建構主義式教育的迷思與省思

THE MYTHS AND REFLECTIONS UPON THE CONSTRUCTIVISTIC EDUCATIOHN

蘇育任(WALTER YU-JEN SU)

《國民教育研究集刊》 5期 (1997/06) Pp. 121-137+139

https://doi.org/10.7038/BREE.199706_(5).0005

摘要

本文旨在評論科學教育目前最風行的理論－建構主義，依照建構主義的觀點，學生是抱持著已有的知識邁入課堂之中的，學生並非無知和非理性的個體，而是主動認知的主體，本身具有良好的理論。建構主義對理解自然現象的理論之重新描述方面，成果斐然，其整個理論核心，是奠基於「學生像科學家一樣」的這個觀念上。建構主義的確有不少貢獻：可讓人注意到學習者在學習歷程中乃是主動的參與者，提供了許多教學實務可激勵兒童採取主動，更提供了不勝枚舉的實徵性研究發現，極有價值可使教師敏銳地瞭解兒童具有的科學思想之形式，以及其可能的發展階段。過去二十多年其成就不少，但是在學習科學上十分新穎的觀點，或學習吾人絲毫不熟悉的事物時，則建構主義即無法進行「再描述」的功能。它似乎能提出各種教學策略，使其得以被辨認為建構主義的理論，可惜建構主義卻未能描繪學習的歷程。建構主義教學法的危險，卻在其假設它已對所有學生提供了改進的學習策略。事實上它的主要優點是在於提供另外一種替代方案而已。亦即對束縛於灌輸教學模式的教師提出挑戰，讓他們有多元、多種類的教學方式。學習型態方面的研究証據說明，由於學生的偏好各自不同，在教導與學習上也就沒有單一有效的方法，一昧地強調科學的概念發展，對所有孩童並不合適。相反地，科學教育應當發展出許多教學方法，可適合懷有不同目的之顧客的需求。歸結說來，把一個擬作為指示物的典範當成教學實務的指引，似乎免不了有重大的問題。單強調其成功之處卻輕易地忽視其缺點，建構主義成了一種全面涵蓋性的理論，再好也僅能對科學教育具有部份的貢獻而已。它把新知識形成的方式與舊知識學習的方式混淆了，因它假定兩者為同樣的一件事。對科學課程內容的組織與次序難以置啄，因而否定了它在教學上的重要價值。科學教育上唯一應主張的立場，就是把科學教育認定是一種有生機而未定的歷程，在其中每個個體的認識生命史皆為獨一無二的。

並列摘要

A large body of empirical research has been done in the paradigm of constructivism over the past two decades, however understanding the nature of constructivistic teaching is still difficult. This paper is thus aimed at offering a comprehensive critique of constructivism in science education which addresses not only the successes of constructivistic teaching, but also defines and identifies its weaknesses. Essentially, the types of alternative learning strategies it offers, and has generated, have made an important contribution to our understanding of the learner and learning. It has stimulated substantial empirical data and proved teachers' knowledge and understanding of children's scientific thinking, its origins and its development. In its maturity, any theory may show features of its success at the same time as features which could spell its fall from fashion. Seen from one side, the existence of constructivistic teaching reinforces the constructivistic theory. From another side, teaching is found to be irreconciable with it. At heart, many seminal failings of constructivistic education seem to suggest that it offers no guidance on adjudication between theories, the organization and sequencing of content within the science curriculum and rejects any value for didaticism. Mature constructivism tends to abrogate all avenues of research to itself. But no single perspective is ever likely to provide a final description of science education. If constructivistic teaching obscures other educational perspectives, either by its popularity or its blandness, that could be damaging. Constructivism is flawed because it fails to come to grips with issues such as culture or power in the classrooms. In summary, an improved science education will only come through the critical review of arguments and research evidence, by the adoption of a pedagogy which places a value on variety and diversity, and not through adherence to a singular school of thought.