CHAPTER 1 , T s .~ '., a l:t II e k ll- y, It ). e d d g Ir r>. )f 1)f .d ~r )f le ;e )t ~- Overview 19 WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY REFERJtED TO AS CONSTRUCTIVISM? The ... development of a philosophy typically begins with a definition of reality and proceeds to describe other entItles in terms of that definitiop.. In contrast, con~tftrctivism, in-general;-focus s on the nature of knowled e settin asidiOr greatly re ucmg the role of an extern rea' ty in sha in beliefs Phillips, 1997, p. at is, cons ruc IVIsm assIgns a ma or ro e t . h serve as the crite~termme content nowledge. . Currently, constructivism may refer to either of two broad areas. One is the nature of the disciplines or bodies of human knowledge built up in human history (epistemology): That is, what is the nature of physics, calculus, or American history? The other area consists of beliefs about educational practices (educational constructivism) (Phillips, 2000b, p. 6). Furthermore, both moderate and extreme views are found in each of these areas and there may be no linkage between a particular philosophical orientation and beliefs about the nature of educational practices. For example, Thomas Kuhn held a constructivist view of science, but advocated an anticonstructivist pedagogy (Matthews, 2000, p.163). In other words, one may accept a particular constructivist view of the nature of knowledge and favor any of several classroom practices. Similarly, advocates of constructivist classroom practices may justify them in a variety of ways and some may not be philosophically constructivist (Phillips, 2000a, p. 18). In the late 20th century, the term <;.Ql1S.tructivism became a part of philosophical, sociological, and educational discussions. However, these disciplines, and the various schools of thought within them, define the term in diverse ways (Bredo, 2000, p.128). In addition, cQnstructMsm is used on many levels to address such . s as the formation of scientific know led e the v 10 ent of children's knowledge, an t ere atlOns 'p between knowledge and reality (p. 128). As stated, constructivist views of the nature of knowledge are socialconstructivist perspectives, in that oci rocesses playa major role in det~r-' miniJ!g knowledge. Also, much of the discussion has focuse on the disciplines of science and mathematics, particularly science (Phillips, 2000b, p. 30). Two variations of constructivism are (a) the view that science is independent of society, but social factors still "leak in" and influence its development, and (b) social relations "partially" construct knowledge, but nature "leaks in" at the end (Latour, 1992, p. 276, cited in Phillips, 2000b, p.10). However, the subgroup that has generated the most controversy and that has major implications for both the nature of science and science education is radical social constructiyism (Phillips, 1997, 2000b; Slezak, 2000). ~s lire ll- at ld Radical Social Constructivism Unlike the other social-constructivist views, the ra .cal erspective maintains t~ knowledge is entirely constructed out of social relations. s m icated in Table 1:5, objects in the natural world are not part of an external preexisting reality. Instead, humans construct objects in the course of their inquiries. Therefore, atoms, molecules, and quarks are entirely human constructions. They are social 'X -;p():Ovq LCjS ~'/. ~YV\l\ft~ . le)"\.OV ~te~~O/ "1 _20 PART 1 Introduction TABLE 1.5 Premises of the Radical Social-Constructivist TJ View of Science 1. Objects in the natural world are not real or objective, and do not have an independent Instead, they are constituted by our inquiries (Wooigar, 1988, p.94). 111 preexistence. 2. Therefore, the ideas of scientific theories do not explain or describe the real world. Instead, they are "eteFi accomplishments" of a articular disco emunity (Wooigar, 1988, p. 26). That is, "knowled a matter 0 conversatiom nd cial practice ather than an attempt to mirror nature" (Rorty, 1979, p. 171; see also ergen, 1994). e i 3. Scientific theories reflect the social milieu in which they emerge. They are the product of social forces, interests, and other historically contingent aspects of the local context (Wooigar, 1988, p. 95; see also Bloor, 1976). i ! II 1i jl ,I 'I i II .II I~ I J I, .1 IiI, ! I II II Ii I I artifacts that are products of social forces, interests, and historical characteristics of the local context (Bloor, 1976; Woolgar, 1988). One version of this perspective maintains that entities such as molecules are constructed through words that "take on their meaning only within the context of ongoing relationships" (Gergen, 1995, p. 49). In other words, "scientific enclaves" form a "conversational world" by choosing "certain configurations to count as 'objects,' 'processes,' or 'events,' and by generating consensus about the occasions to which the descriptive language is to apply" (p. 50) . Criticisms Scholars have identified some major problems with ~ocial constructivism. First, these views go beyond typical sociological studies that address the effects of peripheral social phenomena (such as institutional polit~ound the r tion of science (Slezak, 20 . Instead, social constructiVISb views attem t he actual co nitive cont cH~ntl c theorie (Phillips, 1997, p. 93; Slezak, 2000, p. 96). However, implying that a social milieu is a cause of the content in a particular theory leads to the illogical inference that Sir Isaac Newton may have articulated an inverse cube law of gravitation if society had been different (Slezak, 2000, p. 98). Second, radical social constructivism does not rely on reasoning or scientific/physical evidence as criteria for the development and verification of theory (Matthews, 2000; Phillips, 1997, p. 93; Slezak, 2000). However, scientists would not have accepted Galileo's discoveries related to gravity unless countless other physicists had verified the findings, regardless of the social context in which Galileo worked. Four criticism~ radical social constructivism address implications for science educationcEISi)f knowledge is a product of social conventions, then ideas reflect conformity to social consensus (see Table 1.6). Therefore, individual creativity or genius, such as Albert Einstein's theory of the interrelationships among light, m~nergy, and time, cannot be explained in this framework. ~ddressing independent critical thinking, viewed by many as important in the survival of society, would be no longer needed. Third, there would be 1. 2. 3, 4 CHAPTER 1 TABLE 1.6 Implications of Radical Social Constructivism 21 Overview for Science Education -~, 1. If knowledge involves only consensus on arbitrary conventions, then education need only ensure that ideas conform to prevailing interests (Slezak, 2000, p. 91). 2. Because knowledge involves only consensus, efforts to develop students' capabilities for logical and critical thinking are not needed (Slezak, 2000, p.93). 3. Because logic, evidence, and other accepted criteria for theories are not relevant to the status of a theory, some theories cannot be judged as false or implausible (Slezak, 2000, p, 93). Therefore, there are no grounds for teaching that !;!itler's view of a sUR~or race was a perversion of scientific !!:YJ:h (Slezak, 2000, p. 94). 4. The barrier between evidence and theory leaves space for ideology, group, self-interest, or simply ''feel-goodness'' to identify educational policy (Matthews, 2000, p. 169). cs ~s !l- no basis for evaluating the falsity or implausibility of a theory or of discounting theories that subvert the scientific process. Finally, reliance on consensus as a criterion for the acceptance of ideas would allow ideology or group self-interest to identify educational policy. ic to Ie st, of he ~ NS os, WHAT IS EDUCATIONAL CONSTRUCTIVISM? Factors that contrib to the emer ence of constructiv" . wer~ the perceived " ,versellin 'of the om uter as a hor for learrun WhlCl'i excludes the ev ry ay capabilities of individuals, everyday problems, and, the role ~ntext; Bredo, 1994); @he transmission model of learning (Marshall, 1996); ~ncerns that students were ac uirin isolated deco textualized skills and are unable to apply them in real-world situations; an ) n interest in ~turaI-hlstorical th~ basic premise ofVygo sky's theory is that the signs and symbols of a culture and the ways they are used by adults in their think- ygQt> .se ac ad ing influence the child's cognitive~n~e or of sts Personal or Individual Construdivism ~ss .ch ci~as remg orbe four major varieties of educational construction are ~r ~which emergent and apprenticeship), ~ osophical, and aphilosophical. includes Personal constructivism is also a radical view because of the basic belief that reality is not accessible to rationalhuman knowledge (von Glaserfeld, 1995). That is, all knowledge is a human construction. However, unlike radical social constructivism, the individual, not the social group, creates knowledge and constructs concepts. Individual perspectives can be judged partly according to their correspondence to consensually accepted norms (e.g., the Earth revolves around the sun; the Earth is not flat). The focus is "the construction by the learner of schemes that are coherent and useful to them" (Driver, 1995, p. 387). The goal is to shift the focus from correctly replicating the teacher's words and actions to the student's successful organization of his or her own experiences (von Glaserfeld, 1987,1995). However, teachers also must introduce the conventions of science 22 II d JI Ii d I PART 1 Introduction that students cannot discover from experience. This goal can be accomplished through carefully developed questions that "shape students' reasoning toward the accepted science view" (p. 397). Personal co structivism ori 'nated with Jean Piaget's co nitivelopment theory. Three points of a reement between iagetian theory and personal constructivism are as follow. i ,~ning is an internal process that occurs in the mind of the individu . Se ' ,esseptiallearnmg processes are the cognitiv~ conflict and re a occ r w en one's thinkin is challenged (see Chapter 8 . 0 e ar s ~ teacher's role is to develop an adequate model of each ~udent's way vIewing an idea, devise situations that challenge the child'~way of thinking, and help students examine the coherence in their current mode of thinking (Confrey, 1985). ~wever,Piagetian theory differs from personal constructivism in two major ways.First, Piagetian theory maintains the existence of an external reality.Second, the focus of Piagetian theory is the various changes in thinking that develop from infancy through adolescence as the individual accommodates his or her strategies of understanding the world to that reality. In other words, Piaget focused on the development of reasoning and logical thinking whereas personal constructivism focuses on particular topics, such as photosynthesis. .I I Ii JI II~ Social Constructivism Social-constructivist beliefs diffe from ersonal constructivism in three ways: , he definition of knowledge b~ th~ definition of learning, ~d ~thecus o earnin (see Table 1.7). Social constructivists VIewthe classroohi"as a cOmm~ whose task is to d.evelopknowled~. Because they also view knowledge as inseparable from the activities that produce it (Bredo, 1994;Dewey & Bentley, 1949),knowledge is transactional. It is sociallyconstructed and is distributed among II ji III TABLE 1.7 Shared Beliefs of Social-Constructivist Philosophy ! I I !III Definition of knowledge A product of the particular classroom or participant setting to which the learner belongs; the endpoint or product of a particular line of inquiry that is inseparable from the occasions and activities that produced it (Bredo, 1994; Dewey & Bentley, 1949). Definition of learning Socially shared cognition that is a process of becoming a member of a sustained community of practice (Lave, 1991); social interaction that constructs and reconstructs contexts, knowledge, and meanings (Marshall, 1996). Locus of learning Not confined to the individual's mind (Marshall, 1996); occurs in a community of participants and is distributed among the co-participants (Bredo, 1994). !I I! II II I! III i II I r--------------------- ... -_ •• __ o •••• _ .,. CHAPTER 1 ~ ~ r 1 y f r ., 1 S ~ '" 1 Overview 23 the co-participants. The role of the learner is to participate in a system of practices that are themselves evolving (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). Mathematics, for example, is an active construction by learners that is shared with others (Wood, Cobb, & Yackel, 1995, p. 405). Therefore, classroom learning can be analyzed in terms of evolving mathematical practices, For example, first-grade children early in the fall may use counters in various ways to determine the number of days remaining in the week. In the spring, they may be discussing different ways to address three-digit problems (Cobb & Bowers, 1999). §ocial constructivists also consider their aImroach as an alternative to learn~by discovery (Wood et al., 1995, p. 404). One difference is that the construetivis] mathematics teacher creates situations that may be personally meaningful to students at different conceptual levels (p. 407). Children, in pairs or small groups, develo t.heir own ways of solving the problems. Classroom requirements also includ a children's explanations and justifications of their problem approach ~~ve listening to and trying to make sense of other students' explanations, a ~verbalizing agreement, disagreement, or a failure to understand the explanations of others (p. 411). In this way, they participate in and contribute to a communal mathematical practice. Emergent Social Constructivism ;: s I- s t, g ~ A subvariety of social constructivis~-r-ge-n-t-c-o-ns-tru-c-ti-Vl-· s~s a .coordination of E.ersonal and social-constructivist pOSItions (Cobb, 1994; Cobb & Yackel, 1996). It is based on the view that neither cognitive nor social processes should be considered secondary in efforts to understand mathematics learning and teaching in classrooms (Wood et al., 1995, p. 401). Accounts of cognitive activity cannot be derived from analyses of social processes and mathematics learning and teaching is more than a cognitive process that is influenced by social processes. For example, social processes include the rules of discourse jointly negotiated by a teacher and her second-grade pupils, and the individual perspective addresses the child's mathematical beliefs and beliefs about his or her role in general mathematical activities (Cobb & Bowers, 1999, p.177). Therefore, learning may be analyzed from both the social (group) and the individual perspective in situations in which neither is primary. Apprenticeship The apprenticeship perspective of Jean Lave (1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991), described by Bredo (1994) as neo-Marxist, derives from the perceived alienated condition in capitalism, which lacks opportunities for individuals to develop deep knowledgeable skill and identities of mastery. Lave called for research on situated social practice or situated learning such as Mayan midwives and West African tailors. Essential characteristics are the seamless immersion of the learner into a community of practice with gradual movement from peripheral tasks to full participation; didactic structuring is absent. §.ituated social practice also maintains that no strict knowledge boundary exists between the intra-· .. Lave, 1991, p. . nstea knowin is located in relations among practitioners . heir practice, \,.: PART1 24 Introduction and the social organization in a world in which social practices themselves may be changing (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.122). Although typical of informal and craft apprenticeships, the pedagogy for formal education can involve specially designed social activities that can permit novices to gain mastery of simplified domains of knowledge and activity (Ernst, 1995,p. 471). Afe.w-..¢ucators (e.g., Packer & Goioechea,2000) maintain that socially situated views of learning should not be labeled as constructivist. '!he reason tsthe focus on the cliaractenstlcs of social participation, relationships, and the setting of the activity. More important, they do not emphasize the ways that knowledge is constructed on qualitatively different, and more progressively adequate, levels (p. 227). Therefore, according to this description, they should be viewed as sociocultural instead of social constructivist approaches. I Ii Aphilosophical Constructivism 11 At least hree subgroup of constructivists make no assumptions about the nature of knowle ge. ne group of educators "simply uses the label '~t' to refer to anything which is R.\lpil-centered, engagink questioning, and progres~' (Matthews, 1997, p. 8). The other two subgroups interpret constructiVism as representing the ways that students make meaning when reading and writing. Perhaps best known is the 'holistic' approach to literacy known as whole language (Au, Mason, & Scheu, ; Poplin & Stone, 1992). The belief is that all forms of language, including written language, are most easily learned in the context of use. Therefore, literacy development requires immersion in authentic literacy events-activities that use language in functional ways and that have personal meaning for the student. Teachers should facilitate learning by creating authentic contexts that stimulate students to meet their own learning needs. The third classroom-focused constructivist approach describes readers and writers as "b~ilding, shaping, and elaborating meanings w he understand <[g!0duce ~xts" (Spivey, 1995, p. 313). In reading, me cons ructiVI process invo~es choosing relevant content sn.ggested-b:y...th.e...text,mganizing it, arid'linkit to the reader's prior knowl~dge (Spivey, 1987). Composing also isa constructivist process that focuses onme meanings to be generated from the final text. The writer's anticipation of the reader's knowledge and what the reader needs to know influences his or her writing. I' ,I II .1 IiI '1 i ,! Ii JI 'II ll~ II ,';k: Y.\ - II !I ,I !I II II II II I o /?\.&v O,){" ~ _II l}) f:JY V;V'}i T V-' -x, ~ri1.C\ n % o,.\~'V~ ~ \[11 '(Xl\-~ \\ ~~ncems <)...~if~ y'\, Educators have voiced four concerns about the social-constructivist classroom in which students construct knowledge through participation in a group. One is the exclusion of direct classroom instruction. Specifically, collaborative learning seems inappropriate for tasks such as learning the sounds of "a" (Howe & Berv, 2000) and developing knowledge of complex conceptual schemes built by human minds over hundreds of years (Matthews, 1997, p.12). Included are such concepts as potential energy, mutation, linear inertia, and valence. A teacher is needed to illustrate and explain such concepts and show the relationships to other concepts (p.13). Case studies of constructivist classroom activities conducted by Aulls (2002) indicated CHAPTER 1 Overview 25 that teachers whose students achieved the learning goals modeled procedures for self-checking important information, demonstrated ways to reduce information to paraphrases, taught content when needed, and scaffolded key procedures (p.533). [econd is the difficulties faced by low-a~arner,s and those from other cultures. The participation structure can create barriers lor them because they racIfThe knowledge and skills to participate (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Delpit, 1988). Similarly, a reliance on authentic tasks that involve implicit rather than explicit instruction also can tax the cognitive skills of students at risk for learning difficUltialiFirman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998). ir is the burden on the. classroom teacher who faces challenges both withm and outside t~classroom. windschlt1 (2002) identified four broad areas of dilemmas. They are ®onceptual (grasping the underpinning of constructivism); @/pedagogical (honoring students' efforts to think for themselves while remaining true to accepted disciplinary ideas);@:'cultural (taking advantage of individual students' knowledge and experiences while managing the transformation of beliefs and practices according to constructivist norms); and (@Jlpolitical (facing issues of accountability and negotiating to teach for understanding) (p.133). Within the classroom, the teacher mUS1..~alance the competing demands of discovery and efficient understanding, and ~exercise sensitive clinical judgments moment-by-moment to know when to intervene and when to allow interactions to continue (Palinscar, 1998; Perkins, 1999). In addition, observers have noted that some teachers do not ask challenging questions (Howe & Berv, 2000, p. 38), and do not challenge incoherence and inconsistencies (MacKinnon & Scarff-Seatter, 1997). In other words, the social-constructivist classroom requires teacher skills in establishing a discourse community with intellectual standards and a commitment to joint construction of meaning (Green & Gredler,2002). Observations indicate that opportunities for learning and success differ as a function of teacher skills in establishing social norms and intellectual standards (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Palinscar, 1998). Finally, current research on working memory and long-term memory has implications for instruction. The function of working memory is the cious processing of information (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark,2006 .When dealing with new information, the capacity of working memory may be as low as four elements (Cowan, 2001). However, the limitations of short-term memory disappear when working memory is dealing with previously learned information that is stored in long-term memory (p. 77). The problem with minimal guidance methods of instruction (e.g., ~onstructivist and inquiry-based instruction) is that they produce difficulties in processing and learning. Unlike guided instruction, these methods impose a heavy load on working memory. Also, while working memory is engaged in searching for problem-related information, it is unavailable for learning (p. 77). Moreover, research studies indicate that strongly guided learning produces deeper learning and fewer misconceptions (e.g., Moreno, 2004). Summary Constructivist views of the nature of knowledge either greatly reduce or set aside the role of external reality in the production of knowledge. The radical socialconstructivist view maintains that knowledge is entirely the product of social ! . i I I ,I PART 1 26 ii n I' ll~ II 'I .I, !I 'Ii il jI jl,! I I II , I, i 11 ;1 processes. Objects are social artifacts, and scientific theories simply reflect the social milieu in which they emerge. One radical social-constructivist perspective maintains that the task of describing the world is a linguistic rather than a cognitive process. a'or roblems with radi9.&§ocial constructivism expressed by scholars include a) he illogical conclusion that a scientist would have developed a different theory if he had lived in a different society, and @ logical reasoning and scientific/physical eviden~e not criteria for acceptance of a theory. Implications for science education are((fl;)'if knowledge is a product of social conventions, then education need only ensure that ideas conform to prevailing interests, and<illJ ~.J;l..eveloping students' critical thinking is not needed if there is no basis for judg.\ ~1:rrillg theories as false or implausible. In other words, educational policy would be ~ ~()'v, identified through oup self-interest. ,'\Al f!(iS \) Currently, ree type of ~ducationaLconstructivism may be identified. ~r,.~~ V\\V sonal or individual constructivism~(a) considers all knowledge to be a human Ot\ 'j) ~struction@ihe individual creates knowledge and constructs concepts, and to. -\j ,\JJV r(l ~viewpoints can only be partially judged according to their correspondence W ,nO" _\"'7V~(-p\ with consensually accepted norms. In the classroom, personal constructivism n ~~\}J;KV M~11!tt advo~ates two Piag~tian principles: learning is an intern~l p~ocess, and cognitive VV" ~:w\r~1 confhct and reflection result from challenges to one's thinking. Some educators C})I'\'iJ1' who support personal constructivism also note that the s-tudent must also be granted access to the concepts of conventional science. ifCV L,In contrast, social constructivists believe that knowledge is transactional, n t)~f socially constructed, and distributed among co-participants. Classroom learning lJ.I t over several months can be described in terms of the evolving mathematical practices in a community of learners. One social-constructivist view; however a an~l~s learning from both the so~ (negotiating rules of discourse) a)ld the ~ndivid1!,al(child's mathematical beliefs and view of' e in the classroom) perspectives. Another social-constructivist view i apprenticeshi in which knowing is located in relationships among practitioners. roponents maintain that specially designed classroom activities can permit novices to develop mastery of simplified domains of knowledge. Some educators, however, maintain that socially situated views of learning should not be labeled as constructivist because they do not emphasize the ways that knowledge is constructed on qualitatively different and more adequate levels. The third approac~makes no assumptions about.t~ture of knowledge, ClassroomstnaybeI'e erred to as pupil-centered, implementing the'1:IoIiSUcapproach to literacy, or focusing on the ways that readers and writers develop meaning. Literacy development, therefore, requires immersion in activities that use language in functional ways and have personal meaning for students. Concerns expressed about constructivism include~ collaborative learning seems inappropriate for some learning, @ low-ability learners and those from other cultures face particular difficulties,-@he method places particular burdens on the teachers, and @ some teachers do not ask challenging questions. In addition, current research indicates that minimally guided instruction places an excessive load on working memory, thereby inhibiting deep and accurate learning. \4:\"'7 . ce.J 5 I ,I li~ il IIII 11 Ii ,, 1\ ,I " i ! ! Introduction ,()h~\ i'* Yl1 u.Q
© Copyright 2024