English class isn't art class, but the idea that representing ideas visually or graphically is solely a part of art class is as wrong an idea that writing is solely a part of English class (and not history, say).

The ability to translate a scene of *Julius Caesar* into a storyboard would seem to me a perfectly apt assignment, provided the teacher evaluates the ideas and not the draftsmanship. Mapping science ideas graphically (concept maps) is a research-proven way to evaluate prior knowledge and help students improve.

And constructivism as developed by folks like Jerome Bruner has nothing to do with building a canoe in English class. To insinuate that this teacher is a typical constructivist educator is wrong-headed.

Matt, this teacher calls himself a constructivist. It is not my insinuation but his own self-description.

Hands-on "projects" in an academic class can be OK as long as they are kept within reasonable limits. For instance, suppose you're teaching a high school class on the Industrial Revolution. It would be reasonable to bring in a hand loom and let students see for themselves how much effort it took to make a little fabric in the pre-power-loom days. It would also be reasonable to bring in a model steam engine so students could see how it worked. What would *not* be reasonable would be to devote the entire class to building a hand loom in the wood shop, or to building a steam engine in the metal shop. (Although both of these would be entirely worthy projects in other contexts)

Erin, to include in a very brief blog post this man’s self-description as "constructivist" is to imply that his behavior is somehow indicative of what it means for one's teaching to be informed by constructivism. (It would be like including a Klan member’s self-description as a patriot.) Partly, this is the fault of badly prepared teachers, who seem to learn that constructivism equals "whatever wacky idea one cribs from *Dead Poets Society*." Partly, this is the fault of critics such as Hirsch, who defame constructivism as a wholesale neglect of content (all the while Hirsch repeatedly quotes Bruner in an approving manner, as if Hirsch wasn't aware that Bruner is the American father of constructivism).

This may seem like a detour from your criticism of this man's misguided teaching, but I think an accurate understanding of constructivist teaching might give us an idea of what real "hands on" learning is about.

For example, David rightly argues that history students need not build a steam engine to understand its role in the industrial revolution. But that's not how a constructivist would teach. Constructivism, going back to forefathers such as Dewey, used the model of craftsmen and coaches for all education. A football player learns by playing football and observing football. A carpenter learns by working with wood and studying those who work with wood. (Note that "learning by doing" is *not* show and tell: a teacher bringing in a model of a steam engine would not be "hands-on" unless students were asked to figure out how it works by putting it to use, which is a useful strategy in a physics class. If a teacher does "show and tell" it's still direct instruction.)

Likewise, Dewey (later Bruner) would argue that learning by doing must be a larger part of education. If you want kids to understand how a bill becomes a law, you might have them play the roles of the different political branches and actually propose a bill, take it to committee, put it to a vote, etc. This is why wood shop classes involve actually sanding things, sawing things, and not just reading about sawing things or sanding things.

This has led to some stupid ideas, and too often teachers used learning by doing to teach basic skills and facts, which are better learned through direct instruction and practice.

At the same time, constructivism is not that different from how Shakespeare learned at the King’s New College (in Peter Ackroyd’s account). Students didn’t just read classical writings. They also wrote in classical styles, gave speeches based on classical commonplaces. etc. They learned to speak and write by speaking and writing.

Constructivism is not about stupid, feel-good projects. It is about having students assemble skills and facts into constructs, to learn how facts and skills are connected, to master higher level thinking skills by employing them in real-world situations. The math teacher who asks students to use math and statistics skills to follow an imaginary investment through the ups and downs of the stock market is a constructivist. The history teacher who asks students to read primary sources and write an historical account based on them is a constructivist.

Luther is making some important points.

The problem with picking off low-hanging fruit comes when you mistake it for the whole tree. If I went looking for a weak or incompetent teacher who used rote drilling and memorization and concluded that this demonstrated that memorization is always useless as a pedagogy, it would be right to say that wasn't a very useful assessment. The same would be true if I found a boring pedant who taught a version of the 19th and early 20th Century "Great Books" approach, or who taught Shakespeare. All that we've got in those cases is bad pedagogy that is specific to the individual professor. Or at best, a tendency: maybe teaching the Great Books can slide into pedantry easily, or memorization be merely mechanical. Or constructivism can be an invitation to Mickey-Mouse make-work.

But I read this and I wonder, "Does Erin really mean to say that attempts to apply knowledge to the world are always or even often a sign of a weak or useless pedagogy?" Probably not. But then why the sweeping gestures? In this and your previous entry on basic or core knowledge, in fact. If you're sympathetic to the argument education is not just about cramming facts, then there must be a pedagogy that you like and perhaps practice that is about context, application, utility, not just about a fact but why the fact matters. If you don't mean to say that the kind of constructivism that Luther describes is always a bad idea, why not explore where the boundary between building a canoe for the entire semester and useful "doing" might lie?

Do you ever try to make more abstract knowledge about literature and textual interpretation real to students through connecting it to something other than literature itself? Or puzzle about how to make classic literary work earn its status as a classic through the shared experience of studious reading (as opposed to just telling students that the syllabus is full of classics, and that's all there is to it)? These seem to me to be interesting, difficult professional challenges that we all face and worry about and try to work our way through. Wouldn't it be satisfying once in a while to start from a difficult challenge and talk about how to work our collective way through it, without knowing in advance what the singular, easy right answers are?

I keep wishing that many long-running conversations that start from a position of skepticism about contemporary educational practice could move towards more nuanced, affirmative descriptions of "best practice", away from a never-ending search for the pedagogical equivalent of the village idiot.

Timothy Burke thinks constructivism (a development of Dewey's "learning-by-doing" or progressive education theories) deserve a more constructive evaluation than as the source of misguided applications (or transmogrifications) of it like those noted by Erin O'Connor. Perhaps, yes.

But likewise do the values of memorization and of Great Books curricula deserve a fairer evaluation than they've commonly received--and especially from education school faculties heavily influenced by Deweyist ideas. Teaching candidates in education schools must regularly endure dismissive caricatures of rote memorization as well as of the "elitist" classical curricula that held sway in America before Deweyist ideas prevailed. Of course, properly distinguished, memorization is a technical aspect of teaching while Great Books approaches are curricular, though some curricula seem better to accommodate specific pedagogical techniques than others. Few would dispute the value of adequate attention to experiment or practice ("hands-on" learning, if you wish) in science, fine arts, or vocational teaching. Yet controversy in the humanities and social sciences over pedagogical techniques and curricula often concern the relative values assigned not only to reading content but even to concentrated reading itself (as opposed to say, role-playing or debate). Though many extra-curricular factors influence students' poor performances on reading comprehension or historical knowledge tests, education theorists are often defensive and resistant to criticisms of their failures to help effect improvements in student performance levels by applications of their theories. And loaded terms like "relevance," "real world," "hands-on," and "student-centered teaching" often accompany caricatures of American education in the chimerical dark ages before the Deweyist enlightenment.

In his penultimate paragraph, Timothy Burke seems to slip into this mode of caricaturing that he seems to deplore in his first by asking several tendentious rhetorical questions of Erin O'Connor ("Do you ever try . . . ?"; "Or puzzle about how . . . as opposed to just telling students . . . and that's all there is to it?"; "Wouldn't it be satisfying once in a while . . . ?"). By implying the unlikely opposite in Erin O' Connor's case, he's perhaps rushed extra oleas, or far beyond the finish-line, and thereby weakened his own.

agreement correction: "deserves" (mea culpa)

another agreement correction: "concerns" with "controversy" (again, mea culpa, due to hasty revision)

One question that could be asked in any particular situation: is the teacher/course designer using the constructivist technique to *further* the gaining of academic knowledge, or *as a replacement* for academic knowledge?

I get the impression that there are more than a few K-12 teachers--and a whole lot of K-12 administrators--who aren't really much into knowledge-seeking and don't have much understanding of or appreciation for those who are.

To my knowledge, neither Dewey nor Bruner disparages rote learning when it is in the service of demanding higher level thinking from students. By "hands on," they are not talking about "building crap." They mean, rather, that students who cannot use what they know to solve real-world problems don't know what they think they know. (Which is why lots of kids memorize the equations for finding area but cannot measure their own homes for carpeting.)

And let's not confuse "progressive education" with constructivism. There are many different instructional methods termed progressive, and there are many strains of constructivism with vast differences (e.g., the Vygotsky vs. Piaget debates).

Reasonable voices on all sides of the education debates should agree that a solid foundation in basic fact and skill sets is a must, but must not be the sole end of education.