Abstract

In a recent paper in this journal, Jim Garrison (1997) opines that a Deweyan social constructivism ought to be embraced by science educators in preference to the subjectivist variety espoused by Ernst von Glasersfeld as it '. . . retains all [of the latter's] virtues and does not get caught up in its confusions' (p. 543), In this response, I argue that key elements of Garrison's complaints are misguided and that his preferred Deweyan social constructivism is a theoretical framework without apparent superiority and with enough flaws that it is best eschewed by science educators (and metascientists, generally). © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers