Radical Constructivism and Multicultural Education

I have been thinking about Radical Constructivism and how it relates to our last topic, multicultural education, and I think they go together quite nicely. Radical Constructivism is concerned with experience. No student/learner comes from the same perspective. No student/learner has experienced the world in the same way. Multicultural education acknowledges and honors differences in students that may shape they way they perceive the world. So, I think a Radical Constructivist would be suited for multicultural education. The article "Re-examining lived experiences: Radical constructivism and gender", by Angela Calabrese Barton*, discusses radical constructivism and teaching science to girls. The article argues that science typically "embraces masculine values and ways of knowing the world". By taking a radical constructivist approach to teaching science, these biases may not be as harmful to students.



*Here is the article: faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/m-osbor/osborne/4.rtf


Question: Do radical constructivism and multiculturalism really go hand in hand, or have I overlooked something?

There have been discussions both in class and on the blogs about certain hypocritical statements, such as "Nothing can be objective", or "it is always wrong to judge others". The hypocrisy of a radical constructivist trying to convince others that their theory is right has been pointed out. While I think these contradictions are worth discussing, I don't think they detract from the actual argument. For example, Ernst Von Glasersfeld may argue that his theory of radical constructivism is true, but if part of the theory is that one cannot know anything outside of his or her experiences, then of course he should be willing to admit that the theory of radical constructivism is based on his experiences. I don't think this is hypocritical of him. Even if it was, I think it is a weak argument to say "this person doesn't always act in accordance to their beliefs; therefore, their beliefs are wrong". By focusing on these possible contradictions, we are skirting around the actual belief we should be evaluating. In other words, I don't think you should judge the merit of an argument by focusing on the person making the argument.

Response to Stephen, Practicality of Constructivism

When would it be prudent for the Radical Constructivist to doubt reality and objective truth in everyday life?


I think that it is probably never necessary to question things like "Is this person I'm talking to actually real?" or "Is this paper that I'm writing actually really due tomorrow, or did I just construct that in my own reality?". For the sake of functioning in society, these kinds of questions are not necessary. However, in the vein of teaching and learning, it is practical to question "objective truths" that one learns in school, or things that are taken for granted as "fact" by the general population. Because we only have our own experiences to make judgments of the world from, we must always be mindful of the fact that everybody assesses "truths" about the world from their own point of view, and therefore there is no way for a human to be objective about anything. However, I don't know if a radical constructivist can pick and choose what he or she is going to question in everyday life. I would think that, especially being radical constructivism, the radical constructivist would want to apply this philosophy to everything in his or her life.

Question: Should a radical constructivist pick and chose what they are going to apply their theory to in everyday life?