REFLECTIONS ON PHYSICS, THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE, AND EDUCATION

1. The Science Wars

If you have recently taken an academic course in education, philosophy, sociology or a number of similar disciplines, you are likely to have encountered statements to the effect that a significant change in the views of what science and scientific theories are has taken place, or at least should have done so. Often an "outmoded" paradigm is mentioned, under names like "the modernist project", "logical positivism", or something similar. The newer and supposedly better way of thinking claims that there is no longer much reason to believe in any objective, universal truths or even in any human-independent physical reality. This trend has many names, like postmodernism or multiculturalism; in education it is often called "constructivism".

It is also claimed that some areas of modern physics - such as Einstein's theory of relativity, quantum mechanics or chaos theory in some way would support the new philosophical ideas. And in education, "constructivism" is not only a philosophical paradigm, but also a type of learning theory which is said to be firmly based on findings in learning psychology. Even if "constructivists" occasionally claim that they are not primarily presenting a theory of teaching, it is not uncommon to see recommendations for a "constructivist" teaching practice; which mostly translates into directing science education towards a stronger emphasis on laboratory work rather than theoretic transmission of knowledge.

All these claims will here be questioned.

2. The Sokal Affair: Meet academic pseudoscience

An American physicist, Alan Sokal, demonstrated the problem in a very dramatic way in 1996 by publishing a parody in the Social Text journal.

"For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities ... So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies ... publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?"¹

The parody was published and a heated debate followed. Sokal has links to a number of resources on this at his site² and has published a book about the affair together with Jean Bricmont³. In this the following quote from Bertrand Russell is included:

"The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control has been one one of the ways in which philosophy hitherto has inculcated the necessary element of humility. When this check upon pride is removed, a further step is taken on the road towards a certain kind of madness - the intoxication of power which invaded philosophy with Fichte, and to which modern men, whether philosophers or not, are prone. I am persuaded that this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and that any philosophy which, however unintentionally, contributes to it is increasing the danger of vast social disaster."⁴.

Sokal & Bricmont's book does not mention what the chapter in Russell's work where the quote is taken from deals with: It is the disastrous philosophy (or rather misosophy) of a famous educator, John "Learning-by-doing" Dewey.

3. Educational pseudoscience: "radical" and "social" constructivism

The debates started by the Sokal Affair have mostly concerned such fields as sociology or philosophy of science, while less attention has been given to "science education", the academic discipline which is focused on among other things what, why and how science should be taught. This field has also been strongly affected by the same kind of sloppy thinking; here it has mostly been called "constructivism". A good introduction to the problematique is given by J.F. Osborne in an article in the Janurary 1996 issue of a leading journal in the field, Science Education⁵. When facing a philosophical critique of constructivism the adherents of this paradigm sometimes say that this only concerns a certain strand of it, "radical" constructivism, not the more mainstream "social" constructivism, but Osborne exposes the fundamental flaws in both of these. A number of other sources support the criticism in various parts^6-10.

4. "Constructivist" education: from philosophy to teaching and learning methods

If there are no even tentatively objective truths about the physical universe (and maybe no universe at all, only an illusion) then it is understandable that the focus of science education is placed on the subjective perceptions and conceptions of the student rather than the subject matter content included in a physics syllabus. Although the connection between philosophy and teaching methods is not without complications, one can often note that educators with a constructivist way of thinking tend to favour laboratory work over lecturing and other theoretical teaching. The focus on hands-on experimental work in science education has been questioned repeatedly by a minority of contributors^11-18 to articles in the field, e.g.

"Despite its often massive share of curriculum time, laboratory work often provides little of real educational value ... [Teachers] have been socialized by the powerful, myth-making rhetoric of the science teaching profession that sees hands-on practical work in small groups as the universal panacea - the route to all learning goals and the educational solution to all learning problems." (Hodson 1991, p. 176)

but little of this criticism seems to have affected contemporary teacher education, curriculum development or assessment.

In addition to the constructivist philosophical standpoints a view of the learner's mind as an active component in the learning process rather than an "empty vessel to be filled with knowledge" has been employed to support a focus on laboratory work in science education. This view can be traced back to the 1960s and the educational psychology of David P. Ausubel¹¹, sometimes portrayed as a precursor of later constructivists.

In doing so, what is often forgotten is that Ausubel separated two dimensions of the teaching-learning-process:

• meaningful vs. rote learning (where in meaningful learning new ideas are connected and related to the student's preconceptions)
• discovery vs. reception learning, that is: the student finding new knowledge independently as opposed to being treated with expository teaching.

Later constructivists have commonly conflated these two dimensions of education into one axis:

• "rote-reception" vs "meaningful-discovery" learning

(where the former is 'traditional', 'outmoded' and undesirable in all possible ways, while the latter is the tune of the day). Ausubel, however, argues that meaningful reception learning is the best way of transmitting subject matter knowledge.

It should be noted that the critique of laboratory work as a primary teaching and learning method also includes aspects of motivation and attitudes¹³.

Conclusions

We as IB physics teachers need to conduct an ongoing discussion about these issues of science education and not automatically accept all trends in syllabus and assessment structure as justifiable by either trustworthy research or common sense. Those of us who also are involved in the Natural Sciences part of the TOK (Theory of Knowledge) also have a responsibility to inform the students about the views of both sides in the "Science Wars".

Sources:

1. Alan Sokal (1996) : "A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies" (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html)

2. http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html

3. Sokal, Alan and Bricmont, Jean: Intellectual Impostures. Profile Books, 1998. In the US published under the title "Fashionable Nonsense".

4. Intellectual Impostures, p. 193.

5. Osborne, J.F. (1996) : Beyond constructivism. Science Education 80 (1) 53-80.

6. Matthews, M.R. (1994): Discontent with constructivism. Studies in Science Education 24, 165-172.

7. Kelly, G.J. (1997) : Research traditions in comparative context: a philosophical challenge to radical constructivism. Science Education 81 (3) 355- 375.

8. Phillips, D.C. (1997) : Coming to grips with radical social constructivisms. Science & Education 6, 85-104.

9. Nola, R. (1997) : Constructivism in science and science education : a philosophical critique. Science & Education 6, 55-83.

10. Morrison, D.R.O. (1997) : Bad science, bad education. Scientific American, Nov.1997, pp. 80-82.

11. Ausubel, D.P. , Novak, J.D. and Hanesian, H. (1978) : Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View (second edition). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

12. Hodson, D. (1991) : Practical work in science : time for a reappraisal. Studies in Science Education 19, 175-184

13. Hodson, D. (1993) : Re-thinking old ways: toward a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education 22, 85-142.

14. Hodson, D. (1996) : Laboratory work as scientific method : three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies 28 (2) 115-135. 

15. Hodson, D. and Bencze, L. (1998) : Becoming critical about practical work : changing views and changing practice through action research. International Journal of Science Education 20 (6) 683-694.

16. Osborne, J. (1996b) : Untying the Gordian knot : diminishing the role of practical work. Physics Education 31 (5) 271-278.

17.Parkhouse, P.G.S.T. (1994) : Emphasizing theory in science education. Physics Education 29 (4) 204-208.

18. Kirschner, P. and Huisman, W. (1998) : 'Dry laboratories' in science education ; computer based practical work. International Journal of Science Education 20 (6) 663-682.