I've read most of the article now and all of the part referring to
constructivism. It is sad that people of the reputation of these authors
cannot stop to make a careful study of and understand (not accept) what
they are attempting to criticize. Clearly, this is an
ideological/political argument having little to do with any real attempt to
understand the other side. Of course, if _your_ view of the world is that
you are closer to Absolute Truth than _anyone else_, then why bother?
>From the point of view of at least one radical constructivist, the authors
fail to understand a distinction between meaning making and developing
skill competency. Radical constructivism is about the nature of meaning,
not about skill competency. The authors barely mention meaning (usually
only in the quotes they intend to shoot down) and then use the word "skill"
almost once per sentence. I think that they would be _very hard pressed_
to start from fundamental principles of radical constructivism as described
by folks like von Glasersfeld and be able to justify the "claims" that they
associate with radical constructivism. This makes it difficult for the
authors to convince anyone who understands the foundation of radical
constructivism that they know what they are talking about, much less
convince them to change. I suspect that Cobb finds aspects of this article
and the claims associated with him astonishing.
They label Paul Cobb a radical constructivist, but have not noticed that he
does not label himself as one. While his roots and early influences are in
part from one of the definers of radical constructivism (von Glasersfeld),
I believe Paul sees himself as having developed distinctions between his
position and that which von Glasersfeld has taken. This is not hard to
find in his more recent work.
Too bad the authors feel so free to lump a wide variety of mutually
exclusive 'representations' into the constructivism they are attacking, yet
they complain about the same thing having been done to cognitive
psychology/information processing. If the authors insist on the right of
defining cognitive psychology because they see themselves as pioneers and
developers of the field, then why not extend the same priviledge to the
pioneers and developers of radical constructivism and situated cogntion? I
see no evidence that they have made any serious study of radical
constructivism as described by the either the 'coiner' of the term (von
Glasersfeld) or others sometimes associated with the field such as
Maturana, Varela, von Foerster, for example. ...no evidence in their
arguments or in the references cited.
They clearly have jumped to the conclusion that constructivism leads to
some sort of laissez faire approach to education. I agree that I have
heard this in the name of constructivism, but NOT from anyone who would
actually agree to the ideas described as the basis for radical
constructivism as discussed by von Glasersfeld or those who might be near
von Glasersfeld's position such as the authors cited in the previous
paragraph.
Several of the quotations which they attack are fundamentally misunderstood
in this article.
The real difference here is what passes for knowledge and where it comes
from. The authors of this article take a time-honored, traditional
position on this and seem not to even be able to recognize that there might
be others, let alone understand them. On the other hand, I do not know of
anyone that I could call a radical constructivist, who is NOT able to
understand BOTH this traditional view AND another. I guess that I find it
much more useful and rational to first understand more than one view before
making a choice betwen them for myself.
Incidentally a similar, less scholarly, attack on constructivism, lumped
with post-modernism, can be found in the October 1995 issue (page 8, I
believe) of The Science Teacher. This attack is authored by Bill Aldridge,
recently retired Executive Director of the National Science Teachers
Association. So far the "journal" has refused comments in rebuttal of
Aldridge's comments. I'd be glad to send anyone a copy of one response
that was refused by the editor.
Dewey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad who-is-at varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++