I have noticed that although I largely subscribe to the constructivist perspective of teaching (namely, one that presents a ‘big, meaty’ problem to students to struggle with and thereby construct understanding of a concept), I have to confess that this
In the former, we begin with basic introduction to and practice of taxiing or ground rudder, aileron and elevator control, and then over time we add more nuanced use of these controls, plus ancillary controls, wing flaps, radio com., and so on. In music, we begin with making a basic sound on the instrument, then specific notes, scales, short exercises or pieces and eventually, we add nuances with dynamics and tempo. It simply wouldn’t do to start a new student off with a task such as “how might you land a plane?” or “Play a symphony!”
We know from the research that the Brain learns in wholes and in parts. (Caine and Caine, Jensen, Sylwester, etc.) If we only give students parts and never the whole, the brain’s capacity to learn is not optimized. Indeed, showing students the whole often enables them to construct the parts, thereby building really solid neural pathways. For example, we might present grade 3 students with a mathematical problem requiring them to share an uneven number of cookies fairly, through which they themselves construct an understanding of fractions, which we can then build on as teachers. And yet, in some cases it would appear that the parts are definitely more important focus of teaching that the whole, as in the flight and musical examples above.
Although the “small steps to big idea” approach is a more traditional way of teaching, and one that is not always conducive to long-term retention of learning, it seems to be – in some specific areas – a better way.