Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):102-111 (2010)

Peter Slezak
University of New South Wales
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 learning  teaching  metaphysics  epistemology  realism  fallibilism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,194
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Radical Constructivism in Communication Science.A. Scholl - 2010 - Constructivist Foundations 6 (1):51-57.
The Poverty of Constructivism.Derek Louis Meyer - 2009 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 41 (3):332-341.
Radical Constructivism and its Failings: Anti‐Realism and Individualism.Mark Olssen - 1996 - British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (3):275-295.
Radical Constructivism and its Failings: Anti‐Realism and Individualism.Mark Olssen - 1996 - British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (3):275-295.
Constructed Aspectual Reality.L. Järvilehto & T. Järvilehto - 2007 - Constructivist Foundations 3 (1):13-13.
The Missing Links of Radical Constructivism.K. H. Müller - 2008 - Constructivist Foundations 3 (2):78-79.


Added to PP index

Total views
77 ( #139,019 of 2,448,308 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #450,727 of 2,448,308 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes