This is another post that I wrote after reading old papers written when I was a graduate student… this one from 1999.
Our goal for students is typically understanding; we don’t want our students to simply recall, we hope to see in them knowledge of facts and comprehension on concepts. But maybe we don’t.
Actually, I am sure we don’t, and I was reminded of that by the 1999 Gary.
In a paper reflecting on a curriculum development course, I was writing about cognitive versus behaviorist approaches to curriculum. (By the way, it was a great class, I learned nothing about how to write a curriculum document, but lots about how to differentiate different approaches to curriculum.) I wrote:
Finally, I got to the end of the book to find the characteristics of constructivist teachers. As I read, I saw much of what I hope to be as a teacher. Despite this, I am not convinced I am a constructivist. The constructivist approach focuses on understanding and thinking, my approach focuses on inquiry.… Of course, to me understanding (the focus of constructivism_ is a fleeting sensation. If we truly understand an idea, then we realize there is much more yet to be understood and the formulation of a good inquiry into an unknown aspect of an idea is the only true measure of understanding.
If I was right those decades ago, then we want understanding, but we will be met with the paradox if understanding. Jus like the paradox of knowledge, when we ask our students “Do you understand this?” they should answer “no.”
If they were my students, I would hope the answer, “Well, I understand your version of it, but I still have questions.”