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?

Response to Stephen

"Were it to seem 'viable' to a student that 1+1 came out to some other figure, would a teacher be in a position to correct them under RC theory?"


You have to accept certain "truths" in order to do math. 1+1=2 means nothing unless you accept certain postulates as true. So, if a student refused to do math because he or she did not accept these postulates, then I think that would be supported by a radical constructivist. However, I am less sure about what a radical constructivist would think of a student who came to the conclusion that 1+1=3 after accepting the postulates. It seems hard to argue that that could be correct. I think there is value in the notion that "objective truths" that we take for granted (such as 1+1=2) should be challenged. However, in every area of life, we must accept certain "postulates" in order to function. I wouldn't even be writing this if I was a radical constructivist because, for all I know, nobody in this class actually exists and my blog will never be seen by anyone. For my own benefit, I have to just accept that there is a reality outside of my own perceptions.

Question: Is it valid to reject radical constructivism solely because it makes it very hard (or maybe even impossible) to function normally in society?

Response to Ed

"Should schools be concerned with the physical and emotional well-being of their students as well as the intellectual?"

Yes. Schools (at least the public schools that I attended) usually show an interest in more than just the intellectual development of students. Much time is devoted to the students' development of morals and values (we had "Character Development" sessions in middle school, which was supposed to teach us how to be good people). More obviously, most schools require physical education up to a certain age. Since people younger than 18 typically spend most of their time in school, it makes sense for schools to take responsibility for more than just mere intellectual development. Between going to school, doing homework, after-school activities, and parents' busy work schedules, it is unrealistic to assume that parents will teach their children values outside of school. Schools should probably take responsibility for the development of students in most areas, such as intellectual, emotional, character, and yes, physical education. However, the way most schools go about physical education is problematic. Most people have horror stories about "gym class" from when they were younger. Sports are supposed to be recreational, so it seems odd to force somebody to do something for fun. Since sports are just one of many ways to get physical activity, I think there should be a broad range of physical activity for students to chose from. For example, MCLA requires 2 physical education classes, but I think our school has a lot to choose from, so there is something for everybody. Of course, you need a bigger budget to have more options for physical education, which many schools probably cannot do.
Question: Should schools teach morals and values to their students?

Knowledge=Justified True Belief

Today in class, we discussed the theory that knowledge is a justified true belief. How do we know when something is true and justified? I think that most of the things students learn in school is not true or justified to them. For example, a student learns about World War II. How does the student actually know if what he or she is learning is true and justified? How do any of us know that events in history as we know them are true and justified? We believe them, because trusted authority figures tell us that these events happened a certain way. But since we have not experienced these things, we cannot know if this "knowledge" is true and justified. It seems to me that the only way for a belief to be justified is if one has experienced something in the world to confirm the belief. So, a justified belief is really only justified for the person who has experienced something that justifies the belief. Therefore, most of the things we learn in school are not justified true beliefs to the learner. So, knowledge claims are obviously beliefs, and they can be justified through experience.
Question: How can a knowledge claim be proven true?

Math and Constructivism

As I read about constructivism, I began to think about how it could be applied in the classroom, and I think that constructivism would be a good approach to learning math. Many people seem to be frustrated and confused by math because it seems "made up". As someone who loves math, I have heard this so much from people. They feel like the rules of math are completely arbitrary, random, and just do not make any sense. I believe that people may feel this way because they have been taught a set of rules to memorize. Math is something that can be discovered, and I think what you learn is a lot more valuable if you discover it on your own. Instead of just teaching kids that 1+1=2, because that's just the way it is, kids should be able to explore math on their own and come to an understanding of the concepts. I know that the first time I was shown a hands-on, concrete example of the concept of pi, I was so amazed that I had been using pi for so long without having any understanding of it. And I immediately understood it after seeing it. This may be an example of different learning styles, but I think this approach would work with most people.

Question: Do constructivist teaching methods cater to certain learning styles?