When we think about education, it is important to see clearly that the teacher’s contribution is not trivial and elementary. Plato’s dialogues offer several examples of learning and teaching, the most famous of which is Socratic questioning. In fact, there are many classical theories of teaching and learning. Obviously, scientists, artists, politicians, and the great businessmen and women of the past have learned through these methods. However, looking back at the various images of learning and teaching, we saw that constructivism has tended to dominate in the last decades of the 20th century. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is the father of progressive educators. Yes, the misleading Swiss philosopher, author of the novel Emile (1762), has inspired many with his nihilism.
Anyone who takes the study of learning and teaching methods seriously, whether he is a pedagogue, a psychologist or a philosopher, must quickly become aware of the enormous difficulty of drawing a constructivist line in all the different fields of research. Regardless, constructivism is perhaps the greatest influence on contemporary science education.
Constructivism is a theory of learning that states that knowledge cannot be transmitted from teacher to student, but that each student must build it anew. Most members of the educational community have adopted constructivism as an epistemology. Consequently, they came to believe that consensus among scientists constitutes scientific knowledge. Now, constructivism has become part of educational orthodoxy. One of the problems of constructivism is its disregard for the teacher and his transformative agency, relying solely on the independent efforts of children. This theory presents a strong evolutionary defense of the construction of all knowledge by inquiring only the students.
I think this general statement is far from justified. You know the picture: Constructivism is clearly unrealistic, because this teacherless theory of learning places the student and the object of study as the most important figures in the learning process. However, the truth is that the classroom represents a kind of communion that involves the teacher, the student and knowledge. Beyond that, comprehensive education involves the family, the community, and the school. No student is an island. Many factors lead you to make one decision or another on your learning journey. Learning is an extremely complex and abstract task, and the young child will not be successful independently of others. We have before us this sad reality: students who have “learned” through constructivist instruction hardly find success in their intellectual endeavors. It is not easy to accept the opinion that a child is capable of building all his knowledge to generate a set of rules. I think it is not unfair to conclude from the results that, indeed, constructivism cannot correctly explain the way children learn.
Parents and teachers certainly have a job to do to help children improve all talents and abilities, and they must take it seriously. I think we become someone when faced with nihilistic ideas. This is because if we confront them and their consequences, then, and only then, are we affirming the essence of the human being: our freedom and our desire to share knowledge and love. In this sense, the traditional school with “classical” learning methods could lead students not only to fruitful results in their careers, university and citizenship. But, at the same time, it leads to a momentous discovery about themselves. On top of that, it raises questions about what it means to teach and learn, and also about how to be a healthy member of the community.