Volume 1 · Number 1 · Pages 49–60
Against Realist Instruction

Dewey Dykstra Jr.

Download the full text in
PDF (533 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Purpose: Often radical constructivists are confronted with arguments why radical constructivism is wrong. The present work presents a radical constructivist alternative to such arguments: a comparison of the results of two instructional practices, the standard, realist-based instruction and a radical constructivist-based instruction, both in physics courses. Design: Evidence from many studies of student conceptions in standard instruction (Duit 2004) is taken into account. In addition, diagnostic data, pre and post instruction, were collected from over 1,000 students in multiple institutions across the U. S. over a period of about 15 years via an established diagnostic of conceptual understanding of motion and force. Findings: Evidence from many studies of student conceptions in standard instruction (Duit, 2004) is that little or no change in student conceptions happens in standard instruction. About half the students in the particular study reported, all science and engineering majors, experienced standard, realist-based instruction and show an average effect size of 0.6 standard deviations and an average normalized gain of 15%. The other half of the students, none of whom were science and engineering majors, experienced radical constructivist-based instruction and show an average effect size over 2.5 standard deviations and an average normalized gain over 60%. Diagnostic pre scores were nearly the same for both groups. Practical implications: The outcome, that students, neither science nor engineering majors, made changes in understanding foundational topics in physics far greater than science and engineering students, poses (1) an ethical challenge to the continued adherence to standard, realist-based instructional practices and (2) an intellectual challenge to the usefulness and appropriateness of the elitist-realist paradigm on which such standard instruction is based. Conclusion: This radical constructivist argument uses the effect of paradigms to judge their pragmatic value, not their truth-value. Based on pragmatic value, radical constructivism results in superior outcomes when applied to physics instruction. The approach to instruction can be applied generally in education. Erratum: Page 52, Column 2, Line 33: The first sentence should read: “Persons who appear to use the pots view do not generally make much conceptual distinction between motion and changing motion; that is…” Erratum: On page 52, middle column, at the beginning of the third paragraph the following words are missing: "Persons who appear to use the pots…"

Key words: elitism, physics, paradigm, realism, education, understanding

Citation

Dykstra Jr. D. (2005) Against realist instruction. Constructivist Foundations 1(1): 49–60. http://constructivist.info/1/1/049

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Dykstra Jr. D. (2010) Radical Constructivism Has an Answer – But This Answer Is not an Easy One
Steffe L. P. (2011) The Honor of Working with Ernst von Glasersfeld. Partial Recollections
Dykstra Jr. D. (2010) What Can We Learn from the Misunderstandings of Radical Constructivism? Commentary on Slezak’s “Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite”
Dykstra Jr. D. (2007) The Challenge of Understanding Radical Constructivism
Ulrich C., Tillema E. S., Hackenberg A. J. & Norton A. (2014) Constructivist Model Building: Empirical Examples From Mathematics Education

References

Aldridge W. G. (1995) Invited paper. The Science Teacher. October: 8. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Astolfi J.-P. (1997) Preface. In: Trabal P. (ed.) La violence de l’enseignement des mathématiques et des sciences: Une autre approche de la sociologie des sciences. L’Harmattan: Montreal. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bloom B. S. (1984) The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring,” Educational Researcher 13: 4–16. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cromer A. (1997) Connected knowledge: Science, philosophy and education. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
de la Torre A. C. & Zamorano R. (2001) Answer to question #31. Does any piece of mathematics exist for which there is no application whatsoever in physics? American Journal of Physics 69: 103. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Duit R. (2004) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions in science: A bibliography. http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
Ehrlich R. (2002) How do we know if we are doing a good job in physics teaching? American Journal of Physics 70: 24–28 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fredette N. H. & Clement J. J. (1981) Student misconceptions of an electric circuit: What do they mean? Journal of College Science Teaching 10: 280–285. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fuller R. G., Karplus R., Lawson A. E. (1977) Can physics develop reasoning? Physics Today 30: 23–29. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Geilker C. D. (1997) Guest comment: In defense of the lecture-demonstration method of teaching physics. American Journal of Physics 65: 107. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1991) Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In: Steier F. (ed.) Research and reflexivity. Sage Publications, London: 12–29. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/132
Glasersfeld E. von (2001) Constructivisme radical et enseignement. In: Revue Canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies 1(2): 211–222. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/244
Glasersfeld E. von (in press) The constructivist view of communication. Presented at the 2003 Memorial Meeting for Heinz von Foerster, Vienna. Published in: Müller A. & Müller K. H. (eds.) (2007) An unfinished revolution. Edition Echoraum, Vienna: 351–360. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/276
Goldberg F. M. & McDermott L. C. (1987) An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a convex lens or concave mirror. American Journal of Physics 55: 108–119. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Jammer M. (1999) The concept of force. Dover, New York. Originally published in 1957 by Harvard University Press, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McDonnell F. (2005) Why so few choose physics: An alternative explanation for the leaky pipeline. American Journal of Physics 73: 283–286. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Niedderer H. (1992) What research can contribute to the improvement of classroom teaching. In: Nachtigall D. K., Bartsch H. & Scholz C. (eds.) Proceedings of the international conference on physics teachers’ education. University of Dortmund, Dortmund: 120–155 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peirce C. S. (1955) Abduction and induction. In: Buchler J. (ed.) philosophical writings. Dover Publications, New York: 150–156. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1985) The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. (Translated by T. Brown and K. J. Thampy). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Originally published in French 1975 by Presses Universitaire de France. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thornton R. K. & Sokoloff D. R. (1998) Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics 66: 338–352 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tobias S. (1990) They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Research Corporation: Tucson AZ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Trowbridge D. E. & McDermott L. C. (1980) Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics 48: 1020–1028. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Trowbridge D. E. & McDermott L. C. (1981) Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. American Journal of Physics 49: 242–253. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.