I would like to thank Professor Cardellini for his complimentary remarks regarding my recent article. As he points out there is another paper by one of the constructivist authors that I did not even mention. Perhaps I might add a comment on it now.

Another line frequently adopted by the school of chemical constructivists is to argue that until recently, the accepted model for instruction was based on the assumption that knowledge can be transmitted intact from the mind of the teacher to that of the learner (1). The failure to do so is then used as a warrant for the implementation of constructivist methodologies.

But this attack is being mounted on a straw-man position since no educator seriously believes, or claims, that knowledge is transmitted intact to the mind of the learner. Such obvious limitations inherent in all teaching methods do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that “all knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner” and other such aphorisms. Nor do they necessarily compel us to the view that constructivist approaches to education are the only plausible response, as these authors frequently imply.

For example, the value of active, rather than passive learning, is something that any teacher can agree to regardless of whether he or she is a realist, constructivist, or from many other philosophical persuasions. I am quite convinced of the advantage of active learning in my own teaching and yet I don’t think anyone could label me as anything remotely approaching a constructivist, especially given my previous comments on the subject.

Literature Cited

1. Bodner, G. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 873-878.