Prepared by

Mohamed Elgedawy

EN 721

Dr. Williamson

Summer, 2001

Radical

Constructivism

A teaching / learning theory for teachers and students in all disciplines.

The following is a term project that addresses Radical Constructivism. It might, as I aspire, be considered as a study guide that leads undergraduate and graduate students to have an understanding of radical constructivism as an epistemological theory. I hope that this project would be of some help to get you start on your own, exploring, scrutinizing, and critically evaluating radical constructivism as a theory of knowing and learning. I didn’t adopt a critical eye of what is presented. It is my goal to introduce you to the theory and its classroom practice from its proponents’ viewpoints, letting you decide on your own what might be feasible for pedagogical implications.

The following discussion is presented in six parts:

Part one : INTRODUCTION

Part two : MAIN CONTRIBUTORS

Part three : DEFINITON OF THE THEORY

Part four : OVERVIEW , IT INCLUDES:

i. THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

ii. THE NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS AS LEARNERS

iii. METHODS OF TEACHING AND CLASSROOM PRACTICE

Part five : ANNOTATED BIBLIOGGRAPHY

Part six : USEFUL WEB LINKS

Part one

INTRODUCTION

What is constructivism?

· Constructivism is an epistemology, a theory of knowledge and learning, which illustrates how we know what we know and what knowing is. It deals with knowledge as temporary, developmental, and socio-culturally and internally constructed. As a theory of learning, constructivism puts a premium on individual learning. Rejecting the traditional notion of transmitting knowledge from teacher to student, constructivism suggests a teaching technique that enhance students to contextually construct their own concepts and to take on more ownership of the idea ( Fosnot 1996).

Schools of constructivism

· Constructivism encompasses two main schools of thought : cognitive, psychological constructivism and social constructivism. Cognitive constructivists maintain that to understand is to individually create and construct your own reality. Ernst Glasersfeld, a follower of Piaget, represents the psychological version of constructivism.On the other hand, understanding, according to social constructivists, is socio-culturally oriented. Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist in the 1930s and Kenneth Gergen, a follower of Vyostsky, represent the social versions of constructivist epistemology (Fosnot1996).

· A radically individualistic version of psychological constructivism is developed and coined by Von Glaserfeld. Building his ideas mainly on the work of the French Psychologist, Jean Piaget, Von Glaserfeld points out that knowledge is a self-organized cognitive process of the human mind. Radical constructivism and social constructivism represent the most two influential versions of constructivism (Phillips 2000).

Goal of the study

· It is the aim of this discussion to represent radical constructivism in some details. Yet a brief introduction to social constructivism would help the reader to easily understand the radically oriented concepts of constructivism.

Social constructivism

Knowledge is socially constructed

· Gergen, an exponent of social constructivism, is oriented toward the concept of constructing knowledge within the social domain of public discourse. Concerning himself with the concept of how we come to know, Gergen (1995) stresses sociality which is to be constructed through discourse (language). That is, knowledge is not constructed autonomously but socio-culturally through the interrelationships among people within a particular community, and with the use of language as a medium.

· Rejecting the distinction between “individual” and “social construction of knowledge, Gergen locates the mind of the individual in social action and maintains that “ …the mind of the individual serves as an originary source. Meaning is generated within the mind and transmitted via words or gestures…we are always already in a relational standing with others and the world” (Gergen 1994, p.264).

Reality is a product of collectivity

· So to speak, social constructionism “ places the locus of knowledge not in the minds of single individuals but in collectivity. It is not the internal processes of the individual that generate knowledge, but a social process of communication. It is within the process of social interchange that rationality is generated. Truth is the product of the collectivity of truth makers”(Gergen 1994, p.207). As such, to Gergen, we gain our knowledge through social interactions, because each of us acquire what he or she is born into, and it is through the medium of language that we construct our own knowledge.

Radical Constructivism

· In contrast to Gergen’s concept of the social construction of knowledge, Von Glasersfeld advocates a radically and individualistic construction of knowledge. Gasersfeld’ theory of Radical Constructivism represents a private, cognitive and constructive approach to the acquisition of knowledge. In what follows, I present the concepts that underpin Radical Constructivism.

Part 2

Main contributors to the theory of Radical Constructivism

· The founder and most distinguished advocate of Radical Constructivism is the American psychologist Ernst Von Glasersfeld, an Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Georgia, a Research Associate at the Scientific Reasoning Research Institute, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

· Glasersfeld’s thoughts are chiefly built on Jean Piaget’s studies of children developmental cognition and on the study of self-contained systems (Cybernetics).

· Among his followers are Gebhard Rusch, Siegfried Schmidt, and Niklas Luhmann.

Part 3

Definition of Radical Constructivism

Von Glasersfeld defines his radically individualistic version of psychological constructivism as “ an unconventional approach to the problems of knowledge and knowing. It starts from the assumption that knowledge, no matter how it is defined, is in the heads of persons, and that the thinking subject has no alternative but to construct what he or she knows on the basis of his or her own experience. What we can make of experience constitutes the only world we consciously live in … all kinds of experience are essentially subjective, and though I may find reasons to believe that my experiences may not be unlike yours, I have no way of knowing that it is the same…Taken seriously, this is a profoundly shocking view” (Glasersfeld 1995, p.1).

Part 4

Overview of Radical Constructivism

i The nature of knowledge from a radical constructivist

perspective

Subjectivity of knowledge

· Knowledge, subjectively, relatively, personally, and cognitively constructed through our experiences, is a series of procedural inner construction. Von Glasersfeld, the founder of Radical Constructivism, is oriented toward an individualistic notion of constructing knowledge. Knowledge is actively constructed in the mind of the individual through inner process of similarities and differences (Glasersfeld 1995).

Knowledge is what we experience

· Radical Constructivists maintain that we get to know what we know through what we experience, what we see, hear, and feel. So, knowledge is not to be explored but constructed through our experiential senses. The knower is not an explorer of what is “out there” in the external reality (of which we know nothing). That is, we only know what is “in there”, what is constituted through senses in our minds. Hence, the knower is a builder of thinking structures (schemes) ( Glasersfeld 1996).

No existence for external reality

· In line with Piaget, Glasersfeld (1995) considers the mind (intelligence) as an organizer of the world by organizing its schemas. Since there is no external reality, from a radical constructivist’s perspective, the only “viable” reality (knowledge) is constructed anew by each person for him/herself.

Sensory experience constructs our knowledge

· So to speak, how we get to know what we know! According to Glasersfeld (1995) our cognition (thinking ability) functions as an organizer to the individual experiences we get through our senses. We then develop “a fit”, an adaptation to our sensory experiences. Such “a fit” makes our experiences meaningful, and brings about our own conceptualization of the world. In this case, the world (reality) is what we make of it. We construct out own realities, our own facts, each according to the way he/she conceptualizes the world. These personal facts –subjective sensory experiences – are “viable” as long as they work and do what we expect them to do in constituting our knowledge.

· As such, knowledge, subjectively constructed, is not passively received. Therefore, useful knowledge can’t be transmitted or “transferred intact” from one person to another. It is actively constructed by and in the mind of the individual. This concept has very important implications for classroom practice as we will see later.

· All in all, key concepts of radical constructivism are subjectivism about truth, skepticism about the existence of external objective reality. Knowledge (reality) is mental or inner, and the construction of one’s own knowledge takes place by acting and choosing. “To know is not to possess true representations of reality, but rather to possess ways and means of acting and thinking that allow one to attain the goals one happens to have to have chosen” ( McCarty & Schwandt 2000, p. 45).

ii The nature of human beings as learners

Language is a tool

· Radical Constructivists put a premium on the individual in constructing his/her knowledge. In contrast, the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky and the contemporary social psychologist, Kenneth Gergen, have emphasized the role language plays in shaping the individual’s construction of knowledge. In their case, it is language and the socio-cultural conventions we are born into, rather than our experiences, that shape learners’ understanding. On the other hand, language, to radical constructivists, is seen as a tool that reveals its use through abstractions and conceptualizations ( McCarty & Schwandt 2000).

The self & the other : Is there a dichotomy?

· Since there is no existence to any other reality apart from the individual mind, radical constructivists point out that there is no distinction between the “self” and the “other”.To Glasersfeld (1995), the “others” are cognitive abstractions, images, and models of real persons, the function of which is to play an epistemic role. As such, we construct the “others” on the abstract and cognitive level. The “others” are not real objects, they are intellectual schemas or models which organize, classify, and confirm the “viability” of the individual experiences. To construct the “others”, learners have to put themselves in their places and attribute in terms of analogy what they intend to do. That is, the function of constructing the “others” is to see ourselves from a distance and to see ourselves on the others’ places. This process of constructing the others beings about the viability of our experiences, which in turn construct our knowledge.

The autonomous self

· In line with Piaget, Glasersfeld (1996) views learning as a process of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration, where learners are always engaged in a dynamic process of recognizing and solving problems. Learners, according to radical constructivists, are practically oriented to make their own decision. Putting a premium on the autonomous self, radical constructivists consider the learners as independent thinkers who form their own realities. Individual learners determine for themselves what is good and what is bad, what is meaningful and what is meaningless, each according to his/her own interpretation of his/her private reality. Each creates his/her own meaning of life. That is, we are what we make of ourselves.

iii Classroom practice

Self independent learning

· Having questioned the time-honored view that knowledge is a commodity that can be transmitted or transferred, radical constructivists advocate self independent learning, where learners are engaged in problem-solving. According to Glasersfeld, (1989), there is no best way for learning or teaching. The best way for learning is what suits the learner’s learning style, which is specific.

Leaning strategies

· Viewing knowledge subjectively has fundamental outcomes for our conceptualization of teaching and learning. For example, in a student-centered class, the radical constructivist teacher fosters learning strategies , such as comparing, contrasting, recognizing. Identifying similarities and differences.

No standardizations

· In this process of independent construction of knowledge, there is no one correct answer or solution. There is no standardizations of right and wrong. As such, there is no need for standardized testing. As long as the outcome of the learning task brings about “viable aims”, it is to be valued and credited (Glasersfeld 1995).

Modeling : A teaching strategy

· Class objectives are to be viewed as problems adapted to the cognitive domain which each individual brings to the learning atmosphere. Learning how to think independently is to be adopted and modeled by radical constructivists teachers ( McCarty & Schwandt 2000).

No extrinsic reinforcement

· Students don’t need extrinsic rewards because they are better motivated when they achieve “viable” solutions. Teacher talk functions as encoded messages and students have to decode (construct) with meaning. Teachers, in a radical constructivist class, get their students to talk about and reflect on their thoughts. They foster students to verbalize and externalize their thoughts for each other and for them.

Collaborative learning

· Learners’ conceptual growth is to be achieved through the negotiation of meaning and the sharing of multiple interpretations through group- work and collaborative learning. Problem solving, as a pedagogical technique, is to be used to develop learners’ critical thinking skills and to maintain a non-authoritarian, harmonious, and productive model of relationship between teacher and student (Glasersfeld 1996).

Conclusion

· All in all, to my way of thinking, in a radical constructivist class, the teacher is no more than a guide, a facilitator, and a negotiator who questions and negotiates students’ answers. Adopting a flexible, spontaneous, creative, thoughtful, and democratic approach in managing the class, the teacher provides the students with learning experiences that foster their independent thinking and give them chances to have their voices heard and valued. Acknowledging and valuing the presence of the present, teachers conduct the learning process in a collaborative, give-and-take, reflective, and dynamic relationship.

References

Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism : A psychological theory of learning. In

C. Fonot (Ed.) Constructivism : Theory , perspectives, and

practice, (pp.8-33). New York : Teacher College Press.

Gergen, K. (1994). Realities and relations : Soundings in social

construction. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.

Gergen, K. (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L.

Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in education, (pp. 17-39).

New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In T. Husen & N.

Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education

[Suppl.], (pp. 126-163). Oxford, England : Pergamon Press.

Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism : Away of knowing and

learning. London/Washington, DC.: Falmer Press.

Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction : Aspects of constructivism. In C.

Fosnot (Ed.) Constructivism : Theory, Perspectives, and practice,

(3-7). New York : Teacher College Press.

McCarty, L. & Schwandt, A. (2000). Seductive illusions : Von Glasersfeld

and Gergen on epistemology and education. In Phillips, D. C.

(Ed.). Constructivism in education : Openions and second

opinions on controversial issues. Chicago : University of Chicago

Press.

Phillips, D. C. (2000). An opinionated account of the constructivist

landscape. In Phillips, D. C. (Ed.). Constructivism in education :

Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Chicago

University of Chicago Press.

Part 5

Annotated bibliography

The following annotated bibliography is another guide that address some important published articles regarding Radical Constructivism.

Glasersfelf, E. (1987). The construction of knowledge, contribution to

conceptual semantics. ERIC No : ED 316412.

A source book that includes fifteen essays written by the author between 1969 and 1983, which gives a comprehensive overview of language and semantics, and constructivist epistemology.

Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Knowing without metaphysics : Aspects of the

radical constructivist position. ERIC No : ED 304344.

A definitive historical and theoretical account of radical constructivism ; an attempt to clarify major concepts that have been misinterpreted overtime regarding the theory of RC.

Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism : A way of knowing and learning. London : Falmer Press.

Addresses the Radical Constructivism as a theory of knowing and learning, which imparts a pragmatic approach to issues such as reality, truth, language, and human understanding ; presents in ten chapters an extensive theoretical account of Von Glasersfeld’s theory of RC.

Glasersfeld, E. (1997). Amplification of a constructivist perspective. Issues in Education, 3(2), 203-210.

A critical analysis of Phillips’ article How, why, what, when, and where …; an elaboration of radical constructivist perspectives and of the way empiricists view radical constructivism.

Hardy, M. D. & Taylor, P. C. (1997). Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism : A critical review. Science and Education, 6(2), 135-150.

Looks critically into the suggestions that Von Glasersfeld’s theory bears for the reform of science and mathematics education ; argues in favor of a powerful social epistemology to regenerate the culture of science education.

Jensen, J. W. (1998). Supervision from six theoretical frameworks. ERIC

No: ED 421751.

Highlights six perspectives – behaviorism, information processing,

radical constructivism, social constructivism, a humanistic-process

approach – that would enable teacher educators and supervisors

understand their roles while supervising teachers.

Kelly, G. J. (1997). Research tradition in comparative context : A philosophical challenge to radical constructivism. Science Education, 81(3), 355-375.

Differentiates between two approaches – conceptual change theory and radical constructivism – based on ontology and epistemological views.

Phillips, D. C. (1997). How, why, what, when, and where : Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3(2), 151-195.

An extensive examination of the two main schools of thought of constructivism, psychological constructivism and social constructivism. An overview of the contemporary debate over social and radical constructivism ; a critical presentation of fundamental issues regarding these two schools.

Schauble, L. (1997). A little constructive criticism of constructivism : Comments on D. C. Phillips’ How, why, what,… . Issues in Education, 3(2), 257-262.

A brief, and mostly easy-to-read, critique of the article “How, why, what. When, and where : Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education by D. C. Phillips. An overview of Phillips’ extensive analysis of constructivism, a discussion of educational practices that don’t follow directly from epistemological assumptions and psychological theories.

Useful web links to Radical Constructivism

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/

http://www.umass.edu/srri/vonGlasersfeld/onlinepapers/html/geneval

http://education.indiana.edu/~cep/courses/p540/semcons/semcons_overview.html#cc

http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/vo9n03/practice.html

http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-projects/MCTP/WWW/Essays.html

http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html

http://www.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/postmodern.html

http://www.coe.uh.edu/~srmehall/theory/cognitive.html

http://www-perg.phast.umass.edu/perspective/constructivism.html

http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/CITDPress/Holtorf/3.8.html

Thank you Mohamed Elgedawy

8/7/2001