Herb Coleman wrote, quoting me first: >> Herb, there are several points worth discussing in this statement. >> First let me get out of the way a caveat, and also the prejudicial >> form in which your case is expressed. It is only in the "hard sciences" >> physics and chemistry) that women are relatively less successful, not >> in, e.g., the biological sciences. And no one says that "women cannot >> learn math and the sciences". (More on this below.) So I'll reword it >> so that we can discuss it properly. > > I guess what I was trying to assert here and apparently did so poorly is > the basic tenet of constructivism. That is to say that human beings not > only construct knowledge but they also construct the way to think about, > discuss, and assess knowledge. > > An example is the way in which you deconstructed and reconstructed my > comment "so that we can discuss it properly". This pre supposes that > there is a correct way to frame this discussions and that I had not done > so. In reality, we both constructed our points in differing ways.
Herb, you seem to have misunderstood what I was doing. I was not reconstructing your comment in order to construct it the way I (we) think about the issue. If you read what you yourself quoted (see immediately above), you�ll see that the reason I reworded the notion you were rebutting was because it was in a form that no one actually asserts: �women cannot learn math and the sciences�. That may be a kind of shorthand simplification of what some people say (and we�re discussing views put forward by reasonably thinking people, not crude ideas one might hear in a pub conversation), but if we are going to discuss the issue, it has to be in terms that people actually state their view. It�s called a straw man argument: One puts a position that no one actually asserts, and them argues against it. That is not a recipe for taking a discussion forward. So what I did was reword your contention in terms of propensities � just as it is always absurd to say that "men" (or "women") have this or that talent it is equally absurd to say that "men" (or "women") don�t have this or that talent. > My whole point in participating in this discussion was to have us at > least consider the possibility that the manner in which we are testing > might have an impact on learning. I don�t disagree that this happens to some extent, but I don�t believe it to be a major factor compared to (say) personal biases that may intrude on some people�s teaching. (No one on this list, I hasten to add!) > If you accept the idea that we > construct our knowledge (and I realize that's a big IF) then it follows > that each test is constructed by someone to address the way in which > they think the answer should come. It is the case that, of necessity, it is human beings who formulate ideas, theories, methods of corroboration and testing, and so on, so these inevitably have a subjective component. But that does not mean that �we construct our knowledge�. I don�t have to tell TIPSters that that�s a whole big issue that we�re not going to resolve here, but the unique aspect of the scientific approach is that ideas and theories are tested against experience, by experiments, and by constant debate and counter-debate. Out of this, sometimes quite rapidly, often over longish stretches of time, a consensus emerges among those knowledgeable in the field. This consensus is regarded as knowledge, but it is open to revision if observations and measurement (where that is appropriate) indicate that modification of our theories is necessary. > then it follows > that each test is constructed by someone to address the way in which > they think the answer should come. Of course there is some truth in that. But, sticking to scientific disciplines to keep the discussion within bounds, there is a reasonably firm body of knowledge in most parts of an educational course, and this knowledge, and ideas related to it, is what the instructor is endeavouring to help the student grasp. It cannot but be the case that testing attempts to ascertain how much this aim has been achieved, so exam questions are, inevitably, worded in such a way as to elicit responses that show that the student has some knowledge and understanding of the material in the course. > I mean here we are discussing psychology and many of us agree on terms > and ways of doing science. However, if this were written in Kanji or > Sanskrit or some other language, most of us would not be able to read > it. Our understanding of psychology would not be lessen, we just would > understand it as stated in a different language. Likewise the way many > mathematicians and scientist explain things is in a language clear to > other mathematicians and other scientists but not to the "uninitiated". > Through this a semi close club is maintained. This is true of other > areas of academia and even other human endeavors as well. Having taught mathematics and physics in my previous life (including tutoring first year College students in LA some 25 years ago!), I would be the first to agree that the teacher must attempt to enter the student�s mind in the sense of trying to see what the topic being studied looks like from his/her position (often fuzzy, with few firm bearings, at least in the early stages of a specific topic). To that extent one has to speak the student�s �language� if he/she is to be enabled to advance in the subject. It is then the teacher�s task, as I see it, to assist the student in grasping those firm bearings that form a foundation on which understanding, and further knowledge, of the subject can develop. But science and mathematics deal with concepts, and, once one goes beyond an elementary level, there is no way of gaining further understanding without knowledge of, and facility in using, the concepts necessary for that stage of the subject. The advance of knowledge in the sciences and mathematics in the last two hundred years has been little short of phenomenal, so it is inevitable that subjects that once dealt with concepts relatively easy to grasp have progressed to the extent that even quite early study of them requires the understanding of concepts that are not necessarily so. This is nothing to do with mathematicians and scientists maintaining a "closed club" to keep the "uninitiated" out, but an inevitable consequence of the acquiring of complex observational information and the corresponding development of intellectually formidable theories and theorems which can only be expressed in terms of concepts developed earlier in the long history of mathematics and of sciences such as physics and chemistry, plus any new concepts that have been formulated in more advanced research to facilitate further advances. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
