Where do facts belong?

I've been putting off my second journal entry for two reasons. First, I am struggling to keep up with the posting I need to do on a weekly basis on top of work, research, and kids. Second, and a much larger cause, is that I am wholly intimidated by the task of writing something that is required to be connected to others. It would be so simple to record my thoughts and the issues I'm grappling with. But, to have to read over the last 5 weeks of postings, and then all of my classmates learning journals and then come up with something that reflects my thoughts and incorporates theirs is overwhelming to say the least. The last few weeks has opened up my mind to the idea of social cultural learning and learning in context and all the other relationship stuff, but it hasn't changed 41 years of preference for solitude!!!!!

However, I am ever the good student, so I shall make an attempt.

After two weeks of classes, the two questions ruminating in my head were:

- if knowledge is constructed, where do facts belong?

- I agree that truth is relative, but 1 + 1 does equal 2 regardless of my biases, my previous knowledge, or whether I agree with that fact. So if meaning is 100% constructed and I believe 1 + 1 = 3, does that make it right?

In week one, we were asked to explore our own leanings towards objectivist or constructivist. Many people in the class posted that they leaned towards constructivism, but acknowledged the value in both theories. Megan said it excellently with, "Both constructivist and objectivist approaches should be used as tools, used when necessary, to provide the best possible education for all students."

When introduced to the ideas of Bruner, I started to see where facts belong. Bruner talks of categories, implying that knowledge can be reduced to facts which can be manipulated. Russell quotes Bruner as  "To perceive is to categorize, to conceptualize is to categorize, to learn is to form categories, to make decisions is to categorize." 

And now along comes Dewey and I am confused again. He states: "(i ) that the educational process has no end beyond itself; it is its own end; and that (ii) the educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, transforming". As a scientist, I fully agree that knowledge is a process and that it is continually being refined – but where does one start?

If knowledge is full constructed, if meaning is solely socially construed, then belief is on an equal playing field with perception. If a child comes to the conclusion that hot air sinks at the end of her science lesson and she has constructed that knowledge through her observations – is she wrong?

 So I am struggling with is - but I just watched this video - which although it talks about contructivism in the political science paradigm has helped me clear some things up. 

Ok.... I am getting it.... slowly. Really it is our collective consciousness that develops reality. So the "fact" that hot air rises is something that society believes because a number of people have observed it and believe it to be "true". Someone some day may make a different observation and convince others that this different observation is the new "truth". 

Ahhhhhhh..... so contructivists are advocating that students discover the collective consciousness rather than just being told what it is. 

It's late, I haven't figured out how to quote my classmates and weave in the readings, but I've had my ah-ha moment and shall try to sit down later this week and tackle my other questions. 

Sigh