Constructivism, Cybernetics, and Information Processing: Implications for Technologies of Research on Learning
Patrick W. Thompson Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education and Department of Mathematical Sciences San Diego State University
Constructivism, as a philosophical orientation, has only been widely accepted in mathematics and science education since the early 1980s. As it became more broadly accepted, it also became clear that there were incongruous images of it. In 1984, von Glasersfeld introduced a distinction, echoed in Steier's chapter 5, between what he called naive constructivism and radical constructivism. At the risk of oversimplification, suffice it to say that naive constructivism is the acceptance that learners construct their own knowledge, whereas radical constructivism is the acceptance that naive constructivism applies to everyone--researchers and philosophers included. von Glasersfeld's distinction had a pejorative ring to it, and rightly so. Unreflective acceptance of naive constructivism easily became dogmatic ideology, which had, and continues to have, many unwanted consequences.1 On the other hand, I attempt to make a case that, to do research, we must spend a good part of our time acting as naive constructivists, even when operating within a radical constructivist____________________
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Constructivism in Education. Contributors: Leslie P. Steffe - Editor, Jerry Gale - Editor. Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of publication: Hillsdale, NJ. Publication year: 1995. Page number: 123.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.