Chemical Education Today
Letters Philosophical Confusion in Chemical Education Research
Does Any of This Matter? I would like to thank Eric Scerri for his commentary in the May 2003 issue (1) and would also like to thank the Journal for publishing it. He asks the question, “Does any of this matter?” It does, and my story gives one example of how. About 10 years ago, I left my career as an engineer and went back to college to earn a license to teach physical sciences at the high school level. My professors were all “constructivists” in exactly the confusing way that Scerri describes. I remember being taught that all knowledge is constructed and that therefore there are really no “right answers” and that we should approach teaching with these ideas in mind. I think my professors meant well, and intended for us to apply what Scerri calls “educational constructivism”, the idea that students move through their misconceptions by constructing a view of mature science. However, in their efforts to get us to adopt what I now recognize as some pretty good educational philosophy, they lumped “objectivism” together with traditional “telling is teaching” instructional methodologies and vilified them both. For most of my classmates, I think this posed no particular problem, but I had read some philosophy and I understood what constructivism really meant to a philosopher. Also, since I was an older, “non-traditional” student, I had experience that caused me to reject out of hand the notion that all the physical laws I had relied on as a successful engineer were nothing more than an agreement between scientists. I also chuckled as my professors went on to teach us how to design “constructivist” lessons that, when successful, led all the student groups toward the same “objective” conclusion about the little piece of nature they were investigating. As a result, I developed the habit of categorically tuning out or missing out on a lot of valuable educational experience and theory that others had to share, a mistake I only began to rectify after my teaching career had been underway and I learned from my students and colleagues what constructing knowledge means for a learner, as opposed to a philosopher. Literature Cited 1. Scerri, E. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 468–477.
The author replies I would like to thank David Eckstrom for taking the trouble to respond to my commentary “Philosophical Confusion in Chemical Education” in which I presented a critique of constructivism and relativism as currently portrayed by some leading chemical educators (1). While appearing to support my views wholeheartedly Eckstrom concludes with something of a “sting in the tail”. Rather than agreeing with my critique of chemical constructivism it seems that he is recounting the manner in which he once shared my concerns but now regrets the error of his ways. He ends his letter by pointing out that the term “constructivism” may have different meanings for learners than it does for philosophers. But this is a point that I explicitly addressed in my article, while suggesting that such a gulf might be responsible for a great deal of the confusion as I see it. Perhaps it would be more interesting if Eckstrom would share some insights, in this or some other forum, of how he regards the meaning of constructivism to be so different among learners and philosophers. As I tried to indicate in my commentary it is not constructivism itself that I object to but the way that it has been presented by chemical educators in a number of articles, especially in this Journal. Perhaps it would not be necessary for educators like Eckstrom to experience such an arduous journey in their eventual acceptance of educational constructivism if authors of journal articles on the subject would present a more sophisticated set of arguments in its favor. One would hope that it is not essential to accept all the presently available arguments on faith until one has had the opportunity of gaining long-term teaching experience as Eckstrom appears to have done. If that were the case I suggest that many potentially excellent chemical constructivists might give up on the project because of the present rhetoric. It would be interesting if some educators might also respond to my challenge in a more direct manner, perhaps by defending their use of such terms as relativism and constructivism in the context of science education. On this point I would like to take the opportunity of drawing the attention of prospective authors to a special issue of the journal Foundations of Chemistry (2). The editors of this journal are currently soliciting articles on the question of constructivism and relativism in science education and chemical education in particular. Literature Cited
David J. Eckstrom Science Curriculum Coordinator Hayward Community Schools Hayward, WI 54843
[email protected] 1. Scerri, E. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 468–477. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers—Foundations of Chemistry. http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1386-4238 (accessed Dec 2003). Eric Scerri Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095-1569
[email protected] 194
Journal of Chemical Education
•
Vol. 81 No. 2 February 2004
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
