Are Constructivist Teaching Methods Superior to Traditional Methods of Teaching?

Constructivist versus the traditional method of teaching.
According to Hausfather Sam, most teachers follow a constructivist approach which comprises of theories such as social constructivist, radical constructivist, information processing constructivism, cybernetic systems, social, cultural approaches and social constructivism. Reasons why constructivism is more superior to traditional teaching method, is that knowledge emerges and is strengthen by human activities, interactions, and use of materials. Therefore, we create knowledge and do not obtain it through experience and heredity. Student’s previous knowledge is essential in enhancing deep understanding of concepts. This eases and transforms learning. Learning should integrate public or group reasoning and collective problem-solving. Constructivist teaching makes this possible. Cooperative learning has been found to advance learning outcomes. This method makes learning fun and useful as it also balances learning procedure and the context. Active involvement of students is vital as content knowledge is built upon students’ prior knowledge, thoughts, and experiences (Hausfather 1-5).
On the other hand, Clark et al. argue that constructivist teaching method is not superior to the traditional method of teaching as everyone prospers with complete and clear instructional guidance. This is important than partial direction as it takes less time for learners to grasp the content and get a solution. Full guidance is effective compared to partially guided information.

it is important to guide students and provide them corrective feedback when dealing with new information. Students often become lost, discouraged, and confused when learning with minimal feedback. Direct directions, guidance, and examples result in more learning than discovery. Withholding of information from students does not enable the construction of knowledge. Guided materials allow learners to have appropriate concepts in their long-term memory (Clark et al. 6-10)
It is important for students to be challenged and be responsible to learn and discover more. Learners need to be aggressive, curious and thirsty for knowledge. Partial guidance will keep students active and will work hard to make discovery and deepen not only their knowledge but also understanding while promoting collaborative learning. On the other hand, full guidance is crucial as people have different learning speed and skills. Complete guidance is effective as it ensures all learners are on the same page. Therefore both methods can work efficiently if they are used well as long as the learning goal is achieved. Both constructivist and traditional methods can be used together.
Work cited
Clark D.E. Richard, et al. “Putting Students on the Path to Learning”: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction. American Educator, 2012.6-10.Accessed on 21 April 2018.
Hausfather, Sam. “Where’s the Content? The Role of Content in Constructivist Teacher Education.” n.d. 1-5. 21 Accessed on April 2018.