What do you think?
Rate this book
In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms
This text builds a case for the development of classrooms where students construct deep understandings of important concepts. The book presents new images for educational settings: student engagement, interaction, reflection, and construction.
136 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1993
7 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
About the author
Jacqueline Grennon Brooks
9 books3 followersJacqueline Grennon Brooks is Professor Emerita in the Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership at Hofstra University. She is a co-founder of the Long Island Explorium, a children’s museum of science and engineering in Port Jefferson, NY. She served as the founding director of the Biotechnology Teaching Lab and the Discover Lab at Stony Brook University and directed its Science Teacher Preparation Program. At Hofstra University, she directed the Institute for the Development of Education in the Advanced Sciences, the Science Education Program, and STEM Studio, a clinical practice site for new teachers.
Grennon Brooks has been recognized by the American Educational Research Journal for Outstanding Service in Publications, by Hofstra University with the Distinguished Teacher of the Year award, by Girls, Inc with its Strong Smart Bold Award, by the National Science Teachers Association for creation of Discover Lab, and by United University Professions with its Nuala McGann Drescher Award.
Grennon Brooks earned a doctorate in curriculum and teaching from Teachers College, Columbia University. She is an international consultant and author of books, articles and chapters on constructivist pedagogy and design-based STEAM education.
Grennon Brooks has been recognized by the American Educational Research Journal for Outstanding Service in Publications, by Hofstra University with the Distinguished Teacher of the Year award, by Girls, Inc with its Strong Smart Bold Award, by the National Science Teachers Association for creation of Discover Lab, and by United University Professions with its Nuala McGann Drescher Award.
Grennon Brooks earned a doctorate in curriculum and teaching from Teachers College, Columbia University. She is an international consultant and author of books, articles and chapters on constructivist pedagogy and design-based STEAM education.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 28, 2010
I got curious about education literature, and this was recommended. It is a polemic rather than even a review of research, but still includes some compelling examples of classroom interactions.
The book is part of the tired attack on 'traditional learning'--you can't pour knowledge into a student, but instead we should allegedly devote most class time to student self-discovery and avoid content where there are wrong answers. Gaining perspective on what students believe and know is surely valuable. However, the critique on more traditional learning did not seem entirely grounded.
By the end of the book, there were several proposals and points made with which I wasn't entirely satisfied. They include:
1. The book proposes throwing out all grades and standardized tests.
However, education is not just a service to students, but of society. Throughout our life, we are evaluated again and again, and often harshly. The authors don't like the discouragement to children that get bad grades, but what about the encouragement of students with good grades? If there are rewards for participating in sports and being popular, where does academic achievement get valued?
2. The authors want to create "self-motivated, curious and creative" people instead of those "merely able to follow other people's logic." Following other people's logic seems like a highly foundational skill, necessary to read books like the one the authors have written. The authors are revolted by right and wrong answers, but valuing correct/verifiable beliefs needs to come somewhere.
3. Many of the examples suggest very direct teacher-student interactions, even at the level of tutoring. Though plenty of examples include a class, I wonder how easily such an approach scales even to class sizes around 12-15. With so much time spent on not-entirely-wrong perspectives, could hearing bad ideas confuse students?
Despite my skepticism, I was still convinced that education could use a healthy share of constructivism.
Amidst the current and enduring education debate about standardized tests, the question remains how to measure classrooms in a way that scales. While reading the book, I came up with an idea that would seem to work more for constructivism. Instead of (or complementing) standardized testing, what if teachers reported their daily activities? For each class, they would log the questions they posed to the whole class that day, which concepts they found that underlay student perspectives, and which concepts the teacher taught.
This model is more like how doctors bill their labor (i.e. what they did instead of a survey of how many of their patients are healthy). The content covered in classrooms is often a local and national political football, but
1. The cognitive concepts may be less engaging and
2. the data could be reported after a time delay (e.g. 2 years).
We would be admitting that we don't yet know the best way to teach people, and this kind of data could be incredibly useful at the school, state, and national levels.
Anyway, a though provoking book.
The book is part of the tired attack on 'traditional learning'--you can't pour knowledge into a student, but instead we should allegedly devote most class time to student self-discovery and avoid content where there are wrong answers. Gaining perspective on what students believe and know is surely valuable. However, the critique on more traditional learning did not seem entirely grounded.
By the end of the book, there were several proposals and points made with which I wasn't entirely satisfied. They include:
1. The book proposes throwing out all grades and standardized tests.
However, education is not just a service to students, but of society. Throughout our life, we are evaluated again and again, and often harshly. The authors don't like the discouragement to children that get bad grades, but what about the encouragement of students with good grades? If there are rewards for participating in sports and being popular, where does academic achievement get valued?
2. The authors want to create "self-motivated, curious and creative" people instead of those "merely able to follow other people's logic." Following other people's logic seems like a highly foundational skill, necessary to read books like the one the authors have written. The authors are revolted by right and wrong answers, but valuing correct/verifiable beliefs needs to come somewhere.
3. Many of the examples suggest very direct teacher-student interactions, even at the level of tutoring. Though plenty of examples include a class, I wonder how easily such an approach scales even to class sizes around 12-15. With so much time spent on not-entirely-wrong perspectives, could hearing bad ideas confuse students?
Despite my skepticism, I was still convinced that education could use a healthy share of constructivism.
Amidst the current and enduring education debate about standardized tests, the question remains how to measure classrooms in a way that scales. While reading the book, I came up with an idea that would seem to work more for constructivism. Instead of (or complementing) standardized testing, what if teachers reported their daily activities? For each class, they would log the questions they posed to the whole class that day, which concepts they found that underlay student perspectives, and which concepts the teacher taught.
This model is more like how doctors bill their labor (i.e. what they did instead of a survey of how many of their patients are healthy). The content covered in classrooms is often a local and national political football, but
1. The cognitive concepts may be less engaging and
2. the data could be reported after a time delay (e.g. 2 years).
We would be admitting that we don't yet know the best way to teach people, and this kind of data could be incredibly useful at the school, state, and national levels.
Anyway, a though provoking book.
May 4, 2022
In Search of Understanding isn't a bad book, I just didn't think it was a good book and it's a little out of date. One of the things I'm always looking for is a practical idea that I can use in my classroom tomorrow. Search for Understanding is a book that's long on theory and pretty short on practical ideas. It made a strong case for why it's important to let kids be active participants in their learning. The book was published in 1993, and it works hard to make a case for things that seem pretty obvious today. One of the big ideas in the book was to structure learning around big questions rather than focus on smaller facts. With me as an audience, the author was preaching to the choir. I didn't feel I took much away from the book that I could convert into lessons.
December 2, 2020
Outstanding! A great read for any educator that want to revolutionize the classroom and instruction. There are many ideas that could be implemented immediately to help students learn and encourage ownership of their education in the process.
March 18, 2016
What I like most about this short, useful book, about this accessible, practical guide to constructivist teaching, about this handy guide, what I like most about this book is that it lays a foundation for much of the work that we are attempting to achieve with our curricular efforts using Understanding by Design. Written prior to Wiggins and McTieghe's works, The Case for Constructivist Classrooms supplies an epistemological background that places the UbD work into a workable context.
My reading gave me at least two epiphanies. First, while reading, I came to realize that most of my prior teaching, even with very good intentions, aims at a broad shot approach; if the student is on the same bandwidth, she will connect with me, but if not, the signal never picks up an audience while I simply keep broadcasting. My traditional teaching approaches, albeit well-intentioned, never probe for deeper understanding because my methodologies never go there. That is, how can I expect my students to achieve deeper understanding when I do not allow them time to make inquiries? By keeping it shallow (due to time, coverage, and efficiency concerns), should I be surprised that their knowledge never runs deeply? Brooks and Brooks quote one of my favorite authors, Jerome Bruner, from his book, The Process of Education (1971), "Of only one thing am I convinced: I have never seen anybody improve in the art and technique of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry." For Bruner, it seems, inquiry begets inquiry. If inquiry becomes the means of operation, knowledge will grow organically, systemically, and finally, deeply.
Second, I came to realize how a classroom built on constructivist methodologies provides an educational culture that naturally engenders curiosity (something that seems to be utterly squelched in the middle school years) in students. Curiosity should not be the only realm of novice learner; rather, it must be the fuel converter that continually processes and assimilates inquiries into practical, working knowledge for the mature learner. The constructivist classroom works to nourish curiosity and encourage it. Therefore, it might mean that the classroom looks messy, is noisy, and lack efficiency, but oh well. The greater good of garnering curiosity in our students and just maybe, creating a life-long learner, outweighs the need for tidy rows and scope and sequence itineraries. The cacophonous newsroom and the cluttered studio seem to be better models for constructivist classrooms, not the factory model of bells and whistles.
My reading gave me at least two epiphanies. First, while reading, I came to realize that most of my prior teaching, even with very good intentions, aims at a broad shot approach; if the student is on the same bandwidth, she will connect with me, but if not, the signal never picks up an audience while I simply keep broadcasting. My traditional teaching approaches, albeit well-intentioned, never probe for deeper understanding because my methodologies never go there. That is, how can I expect my students to achieve deeper understanding when I do not allow them time to make inquiries? By keeping it shallow (due to time, coverage, and efficiency concerns), should I be surprised that their knowledge never runs deeply? Brooks and Brooks quote one of my favorite authors, Jerome Bruner, from his book, The Process of Education (1971), "Of only one thing am I convinced: I have never seen anybody improve in the art and technique of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry." For Bruner, it seems, inquiry begets inquiry. If inquiry becomes the means of operation, knowledge will grow organically, systemically, and finally, deeply.
Second, I came to realize how a classroom built on constructivist methodologies provides an educational culture that naturally engenders curiosity (something that seems to be utterly squelched in the middle school years) in students. Curiosity should not be the only realm of novice learner; rather, it must be the fuel converter that continually processes and assimilates inquiries into practical, working knowledge for the mature learner. The constructivist classroom works to nourish curiosity and encourage it. Therefore, it might mean that the classroom looks messy, is noisy, and lack efficiency, but oh well. The greater good of garnering curiosity in our students and just maybe, creating a life-long learner, outweighs the need for tidy rows and scope and sequence itineraries. The cacophonous newsroom and the cluttered studio seem to be better models for constructivist classrooms, not the factory model of bells and whistles.
Read
July 21, 2021The edition of this book I read, which I picked up at a library benefit sale in Vermont, looked like a galley or an advanced review copy. But, in fact, it is a four- or five-star book marred by its publisher's ineptitude. Spelling, stylistic, and formatting lapses plague this book, causing problems, I'm afraid, for this fastidious, obsessive reader. Memo to my fellow educators: if you want to be taken seriously, please don't submit things like this for publication unless you're confident of your publisher's editorial staff.
Post Scriptum: After considering my review of this book, and more importantly learning that there are other editions of it available, I raised my estimation of it. My problem, to belabor the point, is with this edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development published this particular edition, and did so very badly. Are you listening ASCD? There is another edition on Google Books, also published by ASCD, that looks like it gave the book the respectful publishing treatment it clearly merits.
Post Scriptum: After considering my review of this book, and more importantly learning that there are other editions of it available, I raised my estimation of it. My problem, to belabor the point, is with this edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development published this particular edition, and did so very badly. Are you listening ASCD? There is another edition on Google Books, also published by ASCD, that looks like it gave the book the respectful publishing treatment it clearly merits.
August 7, 2012
This book presents a case for the development of classrooms in which students are encouraged to construct deep understanding of important concepts. The authors present guiding principles of constructivism, such as posing problems of emerging relevance to students, structuring learning around primary concepts, seeking and valuing students' viewpoints, adapting curriculum to address students' suppositions, and assessing student learning in the context of teaching. The authors suggest the student need not be assessed in isolation, but in conjunction with the teacher, and both learn as a result of assessment. The authors offer some suggestions on creating constructivist settings, such as encouraging inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions and encouraging students to ask questions of each other. Constructivist teachers, they state, seek elaboration of students' initial responses.
August 1, 2008
I learned a lot about how and why our schools need to foster a constructivist curriculum. What seemed daunting in theory and frightening in its raw form in the field, now seems plausible. (plausible to anyone willing to really put the effort forth that is).
July 14, 2012
One of the best books for developing inquiry-based classroom settings in higher education. Particularly good for engagement, interactive learning communities and reflective practice. Highly recommended.
October 6, 2013
This is a clear, succinct explanation of constructivist pedagogy for classroom teachers. It is well-referenced, includes plenty of concrete examples for teachers wishing to stretch the limits of their approach to their students and their projects.
May 30, 2014
It's a little tough to get through and doesn't have precise examples to help you in your classroom, focusing mainly on WHY you should create constructivist classrooms, but the ideas are sound and occasionally there are some points that really make you think.
September 6, 2014
Good ideas but really boring.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews