Hi All:
In 1999 I was asked by the editor of the Book Review section of The
Physics Teacher (an AAPT journal) to write a review of Cromer's
book. I resisted the original invitation because I was pretty sure
there was little I could write that would be complimentary of the
book, but the editor insisted he relished a little controversy.
Based on this I bought the book, read it and wrote a review. It was
returned with the information that I had to limit the review to 500
words. The end result is below. In the end the review was never
published. One can only surmise the behind-the-scenes machinations...

The review:
Alan Cromer’s "Connected Knowledge" (Oxford University Press: New
York, 1997) starts as a defense of science under attack by
“postmodernist constructivist” ideologues. Little understanding of
post-modernism and constructivism or awareness of research in physics
learning over the last 20 years is displayed. (updated reference:
<http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html>) Poor examples
are provided to dispute the “other side” (p. 12–15). We receive
science lessons, personal anecdotes about experiences in science
education and using computers. Learning in science is equated to
learning mazes (Ch. 8). “True” explanations of human culture (Ch. 5)
and language (p. 102–107) and a defense of the “bell-shaped
curve”(Ch. 9) are given. Finally, we are told to continue to educate
as we do, via his recommendations, teaching everyone their proper
place in society—an ideological response from an ideology that claims
not to be.

Cromer concludes: “The value of a formal education is that it
provides a consistent, coherent, and universal framework of basic
knowledge on which individuals can build their own understanding of
the world. … There can be no justification for a tax-supported
public education system that doesn’t teach the universal framework of
historical and scientific knowledge, for without such a framework
it’s hard to see how a heterogeneous democratic society can resist
the ever-present human impulse to split into warring clans and
tribes.” (p. 183–184) Whose “universal framework?” Whose historical
“knowledge”? (examples: Loewen, James. "Lies My Teacher Told Me," New
Press: New York, 1995) Can one build one’s own understanding of the
world without questioning the origins and bases of this framework?
Can objectivity, “modest” realism (p. 35), really be achieved when
the universal framework is already given? (alternative: Jammer, Max.
"Concepts of Force." Dover: New York, Ch. 1, 1999)

Throughout, arrogance abounds. Of the frameworks students form for
themselves, Cromer writes: “…these are bound to be inconsistent and
idiosyncratic, leading to outlandish and dangerous interpretations of
events.” (p. 183-184) Of educators: “… there are few educators who
know enough arithmetic to balance a checkbook, let alone understand a
multivariant logistic regression analysis.” (p. 74) Physics authors
today are arrogant about our current knowledge of the physical world.
They ignore Arnold Arons’ precepts: “How do we know?” “Why do we
believe?” Can Cromer have read the textbook from which he quotes the
list of physics experiments? (p. 9) (example: <http://
www.boisestate.edu/physics/dykstra/TruNTxt.html>) With such attitudes
and practices, is it any wonder the primary lesson learned by most in
physics instruction is that they are “dummies” who must rely on the
“brightest” for truth? (using Cromer’s terms, p. 157)

It’s not possible to defend mindless, unreflective statements and
acts on either side of these “science wars.” In the available space
here one can hardly even address them. Serious people trying to make
sense of various positions are disappointed in the lack of
scholarship displayed by those who indiscriminately lump post-
modernism, constructivism, and feminism together, just as they find
offensive superficial, faddish attempts to jump on band-wagons and
claim labels that have not been critically examined.

...End of review

Two more comments:
1. I do not think that (a) the "constructivist workshop" of which
Cromer speaks was anything remotely resembling a workshop conducted
within what I consider to be constructivist principles and (b) that
it was some part of some program managed or directed by Cromer. My
memory may be faulty concerning point (b). What I recall is that it
was some workshop he happened to know about. It may be that the
"brave soul" of which you write, Keith, has no idea he or she was
written about by Cromer.

2. There is a lot of talk about inquiry in science instruction in
the US, but the vast majority of science instruction in the US does
not involve inquiry at all. What inquiry there might have been to
any real degree was in the elementary grades (1 - 6), but nearly all
science teaching in those grades was terminated with NCLB and its
sole emphasis on reading and arithmetic. From grade 9 or 10 on up
thru college there are, here and there, teachers using inquiry to
teach their subjects, but only a very small percentage of the
students experience such teaching.

Dewey

On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:

> If anyone knows Prof. Alan Cromer's book
> 'Connected Knowledge: Science, philosophy, and
> education, they will know he rants at
> 'constructivists' and 'constructivism' (although
> his real target seems discovery learning). Cromer
> claims that in the US science teachers and
> science educators are ignorant of science -
> strongly implying that such people would not be
> science graduates, which I find hard to believeŠ
>
> But anyway I was interested in his account of how
> middle school science teachers were on successive
> days given a 3 hour 'constructivist' workshop on
> floating and bouyancy, followed the next day by
> "a ninety-minute demonstration-discussion period
> , several hours of laboratory work, and an hour
> of final discussion" on the same topic. According
> to Cromer "the teachers were confused and angered
> by the constructivist's workshop".
>
> There are a range of interesting points here
> about the choice of sequencing of the workshops,
> the difference in duration of the two inputs, and
> how it is implicitly assumed by Cromer that
> "ninety-minute demonstration-discussionŠ, several
> hours of laboratory work, and an hour of final
> discussion" could not be a constructivist
> teaching approach!
>
> Anyway, given the implied criticism of the
> constructivist educator who kindly agreed to
> participate in Cromer's programme I wondered if
> anyone knows who this was. I would be very
> interested to hear the other side of the
> argument, as from my reading this person seems to
> have been set up, and I wonder if they were
> clearly warned of the context of this work.
>
> I would be rather reticent in involving myself in
> a programme with someone who has Cromer's low
> opinion of science educators and constructivists
> as having "no knowledge of science", being
> "ignorant" of science content, "ignorant of the
> theoretical structure of science. Š ignorant of
> the standard experimental techniques" etc.
>
> I'd very much like to hear from this brave soul.
>
> Keith
>
> --
> Dr. Keith S. Taber
>
> http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
> http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kst24/
>
> University Senior Lecturer in Science Education
> Science Education Centre
> University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
> 184 Hills Road
> Cambridge CB2 8PQ
> United Kingdom
>
>
>
> About this list:
>
> Purpose: an international forum for discussing aspects of learning
> in science, and for circulating news about publications, projects,
> etc., related to this theme.
>
> Membership: open to teachers at any level, researchers into
> learning in science and related fields, and any others interested
> in the topic.
>
>
> This list is a moderated discussion group (ie postings are vetted
> for relevance to the group theme).
>
> Moderator: Dr. Keith Taber, Faculty of Education, University of
> Cambridge.
> http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
>
>
> to join an un-moderated general science education discussion list,
> please visit:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/science-education/
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr., Ph. D. Phone: (208)426-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)426-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)426-4330
Boise State University ddykstra@...
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper: GHB, Uilleann
<http://www.boisestate.edu/physics/Dykstra/Dyks.html>

"The problem in science is you never get to see the yak!"
--D. Dykstra, Science for Monks Project, 2006.

"...a physics major has to be trained to use today's physics whereas
a physics teacher has to be trained to see a development of physical
theories in his students' minds." -- H. Niedderer in
"International Conference on Physics Teachers' Education Proceedings"
Dortmund: University of Dortmund, p. 151, 1992.

"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of
instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
inquiry; for
this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in
need of
freedom; without this the plant goes to wreck and ruin without fail."
--A.
Einstein in "Autobiographical Notes," 1949.

"Now there are two theorems that form together the cardinal hinge on
which the whole structure of physical science turns. These theorems
are: (1) THERE IS A REAL OUTER WORLD WHICH EXISTS
INDEPENDENTLY OF OUR ACT OF KNOWING, and, (2) THE REAL
OUTER WORLD IS NOT DIRECTLY KNOWABLE." --M. Planck in
"Where Is Science Going?," 1932. (EMPHASIS in the original)

"As a result of modern research in physics, the ambition and hope,
still cherished by most authorities of the last century, that physical
science could offer a photographic picture and true image of reality
had to be abandoned." --M. Jammer in "Concepts of Force," 1957.

"If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make
reality the basis of our philosophy? ...But we cannot distinguish
what is real about the universe without a theory...it makes no sense
to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what
reality is independent of a theory."--S. Hawking in "Black Holes
and Baby Universes" 1993.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]