Re: Constructivist Physics

["Donald E. Simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>]

On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, David Simmons wrote:

> Before everyone runs off to summer meetings, workshops, coursework, 
> other jobs, and (?vacations?), help me out. Until about 10 weeks ago I 
> never really knew what the constructivist theory of learning was all 
> about. Now I am in a class at the university and after 24 years in the 
> classroom I am seeing things in a whole new light. May I ask that you 
> respond to two questions.
>
> 1 What does constructivism mean to you?

It is a current fad word for a pedagogical technique which is as old as
the classroom. It builds upon the fact that many people more easily
reach understanding of unfamiliar things by progressing gradually
from things already familiar.

While the method is as old as the hills, it has suffered from not having a
jargon label, a catchy name to pull it together into one pigeonhole. Now
that this has a name, it can become the subject of grant applications,
summer institutes, conferences and workshops. It can be used by
administrators to crow about the modern methods being used in in
instruction.

Having such a long history in instruction, there are obviously some good
and useful insights and strategies in constructivist education. But,
considering the fact that all methods of instruction have an unacceptably
high failure rate, we have the reasonable suspicion that it isn't the one
and only final answer to the problems of education. The teachers' problem
is, as always, to sift the wheat from the chaff, separate the hype from
the reality, to determine what is working and what isn't, what is
appropriate for a particular class or particular student, and what isn't,
and what can be done with available resources. 

The strength of the method is that students are seduced into thinking that
what they already know is applicable to dealing with completely new
situations. Therefore they more readily "go along" and feel good about the
process. This is also its weakness, for (1) much of what people already
know is wrong, and (2) not all of their previous knowledge is transferable
to completely new situations. In case (1) care must be taken to use the
technique to gently correct that wrong knowledge, and to ensure that the
steps of the learning process do not create new wrong knowledge along the
way. In case (2) the usual technique is to create false bridges from the
old to the new through strained analogies and invented and contrived
links. 

Another weakness is one which most other pedagogical techniques suffer. 
It over-emphasizes one mode of learning while displacing others. It has
the danger of becoming a fad, and most fads are passing fads, to be
replaced by others thought to be "better" but soon to be found to have
strengths and weaknesses comparable to all the others.

The constructivist method of learning is very like the progress of
knowledge building throughout history. In particular, in the sciences we
see how naive and commonplace understanding was refined by gradual steps
to that magnificent body of knowledge and well-tested theory we call
modern science. But the progress of science is a form of punctuated
equilibrium, with long stretches of gradual progress interrupted by
"revolutions" in which huge chunks of previous understanding are replaced
or drastically modified by a new conceptual scheme which is reached not
by gradual and smooth progression, but by unanticipated and sometimes
apparently unreasonable new ways of thinking, accompanied by severe
cognitive dissonance. When the dust settles, a portion of the previous
knowledge, reached through constructivist processes, is demolished by this
destructivist revolution.

The constructivist teaching seems to provide no room for occasional
destructivist revolutions--the punctuation in the smooth equilibrium. It
also does not recognize that *some* students (often the potentially most
creative and brilliant ones) thrive on a more abstract method of learning
in which they are not constrained by the limitations and defects of their
previous understanding, but prefer to treat new areas of knowledge as
unexplored territory, not necessarily amenable to exploration by the old
methods and the old tools. They are willing to deal with the new areas
using new tools and new methods. Such students will feel that
constructivist classrooms are too slow and too conservative. 

But, one thing we have learned is that *any* method of instruction suits
some students well and serves others badly. We have the dilemma of who to
serve. The majority? The most needy? Those with the most potential for
excellence?

	-- Donald

......................................................................
Dr. Donald E. Simanek                            Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics                    Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745          CIS: 73147,2166 
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek            FAX: 717-893-2047
......................................................................