In a broad sense, constructivism has two principles. What a person knows is not passively received but "actively assembled" by the learner. Learning is an "adaptive" function. So, the role of learning is to help the individual operate within his or her personal world; instructivism has two principles. What a person knows comes from objective matter through his/her senses.
Learning is a form of acquiring truth and it can be measured. According to Rice (2007), constructivists “believe learning can be facilitated through the student creating her own knowledge”. Rice also stated that instructivist “believe the teacher must guide the child in learning”. After analyzing this week’s readings, I find that both sides lack a clear definition of the “goal of instruction”. And the biggest difference between constructivism and instructivism appears to be related to degree of guidance during instruction. These observations prevent me from choosing a specific side. It is my beliefs that both theories have invaluable contributions to providing effective and efficient instruction, if they could some how combine their strategies and ideas. Instead, their arguments force me to question the intent of the researchers. I have to ask myself, is this argument for the sake of providing the best instruction for the learner or for the sake of an interesting academic argument.
Learning is a form of acquiring truth and it can be measured. According to Rice (2007), constructivists “believe learning can be facilitated through the student creating her own knowledge”. Rice also stated that instructivist “believe the teacher must guide the child in learning”. After analyzing this week’s readings, I find that both sides lack a clear definition of the “goal of instruction”. And the biggest difference between constructivism and instructivism appears to be related to degree of guidance during instruction. These observations prevent me from choosing a specific side. It is my beliefs that both theories have invaluable contributions to providing effective and efficient instruction, if they could some how combine their strategies and ideas. Instead, their arguments force me to question the intent of the researchers. I have to ask myself, is this argument for the sake of providing the best instruction for the learner or for the sake of an interesting academic argument.
