Mark Viner
“Objectivity is
the delusion that observations could be made without an observer” (von Foerster 1995, p. v).
Constructivism is a philosophical
paradigm that is concerned with the nature of knowledge through human perceptions.
How a person perceives and interprets the world affects what they know. For example, Berkeley (1710) claimed that
the mind could not know without the act of perceiving. Our thoughts, ideas, passions, knowledge and objects cannot
exist without a direct connection to the mind. An object, Berkeley argues, is not a thing in itself because
perceptions and thinking about the object are not separate from one another.
Berkeley did not deny the existence of the object.
Rather, he saw the mind acting upon objects in order to make meaning. Individuals understand what things are
because the mind acts upon objects through their perceptions, values and experiences.
Berkeley states, "It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing
amongst men that houses, mountains, rivers, and, in a word, all sensible objects
have an existence, natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by
understanding" (p. 31).
The idea of an external world or object,
as it pertains to knowing and thinking has remained viable in the minds of
educators and researchers over the centuries. According to Stumpf (1982) before the philosophy of Immanuel
Kant all cognition had to conform to objects located in an external world. The object existed in the world and as
individuals we possessed the ability to come to know what that object was. Kant, however, suggested
differently. He claimed that the
object or “ thing” was not necessarily an entity in itself (outside
the person). It was the knower who
acted upon the thing, or object and created meaning from it. In Kant’s perspective, knowing
and thinking was an active power of the mind. It involved the creation of presentations and
representations. Stumpf states
that
“Kant saw the mind as an active
agent doing something with the objects it experiences. The mind, says Kant, is structured is
such a way that it imposes its way of knowing upon its objects. By it’s very nature, the mind
actively organizes our experiences.
That is, thinking involves not only receiving impressions through our
senses but also making judgments about what we experience”
(p. 297).
Kant believed the individual interpreted and made meaning
through perceptions and experiences.
The
traditional epistemological assumption is that a true reality exists
independently of the individual person.
This assumption suggests that knowledge, including scientific theories,
reflects an objective, external, knowable world we all can understand (Staver,
1998; Watzlawick, 1984). According
to Steffe and Gale (1995) traditionalist approaches to understanding knowledge
claim that “the truth” can be found because it correctly reflects
an independent world separate from the knower. The view of an objective world, ‘a true
reality’, according to Roth (1993), takes on an ontological assumption, a
way of being that describes an individual’s place in the world in
relation to external reality.
In contrast to this belief, constructivists hypothesize that it is the
subject who actually invents reality and that knowledge is tied to an
internal-subjective perspective where truth is replaced by ways of knowing.
Staver
(2000) points out that constructivism challenges the assumptions of an
empirical world because it gives up the idea of an independent world separated
from the knower. Likewise, von
Glaserfeld (1995) claims that
descriptions of a true reality (a testable, empirical world) are not possible
due to the fact that we cannot step outside of our internal perspectives and
experiences. He suggests knowing
involves understanding reality as we experience it. Knowledge is a human construction made by the individual.
According
to Stefe and Gale (1995) constructivists claim that knowledge is created in an
experimental world and that we can only profess to know something based on our
experiences. This point of view
suggests that knowledge is constructed by the individual, not waiting to be
discovered as a external, objective world. These contradictions of beliefs about reality make the
constructivist viewpoint incompatible with traditionalist assumptions (von
Glaserfeld, 1995). What is it then
that constructivist thinkers want us to understand? Constructivists believe that the world does not exist
independent of people and it is the individual who makes reality and interprets
the world. Scientific laws,
theories and hypothesis’ are tools for the interpretations of
phenomena. They are a conceptual
way to understand the world around us.
These tools are not separate entities of an objective world but concepts
we utilize to construct a reality (von Glasserfeld, 1995; Staver, 2000).
Understanding
knowledge and knowing how we come to know something, is an integral part of
comprehending reality (Stumpf, 1982; von Glaserfield, 1995). von Foester, (1984) as well,
claims that it is we who make the observations, we who perceive the environment
and in order to understand our external world we have to understand how we
know. He states “… if I don’t see, I
am blind, I am blind; but if I see I am blind, I see” (von Foerster, 1984, p. 43).
Additionally,
the constructivist perspectives do not claim that an objective world does not
exist. It does claim that we
cannot know for sure based on our experiences. We can, however, make predictions about the known world
through the use of scientific theories and concepts. These theories and concepts become viable and functional
because they assist us in explaining our world.
For
example, Staver (1998) claims scientific research methods such as quantitative
and qualitative research designs are appropriate tools for advancing our
understanding of the known world because they “fit well” into our
claims about knowledge. Key points
according to Staver are as follows:
1.
Understanding how we know is a “key” to the door of
knowledge.
2.
Knowledge is adaptive and functional.
3.
Our perceptions make up a coherent system that is viable and functional
for understanding what we encounter.
4.
“Cognition’s purpose is to serve the individual’s
organization of his/her experimental world: cognition’s purpose is not
the discovery of an objective ontological reality” (p. 504).
5.
Knowledge is a higher form of adaptation. It is an instrument for the viable construction of a
workable framework in order to understand reality.
6.
Our frame of mind pre-creates and predetermines what one finds when
searching for answers to problems.
Furthermore,
Staver (1995) poses the following question: Would a constructivist get out of
the way of an oncoming vehicle?
A constructivist would get out of the way because they would understand
that it is functional and viable to do so based upon their perceptions of
reality. It involves a perceived
‘cause and effect’ relationship with an external world.
Rupert
(1984) tells us that it is our experiences that suggest there must be cause and
effect to the external world, when in reality, he claims that there may not be
one. Watzlawick (1984) claims that
time, space, and linear events seem real but in actuality they are only
structures and frameworks for understanding our world. He indicates that common sense and our
perceptions of real life are perceived as a progression of events when, in
fact, only our impression makes this seem to be true. He points out that
“A” doesn’t necessarily lead to “B” and
it is our perception and thinking
that creates a viable link to “why” something happened. We perceive a relationship that enables
us to construct a working model of reality.
The
philosopher Bertrand Russell hypothesized that cause and effect are not
directly explainable. He claimed
that we can only know what we know based on our experiences. Causality to Russell is nothing more
than the need of the human mind.
He believed that all one can really do is justify their assumptions
(Gaarder 1996; Rupert 1984).
Contributions
by von Glaserfeld (1995), indicates that traditional learning and teaching
models were developed based upon the perceived scientific laws of cause and
effect. B.F. Skinner’s
behavioral experiments on rats and pigeons were used to develop relationships
and connections on the belief that learning could test for a true reality. For example, a type of empirical
testing for knowledge would be a behavioral approach to teaching and learning
such as B. F. Skinner’s stimuli-response reactions where reinforcement
fosters repetition. Training by
repetition may modify behavior but according to von Glaserfeld, it does little
for knowledge acquisition and thinking.
Traditional approaches to learning often train students to give right
answers while leaving them with no understanding of the problem or conceptual
framework needed to solve problems.
von Glaserfeld suggests knowledge is not a series of stimuli-response
reactions. It is “real” and connected to an
experimental world that looks for “… a viable model of how we
manage to construct a relatively stable, orderly picture from the flow of our
experience” (p. 57).
Constructivists’ perspectives encourage the building of
meaning and knowledge by changing the very nature of the questions we ask
about reality. Constructivism
promotes the development of learning theories for understanding by concerning
itself with ways of knowing how someone makes a
claim of knowledge. It does not
concern itself with external truths.
Constructivist educational settings would incorporate knowledge building.
They would have students explain their reasoning by the means of developing
a viable “fit” or explanation (Staver, 2000).
The notion of truth in education becomes replaced by the concept
of viability. Conceptual models
and scientific theories are viable if they prove competent in the contexts
in which they were created. They
become relative to the goal or problem presented. Viability is a matter of constructing a model of a coherent
world which eliminates the ultimate truth because there is always more than
one way of knowing and doing (Steffe & Gale 1995).
The constructivist
paradigm suggests that there is always more than one way to solve a problem
because learning is done in the context of a situation where value is placed
upon knowing why one needs to know.
Roth (1993) hypothesizes that constructivist environments account for
learning that occurs in cognitive apprenticeships where people work and learn
in natural contexts to solve problems. von Glaserfeld (1995) agrees and suggests that most,
if not all learning, occurs through our experiences in the “real world”.
Roth (1993) claims that a benefit of constructivism is that
it can be used as a mechanism for testing about the knowledge claims of
students. Constructivist paradigms
call for research that looks at the tasks students do and at the same time
tries to understand how students perceive those tasks. Research designs in educational
settings call for investigations concerning how students encode information and
make use of knowledge and understand how participants interpret meaning. The best approach for researchers,
according to Roth, becomes a descriptive approach that is able to reflect on
classroom practices and construct knowledge through observations and
participation.
Taking
a constructivist view of knowledge and knowing directs the questions we ask and
determines how one goes about constructing answers. Knowledge for the constructivist is operational. It is how one functions in ‘real
life’ to solve problems. To
understand a problem one must see it as one’s own problem to be
solved. It allows for multiple and
viable pathways for building knowledge.
It focuses on what happens inside the heads of students, assessing their
interpretations and reflections within the context of solving a problem. An appropriate constructivist
environment would enable students to participate in the construction of
knowledge, involving the immediate community or classroom in order to address
local problems.
In
1916 Dewey asserted that we cannot separate knowledge and thinking from our
experiences and methods of doing because they are intertwined with the thinking
process. Thinking, according to
Dewey, is an ongoing process that is never finished. It involves making connections and forming
relationships. Dewey indicates
there is a false assumption tied to traditional learning theories "... that method is something separate is connected with the
notion of the isolation of mind and self from the world of things" (p. 179).
Bruner (1990) notes that
meaning is relative to a framework or point of reference to the knower whereas
knowledge is not seen as a question of right or wrong but of
interpretation. The object of
interpretation is for understanding, not explanations. It looks for a" truth
likeness" (p.90). No matter
how hard we try, Bruner claims one cannot think outside the box, the root
paradox. The root paradox cautions
us that we are constrained by our perceptions. We are limited by ‘how’ and ‘what’
we know. All one can really do is
make a corresponding guess to what the real world is and go "meta",
that is, to think about one’s own thinking in order to understand how one
knows.
For the constructivist,
seeing a ‘real world’ is a reflection of one’s own concepts,
goals and intentions. It defines
their questions and how they search for answers. Watzlawick emphasizes the point by quoting Shakespeare:
“nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (p. 237).
References
Berkeley, G. (1710). A treatise concerning the principles
of human knowledge (Reprint edition, 1913). Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.
Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of meaning. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy
and education (Macmillion Paperbacks Edition, 1961). New York: The Macmillion Company.
Foerster, H. von. (1984). On constructing a reality.
In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), Invented
reality (pp. 41-61). New York:
Norton.
Forrester, D., & Jantzie,
N. (1999). Learning theories. [On-line]. Available:
www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~gnjantzi/learning_theories.htm.
Gaardner, J. (1996). Sophie’s
world: A novel about the history of philosophy. New York: Berkley Books.
Glasser, E. von
(1995). Radical
Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington D.C: Falmer Press.
Roth, M. W. (1993).
In the name of constructivism: Science education research and the
construction of local knowledge. Journal
of Research In Science Teaching, 30(7), 799-803.
Staver, J. (1995). Scientific research and oncoming vehicles: Can radical
constructivists embrace one and dodge the other? Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 32(10),
1125-1128.
Staver, J. (1998).
Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and
science teaching. Journal of
Research In Science Teaching, 35(5), 501-520.
Staver,
J. (2000) Constructivism: Sound
theory for resolving the discord between science and religion, including the
controversy between evolution and creation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Steffe, L.
P., & Gail, J. E. (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum.
Stumpf, S. E. (1982). Socrates to sartre: A history of
philosophy (third edition).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Watzlawick, P. (1984) Self-fulling
prophecies. In P. Watzlawick
(Ed.), In vented reality (pp.95-116). New York: Norton.