What Is It to Learn?

“I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn”

~Albert Einstein (Einstein)

What is it to learn? Webster’s dictionary says it is “to commit to memory”, but I feel it is so much more than that (Learn). Learning is a combination of educating students and preparing them, both of which I believe are equally important, and necessary in a classroom. Constructivists and Positivists had their own ideas of what it means to learn; each with their own reason, but my teaching will most parallel that of the constructivists.

Constructivism and positivism are the two main theories of teaching in today’s world, and there is much debate over which is more practical. Positivist teachers believe that “when teaching classes, they deposit the information that they have, the facts they know, into students” (Hinchey, p. 43). Hinchey, in talking about depositing information, was talking about the Banking Method of teaching. The view of this is that teachers know everything, they are full, and students know nothing, so teacher fill them with their information, or deposit it. Positivists see children as empty, devoid of their own thoughts or knowledge. Hinchey also says, “generally, positivist teachers would agree that we can’t expect students to enjoy it… we’ll probably have to break down and play jeopardy or something so they can feel like there’s some fun in school” (p. 50). In my opinion, teaching and learning should be enjoyable, which does not mean breaking down to play jeopardy. The fact that these teachers agree that students don’t enjoy learning from them signals to me that something is wrong in the classroom. Positivists’ classrooms are orderly, managed and predicable, with no room for student input or change to schedules. A view by Paulo Freire is that positivism “serves only to dehumanize” students (¶ 14). They have no choice in any matters, no say in any discussions, and learn to be compliant.

In contrast, the constructivist...