Obectivism Redux

Kinsch's “Connecting Knower and Known” is an interesting survey of the development of constructivist thought within the matrix of prevailing objectivist world views back to the Greek idealists and up through modern feminist theory. I found relevant connections to my teaching and personal philosophies as well as my particular academic interests in the chapter. The constructivist views detailed in this article seem consonant with the Eastern worldview many aspects of which I have come to adopt in my life. Buddhism particularly seems to correspond most closely with constructivist thought detailed in the chapter. The area which this seems to be most the case is the rejection of subject-object duality. In classic Buddhist doctrine the perception of duality is a delusional interpretation of experience which leads inevitably to suffering. It certainly stands in stark contrast to the Cartesian duality of self vs. thought as detailed in the reading. Indeed Buddhism goes so far as to propound that the self is not an inherent feature of reality but a situational, compounded (read constructed) phenomenon more dependent on language than anything else. This echoes the view of Vytogsky that: “There is every reason to suppose that the qualitative distinction between sensation and thought is the presence in the latter of a generalised reflection of reality, which is also the essence of word meaning: and consequently that meaning is an act of thought in the full sense of the term” (Chapter 1 “Thinking and Speech”).

The thesis that there can be known without the knower seems to the classical objectivist as unscientific in the extreme. Yet modern theories of science are more akin to constructivism than classical bjectivism. Indeed the epitome of modern (and post-modern) science is the development of quantum physics. I would argue that the prevailing interpretation of the theory, known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, is more closely related to constructivism than it is to classical Newtonian physics. This interpretation indicates that there can be no event without an observer, and that in fact the observer effects the event irrevocably simply through the act of observation. This view stands in stark contrast to the Newtonian-Cartesian view of an external physical reality as a stage on which events occur independently of their physical background. I was a bit surprised that Kinsch did not bring this up in his section where he contrasts Newtonian-Cartesian objectivist thought with the development of the constructivist worldview.

The development of constructivist thought reflects a development of my own teaching. I have come to realize at a very deep level that teaching and learning are not two separate activities – they are an holistic unity. This approach absolutely does not allow for the claim”I taught it but they didn't learn anything.” As humbling as it was I had to realize that if they didn't learn a lesson I in fact never taught it. I could have planned perfectly, implemented flawlessly, and appealed to every learning style and theory of pedagogy possible. However if the students did not learn then it was not teaching, the tremendous effort notwithstanding. The bottom line is that learning and teaching are one activity not two separate things connected by the tenuous thread of the personality of the teacher. Real learning is always internal and can only be enabled and empowered, never imparted.

This is not to say that a rote use of constructivist practice in the classroom is any more effective than a rote unthinking application of any pedagogical approach. Additionally teachers do well to be wary of making effective progress in the curriculum by pacing the class so that all students are able to completely develop their own personal meaning. I believe the most effective part of the constructivist approach is to force teachers to really get to the fundamental meaning of the area they are responsible for so that they can guide the students on their own personal journey in making sense of content knowledge. Although it would be impractical to think that we can guide a classroom of students through each of their own personal and unique journeys towards meaning, the better a teacher can grasp the fundamental meaning of a subject the more effective they will be in sheparding their students through their own individual journeys towards deep and lasting learning