Where Berube identifies constructivism as an outgrowth of the progressive movement, she claims that constructivism “is fraught with controversy and disagreement among educators the world over, but it serves as a valid, highly effective model for educating the nation’s children” (p.9). This is an intriguing claim.
A reader might wonder why something that is a valid and effective basis for education would be so fraught with controversy and disagreement the world over. One reading here is that whilst educators the world over are still vigorously arguing the case for and against constructivism, Berube already knows what the outcome of such a debate should be. Another possible reading is that in the wider international context (“among educators the world over”) there is “controversy and disagreement”, whereas "here" (in the U.S., where we are only concerned with “the [this, U.S.] nation’s children”) we know it to be “valid” and “highly effective.” I doubt that such personal or national arrogance was intended (despite my earlier comments on the inward-looking nature of the book), but Berube moves on without clarifying for readers why there should be such a contrast between the clear merits of constructivism and the divided state of opinion on the matter.
A reader might wonder why something that is a valid and effective basis for education would be so fraught with controversy and disagreement the world over. One reading here is that whilst educators the world over are still vigorously arguing the case for and against constructivism, Berube already knows what the outcome of such a debate should be. Another possible reading is that in the wider international context (“among educators the world over”) there is “controversy and disagreement”, whereas "here" (in the U.S., where we are only concerned with “the [this, U.S.] nation’s children”) we know it to be “valid” and “highly effective.” I doubt that such personal or national arrogance was intended (despite my earlier comments on the inward-looking nature of the book), but Berube moves on without clarifying for readers why there should be such a contrast between the clear merits of constructivism and the divided state of opinion on the matter.
The reader who already knows something about the topic may deduce instead that this paradox derives from the undefined use of the term “constructivism,” which means so many things to different people. So constructivism is widely used as a blanket term for certain approaches to social inquiry that are “interpretative” and recognise the products of research as human constructions, often co-constructions of the researcher and the researched (Beld, 1994). Those of a more positivist bent, would wish to exclude such enquiry from being considered “real” research. If (these types of) constructivists argue that all research results (i.e., including in the natural sciences) are, in a sense, subjectively constructed by the researchers—as indeed some of them do—then this indeed leads to a certain amount of “controversy and disagreement.” Yet within science education internationally, constructivism is generally understood as the basis of a research programme which has driven a great deal of work exploring the nature of student learning and thinking in science over several decades (Taber, 2009d). Indeed, it is some time since it was suggested that its basic ideas are now so
widely accepted that it has become somewhat passé (Solomon, 1994). The constructivist research programme was initiated over a period at the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s by a series of seminal studies (e.g. Driver & Easley, 1978; Driver & Erickson, 1983; Gilbert, Osborne, & Fensham, 1982; Gilbert & Watts, 1983; Osborne & Wittrock, 1983) that were then followed up by many researchers around the world. These and associated publications made a number of claims relating to children’s ideas in science, their implications for learning, and the type of research needed to inform science teaching:
• Learning science is an active process of constructing personal knowledge
• Learners come to science learning with existing ideas about many natural phenomena
• The learner’s existing ideas have consequences for the learning of science
• It is possible to teach science more effectively if account is taken of the learner’s existing ideas
• Knowledge is represented in the brain as a conceptual structure
• Learners’ conceptual structures exhibit both commonalities and idiosyncratic features
• It is possible to meaningfully model learners’ conceptual structures
For further information please visit the following website: http://www.edrev.info/essays/v12n12.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment