Month: May 2012

What is radical constructivism and what has been my experience with it?
From several accounts, radical constructivism, appears to be the evil twin of a rather benign philosophy. And truth be told, that also sums up my first experience with a formal introduction to constructivism as pedagogy. I can still remember sitting in my science education class and watching the instructor take a clear fluid and pouring it into a black box. Seconds later a blue fluid emerged from the box and we were told to theorize an explanation for events. Well, I was just coming from three years of field research and could not for the life of me wrap my mind around this being the new process for teaching science. How could you develop a sound hypothesis for experimentation with zero back ground knowledge? What had happened to labs, text resources and lectures from experts? I found it a bit irritating and irrational.
It was something of a shock and unfortunately completely turned me off from learning anything further about the concept of constructivism. That was until I had started my ETEC coursework and I realized there was significantly more to the explanation. And, completely unawares to me, I had already incorporated a variety of constructivist ideas into my teaching practice. Mostly relying upon how I was taught as a youngster by my parents and the influence of Aboriginal elders in my life.
I am still a bit wary of radical constructivism. An idea that suggests that knowledge and truth can only be generated from a young person’s own sensory experiences no matter how limited their understanding. How could this provide an appropriate base for a comprehension of complex objects and ideas of 21st century science? I agree with M. Matthews that this is a “fatal substitution” between what we perceive as reality and what good old-fashioned empirical data shows us about reality. The objectivist approach which relies upon more programmed instruction shouldn’t be totally discarded. I heard it said one time that there are two basic ways to learn – we learn either by our mistakes or by role modelling. Wouldn’t a combination of these philosophies be the most constructive and effective? A mash up of what the experts tell us and some experiential learning?
I’m wondering how many the-world-is-flat folks would still be out there if we all relied solely on our sensory perceptions…..
If you have time check out this clip from von Glaserfeld on radical constructivism.

I had a great time with the quiz that we completed this week which basically asked… What kind of Science teacher are you? As it turns out I’m not the science teacher I thought I was (according to their definitions)

Week 2 Post:
Maybe I’m alone in this but having been an educator dealing with science these last 12 years…. I think I might have been over thinking some of the questions. As it turns out I seem to be on the side of

Positivist

Deductivism

Decontextualism

Process

Realism

When I read the information that elaborated on these descriptors I could see some accuracy in how they applied to me. And some inaccuracy (probably from how I read the questions) I do feel that good science gives us good information. And that really good experimental (and sometimes theoretical) science should involve controlled experimentation. And that this is very much what we should be sharing in science classes with youth. However, even though I was identified as a decontextualist, I don’t share the view that science is completely independent of its cultural location and sociological structure. Western science has been influenced greatly over the last 150 years by the rigid social structures existing in the past, and still in existence today. This is especially apparent by what is accepted and what isn’t accepted as good theoretical science. I’m thinking of an example I had read about in M. Gladwell’s book “the Outliers” about a gentleman from the States with supreme intellectual powers who has spent the majority of his adult life studying science and mathematics but with no formal post-secondary education. Something he had to forgo because of affordability. However, he has worked out some very complex theories but will never see them published in an academic journal. Is this an example of societal prejudices/structure impeding scientific thought? What are your thoughts? Is there still an “old boys club” at work in the scientific field – and is this an impediment to our understanding of the universe?

PC