On 27 Aug 1999, S. Jystad wrote: >Newton Leibnitz wrote: >(note that I am only quoting the relevant part of his posting) > >>Here is the part I always love to rub in >>constructivism's face: Since constructivism (philosophically) says >>that students must construct their own knowledge it implies >>immediately that no one can instruct a teacher how to use >>constructivism in the classroom (if you did, you would be >>contradicting the theory). They must be allowed to construct their >>own knowledge just as their students must. For instance, Jack's >>teacher constructed his own knowledge of constructivism and therefore >>should be looked upon as a valid form of applied constructivism >(since >>it was constructed) whether you think it is misguided or not. If >>this upsets you (and I am sure it does), then you are starting to >feel >>the rage that most mathematicians get when they hear stories of >>children who are allowed to construct inherently wrong mathematics in >>classrooms run using constructivism. What is so humorous is that the >>constructivist philosophers are not even immune to their own theory. >>But since it is their theory, they shouldn't wine when it is applied >>correctly to produce principles which they detest - unless, of >course, >>the theorist are willing to admit that their theory is wrong. > >My version of constructivism says that (biochemically) (I think this >corresponds to Jack's 'real world') a student constructs their own >synapses which constitute the students knowledge. I challenge both NL >and Jack to come up with a means to construct meaningful synapses in >a student's brain by a method external to the student. The ability to >give a student a shot which would replace a year of instruction would >be an educational panacea, and a bit frightening. > >No where in constructivism have I ever read that 'Since the student >constructed it, it must be correct.' Consider the tale of the blind >men and the elephant. One constructs an understanding of an elephant >as a rope, another as a tree, etc. They are all constructing knowledge >about an elephant that is incorrect. This applies equally well to >constructivist theory in particular. One can construct their own >knowledge of constructivism which is not a valid form of applied >constructivism. Once constructed incorrectly by the instructor, it can >and probably will be applied with detrimental results to the >classroom. > >Again, the straw man appears. You have successfully blown away a >version of constructivism which does not exist. Well done!