Well, that leads to a bigger, but no less frightening question; namely, what's the social function of ANY of the many (clever rhyme scheme. Simple, but effective) "isms" in education?
Perhaps a metaphor will do, if that's the word I want.
Imagine a large, empty, circular white room filled with ed perfessers talking excitedly, seriously [and idiotically] about rubrics, matrices, standards, evidences, conceptual frameworks, mission statements, products, artifacts, proposals, programs, collaborations, initiatives, and documents. It's all about sustaining, increasing, and celebrating the organization by putting up a front of
(1) pseudo-morality--champions of social justice, child-centered.
(2) pseudo-intellectuality--higher-order cognition, lifelong learning.
(3) pseudo-busyness. and
As with other cults, the ed school cult needs a core set of beliefs (dogma), holy writ, and founders/saints/gurus. For the past hundred years, the core has been one or another version of progressivism.
Imagine that the large, empty, circular white room has ten doors leading to a hallway. The hallway, too, is circular. There's NO way out of the building. All doors open back into the same white room.
Every ten years or so, the inmates head for a door.
"Let's get outa here."
"Yeah, time for a change."
"I think we've said everything that CAN be said."
"Written everything that CAN be written."
"Gotten all the grants that COULD be gotten from the money cow."
[Harmed as many kids as the public will allow.]
"Innovation. That's the key."
"Forward and Upward with Competence and Knowledge!"
"Yes, time for a new initiative." [In contrast to time for an old initiative]
And so they race out into the hall and race back in through another door.
"Okay, we're back."
"I don't know."
"A new initative."
"To prepare students for responsible and productive citizenship in a global society."
"What's that mean?"
"I have no idea."
"A new way of knowing!"
"For a new world!!"
"A postindustrial world."
"A postmodern world."
"I think you're onto something, Dr. Mumblemore!"
"Yes. Yes. New courses. New programs. New paradigms."
"What's a paradigm?"
"I don't know. Possibly something."
"A Bachelors Degree in Relativity."
"A Master of Sensitive Narratives."
"A Doctor of Deconstruction."
"We''ll have to revise our mission statement."
"And our syllabi."
"And our matices and rubrics."
"What about how to teach?"
"You're new here, aren't you?"
That, Dear Readers, is EXACTLY how it's done.
A play written by the Three Stooges and performed by the Marx Brothers.
"How come it's always one or another version of progressivism?", you ask.
There are two reasons, at least. [See Diane Ravitch's Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms.]
One. The fundamental beliefs are the same--Romantic modernism. Hyper-individuality; hostility towards western values and social institutions; resentment of external authority--governmental, religious, knowledge systems, rules for right reasoning.
Two. Educationists are not smart enough for anything else. There is no intellectual core, no orientation towards big ideas in world literature, history, math, and science; the logic of verification; the ability to analyze and to synthesize (to see what's useful in one approach and add it to what's useful in another).
So, progressivism--a pastiche of treacly platitudes and assinine assertions ranging from dramatically stupid to desperately deranged--is the "pedagogy" of choice for the mentally negligible majority of the education professoriate.
The current version of progressivism is constructivism.
This missive, or screed, answers two or three questions.
1. What is constructivism?
2. How stupid is it?
...they fear that a clear naming of what they do will reveal
how little it needs doing, and they will find themselves on
the streets selling wind-up toys. [Richard Mitchell. The underground grammarian, 1, January, 1977.]
For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might
well be truly said: "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without
heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of
civilization never before achieved." [Max Weber. The
Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. 1904-5.]
My general opinion about this doctrine is that it is a typically
scholastic view, attributable, first, to an obsession with a few
particular words, the uses of which are over-simplified, not
really understood or carefully studied or correctly described;
and second, to an obsession with a few (and nearly always the
same) half-studied 'facts'. [J.L. Austin. Sense and sensibilia. 1962. Built on lectures given in 1947.]
...a confusing of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.
[Goethe. Wisdom and experience.]
...we of this age have discovered a shorter and more prudent method to become scholars and wits, without the fatigue of reading or of thinking. [Jonathan Swift. A tale of a tub. 1704.]
What is Constructivism?
Constructivism is big word that makes education perfessers think they are intelligent.
Constructivism is an invention that makes education perfessers think they know something that everyone else doesn't.
Constructivism is a set of statements about learning that are quite simpleminded and generally false.
"Knowledge can't be transmitted from one person to another. 'Learners' have to construct knowledge." [This very statement shows that constructivists don't believe what they say. Isn't the statement an effort to transmit knowledge?]
"Therefore, teachers should not teach directly by telling or showing (e.g., how to solve math problems). Instead, they should guide students as STUDENTS figure out concepts (what granite is) and strategies (how to sound out words, how to solve math problems)." [Constructing knowledge means NOTHING more than comparing and contrasting, identifying sameness and difference, making inductions and deductions. This is all OLD news. There is NO reason why teachers can't teach in a direct and focused fashion. In fact, students "construct knowledge" (figure things out) better--faster and with fewer errors--when they ARE taught directly, rather than expected to "discover" knowledge--which makes no sense, anyway. If knowledge is constructed, what IS there to discover?]
"How each person constructs knowledge is unique. Therefore, teachers should not arrange instruction in sequences. Instead, students should select learning tasks. Don't worry. They will select what they are ready for." [Unique in the DETAILS but not in the general logical operations by which human beings learn. If each person is unique, I guess physicians should not take their blood pressure.]
"Drill (distributed practice) is bad. It is boring. It is not needed." [Baloney!]
"Tasks should be 'authentic.' Wholistic. Teach the fundamentals of chemistry in the CONTEXT of chemistry experiments. Teach phonics skills in the context of reading." [This is the prescription for keeping kids ignorant and unskilled and for leaving them demoralized.]
"Since each student's learning is unique and INTERNAL, you cannot use quantitative and standardized methods of assessment. It should be qualitative--how students feel and think about what they are learning." [This makes no sense. Body temperature is also "internal," but you can measure it quantitatively and with a standard instrument. LIkewise, you can easily count how many math problems kids do correctly. This is a cop-out to protect constructivists from data that would ruin them.]
And from this set of sophomoric beliefs, you get whole language, fuzziest math, inquiry science, literature without literacy, and history without moral and political lessons.
Now let's look at constructivism in more detail.
How Stupid IS Constructivism?
Constructivist writing typically begins with an intellectually dishonest and shallow critique of the "instructivist" (Finn & Ravitch, 1996) approach. This critique is a thinly-disguised rhetorical device by which the constructivist writer stakes an undeserved claim to the moral high ground and tries to convince readers that constructivists have anything worth saying. For example:
Constructivism challenges the assumptions and practices of reductionism that have pervaded our educational practices for generations. In a deficit-driven reductionist framework, effective learning takes place in a rigid, hierarchical progression... Learning, then, is an accumulation of isolated facts. (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1995)
A constructivist framework challenges teachers to create environments
in which they and their students are encouraged to think and explore.
This is a formidable challenge. But to do otherwise is to perpetuate
ever-present behavioral approach to teaching and learning. (Brooks
Even a survey-level understanding of the instructivist approach (traditional values, mastery of knowledge systems is the aim, the teacher teaches) and its history enables one to see the constructivist critique as an inept caricature that reveals constructivists' stunning ignorance of the approach whose alleged failings constructivists claim to remedy, or outright manipulation of naive consumers by withholding information.
For example, despite overwhelming evidence of the beneficial outcomes (in basic skills, cognitive-conceptual skills, and self-esteem) for students taught math and reading via Direct Instruction and Applied Behavior Analysis--in stark contrast to the poor outcomes for students taught math and reading by constructivist methods (See Project FollowThrough)--constructivists belabor readers with a compulsive litany of alleged offenses committed by "behaviorists." These offenses include the following.
1. Thorndike's law of effect. The notion that persons learn from the effects of their actions is supposed to be damning. One does not see how.
2. Drill on basic skills. Apparently, constructivists believe that over 100 years of experimental research (and the creative, skillful and durable repertoires of dancers, martial artists, painters, writers, musicians, and athletes) showing the necessity of practice, practice, and more practice for accuracy, fluency, endurance, generalization, retention and creativity, can be invalidated by chanting the vapid (but seemingly catchy) phrase "drill and kill."
3. The criticism that "behaviorism" reduces human behavior to stimulus-response relationships--but without enough knowledge to realize that "stimulus-response" is a formulation from the respondent (classical conditioning) learning literature, having little to do with the complex activities (e.g., communication, math) that instructivist educators study.
4. The allegation that American education has been dominated by the behavioral "model"--despite the enormous amount of evidence that American education has been dominated--to the detriment of at least five generations of children--by "developmentalist," "child-centered, self-anointed "progresssive" (mis)educators.
Even a cursory reading of Ernst von Glasersfeld, Brian Cambourne, Jacqueline Brookes, Catherine Fosnot and other 25 watt constructivist illuminaries reveals their ignorance and/or misrepresentation of their created foe.
Constructivist "philosophy," research, and pedagogy rest almost entirely on fanciful (and occasionally hallucinatory) presumptions about learning. Most of the core concepts ("meaning," "knowledge") are vague and equivocal. Indeed, definitions shift within the same paragraph. One moment "meaning" is an outcome of meaning construction; the next moment it is an adjective (meaningful).
In addition, one searches constructivist literature in vain for serious examinations of essential distinctions--for example: 1) between knowing that, knowing how, knowing how to, and knowing why; 2) between propositional ("If-then") knowledge and practical (tacit) knowledge; 3) between "knowing" (presuming, assuming, concluding, believing) that something is the case, and knowing the grounds (evidence, rules of inference) for assessing what and how one believes; and 4) between rule-following ("First do X; then do Y.") and merely rule-describable action (Nola, 1997; Ogborn, 1997).
The failure to distinguish these important forms of behavior or knowledge yields the torrent of new-age hash typical of constructivist writing.
Constructivist "theory" is a mishmash of overlapping platitudes and
absurdities--"empty words and poetic metaphors" (Aristotle,
separately, constructivist "propositions" are merely simpleminded. Taken
together, they are indistinguishable from the verbal behavior of a person
suffering from chronic schizophrenia.
"Reality is a construction."
"Knowledge is a construction."
"Experience is a construction."
"Experience is constructed with constructs."
"Constructs are constructed out of experience."
"Reality is knowledge."
"Knowledge is reality."
"Experience is reality."
"There is no knowable reality external to the knowing subject (the constructor)."
"Individuals and groups construct meaning as they interact with environments."
"Therefore, no statement can be more than relatively true."
"A current body of knowledge ('reality') is a context that shapes the construction of knowledge."
"Therefore, environment, knowledge, experience, meaning and reality are the same thing."
...certain words and combinations of words are repeated like mantras,
and while this procedure may well eventually produce in some what
chanting is often designed to do, namely, produce a certain feeling
of enlightenment without the tiresome business of intellectual effort,
this feeling nearly always disappears with the immersion of the head in the cold water of critical interrogation. (Suchting, 1992, p. 247)
But of course constructivists do not submit constructivism to critical interrogation. Perhaps they do not know how.
Oddly, despite a century of anthropological, social psychological and sociological studies of the co-production of individuals and the social order, the only thing that constructivists do not see as a construction is the individual. How the individual somehow remains for constructivists an irredicible entity, or an uncaused first cause, is a mystery we do not expect constructivists to solve--or notice.
Even if one wished to investigate the above trite propositions (or, more importantly, investigate how constructivists use them to construct constructivism) one could not do so; one does not know what counts as knowledge, construction, experience or meaning. For example, what processes are signified by the word "construct"? When does this constructing occur? Before we think? Before we act? Afterwards? And does this not lead to an infinite regression? That is, when do we construct the tools by which we construct knowledge? And how could we possibly do so? Such constructing would require an even more primitive tool-tool constructing process. But if it is claimed that we are somehow taught the tools for constructing knowledge, or that we come equipped with them (Kant. Critique of pure reason) then that invalidates the major premiss that we construct knowledge--for surely, the tools for constructing knowledge would have to count as knowledge.
One is also puzzled by some constructivists' claim that truth is relative (except, of course, constructivist truth-claims)--this at the same time that constructivists cite Plato and Socrates (e.g., in the Meno) as early constructivists. For Plato, opinion (formed from living in the world of becoming, or appearance, and shaped by social position) was relative. However, the Ideas or Forms, of which the apparent world is a mere copy, were not at all relative. (See Plato's Republic.)
Of course, the claim that truth is relative ought to put an end to constructivism
as a serious contender for anyone's attention. For, if all propositions
asserted to be true (or reasonable) are merely relative (to speakers, hearers
and situations), then every constructivist proposition is in the category
of opinion; is relative to the speaker; and is neither true nor false.
Therefore, why would anyone believe (let alone reform education on the basis of) constructivists' mere opinions? In other words, the fundamental propositions of constructivism disqualify constructivists as authorities on how children learn and how teachers ought to teach (Suchting, 1992).
Confronted with the ambiguities, tautologies and pure absurdities in constructivist writing, naive readers must rely on faith or are persuaded by the hip writing style of constructivists. This (rather than reason and data) is the sort of connection between" authorities" and subjects that (at the macro level) often leads to some form of fascism or at least foolishness. Surely, this is not the sort of authority that we wish our students--or anyone in a democratic society--to respect. Moreover, a case can be made that constructivists' inability to be concrete, means that constructivists literally do not know what (behavior, learning, meaning, knowledge, construction) they are talking about.
Constructivists' empty talk about knowledge construction is easily revealed. One merely asks for a narrative recording of a student's ongoing "construction of knowledge or meaning" (e.g., during a science experiment) that is not identical to a narrative recording of the student's actions. It cannot be done; the constructivist invariably resorts to a running set of inferences about the student's mental life (e.g., schemata). In other words, constructivists read minds. This enables them to validate their theories without having to provide "objective" data.
Constructivist writing is laced with informal fallacies identified by logicians--ad hominem, ad populum, begging the question, ad ignorantium, and false cause. The first three are basically all that constructivists offer as polemic. The latter two define constructivist "research," which rarely surpasses the level of anecdotes; testimonials; field notes (valorized by the term"ethnography"); or one-group, pre-test/post-test "experiments."
Constructivists generally begin their case with appeals to authority. As though it were a secular liturgy, they cite philosophers (Zeno, Gorgias, Heraclitus), Piaget, and of course Vygotsky. Again, constructivists reveal either astounding weaknesses in their understanding of their own totemic ancestors or simply choose to cut and paste whichever passages suit their bias.
For example, Heraclitus asserted that the world is in continuous flux (You cannot step into the same river twice; the waters are ever flowing on), but he also said this is true only in the world of appearance. Behind and woven through it all is The Law governing all things. A constructivist might reply (now arguing against Heraclitus, who is often cited in support of constructivism), "But we cannot know of any such Law. All we can know is the world of appearance." This may be. But the point is that constructivists quote only what serves their bias. A cynic would wonder if constructivists' (mis)citing of classical writers is another rhetorical device--as though one could transform Dadaist writing into sublime poetry by inserting a few lines from Shakespeare.
And the pre-Socratic philosopher Gorgias's argument (that nothing exists; that we cannot know anything about what exists if anything does exist; and that we cannot communicate what we know, anyway) is understood by students of these philosophers as a demonstration that if an argument is well crafted, you can get naive individuals to believe anything. That is why Plato and Socrates could not stand the sophists.
Again, a close reading of the alleged "founders" of constructivism reveals that these founders would not support constructivism. Indeed, and in what must be one of the greater ironies, Charles Peirce's pragmatic theory of truth, which constructivists apparently believe supports their notion that we cannot know the truth, is actually a behavioral account of what we take to be true. Beliefs that lead to effective actions tend to be repeated. One can only sigh, "Big news."
Constructivists' invoking of Piaget (who apparently cannot be allowed to rest in peace) at the beginning of almost every bit of writing, is one of constructivists' more predictable behaviors. Piaget's construction of his children's construction of knowledge is used, variously, as evidence of the oversimplicity of "behavioral analysis," a foundation for constructivism, and an example of how children "really" learn. But how well does Piaget actually serve constructivist interests? The answer is, Not well.
First, Piaget examined children interacting (largely alone) with the physical environment. Naturally, this very small sample of human interaction with the world that humans are trying to "know" could easily be used to support the constructivist position that humans construct knowledge. But when one observes a child interacting with another human being, it is clear that much that the child takes to be "how the world works and can be understood" is gotten from that other human. "We call this an apple" and "Watch how the rolling ball makes the block tower fall over." The child's future actions then confirm these propositions; they do not create them.
Constructivists might claim that by acting to confirm or disconfirm what she has "gotten" from other persons, the child is "constructing" knowledge. However, it is empirically and grammatically more correct to say that the child is refining propositions that she received. This discrepancy reveals another major failing of constructivism. The definition of knowledge construction is so broad that it covers virtually everything that human beings get out of interaction with the world. As with every other theory or therapy that has tried to establish hegemony (e.g., psychoanalysis), constructivists' propositions are neither numerous enough nor robust enough to handle everything that they call knowledge. And, the moment that they retreat from hegemonic intentions, and make room for other accounts, the alleged superiority of constructivism is shown to be mere hyperbole, and falls on the sword of its own proposition regarding the relativity of accounts.
One also wonders why constructivists: 1) persistently examine only those aspects of human interaction with "the world" that support their propositions; and 2) give only one interpretation of events. Surely, for example, Piaget's narrative recordings of his children's behavior could be rendered with common behavioral concepts. To insist on a constructivist "way of rendering" is an example of astounding arrogance and hypocricy. Of course the co-occurrence of these two traits is not new in the history of fads.
Constructivists' frequent disinterment of Vygotsky, whose Collected Works contain both an extensive critique of Piaget's work and an argument that personality rests on the conditioned reflex, is yet another irony, which lack of interest does not permit us to elaborate.
Constructivism is perhaps best seen as the anarchical utopianism of a socially privileged class (academics) fueled by fake neo-Romantic sentimentality. (See Irving Louis Horowitz, Radicalism and the revolt against reason.) Apparently not embarrassed by their astonishing ignorance of history, sociology, social psychology, anthropology, experimental psychology of learning, and totalitarian societies, constructivists regard American society, bodies of knowledge, "behaviorism," "authority," and "external," "socially-contrived" methods of reasoning, as repressive forms of control over the "naturally-reasonable inner child" in all persons (Rice, 1996, 1998). The primary mission of constructivists, therefore, is to help students "find their inner voices" (in a quasi-religious deification of "the real self"), rather than help students share in the bodies of knowledge (math, science, literature) that constitute our species's effort to understand itself and the world. This has four interrelated consequences.
1. Constructivists feel obligated not to require students to test their "knowledge constructions" using explicitly taught, culturally-shared rules of evidence and logic--for such testing would subordinate the individual to external authority.
2. What many constructivists valorize with the word "knowledge" includes students' mere opinion, speculation, and plain error.
3. The "hidden curriculum" in constructivism teaches two extremes. These are:
a. Radical constructivism, which asserts, "There are no truths. Everything is relative." ("anomie") "The individual constructs his or her reality." ("egoism") (See Durkheim's Suicide for a discussion of the societal and personal consequences of anomie and egoism.) Radical constructivism ignores the larger socio-political context in which knowledge (e.g., of math and science) is certainly distributed unequally. By making knowledge an individual achievement, radical constructivists distract attention from the social maldistribution of knowledge, and therefore help to perpetuate class inequality (Zevenbergen, 1996).
b. Social constructivism, which, in practice, leads to group think (Zolkower, 1995). The following lines are rather chilling.
Opportunities for children to construct mathematical knowledge arise
as they interact with both the teacher and their peers. As a consequence,
their mathematic constructions are not purely arbitrary--anything does
not go in the classroom. Instead, their constructions are constrained
by an obligation to develop interpretations that fit those of other
members of the classroom community. (Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1990)
Note that students do not discover truths or verify propositions; they
develop interpretations. And these interpretations are constrained by the
group's interpretation. With an astonishing show of naivete, the writers
fail to address the questions that Introductory Sociology students would
ask immediately--namely, "How do relations of power emerge in these groups
such that some members'
'voices' shape the interpretations ('voices') of other members? How does conformity to the interpretations of some members, or to the emerging consensus, come to be felt as a moral obligation? Does the consensus reflect the culture, sex, or class interests and values of the more powerful 'voices' in the 'community'?" (See Bianchini, 1997, on the reproduction of social inequality during "inquiry learning" projects.)
The quotation above reveals the true face and fatal hypocrisy in constructivism--namely, pie-eyed neo-Marxist rhetoric about liberating individuals from the alleged repressive force of traditional bodies of knowledge and methods of reasoning, but in practice molding the individual's mind and morality within and by the constructivist led "community. No doubt, well-meaning constructivist teachers would be shocked at the suggestion that they are unwittingly instituting a "tyranny of the majority" masked by quasi-therapeutic jargon, in which "insight" means "agreement" and "truth" means "conformity." (See Phillip Rieff, "The triumph of the therapeutic.)
4. This helps to explain why student-teacher interaction in constructivist classrooms bears a striking resemblance to "values clarification" and "sensitivity training" of the 1970's ("I respect your feelings.") and Rogerian psychotherapy ("How do you see it?").
Constructivists are at least consistent in one regard. They do not "evaluate," "judge," and reject their own "theory (interpretation) of learning" and constructivist pedagogy on the basis of hard data, experimentation, and logic, any more than they expect students to submit their interpretations to verification by traditional methods.
Constructivist "philosophy" argues against any effort to use methods of measurement, evidence and inference found in the serious sciences--to see if constructivist instruction actually works. Issues such as "how well it works," "correct answers," "evaluation," and "judging students' knowledge" are unacceptable to constructivists, as are standardized tests. These are said to depersonalize students and trivialize their struggle.
Constructivists try to delegitimize evaluation of constructivist teaching by outside persons and/or according to "external" criteria. This is done by:
1) Arguing an epistemology that negates the possibility of any "objective account." "There are no right answers."
2) Privileging the "process" of learning (the "struggle") over the outcomes of the struggle. "How students learn is more important than what they learn."
3) Claiming that they alone really "know" what their students have learned. This self-legitimation and self-bestowing of special powers is identical to the rhetoric of sorcery, witch-finding, new age healing, Stalinism, and delusional psychosis. However, judging by book sales, speaker engagements, and teacher training programs, constructivists have turned skillful duplicity and smarmy pseudo-liberationist cant into a thriving industry accountable to no one.
Finally, if one were interested in cogent, well-written, intellectually
rigorous and illuminating works on how human beings collaboratively produce
knowledge (and folly), one would not pay much attention to the watery soup
served up by constructivists in education and psychology, but to: (1) Emile
Durkheim--The elementary forms of the religious life (1912); (2)
David Hume--A treatise of
human nature (1738); (3) Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann--The social construction of reality (1966); (4) George Herbert Mead--On social psychology (1934); (5) Harold Garfinkel--Ethnomethodology (1966); (6) Karl Mannheim--Ideology and utopia (1955); (7) Alfred Schutz--Collected works (1962, 1964) and The phenomenology of the social world (1967); (8) Charles MacKay--Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds (1931); and (9) Kenneth Burke--A grammar of motives (1969) and A rhetoric of motives (1969).
Bianchini, J.A. (1997). "Where knowledge construction, equity, and context
intersect: Student learning of science in small groups."
Research in Science Teaching,
Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding:
The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and
Cobb, C., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). "Chapter 9. Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. In R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125-146). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press.
Finn, C.E., & Ravitch, D. (1996). Educational reform 1995-1996. A report from the Educational Excellence Network. https://www.edexcellence.net/library/epciv.html
Nola, R. (1997). "Constructivism in science and science education: A
critique." Science and Education, 6, 55-83.
Ogborn, J. (1997). Constructivist metaphors of learning science. Science and Education, 6, 121-133.
Reiff, P. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic. New York: Harper & Row.
Rice, J.S. (1996). A disease of one's own. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick, NJ.
Rice, J.S. (1998). "The triumph of Romantic Modernism." Forthcoming.
Suchting, W. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed. Science and Education, 1, 223-254.
Udvari-Solner, A., & Thousand, J.S. (1995). "Promising practices
that foster inclusive education. In R.A. Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.),
inclusive schools (pp. 87-109).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zevenbergen, R. (1996). Constructivism as a liberal bourgeois discourse. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 95-113.
Zolkower, B. (1995). Math fictions: What really solves the problem. Social Text, 43, 133-162.
Back in the white room, the ed perfessoriate is becoming bored with constructivism. Soon, they will leave the room, run around in the halls awhile, come back in and think of a new "pedagogy" that will rob another generation of students.
A copy of Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons for the best (i.e., stupidest) candidate fad.