I would suggest that what is being presented is less a
description of how people actually develop knowledge, and more a effort to
fit observations into the preconceived theories of the observers. It is
the authors who hold the constructivist views, not necessarily the women
they are observing.
I think that Matthews' criticisms of the epistemological problems
with constructivism are relevant to the discussion at this point.
Basically, he points out - and I believe correctly so - that
constructivism implicitly accepts an Aristotelian empricist view of
knowledge. Constructivism assumes that "the mind is active in knowledge
acquisition", and thus "we cannot know reality" -- in other words there is
no reality - only the view of it that we construct in our minds. To the
extent that this constructed view allows us to "make sense" of our sensory
inputs it is of value to us.
As Matthews' notes the scientific revolution associated with
Galileo effectively destroyed the Aristotelian epistemological paradigm.
He was able to make the important distinction between the THEORETICAL
object of science (a system of mathematically expressed definitions,
principles, concepts and relations), and the REAL objects of science (the
materials, events, and ojects) that are grasped, described, and
experimented with. In other words, Galileo saw both the power of
abstraction in scientific theories, and the utility of experimentation in
the development and elucidation of those theories.
Matthews' further points out that "constructivism is correct in
stressing the humane, culturally dependent, and temporally dependent
aspects of creating the THEORETICAL objects of science." However, he goes
on to note that "the fact that knowledge is humanely (sic) constructed
does not mean that knowledge claims cannot be true, nor should the
creations of science be tied to "sensory inputs" in the way that
constructivists often do."
Basically, he is saying that once the theoretical objects are
produced they have a reality of their own. "Newton's mechanics, Darwin's
evolutionary theory, and Mendel's genetics all exist and can be
apprehended by, and taught to subsequent thinkers".
While I agree that helping students reach their highest potential
is a worthy goal, I don't think that should be our primary goal as science
teacher. Rather, I feel my primary goal is introduce my students to the
power of scientific knowledge, to give them the tools to dispel
supersition, and to replace it with a rational appreciation of the world
that they live in.
(for those who would like a more detailed description of Matthews'
views than the one I referenced previously, see Michael R. Matthews,
"Constructivism and Science Education: Some Epistemological Problems",
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2 (1993) 359.)
Happy New Year,
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Physics Department
California State University, Fullerton
P.O. Box 6866
Fullerton, California 92834-6866