Document 6519273

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