Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Appraising Constructivism in Science Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching

Abstract

Two varieties of constructivism are distinguished. In part 1, the psychological or “radical” constructivism of von Glasersfeld is discussed. Despite its dominant influence in science education, radical constructivism has been controversial, with challenges to its principles and practices. In part 2, social constructivism is discussed in the sociology of scientific knowledge. Social constructivism has not been primarily concerned with education but has the most direct consequences in view of its challenge to the most fundamental, traditional assumptions in the philosophy of science and to the practice of science itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 749.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Niaz et al. (2003).

  2. 2.

    See also Gil-Pérez et al. (2002). Nevertheless, the practical question remains controversial with positive evidence also available.

  3. 3.

    For further examples, see Matthews (2000).

  4. 4.

    The most comprehensive account of post-Positivism and sociology of science is Zammito (2004).

  5. 5.

    The work of Merton and others who had already formulated the ideas of the current sociology of science are largely ignored today, and so, there is some irony in Merton’s remarks which acknowledge, “The antecedents of Wissenssoziologie only go to support Whitehead’s observation that ‘Everything of importance has been said before by somebody who did not discover it’” (1957, p. 456).

  6. 6.

    For further discussion, see Papayannakos (2008).

  7. 7.

    This may be regarded as a technical philosophical term since Frankfurt’s (2005) celebrated article. However, my use of the term does not fit Frankfurt’s taxonomy.

References

  • Ashmore, M. (1993). The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney Phenomenon, a Prism, a Pocket and a Piece of Wood, Social Studies of Science, 23, 67–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin J. L. (1962) Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. (1981). On the Hows and Whys of Cultural Change, Social Studies of Science, 11, 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. and Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge,” in M. Hollis and S. Lukes, eds., Rationality and Relativism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 21–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes B., Bloor D. & Henry J. (1996) Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1981). The Strengths of the Strong Programme, Philosophy of Social Sciences, 11, 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1982). Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 13, 4, 267–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1983). Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge, New York: Columbia University Press,

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery, Second Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden M. A. (1994) Piaget. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boorse, C. (1975). The Origins of the Indeterminacy Thesis, Journal of Philosophy, 72, 369–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1991). A Critical Examination of the New Sociology of Science, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21, 4, 524–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardellini L. (2006) The foundations of radical constructivism: an interview with Ernst von Glasersfeld. Foundations of Chemistry, 8: 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1969). American Power and the New Mandarins, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb P. (1994a) Constructivism in mathematics and science education, Educational Researcher, 23, 7, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb P. (1994b) Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 7, 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H.M. (1990). Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T. (1992) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver R., Asoko H., Leach J., Mortimer E. & Scott P. (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 7, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. and Mauss, M. (1903) Primitive Classification, translated and edited with introduction by Rodney Needham (1963), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellerton, N. & Clements, M.A. (1991), Mathematics in Language: A Review of Language Factors in Mathematics Learning, Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernest P. (1995) Preface by series editor. In: E. von Glasersfeld, Radical Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press, xi–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, P. (1971). Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory 1918–1927, in R. McCormmach, ed., Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosnot, C.T. (1996), ‘Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning’. In C.T. Fosnot (ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 8–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, P. (1949). Modern Science and its History, New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt H. G. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraassen B. van (1980) The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gale J. E. (1995) Preface. in L.P. Steffe & J.E. Gale eds., Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, xi–xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1987). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergen K. J. (1995) Social construction and educational process. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale eds., Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. ed. (1992). Cognitive Models of Science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XV, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Pérez, D. et al., (2002). Defending Constructivism in Science Education, Science & Education, 11, 6, 557–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T.F. (1982). Relativist/Constructivist Programmes in the Sociology of Science: Redundance and Retreat,” Social Studies of Science, 12, 279–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld E. von (1989) Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80: 121–140. available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/118

  • Glasersfeld E. von (1993) Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin ed., The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence-Erlbaum, 23–38. Originally published in 1992. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/151

  • Glasersfeld E. von (1995a) Radical Constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld E. von (1995b) a constructivist approach to teaching. in: Steffe L. P. & Gale J. (eds.) Constructivism in education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ: 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld E. von (2001) The radical constructivist view of science. Special issue on “The impact of radical constructivism on science,” Part 1, edited by A. Riegler. Foundations of science, 6, 1–3, 31–43. Available at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/ pdf/glasersfeld.pdf

  • Gorman, M.E. (1992). Simulating Science: Heuristics, Mental Models and Technoscientific Thinking, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, N.W. (1993). Laboratories in Schools: Material Places, Mythic Spaces, The Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 39, 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, P. and Levitt, N. (1994). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G.J. (1997), ‘Research Traditions in Comparative Context: A Philosophical Challenge to Radical Constructivism’, Science Education 81(3), 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E., (2006). Why Minimally Guided Learning Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Discovery Learning, Problem-Based Learning, Experiential Learning and Inquiry-Based Learning, Educational Psychologist, 41, 2, 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (2001) Real realism: The Galilean strategy. The Philosophical Review, 110, 2, 151–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw G.L. and Zytkow J.M., (1987). Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Process, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World, in K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, eds., Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, New York: Sage,

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd Edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1981). The Pseudo Science of Science, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11. Reprinted in J. R. Brown, ed., (1984) Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L. (1990a) Science & Relativism. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1990b). Demystifying Underdetermination, In C. Wade Savage, ed., Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XIV Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, D. (1991). Signs of the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man, New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction, American Psychologist 59, 1, 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews M. R. ed. (1998) Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews M. R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematical education. In D.C. Phillips ed., Constructivism in Education: Ninety-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 161–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R.: 2012, ‘Philosophical and Pedagogical Problems with Constructivism in Science Education’, Tréma 38, 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1942). Science and Technology in a Democratic Order, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1; reprinted as ‘Science and Democratic Social Structure,’ in his Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. (1957). The Sociology of Knowledge, in his Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer D. L. (2008) The poverty of constructivism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41, 3, 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills C. W. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munzel F. (2003) Kant on moral education, or “englightenment” and the liberal arts. The Review of Metaphysics, 57, 1, 43–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., Abd-el-Khalick, F., Benarroch, A., Cardellini, L., Laburú, E., Marín, N., Montes, L.A., Nola, R., Orlik, Y., Scharmann, L.C., Tsai, C.-C. & Tsaparlis, G.: (2003), Constructivism: Defense or a Continual Critical Appraisal – A Response to Gil-Pérez et. al., Science & Education, 12, 8, 787–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola R. (1998) Constructivism in science and science education: a philosophical critique. In M.R. Matthews ed. Constructivism in Science Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 31–60; originally published in Science & Education 6 (1997), 1-2, 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (2003), Naked Before Reality; Skinless Before the Absolute: A Critique of the Inaccessibility of Reality Argument in Constructivism, Science & Education, 12, 2, 131–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Null, J.W. (2004), ‘Is Constructivism Traditional? Historical and Practical Perspectives on a Popular Advocacy’, The Educational Forum, 68(2), 180–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olssen, M. (1996), ‘Radical Constructivism and Its Failings: Anti-realism and Individualism’, British Journal of Educational Studies 44, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orwell G. (1946) Politics and the English language. In The Penguin Essays of George Orwell.Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, (1984), 348–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papayannakos, D.P., (2008), Philosophical Skepticism not Relativism is the Problem with the Strong Programme in Science Studies and with Educational Constructivism, Science & Education, 17, 6, 573–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perla, R.J. and Carifio, J. (2009) Toward a General and Unified View of Educational Research and Educational Evaluation, Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 6, 11, 38–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24, 7, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1997a) How, why, what, when, and where: Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education, 3, 2, 151–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D.C. (1997b) Coming to Grips with Radical Social Constructivism, Science & Education, 6, 1–2, 85–104. Reprinted in M.R. Matthews ed. (1998) Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips D. C. ed. (2000) Constructivism in Education: Ninety-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J. (1971) Biology and Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J. (1972a) Insights and Illusions of Philosophy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J. (1972b) Psychology and Epistemology. Towards a Theory of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J. (1999) The Construction of Reality in the Child. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1992) Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T.J. (1993). Generations of SSK, Social Studies of Science, 23, 363–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch T.J. and Collins, H.M. (1984). Private Science and Public Knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal and its Use of the Literature, Social Studies of Science, 14, 521–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.R. (1966). The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 2, Hegel and Marx, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H. (1994) Sense, Nonsense, and the Senses: An inquiry into the powers of the human mind. The Dewey Lectures at Columbia University, The Journal of Philosophy, 91, 9, 445–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quale, A., (2007). Radical Constructivism and the Sin of Relativism, Science & Education, 16, 3–5, 231–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine W. V. (1960) Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W. V. (1961a) Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In W.V. Quine, From a Logical Point of View. Second Edition. Harper, New York: 20–46. Originally published in 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W. V. (1961b) Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis. In W.V. Quine, From a Logical Point of View. Second Edition. New York: Harper, 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R. (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhloff J. (2001) The Problematic Employment of Reason in Philosophy of Bildung and Education, F. Heyting, D. Lenzen & J. Ponsford White eds., Methods in Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge, 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1979). Homo Phrenologicus: Anthropological Perspectives on an Historical Problem, in B. Barnes and S. Shapin, eds., Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. (1982). History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions, History of Science, 20, 157–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter J. (1995) In Dialogue: Social Constructionism and Radical Constructivism. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale eds. Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (1989). Scientific Discovery by Computer as Empirical Refutation of the Strong Programme, Social Studies of Science, 19, 563–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (1991a). Bloor’s Bluff: Behaviourism and the Strong Programme, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 5, 3, 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (1991b). Review of Collins’ Artificial Experts, Social Studies of Science 21, 175–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak P. (1994a) The sociology of science and science education. Part 1. Science & Education, 3, 3, 265–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak P. (1994b) Laboratory life under the microscope: The sociology of science & science education. Part 2. Science & Education, 3, 4, 329–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (1994c). The Social Construction of Social Constructionism, Inquiry, 37, 139–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak P. (1997) Review of Barnes, Bloor & Henry: scientific knowledge: a sociological analysis. Metascience – New Series, 11: 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slezak P. (2000) Radical social constructivism. In D.D. Philips ed., National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) Yearbook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 283–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slezak P. (2007) is cognitive science relevant to teaching? Journal of Cognitive Science, 8, 171–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (2010). Radical constructivism: epistemology, education and dynamite, Constructivist Foundations, 6, 1, 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, R. (2003), ‘A Fallacy in Constructivist Epistemology’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 37(3), 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal A. & Bricmont J. (1997) Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffe L. P. & Gale J. (eds.) (1995) Constructivism in education. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey: Hillsdale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stove, D. (1991) The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchting, W.A.: 1992, ‘Constructivism Deconstructed’, Science & Education, 1, 3, 223–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K.: 1991, Constructivist Perspectives on Research in Science Education, paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin K. (ed.) (1993) The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K. (2000), ‘Constructivism in Science Education: Moving On’. In D.C. Phillips (ed.) Constructivism in Education’, National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, pp. 227–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin K. & Tippins D. (1993) Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin ed., The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence-Erlbaum, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tweney, R., Doherty, M.E. and Mynatt, C.R. eds., (1981). On Scientific Thinking, New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The Very Idea, London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. ed. (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zammito, J.H. (2004). A Nice Derangement of Epistemes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Peter Slezak

Authors
  1. Peter Slezak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Slezak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slezak, P. (2014). Appraising Constructivism in Science Education. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_31

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation