Last week, I started a personal investigation into the question:
Are Thinking Classrooms out of step with cognitive science? Cognitive science, branded recently as "the science of learning," looks poised to be the next big movement in education. I'm certainly a believer that it deserves to be after reading Teach Like A Champion 3.0 and Why Don't Students Like School. Both beautifully lay out both the major principles of cognitive science and provide practical advice and examples for aligning instruction with them. I was recently inspired to start investigating this question after reading an op-ed claiming that Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics is, among other criticisms, out of step with cognitive science. In part one, I made my case that this editorial piece didn't come close to proving that claim. But - I do think the question merits a better investigation. Just because that author didn't make the case doesn't mean that the assertion is wrong. And - While the author fell short of making a convincing case, he does, however, cite two legitimate scholarly publications that he says do answer that question. What's the Assertion Being Made?
The author I scrutinized in part one made roughly this assertion:
These two publications were cited to support #2 on that list. So Those two articles Must compare Direct Instruction to Thinking Classrooms, Right?
We as readers are left to make the leap that BTC is "constructivist instruction" and that the now 20-year old findings about that type of instruction apply presently to BTC as well. What, Then, is "Constructivist Instruction?"
The short answer is that, officially, "constructivist instruction" isn't a thing at all.
Back to that in a moment. Constructivism is a learning theory. Academically speaking, over the decades, there have been evolving academic theories of what it means to learn. Sequentially, there have been three (to my knowledge) major learning theories: 
Broadly speaking, behaviorism first viewed learning as a change in behavior (action). The famous studies of rats pressing buttons for food pellets and dogs salivating at the sound of a bell were foundational in the development of behaviorism - learning has occurred when a change in action/behavior can be observed. As an easy example, from the perspective of behaviorism, we would say that I have learned that 3 x 5 = 15 if I can say or write it (observable action).
Later, cognitivism asserted that learning could be defined by changes in mental states, even in the absence of an observable action. The main studies I'm familiar with in cognitive learning theory deal with memory and memorizing. As an easy example, from the perspective of a cogntivist, we would say that I have learned that 3 x 5 = 15 if I can remember it (change in mental state). Later still, a learning theory called constructivism emerged, defining learning not as just tidbits of knowledge themselves, but more broadly as the meaning or comprehension we create around that knowledge. A constructivist, I believe, would say that I've learned that 3 x 5 = 15 if I understand or have made meaning of it. I could probably teach my two-year old niece that 3 x 5 =15 from a strictly memorization standpoint. From a behavioral standpoint, if she can say "fifteen" when I say "what is three times five," then she has learned it because she can say it. And from a cognitive standpoint, we would say that she has learned it because she remembers it - she can retrieve it from her long-term memory. But from a constructivist standpoint, we would not say that she has learned it because she hasn't constructed any meaning or understanding of it. Important in the constructivist learning theory, it follows, is that learning is personal rather than universal. Whereas in the behavioral and cognitive learning theories, there is only one way to "know" that 3 x 5 = 15 (writing/say it and remembering it, respectively), in the constructivist learning theory, you may "understand" that 3 x 5 = 15 having built an understanding that multiplication is repeated addition (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15), where as I might have built my understanding around visualizing a 3-by-5 array. 
These learning theories have been developed and debated in great detail in the academic world. It isn't my goal here to join into or contribute to any of that - just to give the background necessary (which I've probably done poorly, apologies) for my purposes here.
Big takeaway - constructvism and cognitivism (or cognitive science) are ways to define what it means to learn, as well as subsequent research into how that learning happens. They are learning theories, not teaching philosophies. However, it is quite natural that every learning theory's body of subsequent research does include studies into how to cause that learning - how to teach effectively by influencing learning as defined in each way. Back to the Studies Being Scrutinized
With that quick lesson on learning theories under our belts, I can return to the publications in question now.
Both pieces assert that direct instruction, which is generally associated as a means of instruction in accord with the cognitivist learning theory, is more effective than teaching methods associated with the constructivist learning theory - methods like inquiry, discovery, problem-based learning, and other more experiential pedagogical approaches that promote constructing a personal meaning/understanding around the learning. This one is a research study from 2004, examining 265 students learning multiplication using direct instruction vs. constructivist methods. It found that both methods were effective for building automaticity, and motivation, but that direct instruction was a bit more effective at building problem-solving. This one is what is called a "meta-analysis" from 2006. Meta-analyses are attempts to combine the findings of multiple research studies like the one above and to make sense of them as a whole to provide a comprehensive "state of the concept," so to speak. There are two ways meta-analyses get written:
IS BTC A "contstructivist" or "minimally guided" form of instruction?
As I mentioned earlier, these two articles were published LONG before Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics was. If we are to apply their findings to BTC, we first need to decide if BTC falls under the umbrella of "constructivist" or "minimally guided" instructional techniques.
I would say that it probably does. For the most part, during thinking tasks, we are asking students to make sense of (<--constructivist terminology) a rich problem or a thin-sliced problem string rather than to remember or encode into long-term memory (<--cognitivist terminology) the procedure for solving it. We, of course, do want students to remember those procedures, but we attend to that goal more through meaning-making than through practices more typically associated with cognitivism, like worked examples and gradual release.
Do the studies prove that direct instruction is better?
1. Yes
Here's the thing - research works a certain way. The study on kids in Denmark learning their multiplication is a nice example. They compared the results of the kids learning the two different ways, and the kids who learned through direct instruction had some better measurable outcome. Someone not trained in how research works looks at that outcome and says - "that settles it; the outcomes of direct instruction are better." This is called generalizing, and it is a cardinal sin in academia. Someone who is trained in how research works doesn't generalize, instead saying - "if well executed, that study shows that the specific type of direct instruction being used had one specific better outcome for those specific kids in that specific place learning that specific thing when compared the specific type of constructivist instruction it was compared to." Individual research studies themselves can't make big, sweeping, conclusive claims. They make specific, narrow claims, intended for other researchers to then replicate with different kids, in different settings, at different times, learning different content, through different instructional techniques. Eventually, when enough of those research studies have been published, they're compiled into a meta-analysis or a book that tries to make sense of (<--see what I did there?) the full body of research having been conducted on a topic. Now we have tons of studies in different studies comparing direct and constructivism instruction - what general conclusions might we draw from that collection? Which is what we got with the 2006 meta-analysis Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. The authors combined the results of over 100 studies, and they made the case that direct instruction results in better outcomes than constructivist-based teaching. By research standards, yes, they answered the question successfully. 2. Maybe I was in graduate school working on a PhD in 2006 when this meta-analysis was published. It was probably assigned reading for one of my classes, in fact. In 2006, is constructivism a legitimate view of learning? was a hot debate in academia for reasons mostly of interest to academics. If you asked most teachers/practitioners "is learning about remembering or about understanding," I think almost all of them would answer, "well, both, of course." If you asked an academic that question in 2006, the main concern was if we want to define learning as understanding, we have to be able to measure that. If we can't measure it, we can't study it, and if we can't study it, there is no point in defining it that way. When that 2006 meta-analysis was published, I would venture to guess that a competing meta-analysis with evidence pointing the other way was published shortly there after. This article was for the purposes of debate, and it almost certainly cherry picked the evidence that supported its claim at the exclusion of competing studies. Did they win the debate? Did they prove their point? Maybe. I don't have the constructivist response, and I didn't keep up with the debate after finishing my degree. But suffice it to say, this study was not a finish line for the learning theory community. The race wasn't over. Academically speaking, maybe they answered the question, and maybe they didn't. 3. No There is one other key thing to know about how research works - research can only provide evidence for things that can be - or have been - researched. Making this same point about another matter, I recently heard a public health researcher on a podcast point out that: "We have no research proving that coughing in someone's face spreads germs." Why not? It is very difficult to find people willing to participate in research studies that involve coughing in someone's face or having someone cough in theirs. It can't be researched, so there isn't any research on the matter. In 2006, there was way more research on direct instruction than on constructivist-oriented teaching strategies. Why?
In terms of academic publishing, yes.
In terms of usefulness, no. It just means that it had been researched more. Is BTC out of step with Cognitive science?
All this talk of constructivism - and wherever that debate may stand today - isn't the point anyways.
Regardless of how constructivism has fared academically or practically in the last twenty years, the bottom line is this: Cognitivism, "cognitive science," or "the science of learning" is having a moment in schools. My big question is: Is Building Thinking Classrooms in Mathematics out of step with cognitive science? If it is, it is going to rise and fall even faster than I thought. Seeing as I just told you that I think that it is fair to characterize BTC as so-called "constructivist instruction," it seems like the answer might be yes. Yet, so far:
Is the Thinking Classroom I've built for the last two years out of step with the cognitive science findings so beautifully laid in two books that have guided so many of my other teaching practices?
Honestly, I don't know. Honestly. Time to take a look. I hope you'll join me back here for part 3. 
If you enjoyed this post, please share it!
Want to make sure you never miss a new post? Subscribe below for email notifications of new content.
Want to read more right now? You're in luck - this is my 103rd post! You can browse past posts by category:
Want to contribute to the conversation? Or do you have an idea for a future post? Leave a comment below!
1 Comment
|
About MeI'm an award-winning teacher in Atlanta with experience teaching at every level from elementary school to college. Categories
All
|
