Transcendence, Revelation, and the Constructivist Classroom: Or, In Praise of Teaching
Transcendence, Revelation, and the Constructivist Classroom: Or, In Praise of Teaching
复制标题
超越、启示和建构主义课堂：或者说，对教学的赞扬
DOI：
10.47925/2011.358
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Biesta
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Biesta
建构主义与教学的终结 如果说有一种观念在近几十年来极大地改变了世界上许多国家的课堂实践，那么它一定是建构主义。建构主义要产生如此大的影响，它必然必须在理论上变得多元化和开放。因此，建构主义课堂从一系列不同的、在某种程度上甚至是相互冲突的理论和思想中汲取灵感，例如恩斯特·冯·格拉瑟斯菲尔德的激进建构主义、让·皮亚杰的认知建构主义、列夫·维果茨基的社会建构主义和约翰·杜威的交易建构主义。这些方法的统一之处——至少在表面层面上——并因此普遍表征了建构主义课堂，是对学生活动的重视。这是基于这样的假设：学生必须构建自己的见解、理解和知识，而教师无法为他们做到这一点。因此，在建构主义课堂上，建构主义不仅是一种学习理论或认识论，而且首先是一种教学法。弗吉尼亚·理查森正确地指出“建构主义是一种学习理论，而不是一种教学理论”。这不仅意味着建构主义教育学不仅仅是建构主义学习理论的应用——理查森甚至进一步指出“有效的建构主义教学的要素尚不为人所知”——而且还意味着对建构主义学习理论的信仰并不一定要求人们采用建构主义教育学。毕竟，正如理查森所说，“学生也可以从教学传播模式中遇到的活动中获得意义。”
CONSTRUCTIVISM AND THE END OF TEACHING If there is one idea that has significantly changed classroom practice in many countries around the world in recent decades, it has to be constructivism. For constructivism to have had such an impact it necessarily had to become theoretically multiple and open. Thus the constructivist classroom takes inspiration from a range of different, and to a certain extent even conflicting, theories and ideas, such as the radical constructivism of Ernst von Glasersfeld, the cognitive constructivism of Jean Piaget, the social constructivism of Lev Vygotsky, and the transactional constructivism of John Dewey. What unites these approaches — at least at a superficial level — and thus generally characterizes the constructivist classroom, is an emphasis on student activity. This is based on the assumption that students have to construct their own insights, understandings, and knowledge, and that teachers cannot do this for them. In the constructivist classroom, therefore, constructivism does not operate only as a learning theory or an epistemology, but also, first and foremost as a pedagogy. Virginia Richardson has correctly pointed out that “constructivism is a theory of learning and not a theory of teaching.” This not only means that constructivist pedagogy is not simply the application of constructivist learning theory — Richardson goes even further by arguing that “the elements of effective constructivist teaching are not known” — but also implies that a belief in constructivist learning theory does not necessarily require that one adopt a constructivist pedagogy. After all, as Richardson has put it, “students also make meaning from activities encountered in a transmission model of teaching.”