A year ago I conducted a research on the relationship between teachers’ Leadership Style and the Teaching Strategy they preffered, trying to understand if there is any connection at all between these two different dimensions on a teacher’s personality.

All my premises were deeply rooted in the constructivist theories, and I formulated my hypothesis keeping in mind the active role that both the teacher and learner should play in this constructive, socio-cognitive process.

I expected that authoritarian teachers would base their strategy on directional teaching and learning theories (Cole, M. 1996), such as Piaget’s approach and thus, they would score higher on content-oriented teaching styles, as opposed to learner/subject – oriented teaching styles (Chung & Walsh, 2000).

Learner/subject oriented teaching styles would be: progressive pedagogy, teaching to generate meaning, teaching based on subject comprehension and content generation, etc.

Although there was a significant positive connection between the leadership style and teaching style, as shown in the statistical analysis of the results, I do not believe that we should jump to conclusion. Teaching is such a complex process we can barely study it comprehensively.

Nonetheless, I find it awkward and frustrating that teachers still refuse or find it useless/difficult to integrate subject/learner – oriented teaching strategies.

I dislike long lectures with the 5 minutes round-up for pupils to ask questions.

And I am sure more students dislike it as much as I do.

I asked myself why do we organically dislike these methods?

From a psychoanalytical point of view it would be funny to say that the Self is actively opposing the parental figure (the teacher), thus fighting both against the Super Ego’s tendency to submit to given orders and direction (and accept given information as such) AND against the Ego’s fear to being rejected, dismissed or criticized.

The 5 minutes round up is an illusory gateway full of dreadful normative restrictions, for the Self to climb up and speak his mind.

I am not the most loyal and enthusiast fan of psychoanalytical theories: I just think some explanations provide really enticing metaphors for the untrained mind to chew on before posing the real and right questions.

Personally, I think most answers are still to be found via a more scientific approach.

Question:
Why do we generally prefer a cosntructivist approach in learning?

Premises:
1. the constructivist approach in learning assumes we all get involved actively in learning, we build and create meanings and thus come to small or bigger Evrika! moments when we integrate new information in the pre-existing clusters of knowledge and raw data that we have accumulated, through social interaction, play and cognitive endeavors of all kinds.
2. children usually learn sooner and faster words that describe ACTIONS (how to DO it?), then subjects (who DOES it?) and then attributes (HOW can we describe that? WHAT is characteristic of a specific thing/ action?). This innate tendency goes into relapse and comes over and over again when we have to learn something new.

Answer:
We like the constructivit approach in teaching/ learning because it allows us to act upon given information and reach the CONNEXIONS between raw data in a personal matter.

Conclusion:
Dear teacher, please help me see the connexion between whatever subject you are trying to teach me and real life situation+connected subjects that other teachers are trying to teach me.
And please, evaluate my KNOW HOW. This is where I genuinely am good at.