The purpose of this study is to examine pragmatist constructivism as a science education referent for adult learners. Specifically, this study seeks to determine whether George Herbert Mead?s doctrine, which conflates pragmatist learning theory and philosophy of natural science, might facilitate (a) scientific concept acquisition, (b) learning scientific methods, and (c) preparation of learners for careers in science and science-related areas. A philosophical examination of Mead?s doctrine in light of these three criteria has determined that pragmatist constructivism is not a viable science education referent for adult learners. Mead?s pragmatist constructivism does not portray scientific knowledge or scientific methods as they are understood by practicing scientists themselves, that is, according to scientific realism. Thus, employment of Mead?s doctrine does not adequately prepare future practitioners for careers in science-related areas. Mead?s metaphysics does not allow him to commit to the existence of the unobservable objects of science such as molecular cellulose or mosquito-borne malarial parasites. Mead?s anti-realist metaphysics also affects his conception of scientific methods. Because Mead does not commit existentially to the unobservable objects of realist science, Mead?s science does not seek to determine what causal role if any the hypothetical objects that scientists routinely posit while theorizing might play in observable phenomena. Instead, constructivist pragmatism promotes subjective epistemology and instrumental methods. The implication for learning science is that students are encouraged to derive scientific concepts based on a combination of personal experience and personal meaningfulness. Contrary to pragmatist constructivism, however, scientific concepts do not arise inductively from subjective experience driven by consummatory activity. The broader implication of this study for adult education is that the philosophically laden claims of constructivist learning theories need to be identified and assessed independently of any empirical support that these learning theories might enjoy. This in turn calls for educational experiences for graduate students of education that incorporate philosophical understanding such that future educators might be able to recognize and weigh the philosophically laden claims of adult learning theories.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NCSU/oai:NCSU:etd-06012005-140340 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Creators | Furbish, Dean Russel |
| Contributors | Carol E. Kasworm, John E. Penick, Robert M. Hambourger, John Pettitt |
| Publisher | NCSU |
| Source Sets | North Carolina State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-06012005-140340/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds