of Constructivism insists that authentic education occurs in only one way: children must construct their own new knowledge. Meanwhile, teachers can no longer teach (i.e., be a sage on a stage). They must guide from the side or, better still, prompt from the back of the room. Trouble is, this process unfolds slowly and, due to time constraints, concentrates on a few topics while ignoring many others of equal value.

Worst of all, Constructivism demands that classes be organized in just the prescribed way. Before you know it, curricula must be rewritten, books tossed out, schools and classrooms redesigned, and the training and responsibilities of teachers overhauled. Thus a wisp of theory becomes an all-devouring hoax.

Here's where Constructivism can end up. It legitimizes what students find time to invent, and ignores everything else.

The ignored things tend to be the traditional basics and academics, the material that kids used to learn before Constructivism declared it's no longer valid because the students did not themselves construct any of it! For example, if students don't get around to constructing George Washington, know what? He doesn't exist.

Instead of being an all-purpose road to truth, Constructivism can be highly selective, favoring the knowledge that children can be led to discover. In practice, we're talking about a much reduced store of knowledge.

Let's reflect on that “ideal scenario” where students discuss their way to an unseen destination. How would that work in geography? Traditionally, the job of the teacher is to say, “Here is Japan. Tokyo is the capital.” Kids can talk all day but they will never construct this information. So how do kids learn any geography?

How about history? Teachers used to point out the events and names, the dates, the battles, the famous personalities, and help students see the relationships and priorities among all these things. But in Constructivism teachers are not allowed to point out anything. Rather, the teacher is supposed to script little journeys into the unknown, so that students create/discover/invent their own new knowledge. So how will they ever learn about the events of the French Revolution?

Additionally, teachers are supposed to be familiar with the “prior knowledge” that each student brings to the classroom. Think about the huge burden this entails. Not only must teachers cease instructing, they must be concerned with any bits of knowledge that children already have in their heads. Do you remember a time when the whole point was to remedy the ignorance of students? Now the point is for teachers to pay homage to that very ignorance.

Perhaps you are thinking that Constructivism would work better in math and science. I'm sure there are ideal scenarios where students could be maneuvered into discovering something, more or less for themselves. But these will be special cases, rare cases. Teachers have to spend a lot of effort stage-managing these eureka-moments. So on the one hand teachers can't teach, but on the other hand they're expected to be creators of Broadway scenes, all built around the tidbits which children already know. It's a lot to ask. You can imagine how long the process takes.

Constructivists scorn simply learning stuff. But in most subjects, most of the time, that is precisely what students need to do ASAP.

Constructivism seems to me another of those poetically touted pedagogies that, at the end of the year, result in less education, not more. I fear it's in the same tradition as Whole Word, New Math and many other mirages so beloved by our educators. A better name is arguably Destructivism.

(For complete analysis, see “34: The Con in Constructivism” on Improve-Education.org.)