Week II: The Constructivists Strike Back

Hello Again, 

I guess I'll start week II with a little architectural background.  I've included a picture of our high-school in Newburgh--NFA.  What's interesting about the schools in the city of Newburgh is they all face the Hudson River or East. There are different explanations why this is.  One reason is to "catch the first rays of light" in the morning.  I've heard others say that the Masons(a group whom many of our founding fathers belonged) had a hand in constructing the schools to face the East, and Egypt, where the first masters of architecture began with the building of the pyramids and other colossal projects.  It's interesting how our buildings mimic the past monuments in our history.  It reminds me that knowledge is transmitted through thousands of years of time.  

The knowledge and information that society passes down to us has a strong impact on how we think and act.  We learned about Social Constructivism, and the influence society has on the learner.  In our readings we are asked to question the nature of knowledge itself.  Is knowledge absolute, separate from the knower, and corresponding to a knowable, external reality, or is it constructed by and part of the knower and relative to the individual experience (Constructivism, from Philosophy to Practice)? I think that it is a little of both.  One does not invent their own language, and system of measurement and numerical representation.  Society and family impose or transmit their systems on people.  Still, for an individual, information has to be internalized before it becomes knowledge, and that's where  I see the principles of constructivism regain their validity.  Every person has different origins, and points of view that reappear when connecting to new knowledge.  For instance say I'm a Republican-Conservative-- I'm always going to see things from that point of view.  And when introduced to new issues and topics, I'm always going to try argue in favor of Conservatism.  The same thing would go if I was a liberal, or an anarchist.  We seem to construct our knowledge around different principles, whether they be religious, political, or cultural.  Still, I think that knowledge can be separated from the individual.  Whether that that individual exists or not the number 3 will always be the number 3.  And no individual is going to change that. 

Constructivism is a fascinating premise.  We must remember that our students are coming to our classes from multiple backgrounds and points of view.  Finding ways to reach 30 different people in one class is very challenging.  I think that's way teaching a recurrent body of knowledge is important.  If students learn on their own then why do we need schools?  Society may blight individuality, but when it comes down to it, society is the invention that has enabled our species to survive.  I think the nature of schools is to teach a pluralistic, multi-ethnic society to function together and in harmony (among other things).  Constructivism has many different outlooks and varieties. I agree with the premise that concept development and deep understanding is the focus.  Students have to take the initiative to develop deep understanding by "the building of conceptual structures" (Von Glaserfeld).  And I think that these "conceptual structures" are influenced by the individual and society.