An Examination of Constructivism as a Technology for Marriage Enrichment Classes

"If by whiskey, you mean the water of life that cheers men's souls, that smoothes out the tensions of the day, that gives gentle perspective to one's view of life, then put my name on the list of the fervent wets.  But if by whiskey, you mean the devil's brew that rends families, destroys careers and ruins one's ability to work, then count me in the ranks of the dries." (p. 14) (Reflections http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html)

Ordinary people have the power to change other people’s lives.  An older priest can revitalize a despairing younger colleague by pulling the troubled man's head to his chest.  A distraught father can touch his son with an energy that cuts through a hardened heart and awakens what is tender and true within the child.  An adult daughter can offer something from hidden places within her to her ageing mother that releases hope in the elderly woman's heart, hope that can support her through her loneliness, confusion, and pain. (p. 31)

More to the point, as a theist, can I employ strategies in line with constructivist principles and still be true to a contrary worldview? The answer, I believe, is a qualified yes. Wilson states that he is (suspicious of simple dichotomies like the idea that reality is either inside or outside of the mind.) He seems to suggest that there may be room for some accommodation.  I doubt he would extend his worldview to accommodate mine but that doesn’t preclude borrowing some of the essence from constructivist principles.

Employing Constructivism – avoiding a shotgun wedding

Two factors must be accommodated here. The first was mentioned earlier. Volunteers do most of the work done in a church and budgets are always an issue. Additionally, scheduling is constrained by other programming already in place. Two solutions present themselves. The majority of adults are already involved in the Care Group programming. Most of the groups meet mid-week, usually Tuesday or Wednesday. By offering learning opportunities one of these evenings, we provide an option without asking for a sacrifice of additional time. Requesting further time commitment in itself may be counterproductive to a goal of an improved marriage experience. We need to accommodate the reality of busy lives. Of even greater impact is the opportunity for location choice. The goal is to make learning as natural and real as possible. Care groups meet in homes. Surely this represents an opportunity to put the participants in a more comfortable and thoughtful frame of mind. Activities undertaken will be enhanced by the reality of the environment. The physical environment may aid in the development of context sensitive learning opportunities. Essentially, it may remove one of the barriers to learning.

The schedule helps solve the problem of who should be the leader/instructor. Within our congregation are a number of people with professional counselling backgrounds and many who can provide leadership by example. In congregations such as ours, we place personal success before professional. We value proven experience. Our goal is to create disciples. We want models of success for other to emulate. Leaders and teachers are expected to “walk the talk.” Nevertheless, when possible, we look for opportunities for these traits to work in tandem.

Constructivism places value in the motivation of the learners. Those who attend sessions demonstrate a level of desire solely based on their presence. Churches such as West Portal strongly encourage but do not require participation in learning opportunities. Further to the point, the majority of couples will be seeking to improve their relationships as opposed to saving them. Thus we can conclude that some level of motivation is present at the outset of classes. Participants will desire to take something useful away from the sessions. A schoolteacher recently expressed, “what ‘s the use of attending a PD (professional development) session unless you receive some handouts.” The point was easily understood. Unless she could walk away with something she could (immediately) put to use, there were better ways to spend her time. Participants in a marriage class come motivated to take something away that will deepen their relationships.

Another compatible aspect is inclusion of learners in the planning process. What is interesting here is how the nature of a church community blends well with this priority. Delegation is a necessary component of the operation of the church. The majority of members on committees and boards are lay people who volunteer time and energy to aid in its mission. They represent a cross section of the congregation whose individual priorities are shared with others. In this context those aiding in the design of programming are the same people who participate in the finished product. There are of course limitations. Where in the end several hundred people will at one time or another take a marriage course, a handful of people may take part in its development. Essentially, a sample is used to meet the wider group’s needs. This however is less of an issue than it may first appear. In my experience as a teacher of adults for over fifteen years, the students have a significant impact on the progression of any given class. Without necessarily leaving the focus of the class, I’ve often found us drawn in a direction based on the interests and comments posed by the participants. No doubt this happens to professors in university classes. In essence, the outline and content is in part developed and then directed by its participants. In this way, it is more real.

A third issue for consideration is that of the type of questions asked in the constructivist environment. Constructivism encourages open-ended questioning with probing follow-ups by the teacher to draw out meaning. This can be very valuable. A question such as the following may arise. “How does this affect your feelings about your spouse?” The question results in a highly personalized response. It is in how the teacher responds that divergence from constructivism may occur. The teacher’s role may be to interpret for the student the implications of his or her answer. Due to the kinds of parameters existing within this community, some answers will be considered “wrong.” For example, on the issue of sex, evangelical Christians generally believe that between married partners, “anything goes.” We would counsel that if both parties are comfortable with it, and both enjoy it, they should feel no guilt in the practice. There are however, necessary limits to this statement. Pornography for example, is considered inappropriate material. It then has no place even between married couples. This represents an example of an imposed reality and may conflict with constructivism on some level. I do not believe however, that it imposes unreasonable limits on the teacher’s flexibility.  An opportunity still exists to allow a student to construct a working solution that suits unique needs. Nevertheless, in this example, the post-modern underpinnings present a challenge to the teacher and student.

An interesting and related fourth aspect to consider is the use of semiotics. I wish to briefly speak to this topic. Symbols hold meaning for human beings. This is certainly true of those within the Christian community.  In comparison to say, Roman Catholicism, the physical symbols we employ are quite spare.  However the Christian tradition is full of symbols that carry a great deal of meaning. One of the most significant is the correlation between marriage and Christ's relationship with the universal church.  The apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians said the following.

Wives, be subject your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ's also is the head of the church, He himself being the saviour of the body.  But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present to Himself the church in all here glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.  So husbands ought also to love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, just as Christ's also does the church because we're members of his body. Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5: 22-28,33 NASB

A more contemporary, and constructivist example of symbols and of accommodating multiple perspectives was defined by authors Smalley and Trent in the book, The Language of Love. Gary Smalley in particular has been in demand as a speaker in the area of relationships. Their book struck a chord with many couples because it discussed how the same words and actions carry different meanings for men and women. In it the authors discuss how the biological and social impact of gender lead to a varied understanding and appreciation of the world. Before their time and in different words they were affirming some parts of constructivist thinking. Their assertion, and one I am comfortable with, states that men and women construct different realities. In the book, the authors promote the use of word pictures that will carry special meaning to a spouse. In one example, Smalley recalls a comment his wife made to help him connect with what she was trying to communicate. Smalley had asked his wife to contribute a chapter to a book he was writing. She seemed to put it off. As the deadline approached he reminded her of the task and made an attempt at motivation by saying he would be happy to go over the document to remove any errors. Writing in any case, he stressed, wasn’t that big a deal. His wife, uncomfortable with the request, had been unable to communicate her tension to him in a meaningful way. Smalley was oblivious. These were messages she felt were obvious. He describes himself as decidedly left brained, she right. Her attempts to make him understand using her emotional responses proved ineffective. She then communicated her message in a language he would understand and based on his experiences. She pointed out the window to the Squaw Peak hills in the distance. She went on to describe his request as akin to asking her to carry a twenty-five pound pack up the slopes. He was an avid hiker and had recently climbed this peak. He suddenly saw the symbolism. She had communicated her message with an example that fit his constructed framework of understanding. This message could form the basis of an excellent lesson.

A final consideration is the opportunity for collaborative learning. Not all learning situations within a Christian community can accommodate this constructivist goal. Adults in particular who are new to the Christian community often have “constructed” ideas running opposed to the message and values of the church. These individuals need to be introduced to the dominant views found within this community. A classic example is “turn the other cheek.” Initially, this may be characterized as a top down approach or teacher to student flow. In contrast, teaching for marriage enrichment offers tremendous opportunities for learners to work together to collectively draw out and construct understanding and practice. As mentioned before, the role of the church is to make disciples. To do this a model of mentorship is used. Each is called to set an example for others to emulate. This is of course more than being a living, breathing mannequin for others to observe. It is an active, interconnected process of observation, evaluation, discussion and change. A proverb of Solomon puts it this way.

Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17