Is constructivism the best approach to teaching?

When we think about education, it is important to see clearly that the teacher’s contribution is not trivial and elemental. Plato’s dialogues offer several examples of learning and teaching, the most famous being Socratic questioning. In fact, there are many classical theories of teaching and learning. Obviously, scientists, artists, politicians, and great businessmen and women of the past have learned through these methods. However, looking back at the various images of learning and teaching, we saw that constructivism has tended to dominate in the last decades of the 20th century. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the father of progressive educators. Yes, the misleading Swiss philosopher, author of the novel. emilio (1762), has inspired many with his nihilism.

Anyone who seriously approaches the study of teaching and learning methods, whether pedagogue, psychologist or philosopher, must quickly realize the enormous difficulty of drawing a constructivist line in all the different fields of research. Regardless, constructivism is perhaps the biggest influence on contemporary science education.

Constructivism is a learning theory that states that knowledge cannot be transmitted from teacher to student, but must be constructed anew by each student. The majority in the educational community has adopted constructivism as an epistemology. Consequently, they came to believe that consensus among scientists constitutes scientific knowledge. Now, constructivism has become part of educational orthodoxy. One of the problems with constructivism is its contempt for the teacher and his transformative agency, relying only on the independent efforts of children. This theory makes a strong evolutionary case for the construction of all knowledge through student inquiry alone.

I think that this general statement is far from justified. You know the picture: constructivism is obviously not realistic, since this teacherless theory of learning puts the student and the object of study as the most important figures in the learning process. However, the truth is that the classroom represents a kind of communion that involves the teacher, the student and knowledge. Beyond that, comprehensive education involves the family, the community and the school. No student is an island. Many factors lead you to make one choice or another in your learning journey. Learning is an extremely complex and abstract task, and the young child will not succeed independently of others. We have before us this sad reality: students who have “learned” through constructivist instruction hardly find success in their intellectual endeavors. It is not easy to accept the view that a child is capable of constructing all of her knowledge to generate a set of rules. It is not unfair, I think, to conclude from the results that indeed constructivism cannot correctly explain the way children learn.

Without a doubt, parents and teachers have a work to do to help children improve every talent and ability, and they must make the most of it. I think we become someone when we are confronted with nihilistic ideas. This is because if we confront them and their consequences, then, and only then, are we affirming the essence of being human: our freedom and our desire to share knowledge and love. In this sense, the traditional school with “classical” learning methods could lead students not only to fruitful results in their careers, university and citizenship. But, at the same time, it leads to a momentous discovery about themselves. In addition to that, it raises questions about what it means to teach and learn, as well as how to be a healthy member of the community.