Why can there be only one victor? Don't both of these theories fit into Vygotsky's idea of the Zone of Proximal Development: the idea that students learn most when they are working at the level where they must exert themselves a little, but are ready to learn the material--that Goldilocks zone of just-right-ness? Require no struggle, where the content is too easy, and the students tread water and don't advance. Require too much and you overload their ability to take in new information. It seems to me the problem isn't one or the other of the theories, but the idea that either theory--any one theory--can be the One Ring to Rule Them All.
Actually, it’s not pretty. It’s grotesque. If indeed you are an advocate for CLT (I’m tentatively presuming you are) you’re not doing us any favours with this impenetrable syrup. How much time have you spent in a classroom? Only an answer informed by evidence, please.
What claim have I made that you think is not informed by evidence. Can you please provide a specific claim that I have made?
I have been teaching in a classroom for a very long time. Can you please explain your thinking about what connections you are making between the time i have spent in the classroom and the other variable you are linking this to?
‘What claim have I made that you think is not informed by evidence.’
Is that an imperative, or interrogative? Again, I’ll tentatively presume it’s a question. I wasn’t fishing for a defensive retort with my imperative, by the way. You’ve made a few breathtakingly grandiose claims that are virtually unfalsifiable. I add ‘virtually’ because honestly, who amongst us teaching folk has the time, right? I’m only engaging with this because I’m on extended leave, so please don’t be put out if I don’t respond again after tomorrow.
The sardonic intent behind my initial comment’s final quip aside, it seems I’ve jagged a bite without throwing a line in. So here’s just one claim you’ve made that might take you a while to justify as being ‘informed by evidence’:
‘While these two theories struggle to align themselves with the truth, unfortunately, there can only be one victor.’
Are you serious? You’re drowning us in the abstractitis swamp I warn my Advanced English students about. Come on man, get real…we’re not watching ‘Highlander’ here! Why ‘unfortunately’? Can ‘theories’ really ‘struggle to align themselves with the truth?’ Can you cite examples? What’s the ‘truth’? Perhaps you should’ve put whatever ‘truth’ you’re declaring front and centre in plain English before bamboozling us with your figurative theory/truth jousters. There can be only one victor, you claim…why, exactly? And what’s the prize? Sole dominion over ITE and school faculties everywhere? Do you really think that’s going to happen?
I could dive back into your fruity prose and grab another claim, if you like. But I hope this will suffice.
As for your other question: Please understand that I am an advocate for CLT and Explicit Instruction in the classroom. But I also use constructivist pedagogy in the classroom. Does this make me a traitor to the evidence-informed cause, comrade? Am I ‘doing it wrong’ if I use methods I know have a weaker evidence base? I will say no here, because I’ve spent enough time in classrooms to know that every class group is dynamic and different. Often alarmingly so. I found out the hard way — in the classroom — that being dogmatic about a particular pedagogical theory is setting yourself and your wildly diverse learners up for failure. So I’m now always sceptical of ‘truth-tellers’ when it comes to pedagogical theory, as I instantly suspect they’ve spent more time in the neat and austere halls of academia than the messy chaos of a 4, 5, or 6-lesson daily work life. Irrespective of which side of the theoretical fence they’re sermonising from, if they start coming across like the grass on their side is greener (ie. EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT THIS WAY), I’m immediately wary.
So yeah, that’s the ‘variable’ I’m linking to, I guess. But if you indeed have been teaching for a long time, you’d know there’s more than one variable in the classroom that can, and should, be linked to any thinking about pedagogy.
Yes, I read that article years ago. Constructivism is indeed more of a leaning theory than pedagogy…and yet, its influence on pedagogy is undeniable, some would argue indelible. Merely pointing out the distinction between learning and teaching theories doesn’t make the constructivist boogeyman disappear. Debunking and discrediting bad ideas in education takes years to mitigate the impact of these ideas. Decades even. I’m looking at you, Whole Language Theory, innatism, Reading Recovery, differentiated instruction, ‘balanced’ literacy…
Terminology can confuse. I see teachers confusing ‘desirable difficulties’ for ‘productive struggle’ (which really should be called ‘unproductive struggle’ or ‘undesirable difficulties’).
Desirable difficulties help learning include spacing practice sessions; interleaving topics as opposed to teaching them in blocks; using the generation effect; and using tests.
‘Productive’ struggle leads to means-ends analysis and learners be one so overwhelmed they can't remember how they solved the task.
Why can there be only one victor? Don't both of these theories fit into Vygotsky's idea of the Zone of Proximal Development: the idea that students learn most when they are working at the level where they must exert themselves a little, but are ready to learn the material--that Goldilocks zone of just-right-ness? Require no struggle, where the content is too easy, and the students tread water and don't advance. Require too much and you overload their ability to take in new information. It seems to me the problem isn't one or the other of the theories, but the idea that either theory--any one theory--can be the One Ring to Rule Them All.
You’re window dressing a false dichotomy. It’s a pretty display though, I must admit.
Actually, it’s not pretty. It’s grotesque. If indeed you are an advocate for CLT (I’m tentatively presuming you are) you’re not doing us any favours with this impenetrable syrup. How much time have you spent in a classroom? Only an answer informed by evidence, please.
Hi Dave,
What claim have I made that you think is not informed by evidence. Can you please provide a specific claim that I have made?
I have been teaching in a classroom for a very long time. Can you please explain your thinking about what connections you are making between the time i have spent in the classroom and the other variable you are linking this to?
‘What claim have I made that you think is not informed by evidence.’
Is that an imperative, or interrogative? Again, I’ll tentatively presume it’s a question. I wasn’t fishing for a defensive retort with my imperative, by the way. You’ve made a few breathtakingly grandiose claims that are virtually unfalsifiable. I add ‘virtually’ because honestly, who amongst us teaching folk has the time, right? I’m only engaging with this because I’m on extended leave, so please don’t be put out if I don’t respond again after tomorrow.
The sardonic intent behind my initial comment’s final quip aside, it seems I’ve jagged a bite without throwing a line in. So here’s just one claim you’ve made that might take you a while to justify as being ‘informed by evidence’:
‘While these two theories struggle to align themselves with the truth, unfortunately, there can only be one victor.’
Are you serious? You’re drowning us in the abstractitis swamp I warn my Advanced English students about. Come on man, get real…we’re not watching ‘Highlander’ here! Why ‘unfortunately’? Can ‘theories’ really ‘struggle to align themselves with the truth?’ Can you cite examples? What’s the ‘truth’? Perhaps you should’ve put whatever ‘truth’ you’re declaring front and centre in plain English before bamboozling us with your figurative theory/truth jousters. There can be only one victor, you claim…why, exactly? And what’s the prize? Sole dominion over ITE and school faculties everywhere? Do you really think that’s going to happen?
I could dive back into your fruity prose and grab another claim, if you like. But I hope this will suffice.
As for your other question: Please understand that I am an advocate for CLT and Explicit Instruction in the classroom. But I also use constructivist pedagogy in the classroom. Does this make me a traitor to the evidence-informed cause, comrade? Am I ‘doing it wrong’ if I use methods I know have a weaker evidence base? I will say no here, because I’ve spent enough time in classrooms to know that every class group is dynamic and different. Often alarmingly so. I found out the hard way — in the classroom — that being dogmatic about a particular pedagogical theory is setting yourself and your wildly diverse learners up for failure. So I’m now always sceptical of ‘truth-tellers’ when it comes to pedagogical theory, as I instantly suspect they’ve spent more time in the neat and austere halls of academia than the messy chaos of a 4, 5, or 6-lesson daily work life. Irrespective of which side of the theoretical fence they’re sermonising from, if they start coming across like the grass on their side is greener (ie. EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT THIS WAY), I’m immediately wary.
So yeah, that’s the ‘variable’ I’m linking to, I guess. But if you indeed have been teaching for a long time, you’d know there’s more than one variable in the classroom that can, and should, be linked to any thinking about pedagogy.
I'd be interested to learn about ‘constructivist pedagogy’. I've only come across constructivism as a learning theory. Very interested to learn more.
https://learningspy.co.uk/literacy/constructivism-is-not-a-pedagogy/
Yes, I read that article years ago. Constructivism is indeed more of a leaning theory than pedagogy…and yet, its influence on pedagogy is undeniable, some would argue indelible. Merely pointing out the distinction between learning and teaching theories doesn’t make the constructivist boogeyman disappear. Debunking and discrediting bad ideas in education takes years to mitigate the impact of these ideas. Decades even. I’m looking at you, Whole Language Theory, innatism, Reading Recovery, differentiated instruction, ‘balanced’ literacy…
Terminology can confuse. I see teachers confusing ‘desirable difficulties’ for ‘productive struggle’ (which really should be called ‘unproductive struggle’ or ‘undesirable difficulties’).
Desirable difficulties help learning include spacing practice sessions; interleaving topics as opposed to teaching them in blocks; using the generation effect; and using tests.
‘Productive’ struggle leads to means-ends analysis and learners be one so overwhelmed they can't remember how they solved the task.
There is a great (very short) blog by Greg Ashman here: https://fillingthepail.substack.com/p/productive-struggle?r=1n5zfg&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&triedRedirect=true