Constructivism

R7
The Behaviorists believe that all of our actions are guided by some external stimuli. Constructivism on the other hand is just a theory on how a "learner comes to know" and it is based on the "interaction between their existing knowledge or beliefs and the new ideas or situations they encounter" So, can we then assume that constructivism is a subset of behaviorism?    

"Since individuals make their own meaning from their beliefs and experiences, all knowledge is tentative , subjective and personal. Knowledge is viewed not as a set of universal "truths," but as a set of "working hypotheses." Thus constructivists believe that knowledge can not be justified as "true" in an absolute sense" (Airasian & Wlash 1997, p. 445)

Instruction in the classroom is guided by the standards set forh by the Local Education Associations. We are bound to follow these standards because it is widely accepted that the student should know X, Y, and Z at each grade level. I cannot see how this is possible in the constructivists approach where the teacher is guiding the student through each 'milieu' and the student is determining their own truths and thus constructing their knowledge based on what is meaningful to them. In my classroom teaching experience I have heard students say over and over again that the information that they are learning is not useful or meaningful. I have also often been asked the question, "When will I ever use this information?" I bring these examples up to point out that in the constructivist's approach the teacher has to determine how much emphasis to place on the student's truth and what is meaningful. However because these two things are subjective their is no uniformaity and therefore no way to evaluate them as the article stated (pg. 448). To this end, such an approach would be detrimental to a teacher and a student in todays schools because we would have to hope that the student's truth and that which he or she deems meaningful encompasses what the student needs in order to be successful in a standards based classroon setting. Also, the objectivity of the teacher's role in determining how much "emphasis" to place on the students truth and meaning can be lost because the teacher is held accountable for the student's performance on skills set forth in the curriculum.

It is quite a task to reconcile the constructivists view of education to the educational legislation Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This legislation and its predisessor or previous form; No Child Left Bhind (NCLB), are heavily rooted in assessment, teacher accountability and bringing each child to grade level by a predetermined date. This kind of information puts pressure on educators and in some cases schools and teachers are teaching the tests and not the skills. So looking at schools performance on state assessments may not mean that the students are at grade level. It could simply meaning that the student is a good memorizer and can only regurtitate information but has no clue what the infomation means or how to begin to apply it.The constructivists view appears to come across a bit like the Montessori schools.   The only exception is the fact that the constructivists approach encourages teachers to critique the student's work. The Montessori school teacher doesn't correct a sudent's work but merely guides the students to new areas of discovery. However such an approach is so contrary to the mantra, "data driven decision making" that is hammered into our heads from the teacher preparation programs and straight into the classroom.