Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):102-111 (2010)
|Abstract||Context: The current situation in philosophy of science includes central, ongoing debates about realism and anti-realism. The same question has been central to the theorising of radical constructivism and, in particular, to its implications for educational theory. However the constructivist literature does not make significant contact with the most important, mainstream philosophical discussions. Problem: Despite its overwhelming influence among educationalists, I suggest that the “radical constructivism” of Ernst Glasersfeld is an example of fashionable but thoroughly problematic doctrines that can have little benefit for practical pedagogy or teacher education. My critique has a positive goal: it is important to understand why constructivism has generated such severe polarization and disputation. A symptom of the problem is the concern with the most abstruse and obdurate problems of philosophy that have no conceivable bearing on educational practice or anything else, for that matter. The diagnosis is confirmed by those pedagogical recommendations that are allegedly derived from radical constructivism that are touted as revolutionary but are platitudes of common sense. I suggest that, ironically, this observation itself provides some pedagogical insight. Method: The approach adopted for the topic is critical, philosophical analysis of the various claims and theses of radical constructivism in the light of philosophy of science and psychology. Results: The findings of the paper are that central theoretical claims of constructivism are couched in an unclear and unnecessary jargon that obscures the implausibility or banality of these claims. Implications: The value of the paper lies in providing an analysis and critique of central, influential claims of radical constructivism both in relation to issues in epistemology and also in relation to the alleged bearing of these claims on pedagogy. It is suggested that, contrary to the claims of radical constructivists, there are few if any implications for practice and applications|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
A. Scholl (forthcoming). Between Realism and Constructivism? Luhmann's Ambivalent Epistemological Standpoint. Constructivist Foundations 8 (1):5-12.
D. I. Dykstra (2010). What Can We Learn From the Misunderstandings of Radical Constructivism? Commentary on Slezak's “Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite”. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):120-126.
A. Scholl (2010). Radical Constructivism in Communication Science. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):51-57.
Mark Olssen (1996). Radical Constructivism and Its Failings: Anti-Realism and Individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (3):275 - 295.
L. P. Steffe (2010). Consequences of Rejecting Constructivism: “Hold Tight and Pedal Fast”. Commentary on Slezak's “Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite”. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):112-119.
J. Confrey (2011). The Transformational Epistemology of Radical Constructivism: A Tribute to Ernst von Glasersfeld. Constructivist Foundations 6 (2):177-182.
K. H. Müller (2010). The Radical Constructivist Movement and Its Network Formations. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):31-39.
D. I. Dykstra (2010). Radical Constructivism Has an Answer – But This Answer Is Not an Easy One. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):22-30.
A. Riegler & A. Quale (2010). Editorial: Can Radical Constructivism Become a Mainstream Endeavor? Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):1-5.
D. K. Johnson (2010). Footprints in the Sand: Radical Constructivism and the Mystery of the Other. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):90-99.
M. A. Boden (2010). Against Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):84-89.
Hans Jürgen Wendel (1992). Radikaler Konstruktivismus Und Konstruktionismus. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (2):323 - 352.
S. J. Kemp (forthcoming). Constructivist Criteria for Organising and Designing Educational Research: How Might an Educational Research Inquiry Be Judged From a Constructivist Perspective? Constructivist Foundations 8 (1):118-125.
H. Gash (2010). Realities in Radical Constructivism. Commentary on Johnson's “Footprints in the Sand”. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):100-101.
Added to index2010-11-20
Total downloads36 ( #32,948 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?