The Peripatetic Philosopher looks at paradigm shifts:

EMBRACING A NEW PARADIGM IS NOT EASY

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© October 28, 2019

The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage must often do so in defiance of the evidence provided by the problem solving.

Thomas S. Kuhn (1922 – 1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions! 

A READER WRITES:

[Henry K. van Eyken is a Dutch Canadian and retired high school chemistry teacher with a fascination for scientific theory.   He was reacting to an essay of mine, WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY, in which I insisted we should think for ourselves.  He shares this essay with me he wrote nearly 30 years ago.  This is it in part.]

Thirteen weekly letters written in 1990 reflect personal observations and feelings about Dawson College at that time. They are reproduced here in the autumn of 2017—with a few editing touches and footnotes for clarity.


MASCARA

Lakefield, Qué, March 4, 1990 1

Dear Colleague:

Nelson Mandela looks straight at me. His face on the magazine's cover can be described only as noble—noble, that is, in the light of what I now know about him. How, I wonder, would I describe the same face if it were to belong to a person I don't know about?


Turning to the lead editorial, Freedom man, I find it to contribute little of value to my inventory. But it does contain a startling comment, one my mind can't readily accommodate. It goes: "Mr. Mandala’s first job is to make sure that ..." That, it seems to me is quite an assertion, made, as it is, by someone not in Mr. Mandala’s shoes. I question whether an editor, even one so excellent and privileged as to serve on that important and highly respected weekly,

The Economist, should tell Mr. Mandela what he ought to do first. One would think by now that Mr. Mandala has earned the right to set his own priorities. But, then again, I may be misinterpreting the true meaning of the editor's phrasing. The sentence may not mean the same exactly in my head as it does inside his. The editor's world and mine are different worlds, and Mr. Mandela’s is one different still. Every person is a world. Every person is the sovereign of his or her own Kingdom.

* * *

Constructivism is a modern theory of knowledge. Unfortunately, and as a professional educator I hate to admit it, I know next to nothing about theories of knowledge. Constructivism, incidentally, is so important that in the United States it is proposed for inclusion in the science curriculum. Can anyone imagine a brain surgeon who doesn’t know his way about brains? How then can one be a mind surgeon without understanding mind? Ought I not to be booked for malpractice, really, and brought before a judge?

Because of my scant knowledge of constructivism, I shall broach the subject simply by quotes already quoted elsewhere.

"The idea that knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner on the basis of preexisting cognitive structures or schemes provides a theoretical basis for Ausubel's distinction between meaningful and rote learning.


"'To learn meaningfully, individuals must choose to relate their knowledge to relevant concepts and propositions they already know. In rote learning ... new knowledge may be acquired simply by verbatim memorization and arbitrarily incorporated into a person's knowledge structure without interacting with what is already there.'"

"Without interacting with what is already there." Recognize the phenomenon? Of course you do as an observant teacher. But let's continue:

"... as Ausubel has stated,

'If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows.'"

These quotes are from George M. Bodner, "Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge, J.Chem.Ed” Oct. 1986, pp. 873–878. The quotes within quotes are from D.P. Ausubel, J.D. Novak, and H. Hanesian, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd ed., Holt, Rhinehart, Winston. New York, 1978.

* * *

We know what we know, according to Piaget—whose name certainly needs no introduction here—by active construction of our own world. This constructing is not done by any teacher; it is done by learners themselves. The teacher's role is merely to determine what building materials are required next and then to supply them. After that it is up to the student to put the pieces in place either by simple assimilation into an existing mental schema or, if they don't fit, by accommodation, which is a change of mind such that new knowledge will fit properly. Accommodation involves resistance and struggle and, hence, may require attention and patience and strategies for prodding things along a little. Most people are not readily of accommodating mind. Theirs is made up. They are usually viewed as staunch, dependable types. Detractors call them pigheaded. But by whatever name one knows them, it is among these people we find the cause for our country's breaking up.

As I mentioned, the subject of how we acquire knowledge is so important it should be taught in school. Here is the way the tenets of constructivism are outlined in Science for All Americans: A 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989.

"People's ideas can affect learning by changing how they interpret new perceptions and ideas: People are inclined to respond to, or seek information that supports the ideas they already have and on the other hand to overlook or ignore information that is inconsistent with their ideas. If the conflicting information is not overlooked or ignored, it may provoke a reorganization of thinking that makes sense of the new information, as well as of all previous information. Successive reorganizations of one part or another of people's ideas usually result from being confronted by new information or circumstances. Such reorganization is essential to the process of human maturation and can continue throughout life."

* * *

A good climate in the classroom is vital for effective learning and one way of providing it is by doing on the blackboard lots and lots of exercises. Students, as far as I know, love this approach. Naturally, they expect that their exams will be composed of the same type of questions of which they have solutions in their classroom notes. Learning can be a tiresome business and students can do without too many unpleasant surprises. Especially if he or she holds down some job while going to college, or has to do a lot of travelling to and from school.

However, students will learn better if they do many exercises themselves and in many instances the examples in a textbook ought to be quite sufficient to start them off—one doesn't become a better ice-skater by watching the World Ice-Skating Championships. And it frees classroom time for other uses. There are plenty of things to be done besides demonstrations of how a teacher handles simple routines. I believe, though, that a teacher ought to demonstrate how he himself, or with the suggestions of his students, tackles real problems, but that subject is beyond the scope of these Letters. A classic marvel on this topic is G. Polýa's How to Solve It, Princeton University Press. And for some related beliefs I myself hold, you might read "Fleabyte Fundamentals: Promoting More Meaningful Learning, originally published in J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, Nov. 1989.

If you do follow up on that latter suggestion you will understand why I emphasize in my general chemistry classes that I wish students to be capable of more than performing routine exercises. I tell them that, while I consider those exercises important steps in acquiring skill at solving more complex problems—problems more like real ones—they cannot be considered as ends in themselves. Don't they know that computers can do those problems automatically, faster and without error? Well, why then should anyone pay them a salary for something a $100 gadget can do better?

Classroom time is much needed for matters that urgently require accommodation, that somewhat painful process of engaging and modifying mental structures to acquire the kind of knowledge a modern chemistry course ought, by its nature and original intention, to inculcate. One problem that I encounter is that a substantial amount of elementary knowledge that should have been acquired in some earlier course never was, but had only been assimilated. Teachers pass on their chores to subsequent teachers who should be less than grateful for that.

Why? Wrongly assimilated knowledge does not fit properly. It is junk waiting to interfere with thought at some crucial moment. You may have experienced this kind of thing in your own mind as I certainly have. It does not serve a good purpose and probably damages the student. And it degrades subsequent courses.

A teacher, or some committee, can get many students with such deficiencies to pass a course by simply constructing exams that avoid detecting what is wrong. He may load up his examinations with routine exercises for which the more capable students have memorized the steps. He then simply forgives them for not knowing what they are doing. Indeed a time-tested way of avoiding difficulties is to not face them.

Ask Mr. Mandela.


Henry K van Eyken

* * *

MY RESPONSE:


Henry,

This essay is interesting, not only in itself, but because the same controversies in education, literature and science still exist as well as in psychology and sociology. The irony, from my point of view, is that the more we attempt to clarify these obfuscations the more they seem to confound us.

Constructivism suggests we construct knowledge and meaning from experience. Piaget says this as well and so does Emerson. Piaget argues people produce knowledge and form meaning based upon experience. You are an educator and I’m quite sure were most proficient in that regard.

Fifty years ago, when I first turned my attention to writing, I ran into deconstructionism reading Jacques Derrida. I swiftly took a pass on him and wrote as I thought and felt believing the possible contradictions inherent within my prose, readers would work out to their satisfaction in the context of their own experience.

In a broader sense, as Thomas Kuhn suggests – primarily in terms of mathematics and science – we staid with Newtonian physics and psychology until that no longer worked for us in the problem solving. 

Man’s cognitive sophistication is not a continuing spiraling curve upward but a disruption one with constant regrouping, new assimilation and re-launching in a new way.

I see the topography of each of our experiences in the problem solving somewhat following Kuhn’s paradigm.

Incidentally, while living in South Africa in 1968, I inquired about the possibility of visiting Nelson Mendela, as I understood while incarcerated, that possibility existed.  He  was much admired by the Bantus.

Thank you for sharing this delightful essay.

Jim