A shame this was not published - the editor could
have offered the right to reply. (Which is more
than Prof Cromer offered his 'constructivist'
guest presenter.)

Keith



At 10:43 -0700 3/3/08, Dewey Dykstra wrote:
>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]
>
>
>
>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 gives you the choice of receiving
>e-mails individually, or as a single daily
>digest of all messages circulated that day.
>
>homepage:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/
>bookmarks to other sites:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/links
>bibliography on learning in science
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts/files/
>
>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/
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


--
Dr. Keith S. Taber
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education