I'd like to tag onto the baseball/cricket discussion as a bridge into the forum [ITForum #4] that Lauren, Karen and I are moderating this week.
Lloyd Rieber [13 Jan 95] didn't like the picture that Ken Burns presented of the 1960 World Series. It wasn't that Burns told something that was untrue. He just (1) told a part of the truth that Lloyd wasn't interested in, and (2) left out the part that Lloyd had experienced.
Tom Reeves [13 Jan 95] responded that "history is not science...it's a point of view. (Some might argue that science is also a 'point of view.')." He believes that Burns intended to "present history from his [Burns'] point of view." Tom also describes a study showing that students remembered more history over the long haul when they worked from their own point of view. What's more they learned to think like historians.
I liked Tom's point of view; it sounded like constructivism.
Sure enough, Ron Oliver [16 Jan 95] responded, "This is a very good example of the multiple perspective dimension of knowledge described by the constructivists... According to constructivism, you are both right and should both respect each others' 'knowledge' relating to the game, constructed by your own experiences!"
I have some problems with what Ron said. I would have phrased his first sentence this way: "This is a very good example of the dimension of constructivism that emphasizes multiple perspectives." I wouldn't have put in the second sentence. At least, I wouldn't have attributed everyone-has-an-equally-meaningful-opinion to constructivism.
Certainly, I have heard that every-opinion-is-of-equal-worth assertion about constructivism before. I can't recall that I've ever heard a constructivist make the assertion, however. It is usually made by other people as a criticism of constructivism.
As I understand constructivism, though (and, yes, it is MY construction), there are two assertions of equal force. People do construct their own understanding of "reality." But there is also a social aspect to the construction of knowledge. People construct meaning together. This forum is a prime example. The give and take about a topic creates a new and larger understanding than anyone had alone. That is true even if we don't end up agreeing on everything/anything.
The individual-meaning-making and social-meaning-making aspects of constructivism represent a true dialectic, I think. Both of them are true, yet they must remain in seeming conflict with each other. One must be true BECAUSE the other is true.
Besides the fact that I enjoyed the baseball/cricket joint construction process, I wanted to get this comment in because of the fact that our article (current one for discussion by ITForum) is rooted in constructivism--but the social aspects of it.