Chemical Education Today
Letters Philosophical Confusion in Chemical Education Research
Constructivism and Chemical Education I wish to congratulate Eric Scerri for his brilliant article (1) on some philosophical questions concerning chemistry. Beyond Herron’s papers cited in Scerri’s article, this Journal has also published the influential Bodner paper about constructivism where the tenet that “knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner” is defended (2). For many teachers, problems with constructivism arise not from the psychological premise “the mind is actively involved in the acquisition of the knowledge”, but from the epistemological conclusion “every construction of personal meaning is acceptable”. If sometimes it is true that “Teaching and learning are not synonymous: we can teach, and teach well, without having the student learn” (2), we know that most of the time students learn and learn in the proper way from our teaching. I think that I have a duty to teach to my students according to the accepted scientific theory; and I know that I can do that more effectively if I use active learning methods. When I was a student, a few of my teachers were quite bad; they had no interest in what students were learning, and one of them was not even able to balance redox equations. In contrast many constructivist teachers are very dedicated and care about their students: as a student I would prefer one of them to one of the ones I had! If we accept that our task and duty is to prepare our students to the best of current possibilities, we have to make changes in what we teach, following the suggestions included in the report of the ACS Committee on Professional Training (3). Some Ph.D. chemists employed in industry are dissatisfied with the present program, not so evidently with the way we teach. A question important for all of us, no matter on what side of the “divide” we are, is: How is it possible to address the gap between pedagogical rhetoric and the reality of industry? Literature Cited 1. Scerri, Eric J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 468–474. 2. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873–878. 3. ACS Committee on Professional Training, Graduate Education in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2002.
The author replies I would like to thank Professor Cardellini for his complimentary remarks regarding my recent article. As he points out there is another paper by one of the constructivist authors that I did not even mention. Perhaps I might add a comment on it now. Another line frequently adopted by the school of chemical constructivists is to argue that until recently, the accepted model for instruction was based on the assumption that knowledge can be transmitted intact from the mind of the teacher to that of the learner (1). The failure to do so is then used as a warrant for the implementation of constructivist methodologies. But this attack is being mounted on a straw-man position since no educator seriously believes, or claims, that knowledge is transmitted intact to the mind of the learner. Such obvious limitations inherent in all teaching methods do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that “all knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner” and other such aphorisms. Nor do they necessarily compel us to the view that constructivist approaches to education are the only plausible response, as these authors frequently imply. For example, the value of active, rather than passive learning, is something that any teacher can agree to regardless of whether he or she is a realist, constructivist, or from many other philosophical persuasions. I am quite convinced of the advantage of active learning in my own teaching and yet I don’t think anyone could label me as anything remotely approaching a constructivist, especially given my previous comments on the subject. Literature Cited 1. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873–878. Eric Scerri Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095-1569
[email protected] Liberato Cardellini Dipartimento di Scienze dei Materiali e della Terra Università, Via Brecce Bianche 60131 Ancona, Italy libero@ unian.it
194
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Vol. 81 No. 2 February 2004
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
