Dare I oppose constructivist theory?

Throughout the 1990s and now into this century, constructivist theory has been one of the major influences in science education (Geelan 1997; Matthews 1993; Prawat 1992; Solomon 1994). Hodson and Hodson (1998,33) described constructivism as "a new orthodoxy of science education." In similar language, Phillips (1995,5) compared constructivism to a "secular religion or at least a powerful folktale about the origin of human knowledge." This theory currently is being applied in other disciplines (Cummings and Harlow 2000; Levstik and Barton 1997). Constructivist theory has inspired reform at all levels of the educational system.

Constructivism (Solomon 1994, 5) is a "fallibilist theory" of science, arguing that no statement can be taken as true beyond reasonable doubt. Like existentialism, it is open to many interpretations (Prawat 1992). Constructivist theorists reject the idea of pure scientific facts. As Chrenka (2001) noted, they contend that every theory allows for multiple alterations. Thus, they recognize the possibility of constructing the world in many different ways. The literature (Airasian and Walsh 1998; Geelan 1997; Hodson and Hodson, 1998) identifies two main camps of constructivism: cognitive-developmental or Piagetian constructivism and sociocultural or social constructivism. Geelan (1997), however, has identified at least six different forms of constructivism and acknowledged that he did not exhaust the possibilities in the field. Thus, there is no one true way of constructivism; one person's version is likely to differ from another's. Because the theory is based on the belief in the uncertainty of even scientific knowledge, one version of the theory cannot claim to be the true version (Geelan 1997; von Glasersfeld 1989).

Though often mistaken for an instructional methodology; constructivism is an epistemology, a philosophical explanation about the nature of knowledge (Airasian and Walsh 1994). It is a theory about how learners come to know. Phillips (1995, 7) went to the heart of the issue with his critical question, "Is knowledge made or discovered?" If knowledge is discovered, then it is objective, fixed, and independent of the knower (Airasian and Walsh 1998; Prawat 1992; von Glasersfeld 1989). In this case, knowledge is imposed from outside, and nature is the instructor or template (Phillips 1995). However, if knowledge is made, then it is produced by humans from existing beliefs and experiences (Airasian and Walsh 1998; Phillips 1995). Hence, the laws of nature are merely the result of human activity.

In fact, according to constructivism, laws of nature do not exist; rather, all knowledge is subjective and personal (Airasian and Walsh 1998) and is a product of our own cognitive acts (Matthews 1993). Therefore, scientific knowledge does not correspond to absolute truth or reality (von Glasersfeld 1989, and science as public knowledge is "not discovery but construction" (Matthews 1993, 361-62). Because knowledge cannot be viewed as a set of universal truths, a better analogy would be that of working hypotheses. As Matthews (1993) concluded, scientific knowledge enables us to cope. Thus, constructivism can be seen as a post-- epistemological position, an abandonment of traditional epistemological language. As Geelan (1997) surmised, constructivism is one possible way of thinking; a model useful in particular contexts rather than universally true.

COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

The average teacher would no doubt define constructivism with the practical definition found in instructional methods textbooks: "Students construct their own knowledge" (Airasian and Walsh 1998). But what does this really mean? As Phillips (1995,6) explained, "Human knowledgewhether it be the bodies of public knowledge known as various disciplines, or the cognitive structures of individual knowers or learners-is constructed." In other words, individuals create knowledge from the interaction between their existing knowledge or beliefs and the new ideas or situations they encounter. Therefore, all knowledge is subjective and can never be justified as true in the absolute sense.

So what is knowledge? As von Glasersfeld (1996, 4) explained, one's knowledge is "a mapping of actions and conceptual operations proven viable in the knowing subject's experience." In other words, cognition is "adaptive and involves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality" (Matthews 1993,363). We do not find truth in knowing; we construct viable explanations of our experiences. As humans, we love to create models and structures, but the world has no structures. Therefore, our "knowledge does not tell us about the world at all; it tells us about our experiences and how they are organized" (Matthews 1993, 362).

Constructivism describes both what "knowing" is and how one "comes to know." Obviously, how one comes to know has a direct link to teaching and learning. When teachers plan to stimulate and enhance a student's learning, they must remember that "knowledge does not exist outside the student's mind" (von Glasersfeld 1996, 5). Constructivists reject the historic instructional philosophy that "meaning can be passed on to learners via symbols or transmission" (Fosnot 1996a, ix). Teachers must give learners the opportunity to search for patterns, construct their own models, identify concepts, and develop strategies. In other words, "learning proceeds toward the development of structures" (Fosnot 1996b, 29-30).