A less radical constructivism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v11i2.147985Abstract
This paper poses two problems for von Glasersfeld’s Radical Constructivism. The first problem concerns the rejection of the idea that it is possible to share meanings. The second problem is that Radical Constructivism rejects the notion of an objectively existing reality of which we can have objective knowledge. Yet with respect to mathematics, von Glasersfeld seems to claim that it is possible to obtain objective knowledge. We propose an alternative position – Constructive Realism – that gives a description of what mathematical objects are and gives an account of why knowledge in mathematics is objective. Furthermore, we argue that some of the assumptions, used in von Glasersfeld’s description of how numbers are formed, support the claim that some meanings are objective and that communication is possible. Finally, we consider some of the implications this position has for mathematics education.
References
Birkhoff, G. (1973). A source book in classical analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Björkqvist, O. (1993). Social konstruktivism som grund for matematik- undervisning. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education ,1 (1), 8-17.
Carter, J. (2002). Ontology and mathematical practice (PhD-thesis). Odense: University of Southern Denmark.
Carter, J. (2004). Ontology and mathematical practice. Philosophia Mathematica, 12, 244-267. https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/12.3.244
Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: the case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1 (1), 5-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0101_1
Confrey, J. (1991). Steering a course between Piaget and Vygotsky. Educational Researcher, 20 (2) 29-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176235
Foerster, H. von (2000). Preamble. In L. Steffe & P. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action (pp. xi-xv). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. New York: Falmer Press.
Glasersfeld, E. von (1996). Aspects of radical constructivism and its educational recommendations. In L. Steffe & P. Nesher (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 307-313). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Glasersfeld, E. von (2000). Problems of constructivism. In L. Steffe & P. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action (pp. 3-9). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hilbert, D. (1968). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. (First published 1899) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-92726-2
Hilbert, D. (1902). Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8, 437-79. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3
Hilbert, D. (1996): The grounding of elementary number theory. In W.B. Ewald (Ed.), From Kant to Hilbert. A sourcebook in the foundations of mathematics (pp. 1115-1134). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1922)
Katz, J. (1998). Realistic rationalism. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5796.001.0001
Katz, V. (1998). A history of mathematics: an introduction. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein. On rules and private language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lerman, S. (1996). Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: a challenge to the radical constructivist paradigm. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.2307/749597
Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. (2003). In what ways does a modeling perspective move beyond constructivism. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism (pp. 519-556). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607713
Maddy, P. (1990). Realism in mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Panza, M. (2004). Modalities of mathematical objectivication. Retrieved May 24, 2006 from http://hal.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/00/20/55/PDF/ConfOggetParisWeb.pdf
Plato (1955). Plato's phaedo. (R. Hackforth, Translation). Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. (1972). Philosophy of logic. Trowbridge: Redwood Press.
Putnam, H. (1981). Brains in a vat. In H. Putnam, Reason, truth and history (pp. 1-21). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625398.003
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of mathematics. Structure and ontology. Oxford University Press.
Skott, J. (2004). The forced autonomy of mathematics teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55 (1-3), 227-257. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017670.35680.88
Spanier, E. (1966). Algebraic topology. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-9322-1_5
Steffe, L. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: illustrations and implications. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177-194). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47201-5_9
Steffe, L. & Thompson, P. (Eds.) (2000). Radical constructivism in action. Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glaserfeld. London: Routledge Falmer.
Thomas, R.S.D. (1994). Radical constructive criticisms of von Glasersfeld's radical constructivism. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Constructing mathematical knowledge (pp. 33-40). London: Falmer Press.
Weyl, H. (1955). The concept of a Riemann surface. London: Addison-Wesley.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
