There are Limitations to the Use of Constructivism In Jewish Studies – Chaim Feuerman, Shmuel Feld

Constructivism is the Essence of Traditional Jewish Learning – Barbara Freedman

“Questioning the Author” Helps to Strengthen Identity – Evan Wolkenstein

 

There are Limitations to the Use of Constructivism in Jewish Studies
Chaim Feuerman:

The title of the program described in McKoewen and Beck’s article, “Questioning the Author,” speaks for itself. From an Orthodox perspective, this approach is certainly impossible in the study of Torah Shebichtav (written law), the Divine Author being infallible and authoritative. Even in the study of the oral law, however, this approach cannot be applied since the authors, although human, were inspired by ruach hakodesh (a holy spirit), and weighed and pondered every syllable before committing it to writing.

On the other hand, within this context, there is room for creativity and the construction of meaning. Sefer Hachinuch (mitzvah 386) encourages his son to refute the explanations that he has recorded, and states that he would view any refutation born of truthful analysis as constructive. Tosfot Yomtov (Mishna Nazir 5:5) states that any explanation of the Mishna or Gemara is acceptable as long as it does not contradict an accepted Jewish law. Tosfot Yomtov compares this to the explanation of a Biblical verse, thus presupposing that any sacred text can be understood in an original and creative way as long as it does not contradict Jewish law. This limitation includes basic principles of Jewish faith that are outlined in Jewish legal codes such as Maimonides’ Hilchot Deot and Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah.

This framework does not allow for just any question to be asked. Students, however, can be encouraged to ask some open-ended questions such as: “What is the author trying to say?” “How else could the author have expressed this?” “Why did the author choose to express himself in this way rather than in another way?”

Shmuel Feld:

McKoewen and Beck’s article puts forward some excellent methodologies in the application of constructivism. In order for Jewish studies teachers to utilize these methodologies, however, certain boundaries must be forged. The necessity of these boundaries stems from the fact that Jewish study is designed not only to transmit information, but to define a particular lifestyle and serve as a basis for ethical decision making. Another aspect of the constructivist theory that limits its implementation in the Jewish studies classroom is its assumption that the ideas will be generated solely by the students, and specifically not by the teachers. I would like to discuss some of the pedagogic implications of this tension.

The key to adjusting the constructivist methodology to the Jewish studies classroom is framing. This framing involves two components: 1) framing the Biblical context, and 2) framing open-ended questions.

In order to engage in legitimate open-ended analysis of the Biblical text, students must understand its origins and its historical significance. This process could involve several introductory classes relating to the relationship that the Torah has to the Jewish people, how the text came to be, why the text is concerned with some details rather than others, and why words and scenes that break patterns are so valued. The students need to grasp that the Torah is not like any other text. As a result, for example, they will understand that: 1) the story or law recorded in the Torah has multiple meanings, and cannot be dismissed as random or unnecessary, and 2) the people portrayed in the story are extraordinary people under extreme conditions. Consequently, the students will recognize that they need to make meaning of the text without degrading the characters.

Once students have internalized certain criteria by which to weigh the material, the constructivist side can begin. Using these same criteria, teachers can now frame open-ended questions that will enable the students to grapple with issues and construct meaning from the Biblical text without negating its unique and essential character.

Constructivism Is The Essence Of Traditional Jewish Learning
Barbara Freedman:
The constructivist approach in education, focusing on students as active learners who are thinking and finding meaning in their studies, is in my mind a fundamental aspect of traditional Jewish education. As a teacher of Tanach, it seems to me that this type of approach is basic to understanding parshanut (Biblical exegesis) and midrash which serve to construct meaning from text. The Talmud, on a certain level, seems to be the constructivist document par excellence – with many voices, challenges, mental structures built and questioned – a dynamic dialogue which continues with every chevruta that studies a text.

In their article, McKeown and Beck describe a constructivist program for teaching literature entitled “Questioning the Author” which encourages students to consider the author as fallible. Yet, in applying constructivism to the teaching of Tanach, we do not have to consider the Author as fallible. Rather, we believe that the Divine Author created a multi-layered document with many levels of meaning (shivim panim laTorah). As teachers, we need to give our students the tools and thinking skills to think as parshanim, enabling them to question and discover answers and relevance.

In my own teaching, I have been guided in this direction by Nechama Liebowitz. Constructivism finds expression in Nechama’s methodology in several arenas:
◦Textual Analysis – Before studying the commentators, students can be asked to analyze the text itself. For example, students might be asked to compare two similar sections in the text, such as the Ten Commandments as they appear in Sefer Shemot and Sefer Devarim, or the story of the spies as it appears in Sefer Bamidbar and Sefer Devarim. Similarly, students might be asked to analyze the significance of two narratives or laws that come in succession, a classical question asked by Rashi. In this type of open-ended analysis, students will often come up with the response given by one of the commentators.
◦Analysis of Commentators – Teaching Rashi offers many opportunities for constructivist teaching. The most basic level is having the students discover the unstated question that Rashi is answering. When Rashi gives two answers, students can be asked to discuss why one answer is not completely satisfactory, and what Rashi gained by adding the second opinion. Students can also be asked to compare Rashi’s comment to the midrash on which it is based, and to offer an opinion as to why Rashi deviated from the text of the midrash, or why he selected that particular midrash over other possible alternatives.
◦Comparison of Commentators – Comparing and contrasting commentaries on the same text offers excellent opportunities for discussion. Students can be asked to identify commentaries that they find to be most meaningful, and to bring support for their opinion from the text. For example, students might be asked to explain the narrative of Akeidat Yitzhak according to the commentary that they find most meaningful.
In all three of these methods, students are given sources and guidelines, but the basic structure is open-ended. While some teachers may find this approach dangerous, Nechama Leibowitz states that “only when different, even contradictory, opinions are presented will the student fully realize that he is not the first to spot the difficulty, and that the question has already been considered from all angles” (Leibowitz 1995, p. 157). It is up to the teacher to guide the discussion and deal with opinions that may be far afield. Nechama also argues against those who consider it disrespectful for students to “judge” the commentators: “If all this is done in the proper spirit, the spirit of serious in-depth analysis of the commentaries – and the purpose of this method is to train the student to analyze and to deter him from haste and superficiality – there is no disrespect” (Ibid., p. 161).

Our guideline in teaching Torah comes from the Torah itself (Shemot 19:1): “On this same day (bayom hazeh) they came into the wilderness of Sinai.” Rashi explains: “What is the meaning of bayom hazeh? That the words of Torah should always be as exciting to you as if it was given today.” The message is clear. In using active learning and questioning we simply follow the pattern set by our sages.

Reference
Nechama Leibowitz, Torah Insights, Eliner Library, Jerusalem 1995, p. 157.

“Questioning the Author” Helps to Strengthen Identity
Evan Wolkenstein:
I believe that the value of utilizing constructivist educational approaches in the teaching of classical Jewish Texts must be understood in a larger context. I first encountered the notion of constructivist education when designing a model for understanding the pedagogical philosophy of the New Jewish High School of Greater Boston, a community school that services a pluralistic population. There, my research partner and I noticed that students are exposed to a variety of models of Jewish identity and practice, some seemingly contradictory, and must build for themselves, over time, a working Jewish self-image. We called this approach “Identity Construction” and while it was beyond the scope of the research work to evaluate its success, it was clear that the power of the model, at least hypothetically, lay behind the notion that any self-constructed, self-maintained, and self-evaluated learning process would be, in the long run, more adaptable, more dynamic, and ultimately, more meaningful than any passive learning process.

If this is true for a process as profound as identity formation, then kal v’chomer, it is true for every step of every learning process, from learning the steps of long division to learning the nuances of critical text analysis. It seems that in classes that employ modes of constructivist education, there is, satisfyingly, community construction as well, as this type of educational discourse demands not only each student’s sharing of him or herself, but also intimate interaction with his or her peers. One’s ideas, sometimes fully formed, but just as often half-blind and spindle-legged, are paraded before the public eye, to be either nursed and nurtured or “put out to pasture” – as the community and teacher see fit. Trust, it seems, is a necessary component in the constructivist classroom, as is a sense of a shared mission, a sense of mutual interest, a sense of the size of the prize.

Tanach study, I have found, is a particularly apt venue for constructivist education. Texts spanning thousands of years, employing myriad hermeneutical tendencies, all come together in a marketplace of ideas. Good learning, then, forces the students not only to ask what the text is saying, but also to ask what the author was assuming, what the author was in polemic against, what is motivating the personalities on paper. While one might argue that all education, to some extent, aims to socialize its students into self-identification with scholars of the field, this is explicitly true for Judaics, where students are participating in a practice which, Jewish educators believe, molds and shapes and builds their own Jewish identity.

Based on this perspective, a student at the New Jewish High School may encounter, and even contribute to, four different ways of looking at text authorship, at truth claims, at authority, at values. They participate actively in the illumination and revival of text, and in doing so, illuminate their own identities, revive their own notion of Jewishness. It is my experience that in the pluralistic classroom, this approach to authorship does not reduce the status of Tanach in the eyes of the students. Rather, it serves to help them see classical Jewish texts as works that differ from other books in that they are a vehicle for confronting values that shape their lives.

As the article points out, the constructivist approach presents many challenges. A constructivist teacher has to be more aware, more open to being surprised, more ready to step back into the shadows and let the learning happen. Furthermore, when it comes time for student evaluation, the constructivist teacher realizes that the framework for education may be ill-equipped to handle the evolution that has taken place. How do we, as educators, evaluate students on their constructive participation in any objective way? Similarly, how do we train educators, who may or may not be skilled discussion facilitators, to step up to the even greater demands that this type of education requires, when many schools are already understaffed, and the teachers overworked and undercompensated?

In spite of the challenges, at the end of the day, one might say that Jewish educators have no choice; the future of Jewish survival lies alongside and intertwined with the future of Jewish education. Constructivism is no mere ideal, it is a necessity of survival.