Conclusions
The main feature of Piaget & Garcia's study (1989) is the overture of a new field of research within the Piagetian framework, namely the comparative study of individual and historical development.
During the 80's, several alternative models have been offered to account for the relations between individual and historical development. However, it has been suggested that ‘there [...] appears to be widespread agreement among Piagetians and non-Piagetians that common mechanisms and processes underlie the thinking of scientists and children at all times’ (Gauld 1990, p. 24–5).
The development of this field of research demands that theoretical research be conducted regarding the possible patterns of relationship between individual and historical development, that should be integrated to comparative empirical research on diverse topics. Further studies would then be required to provide an empirical basis for the comparative research. In other words, this field of research demands the close collaboration between epistemologists, historians, science educators, and cognitive psychologists.
We have suggested that the Piagetian model needs to provide a more convincing account of the differences between individual and historical development, and of the role of internal and external factors in the progress of science. We have also argued for an overcoming of the overemphasized structural aspects of the theory, and for an unambiguous concept of history.
The non-Piagetian approaches have their own strength and may be developed as alternatives to the Piagetian model. However, our intention here is to emphasize their potential contribution to the development of Piaget's theory. In McCloskey and Kargon (1988) we may find hints to deal with the specificity of similarities in content. Nersessian (1987) provided an excellent insight on how to deal with Kuhn's concept of incommensurability. 5 In our interpretation, Carey's work suggest that considering the relation between content and development of structures may be a productive way of developing Piaget's theory.
Finally, we would like to comment on the relationship between Piaget's theory and research on students' thinking in science. Both adopt a constructivist stance. However, the vast majority of researchers have developed a strong resistance to Piaget's theory (e.g. Novak 1978; Gilbert and Swift 1985). On the one hand, this resistance should be considered a natural and healthy tendency toward a pluralistic development of research in science education. On the other hand, it may be a consequence of the difficulty of Piaget's theory in coping with the main research findings on spontaneous reasoning. In short, while many researchers in science education have emphasized the persistence of children's, adolescents' and adults' alternative conceptions, Piaget's theory suggests that reaching the formal stage is a necessary condition to understand science. This contradiction will not be overcome while Piagetian researchers are not able to offer a better account of the differences between commonsense knowledge and scientific knowledge. Freed from the constraints of the Piagetian approach, research on alternative conceptions showed an amazing development during the late 70's and the 80's. 6,7 Further progress, however, increasingly requires theoretical tools to manage the great amount of data already available, and models to explain, rather than just describe, individuals' thought. This task can be carried out from within different theoretical approaches. In Psychogenesis and the History of Science, Piaget and Garcia presented an updated and strong model for the relationship between individual and historical development. If used in an open-minded way, this model may contribute to the development of research in science education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beth, E. W. and Piaget, J.: 1961, Epistémologie Mathématique et Psychologie, PUF, Paris.
Carey, S.: 1985, Conceptual Change in Childhood, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Carey, S.: 1987, ‘Theory Change in Childhood’ in B.Inhelder, D.Caprona and A.Cornu-Wells (eds.), Piaget Today, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
Carey, S.: 1988, ‘Reorganization of Knowledge in the Course of Acquisition’, in S.Strauss (ed.), Ontogeny, Philogeny and Historical Development, Ablex, Norwood.
Champagne, A. B., Klopfer, L. E. and Anderson, J. H.: 1980, ‘Factors influencing the Learning of Classical Mechanics’, American Journal of Physics 48, 1074–1079.
Children's Learning in Science Research Group (ed.): 1990, Research on Students' Conception in Science: a Bibliography, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Clement, J.: 1982, ‘Students' Preconceptions in Introductory Mechanics’, American Journal of Physics 50, 66–71.
De Vries, R.: 1978, ‘Early Education and Piagetian Theory: Application Versus Implication’, in J. M.Gallagher and J. A.Easley (eds.), Knowledge and Development, vol. 2: Piaget and Education, Plenum, New York.
Dear, P.: 1987, ‘Jesuit Mathematical Science and the Reconstruction of Experience in the Early Seventeenth Century’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18, 133–175.
Dijksterhuis, E. J.: 1986, The Mechanization of the World Picture, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Driver, R. and Easley, J.: 1978, ‘Pupils and Paradigms: A Review of Literature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students’, Studies in Science Education 5, 61–84.
Elkana, Y.: 1970, ‘Science, Philosophy of Science and Science Education’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 2, 15–35.
Fondation Archives Jean Piaget (ed.): 1983, History of Science and Psychogenesis, Fondation Archives Jean Piaget, Genève.
Garcia, R.: 1983, ‘Psychogenesis and the History of Science’, in Fondation Archives Jean Piaget (ed.), History of Science and Psychogenesis, Fondation Archives Jean Piaget, Genève.
Garcia, R.: 1987, ‘Sociology of Science and Sociogenesis of Knowledge’, in B.Inhelder, D.Caprona and A.Cornu-Wells (eds.), Piaget Today, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Gauld, C.: 1990, Individual Development and the History of Science, (UnPub).
Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L.: 1983, Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Gilbert, J. K. and Swift, D.: 1985, ‘Towards a Lakatosian Analysis of the Piagetian and Alternative Conceptions Programs’, Science Education 69, 681–696.
Goldmann, L.: 1978, Epistémologie et Philosophie Politique, Denoel & Gonthier, Paris.
Guesne, E.: 1985, ‘Light’, in R.Driver, E.Guesne and A.Tiberghien (eds.), Children Ideas in Science, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Inhelder, B.: 1989, ‘Forward’, in J.Piaget and R.Garcia (eds.), Psychogenesis and the History of Science, Columbia University Press, New York.
Kitchener, R. F.: 1985, ‘Genetic Epistemology, History of Science, and Genetic Psychology’, Synthese 65, 3–31.
Kitchener, R. F.: 1987, ‘Is Genetic Epistemology Possible?’, British Journal of Philosophy of Science 38, 283–299.
Kitchener, R. F.: 1990, ‘The Cognitive Development of Science. A Review of Psychogenesis and the History of Science by Jean Piaget and Rolando Garcia’, Human Development 33, 307–313.
Koyré, A.: 1943, ‘Galileo and Plato’, Journal of the History of Ideas 4, 400–428.
Koyré, A.: 1978, Galileo Studies, Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press.
Langer, J.: 1988, ‘A Note on the Comparative Psychology of Mental Development’, in S.Strauss (ed.), Ontogeny, Philogeny and Historical Development, Ablex, Norwood.
Matthews, M. R.: 1987, ‘Experiment as the Objectification of Theory: Galileo's Revolution’, in J. D. Novak (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca.
Matthews, M. R.: 1990, ‘History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: A Rapprochement’, Studies in Science Education 18, 25–51.
McCloskey, M.: 1983, ‘Naive Theories of Motion’, in D.Gentner and A. L.Stevens (eds.), Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
McCloskey, M. and Kargon, R.: 1988, ‘The Meaning and Use of Historical Models in the Study of Intuitive Physics’, in S.Strauss (ed.), Ontogeny, Philogeny and Historical Development, Ablex, Norwood.
Mischel, T.: 1971, Cognitive Development and Epistemology, Academic Press, New York.
Nersessian, N. J.: 1987, ‘A Cognitive-Historical Approach to Meaning in Scientific Theories’, in N. J.Nersessian (ed.), The Process of Science, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
Nersessian, N. J.: 1989, ‘Conceptual Change in Science and in Science Education’, Synthese 80, 163–183.
Novak, J. D.: 1978, ‘An Alternative to Piagetian Psychology for Science and Mathematics Education’, Studies in Science Education 5, 1–30.
Nussbaum, J.: 1985, ‘The Particulate Nature of Matter in Gaseous Phase’, in R.Driver, E.Guesne and A.Tiberghien (eds.), Children Ideas in Science, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Pascual-Leone, J. et al.: 1978, ‘Piagetian Theory and Neo-Piagetian Analysis as Psychological Guides in Education’, in J. M.Gallagher and J. A.Easley (eds.), Knowledge and Development, vol. 2: Piaget and Education, Plenum, New York.
Piaget, J.: 1950, Introduction à l'épistemologie génétique, PUF, Paris.
Piaget, J.: 1970, Genetic Epistemology, Columbia University Press, New York.
Piaget, J.: 1972, ‘Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood’, Human Development 15, 1–12.
Piaget, J.: 1972, ‘Autobiography’, in R.Evans (ed.), Jean Piaget: the Man and his Ideas, Dutton, New York.
Piaget, J.: 1977, The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and Concept in the Young Children, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London.
Piaget, J.: 1977, ‘The Stages of Intellectual Development in Childhood and Adolescence’, in H. E.Gruber and J. J.Voneche (eds.), The Essential Piaget, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London.
Piaget, J.: 1978, Success and Understanding, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London.
Piaget, J.: 1978, The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Piaget, J. and Garcia, R.: 1989, Psychogenesis and the History of Science, Columbia University Press, New York.
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B.: 1972, The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: an Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London.
Polizzi, G.: 1979, Scienza ed Epistemologia in Francia (1900–1970), Loescher, Torino.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. and Gertzog, W.: 1982, ‘Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change’, Science Education 66, 211–227.
Siegel, H.: 1982, ‘On the Parallel between Piagetian Cognitive Development and the History of Science’, Philosophy of Social Science 12, 375–386.
Smith, C., Carey, S. and Wiser, M.: 1985, ‘On Differentiation: A Case Study of the Development of the Concepts of Size, Weight and Density’, Cognition 21, 177–237.
Steinberg, M.S., Brown, D.E. and Clement, J.: 1990, ‘Genius is not Immune to Persistent Misconception: Conceptual Difficulties Impeding Isaac Newton and Contemporary Physics Students’, International Journal of Science Education 12, 265–273.
Strauss, S. (ed.): 1988, Ontogeny, Philogeny and Historical Development, Ablex, Norwood.
Wandersee, J. H.: 1986, ‘Can the History of Science Help Science Educators Anticipate Students' Misconceptions?’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23, 581–597.
Watts, D. M.: 1982, ‘Gravity: Don't Take it for Granted’, Physics Education 17, 116–121.
Wiser, M. and Carey, S.: 1983, ‘When Heat and Temperature were One’, in D.Gentner and A. L.Stevens (eds.), Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico/Brazil.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Franco, C., Colinvaux-De-Dominguez, D. Genetic epistemology, history of science and science education. Sci Educ 1, 255–271 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430276
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00430276