Radical Constructivism Has an Answer – But This Answer Is not an Easy One
Dewey I. Dykstra Jr.
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Context: In spite of its advantages and its ability to make valid responses to objections, radical constructivism is not mainstream. Problem: Extolling the virtues of radical constructivism and responding logically to the objections does not work. We know this from the evidence of many attempts. Our theoretical stance, radical constructivism, also suggests this approach is not likely to have much influence on realists. We cannot transmit understanding in the signals with which we attempt to communicate. How can we in radical constructivism enable those outside of RC to understand our explanation of human knowing? Method: Examine our understanding of radical constructivism itself, because it is an explanation of how, why and under what circumstances people change their understandings of their experiential worlds. Results: We must find ways to direct the attention of others to situations that they cannot explain with their existing understanding of the world. Then we must create conditions conducive to their revising and testing new understandings for fit with the evidence of their experience. Implications: Since radical constructivism is a theory of human knowing, it tells us how humans develop knowledge, hence it is an answer to the questions central to this special issue. This answer is not one to be used to win in debates with realists. Radical constructivism gives us an answer to the problem of engaging realists in understanding our position, but strategies consistent with radical constructivism are not easily carried out. Developing and executing such strategies is the work at hand.
Key words: history of science, paradigm change, physics education research, realism, folk theory of teaching, cognitive equilibration
Citation
Dykstra Jr. D. I. (2010) Radical constructivism has an answer – but this answer is not an easy one. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 22–30. http://constructivist.info/6/1/022
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
Similar articles
References
Arons A. B. (1976) Cultivating the capacity for formal reasoning: Objectives and procedures in an introductory physical science course. American Journal of Physics 44(9): 834–838.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Carey S. (1987) Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
▸︎ 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(1): 103.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Einstein A. & Infeld L. (1938) The evolution of physics. Simon & Schuster, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1991) Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In: Steier F. (ed.) Research and reflexivity. Sage, London: 12–29. Retrieved from http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/132 on 5 June 2010.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (2001) Constructivisme radical et enseignement. Revue Canadienne de l’enseignement des sciences, des mathématiques et des technologies 1 (2): 211–222. Unpublished English translation “Radical constructivism and teaching” retrieved from http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/244.2 on 5 June 2010.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Halloun I. A. & Hestenes D. (1985) Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics 53(11): 1056–1065.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Halloun I. A. & Hestenes D. (1985) The initial knowledge of college physics students. American Journal of Physics 53(11): 1043–1055.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Halloun I. A. & Hestenes D. (1987) Modeling instruction in mechanics. American Journal of Physics 55(5): 455–462.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hestenes D. (1987) Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics 55(5): 440–454.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene P. (1993) Reconstructing scientific revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Translated by Alex Levine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Jammer M. (1957) Concepts of force. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Republished in 1999 by Dover Publications: Mineola NY.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kuhn T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. (1988) Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology 9(1): 25–82. Retrieved from http://www.enolagaia.com/M88Reality.html on 6 June 2010.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mazur E. (2007) Confessions of a converted lecturer. Paper accompanying a lecture delivered May 2007 in Oporto, Portugal. Adapted from: Mazur E. (1997) Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Prentice-Hall, New York. Pre-print retrieved from http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/sentFiles/Mazurpubs_605.pdf on 5 June 2010.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
McKinnon J. W. & Renner J. W. (1971) Are colleges concerned with intellectual development? American Journal of Physics 39(9): 1047–1052.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1964) Part I: Cognitive development in children. Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2(3): 176–186.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1972) Problems of equilibration. In: Nodine C. F., Gallagher J. M. & Humphreys R. H. (eds.) Piaget and Inhelder on equilibration. The Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia: 1–20.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1985) The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Translated by T. Brown and K. J. Thampy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
