The school for geniuses that Bart attended had many of the elements of a constructivist environment outlined by Angela O’Donnell. Students engaged in authentic problem-solving which they had a choice in selecting. There was an emphasis on experiential learning, and students had access to a variety of real-world tools to assist them in completing their work. The students learned in a variety of social contexts from dyads to whole class discussions. Through the whole class discussions, they articulated their reasoning, building knowledge through the use of language. On the other hand, one major element of dialectic constructivism missing was scaffolding. Apart from the teacher’s questions in whole group discussion, problem-based learning appeared minimally guided, which made the class seem more attuned to endogenous constructivism. Furthermore, the school assumed this environment was only appropriate for “geniuses,” while constructivist pedagogy assumes that all children learn in this manner.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Mary Ann (Nestmann) Lynch 
Mary Ann, one of the “big problems” I had with this episode was the lack of regard to social context. Though the classroom had the trappings of constructivist methodologies, there seemed to be a big flaw in accurately assessing the environment (read: social interaction) of the students.
Regardless of his IQ, Bart did not come from a “culture” of intellectualism, well grounded academic practices, or vast body of accumulated academic knowledge. He was tossed into a class full of “brainacs” who seemed already to be functioning as experts in their specific domains. The class projects, though advanced, seemed to come from such a wide variety of domains that I find it hard to imagine how group work could have been implemented.
You know I’ve always had trouble wrapping my head around the difference between how constructivism is put into practice, and free-range, “I’m gonna make a bong in pottery class” academics. But as I understand it, a firm social learning context is paramount before the other elements. To me, it seemed like this school for the gifted was missing a key part of the foundation.
Chris, that is a great point. I think there might be some researchers who would consider this a constructivist classroom, but it’s missing an important social element. This environment reminds me of the minimially-guided discovery learning that many of the instructivists attacked in the book we read last semester. A recurring theme I saw among the constructivists was the importance of guidance, that constructivism should not be equated with “no guidance.” I think that’s what we see lacking from the school in this Simpsons episode. It may be one brand of constructivism, but it’s not the kind of constructivism that most constructivists endorse. I doubt it would really be effective for any students for the reason you’ve pointed out. Functioning experts don’t work in a vacuum. They participate in a community of practice that sets the norms for their behavior. These kids appear to have a community of practice, but how was it established? I don’t see any evidence that the teacher is guiding this culture. Did it arise out of nothing? I doubt any of the students functioned this way before coming to this school, so how did they learn to conduct themselves in this manner? I hadn’t considered it from this perspective. Thank you for drawing this issue to the surface.