Constructivism's new clothes: The trivial, the contingent, and a progressive research programme into the learning of science [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Chemistry 8 (2):189-219 (2006)
Constructivism has been a key referent for research into the learning of science for several decades. There is little doubt that the research into learners’ ideas in science stimulated by the constructivist movement has been voluminous, and a great deal is now known about the way various science topics may commonly be understood by learners of various ages. Despite this significant research effort, there have been serious criticisms of this area of work: in terms of its philosophical underpinning, the validity of its most popular constructs, the limited scope of its focus, and its practical value to science teaching. This paper frames this area of work as a Lakatosian Research Programme (RP), and explores the major criticisms of constructivism from that perspective. It is argued that much of the criticism may be considered as part of the legitimate academic debate expected within any active RP, i.e. arguments about the auxiliary theory making up the ‘protective belt’ of the programme. It is suggested that a shifting focus from constructivism to ‘contingency in learning’ will allow the RP to draw upon a more diverse range of perspectives, each consistent with the existing hard core of the programme, which will provide potentially fruitful directions for future work and ensure the continuity of a progressive RP into learning science.
|Keywords||Philosophy History Philosophy of Science Physical Chemistry Philosophy of Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Liberato Cardellini (2008). The Views and Influence of Ernst Von Glasersfeld: An Introduction. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):129-134.
L. E. E. George (2011). Reconsidering Constructivism in Qualitative Research. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (4):403-412.
K. H. Müller (2010). The Radical Constructivist Movement and Its Network Formations. Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):31-39.
Kurt Bayertz (1991). Forschungsprogramm Und WissenschaftsentwicklungResearch Programme and Development of Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 22 (2):229-243.
N. Koertge (2000). 'New Age' Philosophies of Science: Constructivism, Feminism and Postmodernism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):667-683.
Kurt Bayertz (1991). Forschungsprogramm Und Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 22 (2):229 - 243.
Helmut Schwegler (2001). Physics Develops Unaffected by Constructivism. Foundations of Science 6 (4):241-253.
Kevin C. de Berg (2006). The Status of Constructivism in Chemical Education Research and its Relationship to the Teaching and Learning of the Concept of Idealization in Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 8 (2):153-176.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #147,710 of 1,700,226 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #88,892 of 1,700,226 )
How can I increase my downloads?