Instructivism
In educational circles everywhere presently, one of the most hyped theories of learning is the student-centered, discovery-based, self-directed theory of constructivism. At the other end of this educational theory spectrum is the idea of instructivism. Instructivism, by this name or any other, has been around for many years and has formed the basis of the American, among others, educational system.
Based on behaviorist theories, Instructivism, sometimes referred to as Direct Instruction incorporates a teacher-directed, carefully planned curriculum, with purposeful teaching at its core. It follows two basic assumptions. First, the purpose of instruction is to help the learner understand and interact with the world; and, secondly, learners should be directed by instructors who make the decisions about the content and sequence of the learning (Margules, 1996). The instructors would base these decisions on professional training and scholarship. According to Fosnot, 1996, “. . . the instructivist, or behaviourist, approach is to pre-plan a curriculum by breaking down a subject area (usually seen as a finite body of knowledge) into assumed component parts, and then sequencing these parts into a hierarchy ranging from simple to more complex,” (in Malibar & Pountney, 2002). This approach is more of teacher as “sage on the stage,” than as a facilitator of learning. Even further, “according to instructivist principles, learning flows in a mostly unidirectional path, proceeding from the knowledgeable authority (teacher), or from instructional content, to the passive learner,” (Diaz& Bontenbal, 2000). Not only is the teacher the authority, but the learner is also passive and merely absorbs the content.
For students, there is little room for self-discovery and reflection. In instructivism, real world situations are not the models of instruction, nor are there modifications made for individual learning style; the lecture, in its different forms for primary, secondary and tertiary, is the primary mode of content delivery. Students are aware of expected learning outcomes, and outcomes are easily assessable. Further, students are rewarded for success, as in behaviorism, and failure is not tolerated. The object is to focus on the content itself, not the learner or the learning experience.
Arguments from both sides of the spectrum, constructivism and instructivism, cite data to support their view of learning. However, as Gardiner (1998) points out, Though it has been shown that actively involving students in discussion fosters retention of information, application of knowledge, and development of critical thinking skills, between 70% and 90% of professors still use the traditional lecture as their instructional strategy of choice (in Diaz& Bontenbal, 2000).
Further possible criticism of instructivism are many and beyond the scope of this paper to outline. However, without intention, a quote from Finn and Ravitch pretty much sums up much of what is wrong with instructivism, “Instructivist schools have a clear understanding of what their pupils should learn and how they are expected to behave. They believe the teacher’s most solemn job is to instruct the young in the knowledge, skills, and behaviors determined by adult society to be valuable, (1996).
If one accepts that schools merely produce fodder for the societal mill, that the status quo of the white, patriarchal domination should be maintained, that inequality and discrimination are inevitable, then Finn and Ravitch are justified in their view of the benefits of instructivism. If, however, one believes that schools exist for the personal edification and intellectual expansion of the individual, and thereby ultimately benefiting society, then instructivism is clearly not beneficial to the student, teacher or society.
References
Diaz, D. P. & Bontenbal, K. F. (2000). Pedagogy-based technology training. In P. Hoffman, and D. Lemke (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in a Network World, (pp. 50-54). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Finn, Chester, E. & Ravitch, Diane (1996). Education Reform: A Report from the Educational Excellence Network to its Education Policy Committee and the American People [WWW document]. Retrieved September 25, 2002 from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/epciv.html.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996). “Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning”, Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, Chapter 2, ed. C.T. Fosnot, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gardiner, L. F. (1998). Why we must change: the research evidence. The NEA Higher Education Journal, pp. 71-88.
Malibar, I., & Pountney, D. C. (2002) Using technology to integrate constructivism and visualisation in mathematics education. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics. Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, July 1-6, 2002.
Margules, Di (1996). Instructivism or constructivism: which end of the continuum? Paper given at the AUC Academic Conference, “From Virtual to Reality,” The University of Queensland.