having never heard before anything about constructionism, i conclude from a
brief website
(http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Anthology/Pav/Va_Assoc_Sci/construct3.html#General
Constructivism Essays and) investigation that it has much in common with the
scientific method. i predict that the primary problem in applying it would be
in going overboard, and not providing students enough objective information
about what has been constructed to date by others.
in engineering, much of what we learn is objective, however a plethora of labs
supplement this in a constructivist manner. thus, while i can identify and
apply all of the theory and equations used in designing a car, i know perfectly
well that i am no mechanic and have great respect for those who are.
now, if my grades in eng'g had been based on my constructivist performance, i
would have flunked out. if a mechanic's grades were based on his/her
objectivist performance, that person might well flunk out. does this prove
anything about grades?
as i mull this over, it occurs to me that constructivist education would be
much more difficult to provide in the face of students who just want the
diploma as a job ticket. i wonder how accurate grading would differ in the 2
regimes, and i invite philosphical comments from listmembers.
muriel
Rinus Voeten wrote:
> Michael Atherton wrote in message
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >I work in a university environment dominated
> >by constructivists. I have been trying to find authors
> >or researchers who are publishing views contrary to
> >the NCTM standards...without much luck. Can any
> >one tell me who are the national figures with views
> >opposed to the constructivist approach to mathematics
> >education?
> >
>
> The following book may be of interest, though it is not about mathematics
> education:
>
> The flight from science and reason, edited by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt,
> and Martin W. Lewis, published by The New York Academy of Sciences, 1996
> (ISBN 1-57331-003-4).
>
> The book includes contributions from various disciplines scrutinizing the
> irrationalism resulting from social constructionism. The book incudes some
> chapters on science education, including a critique on the constuctivistic
> point of view in the National Science Education Standards.
>
> Have a great 2000!
>
> Rinus Voeten.
--
Any resemblance of any of the above opinions to anybody's official position is
completely coincidental.
Muriel Strand, P.E.
Air Resources Engineer
CA Air Resources Board
2020 L Street
Sacramento, CA 59814
916-324-9661
916-327-8524 (fax)
www.arb.ca.gov
