My ideal science program takes into account how
students learn. The constructivist epistemology asserts that the
only tools available to a knower are the senses. It is only through
seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting that an individual
interacts with the environment. With these messages from the senses
the individual builds a picture of the world. Therefore,
constructivism asserts that knowledge resides in individuals; that
knowledge cannot be transferred intact from the head of a teacher to
the heads of students. The student tries to make sense of what is
taught by trying to fit it with his/her experience.
Consequently, words are not containers, whose
meanings are in the word itself, they are based on the constructions
of individuals. We can communicate because individual's meanings of
words only have to be compatible with the meanings given by others.
If a situation occurred in which your meaning of a word no longer
sufficed, you could change the meaning of the word.
Using constructivism as a referent, teachers
often use problem-solving as a learning strategy; where learning is
defined as adaptations made to fit the world they experience. That
is, to learn, a person's existing conceptions of the world must be
unreliable, inevitable. When one's conceptions of the world are
inevitable one tries to make sense out of the situation based on
what is already known (i.e., prior knowledge is used to make sense
of data perceived by the senses). Other persons are part of our
experiential world, thus, others are important for meaning making.
"Others" are so important for constructivists that
cooperative learning is a primary teaching strategy. A cooperative
learning strategy allows individuals to test the fit of their
experiential world with a community of others. Others help to
constrain our thinking. The interactions with others cause
perturbations, and, by resolving the perturbations individuals make
adaptations to fit their new experiential world.
Thus, from a constructivist perspective, science
is not the search for truth. It is a process that assists us to make
sense of our world. Using a constructivist perspective, teaching
science becomes more like the science that scientists do - it is an
active, social process of making sense of experiences, as opposed to
what we now call "school science." Indeed, actively engaging
students in science (we have all heard the call for "hands-on,
minds-on science") is the goal of most science education reform.
Children's prior knowledge of phenomena is an
important part of how they come to understand school science. Often
the interpretation of phenomena from a scientific point of view
differs from the interpretation children construct; children
construct meanings that fit their experiences and expectations. This
can lead children to oftentimes construct meanings different from
what was intended by a teacher. Teachers that make sense of teaching
from an objectivist perspective fail to recognize that students
often resolve this cognitive conflict by separating school science
from their own life experiences. In other words, students
distinguish between scientific explanations and their "real world"
explanations (the often cited example- that forces are needed to
keep a ball in motion versus Newton's explanation is one such
example). Children's conceptions are their constructions of reality,
ones that are viable in the sense that they allow a child to make
sense of his/her environment. By using a constructivist epistemology
as a referent teachers can become more sensitive to children's prior
knowledge and the processes by which they make sense of phenomena.
Research indicates that learners need time to
experience, reflect on their experiences in relation to what they
already know, and resolve any problems that arise. Accordingly,
learners need time to clarify, elaborate, describe, compare,
negotiate, and reach consensus on what specific experiences mean to
them. This learning process must occur within the bodies of
individuals; however, the inner voices of persons can be
supplemented by discussion with others. Therefore, an important part
of a constructivist oriented curriculum should be the negotiation of
meaning. Students need to be given opportunities to make sense of
what is learned by negotiating meaning; comparing what is known to
new experiences, and resolving discrepancies between what is known
and what seems to be implied by new experience. The resolution of
discrepancies enables an individual to reach equilibrium in the
sense that there should be no remaining curiosity regarding an
experience in relation to what is known. Negotiation also can occur
between individuals in a classroom. The process involves discussion
and attentive listening, making sense of the points of views of
others, and comparing personal meanings to those embedded within the
theories of peers. When a person understands how a peer is making
sense of a point of view, it is then possible to discuss
similarities and differences between the theories of peers within a
group. Justifying one position over another and selecting those
theories that are viable can lead to consensuses that are understood
by those within a peer group.
The process of learning should not stop at what
has been learned in the negotiation of a class consensus. It is
important that students learn to compare knowledge constructed in
class with knowledge constructed by the community of scientists.
This process can involve accessing other learning resources such as
books, videotapes, and practicing scientists. The consensuses
negotiated within a class can be adapted by students as they make
sense of the theories negotiated in other communities. By engaging
in such a process students can realize that what is regarded as a
viable theory depends on what is known at the time and the context
in which the theory is to be applied. Also they can begin to
understand how to select the best theoretical formulation for use in
a particular set of circumstances.
