I did not know that "the dominant school of chemical education researchers appears to support a variety of (constructivist and relativist) positions" but it does not surprise me that it is true. Even without reference to "the views of Herron, Spencer, and Bodne" the whole idea of a lot of science education is to give students hands-on see-for-yourself exposure to scientific principles and scientific methodology. This article (11 page PDF) argues against that approach, mostly with statements like, "the statement that 'truths are independent of the context in which they are observed' is essentially correct" and "the statement that 'knowledge is constructed' is either plainly incorrect or so uncontroversial as to be superfluous." This to me represents a naive understanding not only of science but also of language; the terms 'correct' or 'true' literally mean 'correct in a model' or 'true in a model' (or else they mean nothing at all; pick one).
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
