I firmly believe in constructivism in education, the epistemology that is based on the fact that what we know is based on our experience and context; as Wheatley (1991) says; “The theory of constructivism rests on two main principles. Principle one states that knowledge is not passively received but is actively built up by the cognising subject. Principle two states that the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organisation of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality. Thus we do not find truth but construct viable explanations of our experiences“
Sadly our current education system is more firmly placed within the positivist epistemology, and this means there are several reductive practises that are played out based on the founding assumptions we collectively make for the education system. Below are 4 of the main assumptions, although many more exist and this list is far from exhaustive.
Assumption 1: As a result of the Positivist approach education is reductive in standardisation. We have a system that assumes that national benchmarking of schools is the only effective measure of quality (this is a positivist approach that assumes empirical data is the only value by which we can measure reliably). What this means in practise is that teaching becomes increasingly narrow in its approach; as schools achieve better Ofsted grades and move further and higher up the league tables, other schools follow more and more narrowly in their footsteps. This is because it is a safer bet to find out what a successful school in the league tables has done and try to improve upon what they already to but to a more focussed and exclusive level than it is to diversify in order to build creatively towards the same results. The system of empirical measurements of schools has designed a reductive process into the very fabric of the mainstream.
Assumption 2: The curriculum is reductive in how it is delivered. Again, the Positivist approach of assuming that an external empirical curriculum that can be placed into learners minds is the only solution for educating learners leads to a reductive process. We have an approach that supports and champions those that can streamline the delivery of an overcrowded curriculum more and more. As well as teaching the curriculum in a reductive manner, the system also celebrates a reduction in what is considered learning; positivism in the curriculum means that ethics, morals, spiritual and emotional elements of learning are largely avoided as they cannot be empirically tested for. The curriculum becomes reduced to what can be retained and recalled, not what is known and applied.
Assumption 3: Teaching practise becomes reductive because there is an assumption that what needs to be taught is what will support exam results rather than what will support learners best. This is fundamentally reductive and comes about as a result of the pressure to deliver on the curriculum which in turn comes from the need for schools to place well in league tables, SATs results and GCSEs. This system leads to schools reducing the teaching to only that which is measurable as a n outcome against these metrics of exam results and school results. This is again linked to the empirical nature of our measurement of schools. Teachers are hugely creative but this creativity results in the process change of pedagogy rather that the systems change that would impact on the need for the processes in the first place.
Assumption 4: We assume by the very existence of the national curriculum that there is a defined edge to what education and learning is. This does two things, firstly it reduces what is taught in school to only that which is included in the curriculum, or that which exists on its fringes. Secondly it creates a breadth of knowledge and skills that are part of life for learners that simply are never explored within the school system. This means there are large knowledge application gaps for learners leaving education (such as the gap between the curriculum as is and the skills necessary for the world of work [see Part 1 of this blog for more information]).
MacKinnon and Scarff-Seatter (1997) make a valid point that in order for educators to properly engage with constructivism they need to understand the difference in approach from the positivist epistemology teaching is based on; after all the major issue facing constructivist teaching practise is that it is a theory of learning not a theory of teaching.
References:
Wheatley, G.H., 1991. Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science education, 75(1), pp.9-21.
MacKinnon, A., & Scarff-Seatter, C. (1997). Constructivism: Contradictions and confusion in teacher education. In V. Richardson(Ed.), CONSTRUCTIVIST TEACHER EDUCATION: BUILDING NEW UNDERSTANDINGS pp.38-55. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Shevek Pring 