18 December 2007

Constructivism and Christian Teaching

I've mentioned constructivism in education before. And I have been thinking, but can't find a reference to show I've written it down on this blog, that an implication of the Adam naming the animals scene is to support a constructivist approach to learning. Taking the basic insight from the posting just referred to, "God seems to want to see what we will make of the Creation, how we will understand it and wonder at it and how we will speak of it. And when I write 'speak', I mean to include the languages of the arts as well as the more 'scientific' or formal linguistic registers." And it seems to me that this is a constructivist approach. Not a radical version where there is no objective reality and we entirely construct our own world, but a moderate version which accepts the [God-] givenness of the world but sees God as leaving room for us to see what we make of it and be creative with what we discover and how we 'taxonymise' it. This contrasts with a strong sovereignty view of God, such as that shown in the Qur'an, which minimises human creativity and responsiveness. It seems to me then, that this article comes to reasonable conclusions, on the whole when it concludes
Constructivism is a theoretical framework that has gained prominence in education in recent years. It is clear that this framework is based on premises not acceptable within a Christian worldview. However the methods implied by this framework are in most cases consonant with good Christian teaching. Although the Christian teacher cannot accept the assumptions, there are modified premises, which are consistent with the Christian worldview This may explain why a framework apparently so contrary to Christian thought may still produce an acceptable approach to teaching.

I would however aver from the bit about not being within a Christian worldview: for the reason outlined above, I would say that moderate constructivism is demanded by a Christian worldview.
Constructivism and Christian Teaching:

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...